Joan Walsh Explains to Ed Schultz How and Why the Media Dustup over Terry Jones Started.

Some people have been complaining that the US media should not have made such a big deal out of Terry Jones' plans to burn the Qur'an.

Here, Joan Walsh reminds Ed Schultz of just how this story came to prominence and why it had to be taken on with full force.

In this internet age it simply is no longer possible to ignore certain stories, especially as this story was setting off protests in Indonesia, Kabul, Cairo and many other places in the Muslim world.

Meanwhile, in the United States, Palin, Gingrich and Boehner were the ones feeding an Islamophobic frenzy, and it was into this frenzy that Obama and Petraeus had to attempt to inject some sanity and a gentle reminder of just what is at stake here.

Here, Justin Elliot goes through the timeline:

When Gen. David Petraeus first spoke out against Pastor Terry Jones' planned Quran burning in a Wall Street Journal article published Monday, the story exploded in the U.S. media, going from a sideshow to the dominant national media controversy of the week. As Yahoo News reported, it was on the front page of more than 50 newspapers Thursday -- more than the total number of members of Jones' fringe Florida church.

Critics of the American media's coverage of the Quran-burning saga are loud and plentiful, and they have a strong case. In short, the U.S. media has given a global platform to a fringe pastor with a tiny flock, elevating him to a level of significance that would make most members of Congress jealous (whether or not he actually executes his plan). But those media critics are also missing the point.

To grasp the real story here, one has to understand the context in which Petraeus decided to weigh in: At that time, the Quran burning had already been treated as a major story in the media in the Muslim world for several weeks. In other words, since at least late July, when it started to get attention in some Muslim-majority countries, the story has been doing untold damage to America's reputation.

[...]

Lynch said that the first story in his files on the Quran burning is this July 28 report from the Saudi TV station al-Arabiya. That in turn "generated discussion on jihadist forums and other media outlets way back then," Lynch said.

By that point in July, according to Howard Kurtz's timeline, the story had gotten some play in the U.S. but had not attracted much interest.

Meanwhile, the story was percolating through the media in Muslim-majority countries, where it was often framed as the latest and most egregious example of rising Islamophobia in the United States, according to Gregg Carlstrom, a journalist with Al-Jazeera English who is based in Doha, Qatar. And given the history of angry reaction to real or perceived vandalism of the Quran, there's no doubt the stakes were high. In Afghanistan and Indonesia there have since been protests of the Quran burning.

Outside the US, this was already a huge story, and it was doing immense damage to the reputation of the United States. To think that ignoring it would have made it go away is simply fanciful.

UPDATE:

Media Matters have a very good timeline of the anti-Muslim messages being pushed by many on the right.

Tags: Joan Walsh, Ed Schultz, Obama, Park 51 mosque, Terry Jones, burn a Qur'an

Palin Equates Park 51 Mosque with Koran Burning.

Sarah Palin has used her Facebook page to equate burning the Koran with the building of the Park 51 mosque.

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

[...]

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?

I don't see the equivalence Palin seeks to make between the building of a place of worship and the hate crime of burning something which other people regard as sacred. The first is something which all religions do, they build places where the followers of their religion might go in order to worship.

The correct comparison would be if Muslims were somewhere burning bibles, not if Muslims are doing what religious groups everywhere are doing.

The first act - the building of a place of worship - is practiced by all religions. The second act - the burning of the Koran - is an act of hate.

Only in Palin's warped mind could those two things be equated.

Click here for Palin's Facebook article.

Tags: Palin, Park 51 mosque, Koran burning

US church defiant despite condemnation of Koran burning.

I have spoken before about Pastor Terry Jones and his plans to celebrate a Burn a Koran Day on the anniversary of 9-11.

Protest at what he is planning to do has reached levels which even this self promoting charlatan could never have foreseen.

The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops' lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went ahead.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the church's plan was "disrespectful and disgraceful".

Muslim countries and Nato have also hit out at the move.

And the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, called the idea "idiotic and dangerous".

The notion that the US is actually at war with Islam must be music to bin Laden's ears. This is what he has been saying since the war on terror began. And now, he has Pastor Jones and the mobs objecting to the Park 51 mosque all sending that message to the Muslim world, all repeating the very thing which he hopes will aid him in his recruiting drive for al Qaeda.

I'm sure that's not what they have in mind with their protests, but when General Petraeus warns that you are risking causing problems, "not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world", one would hope that Jones and others would listen and, perhaps, desist from such an act of utter lunacy.

"It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems," he said in a statement.

The Vatican, the Obama administration and Nato have also expressed concern over the plan.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that "any type of activity like that that puts our troops in harm's way would be a concern".

Now, obviously Jones is in a different league from the people protesting the Park 51 mosque, but they are both sending the same dangerous message.

They are both implying that the war on terror is no longer simply a war against al Qaeda, it is now a war against Islam.

