► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Cordoba’

A blind eye to evil

by Kafir ( 162 Comments › )
Filed under Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamic hypocrisy, Islamic Supremacism, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at December 9th, 2010 - 6:30 pm

Great article at Israel National News this morning about the one way street of tolerance the world has created around islam. They do not tolerate “the other” but expect full tolerance of their intolerance. This ideology gets a pass on it’s destructive thought process. We encourage their intolerance and the double standards by just accepting it and turning a blind eye.

The propaganda campaign in favor of Islam is intense, subtle, clever, elegant, vulgar, massively well-funded, and incredibly well coordinated, synchronous, just like suicide bombings often are.

This “war by other means” is even more important, partly because it continues to “gentle” the West into submission by misinforming the public and partly because this kind of stealth warfare remains curiously and stubbornly below the radar of our intelligentsia and our media.

Let me say, as I always do, that most Muslims are not terrorists and are, themselves, in the clutches of very corrupt and evil leaders who are either old-fashioned tyrants or comprise a new form of totalitarian jihad. Some of the bravest Muslims in the world have been murdered by Muslim tyrants and terrorists, are sitting in Muslim jails, or are living in exile. However, the majority of Muslims have either been brainwashed or simply do not wish to risk their lives or those of their families by taking a stand against Islamic imperialism, colonialism, and intolerance.

They are like the Germans, Austrians, Poles, who did not wish to die in an attempt to assassinate Hitler or his henchmen; or, like many Europeans, who profited, personally, financially, from the Nazi extermination programs aimed at the mentally ill and retarded, the gypsies, the homosexuals, the “politicals,” and above all, the Jews.

Acts of omission are as important as acts of commission. People collaborate with evil by refusing to resist it.

Perfectly put.

Here is an example of the kind of pro-Islamic propaganda I am talking about—and I saw it only by accident.

I rarely read a fashion magazine. This time, I did. In an idle and desperate moment, I picked up a glossy, glitzy magazine dedicated to expensive clothing, jewelry, and perfume, filled with ads of half-naked and incredibly slender young white girls and female celebrities and a few short pieces about Great Men of an uncertain age. Mick Jagger, 67, is on the cover. Julian Assange, of Wikileaks fame, is profiled in a piece titled “The Gift of Information.”

Yes, I am talking about the current New York Times Style Magazine.

And then, to my astonishment and annoyance (I was off duty, trying to find a moment of escape), I saw another profile titled “The Gift of Reconciliation.” It is about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind Mosque 51, the Ground Zero Mosque, or as Rauf would have it, the Cordoba Initiative. The piece is written by James Carroll and the Imam is photographed by Todd Eberle.

It is a dreamy, romantic photo of a smiling, white-haired Rauf at an unidentified friend’s house, one which was taken in October, 2010. The “pull quote” is as follows:

“We wanted to change the thinking that made 9/11 possible; we wanted a harmonious, tolerant world”. And then Feisal Abdul Rauf wanted a pulpit mere blocks from Ground Zero. James Carroll on the Imam and his interfaith dream.

The pull quote is all in large, capitalized block letters. The piece quotes Rauf as saying that, at even at a young age, when he first came to America from Kuwait, he “had an intuition that my work would involve introducing Islam to America.”

He says nothing about introducing American values or ideals to Muslims or to Islam.

Read it all here: Jihad Chic: Imam Rauf’s Gift

Here is another great example: Abbas: No talks while Israel builds

Building is baaaad. Rocket attacks on Israel? Nothing to see here, moving right along

I travelled to 51 Park Place yesterday

by Delectable ( 340 Comments › )
Filed under Islam, Religion at September 1st, 2010 - 2:00 pm

This column will come as a shock to some, but it must be written. It comes after a great deal of thought and soul searching, and after I wrote this article.

I travelled to 51 Park Place with my dad yesterday (we were in the neighborhood anyway). I saw firsthand that this location is not within eye distance of Ground Zero. There will be a large building blocking the view of this location and Ground Zero, and it will certainly not tower over Ground Zero and/or the Freedom Tower. This is close to Ground Zero, but not next door. The TV remembrance ceremony would not ever pan to the Cordoba Institute. I honestly believe this “Ground Zero mosque” is not even symbolically awful. It simply is a mosque in the neighborhood of Ground Zero.
 
I happen to believe the imam in particular is a fake-o moderate who wishes for a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel and supports the Iranian regime. He claims to be a “bridge builder,” so he has a special responsibility to prove this by being transparent and clear in his denouncement of jihad as well as his financing, which he has not done. I thus support protests of Imam Rauf and his group. But I do not support blocking the Islamic center and mosque itself. Consider: (a) the reality that the location is not in fact within eye view of Ground Zero; (b) there is no pending allegation that this imam and/or the Cordoba Institute has broken any laws. After giving this serious thought, I don’t see why there is any cogent argument to be made to block this mosque. As I just said, I oppose this imam and support protests against the imam. But there is no “there there” that can or should be used to block Park51/Cordoba Institute from building at this site.
 
To put it in clearer perspective: if the American Nazi party were to want to be at that location and lawfully purchased the land, I say we would have to let them be there. (note that Nazis were allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois)
 
I don’t think there is any argument to be made for banning Park51/Cordoba Institute/”Ground Zero Mosque” that could withstand first amendment scrutiny. I also don’t understand the sensitivity argument. Firstly, Imam Rauf and his group can be the most insensitive bastards they want to be, in accordance with the law. Secondly, since the proposed building is not within eye view of Ground Zero, what is there to be sensitive about? Thirdly, if Imam Rauf is so bad, why is it better to have this mosque located uptown or in Brooklyn?
 
