Burning the Koran

[RIJIMMY]

I agree, this "stunt" once again showed the muslims true colors. Been saying that this whole thread. Barbaric religious uncivilized loons. But that will be lost to most as they focus on the crazy pastorn not the WORLDWIDE reaction. Our secretary of defense call him, the president pleads with him. The mightiest nation in the world bows to islamic fear. Osama, you've won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

The mightiest nation in the world bows to islamic fear. Osama, you've won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not about bowing in fear, it's about staying true to who we say we are.

This entire stunt with the pastor was such a big deal only because it came on the heels of the Islamic Cultural Center controversy in New York. That was only such a big deal because people are exploiting fear of Islam for political gain.

We can have free speech in the country and let the crazies be crazies without it being a problem. But when the Right Wing is acting like MSG, primarily to serve their own interests, then they infringe on all our rights.

Sure, we have the right to ask for responsibility from Muslims abroad, but who are we to ask if we can't even practice what we preach?

Pretty soon you're going to see the fringe Right blaming Islam for all our ills. I can see it forming as we speak.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not about bowing in fear, it's about staying true to who we say we are.

This entire stunt with the pastor was such a big deal only because it came on the heels of the Islamic Cultural Center controversy in New York. That was only such a big deal because people are exploiting fear of Islam for political gain.

We can have free speech in the country and let the crazies be crazies without it being a problem. But when the Right Wing is acting like MSG, primarily to serve their own interests, then they infringe on all our rights.

Sure, we have the right to ask for responsibility from Muslims abroad, but who are we to ask if we can't even practice what we preach?

Pretty soon you're going to see the fringe Right blaming Islam for all our ills. I can see it forming as we speak.

-spence

This is not about the "fringe Right". You really are clueless.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

This is not about the "fringe Right". You really are clueless.

And you don't read. Remember what happened last time when you didn't read?

The scary part is you have fringes on both sides influencing a good part of the middle. They're going to lead everyone to war before you know it.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not about bowing in fear, it's about staying true to who we say we are.

This entire stunt with the pastor was such a big deal only because it came on the heels of the Islamic Cultural Center controversy(oh, no...he could have done this anytime and the examples above prove the reaction would be similar) in New York. That was only such a big deal because people are exploiting fear of Islam for political gain. based on what is evident worldwide and the very open threats when Islam doesn't get it way..should we not fear?
We can have free speech in the country and let the crazies be crazies without it being a problem. But when the Right Wing is acting like MSG, primarily to serve their own interests, then they infringe on all our rights. mono sodium glutomate?

Sure, we have the right to ask for responsibility from Muslims abroad, but who are we to ask if we can't even practice what we preach? where exactly have we not practiced what we preached, for the millionth time, noone has said he couldn't build the GZ Mosque only that he shouldn't build it there...I think like 80% of Americans and a large majority of New Yorkers...wow...the crazy Right Wing has really expanded

Pretty soon you're going to see the fringe Right blaming Islam for all our ills. I can see it forming as we speak.currently the oppsite is true, at least according to Rauf
-spence

you obviously can't hold all muslims as violent but a quick look around the globe show far more than a just tiny minority of radicals causing the trouble, just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have claimed to speak for the black community, Rauf claims to speak for the muslim community and he nothing but a two faced weasel who works shady deals and uses fear, racism and demands for tolerance to further his agenda...hope he continues to do interviews...IT'S GREAT WHEN "MODERATE MUSLIMS" SUGGEST THAT VIOLENCE WILL OCCUR FROM "RADICAL MUSLIMS" IF THE "MODERATE MUSLIMS" DON'T GET WHAT THEY WANT

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not about bowing in fear, it's about staying true to who we say we are.

There are different "we" with different opinions of who we are. "We" don't have as unified opinion of who we are as the opinion Muslims, aparently, have of who we are.

This entire stunt with the pastor was such a big deal only because it came on the heels of the Islamic Cultural Center controversy in New York. That was only such a big deal because people are exploiting fear of Islam for political gain.

Politicians for or against the mosque can be accused of exploiting both controversies for political gain. But that would be a gross generalization. And the pastor's stunt could well have been an Alinskyish tactic of provoking the enemy into its typical peaceful behavior of rioting or killing.

We can have free speech in the country and let the crazies be crazies without it being a problem. But when the Right Wing is acting like MSG, primarily to serve their own interests, then they infringe on all our rights.

Wow! Talk about gross generalizations!

Sure, we have the right to ask for responsibility from Muslims abroad, but who are we to ask if we can't even practice what we preach?