An interfaith group of evangelical, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim leaders meeting in Washington on Tuesday condemned the proposals as a violation of American values and the Bible.

"I have heard many Muslim Americans say they have never felt this anxious or this insecure in America since directly after 11 September," said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

The vilification of one group of people based simply on their faith already has horrendous historical precedents, which only makes what Pastor Jones and his church are planning to do all the more disgusting.

But he is only the most extreme face of this Muslim bashing trend currently sweeping the United States. Palin and Gingrich, by calling on "Peace-seeking Muslims" to prove that they are "Peace seeking" by giving up their First Amendment rights, are on a very similar path.

Jones is simply sending the very same message in a much more obvious way. Islam is the enemy and the rules which apply to all Americans must be suspended when it comes to Muslims. Or rather, they should voluntarily give up their rights in order to show that they are not extremist.

It's shameful.

UPDATE:



Howard Dean on why Palin, Gingrich etc., aren't backing Petraeus's call for this obscene act to be cancelled.

"We thought that Fox worked for the Republican Party, now we know that Fox really runs the Republican Party"

Click here for full article.

Tags: Pastor Terry Jones, Burn the Koran Day, Palin, Gingrich, Park 51 mosque

Hatch Strongly Defends Right To Build Mosque Near Ground Zero.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch speaks out in favour of the Park 51 mosque, reminding people that, although sensitivity is rightly part of this issue, people should always remember that Muslims also died on 9-11.

Tags: Orrin Hatch, Park 51 mosque

9/11 Families Ask Mosque Protesters Not to Rally on Anniversary. Geller Says No.

The notion that the owners of the Park 51 mosque site should be "sensitive" to the feelings of those who lost loved ones on 9-11 has been dealt a bit of blow by the person who did the most to bring this mosque to public attention.

The families of some of those who lost relatives on 9-11 have said that September 11th this year is the wrong day to hold a protest against the mosque.

The ninth anniversary of 9/11 is the wrong day to hold rallies about the planned mosque and community center near Ground Zero, say relatives of the New Yorkers who died in the World Trade Center.

The group Stop Islamization of America is planning a massive rally near Ground Zero for the afternoon of Sept. 11, and those who support the project plan to hold a counter-protest.

“On this one day, we’re hopeful there don’t have to be rallies and protests, that we leave that day to remembrance and service in memory of those who perished,” said Jay Winuk, whose brother, Glenn Winuk, 40, a volunteer firefighter, was killed in the attacks.

“Whether you’re pro or con on the mosque issue, that’s not what this is about," said Winuk, who declined to give his position. "This isn’t an appropriate day to do a protest of this sort.”

Pamela Geller has given her answer to the people whose feelings she is supposedly working to protect.

Pamela Geller, executive director of Stop Islamization of America, said in a statement that her protest would go forward as planned.

"The rally is one of remembrance, dedicated to honoring the memory of those who were murdered, and making sure their memory is not desecrated by this mosque,” Geller said. “How does such a spectacle in any way dishonor the victims of the 9/11 attacks?"

She's telling the families of the bereaved to, "Get lost". That'll be an example of this "sensitivity" which opponents of the mosque keep calling for.

She's not even being asked - as the owners of the Park 51 mosque site are - to move her protest permanently somewhere else, she is merely being asked not to hold it on that particular day.

But even that is too much to ask of Geller.

Geller claims that she is not anti-Islamic, but to hear her claim that, "it is an Islamic pattern to build triumphal mosques on cherished sites of conquered lands", gives away her mindset. She's a nut case.

And that's not simply my opinion. Her own words and actions confirm that.

In addition to her anti-Islam stance, Geller has also lent her support to a number of other political causes. She has been a strong defender of former Serbian president Slobodan Milošević, and has denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps in the 1990s. She has also claimed that black South Africans are launching a "genocide" against whites and expressed support for the English Defence League.^[1]

That's quite a track record.

Click here for full article.

Tags: 9-11, Park 51 mosque, Pam Geller

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson.

The right have stated that anyone who objects to their behaviour regarding the Park 51 mosque is indulging in name calling.

But the behaviour being meted out by some of their supporters towards the Muslim community goes way beyond name calling.

Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb. Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson.

Special Agent Andy Anderson of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CBS News that the fire destroyed one piece of construction equipment and damaged three others. Gas was poured over the equipment to start the fire, Anderson said.

The ATF, FBI and Rutherford County Sheriff's Office are conducting a joint investigation into the fire, Anderson said. WTVF reports firefighters were alerted by a passerby who saw flames at the site. One large earth hauler was set on fire before the suspect or suspects left the scene.

The chair of the center's planning committee, Essim Fathy, said he drove to the site at around 5:30 a.m. Saturday morning after he was contacted by the sheriff's department.

