This Moment of Pure Bigotry Brought to You By Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller

Wingnuts • Views: 4,258

Here’s an account of a demonstration against the proposed community center/mosque in downtown Manhattan, featuring anti-Muslim bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller: On this ground, zero tolerance.

The following appalling incident perfectly demonstrates the pure bigotry that motivates the Spencer/Geller crowd; the angry mob turned on a pair of men who looked a little bit too Arab for them.

“We must take a stand and we must say no,” shouted rally organizer Pamela Geller as the crowd roared approval. Moments later, another keynote speaker, Robert Spencer, sparked more cheers when he asked, “Are you tired of being lied to?”

Spencer, however, did not explain precisely what lies he was referring to.

Many protesters held American flags. Many carried signs.

“A Mosque at Ground Zero Spits on the Graves of 9/11,” one placard proclaimed. Another sign depicted a toilet, with this message: “This is a Mosque. Do You Want it Built at Ground Zero?”

At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.

“Go home,” several shouted from the crowd. “Get out,” others shouted.

In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called “The Way.” Both said they had come to protest the mosque.

“I’m a Christian,” Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.

But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.

“I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here,” a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.

Jump to bottom

187 comments
1 albusteve  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:14:53am

“I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here,” a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.

foolish man

2 Four More Tears  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:15:32am

A.) What they did to these two is reprehensible.
B.) These guys came to attend the rally and didn’t think this could happen???

3 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:16:35am

“Go home,” several shouted from the crowd.

“Get out,” others shouted.


Helen, is that you?
/

4 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:17:04am

I just got an incredible tip about the Turkish journalist who took the cropped photos. Working on a post now.

5 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:17:28am

Wow, I never thought I’d feel genuinely sorry for anyone who came to protest over this Outrageous Outrage, but I was wrong, those two Egyptian guys really got the short shit smeared end of the stick didn’t they?

6 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:17:29am

re: #2 JasonA

It is beyond belief to a Coptic Christian that someone would think they were pro-Muslim, I think.

The blindness and ignorance at the root of the treatment of these men is frightening. If we really are going to be prepared to deal with the threat of terrorism, having absolutely no clue who our real enemies are is not the way to do it.

Ugly ignorance, ugly racism. Not even racism. Inaccurate racism.

7 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:18:53am

re: #4 Charles

I just got an incredible tip about the Turkish journalist who took the cropped photos. Working on a post now.

Please hurry. I have to work soon!!

8 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:18:58am

The stalkers are now claiming that James Edwards of the Political Cesspool is not a white supremacist. Unbelievable. He’s right out in the open about it. His radio show regularly features David Duke. But they’re going to deny it anyway.

9 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:19:01am

re: #6 Obdicut

It is beyond belief to a Coptic Christian that someone would think they were pro-Muslim, I think.

The blindness and ignorance at the root of the treatment of these men is frightening. If we really are going to be prepared to deal with the threat of terrorism, having absolutely no clue who our real enemies are is not the way to do it.

Ugly ignorance, ugly racism. Not even racism. Inaccurate racism.

As Jon Stewart said

“Wow, that’s some lazy racism I mean I know racists have a tendency to be uniformed, but that’s like saying ‘Those Damn Mexicans and their crazy drivers who are good at math!”

10 prairiefire  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:19:42am

More protests, more chances to expose the Tea Party and far right’s faulty logic.
The ugliness has to rear its head to be seen by the broad populace.

11 Kefirah  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:20:11am

oh, america. what a bastion of tolerance.

it’s high time we stopped tolerating what basically accounts to faith.baiting and race.baiting from these two. i’m all about freedom of speech, first amendment rights, and such, but not when it inflames passions to the point of “fire in a theater.”

to see americans behave in such a manner shocks me [and it shouldn’t], and is eerily reminiscent of the segregated south or early anti.semitic riots.

again - protest all you want, but when people’s lives are threatened such that police have to swoop in to protect them…

bad crazy. with a potentially bad ending.

12 albusteve  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:20:18am

nine hour flight…and back, to protest a mosque….what a complete waste of time and money

13 Targetpractice  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:20:38am

I will never understand how these morons can’t see that protests like this do more to hurt their cause than help it.

14 Four More Tears  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:20:50am

Can we technically call this a Tea Party rally and hang it around their necks, though?

15 Kragar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:21:21am
Robert Spencer, sparked more cheers when he asked, “Are you tired of being lied to?”

YES!!!

But you won’t shut the fuck up Rob.

16 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:21:30am

re: #8 Charles

James Edwards joined Stormfront.org, a white nationalist and supremacist website, in 2004 under the screen name “ElectEdwards”, according to the website’s senior moderator, Jamie Kelso. As ElectEdwards, Edwards said that he was a “proud member” of Stormfront and that “[w]hile I rarely have had the time to post on Stormfront, there is never a day that passes that I don’t visit this site.” ElectEdwards credited Don Black with giving him “support”.[6]

and:

adl.org

Guests on the June 1 show included anti-Semitic professor Kevin MacDonald and white supremacist Virginia Abernethy. Show sponsors include the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial organization.

If that doesn’t count as a white supremacist, what does?

17 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:21:30am

re: #12 albusteve

nine hour flight…and back, to protest a mosque…what a complete waste of time and money

I’d walk a mile for a Camel.
//bad taste, that was.

18 albusteve  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:21:42am

re: #14 JasonA

Can we technically call this a Tea Party rally and hang it around their necks, though?

if you need to…do whatever you want

19 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:22:03am

re: #8 Charles

The stalkers are now claiming that James Edwards of the Political Cesspool is not a white supremacist. Unbelievable. He’s right out in the open about it. His radio show regularly features David Duke. But they’re going to deny it anyway.

Holistic Logic states that anything can be true as long as you maintain firm belief in the logical features that would need to be true to make your conclusions true.

Or

1: I’m not a racist.
2: I don’t like any racists.
Leading to 3: Person I like CAN’T be racist.


Or

He’s pinning for the fjords!

20 Reginald Perrin  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:23:20am

re: #8 Charles

The stalkers are now claiming that James Edwards of the Political Cesspool is not a white supremacist. Unbelievable. He’s right out in the open about it. His radio show regularly features David Duke. But they’re going to deny it anyway.

The stalker who posted that crap under the name Iapyx, is Pajamas Media contributor Larry Reisinger, aka Snork

21 Joo-LiZ  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:24:43am

Two thoughts pop in to my mind.

First, Geller and Spencer are terribly pathetic.

Second, I feel a profound sadness for incidents like this. I watched a 2005 interview between Christopher Hitchens and Jon Stewart the other day, and Hitchens said something quite profound — people need to realize, this isn’t a war between the West and Islam, but a civil war between different factions in the Middle East.

These people are ON OUR SIDE!!

It just seems like the worst sort of tragedy to alienate them.

22 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:25:44am

re: #8 Charles

The stalkers are now claiming that James Edwards of the Political Cesspool is not a white supremacist. Unbelievable. He’s right out in the open about it. His radio show regularly features David Duke. But they’re going to deny it anyway.

We’re through the looking glass on that one. Anyone who doubts that Edwards is a racist can CALL HIS SHOW AND ASK HIM! He cheerfully admits it; revels in it and profits from it.

It’s like denying that Obama is President. Oh, wait a minute…..

23 Bloodnok  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:26:51am

re: #4 Charles

I just got an incredible tip about the Turkish journalist who took the cropped photos. Working on a post now.

Awesome.

24 Varek Raith  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:26:56am

re: #8 Charles

The stalkers are now claiming that James Edwards of the Political Cesspool is not a white supremacist. Unbelievable. He’s right out in the open about it. His radio show regularly features David Duke. But they’re going to deny it anyway.

It’s confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt.
They live in Bizarro World.

25 AlexRogan  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:26:58am

re: #8 Charles

The stalkers are now claiming that James Edwards of the Political Cesspool is not a white supremacist. Unbelievable. He’s right out in the open about it. His radio show regularly features David Duke. But they’re going to deny it anyway.

That still doesn’t make them any less a bunch of batshit loony cranks that are quick to cover for other batshit loony cranks, racist or not….

To any of the stalkers aren’t considering themselves to be batshit loony cranks: Why are you hanging with and supporting those who are batshit loony cranks (and worse)?

/oh hai there!

26 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:27:02am

re: #22 Shiplord Kirel

Is WND still having their cruise?

27 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:27:12am

re: #21 Joo-LiZ

It really must make it seem, to them, that the US doesn’t actually care about the real situation in the Middle East, that we view everything in black and white. How are they supposed to trust us in our foreign engagements if we show this level of ignorance?

At least they can get some hope by the fact that the police came and protected them.

28 Bubblehead II  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:27:34am

Popped over to JW to see if spencer had anything up about this. He has a post up that contains a statement purportedly from Joseph Nassralla. You know the way if you want to read it. Regardless, those two were inciting a mob and it almost got out of hand.

29 Ericus58  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:29:52am

re: #21 Joo-LiZ

Two thoughts pop in to my mind.

First, Geller and Spencer are terribly pathetic.

Second, I feel a profound sadness for incidents like this. I watched a 2005 interview between Christopher Hitchens and Jon Stewart the other day, and Hitchens said something quite profound — people need to realize, this isn’t a war between the West and Islam, but a civil war between different factions in the Middle East.

These people are ON OUR SIDE!!

It just seems like the worst sort of tragedy to alienate them.

Spot On. Good observations.
I have concerns for the funding and behind the scenes support for the project, but inciting hatred is not welcome.
These two are just pot-stirring.

30 Joo-LiZ  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:29:58am

re: #27 Obdicut

It really must make it seem, to them, that the US doesn’t actually care about the real situation in the Middle East, that we view everything in black and white. How are they supposed to trust us in our foreign engagements if we show this level of ignorance?

At least they can get some hope by the fact that the police came and protected them.

I really hope that is the takeaway point they remember.

31 AlexRogan  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:30:46am

re: #26 Cannadian Club Akbar

Is WND still having their cruise?

Straight to the Ninth Circle of Hell

32 darthstar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:31:48am

re: #27 Obdicut

It really must make it seem, to them, that the US doesn’t actually care about the real situation in the Middle East, that we view everything in black and white. How are they supposed to trust us in our foreign engagements if we show this level of ignorance?

At least they can get some hope by the fact that the police came and protected them.

This is America. People shouldn’t need police protection just because they’re not white.

33 Joo-LiZ  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:31:59am

re: #29 Ericus58

Spot On. Good observations.
I have concerns for the funding and behind the scenes support for the project, but inciting hatred is not welcome.
These two are just pot-stirring.

