WAR General Petraeus, Betrayed

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
How Fox Betrayed Petraeus
By FRANK RICH
Published: August 21, 2010

THE “ground zero mosque,” as you may well know by now, is not at ground zero. It’s not a mosque but an Islamic cultural center containing a prayer room. It’s not going to determine President Obama’s political future or the elections of 2010 or 2012. Still, the battle that has broken out over this project in Lower Manhattan — on the “hallowed ground” of a shuttered Burlington Coat Factory store one block from the New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club — will prove eventful all the same. And the consequences will be far more profound than any midterm election results or any of the grand debates now raging 24/7 over the parameters of tolerance, religious freedom, and the real estate gospel of location, location, location.

Here’s what’s been lost in all the screaming. The prime movers in the campaign against the “ground zero mosque” just happen to be among the last cheerleaders for America’s nine-year war in Afghanistan. The wrecking ball they’re wielding is not merely pounding Park51, as the project is known, but is demolishing America’s already frail support for that war, which is dedicated to nation-building in a nation whose most conspicuous asset besides opium is actual mosques.

So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus’s last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?

You’d think that American hawks invested in the Afghanistan “surge” would not act against their own professed interests. But they couldn’t stop themselves from placing cynical domestic politics over country. The ginned-up rage over the “ground zero mosque” was not motivated by a serious desire to protect America from the real threat of terrorists lurking at home and abroad — a threat this furor has in all likelihood exacerbated — but by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season.

We owe thanks to Justin Elliott of Salon for the single most revealing account of this controversy’s evolution. He reports that there was zero reaction to the “ground zero mosque” from the front-line right or anyone else except marginal bloggers when The Times first reported on the Park51 plans in a lengthy front-page article on Dec. 9, 2009. The sole exception came some two weeks later at Fox News, where Laura Ingraham, filling in on “The O’Reilly Factor,” interviewed Daisy Khan, the wife of the project’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Ingraham gave the plans her blessing. “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it,” she said. “I like what you’re trying to do.”

As well Ingraham might. Rauf is no terrorist. He has been repeatedly sent on speaking tours by the Bush and Obama State Departments alike to promote tolerance in Arab and Muslim nations. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported last week, Rauf gave a moving eulogy at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan, at the Manhattan synagogue B’nai Jeshurun. Pearl’s father was in attendance. The Park51 board is chock-full of Christians and Jews. Perhaps the most threatening thing about this fledgling multi-use community center, an unabashed imitator of the venerable (and Jewish) 92nd Street Y uptown, is its potential to spawn yet another coveted, impossible-to-get-into Manhattan private preschool.

In the five months after The Times’s initial account there were no newspaper articles on the project at all. It was only in May of this year that the Rupert Murdoch axis of demagoguery revved up, jettisoning Ingraham’s benign take for a New York Post jihad. The paper’s inspiration was a rabidly anti-Islam blogger best known for claiming that Obama was Malcolm X’s illegitimate son. Soon the rest of the Murdoch empire and its political allies piled on, promoting the incendiary libel that the “radical Islamists” behind the “ground zero mosque” were tantamount either to neo-Nazis in Skokie (according to a Wall Street Journal columnist) or actual Nazis (per Newt Gingrich).

These patriots have never attacked the routine Muslim worship services at another site of the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon. Their sudden concern for ground zero is suspect to those of us who actually live in New York. All but 12 Republicans in the House voted against health benefits for 9/11 responders just last month. Though many of these ground-zero watchdogs partied at the 2004 G.O.P. convention in New York exploiting 9/11, none of them protested that a fellow Republican, the former New York governor George Pataki, so bollixed up the management of the World Trade Center site that nine years on it still lacks any finished buildings, let alone a permanent memorial.

The Fox patron saint Sarah Palin calls Park51 a “stab in the heart” of Americans who “still have that lingering pain from 9/11.” But her only previous engagement with the 9/11 site was when she used it as a political backdrop for taking her first questions from reporters nearly a month after being named to the G.O.P. ticket. (She was so eager to grab her ground zero photo op that she defied John McCain’s just-announced “suspension” of their campaign.) Her disingenuous piety has been topped only by Bernie Kerik, who smuggled a Twitter message out of prison to register his rage at the ground zero desecration. As my colleague Clyde Haberman reminded us, such was Kerik’s previous reverence for the burial ground of 9/11 that he appropriated an apartment overlooking the site (and designated for recovery workers) for an extramarital affair.

