New York mayor tries to ease tensions after Muslim cabbie knifed

"Bloomberg said it is impossible to know the motive of the attack."

End of story !

The mood of the country is tired of being ignored on their dime, soon to be a dollar.. The attack on the cabbie was wrong, but the boiling point is approaching as a clueless Mayor whose time to go was after his 2nd term in office, waxes on about "tolerance". Some people's grief over their loss is far from healed, and now transforming into rage. Instead of paying for a 3rd term, he should've bought a clue.

Obviously, the temptation would be to paint this attacker as rabidly opposed to the GZ mosque. Ah, but not so fast.

According to The Village Voice:

Michael Enright of Brewster, New York, who was booked on charges of attempted murder and assault with a weapon as a hate crime, is listed on Facebook as an employee of the New York City-based Intersections International, a “global initiative dedicated to promoting justice, reconciliation and peace across lines of faith, culture, ideology, race, class, national borders and other boundaries that divide humanity.” And a few weeks ago, they announced their support for — you guessed it — the Cordoba House, better known to many as the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

Heh, another example of "tolerance" coming from the left.

RR

pamelot: "Some people's grief over their loss is far from healed, and now transforming into rage."

So you're excusing hate and hate crimes because people are upset that the same sort of thing happened to them? Bloomberg's stance on tolerance is an excellent one, albeit saying, "The motive is unclear" is somewhat ridiculous. This kid deserves the maximum term of incarceration for ALL applicable crimes, and he's probably going to get it given the gravity of the situation. What's more, the people who are against the mosque being built where it's been scheduled to be built ought to be furious -- this kid has just cut opposition in half, and basically handed the people who want to build it the means to do so.

Anyway, this again goes to show you that hatred need not wear an 'evil' face; this guy was attacked because of how he looked and what he believed in -- in other words, the evil here was that of a 'baby-faced' college kid.

pamelot: The mood of the country is tired of being ignored....

I don't think that moods get tired. However, I don't think anyone is ignoring the mood of the country. People may not be kowtowing to the country's mood, but I think the country is making its mood fairly difficult to ignore.

I'm sure that some people's grief over their loss is far from healed. However, I don't think that American Muslims should have to wait to come out of the shadows until the last grief is assuaged. In life, there is grief. People have to suck it up and go on.

RomeoRamen: Obviously, the temptation would be to paint this attacker as rabidly opposed to the GZ mosque.

More obviously the temptation seems to have been to use his affiliation with a group that supports Cordoba House to stick pins in "the left" for being intolerant. Never mind about finding out what this guy actually thinks or believes.

More obviously the temptation seems to have been to use his affiliation with a group that supports Cordoba House to stick pins in "the left" for being intolerant.

This is the typical blind hatred of the right.

SezWho2 -- I don't know if telling them to "suck it up" is really appropriate either, but you're right, their grief should not allow for American Muslims to be discriminated against. It's wrong and disgusting. I'm glad that cabbie survived the attack, but this incident makes me weep for my country, as I feel it can only get worse. Those numbers are small now, but I wouldn't underestimate them. It would be naive to think that this hatred and blantant xenophobia wasn't under the surface all along, since 9/11 pretty much created a ripple effect, but still seeing it in the rioting and incidents like this is a shock to the system somehow.

Muslims living in the U.S. should learn the meaning of the phrase "what goes around, comes around." Cabbies cannot expect all their fares to be left-wing liberal progressive Nancy Pelosi types...

Muslims living in the U.S. should learn the meaning of the phrase "what goes around, comes around."

Yes, because as we all know, they were all directly behind the conspiracy to crash the planes into the towers, and they were all standing outside of their homes burning American flags and rejoicing.

kokorocloud--I think that in most cases it would be entirely inappropriate to tell families and friends of victims to "suck it up". However, under the assumption that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, I have used that term in all its bluntness to describe a need to assertively come to terms with grief and to vigilantly refuse to allow vestiges of grief to obtrude on the rights of others.

Tatanka--Muslims living in the U.S. should learn the meaning of the phrase "what goes around, comes around."

Dimes to doughnuts most Muslims living in the U.S. know the meaning of the phrase better than you. I bet they even know that nothing even need go around for something fairly nasty to come around.

SezWho2-- I completely understand, haha. I had hoped that's what you meant.

Just yesterday or the day before, I told you something like this was going to happen and as I predicted, JT would purchase such news and the board would roll. We'll see by 5pm today if I was right. Again, the Mosque should move. If they moved and something like this should happen, there would be more outpouring support for the cabbie, but at the moment, its just an isolated incident; according to police of course. Oh, and of course that over educated "PTSD" for a student is can't be missed.

"in other words, the evil here was that of a 'baby-faced' college kid." Come on, say it right: a baby-faced white rich kid. No, no, a rich-white-liberal-with-rich-white-liberal parents-chubby-boy"

they were all standing outside of their homes burning American flags and rejoicing" many, many were rejoicing. I'm sure there were many non-Muslim JT'ers rejoicing too though.

Dude seems to be mentally unstable. I'm not sure what we imagine we can learn from this.

Including the attack on Sharif, there have been 10 hate crimes reported against Muslims in the city so far this year, up from six total last year, Kelly said. By comparison, the top hate-crime categories this year are 93 anti-Semitic, 36 anti-gay and 23 anti-black incidents, according to the NYPD.

This, seems to me, is the only valuable info to be gleaned; good to know that, despite all the tensions, provocations, and opportunists out there that we aren't persecuting Muslims - despite what some commentators might think.

So, the muslim taxi driver slasher winds up working with the group that supports GZ mosque. It'll be interesting to see how the leftists and the liberal MSM spin this attack into being the work of a right-wing fanatic.

RR

"Muslims living in the U.S. should learn the meaning of the phrase "what goes around, comes around." Cabbies cannot expect all their fares to be left-wing liberal progressive Nancy Pelosi types..."

If you shout that loudly enough, it is going to get difficult for any Republican to find a cab, and liberal progressives won't need to tip anymore.

This guy's actions just set back the anti-mosque/pro-intolerance crowd about a country mile. I feel sorry for the victim but can't help feeling that the hatred, fear-mongering and intolerance being spewed and sucked up by conservatives is partly to blame for this. Regardless of the reason, this whole mosque issue is playing right into the hands of the very extremists who were behind 9/11. Build the mosque. Quit the ignorant blackwashing of an entire religion for the crimes of a few. And don't let the emotions of families of 9-11 victims allow the Constitution of the United States to be subverted. I'd like to think Americans are better than that.

As if the blanket blackwashing by many conservatives of an entire religion wasn't bad enough, the anti-mosque/pro-intolerance crowd need to define where GZ actually is to further their argument. So far, they have failed to do this. Is GZ within the borders of the WTC site? ? I've heard some say GZ is anywhere that concrete dust, papers or body parts fell, ie: lower Manhattan. The anti-mosque crowd need to sort this out before they continue their wild-eyed opposition. They also need to take a moment to consider how this debaate is being viewed abroad. I personally think this conservative-fuelled debate is causing way more damage than the mosque itself could create. Conservatives ignoqe the peception abroad at their peril. Some are becoming more mindful of how this is playing out overseas, however it would seem the majority are giving in to the fear, lies and ignorance that is being spoonfed to them by the extreme Right U.S. media. Again, I'd like to think the majority of Americans are better than that.

Robert Chase, Intersections’ director, said the organization had helped pay to send Enright overseas to Afghanistan in April, a trip he took as part of a senior video project he was doing at the School of Visual Arts. As part of the work, Enright spent time embedded with U.S. troops.

Well then, he must have had the chance to soak up LOADS of Afghan culture. I bet he came back with a totally unbiased opinion of Islam.

What school sends students into war-zones???

“This should never have happened and hopefully won’t happen again,” Bloomberg said. “Hopefully, people will understand that we can have a discourse. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. That’s what America is all about.”

The First Amendment is such a tricky issue. We pride ourselves with our freedoms, but often paint ourselves in a corner with exceptions to the rule. We have the freedom to practice any religion, as long as .... (and the list of rules and exceptions is long). We can speak freely, as long as ... etc. etc. etc. Politicians like Bloomberg likes to espouse such rhetoric, without realizing that instead of living in the "land of the free", we live in the "land of the free, for some and not for others". After all, Mr. Enright seemed to believe that it was his right to stab Mr. Sharif, because it was not Mr. Sharif's right to be a Muslim in America.

Good for Bloomberg to stand up to the rabid haters of the right. He is showing character and a grasp of the bigger picture, which is why he is an ex-republican.