What is it, again, that we are supposedly preaching?

Pretty soon you're going to see the fringe Right blaming Islam for all our ills. I can see it forming as we speak.
-spence

Gee Spence, for someone who is as familiar and approbative of Alinsky tactics as you are, how do you fail to see how Obama's team have infiltrated the fringe right, posing as right wingers blaming Islam for all our ills instead of blaming Obama?

[spence]

Welcome to the thread.

Originally Posted by detbuch

There are different "we" with different opinions of who we are. "We" don't have as unified opinion of who we are as the opinion Muslims, aparently, have of who we are.

This statement implies there's a unified Islamic position as to what America is. This clearly is not the case. Hell, there isn't even a unified Islamic position as to what Islam is.

Politicians for or against the mosque can be accused of exploiting both controversies for political gain. But that would be a gross generalization. And the pastor's stunt could well have been an Alinskyish tactic of provoking the enemy into its typical peaceful behavior of rioting or killing.

I'm not aware of much mosque support intended for political gain, given some polls it could bring political pain.

But your comment makes me think...Is a poor, uneducated teenager in Afghanistan who perhaps doesn't even have a choice to participate in a protest against Americans burning the Koran...the ENEMY?

I guess he is if you want to make it be.

Note to all: A very good book -> http://www.amazon.com/Way-World-Stor.../dp/0061430625

Wow! Talk about gross generalizations!

I think the politicization of this issue by the Right has been pretty clear.

What is it, again, that we are supposedly preaching?

We preach the rule of law, respect of life etc... which from another perspective we don't seem to follow.

Gee Spence, for someone who is as familiar and approbative of Alinsky tactics as you are, how do you fail to see how Obama's team have infiltrated the fringe right, posing as right wingers blaming Islam for all our ills instead of blaming Obama?

I don't think Dems in general have the stones to pull it off.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Welcome to the thread.

Thanks. Probably should have stayed out of the thread, as I really didn't care if the Korans were burned or not. It would have been exciting, and the "news" loves excitement. I agree with those who think the Muslim response, if as threatened or predicted, would have been more idiotic, lawless, and to be pleaded against than the tiny group of book burners. And the Muslim response should not have been merely predicted by Muslim leaders, but they should have been the ones to demand that such responses not occur.

This statement implies there's a unified Islamic position as to what America is. This clearly is not the case. Hell, there isn't even a unified Islamic position as to what Islam is.

No, it implies that the Islamic position re America is not necessarily unified, but more unified than our opinions of who we are. That's, admittedly, just a guess based on the bulk of the "reports" that we get, and the supposition that Islamic societies are not as diverse as ours is. I should have excluded American Muslims from my statement since I view them as part of the disunified perceptions we have of ourselves--which is the real point of my response to your saying "it's about staying true to who we are."--and which you didn't answer.

My real implication is we are divided in this country, maybe more so than ever, and staying true to who we say we are will result in a different true for a different we--even to the point of being diametrically opposed. Vive la diversity.

And the we that oppose the GZ Mosque or wish to burn Korans may disagree fundamentally with the we who oppose them. But they don't disagree on a constitutional basis.

I'm not aware of much mosque support intended for political gain, given some polls it could bring political pain.

There might be some political game from American Muslims, various immigrants, and those who think it's mean spirited and un-American to oppose the mosque. And there is, as you say, the big possibility of backlash pain. But there would be more political gain to oppose the Koran burners as typical right wing nuts.

But your comment makes me think...Is a poor, uneducated teenager in Afghanistan who perhaps doesn't even have a choice to participate in a protest against Americans burning the Koran...the ENEMY?

I don't think the book burners were thinking of the poor Afghan kid who wouldn't participate in a protest, but they might have been thinking about the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of whackos who would protest.

I guess he is if you want to make it be.

As I said, I didn't care one way or the other.


I think the politicization of this issue by the Right has been pretty clear.

I don't think it's been all that clear. What you may consider politicization may be an honest opinion of a different minded we.

We preach the rule of law, respect of life etc... which from another perspective we don't seem to follow.

What laws have been broken? Which lives have been taken?

I don't think Dems in general have the stones to pull it off.
-spence

So WE have different perspectives on Dem stones. Over the past several years, it has appeared to this we that the Dems have exercised more balls, in every way, than the Republicans, who have so often acted like eunuchs. I think the latter's fear of "main stream" press has contributed to their castration.

[justplugit]

Spence, I have never condemned or ever will condemn the mainline Muslim Faith for 9/11.That was the act of a radical group.
I have always admired the many Muslims I have known for their strong allegiance to their families, and would think they would have feelings for all families as well..