At the Islamophobia command center, Murdoch’s News Corporation, the hypocrisy is, if anything, thicker. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial darkly cited unspecified “reports” that Park51 has “money coming from Saudi charities or Gulf princes that also fund Wahabi madrassas.” As Jon Stewart observed, this brand of innuendo could also be applied to News Corp., whose second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family is a member of the Saudi royal family. Perhaps last week’s revelation that News Corp. has poured $1 million into G.O.P. campaign coffers was a fiendishly clever smokescreen to deflect anyone from following the far greater sum of Saudi money (a $3 billion stake) that has flowed into Murdoch enterprises, or the News Corp. money (at least $70 million) recently invested in a Saudi media company.

Were McCain in the White House, Fox and friends would have kept ignoring Park51. But it’s an irresistible target in our current election year because it revives the most insidious anti-Obama narrative of the many Fox promoted in the previous election year: Obama the closet Muslim and secret madrassa alumnus. In the much discussed latest Pew poll, a record number of Americans (nearing 20 percent) said that our Christian president practices Islam. And they do not see that as a good thing. Existing or proposed American mosques hundreds and even thousands of miles from ground zero, from Tennessee to Wisconsin to California, are now under siege.

After 9/11, President Bush praised Islam as a religion of peace and asked for tolerance for Muslims not necessarily because he was a humanitarian or knew much about Islam but because national security demanded it. An America at war with Islam plays right into Al Qaeda’s recruitment spiel. This month’s incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing is a national security disaster for that reason — Osama bin Laden’s “next video script has just written itself,” as the former F.B.I. terrorist interrogator Ali Soufan put it — but not just for that reason. America’s Muslim partners, those our troops are fighting and dying for, are collateral damage. If the cleric behind Park51 — a man who has participated in events with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, for heaven’s sake — is labeled a closet terrorist sympathizer and a Nazi by some of the loudest and most powerful conservative voices in America, which Muslims are not?

In the latest CNN poll, American opposition is at an all-time high to both the ostensibly concluded war in Iraq (69 percent) and the endless one in Afghanistan (62 percent). Now, when the very same politicians and pundits who urge infinite patience for Afghanistan slime Muslims as Nazis, they will have to explain that they are not talking about Hamid Karzai or his corrupt narco-thug government or the questionably loyal Afghan armed forces our own forces are asked to entrust with their lives. The hawks will have to make the case that American troops should make the ultimate sacrifice to build a Nazi — Afghan, I mean — nation and that economically depressed taxpayers should keep paying for it. Good luck with that.

Poor General Petraeus. Over the last week he has been ubiquitous in the major newspapers and on television as he pursues a publicity tour to pitch the war he’s inherited. But have you heard any buzz about what he had to say? Any debate? Any anything? No one was listening and no one cared. Everyone was too busy yelling about the mosque.

It’s poignant, really. Even as America’s most venerable soldier returned from the front to valiantly assume the role of Willy Loman, the product he was selling was being discredited and discontinued by his own self-proclaimed allies at home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=2&hp
 

mistaken1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
And the consequences will be far more profound than any midterm election results or any of the grand debates now raging 24/7 over the parameters of tolerance, religious freedom, and the real estate gospel of location, location, location.

You mean like the religious freedom Christian children enjoy in American public schools when THEY CHOOSE to pray or read bibles or include a personal prayer when given the liberty to write a speech?

You liberals are a pathetic, hypocritical joke. All we ever here out of liberals is how religion (Judea/Christian religion) is the root of all evil and must not be allowed in public life (and private too if you had your way) now all of a sudden you rush to defend the religious freedom of muslims in America.

The only reason you support muslims is you are terrified they will cut your heads off slowly with a dull knife if you don't.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
The only reason you support muslims is you are terrified they will cut your heads off slowly with a dull knife if you don't.

:applaud: x1000

And the ironic thing is, the muzzies will ultimately cut their heads off with a dull knife ANYWAY. And the last though in the idiot liberal's head as it leaves his body will be, "But I was on YOUR SIDE!"

Stupid brain-dead liberals.
 

Bad Hand

Veteran Member
Farmer John is a muzzie loving liberal and they are the ones that are out to destroy America with their Socialist Marxist ideas.
 

medic38572

TB Fanatic
The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name' sake.



Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou annointest my head with oil; My cup runneth over.



Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever.
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"You mean like the religious freedom Christian children enjoy in American public schools when THEY CHOOSE to pray or read bibles or include a personal prayer when given the liberty to write a speech?

You liberals are a pathetic, hypocritical joke. All we ever here out of liberals is how religion (Judea/Christian religion) is the root of all evil and must not be allowed in public life (and private too if you had your way) now all of a sudden you rush to defend the religious freedom of muslims in America.

The only reason you support muslims is you are terrified they will cut your heads off slowly with a dull knife if you don't."



Not the only reason---there's also the dynamic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
 

BH

. . . .
I made it this far....

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right....[/FONT]
 

Mr. Mason

Membership Revoked
"How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?"

