Brilliant factual rebuttal… or you completely dodged all the actual identifying traits that differentiate jihadist terrorism designed to bring about Islamist governance, via the use of force, in accordance with sociotheological precepts, while you tried to handwave away the facts as “comic book terms”.
Could go either way.
Of course, identifying a bomber as someone whose M.O. involves an act of suicide required in order to trigger their bomb while the bomber is located at its epicenter? That’s another term which draws an important distinction. Or a comic book term, never can be too sure these days.
See, WM, your own words? Probably not a distortion of your own words. Now I admit, this is just a guess on my part and I haven’t worked out the whole mathematics of “your own words” = “your own words”, but I’m sure I’ll hit on it at some point.
To remind you, you argued that rather than serving an effective delineating function, the “religious label” achieved “nothing except empty self satisfaction.” Astute readers will, I’m sure, notice the word “nothing”. Again, I’m not quite sure on the nitty gritty of the mathematics here, but I’m pretty sure that we can find a sufficient rigorous logical proof to certify that “nothing” = “nothing”. And if there is nothing that it accomplished in terms of the conveyance of meaning other than “empty self satisfaction”, then rather obviously it’s totally empty and meaningless.
I’m not sure how to react to your claim that your own words are distorting what you’re saying, but I’d probably advance the (truly radical) idea that your own words are what you’re saying.
Maybe I’m out of order here because I’m a Brit commenting on a matter that has a lot of emotional significance to American citizens, so I hope that I don’t offend .
I think that the mosque SHOULD be allowed to go ahead to show the Islamic world that we in the West are not against all muslims or all M.E. people.
We are NOT religious bigots and we don’t persecute people for following one belief rather then another one.
We wage war on certain followers of the Islamic faith not because of that faith but because they are murderers and terrorists.
Banning the mosque would be a propoganda coup for Islamic extremists and could possibly encourage recruiting to them from people who were otherwise neutral or wavering on the whole subject of the M.E.
America is the leader of the Western World and known as the land of the free.
It would be a shame if it blotted its copybook over such a trivial matter.
Ah, but we are religious bigots. Why else were so many people so intent on branding Obama a Muslim? Why do so many make such a big freaking deal about using his middle name? Why else are we even debating the propriety of a mosque near Ground Zero?
The quote, and the cite, address and rebut your statement.
The quote, and the cite, are both quite clear on the subject of Al Quaeda’s ideology. I’d suggest something from FAS as a quick primer.
Yes, you did. I’ll point it out again. "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. "
You are free to try to rebut this on the facts if you would like, and show how someone who commits acts of terrorism in furtherance of militant Islamism in accordance with jihadist sociotheological precepts is not effectively differentiated from someone like Timothy McVeigh and his grievances against the American government. Or you can handwave it away, again, with nonsense about “the name game” (also known as “the semantic content of a definition”).
Pretty sure that homocide would be something else entirely.
Of course, you are attempting to conflate two separate phenomena (along with some gratuitous comments about what you view as the “lunatic fringe” in America). The meme that attempted to switch ‘suicide bomber’ to ‘homicide bomber’ was an attempt to emphasize that the bombers’ goal was homicide rather than suicide. It wasn’t necessary as ‘suicide bomber’ is already a perfectly descriptive term and identifies the method at work, and ‘homicide bomber’ can and does include everybody using a bomb to commit murder, whether or not they are killed by the bomb itself in the process.
Of course, as pointed out and handwaved away by you, the various permutations on “jihadist” or “Islamic terrorist” do serve a valid function in delineating Islamic terrorism from other types of terrorism due to Islamic terrorists ideological context, motivation and goals. All of which, of course, combine to explain why we are perfectly justified in putting Osama Bin Ladin in a different category than Timothy McVeigh. Just as both are materially different types of terrorists than Eric Rudolph.
All the handwaving about “comic book” this or that won’t eliminate the facts, I’m afraid.
The OP will probaly be shocked – SHOCKED – to learn that there are no less than three lunch carts proudly proclaiming their wares as Hallal (muslim analogue to kosher) in Liberty Square, which is as across the street from WTC as you can be without being inside a Brooks Brothers, The Millenium Hotel, or the St. Paul’s churchyard (in order of cultural relevance to the financial district, natch).
That’s right, within in FEET of ground zero muslims are flaunting their religion and/or their ability to provide a tasty lunch of grilled lamb and rice for $5. Outrageous!
America! Fuck yeah! I entirely agree with the pair of 'em. Go ahead, build what you want. Be part of New York. Screw the morons who can’t handle going outside of their comfort zone in this city.
Maybe I didn’t read the thread carefully enough, but I haven’t seen anyone advocating that this mosque or whatever it is should be banned. The US being a more or less free country, there are plenty of things that are legal but offensive. It’s possible to argue that building a mosque at the WTC site is stupid, offensive, counterproductive, insensitive, tone-deaf, and willfully ignorant of recent history without arguing that it should be against the law.
Actually, if this mosque were to be banned, I doubt it would have any impact at all on Muslim attitudes toward the US. Banning or limiting the construction of “other” religious buildings is par for the course in most Muslim countries. Isn’t it true that in Saudi Arabia, it’s against the law to build any Christian church anywhere in the country, let alone at some site of special cultural or historical importance?
How about two blocks away? It’s not at the site. It’s being built by one of the more liberal Muslim organizations that exists. It’s essentially a slap in the face… to the Wahhabist fanatics and Fundamentalists, from us. “Screw you guys and your Sharia, we are perfectly fine with those Muslims who truly understand their ‘Religion of Peace’ and we put our money (and 1st Amendment) where our mouth is.”
Exactly why we should let them buy the land and build according to the extant zoning without regard–we are better than Saudi Arabia. We do not sink to the level of fundamentalists or fanatics… Our civilization and cultural melting pot have room for all who come in peace.
If that’s really the best site they could find, God bless em, but there would seem to be better locations for a 13-story “community center” than in Lower Manhattan. Looking at the information put out by the “Cordoba Initiative”, it’s clearly meant to make some kind of statement.
Big mistake in my opinion. We are not ready for it and may never be. It’s going to piss off a lot more people than it’s going to educate.
Plus, there is a long list of “benign” Muslim charities, activists and foundations that have turned out to be a lot more radical than advertised. Forgive me my suspicions. Cf. Sami Al-Arian et al.
