Water Everywhere and Not a Drop to Drink

The past few Sundays, I’ve taken to watching at least part of “CBS Sunday Morning” with Charles Osgood. I find its gentle pace and thoughtful stories calm me down before the Sunday political shows get my blood boiling again. This past Sunday was an exception. One of the stories that the “Sunday” producers thought was full of whimsy was anything but. It was a profile of Mark Fuller, who creates fountains. He has produced some pretty grand ones in his day, including one in Dubai which is particularly ostentatious. It shoots jets of water 500 feet in the air. I was supposed to be amazed by this. Instead a thought crossed my mind that nearly made me sick. Do children in Kenya who are life threateningly dehydrated know that we sit around and watch water shoot into the air purely for our amusement?

I won’t bother with a lecture here. I present two pictures and then I ask you if our global priorities are in the right place. You be the judge.

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=dubai+fountain&iid=8100470″ src=”http://view3.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/8100470/scenes-dubai/scenes-dubai.jpg?size=500&imageId=8100470″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=starvation&iid=1491262″ src=”http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/1491262/drought-hit-kenya-heading/drought-hit-kenya-heading.jpg?size=500&imageId=1491262″ width=”234″ height=”330″ /]

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

301 thoughts on “Water Everywhere and Not a Drop to Drink

  1. You are so correct.

    Maybe the money we spent refurbishing a mosque in Egypt would have been better spent on wells. I’m sure USAID will get right on that priority switch.

    Don’t preach to me, R. I make donations to my church which spends both time and human capital doing that kind of work in many different areas of the world that need it, and until recently, I was also a Rotarian, and they also donate considerable time and effort putting in clean drinking water facilities in places like India, which also have a serious need.

  2. @BlackiswhiteIC LOL u lost me on that 1. Regardless, people who can’t discern betwn what’s right & what is “a right” r pretty damn stupid

    Your President…you know the one, the guy that lefties want to compare with Spock. He’s the same one who was disappointed to find after an auto accident that his insurance didn’t cover it. (One of his sillier arguments during the health care mandate tour).

    My 10 year old can read a policy declaration and know what the policy covers and what it does not. And yet he lectured us again, conflating an argument about rights with a complete misapprehension about what IS right…much like yourself.

  3. I said this 18 months ago & I was right: America is too friggin dumb for this President.

    ** GUFFAW **

    That’s it! We’re all too stupid to understand the brilliance of Obama and his “nuances.” For four months, I’ve been contemplating the incredible intellect of CORPSEMAN. 😆

  4. Maybe we should just use taxpayer dollars to build an Aqua City water park in Nairobi like we did in Upstate New York.

  5. “I present two pictures and then I ask you if our global priorities are in the right place. You be the judge.”

    I thought the same thing while Michelle Obama was in Spain and you were defending her, except my thoughts were for those suffering from the unfortunate circumstances in our own country.

  6. Obama is so brave. Telling a Muslim crowd how he backs the mosque at Ground Zero and then, the next day, ambiguously claiming he made no judgment on the “wisdom” of said mosque.

    What a pussy.

    Nice trial on KSM, Obama.

    Fool.

  7. What would truly be delicious and the final curve of the “what goes around, comes around” is for Obama to leave mid-term, ala a Sarah Palin.

    When some lib with the help of every media lackey in the failing Main Stream Media still can’t be propped up, I’m guess about one in four dolts (this includes Rutherford) still approves of Obama’s woeful and dismally weak performance. I would guess Bongo’s real approval rate at about 20-25%, with 98% libbie Muslim and black still lending support – brain dead support.

    The Obama Man is becoming more despised by the day (like Graychin Van Lumberjack). Jimmy Carter lived to see a better day. 😈

  8. Regarding #7, Rabbit, I love ya man … really I do … but can you be that thick? Obama did not tell the crowd at the dinner that he “backed the mosque”. He told them, as he should have, that he stood behind our constitution and Muslim’s right to worship on their private property.

    The next day, he clarified that he was neither personally backing the mosque or opposing it. It’s not his place to do that. Government shall favor no religion over another. It was two different statements dealing with two sides of the issue.

    Let me try and make it clearer:

    Rabbit, a private citizen, can say “I defend the constitution and I agree we cannot force the Muslims not to build BUT I don’t think they should build.”

    Obama, head of our government, can say “I defend the constitution which means we cannot force the Muslims not to build AND because I represent the government, I can take no public personal stance on the appropriateness of their decision.”

    What is so f*cking hard to understand about this?????

    BTW, Harry Reid dropped the ball big time. The construction of this community center is not and should not be a political discussion. Every politician including Reid should limit his comments to the constitutionality of the issue and nothing more.

  9. Wow BiW, I’ve read this small article a bunch of times and for the life of me I can’t see where I wrote “BiW is not a charitable man.” Could you help me find it?

  10. Oh …. Rabbit one more thing … I’m as charitable as I can afford to be right now. It’s a judgment call. If you audited my household, you might have a valid gripe that I could sacrifice more for charity.

    That of course is not the point of the article. The point was that every now and then we see a glaring waste of money and resource spent solely for our entertainment.

    I said to my wife that all I could do was picture a semi circle of starving kids watching the TV, seeing that fountain and saying WTF??? Of course, my wife laughed at me, telling me it was absurd to picture a bunch of starving Africans watching TV. 😦

  11. Brother Tex (shades of Dan seeping through) Bush is to be commended for his African policies.

    By the way, Tex … I think you and I can agree on one thing. Dan makes Wickle look like Dick, our favorite homicidal clown. 😀

    Oh…. Dick, if you’re lurking here, kudos to your contribution to the BiW debate. You dispense with all the argumentative mumbo jumbo and cut to the chase. Let’s just go shoot motherf*ckers! LOL

  12. Dan, thanks for the comment and welcome to the blog. Although I am a social far-left liberal and a fiscal moderate leaning left, you’ll find the same bunch of folks here as you do on BiW’s blog. In fact,, when it comes to the comments section, this has to be one of the most conservative boards run by a liberal anywhere.

    By the way … in my comment comparing you to Wickle, you deserve to know who Wickle is. He is a Christian who used to write a blog about religion. He comes here every now and then and never fails to be polite and civil. On BiW’s blog, you have outdone him. I haven’t decided yet whether to admire you or bang my head in frustration at your restraint. 🙂

  13. Obama, head of our government, can say “I defend the constitution which means we cannot force the Muslims not to build think the police acted stupidly AND because I represent the government, I can take no public personal stance on the appropriateness of their decision. but I don’t have all the facts.”

    You see, what you don’t seem to understandis he let his emotions drive him to comment on a local matter when it stuck close to him for him, and he attacked one of society’s institutions in so doing.

    When he again decided to comment on what could arguably be considered a local matter, he again stuck his finger in the eye of society, then he didn’t, then he did…

    If he felt it necessary to speak to it at all, it wouldn’t have been too terribly difficult to find something acceptable to all.

    And if he was concerned about the rights of religious organizations to build on their own property, regardless of their proximity to GZ, then why didn’t he speak as forcefullly in favor of the Greek Orthodox church that owned their own church on the property before 9/11 and had been refused permission to rebuild?

    There is a perpetual disconnect that yuou refuse to see, R…

  14. I really need to put my glasses on before I type.

    ——————————————————————–

    I’m also not seeing the characteristic Rutherford “separation of church and state” outrage over taxpayer funded mosque refurbishment overseas. You fall alseep, or you just can’t bring yourself to criticize government for it?

  15. BiW on this one you’re just plain wrong. Skip Gates and the cop getting into a “who has the bigger dick” contest is not comparable to this.

    Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin made this a national issue and since you all say we all bear the scars of 9/11, it is a national issue by default. National issue means Obama can speak about it … particularly at a Muslim dinner where the issue was the elephant in the room.

    In his Friday remarks, Obama acknowledged that there are sensitivities regarding the community center. He then said those sensitivities cannot make us turn our back on the Constitution. It was well rounded balanced statement. On Saturday, he indicated he would not weigh in personally on the matter. Also appropriate.

    Even some libs are angry with him for not being a staunch defender of Islam. That’s not his role. His role is to defend the Constitution.

  16. LOL. He stands in front of Muslims and tells them they have every right to build THAT mosque at Ground Zero. He went on a rant SPECIFICALLY about THAT mosque.

    Wow. Real slick. Then try to pose the next day that he merely was talking generalities.

    What a joke.

    He’s the President of the United States. If he felt the need to talk about THAT mosque, maybe he should have the balls to talk about the “wisdom” of THAT mosque.

    Or maybe just not be a coward and be straight up. Back the mosque the next day.

    What a warrior president. What a man of the people.

    You can call me dense all you want. Even us union guys in blue Michigan know a pussy when we see one. And the word on the street here is P-U-S-S-Y.

    The ballsy thing to do would be to echo what almost all Americans are saying, “Yeah, it’s Constitutionally valid, but fucked up!”

    No, no….we don’t get that.

    Only a palm full of slithering worms defend Mother Worm now.

    You’re one in a million
    Yeah, that’s what you are
    You’re one in a million, babe
    You are a shooting star
    Maybe someday we’ll see you
    Before you make us cry
    You know we tried to reach you
    But you were much to high
    Much to high
    Much to high
    Much to high

  17. Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin made this a national issue and since you all say we all bear the scars of 9/11, it is a national issue by default. National issue means Obama can speak about it … particularly at a Muslim dinner where the issue was the elephant in the room.

    Neither Newt or Sarah hold office. They didn’t make this a national issue. The head of state opening his piehole at a religious dinner at the White House and commenting on it made it a national issue.

    And as an attack on American Soil, played out on every TV in the country, and a massive outpouring of aid and assistance from all corners did make it a national issue. On that day, I think most American’s considered themselves New Yorkers, and as a result would feel some tie to that bit of Manhattan.

    To have members of the same group that caused that day of destruction and death say that they are setting up shop next door, in a building damaged by the landing gear of one of the freaking airliners-turned-missile by them, is going to be taken as a provocation. Sometimes some places just aren’t appropriate. Sometimes the answer is “This place is not for you.” This is one of those times and places.

  18. The field for the 2012 Republican nomination is more jumbled up than ever in PPP’s monthly polling on it with the leading four candidates all within two points of each other. Mike Huckabee’s at 23%, Mitt Romney at 22%, and Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin at 21%. Ron Paul is a distant fifth at 4%.

    R, make sure you check out the favorability of them. I see Palin making a play, not for POTUS, but for VPOTUS. That should scare you, cause she’ll bring a large following and not scare so many away.

  19. Thanks President Obama, your weak spine, inaction and promise of “talking” it out with an insane holocaust denier will soon bring us war and a gas price hike from hell.

    Think I will go clean the shot gun in case my Hezbollah neighbors want to bring the war to Wayne County. They are here and ready. I will be too.

  20. Rutherford…

    I haven’t decided yet whether to admire you or bang my head in frustration at your restraint.

    Thanks for the explanation and… compliment? Headbanging would be probably most appropriate.

    I’m never sure where to draw the line between being polite and not suffering fools, but I try to lean towards politeness. On my good days.

  21. So, Rutherford, being as that we are in general agreement about misplaced priorities, let me ask the harder questions (the ones to which I have no answer):

    At what point is using our wealth to create a big splashy thing wrongly extravagant? This water fountain thing is pretty big and ostentatious, but what about a personal backyard water fountain for the purpose of relaxation/meditation, is that too much? A slip and slide thingee for the kids’ amusement?

    Where is that line?

    Who makes that call?

    At a guess, I’d guess you’d agree with me that you don’t really want gov’t stepping in and saying, “Whoa, THAT is too much, but THIS is okay,” right? You’re suggesting individually, we ought to be more wary about wastefulness and more tuned in to living in a sustainable and responsible manner, to our best understanding/ability?

    But, if we do that, won’t we be back to everyone driving everywhere they can in as big a car as we can watching the big splashy thingees cause it’s fun?

    How do you think we handle this personal-and-global responsibility vs personal liberty dichotomy?

  22. “What would truly be delicious and the final curve of the “what goes around, comes around” is for Obama to leave mid-term, ala a Sarah Palin.”

    So we can have President Biden? No thanks.

    “He told them, as he should have, that he stood behind our constitution and Muslim’s right to worship on their private property.”

    Why should he have said that? Is there anyone contesting that? That’s the only reason he would need to bring it up. All he was doing was pandering to his audience. If he’d have been smart, he’d have talked about anything else.

    But that is Obama’s biggest problem—he doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut and when not to.

    ” National issue means Obama can speak about it ”

    Yes. He can speak about it. We aren’t commenting on whether or not he can speak about it, we are commenting on whether or not he should. As with the building of the mosque, what is so fucking hard to understand about that?

    “Even some libs are angry with him for not being a staunch defender of Islam. That’s not his role. His role is to defend the Constitution.”

    But the constitution is not in need of defense regarding this issue. Who cares that it was the white elephant in the room? He could have treated them like he treats the American public at whole and said the entire issue was above his pay grade. He could have said he is forming a team of experts to look into it. He could have even said “can’t I just eat my waffles?” He could have found any copout excuse to not talk about that mosque. Lord knows we’ve all heard enough of them.

  23. “How do you think we handle this personal-and-global responsibility vs personal liberty dichotomy?”

    Conserving the water in your back yard isn’t going to get 1 drop of water to dehydrated kids in Kenya.

    Africa needs to learn resource and population management. Actually, the world needs to learn it, because issues over basic resources like food and water are only going to get worse with time.

    We simply cannot sustain our current levels of global population increases forever. And I hope for the sake of future generations that Africa is not a harbinger of things to come for the rest of the world (and yes I am aware that the problems of Africa are not exclusive to Africa).

  24. BiW, was that video for or against Palin? That’s the dumbest retort I’ve ever, ever seen. Perhaps I just don’t get the “nuance” these intellectual giants do.

  25. Nah, I’d like to see Bongo resign even in the face of having Joe Biden as V.P. A year ago, this was my biggest fear – the insufferably stupid Biden as President. But that was before how stupid and corrupt I realized Obama was. Plus, it would get that hippo butted, American hating, organic carrot gorging, “Michelle Butt Ugly” Obama out of the Whitehouse.

    She’s not worthy of an outhouse, much less the Whitehouse.

    We’ll fumigate the place when they’re gone, redecorate, and mark the last two years as the most futile, most worthless run government in American history.

  26. Maybe this will help the truly nonsensical conclusions Rutherford and to a lesser degree Dan come to about the mosque 600ft from the towers.

    P.S. – I consider Bill Whittle one of best talking heads on the net.

  27. Rutherford,

    That Bill Whittle video I just provided nails your idiocy to the wall in spades. You should be forced to listen to the last four minutes of that every day for the rest of your life. The last four minutes ties you to a “T” my friend.

    And this time, I’ll simply let Mr. Whittle speak for me! 🙂

    Dan, I believe you need to listen to it too, but for different reasons. I don’t include you in the “elitist” part.

    P.S. – Definitely worth watching Conservatives, because Bill Whittle just carves up (no pun intended) the coward, moral relativism, and stupid of liberal politics.

  28. This one will fry the ass of Rutherford…it’s a shame that the sham Graychin isn’t still around to read it too. 😈

    One of the best and most informative articles I’ve read about the criminality and corruption of the “Professional Left.” There is an entire cottage industry propping up these lame pols like Obama, Reid and Pelosi and they need to be exposed. Now they have. Robert Gibbs in one of his weakest moments (there are no strong ones) just slipped and the skirt has been lifted to reveal the leftist whore.

    Rutherford is but a fringe player and sometimes an effective one – they ought to hire him, as he is far more truthful. Right “R”?

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-professional-left-vs-the-amateur-right/

  29. You know Rutherford how you like to mock the Harry Reid political opponent Sharron Angle? How the insufferable Graychin predicted victory for Dims in November? Let’s consider some of the oratory skills of one Hairless Reid:

    “My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway,” said Reid in his remarks. “In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it’s true.”

    But it’s no longer going to be true, noted Reid, thanks to the air conditioned, indoor space.

    Q: How will U.S. Sen. (Edward) Kennedy’s death affect things Senator Reid?

    A: I think it’s going to help us. He hasn’t been around for some time. We’re going to have a new chairman of that committee, it’ll be, I don’t know for sure, but I think Sen. (Chris) Dodd, (D-Conn.). He has a right to take it. Either him or (U.S. Sen. Tom) Harkin, (D-Iowa), whichever one wants it can have it. I think he (Kennedy) will be a help. He’s an inspiration for us. That was the issue of his life and he didn’t get it done.

    On Iraq: “This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything” – April 19, 2007

    How about the race card gimmick “R”?

    Obama’s “light skin” and has a lack of a “Negro dialect.”

    and

    “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican.”

    {Republican Brian Sandoval (overwhelming favorite to be Nevada’s next governor and opponent of Hairless’ son who is running for governor) is Hispanic. 😆

    And you want us to believe Reid is the more qualified and smarter candidate, hey?

  30. From Tex’s article:

    As with most professional enthusiasts, after a while the pre-paid idealism gives way to cynicism, and the quest for truth turns into a mechanical repetition of talking points.

    While this statement is itself cynical, it is one of the truer statements in the PJM article posted by Tex.

    Not to paint myself the hero or anything but … earlier this year, my Internet radio show was offered the ability to interview Dem candidates for office. These candidates would be supplied to me by a progressive political organization. Clearly, interviews spice things up a bit so I agreed on one condition — no one would dictate my content. I was not going to be a propaganda machine for lib politicians.

    So far we only snagged one candidate (who ultimately lost). I gave him a fair interview. Some might say softball, but I asked him straight questions that he was not supplied in advance and he answered them as best he could.

    But this is all by way of saying, when you get paid to take a position (whether that payment is in dollars or in better ratings, whatever) it becomes harder to be objective … harder to take a balanced position, If you listen to my show you’ll see that while I don’t debate Sandi, per se, I do challenge her now and then. In a recent episode I did point out that Islam has a problem. As long as they don’t consistently repudiate their radical fringe, they will have a problem. Sandi … more the hard left … I think would rather not go there.

    Anyway … while I know you all think I’m a liberal hack, I really do try to use reason. My more extreme posts come from an emotional response. I’m very despondent over this mosque issue. It’s not because I love Muslims … I think all organized religions are for the most part crazy. It’s because I love what this country stands for … inclusion, fairness, family. All the anger generated over this mosque just seems to contradict all that.

    Sorry for rambling but Tex’s article did strike a small cord with me.

  31. LOL Tex … sometimes the truth can be awkward.

    With the current anti-immigrant sentiment of the GOP focused on Mexicans, it is hard to understand how an Hispanic could feel cozy with the GOP.

    Also … Obama got elected President. Al Sharpton could not have. Jesse Jackson could not have. The only black man that could become president of this country is a black man who “sounds like a white man.”

    It’s a fact … maybe Harry shouldn’t have said it but he did.

  32. MESSAGE TO RED PILL/HUCKING

    I don’t know if you remembered, but when you were telling us about your doc’s orders, I said I’m going to dedicate my new fitness regime to you.

    I’m proud to unveil the new Cruiser Weight Champion of the world, Dead Rabbit.

    Ok, I’m still a heavy weight.

    But I have lost 25 pounds plus, and continue to lose.

    I went on weight watchers with my fat sister-in-law. I also worked out like this guy:

    Here’s the catch. I’ve gained strength. Sure, I’m not the weightlifter I used to be. But the supplements I bought at GNC are now illegal.

    In fact, I can bench press everyone of you motherfuckers numerous times.

    I can rep off probably 20 Tex’s.
    50 Rutherford’s. Fuck it, I will curl him 50 times and then just drop him on the rubber mat.
    5 Red Pills.
    1 hippieprof’s
    15 gorilla’s

    Yeahhhhh! Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Internet bragger about physical fitness. Does it get any more hardcore???????????????

  33. Rutherford,

    When are you going to realize the mosque issue has nothing to do with inclusion, or fairness, or even family? It has nothing to do with the legality or the Constitution either.

    The entire issue is no matter how pure the intent (and I don’t believe that for a minute), the suggestion to build a mosque two football fields away from the towers, premised on the idea of ‘peaceful’ Islam (no matter how perverted the killer’s mindset and I don’t believe that for a minute either), the idea that any Muslim would think this a good idea says volumes about the so called “tolerance” and “sensitivity” of the so called religion of peace and its Imams.