You see, the real problem is we shouldn't be trying to win their hearts and minds. Islam is an evil bad religion. We should be trying to wipe it out, killing all its followers and then make it a capital offense world wide to ever mention the name of Muhammed again.
 

Thomas Paine

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?"

You see, the real problem is we shouldn't be trying to win their hearts and minds. Islam is an evil bad religion. We should be trying to wipe it out, killing all its followers and then make it a capital offense world wide to ever mention the name of Muhammed again.

Ah a voice of reason and sanity at last. We didn't want this war they did, all of them, either by not culling the heard of the nuts amongst them, or of supporting the said nuts, or nby being the nuts so I say phoc'em we need to get all Crusader on their ass.
 

Fred's Horseradish

Membership Revoked
Dutch & Anti-liberal have it right. Not much time left. One person just asked me not to send him anymore doom. He's in Israel. He'll soon find out. I do not give Israel a chance. I am pro-Jewish, Pro-Isreal,
But I now think the problem Israeli's have and Jews had in Germany in the 1930s is they have a feeling of being invincible. I know I have that feeling, but I'm in the boonies on the edge of the wilderness and I know where there are caves.
 

Thomas Paine

Has No Life - Lives on TB
FarmerJohn the TB2k tech people have the tech problem you reported figured out. Somehow you labeled your link to the Huffington post Time Bomb 2000.
You can simply relabel the link or if you need assistance the staff can probably talk you through it.They can also help you place a properly labeled link on your computer to TB2k so you aren't embarrassed by posting shite like this again here.

:lkick::lkick::lkick::lkick:
 

ceeblue

Veteran Member
FarmerJohn, Thanks for posting this common sense article.

It's pitiful that so many cannot see they aid and abet the enemy with their blind hate and blood thirst, that we fight with and for Islamic nations against a common enemy, and that so many politicians are simply whoring themselves out to the lowest elements who believe that everyone who is not a Bible thumper is their sworn enemy and all that pile of crap where they pervert the truth to serve their blood thirst.

Republicans will never again get my vote due to this cynical use of blind hate and failure to repudiate it. They torpedo our ship of state.

But not to worry about those who see monsters under their beds. They will be rounded up by the UN troops and put into the FEMA camps surrounded by razor wire, where they'll have their heads chopped off by those guillotines on rail road cars, then be turned into fertilizer for FDA approved GMO crops and cloned livestock. Right before their heads are chopped off, they'll see a flying saucer in the sky and know this happened because the evil aliens want all the Christians dead, and they'll realize that was the message in the crop circles made by the good aliens.
 

mistaken1

Has No Life - Lives on TB
FarmerJohn, Thanks for posting this common sense article.

It's pitiful that so many cannot see they aid and abet the enemy with their blind hate and blood thirst, that we fight with and for Islamic nations against a common enemy, and that so many politicians are simply whoring themselves out to the lowest elements who believe that everyone who is not a Bible thumper is their sworn enemy and all that pile of crap where they pervert the truth to serve their blood thirst.

Republicans will never again get my vote due to this cynical use of blind hate and failure to repudiate it. They torpedo our ship of state.

But not to worry about those who see monsters under their beds. They will be rounded up by the UN troops and put into the FEMA camps surrounded by razor wire, where they'll have their heads chopped off by those guillotines on rail road cars, then be turned into fertilizer for FDA approved GMO crops and cloned livestock. Right before their heads are chopped off, they'll see a flying saucer in the sky and know this happened because the evil aliens want all the Christians dead, and they'll realize that was the message in the crop circles made by the good aliens.

Who is this common enemy of which you speak (write)?
 

Longbow

Membership Revoked
How Fox Betrayed Petraeus
By FRANK RICH
Published: August 21, 2010

THE “ground zero mosque,” as you may well know by now, is not at ground zero. It’s not a mosque but an Islamic cultural center containing a prayer room. It’s not going to determine President Obama’s political future or the elections of 2010 or 2012. Still, the battle that has broken out over this project in Lower Manhattan — on the “hallowed ground” of a shuttered Burlington Coat Factory store one block from the New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club — will prove eventful all the same. And the consequences will be far more profound than any midterm election results or any of the grand debates now raging 24/7 over the parameters of tolerance, religious freedom, and the real estate gospel of location, location, location.



Here’s what’s been lost in all the screaming. The prime movers in the campaign against the “ground zero mosque” just happen to be among the last cheerleaders for America’s nine-year war in Afghanistan. The wrecking ball they’re wielding is not merely pounding Park51, as the project is known, but is demolishing America’s already frail support for that war, which is dedicated to nation-building in a nation whose most conspicuous asset besides opium is actual mosques.

So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus’s last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?