The Pentagon has a mosque, not a community center in it, but not a peep from the far right folks on that one. Nothing.

After following this debate for weeks, I'm coming to think the issue is little more than an a pretty smart stunt by elitist conservatives to 1/ curry votes from weak-willed conservative voters, 2/ smear Muslims/Islam - in part to tacitly promote support for Christianity (or their warped version of it), 3/ smear the president and attempt to tie him to Islam (note the blatantly dishonest attempts to suggest Obama is a Muslim), 4/ subvert and weaken the Constitution, and 5/ leverage 9-11 to do all of the above. Simultaneously. To be honest, I think the only conservative smart enough to cook up a strategy like this is Karl Rove, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he is feeding talking points to the extremist Right media mouthpieces.

Zurc, no, no, the Pentagon mosque is an elitist liberal, Nancy Pelosi conspiracy. If it's real, it would expose anti-NY mosque conservatives as...oh yeah - hypocrites.

I dont hate muslims, but I sure dont think a most should be built. If most New Yorkers dont want it, then they should not build it. New York does not belong to the Muslims so the Muslims should respect the people that live in New York. It is like me saying I am going to build a Chinese temple near the white house and I dont care what anyone says because it is for religious purposes only. I don`t think the U.S.A. would like that at all.

What school sends students into war-zones???" Ultra Lib schools do and so do madrasses.

Well, I guess this is a plus for the mayor, who said on New Years Eve, that the unexploded bomb had to, must have, no doubt about it, a tea party type who's angry at the health care bill. At least the perp in this one was a chubby white guy

Still, as long as they keep the idea of NOT moving the mosque, its going to get worse and after watching both pro and anti mosque youtubes, its going to get worse. Move the location and this would send a message. Not the other way around

SushiSake:

" This guy's actions just set back the anti-mosque/pro-intolerance crowd about a country mile. "

Anti-mosque is not pro intolerance; to the contrary. But you are right that this incident will be exploited as propaganda tool by the pro-mosque/pro islamic supremacy crowd to the hilt. In propaganda terms, a gift from heaven.

If they are not going move then at the very least, they should not have a grand opening on Sept. 11 2011.

The argument by the bird chesters is that building this send a strong message to the islamic world, well, just the mere idea of it being built and politicians (of course with money ties in the Islamic world) supporting it should have already sent a clear enough message. It hasn't worked.

A new fresh idea will greatly prevent further incidents such as this.

zurcronium:

" The Pentagon has a mosque, not a community center in it, but not a peep from the far right folks on that one. Nothing. "

Check your facts. The Pentagon has a multi-faith prayer room, and not a mosque.

If Feisal Abdul Rauf wanted to build 13-story multi-faith prayer room, you bet there would be less protest. Of course no funding from Saudi-Arabia either...

By shuffling their loud but hopelessly misguided opposition to this mosque, conservatives are once again - unwittingly - handing another big win to Islamic extremists. And, once again, conservatives prove they have little idea what is really going on.

The attacker seems like a crackpot, and the victim's story doesn't seem credible.

And no matter how much the neo-communists here and in the mayor's office try to tie this into the movement against building this Islamic hate center, there is no connection.

As for the crook Bloomberg, we can see where the hidden millions in discretionary spending went to --> his personal buddies who changed the law so he could stay.

Anti-mosque is not pro intolerance; to the contrary. But you are right that this incident will be exploited as propaganda tool by the pro-mosque/pro islamic supremacy crowd to the hilt.

Right on WilliB!

Check your facts. The Pentagon has a multi-faith prayer room, and not a mosque.

WilliB - facts never stopped the left before, why should it now? Facts just get in the way of their tired old propaganda.

We pride ourselves with our freedoms, but often paint ourselves in a corner with exceptions to the rule. We have the freedom to practice any religion, as long as .... (and the list of rules and exceptions is long). We can speak freely, as long as ... etc. etc. etc. Politicians like Bloomberg likes to espouse such rhetoric, without realizing that instead of living in the "land of the free", we live in the "land of the free, for some and not for others". After all, Mr. Enright seemed to believe that it was his right to stab Mr. Sharif, because it was not Mr. Sharif's right to be a Muslim in America.

Not one part of this made any sense. I'll just start with this part:

We have the freedom to practice any religion, as long as .... (and the list of rules and exceptions is long).

OK, what are the exceptions you are complaining about??

In America, it seems Muslims are more the victims of terrorism than its perpetrators.

Maybe the guy who did this is trying to provoke the Muslims to react.

In America, it seems Muslims are more the victims of terrorism than its perpetrators.

What an ignorant statement. Why don't you actually read the article:

Including the attack on Sharif, there have been 10 hate crimes reported against Muslims in the city so far this year, up from six total last year, Kelly said. By comparison, the top hate-crime categories this year are 93 anti-Semitic,

The cab driver's whole story sounds made up.

The cab driver's whole story sounds made up.

Yeah, there should be a law requiring Moslems to have 4 witnesses to prove they were attacked, right manfromsomwhere?

As for the crook Bloomberg, we can see where the hidden millions in discretionary spending went to --> his personal buddies who changed the law so he could stay.

Dont bother to give any proof, we'll just take your word for it.

@manfromamerica

The cab driver's whole story sounds made up.

Have you seen the state of his throat?

“This should never have happened and hopefully won’t happen again,” Bloomberg said. “Hopefully, people will understand that we can have a discourse. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. That’s what America is all about.”

A "discourse" in the midst of all this high pitched screaming of epithets is unlikely. Akin to the item on internal strife in the GOP yesterday, I still say that America is at war with itself. A house divided will not stand.

Yeah, there should be a law requiring Moslems to have 4 witnesses to prove they were attacked, right manfromsomwhere?

Again, what a ridiculous comment. However, the victim's word should always be taken as 100% correct? How un-progressive of you.

Have you seen the state of his throat?

You couldn't think this through? The man was attacked. However, the motives and the things supposed said by the attacker may or may not be accurate. However you seem to blindly accept anything that supports your leftist agenda.

This attack has NOTHING to do with the opposition to the mosque. Even the cab driver said the man never mentioned the mosque. (again, he may be correct or incorrect).

Dont bother to give any proof, we'll just take your word for it.

Then you obviously didn't follow ANY news about mayoral race and Bloomberg's right to run. But that's OK, if you are not a New Yorker you probably don't know. Go visit the websites for the NY papers and do a search. This was well-publicized. Bloomberg gave millions of dollars from the mayor's discretionary budget to people and projects promoted by the city officials who had the power to overturn the term limit law. This is a fact, and a well-printed one.

You couldn't think this through? The man was attacked. However, the motives and the things supposed said by the attacker may or may not be accurate. However you seem to blindly accept anything that supports your leftist agenda.

manfro: Although you have a point that it is wrong to jump to conclusions when everything about this attack has not been confirmed yet, you obviously stated that "this attack has nothing to do with opposition to the mosque". How do you know that for sure? It may or may not. We won't know until a psych evaluation of the attacker (Michael Enright) has been done. I also believe that it is wrong to jump to conclusions about anything, but you yourself should do the same as well.

The cab driver was slashed in the face and throat with a knife and the attacker was obviously caught with the weapon on him. So what part of the story is unbelievable? @man.... Or is it the fact that as a New Yorker you are privy to some information the rest of the world hasn't heard as yet. Do care to enlighten us.

This was well-publicized. Bloomberg gave millions of dollars from the mayor's discretionary budget to people and projects promoted by the city officials who had the power to overturn the term limit law.

Was it proved that he influenced NY council members through unfair means? Let me share an important piece of information you might have missed out as a New Yorker, there are laws down there.

A writer in Israel has this to say about this incident today:

Pardon my crudeness, but I am a bit disgusted at the lack of news coverage in the Israeli press about a hate crime that took place in New York City two nights ago…

A Muslim cab driver was stabbed by a passenger after being asked “are you a Muslim”. This made headline news throughout the world as can be seen if you Google ‘Muslim cabbie stabbed’….. throughout the world except in Israel.

Why the strange heading for this post? If a Jew farts on a crowded subway car in New York and gets dirty looks from his fellow passengers, the ADL immediately jumps in and creates an anti Semitic incident and walla…… it’s front page news throughout Israel.

BUT…. in this case, the cabbie WAS a Muslim…. living in a city consumed by hate because of groups like the ADL….. NOT because of the Ground Zero Mosque, but because of those that oppose the building of it. The ADL might see this incident as ‘collateral damage’ in a war against Islam…. definitely not newsworthy in the Jewish press, definitely not worth a condemnation by a group opposed to defamation.

