Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[elbe]

Any criticism of US foreign policy condemns the Muslim to radical status.

I thought criticism of US foreign policy made you a liberal?

 

[Chaos]

I am left to ponder what BAC and his ilk think a moderate muslim would look and act like? Do they demand 100% adherance to the American agenda? No criticism allowed if one wants to be labeled a moderate muslim. Any criticism of US foreign policy condemns the Muslim to radical status.

I think that, while they occasionally pay lip service to a belief in the concept of a "moderate muslim", they do not in fact believe that such a creature exist. If someone is a muslim, then to them he is by definition a radical anti-American anti-semitic terrorist supporter.

 

[BeAChooser]

Praktik and I Am The Scum,

First, how accurate is the half million figure? Hard to say. And why do I say that? Because Richard Garfield worked for UNICEF and came up with the pre-war mortality for children in Iraq. Back in 2002, before we invaded, he said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 was about 400,000. That equates to a child mortality rate of 9-10 percent. And the folks at John Hopkins and the Lancet blessed and championed that number. But after Saddam's regime fell, when Garfield worked with Les Robert's of John Hopkin's in the effort (remember the Lancet Studies?) to end the US presence in Iraq by claiming extremely high post war death tolls amongst innocent Iraqis, he said nothing at all about the disparity between his 9-10 percent figure and the figure that Robert's used in his studies. Les Robert's estimate of the pre-war number of children who died in the under-five age group corresponded to a 2.9 percent rate (which made the post war excess death rate appear much higher than it would have with a 9-10 percent rate). So it seems like truth to the folks who made all these claims about deaths amongst Iraqi children are more a function of their current agenda than anything else.

But I'm not really challenging the assertion that children died by the hundreds of thousands under Saddam's rule in Iraq. Of course they did. They died as a result of a lack of clean water, medicines, sanitation, food and environmental pollution. What I challenge is the assertion by folks like Rauf and you that the blame for that lies primarily on the US. It clearly doesn't. While that was happening, Saddam's regime was diverting the bulk of the revenues from oil sales (both legal and illegal), that were supposed to go to help meet those specific needs and rebuild war damaged infrastucture, into rebuilding and maintaining Saddam's brutal military, banned weapon programs (like ballistic missiles), the construction of palaces and monuments to Saddam, several huge mosques (odd, in what you folks continue to claim Iraq was a secular state), the hedonistic lifestyle of Saddam's sons, large bribes to certain UN and non-coalition nation members, and various bank accounts owned by Saddam and his top associates. You'd think that with oil sales at 2/3rds what they were before the sanctions, Iraq would have been able to keep its people from starving or dying of disease. But not under Saddam's regime. Because Saddam didn't use the money to prevent those deaths from occurring. Instead, high death rates suited his agenda … his effort to get the sanctions removed so that his regime could once again pursue the development of arms of all types.

As Clinton's US State Department noted (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm ):

"Over 94% of all requested oil-for-food goods have been approved. That is $8.9 billion worth of humanitarian items for the Iraqi people. No holds are placed on food and medicine. "

The 6% of goods, which are on hold, include contracts for dual-use items that Iraq can use to rebuild its military capabilities. Holds are placed on contracts that do not have enough information to determine whether they include dual-use items. Once that information is provided, these holds are often released. In other cases, holds are placed on contracts submitted by firms with a record of sanctions violations.

Contract holds are not the problem. It is Saddam Hussein who continues to reject UN recommendations for ordering adequate amounts of food and other basic humanitarian goods. Instead, he seeks to use the oil-for-food program to rebuild his army and export oil in order to build palaces and obtain luxuries for his family and regime supporters. Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam's personal interests.

Here's a bit more about Saddam's behavior:

http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=479

Iraq’s problems start with Saddam

… snip …

First, we should look at the oil-for-food program, which is indicted as the cause of Iraqi suffering. Rather than allowing Saddam Hussein to freely export his most valuable resource and do what he wishes with the proceeds, the UN Security Council unanimous decided to force Iraq to trade the oil for food and medical supplies. Iraq submits contracts to the UN for approval, and then the deals go through.