As I said the other day, I’m not against a Mosque at Ground Zero in principle, but the funding needs to be carefully watched. No radical money, and no radical preaching, although that’d be harder to keep an eye on.

I actually think it would be great if they could find some sort of pro-Western Imam to run the place. It would be the perfect response to the bigotry, to have a moderating influence close to Ground Zero.

34 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:32:06am

re: #8 Charles

This is Kevin MacDonald, guest on Political Cesspool:

MacDonald has asserted that anti-Semitism, including the anti-Jewish hatred exhibited by the Nazis and those who carried out the Spanish Inquisition, is a “rational” response to Judaism. MacDonald also regularly argues that Jews are a “hostile elite” in American society who undermine the country’s European heritage and traditions in an effort to “destroy Europeans.” According to MacDonald, Jews maintain their elite position by fostering non-white immigration into America to alter the country’s “racial hierarchy” and by creating intellectual movements that weaken ethnic European identity.


Not only is he a vicious bigot, he’s just dead wrong. On the bus this morning I saw Americans of vastly different races and colors and I was glad because that is a great strength of the United States.

35 AlexRogan  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:32:34am

re: #17 Cannadian Club Akbar

I’d walk a mile for a Camel.
//bad taste, that was.

But, a Chesterfield satisfies…

;-P

36 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:32:42am

re: #32 darthstar

This is America. People shouldn’t need police protection just because they’re not white.

I’ll need to see their papers, though.
/

37 RogueOne  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:33:04am

re: #31 talon_262

Straight to the Ninth Circle of Hell

I named my dobe Dante after that book.

38 ReamWorks SKG  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:33:26am

Of course, the people attending this rally are fools, but that has to also include these two Chr-stians who were also there to protest the mosque! It’s hard for me to feel to sorry for them. You hang out with fools, you take your risks.

39 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:35:56am

re: #8 Charles

The stalkers are now claiming that James Edwards of the Political Cesspool is not a white supremacist. Unbelievable. He’s right out in the open about it. His radio show regularly features David Duke. But they’re going to deny it anyway.

Their hate of you has overwhelmed all reason.

[waves at the Stalkers]

40 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:37:06am

Great, now I’m having a horrible back and forth debate with myself…

On one hand those two people were almost beset upon by an angry mob to the point that the intervention of law enforcement officials may have been the only reason that they got home without being attacked. The catnip smoking Kumbyah singing liberal side of me knows that this is a horrific treatment that nobody should ever have to go through…

Yet on the other hand these people came to protest for a cause that I don’t believe in and frankly detest because of the fact that it seems to ignore that there are more than one kind of Muslim in the world. The way those two people were set upon by the crowd that they wanted to be members of, it has an almost Twilight Zone quality of horrific justice to it, like if a member of the KKK woke up one day to find out they were black. By being set upon by that angry crowd might those two men have learned an important lesson about the dangers of mindless intolerance and how sooner or later blind hatred can’t be channeled to achieve your ends without risking it turning on you……

I mean if those two people had just been residents passing by this would be open and shut and obvious…

But now I’m torn between wanting to wrap those two men in a blanket and coo about how they’re safe now and nothing bad will happen to them, and wanting to smirkingly say that they got what was coming to them.


What do you guys think?

41 KingKenrod  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:37:12am

re: #28 Bubblehead II

Popped over to JW to see if spencer had anything up about this. He has a post up that contains a statement purportedly from Joseph Nassralla. You know the way if you want to read it. Regardless, those two were inciting a mob and it almost got out of hand.

Mike Kelly’s description of the incident stinks to high heaven. I know bad reporting when I read it. You are so right, the focus should stay on the two morons in charge.

42 Bloodnok  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:38:09am

“Leaving Reality? Got Questions? Get Answers” - PG’s face (as always) prominently displayed. Now that’d be a useful bus ad.

43 Four More Tears  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:39:36am

re: #42 Bloodnok

“Leaving Reality? Got Questions? Get Answers” - PG’s face (as always) prominently displayed. Now that’d be a useful bus ad.

Please, I don’t need to see her face whizzing by on the sides of buses in Midtown.

44 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:39:39am

re: #35 talon_262

But, a Chesterfield satisfies…

;-P

My grandparents smoked Chesterfield unfiltered. They used to save the coupons in them. One time I used them to get an album titled ‘The Giants Win the Pennant!’

45 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:39:50am

re: #40 jamesfirecat

But now I’m torn between wanting to wrap those two men in a blanket and coo about how they’re safe now and nothing bad will happen to them, and wanting to smirkingly say that they got what was coming to them.

I rarely see a point in smirking.

Protesting the mosque is, I feel, foolish and misguided, but it’s a completely legal action, completely protected under US law. Being threatened to the point that the police need to intervene is not an acceptable response.

I guess I don’t even really understand your question. It has nothing to do with the ethical worth of these men. It seems to me you’re just positing a false dichotomy.

46 Bloodnok  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:40:16am

re: #43 JasonA

Please, I don’t need to see her face whizzing by on the sides of buses in Midtown.

You have a point there.

47 prairiefire  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:40:17am

re: #27 Obdicut

It really must make it seem, to them, that the US doesn’t actually care about the real situation in the Middle East, that we view everything in black and white. How are they supposed to trust us in our foreign engagements if we show this level of ignorance?

At least they can get some hope by the fact that the police came and protected them.

I thought how we treated the Kurds after Gulf War 1 was awful. We are now going to have many difficulties in Afghanistan.
There was the recent strike on the Afghan wedding party. 23 American soldiers killed in fighting there so far this month.

48 Rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:40:32am

In fairness, it seems that Mr. Nasrallah feels that the incident was blown out of proportion. He wrote a letter to Spencer and Geller to that effect:

There was a minor incident at the rally that was blown out of proportion, when my partner, Mr. Karam El Masry, and I were distributing material with some Quran verses and we were also speaking Arabic thus we were mistaken by a few people in the huge crown, for being Muslims infiltrators trying to disrupt the event. This misunderstanding was clarified when we explained who we were and that we are there to support the crowd against the building of the mosque. I was a little frustrated initially for being identified as a Muslim infiltrator, but was glad that the issue was resolved later. My partner, Mr. El Masry, was even able to freely speak to the crowd after our identity was clarified. He explained how Christians are tortured, killed and oppressed in Egypt at the hands of Muslims who are encouraged to persecute Christians from the pulpit of mosques by Muslim preachers.

The reason I am writing to you, is because I am very disappointed in the mainstream media who used this minor incident to make a blanket generalization about all the attendees of the rally as Muslim haters.This kind of generalization was unfair to the good American people who legitimately stand against the building of a mosque next to ground zero and who are against Islamist agenda in the US. I am very well aware of such an agenda which has destroyed the Christian and Jewish existence in the Middle East.

49 [deleted]  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:40:41am
50 albusteve  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:41:23am

re: #40 jamesfirecat

Great, now I’m having a horrible back and forth debate with myself…

On one hand those two people were almost beset upon by an angry mob to the point that the intervention of law enforcement officials may have been the only reason that they got home without being attacked. The catnip smoking Kumbyah singing liberal side of me knows that this is a horrific treatment that nobody should ever have to go through…

Yet on the other hand these people came to protest for a cause that I don’t believe in and frankly detest because of the fact that it seems to ignore that there are more than one kind of Muslim in the world. The way those two people were set upon by the crowd that they wanted to be members of, it has an almost Twilight Zone quality of horrific justice to it, like if a member of the KKK woke up one day to find out they were black. By being set upon by that angry crowd might those two men have learned an important lesson about the dangers of mindless intolerance and how sooner or later blind hatred can’t be channeled to achieve your ends without risking it turning on you…

I mean if those two people had just been residents passing by this would be open and shut and obvious…

But now I’m torn between wanting to wrap those two men in a blanket and coo about how they’re safe now and nothing bad will happen to them, and wanting to smirkingly say that they got what was coming to them.

What do you guys think?

I don’t…the entire gig is a joke, and everyone involved is a bonehead….it’s smaller than tiny

51 Kragar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:41:57am

Charles, I was checking some of the pages and it looks like an ad tracker kicked in somewhere in there. I tried to go back a thread and it kept redirecting me back to the page I was trying to leave.

52 darthstar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:42:03am

re: #44 NJDhockeyfan

The Giants Win the Pennant!’

Well, that’ll never happen again. :)

53 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:43:01am

re: #48 Rieux

Where’s that from?

Source?

Is he saying the police did not have to intervene?

54 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:44:47am

re: #45 Obdicut

I rarely see a point in smirking.

Protesting the mosque is, I feel, foolish and misguided, but it’s a completely legal action, completely protected under US law. Being threatened to the point that the police need to intervene is not an acceptable response.

I guess I don’t even really understand your question. It has nothing to do with the ethical worth of these men. It seems to me you’re just positing a false dichotomy.

My Dichotomy is between feeling sorry for these people and the horror they have endured, and feeling smugly satisfied about the horror they have endured because part of me wonders if they didn’t karmically have it coming…..

I’d probably feel similar if at an event protesting in favor of the new Arizona law the crowd turned in an equally unplesant (but without causing physical harm) on some legal immigrants who where there to protest in favor of the law.

Like I said, there seems to be a twilight zone kind of justice in the actions of an angry mob turning on its own members, and I’m not sure if I should embrace it or be sickened by it…..

55 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:45:17am

re: #48 Rieux

The reason I am writing to you, is because I am very disappointed in the mainstream media who used this minor incident to make a blanket generalization about all the attendees of the rally as Muslim haters.This kind of generalization was unfair to the good American people who legitimately stand against the building of a mosque next to ground zero and who are against Islamist agenda in the US. I am very well aware of such an agenda which has destroyed the Christian and Jewish existence in the Middle East.

Two points:

1. The actions of the attendees of the rally speak loud and clear as to their beliefs. There’s no need for any further embellishment from the mainstream media to highlight their bigotry.

2. They may or may not be good American people, but they don’t have any legitimate stand against the building of that mosque.

56 Varek Raith  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:48:00am

re: #48 Rieux

Would it be legitimate for me to oppose the construction of a Church based on the priest scandal?
Answer, no. Why? Because I’m broad brushing Christians. As Shrieking Harpy and Spencer are broad brushing Muslims.

57 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:48:09am

re: #54 jamesfirecat

My Dichotomy is between feeling sorry for these people and the horror they have endured, and feeling smugly satisfied about the horror they have endured because part of me wonders if they didn’t karmically have it coming…

Karma kicks in on your next life, not this one. And Coptic Christians really are horribly, horribly persecuted in the Middle East. You know that, right?