    Do you honestly believe every Japanese citizen was a kamikaze at heart? Of course not – I’m sure many were Shinto “moderates”. That doesn’t change that they didn’t build a temple on the grounds of Pearl Harbor, nor would they have dreamed of asking as much. Can you imagine what the response would have been?

    As the weeks pass and progressive politic fails, you are becoming more and more unhinged. I hope my teasing you hasn’t added to the frustration of pushing you to the point of lunacy. I think you need to take a minute and self reflect about this issue because this is one where you and I should have no disagreement about the taste or appropriateness of the Imam’s request.

    Frankly, this time you have surprised me because at heart, I generally find you reasonable except in issues concerning religion. Then invariably, you choose wrong because of your past experiences. I’m not sure that is not what is really driving this…

  34. Congrats Rabbit. Now let’s see how you’ve lined up us fatties from lowest weight to highest:

    Rutherford — (Yup you are absolutely right on that one — if you want a clue to how much I weigh, check out the kid in the photo in this article)

    Tex
    Gorilla
    Huck
    Hippie Prof

    I think you may be underestimating Gorilla … remember he’s got that hard core Iraqi commando build. Could probably snap your neck like a twig, Jack Bauer style. 🙂

  35. Actually, the “negro dialect” is basically Southern based so I would argue that Harold Ford Jr. does have a slight “negro” dialect.

    One reason you like him, Rabbit, is that he’s not hard core left. I’ve seen him take moderate stances.

    But clearly Harold was “black enough” to get a racially charged campaign ad thrown at him in his bid for the Senate a few years ago.

  36. Old Rabbit, if he’s as big as I picture him (I picture this Eastern bloc barrel chest, huge arms, with skinny legs), probably could curl me twenty times. Most guys who hit a softball a country mile like I used to play with generally are reasonably tall, so I picture Rabbit about 6’1″ or 6’2″.

    I’ve been trying to lose weight this summer (about five pounds) and am down to a svelte 183. My goal is to live my adult life within 15 lbs of my high school weight – and I’m pushing the brink. 😦

  37. Simple question … should the mosque currently housed in the Pentagon be ejected? If not, why not. Reminds everyone there of the Muslims who flew a plane into the Pentagon on 9/11.

    Are there any mosques in Pennsylvania? If so, how close are they to where the 9/11 plane went down? Since it’s not in the news, I guess those mosques are far enough away to keep people comfortable.

  38. In answer to Dan’s earlier question:

    Sometime I revert to a six year old and I ask questions that they would ask. “Daddy, why can’t we bottle the water coming out of that fountain and give it to kids who don’t have water?”

    I suppose that I deserve some slings and arrows for presenting gripes without solutions. I honestly don’t know what the answer is. Should everyone on the globe sacrifice entertainment, enjoyment of works of art, because many in the world are suffering? No I suppose that doesn’t make sense.

    It’s just that sometimes I look at the world around me and the unfairness of it all gets to me and I purge on this blog. It happens sometimes when I watch awards shows. People glad handing each other for producing mostly crap that does no one any good. Yet … I love TV and watch it all the time. So does that make me a hypocrite? Maybe it does.

    John Lennon’s ‘Imagine” describes a utopia. I don’t obsess over the unattainably of it. Just now and then I feel bad at how far we are from it and how unlikely we are to ever achieve it. That is really what prompted this article about the Dubai fountain.

  39. should the mosque currently housed in the Pentagon be ejected?

    One big difference “R” – scale and preexistence.

    Nobody is asking that the Masjid Manhattan and Masjid al-Farah, only a few blocks away from Ground Zero.

  40. R, I actually think that a very fair question. The answer is no.

    The Mosque in the Pentagon, to the best of my knowledge, is a non-denominational space used by several religions for services. They share it. There will be no other religions allowed to use the Mosque in New York.

    Secondly, they are not expanding the ‘mosque’ at the Pentagon.

  41. There will be no other religions allowed to use the Mosque in New York.

    Exactly where did you get that idea, particularly since the mosque is not even a dedicated mosque. It’s a community center to include a culinary school and a pool and … yes a place for Muslim worship.

  42. Nobody is asking that the Masjid Manhattan and Masjid al-Farah, only a few blocks away from Ground Zero.

    Very true. And I suspect this new center could have been built on the down-low but it got inflamed.

    How much would you like to bet that “patient zero” in this brouhaha is a far right propagandist who got the whole story bubbling to the surface?

  43. Every Mosque I have ever seen forbids other religions from using the facilities. Other denominations being allowed to use the facility would be an exception, not the rule.

    You will have to show otherwise, not me.

  44. Oh Tex … could you and I start a petition to have the tittie bar, close to Ground Zero shut down? Sacred ground and all.

    Oh …. and I heard that the basement of the new WTC site will be a shopping mall. Wow, the respect for the dead just overwhelms me. 👿

  45. lol Tex, my legs have always been pathetic. 10% genetic. 90% my own fault/lifestyle. I have had major surgery on my knees. Doc says I’m a candidate for knee replacements by the time I’m 50.

    I’m trying to improve them, but it’s hard to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

    The weight loss hasn’t really helped my knee pain because I’m just much more active now. So, they get less rest.

    I’ve been walking on a tread mill at an extreme incline. It sounds wimpy, but it is brutal.

    I know you do a lot of treadmill running. Treadmill work outs are just as mentally tough as they are physical.

    I’m 6’2 but i seem to have a knack for telling everyone I’m 6’3 (which I am with the ridiculous Sketcher shoes I wear).

    My brothers are all over 6’3 and 6’4 except for one who we don’t even think is 6’0.

    He’s the dangerous one though. I have been surprised by many of left hooks by him. Even only 3 years ago in New York City, I had the pleasure of absorbing one of his famous hooks. He gets violent when the Tigers lose.

    He’s a debt counselor and deals with morons like the Rabbit on the phone all day. I think it makes him snap sometimes.

  46. CNN has a thing right now saying that schools are failing black males. 47% graduating high school.

    Question: what percentage of that 53% who are failing high school are really failing themselves?

  47. Rutherford, all mosques are community centers. All mosques around me have an area where proper cooking is taught. Not all mosques are 13 stories. And only one is opening up on 9/11 right next to Ground Zero.

    Defend it all you want.

    Those people are assholes for doing this. That’s all we really want to hear from you.

    Can you believe the Greek Orthodox that was decimated by the attacks is not being allowed to rebuild?

  48. Rutherford, I will grant the “Hallowed Ground” routine even makes me smirk. But it is a tomb and the tittie bar patrons, the hotel guests, the Disney folks didn’t cause 3,000 deaths screaming Allahu Akbar, or Mickey Mouse, or this one is for Conrad Hilton, or even “Let me feel those juggs!”

    The Muslims, even if the killers had perverted the religion, did.

    P.S. – I was on the phone on that last comment and forgot to type “removed” – obviously, you still got the jest of it.

    ————–

    Rabbit – I sound like a shorter version of you. I’ve been asked about a thousand times if I was a collegiate wrestler – naturally broad shouldered and big chested – horse legs. 🙂

    However, I never had white man disease. Probably less than 5’10”, I could dunk a small basketball. Never could figure out how my skinny legs generated that kind of power, but I could jump like the brothas.

    And the black guys in gym class gave me a hard time about it. I actually could tease with some of the more athletic ones about explaining maybe it my really liking fried chicken and watermelon that lent my ability to jump. Those were the days where everyone wasn’t looking to be offended.

    P.S. – Be very careful about walking at a large incline on a treadmill. That’s actually probably harder on the ligaments and meniscus of the knees than running on pavement. I run exclusively now on a flat surface.

  49. “Are your nuts shrinking, going bald and zitting up”-Gorilla

    LOL….well, I’d be lying if I said I don’t miss the Andro you could buy at GNC back in the day.

    But no roids for me.

    Ever see the size of a Rabbit’s genitalia?

  50. Can you believe the Greek Orthodox that was decimated by the attacks is not being allowed to rebuild?

    I’ve heard this several times. I need to research it but seriously … does anyone here know why? What was the stated reason for not allowing the rebuild?

  51. I once went to the Mosque with a buddy. Next thing I know I’m getting 5 phone calls a week by a guy that ultimately probably wanted me to change my name to Kareem. And I thought the Pentecostals were aggressive down in Virginia!

    Lots of good sweets at the mosque. The Muslims know how to eat. I’ll give them that.

    You haven’t had lamb chops until a Lebanese Mulsim makes them.

  52. I’ve heard this several times. I need to research it but seriously … does anyone here know why? What was the stated reason for not allowing the rebuild?

    My understanding is that it’s ultimately on the church’s end, not the city’s…

    The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church — in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

    Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended — apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.

    The archdiocese and Port Authority now offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has previously claimed the church was making additional demands — like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

    “The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building,” a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

    FoxNews

    The fate of the church… was supposed to have been settled eight months ago, with a tentative agreement in which the church would swap its land for a grander church building on a larger parcel nearby, with a $20 million subsidy from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This would have allowed work to begin at the south end of the site.

    But the two sides never came to final terms. After months of negotiations, the Port Authority, which is overseeing reconstruction at ground zero, ended its talks with the church on Monday, saying that the church had sought increasingly costly concessions.

    Complaints, of course, abound on both sides.

    The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.

    “We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” said Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority.

    NY Times

  53. Dead rabbit said…

    Those people are assholes for doing this. That’s all we really want to hear from you.

    But WHY? That is what I’m wanting to hear from any of the opponents of the Center. Why is it wrong/inappropriate/whatever term you wish to use for Muslims to build an Islamic Center or even a mosque near or even AT Ground Zero?

    This is what is not making sense to at least some of us. You can’t condemn all Muslims for the actions of a few. We are NOT at war with Islam, George W and others kept trying to assure us back in the day, and yet, it seems many in our nation are striving to say just that.

    Or are you saying THIS particular group of Muslims are wrong for wanting to do this because THEY particularly have problems in their history (connections to terrorism or what have you)? I think it is reasonable (if debatable) to bring up concerns about a particular group and their connections/history – if that’s the case, you just make your case against those particular actors.

    But I’m hearing more general complaints, that it would be wrong for ANY Muslims to build near GZ, which is just bigotry based on nothing substantial. Which group do you fall into, Rabbit?

  54. “Can you believe the Greek Orthodox that was decimated by the attacks is not being allowed to rebuild?”

    “I’ve heard this several times. I need to research it but seriously … does anyone here know why? What was the stated reason for not allowing the rebuild?”

    According to this 2008 article, the church had been trying “for years” to negotiate a buying price with the Port Authority. They finally reached a tentative deal and the church agreed to rebuild “a few blocks east.”

    Then this 2009 article says that deal never got finalized. Acording to this article, both parties took to chicken-shitting each other, drawing out the thing even more.

    Which takes us to this article from yesterday….

    “The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building,” a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox News.

    So it seems that the term “allowed” is a matter of perspective. The Port Authority says it is allowed, the church seems to have other ideas. I don’t know who to believe, but there it is….

  55. I am more disturbed by the politicization of this whole thing. There is not 1 politician in this country who should be saying even 1 word about this issue.

    And now we have San Fran Nan wanting an investigation into who is funding the opposition to the mosque.

    WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!

    Are we to now be in fear of congressional investigation when we exercise our 1st Amendment rights?

  56. Thanks to Dan and Huck. So, as I suspected the Greek orthodox church is an effing red herring. The delay in its rebuild has NO thematic parallel to the GZ mosque whatsoever. It’s a bunch of folks haggling.

    So please stop bringing it up in this thread. It’s irrelevant.

  57. Dan,

    That’s a nice little dichotomy you created. The Rabbit can either be a bigot or come up with proof of terrorism on the specific people behind the mosque.

    And since we have NO IDEA where most of the money for this mosque is coming from, you essentially called me a bigot, end of story.

    Lets assume it isn’t Wahhabi money.(We don’t know) Lets assume the former Mullah didn’t blame 9/11 on the Jews or that the current one hasn’t claimed there isn’t enough evidence to blame Al Queda (even though those two dudes did say just that).

    Lets assume that your multicultural utopia is the real deal. That those Muslsims are the most benevolent, peacefull, accepting people on planet Earth.

    The mosque is still fucked up.

    But why you ask? After all, we’re not at war with Islam, you shout.

    Becuase the radicals will celebrate this mosque, moderate or not, as a mosque of conquest. The Radicals will rejoice while disrespecting those they murdered. it’s existence will validate their crazy vision of the future.

    Lets pretend that all of Christanity is a decent religion except for those damn Quakers. Those Quakers smashed three planes into downtaown Tripoli.

    9 years later, a 13 story Lutheran Church is going to be constructed only 200 yards (Notice that Rutherford’s first grasp at straws was to spread lies about the distance) from this North African ground zero.

    The Quakers are celebrating the victory.

    Nothing wrong with that? Not a dickhead move by the Lutherans?

    Your little dichotomy is bullshit, dude.

  58. Rutherford, you have no idea the truth behind the Greek Orthodox Church.

    While it may come down to haggling, it’s still at the very least ironic that a 13 story mosque will go up before a church that was decimated from the attacks will.

    Or am I not allowed to talk about the church on this thread.

  59. Dan what don’t you understand? You are surely just trying to be ignorant or enjoy playing with folks on the thread. If you can’t see why people don’t want such a noticeable symbol of Islam at or near the 9/11 site, what can anyone say to you?

  60. One of the things I seem to be missing re the Greek Orthodox Church is that any insurance they may have had is not enough? I guess the other nagging point is that the Port Authority has desires for the ground or at least the underneath aspect thereof. That seems to be the reason any government/authority funds were ever going to be available. I think the fact that if the congregation built where it was it would still be required to “sell” its basement to the PA for anti-terror fortification. I’m assuming this has something to do with train infrastructure.

  61. Again back at Dan ad those that think like him. I know it was Poland but clearly the Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz captures the spirit of sensitivities being trampled.

  62. We probably better stop talking about the whole thing or we’re liable to be investigated by congress.

  63. I am more disturbed by the politicization of this whole thing. There is not 1 politician in this country who should be saying even 1 word about this issue.

    Huck …. I actually agree about 99% with you on this. However, should we not expect moral leadership from our government leaders? I kinda expect the President to provide, at least on a limited basis, moral guidance to the nation.

  64. Rabbit I don’t spread lies about the distance. You’ve been to downtown Manhattan … you helped your buddy move post 9/11 as I recall. So you know full well that visibility from one block to another is near zero.

    In fact, it’s one of the things I hate about Manhattan …. friggin claustrophobic. The only way to see sky is to look vertically straight up because concrete and glass block your view of anything else.

  65. friggin claustrophobic. The only way to see sky is to look vertically straight up because concrete and glass block your view of anything else.

    Ain’t that the truth. About the only place I’ve felt more closed in was near Houma, LA, in the bayou. Driving down the road with a rent a car and no compass, I couldn’t even tell what direction I was driving. I knew sooner or later, I’d hit the Gulf or the highway.

  66. Rabbit I won’t argue with you about the irony. All I am saying is that the church is thrown into the mix to suggest some sort of intolerance toward Christians juxtaposed against a tolerance for Islam and that is total BS. Haggling about money and property is not religious persecution.

  67. Alfie, Rutherford has issued a فتوى . We are not to speak of the Greek Orthodox Church on his thread.

    Damn … I can’t read Arabic dude. I’m not even sure I can Google that squiggly stuff.

    Let’s see …. I’ll try ….

    OK it worked …. a fatwa? LOL no …. I wouldn’t want to be aligned with whomever issued a فتوى on Dick. 🙂

  68. Well Gorilla I will admit. Hell hath frozen over when we are looking for Bush to bail Obama out of a Muslim sensitivity issue. That is indeed an odd turn of the screw. I will bend over for approximately two minutes …. insert your foot while you can.

  69. When you say racism is the problem, you put the power of your future in someone else’s hands. — from G’s video clip.

    Very decent point there. When racism becomes the catchall excuse for failure, we’ve got a problem. Growing up I was never allowed to blame failure on any of my superficials (race, handicap). If that ethic of “no excuses” can somehow be blended with a commitment to keep the playing field as fair as possible, then we are in business. One without the other does not solve the problem.

  70. “However, should we not expect moral leadership from our government leaders? I kinda expect the President to provide, at least on a limited basis, moral guidance to the nation.”

    I’m not interested in having any politician tell me what is and isn’t moral. I have a mother-in-law for that.

  71. I love living in a small town….

    I got asked tonight by sitting members of my local school baord to run for a spot on the board.

    If I didn’t have classes that conflict with the schedule, I’d do it.

    Someday…

  72. Hey watch out folks. This Huck trajectory is ominous:
    School board leads to
    Mayor leads to
    Governor leads to
    VP candidate leads to
    Twitter and Facebook celebrity and Fox News regular. 🙂

  73. My town is so small we don’t even have a mayor…lol.

    And you couldn’t pay me enough to be governor of California.

  74. Becuase the radicals will celebrate this mosque, moderate or not, as a mosque of conquest. The Radicals will rejoice while disrespecting those they murdered.

    So, we’re letting the nutso extremists dictate what we can and can’t do? What if they celebrate that Bush was re-elected (their thinking was that Bush’s belligerence was good for their recruitment efforts, let’s say). Does that mean we should have undone the election results, simply because they rejoiced??

    Surely you can see the problem with that.

    And yes, IF Quakers killed someone and the Lutherans – unrelated to the Quakers – built a building at that site and the Quakers rejoiced, we would be NUTS for suggesting that the Lutherans were wrong for doing that.

    What part of “We don’t blame the whole based upon the actions of a few” is not making sense to y’all?

    Alfie…

    If you can’t see why people don’t want such a noticeable symbol of Islam at or near the 9/11 site, what can anyone say to you?

    Well, if you want to win people over to your side, you could provide some sort of rational explanation for your position. THAT’s what you could say. You have opted not to. I, therefore, see no logical or moral reason to agree with you.

    Simple enough?

    Alfie asked, I think…

    And for my good deed of the century, I am now going to attempt to get Dan and Tex on the same side.
    Christianity is tolerant?

    If you’re asking “Is Christianity tolerant,” then it would all depend, wouldn’t it?

    Which Christians? Tolerant about what?

    Are Southern Baptists (my childhood faith tradition) tolerant of having Muslim or Mormon guest preachers explain their belief system from the pulpit on a Sunday? No, not generally.

    Are Mennonites (closer to my current faith tradition) tolerant of women preachers? It would depend upon which Mennonites you’re speaking of, some yes, some no.

    Are Christians as a whole wide diverse group who can’t generally agree with one another within their own faith traditions tolerant of other faith traditions? Generally no. Sometimes yes. Are they tolerant of White Extremists? Generally no, sadly very rarely, yes.

    It’s sort of a wide open question with too many variables for one answer, wouldn’t you think? Would you like to refine the question further? (I see where this has nothing to do with the topic, Rutherford, so apologies if that’s a problem, but roaming all over the place seems accepted here, so, when in Rome…)

  75. On topic, Rutherford said…

    I suppose that I deserve some slings and arrows for presenting gripes without solutions. I honestly don’t know what the answer is.

    Then we’re in the same boat. I just thought I’d see if you had any magic bullets.

    My best ideas on this (and of course, they’re not “mine”) are we change by way of Revival (in religious parlance) or Societal Evolution (in less-religious parlance). Societies can and DO change/evolve. Slavery was once mostly accepted, now it’s nearly universally condemned. We CAN get better – at least in some ways. The human condition, I’d suggest, keeps us from getting better in every way.

    So, we change people’s minds about how we’re living to live in such a way that is NOT so ostentatious and consumptive. And, much as I like ranting and spewing about hyperconsumption and greed and other evils, I’m not at all sure that this is the best way to reach that change (although it may have its place).

    Instead, I think we do best by educating folk and – even better – by providing new models of living. We don’t like the way Americans are hyper-consumptive? Well, ranting about it might make us feel better and have its place, why not begin living in smaller circles ourselves – demonstrate by our lives that, Hey! if I live where everything I do is within 2-3 miles, then I can drive much less or not at all. If I can grow some of my food in a garden, I can consume that much less mass-produced stuff. Make that simple living choice ourselves, and demonstrate just how well it works, winning people over with a better model.