For the last time, as my original post said, I am suggesting that the mainline Muslim faith, as a religion,
should understand how putting their building so close to the 9/11 site would adversely affect the feelings of the families and friends of the victims and simply move their building to a different location.

BTW- no need for name calling.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It would have been exciting, and the "news" loves excitement.

I'd say the audience loves excitement, the news is just a business after all.

I agree with those who think the Muslim response, if as threatened or predicted, would have been more idiotic, lawless, and to be pleaded against than the tiny group of book burners. And the Muslim response should not have been merely predicted by Muslim leaders, but they should have been the ones to demand that such responses not occur.

It looks like the Muslim response to the issue was comparable to the actual Muslims responding. Western Muslims were quite rational on the issue, while poor, uneducated Muslims in war torn areas were more likely to react with violence. I think 10 have died in Afghanistan today just trying to hold an election.

Islamic violence is regularly condemned by Muslim leadership around the world, although I'm not sure many are listening. With the current climate of Islamophobia, speaking out can get you whacked from either side.

If perhaps the most noteworthy Imam in the US and trusted adviser to our Presidents can't get a fair shake, why would they?

No, it implies that the Islamic position re America is not necessarily unified, but more unified than our opinions of who we are. That's, admittedly, just a guess based on the bulk of the "reports" that we get, and the supposition that Islamic societies are not as diverse as ours is. I should have excluded American Muslims from my statement since I view them as part of the disunified perceptions we have of ourselves--which is the real point of my response to your saying "it's about staying true to who we are."--and which you didn't answer.

This is a good question, but not one that I think can be easily answered in a few paragraphs.

I would say that in the US there is a common bond (The American Dream) which isn't exclusive to any one group. Are there Muslims in the US who would take the Koran over the Constitution? Sure, but I'll bet I can find a lot more who would do the same with the Bible.

As for unification of Islamic positions, you'd have to break this out into issues to perhaps understand it. Palestine is certainly an issue with general Islamic consensus, but you'll also get a similar level of support from many Western nations and even liberals in the US.

Perhaps the biggest issue in Islam today is the role of the woman. I'm not sure even this is very unified throughout Islam, and is very heavily influenced by local conditions, especially in the Third World.

My real implication is we are divided in this country, maybe more so than ever, and staying true to who we say we are will result in a different true for a different we--even to the point of being diametrically opposed. Vive la diversity.

I'd agree the level of division is quite alarming. A very real threat to the American Dream is when people question if it really applies to everyone.

And the we that oppose the GZ Mosque or wish to burn Korans may disagree fundamentally with the we who oppose them. But they don't disagree on a constitutional basis.

Sure...

There might be some political game from American Muslims, various immigrants, and those who think it's mean spirited and un-American to oppose the mosque. And there is, as you say, the big possibility of backlash pain. But there would be more political gain to oppose the Koran burners as typical right wing nuts.

I didn't see many looking to gain from support of the Mosque issue, and considering the public sentiment it would be hard to see the benefits. I did see many on the Right quick to pretend there was parity between the two events though, sort of a "well if one's wrong the others wrong" logic that doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me. It did seem to make some feel better about opposing the Mosque though.

I don't think the book burners were thinking of the poor Afghan kid who wouldn't participate in a protest, but they might have been thinking about the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of whackos who would protest.

Give the kid a few more years.

I don't think it's been all that clear. What you may consider politicization may be an honest opinion of a different minded we.

To some degree this is certainly true, although with the Mosque issue it seems to be a situation of political exploitation.

This project was announced last December, reported in the NYTimes and didn't cause a ruckus. The Laura Ingraham interview with the Imam's wife (in the John Stewart video) wasn't so noteworthy because it was an attack on Fox News as you seemed to suggest, it was that in December even a bomb throwing pundit remarked that "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it" and "I like what you're trying to do."

When the project was approved what followed was an all out onslaught of anti-Islam propaganda characterizing the center as a temple to the 9/11 hijackers. Then the story rapidly became a big national issue.

What changed? Well, the facts around the purpose of the planned center didn't seem to change. It was the controversy being pushed from the fringe that was different, and this was the first glimpse of the issue that most Americans got. Hence my remarks that this story isn't really about the Mosque, but rather the controversy surrounding it.

I wouldn't call this a simple difference of opinion when the opinion seems to have been manufactured. That's political...

What laws have been broken? Which lives have been taken?

