NYC community board OKs ground zero mosque plans

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Just to play Devil's advocate for PiKa, I would think that the comparisons made is due to how much change Americans went through after 9/11 and how much we all had been inudated with the face of Islam in some ways being associated (incorrectly) with terrorism.

the OK city bombings didn't change much except maybe how much more information that a car rental place needed to have on file, but 9/11 drastically changed so much more.

I think that is the point he was trying to make.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How do you figure? If the sole reason of thinking that 9/11 was worse than the Murrah bombing is because arabs did it, then yes.... but who really thinks like that? I'm in no way trying to diminish the tragedy in Oklahoma but it's doesn't quite stack up to the level of death and destruction we saw on 9/11 or even the aftermath. 9/11 changed this country on so many different levels.

I don't disagree with parts of this, but remember that there was (and still is) a large amount of "us versus them" involved in 9/11 - OKC wasn't done by "outsiders" while 9/11 was. OKC isn't viewed as an attack on our government (even though it was, both literally and figuratively), while 9/11 often is.

While "racism" isn't exactly the right word, there's no doubt that part of the reason why 9/11 carries so much weight (and the dreaded "TERRORISM" label, while OKC doesn't to the same extent at all) is because it was performed by Muslims. While correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, it's clear that there is prejudice involved.

The "changes" caused by 9/11 were knee-jerk and likely cosmetic - and often for the negative when not cosmetic. I mean, airline travel changes are pretty fine, but the Patriot Act? Really? Those kinds of changes aren't persuasive for me.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't disagree with parts of this, but remember that there was (and still is) a large amount of "us versus them" involved in 9/11 - OKC wasn't done by "outsiders" while 9/11 was. OKC isn't viewed as an attack on our government (even though it was, both literally and figuratively), while 9/11 often is.

While "racism" isn't exactly the right word, there's no doubt that part of the reason why 9/11 carries so much weight (and the dreaded "TERRORISM" label, while OKC doesn't to the same extent at all) is because it was performed by Muslims. While correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, it's clear that there is prejudice involved.

The "changes" caused by 9/11 were knee-jerk and likely cosmetic - and often for the negative when not cosmetic. I mean, airline travel changes are pretty fine, but the Patriot Act? Really? Those kinds of changes aren't persuasive for me.

Interestingly enough, while both of you bring up great points, look at some of the last few events and let's remember who were the primary suspects:

OKC was initally thought to be Muslim terrorists (again until McVeigh was caught)

The Beltway Sniper was originally thought to be an Al - Quaeda agent (oddly enough John Muhammed was an NOI Muslim but some people wouldn't care all the need to see is that he was "Muslim")

The anthrax attacks (RIGHT after 9/11) was thought to be by Al-Quaeda

heck...people were still trying to figure out if Maj. Nidal Hassan had Al-Queada ties after the Ft Hood shootings.

@Ksig...and don't forget the fun part of the Patriot Act...wiretapping!!!

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Interestingly enough, while both of you bring up great points, look at some of the last few events and let's remember who were the primary suspects:

OKC was initally thought to be Muslim terrorists (again until McVeigh was caught)

The Beltway Sniper was originally thought to be an Al - Quaeda agent (oddly enough John Muhammed was an NOI Muslim but some people wouldn't care all the need to see is that he was "Muslim")

The anthrax attacks (RIGHT after 9/11) was thought to be by Al-Quaeda

heck...people were still trying to figure out if Maj. Nidal Hassan had Al-Queada ties after the Ft Hood shootings.

@Ksig...and don't forget the fun part of the Patriot Act...wiretapping!!!

But don't forget the Ft Dix, shoe bomber, soda bottle, and panty bomber incidents.....

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't disagree with parts of this, but remember that there was (and still is) a large amount of "us versus them" involved in 9/11 - OKC wasn't done by "outsiders" while 9/11 was. OKC isn't viewed as an attack on our government (even though it was, both literally and figuratively), while 9/11 often is.

While "racism" isn't exactly the right word, there's no doubt that part of the reason why 9/11 carries so much weight (and the dreaded "TERRORISM" label, while OKC doesn't to the same extent at all) is because it was performed by Muslims. While correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, it's clear that there is prejudice involved.

The "changes" caused by 9/11 were knee-jerk and likely cosmetic - and often for the negative when not cosmetic. I mean, airline travel changes are pretty fine, but the Patriot Act? Really? Those kinds of changes aren't persuasive for me.

While you do have some good points I'm still going to have to disagree with you. I think that if we had two similar incidents to compare ( similar in methods, damage, deaths) with one being committed by a foreign muslim, the other being committed by a white christian citizen and the muslim ends up being "feared" more than I'd agree with you. DS made some good examples of when suspected Muslims go nuts, our knee-jerk reaction is terrorist. When non-muslims go nuts, well they are just considered nuts.

I believe that if 9/11 was carried out by domestic white christian terrorists we would have still seen the creation of DHS and the passing of the Patriot Act. No war in Afghanistan of course.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

While you do have some good points I'm still going to have to disagree with you. I think that if we had two similar incidents to compare ( similar in methods, damage, deaths) with one being committed by a foreign muslim, the other being committed by a white christian citizen and the muslim ends up being "feared" more than I'd agree with you. DS made some good examples of when suspected Muslims go nuts, our knee-jerk reaction is terrorist. When non-muslims go nuts, well they are just considered nuts.

The bolded part is pretty much exactly my point, in a nutshell.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The bolded part is pretty much exactly my point, in a nutshell.

it's like this:

But with terrorism.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

We (you and I as well as likeminded people) won't, it's the idiots who are incorrectly protesting the mosque who already have.

