Archives

Categories

Quote of the Day

For good clean fun at home, every time you see someone on tv screaming about the community center calling it a “SUPER TERROR MOSQUE,” mentally exchange the word “mosque” with the word “synagogue” to recognize just how differently this debate would be were we not in the grips of demonizing Islam. The only way to get offended by the community center is to fully buy into the clash of civilizations rhetoric and believe that terrorists didn’t attack us on 9/11, but Islam did.

-The concluding paragraph from a link that is worth reading.

18 comments to Quote of the Day

  • I still find it hard to believe that we are losing this debate by a score of 7-3.

    It has been eye opening to me. Ricky agreeing with Howard Dean and me in agreement with Ron Paul.

    Surely the end is near.

  • I haven’t caught RW agreeing with Howard Dean, I don’t think. I should let him speak for himself, but he seems to be defending the anti-mosquers from the charges of bigotry and ignorance. I don’t think I have caught him taking up their cause as his own.

  • RW

    I still find it hard to believe that we are losing this debate by a score of 7-3.

    I don’t. Human emotion is a very powerful thing, and this is pure, 100%, emotion. I recall there being a big hub-bub over the NRA having a convention in Colorado after the Columbine shootings. I reckon this falls under that same canopy; the NRA had every right to hold its convention, but I completely understood the citizens in Columbine & the surrounding area who were affected & how the looked at the convention with a raised eyebrow.

    Don’t recall the media bending over backward to defend the NRA, in that case, though. Remember the exact opposite. Eh, sometimes better late than never. Y’see, sometimes where one stands depends on where one NEEDS to stand at that time.

    he seems to be defending the anti-mosquers from the charges of bigotry and ignorance.

    Pretty much. Not that there probably aren’t some (a few? many?) who have that viewpoint, but the knee-jerk reaction, being coincidentally similar to the reactions of pretty much every topic that has happened in the last 2 years, or so, seeks to demean people instead of respecting someone’s argument & debating them. Nowadays, it’s all smear/demean/mock and then attempt to destroy.

    I surely didn’t ever hear Jon Stewart revisit the NRA/Colorado story before, and I most certainly never heard him hint/intimate that the folks in Columbine who were against the convention (and the MSM who carried their flag) were bigots or making bigoted arguments.

    No, the Daily Show’s producers never looks inward at their own instances of duplicity, they only look at Fox News (and then, sometimes, at other people).

    It would be a great skit, having the Daily Show replay the media coverage of the NRA convention back then, instead of JUST the NRA defending itself & then using that as a hammer to hit the people against the mosque over the head with.

    _

    As long as it meets the zoning laws, they can build whatever they want. Freedom rules. I just don’t think they’re listening to the folks (overwhelmingly liberals, IIRC, in that area), who are obviously against it. Taste, class, tact, all that stuff.
    -
    Funniest comment: I heard a chick on MSNBC asking if the anti-mosquers thought about how their words are going to be portrayed around the world & if they didn’t realize that they could be making us less safe. Yep, now if you DISAGREE with Mika’s views, you’re opening us up to terrorist attacks.

    No word of condemnation towards people who would act out against our country on DISAGREEMENT of the location of a building’s makeup. There never seems to be….

  • Taste, class, tact, all that stuff.

    Secondary concerns, but yeah – the anti-mosquers are lacking those, too.

    Oh, wait… you were talking about… oh, never mind. You’re talking about the people of a certain religion who don’t have enough class and tact to hang their heads and keep their eyes averted in certain neighborhoods, aren’t you? Heh.

  • Yep, now if you DISAGREE with Mika’s views, you’re opening us up to terrorist attacks.

    Did you see this eye booger?

  • RW

    Oh, wait… you were talking about… oh, never mind.

    I was talking about how some of the people in Columbine felt about the NRA convention AND some of the people in NYC feel about the mosque (or whatever it’s called today). Again, tolerance is supposed to be a two way street, right?

    Did you see this eye booger?

    No, not until you posted, but….good Lord.

    Brayton has his eyes set on, let’s be honest, righties, and what they might say instead of freaking terrorists who might get mad at words and lash out. I’m old enough to remember when Lenny Bruce was a hero for the first amendment, but now you gotta watch what you say or what pictures you draw because you might upset some Muslims.

    Shades of “our chickens [flapping arms, to great applause] are coming home to roost”

    BTW, can anyone imagine the notion of telling lefties to tone down the pro-gay marriage rhetoric, otherwise it might upset the Matthew Sheppard murderin’ sort of domestic terrorist? Can you imagine a NYT article? Can you imagine Brayton giving an endorsement via link?