For our critics it's as simple as those outside the US believing we don't follow the same rules we expect of others over the years. Be it protecting Israel at the UN for decades, claiming we respect life but killing tens and tens of thousands of civilians when it's in our interest, ignoring human rights when countries have things we need, saying we don't torture and treat prisoners with respect...then abu Graib, renditions etc...

That these things may be technically legal or suit our interests at the time isn't really the point. What should be considered is the impact they may have whether we like it or not...instead we get "you're perfect, just keep shopping".

So WE have different perspectives on Dem stones. Over the past several years, it has appeared to this we that the Dems have exercised more balls, in every way, than the Republicans, who have so often acted like eunuchs. I think the latter's fear of "main stream" press has contributed to their castration.

I don't think Republicans fear the press as much as they do their own party. As they say...Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd say the audience loves excitement, the news is just a business after all.

If you're correcting my quip that the "news" loves excitement by saying that the audience not the "news" is what loves excitement, I'd say that the "news" is nothing without an audience, and the business function of the "news" is to get and enlarge an audience much as do the "whores" and "porn peddlers" like Limbaugh and Stewart, and that the "news" is sold to the audience in packages of exitement, and so the "news" loves the excitement as a commodity as much as the audience, and how could it be otherwise since "news" and audience are parts of the same trick.

It looks like the Muslim response to the issue was comparable to the actual Muslims responding. Western Muslims were quite rational on the issue, while poor, uneducated Muslims in war torn areas were more likely to react with violence. I think 10 have died in Afghanistan today just trying to hold an election.

As I said "I agree with those who think the Muslim response . . . would have been more idiotic, lawless, and to be pleaded against than the tiny group of book burners."

Islamic violence is regularly condemned by Muslim leadership around the world, although I'm not sure many are listening. With the current climate of Islamophobia, speaking out can get you whacked from either side.

I agree that speaking out against Islamic violence can get you whacked by Islamic extremists, but are you saying that it can also get you whacked by those who oppose the violence? Has this happened?

If perhaps the most noteworthy Imam in the US and trusted adviser to our Presidents can't get a fair shake, why would they?

How is he not getting a "fair shake"? Did he speak out against the Islamic violence and get whacked?

By the way, if Islam has been high-jacked by "extremists," doesn't that mean that the "extremists" are in charge? If the "moderates" want to own Islam, don't they have to get rid of the high-jackers? How can the "moderates" claim to represent "true" Islam if the high-jackers own the religion? Does "regularly" condemning the violence get rid of the high-jackers? When planes were high-jacked, were the pirates removed by condemning them? What are the radical Islamists condemned to? Death? Imprisonment? Fines?

This is a good question, but not one that I think can be easily answered in a few paragraphs.

I would say that in the US there is a common bond (The American Dream) which isn't exclusive to any one group.

Are you saying that Americans are unified in our opinions of who we are because of the so-called "American Dream? We all have the same dream?

Are there Muslims in the US who would take the Koran over the Constitution? Sure, but I'll bet I can find a lot more who would do the same with the Bible.

Certainly a disuniter.

As for unification of Islamic positions, you'd have to break this out into issues to perhaps understand it. Palestine is certainly an issue with general Islamic consensus, but you'll also get a similar level of support from many Western nations and even liberals in the US.

Perhaps the biggest issue in Islam today is the role of the woman. I'm not sure even this is very unified throughout Islam, and is very heavily influenced by local conditions, especially in the Third World.

All well and good, but this has nothing to do with what I spoke of--Islamic opinion of who Americans are.

I'd agree the level of division is quite alarming. A very real threat to the American Dream is when people question if it really applies to everyone.

So the so-called "American Dream" is not a uniter but a divider.

I didn't see many looking to gain from support of the Mosque issue, and considering the public sentiment it would be hard to see the benefits.

But to gain support by trying to make "conservatives" look foolish for opposing the mosque--a la Jon Stewart.

I did see many on the Right quick to pretend there was parity between the two events though, sort of a "well if one's wrong the others wrong" logic that doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me. It did seem to make some feel better about opposing the Mosque though.

The pretence is in your eyes not in the minds of those "on the right." It seems that you're quick to "politicize." And there was not a pretence to "parity" in so-called sensitivity. The reaction to building the mosque is "can you build it elsewhere?" The predicted response to the burning of Korans is large scale mayhem.

Give the kid a few more years.

Is the kid instructed, trained by Imam Rauf, or by his govt., or society, to abstain from mayhem in a few more years, or is that behavior solely dependent on what Americans do?

To some degree this is certainly true, although with the Mosque issue it seems to be a situation of political exploitation.