You’d think that American hawks invested in the Afghanistan “surge” would not act against their own professed interests. But they couldn’t stop themselves from placing cynical domestic politics over country. The ginned-up rage over the “ground zero mosque” was not motivated by a serious desire to protect America from the real threat of terrorists lurking at home and abroad — a threat this furor has in all likelihood exacerbated — but by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season.

We owe thanks to Justin Elliott of Salon for the single most revealing account of this controversy’s evolution. He reports that there was zero reaction to the “ground zero mosque” from the front-line right or anyone else except marginal bloggers when The Times first reported on the Park51 plans in a lengthy front-page article on Dec. 9, 2009. The sole exception came some two weeks later at Fox News, where Laura Ingraham, filling in on “The O’Reilly Factor,” interviewed Daisy Khan, the wife of the project’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Ingraham gave the plans her blessing. “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it,” she said. “I like what you’re trying to do.”

As well Ingraham might. Rauf is no terrorist. He has been repeatedly sent on speaking tours by the Bush and Obama State Departments alike to promote tolerance in Arab and Muslim nations. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported last week, Rauf gave a moving eulogy at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan, at the Manhattan synagogue B’nai Jeshurun. Pearl’s father was in attendance. The Park51 board is chock-full of Christians and Jews. Perhaps the most threatening thing about this fledgling multi-use community center, an unabashed imitator of the venerable (and Jewish) 92nd Street Y uptown, is its potential to spawn yet another coveted, impossible-to-get-into Manhattan private preschool.

In the five months after The Times’s initial account there were no newspaper articles on the project at all. It was only in May of this year that the Rupert Murdoch axis of demagoguery revved up, jettisoning Ingraham’s benign take for a New York Post jihad. The paper’s inspiration was a rabidly anti-Islam blogger best known for claiming that Obama was Malcolm X’s illegitimate son. Soon the rest of the Murdoch empire and its political allies piled on, promoting the incendiary libel that the “radical Islamists” behind the “ground zero mosque” were tantamount either to neo-Nazis in Skokie (according to a Wall Street Journal columnist) or actual Nazis (per Newt Gingrich).

These patriots have never attacked the routine Muslim worship services at another site of the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon. Their sudden concern for ground zero is suspect to those of us who actually live in New York. All but 12 Republicans in the House voted against health benefits for 9/11 responders just last month. Though many of these ground-zero watchdogs partied at the 2004 G.O.P. convention in New York exploiting 9/11, none of them protested that a fellow Republican, the former New York governor George Pataki, so bollixed up the management of the World Trade Center site that nine years on it still lacks any finished buildings, let alone a permanent memorial.

The Fox patron saint Sarah Palin calls Park51 a “stab in the heart” of Americans who “still have that lingering pain from 9/11.” But her only previous engagement with the 9/11 site was when she used it as a political backdrop for taking her first questions from reporters nearly a month after being named to the G.O.P. ticket. (She was so eager to grab her ground zero photo op that she defied John McCain’s just-announced “suspension” of their campaign.) Her disingenuous piety has been topped only by Bernie Kerik, who smuggled a Twitter message out of prison to register his rage at the ground zero desecration. As my colleague Clyde Haberman reminded us, such was Kerik’s previous reverence for the burial ground of 9/11 that he appropriated an apartment overlooking the site (and designated for recovery workers) for an extramarital affair.

At the Islamophobia command center, Murdoch’s News Corporation, the hypocrisy is, if anything, thicker. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial darkly cited unspecified “reports” that Park51 has “money coming from Saudi charities or Gulf princes that also fund Wahabi madrassas.” As Jon Stewart observed, this brand of innuendo could also be applied to News Corp., whose second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family is a member of the Saudi royal family. Perhaps last week’s revelation that News Corp. has poured $1 million into G.O.P. campaign coffers was a fiendishly clever smokescreen to deflect anyone from following the far greater sum of Saudi money (a $3 billion stake) that has flowed into Murdoch enterprises, or the News Corp. money (at least $70 million) recently invested in a Saudi media company.

Were McCain in the White House, Fox and friends would have kept ignoring Park51. But it’s an irresistible target in our current election year because it revives the most insidious anti-Obama narrative of the many Fox promoted in the previous election year: Obama the closet Muslim and secret madrassa alumnus. In the much discussed latest Pew poll, a record number of Americans (nearing 20 percent) said that our Christian president practices Islam. And they do not see that as a good thing. Existing or proposed American mosques hundreds and even thousands of miles from ground zero, from Tennessee to Wisconsin to California, are now under siege.