    Hoooolllleeeeyyyy sheeeiiiiiittteee. A story on terrorism and the primary antagonists are NOT the terrorists.

    And Brayton AGREES.

    [forehead slap]
    Sometimes I wish I’d stayed in bed.

  • RW

    Never mind. Started reading the NYT story for the “evidence”. Stopped when the expert was someone from the NAF, as I’m sure you would had I pointed to some “expert” was someone from club for growth.

    God, the NYT has fallen.

  • RW

    BTW, if folks from a snyagogue had killed ~3,000 folks via airline hijackings, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a bit of a backlash against a synagogue being built over that area, either.

    Had 9/11 not happened, no one would give a !@#$%, especially someone like Howard Dean.

    There are analogies and there are bad analogies. That one was rather pathetic.

  • Speaking of bad analogies… Ummm… Matthew Sheppard, whu…? Look, I don’t know how strong the evidence is, but it stands to reason that an anti-Muslim America is as good a recruiting tool for violent Jihad that I can imagine. Not a matter of “upsetting” already existing violent jihadis – but creating them. Violent Jihadis do their best to recruit new radicals, and the technique they use is to frame Islam as under attack from the west. It has been effective, but not as effective as it will be if we testify to our anti-Islamic viewpoint as loudly and publicly as possible. That’s what a lot of us are doing.

    For Matthew Sheppard’s analogy to be remotely appropriate, 1) you can’t use “pro-gay” rhetoric in place of “anti-Islamic” rhetoric. It isn’t the same. You aren’t going to get more gay-bashers by being pro-gay. You get more gay-bashers by being “anti-Christian” (for instance), which is why the AFA & their buddies are always trying to reframe anything that is pro-gay as being “anti-Christian”. 2) You have to drop the term “upsetting the gay-bashers” and replace it with “creating more gay-bashers.”

    Back to this:

    if folks from a snyagogue had killed ~3,000 folks via airline hijackings, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a bit of a backlash against a synagogue being built over that area, either.

    I’m not surprised. I’m surprised at some of the names on the bandwagon (and some who’ve chosen not to get on it, too). But I’m not surprised that people are acting that way. But surprise has nothing to do with it, you know?

    Had 9/11 not happened, no one would give a !@#$%

    Well, that’s kind of the point. The fact that 9/11 happened means nothing more about Muslims than it does about Christians, Jews or atheists. (and think about it… if it does mean something about Muslims, then it means something about religious people – including Christians and Jews, too. Maybe not as much, but if it taints Muslims, then it taints Christians more than it does atheists. By the same logic that no mosques should be built there to be “tactful” and “sensitive”, only humanist organizations should really be allowed to locate there. After all, it wasn’t atheists who attacked us on 9/11… it was religious people!)

    So it is very much on point that nobody is flapping their arms about “SUPER TERROR SYNAGOGUE”. 9/11 might have been the event that catalyzed anti-Islamic sentiment, but it doesn’t justify it. The point is that there doesn’t exist this kind of anti-Jewish sentiment (at least among most Americans, and most of the anti-mosquers)… and that’s why you don’t hear SUPER TERROR SYNAGOGUE.

    The point isn’t analogy, but contrast.

    The two differences between STM and STS are 1) 9/11 – which is relevant only in terms of point number two, and 2) the anti-Islamism which it catalyzed. I could add in a few other items along with point 1) that play into the anti-Islamism of point 2, but none of them are really relevant except in terms of it, either.

    In other words it is only the bigoted tainting of all Muslims with stereotypes that do not apply to them that lies behind the anti-mosque protests.

    BTW Ed Brayton leans left, but everything I’ve seen from him tells me that he cares primarily about civil libertarian principles and tolerance, and that this is what motivates him. He beats up, unmercifully, on people who try to undermine them, including the current President and current majorities in congress.

  • RW

    Speaking of bad analogies… Ummm… Matthew Sheppard,

    The context was crazy hater murderers. Nothing more.

    Not a matter of “upsetting” already existing violent jihadis – but creating them.

    Someone SAYING SOMETHING can create a terrorist?

    No one’s done anything but talk about the mosque. The legalities are over: it’s been approved.

    And I remember when the spring was the season of worry about violent……tea partiers.

  • Someone SAYING SOMETHING can create a terrorist?

    Hmmm.. no… no more than spreading fertilizer can “create” a tree.