I’d probably feel similar if at an event protesting in favor of the new Arizona law the crowd turned in an equally unplesant (but without causing physical harm) on some legal immigrants who where there to protest in favor of the law.

That’s not a comparable situation, at all. See above.

Like I said, there seems to be a twilight zone kind of justice in the actions of an angry mob turning on its own members, and I’m not sure if I should embrace it or be sickened by it…

You know what twilight zone justice is?

Not justice.

58 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:50:54am

re: #56 Varek Raith

Would it be legitimate for me to oppose the construction of a Church based on the priest scandal?
Answer, no. Why? Because I’m broad brushing Christians. As Shrieking Harpy and Spencer are broad brushing Muslims.

Maybe this has something to do with it…

Financier of Gaza flotilla wants to build mosque at Ground Zero

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the key financiers behind last week’s violent “aid” flotilla to Gaza, is also the Muslim cleric proposing the construction of an enormous mosque where New York’s World Trade Center once stood.

59 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:52:44am

re: #57 Obdicut

You know what twilight zone justice is?

Not justice.

I will freely admit that I don’t have a clue what Coptic Christians are.

That said I think probably the best way to live with myself is if I feel torn between feeling sad and feeling happy when something bad happens to someone who has done nothing to truly deserve it is if I feel sad for them one way or another rather than trying to insist that they had it comming.

That said, I will however laugh my ass off if say the head of BP is cooking oil, by accident spreads some cooking oil on the floor of his kitchen, slips on it and suffers nothing more serrious than a broken leg….

60 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:53:17am

re: #48 Rieux

It’s not surprising that he would then attempt to make excuses for the demonstrators. But the incident speaks for itself. Loudly.

61 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:54:39am

re: #58 NJDhockeyfan

Would it be too much to ask for some, you know, evidence that the imam is actually a “financier” of the flotilla? Because I smell exaggeration all over this.

62 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:55:29am

re: #59 jamesfirecat

I will freely admit that I don’t have a clue what Coptic Christians are.

You can use google too, James.

That said I think probably the best way to live with myself is if I feel torn between feeling sad and feeling happy when something bad happens to someone who has done nothing to truly deserve it is if I feel sad for them one way or another rather than trying to insist that they had it comming.

Why on earth would you feel happy when something bad happens to someone, even if they did ‘have it coming’? I don’t think any of us can really make that sort of judgement, certainly about anyone we don’t know personally.

That said, I will however laugh my ass off if say the head of BP is cooking oil, by accident spreads some cooking oil on the floor of his kitchen, slips on it and suffers nothing more serrious than a broken leg…

I just don’t get that. It’s not going to help anyone for him to have a broken leg. Why is it funny?

I get wanting people you think are bad to be hurt, but I don’t get how it translates into laughter.

63 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:56:31am

re: #58 NJDhockeyfan

Well, that’s a legit reason to oppose the mosque, or rather his involvement in it. It should not be built while he’s associated with it. I can accept a mosque, but not one that preaches separatism and jihad.

64 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:57:00am

re: #48 Rieux

Again, can you source that letter?

65 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:57:29am

re: #63 Dark_Falcon

Again, DF, the Imam in question has preached that Jihad must never be violent.

Why do you want to stop him from preaching that?

66 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:57:49am

re: #62 Obdicut

I just don’t get that. It’s not going to help anyone for him to have a broken leg. Why is it funny?

I get wanting people you think are bad to be hurt, but I don’t get how it translates into laughter.

“Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”
Mel Brooks

67 darthstar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:58:03am

re: #65 Obdicut

Again, DF, the Imam in question has preached that Jihad must never be violent.

Why do you want to stop him from preaching that?

It goes against the narrative.
/

68 KingKenrod  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:58:34am

re: #64 Obdicut

Again, can you source that letter?

The letter was posted at Spencer’s site.

69 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:59:43am

re: #66 jamesfirecat

Can you explain in your own words, James?

70 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:01:04am

re: #68 KingKenrod

The letter was posted at Spencer’s site.

I don’t trust Spencer. I’d like to hear from both men themselves, rather than trust that the letter is actually from them. And from the cops, or some other independent person.

I have no reason to grant Spencer one ounce of credibility.

71 Bubblehead II  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:01:31am

re: #64 Obdicut

It’s posted at both Roberts and Pams site.

72 Øyvind Strømmen  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:04:07am

re: #16 Obdicut

If that doesn’t count as a white supremacist, what does?

In their view, I’m sure, there’s only ever been one white supremacist, and his name was Adolf Hitler. And he was a Muslim. Wasn’t he?

73 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:05:05am

re: #26 Cannadian Club Akbar

Is WND still having their cruise?

Don’t know about a cruise, but they’re hyping this seditionist craziness right on the front page:
How To Survive The Coming Martial Law In America

This has it all, FEMA camps, census targeting survey, UN troops, etc. They start off lying about the Posse Comitatus act, claiming that it “was passed over 200 years ago,” and the lies proceed from there. In fact, Posse Comitatus was passed in 1878 as part of the compromise that ended Reconstruction, the objective being to keep local authorities from bringing in federal troops to prevent slavers and confederates from using intimidation to regain power. It led directly to the collapse of Reconstruction, the disenfranchisement of blacks, and the Jim Crow era. This may explain its popularity and revered status on the far right.
Wingnuts very commonly believe that posse comitatus is a constitutional principle, which it is not. Wingnut and seditionist propaganda of course do everything possible to invite this inference.

74 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:07:58am

re: #69 Obdicut

Can you explain in your own words, James?

Schadenfreude isn’t something everyone has to indulge in or even like others indulging in it, but I’ll admit that there are moments that I succumb to it.

It amuses me to see sometimes a fate befall someone that seems so perfectly designed as a fitting punishment for the sins they have committed. Bigots being turned upon by those they wanted to hate with rather than be hated by, someone responsible for the greatest spill spill in America suffering from an “oil spill” accident of their own… news that the CEO of some cigarette selling firm has gotten lung cancer….

Moments such as these make me want to laugh and revel in in the world around us which sometimes still delivers tinny little wonders that seem too perfect to have been the result of random chance …

75 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:10:26am

It’s a shame the crowd wasn’t listening to these two guys. I remember, going on three years back now, being in a similar situation at an anti-Israel rally in San Francisco. I didn’t respond the way the mob did, but simply with no emotion, no smile to an approaching man who I suspected was hostile. Well, I am glad to this day I wasn’t a raving jerk. Turned out that yes, he’s definitely Palestinian, and to my surprise, he took Israel’s side and identified immediately, without prompt, that he’s Christian. He was one of many Palestinian Christians who fled the Gaza Strip when Israel withdrew, fearing for their lives.

I’m no fan of a mega-mosque being built so close to Ground Zero either but I’m equally not comfortable with Geller and Spencer leading the charge. Incidents like this will only continue, of that I am sure.

76 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:11:52am

re: #74 jamesfirecat

Moments such as these make me want to laugh and revel in in the world around us which sometimes still delivers tinny little wonders that seem too perfect to have been the result of random chance …

Oh, so it’s a religious thing for you? That’s probably why it doesn’t make any sense to me.

Lots of people get lung cancer. Lots and lots of them. Without ryhme nor reason, without having ‘sinned’. The times when justice comes, when an appropriate ‘fate’ is delivered, are few and far between. If any conclusion was to be drawn, it is that in general people do not get the fate they ‘deserve’.

I also don’t think neither you nor I are capable of judging whether or not they deserve that ‘fate’. From that belief comes great, great evil. That is the belief that the Israeli commandoes who were beaten deserved it, got what is coming to them.

Bad fates are always bad fates. If they happen to bad people it’s preferable than happening to good people, but not preferable to them not happening at all.

77 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:12:06am

re: #61 Charles

Would it be too much to ask for some, you know, evidence that the imam is actually a “financier” of the flotilla? Because I smell exaggeration all over this.

The NY Post posted this story a few days ago…

The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.

Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday.

I went to the Perdana Global Peace Organization website and looky there…Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is listed right on the website as a contributer.

78 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:13:32am

The incident highlights the kind of mindlessness that has permeated the Right. They had a lot of pent-up anger and hatred, and those two fellows played the unformtuate role of being the lighning rod to ground it on.

79 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:15:50am

re: #75 eclectic infidel

Calling it a ‘mega-mosque’ is inaccurate, by the way.

80 Ebetty  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:17:46am

re: #49 MandyManners

Just like the ship in Pirates of the Caribbean!

81 darthstar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:20:03am

re: #79 Obdicut

Calling it a ‘mega-mosque’ is inaccurate, by the way.

Yeah, it’s a MEGA MOSQUE OF DEATH
///

82 darthstar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:21:29am

re: #81 darthstar

Yeah, it’s a MEGA MOSQUE OF DEATH
///

crap…I’d changed my mind about posting that after hitting preview and accidentally hit post as I scrolled up to the ‘close’ button on the preview.

83 Kragar  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:23:23am

re: #81 darthstar

Yeah, it’s a MEGA MOSQUE OF DEATH
///

Was that the module after Tomb of Horrors?

84 ಠ_ಠ  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:37:56am

This is the funniest thing I’ve read all week! Ahh sweet poetic justice…I didn’t think that existed in the world anymore!

85 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:38:32am

re: #2 JasonA

A.) What they did to these two is reprehensible.
B.) These guys came to attend the rally and didn’t think this could happen???

They probably took these people at their word that they are only religious, not racial, bigots.

86 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:40:03am

re: #12 albusteve

nine hour flight…and back, to protest a mosque…what a complete waste of time and money

People spend their time and money on weirder stuff.

87 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:40:22am

re: #14 JasonA

Can we technically call this a Tea Party rally and hang it around their necks, though?

Not unless they were also protesting taxes.

88 Gus  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:43:13am

re: #77 NJDhockeyfan

I went to the Perdana Global Peace Organization website and looky there…Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is listed right on the website as a contributer.

It wouldn’t be as simple as the authorities relying on an internet article. In this case, an example, the USA would have to categorize the IHH as a terrorist organization.

The complications of course is that the MV Mavi Marmara was not only funded by IHH but the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief. Then you would have to ask whom Perdana Global Peace Organization contributed the money for the Mavi Marmara.

If NYC wanted to deny this permit it would have to be based upon provable facts and evidence that could be defended in court. This is because any denial of permit could lead to a civil trial based on 1st Amendment violations. Additionally, the groups Rauf associated with would have to be categorized as “illegal” by the USA.