What seems to be an accurate account of the crime can be read in THIS New York Times article.

Hatred existed in New York long before the issue of the ‘mosque’ became news. New York has a long history of Islamophobia…. this is not to say that it must not or cannot be defeated.

The Mayor of New York ended a speech the other day with the following words;

In that spirit, let me declare that we in New York are Jews and Christians and Muslims, and we always have been. And above all of that, we are Americans, each with an equal right to worship and pray where we choose. There is nowhere in the five boroughs that is off limits to any religion.

By affirming that basic idea, we will honor America’s values and we will keep New York the most open, diverse, tolerant, and free city in the world.

TOLERANT….. that is the key word.

DIVERSE ….. another key word.

Speeches are fine, but let us together work towards the day when hate crimes based on one’s colour, creed or nationality become history.

Let us together work to establish a real citizens committee against defamation and hate, one that will not only battle hatred, but the hate groups in disguise as well.

Let us consume hatred before it consumes all of us, one by one….. ACT NOW…. before they come for you!

Interesting to get another perspective on this case.

@manfromamerica

A direct quote from your good self: "The cab driver's whole story sounds made up."

Whole story. Whole. Then you say:"The man was attacked."

So which is it?

Your accusations regarding my "left-wing agenda" would carry a lot more weight if you could sort your own thoughts out in a logical, coherent manner

sabiwabi:

" In America, it seems Muslims are more the victims of terrorism than its perpetrators. "

Ask the residents of the World Trade center about that. Or victims of the Fort Hood shooter. Or Rifka Bary. Shall I go on?

This is exactly the kind of situation that terrorists rejoice, because it spice up the dishes they concoct. So they don't give a shit about innocent people who are killed (whatever their religion, their own religion included) they like creating panic, and push people making amalgams. All of us, whatever our religious affiliation, we must stand together and be united against terrorism and evil. After all we are all brothers and sisters on this earth. Peace!

" Investigators were still trying to make sense of what they know about the 21-year-old visual arts student who once volunteered with a group called Intersections that promotes interfaith tolerance and has supported a proposal for the downtown mosque. "

Let me get this: Every blames the anti-mosque crowd for the cab driver attack, while the attacker was, in fact, a leftist and member of a pro-mosque group?

Come again??

WilliB, I am a member of the group called American. But most of the time, I disagree with everything George W. said. Just because he is a member does not mean he agrees with every little thing the talking heads say.

It looks like he joined the group to do a project, and nothing more. He was embedded with U.S. troops, who don't exactly have the best reputation for being respectful to the people in whose countries they occupy.

Then they guy goes making jokes about Ramadan and the words before the attack were "Consider this a check-point!"? I think this was less about religion and more about culture, and the military culture of our soldiers drove his head straight up his backside.

WilliB, I think you are promoting hysteria.

In the first place, not everyone blames the anti-mosque crowd. That would be almost as ludicrous as blaming American Muslims for 9/11.

In the second place, I'm not sure that we know he was a leftist. I'm not even sure that we know what "a leftist" is. In your hands it sounds distinctly pejorative. Be that as it may, studying visual arts does not make one a leftist. Belonging to an interfaith group does not make one a leftist. Traveling to Afghanistan does not make one a leftist--unless our troops over there a predominantly leftist, too. And being embedded with troops certainly does not make one a lefist. Initially, I would tend to label his political inclinations as "confused".

Also, ditto MistWizard. Being a member of a group which supports the building of the mosque, has very little to do with approval of the group's official positions. If it does, this will come as a shock to a lot of Tea Partiers out there unless they're willing to take the next step from taking their country back (whatever that means) to declaring themselves sovereign individuals.

I thought we were supposed to blame Muslims for the attack? You know, tell them to take a hard look at themselves and ask what they might have done to prompt this man to attack. Had the roles been reversed we'd probably have a dozen posts about Iraq, Afghanistan, the CIA, phrases telling us that we shouldn't be surprised, blowback, etc. Shouldn't someone be here telling us that terrorism likely caused this man to attack and Islamic radicals are breeding people like Enright...and that we all understand how he could have done something like this?

hotbox - the Leftists here immediately DID jump to conclusions, and immediately started blaming the opposition to the Islamic terror center. Even the cab driver who offered an anti-Islamic rant said it had nothing to do with it.

Let me get this: Every blames the anti-mosque crowd for the cab driver attack, while the attacker was, in fact, a leftist and member of a pro-mosque group

Very good point!

A writer in Israel has this to say about this incident today:

And what does a crime in NY have to do with Israel? For communists, it's another excuse to blame the US.

"WilliB, I think you are promoting hysteria."

The leopard's spots will never change....

A writer in Israel has this to say about this incident today: And what does a crime in NY have to do with Israel?

Everything. It is nigh on impossible to spread your arms wide in NY without hitting someone of Jewish origin, that's just a fact of the demographics. The pulse of Israeli-American relations is palpable on the streets of NY. When a high-volume "debate" about mosques occurs, and when a stabbing incident like the one in the article occurs, it automatically piques peoples' interest in both communities. What it has to do with communists, as is suggested above, is beyond me. What it says about Israel and the US is clear to anyone with their fingers on the pulse of both countries, even minimally.

The point made by the writer in Tel Aviv, to which I referred, was the disproportionate amount of attention that assaults, real or imaginary, get from the respective press corps in each country, if at all. And his suggestion that intolerance and hate could be eradicated in both communities regardless. That's the point.

Had the roles been reversed we'd probably have a dozen posts about Iraq, Afghanistan, the CIA, phrases telling us that we shouldn't be surprised, blowback, etc

LOL!! A good example of role-reversal which mirrors this event is the case of army major Nidal Malik Hassan -- the man who murdered his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

That wasn't about blowback or the CIA; he was simply a nutcase who became unhinged. The same is true in the case of Enright, who, based on his reaction to high amounts of alcohol, probably should never take another drink again.

As a poster correctly points out about leopard's spots -- for some, those spots mark perennial stupidity.

the Leftists here immediately DID jump to conclusions,

manfromamerica:

As did you. You also jumped to the conclusion that it had nothing to do with the building of the mosque. It hasn't been proven beyond a doubt in a court of law that it had nothing to do with it. We won't know until a thorough investigation has been done. You preach that people shouldn't jump to conclusions and yet you do the same thing. How can you do that?

By the way, manfromamerica, even though the cabbie said that it had nothing to do with the mosque, why is it that you only believe that point about what he has said, but question the rest of his story? Is it because you will only believe things that fit your own agenda too?

A writer in Israel has this to say about this incident today: And what does a crime in NY have to do with Israel?

I will do you one better LIBERTAS. ANYONE can make a good point. Their country of origin is as irrelevant as their religion. Its people that make bones about these things that prove they are ignorant intolerants.

@manfromamerica

You appear not to have seen/ be ignoring my question. Come on, step up to the plate! I'll try again:

A direct quote from your good self: "The cab driver's whole story sounds made up."

Whole story. Whole. Then you say:"The man was attacked."

So which is it?

Your accusations regarding my "left-wing agenda" would carry a lot more weight if you could sort your own thoughts out in a logical, coherent manner

ANYONE can make a good point. Their country of origin is as irrelevant as their religion. Its people that make bones about these things that prove they are ignorant intolerants.

You are probably correct. I'm not talking hypothetical situations. I simply said what I saw to be so. As did the writer in Israel. No matter. getting knifed for any reason is still awful. Regardless of beliefs.

kyushujoe - "..if you could sort your own thoughts out in a logical, coherent manner."

You're asking a conservative to achieve the superior mental abilities of a liberal.

Is that even remotely possible? :-)

SuperLib: I thought we were supposed to blame Muslims for the attack?

Did you? I doubt that many people blamed America for the attack on the Towers. However, I think that quite a few observed that Americans (though not necessarily those in the Towers) had blood on their hands in american affairs in the Middle East and that they bore some (unmeasured) responsibility for the attack.

I think the same holds true here. Muslims (although not necessarily those promoting the cultural center nor the cab driver) have blood on their hands and that, at the very least, they bear the responsibility of being Muslims.

So, sure, blame the Muslims if you want. But don't try to whitewash America's interference in the Middle East, not even with sarcasm.

@SushiSake3

You're asking a conservative to achieve the superior mental abilities of a liberal.

