Monday Sober Thread: Derka Derka or Jerka Jerka?

A separate point: I'm surprised that the people in charge of this considered the idea in the first place. For an organization that seeks to promote education about Islam and decreased hostility between Muslims and other Americans, this was a tactical blunder. The reaction that this engendered should have been seen from a mile away, and seems to be doing them a great deal of harm.

I see what Raef was thinking, sure. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

 

I'm basically with the crowd that is saying this a pointless fucking debate that was created out of thin air because the gulf oil crisis and the economy got boring.

However, there is an interesting tidbit that I think people should know. The guy who wants to renovate the building into a mosque got the building at a fire sale price because the owners couldn't unload it. He has also said he would be more than willing to unload the building onto someone else if he got a decent offer. So if the people who are against the building of the mosque put their money where their mouth is, they could end this controversy in a day or two. But people just need something to run their mouths about.

They'll build the mosque and by the time football season starts everyone will have stopped giving a shit.

 

Well, that's assuming their goal was reconciliation and understanding, isn't it? Personally, I don't consider Muslims, radical or otherwise, quite so stupid.

As others have noted, there are no shortage of mosques/Muslim community centers in NYC. In fact, there are a ton. No one is hurting for a place to worship Allah, nor is there any limitation to these centers, the views that they can espouse, etc. So that leaves the alternative view.

Namely, the mosque was built for a purpose other than "decreasing hostility between Muslims and other Americans".

It's one of those issues which has no immediately tangible consequences for anyone, and only seriously effects the perception/emotions of a certain number of groups. (9/11 families, radical Muslims, etc.)

As such, it is indeed "meaningless".

Then again, we live in the same country where freaking actors get crucified for crazy statements people disagree with, and politicians are forced to resign for "offending" someone. This is then endlessly debated with a great deal of passion.

Rarely does anyone call that "meaningless", however, although it's a relatively minor issue of perception. But this, an international issue of perception? Then it's "pointless".

 

Honestly? I don't see the big deal. Build the mosque, don't build the mosque. I don't see how anyone should be able to tell someone else what to do on their land. Fuck HOAs. Seriously, I asked my Muslim friend from Brooklyn to explain the whole thing to me, and she gave me some more perspective that most folks might not necessarily have. They've been trying to build an Islam Community Center for years at this point. They tried in Staten Island, and New Yorkers wouldn't have it. They tried in a bunch of different places, and New Yorkers continued to protest it. So where the fuck should they build it?

 

I just replied by PM to a rep from my last post, which I thought maybe others would appreciate.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not posting this as part of a "debate." I'm putting forward facts that I've learned as part of my studies in some of the subjects we're discussing. If you think my points are wrong, that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to argue with you over it. Do your own research on the topic; or, feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to expand on my points.
-----

You're thinking tactics. Propaganda is more strategic. RE: "Unprepared and kind towards you." At this point Al Qaeda can't really hope to catch the U.S. 'unprepared' (not a second time anyway), and the issue of being 'kind toward them' doesn't really apply in this situation since this is not a reflection of (and has no ramifications on) U.S. policy against Al Qaeda.

The reason this is good for Al Qaeda is that it is an issue of propaganda in which it's easy to make us out to be the villain. This controversy over the mosque does nothing to help us in the war against Al Qaeda pragmatically/tactically—and idealistically, we can't really send a message because that message can too easily be manipulated and distorted into "Muslims are persecuted in America—yet another reason it needs to be destroyed."

What you have to understand is that Al Qaeda's motivations are not just based on their perceived relationship with God/Allah or some overlying nationalism. Yes, those are base motivations (for many of them, anyway), but beyond that they're a collection of thugs and criminals who have an "ends justify the means" mentality. Gaining power is synonymous with their mission of God so it is as much a part of their agenda as anything else. (For a comparable albeit bizarre analogy: think of charities that spend half their budget on fund-raising. Their goal is to keep surviving as much as it is to carry out their mission of philanthropy.) That's why Al Qaeda uses drug trafficking, gun smuggling, fear tactics against their own population, killing fellow Muslims, allying with bandits like Taliban, etc. as a means of staying in power. If our relationship with the Muslim world improves, they lose their base of support and ultimately fail as an organization. (The U.S. surge in Iraq is a similar example. I'm not talking about the military side, but rather the incentives we created for the general Iraqi population to ally with us instead of with the insurgents. We cut off their base of support, they lost power, and then it was easy pickings for our military to destroy what was left of them.)