89 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:43:19am

Well, I’m concerned about the new Baptist Survival Mega-Church of the Scriptural Posse Comitatus going up in my neighborhood, but I’d label myself as an intolerant crank and probably a Red if I took to the streets to stop it.
At the very least though, I’d refrain from attacking people who agreed with me.
/

90 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:44:09am

re: #38 reuven

Of course, the people attending this rally are fools, but that has to also include these two Chr-stians who were also there to protest the mosque! It’s hard for me to feel to sorry for them. You hang out with fools, you take your risks.

I don’t feel particularly bad for them, but this does underscore some significant things about the Pam and Spencer Show.

91 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:46:49am

re: #45 Obdicut

I rarely see a point in smirking.

Protesting the mosque is, I feel, foolish and misguided, but it’s a completely legal action, completely protected under US law. Being threatened to the point that the police need to intervene is not an acceptable response.

I guess I don’t even really understand your question. It has nothing to do with the ethical worth of these men. It seems to me you’re just positing a false dichotomy.

Being a dumbass is legal. Trying to lynch people is criminal. I don’t need to see these guys as serving an admirable cause to be shocked that they were treated in a way that required police intervention.

92 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:49:25am

re: #58 NJDhockeyfan

Do you know what their source is? Where does Rauf get his money from? Curious about this.

93 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:51:09am

re: #75 eclectic infidel

It’s a shame the crowd wasn’t listening to these two guys. I remember, going on three years back now, being in a similar situation at an anti-Israel rally in San Francisco. I didn’t respond the way the mob did, but simply with no emotion, no smile to an approaching man who I suspected was hostile. Well, I am glad to this day I wasn’t a raving jerk. Turned out that yes, he’s definitely Palestinian, and to my surprise, he took Israel’s side and identified immediately, without prompt, that he’s Christian. He was one of many Palestinian Christians who fled the Gaza Strip when Israel withdrew, fearing for their lives.

I’m no fan of a mega-mosque being built so close to Ground Zero either but I’m equally not comfortable with Geller and Spencer leading the charge. Incidents like this will only continue, of that I am sure.

Geller and Spencer are nasty bigots. Straight up, no chaser.

94 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:52:05am

re: #72 oslogin

In their view, I’m sure, there’s only ever been one white supremacist, and his name was Adolf Hitler. And he was a Muslim. Wasn’t he?

A gay Muslim, apparently.

And we know who else is a gay Muslim, right?

That’s right.

95 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:55:26am

re: #92 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you know what their source is? Where does Rauf get his money from? Curious about this.

A lot of people have been asking that question and Rauf ain’t talkin’.

96 Gus  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:59:19am

re: #92 SanFranciscoZionist

Do you know what their source is? Where does Rauf get his money from? Curious about this.

Pay Pal.

/

97 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 11:59:37am

re: #95 NJDhockeyfan

A lot of people have been asking that question and Rauf ain’t talkin’.

No, I mean, is there actually any evidence that he gives large amounts to this Pendema thing?

98 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:00:03pm

re: #97 SanFranciscoZionist

No, I mean, is there actually any evidence that he gives large amounts to this Pendema thing?

Since that seems to be the source of the accusation that he is a ‘financier’ of the flotilla.

99 Gus  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:00:52pm

re: #97 SanFranciscoZionist

No, I mean, is there actually any evidence that he gives large amounts to this Pendema thing?

Like a paper trail, filings, receipts, etc?

100 Gus  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:05:26pm

Guess I’m talking to myself.

101 Targetpractice  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:07:07pm

re: #100 Gus 802

Guess I’m talking to myself.

It’s when you answer yourself that you’ve got real problems.

102 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:13:32pm

re: #53 Obdicut

Where’s that from?

Source?

Is he saying the police did not have to intervene?

Spencer posted the letter at JihadWatch, as I should I have mentioned. Nasralla’s letter said nothing either way about the police’s role.

103 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:24:06pm

re: #55 Renaissance_Man

Two points:

1. The actions of the attendees of the rally speak loud and clear as to their beliefs. There’s no need for any further embellishment from the mainstream media to highlight their bigotry.

Seems to me that that exactly is the question. If the man on the receiving end of the treatment didn’t experience it as offensive bigotry, perhaps the media may have painted it as more than it actually was. Although I of course don’t excuse bad behavior, Mr. Nassralla says that he and his friend were speaking in Arabic and distributing material with Qur’anic verses, so it’s not very surprising that they might at first have been taken as hostile infiltrators, as Nassralla acknowledges. My point is that the media’s version of the extent of hostility that the two Copts encountered seems to be significantly greater than what the victims themselves report.

2. They may or may not be good American people, but they don’t have any legitimate stand against the building of that mosque.

Tell me, how would you feel about the construction of a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor in 1951, or a German cultural center at Auschwitz? I think Americans do have a legitimate case to make that a mosque at Ground Zero is insensitive. Some of the opponents may be bigots, but that does not mean that there is no bigoted case to be made against the mosque at that location.

104 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:28:28pm

re: #103 rieux

Tell me, how would you feel about the construction of a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor in 1951,

Given that there is a large Japanese population in Hawaii, there probably is one. Remember that at that time we were occupying and rebuilding Japan. Give that the new peace treaty with Japan was signed in 1951, it would have actually been a serendipitous date for that.

en.wikipedia.org

or a German cultural center at Auschwitz?

Well, this Mosque is not a Wahabbi cultural center, and the Imam is not someone Whabbists would like, so what’s the comparison there?

105 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:29:19pm

re: #56 Varek Raith

Would it be legitimate for me to oppose the construction of a Church based on the priest scandal?
Answer, no. Why? Because I’m broad brushing Christians. As Shrieking Harpy and Spencer are broad brushing Muslims.

I’d say that your analogy doesn’t hold. The people opposed to the construction of the mosque don’t oppose it’s construction anywhere, just at Ground Zero.

106 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:33:00pm

re: #60 Charles

It’s not surprising that he would then attempt to make excuses for the demonstrators. But the incident speaks for itself. Loudly.

It seems to me that question is just what the incident in fact was. The victims here appear to have experienced it as less threatening than the news report made it out to be. To them, the incident apparently didn’t speak quite so loudly. Sad experience has taught me to be wary of taking news reports at face value.

107 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:35:00pm

re: #106 rieux

Why are you taking the letters posted at Pam Gellar and Robert Spencer’s site at face value?

108 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:35:04pm

re: #64 Obdicut

Again, can you source that letter?

Sorry for the delay; I did have to take some time today to actually get some work done… :-) I wasn’t checking back for replies for the middle of the day.

109 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:48:06pm

re: #107 Obdicut

Why are you taking the letters posted at Pam Gellar and Robert Spencer’s site at face value?

I don’t think a whole lot of Geller, but I don’t think Spencer would fabricate a letter. Not to say that I think Geller might.

110 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 12:54:11pm

re: #109 rieux

I don’t think a whole lot of Geller, but I don’t think Spencer would fabricate a letter. Not to say that I think Geller might.

And I have no doubt that Spencer would do anything to promote his bigoted causes. He may not have fabricated this letter, but he does not deserve the trust you apparently have in him, and anything he writes should be considered suspect.

111 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:00:15pm

re: #104 Obdicut

Tell me, how would you feel about the construction of a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor in 1951,
Given that there is a large Japanese population in Hawaii, there probably is one. Remember that at that time we were occupying and rebuilding Japan. Give that the new peace treaty with Japan was signed in 1951, it would have actually been a serendipitous date for that.

I know there’s a substantial Japanese population in Hawaii, so I have no there’s at least one Japanese cultural center there. What we’re talking about is building a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor that would be dedicated on the tenth anniversary of the attack on that base.

Well, this Mosque is not a Wahabbi cultural center, and the Imam is not someone Whabbists would like, so what’s the comparison there?

The attack was carried out by Muslims who claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, not in the name of Wahhabism.

112 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:09:31pm

re: #111 rieux

I know there’s a substantial Japanese population in Hawaii, so I have no there’s at least one Japanese cultural center there. What we’re talking about is building a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor that would be dedicated on the tenth anniversary of the attack on that base.

Which, again, would probably have been really appropriate given that the second peace treaty was also signed in 1951 and we entered the new era of friendship with Japan.

The attack was carried out by Muslims who claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, not in the name of Wahhabism.

Why do you want to ignore that they were Wahhabist?

113 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:11:00pm

re: #110 Charles

I don’t think a whole lot of Geller, but I don’t think Spencer would fabricate a letter. Not to say that I think Geller might.

And I have no doubt that Spencer would do anything to promote his bigoted causes. He may not have fabricated this letter, but he does not deserve the trust you apparently have in him, and anything he writes should be considered suspect.

I didn’t say I trusted Spencer unreservedly, just that I don’t think he’d have fabricated a letter. Unless we have some reason to think that the letter is fabricated, I’m inclined to take it to at least some extent as face value, and wonder whether the news account might have exaggerated the severity of the incident. I’m just trying to be fair - tempers sometimes get hot at demonstrations, so there may have been some shouting, but that doesn’t mean that all those protesting the mosque were necessarily bigots, just as I don’t think that everyone who thinks that immigration laws ought to be enforced is ipso facto racist.

114 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:12:19pm

re: #113 rieux

Nobody said everyone protesting was a bigot, though.

Spencer and Gellar are, though.

115 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:14:07pm

re: #113 rieux

I’m pretty sure I haven’t claimed that all those protesting the mosque are bigots, but there’s no doubt whatsoever that a substantial number are. And the ones who are not bigoted are providing cover for the ones who are.

116 dsch_tw  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:17:52pm

Additional information about the incident plus Nassralla’s letter at yahoo.com news site.

news.yahoo.com

Isn’t it possible that MSM, which abhors Geller, is pulling a “Reuters” and cropping out inconvenient info from the reports?

117 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:19:55pm

re: #116 dsch_tw

Additional information about the incident plus Nassralla’s letter at yahoo.com news site.

[Link: news.yahoo.com…]

Isn’t it possible that MSM, which abhors Geller, is pulling a “Reuters” and cropping out inconvenient info from the reports?

That is a press release, not a news article, and it comes from Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller themselves. They paid for that.

118 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:20:56pm

re: #115 Charles

I’m pretty sure I haven’t claimed that all those protesting the mosque are bigots, but there’s no doubt whatsoever that a substantial number are. And the ones who are not bigoted are providing cover for the ones who are.

