So they will succumb and act exactly as the Brotherhood expects.

"whatever emotions they want to have, I respect and I honor. "

Halperin's comments are heartfelt, thoughtful, and completely understandable, so long as you know that, in his context, the words "honor" and "respect" mean "scorn" and "reject", respectively.

I guess if Bin Laden, Palin and Limbaugh said to vote for Obama all these people would NOT vote for Obama.

33 Trapped miners in chile have been located alive
they were able to drill a tunnel down to them
if the tunnel can be safely enlarged and grease is supplied to the miners and if the miners took off all their clothes and assumed a dive position could they be successfully lifted up
the fear is if they are not rescued soon they will not survive and with mines another catastrophe may occur
any engineers on Kate's blog
thank you
fh

One of the reasons given for building this place was to 'build a bridge to other faiths' or something like it. If they actually build the place, they will seriously annoy those that don't want it built there. If they build it, they have already failed.

The fact that they refuse to consider a different location means this is the Victory 9/11 mosque meant to glorify the terrorists that killed more than three thousand.

SCARBOROUGH: "This is an international situation. ... This is sending a horrific message across the Muslim world."

So?

"the signal it could send abroad could put us at war with a billion people forever."

So let me get this straight; if New Yorkers decide to not build a mosque at said location, is the same as a declaration of war against 1 billion muslims; yet, muslims flying two jets into two buildings in New York killing over 2000 people is not a declaration of war against Americans by muslims?

Are we at war or not with 1 billion muslims?

And if we are not at war with 1 billion muslims, we will be at war if a mosque isn't built at "Ground Zero"?

Well quite frankly, in both scenarios, it seems the muslims are being unreasonable. I suspect that IF "war with a billion people forever" is in the cards, then likely it has very little to do with the mosque at Ground Zero.

Patronizing Idiots!

Pay attention, this is one of those very important moments in time.

"If the resolution is not handled well," he remarked, "the signal it could send abroad could put us at war with a billion people forever."
~Mark Halperin

We are already at war with "a billion" Muslims.
They have always referred to non-Muslim controled territory as Dar al-Harb.(House of War)

It's their religion, stupid.
It took 9/11 to wake us up to how they already viewed us.

It's no secret that Obama was hoping to alienate the muslim world from the west in his quest to bring about his version of the end of days. I don't think theres any doubt about that.

"So let me get this straight; if New Yorkers decide to not build a mosque at said location, is the same as a declaration of war against 1 billion muslims; yet, muslims flying two jets into two buildings in New York killing over 2000 people is not a declaration of war against Americans by muslims?'

You should consider a job as a spin doctor. No, I m not joking. Really.

Now lets point out the flaws. The most obvious one in this comparison is your implication that the entire muslim world, including American muslims, are default members of AQ. Did the people of the Muslim world ever have a say on the attacks on 9/11? Did OBL carry out polling across the Muslim world to see what they thought about it? Did he ask them for their opinion. Did he call up each American muslim and try to galvanize them into supporting his attack before it took place?

The answer is, unsurprisingly, no. The problem with this situation is that it implicitly involves collective punishment. A couple of dozen muslims planned and carried out attacks in New York without consulting a billion odd muslims around the world, including a couple of million in America. Incidentally, muslims died in the attack. However, because it was carried out by people who are muslim, we must now punish ALL muslims by denying them a mosque that, from what I've read, will be the only Mosque in that area. Long story short, you are saying that because some muslims carried out attacks here, we don't want all muslims to be freely able to practice their rights.

On the other hand, you would be right if you said AQ declared war on America. In that case, yes, you could ban AQ from building a mosque there. But to engage in collective punishment is against the ethos of the American state.

To that end, he is right. You have taken a declaration of war by one group, interpreted it as a declaration of war by a diverse religious community, and declared that you have a right to punish all of them for the actions of that one group. Doesn't work so well. Like it or not, you are playing into Bin Laden's hands. You will alienate American muslims, who are being told, in no uncertain terms, that their rights are at the discretion of the majority in a country that was meant to avoid the so-called tyranny of the majority. We all know how alienated and disaffected youth react. Things like this will just turn the next generation of American muslims into perfect recruits for AQ. You will note that homegrown terrorism has been relatively absent in the US so far (as opposed to the UK or Spain). Do you want to change that now?

"And if we are not at war with 1 billion muslims, we will be at war if a mosque isn't built at "Ground Zero"?"