"Our people and community are so worried of what else can happen," said Fathy. "They are so scared."

This was always the danger with this fearmongering, it was always likely to spiral out of control.

There are people now literally burning down mosques in the US. I don't think that there is anything that would ever shame the Palin's and the Gingrich's of this world into silence. But we have surely got to the point where decent people can see that this whole argument is getting way, way out of perspective.

The American right have been stoking fear and hatred towards the American Muslim community for weeks now. We've seen a NY taxi driver stabbed for being a Muslim and we have witnessed people urinating in mosques. Enough is enough. Surely someone somewhere in the Republican party can pull these people back from the brink?

Click here for full article.

Tags: arson, mosque

Demonizing the Opposition.

It really is too much when Laura Ingraham accuses her opponents of "demonizing the opposition".

According to Ingraham's victimology, it is the people who are against the mosque who are being demonized, it is they who are having names thrown at them. Let's leave aside the Muslim taxi driver who was attacked for the crime of being a Muslim, or the fact that drunks have been urinating in Mosques in Queens. Let's leave all that aside and remember that the real victims of this piece are the poor right wingers who are being called out for the rampant Islamophobia which they are engaging in.

The right wing have a long history of turning the perpetrator into the victim in cases such as this. Ingraham is merely giving that tired trick a new run around the block.

UPDATE:



Rev. Barry Lynn points out that the "Newt Gingrichs and the Sarah Palins" are more responsible for the "demonization" of Muslims than anyone else. And it is the Muslims who are being demonized here, despite what Ingraham claims. The evidence, as he points out, is all over the country.

Tags: Laura Ingraham, Park 51 mosque, Ground Zero mosque, Fox News

Ingaham Loses It When Cab Attack Is Mentioned.

Scott Stringer commits the crime of bringing up the stabbing of a New York cab driver in front of Laura Ingraham in the context of the hate being fomented by Fox and others towards Muslims.

It's fair to say that she explodes. She begins ranting that the Tea Party movement has a "huge and positive influence in the United States". She then says that she thinks the "duelling protesters" over the Ground Zero mosque are to be encouraged "on both sides". When Stringer points out to her that "constructive debate" is good, she rounds on him as an "elitist" for daring to suggest what is constructive and what is not.

She then, again, asks if he believes that America has more blood on it's hands than al Qaeda, which she has shown in recent days that she thinks is a game changer.

At one point she even tells Stringer to "pipe down".

I know she has a tendency to shout down guests who don't allow her to preach her far right message, but, even by her standards, this is shameless.

Tags: Laura Ingraham, Fox News, cab attack, Ground Zero mosque, Park 51 mosque

Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists.

Michael Bloomberg has launched another passionate defence of the Park 51 mosque.

But if we say that a mosque and community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site, we would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom.

We would undercut the values and principles that so many heroes died protecting. We would feed the false impressions that some Americans have about Muslims. We would send a signal around the world that Muslim Americans may be equal in the eyes of the law, but separate in the eyes of their countrymen. And we would hand a valuable propaganda tool to terrorist recruiters, who spread the fallacy that America is at war with Islam.

Islam did not attack the World Trade Center -- Al-Qaeda did. To implicate all of Islam for the actions of a few who twisted a great religion is unfair and un-American. Today we are not at war with Islam -- we are at war with Al-Qaeda and other extremists who hate freedom.

[snip]

The members of our military are men and women at arms -- battling for hearts and minds. And their greatest weapon in that fight is the strength of our American values, which have always inspired people around the world. But if we do not practice here at home what we preach abroad -- if we do not lead by example - we undermine our soldiers. We undermine our foreign policy objectives. And we undermine our national security.

And there are experts echoing his claim that this controversy could fuel Islamic extremists.

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

"This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands," said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. "Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

"It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn't be happier."

George Bush was always very careful to emphasise that Islam was a religion of peace and that the war was with al Qaeda, not with Islam and it's followers.

Bush: The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world.

[...]

Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

[...]

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

Since Bush stood down the Republican party appear to have abandoned the distinctions which he was always very careful to make. They appear to think that they are at war with Islam, rather than al Qaeda. As Bloomberg and the experts say, this is a very dangerous path which they have embarked upon.

Lacking a Republican leader with the courage to make the distinctions which Bush was always very careful to make, this is inevitably where they are heading.

UPDATE:





The guests on Morning Joe examine this Republican phenomenon and Brzezinski says that they are using anti-Muslim rhetoric and are "purposefully damaging our society in order to gain politically". I find it hard to disagree with that sentiment.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Park 51 mosque, ground Zero mosque, republicans, extremism, al Qaeda

The "mosque" debate is not a "distraction".

A man makes the mistake of walking through a group of people protesting against the Park 51 mosque and is turned on by the crowd who assume, because of his dress and colour, that he is a Muslim.