No, Charles, you certainly haven’t, and I apologize if I inadvertently implied that. I was responding to the tone of the discussion, which seemed to me in general to suppose that the reaction to the two Copts had been based on bigotry, when it might have been (at least for some) no more than the (not unusual) negative reaction of demonstrators who think, mistakenly in this case, that their ranks have been “infiltrated” by the “other side”. I was also responding to what seemed to me an argument that there is no unbigoted case to be made against the construction of the proposed mosque adjacent to Ground Zero.

119 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:23:13pm

re: #118 rieux

I was also responding to what seemed to me an argument that there is no unbigoted case to be made against the construction of the proposed mosque adjacent to Ground Zero.

There may be an unbigoted case to be made, depending on how you understand the term. However, there isn’t a rational case to be made.

120 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:24:45pm

re: #117 Charles

That is a press release, not a news article, and it comes from Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller themselves. They paid for that.

In and of itself, of course, a mere press release doesn’t authenticate the letter. But it does seem to me raise the stakes for Spencer - if the letter is fabricated, it’s now likelier to be exposed, so Spencer’s willingness to run that risk seems to me to suggest he’s confident about what he’s published.

121 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:25:27pm

re: #120 rieux

Spencer has already thrown all his credibility out the window, so what does he care?

122 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:25:42pm

re: #118 rieux

If there’s an “unbigoted case” to be made for banning Muslims from building a mosque in Manhattan, I haven’t heard it yet.

123 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:37:42pm

re: #112 Obdicut

I know there’s a substantial Japanese population in Hawaii, so I have no there’s at least one Japanese cultural center there. What we’re talking about is building a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor that would be dedicated on the tenth anniversary of the attack on that base.

Which, again, would probably have been really appropriate given that the second peace treaty was also signed in 1951 and we entered the new era of friendship with Japan.

I’m afraid I don’t see it that way. Israel and Germany have very good relations now, but that still wouldn’t make a German cultural center at Auschwitz sensitive or appropriate. Some other location, somewhere in Israel, sure. But not at the scene of the crime.

The attack was carried out by Muslims who claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, not in the name of Wahhabism.

Why do you want to ignore that they were Wahhabist?

I don’t - but all Wahhabis are Muslim; why do you want to suggest that because they were Wahhabis they weren’t Muslim? Not all Germans were Nazis, but it’s generally recognized that Germany as a whole bears responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi regime. I’m not suggesting that all Muslims are responsible for all acts of terror committed in their name, but trying to suggest why a mosque at Ground Zero is insensitive - and saying that the 9/11 were Wahhabis and the mosque isn’t seems to me to be splitting hairs
.

124 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:39:27pm

re: #119 Renaissance_Man

There may be an unbigoted case to be made, depending on how you understand the term. However, there isn’t a rational case to be made.

Well, since you feel that way, there’s clearly no point in our discussing it any further.

125 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:41:36pm

re: #122 Charles

If there’s an “unbigoted case” to be made for banning Muslims from building a mosque in Manhattan, I haven’t heard it yet.

As I understand it, the opposition is not to the building of a mosque anywhere in Manhattan, just to the building of one next to Ground Zero.

126 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:41:48pm

re: #123 rieux

I’m afraid I don’t see it that way. Israel and Germany have very good relations now, but that still wouldn’t make a German cultural center at Auschwitz sensitive or appropriate. Some other location, somewhere in Israel, sure. But not at the scene of the crime.

Thank you for moving away from your Japan/Pearl Harbor example, which was bad. I didn’t ever say that a German cultural site at Auschwitz would be appropriate. I also don’t think two blocks away from the two towers site counts the same as Auschwitz, at all.

I don’t - but all Wahhabis are Muslim; why do you want to suggest that because they were Wahhabis they weren’t Muslim?

What the fuck? I am not saying they weren’t Muslim. I’m saying they were Wahhabi and that they would hate this cultural center. Hate it. So in that sense, it’s very, very appropriate.

and saying that the 9/11 were Wahhabis and the mosque isn’t seems to me to be splitting hairs

If you don’t bother to distinguish between Wahabbist Muslims and Muslims that the Wahabbists hate, then your hairs are about a mile thick.

127 Amory Blaine  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:41:58pm

Good thing we live in a civilized country bursting with intelligence and goodwill.

128 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:44:13pm

re: #121 Obdicut

Spencer has already thrown all his credibility out the window, so what does he care?

Let’s assume that Spencer is an inveterate liar. Do you think that even liars don’t care whether or not they’re believed? Even inveterate liars tell the truth some of the time.

129 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:45:10pm

re: #125 rieux

As I understand it, the opposition is not to the building of a mosque anywhere in Manhattan, just to the building of one next to Ground Zero.

And the reason for that is?

Are the Muslims behind the Cordoba Center going to be plotting terrorism there, in your opinion?

If you have no evidence that this is the case, how in the world can you justify depriving them of their rights to freedom of religion, guaranteed by the Constitution to all US citizens? As far as I know, there’s no special exception in the First Amendment for Muslims.

130 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:47:55pm

re: #124 rieux

Well, since you feel that way, there’s clearly no point in our discussing it any further.

If you think there’s a rational case to be made, by all means, make it. The case that the protestors are making, assuming Pam Geller and Robert Spencer are articulating it, is not a rational one.

131 mardukhai  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:55:04pm

Charles — I know the guys responsible for this mosque, I’m on their email list, they talk out both sides of their mouths. They think that the president of Sudan is just a sweetheart.

Let them build their mosque on the upper west side. Zone it for office and residential space.

132 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:57:05pm

re: #128 rieux

Let’s assume that Spencer is an inveterate liar. Do you think that even liars don’t care whether or not they’re believed? Even inveterate liars tell the truth some of the time.

Sure. So why assume this is one of the times, as you are?

133 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 1:57:55pm

re: #126 Obdicut

Thank you for moving away from your Japan/Pearl Harbor example, which was bad. I didn’t ever say that a German cultural site at Auschwitz would be appropriate. I also don’t think two blocks away from the two towers site counts the same as Auschwitz, at all.

Always happy to oblige. Glad that one of my analogies had some resonance. Certainly reasonable people can differ about whether two blocks away is the same as Auschwitz (but then we can get to discussing the Carmelite convent near Auschwitz, and how near is too near, but who wants to go there?), but that’s my point. Some people think two blocks is too close, and if the relatives of the victims think that (and I don’t know offhand whether or not they do), who are we to disagree with them?

I don’t - but all Wahhabis are Muslim; why do you want to suggest that because they were Wahhabis they weren’t Muslim?

What the fuck? I am not saying they weren’t Muslim. I’m saying they were Wahhabi and that they would hate this cultural center. Hate it. So in that sense, it’s very, very appropriate.

It’s a question of what category is relevant. I’m saying that they were Muslims who acted in the name of Islam, and that that’s how Americans saw them, so that some people find the idea of a mosque so close to Ground Zero insensitive. If you don’t feel that way, fine. But I can’t say that the others are being totally unreasonable. You seem to be suggesting that because the hijackers were Wahhabis and the proposed mosque wouldn’t be, no one should find it insensitive. That distinction may work for you, but I don’t find it hard to understand why it doesn’t work for everyone.

and saying that the 9/11 were Wahhabis and the mosque isn’t seems to me to be splitting hairs

If you don’t bother to distinguish between Wahabbist Muslims and Muslims that the Wahabbists hate, then your hairs are about a mile thick.

Oh, I distinguish between them quite well; it’s just that for this purpose the distinction doesn’t seem relevant. Your mileage may vary.

134 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 2:05:40pm

re: #133 rieux

if the relatives of the victims think that (and I don’t know offhand whether or not they do), who are we to disagree with them?

We’re people who understand the first amendment.

That distinction may work for you, but I don’t find it hard to understand why it doesn’t work for everyone.

Because they’re ignorant of the fact that Wahabbists would hate this place and love to destroy it? I understand that they’re ignorant or uncaring of that distinction, yes.


Oh, I distinguish between them quite well; it’s just that for this purpose the distinction doesn’t seem relevant. Your mileage may vary.

Why on earth do you find the fact that this cultural center/mosque would represent something that the people who destroyed the towers would hate, irrelevant?

How does that work?

135 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 2:07:18pm

re: #129 Charles

As I understand it, the opposition is not to the building of a mosque anywhere in Manhattan, just to the building of one next to Ground Zero.

And the reason for that is?

Apparently, some people feel that a mosque so close to the site of a major terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam would be insensitive. I’ve tried to explain why that might be so by the analogy of a German cultural center at Auschwitz or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, although the latter one didn’t go over too well…. :-)

Are the Muslims behind the Cordoba Center going to be plotting terrorism there, in your opinion?

I have no idea, but I have no reason to think so.

If you have no evidence that this is the case, how in the world can you justify depriving them of their rights to freedom of religion, guaranteed by the Constitution to all US citizens? As far as I know, there’s no special exception in the First Amendment for Muslims..

I don’t see where I’ve called for depriving them or their right to freedom of religion, or in fact, where the protesters have. Saying that you don’t want a mosque or a church or a synagogue built in a particular location isn’t per se a call for deprivation of First Amendment rights. Otherwise, there would never be any successful zoning-based challenges to such plans, and believe me, they’re not uncommon.

136 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 2:08:59pm

re: #135 rieux

Saying that you don’t want a mosque or a church or a synagogue built in a particular location isn’t per se a call for deprivation of First Amendment rights.

Yes it is, if it’s because of the particular religion of the institution. Which this clearly is.

Otherwise, there would never be any successful zoning-based challenges to such plans, and believe me, they’re not uncommon.

And when they can be shown to be because of the type of religion, and not a general ruling, they are constitutionally invalid.

137 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 2:11:24pm

re: #134 Obdicut

Oh, I distinguish between them quite well; it’s just that for this purpose the distinction doesn’t seem relevant. Your mileage may vary.

Why on earth do you find the fact that this cultural center/mosque would represent something that the people who destroyed the towers would hate, irrelevant?

How does that work?

Because I think that the feelings of the relatives of those who died in the attack and of residents of the city where the attack was perpetrated are more relevant than the feelings of Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. And it’s far from clear to me that those Wahhabis would hate the propsed mosque - why do you think that would be the case?

138 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 2:15:25pm

re: #134 Obdicut

We’re people who understand the first amendment.

Fewer Americans understand the First Amendment than you think. For one thing, although it does prevent ertain unreasonable restraints, it doesn’t grant the right to build a house of worship anywhere you happen to feel like it.