Lovely. Thank you. We are bloody clever, though, we liberals. And sometimes it's nice to be reminded.

SezWho: Muslims have blood on their hands and that, at the very least, they bear the responsibility of being Muslims.

Wow. Didn't think I've ever see you write that.

I just hope this was an isolated, nut case, incident, and not some KKK, racist, NRA supporting basket case who has had way too much RUSH for breakfast, lunch and dinner and considers himself a true ditto head for his brave action against an un-armed Muslim immigrant from a 3rd world country trying to make a living as a cabbie in the Big Apple.

If Americans kill people just because of their race, religion, color of their skin etc...boy oh boy, this is exactly what Alqaeda needs to help recruit more young, angry Muslims with an itch to get some kind of revenge against Christians, Americans and anybody else that is perceived to be evil towards innocent Muslims. I am sure the Taliban etc..just love this news and it will be all over the internet, hey look! look, see how they just attack our believers, at the dirty, filthy hands of that blond, blue eyed devil in NYC! If someone here can read Arabic, maybe they can help us understand what those people are saying about this crime??

SushiSake: but can't help feeling that the hatred, fear-mongering and intolerance being spewed and sucked up by conservatives is partly to blame for this.

Libertas seems to think the Jews had a hand in it. Misty is saying that the US military might be somewhat responsible. How do you feel your claim stacks up to theirs?

"How do you feel your claim stacks up to theirs?"

Well, in light of the rabid froth-fest over the "Ground Zero Immam" and the "Victory Mosque", I think in this case, it's a fair to suggest the right-wing hatemongers may contribute to these kinds of incidents in the future.

I think the guy drank a bottle Scotch in the afternoon and has a real serious alcohol problem myself.

I guess it's fair to say "rightwing hatemongers" made him drink.

Madverts: I think in this case, it's a fair to suggest the right-wing hatemongers may contribute to these kinds of incidents in the future.

Do you think it's fair to suggest that Muslims may contribute to these kinds of incidents in the future?

Oh, sure I guess.

US muslims don't seem to be as radicalized as some of the wastrels we're blessed with here in Europe.

Yet.

SuperLib: Wow. Didn't think I've ever see you write that.

That's a comment that doesn't inspire me to believe you understood it. We are all responsible for how we choose to define ourselves and for what we choose to be.

I think those that wish to build the community center are quite aware that they are Muslims and that they are quite aware that they are colored with the same brush as the terrorists who attacked the Towers. I'm not sure that a similar thing can be said of American awarenesses.

American awareness

When it comes to anything even remotely related to Islam: an oxymoron if ever there was one!

I think those that wish to build the community center are quite aware that they are Muslims and that they are quite aware that they are colored with the same brush as the terrorists who attacked the Towers. I'm not sure that a similar thing can be said of American awarenesses.

I believe American awarenesses is shown by not building a American community center by the peace park in Hiroshima, or even thinking about the idea in the first place.

" by not building a American community center by the peace park in Hiroshima,"

Would two blocks away suffice?

Conservative Americans' awareness may as well be pulled out of a sewer for all it's worth. Oh, sorry - it is. The only real redeeming quality of the anti-mosque conservatives is that their intolerance overshadows their ignorance. 'Ground Zero Mosque?' Hello? That's like saying Roppongi Hills is in Tokyo Midtown. Victory mosque? Conservatives' barrage of lies have already turned this into a victory for the terrorists' cause. The key problem as I see it with the conservatives is they are letting their emotions run riot over the logic faculties they never had. Sailwind and co. want the mosque moved further from ground zero but have completely failed to decide how far is far enough. Other conservative intolerants are abandoning all rational thought and painting all Muslims as terrorist sympathizers. That's beyond dumb. But there's more. Still other conservative intolerants have made no effort whatsoever to 1/ find out that the brand of Islam preached by the mosque has nothing to do with terrorism, 2/ acknowledge that the site was purchased last year (where were the protests then?), and 3/ turn off the hatespeak on Fox and tune into some networks that - unlike Fox - actually bother to present facts. Unless or until they do, they need to accept that they themselves are harming America way more than this mosque ever will.

So if someone is against the mosque they are conservative? Are are you only making comments about people who are both against the mosque and conservative?

SezWho: That's a comment that doesn't inspire me to believe you understood it.

I took it to mean that you believe Muslims have blood on their hands and that can be considered a contributing factor to how people might treat them.

The cabbie had it coming. Didn't he hear? Being Muslim in New York is insensitive to white people because of 9-11.

Taka

I'll bet anyone here a paycheck that they shooter was a huge fan of Fox news.

Taka

Everyone knows I'm no fan of Islam, but this is where I draw the line is when one human being physically attacks or harms another human being or destroys their property because of their own perceptions. Justice had better be served on all these jackasses. Attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, intent to harm etc. That should put Micheal behind bars for at least 20-30+ years I hope.

I have to wonder why the yahoos protesting this islamic center haven't been protesting the mosque that exists at the Pentagon.

Do they not know there is one or have their handlers not yet told them they should be upset over it? I'm really curious.

Taka

"Do they not know there is one or have their handlers not yet told them they should be upset over it?"

Heh, you mean the bastards allowed a "victory mosque" on hallowed ground? I'm wondering how the agent's of intolerance are going to swerve such a poke in the eye.

Taka,

You have me wondering now who the "Intelligence Immam" is, or what exciting, xenephobic label the raving uber-conservatives will blog up....

"the mosque that exists at the Pentagon"

There is no mosque at the Pentagon, there's a chapel that Muslims share with Christians and people of other faiths.

sailwind: I believe American awarenesses is shown by not building a American community center by the peace park in Hiroshima, or even thinking about the idea in the first place.

You can certainly believe that if you want to. But you would be talking about Americans demonstrating their sensitivity by not building something on land they do not own on Japanese soil and you would be comparing that to the alleged insensitivity of other Americans who are exercising their right to build on land they own on American soil. In that case, I believe what would demonstrate American awareness would be an American apology.

SuperLib: I took it to mean that you believe Muslims have blood on their hands and that can be considered a contributing factor to how people might treat them.

Almost. I believe that some Muslims have blood on their hands. And I believe that Muslims in America know that this is a contributing factor to how people may treat them. I also believe that the American government has blood on its hands and that a substantial portion of Americans either do not know the facts or choose to ignore them. I don't think that should have been too difficult to suss out.

So if someone is against the mosque they are conservative? Are are you only making comments about people who are both against the mosque and conservative?

Good question. Since 70% of New Yorkers oppose this, and well over 50 % of them are liberals... I suspect that there are a hell of a lot of liberals opposing this as well. I mean, even 'Dirty' Harry opposes this. That doesn't fit the narrative though, so the dhimmis have to gloss that over.

On topic now, I have to say, I don't like the hate crimes legislation. I think its a mistake to do things this way. It would be better to approach it with it being a factor used in sentencing rather then a special circumstances under which people are prosecuted. Having said this, I find it interesting, that this is being called a hate crime, while the beat 'whitey' night in Iowa is not. Guess its cause this guy is a Muslim, and they're an oppressed minority, while whites of course can never be hated enough.

You can certainly believe that if you want to. But you would be talking about Americans demonstrating their sensitivity by not building something on land they do not own on Japanese soil and you would be comparing that to the alleged insensitivity of other Americans who are exercising their right to build on land they own on American soil.

It's to bad that they are not exercising that right to build a 13 story hospital funded completely by Muslim charities and staffed mainly by Muslim Doctors and Nurses to provide free medical care for the families of the 9/11 victims for life, along with an emergency trauma center to treat victims of the next terrorist attack. It would include a small Mosque to support the staff's spiritual needs along with a non-denominational chapel and Jewish temple to support the needs of the mainly Christian and Jewish 9/11 families.

The bomb that was set but failed to go off by Pakistani Muslim in Times Square just a few months ago would have caused a lot of carnage. Trauma centers would have been overwhelmed again and a facility of this type would be an actual 'Muslim Godsend' to treat the victims that are once again targets of Islamic terrorist mayhem that has smeared their name in the first place.

Now that folks would be some real bridge-building and sensitive, not some in your face Islamic Cultural community Center in the killing zone and debris field of ground Zero.

Sailwind:

" It's to bad that they are not exercising that right to build a 13 story hospital funded completely by Muslim charities and staffed mainly by Muslim Doctors and Nurses to provide free medical care for the families of the 9/11 victims for life, along with an emergency trauma center to treat victims of the next terrorist attack "

That is indeed bad. And do not expect any such thing. The ground zero mosque is strictly there to propagandazize for islam, and claim that islam has nothing to with mosque-educated muslims attacking the WTC --- twice.