    But there’s no question at all that the narrative that America hates and wants to suppress Islam here and around the globe does create a fertile environment for convincing people they are being warred upon and getting them ready to fight back with whatever tools they can find. Terror is a tool of choice for people who can’t afford tanks and jets. If Osama had a military machine that could do it, he’d be making war the old-fashioned way (and we’d be a lot worse off than we were after 9/11). The fortunate thing is that most people who can afford any tanks or jets at all are in a position where they have something to lose, and they can’t compete with the west militarily. So the narrative that the west is at war with Islam and seeks to suppress it here and around the world *is* fertilizer for terrorism. And “SAYING SOMETHING” that supports that narrative and makes it increasingly plausible (and in some senses more true) makes that fertilizer all the more powerful.

    No one’s done anything but talk about the mosque. The legalities are over: it’s been approved.

    The ACLJ is still trying to get it blocked legally, but you’re right – they will almost certainly lose. That’s something to be grateful for, not something to protest.

  • RW

    Why have there been no NYT articles on the ardent pro-choicers out there fertilizing the ground for the domestic terrorists who blow up abortion clinics? Why no movement to tell someone to watch the narrative so that the folks in kos’ upcoming book, American Taliban, don’t go beserk and start hurting people? Why does the fertilizer apply to muslims but not folks like McVeigh or Eric Rudolph? Why no emphasis on the tree huggers to watch their predictions of doom lest we have another Unabomber?

    I’ve listened & read you guys and you’ve said that we’re not going to tolerate the McVeighs, we’re not going to tolerate the Rudolphs and that people like that are unfit for society (we fried McVeigh, IIRC), but when it comes to muslim terrorists – and let’s not kid ourselves by pretending that they’re few in number – the onus is on, in this case, deli clerks in NYC who are stating their opinion on a building.

    Now, not only are they putting for bigoted opinions, but they’re sowing the seeds for terrorism, I’m to believe.

    Why are the standards you set for yourselves (in this case, arguments for/against) always so much lower than that you set for your opponents?

    I mean….causing terrorism?

  • RW

    I stand corrected. I just remembered, there was a call to curb rhetoric when it comes to domestic terrorism: McVeigh was Limbaugh’s fault.

    I forgot that no matter what, it’s the fault of the non-liberal.

  • I only have a certain amount of patience for moral equivalence… but I’ll humor you. When was the last time pro-choice people decided en masse that pro-life denominations of Christianity had no right to build churches in “their” neighborhoods? Or even that pro-life people had no right to organize & have meetings in “their” neighborhoods?

    It’s like I said at the outset … I don’t know how much impact the fact that many American’s are proud of their intolerance toward Muslims will have on the overall complex landscape that has – in the last 70 years – increased the numbers of Muslim extremists greatly. I’m sure it has less impact than the Russian’s iron fist in Chechnya. But, you know, when Al Qaeda is preaching that Muslims should make war on the west because we are their enemy, it’s bleeding obvious that saying “Al Qaeda is right, Muslims! We are your enemy!” – even if not in so many words – is helping Al Qaeda, not hurting them.

  • RW

    I only have a certain amount of patience for moral equivalence… but I’ll humor you.

    Actually, you didn’t humor me, you changed the context and decided to answer as if I’d portrayed a query about Christianity, building churches and holding meetings.
    I didn’t.
    This has happened a few times on this thread, where I type something & you answer something else. I assume that it’s the way I’m ill-prepared to convey my thoughts in a cogent manner, but, nonetheless, it is happening.
    The context was, well, your words. You said creating a narrative – in this case an anti-Muslim USA – can be the fertilizer for terrorism.
    I said, in so many words, why does that only apply to Muslims? Why aren’t liberal narratives ever applicable for domestic terrorists? Oh, when someone does commit domestic terrorism we’re told that it’s a pattern (darn near every time) and the cause is: you guessed it, right-wing rhetoric. Rush & Beck gin up the militia textermists on the pro-American side with their rhetoric. But, wait!, they also get the anti-American extremists going by…well, their rhetoric.

    So, actually, the standard is: only right leaning rhetoric causes the narrative which can be the fertilizer for terrorism.

    No liberal/progressive protest, march, charge, claim, etc., is responsible for jack squat.
    Eric Rudolph is a crazed madman whose actions are based on hatred and cannot and will not be acceptable under any circumstances and we will not seek to give credence to his excuses for blowing up abortion clinics. Hey, I agree with that, glad you guys said it so eloquently. Pretty much everyone does. Right on.
    Tim Mcveigh was basically an anti-American terrorist who was so blinded by his hatred of the gov’t that he thought he was acting out on behalf of Americans, when in actuality he was acting against them and our principles. Huzzah!

