quote:Both supporters and opponents of the "Ground Zero" "Mosque"--a proposed community center--held rallies in lower Manhattan today. Can you guess which side started chanting "no mosque here" at a black guy wandering through the crowd?
While you spent your Sunday trying to teach your cat to go to the bathroom on a human toilet, a group of brave, freedom-loving Americans gathered in New York City to express their extreme disapproval with the Park 51 project, an al-Qaeda plot to build a community center featuring a swimming pool and auditorium on the very site where a Burlington Coat Factory once stood.
As you can see in the video above, at some point during the rally, a dark-skinned man wearing an Under Armor skullcap and what looks like a necklace with a Puerto Rican flag walked through the anti-"Mosque" crowd. The crowd, astutely recognizing that he was on his way to build the mosque, began to chant "NO MOSQUE HERE" at him. In the video, someone says, "run away, coward." The man turns around, perturbed. "Y'all motherf-----s don't know my opinion about s---," he says. Au contraire, my friend: You are a black man wearing a skullcap, after all! You are definitely a pro-Mosque, anti-freedom Jihadist! Why, aren't you, in fact... Osama Bin Laden??
quote:But other than the whole "person of color ruins our rally" thing, the protest sounds like a delightful time:
quote:A mannequin wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress, was mounted on one of two mock missiles that were part of an anti-mosque installation. One missile was inscribed with the words: "Again? Freedom Targeted by Religion"; the other with "Obama: With a middle name Hussein. We understand. Bloomberg: What is your excuse?"
They even played "Born in the USA," Bruce Springsteen's famous anthem about how awesome the United States is! Meanwhile, a bunch of hippie losers protested across the way and tried to teach people about "religious tolerance," or whatever. Guess what, hippies? The mosque doesn't have a chance:
quote:If the mosque gets built, "we will bombard it," [anti-Park 51 proestor Kobi] Mor said. He would not elaborate but added that he believes the project "will never happen."
America: If we don't like something, we'll bombard it!
quote:"Ground Zero mosque" mania reaches exciting new heights. Last night a cabbie picked up a man at 24th and Second. The passenger asked "Are you Muslim?" The driver answered yes, and was promptly stabbed.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Damn. Was the stabber caught? Is the driver going to be okay?
Yeah. Sounds a bit weird.
quote:The man who allegedly stabbed a cab driver after learning that the driver was a Muslim is Michael Enright, a 21-year-old filmmaker from upstate New York. Enright -- who shoots video for a New York-based peace group that counts Cordoba Initiative as one of its partners -- has been charged with attempted murder as a hate crime, and police say he was "very, very intoxicated" when he got in the cab at 6 p.m. last night. ... According to this press release, "Enright is attracting national attention as he documents the service of his high school buddy from training through deployment in a combat zone with Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, based out of Hawaii and known as the 'Lava Dogs.'" ... Enright made these videos for Intersections International, "a permanent multi-faith, multi-cultural effort of the Collegiate Churches of New York," dedicated to "justice, reconciliation, and peace." The group supports the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." (The Intersections International site refers to Enright as "a volunteer for Intersections’ Veteran-Civilian Dialogue program" working on his thesis film project.)
posted
I disagree with anyone that would protest the mosque based on religion. We have freedom of religion, and people and practice their beliefs anyway and anywhere they want. Do they have a right to build the mosque there? Yes they do. Should they? I don't think they should.
There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
I really don't think that the majority of the people are against Islam, but against the location. The purpose of the mosque is to unite people, but this caused more division than ever. I think the best thing the builders of the mosque could do would be to say something to the effect of: "We understand the frustration that many feel pertaining to the mosque at ground zero. We are sensitive to the feelings of those that lost their lives on 9/11, and it was not our intention to cause negative feelings. Our intention is for the mosque to be a place of reconciliation and healing. We would like to build a mosque, however we will be moving it a few blocks away from Ground Zero out of respect to those who lost loved ones during the terrorist attack on 9-11-2001. We invite you to visit the mosque once it is completed and join us by participating in dialog that will strengthen relationships between cultures and religions."