No political exploitation yet.

This project was announced last December, reported in the NYTimes and didn't cause a ruckus. The Laura Ingraham interview with the Imam's wife (in the John Stewart video) wasn't so noteworthy because it was an attack on Fox News as you seemed to suggest, it was that in December even a bomb throwing pundit remarked that "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it" and "I like what you're trying to do."

No political exploitation yet.

When the project was approved what followed was an all out onslaught of anti-Islam propaganda characterizing the center as a temple to the 9/11 hijackers. Then the story rapidly became a big national issue.

No political exploitation yet.

What changed? Well, the facts around the purpose of the planned center didn't seem to change. It was the controversy being pushed from the fringe that was different, and this was the first glimpse of the issue that most Americans got. Hence my remarks that this story isn't really about the Mosque, but rather the controversy surrounding it.


No political exploitation yet.

I wouldn't call this a simple difference of opinion when the opinion seems to have been manufactured. That's political...

No political exploitation yet. I don't recall Republicans blaming the Dems for the Mosque. The change in opinion was created by a few (as is usually the case) who saw a historical connection between this mosque (the Cordoba Project) and its patronimically antecedent mosque built in Cordoba Spain to commemorate that conquest. It didn't seem to get political until Obama made his statement as to the constitutional right to build it. Most of the Public wasn't aware of the mosque plans until some "fringe" pointed out what they saw as symbolism of conquest on "hallowed" ground. If the opinion was "manufactured", is that equal to "being made aware"? Manufacturing is good, no? Don't we bitch about losing our manufacturing base?

But no political implications were made (except for implying that "right wingers' were bigots, etc., for opposing the mosque.)

For our critics it's as simple as those outside the US believing we don't follow the same rules we expect of others over the years. Be it protecting Israel at the UN for decades, claiming we respect life but killing tens and tens of thousands of civilians when it's in our interest, ignoring human rights when countries have things we need, saying we don't torture and treat prisoners with respect...then abu Graib, renditions etc...

That these things may be technically legal or suit our interests at the time isn't really the point. What should be considered is the impact they may have whether we like it or not...instead we get "you're perfect, just keep shopping".

So, by this as a response to my asking, re the Koran burners, "what laws have been broken? What lives have been taken?" your answer is a twisting, arguable, non-responsive and irrelevant way of admitting that no laws have been broken, no lives have been taken.

I don't think Republicans fear the press as much as they do their own party.

You mean they fear the Tea Party? So do the Dems.

As they say...Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line

-spence

Never heard that. Probably because it's cutesy BS. Anyway, politics today has Republicans not knowing which line to fall in and Dems in lockstep

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Gee Spence, for someone who is as familiar and approbative of Alinsky tactics as you are, how do you fail to see how Obama's team have infiltrated the fringe right, posing as right wingers blaming Islam for all our ills instead of blaming Obama?

Wow.
your stuff must be strong! it is making you a bit paranoid though....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Wow.
your stuff must be strong! it is making you a bit paranoid though....

yeah, that's crazy, things like that have never happened....

"...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration's Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush's address. That's the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.' And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results."


Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start. His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Wow.
your stuff must be strong! it is making you a bit paranoid though....

I guess my stuff is stronger than I thought. I assumed it was obvious that, with a scenario which hasn't happened, I was demonstrating absurdity with absurdity. Certainly, infiltrating to deceive is a tactic, as Scott points out, that has been used. Sarcasm, irony, do need some illusion of credibility. I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. It was, after all, a response to Spence's remark--"Pretty soon you're going to see the fringe Right blaming Islam for all our ills. I can see it forming as we speak." That you didn't see paranoia in that statement is curious.

[Bronko]

Since Spence is doling out book advice I thought I would too. I posted this last year. It is an unbelievable read. After you click the link, scroll down for a brief description.

Amazon.com: America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (9780895260789): Mark Steyn: Books

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

Since Spence is doling out book advice I thought I would too. I posted this last year. It is an unbelievable read. After you click the link, scroll down for a brief description.

Amazon.com: America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It (9780895260789): Mark Steyn: Books

That looks interesting, I was hoping they'd just happen to have it at the airport (as I was in between books) but no luck.

There was a book about liberals and Islam and how they were both going to destroy us, but I just couldn't get over the Malkin review on the back.

Instead I picked up a copy of Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society." It's certainly not light reading (nor is the book light, I had to have the First Class flight attendant hold my copy to keep my hands free for the drinks) but is quite good so far.

Thanks for the response Butch, this will give me something to read on the BBery waiting for the next flight.

-spence