" Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
It has been said, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are "fiddling while the economy burns."
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."
Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
The nineteen suicide bombers didn't come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.
Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be "sensitive" and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam - the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society-protecting liberty.
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives' aggressive wars.
The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque-a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law- in order to look tough against Islam.
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
We now have an epidemic of "sunshine patriots" on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there's no controversy and nobody is offended.
Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored."
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
When orion is depleted of logic, or history, or meaningful experience, the ratio of sarcastic insult to facts rises.
First, for someone who professes deep knowledge of Austrian and European history, he is ignorant. Even with the clue I provided, the Austrian myth of “first victimhood” was NOT derived from Yalta, but from the Moscow Declaration of 1943, in which the US was subject to the will of England and the USSR. (China was present; France was not.) The US acquiesced in this.
Second, orion dissembles. He HAS compared Nazi governance with the US, a position I have decried memorably, since I find such comparisons to be disguised apologies for the inexcusable. He again dissembles in his sarcastic post to Sifu.
Last, at least the “rubbish” I write is documented and annotated, whereas the “rubish” he writes is the argument that he has with “the voices in his head,” in his term. I write of The Lie of post-war Germany and Austria, not to excuse the US of acquiescence, but to underscore how lies are perpetuated, and to whose benefit. Orion is simply the willing vessel of the current version of The Lie, that it is all the US’s fault (“the US said so”), and by doing so he confirms this European generation’s over-eager blindness.
In context–WTC, mosque or no, Iraq–my positive appeal is that we as Americans ferret out the truth and the lies. Because, as history reflects, we are the most self-critical and self-examining society…ever.
[/quote]
You are a moron.
You have not even read what I posted to Sifu so you have no idea what I posted and why I posted it.
But if it makes you happy, yes, I am deeply in denial regarding Austrias role in the holocaust, no doubt because of constant indoctrination in Austrian public schools from early childhood on.
They torture and detain people of umlcear status indefinitely without access to a tribunal to determine their status.
Viola, they violate the Geneva convention and therefore, according to your argument resistance to their occupation is a-ok.
Second, what does it matter what Austrians thought?
I thought that the only important thing is what our masters in Washington decree and they, in their infinite wisdom, peace be upon them, declared us to be the Nazis first victim.
Just because some lowly Austrians thought otherwise hardly matters, the oracle by the Potomac has spoken and for you that is the final word.
Cant have it both ways, can you?
[/quote]
Wow.
Odorous even for you, Franz.
Even for you.[/quote]
Odorous and odious.
Orion, when he lacks a fact to showcase his bigoted rubbish, relies on the rhetorical devices of false choices or false comparisons. There is simply no reason to be falsely trapped by this crap, since no, the US is not like the German-Austrian state, dedicated as it was from top to bottom uniquely and irreversibly to genocide.
But there are sometimes things he writes which cannot stand unexamined; for example, that it was the US which called Austria “the first victim.” History speaks clearly of Austrians’ role in WWII; they did not then consider themselves victims, but were joyful perpetrators–at every level–in the genocides of that war. Wherefrom, then, the planned denial of “first victimhood?”
The crime continued in that generation in the form of denial of the truth, and the lies perpetrated by the Germans and Austrians that they were innocent victims, that the Wehrmacht had “clean hands,” and so forth. It was the Germans and the Austrians themselves who invented the lie of “first victim.” Where the US–and Britain, in the Declaration of Moscow–are to be faulted is in the acquiescence to this lie, and particularly in the failure to pursue the truth because lies were so much more conducive to the reconstruction of Europe (not Germany alone), especially in the face of Soviet threat.
(The nature of orion’s lie is fully evaluated, generation by generation, by Wolfram Wette The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality, a title he will find curiously translated from Die Wehrmacht–Feindbilder , vernichtungskrieg, legenden)
It is simply perverse–leave alone inaccurate–for orion to claim that Someone in Washington unilaterally declared Austria to be a victim. But it also follows his general manner of discourse. He, too, believes and promulgates the lies, or uses them because it is so much more convenient to do so than to face the historical truth. (Now, that is being a slave to one’s own narrative.) And so it is from one generation to the next.