Members of the crowd are clearly heard to yell, "he musta voted for Obama," "Mohammed's a pig," and other anti-mosque slogans.

There are some who have argued that this is simply an August non-story and that, because it will probably not impact on the November elections, that this is unimportant.

Glenn Greenwald disagrees.

That's exactly why I've found this conflict so significant. If Park51 ends up moving or if opponents otherwise succeed in defeating it, it will seriously bolster and validate the ugly premises at the heart of this campaign: that Muslims generally are responsible for 9/11, Terrorism justifies and even compels our restricting the equals rights and access of Americans Muslims, and more broadly, the animosity and suspicions towards Muslims generally are justified, or at least deserving of respect. As Aziz Poonawalla put it: "if the project does fail, then I think that the message that will be sent is that bigotry and fear of Muslims is not just permitted, it is effective."

As we've seen before, objections to mosques being built in the US are not restricted to lower Manhattan. These objections are taking place all across the United States.

Members of one religious community are being discriminated against. And they are being blamed for the actions of terrorists with whom they merely share a faith. This is almost unprecedented. When the IRA were blowing up people and places across the United Kingdom, I never heard anyone speak of Catholic terrorists. Their religion was never an issue in the national debate.

In the US that is clearly not the case. Now, it is obviously unfair to highlight one crowd member shouting out, "Mohammed's a pig", and imply that this is indicative of the feelings of the crowd as a whole. However, from this mornings New York Times we can clearly see that someone has distributed posters with the word Sharia written in red. What the Hell is that about? Are they seriously worried that Sharia law might be imposed in the United States?

This is turning really ugly. One group of Americans are turning on another group of Americans and they are doing so based on their religion. They are demanding that one group of Americans should have fewer rights than other Americans when it comes to where they are allowed to build their places of worship.

Obviously, not all opponents of Park51 are as overtly hateful as those in that video -- and not all opponents are themselves bigots -- but the position they've adopted is inherently bigoted, as it seeks to impose guilt and blame on a large demographic group for the aberrational acts of a small number of individual members. And one thing is certain: if this campaign succeeds, it will proliferate and the sentiments driving it will become even more potent. Hatemongers always become emboldened when they triumph.

The animosity and hatred so visible here extends far beyond the location of mosques or even how we treat American Muslims. So many of our national abuses, crimes and other excesses of the last decade -- torture, invasions, bombings, illegal surveillance, assassinations, renditions, disappearances, etc. etc. -- are grounded in endless demonization of Muslims. A citizenry will submit to such policies only if they are vested with sufficient fear of an Enemy. There are, as always, a wide array of enemies capable of producing substantial fear (the Immigrants, the Gays, and, as that video reveals, the always-reliable racial minorities), but the leading Enemy over the last decade, in American political discourse, has been, and still is, the Muslim.

I am with Greenwald. This is not Autumn madness brought about by a slow news cycle. This has been going on for almost a decade. Where quite a large proportion of the US electorate - goaded on by the right wing media - have been quite willing to watch the erosion of one group of people's rights, as long as the erosion is happening to "them".

Click here for Greenwald's article.

Tags: Glenn Greenwald, Muslims, 9-11, Ground Zero mosque, Park 51 mosque

Fox host: Muslims should 'give up their rights' in order to be 'good neighbors'.

Dear God, does it get any worse than this? Peter Johnson on the Park 51 mosque:

"Any American can assert a right. Great Americans give up their rights to help those they share nothing else with but a love of this country," he concluded.

If only black Americans had realised that they could only truly show their love for their country when they stopped making the racists feel uncomfortable. And gay Americans should realise that they can never really love their nation until they stop making demands which make homophobes feel uneasy.

Greatness and true patriotism, according to Johnson, are defined by surrender.

It's quite clear that Johnson and the others know that they have lost the argument when they find themselves making appeals such as this.

Tags: CNN, Fox & Friends, Fox News, Fred Phelps, Ground Zero Mosque, Islamic Center, Park51 Islamic center, Peter Johnson

The Rev. Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim'.

The Rev. Franklin Graham has waded into whether or not Obama is a Muslim with an endorsement of his Christianity that could hardly be more lukewarm.

"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name," Graham told CNN's John King in a televised interview that aired Thursday night.

"Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed, and he has renounced Islam, and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said," Graham continued, adding that "the Islamic world sees the president as one of theirs."

"The seed of Islam" sounds almost like an infection. As if it something that, once born with, it is impossible to remove.

This is yet another attempt to paint Obama as "other". Someone not to be trusted. After all, even though he says he's a Christian, one must always remember that he was born with "the seed of Islam". And this is said despite the fact that Obama's father was a confirmed atheist at the time of his birth. But, according to Graham, "the seed" was there.

The rampant Islamophobia on display from the American right wing is little short of disgusting. They are so keen to portray Obama as a Muslim because they identify Islam, not al Qaeda, as the enemy.

