About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-wing media smear Park51 as potential haven for terrorists

August 20, 2010 1:35 pm ET — 49 Comments

In their relentless attacks against the planned Park51 Islamic community center in Manhattan, right-wing media have smeared the center as a potential haven or recruitment center for terrorists and extremists.

Right-wing media smear Islamic center as potential haven or recruitment center for terrorists

Morris: Park 51 will be used to "train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become terrorists." On the August 19 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dick Morris cited a study that he claimed said "80 percent of the mosques...teach Sharia law as the main event at their mosques." Morris later claimed that Park 51 will be used to "study and promote and train and recruit Sharia law advocates, which, who become terrorists."

Morris: Park51 would be a "command center for terrorism." On the August 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion of Park51, Morris claimed "these Sharia mosques ... have become the command centers for terrorists," adding, "so this one would be, too."

Bolling: Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds." On the August 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Eric Bolling claimed that Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds."

Kilmeade: "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." During the discussion with Bolling on the August 19 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said of Park51, "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." A terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany, whose members would later become the 9-11 hijackers, is believed to be the origin of the 9-11 plot.

Limbaugh suggests Park51 would be a "recruiting tool for domestic extremists." On the August 3 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that if the Guantanamo Bay detention center "is a recruiting tool for foreign extremists, what about a World Trade Center mosque being a recruiting tool for domestic extremists?"

Nugent: "The mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." In an August 19 Washington Times op-ed attacking Park51, Ted Nugent wrote that "[t]he mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." Nugent repeatedly referred to Islam as a "voodoo religion" and concluded, "If additional American blood is spilled in the Big Apple, the politicians who supported this mosque will be as guilty as the Muslim voodoo kooks who love death and destruction in the name of Allah."

Cal Thomas repeatedly suggests Park51 would be a terrorist front. In an August 3 column, conservative commentator Cal Thomas wrote: "Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as 'tolerance,' which is being used against us?" In a July 21 post on The Washington Post's On Faith blog, Thomas wrote:

A mosque near Ground Zero is not about tolerance, but triumphalism. It isn't about honoring the dead, but celebrating their deaths.

[...]

Don't we know why our enemies desire a beachhead in America? They wish to launch new terror attacks and forcibly convert Americans to their way of thinking and believing. What will we gain by allowing this to happen?

Park51 organizer has repeatedly condemned terrorism and "Muslim militants"

Rauf: "We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." A May 21 New York Daily News article quoted Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, who is leading the Park51 initiative, as stating: "We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." He also stated: "We want to rebuild this community. ... This is about moderate Muslims who intend to be and want to be part of the solution."

Slate: Rauf has "denounced church burnings in Muslim countries ... proposed to reclaim Islam from violent radicals." An August 2 Slate.com article reported that Rauf "has denounced church burnings in Muslim countries, rejected Islamic triumphalism over Christians and Jews, and proposed to reclaim Islam from violent radicals such as Osama Bin Laden."

NYT: Rauf "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion." A June 23, 2004, New York Times article reported that Rauf "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion." The Times further reported that Rauf "meets regularly with Christian and Jewish leaders, not only to forge a common front but also to explain his belief that Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe -- that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating."

After 9-11, Rauf "categorically condemned suicide bombers." A June 8, 2004, Newsday article (accessed via Nexis) reported: "Rauf has done little else since the terrorist attacks that pulled him from his mahogany pulpit in the shadow of Ground Zero. At the outset, he categorically condemned suicide bombers and, in fact, any violence committed in the name of religion." From the Newsday article:

"One frequently hears the refrain: 'Where are the moderate Muslim leaders? Why aren't they speaking out more loudly about world issues?'" said John Bennett, former president of the Aspen Institute, an international relations think tank, where he first met Rauf, and now a cofounder of the Cordoba Initiative. "And here is a man who has the courage to do so and who is speaking out with great eloquence and feeling."

Rauf has done little else since the terrorist attacks that pulled him from his mahogany pulpit in the shadow of Ground Zero. At the outset, he categorically condemned suicide bombers and, in fact, any violence committed in the name of religion. He also said that American policies "were an accessory to the crime that happened" since they had armed a generation of jihadists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

"Explaining is not justifying," he said. "I want people to understand the things that have fueled terrorism, because if we address them, that's how we eliminate terror."

Rauf: "I can confidently assert that I am closer to my Jewish and Christian brothers here ... than the Muslim militants carrying a narrow view." According to a September 8, 2002, Denver Post article (accessed via Nexis), Rauf told congregants at his Manhattan mosque: "I can confidently assert that I am closer to my Jewish and Christian brothers here a [sic] than the Muslim militants carrying a narrow view."