This means profoundly changing the whole narrative of the event, which is of course why saudi millions are read to fund it.

WilliB - "The ground zero mosque is strictly there to propagandazize for islam."

First, it's not at GZ - how many time do people like you have to be told this?

Second, that is such an idiotic statement I barely know where to begin - what do you think an Islamic mosque would preach - Shinto? Of course it is going to be used to preach Islam. Christian churches propagandazize for Christianity - do you have a problem with that, too, or is it it just your deep-seated fear of Islam and the unknown that is behind your anger?

SezWho: I believe that some Muslims have blood on their hands. And I believe that Muslims in America know that this is a contributing factor to how people may treat them.

Alrighty then.

Sailwind - "...not some in your face Islamic Cultural community Center in the killing zone and debris field of ground Zero."

Sob, sob! It's all just black and white to people like you, isn't it Sail?

I'm glad the Americans I know have the guts to look into and analyze issues like this a lot deeper than you do.

Sushi:

" Second, that is such an idiotic statement I barely know where to begin - what do you think an Islamic mosque would preach - Shinto "

Name-calling is not an argument. Location matters. Preaching islam at the site of 2 islamic terror attacks is simply not the right location. Regardless of what you think about islam.

I pointed out before that Pope Paul called the Carmelite sisters back when they wanted to build a Catholic convent in front of Auschwitz. Do not understand this either?

WilliB - "Preaching islam at the site of 2 islamic terror attacks is simply not the right location."

That's your opinion.

That's all it is.

Many people beg to disagree with your opinion and believe that building 2 blocks away from GZ is the right thing to do.

Oh, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution overrules your opinion.

Sorry.

WilliB - "Preaching islam at the site of 2 islamic terror attacks is simply not the right location. Regardless of what you think about islam."

Islam and the extreme form of Islam that was apparently behind the 9-11 attacks....were different.

They were not the same.

They were not the same.

They were not the same.

They were not the same........

Sob, sob! It's all just black and white to people like you, isn't it Sail?

I'm glad the Americans I know have the guts to look into and analyze issues like this a lot deeper than you do.

Here is my shallow superficial lack of guts to look at this deeper and analyze the issue opinion.

Ever watch the movie "Schindlers List"? Pretty powerful movie on all levels. If you had German friends coming over from Germany and staying over at your house, would you put that in your DVD player and say, "Hey guess what we are going to watch tonight, get on the couch and get comfy"?

After all Germans need to be reminded of their past so as not to repeat it and your just doing your German guests a favor, though they may not realize it at the time. But soon after when they have a chance to talk among themselves in private and analyze your good intentions and good works, I'm sure they would appreciate your gesture...................

Or they might have just a little different reaction, maybe the same one that I had along the lines of when I heard they were going to build a Mosque near Ground Zero........ Which was you've got to be kidding, what's next an American aviation museum In Hiroshima??

In my opinion this is about respect and decency for the loss of life due to tragic and horrible circumstances. Circumstances that should be discussed and debated, circumstances that should be remembered in the ebb and flow of history and the lessons learned for future generations to ponder.

And these intense debates and discussions should be respectful of the very areas that spawned them in the first place. Ground Zero and the surrounding evirons should be one of those areas where respect for the loss of life comes first and foremost and political debates and protests regarding the events and circumstances of 9/11 or building anything that would be a magnet to attract such debates or protests in the area should be a no go.

I guess you can call me an 'extremist' along with the 70 percent of my fellow Countrymen on this one.

there are more messages about this incident than there were about the Times Square incident. Remember, he was just one guy.. Oh, the fort hood guy was just one guy, yet, when its them, this board goes off the handle. Skip is right again.

Sail, so I guess you're saying the feelings and sensitivities of a bunch of 9-11 families should take precedence over the First Amendment? I'm so glad you're not in any position of power, Sail. If you were, long-standing laws would likely be overturned on a whim or whenever a group expressed strong enough grievances against them. Sail, your desire to see this mosque moved shows clearly that you simply aren't considering the ramifications carefully enough.

Sushi, its so rare to hear you actually saying something in support of the US constitution. So often its merely a document that gets in your way. Seeing you hiding behind it is an amusing change. Guess its just a matter of convenience for you. If it fits with what you want, then the constitution is this holy document that cannot be abridged, if it gets in the way, then it doesn't matter.

Molenir, heh, if you had been paying attention, you'd have seen I've been one of the strongest non-American proponents for abiding by your Constitution on this site. It's just sad that non-Americans like me have to waste time telling people like you and Sailwind to follow your own country's founding document. Do you want to try and distort facts again by refuting this?

It's just sad that non-Americans like me have to waste time telling people like you and Sailwind to follow your own country's founding document" Well, don't waste your time. We care about you stressing out. Take a vacation

sailwind: It's to [sic] bad that they are not exercising that right to build a 13 story hospital funded completely by Muslim charities and staffed mainly by Muslim Doctors and Nurses to provide free medical care for the families of the 9/11 victims for life, along with an emergency trauma center to treat victims of the next terrorist attack.

"They" are not responsible for the attacks. But it's a good idea and I'm surprised that Glenn Beck hasn't already established such a hospital there.

To people like Sailwind, every Muslim and their dog are in some way responsible for 9-11, even the billion-plus that weren't. Again, individuals like Sailwind need to put a bit more mental horsepower into this issue.

sailwind: It's to [sic] bad that they are not exercising that right to build a 13 story hospital funded completely by Muslim charities and staffed mainly by Muslim Doctors and Nurses to provide free medical care for the families of the 9/11 victims for life, along with an emergency trauma center to treat victims of the next terrorist attack.

That smacks of the kind of condecension of the kind when a white would tell a black person, "You're one of the good ones," or "You're a real credit to your race."

Yeah, a hospital would be a real credit to the Islamic faith. The egos and expectations of angry white people have to be met with the proper amount of bowing and scraping.

The "sacredness" of Ground Zero is going to diminish over time almost to the point of how white folks feel when a native American tries to tell them not to build something on or near land that they regard as sacred. It's especially painful and frustrating for whites to have their vaunted "constitution" and property rights laws put back at them.

I feel sorry for the cabbie. He shouldn't be held accountable for terrorism or the mosque debate. It was terrible and I hope the attacker is charged according to the law. Many muslims are innocent and good people. Too bad about the bad apples that have led us to this kind of blowback. But what's to be expected with all that is happening in NY these days?

Too bad about the bad apples that have led us to this kind of blowback. But what's to be expected with all that is happening in NY these days?

Ah. So it is about blowback, after all!

Perhaps the stabber should be required to render community service to the New York Muslim community. The Park51 Islamic Center will be ideal for that, and for any others tempted to act upon "this kind of blowback."

yabits, good idea.

They were not the same.

They were not the same.

They were not the same.

They were not the same........

This is a tactic of PC drones, keep chanting the mantra and hope that everyone accepts it as truth. I note that Islamic apologists are always throwing down the gauntlet to those wary of Islam - "PROVE that Islam is violent" etc. Well here's a poser SushiSake3, how does the Islam of the 9/11 terrorists differ from mainstream Islam? And if you manage to explain that, how about explaining how those terrorists, and thousands like them, got to misunderstand so badly the religion they devoted their lives (and deaths) to?

I note that Islamic apologists are always throwing down the gauntlet to those wary of Islam

I note that those who see no rational reason to be wary of mainstream Islam -- aka: educated people -- are constantly being tagged as Islamic "apologists."

Well here's a poser SushiSake3, how does the Islam of the 9/11 terrorists differ from mainstream Islam?

First of all, the hundreds of Muslims who are trained airline pilots are not flying their planes into buildings. Mainstream Islam is represented by those who were victims on 9/11 as well as those who were among the first responders.

...and thousands like them..

Yeah, two to three thousand -- maybe -- out of 1.7 billion. Ever heard of statistical analysis? The rate is around one suicidal radical for every 800,000 mainstream types. For those numbers you're going to be "wary?"

Crazy

@yabits

Muslims may be rational, but Islam is not. That's why there are, as you admit, 2 or 3 thousand "suicidal radicals" at large. Rational Muslims can't challenge them head-on because the "radicals" are the ones on sound Islamic ideological ground. Besides, you think 2 or 3 thousand "suicidal radicals" is nothing to be wary of? Sounds like you're suicidal yourself.

aka: educated people

If you educated yourself about Islam you'd realise that rational Muslims (the majority) are the biggest victims of that hateful ideology.