After 9/11, President Bush praised Islam as a religion of peace and asked for tolerance for Muslims not necessarily because he was a humanitarian or knew much about Islam but because national security demanded it. An America at war with Islam plays right into Al Qaeda’s recruitment spiel. This month’s incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing is a national security disaster for that reason — Osama bin Laden’s “next video script has just written itself,” as the former F.B.I. terrorist interrogator Ali Soufan put it — but not just for that reason. America’s Muslim partners, those our troops are fighting and dying for, are collateral damage. If the cleric behind Park51 — a man who has participated in events with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, for heaven’s sake — is labeled a closet terrorist sympathizer and a Nazi by some of the loudest and most powerful conservative voices in America, which Muslims are not?

In the latest CNN poll, American opposition is at an all-time high to both the ostensibly concluded war in Iraq (69 percent) and the endless one in Afghanistan (62 percent). Now, when the very same politicians and pundits who urge infinite patience for Afghanistan slime Muslims as Nazis, they will have to explain that they are not talking about Hamid Karzai or his corrupt narco-thug government or the questionably loyal Afghan armed forces our own forces are asked to entrust with their lives. The hawks will have to make the case that American troops should make the ultimate sacrifice to build a Nazi — Afghan, I mean — nation and that economically depressed taxpayers should keep paying for it. Good luck with that.

Poor General Petraeus. Over the last week he has been ubiquitous in the major newspapers and on television as he pursues a publicity tour to pitch the war he’s inherited. But have you heard any buzz about what he had to say? Any debate? Any anything? No one was listening and no one cared. Everyone was too busy yelling about the mosque.

It’s poignant, really. Even as America’s most venerable soldier returned from the front to valiantly assume the role of Willy Loman, the product he was selling was being discredited and discontinued by his own self-proclaimed allies at home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=2&hp

What a load of crap. That's the best you can come up with?
 
Last edited:
re: lead post:

A wonderful example of complete and total self-delusion.


This kind of article appears to be increasingly popular ever since the current WH occupant with the middle name of Hussein became ruler.
 

Grantbo

Membership Revoked
So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right

I got here and stopped reading. I then scrolled up to who posted this drivil. At that point I knew this was a total waste of time.
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Petraeus still supported by President Obama, if not the GOP

When Imam Rauf was invited to speak at the funeral of Daniel Pearl (beheaded by fundamentalist AQ members), he did so in solidarity with the many victims of Al Qaeda.

Rauf works in the hope that a liberal Islam can emerge, as has a liberal Judaism and liberal Christianity have emerged that (usually) forgo the stonings prescribed by the bible and the talmud.

The common enemy is intolerant fundamentalism. Like Fred's H., I'm also pro Israel. When you love your friends you know that sometimes your advice is poorly received. Someone that you support in their every decision does not really have a friend in you.

TP said:
Ah a voice of reason and sanity at last. We didn't want this war they did, all of them, either by not culling the heard of the nuts amongst them, or of supporting the said nuts, or nby being the nuts so I say phoc'em we need to get all Crusader on their ass.
Then why pour water and fertilizer on said 'nuts' while weeding out and herbiciding the non-nuts that we would prefer grow?

In hindsight, perhaps it was a mistake for the Bush administration to have sent financial aid to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan ($125 million in 2001.)

RJC, thanks for the bacon-ey thoughts! Those words are the nicest that I've seen so far on this thread.

FREEBIRD wrote:
"You mean like the religious freedom Christian children enjoy in American public schools when THEY CHOOSE to pray or read bibles or include a personal prayer when given the liberty to write a speech?
My answer is yes, every child in US public schools enjoys those freedoms. It's when ignorant administrators attempt to restrict those freedoms that civil liberties organizations like the ACLU or the ADF have to get involved to defend those freedoms. It's a shame that they have to, but I'm glad that the can do so.

Anti-Liberal, can I have some of your virtual popcorn? RJC might have some bacon to go with it....

Even the most rabid anti-muslim has to admit that the prospect of killing a billion+ muslims is somewhat unrealistic. How about cultivating the most pro-american ones available? Rauf's parents were once taken hostage in DC by radical muslims. That just might bias a person's mind against radical Islam.... To be invited to speak at the memorial service for one so cruelly murdered by AQ, does that not suggest that Daniel Pearl's widow was supportive of Rauf and his mission of reconciliation?

To reiterate: it seems extremely unwise for any American to support the propaganda of the jihadists. Especially when doing so poses severe additional risks on our armed forces still in the region. If you're going to endanger our troops like that you should at lease support their immediate withdrawal.

I remember when 'Move On' was castigated for saying: Petraeus, will you betray us? Ironically it's the opposite political extreme that is now betraying General Petraeus; still supported by Obama and the democrats.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________

Republicans will never again get my vote due to this cynical use of blind hate and failure to repudiate it.



Wow, I didn't know that republicans flew airlanes into buildings on 9/11. Learn something new every day...

:rolleyes: :kk1:
 

Emily

One Day Closer
When Imam Rauf was invited to speak at the funeral of Daniel Pearl (beheaded by fundamentalist AQ members), he did so in solidarity with the many victims of Al Qaeda.