I think this would please the majority of the people. I'm sure there will be some wackos out there that will be against it, but I think the majority of Americans would be fine with it.
Some say Park 51 isn't part of Ground Zero. A large portion of the rear wheel structure of one of the planes hit the exact spot. I would consider that part of Ground Zero.
Samprimary, while I agree that some protesters can be violent, I am intruiged as to why you only post information about the anti-mosque crowd. The pro-Mosque crowd participated in anti-semitic rants as well as hit a camera man.
Both sides do things they shouldn't, no matter what the issue. Just because you are on one side doesn't mean people on the other are the only ones with questionable actions.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
How far exactly is far enough? How many blocks from ground zero must muslims go to practice their religion?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
A friend of mine in NYC told me that the people who live in this neighborhood don't care if the mosque is built there or not. He told me that the people that seemed to care the most were outsiders with proudly displayed "Remember 9/11" bumper stickers.
As I understand it, the area has a fairly high Muslim population already. That sentiment, Geraine, feels hollow to me.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Do they have a right to build the mosque there? Yes they do. Should they? I don't think they should. "
Why shouldn't they? They are building two blocks away, which in downtown Manhattan is basically a different county.
But even if they were building less than a block away, why shouldn't they? Would you say that a YMCA shouldn't be put up near an Elementary school?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's already a few blocks away. Why do they need to move it from a few blocks away a few blocks further away? What is the appropriate sensitivity radius?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole idea of a 'sensitivity radius' is ridiculous.
Are we really concerned about the feelings of people who look at the WTC memorial, walk a few blocks away, see a mosque, and think "damn, those 1.5 billion practicing Muslims sure are insensitive!"?
I think we should be way more concerned about displaying our pride in our practice of freedom of religion.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The whole idea of a 'sensitivity radius' is ridiculous.
Indeed. I hoped to indicate as much by using an expression which was both a) obviously ridiculous and b) accurately descriptive of the position I was responding to.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. I strongly suspect that if the center were actually being built *at* ground zero (i.e. in a building adjacent to the site of the towers) that all the people striking the faux-reasonable "move it a couple blocks further away" tone would say exactly the same thing. The current position would have been the acceptable compromise - still in the area but not in sight of ground zero. But since that's where it began when the nontroversy was started, now it needs to be a few blocks *further* in order to avoid hurting the sensitivities of the victims' families*, which are apparently reflected most vocally by proxies who don't live anywhere near the area.
* Normal caveats apply - families that support the center or who are neutral, families of Muslim victims, etc.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: A friend of mine in NYC told me that the people who live in this neighborhood don't care if the mosque is built there or not. He told me that the people that seemed to care the most were outsiders with proudly displayed "Remember 9/11" bumper stickers.
As I understand it, the area has a fairly high Muslim population already. That sentiment, Geraine, feels hollow to me.
From the articles I have read, while New York has a sizeable Muslim population, there are very few that live close to where this Mosque would be built, and that most Muslims that live in the are live closer to other Mosques. (I had no idea, but there are over 300 mosques in the State of New York, the most of any state in the country.)
I have no problem with people practicing their religion. I'm against any sort of religious building being built near Ground Zero, not just a Muslim Mosque. I'd have the same problem if the Catholic, LDS, Baptist, or Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there. It has nothing to do with Islam.
Your interpretation of what constitutes ground zero is different than mine. In myu opinion, If a building was hit by a plane, its ground zero. This building was hit by the rear wheel assembly of one of the planes.
I'm sorry but you asking about what an acceptable "radius" would be is utterly ridiculous. By that same token, should we only consider the 80th floor of the north building and the 60th floor of the south building "Ground Zero?" What would be an acceptable radius to you?
I found this article to be pretty fair, though you have to ignore some of the comments at the end from blog posts:
quote:"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
Right...So Muslims that bombed the WTC cannot be associated with other Muslims, yet it was Christians that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. Got it.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think Muslims are as capable of being sensitive to people's feelings as non-Muslims. So I would expect them to be as tentative about building this as any religious institution building near or around such a place.