139 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 2:17:24pm

re: #137 rieux

Because I think that the feelings of the relatives of those who died in the attack and of residents of the city where the attack was perpetrated are more relevant than the feelings of Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia

The residents of the city have approved the building of it, for one thing.

And it’s far from clear to me that those Wahhabis would hate the propsed mosque - why do you think that would be the case?

Oh geez. Sorry, I didn’t realize that you were coming from a position of ignorance as well.

The Imam connected with this mosque has preached that there can be no such thing as violent Jihad. Wahabbists are an ultra-conservative, reactionary faction of Muslims who believe, among other things, in violent Jihad and utterly opposed to any sort of separation of church and state. They only recognize theocracy as a legitimate form of government, specifically, Islamic theocracy. Cordoba house, on the other hand, is a pro-democratic place that supports separation of church and state.

Here is a good place to begin to learn about Wahabbism.

globalsecurity.org

and another:

atheism.about.com

140 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 2:18:48pm

re: #138 rieux

Fewer Americans understand the First Amendment than you think. For one thing, although it does prevent ertain unreasonable restraints, it doesn’t grant the right to build a house of worship anywhere you happen to feel like it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It does prevent the restriction of a particular religion when other religions are not restricted. There are plenty of religious buildings in the area where this building is. Furthermore, it is obvious that an attempt to restrict this building would be because it is Muslim; you have straightforwardly said so. That is prohibited under the first amendment.

141 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:03:11pm

re: #139 Obdicut

Oh geez. Sorry, I didn’t realize that you were coming from a position of ignorance as well.

I like a good discussion as well as the next fellow, but when I find interlocutors descending to personal insults instead of discussion, that suggest to me that they are beyond the reach of reason, and I have a policy of ignoring them.

Here is a good place to begin to learn about Wahabbism.

Thanks, but I don’t need you tell me about Wahhabism. For starters, you might learn to spell it correctly.

142 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:06:46pm

re: #140 Obdicut

Furthermore, it is obvious that an attempt to restrict this building would be because it is Muslim; you have straightforwardly said so. That is prohibited under the first amendment.

I’m afraid that that’s not the way the first amendment was taught when I was in law school - and first amendment jurisprudence has not changed on this issue since then. Since you’ve chosen to descend to insults rather than discussion, this is the last post of yours that I will respond to.

143 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:18:09pm

re: #141 rieux


I like a good discussion as well as the next fellow, but when I find interlocutors descending to personal insults instead of discussion, that suggest to me that they are beyond the reach of reason, and I have a policy of ignoring them.

You said that you were ignorant of why Wahabbists would hate this place. That means you were coming from a position of ignorance. It’s not a personal insult, dude.


Thanks, but I don’t need you tell me about Wahhabism. For starters, you might learn to spell it correctly.

The ‘correct’ spelling is الوهابية.

If I don’t need to tell you about it, then why didn’t you know why the mosque would be hated by Wahabbists?


I’m afraid that that’s not the way the first amendment was taught when I was in law school - and first amendment jurisprudence has not changed on this issue since then. Since you’ve chosen to descend to insults rather than discussion, this is the last post of yours that I will respond to.

That’s nice. It doesn’t really have anything to do with your lack of an argument, I suppose.

144 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:18:55pm

re: #130 Renaissance_Man

If you think there’s a rational case to be made, by all means, make it.

As I said in post 135:

Apparently, some people feel that a mosque so close to the site of a major terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam would be insensitive. I’ve tried to explain why that might be so by the analogy of a German cultural center at Auschwitz or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, although the latter one didn’t go over too well… :-)

145 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:19:44pm

re: #143 Obdicut

Forgive the typo. The point was: it’s an Arabic word. There’s no ‘correct’ spelling of it.

Viz: Koran, Qu’ran, Quran.

146 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:20:33pm

re: #144 rieux

“That’s insensitive” is not a rational case. The Phelps clan are very insensitive. They still have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

147 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:33:07pm

re: #144 rieux

As I said in post 135:

Apparently, some people feel that a mosque so close to the site of a major terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam would be insensitive. I’ve tried to explain why that might be so by the analogy of a German cultural center at Auschwitz or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor, although the latter one didn’t go over too well… :-)

Yes, some people do feel that. However, that feeling is not rational. And it’s irrational for many reasons, not the least of which is that there is no realistic equivalency between the goals and values of this building and those of the terrorists. To oppose it simply because it’s all ‘Muslim’ and just doesn’t feel right is entirely irrational.

148 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:38:55pm

re: #145 Obdicut

Viz: Koran, Qu’ran, Quran.

I know I said I’d ignore you, but there are accepted ways to transliterate foreign words into English, so that one can indeed speak of correct and incorrect spellings. And for القرآن ‎it’s generally Koran or Qur’an, not Qu’ran; see en.wikipedia.org

And that will be my last word to you on this topic.

149 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:46:13pm

re: #147 Renaissance_Man

As I said in post 135:

Apparently, some people feel that a mosque so close to the site of a major terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam would be insensitive. I’ve tried to explain why that might be so by the analogy of a German cultural center at Auschwitz.

Yes, some people do feel that. However, that feeling is not rational. And it’s irrational for many reasons, not the least of which is that there is no realistic equivalency between the goals and values of this building and those of the terrorists. To oppose it simply because it’s all ‘Muslim’ and just doesn’t feel right is entirely irrational.

Well, one might say that feelings in general are not rational. But if you don’t understand why a German cultural center at Auschwitz might feel inappropriate, then I’m sure you don’t understand why there was any controversy over the Carmelite convent close by Auschwitz. Doesn’t by any means make you a bad person, of course; just means you see things differently than the folks who do, and that arguing about it may be an exercise in futility.

150 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 3:47:00pm

re: #148 rieux

And that matters why, exactly?

You’re nitpicking, and avoiding the actual argument, taking any opportunity to do so. That speaks volumes.

You’re only argument is ‘that’s insensitive’. It might be insensitive. Insensitive things should not only be allowed, but specifically and energetically protected. Popular speech, popular religions don’t need protection.

Do you remember hearing about something like that in law school?

151 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:04:58pm

re: #120 rieux

In a post on his site, Spencer says he and Geller will appear with Nasralla on the latter’s cable channel at 4pm Pacific time (that is now) to discuss the incident, and that the program will be streamed live on atvsat.com. it appears we may have the chance to hear from Nasralla directly without having to concern ourselves about the credibility of Spencer’s publication of the letter.

152 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:05:41pm

re: #151 rieux

We will still have to concern ourselves, of course, with finding an independent source to corroborate.

153 ryannon  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:05:42pm

re: #40 jamesfirecat

Great, now I’m having a horrible back and forth debate with myself…

On one hand those two people were almost beset upon by an angry mob to the point that the intervention of law enforcement officials may have been the only reason that they got home without being attacked. The catnip smoking Kumbyah singing liberal side of me knows that this is a horrific treatment that nobody should ever have to go through…

Yet on the other hand these people came to protest for a cause that I don’t believe in and frankly detest because of the fact that it seems to ignore that there are more than one kind of Muslim in the world. The way those two people were set upon by the crowd that they wanted to be members of, it has an almost Twilight Zone quality of horrific justice to it, like if a member of the KKK woke up one day to find out they were black. By being set upon by that angry crowd might those two men have learned an important lesson about the dangers of mindless intolerance and how sooner or later blind hatred can’t be channeled to achieve your ends without risking it turning on you…

I mean if those two people had just been residents passing by this would be open and shut and obvious…

But now I’m torn between wanting to wrap those two men in a blanket and coo about how they’re safe now and nothing bad will happen to them, and wanting to smirkingly say that they got what was coming to them.

What do you guys think?


I think that as Egyptian Copts, they’ve had a first-hand look at the ROP. Interpret that as you will.

154 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:07:47pm

re: #151 rieux

… it appears we may have the chance to hear from Nasralla directly…

What do you mean “we?” I have no interest in listening to Spencer. And whether Mr. Nasralla now tries to minimize the incident has no bearing on my post. It happened. That’s bad enough. Quibbling over “how bad was it” is pointless and exactly the kind of thing Spencer always does.

155 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:14:56pm

re: #154 Charles

What do you mean “we?” I have no interest in listening to Spencer. And whether Mr. Nasralla now tries to minimize the incident has no bearing on my post. It happened. That’s bad enough. Quibbling over “how bad was it” is pointless and exactly the kind of thing Spencer always does.

By “we” I meant anyone who was interested. Apparently, you’re not - which is of course just fine. It seemed to me that it was Nasralla rather than Spencer who raised the issue of “how bad it was”. It matters to me whether it was nasty bigotry or the kind of bad behavior that sadly sometimes happens when people at a demonstration feel that they’ve been provocatively infiltrated by folks from the “other side”. Anyone else’s mileage may of course vary.

156 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:17:10pm

re: #155 rieux

It matters to me whether it was nasty bigotry or the kind of bad behavior that sadly sometimes happens when people at a demonstration feel that they’ve been provocatively infiltrated by folks from the “other side”.

I know what you mean. Those sneaky Arabs and militant Muslims might infiltrate at any time. Provocatively. Sadly, you’ve got to keep an eye out for them.

This is different from bigotry … how, again?

157 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:18:16pm

re: #149 rieux

Well, one might say that feelings in general are not rational. But if you don’t understand why a German cultural center at Auschwitz might feel inappropriate, then I’m sure you don’t understand why there was any controversy over the Carmelite convent close by Auschwitz. Doesn’t by any means make you a bad person, of course; just means you see things differently than the folks who do, and that arguing about it may be an exercise in futility.

No, I do understand why there was a controversy over the Carmelite convent in Auschwitz. And I similarly understand why some feel it’s ‘insensitive’ to build this mosque. Just like I understand why some feel it’s ‘insensitive’ to call a football team the Washington Redskins. And it’s still irrational. The problem with opposing the second, of course, is that building it is protected by law. If you can explain the opposition in terms of why such feelings might be hurt, and why they might have a rational basis for the feelings to be hurt, do so by all means. But I don’t see any basis for hurt feelings other than a knee-jerk response to ‘Muslims’. Some might call knee-jerk responses based on prejudices and stereotypes bigotry. Some might not. Mileage, of course, does vary.

158 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:24:22pm

re: #156 Charles

I know what you mean. Those sneaky Arabs and militant Muslims might infiltrate at any time. Provocatively. Sadly, you’ve got to keep an eye out for them.

This is different from bigotry … how, again?