Rauf works in the hope that a liberal Islam can emerge, as has a liberal Judaism and liberal Christianity have emerged that (usually) forgo the stonings prescribed by the bible and the talmud.
If this were true - then this man, not being an idiot, would not be pushing to have a Mosque / Community center at Ground Zero when so many are feeling it is an insult.

Muslims are permitted to lie, according to their 'holy book' to further the cause of Islam.

What they DO and what they say are always the tell all that they are lying.

Calling that Mosque the Cordoba project and then using our freedoms to to stick it in our face is as cold and as calculating as it gets.

When I see their behavior match their rhetoric THEN I will start to believe them.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”

Qur'an (9:3) - “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (2:225) - “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

Qur'an (66:2) - “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”

Qur'an (3:54) - “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also

8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

http://www.muslimfact.com/bm/terror...ts-lying-to-deceive-unbelievers-and-bri.shtml
 

Emily

One Day Closer

Republicans will never again get my vote due to this cynical use of blind hate and failure to repudiate it.



Wow, I didn't know that republicans flew airlanes into buildings on 9/11. Learn something new every day...

:rolleyes: :kk1:

Dennis - as long as we keep voting for or against labels - they win.

We need to vote for the individual and hopefully by doing so we take back the parties from the usurpers.

Since the MSM will only give validation to the established parties it is swimming upstream to get a third party established enough to win a major election before they completely destroy this country.

We need to stop looking at the labels they use to manipulate the debate and start voting for the individuals, their records, and who their friends are.
 

pugdog

Membership Revoked
The Return of The Jesus of Islam (antichrist)

I found that there is a prophesy in Islam that goes like this. It says that, in the last days, Jesus (as a human prophet and not the Son of God) will return to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, set it up as His capital to rule the world, Islam will be His religion, and He will give the Muslims an order to kill off all the remaining or remnant of the Christians and Jews which refuse to worship Allah. The prophesy says that the Muslims will ruthlessly hunt down and kill off all the remaining Christians and Jews establishing Islam as the only religion of the world. Jesus will rule the world with his one-world government and church.

Muslims are eagerly looking forward to this coming of their Jesus, Him giving them the order to kill off the remnant of the Christians and Jews, and them killing off the remnant of the Christians and Jews with greater zeal than the Christians are looking forward to the coming of the Biblical Jesus. As a matter of fact, they are working towards doing that now.

Interestingly, the Bible predicts the exact same event from the opposite perspective for the exact same time in history. The Bible says that a man will gain control of the one-world government with the aid of the one-world church, seize control of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, declare himself to be Jesus or the Messiah, and wage war against and attempt to kill the remnant of the Christians and Jews. The big difference is that the Bible doesn't call this man Jesus, it calls him the Antichrist.

http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran4.html
 

Emily

One Day Closer
ICH_Flier_osite.jpg


http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/
 
FarmerJohn, Thanks for posting this common sense article.

It's pitiful that so many cannot see they aid and abet the enemy with their blind hate and blood thirst, that we fight with and for Islamic nations against a common enemy, and that so many politicians are simply whoring themselves out to the lowest elements who believe that everyone who is not a Bible thumper is their sworn enemy and all that pile of crap where they pervert the truth to serve their blood thirst.

Republicans will never again get my vote due to this cynical use of blind hate and failure to repudiate it. They torpedo our ship of state.

But not to worry about those who see monsters under their beds. They will be rounded up by the UN troops and put into the FEMA camps surrounded by razor wire, where they'll have their heads chopped off by those guillotines on rail road cars, then be turned into fertilizer for FDA approved GMO crops and cloned livestock. Right before their heads are chopped off, they'll see a flying saucer in the sky and know this happened because the evil aliens want all the Christians dead, and they'll realize that was the message in the crop circles made by the good aliens.

You continue to be one of the most clueless posters on this board. How on earth can you believe the way you do when proof after proof has been posted for years that contradicts your position? You truly believe in liberalism as a religion.

You are every bit a fundamentalist (of a different kind) but you will not admit it.
 
"You mean like the religious freedom Christian children enjoy in American public schools when THEY CHOOSE to pray or read bibles or include a personal prayer when given the liberty to write a speech?

You liberals are a pathetic, hypocritical joke. All we ever here out of liberals is how religion (Judea/Christian religion) is the root of all evil and must not be allowed in public life (and private too if you had your way) now all of a sudden you rush to defend the religious freedom of muslims in America.

The only reason you support muslims is you are terrified they will cut your heads off slowly with a dull knife if you don't."