It is this mindless stupidity which is underneath all of their complaints about the Park 51 mosque.

Colin Powell addressed this nonsense some months ago; even if Obama was a Muslim, so bloody what?



Are American Muslims not allowed to dream of the day when one of their own might rise to the presidency? Isn't that supposed to be the very essence of the American dream?

But the current Republican party, a place where sensible Republicans like Colin Powell no longer feel comfortable, no longer appears to embrace the notion that all Americans are equal.

Muslim Americans are treated with suspicion. The building of their mosques is objected to. It is implied that Obama is a Muslim, which tells us that this must be a bad thing to be, or why else would Graham and others tell us that he is one?

There really is nothing more un-American than the notion that all men are not created equal. And yet we constantly hear this refrain from the Republicans, this hint that American Muslims are not what Sarah Palin would call "real Americans".

They betray the American Dream every time they indulge in this nonsense. They should be ashamed of themselves.

UPDATE:



Stephen Prothero talks of "the disinformation campaign" being run by some on the right.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Rev Graham, Obama, Muslim

Howard Dean Joins The List of Cowards.

There really is no limit to the disappointment that one can feel when watching how quickly the Democrats will surrender their values when put under pressure by right wing loons on subjects as divisive as the lower Manhattan mosque.

The latest Democrat to throw in the towel is also one of the most surprising; Howard Dean.

Making this more repellent is that he doesn't even have the "I-want-to-get-re-elected" excuse. Today, former Reagan Solicitor General Ted Olson -- whose wife, Barbara Olson, was killed on 9/11 -- said he saw no reason for Park51 to move. And Peter Beinart, expediting his ongoing transformation from TNR Seriousness Guardian into shrill liberal blogger, today called on Democrats to -- as he put it -- "Grow a Pair" by standing up to this increasingly toxic campaign. Yet here comes Howard "I'm-from-the-Democratic-wing-of-the-Democratic Party" Dean, advocating that the vicinity of Ground Zero be turned into a Muslim-free zone because some people don't want Muslims near it. It's episodes like this which breed increasing levels of pervasive disgust and even indifference about electoral outcomes.

One of the reasons I suppose that the right wing loons get away with this shit is because certain Democrats act as if they actually have a point, rather than fight the bigoted rubbish which is being thrown at them.

For the Democrats who are backing away from the building of a mosque near Ground Zero are buying into a basic lie; that it is the location of the mosque that is offensive. The truth is that the building of mosques all over America are now becoming hotly disputed issues.

In the last few months, Muslim groups have encountered unexpectedly intense opposition to their plans for opening mosques in Lower Manhattan, in Brooklyn and most recently in an empty convent on Staten Island.

Some opponents have cited traffic and parking concerns. But the objections have focused overwhelmingly on more intangible and volatile issues: fear of terrorism, distrust of Islam and a linkage of the two in opponents’ minds.

“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

“No,” began Ayman Hammous, president of the Staten Island branch of the group, the Muslim American Society — though the rest of his answer was drowned out by catcalls and boos from among the 400 people who packed the gymnasium of a community center.

Politicians are supposed to lead, not be led by the mob. Obama and Mayor Bloomberg have both stood up against the hatred and made the vital point; the United States was founded on freedom of religions. That fundamental principle either exists or it doesn't. Just as one can't be a little bit pregnant, one can't have freedom of religions to practice wherever they choose.... and then exclude two blocks away from Ground Zero.

Especially as mosques are being opposed hundreds of miles away from Ground Zero.

On Friday, about a dozen protesters confronted worshipers at a mosque in Bridgeport, Conn., yelling at them with a bullhorn: "Murderers!" and "Jesus hates Muslims."

Even some Republicans are starting to worry that this obsession might backfire on them.

Some Republican strategists fear the debate is a distraction from the economic issues on which Obama and the Democrats are most vulnerable. It also risks reinforcing the perception of the Republican party as intolerant of minorities, which may further damage it in states with a high proportion of Hispanic voters and alienating adherents to other minority religions.

The Republicans are right to fear that this might backfire, but they are being given cover by the amount of cowardly Democrats unprepared to stand up for one of the principles on which their nation was formed.

If you can't stand up for the principles established by the founding fathers then I am honestly left wondering if there is anything these buggers will stand up for.

UPDATE:

Even right wing loons like Hot Air are expressing astonishment at Dean's stance.

Normally I wouldn’t bore you with three mosque posts in a row but this is such a thunderbolt coming from a true-blue lefty that it won’t wait. I can’t imagine that Dean-o really believes what he’s saying here; the mosque is too much of a cause celebre on the left at this point for him to deviate for reasons of conscience. Presumably he’s simply so terrified by the polling on this issue that he’s willing to do whatever damage control he can to mitigate losses in November.

Tags: Howard Dean, Ground Zero Mosque, Park 51, Democrats

Park 51 Developer Won't Budge.

