"terrorist's are simply terrorists". That would be true if the 9/11 murders & and Jihad (religious war) was not perpetrated in the name of Allah. For example the Oklahoma City bombing was a bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 by Timothy McVeigh, an American militia movement sympathizer who claimed no ties to any religion. He was simply a terrorist who committed murder for his own malevolent cause. Conversely, and in case anyone's forgotten, the 19 hijackers used the term "Allāhu Akbar" usually translated "God is Greatest," or "God is Great" along with other public Jihadist statements made by Bin laden. The fact remains the 9/11 attacks were committed in the name of Islam by these evil individuals. Again most people recognize the majority of Muslims are not Terrorists and I agree all Muslim's should not be judged by the actions of these terrorists. But the reasons behind why they commit terror does matter! The attempt at white washing Islamic terrorism, evil, and the drive by liberals to not offend a single Muslim is an idiotic obsession in political correctness. Just as is the dim-witted Obama Administration's efforts to do away from the phrases "war on terror " & " Global War on Terror" preferring instead to call it a "Struggle Against Violent Extremism," or "Overseas Contingency Operation."
A fine Op Ed piece by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post Sacrilege at Ground Zero By Charles Krauthammer Friday, August 13, 2010 A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz). When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated. That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive. And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign. Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there. Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction. But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists? An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy? Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed. Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka. Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question." America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all. These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero. Build it anywhere but there. The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer. letters@charleskrauthammer.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...&utm_campaign=Articles by Charles Krauthammer
I just want to make a point here about human nature. Have any of you ever thought about the child that grows up being abused, all their life, and for some reason they know its wrong. People are raised a certain way, different than us, they may not know the difference but for some reason they know the way they are treated is wrong. So doesn't that tell you that somthing inside us... "human nature" knows the difference from right and wrong. So to think that because a true Muslim may feel rejected by us they will turn into radicals or they may join the other side, just doesn't sit right with me. We as humans know basically what is right and wrong. However as humans we want to justify our disfunction... as in no respect for one another. I read the bible along time ago and made my own interpretation, I explained my idea's or thoughts to my at the time inlaws who were born again Christians... I'll never forget the two of them standing over me shaking their fingers in raised voices telling me I was wrong... my interpretation was evil and devil worship etc. I still believe what I believe... To point fingers or guns at someone and say they are wrong in what they believe... that in its self is wrong. It is not for us to judge... any of us. Until we all see, that we are the same yet different and respect that, the circle will continue... killing each other for what we believe... Sad really... very sad. When what we should be doing is understanding the ultimate wrong is killing..hurting another human being. But that being said because we don't live in a perfect world we should respect the people who were hurt killed during 911. If another mosque is to be built please have respect for the people who were murdered there. If a distant cousin or friend murdered anyone I would not ask nor expect a monument for the murderer be built on the murder scene. Thats just common sense... The idea of building a Mosque on ground Zero... it just wrong. (Now stop pointing fingers and saying I'm wrong) LOL
I'm sorry but I have to disagree (lol surprising isn't it). Many of the things we do both right and wrong are learned and not part of "human nature". All the 'isms for example. Racism, sexism, etc. They're learned from the people closest to us. In Rwanda women and children were hacked to death with machetes. That's not "human nature" .. that's learned. In Afghanistan where women are treated as possessions it is because it's been done that way for years. The people that hate the West are told lies about what we are like but they don't know any better. All they know is the lie so to them it's fact. I'm not trying to lay blame. Its just a fact that people who feel excluded from a group are more likely to turn on that group. In your murder analogy you're again saying that Muslims are the ones that committed 9/11. Terrorists did, not Muslims. It's an important distinction.
According to your own statement he was an American militia movement sympathizer. So why are all American militias not lumped in with him? It's no different than what you're doing. I said it before. I could commit a crime in the name of the USA but it doesn't make me an American.
Timothy McVeigh visited with David Koresh, in Waco, prior to the assault that took place there. Koresh led a religious order, Branch Davidian. Though McVeigh's position was probably more anti-government than religious, but he did choose the second anniversary of the assault in Waco, for his attack in Oklahoma. The terrorists exclaiming, "Allāhu Akbar!", prior to their death on 9-11, and in other attacks is, I think, their attempt to "make good" with their God, in hopes of receiving the reward they were promised, in the after life. In other words, more a personal statement rather than a general religious proclamation (ie. I am doing this for Allah). Just a guess on my part.
Check the dictionary. A militia is secular and not in the same context of a religion. Why do you refuse to acknowledge there are clear distinctions? Is it a liberal trait that everything & everyone must be equal, indistinguishable, and indiscernible? One can claim anything; it doesn't make it automatically true except when there is evidence of the truth. Moreover your not American and therefore cannot claim anything on behalf of America. Being an American, Canadian, Jamaican, Estonian, etc is a nationality - not the same a being a dedicated member of a religious faith.
LOL no surprise here..ha ha you missed my point... it isn't in human nature to hack people to death. We all know its wrong. The women you speak of in Afghanistan, though the are raised that way... they know its wrong.. What I was trying to say is that the terrible behavior that happens around this world, what we do to each other... isn't human nature, it is learned behavior... and we all know its wrong. As I sit and re-read this... I think I'm full of shit, maybe that is the problem... Human nature, we've been killing each other since the beginning of time, it will never end... because it is human nature. We've hurt each other, killed each other, done the worse things imaginable to each other, dam it.. its in our nature. As we progress we just find ways to excuse it, or have somthing to stand behind Religion, Politics, Race, envy... it goes on and on. We are a very self distructive species.. surprisingly we have lasted as long as we have.. but like the dinosaurs we to will become extinct.
I don't think you're full of shit...lol. Human nature is a complexity of drives and instincts. I think survival is a primary instinct. It kicks in without thought. Fight or flight. Compassion, understanding, morality, etc. resides at a higher level and often requires conscious thought or reflection. Political leaders leaders appeal to our bases instincts. Fear....a threat to our survival. They provide justification for our actions. God, country, family. we will do terrible things under these conditions. But I think you are right, that doing terrible things conflicts with our higher sense of right. The people that do them are usually tortured by the memories of their actions. And from witnessing the actions of others. How do the leaders of terrorist organizations convince a young man to kill himself and take others with him? First they convince the young man that there is a threat. To him and his family and everything he holds dear. They identify the threat. They dehumanize the enemy. They provide justification. It is for his family and for his God. Then they remove his fear...his instinct for survival by convincing him that his God has a special reward for him for his sacrifice. So, yes...we human's can do terrible things. But, unless we are mentally ill, we cannot do them without conscience, remorse, disgust.
Being from a country, part of a religion, or a militia all have one thing in common... they're groups of people... why do you have different rules for different groups of people? why can't you see that fanatics aren't just religious.. they're from everywhere. anyway... I think my point is still pretty basic. Stop relating terrorists to religion.