This program is more than capable of providing for the people of Iraq, but the Iraqi government deliberately obstructs it time and again. Iraq constantly delays submitting to the UN the list of goods it wants to order during the six-month phases of the oil-for-food program until the last minute.

This way it tries to sneak in proscribed items by forcing the UN either to halt the flow of oil-for-food goods or to approve unacceptable contracts. According to the Department of State, no contracts for food are ever held - 94 percent of contracts have been approved. Iraq imports more food and medical supplies now than it did before the Gulf War. Those contracts that are denied or held for further review always contain "dual-use" materials that could be used to build up Saddam's military.

How then could the people be starving? Well, according to the BBC, Saddam sneaks many of the needed imports back onto ships in order to have them resold dirt cheap, so that he can turn the oil-for-food program's goods into military spending money. How do we know this is the problem, not a lack of resources?

In Northern Iraq, where the UN now administers humanitarian aid rather than leaving it to the Iraqi government, public health is better than it was before the Gulf War. Iraq claims certain oil refineries to be out of commission, when satellite photos show the refineries to be producing oil, as well as show this oil being smuggled out of the country.

Where is all this money going? Saddam's personal fortune is estimated at well over $10 billion. Saddam has spent over $2 billion on the construction of presidential palaces in the last 10 years.

U.S. warplanes patrol the northern and southern "no-fly zones" in order to keep Saddam from attacking the Kurdish and Shi'a inhabitants of Iraq. In the past he has conducted campaigns against them similar to the ethnic cleansing of the Albanians in Kosovo. Saddam regularly breaches the zones' boundaries, attempting to install anti-aircraft weapons and command and control stations, all with the aim of harming US pilots. Every time one of these installations is located, it is destroyed. Where is the money to constantly rebuild these weapons and military stations coming from? The only plausible answer is smuggling - smuggling oil out of the country, so that it cannot be used to buy food or medicine for the Iraqi people.

Funny how Raul and folks like you always fail to mention these facts or assign any blame to Saddam and his regime because of their actions. Instead, the blame is always assigned solely to the US. It seems truth to Rauf and folks like you is more a function of your agenda than anything else.

And lastly, notice that the response to my post above focused only on the claims about children dying before the war. They completely ignored the untruth in the second of Rauf's statements. They completely ignore the fact that al-Qaeda and holdouts from Saddam's regime were/are responsible for most of the deaths that have occurred in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam's regime … that is … muslims killing muslims.

 

[Brainster]

Just to clear up any potential misunderstanding: I have no problem at all with Zakaria - he´s one of the sanest voices in the US media. The problem I have is with all those enlightened people who want to revoke legally and constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding citizens, because these citizens are different from them and because they are scared out of their narrow, nationalism-addled minds.

Let's revoke the legally and constitutionally guaranteed rights of the mosque opponents to protest against its construction. It's enlightened!

 

[FireGarden]

Ya you're probably right Chaos, and after all, he talked about 9/11 and Iraq like a lefty or a paleoconservative - so doesn't that make him an extremist fundamentalist?

I'm tired of lefties excusing hatred of America because "it doesn't stand for anything". Like this leftist bozo, commie:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39209/

Nothing is in our interest if our values and principles are gone. Why do you think they hate us in the Middle East? Maybe it's because we don't stand for anything.

America should "mind its own business", is his answer to which question?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo3a8VigHyo

 

[Praktik]

Funny how Raul and folks like you always fail to mention these facts or assign any blame to Saddam and his regime because of their actions. Instead, the blame is always assigned solely to the US. It seems truth to Rauf and folks like you is more a function of your agenda than anything else.

Sorry, you talking to me with this? Or the other person? Allow me to direct you to sections from my post:

Actually maybe we could agree NOT to rehash whether American sanctions were a contributor to the avoidable death of 500 000 Iraqi children after the first Iraq War?