    One of my gripes with some conservatives is their complaints about “welfare” for the poor (setting aside that they don’t generally seem to mind other forms of “welfare” that benefit the middle and upper classes). This one is so easily resolved (at least in concept, if not practice). If you don’t like gov’t welfare efforts, well, conservative Americans probably have hundreds of billions of dollars (trillions?) amongst themselves. All they have to do is go out and start striving to resolve problems of poverty themselves and put the gov’t OUT of the welfare business.

    You don’t like the way something is being done? Build a better model, that’s my best answer.

    Easier said than done, I know.

    For what it’s worth.

  76. You know Dan – I think the biggest problem I have had with your approach is my same complaint that I have with most liberals. I find you incredibly intellectually dishonest. There’s another that bounces around here on occasion named Wickle that does basically the same thing. He’s very quick to rebuke the Christian sinner, but always manages a different standard of judgment about the truly lost. What is the Gospel if your message is first not based on truth?

    You present yourself as someone a little more righteous, a little more fair than the typical cat, yet you turn a blind eye to the real battles being fought. In my opinion, your “pacifist approach” is more of an impediment to real peace, not because I question your sincerity (I don’t know) or your faith (I’m not worthy to be your judge), but because I find you to be at heart a moral relativist.

    For instance, you speak of us as judging Islam because of the acts of only a few radical Muslims. Yet I provided a link which you either failed to address or more likely ignored because it didn’t fit your narrative. So I’ll try this again. Why don’t we first debate the merits of your argument about Islam being at its heart peaceful?

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

    I want you to show me another religion, another organization, another affiliation that has this track record. Mind you, this is only in the past two months:

    So until you can admit to the obvious, I have chosen to basically ignore your merits, much as I do Wickle’s.

  77. so apologies if that’s a problem, but roaming all over the place seems accepted here, so, when in Rome

    LOL Dan, no problem. This tends to be a gathering place where the articles spark debate and then folks talk about whatever interests them. I’ve gotten used to it. 🙂

  78. “So, we’re letting the nutso extremists dictate what we can and can’t do?”-Dan

    No. “We” are not. As I have said almost a 100 times, there is nothing “We” can do to stop that mosque.

    That being said, i think I have made a good case that the “mosque” is, at the very least, insensitive .I have to ask, why are the Muslims choosing to be so damn insensitive? I put it on them. Just as they can exorcise their 1st amendment rights, so can I. Thus, I say they are being a bunch of assholes.

    That being said, whether you agree with my thinking or not, I think I have proven your first accusation of bigotry dead wrong.

  79. My accusation of bigotry? Here is what I said…

    But I’m hearing more general complaints, that it would be wrong for ANY Muslims to build near GZ, which is just bigotry based on nothing substantial. Which group do you fall into, Rabbit?

    I’m hearing general complaints that NO MUSLIMS should be encouraged to build here. Why? Because THEY (any of them) are Muslims and the people who killed on 9/11 were Muslims.

    This is blaming the whole for the acts of a few, do we agree on that much?

    The definition of bigotry (the one I’m working with anyway) from Merriam Websters…

    Bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    Not tolerating a group (Muslims, in general) is bigotry, by definition.

    Where am I mistaken? I don’t think you’ve proven as much as you think you have. But let’s set that aside, if you’d like.

    My main question is WHY would we blame the whole for the actions of a few? If a Lutheran church wanted to build a church or community center near the site where Christian Eric Rudolph detonated a bomb in Atlanta, would you say that this is insensitive of the Lutheran church?

    That is my main question and what I consider to be the main problem with this position, it’s just not logical.

  80. Tex…

    I think the biggest problem I have had with your approach is my same complaint that I have with most liberals. I find you incredibly intellectually dishonest.

    I’d suggest if you have something to say about one of my positions, Tex, I’d be very glad to discuss it. If you’re just going to engage in ad hominem attacks and slander and gossip (both of the latter are condemned quite clearly in the Bible, you know?), I’ll just ignore those. I hope you understand, I just don’t think that is a logical or moral way of dealing with disagreements.

    If you have problems with me as a person, I’d be glad to discuss that in an email. This is not the place for such behavior, though. At least in my opinion.

    Thanks for your concern, though.

    Peace.

  81. Tex said…

    So I’ll try this again. Why don’t we first debate the merits of your argument about Islam being at its heart peaceful?

    Now, THIS is not an ad homenim attack or slander, it’s just a question. The problem is, I have not said that Islam, at its heart, is peaceful.

    Perhaps you have misunderstood my defending innocent folk from slander and attack as a defense of their religion as a whole? Regardless, as I stated quite clearly over at BlackIsWhite, Islam has some serious human rights problems.

    When I say, “Islam has serious human rights problems,” that is an indication that I DON’T think Islam in general is at its heart peaceful. Or at the least, that some Muslims, at their heart, are not peaceful.

    So, if you’re arguing that Islam is an imperfect religion, you’ll get no disagreement from me. If you’re arguing that some Muslims behave very badly, then again, we agree fully.

    If you’re arguing that many (most?) Muslim nations have poor human rights records, we agree again. If you want to argue that Muslims are mistaken when they treat women and gay folk as second class citizens, we are in agreement.

    If you want to argue that Muslims who believe that the ends justify the means – even if that means the death of innocent children – are wrong, then we agree again.

    So, do you have any questions about a position I actually hold that you disagree with? If not, it appears you and I are largely in agreement on misbehaving Muslims.

  82. Which group do you fall into, Rabbit?-Dan

    You gave me two choices. I’m either a bigot or I have conclusive proof of terrorism by the backers of said mosque.

    You don’t see some intellectually dishonesty there, bud?

  83. I asked Dan a question:
    If you can’t see why people don’t want such a noticeable symbol of Islam at or near the 9/11 site, what can anyone say to you?
    Now I’m biased but I think it a pretty straight forward question. I guess I could’ve elaborated about emotions etc. but seeing as I did also leave a comment (#82) re the nuns & Auschwitz I thought,again it was pretty straightforward.
    Dan in return offered this:
    Well, if you want to win people over to your side, you could provide some sort of rational explanation for your position. THAT’s what you could say. You have opted not to. I, therefore, see no logical or moral reason to agree with you.
    Dan stop over intellectualizing everything.I essentially asked YOU if you were honest and smart enough to offer an opinion as to why people,like the 70% of NYC’ers that poll as such, wouldn’t want a symbol of Islam so close to GZ.
    I don’t have to worry about people on “my side” seeing as “my side” is the one that views this as the ASMA folks being insensitive.

  84. Tex doesn’t mind how Muslims treat gays. That’s one thing he wished Christianity would borrow from Islam

    Now that is just sheer slander. You mistake my not granting equality to hate Rutherford, and you know better than that. I am, in fact, quite friendly with the gays I know, including two former bosses – both incredibly talented.

    Now, if you substitute the word “liberals” for gays, you make a great point. 😉 I do think we would be better off if we started cutting off liberal anatomy (I myself would limit the parts removal to the gonads and I nominate you first), lopping liberal heads, and cutting out liberal tongues. 😈

    Well, okay maybe not lopping heads…but it does send a tingle up my leg thinking about putting Racial Madcow’s head in a guillotine, though. 🙂

  85. Dan, that last answer to me was a masterful a dance routine since I last witnessed Fred Astaire spin Ginger Rogers.

    So if I read your last answer right, you agree with me on every point that at its heart Muslim is not a religion of peace. I’m going to assume you also understand according to Christian doctrine it also an affront to God. So back to the point of why it is not appropriate to build a mosque at a location where the landing gear of the first plane fell.

    If you can’t understand why the act of refurbishing the building to become a mosque inappropriate and provocative after 3,000 people were murdered by nineteen fanatics screaming “Allahu Akbar”, I’m afraid your logic completely escapes me.

    But I’ll bet you’re a huge fan of the Dome of the Rock.

  86. “Oh well Huck if you can’t run you can always organize the community pot luck supper,then it’s Sacramento then DC.”

    No, my wife and I organize the westling team booster club. We have a kick-ass wrestling team when the kids show up.

  87. Rabbit said…

    You gave me two choices. I’m either a bigot or I have conclusive proof of terrorism by the backers of said mosque.

    I believe you misunderstood my original questions. My apologies for not being more clear. Let me try again…

    1. I think one could make the case that THIS PARTICULAR group wanting to build the building are flawed, because of connections to or support of the terrorists. That is debatable, but it could be a legitimate point. That is, OBVIOUSLY if this group was truly supportive of such terrorism as happened on 9/11, then that would be distasteful. In this case, it’s just a matter of whether or not the facts support that conclusion.

    With me so far?

    2. The other group would be those that say ANY Muslims should be discouraged from building near GZ, because ALL Muslims are tainted by 9/11. THAT is the group that I’m calling bigoted, because, by definition, to be intolerant towards a group (Muslims in this case) because of the actions of a few unrelated to the whole is bigotry.

    I was asking which of those groups you belonged to? Are you blaming ALL Muslims (which – setting aside the bigotry charge if you’d like – is just not reasonable) or THIS PARTICULAR group.

    Does that make any more sense?

  88. Alfie…

    I essentially asked YOU if you were honest and smart enough to offer an opinion as to why people,like the 70% of NYC’ers that poll as such, wouldn’t want a symbol of Islam so close to GZ.

    ? No. I have no idea what would motivate all those people to reach that conclusion. Or rather, I have ideas (that it’s a variety of reasons, for starters, not any one reason), but I certainly can’t prove it, can I, since I don’t know a single person involved in said poll.

    What’s your point?

  89. Tex…

    you agree with me on every point that at its heart Muslim is not a religion of peace. I’m going to assume you also understand according to Christian doctrine it also an affront to God.

    1. Islam (not Muslim) is a religion/belief system with which I’m generally but not wholly familiar. Not being an expert on Islam, I will decline to say whether or not Islam itself is or isn’t a religion of peace.

    I prefer not to make claims where I don’t reasonably and honestly know the answer, hope that makes sense.

    2. SOME MUSLIMS do misbehave, some horribly so. This is clear.

    3. Many, if not most, Muslim nations have bad to horrible human rights records, to varying degrees. This is a problem, of course. Is it a problem with ISLAM or just with the particular leaders (who tend not to be democratic or representative in nature)? Again, I’m not an expert on that front to say.

    4. Beyond the problems with SOME Muslims and MANY Muslim nations, I also happen to know that individually, many Muslims are decent enough people, peaceable, friendly, kind and concerned for justice who believe in a system of good works for salvation.

    5. Speaking for myself, I simply don’t know how much the problem is inherent in Islam teachings itself and/or how much it is just in how it’s carried out. I’ve read and heard Muslims argue both ways.

    I’ll pass on making judgments on matters on which I’m not fully informed. Thus, I’m not making the claim that Islam is a religion of peace or that it is a religion of violence and oppression.

    I DO know that many passages in both the Bible and Koran can be taken and twisted and used in support of naughty behavior. I disagree very much when people say, “well, the Bible says God kills babies, therefore, how can you worship that sort of God!?” when I think they’re taking things out of context. I prefer to let people speak for themselves and about their beliefs themselves and judge them based upon their actual words and actions rather than what someone else says about them.

    Does that seem reasonable enough to you?

  90. Alfie…

    Actually the simple test is…
    believe in Jesus or NO Heaven.
    Where’s the tolerance?

    I’m sorry Alfie, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Let me take a crack at it, anyway to see if I’m getting your gist.

    1. Many/most Christians believe that “accepting Jesus as Lord” is how you get in to heaven, that we are saved by God’s grace.
    2. We tend to believe that we are sinners in need of salvation, in need of hope, in need of grace.
    3. We tend to believe that, without Jesus, without walking in God’s ways, without mercy and grace, you are left with Hell, not Heaven.
    4. Believing that, we teach that as the Truth as we understand it (with many tweaks and variations, as I’m sure you know).

    You’re not saying that having a belief system (whatever that belief system might be or might be about) is being intolerant? That those who believe the earth is round are intolerant? That those who believe that space is cold and vast are intolerant? That those who believe harming babies is wrong are intolerant?

    You’re not saying that having and holding to some beliefs = intolerance, are you? If that’s the case, then we’re all intolerant, aren’t we, since we all believe something?

    Yes, Christians believe that Jesus is the Way, and/or that Jesus taught the Way, and/or that Jesus demonstrated the Way to salvation, to good life, to mercy, to grace, to heaven. We have many ways (some more similar, some more different from one to another) of describing this, but this is what we believe. I’m not sure how holding a belief is intolerant, though.

    Intolerance (Merriam Webster):
    1 : unable or unwilling to endure
    2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters; b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

    That we have beliefs does not seem in any way to mean we’re intolerant, by the standard English definition, right?

    A little help in explaining what you’re asking, please?

  91. Sorry, I meant to address this from Tex…

    I’m going to assume you also understand according to Christian doctrine it also an affront to God.

    Sorry, but just like I try to avoid making judgments on topics about which I’m not fully informed, I also strive to avoid speaking for God on topics which God has not offered me the Divine Opinion. I don’t know if Islam is an affront to God, since God has never addressed Islam.

    Certainly, God HAS addressed the notion of shedding innocent blood (if you take the Bible seriously – or even just your God-given reasoning seriously) repeated – and any Muslims or Christians or Zoroastrians who advocate such, I think that’s an affront to God. For instance. Saying that hatred is good or that we ought to kill our enemies, not love them, I might say that this much is an affront to God, or at least contrary to God’s teachings as I understand them.

    But having no direct line from God on Islam, I’ll have to pass on saying that it is an affront to God. I’m not “god enough” to make that call, myself.

  92. Jesus Christ, are you fucking kidding me?

    Dan- its like this- where all Germans bad? No. Did they shout down Hitler? No. Muslims are beginning to call out extremists, 9 years after 9/11. Why? Because they’re getting whacked more than we are because we have better intelligence, security, etc.

    You spend 10 minutes surfing through Islamic websites and tell me that the premise of violent jihad isn’t prevelent accepted, if not encouraged. You listen to Islamic media and tell me about the intolerance Islam has for Israel, to the point of blatant anti-Semitism.

    Islam defines the world as two camps: the land of Islam and the land of war. Guess which one you live in…

  93. Sorry, but just like I try to avoid making judgments on topics about which I’m not fully informed, I also strive to avoid speaking for God on topics which God has not offered me the Divine Opinion. I don’t know if Islam is an affront to God, since God has never addressed Islam.

    Putting the Ghandi routine you play aside for the moment, other than your niceties and your ability to quote common New Testament scripture, you have about all the same qualities I disdain in both libs and pagans. Superficial, intellectually dishonest, a huge dose of moral relativism…

    Dan, I won’t try to teach you something about the Bible, but you really need to brush up on (1) There’s an Old Testament that still stands and is as true today and tomorrow as it was in antiquity, (2) Learn something of where Islam descended and understand that Jesus and Paul very much spoke of both false prophets, pagan worship and wha was to come. Also, I guess the words Gog, Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Rosh mean nothing to you. Perhaps something in today’s lingo might ring a bell – how about Turkey, the Sudan, Persia, and Libya for starters? Do they have anything in common that you can put your finger on?

    You have never answered my question of exactly what is your solution for how Jews should deal with Iran. You ignored that, but I would still be interested in how you believe if we should ally ourselves with Israel, or simply stay neutral. Because I believe it would reveal much to me about your heart, your mindset, and your real knowledge.

    But getting to your point that Islam is never mentioned in God’s Word – that would be correct, being Islam followed 700 years after the New Testament penned. It is not mentioned by name.

    However, the Nazi Regime is never mentioned by name either. I guess we shouldn’t bother to address that evil either, being not all Germans, in fact most Germans, were not involved in the atrocities…right?

  94. Perhaps it’s the case of finding what you look for, Mr Gorilla?

    Here’s a few minutes of web surfing…

    “This page focuses on condemnations of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other terrorist incidents since then as well as of terrorism in general. It is not a complete listing of all condemnations written or spoken by Muslims but is intended to provide a representative sample.”

    Muslims Condemning Terrorism (a page of links)

    “The Free Muslims was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.

    The Free Muslims promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs.”

    freemuslims.og

    “To be the leading Muslim organization in the world for creating awareness about the dangers of terrorism and it’s various causes such as oppression, exploitation and injustice, and unite people to stop terrorism.”

    Muslims Against Terrorism

    “Manifesto:
    Acknowledging mistakes
    The majority of the terrorist acts of the last three decades, including the 9/11 attacks, were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists in the name of Islam. We, as Muslims, find it abhorrent that Islam is used to murder millions of innocent people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”

    Muslims Against Sharia

    Support for violence against civilians has declined in Muslim world, survey, which shows among other results that violence is supported “sometimes” by 25% in Pakistan, by 15% in Indonesia, by 13% in Morocco (I wonder how many Americans think violence against civilians is “sometimes” warranted. Give the large support still – although declining – for the Hiroshima bombing, I guess it would compare or exceed these numbers)…

    Pew Research

    “The idea for a Muslim Peacemaker Teams developed in January of 2005 in the spirit of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) that work in Iraq and several other countries. CPT is a non-profit organization based in Chicago and Toronto that is committed to supporting communities struggling with violence and was founded in 1984 by the Brethren, Quaker, and Mennonite Churches and is also partnered with other peace churches.”

    Muslim Peacemaker teams

    Is there support for extremism out there in the Islamic world? To be sure, I’m not saying that there isn’t. Is it worse than in the “Christian world”? I don’t have any data, but would guess that support for extremism might well be greater in the Islamic world than elsewhere (keeping in mind that the human creature is quite adept at validating violence when it is US doing the violence).

    Perhaps, though, you just find what you’re looking for? If you’re looking for videos of extremists lopping off heads, you can find them. If you’re looking for reasonable Muslims, you can find them.

    I’m saying they both exist (a statement of the obvious) and that we need to do more to encourage the rational and marginalizing the extremists. Just seems reasonable to me.

  95. Tex, setting aside (yet again) the slander and bearing of false witness and general ad homenim attacks, you said…

    You have never answered my question of exactly what is your solution for how Jews should deal with Iran. You ignored that, but I would still be interested in how you believe if we should ally ourselves with Israel, or simply stay neutral.

    I am sorry, but I am no genius and certainly no miracle worker. Folk have been fighting in that region for thousands of years. Apparently no one has yet come up with a solution that has worked. I have no “solutions,” either.

    If you do, perhaps you ought to get yourself to Israel and start implementing them, wouldn’t you agree?

    I sort of guess that you don’t have any solutions, either, though.

    Do I have ideas about how to handle violence and threats of violence? Sure. But I fully acknowledge that they’re flawed and bound to fail – just as war and violence ultimately fail to bring peace. If people want to kill each other, they tend to find a way to do so.

    If you’re asking me if the US should ally itself with Israel against Iran, I would say that is a mistake for many reasons.

    We certainly should side against all of those who are advocating deadly violence and in support of any targets of violence – including Israel when they are being threatened. But no, I don’t think we ought to support any one nation blindly. Are you suggesting that it would be wise to blindly support Israel, whatever they do?

    I say we ally ourselves with peacemakers and the more rational/calm on all sides.

    I say we recognize our ability to step in and magically “bring peace” anywhere is a myth.

    I say we recognize the right of nations to defend themselves from attack, but keep in mind that the doctrine of “preemptive war” is a failed experiment.

    I say we would be wise to work for diplomatic solutions, as I agree with Thomas Jefferson, that “War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.”

    I say we work peacefully to marginalize and limit support for the more violent and irrational players on the national scene (Iran’s Ahmadinejad, for instance).

    For starters. It’s a complex situation with no easy answers. I’m certainly not going to provide a successful answer in 100 words or less on a blog comment page.

    I’d suggest that people have looked in to it a bit more than I have and come up with some good thoughts. I’d suggest reading the writings of Mennonite thinkers (Third Way Cafe is a good starting place, or John Howard Yoder), Just Peacemaking Theorists (check out Glen Stassen) and the Quakers if you’d like to read some more thoughtful commentary on this area than this poor fool can offer in a few words.