Besides, you think 2 or 3 thousand "suicidal radicals" is nothing to be wary of?

This statement looks like it comes from a very thick person. Let's try again; maybe it will sink in this time:

It is irrationally dumb to be wary of 800,000 people on the basis of one of them being a suicidal radical. You can take any sample audience of that many humans and find a suicidal nutcase among them. It has nothing to do with religion.

If you educated yourself about Islam you'd realise that rational Muslims (the majority) are the biggest victims of that hateful ideology.

I grew up in Dearborn around plenty of Muslims. I know from years of personal experience that Islam is not a hateful ideology. Who are you to say otherwise?

It is irrationally dumb to be wary of 800,000

I see you're cranking up the insults yabits.

If you took the time to read my posts you'd notice that I'm not particularly wary of Muslims, but of Islam, the ideology that acts as a catalyst for the 'suicidal radicals' you mention.

I grew up in Dearborn around plenty of Muslims. I know from years of personal experience that Islam is not a hateful ideology.

And I grew up in a town with about 5000 Kashmir Muslims, of whom some are still close friends. But even some of my friends think that women should be stoned to death for adultery. It's Islam that makes otherwise sane people think like that.

SushiSake: Oh, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution overrules your opinion.

There are 2 issues, the legal issue and the taste issue. Someone can easily agree that there is no legal problem with the mosque but question the decision to put it there. I know you personally enjoy hammering the Constitution issue because it's nice mental masturbation for you while talking to Americans, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone pull out the Constitution to overrule a question of taste before.

There was even an article from American Muslims questioning the decision, but I didn't notice you posting on that thread. I was...shocked. :)

I can't recall ever seeing so many Americans so willing to let their emotional fretting convince them that a part of their own Constitution be subverted. Superlib, you can talk about taste and sensitivities all day - it will still be irrelevant to the need in this case to abide by the Constitution. And again, I have no idea why myself, a non-American, shouldhave to waste time pointing this out to Americans.

Oh, and Superlib, hammering the Constitution issue isn't 'mental masturbation,' it's an attempt to ensure Americans abide by their own laws. I know you were pointlessly flaming with that commemt, but I just thought I would point it out.

Muchakucha: This is a tactic of PC drones, keep chanting the mantra and hope that everyone accepts it as truth.

This is a tactic of drones of all stripe. If I had to look for original thinkers, I would look for people who could back up their arguments with reasonably cogent, non-prejudicial observations. I don't see much of that among the "anti-mosque" crowd here.

Muslims may be rational, but Islam is not.

Ask almost any atheist and they will tell you that no system which believes in God is rational. Christianity is certainly not, especially fundamentalist Christianity. Whilst we're all sitting around waiting for the Rapture (if it hasn't already come--and wouldn't that account for a lot!), I don't think we ought to be depriving Muslims of a place of worship on account of the irrationality of their religion.

SuperLib: There are 2 issues, the legal issue and the taste issue.

I think the problem is that anyone can claim that something is in poor taste. Jimi Hendrix' rendition of The Star Spangled Banner was met with widespread criticism that it was in poor taste. Hendrix' reaction was that he thought his version was beautiful. I think it was, too. But against the back-drop of Woodstock, drugs, the Love Generation and the Vietnam War, it was too much for some people.

Personally, I think that much the same thing is happening here. But I also think that, just as with Hendrix, a good number of the people who subscribe to the "bad taste" theory have been guided by their initial reaction and then swept along by the winds of prejudice. It is their "impression" that it is in bad taste, an impression formed without having done the research. If you listen to the arguments against that are listed here, the arguments do not confine themselves to "bad taste". They range far and wide into anti-Muslim rants. The "bad taste" becomes "bad taste because Muslim".

So I think there is a third issue. That issue would be what really is driving the antipathy toward an Islamic Community Center (with mosque) that we can guess would not be driving plans for a Christian Community Center? But even if there were not a third issue, part of the bad taste issue would have to include the observation that there are those who believe that using a rapidly aging grief as an excuse to prevent construction is in bad taste and that an American failing to put aside differences in religion is in bad taste.

A couple of thousand years ago the maxim was that de gustibus non est disputandum. So, how does one resolve differences regarding taste? By popular vote? I think that in a society of laws, the only real way is the law. I don't think that anyone questions the right of New York City or the Borough of Manhattan to pass a non-prejudicial zoning ordinance which would mean that the center could not be built. I think it's sad that the "anti-mosque" crowd is so rabid about this issue, even sadder that they are complaining to the wrong people. They should be picketing the Mayor's office or the City Zoning Board.

Sezwho, you are bang on the mark. Taste is, of course, a purely subjective perception and partly why we have concrete laws tooverride any differences in it. What I don't understand is why so many Americans want to subvert their own laws to stop the construction of this mosque. I think a part of the reason is blind ignorance, and a good part of the rest of the reason is what I believe you were hinting in your last post - outright racism against a type of people the Mosque opponents either cannot be bothered, or refuse to even attempt, to understand.

Ask almost any atheist and they will tell you that no system which believes in God is rational.

I am an athiest. All religions may say irrational things about the afterlife etc, but it's Islam's ideas about worldly life that's the problem. One by-product of this mosque issue is that many more people will research Islam and hopefully take steps to ensure that medieaval Sharia doesn't make it to the statute books.

By contrast, Neda Bolourchi of Los Angeles, a native of Iran whose mother was on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, opposes the plan.

“I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not,” she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. “To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother’s grave, and let her rest.”

I am in total agreement with Ms.Bolourchi, but I guess since she is a Muslim and I agree with her and support her 100 percent on this, the meme will now be to try to make her out as some sort on Islamic Uncle Tom for those who just keep on playing the race card over and over and over again.

Muchakucha, if you are an atheist and an American, you have far more to fear about Christianity's idea of worldly life than you that Sharia law takes root in America. Fear of being taken over by Muslim ideology is just about the least rational reason that I have heard to oppose construction of the mosque.

sailwind, Neda Bolourchi makes a strong appeal, but it is only that--an appeal. She takes the liberty of describing the construction as an ideological monument. Obviously she has a similar point of view as those who speak of it as the Victory Mosque. Yet, what is there in any of the communications of those who plan to build the community center that would indicate this is the case. She and others are projecting.

She fears that the construction would become a symbol of Muslim victory to militants around the world. And indeed, that might be the case. But what will those militants think of their victory when they discover that what is actually being preached at the mosque is an Americanized and moderate version of Islam and that militant Islam is not welcome?

She fears that it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, but why would it? More importantly, how would it do that in the United States?

Bolourchi at least does us the credit of calling for the site to be a faith-free zone. She does not want any religion to be represented there. And that is something that cannot be said of those who oppose the construction because it is Islamic.

Again, sure, oppose the construction. But the people to lobby against are not the people who plan to build on land they have purchased and the reason to oppose is not some trumped up "lack of taste". The people to register your protests with are city officials and the reason to oppose is that the site should remain faith free. Protesting the Muslim developers just shows anti-Muslim sentiment.

you have far more to fear about Christianity's idea of worldly life

Why? America has operated under a broadly Christian set of values since the beginning.

But anyway, Sharia Law is already in effect in parts of the UK. Muslim women in those places now have effectly no recourse to the law of the land. Instead, issues such as domestic violence are judged in Sharia courts according to Sharia values. Since wife beating is not only tolerated in the Koran but advocated (4:34) those women have little or no protection. As Islam makes further inroads into US life (and this mosque is a huge stepping stone) the full impact must be studied, or else the US will end up in the same sort of mess as the UK.

When a white attacks a person of color all hell breaks loose and there is talk of "hate crime" and all politicians chime in to score political points with the ghetto. When a person of color attacks a white, it is an everyday event that goes unheard of unless of course it is a blonde haired woman or child. Almost like it should be understood to "take out" the white man.

Sezwho - "The people to register your protests with are city officials and the reason to oppose is that the site should remain faith free. Protesting the Muslim developers just shows anti-Muslim sentiment."

Do you think people like Sailwind would actually understand this?

I somehow doubt it....

Muchakucha: America has operated under a broadly Christian set of values since the beginning.

Quite true. However, when I said that you have more to fear from Christianity than Islam, as far as the law is concerned, I am saying there is a greater danger that narrow Christian values will be imposed on our laws than there is that Sharia law will become the basis of our legal code.

