Mosque at ground zero?

[rob]

Also, I was 2 in 1980, and not even until December at that.

Edited August 31, 2010 by rob

[Nitrox]

If they were going to continue the band, they should have gotten a singer with his own personality. Epic fail.

 

They're no better than the old, washed-up bands that play casinos these days. Hey, I know! Maybe Fleetwood Mac can open for them? They can sell memorial t-shirts by the door for $60, next to $6 bottles of water.

 

Sell outs.

 

 

so you going to the show?

 

Of course he'll be there, Rob wouldn't miss it for the world, he'll be the one wearing the $60 shirt, drinking $6 and bitching about how things were different way back when in 1980 he graduated from HS and rock had achieved perfection:-) LOL!

 

Alice in Chains in 1980? Dude, you are an out-of-touch old fart!

 

He's as out of touch as Rob considering that Layne didn't write much, if any, of their music.

 

Its kind of like AC/DC, most people can't tell where Bon Scott stopped and Brian Johnson started.

 

 

[kevbone]

So if they build a mosque do you think AiC will play for the grand opening?

[Nitrox]

No but I heard Cat Steven's will.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

He's as out of touch as Rob considering that Layne didn't write much, if any, of their music.

 

Its kind of like AC/DC, most people can't tell where Bon Scott stopped and Brian Johnson started.

 

 

Whether or not Layne wrote the music, he is the voice of AinC.

 

It is pretty clear when Bon Scott stopped. He and Brian Johnson have very different styles, and AC/DC turned much more into straight up hard rock (from a more bluesy background)

 

[billcoe]

Also, I was 2 in 1980, and not even until December at that.

 

My lord, I think I might have already been old in 1980!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JosephH]

So if they build a mosque do you think AiC will play for the grand opening?

Talent-wise, from a lyrics perspective, I'd say it's pretty much a toss up so maybe not entirely inappropriate.

 

I will cast him into hell.

And what will make you

realize what hell is?

Surely it is one

of the gravest misfortunes,

What has brought you into hell?

I excuse myself,

I'm used to my little cell

I amuse myself,

In my very own private hell

Lately I'm beside myself

Pretending, unconcerned

Standing on a corner

Where I threw you on a turn

[pink]

does that mean AiC is tax exempt?

[JosephH]

Don't know, but at least they haven't flown a plane into anything like so many musicians and other terrorists.

[JayB]

Thanks for reposting the hate-screed. Should replay well with your people in Murfreesboro.

 

Well, first what I'd argue for is a more nuanced approach recognizing different practices within Islam. While I'm sure you agree, you seem to want to play both sides: pushing for modernization and moderation while making sweeping generalizations and condemning the religion and its followers as a whole. Secondly, I'd argue for an historical approach that understands contemporary Islam and especially its militant political variant in context in order to formulate policies that can help undercut extremism and the process of radicalization. As your boy points out above, the Old Testament is far more bloodthirsty a text than the Koran, yet we see far less extremism and acting on the basis of those texts amongst Christians and Jews. Why? Treating Islam as a monolithic, abstracted, timeless construct is as an analytical dead end as trying to understand kamakazi attacks as the inevitable outgrowth of Shinto. But of course for folks with as many cold-war skeletons (not to mention more recent policy catastrophes) in the closet as your friends have, I can understand your reluctance to go there.

 

1. The 1.05 billion or so Muslim moderates haven't had much luck using their nuanced understanding of the infinite number of platonic gradations between sufism and salfism to check their most ideologically committed, violent co-religionists. What, in your estimation, are the odds that a squishy renunciation, abnegation, or condemnation of Western values and the heritage of the enlightenment will inspire them to ease up on the jihad against the infidels? In mine - the number is indistinguishable from zero, and is only likely to supplant their hatred of the west with contempt. I'd rather deal with the former than the latter.

 

2. What historical evidence do you have to support your claim that violent conquest in the service of religious domination is a novel feature of 20th century Islam that had it's sole genesis in colonial domination? The history of Islam from ~AD 650 onwards has been one of violent conquest. Conquer, then kill, convert, or subjugate. These acts have inspired and justified by the central tenets of the faith from the get-go. In your account of history, was Charles Martel confronted by folks who traveled to France with no violent intentions as part of a "peaceful inner struggle?"

[JosephH]

The history of Islam from ~AD 650 onwards has been one of violent conquest. Conquer, then kill, convert, or subjugate.

And that of christianity has somehow been significantly different? Really? In what way?

[JayB]

The history of Islam from ~AD 650 onwards has been one of violent conquest. Conquer, then kill, convert, or subjugate.

And that of christianity has somehow been significantly different? Really? In what way?

 

It wasn't associated with military conquest from the moment of its inception, nor did it have the backing of a significant geopolitical player until three centuries after its founding (Constantine), for starters.

 

 

""Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad—armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 AD."