    Just curious: What is your “solution/s” to the Iran/Israel troubles?

  96. I know I shouldn’t, but just to take on one of Tex’s ad homenim attacks, he suggested strangely that I was advocating “moral relativism.” I wonder what you mean by that, Tex?

    I mean, I know what moral relativism means – that something is right sometimes and wrong other times (right if “we” do it, for instance, but not when “they” do it) . But then, I’m the one who clearly came out against targeting civilians anytime – whether it’s Musliim extremists doing it or the US dropping bombs on civilians – but that’s moral CONSISTENCY, not moral relativism.

    If I’m not mistaken, YOU were one of the ones engaging in moral relativism, by suggesting that the US was RIGHT to bomb Hiroshima, deliberately targeting civilians – with the thinking being that SOMETIMES it’s okay to target civilians (even babies!), if the cause is just or whatever justification you used, but usually it’s not (especially if it’s THEM targeting us). Do you see how that IS moral relativism? Or at least appears that way from here.

    But I have no idea where you think I’m being morally relativistic. You might be able to find an instance and make a case where I would agree, but I don’t think I’ve done any morally relativistic talking here.

    Want to defend that charge or just leave it out there floating and unsupported like crap in a toilet? (well, except crap DOES have water, but you get my point).

  97. Dan,

    You still didn’t answer my question – it was very simple.

    You avoided, you dodged, you projected, you misdirected, you danced, twirled, rambled, and you made another tedious attempt at accusation of ad hominem which is becoming routine and predictable from you.

    Trust me, if my reason was to personally attack or offend, as anybody on this board can attest, you’ll know it beyond a shadow of a doubt when I do. (I suspect you took one philosophy course as you read as much and that is both dangerous and futile).

    But my question was very simple, and you provided me what I needed to know about you. I don’t know what you are – whether young fool or old coward. But if you’re a Christian as you attest, you’re a very confused one…

  98. Your question/comment was…

    You have never answered my question of exactly what is your solution for how Jews should deal with Iran. You ignored that, but I would still be interested in how you believe if we should ally ourselves with Israel, or simply stay neutral.

    I answered that we should ally with Israel if they were threatened with deadly violence, as we should for any nation that is threatened with deadly violence. I answered we should work for diplomatic solutions.

    You may not LIKE my answer, but I gave an answer. I also asked you the same question. You truly gave no answer.

    So, you have NO answer as to how Israel should deal with Iran? Is that what you’re saying?

    As I expected. In truth, it is a complex question with no easy answers. If there were easy answers, we’d have them, wouldn’t we?

  99. Does anyone else think that “conversation” with Tex was just weird? He asked a question, I answered, and asked him the same question in response. He responded by saying I didn’t answer and then he himself did not answer his own question?

    This after offering several ad homenim attacks (“marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made” – Merriam Webster), and then he also responds by saying “no I didn’t” and offering several other ad homenim attacks.

    Is it just me or is this a bit strange? I feel like someone is missing half the conversation, and I don’t think it’s me…

  100. Dan I won’t address you ever again so don’t worry. I find you to be a complete asshole.
    EMOTIONS and all variables is the correct answer to the first query.
    For the second that Christians MUST believe Catholics,Hindus,Jews,Muslims,Buddhists,Mormons and on and on GO TO HELL or at a min get nowhere near Heaven is what I think some may find intolerant re Christianity.
    You are,by far the most cowardly,sniveling piece of shit I have “met” on the web in quite some time.
    And post related I wish to renter my previous comment from #23

    If the little kid has one of those $100. laptops perhaps we can email him the image of the fountain.

    I offered that to illustrate how many people think they’re stepping up to the problems of the World and are not really doing anything but stroking their own egos and belief system.
    America and Americans need not change their lifestyles,just a handful of attitudes.

  101. Again, Alfie, I’ll have to admit that I’m not entirely sure what you’re speaking of for much of what you say. Well, except for the ad hominem attacks.

    Cowardly, sniveling? You don’t know me. I have no idea what in the world you would even base that upon.

    As you are no longer speaking to me, I’ll bid you farewell with a wish for peace in your heart. You seem to be fairly bitter about something, I just don’t know what or why.

  102. Dan,

    I’m scared to correct you because of your profound sensitivities. Fuck it – you’re the biggest wimp this side of Pee Wee Herman.

    Since you keep accusing me of “ad hominem(s)” ad nauseam, now let me remove that baseless charge and make myself guilty. Because I’ve had enough of your long-winded nothingness under unbridled, putrid passivity.

    Let me attempt to demonstrate just how STUPID I think you really are. See this comment below you made?

    I answered that we should ally with Israel if they were threatened with deadly violence, as we should for any nation that is threatened with deadly violence. I answered we should work for diplomatic solutions.

    Israel is threatened with daily violence every day and have been since May 15, 1948. Do you live in some cocoon? Israel doesn’t have the luxury of waiting around to see if Mahmoud and those “peace loving” Mullahs you espouse push the button, or have a bomb. They were attacked from five different “peace loving” countries the very first day of their existence. Can you comprehend that Dan?

    Can you comprehend this statement from the President of Iran as violent Dan?

    “Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”

    I’ve got hundreds of these. Does that sound “peaceful” Dan?

    Good grief, you’re thick. You need to link up with this gal named Sensico. Stick around long enough and I’ll set you up on a date. You two could talk for 20 years and say nothing. But you would make a great pair. 🙄

  103. I’m scared to correct you because of your profound sensitivities.

    As with much of what is being said here, I have no idea what you’re speaking of here, WHAT “sensitivities”?

    Nonetheless, I am always glad to be corrected if you would like to correct something that I have said wrong. But correction requires some communication, I hope you understand. You have to first understand what I’ve actually stated, as opposed to correcting points I have not made (ie, strawman fallacies).

    I am aware of the history of Israel, what’s your point? I am aware that Ahmadinejad comes across as not a little crazy sometimes. What’s your point?

    What is your solution? Or, lacking that, where am I in error, on what actual points that I have stated?

    (Perhaps I’m a bit slow – sorry about that – but to me, an easy way to correct someone in a helpful way is to say, “when you say X, Dan, you are mistaken because…” and you offer your answer to what I said incorrectly. Ideally, you would do so in a respectful manner, as is becoming an adult and a Christian. Just a thought.)

  104. Because I’ve had enough of your long-winded nothingness under unbridled, putrid passivity.

    On the more positive side, I DO like the sound of this sentence. Great blast, even it doesn’t make much sense in this context!

    “Unbridled, putrid passivity!” Wow. I like it.

  105. I do wonder, though, in what sense you are using the word, “passivity” and if it means what you think it means?

    “Passive,” From Merriam Webster:
    [not necessarily in this order…]
    1. receiving or enduring without resistance
    2. lacking in energy or will
    3. receptive to outside impressions or influences

    Or something else?

    I don’t see whereas I’ve been enduring without resistance, as I’ve worked fairly hard in defending my actual positions and clarifying some false assumptions.

    I’ve done this with energy and will.

    I have not been especially receptive to outside impressions, at least not ones that I did not think were rational.

    How do you mean “passive?”

    At a guess, I would say that you appear to be getting riled because I won’t verbally slap you all back when verbally slapped. I’ve tried not to respond in kind but with relative kindness.

    Perhaps you’re confusing “passive” with “meek?”

    enduring injury with patience and without resentment

    Not that I’ve had any injuries, just that you all seem to be rather angry about some folk having a different opinion than you do on a matter and you seem to be striving to lash out with these attacks on a person’s character rather than dealing with the topics discussed and the comments actually made.

    But perhaps I’m wrong. It happens. Maybe you all aren’t as angry and bitter as you seem. I hope not.

    “Meek,” I could buy into. Passive, I don’t really think that fits this context.

    Besides, “meek” is cool. “Meek” is blessed…

    So, if that’s what you mean, thanks!

  106. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth…

    Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you…

    ~Jesus

  107. Since you keep accusing me of “ad hominem(s)” ad nauseam, now let me remove that baseless charge and make myself guilty.

    Baseless? No, sorry, but it is based upon your own words. Do you recall…

    “Dan, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing…”

    “I find you incredibly intellectually dishonest.”

    “because I find you to be at heart a moral relativist.”

    “you have about all the same qualities I disdain in both libs and pagans. Superficial, intellectually dishonest, a huge dose of moral relativism…”

    “I don’t know what you are – whether young fool or old coward. But if you’re a Christian as you attest, you’re a very confused one…”

    For example. These are attacks on my character, not on the points I’ve made. Understand: You have not offended me by these attacks. I don’t know you, how could some words that you say that have no bearing on reality offend me?

    I’m just pointing out that, factually and now demonstrated with your own words, a good part of your time you spend addressing me, you are not addressing my arguments, you’re engaging in ad homenim fallacies. I mean, if I were to get cute, I’d say something like, “Tex, be careful – as much time as you spend talking about me, people are going to talk…”

    Anyway, point addressed. I hope that clarifies for you where you were engaging in the ad homs, in case you honestly didn’t realize what you were doing.

  108. Dan X, you are wrong X, because xxx..xxx…ooo….ooo

    I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you I will curse… – God

    Here’s my solution Dan – support the Jews, or be cursed. 😉

    ————-

    Have I persecuted you Dan? Speaking of formal fallacies like the ultimate red herring fallacy of your conjunction fallacies Dan…

    I’ve noted the proclivity of your “false dilemma” of overuse of “equivocation fallacy” which I now declare both both an “ad hominem” and “strawman” arguments on your behalf, “affirming the consequent” of revealing your “confirmation bias”, as I “begged the question” of your “historical fallacies” Dan.

    More so, your “intentional fallacies” of your constant “regressional fallacy” of the “slippery slope” and “base rate fallacy” providing the “interloper effect.”

    You can knock of the horseshiite now Dan. 😐

  109. Perhaps it’s the case of finding what you look for, Mr Gorilla?” — Dan “Neville Chamberlaine” Trabue

    Do you read Arabic?

    Faisal Abdul Rauf wrote a book in english called “What’s Right About Islam”. That same book, translated into Arabic is title “A Call for Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble”. Now, you may not know what Dawa means, so let me translate: to call or invite people to understand and implement Islam; essentially, to become Muslim.

    Get it now? A call to Islam from the rubble of the World Trade Center? Do you still think this is not a provocation?

  110. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth…” — Dan “I Can’t Find My Testicles” Trabue

    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” — Edmund Burke

    We can play this game all day…

  111. You can play games all day. I’m just trying to engage in some reasonable conversation, big guy.

    I happen to agree with Burke. And Jesus.

    I understand what dawa means. And jihad. And evangelism. And beatitudes and many other faith-oriented terms, Mr Gorilla. But thanks, just the same.

    I will repeat to you what I’ve said to others: I’m unsure of your point. But if you’d like to try again to make your point, I’ll be glad to read what you have to say again.

    Just keep in mind that I may choose to disagree if I think you’re mistaken about something, okay? No offense intended.

  112. Striving to find any coherent thoughts in your comment Tex, I come across this one:

    Here’s my solution Dan – support the Jews, or be cursed.

    I DO support the Israelis, insofar as they take good actions. I will oppose them if they undertake bad actions.

    Now could you please do me just one favor and answer just one straightforward question from me – you AREN’T saying, are you, that we ought to blindly support Israel whatever they do, and if they choose to incinerate Iran, support them and if they embrace torture of children, support them and if they nuke all their enemies, support them… Surely you aren’t calling for blind support of a nation, are you?

    Just the one question – can you answer that with a rational adult response, please?

    Thanks.

  113. Let me get this straight, you honestly believe that Faisal Abdul Rauf honestly intends no harm or insult in the building of a 15 story Mosque 560 feet away from where the WTC fell? That the Arabic translation of his book is just a typo? That his associations with the Muslim Brotherhood are innocent, or that his refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organization means nothing? That his calling 9/11 our fault was nothing but a misunderstanding?

    Tell us Dan, I really want to know why you so blindly accept at face value this man and his ambition in the face of so many indications that he means exactly the opposite of what he says….

    Hmmmmmmm… says one things but does another…. tell me Dan, did you vote for Obama?

  114. His point is pretty obvious. The mosque organizer wrote a book that was titled one thing for US consumption and another thing for outside consumption. And the one for outside consumption promots the call to Islam from within the rubble of the WTC.

    Now would you like to comment on that or continue to play dumb?

  115. You see, Tex, the problem appears to be some bad exegesis.

    There are some folk out there – I don’t know if you fit this category or not, but I might guess you do, based upon that comment about supporting the Jews – is that some folk read a verse or two and cherry pick that out and hold it up as especially true and only true and for always true. “This and only this can be the God-approved understanding of this verse.”

    In my experience, it usually has much more to do with how they were raised and the cultural traditions with which they’ve surrounded themselves than sound biblical exegesis.

    Sure, there are passages that talk of Israel being God’s chosen people. Yes, one place in the Bible (Genesis 12), when God is making a promise to Abraham, God says, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you…” and that’s fine as far as it goes.

    But we can’t take one verse and elevate it to the stature of a god, I’m sure you’d agree.

    We can’t take that one verse and blindly say, “Therefore, from this point henceforth, ANYONE who disagrees with Israel will be cursed.” That would just be bad biblical interpretation.

    Can we agree on that?

    So, a rational and biblical conclusion that I think we should be able to agree upon (you tell me) is that we can support Israel when it is implementing good, sound policy. But shall we support Israel whatever she does? God forbid! Israel is a nation made up of fallible human beings – humans entirely capable of sin, of horrible crimes. Israel did not become immune to sin simply because of that story in Genesis.

    So, I maintain we can support Israel when it’s doing Right, but it would be foolishness to support Israel when it’s not.

  116. you honestly believe that Faisal Abdul Rauf honestly intends no harm or insult in the building of a 15 story Mosque 560 feet away from where the WTC fell?

    Who are you talking to? When have I ever said anything about this fella? The truth is, I don’t know much about the fella. I know his detractors claim one set of statements and his defenders another.

    Given that some of his detractors seem a little unhinged, I’m wary of blindly accepting what they have to say.

    But if you will read what my actual positions have been, you can hopefully understand what my actual positions have been. I’ll repeat one right here for you in bold so you can’t miss it:

    You can’t condemn all Muslims for the actions of a few. We are NOT at war with Islam, George W and others kept trying to assure us back in the day, and yet, it seems many in our nation are striving to say just that.

    Or are you saying THIS particular group of Muslims are wrong for wanting to do this because THEY particularly have problems in their history (connections to terrorism or what have you)? I think it is reasonable (if debatable) to bring up concerns about a particular group and their connections/history – if that’s the case, you just make your case against those particular actors.

    But I’m hearing more general complaints, that it would be wrong for ANY Muslims to build near GZ, which is just bigotry based on nothing substantial.

    Do you see ANYTHING in there about me defending this person, whom I know not much about? My main concern has been the demonization of ALL Muslims, suggesting somehow that it would be inappropriate for ANY Muslims to build here.

    So, now you can see my ACTUAL position. Do you have any questions about what I’ve ACTUALLY said and the positions I ACTUALLY hold?

  117. Huck…

    Now would you like to comment on that or continue to play dumb?

    I’ve addressed my confusion to Mr Gorilla. He was arguing against someone else, not against my positions. When someone makes an argument against a position you don’t hold, perhaps you can understand why what they’re saying sounds rather like gibberish?

    Gorilla was talking about Islam and whether violent jihad wasn’t the norm amongst Muslims. I responded by offering some quotes from many non-violent Muslims. He responds with one specific example wondering why in the world I support this guy. But I had never said that I support him. So, I respond, as I often do to off-kilter strawman-esque comments, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Now does that make sense?

  118. Dan, I have no idea why you call yourself Christian. I would call you at best a pantheist, more likely a practicing Muslim. Sorry, but the stench of your sanctimony waffles through my screen. I don’t trust you as far as I can throw you.

    May I remind you Dan the Muslim that that the God who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai is our God – at least mine. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are our spiritual Patriarchs. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel are our prophets. King David, a man after God’s own heart, is our hero. The Holy City of Jerusalem is our spiritual capital. And the continuation of Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land is a further bulwark to us that the God of the Bible exists and that His Word is true.

    And we should clearly state as Evangelical Christians serve a Jew that we believe was the divine Messiah of Israel, spoken of by the ancient prophets, to whom He entrusted the worldwide dissemination of His message to 12 Jewish apostles.

    It wasn’t the apostate and pedophile Mohammad that saved the world Dan. It wasn’t Buddha or Confucius or Baal that we worship.

    You see, Tex, the problem appears to be some bad exegesis.

    You’re right. Real bad exegesis. You’re theology is so sloppy, so incomplete, and so incoherent to be heresy. Sorry pal, but one verse?

    There are some folk out there – I don’t know if you fit this category or not, but I might guess you do, based upon that comment about supporting the Jews – is that some folk read a verse or two and cherry pick that out and hold it up as especially true and only true and for always true. “This and only this can be the God-approved understanding of this verse.”

    Are you not familiar with the Torah, or the Prophets both minor and major? Are you not aware of Christ’s lineage? Are you that much of a fool? And yes, I think you even more the fool that the goats. One verse? The entire Old Testament is based on the Jewish race you fool. It’s no one verse. It’s 39 books. Good grief man. Get your head in the game.

    To answer your question, I do not support all secular forms of Israeli government. I do not necessarily agree with every decision made. But support the state of Israel an its very existence Dan? Surely you are kidding. The elimination of Jews and Israel is exactly what Hamas, and Hezbollah, the Imams and the Mullahs, the Sauds, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, Persia, Syria, Libya, Sudan, UAE, Pakistan, Indonesia, and every other Muslim nation on earth not only wants but demands in the Mosque.

  119. So, setting aside a whole DOGPILE of ad homenims and unsupported attacks, we agree: We ought not blindly support every decision Israel makes.

    Do you have any comments then about any of my ACTUAL positions, Brother Tex? Or are we in complete agreement (except on your incessant and unsupported ad homenim gossiping slanderous bearing of false witness)?

    And seriously, aren’t you concerned about bearing false witness so blatantly about someone you don’t know? Do the biblical warnings against gossiping like a little girl and slander not give you ANY pause whatsoever?

  120. This is just strange. Is it always like this here, Rutherford? Sort of a “Fight Club” for fellas afraid to get physically hurt?

    I enjoy conversations with folk I disagree with, but there has to be some semblance of reason in order to communicate. This is just strange.

  121. Alfie, I follow you. Bummed to see so much evidence of a swan song. You’ve stated differently what I’ve tried to ask, with the same level of success.

    When you get to the other side, drop a Houdini sign, will ya? I know you’ll check in.

  122. “Now does that make sense?”

    Yeah, it makes perfect sense.

    But that isn’t what went on.

    He made the point about the Dawa and the translated title of a book, to which you replied….

    “I understand what dawa means. And jihad. And evangelism. And beatitudes and many other faith-oriented terms, Mr Gorilla. But thanks, just the same.”

    And followed it with…

    “I will repeat to you what I’ve said to others: I’m unsure of your point. But if you’d like to try again to make your point, I’ll be glad to read what you have to say again.”

    To which I responded…

    “Now would you like to comment on that or continue to play dumb?”

    That question still stands.

  123. “May I remind you Dan the Muslim that that the God who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai is our God – at least mine.”

    Here we go again…..

    May I remind you that Muslims believe it is their god, too.

  124. Do you have any comments then about any of my ACTUAL positions, Brother Tex?

    Are there tens of comments I’m missing Dan? I just wrote you a sermon about how wrong your theological positions are, and then you ask me to comment about your actual positions? Well, Imam Dan – I guess I have no other comments.

    Bearing false witness? What you call false witness, I call discernment about the what you are…

  125. So Huck, I can’t tell you how funny I find it that the announced atheist is going to give me a theological lesson. You still haven’t placed your bet about which of us is wrong. Please make it worth my time so I can give you and education before you get back in school. You’ll learn more in a debate than you will in that Masters in History, because what ever they are teaching you, it ain’t history. 😉

    Here we go again…..

    May I remind you that Muslims believe it is their god, too.