SushiSake: Superlib, you can talk about taste and sensitivities all day

...and it still wouldn't get through to you. I understand. It would take time and attention away from your points about the Constitution which represent an excellent opportunity for you to attack Americans. That why you waste our time. Oops...I mean waste your time. And oops again...I said attack Americans....I meant to say help Americans. Did I get that right? Wasting your time to help Americans? I get your bullshit mixed up sometimes.

SezWho: a good number of the people who subscribe to the "bad taste" theory have been guided by their initial reaction and then swept along by the winds of prejudice. It is their "impression" that it is in bad taste, an impression formed without having done the research.

That's your opinion. And for sure, on a place like Japan Today, you'd be correct some of the time. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that people like WillB aren't prejudice. But to claim that it's about a lack of research for the others isn't a fair argument. That means there is only one answer when it comes to taste, one right answer, and that would be your answer. Either that or you're denying the issue of appropriateness of location altogether. If that's the case, then I disagree.

I still think they have the legal right to build the center. I won't try to stop them. But making reservations about the location doesn't automatically equate to intolerance.

SuperLib: But to claim that it's about a lack of research for the others isn't a fair argument. That means there is only one answer when it comes to taste, one right answer, and that would be your answer.

No, the argument is totally fair. You would be right to say that the argument is frail since no proof is offered. But then you would have to let it go at that if you could not offer proof to the contrary. And I certainly don't see that in your post.

You are right, though, that such is my opinion. However, I didn't claim that people who oppose the construction have failed to do the research. I claimed that "a good number" of them have so failed. Are you of the opinion that those who claim the construction to be in bad taste are, for the most part, well-informed?

Be that as it may, my argument certainly does not imply that there is only one answer when it comes to taste. In fact, I think I have said that the protest against the mosque is, in my opinion, incredibly bad taste. And I said where tastes collide, law must prevail.

As for location, sure, it's an issue. People have made it an issue. The motives of these people are also an issue. "Bad taste" is simply too convenient as a cover for other motives. I think there are very few people who would initiate a construction project that obtrudes on a normal period of grieving. I think that most people are even willing to carry the emotional freight for bereaved friends for a substantial period of time. But after nine years we do, in good taste, require those whose only bond with us is common citizenship, to respect the law and not erect barriers to our own pursuits.

Of course making reservations about location doesn't automatically equate to intolerance. However, the America that I see, with minority exception, either has its knives out for Islam or else avoids it as much as is seemly. Making reservations about location doesn't automatically equate to making reservations about location, either.

SezWho: Are you of the opinion that those who claim the construction to be in bad taste are, for the most part, well-informed?

I have no idea what you mean by "well-informed." My guess is that you're using some of the comments from specific people from this board, but I'm not 100% sure. I'd prefer it if the site were built somewhere else because I think it's in bad taste, but I'm not going to try to stop it. Either you'll believe that to be an honest statement or you'll believe that I'm covering for racism.

"Bad taste" is simply too convenient as a cover for other motives.

And "too convenient as a cover for other motives" is simply too convenient to sidestep the issue of taste, which can be a legitimate argument by some. I think it's fair to have some skepticism, but at this point it sounds as if you won't even listen to arguments about taste and in that respect you've gone too far.

However, the America that I see, with minority exception, either has its knives out for Islam or else avoids it as much as is seemly.

Which could be evidence of your own bias which is forming your opinions. Perhaps the mosque is a personal issue for you, one where you see it as a way to exact a little payback on the people you perceive to be anti-Islamic. The problem is that we don't know how exactly pure your intentions are, regardless of what you say. Same boat as the protesters?

SuperLib: I have no idea what you mean by "well-informed."

I think the meaning is ordinary. Do people really know about Islam or do they believe the nonsense that is written about it? Do they know about Islam in America? Do they know who Rauf is? Have they heard what he really says? Do they really know the purpose of the site? Do they realize where the site actually is and its visibility from the site of the former Towers? And so on. If you think that I am saying that people are racists if they object to this site as being in bad taste, you aren't reading carefully enough. When arguments about bad taste are unattended with a plea to keep this a faith-free zone and when they are attended with anti-Muslim screed, that is where I become concerned about the "bad taste" argument.

And "too convenient as a cover for other motives" is simply too convenient to sidestep the issue of taste, which can be a legitimate argument by some. I think it's fair to have some skepticism, but at this point it sounds as if you won't even listen to arguments about taste and in that respect you've gone too far.

I have never sidestepped the issue of taste. And you're right that it can be a legitimate argument "by some". I don't know why you think that I won't listen to arguments about taste. I've listened. I just haven't agreed. The arguments about taste are weak: "respect the families' feelings", "too soon", "too close", "that religion". I don't think any of these hold up under scrutiny. Operating against the families wishes shows no disrespect for their feelings; nine years is a suitable grieving period for a public place that has not been declared a memorial zone; if a non-visible building two blocks from Ground Zero is too close, then what eats at the heart is not the building but the idea and the idea cannot be removed from the heart no matter where construction takes place; it is that it is an Islamic center that has drawn the flak and in a country that respects all religions that cannot be and among a people who profess tolerance that should not be.

Perhaps the mosque is a personal issue for you, one where you see it as a way to exact a little payback on the people you perceive to be anti-Islamic.

Well, that jibe might make sense considering that you seem to have thought that I am accusing you of racism. However, sure, it's quite possible that someone with the same opinions as mine could be looking for payback. So what? I am definitely not un-biased. No matter what I say you have to make a judgment about my intentions. Historically you seem perceive me as someone who disses America and supports our enemies. No matter what I say, I wouldn't be surprised if you filter my remarks through that lens. So, yes, it is a matter of judgment. You continue to say that the 70% of Americans who object to the "bad taste" of the proposed site don't necessarily have any prejudice. I say that is perfectly true. But I say that attempting to thwart the innocent on account of the religion of the guilty casts a heavy pall of doubt on some unmeasured and largely unmeasurable portion of the protesters.

Superlib, you're still not paying attention. As I have said before, 'poor taste' is no reason to subvert the U.S. Constitution. If you want to continue your thoughtless point that my urging of Americans to simply abide by their own Constitution is somehow an 'attack' on Americans and 'bullshit' (your words), be my guest. But you do so at the risk of losing even more credibility than you already have.

Sushi loves the part in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right of Muslims to open a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero, no matter that it shows extremely poor judgment and is in extremely bad taste.

Sarge, thanks for proving my point. You let your side down yet again. At least you didn't say 'Ground Zero Mosque' - I'll give you that much. :-)

Pat Condell, a left-wing athiest activist who's disgusted at the way 'liberals' refuse to critcise misogynistic, homophobic, confrontational and violent Islam, has some excellent points to make about the mosque (which, SushiSake3, is part of Ground Zero since it took a hit from one of the planes.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk&feature=player_embedded

Um, Muchakucha...are violent Muslims behind this mosque? No. they are not, hence your last post is irrelevant to this discussion.

"Preaching islam at the site of 2 islamic terror attacks is simply not the right location."

People wonder why Islam gets a bad rap?

Sez, I'm going to tighten up the conversation before it gets out of control. The fact is that I believe one can feel the location is inappropriate without racism being the motivation. You may not feel that it's insensitive, but I think you go a bit too far when you tell others that they shouldn't feel that it's insensitive. That really is a matter of opinion.

SushiSake: Superlib, you're still not paying attention. As I have said before, 'poor taste' is no reason to subvert the U.S. Constitution

I've only said a half-dozen times or so that they have every legal right to build the mosque and I won't try to stop them. Is that the evidence you're using to claim my "poor taste" argument is a way to subvert the Constitution?

The Constitution is fine and it will continue to be fine. It's not going anywhere so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Believe it or not some people might want to discuss the appropriateness of the location without wanting to shotgun the entire document.

If location does not matter at all, would a mosque smack be in the middle of the WTC site be OK then too?

Just in case anybody would be interested, Mr. Sharif the Muslim cab driver and victim of this attack had this to say about The Mosque located....sheesh, what is the politically correct term this week, How about the "Proposed Islamic Community Center and Mosque located with-in a two block radius of Ground Zero well away from the the actual impact site but still within the Debris field and Kill zone and which the building was badly was badly damaged afterwards".......

Mr. Sharif as qouted in the New York Times......

Mr. Sharif, who lives in Jamaica, Queens, with his wife and four children, came to the United States about 25 years ago and was a cook before becoming a cabdriver 15 years ago. He said nothing of this nature had happened to him before. Recently, some passengers asked him about the center planned near ground zero, he recalled, and he replied that he was against it, that there was no need to put it there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/nyregion/26cabby.html?pagewanted=all

Please feel free to explain to him why he is wrong also on this.