Sorry for being so literal - I do that sometimes. :-) It seems to me that people at demonstrations are sometimes sensitive to people who counter-demonstrate and disagree with them, and if those people attempt to mix with them, it is felt to be provocative. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, of course, but the resentment needn’t necessarily be bigotry - it can be just about being on the other side of the issue. And, as I’ve made clear, I don’t think that opposition to the mosque being constructed at that location is necessarily based on anti-Muslim bigotry.

159 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:25:49pm

re: #158 rieux

So the opposition to the building of a Muslim religious building isn’t anti-Muslim because..?

160 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:39:18pm

re: #157 Renaissance_Man

No, I do understand why there was a controversy over the Carmelite convent in Auschwitz. And I similarly understand why some feel it’s ‘insensitive’ to build this mosque. Just like I understand why some feel it’s ‘insensitive’ to call a football team the Washington Redskins. And it’s still irrational. The problem with opposing the second, of course, is that building it is protected by law. If you can explain the opposition in terms of why such feelings might be hurt, and why they might have a rational basis for the feelings to be hurt, do so by all means. But I don’t see any basis for hurt feelings other than a knee-jerk response to ‘Muslims’. Some might call knee-jerk responses based on prejudices and stereotypes bigotry. Some might not. Mileage, of course, does vary.

If they were saying they didn’t want to see a mosque built anywhere in New York no way no how, I’d have a serious problem with it. But, like it or not, 9/11 was an act of Muslim terrorism. Not all Muslims supported it (though an alarmingly large percentage seems to have celebrated it, and an alarmingly large percentage today seems to deny that Muslims had anything to do with it) but it was done in the name of Islam. I can understand why for some people that makes it insensitive to put a mosque close to Ground Zero. I also understand, although perhaps not quite as well, why some people don’t understand that.

Problem is, there’s an unfortunate tendency in American political discussion today to assume that if someone disagrees with you they’re not just wrong, they’re bad. It happens on both sides of the spectrum. I don’t think one has any hope of having a reasonable discussion with someone on the other side of a political divide if you start from the position of feeling that s/he is morally suspect. Sounds to me like lots of people think that anyone opposed to the construction of the mosque near Ground Zero must be a bigot. Some of them may be. Hell, I’m sure some of them are. But it doesn’t do any good to assume that all of them are - that there’s no way a normal reasonable unbigoted human being could possibly be opposed to it. You’ll never have any kind of reasonable discussion with someone who disagrees with you, never have any chance of winning them over to your side, if you can’t grant at least some sympathetic understanding to their arguments and feelings. Then the only kinds of discussions you’ll have are mutually congratulatory love-fests with people who think the same way you do, and you’ll never learn much new and never win anyone over. (And by “you”, of course, I’m not making this personal; it’s just awkward to keep saying “one.”)

161 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:42:15pm

re: #160 rieux

Nobody is assuming anything about ‘all’ of the people.

You don’t have an actual argument.

162 Rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:48:13pm

re: #161 Obdicut

Nobody is assuming anything about ‘all’ of the people.

You don’t have an actual argument.

I’ll explain polite manners to you. When you insult someone, even if it’s inadvertent you apologize. You don’t insist that it wasn’t an insult, nor do you come up with new insults. Otherwise, well-mannered people will decide to ignore you, which is what I am doing.

163 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:52:04pm

re: #162 Rieux

I’ll explain polite manners to you. When you insult someone, even if it’s inadvertent you apologize. You don’t insist that it wasn’t an insult, nor do you come up with new insults. Otherwise, well-mannered people will decide to ignore you, which is what I am doing.

You’re not really good at ignoring people.

“arguing from a position of ignorance” isn’t an insult. It means you didn’t understand why Wahabbists would hate this community center/Mosque. Since you asked why, you were arguing from a position of ignorance.

I’m sorry if you took offense from it, but it’s a literal description.

And again: You don’t have an actual argument. “That’s insensitive” is not an argument against something that’s protected by the first amendment. They should have taught you that at law school.

164 Rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:53:55pm

re: #163 Obdicut

You’re not really good at ignoring people.

I’ll try to get better at it.

165 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:55:48pm

re: #158 rieux

Sorry for being so literal - I do that sometimes. :-) It seems to me that people at demonstrations are sometimes sensitive to people who counter-demonstrate and disagree with them, and if those people attempt to mix with them, it is felt to be provocative. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, of course, but the resentment needn’t necessarily be bigotry - it can be just about being on the other side of the issue. And, as I’ve made clear, I don’t think that opposition to the mosque being constructed at that location is necessarily based on anti-Muslim bigotry.

And again, the reason why the crowd got “sensitive” was based solely on these two men’s appearance.

Explain again how this is different from racism; I’m still not getting it.

166 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:58:25pm

re: #164 Rieux

I’ll try to get better at it.

You could get better at making arguments, instead.

167 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 4:59:34pm

re: #160 rieux

If bigotry is too negative a word for you, call it opposition based on irrational prejudice then. Because that’s what it is. It doesn’t mean that all opponents of this are wholly bad. However, their opposition to this is irrational, and prejudiced. It’s not like the site is part of some sacred untouched area and theirs would be the only building there. It’s two blocks from the area in the middle of a busy city, surrounded by shops, offices, fast food restaurants, and other places of worship. This particular place of worship, and the entirely legal act of building it, is singled out by some because of irrational prejudice towards Muslims. If your quibble is that having that irrational (some may say bigoted) prejudice doesn’t necessarily make them entirely bad people, I and others will agree. That doesn’t change the fact that some opponents, such as Pam Geller, are indeed crazy and bad people. And it doesn’t change the fact that this opposition is, indeed, nothing more than irrational prejudice.

168 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:07:42pm

re: #165 Charles

And again, the reason why the crowd got “sensitive” was based solely on these two men’s appearance.

Explain again how this is different from racism; I’m still not getting it.

I’m assuming you’re not being sarcastic. :-) As Nasralla tells it in the letter (let’s assume we believe it, otherwise there’s no point) it was not merely their appearance - after all there were Hindus in the crowd as well who might have been mistaken for Arabs - but the fact that they were speaking Arabic and passing out material with Qur’anic verses. That might have led demonstrators to assume that they were there, as Nasralla said, to oppose and disrupt the demonstration, which would have been provocative. A sadly ill-mannered response to what might have reasonably, if mistakenly, thought an attempt as disruption does not seem to me to tantamount to racism. That is why it seems to me that it does matter “how bad it was”, that is, just what the response of the demonstrators was. Now I agree with you that Nasralla may have some incentive to minimize the incident, but that doesn’t make him an altogether untrustworthy witness - after all, he was there and he was the victim. If he thinks the newspaper accounts exaggerated what happened, that surely counts for something.

169 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:18:01pm

re: #168 rieux

I’m assuming you’re not being sarcastic. :-) As Nasralla tells it in the letter (let’s assume we believe it, otherwise there’s no point) it was not merely their appearance - after all there were Hindus in the crowd as well who might have been mistaken for Arabs - but the fact that they were speaking Arabic and passing out material with Qur’anic verses. That might have led demonstrators to assume that they were there, as Nasralla said, to oppose and disrupt the demonstration, which would have been provocative. A sadly ill-mannered response to what might have reasonably, if mistakenly, thought an attempt as disruption does not seem to me to tantamount to racism. That is why it seems to me that it does matter “how bad it was”, that is, just what the response of the demonstrators was. Now I agree with you that Nasralla may have some incentive to minimize the incident, but that doesn’t make him an altogether untrustworthy witness - after all, he was there and he was the victim. If he thinks the newspaper accounts exaggerated what happened, that surely counts for something.

So two men turn up and begin participating in the demonstration, without opposing or disrupting it. (I assume that they were not, because they were there to support it.) The crowd assumes that they are disrupting it, based not on facts or observation, but on foreign elements that they don’t understand. The crowd gets aggressive. Presumably, these two men attempt to explain that they are in support of the demonstration and not there to disrupt it. The crowd ignores this explanation and continues to be hostile. They get sufficiently aggressive that the police feel they have to step in. And this all seems perfectly reasonable to you?

170 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:18:17pm

re: #167 Renaissance_Man

If bigotry is too negative a word for you, call it opposition based on irrational prejudice then. Because that’s what it is. It doesn’t mean that all opponents of this are wholly bad. However, their opposition to this is irrational, and prejudiced. It’s not like the site is part of some sacred untouched area and theirs would be the only building there. It’s two blocks from the area in the middle of a busy city, surrounded by shops, offices, fast food restaurants, and other places of worship. This particular place of worship, and the entirely legal act of building it, is singled out by some because of irrational prejudice towards Muslims. If your quibble is that having that irrational (some may say bigoted) prejudice doesn’t necessarily make them entirely bad people, I and others will agree. That doesn’t change the fact that some opponents, such as Pam Geller, are indeed crazy and bad people. And it doesn’t change the fact that this opposition is, indeed, nothing more than irrational prejudice.

I’m not sure that “irrational prejudice” is a whole lot better than “bigotry”. But the demonstrators don’t claim that there shouldn’t be any mosque built anywhere - they’re not campaigning for a ban on mosques. If they were, that might more reasonably be construed as anti-Muslim prejudice. But they would claim they’re not singling it out because of an irrational prejudice toward Muslims, they’re singling it out because of its location. Now, I doubt many of the demonstrators were big fans of Islam. But unless you can cite some evidence of prejudice beyond the fact of opposition to the mosque itself, such as the way they phrase their opposition, then I don’t see why we shouldn’t take the opposition at face value. If they were saying “we don’t want any dirty Muslims near Ground Zero”, that would indeed count as bigotry and prejudice. But as far as I can tell, that’s not the way the opposition is being expressed.

171 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:33:11pm

re: #170 rieux

I’m not sure that “irrational prejudice” is a whole lot better than “bigotry”. But the demonstrators don’t claim that there shouldn’t be any mosque built anywhere - they’re not campaigning for a ban on mosques. If they were, that might more reasonably be construed as anti-Muslim prejudice. But they would claim they’re not singling it out because of an irrational prejudice toward Muslims, they’re singling it out because of its location. Now, I doubt many of the demonstrators were big fans of Islam. But unless you can cite some evidence of prejudice beyond the fact of opposition to the mosque itself, such as the way they phrase their opposition, then I don’t see why we shouldn’t take the opposition at face value. If they were saying “we don’t want any dirty Muslims near Ground Zero”, that would indeed count as bigotry and prejudice. But as far as I can tell, that’s not the way the opposition is being expressed.