    And may I remind you that Muslims don’t believe the same Torah that the Jews do Huck, and in fact they claim it has been perverted by Jewish pigs. Nor did they have a mass exodus from Pharaoh, nor did they walk across a dry Reed/Red Sea, nor did they receive the Ten Commandments, nor did they cross the Jordan and claim Israel home (see Jacob). Nor do Muslims consider David their King, nor did they believe the Major and Minor Prophets, nor do they consider Jerusalem their spiritual capital but do Mecca the Moon Rock (see Allah), etc….nor do they share anything in common with Christianity either, and are in fact consider both Jews and Christians infidels. Yada, yada, yada.

    You have no idea how wrong you are Pill, but it’s going to cost you for me to finally prove it to you. 😈

  126. ROTFLMAO!

    I used to get privately angry at Chen because he’d drop a topic on the blog and then let his patrons tear each other limb from limb, seldom intervening except to change an avatar or two with his cute “you get the funny face for ad hominem, you get the other face for strawmen” routine.Once in a while, he’d engage but seldom really. He pretty much just presided over a free-for-all.

    And here I am at 1:13 in the morning reading through this thread and laughing my butt off and I feel strangely guilty … like I’ve become ChenZhen.

    Dan … yes, you are participating in a typical thread on the Rutherford Lawson Blog. It gets very rough in here. Some nights, the level of debate is so high that I feel privileged to have sparked it. The intellect on display (no sarcasm intended) is impressive. Other nights, it’s a bunch of frat boys kicking each other in the ‘nads. And oddly … it’s the same bunch that the night before was taking the relative high ground. You never quite know what to expect.

    For example …. I honestly don’t know what flew Alfie off into the stratosphere. Tex on the other hand is just being Tex …. in fact he’s rather restrained. His restraint is probably due to your not declaring yourself an atheist. He’s not entirely happy with the kind of Christian you are … but at least you believe in Jesus. 😉

    Look what happens to Huck when he reminds Tex that Islam is Abrahamic? No way in hell that savage religion could possibly share a root with Christianity!

    Oddly, Tex didn’t eviscerate Alfie when he reminded all that the very exclusive nature of Christianity (no Christ, no heaven for you …. kind of a religious version of Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi) makes it by definition intolerant. A tolerant religion would say that all who do good will enjoy the blessings of Heaven.

    Here’s where you’re having a problem Dan. You have pretty much sucked all the emotion out of the debate and you’re arguing pure logic. On a pure logic basis, Tex and the other boys in the band lose hands down. It is only when lots of emotion gets into the mix that they have any argument at all. The fact that you refuse to go down this emotional corridor pisses these boys off to no end. It’s like arguing with Spock. LOL Live long and prosper my brother!

  127. OK boys … here are a couple of facts to ponder from Bizarro world:

    This Imam whom you are so suspicious of was George W, Bush’s hand chosen dude to build bridges between us and the Muslim world post 9/11. He took trips with one of Bush’s closest advisers. He consulted with the FBI on Muslim issues. So Bush was a Muslim apologist!

    But wait, there’s more from Bizarro world! One of your least favorite liberals is on the record saying that there should be talks about moving the mosque. Yes … Howard Dean says there should be discussion. Keith Olbermann brought him on Countdown and I thought old Keith was gonna break down and cry.

    So let’s see … in Bizarro world tonight:
    Bush- pro Islam
    Dean – anti-Islam

    You just can’t make this stuff up!!!! 😆

    P.S, Dan kudos to you on at least one thing. We should support Israel when they behave well and not when they behave badly. And it’s not the least bit anti-Semitic to say so.

  128. Rutherford, you’re so dumb when it comes to religion, especially when you think you’ve found a kindred spirit, I laugh at you. Honestly – you’re completely clueless.

    Consider the stupidity of this statement:

    Look what happens to Huck when he reminds Tex that Islam is Abrahamic? No way in hell that savage religion could possibly share a root with Christianity.

    When did I argue that? I have said at least 100 times here that it parted at Isaac and Ishmael – not Abraham. And actually Ishmael was a claim about 2,000 years after his death – it’s not even historically accurate. And since you’re so ignorant about Judaism, that’s the sons of Abraham.

    Here’ s what you and apparently Huck the Pill don’t understand. Satan was once part of heaven. He’s even called an angel of light. Judas was once an apostle of Christ. So in your cuteness and your attempt at cleverness, you fail to understand how meaningless your ignorant analogies are as you both spit at Christianity. It matters not, changes nothing.

    You must really be bummed – when you get nasty, I can tell by the tone of your arguments that something or someone has screwed you over. I’ll see if I can add to your misery. 🙂

  129. Hey “R” the Apostle,

    Oddly, Tex didn’t eviscerate Alfie when he reminded all that the very exclusive nature of Christianity (no Christ, no heaven for you …. kind of a religious version of Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi) makes it by definition intolerant.

    Why would I eviscerate Alfie when he spoke the truth. It is exclusive and Christ said as much – not withstanding the tasteless comparison. Of course, what you call intolerate, I would call grace. What you call exclusive, I would call justice. Believe as you must.

    A tolerant religion would say that all who do good will enjoy the blessings of Heaven.

    Absolutely. Of course, that would make the ultimate sacrifice worthless too. The vanity of you thinking yourself “Good” amuses me and your self-centered, man-centered religion is even more amusing. Here you go on and on about the evils of the world, then you think man inherently good. 😆

  130. “R”,

    I’ll answer Alfie to humor you. Is Christianity tolerant? Depends if you are going to answer are Christians tolerant. I would say we are the most tolerant people on earth.

    As example, this is still a majority country, and contrary to Rutherford’s predilections for accusing Christianity of intolerance, I would like to know where? He lives here without persecution, thinks nothing of mocking Christianity at every turn, will take advantage if the opportunity arises, and still he lives without fear of retribution. In fact, he’s all but declared war on Christianity and still we “tolerate” it.

    But when it comes to the entrance into the eternal presence of God, it’s not a question of tolerance – it’s a matter of salvation and justice. Either Christ is who He said He was which was God, or He’s a liar. There can be no in between. Like C.S. Lewis said, the one thing Christianity can not be is moderately important.

    But I can’t see how grace could be classified as intolerant. The gift is for anyone that chooses to receive – there is no discrimination and it applies to all equally. Being that grace is far beyond mercy, I would Christ the most tolerant. In fact, I consider one of Christ’s greatest characteristics is His restraint.

    The real question everyone should ask is, if the story of the Bible is true and I believe it is, why would we the fallible people be offered the greatest gift of all?

  131. “You have no idea how wrong you are Pill, but it’s going to cost you for me to finally prove it to you.”

    Why do I have to provide you with motivation to do something?

    Is that why you dropped out? Because nobody bet you could finish?

    I have already proven that I am correct, unless you’re going to start refuting the Koran as to what Muslims believe. Your Muslim neighbor has already confirmed it to you. So it makes no difference to me whether or not you make an attempt to prove me wrong. Because I already know you can’t.

  132. Emotion?

    That’s your schtick, not ours.

    No, here is the difference: Danny is throwing up this hypothetical strawman of Islam in general, while we’re using specific elements of fact to this issue. We’ve stated, repeatedly, that this isn’t about some Constitutional right to build the Mosque, it is about the appropriateness of building the Mosque. This appropriateness has a very large bearing on the facts of the issue at hand: who is building it; why are they building it; who’s paying for it; etc, etc, etc…

    Personally, I can’t believe that Danielsan is really this thick. An Invitation to Islam from the Rubble of the WTC? Really, I have to explain why this might be somewhat inappropriate? This guy is an Islamic scholar and religious leader, is he not a representative of Islam?

    I noticed Dan didn’t answer any of my questions to him, and frankly, I’m not surprised.

  133. What questions? I keep addressing questions and keep not getting answered in response. Perhaps you’re just not seeing the answers?

    Gorilla said…

    We’ve stated, repeatedly, that this isn’t about some Constitutional right to build the Mosque, it is about the appropriateness of building the Mosque.

    And I’ve understood that repeatedly. MY repeated and unanswered question is WHY? Why is “inappropriate” to build ANY Muslim-related building here?

    An Invitation to Islam from the Rubble of the WTC? Really, I have to explain why this might be somewhat inappropriate?

    Yes, if you would like to explain yourself, you do.

  134. It gets very rough in here.

    Rough? I was thinking more like “silly,” or, as already noted, just weird.

    This isn’t how adults have conversations where I’m from (although I’ve been in the blogosphere long enough to know that this is often how it happens on the internets – still doesn’t make it rational or helpful, except for blowing off steam which I reckon is what they’re doing).

  135. Tex…

    I just wrote you a sermon about how wrong your theological positions are, and then you ask me to comment about your actual positions?

    Umm, yes.

    You DID write a sermon about SOMEONE’s theological positions. The problem is, they’re not mine. So yes, the question remains: Do you or anyone have comments on my ACTUAL positions and/or answers to my ACTUAL questions?

    Tex…

    Bearing false witness? What you call false witness, I call discernment about the what you are

    Ah, “discernment.” Which, in this case (and oftentimes) means, “It doesn’t matter what you SAY you believe or what your ACTUAL points have been, I can argue against these other set of beliefs because I know what you TRULY believe with my magic Jesus powers of seeing in your head” or some such silliness.

    I am who I say I am. Yes, calling me a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” or a Muslim IS bearing false witness, since they are observably untrue.

    So I ask you again, does it not trouble you to bear false witness, slander and/or gossip like a little girl when all of these are clearly condemned in the Bible (going so far as to say “those who participate in these things are not part of the Kingdom of Heaven”)?

  136. And who do you think is dissembling? And you base this conclusion on…?

    See Alfie @ 129.

    Using the terms bigotry and racism to define anyone that recognizes the statement behind the mosque for what it is (which apparently includes a majority of NY and a VAST majority of Manhattaners).

    Quoting the dictionary in every other comment (priceless).

    Denying or refusing to address obvious points is a favorite tactic of Rutherford’s too. I mean, Rutherford actually tried to steer the debate into how close the mosque really was. In defense of Obama’s unnecessary bullshit on the mosque issue (anything to keep from talking of his failings on bigger issues I guess), screaming that no understands how important it is that we have a black president — as though nobody noticed or that exalts him above his position to something beyond criticism.

    Playing dumb.

  137. “This Imam whom you are so suspicious of was George W, Bush’s hand chosen dude to build bridges between us and the Muslim world post 9/11. He took trips with one of Bush’s closest advisers. He consulted with the FBI on Muslim issues. So Bush was a Muslim apologist!”

    I knew this was all Bush’s fault.

  138. What questions? I keep addressing questions and keep not getting answered in response. Perhaps you’re just not seeing the answers?” – Dan

    These questions:

    Let me get this straight, you honestly believe that Faisal Abdul Rauf honestly intends no harm or insult in the building of a 15 story Mosque 560 feet away from where the WTC fell? That the Arabic translation of his book is just a typo? That his associations with the Muslim Brotherhood are innocent, or that his refusal to call Hamas a terrorist organization means nothing? That his calling 9/11 our fault was nothing but a misunderstanding?

    Tell us Dan, I really want to know why you so blindly accept at face value this man and his ambition in the face of so many indications that he means exactly the opposite of what he says….

    Hmmmmmmm… says one things but does another…. tell me Dan, did you vote for Obama?”—Gorilla

    Gorilla said…
    We’ve stated, repeatedly, that this isn’t about some Constitutional right to build the Mosque, it is about the appropriateness of building the Mosque.

    And I’ve understood that repeatedly. MY repeated and unanswered question is WHY? Why is “inappropriate” to build ANY Muslim-related building here?” – Dan

    Because it is insensitive to the families of the fallen- who are overwhelmingly against this- and the psyche of the American population who also suffered on 9/11- who are also overwhelmingly against this. You do not build bridges by pissing off the folks you’re claiming to sympathize with.

    Your claim of ignorance on Faisal Abdul Rauf is fairly troubling. There is a lot to be concerned with Rauf, and if you really believe that building this thing will do what is claimed- bridge communities-, then you should be even more concerned with who is doing it because it’ll destroy the intent.

    I believe that the real intent is not what was specified- to build bridges- but is rather a case of triumphantism and provocation. It is similar to planting a giant green flag on the ruins declaring victory. There wasn’t a Mosque there before and the people associated with this thing are making way too much out of the fact that it is on ground zero. Yes, they were the first to focus on its location.

    “’An Invitation to Islam from the Rubble of the WTC? Really, I have to explain why this might be somewhat inappropriate?” – Gorilla
    Yes, if you would like to explain yourself, you do.” – Dan

    Like to explain myself? Should I use single syllable words? Tell you what, read slowly, I wouldn’t want you to strain yourself.

    1) An Invitation to become a Muslim from the Rubble of the WTC, which was destroyed by Muslims who believe that it is the role and responsibility of all Muslims to make the world Islam- that is disturbing at the least and highly offensive in the norm.

    Now, myself and about 70% of America, think that building this Mosque would be something akin to this:

    2) The fact that the title in English says one thing, while the Arabic title says something completely different is concerning, though we could argue transliteration. HOWEVER, What’s Right About Islam is a far cry from An Invitation to Islam from the Rubble of the WTC, so any transliteration claims are just not true. This is clearly a case of different messages for different audiences. The Arabic title is clearly offensive and provocative.

    Now please, pull your head out of your ass and quit this game of naiveté. Its transparent and none of us buy it for a second.

  139. Tigre…

    Using the terms bigotry and racism to define anyone that recognizes the statement behind the mosque for what it is

    1. I have not used the term “racism”
    2. I did use the term bigotry but not in the way you suggest. I used it to point out that blaming the whole for the actions of a few is bigotry, by definition (which definition includes intolerance of a group). That just is what it is.
    3. BUT, going past that, I went ahead and said, regardless of whether it’s bigotry, it’s just wrong to blame the whole on the actions of a few unrelated.

    So, unless you think it’s NOT wrong to blame the whole for the actions of a few, I don’t see what the beef is.

    And regardless, there is no dissembling (“hiding under a false pretense”) in what I’ve written. I use definitions for clarity, since sometimes people are not communicating with the same notions of words. It’s a communication tool to help people reach some understanding, I think, to make sure we’re on the same page.

    Do you truly have a problem with defining terms in conversations where people seem to be having trouble communicating and understanding one another? Even if you do, I don’t see how that is dissembling. In fact, it would be the opposite of dissembling, wouldn’t it?

    I don’t believe I have denied or refused to address any “obvious points,” and since you offer no examples, I have no idea what you are speaking of.

    To take a stab at it, anyway, some of you all seem to think that I have refused to address the point of what this group proposing to build this Center has said. I HAVE, in fact, addressed it several times, so I don’t know what to do with repeated assertions that I have not addressed it.

    To sum up what I’ve already said at least 3-4 times in a few different posts…

    1. I have no strong opinion about this particular group.
    2. I have heard assertions on both sides of it and I’m not informed enough to have a strong opinion on this particular group.
    3. Therefore, I HAVE NO STRONG OPINION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR GROUP
    4. I have said that one could make the case that a particular group of individuals might not ought to build here, based upon their positions/comments. All you have to do is present your case and make it strong enough to be clear there is a problem with THAT particular group (or sub-group, perhaps I should say).
    5. But, MY MAIN CONCERN HAS BEEN THE DEMONIZATION OF ALL MUSLIMS, if you’re not suggesting it’s wrong for ANY Muslims to build here, then we’re not disagreeing. If you ARE suggesting it would be wrong, “inappropriate” or whatever for ANY Muslims to build here, then I disagree with you, because of the principle: It is wrong to blame the whole on the actions of a few.

    So, short of any actual, you know, evidence presented to make your case, I see no dissembling on my part – certainly there was no intentional dissembling (and, if I’m not mistaken, dissembling implies intention, by definition).

  140. Huck the Pill,

    Is that why you dropped out? Because nobody bet you could finish?

    No, I just want to take your money because of your fraud. That and I’ve found with guys like you and Rutherford, it’s the only thing you value – your money. So, if I am going to take the time, I want to hurt you the only place it hurts. Pretty simple.

    I have already proven that I am correct, unless you’re going to start refuting the Koran as to what Muslims believe. Your Muslim neighbor has already confirmed it to you. So it makes no difference to me whether or not you make an attempt to prove me wrong. Because I already know you can’t.

    I never said that isn’t what Muslims say – of course they say it. I said the Muslims AND YOU are about as wrong as you can be and neither of you have proved anything, nor can you prove anything because you are both historically inaccurate and fraudulent. Proving it to the Muslims is not my concern unless they start cruising the board. You, on the other hand, profess to be some history buff and for a price, I will prove you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Say a hundred bucks? Come on? Easy money for you, right? 🙂

    Surely you can afford to bet that? 🙂

  141. So I ask you again, does it not trouble you to bear false witness, slander and/or gossip like a little girl when all of these are clearly condemned in the Bible (going so far as to say “those who participate in these things are not part of the Kingdom of Heaven”)?

    Doesn’t trouble me in the least because I don’t believe I’m wrong. You told me what I believe I needed to know about your answer about the Jews to cast fair judgment. 🙂 Besides, the devil can quote scripture Dan better than you and I. But the “Jewish” question is always the dividing line – always the divisive response when it concerns appeasement. And there is a difference between peacemaker and appeaser Dan. That is why it was imperative that I get you to answer the question (finally).

    But if I’m wrong, why does it bother you, or why do you apparently seek and apparently need my approval? I’m but a fallible man…

  142. But, MY MAIN CONCERN HAS BEEN THE DEMONIZATION OF ALL MUSLIMS, if you’re not suggesting it’s wrong for ANY Muslims to build here, then we’re not disagreeing.

    Nobody here has demonized all Muslims – does it bother you that the kingdom of heaven is not for malicious liars either? Wherever I’ll be, looks like you’ll be joining me.

    If you ARE suggesting it would be wrong, “inappropriate” or whatever for ANY Muslims to build here, then I disagree with you, because of the principle: It is wrong to blame the whole on the actions of a few.

    I think many of us have aptly demonstrated its the actions of more than just a few Dan. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you fly to the home of Mecca and pass out Bibles to see how far you get with the Sauds? Better yet, go preach Jesus in Pakistan, Indonesia, or Afghanistan openly and proudly in the street – and hand out Bibles. Then come back (if you come back) and tell me about the “few.”

    ——————

    Dan, the question is not if it is legal. The question is, “IS IT APPROPRIATE?” ILet’s flip the script, because we aren’t getting into that “superior intellect” of your’s because the rest of us are “silly.” Let’s take Rutherford’s favorite topic – slamming all Christians.

    Let’s say 19 rabid suicide fanatics perverted the message of Christ and stole four planes diving them into the world’s biggest abortion milll killing hundreds of women in the process – all the while yelling “In the Name of Jesus!” Then soon thereafter, thousands of Christians stood in the street handing out candy and celebrated the event while the rest of us kept in silence and did nothing. We hid because we were just sure the majority abortionists would kill the rest of us, as that what the media is leading us to believe. Nothing happens.

    Do you believe it would then be appropriate to buy the lot next door ten years later where it possible many of the blown to bits bodies still lay, and build a megachurch, complete with 13 story steeple, calling it a “multicultural center with court and a swimming pool” where the surviving abortionists are welcome to play volleyball in peace?” Of course, while they are playing, the message of eternal damnation will play through the loudspeakers twenty-four hours a day.

    Allahu Akbar Dan. I’m through with you unless you start making sense.

  143. An Obama Endorsement is the Kiss of Death

    Illinois voters say they would be negatively influenced if a candidate was endorsed by Barack Obama. And if his support isn’t an asset in his home state it’s hard to imagine where it is.

    40% of voters in the state say they’d be less likely to support an Obama endorsed candidate to only 26% who say it would be an asset. The reality at this point is that Obama turns Republican voters off to a much greater extent than he excites Democrats. That’s reflected in the fact that 83% of Republicans say an Obama endorsement would be a negative with them while only 49% of Democrats say it would be a positive [Gorilla: which is another way to say that 51% of Dems say an Obama endorsement woud be negative]. Independents also respond negatively by a 38/19 margin.

    The numbers on an Obama endorsement are perhaps more relevant with undecided voters. Among those who have not yet made up their minds in the Senate race 21% say an Obama endorsement would resonate positively with them while 33% say it would be a turnoff.