Sharif El-Gamal, the developer behind the Park 51 Community Centre (also known as the Ground Zero Mosque in right wing circles) has refused to consider building anywhere else and had turned on politicians for making this into such a huge issue.

I am surprised at the way that politics is being played in 2010. There are issues that are affecting our country which are real issues. Unemployment, poverty, the economy. And it's a really sad day for America when our politicians choose to look at a Constitutional right and use that as a basis for their elections.

He is, of course, completely correct. The Republicans are cynically using this as wedge issue and a whole slew of Democratic cowards are falling into line behind them feigning false outrage.

The toxic right-wing campaign to impose a Muslim-free zone around Ground Zero intensified today, while Democrats -- following in the cowardly footsteps of Senate Majority "Leader" Harry Reid,whose book is one of the most ironically titled in history -- ran faster and faster away from the controversy. New York Governor David Paterson made it known that he wants to meet with Park 51's developers to encourage them to move to a new site. One Democratic official, Rep. Michael Arcuri of New York,actually attacked his GOP challenger, Richard Hanna, for having bravely broken with his own party to support the project; Arcuri's Gingrich-replicating attacks caused Hannah, one of the few Republicans in the nation to have defended Park 51, to reverse position by arguing today that it should move. And it is hard to imagine anyone surpassing Rep. Anthony Weiner in the cowardice department after theunbelievably vapid, incoherent letter he issued, ostensibly setting forth his views on this matter (stringing together words randomly chosen from the dictionary would likely create more meaningful sentences than the ones Weiner wrote).

I am especially disappointed in Weiner as he is a politician that I usually have a lot of time for. But, the letter he has sent simply couldn't be more vacuous.

Tags: Sharif El-Gamal, Park 51, Ground Zero Mosque

Muslim leaders to abandon plans for Ground Zero community center.

I have no idea whether or not this is true or merely rumours: (See update III below).

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero - the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York - it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.

Sources in New York said on Monday that Muslim religious and business leaders will announce plans to abandon the project in the next few days.

But several people familiar with the debate among New York's Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims.

They also hope the move will be seen as a show of sensitivity to families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and to the American public generally.

The notion that this will lessen the "wave of bitterness towards Muslims" by the American extreme right wing led by Palin, Limbaugh and Gingrich is laughable.

They see Muslims and Islam as the enemy and this victory will only encourage them to be just as spiteful and unprincipled in their next attack.

I find it so distressing that this right wing hate machine actually works. The people in question don't even believe in what they are saying, they are simply searching for wedge issues with which to batter the Democrats, shamelessly pretending that they are standing up for some high moral purpose whilst, in actuality, they are simply engaging in gutter politics.

Make no mistake, the Republicans will not be pleased that this mosque has decided to relocate, no matter what noises they make publicly. They had hoped to milk this for all that it was worth all the way until November. All that will happen now is that they will go in search of another wedge issue. That's simply what these people do.

UPDATE:

Harry Reid is showing the spinelessness for which the Democrats are famous:

Maybe it’s because he’s in a reelection fight with a far-right opponent. Or maybe it’s because Harry Reid doesn’t really support the Constitution. Breaking with President Obama, the Senate Majority Leader has, unfortunately, decided to come out with a statement urging that the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero be located elsewhere, according to his spokesperson Jim Manley.

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation.

Greg Sargent:

Despite Reid’s reaffirmation of this right, his response is still weak and indefensible. And it leaves the President hanging after he took a big risk to do the right thing. Obama did not explicitly endorse the decision to build the center. But Obama did say that if the group does proceed with that decision, we must respect that decision, in accordance with American values.

Reid is not willing to say that. Rather, he’s saying, in effect, that even if he supports the group’s right to build the center, he’s not willing to respect the decision to do so. That’s unacceptable, and leaves Obama isolated at a very sensitive moment.

What’s more, it’s unclear why coming out against the plan in the manner Reid did is even good politics for Democrats at this point. Reid basically threw the whole Dem caucus under the bus: With the Senate leader at odds with the president, the media will press every Senate Dem to declare which side they’re on.

Reid has rolled over in the face of the Republican hate machine, throwing everyone else under the bus. If the Democrats can't stand up to this nonsense when they are clearly in the right, when can they stand up to it?

UPDATE II:



The Republican party has veered so much to the right on this issue, and so against their own principles, that even people like Joe Scarborough can't bring himself to defend them.

"When I was in Congress in 1994, when I got elected in '94, I was considered to be one of the more conservative guys up there," Scarborough began.

"I am feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party," he said.

It really says something when Joe Scarborough has got it right and Harry Reid has it so utterly wrong.

UPDATE III:

Cardoba House are saying that this Ha'aretz story is false and that they will be issuing a statement shortly.

I am pleased that they are showing more backbone than some Democrats on this issue.