Not the only reason---there's also the dynamic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

:applaud::applaud::applaud::applaud:
 

Walrus Whisperer

Hope in chains...
FarmerJohn the TB2k tech people have the tech problem you reported figured out. Somehow you labeled your link to the Huffington post Time Bomb 2000.
You can simply relabel the link or if you need assistance the staff can probably talk you through it.They can also help you place a properly labeled link on your computer to TB2k so you aren't embarrassed by posting shite like this again here.

:lkick::lkick::lkick::lkick:

PLUS 100000!
 

Garryowen

Deceased
I do not give Israel a chance.
Israel cannot hope to defeat its enemies if they organize against it. However God has promised to fight for Israel. These are dark times, indeed, if we look at the physical world and note the sentiments of most of the nations. But, as Patrick Henry noted, "there is a Just Providence presiding over the fate of nations." The God of Abrahan, Isaac, and Jacob will once again deliver Israel from the hand of the enemy, and will make a final show of victory over the principalities and powers that presently rule this evil age.

I think you can take that to the bank.

regards,

Garryowen
 

Ender

Inactive
Ron Paul:

“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.”
 

FarmerJohn

Has No Life - Lives on TB
The Meaning of the term "Cordoba House"

Hey FJ, you muzzie lover. Got something for you to read and comment on:

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showpost.php?p=3831289&postcount=19

Hi Dennis, here is something for you to read and comment on. Yes, I do love Muslims, Christians and Jews (among others) Please forgive me is this post seems repetitious:

http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

There are any number of reasons why an American might oppose the Cordoba House, the planned $100 million Muslim-financed community center that has come to be known in the press as the "Ground Zero mosque." I don't think any of them are particularly good reasons, but the universe of potential justification is much broader than the narrow scope of this humble blog. There is one justification being floated around, however, that is both within this blog's purview and completely and totally bogus. Indeed, this particular justification is such an egregious and purposeful misreading of medieval history that I feel I must speak up.

Last week,* Newt Gingrich released a Newt Direct statement at Newt.org concerning the project. As you may have heard, he's somewhat opposed to it. And to explain why, he offered this history lesson:
The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex. [...I]n fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way. [emphasis mine]
It's that appositive phrase there buried in the middle of my quote that is the problem. In these twenty-five words, Newt offers the final word on medieval Cordoba: "the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex." This fact, the transformation of a church into a mosque, is the only thing we should think of when we hear a modern Muslim use the word "Cordoba," according to Mr. Gingrich.

Notice how carefully he's phrased his claim to give the impression that during the medieval conquest of Spain the Muslims charged into Cordoba and declared it the capital of a new Muslim empire, and in order to add insult to injury seized control of a Christian church and built the biggest mosque they could, right there in front of the Christians they'd just conquered, a big Muslim middle finger in the heart of medieval Christendom. Essentially, they've done it before, they'll do it again, right there at Ground Zero, if all good Christians don't band together to stop them.

The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three hundred years of Christian and Muslim history. Three hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712. The Christian church that was later transformed into the Great Mosque of Cordoba apparently** continued hosting Christian worship for at least a generation after that. Work on the Mosque didn't actually begin until seventy-odd years later in 784, and the mosque only became "the world's third-largest" late in the tenth century, after a series of expansions by much later rulers, probably around 987 or so.

Then there's the matter of the two odd verbs in Newt's summation of Cordoba's history: "transformed" and "symbolized". Surely, a mosque as great as The Great Mosque of Cordoba has symbolized a lot of things to a lot of people over the years. But Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.

Keep in mind that when ground was broken on the Great Mosque, the vast majority of the men who had been personally responsible for conquering the Iberian peninsula were long dead and most of their sons were dead, too. Sure, a few extremely ancient grey beards might have been present as very, young men, and a few older men might have been able to talk about what their fathers had done during the Conquest, but Muslim control of Spain was simply a fact of life for them, not something they felt they had to justify to the Christians.

The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest--just not the conquest of the Christians. Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against other Muslim chieftains loyal to the rival Abbasid Caliphate, and his successful repulsion of subsequent Abbasid attempts to dislodge him by force throughout the 760's.*** This is, incidentally, probably why the Great Mosque--unlike almost every other Mosque in the Muslim world--is built facing south. Usually, Mosques are built facing Mecca, as Muslims are meant to pray towards the holy city. But the Great Mosque is oriented as if it were actually built in Damascus, the original capital of the Umayyads and the city from which abd-ar-Ramman had had to flee in exile when it was conquered by the Abbasids. Damascus is north of Mecca, while Cordoba is much further west. By pointing his Mosque south, Abd-ar-Ramman I was telling his Muslim rivals, "This exile to Iberia is a temporary thing; you may hold Damascus for now, but in the eyes of our god, my family still controls it."