    But this, this is the real jewel in the survey. R, buckle up cup cake!!!

    An Obama endorsement does at least go across better with Illinois voters than a Sarah Palin one does. That’s not the case in Pennsylvania. There 28% of voters say they’d be more inclined to vote for someone supported by Palin while only 20% say the same about Obama. Likewise 49% say an Obama endorsement would hurt a candidate’s cause with them to 46% who say the same about Palin.

    It’s not by much, but the fact that Palin out polls B. “Hoover” O. anywhere is just pure icing. Coupled with the fact that Bush is now out polling him too in key districts, golden. Absolutely golden…

  144. You should understand that your barbs don’t hurt my feelings. As noted already, I don’t know you and so have very little concern for what you think of me, especially when it’s based on nothing whatsoever but your imagination.

    But it does trouble me the way that some (on the Left and the Right and all points inbetween – although I see it mostly from the Right) are so irrationally combative in discussing things with their fellow citizens and/or fellow Christians. I AM concerned about bearing of false witness, slander and gossip. Especially when it is so casually done with so little regard to even trying to support their position.

    As in this Jewish point that you appear to think you’ve made. You somehow seem to think that I’ve abandoned the Jewish people, when in fact, nothing I’ve said has supported that notion. I support the state of Israel when they have good policy and oppose them when they have bad policy. A point on which you and I agree.

    I’ve never said anything to suggest I don’t support Jewish folk, and yet you say and imply that I have. Why would a rational adult do that?

    Beyond finding such behavior troubling at a societal level, I also find in interesting (funny, sad…) from a sociological point of view. Why would complete strangers affix such harsh and volatile opinions of people they don’t even know? Why would people make unsupported charges – especially serious charges? Why would Christians (Jews, Muslims) who are WELL AWARE that slander and bearing false witness are an obvious wrong from their own God’s point of view, why would they go ahead and engage in that behavior?

    Your answer? Because you “know” what I really am and what I really think, even if I don’t say that or if I say the opposite?

    That is just an interesting and bizarre position to hold. I’d wonder if I had come across someone troubled with mental illness except that I see it over and over.

    So, I’m not bothered by this slander and false witness personally, and I certainly don’t need a stranger’s approval. I just find it interesting and sometimes a little troubling.

    And while I’m sure it won’t help, you said…

    You told me what I believe I needed to know about your answer about the Jews to cast fair judgment.

    What do you think it is I said, Tex? It appears you and I agree that we ought not support Israel when it makes wrong decisions. That’s all I’ve really said about Israel. Besides that point on which we agree, what is it you THINK I’ve “told you?”

    That answer might be very interesting. My guess would be, “You told me you don’t support the Jewish people, or their right to existence” or something like that. Which, of course, I never said. It appears you have “discerned” something that I have never said or even hinted at, seeing as how it is probably contrary to my actual opinions.

    Thus, perhaps you can understand why I find this magic voodoo mind reading tricks that too many on the Right engage in (especially the Religious Right, in my experience) is just bizarre to me and, I think, rational adults.

  145. Tex, we’ve already played this one once or twice, haven’t we?

    Let’s say 19 rabid suicide fanatics perverted the message of Christ and stole four planes diving them into the world’s biggest abortion milll killing hundreds of women in the process – all the while yelling “In the Name of Jesus!” Then soon thereafter, thousands of Christians stood in the street handing out candy and celebrated the event while the rest of us kept in silence and did nothing.

    This is not the full story. Soon after 9/11, many (thousands? okay, probably) Muslims rejoiced. BUT, the rest of the story is that many MILLIONS of Muslims spoke out against such violence. Surveys following 9/11 showed overwhelming condemnation from Muslims of the violence.

    Was the rejoicing troubling and wrong? Of course, no one is saying otherwise. Did represent the values of the whole? NOT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS.

    Tex continued his allegory…

    Do you believe it would then be appropriate to buy the lot next door ten years later where it possible many of the blown to bits bodies still lay, and build a megachurch, complete with 13 story steeple, calling it a “multicultural center with court and a swimming pool”

    Do you mean, Do I believe it would be appropriate for another SEPARATE group of Christians – with no relationship to the extrremists – to build a Christian center at the site of the original destruction? Sure, why not? They were NOT RELATED to the original offenders.

    And, once again, IT IS WRONG TO BLAME THE WHOLE ON THE ACTIONS OF THE FEW.

  146. This is not the full story. Soon after 9/11, many (thousands? okay, probably) Muslims rejoiced. BUT, the rest of the story is that many MILLIONS of Muslims spoke out against such violence. Surveys following 9/11 showed overwhelming condemnation from Muslims of the violence.

    Surveys don’t translate into speaking up, and there was a hell of a cricket chirp to be heard after 9/11….unless you were on Arab Street, where the uuulating and jubilation were deafening.

  147. Here is a link to photos from Iran showing candlelight vigils and other support for the US following 9/11.

    My Christian friends in Morocco tell me that there was a tremendous outpouring of support and sympathy in Muslim Morocco following 9/11.

    fyi.

  148. BiW…

    unless you were on Arab Street, where the uuulating and jubilation were deafening.

    Once again, perhaps it depends on where you were watching/who you were listening to. If Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are your complete source for news, perhaps you didn’t hear of any support. But that does not mean it wasn’t there.

    Was there as much vocal support as I would have liked to have heard? Has there been as much condemnation for the extremists as I’d like to see? Hell, no!

    As I have repeated, Muslims, at least in practice, have many troubling issues, as far as I’m concerned – including refusing to denounce attacking innocents consistently.

    But then again, I can’t get you all to agree that attacking innocents at Hiroshima was a wrong, also, so while this is a problem for Muslims, it’s not a problem that is exclusive to Muslims.

  149. Tex, can you answer just a couple more questions for me?

    As I’m sure you know, the Bible (specifically, Jesus) says…

    But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

    Why are you not in danger of the fires of hell? Is it because you think “brother” is a loophole, and since I’m not your literal brother, you don’t this applies to you?

    Earlier, you had said this was a comment Jesus made specifically about behavior between fellow believers. I’m not sure if the text supports that, but assuming you’re right, I am a fellow believer. Why are you not in danger of the fires of hell?

    Jesus also said…

    If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.

    Why do you think this doesn’t apply to you? Is it the “brother” thing again? Because I’m not literally your brother? Do you think Jesus was only speaking of familial ties on this point?

    If you’re rejecting me as a fellow believer, I’d have to ask on what basis you do so? I am a sinner, saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, the son of God. I was saved 37 years ago when I was ten, and made a recommitment of my life to Jesus when I was 16, with the very real desire to make Jesus Lord of my life.

    All of this is fairly standard, orthodox evangelical Christian standards for what it takes/means to be a Christian. On what basis would you make such a claim (as you’ve falsely made repeatedly now) that I’m not a Christian? Are you suggesting there is something OTHER than orthodox methods of becoming/being a Christian? Some additional hoops to jump through beyond what I’ve done thus far?

    If so, don’t you think the Christian thing to do is to show me the way? You seem to suggest you’d feel comfortable telling Muslims in a mosque what they need to do to be saved, why not tell Dan on a blog? (or, in a private email, as I keep insisting would be closer to biblical and respectful, humane ideals)?

    What must I do to be saved (that I have not already done), o brother who has known me for maybe three days now?

  150. “I never said that isn’t what Muslims say – of course they say it”

    Then we’re in agreement. Thanks for playing.

  151. Gonorrhea Lectim
    The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim. It’s pronounced “Gonna re-elect ’em,” and it is a terrible obamanation.
    The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008 . . . but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.
    It’s sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dose in 2012 and simply don’t engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.
    Several states on the leading edge of eliminating this epidemic are Virginia and New Jersey, possibly soon followed by Massachusetts. Through education, we CAN cure this horrible affliction in our lifetimes!

  152. DR, I don’t know how I missed your comment above about losing 25 lbs. That’s great! You’re on a better losing pace than I am. I’ve only managed to drop 17 so far. I say “only” but I’m relatively happy with it. Had a couple days here and there where cheating got the better of me, so it’s been a literal up and down battle.

    I haven’t done any weight watchers or anything. Just making an attempt to limit calories. Stopping eating when I start to feel full. No seconds. I cut my coffee sugar by 2/3 and cut out all sugary sodas (which i drank up to 2 liters a day). That has really helped, I think. And trying my best to cut the late-night snacks (that’s the toughest part). Never been much for exercise, so 4 miles on the treadmill is about all I do for that.

    Glad to hear I was inspiring, and keep up the good work. You don’t need me to tell you that you’ll feel better.

  153. “And regardless, there is no dissembling (“hiding under a false pretense”) in what I’ve written.”

    I refer you to the balance of you comment as Exhibit “A.”

    (Exhibit: To give evidence or an instance of; demonstrate, e.g. “So, unless you think it’s NOT wrong to blame the whole for the actions of a few, I don’t see what the beef is”).

    Dan this a waste of time with you because you deliberately evade response. (e.g. my reference to Alfie @ 129, this asinine “blaming” or “punishing” the whole in taking offense to the mosque). What bullshit.

    (Bullshit: Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere).

  154. Dan, I’m still waiting for you to give a single comment on the translated title of the Imam’s book. Why do you insist on dodging that issue?

  155. Read closely:

    I. Have. No. Opinion. About. This. Fella.

    Which part of my answer are you failing to understand?

    It’s not a dodge to elect not to offer opinions on matters where you don’t believe you have sufficient input to hold a reasonable opinion.

    That’s good advice for anyone, really.

  156. Having no great opinion of the fella – and since this is not my point – I have not commented. But, as an aside to MY actual point, I’ll consider what you’re asking (not that it’s related to anything I’ve been saying)…

    You say:

    Faisal Abdul Rauf wrote a book in english called “What’s Right About Islam”. That same book, translated into Arabic is title “A Call for Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble”.

    My opinion:

    I think the book’s Arabic title is in poor taste, which is undoubtedly why the publishers did not keep that title for English publication.

    Does it hurt my feelings enough that I think that alone would constitute a reason to discourage building here? No. I’m not that easily offended.

    Any other questions unrelated to my actual positions you’d like to ask?

  157. “Any other questions unrelated to my actual positions you’d like to ask?”

    Not right now. But the day is still young.

    “It’s not a dodge to elect not to offer opinions on matters where you don’t believe you have sufficient input to hold a reasonable opinion.”

    It is when you refuse to even acknowledge the question when you are specifically asked.

    And since you don’t seem to know a whole lot about the topic, including basic facts about the religion, its history, or the people attempting to organize this project, limiting our discussion to your stated opinions is going to make for an extremely limited conversation.

  158. I’ve begun researching what this fella has actually said, in an effort to form more of an opinion on him to make you happy.

    Some quotes…

    The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.

    Very fair. We can’t reasonably call for an end to terrorism when we engage in terrorism, and – whether you think bombing citizens in WWII was justified as a worst case scenario or not – it remains terrorism, by definition. (With apologies for those who are opposed to having words defined).

    I’m trying to find complete quotes in context and running into some trouble, but here’s one of the ones that seems to bother people…

    Rauf said that the 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic “reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we [the U.S.] espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and [yet] where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.”

    “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened,” Rauf elaborated, “but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Rauf further stated that “because we [Americans] have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world,” it could be said that “[i]n fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

    1. Osama bin Laden WAS financed and supported by the US.

    2. This is one reason why it is bad foreign policy to support thugs and terrorists. While they may be helping us one day, they may very well stab us in the backs the next. See Pinochet, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Somozas, Contras, etc.

    3. Rauf is correct, then, insofar as we need to own up to our own mistakes if we want to responsibly and reasonably address the problems of terrorism. We can’t fund terrorists AND claim to be opposed to terrorism at the same time. We need some moral consistency in order to have moral standing.

    4. Given the context of what he was addressing, however, saying we (the US) are accessories to our own attack is not a politically astute way of making the point. His point, then, is solid: We MUST quit supporting terrorists and thugs. His phrasing is poorly chosen.

    Nonetheless, “if you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind,” is a truism that applies.

    Still, not impressed that he’s “not deserving” of building a building near GZ.

  159. “I’ve begun researching what this fella has actually said, in an effort to form more of an opinion on him to make you happy.”

    Don’t educate yourself for me. I don’t care if you’re ignorant or not. If you want to make arguments based on incomplete information, you certainly have that right.

    But it’s liable to put a damper on that “I can’t comment because I don’t know enough” defense you so favor.

    “The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians.”

    This point is rendered moot when Islamic extremists justify killing civilians by removing their civilian status. For example, Hamas justifies killing Israeli civilians because of the Israeli military mobilization policy that makes just about every citizen an armed soldier in times of conflict.

    It’s also worth mentioning that the Imam refuses to acknowledge that same group as terrorists. And he is able to justify that position because of the very words I typed in the paragraph above.

    “But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.”

    No it wasn’t Christians. It was the US government. And I get the feeling that the flight crew of the Enola Gay didn’t scream “GOD WILLS IT!” when they dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima.

    “Rauf said that the 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic “reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we [the U.S.] espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and [yet] where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.””

    Then Rauf has his head up his ass.

    Bin Laden stated quite clearly that he declared war on the United States of America because we dirtied up his beloved Holy Land during the First Gulf War. Yes, there have been other US/ME policies that have gone FUBAR, but those were not mentioned by the man responsible for attacking us when he gave his reasons for attacking us.

    Also….

    We aren’t supposed to be against the GZM because it punishes many for the actions of a small few.

    Yet we are told that 9/11 was really just part of a larger Muslim reaction to our foreign policies?

    If we accept that, at what point do we get to measure how few that few really was? Because making it nothing more than part of a larger Muslim reaction sort of elevates that “few” beyond 19, don’t you agree?

  160. We aren’t supposed to be against the GZM because it punishes many for the actions of a small few.

    Yet we are told that 9/11 was really just part of a larger Muslim reaction to our foreign policies?

    I’m saying we would be wise to try to consider the ramifications of our actions. What we do CAN and DOES have an effect on those around us. We would be foolish to ignore this, I’d hope you could agree.

    IF we support terroristic actions, THAT will have an effect on those around the world. IF we hire/support/pay for terrorists and thugs, then we DO lose some moral high ground to say we are opposed to terrorism.

    None of this makes the terrorism in response right or moral or justified, but it is an effect of our policies, one we’d do well to learn from.

    We need to isolate and marginalize the more extreme Muslims from the mainstream of Musliim society, not make them seem reasonable.

    On 9/11, the Muslim world was largely united behind us. If we make it appear we are at war with Islam in general (as opposed to trying to stop a few deadly thugs), then that makes it easier for the terrorists to not seem so extreme and makes it easier for mainstream Muslims to find it in them to support the more extreme actions.

    Do you disagree that when we support terrorists ourselves, we lose moral high ground?

    Do you disagree that when we make it look like we’re at war with Islam in general, that gives MORE credibility to the extremists, instead of making them more marginalized?

  161. And I get the feeling that the flight crew of the Enola Gay didn’t scream “GOD WILLS IT!” when they dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima.

    * “Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the U.S. military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

    * “We in the Army of God, in the House of God, the Kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this…

    “I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.”

    Lt General Jerry Boykin

    * “Jesus killed Mohammed”

    Seen painted in large red Arabic lettering on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle

    * Fort Jackson “God’s Basic Training” — These Bible studies for basic trainees teach the recruits the “when you join the military, you’ve really joined the ministry.” The rationale is that governments are ordained by God, so all government employees are really God’s ministers.

    * Photos from Fort Riley — These include, among other things, a shot of an office door in a Military Police building on which is a picture of Ann Coulter with the quote, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.”

    Or take a look at some of these photos here.

    Unfortunately, for many out there, the Army is a branch of God’s service and they use language and symbols that promote that understanding.

    I’d suggest all religions in all nations would do well to keep their religious language off our military operations in ways that suggest “God is on our side.”

  162. This point is rendered moot when Islamic extremists justify killing civilians by removing their civilian status.

    Huh! Not unlike Tex did with Hiroshima. “we were at war with Japan. Therefore, by definition there were no innocent deaths.” he declared.

    The human creature has a way of justifying even the most atrocious actions as righteous and even “God-ordained.” That’s been a fairly universal truism (with a few exceptions) regardless of faith tradition, unfortunately.

  163. Rutherford..couple of things.
    Bush also saw into the soul of Putin.Judgments,hopes and guesses don’t make things perfect.

    As for your admiration of the KY Vulcan and his logic fest. I don’t get it.
    On two threads on two blogs it was made pretty clear that the centers opponents really have no present** legal standing to prevent its construction and that the thread participants said as much,echoed it even.(feel free to ask what ** alludes to)

    It was also put forth by more than a couple that regardless of the Muslim entity any Islamic site so close to GZ was inappropriate.This has even been put forth by Muslims who would otherwise benefit from a prayer space in the vicinity.For the most part this component of opposition seems primarily grounded in emotional responses. Emotions are not logical enough for the KY Vulcan though,this is ironic since he lives his life based on an illogical concept.

    The thread folks have also latched onto and presented that THIS specific group present a reason for concern.I’d couple that with my omnipresent point that such a site presents a forever target for bigots of every stripe and point on the spectrum. Really what is the point of even the best intentioned project if it is only to be a source of hate and concern for violence?

    I for one think the questions of how close is too close and if it should be built have been answered.People may not like the answers but that by no means invalidates the stated opinions and facts.
    Bottom line both sides are looking for tolerance and a general appreciation of each others views. I think the growing,evolving general national consensus is showing that they could build a 20 story Mosque with super Dolby speakers for the Adhan if only it was a few more blocks away.
    Why? Because when you look at where your loved one burned,splattered or disintegrated on September 11 2001 perhaps you just really don’t need a reminder of the fanatics and their beliefs.If someone can’t understand THAT I really have to question their humanity.

  164. Everyone here likes democracy,unless I’ve completely misread everything here over the years.
    Is there:
    1.A difference between war and terrorism?
    2.Civilians that support a war and benefit from the aggression of their home nation are legitimate targets of the war machine. True or False?
    3.Terror prior to the Bush Doctrine was free of state ties. True or False?
    4.Is there a difference between something being terrifying and a terrorist act?
    5. What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter,revolutionary,patriot or what ever you want to call it?

  165. Are you asking me these questions? Some thoughts, if so…

    1.A difference between war and terrorism?

    Yes. War is waged against soldiers and terrorism against citizens/non-military targets (generally) to inculcate fear.

    2.Civilians that support a war and benefit from the aggression of their home nation are legitimate targets of the war machine. True or False?

    False. Civilians are off limits as targets according to our laws (as well as according to most moral paradigms, including Just War Theory).

    3.Terror prior to the Bush Doctrine was free of state ties. True or False?

    I don’t know what this question means. Terrorism has long (always?) been employed by state actors and individuals.

    4.Is there a difference between something being terrifying and a terrorist act?

    Yes, I guess so. A movie could be terrifying and not an act of terrorism. Terrorism has pretty specific definitions, such as this one from the Department of Defense…

    The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

    5. What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter,revolutionary,patriot or what ever you want to call it?

    In the real world, these terms tend to be used interchangeably, depending upon whether or not you’re the one defending the terrorism or the victim of terrorism.

    But by definition, a terrorist is one who employs violence to intimidate and inculcate fear in order to intimidate gov’ts or societies.

    Why do you ask? What are your answers?

  166. May I ask, Alfie, where you’re from? Didn’t I notice an allusion to you not being an American citizen, or am I misremembering?

    Also, will you be offering your opinions on the questions, too?

  167. Only because you asked nicely and that I am in a far better mood.
    Even though this isn’t my blog when I pose questions like this I am indeed sitting on answers. I don’t offer them up though until at least two other folks do.
    You’re misremembering as well. I am a native of Boston. Have been around the USA though as well as England and Maritime Canada.

  168. Tigre, 168 and 169 really show you to be off your game today.

    I mean, Rutherford actually tried to steer the debate into how close the mosque really was.

    That IS the debate. What the hell are you talking about? Unless, as one might suspect, the mosque cannot be far enough from GZ to suit you.

