There are 300 million people in the US.
According to Time Mag-a-Rag, a LOT of them are ignorant bigots.
The last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed, but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles. … Criticism spans the gamut, from the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers to the ill-considered opportunism of right-wing politicians who see Islam as an easy target.
--from MoonBattery
The criterion that should be used about the Mosque on the Killing Field is 'pattern of practice.'
"Cordoba" should be a really big hint.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The focus should be in accordance with what George Bush said:
"Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for. And therefore, we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail."
There is a disconnect between what most Muslims believe and the policies of many of the governments under which they live. The real question, then, is not whether Muslims can exist in our country with religious pluralism, they can, but whether we can bury the old curse of prejudice towards an entire religion.
Maybe you can take a cue from Bush...
"America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is practiced and protected here, because we are one country. Every immigrant can be fully and equally American because we're one country. Race and color should not divide us, because America is one country."
Pat Buchanan--"They're over here because we're over there."
In 1953, the CIA helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddeq, the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and installed the Shah of Iran, a ruthless dictator. The blowback from our actions was in large part responsible for the extremist Iranian Revolution of 1979, the taking of our hostages, and the many problems we have had with Iran ever since.
Of course, you've all heard this before... but just can't believe America deserves some of the blame, because we are "exceptional". Perhaps you are absolutely incapable of self examination.
Perhaps this hasn't occurred to you, but I was not heading up State in the 1950's--nor the '60's, nor '70's, '80's, '90's, or the '00s.
The US should ALWAYS act in its own interests.
By the way, you posit that there's a chasm between "Arab Gummints" and "muslims who live under them."
So do you advocate taking out those Gummints--just as we did to Iran?
One story, consistently, would be helpful.
Perhaps Anony needs a reminder of the sybolism of "Cordoba"...
From a BBC article...
"...Amir Abd al-Rahman, who founded the Emirate of Cordoba, and was able to get the various different Muslim groups who had conquered Spain to pull together in ruling it."
Cordoba is a symbol of conquest.
One story, consistently, would be helpful.
I am in favor of overthrowing ANY government that poses a CLEAR and IMMINENT danger to the United States.
However, I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to declare war on Iran and Syria right now due to the potential lethal consequences I have outlined previously, and you summarily dismissed as "juvenile", which were summarized by military and political analysts with EXPERTISE in the region.
Therefore, we will differ as to whether Iran as this very instant qualifies under that criteria.
Now, in the 1950's, the United States overthrew the Iranian prime minister, who was DEMOCRATICALLY elected, in essence for nation building purposes...and oil!
Recently released CIA documents reveal a "culture of destruction" within that agency in the 1950's and 1960's.
Talk about a threat to our own democracy if, as you posit, the United States ALWAYS acts in its own interest without considering or acknowledging the "big picture".
We reap what we sow.
Amy--Yes, I am aware of what Cordoba means. Who freaking cares!
the United States overthrew the Iranian prime minister, who was DEMOCRATICALLY elected, in essence for nation building purposes...and oil!
It had nothing to do with Joe Stalin, or anything like that, right?
You know this as a matter of fact?
Actually, millions of people CARE about the "Cordoba" appellation. The fact that YOU don't reminds me that I called you 'juvenile' for a reason.
Apparently you think democracy only applies to countries whose citizens "properly" or "correctly" elect a leader.
Heaven forbid leaders who seek self-determination and who want to remove the vestiges of colonial domination.
Dad29--It had nothing to do with Joe Stalin, or anything like that, right? You know this as a matter of fact?
It's called understanding world history. Try it. GREAT book that is part of my library.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm
The new Iranian's government to nationalize oil was the PRIMARY motivating factor for the coup.
The United States and Great Britain MANUFACTURED AND EXAGGERATED FEARS that the Tudeh, the communist party in Iran, was growing powerful enough to overthrow nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh, who bitterly opposed foreign intervention AND communism.
True, Mossadegh and the Tudeh were united in their cause to remove foreign influence from their land.
While he relied on their help in this particular matter, the Tudeh felt he was too close to the United States for its liking...and refused to come to his aid when the coup took place.
Moreover, de-classified documents reveal the U.S. State Department in 1952 and 1953 wrote confidently that the Tudeh lacked the apparatus to secure political power without significant foreign help, and, since it was fiercely nationalist and anti-imperialist, remained highly suspicious of receiving assistance from the Soviet Union.
The standard "textbook" account of what took place in Iran in 1953 is that-whatever else one might say for or against the operation-the United States saved Iran from a Soviet/Communist takeover. Yet, during the two years of American and British subversion of a bordering country, the Soviet Union did nothing that would support such a premise.
YOU FORGET THAT STALIN DIED IN 1953, which helped certainly contributed to America's cause. The U.S.S.R.'s foreign policy was in temporary disarray. When the British Navy staged the largest concentration of its forces since World War II in Iranian waters, the Soviets took no belligerent steps; nor when Great Britain instituted a devastating boycott that left Iran in a deep economic crisis and extremely vulnerable, did the oil fields "fall hostage" to the Bolshevik Menace. Not even in the face of the coup, with its imprint of foreign hands, did Moscow make a threatening move; neither did Mossadegh at any point ask for Russian help!
Post a Comment