That whole last paragraph was to explain my point, which is: Don't think that they can't use deception, propaganda, and outright lying as a way of gaining power. All our media coverage of the mosque makes it that much easier for them to recruit and fund-raise. Which is why the argument that banning this mosque will help our fight against them is false—the opposite is true.

btw I'm finishing a degree in International Affairs, my focus is on Middle East terrorism. I don't consider myself an expert by any means but I'm definitely more well-read on the topic than most of the idiots that have learned everything about that subject from watching CNN. And I'm pretty moderate when it comes to foreign policy—Obama and Bush both had foreign policies that I agreed and disagreed with—so hopefully I don't come off as partisan or idealistic in one direction or the other. This isn't even designed to argue in favor of the mosque issue, just intended to clarify misconceptions that the media has been spewing lately.

 

Yes.

We've gone a whole day without me having to warn anybody, ban anybody, or lock the thread. This is good. As long as the posts stay on-topic and don't stray into personal attacks or broadside shots at entire groups/political parties, it'll stay that way. I saw a couple things in the thread that I consider borderline but allowable. Don't push your luck.

Love and kisses,
--Doc

 

For me, it boils down to the following:

1. Not all Muslims are terrorists.

2. Not all terrorists are Muslims.

Exclusively lumping them in together is stupid.

Al Qaeda doesn't hate the West because they're Muslim, they hate us because they're retarded fuckfaces. Religion is the "excuse", in that they would just find some other reason to do it if it were otherwise. Muslims have a history of persecuting other Muslims. There's reports of Saddam (who I think was Shi'ite) committing genocide against Sunni Muslims.

Hating on Muslims and causing controversy about this centre is dumb. Hating on them for different reasons is totally legitimate, but it's outside the scope of what we're discussing here.

All I know is my favourite chocolate is now "Halal certified". For fuck's sake, what does this mean? Did they have the cow face Mecca when they milked it? I'm not Muslim, why do I have to eat food that's been blessed in their faith?

(Not such a big issue with chocolate, but Halal certified meat tastes like offal).

 

I say the people who are most vocal about keeping the mosque away should buy some land right next to it and put up a gay strip club. Or a pig slaughterhouse. Or whatever stupid shit the Arab type don't approve of.

Count me in the whole 'who gives a shit' category. If someone owns the land he can put whatever fucking building up that he wants. There might be ulterior motives, who knows. I understand some people thinking it's an insensitive, dickhead move or whatever. I think it's an emotional knee jerk reaction with no real merit behind it, but I can at least understand it. But the fact of the matter is that we're allowed to be insensitive dickheads in this country. Christians, Jews and Atheists do it all the time, why not let the Muslims crash the party. There are a lot more urgent and serious problems facing this country and it's a shame that this stupid fucking issue is getting discussed so fucking much.

 

Ok, you were right. I guess I underestimated your modding abilities... Although I have to wonder if your success is going to eventually lead to a to-the-e-death "No I know more about computers!!!" battle with Nettdata. Is this Bieber fansite big enough for the two of you? Only time will tell.


Focus: Most of my thoughts on the issue have already been raised, but I have one more small point to make. It seems like a lot of the "no" side are saying that it's a bad idea because it'll simply ruffle a lot of feathers, if you will. I agree, people probably will be mad, but in this case I think it's important to do what's right. (And as a Canadian living on the West coast, obviously I'm the authority on right/wrong here.)

IMO, allowing it to be built says that Americans recognize that Islamic does not equal terrorist. (North) America doesn't need any more racial divides, and I think making an Islamic free zone is a step in the wrong direction, however small and, probably, ultimately unsignificant it may be. I imagine many peaceful, normal Muslims lost friends/family on 9/11 too, and I don't think their culture should be stifled in any way.

 

Someone is way ahead of you buddy. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/...uslim-gay-bar-next-to-the-ground-zero-mosque/

"I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world. The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance."

 

I wonder how long it would take one of their crazies to jump jihad all over that bar like the dude did on Burger King over ice cream cone lid's a few years ago.

http://www.adpulp.com/archives/2005/09/man_declares_ji.php

Oh, the humanity.

 

From my limited understanding of the law, this case is relevant.

Again, I'm no lawyer, I have yet to go to law school, but basically what I can infer from the case is that a church in Boerne, Texas wanted to expand it's building but, because there was something in place saying that all historic buildings must remain in that condition (or something close to it), they were denied expansion. The church's argument was they were denied on the basis of religion; the city's argument was that they were denying expansion on the basis of the building.