 

Khalid Yahya Blankinship "The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham ibn `Abd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads" State University of New York Press, 1994.

[prole]

Thanks for reposting the hate-screed. Should replay well with your people in Murfreesboro.

 

Well, first what I'd argue for is a more nuanced approach recognizing different practices within Islam. While I'm sure you agree, you seem to want to play both sides: pushing for modernization and moderation while making sweeping generalizations and condemning the religion and its followers as a whole. Secondly, I'd argue for an historical approach that understands contemporary Islam and especially its militant political variant in context in order to formulate policies that can help undercut extremism and the process of radicalization. As your boy points out above, the Old Testament is far more bloodthirsty a text than the Koran, yet we see far less extremism and acting on the basis of those texts amongst Christians and Jews. Why? Treating Islam as a monolithic, abstracted, timeless construct is as an analytical dead end as trying to understand kamakazi attacks as the inevitable outgrowth of Shinto. But of course for folks with as many cold-war skeletons (not to mention more recent policy catastrophes) in the closet as your friends have, I can understand your reluctance to go there.

 

1. The 1.05 billion or so Muslim moderates haven't had much luck using their nuanced understanding of the infinite number of platonic gradations between sufism and salfism to check their most ideologically committed, violent co-religionists. What, in your estimation, are the odds that a squishy renunciation, abnegation, or condemnation of Western values and the heritage of the enlightenment will inspire them to ease up on the jihad against the infidels? In mine - the number is indistinguishable from zero, and is only likely to supplant their hatred of the west with contempt. I'd rather deal with the former than the latter.

 

2. What historical evidence do you have to support your claim that violent conquest in the service of religious domination is a novel feature of 20th century Islam that had it's sole genesis in colonial domination? The history of Islam from ~AD 650 onwards has been one of violent conquest. Conquer, then kill, convert, or subjugate. These acts have inspired and justified by the central tenets of the faith from the get-go. In your account of history, was Charles Martel confronted by folks who traveled to France with no violent intentions as part of a "peaceful inner struggle?"

 

So now your problem is with the "most ideologically committed, violent co-religionists". Certainly a step in the right direction though you backslide almost immediately with the "conquer, kill, subjugate" rhetoric. You seem confused. Which is it? Still unanswered is the question why some strains of militant political Islam are so particularly potent now. In spite of your insistence that violent conquest is central to Islam, it certainly wasn't causing any discernable rumpus on the world stage for hundreds of years. You know, while the colonial powers were actually doing exactly what you claim to find so abhorrent. Why are people finding fundamentalisms of all kinds (ethnicity, nationalism, religious) so attractive right now and seemingly leaving liberalism and "western" values in droves? Can your Mr. Mackey of a theory answer that or not?

[JayB]

Thanks for reposting the hate-screed. Should replay well with your people in Murfreesboro.

 

Well, first what I'd argue for is a more nuanced approach recognizing different practices within Islam. While I'm sure you agree, you seem to want to play both sides: pushing for modernization and moderation while making sweeping generalizations and condemning the religion and its followers as a whole. Secondly, I'd argue for an historical approach that understands contemporary Islam and especially its militant political variant in context in order to formulate policies that can help undercut extremism and the process of radicalization. As your boy points out above, the Old Testament is far more bloodthirsty a text than the Koran, yet we see far less extremism and acting on the basis of those texts amongst Christians and Jews. Why? Treating Islam as a monolithic, abstracted, timeless construct is as an analytical dead end as trying to understand kamakazi attacks as the inevitable outgrowth of Shinto. But of course for folks with as many cold-war skeletons (not to mention more recent policy catastrophes) in the closet as your friends have, I can understand your reluctance to go there.

 

1. The 1.05 billion or so Muslim moderates haven't had much luck using their nuanced understanding of the infinite number of platonic gradations between sufism and salfism to check their most ideologically committed, violent co-religionists. What, in your estimation, are the odds that a squishy renunciation, abnegation, or condemnation of Western values and the heritage of the enlightenment will inspire them to ease up on the jihad against the infidels? In mine - the number is indistinguishable from zero, and is only likely to supplant their hatred of the west with contempt. I'd rather deal with the former than the latter.

 

2. What historical evidence do you have to support your claim that violent conquest in the service of religious domination is a novel feature of 20th century Islam that had it's sole genesis in colonial domination? The history of Islam from ~AD 650 onwards has been one of violent conquest. Conquer, then kill, convert, or subjugate. These acts have inspired and justified by the central tenets of the faith from the get-go. In your account of history, was Charles Martel confronted by folks who traveled to France with no violent intentions as part of a "peaceful inner struggle?"