Its the principle. Its always the principle. The mosque is just a pawn in this scenario now. What you are saying in very clear terms is that American muslims are morally responsible for 9/11 and should therefore, on the basis of morality, eschew building a mosque in property they have bought.

The smarter thing to do would be to demand full transparency on this Cordoba institute. If you really want to defeat the mosque, all you have to do is link it with its obvious souce of the funding - some crazed Wahabbi in Saudi Arabia. The tone that the argument now uses is rather harshly aimed at all American muslims, and Muslims in general. Most of them are not fans of crazy Wahabbis Disaffecting segments of your own population is a bad idea - as is evident in ethnic strife around the world. Time to be a little more selective with the targetting.

Kate may I suggest another poll that goes horribly wrong,

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/15/2010-08-15_its_salt_in_my_pals_wounds_but_if_we_block_plan_the_terrorists_win.html

I apologize for not being able to enbed the link.

"Did the people of the Muslim world ever have a say on the attacks on 9/11?"

Do I have a say if the mosque is built at Ground Zero?No. Will that have any bearing on a Jihads view that I'm an infidel?

You got me wrong DA. I'm criticizing the speakers from MSNBC by using a ridiculous analogy, not the greater issue of the so called "Clash of Civilizations". I'm saying that "if they can say "this", then I can say "that"" attempting to demonstrate the idiocy of the patronizing speakers.

Read my comments again please. I didn't say, nor believe anything remotely similar to what you project in your comments towards me.

btw, DA

you're off topic, we had this discussion last week about the mosque.

Let them build it, not insure it then burn it down. We show the same respect we were given.

Yes, everyone wants to feel the soul-crushing devastation of "daddy never coming home". How thoughtless (to say the very, very least).
Needless to say it's total idiocy to invoke bin Laden with Limbaugh and Mrs. Palin. To the leftist, that is pure rhetorical genius. To everyone else, complete pig crap.

One more time with feeling…this is not a legal issue; this is a moral ethical issue. It’s about civility.

It is also an issue of tolerance. It usually makes sense to be tolerant of those who are tolerant with us. It is a very bad idea to tolerate those who do not tolerate us.

We see the Mosque as a symbol of disrespect and intolerance toward those murdered and their families on 9/11.

Is this, figuratively speaking, another Gates of Vienna point in time? Maybe. Tolerance is being tested both ways to the limit.

nomdeblog: It's more than a Gates of Vienna moment, it is also the moment when the progressive elite set themselves against reasonable people. I'm not sure they realize to what degree they are isolating themselves ... this issue, along with most everything the DNC and Obama have dished up since November of 09 is turning into a intellectual bloodbath where the political victims are all going to be progressives.

First they lost all conservatives with the stimulus. Next they lost the centrists with debt and pandering to special interested disguised as economic policy. Now, Cordoba is creating a whole new batch of 911 Republicans, where longtime Democrats are walking away from their roots ... in complete disgust.

I believe this is a turning point ... a good one ... but the progressive class is too arrogant and tone-deaf to realize it yet.

Oz says it well @ 6:15. This war has been going on since 615 CE with periods of remission. The reasons why can be debated, but the intensity of the Muslim dream has increased during the last century. Liberals can fluff it all they want, but the fanatics will not stop for the foreseeable future no matter how much appeasement is offered. The moderate Muslims also have this dream, but go about the realization in a quiet way.

nomdeblog has a great point "another Gates of Vienna" and the liberals want to surrender.

"It is also an issue of tolerance. It usually makes sense to be tolerant of those who are tolerant with us. It is a very bad idea to tolerate those who do not tolerate us."

Agreed. However, in these kind of scenarios, nothing is clear cut. Within any group, there are several smaller groups. Some of these groups may be tolerant. Some may be utterly intolerant. From what you say, it follows that it would should be tolerant to the tolerant groups within the larger group and intolerant to the intolerant groups within the larger group. I think it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of American muslims are "tolerant". Should we be intolerant towards them because some sub-groups in other countries are intolerant towards us? The issue then changes somewhat, for it becomes a case of collective punishment, because we do end up punishing the tolerant sub-groups in our attempt to punish the intolerant sub-groups.

Unsurprisingly, this will result in the disaffection and alienation of the tolerant sub-groups, which is what this writer is claiming, though I don't neccessarily agree with his way of arguing it.