While some New Yorkers are fine with the Mosque, others are not. Some of those who lost family members on 9/11 are okay with it. Some are not.
Clearly this has caused a division, and any hint of bad feelings should be enough to make those planning the Mosque hesitate and question if what they're doing is more hurtful than helpful.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, As I said prior, I see this Islamic center that is pushing the idea that the 9/11 attacks are contrary to Islam and that the freedoms of speech and religion are better for Islam than restrictive theocracies as something that no only should we allow, but something that we should actively support. You seem to disagree with this. Could you tell me why?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your interpretation of what constitutes ground zero is different than mine. In myu opinion, If a building was hit by a plane, its ground zero. This building was hit by the rear wheel assembly of one of the planes.
I would venture to guess that with something of this magnitude that *hundreds* of buildings were hit by pieces of debris. Ground zero is defined as the center of an explosion, not whatever structures in the area happened to be struck by debris and prior to the mosque issue, "ground zero" had always been understood to mean the towers and their immediately vicinity. If you were in Manhattan and looking to visit ground zero, you wouldn't consider yourself to have arrived when you were still 2 1/2 blocks away. Redefining "ground zero" has been an essential element of the construction of this controversy.
quote:Clearly this has caused a division
The division was deliberately generated. To back down now would be to acquiesce to the motivations and methods that build division for its own sake.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I have no problem with people practicing their religion. I'm against any sort of religious building being built near Ground Zero, not just a Muslim Mosque. I'd have the same problem if the Catholic, LDS, Baptist, or Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there. It has nothing to do with Islam.
You do know what is also within two blocks of Ground Zero, right? It was already posted in this very thread. Why would a religious building be any more blasphemous than a mcdonalds or a strip club?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you aware how many religious buildings are in a 2 block radius of the WTC?
I'm not talking about religious institutions at Ground Zero, I'm talking about building a religious institution such as a Mosque at Ground Zero--or a Convent at Auschwitz.
This opinion piece nails it, although I have nothing in common with the author:
The division started when people across the country learned what was happening. Exposure led to a division, which exposure often does.
It's a stretch to claim it was deliberately generated, that not a single person who's against it knows any of the true facts of the case and have all been led blindly to their opinions via Fox News, et al.
Despite the details (and I'm ignoring everything inflammatory I've heard about the name of the Mosque, the Imam who wants to build it, and what the Mosque supports), the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents.
Many people feel uncomfortable about this.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not talking about religious institutions at Ground Zero, I'm talking about building a religious institution such as a Mosque at Ground Zero--or a Convent at Auschwitz."
So, there should be, as several different types of examples, no YMCA's or Episcopalian churches within the same town as a school, because some Catholic priests raped some children?
YMCA because this is a Islamic community center being built that happens to have a "chapel," in it. Episcopalian church because lumping these muslims with the muslims who carried out the terrorist attacks is about the same as saying that Episcopalians are the same thing as Catholics. Or pick any two christian denominations, that are as far apart as you care to choose. Same town, because 2 1/2 blocks in NYC is usually 1-5 different communities.
"The division started when people across the country learned what was happening."
THis is FALSE. Fox News gave it a pass last year. Didn't object. People learned of this a long time ago. THey got STIRRED up by it this summer.
"the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents."
1) It is not ground zero. Not unless most of Manhattan is ground zero. And there are hundreds of thousands of muslims living in Manhattan.
2) The chapel in this community center does not represent the same religion, in the name of which the terrorist attacks on ground zero were carried out. Not unless you are willing to say that the sins of the catholic church, the LDS church, the Church of England, and all the other christian denominations should be all be shared.
3) The fact that many people feel uncomfortable about the building of a mosque 2 1/2 blocks from where the WTC was speaks more to the bigotry of many people than it does to anything else.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: ... Not unless you are willing to say that the sins of the catholic church, the LDS church, the Church of England, and all the other christian denominations should be all be shared.