[/quote]
Wow, allmost all of this is wrong, except for the part where Austria happily went along with that myth for a period sfter WWII.
The rest is ignorant rubish.
Anyhow, so we have established that the US government does lie when it is politically expedient and that was all I was trying to show, so I guess Sifus stance is pretty much finished now .
They lied then, they lie now, they will lie in the future so their word is worth nothing.
Thanks for playing.
[/quote]
DrSkeptix as usual has brought some wisdom to this discussion. If anyone is a slave to their own narrative it is you Orion. All through this the narrative you have tried to push down our throats is that the US is this horrible bully, our horrible military tortures people and horrible Americans venerate all of this.
For a long time now you have had a singular objective to make it appear as if America and Americans are just as bad or even worse than the all time world champion of bad behavior, Austrians.
You keep on trying to drag us down to the level of your people and I am not going to quietly go along with it because your self serving comparisons are bullshit. Because there is no comparison. What your people did at Auschwitz. That was genocide. What your people at Auschwitz called “medical research”. That was torture. Your grandparents knowing what the wehrmacht and SS were doing and not speaking out against it. That was veneration of the military in a way that Americans have never done.
You saying what is going on in Guantanamo is torture is to make a comparison to what your people did at Auschwitz when there is no comparison, it is not even close.
It is easy for you to sit back and talk shit about what we are doing to try and protect ourselves, when all you have to do is remind the jihadists that Hitler was your guy, you did your part to rid the world of Jews and you would have succeeded if it wasn’t for the evil Americans thwarting your plans.
You may be able to play the innocent victim card on naive kids who know nothing of history, but that isn’t going to work with those of us who know the history. The terrorist groups that we are having problems with now are direct descendants of groups and people who were supported by Hitler.
In the 1930’s Egypt’s muslim brotherhood aligned itself with the third reich and received support from it. The muslim brotherhood is where Iman Zawahiri got his start.
Amin Al-Husseini the grand mufti of Jerusalem was one of Hitlers best friends. His nephew who he raised was Yasser Arafat.
Rashid Al-Qailani was Amin Al-Husseini right hand man in Iraq who in 1941 helped Al-Husseini instigate a pro nazi coup in Iraq. Rashid Al-Qailani’ nephew and future son in law who he raised was Saddam Hussein. This I think is the real source of Orion’s indignation over Saddam getting taken out. Saddam was the beneficiary of a power structure whose lineage went directly back to Der Fuhrer. When we took out Saddam we took out one of the last vestiges of the third reich.
Admit it Orion, it really bothers you to see your grandparents work undone. [/quote]
So let us do that bit by bit:
He claims that Austria is in denial when it comes to our role in WWII.
We are not. I just brought up that the US claims a lot of shit when it is politically expedient to do so.
He claimed that Germans and Austrians invented the story that we were the first victim of Germany.
The Germnans had no incentive to do that and it was first claimed at Yalta were the Austrians were obviously not invited even though we happily went along wit hit after WWII.
Insofar his other points were also complete nonsense because he tries to refute points that I never made.
I cannot argue with someone who responds to the voices in his head.
As to your post.
Not once have I posted that the US s actions are similar to that of the Nazis.
I do however claim that a lot of the techniques the Nazis used are used on the US population to goad them into war over and over again.
Not once have I claimed that what happened in Abu Ghareib is comparable in magnitude or intend to what happened in Auschwitz I have pointed out however that that is no excuse for what is happening all around the world RIGHT NOW.
Also, when I should ever encounter someone on this board who knows enough about German or Austrian history I would not have to draw the parallels that do exist because they are glaringly obvious.
[/quote]
I thought you would try and pull a fast one on us. It was not at Yalta in 1945 that the idea of Austria as first victim originated. It was in 1943 Moscow declaration that was issued in accordance with the 1942 declaration by United Nations. The intent was to try and instigate an uprising of the Austrians against the Germans. The idea was a failure. Here is the declaration regarding Austria.
