Mosques Attacked Again, Stop The Hate
And once again, not here. In Pakistan:
At least 65 people were killed Friday afternoon in a suicide bombing at a mosque in northwestern Pakistan filled with worshipers, the latest major terrorist strike on houses of worship in the country.
Pakistani television reported that militants also carried out a grenade attack on a mosque in the Badhber area outside Peshawar. According to initial reports, three worshipers were killed and 15 were injured in that attack Friday evening.
World outrage to follow.
Mosque Attacked and Burned
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
On a related note, CNBC's Maria Bartiroma interviewed Saudi Prince Alwaleed last week, one of the richest muslims in the world.
He said he did not support building the mosque near grond qero and he would not help finance it.
Not only were there no charges of bigotry or islamophobia leveled against the muslim Prince for opposing the mosque, but the media basically ignored the fact that one of the highest profile and influential muslims in the world, at least to us westerners, doesn't support building the mosque in the proposed location.
Taliban trying to exact revenge and take back control?
I'm not sure why we should expect world outrage when it seems no cartoons were drawn and no korans were flushed. "Firsters," (As I call those who reflexively blame America and Israel first for all the world's ills), will once again conveniently ignore this. I had an impromptu debate at work with an otherwise highly intelligent woman recently. After saying we had much more to fear from conservative Christians in this country, she pulled out the abortion-clinic bombing eqivalency card. When I politely pointed out that there had been something like six or seven abortion doctors murdered over the past 35 years or so and that that total would mark a very slow day in the muslim terror world, she, unable to answer, sputtered something about "Fox News" and stormed off. At times like this, I'm almost glad I'm not a Jew, because talking to young, (again, often otherwise intelligent young people) I get a feeling of complete and very disturbing disbelief at their firmly held, yet completely ridiculous views on this subject.
Maggot: I wouldn't refer to Alwaleed as one of the "most influential muslims" in the world. He is very influential as a Saudi oil minister, not as a muslim. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of today's radical muslim religion and although the Saudi family is a sponsor of much of their domestic activity, it is reluctant support and the royal family fears for their lives. They have a snarling wolf by the ears and their arms are getting tired. They may one day relocate to America like the Shah and for the same reasons.
What drives these extremists and their hate?
If we only knew…………
Okay, what does having a mosque attacked overseas have to do with a mosque being attacked in America? You see, I thought Americans were supposed to be better than our overseas contemporaries, yet I read this and I see nothing more than rationalizing islamaphobic hatred. ("If the Muslims over there don't care, why should we?")
I thought Cornell had higher standards for their faculty. It seems I was wrong.
@SirCraig – nice try, via your SadlyNo masters. This post doesn't rationalize violence anywhere, but points out the hypocrisy of those who are silent in the face of violence abroad.
I'm afraid I don't understand the point of this article either. Who has been 'silent' in the face of this violence?
"This post doesn't rationalize violence anywhere, but points out the hypocrisy of those who are silent in the face of violence abroad."
The post doesn't do much of anything, and you know well enough that ambiguity can be exploited to various ends. Many posts of this kind have been made (esp. since 9-11) and you can assess how they've been used, how they are likely to be used. I won't offer such an assessment.
Our political discourse is best directed at matters that are rightly within our purview, i.e. domestic ones wherein some semblance of democracy and rule of law can be hoped for, or international ones where clear goals can be met. I can't see your point re: intra-Islamic violence, in part because you were purposefully ambiguous. Thanks for nothing.
"Okay, what does having a mosque attacked overseas have to do with a mosque being attacked in America?" –Absolutely nothing … if only because mosques aren't being attacked in America.
"Who has been 'silent' in the face of this violence?" –The same crowd that goes ballistic when Israel defends itself.
Wow, it's amazing that you looked through all the newsmedia from South Asia and from the entire Muslim world and didn't find any outrage!
…"Not only were there no charges of bigotry or islamophobia leveled against the muslim Prince…"
Dude. Do you even know what "bigot" means?
