@centurion1:

As I find many things in predominantly Christian nations "backward" as well (this country being no exception, and the ideologies of Ms. Palin being an example of some pretty backward thinking)...

I'd have to say that really, well, you aid it yourself: our WESTERN standard.

Now, how is THAT fair?

We're the West
So we're the best
Don't you all mess
Or we'll war you to the test?

(obiwanobiwan promises never ever to try an atrocious rhyme again even for a light-hearted joke...but seriously, because we have Western standards they're automatically better than Muslim standards? It's that sort of thinking that leads to "My God is better than your God" and "My INTERPRETATION of this God is better than your interpretation of this God" and...well, a good deal of the issues in the world today and, quite frankly, one of the things that makes me respond I'm first and foremost a philosophical skeptic when people ask what my religion is, I'll say I'm of Jewish descent, and I still see many of the customs, like the food and praising of elders as people of wisdom and basic ideas like the Ten Commandments, as being valid, and so Judaism is the only religion I lean towards at all, but as I reject or question much of the religion, including the very nature of God Himself and the validity of some older customs like temple-going and the parts of the Torrah, I'm a skeptic and philosophical person first who has a proud Jewish heritage that he still still sees some worth in, but really as a cultural and not as a religious thing...and yes, I'm WAY off topic by this point, sorry, but my point above about our standards not being better just because they're "Western" and, as an incidental closing note just because it bugs me, the next time someone says that to be a Jew is only a religious thing and Jews aren't a culture or race...race takes it a bit far, but culture? Ask just about any Jew you like, and I know the Jewish friends and family and non-Jew friends I have all agree, to be a Jew is really a cultural thing, and not just a religious movement...OK, this concludes the rant that went way off topic, sorry...) :p

Peace seeking Christians would build a mosque across the road from ground zero.

+1 to champ and diplomat
-1 to being overly PC

It's not wrong to build a mosque at ground zero, especially at the proposed two-blocks-away site. It's not wrong to build it right across the street either, though that could be seen as insensitive to some Americans.

More on the subject (I guess): I don't think many sensible people [should] take Palin too strongly enough to be offended, whether they have a right to or not. I only get offended when people think she speaks for me.

"...and that's all I have to say about that." -Gump

All the hijackers were men. Clearly men attacked the Twin Towers, and should be kept away from Ground Zero.

They were all between the height of 5 feet and 7 feet tall. People within those ranges need to STAY OUT of our country, it's provocation.

I'm sure none of the hijackers enjoyed the work of Celine Dion, so people who dislike her should just avoid Ground Zero.

A white male Christian bombed the IRS office, so we should keep all white male Christians out of government offices, just in case.

Mmmm, I loves me some America.

PuppyKicker +1

I agree that the Mosque ought to have the right to be built in Manhattan, but if the goal is interfaith dialogue and trust, do you think that such a goal is genuinely possible in the face of such opposition?

I guess one can hope for the best.

@FS
Goal is always possible. Tough to make progress at the moment but you have to start somewhere. Showing tolerance of other religion is a positive. Ms Palin's comments are not.

PuppyKicker +1

Religion has no place in this building whatsoever. The problem was religion itself; the simplest solution is to prohibit all houses of worship on the premises.

It wasn't atheists hitting the towers, I'll tell you that.

I'm glad we sorted out this thread. Thanks, now let's get back to the Diplomacy-related threads that deserve our attention.

And regarding the OP: jihadist Muslims are simply following the Qur'an. It's the non-jihadist Mulisms that pervert the religion. Sorry to break it to you, folks.

The Allied Athiest Alliance is coming to get you!

In all seriousness, it's not religion that is the problem, but extremism.

If there were no religions, extremists would find some other banner to flock beneath and continue their desperate attempts to inflict themselves upon the world.

That's why I dismiss all arguments that Muslims/Christians/Jews as a whole are X/Y/Z insult. If we let our views of an entire swath of the populace be swayed by the tiniest percentage of its members, we leave the door open for an equitable return of ignorance directed back at us.

There's a facebook group gathering donations for a Palin brain transplant - feel free to join - it's a worthy cause!

Although I am more than willing to criticise Sarah Palin on many grounds, some of what you’ve said obiwan, is really very silly.

“Because they're Muslims, because it's Islam?”

Yes indeed, precisely because they are Muslim, and the September 11 attacks were carried out in the name of Islam. I doubt that she would have a problem with the mosque being built had the attack being carried out in the name of Sikhism.

Furthermore, even if she would only complain in this case where it is Islam, that does not make her criticism wrong. You would be committing the tu quoque fallacy to claim that it did.

“Not only is this a provocation now, but far worse, now it's "if you want peace, Muslims, stay out or else?"”

She didn’t say at any point on what it would provoke, I have very little doubt it would provoke upset, ill feeling, hatred, disgust and resentment among people and I have varying degrees of sympathy for these feelings. Asking for the proposal to be rejected “in the interest of healing,” seems to me to be eminently sensible.