Declaration regarding Austria
In the section Declaration regarding Austria the Foreign Secretaries of US, UK and USSR declared that the annexation (Anschluss) of Austria by Germany was null and void. It called for the establishment of a free Austria after the victory over Nazi Germany.
"The Governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression, shall be liberated from German domination.
They regard the annexation imposed upon Austria by German on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effected in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see re-established a free and independent Austria, and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves, as well as those neighbouring states which will be faced with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.
Austria is reminded, however, that she has responsibility which she cannot evade for participation in the war on the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation."
As you can see this was not just a unilateral declaration by the US as you have been trying to push on us. Plus you can see that this was an offer to the Austrians that if they did something to get rid of the Nazis it would go in their favor after the war was over which was the motivation for making such a stupid suggestion. It was you Austrians who after the war picked on the first victim idea and ran with it because no one else sees it that way.
It was Joseph Goebbels himself who said that he learned his propaganda techniques from Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was an evil motherfucker. Worse than that Wilson was a progressive. During the last election campaign Hillary Clinton stated her political ideology is early 20th century progressive. Admittedly progressives are very similar to nazis which would explain why Obama is so popular with Germans. But aside from that how we have gone to war is different from how your people have gone to war. We didn’t go into Iraq or Afghanistan in order to secure Lebensraum.
There is a war going on and we are actually doing something about it. Which is more than can be said for Austria and Austrians. What you Austrians are trying to do is play hot potato with Al Qaeda’ attention. You make your indignant declarations about how horrible the Americans are, treating those poor lads at Guantanamo so bad because you hope that if you act like Americans are the bad guys passionately enough they will come after us and leave you alone.
You are the worst kind of cowardly, free loaders. We are the ones who have suffered the deadliest attacks. We are the ones who are carrying the cost of this war. You benefit from our efforts and sacrifices, yet all you do is talk shit so you can play both sides to buy yourselves some temporary safety. The least you could do is be honest. You aren’t motivated by some deep sense of justice. You are just trying to save your own miserable ass.
What you would say if you were honest is it won’t bother you much if Americans die while your people get left out of it. So if you can do something to send attention our way you will.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Ron Paul’s awesome statement:
" Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
It has been said, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are "fiddling while the economy burns."
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."
Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.
The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.
The nineteen suicide bombers didn't come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.
Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be "sensitive" and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.
This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.
There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam - the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society-protecting liberty.
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives' aggressive wars.
The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque-a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law- in order to look tough against Islam.
This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
We now have an epidemic of "sunshine patriots" on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there's no controversy and nobody is offended.
Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored."[/quote]
Ron Paul is such a douche. I can’t stand him. The mosque is not going to be "several blocks from “ground zero.” it is going to be two blocks. Close enough that even though they will be able to have one, they won’t need a loud speaker to hear the prayer call wailing 5 times a day at ground zero.
Sure they have the right to build it there but anyone with the least bit of sensitivity would understand how building a mosque so close to where a group of muslims murdered several thousand people may not be well received. For people to be upset does not require some big organized conspiracy. This is the result of an up in your face attitude from the people building the mosque. If that is how they want to behave that is their right, but at the same time people have the right to form an opinion about it.
How could anyone call themselves conservative then sit their and say this mosque should not be built. It is being built on private property, they are not part of al-qaeda(that means they are not responsible for 9/11) so what’s the big deal. Could you thin of any better way to show the muslim world that America does not hate them it instead hates muslim radicals. This mosque is a great way to show that America is about tolerance.
This just seems to me like people looking for an excuse to attack muslims.
ROAR! Terrorist hate us because we’re so tolerant…
Except when it comes to Islam.
ROAR!1 I’m so angry that I have to be PC, I always have to worry about offending people, fuck that shit, they just need to grow thicker skin…
Except when I’m offended. They’d better not build that thing near the place where something I care about happened. That would be insensitive![/quote]
They are not Conservatives, they are “conservatives”. Please don’t lump me in with the crowd that is demonstrating in this thread what you have just pointed out.