 

So now your problem is with the "most ideologically committed, violent co-religionists". Certainly a step in the right direction though you backslide almost immediately with the "conquer, kill, subjugate" rhetoric. You seem confused. Which is it? Still unanswered is the question why some strains of militant political Islam are so particularly potent now. In spite of your insistence that violent conquest is central to Islam, it certainly wasn't causing any discernable rumpus on the world stage for hundreds of years. You know, while the colonial powers were actually doing exactly what you claim to find so abhorrent. Why are people finding fundamentalisms of all kinds (ethnicity, nationalism, religious) so attractive right now and seemingly leaving liberalism and "western" values in droves? Can your Mr. Mackey of a theory answer that or not?

 

It ceased to cause a rumpus on the world stage only when a thousand year long process of incremental defeats and relative technological and economic decline - from the Battle of Tours to the Treaty of Luasanne - left it ever more incapable of doing so.

 

 

"Islam has been liberal when weak, and violent when strong. Let us not give it credit for what it was merely unable to suppress."

 

Ernest Renan, 1883.

 

My guess is that ever since the West has no longer had the will nor the capability to forcibly repress Islamists, they've simply returned to form - and the norms that have persisted in their faith since its founding - when and where the opportunity presented itself.

 

 

[ivan]

anyone care to rank the world religions from most to least dipshit?

[olyclimber]

So what you're saying is, that if we let them build this terror camp on ground zero, we're letting the terrorists win?

[olyclimber]

anyone care to rank the world religions from most to least dipshit?

 

can't we heap them all together? anything that isn't atheism, we can declare a holy war on.

[JosephH]

I would say if you are comparing apples and oranges there. A more accurate comparison based on the development of societies and military capabilities / proclivities at an 'inception' point would be to compare the early Umayyads with Constantine I.

[tvashtarkatena]

Comparative Religion according to Professor Tvash:

 

Mormonism is pretty out there, but they do produce some wholesome looking young blondes that you just can't help but violate.

 

Catholics: The One True Blow Job...even without the priesthood.

 

I can personally attest that the Christian Reform Church, whatever that is, has produced some of the most sexually athletic, if guilt ridden, women on the planet.

 

Baptists...very loud climaxers. TAKE ME TO THE RIVAH!

 

Pentacostals all seem to be over 60 and foreign.

 

Big Box: vortices of suburban hawtness. Get those capris off, bitch, and let's baptize the back of this motherfucking Tahoe! Also fertile ground for the closeted gay.

 

Universalist Unitarian Unitardians or whatever: There doesn't seem to be any sex whatsoever happening here, but the cookies are awesome. Gay friendly, although given what isn't happening, it's pretty much moot.

 

Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and other -erians and -elians: Does that shit even exist anymore?

 

Scientology: I think everyone in the church is required to do Tom Cruise. Unimaginable, really.

 

Islam: Some really hot women under there somewhere. Really hot. They must hate living on that motherfucking equator.

 

Shinto: One word: Benwa.

 

Buddhist: Never really met one, although a whole lot of folks seem to think they belong in this category.

 

Hindu: Something tells me these people really know how to fuck. Something like, say, 1.3 billion people.

 

Sikh: They don't seem to have women.

 

Atheists: High maintenance. Way too smart.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ivan]

ba'hai? zorastarians? rastafarians?

[j_b]

Despite the lofty rhetoric, killing 100,000's of innocents during a war of convenience is no more "advanced" (less barbaric) than stoning adulterers. Spare us the drivel.

[ivan]

"i am not innocent. you are not innocent. no one is innocent"

[JosephH]

It wasn't a "war of convenience", it was a war to restore honor to the U.S. status as a superpower and recoup that ole' Reagan feeling - both desperately essential to white male manhood of the chickenhawk persuasion.

[summitchaserCJB]

"i am not innocent. you are not innocent. no one is innocent"

I saw an art exhibit in Vienna by that name- all about punk rock.

 

 

[prole]

"Islam has been liberal when weak, and violent when strong. Let us not give it credit for what it was merely unable to suppress."

 

Ernest Renan, 1883.

 

My guess is that ever since the West has no longer had the will nor the capability to forcibly repress Islamists, they've simply returned to form - and the norms that have persisted in their faith since its founding - when and where the opportunity presented itself.

 

Hmmm, now where have I heard this sort of thing before? It's telling that you find quotations from the 19th century so appropriate here as the kind of essentializing meme on display is fundamental to the white man's burden narrative. The objects are virtually interchangeable (Islamists, Jews, Vietnamese, Negroes, Natives) as are the terms used to describe them (lazy, stingy, violent, etc.) Whether the "true nature" stems from blood or creed, the pathology always lurks just beneath the surface. So, not suprisingly, it's all about "the will and capability to forcibly suppress" the recalcitrant savage. Bravo Jay, once again you've shown the more you open your mouth the more disgustingly clear your worldview becomes. Good luck with your invasion/forcible deprogramming/Koran-burning campaign (the only prescription that could come from such a rotten foundation), lord knows humanity's track record proves we'll need it.