Your comments about NYC being a very open city are true, however this does not imply that it is a good idea to build a mosque at ground zero, nor that it couldn’t provoke resentment and the other feelings I mentioned. It would be improper for this issue to be a reason for not granting planning permission to the building of the mosque, but the matter we are concerned with here is whether or not the quotation you give from Sarah Palin was justified. That she did not, here at least, call for the mosque to be prohibited, means that she has not gone against the tolerance that the mention. However tolerance is about accepting the decisions of others, not about agreeing with them.

@ obiwan
You wrote a lot and I won't respond to it piece by piece because a lot of it is redundant or doesn't make sense. But for one thing, I don't see where you get the idea that she is addressing all Muslims. This isn't a matter of interpretation... she EXPLICITLY only addresses certain Muslims.

Here's why building a mosque 2 blocks from Ground Zero is provocative. Many people who claim to be from and represent the religion of Islam have declared war on the USA and the entire West. They targeted and slaughtered civilians on 9/11, all in the name of Islam. It wasn't in the name of being male or being of a certain height, btw, which is an absolutely terrible connection to make. They were explicit in saying that they were driven to this act by their faith in Islam. I don't know about the rest of you but I take their word for it. I'm also well aware that they in fact do NOT represent Islam as a whole. But non-Muslims cannot tell the difference between Muslims who mean harm and those who don't. They also cannot tell the difference between Muslims who don't mean harm today but may mean harm tomorrow. Therefore, these people get very antsy when they see a monument to victory planted in the vicinity of a ground where many civilians were killed. I think one is entirely justified in seeing it this way and that the rest of us should have a little sympathy and try to see it from their side.

And George Bush claims he did his deeds in the name of Jesus.

I guess we need to kick out all the Americans, since God knows the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed tons of civilians.

I mean I'm fine with that. I'm legally Choctaw, myself. You guys? I guess you ought to pack your bags.

Jerry Falwell claims to represent Christianity. The Westboro Baptist Church claims to represent Christianity. Does this mean we should bar Christianity in the US, since some extremists claim to represent it?

Your argument that 'ZOMG the only famous Muslims we know is terra'ists, so they must be the ones who represent it!' is flawed. They're the only ones Americans know because Americans are xenophobic as a whole and don't bother learning about anyone who doesn't fit the stereotypes of our particular narrative.

If you want people to learn about non-terrorist Muslims, let them build mosques. Period. If you want to strengthen relations and heal the damages done, well, shit.

You talk about sympathy for the poor ignorant bastards who hate Muslims? Well, we should have sympathy for the KKK. They are justified in hating blacks. Sympathy for the Nazis... 'cause those Jews were dangerous.

I can empathize, but I refuse to sympathize.

@PuppyKicker - name one civilian target in Afghanistan or Iraq where we (the US) used civilians as weapons to attack it. I doubt you can even name a civilian target and, if you somehow find a legit one in your google search, I bet I can link how it relates to a strategic military goal. In our fights in Afghanistan and Iraq, civilian casualties have been an unfortunate occurence. We haven't targetted civilian targets with the expressed goals of killing as many civilians as we can. And we sure as *hell* haven't used other civilians as weapons to get the job done.

Oh, if you want to volunteer to be a civilian who is used to attack civilians to make you feel better, I'm sure I can find a way to get you strapped to a bunker buster bomb and dropped somewhere over Afghanistan.

Maybe PuppyKicker is an appropriate name for you cause your one real asshole.

We didn't use civilians, but we've blown plenty of them away.

That being said, National Guard is technically not a federal military service, but they're stuffed into combat situations on a regular basis. So there you go.

And who says their goal was to kill as many civilians as they could on 9/11? They attacked during non-peak hours at the WTC. Their goal was to attack a symbol of our Capitalist system and to instill terror. I'm not saying they cared about casualties, but they weren't specifically out to maximize bodycount.

Yeah, I'm a real asshole for not thinking all Muslims are ebul terrorists. Pardon me for being older than 16 years old and not buried neck deep in a pile of my own shit.

As for us not using civilians as weapons... really? We're a nation that gave Smallpox to the Native Americans, diseases to our own (minority) soldiers during WW2, and who... gasp, bombed two cities in Japan to inflict maximum civilian casualties, as outlined in reports released to the public since then.

Get over yourself, Draugnar. I love my country, but I damn sure don't drink the kool-aid.

PuppyKiller does have a point.

Draugnar:
1. When we say We (the US), who do you qualify as the Others? :). It was a US citizen and a christian who bombed the WTC the first time.
2. The fact that there're not many civilian targets in Afghanistan is not something you can draw on as a strong argument. Unless your strategy is based on bombing everything that stands tall and then using it as an excuse that "there're no more civilian targets left" :)
3. Terrorists can't send carriers and bombers - so they use what they can and hit where they can. Not that I approve of it, but challenging them to a 'fair fight' is kind of dumb... and unfair :)
4. Go visit Hiroshima some time - and then the rest of Japan - might teach you some humility and the concept of forgiveness - a very Christian concept actually... or it should be.