Click here for full article.

Tags: lower Manhattan mosque, Republicans, Palin, Gingrich, Limbaugh

Easton claims Obama has "nationalised" the mosque issue.

Easton claims that Obama talking about the lower Manhattan mosque has "nationalised the issue." I'm sorry, but haven't national Republican figures been talking about this for weeks now?

Tags: Easton, Obama, lower Manhattan mosque

NYT On The So-Called Ground Zero Mosque.

This New York Times piece on the protests regarding the Ground Zero mosque is simply remarkable.

Adam Serwer skilfully takes it apart:

The Times report, however, descends into a kind of "liberal" media known-nothingism when it comes to how this became a controversy, suggesting that " a combination of arguable naïveté, public-relations missteps and a national political climate in which perhaps no preparation could have headed off controversy." This is a remarkable formula that manages to place the blame everywhere except where it belongs -- on a right-wing smear machine that went into overdrive in an effort to portray Rauf and Khan as terrorist sympathizers, an experience no one outside of contemporary partisan politics could have possibly been prepared for. The conservative media lied about the location of the project, they lied about Rauf's background, they lied about the project's funding, they lied about when the project would be built, and they lied about Rauf's political beliefs. And it would have been one thing if it had just been a small group of people lying, but they had an entire cable news station to lie for them, and politicians who were willing to amplify their smears. This controversy isn't about the "political climate." It's the fruit of a conscious, deliberate, and sustained effort.

I'm sure that the intensity of emotion shared by some of the projects' opponents are sincere. But where they hold Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of a few extremists, they are mistaken, and where their feelings are the result of falsehoods spread by the conservative media, they are misguided, and where they believe the First Amendment does not extend to American Muslims, they are simply wrong.

Why do so called "liberal" newspapers embrace so much right wing bullshit and feel the need to lay out their case as if it has validity? Why was it the responsibility of the people proposing building the mosque - not to build bridges with Christian and Jewish groups, which they did - but to negotiate what they were proposing with "likely opponents"?

Does the New York Times seriously believe that one can ever find common ground with the Palin's and the other right wing loons noisily arguing that religious freedoms should not extend to the Islamic community?

Their position is an extremist one. The notion that the builders of the mosque should have consulted them is simply preposterous.

Although the Times do leave themselves a get out clause by stating "perhaps no preparation could have headed off controversy", nevertheless the article does indulge in what Serwer rightly sees as '"liberal" media known-nothingism", which seeks to avoid attaching the blame where it rightly belongs.

It's the exact same thing which their article on Abbas does.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Ground Zero Mosque, New York Times, 9-11

Parliament Square is Cleared.

Boris Johnson finally got his way, clearing the Democracy Village which sprung up outside the UK parliament on the grounds that it was "an eyesore".

They battled hard in the courts, but in the end the inhabitants of the Democracy Village put up little resistance when the bailiffs finally moved in.

Shortly after 1am yesterday, a squad of approximately 60 people, dressed in high-visibility jackets and helmets, moved on to Parliament Square to evict the motley coalition of anti-war protesters and rough sleepers who had taken over the patch of grass outside the Palace of Westminster since 1 May.

I can't think of a better place for people to protest than directly outside the Palace of Westminster, where our elected officials debate and decide policy, but Blair ruled that this was not to be allowed and Boris Johnson had gone to court to ensure that the area was cleared.

Johann Hari describes what he saw when he visited the site:

When I first saw them they were a mixture of students and activists and professors, voicing the conviction of 70 per cent of British people that the war is unwinnable and should end. One of them, Maria Gallasetgui, said: "We have a responsibility to stand up to what they're doing. It's immoral." She added: "We support the troops, that's why we want to bring them home. They" – she pointed to Parliament – "are the ones sending them to die."

They held up signs with pictures of maimed Afghan children, and waved them at the MPs as they walked to work. The MPs invariably looked down and away and they hurried through Parliament's iron gates.

[...]

So just a few metres from where the Prime Minister lives, people sat on an open green barbecuing food and sharing drinks and calling for that Prime Minister to be indicted for war crimes. They had daily meetings where they shared out the responsibilities, while every 15 minutes, Big Ben bonged.

In that first month, I saw a group of Chinese tourists staring at the camp in disbelief.

"This would never be allowed in China," one of them said to me. "Not anywhere. Never mind at the centre of power. This is what democracy really means."

I remember protesting in Parliament Square as MP's voted on whether or not to allow the Iraq war. It seemed the perfect, indeed, the only place to be.

Well, now the space is empty again, save for Brian Haw - who was protesting there before Blair outlawed the practice and is, therefore, exempt from that law - and I can't help but feel sad about that.

They should see it every day – the faces of the Afghan children we have caused the deaths of, and the faces of the mentally ill people we have left to rot on the streets. I can't think of a healthier sign in a democracy – that we don't allow our problems to be cleansed, China-style, from the sight of the powerful, but leave them there, in full view, demanding to be dealt with.