SuperLib: You may not feel that it's insensitive, but I think you go a bit too far when you tell others that they shouldn't feel that it's insensitive.

I think you go a bit too far when you say that I go too far in telling others something that I didn't tell them. I have no problem with people feeling that it's insensitive. My problem is with people who want to put a stop to the construction project on account of their feelings. And my suspicion is that a significant number of those feelings derive from prejudice and not from norms of good taste.

I believe to be wrong those who think that this proposed construction is insensitive. I would argue against their assertions that it is insensitive. But I don't see where I have ever told anyone that they shouldn't have their feelings. I think that rather consistently I have maintained that I can respect their feelings and still support the construction of the cultural center. What I think that people should not do is to entertain the illogical proposition that because I support the construction project I do not understand their feelings.

If location does not matter at all, would a mosque smack be in the middle of the WTC site be OK then too?

As far as a hypothetical is concerned, that one is really far out but also interesting. I wonder how you could convince Silverstein to do that... And if you do convince him to build a mosque on HIS site, what do you think the answer would be? It's HIS building, HIS land, HIS leases to retail and office spaces... What do you think?

part of Ground Zero since it took a hit from one of the planes.

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has denied landmark status for the building which means that the building holds no special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of New York City, New York State or the nation.

@SushiSake3

A link to a video discussing the mosque isn't relevant to this discussion? Cover your ears and keep chanting your mantra...

Muchakucha - "A link to a video discussing the mosque isn't relevant to this discussion?"

No, discussing violent Muslims in relation to this mosque is irrelevant.

@PeaceWarrior

That's their opinion, which many people disagree with. But of course, the letter of the law and the opinions of petty officials are now the only thing that matters to 'liberals'. More convervative than the conservatives.

Muchakucha - "But of course, the letter of the law and the opinions of petty officials are now the only thing that matters to 'liberals'."

Almost right.

The letter of the law, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters.

The letter of the law, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters.

It's so scary, and so sad, that you think that way.

SezWho: I believe to be wrong those who think that this proposed construction is insensitive.

And there are those who will say that you are wrong. It's a matter of opinion.

SuperLib: And there are those who will say that you are wrong. It's a matter of opinion.

No kidding!

I can only hope that most of the people who say I'm wrong at least know what I have and have not said. Judging from the comments on this board, that doesn't seem to be the case with people who assess Rauf's words. In any case, where opinions differ, the law--rather than arbitrary notions of taste--should prevail.

Muchakucha: But of course, the letter of the law and the opinions of petty officials are now the only thing that matters to 'liberals'.

You can't be serious. Do you think that "liberals"--whatever that term means--are silent on issues like abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, immigration, domestic intelligence-gathering and foreign wars? Or do you think they oppose laws they believe to be wrong?

Of course people's opinions matter. However, one of the reasons that we are a country of law is to prevent the tyranny of the majority in individual cases. For example, if a majority of people believe it to be in bad taste or morally wrong for a homosexual male couple to raise a child, they cannot employ their taste or morals to put a stop to this situation nor can they force the couple to move on down the road. They can, if they choose the low road, make life hell for the couple and their child, but only within the limits of the law.

As of August 20, visitors to the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance in LA showed 37% support and 62% disapproval of the planned construction. I can see where such visitors might be more liberal than the nation as a whole, but still the numbers are fairly close to those reported nationwide. This is exactly the situation that the law is designed to protect. To me, it is morally repugnant that 70% of the population should enforce their "taste" on a 30% minority. In that sense, law is the only thing that matters.

SuahiSake3: "The letter of the law, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters."

Muchakucha - "It's so scary, and so sad, that you think that way."?

Sad? Are you saying that following the law is sad?

Have you thought through the alternative?

Unreal response....

What's that? Are we seeing the violent radicalization of Americans against Muslims? Hypocrites!

Muchakucha, in one post you write this:

A link to a video discussing the mosque isn't relevant to this discussion? Cover your ears and keep chanting your mantra...

Then immediately after you write this:

That's their opinion, which many people disagree with. But of course, the letter of the law and the opinions of petty officials are now the only thing that matters to 'liberals'. More convervative than the conservatives.

You are kind of guilty of what you were saying in your first post. You are covering your ears to the fact that the law and the decisions of a commission paid to examine and come up with recommendations for NY's actual benefit is more important than your own opinions. That's kind of sad, isn't it?

"hate-crimes reported against Muslims"

"hate-crime categories"

""anti-Semitic"

"anti-gay"

"anti-black"

What about anti-white, anti-straight, anti-Christian, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian...

@sushisake3

I think it's 'unbelievable' that you fail to see the distinction between morals and legislation. It seem you think that no law should be questioned, no politician's decision challenged. Orwellian, totalitarian conformity seems to be your bag.

"hate-crimes"

"2001 terrorist attacks"

The 2001 terrorist attacks were the mother of all hate-crimes.

a baby-faced college student who had traveled to Afghanistan with a group that seeks to promote interfaith understanding

He had an interesting way of promoting interfaith understanding, didn't he?

sarge

What about anti-white, anti-straight, anti-Christian, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian...

they don't count..

Muchakucha: I think it's 'unbelievable' that you fail to see the distinction between morals and legislation. It seem you think that no law should be questioned, no politician's decision challenged. Orwellian, totalitarian conformity seems to be your bag.

I don't think you have one shred of evidence to support the notion that the writer in question sees no distinction between morals and legislation or that he seems to think that no law should be questioned, etc. Americans are very fortunate to live in a country which honors the rule of law so that we are not victims of morality du jour.

So Sez, as WillB asked, would you support an Islamic Cultural Center on the 9-11 site itself?

What about anti-white, anti-straight, anti-Christian, anti-Hispanic, anti-Asian...

they don't count..

Really? The FBI counts them, it's not hard to simply google, sigh.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm

Oh, and Superlib, hammering the Constitution issue isn't 'mental masturbation,' it's an attempt to ensure Americans abide by their own laws. I know you were pointlessly flaming with that commemt, but I just thought I would point it out.

But you seem to believe that the Constitution is "outdated" when it comes to any incident that involves a shooting in America. You are such a hypocrite sometimes. One day it's outdated and the next you are "educating Americans" about their constitution. Get a clue Sushi. You can't seem to understand what some are telling you about recognizing people's rights but questioning their judgement. You however have a 2 faced approach to anything that has to do with the USA when you pompously "educate" Americans on their own laws. Everyone feels sorry for this cabbie getting knifed. But you turn it into "Americans are racist and uneducated". You are the bigot here.

mikehuntz: You can't seem to understand what some are telling you about recognizing people's rights but questioning their judgement.

Sushi understands the difference. He's a propagandist, not an idiot. He's often disingenuous because it gives him more ammo to attack Americans.

SuperLib: So Sez, as WillB asked, would you support an Islamic Cultural Center on the 9-11 site itself?

I'm sorry. Did WilliB ask me that question? Has somebody proposed a Cultural Center there? Did the city of New York change it's mind about having a memorial and museum there?

This strikes me as an extremely silly question. So let me answer it like this: I doubt that there is any American Muslim group which has any ambition to build on the site of the former Towers. But if somebody wanted to build an Islamic Cultural Center there--and if the City of New York approved it--it would be OK with me. I personally feel that a modest memorial is appropriate at that site, not that NYC is into modesty.

@SezWho2

In response to my concerns of taste, and whether the site of the mosque is or isn't part of Ground Zero, the only responses I got were of the crass "IT'S THE LAW, GET OVER IT" variety. I was merely pointing out how ludicrous that is, since everybody challenges the law and politicians' decisions from time to time.

Muchakucha, I get your point. But as far as I can see your only post on this thread that was even remotely related to "taste", was the one you made about 10 posts ago (counting everyone's posts). This post has the effect of being a response to those who claim it's a matter of law, rather than the other way around.

In any event, you are right that everyone challenges the law from time to time. But I think you err when you suggest that the sum and substance of objections to the "bad taste" argument is "it's the law, get over it". There have been many counter arguments--first, that it is not in bad taste, that those who claim it is so have failed to show why it is and that perhaps claims of "bad taste" themselves are in bad taste; second, that what is really operating is prejudice combined with more than a little ignorance of what Islam is; third, that the majority's claims about "bad taste" are insufficient grounds to thwart the actions of a sizable minority; and so on.