Interesting how the Cons don’t want the community center built near “sacred ground”, yet they killed a bill which would provide healthcare for workers who risked their own health helping out just days after 9/11 on that very “sacred ground”.
[quote]John S. wrote:
How could anyone call themselves conservative then sit their and say this mosque should not be built. It is being built on private property, they are not part of al-qaeda(that means they are not responsible for 9/11) so what’s the big deal. Could you thin of any better way to show the muslim world that America does not hate them it instead hates muslim radicals. This mosque is a great way to show that America is about tolerance.
This just seems to me like people looking for an excuse to attack muslims.
Ron Paul’s article is right on the money.[/quote]
If they want to build a mosque there to commemorate their victory over the great satan and memorialize their 19 martyrs that is their right. If they want to fully test the limits of our tolerance that is their right too. But Ron Paul has no right to dictate to everyone else how we should feel about it.
This is not about demonstrating our tolerance. I don’t think muslims are the ones to be teaching anyone about tolerance when their entire history has been one of overwhelming intolerance.
They are deliberately rubbing salt in an open wound looking to get a reaction.
Obviously Ron Paul still hasn’t gotten his head out of his ass to see that there are even muslims who are saying don’t build it there because they know it is going to create bad blood. Ron Paul is off on an ideological tangent that emphasizes blind adherence to ideology over common sense.
This is not about demonstrating our tolerance. I don’t think muslims are the ones to be teaching anyone about tolerance when their entire history has been one of overwhelming intolerance.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Compared to the unwashed, filthy, illiterate, genocidal infidels they were the epitome of civilization.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
This is not about demonstrating our tolerance. I don’t think muslims are the ones to be teaching anyone about tolerance when their entire history has been one of overwhelming intolerance. [/quote]
The history of Islam has nothing to do with the present or the future.
Tolerance does not come from any religion. It comes from tolerant people.
Clearly you have not met any Muslims if you think they are all intolerant. In fact, my experience is the exact opposite. They have all been way more tolerant than any devout Christian or Jew I have EVER met.
Congratulations, you have been dominated by a bunch of superstitious goat herders from 12000 miles away.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
But I want to know if the Muslims would be offended if a bunch of Italians opened up a pork butcher shop right next door.[/quote]
meh, they probably wont be thrilled. theres a mosque where i live n theres two bars next to it lol. the bar owner said all they ever asked is if he can keep the music down during prayer time. i definitely think they should be able to practice their religion n build a mosque where ever they want to, but seriously, is that the only place available, just asking for drama.
This is not about demonstrating our tolerance. I don’t think muslims are the ones to be teaching anyone about tolerance when their entire history has been one of overwhelming intolerance.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Compared to the unwashed, filthy, illiterate, genocidal infidels they were the epitome of civilization.
[/quote]
Are you fucking serious? Muslims have a long history of genocide and have been involved in the worst genocides in history.
Their slave trade out of Africa killed at least one hundred million Africans and some estimates go as high as one hundred forty million.
The Pakistani army exterminated between one and three million Hindus in East Bengal in 1971. The pogroms against Hindus in east Pakistan in 1950 killed thousands.
During the Sultanate in India, muslim reprisals against the hindus set one hundred thousand dead as a basic starting goal. The estimates of Hindus exterminated go as high as one hundred million.
There was the Armenian genocide remember that? Or is it true what your Fuhrer said that no one in your country remembers it?
Then there was the deal the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem made with Hitler, that he would provide muslim volunteers to the Waffen SS if Hitler exterminated the Jews which is what led to the final solution.
The Bosnian muslim 13th Waffen SS division Handzar killed 750,000 Serbians, 60,000 Jews, 26,000 gypsies. In 1993 the Bosnian government reformed the Handzar division.
Is that enough or do I need to mention Mohammad extermination of the Quarazei Jews? He killed all the men and boys past puberty and took all the women and girls slaves. The prettiest amongst them he took as his concubine because she refused to marry him. Islam has long history of genocide that goes right back to it’s founder and your claims of civilized behavior are ludicrous.