Gee, thats going to be a toughie Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: ...the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents.
Many people feel uncomfortable about this.
Yes. Many people who cannot, do not, or will not acknowledge the difference between the VAST Islamic majority and the EXTREMIST Islamic terrorists.
It really, truly stinks of racism and bigotry.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a form of cultural blindness, I guess. Here in a majority Christian nation it's almost necessary for the typical citizen to distinguish between the different sects of Christianity. You can't be pissed off at *all* Christians for the behavior of a few Catholic priests because, after all, there'd be very few people left to not hate.
Islam, however, is both "foreign" and a minority so such nuance is lost. It's similar, I think, to the way that the typical American sees China as a enormous homogeneous nation, not a collection several distinct ethnicities.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just going for an angle that someone so afflicted might be able to gracefully exit. "You don't understand" seems a better approach than "you're a bigot" and I do think there is a distinction to be made there.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not upset with the people who don't understand but are willing to learn. They tend to have less biting opinions and a sense of humility.
I am upset with the people who have had the opportunity to explore the situation with more than a cursory effort, but they stick with a superficial and twisted viewpoint. The excuse that "Islam is a complicated, foreign, and unfamiliar religion and culture" loses all of its clout when you refuse to explore the complexities and stick with oversimplifications. At some point, this refusal to learn or expand one's understanding stops being simple ignorance and starts to be plain old bigotry.
And, from my point of view, I see a majority of this 9/11 anti-Mosque conflict as the product of the latter group of people. The level of dialogue is banal and jejune.
This...
quote:...the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents.
Many people feel uncomfortable about this.
...and this...
quote:There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
...are, as I see them, arguments from this willing ignorance camp. The explanations given to not naturally lead to the conclusions being drawn. They are mischaractarizations of one or both points of view, and are a long way away from reality.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's similar, I think, to the way that the typical American sees China as a enormous homogeneous nation
*mindboggle* People do this?? But China is 20% of the world's population--that's like seeing all of Europe plus all of North America as one homogeneous population...
Looking beyond my little select circle of friends, though, I have to admit that you're almost certainly right. That's sad.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with anyone that would protest the mosque based on religion. We have freedom of religion, and people and practice their beliefs anyway and anywhere they want. Do they have a right to build the mosque there? Yes they do. Should they? I don't think they should.
There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
How far away is far enough away, for 'people whose feelings were affected by 9/11'? There are people who lost family in 9-11 who don't have a problem with it-ought the feelings of those who did trump theirs? Should Muslims be less Muslim around people some Muslims have affected badly, so as to avoid offense?
Because, and I don't want to be too harsh here, that's what you're effectively advocating. By saying, 'They shouldn't build it there,' you're saying they shouldn't be publicly Muslim around relatives of the victims of 9-11, or even around people whose 'feelings were affected' by it.
quote: I really don't think that the majority of the people are against Islam, but against the location. The purpose of the mosque is to unite people, but this caused more division than ever. I think the best thing the builders of the mosque could do would be to say something to the effect of: "We understand the frustration that many feel pertaining to the mosque at ground zero. We are sensitive to the feelings of those that lost their lives on 9/11, and it was not our intention to cause negative feelings. Our intention is for the mosque to be a place of reconciliation and healing. We would like to build a mosque, however we will be moving it a few blocks away from Ground Zero out of respect to those who lost loved ones during the terrorist attack on 9-11-2001. We invite you to visit the mosque once it is completed and join us by participating in dialog that will strengthen relationships between cultures and religions."
I think the majority of people would say that's what they're against. I don't, however, believe it for a minute for one simple reason: Islam gets singled out. It's not about location, it's about Islam. Saying it's about the location, not the religion is saying that it's about the religion, just putting in a +0. 1+0+1=2 as surely as 1+1=2. We don't say to people wishing to build churches near the site of Christians who murder or were murdered, "Please, that's disrespectful, you ought to move it elsewhere."
quote: I have no problem with people practicing their religion. I'm against any sort of religious building being built near Ground Zero, not just a Muslim Mosque. I'd have the same problem if the Catholic, LDS, Baptist, or Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there. It has nothing to do with Islam.