I don’t see the distinction you want to draw. Why would it only count as anti-Muslim if they opposed all mosques anywhere? They quite clearly object to not only the location, but also the fact that it is a Muslim centre. (They claim to not be a mosque, apparently, or at the very least not just a mosque.) They aren’t objecting to other places of worship in the area. They aren’t opposing other businesses or institutions in the area. Just this one, because it is a Muslim centre. How can you claim that their singling it out isn’t to do with Muslims?

172 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:35:40pm

re: #169 Renaissance_Man

So two men turn up and begin participating in the demonstration, without opposing or disrupting it. (I assume that they were not, because they were there to support it.) The crowd assumes that they are disrupting it, based not on facts or observation, but on foreign elements that they don’t understand. The crowd gets aggressive. Presumably, these two men attempt to explain that they are in support of the demonstration and not there to disrupt it. The crowd ignores this explanation and continues to be hostile. They get sufficiently aggressive that the police feel they have to step in. And this all seems perfectly reasonable to you?

According to Nasralla, the crowd might have assumed that because they were speaking Arabic and passing out material with Qur’anic verses they were there to oppose and/or disrupt the demonstration. Those factors seem to me to qualify as facts and observation. We don’t reliably know how aggressive the crowd got - there seems to be a discrepancy between what the news reported and what Nassralla reports. The columnist who wrote the report (and it looked like an opinion piece rather than a news report) seemed fairly hostile to the demonstrators, and you’re taking his report as face value. Nassralla’s letter claims that the misunderstanding was resolved relatively easily. Why is his report less credible than the columnist’s? The police may have intervened because they saw the demonstrators becoming unreasonably aggressive - or they may have stepped in as soon as they saw an argument developing or a couple of guys surrounded by a circle of demonstrators in order to find out what was happening or to prevent any possible altercation. Sad experience ha taught me to be wary of unquestioningly taking news reports at face value, especially when a point of view is obvious. And this seems to have been an opinion piece rather a straight news story. We just don’t know at this point, as far as I can see, and I’m willing to give Nassralla as much credibility as the columnist.

173 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:41:50pm

re: #172 rieux

We just don’t know at this point, as far as I can see, and I’m willing to give Nassralla as much credibility as the columnist.

I’m not. He’s obviously biased. He flew across the country to take part in this demonstration.

The journalist has quite a bit more credibility.

174 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:45:52pm

re: #171 Renaissance_Man

I don’t see the distinction you want to draw. Why would it only count as anti-Muslim if they opposed all mosques anywhere? They quite clearly object to not only the location, but also the fact that it is a Muslim centre. (They claim to not be a mosque, apparently, or at the very least not just a mosque.) They aren’t objecting to other places of worship in the area. They aren’t opposing other businesses or institutions in the area. Just this one, because it is a Muslim centre. How can you claim that their singling it out isn’t to do with Muslims?

Of course it has to do with the fact that it’s a Muslim institution. But that doesn’t mean that the opposition has to do with bigotry. They object to a Muslim institution there because of the location in proximity to Ground Zero, the site of a major act of terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. You say you understand why there was a controversy over the Carmelite convent in Auschwitz and why some feel it’s ‘insensitive’ to build this mosque. If you feel that opposition to both are the convent and the mosque is “irrational” and should be disregarded, then we don’t have much more to talk about, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you think the opposition to the convent legitimate, but to the mosque illegitimate, I’d like to hear what distsinction you draw.

175 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:48:16pm

re: #173 Charles

I’m not. He’s obviously biased. He flew across the country to take part in this demonstration.

The journalist has quite a bit more credibility.

Okay. :-) I think that if the victim had really felt seriously threatened, he might have said so, and that the journalist seems to have his own biases. We agree to disagree.

176 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:48:20pm

re: #172 rieux

We just don’t know at this point, as far as I can see, and I’m willing to give Nassralla as much credibility as the columnist.

I’m willing to give more credibility to the police than either of them. And if the police felt it was serious enough to intervene, then that’s serious enough for me. Furthermore, you seem to believe that getting hostile enough for the police to intervene based on a knee-jerk and mistaken response to foreign language, letters, and appearance is totally okay and understandable. It’s not. It’s almost the very essence of prejudice.

Two men are there, not being oppositional or disruptive. The crowd believes they are, based on their appearance and words they don’t understand. They get hostile and aggressive, based not on what is actually happening, but based on a mistake fuelled by their preconceived beliefs. Seriously, how could you possibly argue that this is okay?

177 Renaissance_Man  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:50:16pm

re: #174 rieux

If you feel that opposition to both are the convent and the mosque is “irrational” and should be disregarded, then we don’t have much more to talk about, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

We probably don’t. I still don’t see any reason for you to think that their opposition is rational, though.

178 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:50:42pm

re: #174 rieux

You keep saying that not everyone at the demonstration was a bigot. I agree. I hate generalizations.

But then you proceed to make outrageous generalizations about an entire diverse group of people, and associate all Muslims with what happened on 9/11. You’ve done it over and over. It’s your core reasoning for supporting the anti-Cordoba crowd: you see the entire religion of Islam as an enemy. That’s why you’re OK with taking away one of the most basic constitutional rights from them - the right to worship as they see fit.

The simple fact is that the state of New York isn’t going to deny this building a license just because it’s owned by Muslims and includes a mosque. This is still America, and we don’t do things that way here.

179 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 5:58:22pm

re: #176 Renaissance_Man

Furthermore, you seem to believe that getting hostile enough for the police to intervene based on a knee-jerk and mistaken response to foreign language, letters, and appearance is totally okay and understandable. It’s not. It’s almost the very essence of prejudice.

I think the response might have been not to the foreignness but to the inference that they were there to disrupt the demonstration. If the demonstrators had had a knee-jerk reaction simply to foreignness they’d have had issues with the Hindus who were also there. It was the Arabic and Qur’an that Nassralla reports led them to mistakenly infer that Nassralla and his friend were there to oppose or disrupt.

Two men are there, not being oppositional or disruptive. The crowd believes they are, based on their appearance and words they don’t understand. They get hostile and aggressive, based not on what is actually happening, but based on a mistake fuelled by their preconceived beliefs. Seriously, how could you possibly argue that this is okay?

Because Nassralla reports that it wasn’t there mere appearance and words that led to the mistake. And as I’ve said at least twice, finding people who you think are from the “other side” of the question mixing in with your demonstration doesn’t excuse bad behavior. I’m just saying that this sometimes happens at demonstrations, and the fact that it happens isn’t necessarily attributable to prejudice. Bad behavior has lots of different sources.

180 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 6:02:16pm

re: #179 rieux

Because Nassralla reports that it wasn’t there mere appearance and words that led to the mistake…

Sorry - didn’t mean to imply that, in response to your question, that the crowd’s reaction was necessarily okay. I’m just arguing that it may have been based on factors other than simple prejudice, as Nassralla states. And that while those factors don’t excuse bad behavior, until we have the police report, we have conflicting reports about just how badly the crowd behaved, and no way of resolving the discrepancy.

181 rieux  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 8:15:10pm

re: #178 Charles

You keep saying that not everyone at the demonstration was a bigot. I agree. I hate generalizations.

But then you proceed to make outrageous generalizations about an entire diverse group of people, and associate all Muslims with what happened on 9/11. You’ve done it over and over. It’s your core reasoning for supporting the anti-Cordoba crowd: you see the entire religion of Islam as an enemy. That’s why you’re OK with taking away one of the most basic constitutional rights from them - the right to worship as they see fit.

The simple fact is that the state of New York isn’t going to deny this building a license just because it’s owned by Muslims and includes a mosque. This is still America, and we don’t do things that way here.

I think I’ve been pretty careful not to make the kinds of generalizations you’re suggesting. Please tell me where I’ve said that the entire religion of Islam is the enemy. Nor have I said anything remotely like taking away the right to worship as they see fit. All I’ve said is (i) that the attacks were carried out by Muslims in the name of their religion and were supported by significant numbers of Muslims and that as a result (ii) I understand why some people think that a Muslim institution so close to Ground Zero is inappropriate, (iii) that I don’t see that that sentiment necessarily has to spring from anti-Muslim bigotry, and (iv) that Nassralla’s account deserves some credibility. That’s it. Didn’t even say which side I came down on, as far as the demonstrators go. As it happens, I think they’re wasting their time because while I don’t know anything about the relevant New York City law, I doubt very much that there are any legal grounds for denying Cordoba what they’re asking for.

182 Flavia  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 9:06:32pm

re: #156 Charles

I know what you mean. Those sneaky Arabs and militant Muslims might infiltrate at any time. Provocatively. Sadly, you’ve got to keep an eye out for them.

This is different from bigotry … how, again?

& this is the most insidious aspect of terrorism: since they go out of their way to look like everyone else, everyone else who looks like them is automatically suspect.

Like I always say, those self-made illegitimate individuals have a lot to answer for.

183 Rishonah  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 9:28:55pm

That’s the trouble with groupthink and bigotry, you never know where it will lead, and it always goes viral.

184 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Jun 11, 2010 10:03:00pm

re: #181 rieux

(ii) I understand why some people think that a Muslim institution so close to Ground Zero is inappropriate, (iii) that I don’t see that that sentiment necessarily has to spring from anti-Muslim bigotry

That part contradicts.

185 Timmeh  Sat, Jun 12, 2010 11:18:08pm

I completely agree that yelling at people just because of their race or appearance is rank bigotry and completely unacceptable.

I do have mixed feelings on building a mosque at ground zero though. (Is it at ground zero or just near ground zero?)

The atheist polemicist Pat Condell made a pretty strong case against it (which I am not endorsing because I’m not sure he has his facts straight. I don’t know enough about the details to have made up my own mind yet.):

Youtube Video

186 Gus  Sat, Jun 12, 2010 11:24:12pm

re: #185 Timmeh

I completely agree that yelling at people just because of their race or appearance is rank bigotry and completely unacceptable.

I do have mixed feelings on building a mosque at ground zero though. (Is it at ground zero or just near ground zero?)

The atheist polemicist Pat Condell made a pretty strong case against it (which I am not endorsing because I’m not sure he has his facts straight. I don’t know enough about the details to have made up my own mind yet.):

[Video]

Rebutal from The Amazing Atheist:

Pat Condell Hates Tacos (Also Muslims)

Youtube Video

187 Timmeh  Sun, Jun 13, 2010 4:07:17am

Is it true that they are planning to open this mosque on the 10th anniversary of 9/11?

And that it is being named after a Spanish city that was conquered by muslims in 711 (yes, I checked that: en.wikipedia.org ).

Why on earth would they choose the anniversary of 9/11 to open it?


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 74 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
5 days ago
Views: 174 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1