In the Boerne case, the city won, in short (again, from what I gathered), because they were able to make it about bricks and ordinances, and not religion. The New York thing is being argued on the basis of religion, essentially, and in the case of those against the building of the church, they are arguing on that basis as well. Meaning, eventually, those against the building of it -- if they keep arguing on the grounds of religion or ethics or something other than bricks and city ordinances -- will lose. Because this country was founded, in part, on the desire for religious freedom. But if those against the building of it had changed the grounds of their argument to a matter of city ordinances (essentially, based it upon bricks and what can and can't change), they'd have more than a fighting chance.

I think this comes down to someone getting shitty legal advice. People -- just because you disagree with something morally or religiously or whatever -- doesn't mean you have to form your argument on that basis. If your ultimate goal is to win, ignore personal bias, and instead pick a platform that will win it.

The first person to reference that Boerne case as substantial legal precedent, might be the smartest going-to-hell attorney in the room.

But I'm not an attorney. Just an administrative and legally-conscious geek that happens to read about case law for fun.

 

"Oh Mohammed, you Mecca me so horny!"

 

"I'll only let you do that to me if you buy Medina first."

 

I kind of understand why people with first hand exposure to islamic extremism might have an issue. I mean not really - I don't agree with them, but I can see where they'd come from. New yorkers, the armed forces who've been involved with the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts, people who were directly impacted by 9/11 or 7/7 or the Bali Bombings. I even kind of understand how people with close second hand exposure - people who lost family or friends to islamic extremist events.

But I've got reasonably close second hand experience - I had friends at Ground Zero, I had friends trapped in Subways during the 7/7 bombings. I had friends in Bali during those bombings and I have friends who've taken injuries in Afghanistan and Iraq - and I certainly don't see that I have any reall right to say on this matter. It seems like a very specific New York land rights issue that New Yorkers might feel the need to discuss a bit - but that everyone else should stfu about.

That said, it's Manhattan. 2 blocks and around a corner isn't really that close. It's a cultural center, not a Mosque. And even if it was a Mosque - I really don't understand what the fucking problem is. Also, since I don't live in New York - and the most vocal idiots babbling about this topic also don't live in New York - I really don't understand why we're talking about it.

A native new yorker friend of mine posted this note on his facebook in response to the whole kerfuffle. He's letting those of us who were cheering on the sidelines as he ranted repost without credit since he isn't an attention whore -

I've talked to lots of people in Australia who are terribly upset about the whole thing - despite not even having the tenuous tertiary connections I have to these events, and I don't fucking get it. What are they so fucking afraid of? I've heard lots of ignorant ass prejudice against muslims and arabs as the story unfolds. I kind of wish I could introduce people to my Muslim friends - most of whom are no more devout or extreme in their devotions than my christian friends are devout or extreme in their beliefs and most of whom were as horrified and repulsed by islamic extremism as anyone not directly involved. The anti towel head/sand nigger/everybody brown who prays to someone other than Jesus prejudice is astonishingly inappropriate - even by Australian standards.

 

The argument is that despite being directly involved, closely exposed, etc - reasonable people managed to maintain a sense of perspective. His personal grief stayed as grief for those lost instead of turning into misdirected anger at every non caucasian who prays to someone other than jeebus. Before 9/11 - everyone agreed that terrorists were criminals who should go to jail. After 9/11, lots of otherwise sensible people lost their fucking mind, because they watched something horrible on television.... and are all fanatic about turning the middle east into a glass carpark and destroying a religion followed by 20% of the world's population, because some terrorists come from the middle east and claim to adhere to that religion.

If you lost your mind because you saw something on television and you're so afraid of something that in all likelihood had less effect on your life than the launch of the Iphone - that you now hate 20% of the world's population because they share some demographic characteristics with those terrorists - I kind of think it needs to be pointed out that your condition can only reasonably be described as paranoid cowardice and the answer is to snap out of it - not ban community centers in lower manhattan.

 

I'm tired of these people who object to the mosque and try to sound conciliatory while they do it. "Well, you know, I'm all for freedom of religion, just don't build it here where you killed 3,000 Americans, you know? Just be respectful of the pain you caused us." It's an underhanded assignment of culpability to a massive group of people being masked as diplomacy. They fail to make a distinction between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism because they cannot, and they try to dance around making a potentially unpopular statement by using this condescending phrasing.

The only people who would automatically associate an Islamic religious structure with terrorism are people who are predisposed to view Muslims in that fashion, and it's disconcerting that they don't see why that is a problem.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say a lot of people opposing this don't exactly deal well with nuance.