    But, that standard is not uniform. In some instances, oh, we’ll tell you when that fertilizer gets spread and we’ll tell you when there are legitimate excuses for the foundation of terrorism is afoot (I’m typing a lot, so I’m not going to play footsie and go around the ‘we’re not making excuses for…’ game. Yeah, you – general you – are. Again, the antagonist of that NYT piece…not the terrorists.)

    So, Mike Bloomberg can assume, on air, that a NYC bomber was acting because he didn’t like the health care bill and no one on the left, much less the NYT, even considers that Bloomberg’s rhetoric is putting out fertilizer for domestic terrorists.
    In that case, Fertilizer Game Called Off.
    But, when it ends up being a middle eastern muslim who wanted to set off that bomb, well, we’re back to it being the fault of people on the right and how they’re creating terrorists. Fertilizer Game Turned On.

    In short: check your ability to reason & having standards apply uniformly at the door.

    You guys will tell us when the standards apply.

    Remember that journalist dude who camped out next to Sarah Palin’s house in hopes of getting some dirt on her? Well, the right can say (tell me if you’ve heard this concept lately) ‘hey, he has the legal right to put up shop there, no one’s trying to take that away, but it’s pretty creepy and tasteless for him to do that. Come on, dude, show a little respect’.
    Well, at least the left was consistent: In defense of Joe McGinniss, but the point is that the right is saying the exact same thing they said about that dude: legal, sure, but kinda douche-baggy. Come on, dude!
    That same standard, though, is now based on bigotry and laying the seeds for terrorism.

    How’s this:
    Say you’re against the erection of a mosque at ground zero: anti-muslim stance that can lead to terrorist attacks, even though the official stance of the US government is that the mosque is clearly legal and has been signed off on (like I said, check reason at the door).
    Push for gay marriage: Muslims couldn’t care less (okay, even while they’re stoning homosexuals). America’s growing acceptance of gays would never, ever, ever, ever, cause radical muslims to point at the USA and say that the great satan is ever-growing in its reign as supreme indidel, just people voicing opinions about things that progressive disagree with.

    Nothing that aligns itself with progressivism is ever the cause of said fertilizer. Only what progressives disagree with. As told to us by….progressives.

    You guys have now put forth the concept that someone protesting creates terror, but you decide which protests apply. Those anti-war protests, sponsored by ANSWER and replete with posters decrying our murdering of innocents and muslims (despite Iraq not being a muslim country)? How dare anyone question their patriotism. But if a NYC fireman says that mosque should be moved a few blocks away? Fertilizer, baby.

    Look, I don’t post here under any assumptions that I’m doing to change your mind about anything and a lot of the time I’m not even trying to do the debate thing where I’m saying my argument is superior to your argument. Most of the time I’m simply trying to say ‘hey, here’s what my side of the argument really is’ instead of you simply getting the synopsis from a source that has a dog-in-the-race, so to speak. I won’t list the sources, but they ususally follow what has become 80% of blogging: 1. Let me find out what some person I hate on the other side said; 2. Let me rephrase what they said so that it’s what I THINK they really meant; 3. Let me skewer and mock that person; 4. There, now, commenters, join in. Aren’t we better than them? Generally, I usually try to let you know what the true conservative/libertarian viewpoint is, sans baggage that is put forth from the partisan sites. Sometimes I do a decent job, sometimes I fail miserably. But, my goal is usually just to get you to understand my ‘side’s’ view, being very general on [side] since it’s not always 100% my views. In the case of this mosque, it’s not even my view, but I can at least see/hear/read what those folks are saying and do it w/o prejudging them or their argument. And I can give them enough respect to hold them to the same standard that I’d hold anyone else, instead of one a heckuva lot higher – in this case, that whick YOU GUYS say can convince someone so deranged that they’ll become a terrorist over the opinion of some citizens in NYC – than the one I hold myself against. (Shhhh…never ask what prompted the Unabomber, either)

    And, since I just typed a week’s worth, I’ll once again tip my cap and give you the last word.

  • I have made the “yes you can but should you?” argument before. In regards to burning Korans and drawing insulting cartoons. But I have never gotten to the point where I would have done anything and everything in my power to keep folks from burning Korans or drawing insulting cartoons.

  • RW

    But I have never gotten to the point where I would have done anything and everything in my power to keep folks from burning Korans or drawing insulting cartoons.

    Quite a few muslims have, though (typed to the sound of a blade being drawn from a sheath).

  • Another thing that tickles me are folks who will one minute chortle about how backwards the Muslims are and that they stopped progressing 1,000 years ago and in the next breath talk about them taking over the world.

    Kinda like the folks who hate Obama for being a Muslim who spent 20 years in a Christian church listening to Jeremiah Wright.

    In this world there is no shortage of things to laugh about.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>