Bigotry means hating people who are different from you. So, no – it would be completely meaningless to accuse Al-Waleed of bigotry against Muslims BECAUSE HE IS MUSLIM. Calling him a bigot would be literal nonsense.
The reason we levy charges of bigotry against Christians who protest the mosque is because THEY ARE NOT MUSLIM – they are overtly trying to force out people who are different from them SIMPLY FOR BEING DIFFERENT.
That is to say, the community center in New York is NOT a threat to Christians – the only reason a Christian could protest it, then, is out of bigotry, an irrational hatred of people who are not Christian. Again, "bigotry" means hating people who are different from you. Christians and other non-Muslims can be bigots against Muslims – Muslims CANNOT be bigots against themselves. Words don't work that way.
Words have meanings, you know? You don't get to just…make up new words whenever you feel like it.
Seriously – this is America – we speak English here.
"The same crowd that goes ballistic when Israel defends itself."
So you're claiming that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Turkey had nothing to say about this? Would you like to bet on that?
Thanks for writing 7 paragraphs to help me better understand the meaning of the word bigotry.
Would you please write another 7 paragraphs and help me understand how a practicing muslim can't be fearful of Islam (i.e., Islamophobic)?
As an expert in English, I'm sure you see what I did there, right? I mocked you.
Just as I was mocking those who insist that opposition to the mosque is driven by Islamophobic bigotry by showing that a prominent practicing muslim also opposes the mosque.
You know, it's a funny thing. Since incidents of violence are endemic to Pakistan, you were pretty safe saying that there wouldn't be much world outcry.
But since you're a big fan of irony, let me help you out.
Yesterday, at 3:30, there was a rally at Ground Zero against Islam. Why is this ironic? Because the "Rabbi Kahane" mentioned in that link, who the rally is in memorium for, was the founder of the villainous Kach Israeli political party, a group on the U.S. State Department's official list of terrorist organizations.
A little background on Mr. Kahane: he advocated the removal of Arabs from Palestine to create a homogeneous "Greater Israel" modeled upon the Torah. His slogan was "every Jew a .22."
You can also look up his followers, like Baruch Goldstein, author of the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, where he brutally gunned down dozens of Palestinian Muslims were praying inside the Abraham Mosque.
British activists in the Kahane-inspired Jewish Defense League have cozied up, ironically enough, with the thuggish English Defense League despite their attachment to the violent neo-nazi outfit Combat 18.
(And then there's JDL organizer Carl Mintz, who shoots Arabs and claims "road rage." Cute, huh?)
So, to recap, supporters of an officially designated terrorist organization that advocates an unforgiving expansionist religious-political ideology are meeting to honor their racist terrorist leader on the site of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.
And again, no world outcry. But it's OK, because they aren't Muslim, right?
See? That's irony.
Yeah, 'cause all I see are heads of state nodding approvingly of the carnage. Seriously, the world is mostly apathetic when one segment of a country's populace murders another segment in the same country. The point you're making seems petulant and without merit to me. If you are seriously contending that the failure of the world to voice sufficient outrage to one atrocity justifies an allowance for another such act then go right ahead. I would love to hear that reasoning.
One reason not to yell 'Islamophobia!' at Muslims who blow up mosques is that it's gone beyond the yelling stage at that point. At the point of actual violence, past or really imminent, one coolly and rationally does what one can to stop the actors involved, killing them if necessary, tracking them down, capturing them, killing them if they can't be captured, in order to stop them, and, if possible, get information from them by lawful techniques that actually work (as opposed to ones that make you feel all butch).
When Christians, "Christians", and Jews worthy of cherem yell against a mosque's creation, it is entirely expectable for others to yell back (even though I think it were better to just cooly and rationally wait the Mobile Party out, going to court where necessary).
And if the minister of a régime based on tyranny and religious persecution speaks in a way consonant with its nature, one…yawns.
Sorry about the misspelling: it should be "coolly" in both instances.