    And yes in 169, if you view trying to get along with Islam as a “fault” then indeed it was Bush’s fault. Nice dodge Tigre. You just can’t admit that the guy you miss so much actually believed in Muslim outreach.

  169. Tex, call the Soup Nazi comparison tasteless if you like but it actually is quite accurate. The character, from “Seinfeld” had a very specific protocol you had to follow when you went to his restaurant. If you blew it, even one minor step, he declared “No soup for you” and kicked you out.

    If no matter how much good you do in this life, you are denied entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven because you did not acknowledge Christ … then indeed Christ/God is saying “no soup for you.” You might not like the analogy but it fits. And it cannot be considered tolerant.

  170. Gorilla, you are the only one on this board who I suspect might be able to read Arabic. Have you actually seen the original book cover by Rauf? If not, then as far as I’m concerned you’re repeating the unreliable talking point of some political operative.

    Let’s say you’re right about the translation. Why can it not refer to “reconciling Islam with the tragedy of the WTC bombing”? Why must this paranoid translation be applied to it? My interpretation is more consistent with the behavior Rauf has exhibited in working with our government (i.e. Bush and the FBI).

  171. Regarding 191 …. THANK YOU again Dan!

    Here is the problem. The folks on this board believe that to be honest about America’s mistakes is to deny America’s “exceptionalism”.

    Now Dan, this notion may bother you a bit, but some of this is wrapped up in religion. There are folks, some of them on this board, who believe our country is blessed by God, and therefore beyond reproach. No need for self recrimination because we are at all times protected by a higher power.

    When faced with the fact that we LIKED Osama so long as he didn’t like Russians, they call you a traitor.

    I am not an expert on Rauf but from the quotes you dug up, the dude was right on the money … just not polite enough to appease our grand patriots here in this thread.

  172. I liked Dan’s answers to Alfie’s questions except for 3, which Dan didn’t seem to understand.

    State sponsored terrorism has always existed, as Dan said. However what Bush did, from my understanding, is say “we will not let countries who harbor terrorists weasel out of saying they sponsor them. If the terrorists are in your country, and you do nothing to stop them, then YOU are the terrorists.”

    If my understanding is right, I quite like the Bush Doctrine. One of his better ideas. 🙂

  173. The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.

    Very fair. We can’t reasonably call for an end to terrorism when we engage in terrorism, and – whether you think bombing citizens in WWII was justified as a worst case scenario or not – it remains terrorism, by definition. (With apologies for those who are opposed to having words defined).” – Dan The Dumb Fuck

    No, it is not terrorism you fucking idiot. Dresden was a military target: a major rail and communication center and some 100 factories. Dresden was a four day bombing campaign targeting those factories.

    But this is beside the point, because I suspect you know that.

    Rauf said that the 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic “reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we [the U.S.] espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and [yet] where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.”

    “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened,” Rauf elaborated, “but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Rauf further stated that “because we [Americans] have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world,” it could be said that “[i]n fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

    “1. Osama bin Laden WAS financed and supported by the US.

    2. This is one reason why it is bad foreign policy to support thugs and terrorists. While they may be helping us one day, they may very well stab us in the backs the next. See Pinochet, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Somozas, Contras, etc.

    3. Rauf is correct, then, insofar as we need to own up to our own mistakes if we want to responsibly and reasonably address the problems of terrorism. We can’t fund terrorists AND claim to be opposed to terrorism at the same time. We need some moral consistency in order to have moral standing.

    4. Given the context of what he was addressing, however, saying we (the US) are accessories to our own attack is not a politically astute way of making the point. His point, then, is solid: We MUST quit supporting terrorists and thugs. His phrasing is poorly chosen.

    Nonetheless, “if you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind,” is a truism that applies.

    Still, not impressed that he’s “not deserving” of building a building near GZ.” – Dan

    Bin Laden WAS NOT financed and supported by the US. The US provided aid and support through the Pakistani government, which then funneled resources to the Mujahideen. Bin Laden was privately financing and organizing Mujahideen fighters that were coming into Pakistan prior to moving into Afghanistan. He was working with another major organizer named Abdullah Azzam, who became bin Laden’s mentor. The idea for al Qaeda came from this effort to organize fighters into a vanguard.

    Again, it appears we have another one who knows so much that isn’t true.

  174. You won’t want to read this, but if you do- with an honest open eye- I think you’ll find that he’s not off the mark.

    Isn’t it funny how many articles we’re seeing proclaiming the end of Obama?

    But this much can be said: The rhetoric fits the message. Having spent beyond the dreams of Franklin Roosevelt to produce a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, Obama has reached an ideological dead end. His natural policy inclination would be even more stimulus spending, now a political impossibility. So he is left with attacking Republicans. This is a natural political instinct. But it leaves Obama looking like any other beleaguered, partisan politician.

    The tensions accumulate. The candidate who pledged to reach across party lines passed his agenda in a steady march of party-line votes and strong-arm legislative maneuvers. The candidate who sought to transcend partisan divisions is viewed in a recent Democracy Corps poll as “too liberal” by 57 percent of likely voters. The candidate who said he would “fundamentally change the way Washington works” has seen public distrust of government grow to pre-French Revolutionary levels.

    The failure to change, or even to challenge, the culture of Washington rankles on right and left. Here is Lawrence Lessig writing in The Nation: “Obama will leave the presidency, whether in 2013 or 2017, with Washington essentially intact and the movement he inspired betrayed.”

    The height of Obama’s political fall is measured by how awkward the echoes of his past rhetoric now seem. When he said recently, “Let’s reach for hope,” it was indeed a stretch. It sounded like an aging pop singer, grown paunchy and out of tune, stumbling through an old favorite. Obama is pursued by the memories of his own promise.

  175. The US provided aid and support through the Pakistani government, which then funneled resources to the Mujahideen.

    Isn’t that known as money laundering?

    BTW, G, you haven’t answered the question. Do you read Arabic and have you seen the Arabic translation of the book in question?

  176. Rutherford @ 209: “Tigre, 168 and 169 really show you to be off your game today.”

    I guess it’s nice knowing someone here evr thought I had a game.

    My comment about distance wasnt clear. Whether it was here or at BiW’s place, I’m refering to the 600 feet versus 900 feet and “in Manhatten a block away is a seperate universe garbage.” You can throw a rock from the front doors and it’ll drop and bean one of the wandering foreigners selling pictures of the planes hitting the buildings as souveniers. (Oh yes they do. I had business in town and stayed blocks away recently. Dozens of them all day long selling souvenier pictures and momentos of the actual 9/11 attacks. Talk about strange). But one [should not expect] that I have a problem with mosques eslewhere.

    My comment about Bush? That was tongue-in-cheek.

    For what it’s worth I’m no big fan of George Bush. But I’m no fan of Al Sharpton either, well until you put him along side Rev. Wright. Compared to Obama, Bush seems God like.

    R, I think the link Alfie provided hits it on the head and really restates what has collectively been said here and at BiW’s place ad neaseum. Dan, you and “your ilk” (God I hate the “ilk” shit the left uses) prefer the self-righteous label bigot for anyone that disagrees.

  177. I’m going to attempt to learn some Arabic starting in the Winter.

    “Again, it appears we have another one who knows so much that isn’t true.”

    And doesn’t care when he is educated on a topic.

    I told him the symbolic significance of the name “Cordoba” and I got crickets in reply.

    Tell him what really motivated OBL to attack us. Not a peep.

    Explain how Muslim extremists justify killing civilians, he introduces a red herring to try and redirect the discussion.

    Comment on events during WWII and he switches to Gulf War II.

  178. No, it is not terrorism you fucking idiot.

    By definition, it is. Dresden nominally was more of a military target than Hiroshima, but it was well known that in both attacks, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of civilians – right down to the children – could/would die.

    We can’t target civilians – or civilian centers, even if our targets are nominally military – and have a credible moral base for standing against terrorism.

    With Hiroshima/Nagasaki, terrorism was exactly the intent. We wanted to terrorize the civilian population and leadership into surrendering. “Surrender or there’s more of this coming,” we told them. It was what it was.

    As noted, we all have an amazing ability to justify even the most atrocious acts when we get fearful enough. I support some moral fortitude on this front, being the ones to say, “NO, we will never target a civilian population.”

    I’d suggest in the long run, that would work towards security better than 10,000 nukes.

    As it is, we can hardly have much grounds to complain when terrorists follow in our steps when they think it’s justified to target civilians. We’ve already said, by our example, that it sometimes IS okay.

  179. This all begs the question….is indiscriminant carpet-bombing the same as “targeting”?

    Seems to me that they are polar opposites, not the same.

  180. “With Hiroshima/Nagasaki, terrorism was exactly the intent. We wanted to terrorize the civilian population and leadership into surrendering. “Surrender or there’s more of this coming,” we told them. It was what it was.”

    I hate to ruin a good narrative with pesky facts, but we actually told them to surrender or face “prompt and utter destruction” nearly 2 full weeks before we dropped the bombs.

    Unfortunately, the justification for that action also gives weight to the justification used by Hamas.

    The Japanese population was ordered to defend Japan to the last man, woman, and child. That potential mobilization of the entire population is what got the bombs dropped on them.

    Of course, Hamas would find another excuse if they didn’t have that one. Would he have done the same? I like to think maybe not, but I don’t know.

  181. This is a really big o bag of silliness now.
    If we’re really going to sit around all day with Webster,Britannica and anyone else I don’t think we’re gonna accomplish anything.
    For example by definition a person of Dan’s theologic background should be against war period.War should be viewed as bad.
    Here’s the rub though. We’re not all Christians,monks,nuns,shamans or anything else. We’re humans and as such we will engage in the joys and and evils of humanity.
    Total war is Realpolitik and is a reality to anyone sitting at the grown ups table.
    Civilians make the machine go they deserve to burn,babies included!
    If humans are to ever collectively accept that war is bad and not worth a damn we need total war. Killing only soldiers and surgically blowing up only military objects gives humanity a false sense of reality. Giving combat pretty names like international aid,aggressive diplomatic intervention,or police action also destroys the credible reality of war.

  182. Seeing as Ruterford agreed with Dans answers to the questions posed in #198 I’ll view that as at least 2 folks answering. Here are mine:
    1.A difference between war and terrorism?
    Absolutely! War is the organized and (ironically) legal act of a sovereign state. The act of war up to and including nuclear annihilation may be terrifying but is by no means terrorism.Terrorism may be state supported but is/was as a rule carried out with official sanction of a recognized sovereign body
    2.Civilians that support a war and benefit from the aggression of their home nation are legitimate targets of the war machine. True or False?
    True. Period.
    3.Terror prior to the Bush Doctrine was free of state ties. True or False?
    True and false. Prior to the Bush Doctrine states that supported or aided terrorists in any manner were viewed possibly as pariahs but felt little consequence. Likewise if the terror group ever did anything truly outrageous it was often the case that the state players would speak out.Post Bush Doctrine sovereign entities don’t get the chance to fake it and catch a pass. It’ll be interesting if this policy stays. It is imo not without prior precedent in US history though.
    4.Is there a difference between something being terrifying and a terrorist act?
    Again…ABSOLUTELY!!!Let’s take the extreme which seems to have some folks in a tizzy,the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Both had some value as targets,and even without overt value total war doctrine makes it ok.The bombings occurred during a state of war.A couple of the bombings purposes were: to cripple the Japanese machine,promote a pan national desire for an end to the war. Every Japanese citizen was cognizant that the presence of any US military hardware (ship.plane etc.) could mean a beating,ergo there is no surprise in play.Contrast that to the totally civilian,non war setting bombing of a target without notice or obvious cause.
    5. What is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter,revolutionary,patriot or what ever you want to call it?
    Much like with a history book it is a matter of perspective.The IRA did not have the sanction of the Dublin government but one could make a case that they were little different than the partisans of WWII Europe. The Taliban imo are not terrorists since they had become the heads of a sovereign state. I think they suck and are evil but no matter how terrifying acid splashes,beheadings and explosion may be,they are not acts of terrorism. Its a case of muddy waters to some degree but it is what it is.On the Islamic side of things AQ and its variants are terrorists for a few reasons.They are stateless,operate contrary to the “host” state in many cases,targets civilian and non state targets,tend to threaten those they say they serve.

  183. Terrorism may be state supported but is/was as a rule not carried out with official sanction of a recognized sovereign body

    Not nitpicking Alfie … but isn’t that what you meant to say?

  184. This all begs the question….is indiscriminant carpet-bombing the same as “targeting”?

    Seems to me that they are polar opposites, not the same.

    Not sure it really matters if the consequences are the same. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (carpet-bombing).

    Whoever called the war part of this thread silly has a point I think. War is ugly. No one comes out of it completely clean. Since time began, some men have settled their differences through violence. Religion has at times tamed the savage beast and at other times inflamed it. End of story.

  185. You can throw a rock from the front doors and it’ll drop and bean one of the wandering foreigners selling pictures of the planes hitting the buildings as souveniers.

    Not unless you’ve got one helluva pitching arm that can pitch a ball over a high rise building. You throw a ball from the front door of the “mosque” and you break a window across the street.

    Sorry … zero visibility from mosque to GZ and vice versa. I know you guys want to be 100% right on every aspect of this argument but it is time you conceded the parts where you’re just plain wrong. This is one of them.

  186. Rutherford two things:
    Number one:
    yeah that correction is the intended line…thank you.I also appreciate that thus far the answers are being allowed to stand. They obviously stand in disagreement,but they stand. that is good.

    number Two:
    So I can’t rely on others interpreting the books title and further I cannot give any credence to the lack of anyone either refuting or repudiating the reported translation.?!
    How’s your arm?

  187. Alfie…

    2.Civilians that support a war and benefit from the aggression of their home nation are legitimate targets of the war machine. True or False?
    True. Period.

    Well, you are free to believe in whatever makes you feel happy. Here, I’m speaking strictly as a matter of legality and morality: Civilians are NOT a legal target for our military. IF you target civilians, in an ideal world, you get charged with war crimes.

    It is against the law to target civilians. Are we understanding one another on that, or do I need to cite the specific laws?

    You are free to think it is a good idea to target civilians, children or unicorns, if that’s what you wish to believe in, but LEGALLY speaking, it is against our law. Morally speaking – in most moral circles, religious or not – it is recognized as a great wrong. An evil, even.

    Some folk argue that sometimes acts like Hiroshima are the lesser of two evils and while that’s debatable, what ought to remain clear is that in trying to choose a lesser of two evils, you are STILL choosing an evil. Being a “lesser evil” does not somehow magically transform that evil into a good.

    Religious or not.

    So, you DO understand that it is against our laws and international laws to target civilians?

  188. Sorry … zero visibility from mosque to GZ and vice versa.
    Prove it. On two points I have a problem with this. On 9/11 trajectory allowed landing gear to hit the current Park st address. i get how from the high floors of the WTC this is logical but it runs into number two.
    At 13 floors the proposed center appears to be at least one story higher than the building across the street and otherwise “in the way”.
    Show of hands so this thread can go to bed:
    Will 51 Park have a nice life if built?

  189. Actually it isn’t against the law,you won’t agree with the tweaks that occur to make it so. Also laws if present are void if it isn’t in effect and never has been.My feelings are irrelevant.
    I don’t want you to like it,trust me but Total War is legal.
    in an ideal world
    We don’t live there.

  190. After reviewing the Hague,Geneva Conventions. After exploring the history of various ratifications and history of events leading up to the nuclear bombs I have to say if Dan or others can find a law…please do.
    As for post WWII pretty much the same applies.Please prove me wrong.

  191. Alfie, how’s my arm? You’ll have to explain that one.

    Call me paranoid but I so distrust conservatve sources of information right now that I would not be at all surprised if the Arabic translation of the Rauf’s book says something entirely different from what G says. I’m not calling G a liar. I think there is at least a 50% chance he’s being misled.

    Now, if he’s seen a copy of the translation himself, and can attest to the accuracy of the translation, then that’s different.

    And even then … I don’t see why the alternate title isn’t akin to “making lemonade out of lemons” … i.e. finding peace with Islam from this horrible event.

    I am beginning to think all this sturm und drang is for nothing. I suspect sometime down the line, the site of the mosque will be moved.

  192. If the proposed building is only one floor higher, it would still be obscured from street level at GZ and anyone on the top floor would not likely be able to see beyond the roof of the adjacent building.

    Again … c’mon … give up on “the site at GZ” meme and just stick to the potential distastefulness of it. You’re on slightly stronger footing on the latter argument. On the former, again, you’re just plain wrong.

  193. Call me paranoid but I so distrust conservatve sources of information right now that I would not be at all surprised if the Arabic translation of the Rauf’s book says something entirely different from what G says. I’m not calling G a liar. I think there is at least a 50% chance he’s being misled.

    But you’ll enthusiastically shout “Right On!” if Keef sputters and shouts it during his spittle flecked monologue.

  194. “I am beginning to think all this sturm und drang is for nothing. I suspect sometime down the line, the site of the mosque will be moved.”

    Then it won’t have been for nothing.

  195. “I don’t want you to like it,trust me but Total War is legal.”

    As of 1949, total war is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. While the term “total war” is not specifically used, the prohibited actions fall within the terms of what it is.

    But Article 5 might provide a loophole.

  196. I’m not seeing it. I had reviewed that as well as the Hague. I also dug deeper into the addendums since 1949 that the USA has ratified.
    I don’t see anything that did or could be used retroactively to criminalize H&N atomic bombs. Likewise I find it rather ironic that none other than Harold Koh has been as aggressive as he has on putting forth the “for” argument on Predators etc.

  197. “I don’t see anything that did or could be used retroactively to criminalize H&N atomic bombs.”

    That’s kind of moving the goalposts.

    I didn’t review it looking for things applicable to just H&N. I reviewed it looking for things applicable to the general concepts of total war. That’s why I led with the quote I did.

    I’m going to look it over further after my house quiets down tonight, but at a glance, Article 3 and all its parts get into total war as it applies to civil conflicts.

  198. “Sorry … zero visibility from mosque to GZ and vice versa. I know you guys want to be 100% right on every aspect of this argument but it is time you conceded the parts where you’re just plain wrong. This is one of them.”

    Holy Christ, Rutherford. Could you possibly make my point more clearly? Really. Have Dan look up hyperbole for you. Sheesh. Do you remeber what I was responding to when I made that comment? (Hint: you steering arguments into irrelevancies — like whether can “actually” throw a rock into GZ).

    One thing I know: That sissy Obama couldn’t throw rock into the mosque from its front doors.

  199. So anyway…

    Article 3 says ” In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
    provisions: ”

    which I’m guessing means a civil war. “Armed conflict not of an international character.”

    And then it gets into people not taking active part in hostilities, collection of wounded, and whatnot. Since total war does not discriminate between people taking active part in hostilities, nor does it deal with collection of wounded, that would be a violation.

    Part 2 gets into the treatment of populations of a country in conflict. I think there are arguments that can be made if there is anything in there or not that would apply to the A-Bombs, but again, that isn’t my point. There’s plenty in the entire section that deals with concepts within total war. Mainly dealing with transporting wounded and care for women and children.

    Then the rest is mainly about protected persons on an individual level, which opens up all kinds of doors.

    I don’t agree with all of it, but it is there. And in my untrained opinion it says total war is not legal.

  200. *A Woman’s Poem*

    Before I lay me down to sleep,
    I pray for a man who’s not a creep,
    One who’s handsome, smart and strong.
    One who loves to listen long,
    One who thinks before he speaks,
    One who’ll call, not wait for weeks.
    I pray he’s rich and self-employed,
    And when I spend, won’t be annoyed.
    Pull out my chair and hold my hand.
    Massage my feet and help me stand.
    Oh send a king to make me queen.
    A man who loves to cook and clean.
    I pray this man will love no other.
    And relish visits with my mother.

    *A Man’s Poem*

    I pray for a deaf-mute gymnast nymphomaniac
    with big tits who owns a bar on a golf
    course, and loves to send me fishing and
    drinking. This doesn’t rhyme and I don’t
    give a shit.

  201. “In fairness, we’ve been building ‘ground zeros’ near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.”

    (anonymous blogger).

