I like “jihadist.”
The fact that their ribbon-cutting ceremony is held on 9/11 tells me that there are 2 possibilities:
- The Mosque will define itself as an anti-terror, anti-extremist place of worship. They will show America that true Islam in their view is not about terrorism.
- They are celebrating 9/11 and fully support Al Queda. If this is the case, they had better prepare for the locals to attack them.
These options are too far apart to tell us anything, but despite what the OP wrote, there is no ribbon cutting date. The planners hope that construction can start by September 11th, 2011, which is just a convenient ballpark figure. It may take them years more than that to raise the money they need. They have not said they will lay a cornerstone or do anything at all on September 11th of any year. And if the rebuilding of the area has taught us anything, it’s that construction can take way longer than you ever think it should.
Here’s what has happened so far: a group of Muslims bought the building last yer and started using it as extra prayer space. They want to build a community center there and recently presented their plans to the local community board. The board endorsed the plan but that’s just a gesture because the owners do not need the board’s approval. They were just being upfront about their idea. I don’t think the funding has been lined up and nothing has been built. By the way, here’s another article about the proposal. It includes a rendering of the building. It’s 13 stories tall and does not look like a mosque in any way.
All of that being said, the idea that these people are doing this to celebrate Al Qaeda is ludicrous on its face. Theater, basketball courts and a swimming pool do not celebrate Al Qaeda. Neither does a large construction project that would stimulate the lower Manhattan economy.
Pity really, that building shown is boring and awful. Something art deco moorish would be rather more interesting, I’m sure NY has some of that already, but better than this soulless steel and glass monstrosity.
Weren’t muslims asking the same in 1947?
i pit CNN for even reporting this. this is not news.
Why “pit” CNN over it? It’s local news. The article in the OP is from December of last year.
How about “terrorist”? These thugs represent Islam no more than Hitler represented Christianity. Why do people feel the need to focus on what religion they claim to follow?
I prefer terrorist, although there are many kinds of terrorists. And “Islamofacist” is a stupid and loaded description. But it sounds like you’re suggseting it’s somehow wrong to discuss the motivations and goals of a terrorist. That doesn’t make sense, and the Hitler comparison is pretty far off-base. But we’ve had discussions of “Islamofacism” before and we probably don’t need to repeat them here.
Because it is driven by religion and is the most significant aspect of the motivation behind it. It’s not a function of Muslims who happen to do bad things. It isn’t a condemnation of the religion as a whole but it acknowledges a significant involvement of Imams in the recruitment and training of the terrorists.
We never called the IRA terrorists anything but terrorists, although Catholic group identity was quite important to them (even as atheists, but then by all accounts many of the people like that incompetent boob with the car bomb were not very religious as such). Not Catholico-Fascists (or more likely Catholico-Commies), or anything of the sort.
Of course we were clever enough to figure out that slapping a religious label like that only tends to undermine one’s own goals by reinforcing the religious divisions.
Very much show-boating own-goal.
fine. i pit the local news station for reporting this as well as CNN for picking it up.
The IRA was not a religious organization. The conflict was clearly a political one between 2 countries.
This is in contrast with the Crusades which was clearly a religiously driven series of events.
It doesn’t make sense to ignore the singular, overriding religious nature of Islamic terrorism. It is solely driven by religious doctrine.
You’re not in the Pit, the New York Times and the New York Post are not local news stations, and it’s legitimate news.
you don’t think that the media is irresponsible for reporting this as news? why this mosque? because it shares the same religion in name as the terrorists who flew the plane? that’s bigoted and intentionally inflammatory. this is no different than reporting that a black family is moving into the area, or that the Johnson family down the street is actually ethnically Irish. It’s just preying on irrational fears and prejudices. this story is so offensive to me. there could be a mosque being built ON ground zero and i wouldn’t bat an eye.
in reporting this as news, it signals that this event is notable for some reason (which it isn’t). in the absence of a reason, our brain formulates a reason in drawing parallels between ground zero and mosques - islam. then a negative connotation is spawned and prejudices are reinforced. it’s just irresponsible…
No, I don’t. I think Fox is trying to stir shit up, but you can easily see the difference between their story and what the Times and even the Post did.
It’s not the same religion “in name.” It’s the same religion. That makes this a surprising and unusual story and that’s fair game for the news. The people who founded the mosque are upfront that they are trying to make a statement with this choice of location. They are courting public attention, which is fine. Like I said, they did not need to make a presentation before the local board, but they chose to do so because they wanted people to know what they are doing. What’s wrong with publicizing it?
On its face, it’s neither.
If the black family is moving into a neighborhood where there was a famous race riot years ago, that would be an accurate comparison, and yes, it might be reported on. But we’re not talking about doing a report on the private business of individuals. We’re talking about religious groups that want to build a 13-story building. This is not a private matter.
You’re evidently not most people. But you’re offended by the story and not by the people who are saying ‘my son died in the attacks, so there shouldn’t be a mosque a few blocks away?’ What kind of sense does that make.
Is there currently a mosque within two blocks of that area? I’m guessing there is not. I see there is an Islamic center on the lower east side, but that’s pretty far.
This doesn’t make any sense. There is a parallel. The people who want to build the community center are trying to make a statement with this location. And it’s a great statement. Why should it be ignored?
I think the Protestant Orangemen in NA have a hint of fascism about them.
The IRA sees itself as fighting on behalf of an oppressed minority. Not quite the same thing.
Some have, some don’t.
Uh, in what bloody way?
Religiously grounded identity politics (check both)
Self perception as oppressed group (check both)
Use of Terror to achieve political aims (check both)
Extremist minority among larger sea of the identity group (check both)
The significant difference is in the smaller geographic boundaries (i.e. Americans aren’t bombed, ergo “different”) and IRA’s more actionable (in the sense of vaguely realistic) aims, kicking out the British, versus Al Qaeda groups (plural deliberate) aim to “punch back at the oppressors.”
In any case, taking the religious label and sticking it on the Terror Group plays into their hands, and gets you nothing except empty self satisfaction. The smart thinkers in the UK resisted such efforts and tended to go for the plain Terrorist label with a view not to reinforcing the Catholic - Protestant divide.
Never-mind I agree with the comment up thread that Al Qaeda doesn’t fit into that Fascist - Communist divide and the label seems downright daft.
No, it’s a desire to institute Islamism by force, most often along the sociotheological lines as elaborated by Qutb.
Or it accurately identifies what motivates them, what they use as ideological support and what their goals are so that we can recognize the differences between Timothy McVeigh and Osama Bin Ladin and react accordingly.
Or maybe it’s just totally empty and meaningless, eh, eh?
So I see you have suddenly taken more diverse interests:
Says you. Plenty of groups operate under the Al Qaeda label, and hardly seems to be a coherent ideological group, whatever your pretensions.
Using comic book terms and empty posturing does fuck all for “recognizing differences.” Any more than that idiotic “suicide bombers” thing did, came out of the same lunatic American fringe ranting.
Usual distortions. Par for the course.