Of course it's a bad idea to build a mosque there - but let's not brand one billion people as terrorists, shall we. Palin is a moron - she only said this for populism and controversy - that's how you get in the news and how you ensure hard-core support.

Btw, we have a mosque, a catholic church and an orthodox church within a few hundred yards exactly in the center of Sofia - and there have been a lot of arguments and discussions about the first two in the past - and you know what the end result is - they are all standing there and noone gives a fuck anymore.

If Ivo is about to bring up Hiroshima as in any way a parallel of terrorism or as a basis to criticise America, heaven help us.

Right, because a nation blowing up civilians in an effort to break the spirit of a nation is -completely- justified, whilst 'terrorists' doing it is evil?

I think murder on any scale by any entity is equally wrong.

The we (US) I was referring to was the US led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. And my reference was to *intent*. We do not target civilians just to terrorize the citizenship. In fact, we do no target civilians, period. And bringing up Nagasaki and Hiroshima... Those were A) brought up *after* my post and B) not relevant to our current standing military protocols. When I was in the Corps, we were taught that civilian casualties may happen, but *don't target them*.

PuppyKicker was originally talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, not WWII. Iraq had plenty of potential civilian targets not involved in the Iraqi war machine. Did we target those? No! I challenge anyone to name a single civilian target that didn't contribute to the enemy's war machine that the US military has targeted in the last 30 years.

If the target had been the Pentagon and even the White House and the terrorists had just flown small fixed wing aircraft loaded with fertilizer bombs or some such into them, I'd actually view them as doing what they could with what they had. Had they hit a factory or other civilian building they believed could hurt the US militarily and make their point, I would still accept this as reasonable. But the WTC was *not* a target of any military value.

And PuppyKicker - non-peak hours? Are you fucking full of shit?! I was at work at the same time the people in the WTC were (8-5 is the standard working day and I'm in the same time zone) when they attacked. It most certainly *was* the fucking peak business hours! You're a moron if you truly think it wasn't.

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.


Plane hits WTC.
9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

How is this not peak hours? What kind of grass are you smoking?

Re: Diseases "given" to minorities and natives... Did we do this *intentionally*? No!

I repeat. It is all about intent. We do not now and haven't in the last 30+ years targeted civilian populations.

We didn't intend to kill the Native Americans. Or displace them. Or kill them en masse. Or put the Japanese into labor camps. Or bomb two Japanese cities.

And BULLSHIT we don't target civilians. Please. Do you buy that crap? Really? We have civilians we've captured in bases around the world we're afraid to release because they'll tell everyone we tortured them, who our government -acknowledges- have been cleared of all charges.

What part of last 30 *fucking* years didn't you comprehend on your Native American references and the references to the first and to date only nuclear bombings by the US?

And equating holding terrorist suspects (the total number of whom is fewer than the number of people who died in the attacks on the twin towers) to killing civilians is low even for your admittedly abysmal standards, PuppKicker.

Oh, my bad. I had no idea that if you waited 30 years, all the bad shit you've done goes away.

As for equating? No. I'm not equating anything. I'm saying that you can't pretend our shit doesn't stink too.

You're obviously one of those 'West is Best, Fuck the Rest!' types who believes that nothing the US does is wrong. That we're the good guys and they're the bad guys and we have to fight pew pew pew.

It's that kind of thinking that caused this to begin with. They view us in the same light we view them.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. But those who refuse to move forward from the past are doomed to misery and pain. Let go and move forward. There is an appropriate time for morning. Less than a generation isn't enough for such an aggregious act as the WTC. Make it so that all the teens and adults alive when it happened are fairly old (i.e. 40 years form now) and we may be able to move on from the morning.

I would not expect anybody who was alive when the bombs were dropped to be able to forget or move on any more than I'd expect the victims who survived the holocaust could move on. It's a generational thing to move on from attrocities like that.

But the Native Americans need to fucking move on. Not a one of them alive today was alive in the 19th century when the US was expanding and brutalizing their ancestors.

African Americans need to move on with regards to slavery. The is no one alive today who was alive in the 1860s.

And when I'm dead and gone, I expect my nephew's and niece's kids to have moved on from the events of 9/11.

But the key isn't what happened in the past, but what we do moving forward. And you have yet to provide any evidence of a US attack in the current conflicts on a sinlge civilian target. Rhetoric and sarcasm aside, provide proof of what you say or shut the fuck up about it.

*mourning

Because we don't publicize 'attacks' on civilian targets.

Though, technically, -every- enemy we kill is a civilian target. They're not formal military personnel. All we have is hearsay and rumors.

Put that in your racist pipe and smoke it.