That maybe our history of interference in the Middle East had at least something to do with our current situation? Glen Beck said he agrees with that.
Like Fox seemed to ignore their connection with him?
Yeah, that was kind of Jon’s Point. If Fox tries hard to imply some terroist connection to Alaweed in order to make Ruaf and Park 51 look bad , they only make themselves look bad by a similar financial connection. Evidently if we support Fox, Apple, or Pepsi we are funding terrorism. Well screww that. World peace or my ipod? Sorry world peace.
We should be aware enough to be wary rather than gullible. Examine the facts anbd do some digging to see who’s who. When Fox decides to do their dance they ignore the positive, even when they applauded it before, to focus on anything that can be given a negative slant.
That, IMO is an incredible insult toward Fox viewers.
I get your point and acknowledge that it was not about Alaweed, but he was mentioned to specifically to make Rauf look bad. A vague mention of some unamed bad guy whose money is tainted without any verification or identification is pretty lame commentary. As I said before, all his points about JCC seemed like a purposeful stretch to create a negative and very weak when approached with reason, unless there’s something about life in NYC I just don’t understand. How many communities are within a short subway ride of the proposed site?
Seems more like deliberately confusing “community” with “neighborhood”. “Well, since there are very few Muslims living in the near vicinity, it can’t be a ‘community center’, therefore it can only be jihadist terror recruiting center.” Really hard to refudiate logic like that.
Is he involved in another controversy? I thought part of the deal was that Fox kept making these insinuations but that he hasn’t actually been shown to have pledged any money towards the project or be involved in any other way. I definitely may have missed the factual basis of the claim by Fox, but I honestly thought his involvement is nothing more than a hypothetical scenario that has been spun to sound like fact.
No, that guy (Senor, I think his name is) did not offer anything to back up the claims he made about the Kingdom Foundation. And while that makes his argument pretty weak, it’s not all that unusual in this type of quick interview on CNN or MSNBC either. He talks about there not being a “community” to serve there, and I take it he means “residential community”. However, I would assume there are lots of people who work in the area, and who might use the facilities before or after work, or during lunch hours. The mosque part is supposed to be only a small part of the facility.
So, I guess we can debate about whether or not Fox is trying to push the “mosque issue” as part of their agenda, but I don’t think that would be a very interesting debate. This thread, though, is all about the outrageous behavior of Senor (who is not a Fox employee, but was guest on the show) not naming names. Just checking my outrage meter on that, and it’s not registering anything. All I see is Stewart taking something out of context, and poking fun at Fox. Then it gets picked up by MediaMatters and Daily Kos, and, lo and behold, ends up as a gotcha thread in GD.
Do you think he was a paid guest on the show? Like a lot of their special guests analysts and conntributors I got the impression he was brought in especially to agree and bolster their narritive about the Community Center. Okay, I can accept as reasonable that for that specifc section Alaweed was mentioned in passing and he wasn’t really the point. Having made mention of some unnamed bankroller from a foundtion with terrorist ties that is funding the project and while also painting Rauf as two faced in his communication in a previous section that I watched, don’t you think Fox has some interest in following up that information and going into more detail about this man who funds radical MAdrasahs all over the world? Let’s see what else we hear about Alaweed on Fox and if they substantiate any of the allegations. Usually their pattern is to do all the damage they can with innuendo and guilt by tenuous association without having to substantiate much.
No, I should not have because I don’t think it is relevant to anything and has no importance how they attempt to smear a man’s charitable donation while destroying America through the propagation of stupidity. You do, and you mentioned it. That makes you Mr. Moto, and good for you.
The local Muslims have a right to make a community center in America anywhere they want to and if the widows and widowers of 9/11 don’t like it, though shit. But the only 9/11 widower I have heard on the subject is ultra conservative Ted Olsen
who says they have a right to have it and should have it where they want it.
This whole controversy is manufactured to stir up religious hatred against Muslims. 99.99 percent of American Muslims are perfectly ordinary contributing citizens. The handful of exceptions are no different than the Eric Rudolph’s and Timothy McVeigh’s that the right embraces and goads into violence far more regularly than is healthy.
Stirring up religious hatred against Jews is wrong and despicable. So is stirring up hatred against Christians, Hindus and Muslims. That is what Fox News is doing to drive up ratings. The only exception is that it is acceptable to club Buddhists who cheat on their wife with 120 different women because he is the second most famous Buddhist in America after the Dali Lama and before Richard Gere.
That doesn’t mean it was taken out of context. It wasn’t. “Out of context” implies that certain words are selected in such a way as to give an impresion that the speaker is saying something different from what he actually said. That is not the case here. The speaker said and meant exactly what he was represented as having said and meant. The previous conversation leading up to that statement does not alter anything about it’s meaning or intent. It was not taken out of context. it was given with full context.
Indeed. “The Imam and his wife have something shady going on, what do we really know about them? After all, the mosque is being funded by this shady guy with shady dealings.” If we accept that financial dealings with Shady Guy is evidence of shadyness as Fox and Friends claims, then given that the shady guy has dealings with Fox too, our only recourse is to presume Fox is shady too.
point taken. That is correct, there was no misrepresentation of meaning.
I think the point being made was that it may be understandable that since it was in the last few seconds of a discussion about something else it may be understandable that they didn’t name Alaweed or be more specific about his finances and his connection to Newscorp.
And thats a yeah, just maybe. They had time to name the foundation and referred to him as “the guy” who offered 10 million dollars after 9/11 so they really had plenty of time to name him specifically. They make a passing reference to terrorist funding to create a negative association with Rauf but took no time to name even one specifically.
It’s seems equally or more likely that it’s all part of a familiar dishonest pattern for Fox and friends. We’ll see if Fox follows it up with some real information.
Which was exactly the point Jon was making about how foolish and irresponsible it is to play the guilt by hardly any association game.
I love the part about watching Fox support terrorism so the patriotic thing to do is not watch Fox. If Alaweed is supporting radical Madrasahs as they claimed then watching Fox does indeed generate money for radical Muslims as does drinking Pepsi and buying Apple products. The tragic reality is that although people love to argue about it they probably aren’t willing to give up Pepsi to help fight terrorism. Some sacrifices are just too great.
too cynical?
Stewart made it seem like the segment was about Alaweed, hence the “big deal” about not giving more info about him. Fact is, that was a small part of the larger segment that was about what the Imam’s wife said on a Sunday talk show. It doesn’t seem odd that a picture or name wasn’t given if you watch the whole thing, because most of the segment, and the main thrust of the discussion was not about him.
I’d also be curious to know what Fox’s idea of a ‘Radical Madrassa’ actually is. Maybe it’s a Madrassa that teaches tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage?
This whole argument about the specifics of the who-owns-shares in whom ignores the fact that they actually have 0 evidence for anything they claimed as fact in that segment. It was all insinuation and allegation without giving the viewer a single piece of credible information to back up their claims. It’s despicable, and I’m glad that in the UK you wouldn’t be able to get away with that sort of bullshit on public airwaves.