If you bring in the moral ethical angle, I think you will agree that collective punishment is not moral or ethical.

"We see the Mosque as a symbol of disrespect and intolerance toward those murdered and their families on 9/11."

This mosque is PR disaster no matter how it pans out. That is a guarantee. In seieng it as symbol of disrespect and intolerance, you are essentially accusing American muslims of being disrespectful and intolerant. Are they? If they are, ban the mosque. If they aren't, then you are engaging in morally and ethically questionable collective punishment.

So I will repeat, to Indianas chagrin, that there are several ways to approach this issue, but banning the mosque is not one of them. You could:

1) Expose the linkage between the intolerant Wahabbis and the mosque's funding. I suspect most American muslims will be quite happy to see it banned if you can.

2) You can buy the property next to it and create all the exhibits you want about the intolerance, disrespect and evil you attribute to Islam.

Banning it won't solve a thing. Tell me, what do you hope to achieve? Who wins? Osama says the US hates muslims. Aren't you making it easier for him to make that claim? If they build the mosque, do you think he will come on TV and claim victory? I somehow doubt it.

But I cannot help feeling that if we block this mosque we will not only be doing what Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh want, we will also be doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants.

Wow. I believe that's what the learned among us call "cognitive dissonance"...

Does anyone still really believe that freak Osama is still alive?

Dispite the passionate argumenst from the left to allow the Mosque to be built and rub it in the noses of "white Christian America". The issues was never about legality, and contitutional rights (which the left normally tramples, unless convenient not to). The issue is about the site itself, a memorial and a sacred ground for all Americans of all races & faiths.

Devil's Advocate, people who oppose that PARTICULAR mosque being built near Ground Zero are not opposed to having mosques built anywhere else, nor are they "Islamophobic" or whatever bugbear one attaches to this issue. That's a red herring. No one has really asked the proponents of this mosque why it must built near Ground Zero. I certainly haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that question. I firmly believe- as I've said before- this is about Islamic triumphalism.

Thank goodness we have the smart people to explain reality to us. Otherwise we might just go with what we see, hear and feel.

It is not what the terrorist want, it is what the left wants;

another excuse to call conservatives racist/intolerant or whatever is in (*)vogue at that particular time.

(*)We used to be warmongerers but that mysteriously disapeared from leftist vocabulary when Obama sent 30,000 additional troops to war...

D.A.: "you are essentially accusing American muslims of being disrespectful and intolerant"

Yes, if they support Cordoba House.

But I'm not worried at all, since most Muslims see through it all ... those who are offended choose to be simply because they are religious supremacists and Muslim purists ... and those who aren't offended don't have kind words for people like you and progressives in general. In fact, they describe people like you as those who make the battle against supremacists all the more difficult.

Cheers!

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2010/08/canadian-muslim-speaks-out.html

PS: Good news is, Cordoba is likely the last great gasp of the progressive class in America. They used up just about every "card" in the book in one year ... they used up the race card, the gender card, and even the Islamophobe card. None of the standard progressive name-calling tactics work anymore. There's a new mood out there ... and I love it.

Cjunk “is also the moment when the progressive elite set themselves against reasonable people”

That means we are really confronting a 2 headed monster. Because the progressives are aligning themselves with like minded people striving to impose Shari’a law which is similar to what the progressives have in store for us...i.e. running every aspect of our lives, what we wear, what we eat. Hmmmm Mayor Bloomberg is into how much salt we eat. Which brings me to croissants and speaking of the Gates of Vienna, here’s a bit of interesting history.

The origin of the flaky, buttery-rich yeast Croissant dates back to the 1680’s when Austria was at war with Turkey. In the very early morning when on the bakers were up working, upon hearing Turks tunnelling under their kitchens they spread the alarm that subsequently led to the Turkish defeat. In turn, the vigilant bakers were awarded the privilege of creating a commemorative pastry in the shape of the crescent on the Turkish flag. Croissant is the French word for "crescent".

There is a nice mosque in Manhattan. They are anti-terrorist and have stated that position. It has no opposition. Let the left explain that one.

Did you all hear what Daisy Khan, wife of the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque, said today? She accused anyone who disagrees with the mosque's location as "Hating Muslims". And this woman is paid by the U.S. State Department to tour around the world spreading peace & good will from America.