  202. LOL G, thanks for the poems. 🙂

    Tigre, I have never heard it put quite that way before. In fact I had to read your anonymous quote a couple of times over before I understood what the blogger was getting at. It’s an interesting notion but not one I would resort to to support my position.

  203. LOL Sorry Tigre … I thought you were actually quoting an anonymous blogger. I also wasn’t giving you enough credit for a sense of humor. Glad you have one. 🙂

  204. Sorry, I’ve had a busy weekend.

    In response to Alfie’s claim…

    Civilians that support a war and benefit from the aggression of their home nation are legitimate targets of the war machine. True or False?
    True. Period.

    I offer the Law of Armed Conflict from the usmilitary.about.com website…

    “The LOAC protects civilian populations. Military attacks against cities, towns, or villages not justified by military necessity are forbidden. Attacking noncombatants (generally referred to as civilians) for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is also prohibited.”

    We can’t legally target civilians.

    Further, while legally civilians can be part of “collateral damage” of legitimate military targets, the laws call for the concept of proportionality.

    From the Fourth Geneva Convention

    Part 1, Article 3

    (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause [IE, CIVILIANS, DAN], shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

    To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
    (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture…

    Or, if it’s easier to read, here is the Wiki version of it…

    It was adopted in August 1949, and defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone, and outlaws the practice of total war.

    With “total war” indicating a war that is limitless in scope, with no safeties presumed for civilians.

    There’s more, but will that suffice? I don’t see how anyone can really think that civilians are a LEGALLY legitimate target, by our own rules.

  205. Dan you are wrong and support your wrong opinion with incomplete information and emotions.I told you early on that i didn’t want you to like it,you insist on bringing in your personal feelings.
    I hereby acknowledge your feelings,I also rule them irrelevant and unimportant.
    This conversation is over as far as I’m concerned. You constantly put forth information you obviously don’t even read through.Your tweaks of Geneva are incorrect.LOAC as you hinted allows targeting and collateral damage.
    You come from this as a Christian and as such are as pathetic as the people that try to place rules on war in the first place.

  206. On a side note some of the linkage you provided fails to work,could be on WordPress. You have a sorta ally in Huck on this issue as he presented the Geneva articles. You are both wrong imo and invite you to cut and paste where it says for example a belligerent can’t blow up train systems,even though it’ll kill civilians. YOU CAN”T. Same applies to factory workers. You’ve lost

  207. I lost? I didn’t know it was a contest.

    As to feelings, I am wholly unsure of what you mean by that, since I have not referenced my feelings about anything.

    The question I was addressing was: Is it legal to target civilians? The answer, according to the Geneva Convention and LOAC, is that civilians can’t be targeted.

    Can MILITARY sites be targeted, even though civilians might be harmed? Yes, legally, with the caveat that there are parameters to that (the concept of proportionality, for instance). But can civilians themselves be targeted? No, not legally.

    Of course, I’m not a legal scholar, I’m just going by what I read. “Attacking citizens for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is… prohibited.” Seems clear to me.

    You come from this as a Christian and as such are as pathetic as the people that try to place rules on war in the first place.

    So, you think anyone who places rules on warfare are “pathetic?” I’d suggest you are in the minority on that point and, beyond that, morally mistaken. That sort of thinking has more in common with the terrorists’ mindset, it seems to me, than US or Christian ideals.

  208. Coming back to this…

    you are wrong and support your wrong opinion with incomplete information and emotions.I told you early on that i didn’t want you to like it,you insist on bringing in your personal feelings.

    Alfie, can you look at my post and understand how you don’t seem to be making any sense here? There is NOTHING of my emotions in my comment. It is almost entirely quotes from legal sources and my echoing my understanding of the laws.

    “We can’t legally target civilians.” is not a statement of emotion. It is a statement of my understanding of what I just quoted.

    Is that what you’re talking about? My UNDERSTANDING of what the source said?

    If so, I’ve offered my understanding and you’ve offered your understanding, so what’s the difference?

    To paraphrase Tina Turner, What’s “emotion” got to do with it?

  209. insertion of your emphasis [DAN] is evidence of you being driven by your views and feelings.Your moral standing is based on emotions. You’ll deny this but that doesn’t change it.
    As for the law you cite it was written for occupiers not those targeting military items and scoring collateral damage.
    As for your oft repeated

    “Attacking citizens for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is… prohibited.”

    Blowing up a train with mommies,babies,and shipbuilders,aircraft assemblers etc isn’t terror. This is the core of your problem. Again you feel icky about blowing up a baby sitting next to a fighter pilot. Can’t help ya.

    As for placing rules on war being pathetic. Absolutely!
    Anyone that wants to pretty up war with rules is naive,a fool and yes pathetic. War MUST be savage,inhumane and total otherwise we will always be open to having one.That is why I hold my beliefs.

  210. Also I should add I am done. I have my own blog and real world life to deal with. I see no reason to continue a conversation that only serves to show I’m party to a pitted disagreement.

  211. “You have a sorta ally in Huck on this issue as he presented the Geneva articles. You are both wrong imo and invite you to cut and paste where it says for example a belligerent can’t blow up train systems,even though it’ll kill civilians. YOU CAN”T. Same applies to factory workers. You’ve lost”

    And I still contend that you are limiting everything that is a part of total war to what you want it to be. There is a lot more to it than blowing up railroads and dropping atomic bombs.

    Not to mention that RR and factories are used for war, so civilian deaths in hitting them would be collateral damage, which we have already established as being legal.

    When you say total war is legal, you’re ignoring a whole lot that goes into those 2 words that are not legal.

    Blow up the railroad if you want. But when civilians are injured, total war does not call for stopping what you are doing to care for them. The 4th Geneva Convention does.

    “The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.”

    It also matters if that railroad is blown up by land forces that may be concidered an occupying force, as opposed to an air strike.

    “This is the core of your problem. Again you feel icky about blowing up a baby sitting next to a fighter pilot.”

    This is against international law, as well. But not on the part of the party who hits the train. Rather, of the party that allowed the pilot and baby to be on the same train.

    Under international law, civilians in a war zone are to recieve special treatment under particular circumstances that total war in general doesn’t take into consideration. Cherry-picking the scenarios doesn’t change that.

  212. “I see no reason to continue a conversation that only serves to show I’m party to a pitted disagreement.”

    Isn’t that what we do here?

  213. Dan said: “To paraphrase Tina Turner, What’s “emotion” got to do with it?”

    The answer, of course, is that when it comes to the foundation of your arguments, your emotions (like love in the case of Tina Turner) has everything to do with it. (the lyric is sardonic).

    And here, I thought only liberals understood nuance. . .

  214. I think I’m working with a different definition of total war. Belligerent #1 mobilizes all its forces,its industry,infrastructure and economy. Belligerent #2 does also. Both B1 and B2 try to destroy each other=total war.

  215. So, which emotions have I expressed in saying, “It is wrong to target civilians?”

    Hate? Love? Anger?

    Is it the emotion of “Fear” that drives those who’d support total war, because they fear that things will go badly if we don’t kill ’em all?

    I see no support for most of these type of claims, so I will just toss ’em over into the ever-growing pile of ad homs.

  216. For my part, I am opposed to targeting civilians as a matter of morality and justice. In my faith tradition, we are taught that one of the greatest wrongs is to shed innocent blood. “God hates… hands that shed innocent blood,” we are told repeatedly and in many ways in the Bible and, in truth, our very own conscience and innate logic tell us the same thing.

    What is more egregious than the terrorist or the patriot who’d kill a child “for God” or “for Allah” or “for the greater good of our nation” or even “just for the hell of it?” It is atrocious to do so deliberately and as a matter of justice and morality, I am opposed to it.

    Justice and morality are not emotions, they’re ideals.

  217. I answer one of your questions.
    Is it the emotion of “Fear” that drives those who’d support total war, because they fear that things will go badly if we don’t kill ‘em all?
    No.

  218. I missed this earlier…

    Again you feel icky about blowing up a baby sitting next to a fighter pilot.

    See comment above: I am opposed to it as a matter of justice and morality. “Icky”? I am opposed to the fighter pilot and his nation who would allow it, as a matter of justice and morality. And I am opposed to letting the enemies dictate the rules by which we’ll play their war games. As a matter of justice and of morality.

  219. Alfie, perhaps we both not on the same page.

    I don’t know that my definition is any more correct than anyone else’s, but when I speak of “total war” I am referring to war being waged against an entire society, where everyone and everything is being considered as a legitimate target by the belligerent targeting them.

    I would use Sherman’s March as an example of total war. I gather that you would consider what Sherman was up against as being total war.

    I can see where you’re coming from, and I’ll explore that perspecitive further. And I am glad you elected to resume this discussion.

  220. Tthe “moral reasoning” that you take seem to take such pride in sounds more like an effort to persuade us of our virtue rather than figure out the truth.

    I guess you can throw this one in your pile too. . .

  221. Huck, like a Carthaginian peace?

    I understood “total war” to mean the use of all available resources to prevail, not the the target.

  222. Rules are for those who have come to a concensus. War, by definition, is for those who fail to come to a concensus.

    I personally don’t think there is much use for international rules of war. I have no problems with a country forming its own rules about how it wants to conduct war, but I see no reason why those rules should extend to its enemy.

    I guess I’m just harsh that way.

  223. I have no problems with a country forming its own rules about how it wants to conduct war, but I see no reason why those rules should extend to its enemy.

    I’d suggest for reasons of morality and for reasons of justice. Beyond that, I believe our ideals (as expressed in our rules of war, at least a bit) are what make us stronger. If we abide by the Enemy’s Rules (whatever the enemy does, we’ll do in return), I’d suggest that would undermine our ideals and our way of life and would serve to weaken us ultimately.

  224. “I understood “total war” to mean the use of all available resources to prevail, not the the target.”

    Seems to maybe mean both.

    The wiki says it is an issue of mobilization, which suggests you and Alfie are correct. But then it also mentions Sherman’s march, which is widely considered as an act of total war. And that act supports my definition.

    So perhaps it is like “terrorism” in that there really is no set internationally recognized definition.

  225. Sherman was under different rules but is a good example to paint a picture of Total War. I take exception to looting and pillaging of civilians though to sustain my army (Sherman) but feel it is right if you are denying the enemy combatant resources,(Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan for example) People will disagree for sure but I think this clearly works with the difference between intentionally terrorizing civilians and taking an action that civilians find terrorizing.
    An alternate scenario for clarity? Having the police enter your home in the pursuit of a felon or related complaint can indeed be scary stuff. Is it the purpose of the cops to terrify you though? Bump that up to troops going house to house for weapons cache.

  226. “I’d suggest for reasons of morality and for reasons of justice.”

    But justice and morality are matters of perspective. Who says an enemy is going to share that perspective, and why should it be bound to the perspective of its enemy?

    “If we abide by the Enemy’s Rules (whatever the enemy does, we’ll do in return), I’d suggest that would undermine our ideals and our way of life and would serve to weaken us ultimately.”

    Which is why I specifically said…

    “I have no problems with a country forming its own rules about how it wants to conduct war….”

    See, you are arguing rules of war as they apply to the US. I am making my argument as they apply to everyone. You need to step outside the box for a moment.

  227. I guess I’m just harsh that way.

    no worries I’m even harsher. As I’ve said rules seem to help people feel better about war.That’s insanity! War must be horrible,then perhaps we will pursue peace.
    A variation is how everyone (maybe not everyone) watched the smart bomb video briefings of Iraq I&II …it was like watching a video game. It was cool.It was some poor fuck getting blown to bits!

  228. So, Huck, you agree with “If we abide by the Enemy’s Rules (whatever the enemy does, we’ll do in return), I’d suggest that would undermine our ideals and our way of life and would serve to weaken us ultimately.”?

  229. You’ve made that statement too general for me to agree with it outright. Because there could be instances where both share the same rules.

    You say all parties should recognize the same rules of war “…for reasons of morality and for reasons of justice.”

    But you say that from the position of authority on morality and justice, as if our perceptions of morality and justice are shared by everyone and are the definition of those ideas.

    They aren’t.

    We shouldn’t expect an enemy to abide by our rules any more than we should be expected to abide by its rules.

  230. Huck, I don’t understand Sherman’s march as an example of total war — using my “total resources” understanding. But Wiki definitions can go in opposite directions.

    However, when total war means the mobilization of the entire society in the effort, there are no uninvolved civilian targets (everyone’s part of the military machine, and therefore fair game).

  231. It isn’t only the wiki that considers Sherman’s march to have been an act of total war. That’s a pretty widely-held opinion.

  232. Perhaps both factors are required for the definition.

    The South had mobilized its entire society, engaging in total war against its enemy.

    Sherman, in an attempt to counter that action, killed, burned, and pillaged everything in that society, engaging in total war against his enemy.

    Which brings us back to Alfie’s #262. But I don’t think that comment makes me or Dan wrong in our claim that total war is against international law. I think maybe there are arguments for both positions depending on one’s perspective on the levels of mobilization and other actions during the conflict.

  233. “However, when total war means the mobilization of the entire society in the effort, there are no uninvolved civilian targets (everyone’s part of the military machine, and therefore fair game).”

    This begs the question….since Israel mobilizes its entire society in times of conflict, does that make the entire society a legitimate target for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah?

    If we accept this definition of total war, and say that it is legal under international law, then I just don’t see how Israel has ever suffered a “terrorist” attack.

    Am I wrong?

  234. Dan, if the enemy feels it is moral to not perform attacks on Mondays, does that mean we are morally bound to not attack him on Mondays?

    If we feel morally bound to not attack on Sundays, should we expect our enemy to not attack us on Sundays?

    See how each side can have its own perceptions of morality…and maybe even its own rules of war guided by that perception…neither of which will or should be shared by the other?

  235. I like my #273 re Sherman etc.
    On the Hamas Hezbollah thing. Thats actually a really good question that isn’t gonna help us at all.
    They both have established themselves in government, with Hezz. especially being involved with a sovereign nation.When Israel struck against Hezbollah though they didn’t declare war on Lebanon and given the recognition status of W. Bank v Gaza well….I just don’t know where that leaves us.
    And #282 is a good one too. I look forward to an answer.

  236. “On the Hamas Hezbollah thing. Thats actually a really good question that isn’t gonna help us at all.”

    No, it actually makes it all more complicated. 😉

  237. On a Saturday afternoon, in Washington , D. C., an aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Cardinal of the Catholic cathedral in D.C. He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day’s Mass, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.

    The Cardinal replied, “No. I don’t really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi’s views.” Pelosi’s aide then said, “Look. I’ll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you’ll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint.”

    The Cardinal thought about it and said, “Well, the church can use the money, so I’ll work your request into tomorrow’s sermon.” As Pelosi’s aide promised, House Speaker Pelosi appeared for the Sunday worship and seated herself prominently at the forward left side of the center aisle. As promised, at the start of his sermon, the Cardinal pointed out that Speaker Pelosi was present.

    The Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation, “While Speaker Pelosi’s presence is probably an honor to some, the woman is not numbered among my personal favorite personages. Some of her most egregious views are contrary to tenets of the Church, and she tends to flip-flop on many other issues. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. I must say, Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. She married for money and is using her wealth to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington , and in California . The woman is simply not to be trusted.”

    The Cardinal concluded, “But, when compared with Pres. Obama, House Speaker Pelosi is a saint

  238. Huck…

    If we feel morally bound to not attack on Sundays, should we expect our enemy to not attack us on Sundays?

    See how each side can have its own perceptions of morality

    My original comment…

    “If we abide by the Enemy’s Rules (whatever the enemy does, we’ll do in return), I’d suggest that would undermine our ideals and our way of life and would serve to weaken us ultimately.”?

    Allow me to clarify. What I was trying to suggest was that we ought not lower ourselves to the Enemy’s style of warring IF that style is contrary to our values. If our values are, “We do NOT purposely kill children,” and our enemy DOES kill chiildren, then we out to maintain our rules/standards and not lower ourselves to theirs. That was the point I was trying to get across. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

    Do we agree on that concept? That we maintain our ideals, regardless of what the enemy does?

  239. Rutherford,

    Why don’t you simply admit you feel no need to believe, ‘have religion’, or whatever you are calling it today and leave it at that? You want to rebel, fine by me. I should have shaken the dust from my feet of your riff raff long ago. There is absolutely nothing edifying about you – unless listening to your repetition and jaded answers in edifying.

    If you understood anything about grace, you would not only recognize tolerance, but ask why just the opposite result doesn’t happen – that is, we are all simply destroyed, or better yet never existed. Me? I’m not looking for mercy and is something you will not understand.

    Finally, will you just admit that you believe that man is sovereign? You believe in your own goodness. I know better. If you don’t recognize that, you’re either a fool or a liar. It really is as simple as that. 😐

  240. Hey, while I’m thinking of it, do you mind if I ask what the gang here thinks about the Koran Burning party they’re talking about having down in Gainesville, FL?

    Good ol’ American values or an attack on religious freedom?

    Good idea or stupid as hell?

  241. Dan
    Good ol’ American values.
    bad idea,as opposed to stupid as hell.
    I’ve heard it isn’t going to be allowed though secondary fire permits. This makes me wonder if fanatic evangelicals needed permits back in the day for catcher in the Rye, and Beatles albums.
    I think one is served well to check out some of the entries HERE though for a different perspective.

  242. Good ol’ American values? WHICH Americans??

    The latest I’ve heard is that they’ve been denied the fire permit but plan to do it anyway.

    Seems stupid as hell to me.

  243. “What I was trying to suggest was that we ought not lower ourselves to the Enemy’s style of warring IF that style is contrary to our values.”

    I don’t think we should do something only for the reason of the other guy doing it.

    Although, there may be other reasons we elect to do something the other guy does.

    You can decipher that as you will.

    It’s not that I don’t see your point. I do. I’m just trying to get you to see that there are other things at play when talking about what is and isn’t legal and/or moral. And perspective plays a big part.

    “Hey, while I’m thinking of it, do you mind if I ask what the gang here thinks about the Koran Burning party they’re talking about having down in Gainesville, FL?”

    Not my thing but as much a right as flag burning.

  244. I’m generally opposed to flag burning as unproductive and counterproductive. But at least, if it’s an American burning an American flag, he’s taking some position on his own group.

    Burning a holy text of SOMEONE ELSE’S religion is especially egregious, seems to me. Provocative. Wrong-headed.

    It suggests we ARE at war with Islam as a whole, and that (at least in the minds of some) this is a “holy war’ – my god is tougher than yours, instead of just saying we are strongly opposed to religious extremists.

    Stupid as hell, seems to me.

  245. If we were at war with Islam as a whole, there wouldn’t be any mosques standing anywhere in the U.S.

    Contrary to the spin on the opposition to the NY mosque by the left, we remain extremely tolerant. Funny there’s such a lack of tolerance of the sensitivities and belief systems of the New Yorkers that oppose. Self-loathing means enlightenment to a large segment of the pseudo intellectualised left.

    But burning the Koran is stupid.

  246. Funny there’s such a lack of tolerance of the sensitivities and belief systems of the New Yorkers that oppose.

    I think George Will put it best. No where in the Constitution is there protection that our feelings will never be hurt. And that’s coming from a conservative! LOL

  247. Tex … see the short dialog between me and “Cathy” over at BiW’s place. Believe it or not, I think she has at last made me understand some of what you’ve been barking at me for the past two years, at least the part about the need for humility and the recognition that we all serve a greater power.

    I don’t necessarily believe in it, but I did like the way Cathy explained it. She’s Lutheran. I don’t recall … what are you?

  248. Regarding Total War … once again a great dialog gentlemen. These are the kind of debates I look forward to reading. I don’t really have a dog in this one, so no comment from me other than to say “rules of war” is kinda oxymoronic. I think the only true rule of war is:

    Kill or be killed.

  249. “No where in the Constitution is there protection that our feelings will never be hurt.”

    Oh really, now.

    You’re going to regret adopting that comment in this context Mr. Touchy-feely.

  250. LOL Tigre I do admit to being somewhat touch-feely, but I do strive to argue facts on this blog, even if fueled by emotion.

    George Will happens to be one of my favorite conservative commentators. I don’t often agree with him but I sense he is smart and somewhat detached.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s