When people think about it, they realize that it really is no better to have a mosque in Times Square (as an example), and that is why we are starting to see people from all walks of life writing that they want all mosques banned. So the argument that it is only this “insensitive location” that is the problem is simply disingenuous. However, I ask: do we really want the government to have the ability to ban a religious institution? Do you trust the government to have that sort of power and not abuse it? I realize many of the protestors are simply expressing their distaste of Imam Rauf and his group (as a lobbying tool, rather than through governmental action), and are misinformed about the exact location of this proposed community center/mosque, believing it to be closer to Ground Zero than it is. But some of the protestors have started to literally say all mosques should be banned, and some politicians are starting to hitch their wagon to such extremists. This is a problem for all of us.
 
I believe Islam is a religion with a mainstream that often promotes inequality and violence, as well as antisemitism and supremacism. I would like that to change, but that is what appears to be the case today, with “mainstream leaders” that excuse away wife beating and Hamas. (see: Tariq Ramadan) However, as I said before, my analysis of Islam is unchanged even if I believed Islam were the equivalent of Nazism itself. I am also aware of the fact that Nazism at first spread by speech. And that is a pitfall of the first amendment and a risk we have to take. But if we start to say “no new mosques,” (or even that a certain radius around Ground Zero should be free of mosques) then we’ll start to see a primrose path of the government being in a position to ban all sorts of other speech. See, as an example, the Netherlands, where, for good-hearted reasons, there are hate speech laws. These very laws are being used to punish Geert Wilders, and possibly send him to jail. In Canada, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn had to face bogus “hate speech” prosecutions. In France, while the hijab is banned in schools, so are kippahs and crosses. It is these sorts of situations that I would like to avoid.

And just to clarify – when there are allegations of laws being broken (such as the Muslim American Society, where there are allegations (and video evidence) that they have literally funded Hamas), then my analysis changes. The law provides the US government a tool to block/freeze the property of terrorist groups, if it is proven that they are in fact a terror front group.  See this  and see this. In contrast to the Muslim American Society, there is no such claim that the “Cordoba Institute” have violated these laws.
 
And with this all said – the first amendment does not require that the New York Times (as an example) publish Hamas propaganda. And on Sunday, Ali Abunimah (Electronic Intifada) published a load of human excrement in the NY Times, where he openly advocated the Hamas position. His whole column was rife with double standards, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies. The NY Times has no legal obligation to publish pro-jihad columns, and I believe that our efforts are much better spent opposing the NY Times, Washington Post(et al) for allowing their newspapers to advocate on behalf of jihad, than it is going after symbolic and ultimately less important issues, such as the Ground Zero Mosque, which would be a pyrrhic victory anyway, if won, as it could make all of us less free.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. Once we start to make exceptions to our laws for unpopular groups, we start to descend into anarchy.

I don’t like Imam Rauf and his group. In fact, a part of me believes he is as great a threat as Bin Laden, as he legitimizes Islamic radicalism. (see his support for the Iranian regime and belief in a one-state solution vis-a-vis Israel, as but examples of this) But as S. G. Tallentyre said, “Though I disagree with everything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Let me introduce myself…

by Kafir ( 110 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, History, Israel, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at August 25th, 2010 - 8:30 am

If Israelis were the savages that the world portrays them to be, nobody would have a bad word to say about Israel. Her enemies would be gone.

From the Shoebat Foundation

Let me tell you a story about my life… First, I will begin with my name…

I am Israel.



Update not related, but also from the Shoebat Foundation:



9/11 Mosque Imam Wrote Much of the Guts of Obama’s Historic Cairo Speech!

The Shoebat Foundation obtained this shocking audio recording of Rauf’s own voice boasting in Arabic that Obama’s historic Cairo speech was provided by the Imam and the Cordova Initiative in what the Imam called “The Blue Print” which he said was the solution to the Islamic-American divide. Rauf claimed Chapter 6 of the Imam’s work engineered by the Cordova Initiative was the construct for the entire speech:

“This is an example of the impact of our work in a positive way to be used by the President.”

The famous Cairo Speech.

(h/t to iam7545)

America’s Crazy Uncle Strikes Again

by tqcincinnatus ( 287 Comments › )
Filed under Politics at August 24th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

Ron Paul apparently thinks that the current controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque is just an opportunity for the “Neo-Cons” to stir us all up into yet another xenophobic, completely unfounded hate-frenzy against Muslims.  It’s also an opportunity for Ron Paul to, once again, demonstrate that he is a moron of earthshaking proportions,

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

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.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

What amazes me is that there are actually people who think this mouth-breather should be President.

Has he never heard of the Hagia Sophia?  Or how about the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus?  The Grand Mosque of Cordoba?  All of these were at one time churches, but were converted into mosques by Muslim conquerors.  The same goes for Lal Kot, a centre of Hindu worship in India that was razed and the Qutub Minar built on top of it.  These are just a few examples of the thousands that can be given where Muslims destroyed or co-opted sites from their enemies, and built or turned them into mosques so as to demonstrate the “superiority” of Islam over all other systems.

Which is exactly what that Ground Zero Mosque is all about.

The fact that Ron Paul either has no clue about this, or else is just trying to use it to score cheap political points, shows that he belongs nowhere near the Presidency of the United States of America.