You know, the conservative tendency to erect strawmen really pisses me off. If one says that Palin should tone it down to improve the general level of rhetoric, they bray about the unfairness of claiming Palin was directly responsible for the shootings. Claiming that anyone said Palin accused the people behind the community center were directly responsible for 9/11 is similar - no one in this thread or anyplace else I’ve seen has every claimed that.
Now, the general conservative position that the center is too close to Ground Zero clearly implies some sort of collective guilt the Islamic community holds for 9/11. If the people behind it had been saying radical things, saying they should tone down the rhetoric would be appropriate, but in fact they have always been very moderate. So if Palin and her cohort actually believe that the only ones responsible for 9/11 were the terrorists and their funders/trainers, they should immediately drop opposition to the center.
Otherwise, we have the right to object in the strongest terms of Palin or any other extreme right winger wished to open a campaign HQ anywhere near the shooting site. I don’t think that protesting the opening would be a reasonable thing to do, do you?
Because she felt it was insensitive and provacative to build a center dedicated to Islam next to the site where 3,000 people were murdered in the name of Islam. I hope this does not cross over into junior modding, but perhaps you should find out the reason behind her opposition to the ground zero mosque, before you start a thread about the reason behind her opposition to the ground zero mosque.
Well, it’s not that I didn’t know her reasons, but I was kind of hoping to walk you through it so that you could see the intrinsic flaws in your (and Palin’s) reasoning.
So much for being subtle: given that the people who want to build the Islamic center in NYC not only don’t engage in violent rhetoric, but have outright denounced it; conservative’s who oppose the construction of the center, but condemn the heat that Republicans got after the Arizona are just huge Grade-A hypocrites.
I enjoy the irony of you attacking strawmen and then saying conservatives think muslims have a collective responsibility for 9-11. That part of your post is self refuting so I will skip over it.
If Palin or any other right winger were to open a campaign office next to the shooting site there would be no basis for complaint. The murderer in Tuscon was not a right winger, not influenced by right wingers, not affiliated in any way with right wingers, and no one has produced any evidence otherwise. A right wing campaign office in that space would therefore be as objectionable as a dry cleaners. If the murderer was in fact motivated by politics then it would be insensitive. The murderers on 9-11 were muslims acting in what they thought of as the best way to promote and spread Islam. A huge mosque on that site to promote and spread Islam is therefore a bad symbol, when there are so many non-objectionable places to build one. There are reasonable arguements on the other side but the fact that some people seem unable to comprehend Palin’s reasoning does not mean it is inconsistent.
It is inconsistent with the quote I opened the OP with: “(a)cts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them…”
In that statement she is saying it is wrong to blame anyone but the perpetrators of crimes for their actions. Do you agree?
But you are saying that Palin thinks Muslims who had nothing to do with 9-11 shouldn’t build their center. Isn’t that inconsistent with her quote?
a) There is no such thing as a monolithic Islam to which all believers subscribe. You cannot say the 9/11 terrorists and the Park 51 builders are simply extreme and moderate versions of the exact same Islam, with the exact same belief system, and the exact same goals.
b) The 9/11 attacks were just as much about geopolitics as they were religion. Unequivocally stating that “3,000 people were murdered in the name of Islam” is a gross oversimplification that does no justice to the memory of those who died on that day.
Then why are they against it? The proposers of the mosque are not radicals in any sense. The first go round remember, got approval and even support on Fox News. What is the justification for opposition unless opening an Islamic center is somehow inappropriate? Or are those opposed just haters?
If the murderer had been directly linked to a Republican candidate, it might be insensitive. Not otherwise.
Bull. The terrorists were in no way trying to spread Islam. They were acting out of hatred to the US and to the West. They were so devout that they were boozing it up just before 9/11, remember? Even if the purpose of the community center were to spread Islam, which is not at all clear, it would be appropriate. And remember, there was right wing opposition to mosques in all sorts of unobjectionable places. And where the center is proposed is not exactly holy ground. Plenty of Moslems were killed in the WTC that day - do they not count?
I actually had an argument with someone yesterday who was opposed to the NYC Islamic center and thought the heat Palin, Angle and others got after the Arizona shootings was “disgraceful.” He couldn’t really give me a reason, but he thought that they shold not be allowed to build the center, and that it was not the same as what happened to Palin and company.