Yes, a few parts of it smelled. But waging war in Afghanistan, against the will of the people there and the people here, smells a lot worse. Yes, there were a few crazy people in the tents. But none was as crazy as the belief that we can win a land war in Afghanistan now, after nine years, with the population rapidly turning against us and pleading for a peace and reconciliation process. Freedom is not an "eyesore", as the London Mayor Boris Johnson claimed: citizens pressuring their government for justice are the most luscious sight in the world.

So now the people in Westminster can continue their work, free from the sight of those of us who, from time to time, disagree with what they are doing.

That's a victory for the government, but it's not a victory for democracy.

Colin Barrow, leader of Westminster city council, said he was "relieved this dreadful blight of Parliament Square has finally come to an end". He looked forward "to it being restored to its previous condition, so all Londoners can visit and enjoy it".

Yes, let's pretend that this is just like any other tourist area in London. Let's ignore the fact that decisions made in this place can result in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in other areas of the world.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Parliament Square, protest, UK politics

US Demand that Britain Extradite Asperger's Sufferer.

One of the worst deals Tony Blair ever came to while he was prime Minister was to make a one way extradition process with the US where British citizens, suspected of terrorism, had to be extradited if the US demanded it, without the US ever having to produce any evidence in a court of law. Of course, eventually it has become possible for the US to bring UK businessmen to the US that they wish to charge with crimes, so the treaty has widened from it's original "terrorist" targets.

The US has never ratified the deal on it's side of the pond so it remains a one way extradition process.

So, the fact that the court simply has to comply with any American request for extradition when it is claimed that terrorism is involved, had an awful lot to do with why the high court yesterday refused to reconsider the case of Gary McKinnon, a sufferer of Asperger's syndrome and a known UFO fanatic who had hacked into 97 US military and Nasa computers, causing more than $700,000 in damage according to the US, looking for evidence of UFO activity.

Even the high court has made clear that it has worries regarding how someone like McKinnon will cope with incarceration in the US system.

Lawyers for the 43-year-old, who have already announced they will appeal against the decision, said they were encouraged by a display of sympathy for McKinnon in the judgment, which acknowledged expert evidence of a "high risk of serious deterioration in his mental health and a risk of suicide".

"I have no doubt that he will find extradition to, and trial and sentence and detention in, the US very difficult indeed," said Lord Justice Stanley Burnton. "His mental health will suffer. There are risks of worse, including suicide."

The judge added: "But … the sentence that will be imposed by the US courts will take account of his diagnosis of Asperger's and the difficulties that he will in consequence face in a US prison."

It's senseless to me that this case should even be going ahead. Yes, he shouldn't have done what he did, but what is the point of extraditing a person with autism all the way to the United States to face charges?

Are they seeking to make an example of this man so that others don't emulate what he did?

And even the Tories are starting to look for ways to amend Blair's astonishingly one sided extradition treaty.

The case comes two weeks after the Conservatives proposed an amendment to extradition law which would have allowed courts to block extraditions in cases where a significant part of the offence was committed in the UK and where extradition was "not in the interests of justice".

"This would have made a huge difference to McKinnon's case," said a spokesman for the human rights group Liberty.

The decision is likely to build further support for McKinnon, who has been backed by civil rights groups and senior Liberal Democrats and Tories."I am deeply saddened with this decision", said the Tory leader, David Cameron. "Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to face trial."

"Today's judgment is a hammer blow to a vulnerable man," said Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne.

The case has also led to criticism of the Anglo-US extradition treaty, which critics say is tipped towards the US. New figures reveal Britain has extradited twice as many suspects to the US as have gone the other way. Critics say this indicates Britons have "second-class status" when it comes to being sent for trial in the US. "Today's court decision demonstrates the disgrace that is Britain's extradition arrangements that allow vulnerable people to be shipped off around the world when they should be tried here at home," said Isabella Sankey, Liberty policy director.

"There is no way the American government would hang out one of their citizens to dry in the same way," said Huhne. "

I find it fairly shameful that Blair ever came to such a deal with Bush that America can demand our citizens are extradited and that there is little our courts can do other can comply. But, when the people being extradited are autism sufferers, then that shame turns to rage. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes that this man is a terrorist? Does anyone believe he represents a danger? And, if not, then why the Hell are we going through with this charade? Repetitive behaviour is part of his disorder, so why are we acting as if he is responsible for his actions?

What is being done to this man is disgraceful. Everyone knows his condition, and to say that the US will take it into account when sentencing him is simply fanciful. The time to take his condition into consideration is now. Before we pack him up and send him half way across the world to face prosecution.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Gary McKinnon, Asperger's syndrome, hacking, extradition, United States, Blair, Bush, UFO's