Still, the Muslims did "transform" a Christian church, didn't they? Possibly, but only in a very qualified sense. Most standard histories of Cordoba will note that the Great Mosque is built on the site of the Basilica of St Vincent, Martyr, a Visigothic church that was itself built on the ruins of a Roman pagan temple. And archaeological work has confirmed that the present site of the Mosque did at one time belong to some sort of Christian church. There's no indication that the present-day structure included any elements from that church, though, and exactly when it was razed and under what circumstances is unclear.

Muslim historians of the late tenth century tell that Abd-ar-Ramman bought the church from the Christian congregation after sharing it with them for fifty years "following the example of Abu Ubayda and Khalid, according to the judgement of Caliph Umar in partitioning Christian churches like that of Damascus and other [cities] that were taken of peaceful accord".**** The Christians, we're told, took their money and relocated their church to the outskirts of Cordoba. Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe, so we must always take their accounts with a grain of salt (as we would with any historian's work, Muslim or not) and consider the political motivations responsible for their histories.

These tenth-century historians were writing to please the ears of the Cordoban caliphs, Abd-ar-Ramman III and his successors, in the wake of yet another victory of Muslim over Muslim. Abd-ar-Ramman III, after all, is the one who declared Cordoba to be an independent caliphate, not just an Umayyad emirate. In rewriting the history of the Mosque of Cordoba, these historians were writing imperial justifications for their patron, explaining why Cordoba deserved to be the capital of its own caliphate, held up as the equal to Damascus, site of the Great Mosque of the Umayyads, and even Mecca, the holiest of cities, which was still under Abbasid control.

This is the important fact that Newt hopes those who read his polemic will be ignorant of: for a ruler to be legitimate in Muslim eyes in the tenth century, during the time when the Great Mosque was being expanded into its present-day dimensions, it was important to emphasize the peaceful succession of Islam from the other religions in the area. A caliph was expected to have arrived at an accord with the Christians and Jews over which he ruled.****** Far from "symboliz[ing] their victory" the Mosque was held up by Muslim historians a symbol of peaceful coexistence with the Christians--however messier the actual relations of Christians and Muslims were at the time.*******

So what should modern Christians think when they hear a Muslim use the word "Cordoba"? Well, I know that Newt hasn't been a Catholic for very long now, but maybe his priest ought to direct him to read a little thing called "The Catholic Encyclopedia". Allow me to quote from the 1917 edition (which has the virtue of being in the public domain and easily searchable) and its entry on Cordoba:
In 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe.
The article then discusses the persecution of the Christians under Abd-ar-Ramman II, which included the martyrdom of St. Eulogius. Then it continues with the rule of those rulers who expanded the Mosque:
In 962 Abd-er Rahman III was succeeded by his son Al-Hakim. Owing to the peace which the Christians of Cordova then enjoyed [...] the citizens of Cordova, Arabs, Christians, and Jews, enjoyed so high a degree of literary culture that the city was known as the New Athens. From all quarters came students eager to drink at its founts of knowledge. Among the men afterwards famous who studied at Cordova were the scholarly monk Gerbert, destined to sit on the Chair of Peter as Sylvester II (999-1003), the Jewish rabbis Moses and Maimonides, and the famous Spanish-Arabian commentator on Aristotle, Averroes.
So it's easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it "The Cordoba House" They're not, as Gingrich hopes we would believe, discreetly laughing at us because "Cordoba" is some double-secret Islamist code for "conquest"; rather, they're hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side.

--

*While I was away in Italy. Suspicious? I think so.

**This is a loaded "apparently" for reasons that will become clear later in this post.

***If your eyes glaze over at the sea of Abds, Umayyads, and Abbasids, let me put it another way. If it's legitimate for Newt Gingrich to say the Great Mosque of Cordoba was built by Muslim Conquerors in their capital city wishing to symbolize their victory over the Christians, then it'd be just as legitimate to describe the Statue of Liberty as being built by English conquerors in their capital of New York to symbolize their victory over the Dutch.

****Idhari, al-Bayan 2, pp. 341-342. Cited in Nuha N. N. Khoury, "The Meaning of the Great Mosque of Cordoba in the Tenth Century" Muqarnas, 13 (1996), pp. 80-98.

*****Sorry, I know, using a footnote to cite an actual source isn't really what you expect from me. Those who traveled down here in search of a joke--maybe some sort of pun on those weird Muslim names--my deepest apologies.

******Again, see Khoury for this, in particular, pp. 83-85.

*******Earlier histories don't mention the church of St. Vincent at all. Instead, they refer to the site of the new mosque as a place where the previous ruling Muslim dynasty had mercilessly executed several Muslim martyrs. So by this reading in creating the mosque, Abd-ab-Ramman I was consecrating the memory of Muslims killed by Muslims, not desecrating the memory of Christians killed by Muslims.

http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html
 
Top