You misunderstood. I don't believe we will be putting Muslims into concentration camps, but we don't have to do that to make them the enemy.

We being America not just the sane ones.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You misunderstood. I don't believe we will be putting Muslims into concentration camps, but we don't have to do that to make them the enemy.

We being America not just the sane ones.

Let's get onto the same page.

I didn't mean literally that we would put them into camps.

I was just being facetious.

I do agree with your assessment that camps would be unneeded. paranoia has already done the job for us.

But I bet you, if certain people could have their way, they would follow through with the camp idea (at least plant the seed anyways...heheh)

**Coff** Glenn Beck

[AGDee]

Camps like.. Gitmo? Those kinda camps?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Camps like.. Gitmo? Those kinda camps?

I don't think Gitmo's a very good analog for Japanese internment, to be honest.

Don't get me wrong - Guantanamo is very much an indicator for many of my problems with the US response to 9/11, but it just really isn't apples-to-oranges with internment.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't think Gitmo's a very good analog for Japanese internment, to be honest.

Don't get me wrong - Guantanamo is very much an indicator for many of my problems with the US response to 9/11, but it just really isn't apples-to-oranges with internment.

I was trying to understand whether they were referring to camps like the Japanese internment camps or like Nazi Germany's concentration camps or like.. Gitmo. Gitmo is kind of a unique set up and definitely not comparable to either of the others, unless you're there and have done nothing wrong and have no charges against you but you are being held against your will.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Gitmo is kind of a unique set up and definitely not comparable to either of the others, unless you're there and have done nothing wrong and have no charges against you but you are being held against your will.

. . . which is kind of a superficial comparison, and one that definitely violates all sorts of "scope and scale" comparison standards.

[Drolefille]

10 Things I know about the Mosque
By Roger Ebert.

1. America missed a golden opportunity to showcase its Constitutional freedoms. The instinctive response of Americans should have been the same as President Obama's: Muslims have every right to build there. Where one religion can build a church, so can all religions.

2. The First Amendment comes down to this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It does not come down to: "The First Amendment gives me the right to shout the N-word 11 times on the radio to an inoffensive black woman, and when you attack me for saying it, you are in violation of my First Amendment rights."


3. The choice of location for the mosque shows flawed judgment on the part of its imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. He undoubtedly knows that now, and I expect the mosque to be relocated. The imam would be prudent to chose another location, because the far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims.

4. One buried motive for the attacks on Park51 is exploitation of the insane belief of 20% of Americans that President Obama is a Muslim. Zealots like Glenn Beck, with his almost daily insinuations about the Muslim grandfather Obama never knew and the father he met only once, are encouraging this mistaken belief.

5. The Bill of Rights has a parallel with pregnancy. You can't be a little pregnant, and you can't be a little free. Nor can you serve yourself from it cafeteria style.

6. Somewhere on the Right is an anonymous genius at creating memes. Sarah Palin floats a suspicious number of them: Death Panels, Ground Zero Mosque, 9/11 Mosque, Terror Babies. Her tweets are mine fields of coded words; for her, "patriot" is defined as, "those who agree with me." When she says "Americans," it is not inclusive. These two must have been carefully composed in advance to be tweeted within 60 seconds of each other:



By using the evocative word "shackles" she associates Dr. Laura's use of the N-word with the suffering of slaves. By implying Dr. Laura was silenced by "Constitutional obstructionists," she employs the methodology of the Big Lie, defined in Mein Kampf as an untruth so colossal that "no one would believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." She uses the trigger word "reload" to evoke her support of Second Amendment activists while attacking "activists" for evoking the First.

7. Many Americans and a great many politicians have either never taken a civics class or disagree with what they should have learned there. The major opinion sources in America that seem to devote the most attention to the Bill of Rights are Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, all distorting it as an everyday practice. Bill O'Reilly, to his credit, doesn't indulge in this.

8. A meme is infecting our society that Muslims are terrorists and hate America; they are the enemy. It is a cliche to say, "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful," but is true. When Muslim nations are bombed by America, can those nations be expected to applaud? In Iran after 9/11 there were candlelight marches in sympathy with the United States.

9. I find hope in the words of two American strippers interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. Cassandra, who works at New York Dolls, just around the corner from the proposed mosque, said she worried that calls to prayer might wake up the neighbors. The WSJ writes: "But when she was told that the organizers aren't planning loudspeakers, she said she didn't have a problem with the project: 'I don't know what the big deal is. It's freedom of religion, you know?'"

Chris works in the Pussycat Lounge, even closer to the site. When the airplanes struck the World Trade Center, Chris became a Red Cross volunteer working with survivors. The WSJ writes she "sat on a barstool in a tiny, shiny red dress and defended Park51. 'They're not building a mosque in the World Trade Center. It's all good. You have your synagogues and your churches. And you have a mosque.'" Chris lost eight of her friends on Sept. 11, 2001, firefighters from the Brooklyn firehouse she lived next to at the time, but "the people who did it are not going to the mosque."

Cassandra and Chris reflect American values more instinctively and correctly on this issue, let it be said, than Sarah Palin, Howard Dean, Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid and Rudy Giuliani, who should know better.

10. I wonder how many Americans realize the mosque is not intended for Ground Zero. What will be constructed there includes a 55,000 square foot retail mall. This mall will be deep enough to connect with subway lines -- deep enough, that is, to theoretically be embedded in the ashes of some of the 9/11 victims.

What might have been more appropriate? On September 12, 2001, I wrote a little op-ed column:

So, a few of those are more related to "Dr Laura" than to the mosque but I really like Roger Ebert.