The whole point of bringing up the Imam's view on this was to paint him as a potential extremist or supporter of extremists. The actual debate is not really important - and I think, rather insoluble. How are we to really say how much the sanctions contributed? One could say that if Saddam sold his palaces and distributed things more equally and found ways to keep up the infrastructure things wouldn't have been so bad even with the sanctions. But then, one could also say that we all knew what kind of guy Saddam was, and the fact that the pain of the sanctions would effect the lower rungs of society the most drastically should have been anticipated.

There really is no right answer, apart from a wishy-washy "American sanctions and Saddam's nature killed 500 000 children unnecessarily" - i'd put a bit more weight to Saddam maybe given his total control of the country, but still, this is not something we could give out % "contributions" for with any accuracy.

People with an ideological axe to grind will focus more on one side than the other and this applies not just to the Imam but also BeAChooser, and many more people besides. The idea that American sanctions killed 500 000 children is actually fairly widespread and is no indicator of extremism just by its being espoused. In fact, should all Islamic extremism end tomorrow, I would expect large - near unanimous - majorities of the Now-Moderate Islamic world to agree with that contention. It is utopian to believe that after the Defeat of Islamism, that the muslim world would come to see the world through BAC's eyes.

The "American sanctions killed kids" idea is one that people like BeAChooser react to with vehemence, but this tells us more about where people like him lie and very little about one's predisposition to extremism, given the millions of lily-white Americans on the left and the right who believe the same thing and millions more in the Muslim world who aren't extremists who also believe the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised that among Islamists they also believe that, but then again most heroin addicts started with tobacco - is tobacco a determinant of heroin use?

And lastly, notice that the response to my post above focused only on the claims about children dying before the war. They completely ignored the untruth in the second of Rauf's statements. They completely ignore the fact that al-Qaeda and holdouts from Saddam's regime were/are responsible for most of the deaths that have occurred in Iraq since the collapse of Saddam's regime … that is … muslims killing muslims.

Ok, so what? Let's accept your position for the sake of argument. All you're proving is that certain people are wrong, not that they're Apocalyptic Islamist Fundamentalists.

This whole sideshow argument is a red-herring.

 

[A'isha]

Let's revoke the legally and constitutionally guaranteed rights of the mosque opponents to protest against its construction. It's enlightened!

 

[Taarkin]

Ok, so what? Let's accept your position for the sake of argument. All you're proving is that certain people are wrong, not that they're Apocalyptic Islamist Fundamentalists.

"Congress ratified the Treaty of Tripoli on 1798"
"No, it was 1797! Radical! Raaaadiiicaaaaaal!"

 

[Lurker]

Praktik and I Am The Scum,

(...)

Funny how Raul and folks like you always fail to mention these facts or assign any blame to Saddam and his regime because of their actions. Instead, the blame is always assigned solely to the US. It seems truth to Rauf and folks like you is more a function of your agenda than anything else.

OK, let's assume your information is correct. Is there room for debate on this issue or are you absolutely 100% correct? Note what I bolded up above. If you are going to claim Raul is a supporter of radical muslim extremism due to his beliefs that America share in the blame and then associate Praktik and I Am The Scum with those beliefs are you not saying that Praktik and IATS are also supporters of radical muslim extremism?

Is it possible that Rauf simply disagrees with your analysis and remains a moderate muslim or do you find that impossible? I mean, the position he holds is not exclusive to muslim extremists or those who support muslim extremists, is it?

I see Praktik has kind of made my point of you merely showing that Rauf may be wrong - not any proof of extremism.

 

[johnny karate]

Let's revoke the legally and constitutionally guaranteed rights of the mosque opponents to protest against its construction. It's enlightened!

They can protest all they want. I have no problem with the act of protest and have no desire to stop theirs in particular.

However, that doesn't make them any less bigoted.

And it's a little more than a group of concerned citizens voicing their First Amendment rights:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop911mosque/

It's also a group of bigots actively seeking government intervention to deny other citizens their Second Amendment rights.

 

[Cicero]

I'm sure your answer will be as thoughtful and as enlightening as the one you give to similar questions regarding gay marriage.

It would interesting to find out whether the owners of the mosque to be built at ground zero, who claim to champion American freedoms, tolerance and understanding, would embrace the prospect of gay establishment across from them.

Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gut...ound-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men/

 

[Biscuit]

Ok, so what? Let's accept your position for the sake of argument. All you're proving is that certain people are wrong, not that they're Apocalyptic Islamist Fundamentalists.

This whole sideshow argument is a red-herring.

I second this. The assertion, by BAC, that Rauf is an extremist are based on one statement that the source even states begins mid-sentence. I would have thought that we had learned in recent weeks what a danger it is to take one statement out of context.

At the end of the day there is a mountain of evidence, based on statements and actions by Rauf, that he is not a radical extremist. He may assign more blame to U.S. policy than BAC would but that is hardly an extremist view.

 

[A'isha]

It would interesting to find out whether the owners of the mosque to be built at ground zero, who claim to champion American freedoms, tolerance and understanding, would embrace the prospect of gay establishment across from them.

Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gut...ound-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men/

You're a little behind the times, Cicero. The Park51 people are totally chill with that idea:

"Any mosque that's built in America is not built with the idea of having contentious or hostile relations with any other community around it," Human and Civil Rights program director Ibrahim Ramey told NBCNewYork. "We have our own faith and our own values but we certainly aren't going to attack other people even though they have values and orientations that are not necessarily of our faith and our religion."

"It's a free country...if [Gutfield] wanted to do that it would suggest that the idea of this location being some kind of quote-unquote sacred space...is obviously not true." Ramey added that "We doubt very seriously that the proposed initiative would have any direct connection with or patronage from people attending the mosque."

Gutfield's little project will also have some competition, since there are already three gay bars within a tenth of a mile of the proposed Park51 site (closer to the mosque than this mosque is to the WTC site, by the way), none of which the Park51 people have (or have had) any problem with.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Funny how Raul and folks like you always fail to mention these facts or assign any blame to Saddam and his regime because of their actions. Instead, the blame is always assigned solely to the US. It seems truth to Rauf and folks like you is more a function of your agenda than anything else.

You know, I really should have put something in my post about how I'm unfamiliar with the issue and that I'm not making a judgment one way or another. After all, with all that negativity in your post, it could have been cleared up if I had simply said

I don't know enough the issue to say whether or not he's right.

Boy, you sure would look like an ass if I had actually said that!

In any case, I appreciate your contribution on the subject, though the more I think about it, the more I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gut...ound-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men/

A coffee house would be a better marketing strategy.

 

[Cicero]

Gutfield's little project will also have some competition, since there are already three gay bars within a tenth of a mile of the proposed Park51 site (closer to the mosque than this mosque is to the WTC site, by the way), none of which the Park51 people have (or have had) any problem with.

These gay bars "cater To Islamic gay men?” If they are profitable, no wonder Greg wants to get in on that gravy.

 

[johnny karate]

It would interesting to find out whether the owners of the mosque to be built at ground zero...

As far as I know, no mosque is going to be built at Ground Zero. Do you have a source for this claim?

... who claim to champion American freedoms, tolerance and understanding, would embrace the prospect of gay establishment across from them.

Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gut...ound-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men/

Show me these people actively petitioning the government to violate the Constitutional freedoms of Gutfield, and I will happily call them bigots and hypocrites for you.

So, any arguments actually defending opposition to the Muslim community center, or are you just going to keep playing these same silly games?

 

[Cleon]

These gay bars "cater To Islamic gay men?” If they are profitable, no wonder Greg wants to get in on that gravy.

I imagine that, like most gay bars, they cater to anyone who walks in the door.

Gutfeld's little stunt fizzled. Try something else.

 

[funk de fino]

What if some Saudi businessmen wanted to build a gold souk in the same place?

Would there be the same outcry?

 

[FireGarden]

Follow the Money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jon Stewart doesn't understand English either, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2P2innj12c

I've been watching the Daily Show since you linked that. In Britain it's more like the Yester-daily Show, so I just saw this on More4:

Jon Stewart had a go at Fox News. Stupid or Evil? You decide:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

The Mosque planners get their money from the 'evil' Alwaleed bin Talal. But where does he get his money from? Some of it comes from Fox news. So if people want to stop funding the Mosque, maybe they can start by not watching Fox News.