A VERY comprehensive discussion on the story behind this entire story can be heard here. Just click on "Listen Here" and move the slider to 17:10. You'll hear John Batchelor interviewing Claudia Rosett.

Cjunk,

You may well be right about "most" muslims not liking Cordoba House.

I suspect most of them, like me, know nothing about this organization. If this is, in fact, the case, then some of the language being used is downright alarming. We aren't hearing too much of "No CORDOBA HOUSE mosque near Ground Zero". We are, however, hearing a lot of "they should not build A mosque near Ground Zero". This may appear to be a subtle difference, but imagine how an American muslim, who has never heard of the Cordoba House, would interpret this. As far as he's concerned, the language is pretty alarming.

But if, as you say, "most" muslims see right through it, then perhaps it isn't an issue at all. The main issue here is that most people don't know what this entity is, and in the absence of any information, one set thinks it has triumphalist designs, while the other set keeps hearing, in no uncertain terms, that "no mosque should be built near Ground Zero". I know I'm repeating myself, but as I've said several times earlier, change the language.

Stop making this about "a mosque" being built near Ground Zero; start making it about a Cordoba House mosque being built. That will leave you with the presumably easy task of associating Cordoba House with extremists and helping everyone see through what is going on. I don't know what they think of me, but my argument has always been simple enough: "don't punish American muslims for the acts committed by some radical group". I imagine they won't be too harsh on me.

"Mayor Bloomberg is into how much salt we eat."

In fairness to him, he is a billionaire with a large company. He's probably learnt the hard way that dead workers don't contribute to productivity. Its not his fault that there is a direct scientific correlation between sodium intake and heart disease. Its just one of those facts and he chooses to pay attention to it. Ill workers arent too great either.

devil's advocate, you are a troll, and I can't figure out whether you're sincerely daft or just pulling everyone's collective leg.

"Imagine how an American muslim, who has never heard of the Cordoba House, would interpret this"

First of all, someone so ill-informed has no interpretation that should interest anybody. Anyway, I'm not losing sleep about the feelings of Muslims on this one. Most Muslims around the world would interpret the building of this Mosque as a victory; it's certainly not that all Muslims are terrorists, but Islam has always been a violently expansionist religion. Do you really not know this? Everyone else does.

Any Muslim who supports building a Mosque at Ground Zero is an Islamic supremicist and an extremist; I see no reason to try to contort reasoning and common sense to pretend otherwise.

As for Nanny Bloomberg (God your posts are squishy and scattershot), New Yorkers are not his bloody employees - it's vice versa, in theory - or his children, or his pets. Yeesh. Although admittedly they did vote for him, the idiots.

(I wonder what happened to Mark Halperin to make him so insufferably vain and arrogant? Who the h@ll does he think he is? Michael Savage is right, Liberaliam is a mental disorder.)

You said it Black Mamba,

Why care about what Muslims think, no one cares about what mainstream Americans think. It's thier country not Islams, and if there needs to be a war over it. So be it. Islam has created nothing of modern value, including cities, armies, and governments.

Everthing they own besides thier hatred & jelousy for each other and the west has been western, or Russian invented & developed.
From the "sparkeling city" of Dubai to Irans nuclear capability.

They offer nothing but hatred. Only the vague assurance that if you submit to thier totalitarian ideals you may be spared.

To hell with them and to hell with their ground zero mosque.

"devil's advocate, you are a troll, and I can't figure out whether you're sincerely daft or just pulling everyone's collective leg."

A little bit of both, I m sure. I assume I am a troll because I dare question the conventional wisdom around here? FWIW, I haven't launched any personal attacks, so I assume I am lesser troll. Not that I have any issues with being labelled a major troll. The names remind me of constellations. Hmm. Pity its cloudy outside.

"First of all, someone so ill-informed has no interpretation that should interest anybody"

Finally. I was hoping someone would come and tell me all about the Cordoba House thing. I can't find anything about its funding or who is behind it. Apparently you know. However, if you don't, you will be like me, the hypothetical muslim I mentioned, and everybody else who is ill-informed, in which case, according to the standards you have set, you shouldn't bother sharing your opinion since it shouldn't be of interest to anyone.

So lets have it. What do you know about the Cordoba mosque? I assure you I am asking this particular question with complete sincerity. I don't know a thing about it and. Frankly, I don't think anyone here knows a thing about it.

"Most Muslims around the world would interpret the building of this Mosque as a victory"

If it hadn't gotten mired in such controversy, most muslims around the world would never have heard of it.

