http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/09/the_manhattan_mosque_its_not_t. html
The Manhattan mosque: It's not the terrorism, stupid Published: Thursday, September 02, 2010, 2:54 AM <http://connect.nj.com/user/pmulshin/index.html> Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger <http://connect.nj.com/user/pmulshin/index.html> Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger Bottom of Form George W. Bush did a lot of stupid things after 9/11, but perhaps the stupidest was his insistence that the enemy of the United States was "terrorism." Nonsense. Terrorism is just one of many tactics that a group holding certain political views can employ to achieve its goals. When Bush declared the enemy to be terrorism, he handed liberal Americans a weapon with which they have been attacking us conservatives ever since. If you doubt that, consider this statement that appeared on a Washington Post blog the other day: In writing about the mosque proposed for a spot near where the Twin Towers used to stand, Adam Serwer wrote that "the only way to sustain opposition to the Park51 project is by, on some level, holding all Muslims responsible for the acts of al Qaeda." No, it's not. But when it comes to the men behind the mosque, that's certainly a valid question. The name originally proposed for the project was Cordoba House. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden issued a statement in which he listed his motives, one of which was to avoid a repeat of "the tragedy of Andalusia." Andalusia was the part of Spain ruled by Muslims for seven centuries and Cordoba was its capital. So you'd have to be a real dunce not to recognize what was initially termed the Cordoba Initiative as anything less than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. But terrorism is not the issue. The fundamentalist Muslims of the seventh century established their rule over Spain with traditional military force. The fundamentalist Muslims of the 21st century would prefer to gain a foothold here peacefully. In that, they had an unlikely ally. Bush was perhaps the strongest proponent of open borders of any president in modern history. We conservatives disagree on that issue. I'll give you an example of why, based on a visit I made to a pub in London a couple of years after the 9/11 attacks. The pub was in a lovely stone building that had stood there since the 1850s. Across the street was a gleaming Islamic center that had been built just a few years before. When I got talking to the guys at the bar, they complained that the people across the street were now calling for the city council to close the pub because the serving of alcohol violates the tenets of Islam. In a recent piece on the mosque controversy, the English writer Christopher Hitchens noted a similar phenomenon in Washington, D.C. It concerned a grand mosque on Massachusetts Avenue. Hitchens writes that "it is where President Bush went immediately after 9/11 to make his gesture toward the 'religion of peace.' A short while ago, the wife of a new ambassador told me that she had been taking her dog for a walk when a bearded man accosted her and brusquely warned her not to take the animal so close to the sacred precincts." This is the sort of issue on which conservatives and liberals have a simple difference of opinion, and it has nothing to do with terrorism. We conservatives believe that those who do not desire to adopt our customs should <http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1445181.htm> "clear off," in the immortal words of a right-wing Australian commenting on demands by Islamic fundamentalists Down Under. Liberals take a more liberal view. Despite the above example, Hitchens calls opposition to the mosque "stupid and demagogic." Demagogic? Well, it does poll in the 60-plus range. But stupid? I would argue otherwise. On this, as well as the broader issue of the recent decades of mass immigration in general, Americans are simply asking themselves "What's in it for me?" and concluding "Not much." Most like America just fine the way it was, cold beer, warm puppies and all. It's a lively debate, but it's one that would go on regardless of the issue of terrorism. My visit to that London pub occurred years before the suicide bombings there. As for Australia, it has never suffered any terror attacks, but the same debate goes on there. The big difference in the United States is that the liberal intelligentsia in this country have adopted the argument that as long as you don't have a bomb strapped to your belt, then there's nothing worth discussing. And for that we have to thank the first President Bush's second stupidest son. ALSO ON THE AUSSIE FRONT: read <http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?pageID=&doc=transcripts/2005/1 23.htm&min=phc> this interview with an Aussie official. Excerpt: TONY JONES: But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate? TREASURER:Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it. Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values. ALSO, YOU GOTTA LOVE THIS, from the "clear off' guy: "If you want to be an Australian, if you want to raise your children in Australia, we fully expect those children to be taught and to accept Australian values and beliefs," he said. "We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a fair go, and basically if people don't want to support and accept and adopt and teach Australian values then, they should clear off." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [email protected]. -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [email protected] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [email protected] Unsubscribe: [email protected] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