Well, yes you do, Geraine. It's just that your problem doesn't rise to the level of thinking the government should step in. You say you would oppose any religious building near there, and I'll take you at your word, but I will remark it's one thing to say that now, well after the mosque (community center) is a controversy. I believe you mean it, but I don't know if you would have meant it if the first building were to have been a church.
quote: I'm sorry but you asking about what an acceptable "radius" would be is utterly ridiculous. By that same token, should we only consider the 80th floor of the north building and the 60th floor of the south building "Ground Zero?" What would be an acceptable radius to you?
It's not even remotely ridiculous, Geraine. One of your objections to the mosque is that it is insensitive to the feelings of those affected by 9/11 due to its proximity to Ground Zero. Asking what a sufficient distance is seems a very relevant question to me.
quote:Right...So Muslims that bombed the WTC cannot be associated with other Muslims, yet it was Christians that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. Got it.
I think the point of that quote is to address the flaw in associating all Muslims with 9/11: if you do that, you invite other unpleasant associations.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right...So Muslims that bombed the WTC cannot be associated with other Muslims, yet it was Christians that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. Got it.
I think the point of that quote is to address the flaw in associating all Muslims with 9/11: if you do that, you invite other unpleasant associations.
I don't agree with the people who want to ban the building of the mosque. However, I think this comparison is utterly absurd. The American bombers weren't waging war as Christians, they were waging war as Americans. The terrorists of 9/11 were doing so as Muslims. Certainly, their views do not represent the views of other Muslims, but to say that the jihadists themselves didn't see it as a religious war is patently false.
It's wrong to condemn all Islam for the actions of extremists, but pretending that those extremists aren't motivated in great part because of their warped religious views is also wrong.
A much more reasonable comparison would be, say, claiming that no Christian church could be established near the burnt out shell of an abortion clinic that had been firebombed by a Christian extremist. To paint all Christians with the brush of Hiroshima requires a much bigger leap, to the point of useless absurdity.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did everyone catch the Daily Show Monday night? If not, go watch this right away to get a good sense of how desperate FOX is that you believe the worst.
Fox and Friends did their usual song and dance to reveal the shadowy source helping fund the 9/11 mosque: the man behind the Kingdom Foundation, a group they explain is known for contributing to madrassas all over the Islamic world and being, basically, evil. What they failed to point out, as Jon noticed with some glee, was the name of that man, which is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.
That would be the Al-Waleed bin Talal who is, by the way, a major shareholder behind NewsCorp. Which owns FOX News.
Which means that the man that the people on Fox and Friends just fearmongered out the wazoo as being sinister and anti-American, adding to their never-ending tirade against the Park51 center, is one of their owners. Something they failed to mention at any point.
I understand news shows having a bias. I try to watch a variety of them to get more of a balance in my daily news. But FOX is a news channel with an agenda, and they know that their viewers won't bother checking their facts.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Samprimary, while I agree that some protesters can be violent, I am intruiged as to why you only post information about the anti-mosque crowd. The pro-Mosque crowd participated in anti-semitic rants as well as hit a camera man.
I am intrigued as to why, after the Sherrod thread, you would cite breitbart as a counter-narrative.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree with the people who want to ban the building of the mosque. However, I think this comparison is utterly absurd. The American bombers weren't waging war as Christians, they were waging war as Americans. The terrorists of 9/11 were doing so as Muslims. Certainly, their views do not represent the views of other Muslims, but to say that the jihadists themselves didn't see it as a religious war is patently false.
Some American soldiers in WWII most certainly thought about the war in at least partially religious terms. Do you grant that, or shall I look up some quotes? Anyway, the comparison isn't absurd because people don't point to these guys and say, "We're against this mosque because they were waging war 'as Muslims'," they point to it and say, "Muslims attacked the WTC." In fact I've heard just that sound bite more times than I can count.