"Islam has always been a violently expansionist religion."

Theres so few of them on this continent that I am somewhat convinced that, should the need arise, we can take care of ourselves.

"As for Nanny Bloomberg (God your posts are squishy and scattershot), New Yorkers are not his bloody employees - it's vice versa, in theory - or his children, or his pets. Yeesh. Although admittedly they did vote for him, the idiots."

Let me spell it out simply. Governments promote the national interest. They do everything to ensure that their goals are consistent with the national interest. Suffice to say, healthy, efficient workers are in the national interest. Besides, if attempting suicide (read instant self-inflicted fatal injury) is grounds for government intervention, then it stands to reason that attempting to kill one self slowly (by consuming harmful amounts of certain substances) also warrants government intervention, no?

Yep, that daft.

I will repost this summarized speech, which, while is not directly connected to the Mosque debate in any way, is relevant.

"But the Mayor said, "Don't come."

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing. "Don't come here." This is our country. As Americans we are free to travel wherever we wish in our broad land.

They say we'll create a media distraction. But we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction.

They say, "Don't come here." I guess what saddens me most is how it suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and the (the rest of our group) are somehow to blame, that we don't care as much as they, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of (a devastated city).

And yes, (our group) members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the (people involved in the tragedy) from evil, mindless executioners.

"Don't come here." That's offensive. It's also absurd, because we live here.

So we have the same right as all other citizens to be here ... to help shoulder the grief... to share our sorrow ... and to offer our respectful, reasoned voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today. "

devil's advocate - well see now we're all a bit curious about the financing; but you know, I have heard of the Cordoba Mosque, unlike your hypotheical Muslim @10:30. Maybe you should try reading your own posts.

(BTW I don't care whose Mosque this is. I want No Mosque at Ground Zero. Simple.)

"If it hadn't gotten mired in such controversy, most muslims around the world would never have heard of it."

Why silly rabbit, that's just not so. Where would you get such an idea? You think most Muslims haven't really heard of 9/11 and the American infidels and aren't interested in this kind of thing?

"Let me spell it out simply..."

Let me spell it out even more simply: You, like Nanny, have no notion of the appropriate role of government and can bite me.

I'm unlikely to respond to you because you're just all over the place, always latching on to some nothing detail and making a big, incoherent thing about it, and anyway there is a no troll feeding policy.

"Not that I have any issues with being labelled a major troll. The names remind me of constellations. Hmm. Pity its cloudy outside."

LOL..you crack me up.

BM:

"You, like Nanny, have no notion of the appropriate role of government and can bite me. "

Is that an argument for legalizing all drugs then? I mean a good portion of illegal drugs are less dangerous than the majority of fast food?

"I have heard of the Cordoba Mosque"

Right. But you know nothing about it, or else I am sure you would have shared your knowledge about it. So I'll recant my words and say that the hypothetical muslim has heard about Cordoba House, but knows nothing about it. Doesn't change the substance of my argument much. Cordoba house, if you know nothing about it, is indistinguishable from the self-haters of Islam foundation, which puts the focus back on the stark reality that people don't want A mosque to built, as opposed to a wahabbi funded mosque etc.

"You think most Muslims haven't really heard of 9/11"

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying? I said that if this mosque - this Cordoba House mosque - had not recieved as much publicity as it has, most muslims around the world would never have heard of it. I'm fairly certain that the average muslim has better things to do than track which mosque has been built where.

"You, like Nanny, have no notion of the appropriate role of government and can bite me."

Or I just had a little too much fun at your expense. I was even in the mood for using the Lockean Proviso to prove it (which, ironically enough, can be done).

"anyway there is a no troll feeding policy"

After asking me to bite you? Tease. For what its worth, I think there are laws against biting people. Oh to suffer the injustice of not being bitten by a stranger on demand. I sympahtise with your anger at government intervention.

Maybe the Muslims can teach the 911 victim's families Jihad, after all, Obama's terrorism advisor, John Brennan, publicly state that Jihad is a legitimate tenet (not tenant-incorrect term) of Islam even before this whole Mega Victory Mosque controversy.

An explanation of what Jihad means - courtesy of liveleak.com

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d09_1190166377

http://current.com/news/92456779_obamas-counter-terrorism-advisor-says-that-jihad-is-a-legitimate-tenant-of-islam.htm