In any event, though, the comparison is absurd precisely because it lends power to the idea that any small group of fanatics can do something in the name of a larger organization and have those actions really taint that larger group. If it can be done to Muslims, it can be done to us Christians.
quote:It's wrong to condemn all Islam for the actions of extremists, but pretending that those extremists aren't motivated in great part because of their warped religious views is also wrong.
Who is making that mistake?
quote: A much more reasonable comparison would be, say, claiming that no Christian church could be established near the burnt out shell of an abortion clinic that had been firebombed by a Christian extremist. To paint all Christians with the brush of Hiroshima requires a much bigger leap, to the point of useless absurdity.
That would be a more reasonable silly comparison. I have just a smidge of suspicion, however, that if such a thing were proposed, many of the same people outraged right now would be outraged that anyone was upset at the idea of a church nearby.
As for what Chris is saying, I think he's pointing out someone else pointing out that Fox and Fox and Friends are a bunch of hacks, charlatans, and in some cases flat-out BSers. As in this case.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that they deliberately invoked the specter of evil Islamic funding of the center to get their viewers upset and frightened and angry and emotional, and carefully omitted ever saying the name of the person they were accusing because of their own connection. The person who might be sending funds to the Park51 center is the same man who is definitely putting a great deal of money (and presumably receiving a larger amount of money back from) FOX News. Which means that Jon was right: FOX is benefiting far more from this possible terrorist than the center is.
Or, I'm agreeing with the debate at the end of the clip when John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac argued about whether FOX was evil or stupid.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Samprimary, while I agree that some protesters can be violent, I am intruiged as to why you only post information about the anti-mosque crowd. The pro-Mosque crowd participated in anti-semitic rants as well as hit a camera man.
posted
Not to me. After Sherrod, and a number of other, similar offenses, I cannot accept Breitbart as any sort of unbiased source. If he ever did unearth any actual news he'd need to leak it to someone trustworthy.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Anyone else here read that article yet? I'll spare my present knowledge of WorldNetDaily as a known entity; after having read it, how is it supposed to be considered fair? That it stops short of being courageous enough to be honest with its own editorializing? That it uses sleight of speech and hand to say "We aren't saying this, but some OTHER people had this to say about the mosque!"
No.
I'm enthralled by what the state of your media intake must be, since when you link to something, it's usually amazingly skewed agitprop from a right-wing site. Do you also read newsmax?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second, Dan_Frank...why would calling Breitbart's integrity into question possibly be an ad-hominem attack? The guy is simply not a credible source. Or do you dispute that?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean by credible source, Rakeesh? I certainly think that Breitbart is not an impartial source.
Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument instead. In this case, I'm using "video" in lieu of "argument," the point being that he ought to let the video stand on its own. The video in question is obviously not doctored in any significant way... it begins with a different speaker than the one that makes the anti-semitic comment, and ends with a different one as well, showing the comments in context of an entire tirade.
Of course, how anti-semitic one considers this will depend heavily on how leftist they are, because "Jewish Zionist" as an epithet is perfectly acceptable to a lot of the leftists around here, and considered blatant anti-semitism by many conservatives.
Edit: By "around here" I actually mean the SF Bay Area, where I live in real life, and not Hatrack specifically. If that wasn't clear.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you mean by credible source, Rakeesh? I certainly think that Breitbart is not an impartial source.
I mean he's a deceitful, malicious dude who doesn't care whose lives he screws up by releasing deliberately incomplete, slanderous news.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, then I disagree with that. But genuinely don't want to get into the Sherrod thing again, especially not in this thread. Is that okay with you? Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see how you could disagree with that, as it seems pretty clear from his behavior, but I can hardly force you to discuss something you don't want to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you could be a jerk about it and keep pushing me to discuss it. You couldn't force me to respond, but regardless. I appreciate your courtesy. Edit: Crud. This is the top of the new page! How awkward!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