Daily News: Rauf "has a long history of opposing radical teachings." A May 21 New York Daily News editorial stated that Rauf "has a long history of opposing radical teachings and reaching out across religious lines to Christians and Jews. He leads a mosque in Tribeca, several of whose members were killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center."

Rauf widely described as "moderate"

Time: Rauf a "moderate" who "openly condemn[s] the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents." An August 3 Time article reported: "Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, are actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents."

Abraham Foxman: Rauf "a moderate imam" who "certainly has spoken out against some of the extremism in the Islamic world." On the August 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, which opposes the planned Islamic center, stated that Rauf "wrote a book about moderation and tolerance" and that "as far as we're concerned, he is what he is: a moderate imam. He certainly has spoken out against some of the extremism in the Islamic world."

Jeffery Goldberg: Rauf is "a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country." In an August 3 post, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg wrote: "I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country."

Colleagues have reportedly described Rauf "as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding." A December 8, 2009, New York Times article stated: "Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding." The Times quoted Rabbi Arthur Schneier, leader of New York City's Park East Synagogue, as saying, ''He subscribes to my credo: 'Live and let live.' '' The Times also reported that Joan Brown Campbell, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ U.S.A., is "a supporter" of Rauf.

Rauf worked with FBI agents to present a "view of Islam that avoids stereotypes." The Daily News reported on March 11, 2003, (accessed via Nexis) that Rauf spoke to FBI agents "as part of an FBI effort to present agents who are the ground troops in the war against terrorism with a view of Islam that avoids stereotypes." From the Daily News article:

In an office in lower Manhattan yesterday blocks from Ground Zero, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf talked about his Muslim beliefs to an unusual audience -- a roomful of FBI agents.

"Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he explained to the agents. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

Rauf -- imam of the Masjid al-Farah mosque of Tribeca -- was speaking as part of an FBI effort to present agents who are the ground troops in the war against terrorism with a view of Islam that avoids stereotypes.

[...]

Rauf made clear Islam's image has been distorted by radical fundamentalists who insist on strict adherence to their interpretation of the Koran and impose a fascistic order on certain countries.

"It can happen under any religion," he noted.

He insisted Islam has a historic kinship with both Judaism and Christianity, a relationship of which not only Americans but many Muslims are unaware.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DellDolly (August 20, 2010 1:50 pm ET)
      11 3
      As I've repeatedly pointed out, the ONLY potential justification for opposing this site IS to say that the peaceful Sufi Islamic sect is connected to the extremists who planned and executed 9/11.

      That would be the only legitimate way to be upset by the Islamic Community Center that the group is planning on building - if they were somehow either culpable in the attack or implicated in potential future attacks due to their connection with radical Islamics.

      But they aren't connected to those extremists or their attacks or their terrorist philosophies. Just like Japanese-Americans and German-Americans and Italian-Americans weren't connected to those who attacked us on December 7th and during WW II. Just like not all rightwingers are culpable or suspect due to the attacks on the USA by one rightwinger in Oklahoma City!

      But they're desperate. They realize that without that linkage, the disapproval of this structure and the antagonism towards the leaders of this group is pure bigotry!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (August 20, 2010 2:44 pm ET)
        4 15
        "As I've repeatedly pointed out..."

        And it's "repeatedly" because nobody listens or pays attention to you. Obviously nobody, the posters here, MMfA, the right wing media. No use repeating yourself Sue, it just never sticks.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (August 20, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
          3 6
          Yes, many people read what I write and then use it in later comments themselves, first off.

          Secondly, I've been saying that same thing repeatedly because it's repeatedly been appropriate to do so, not because no one's been paying it any heed!

          Third, it makes especially good sense and is extremely relevant on THIS particular article by MMFA! MMFA points out that the rightwing media has been doing something offensive, and I point out WHY they are doing it.

          But thanks for falling back into your old pattern of making a baseless personal attack when you can't refute a thing I said.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (August 20, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
            7 7
            I had no intention of refuting what you said, because I agreed with you, every word.

            I just wanted to save you some posting time by repeating yourself so often around here. Obviously nobody cares.

            Just tryin' to help you old girl...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (August 20, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
              5 7
              So, you couldn't refute a thing I wrote, like I said, yet you couldn't restrain yourself from making a baseless personal attack.

              Thanks for admitting that.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by SLRTX (August 21, 2010 12:44 am ET)
              9  
              right - Taking things a bit personal, aren't we? You must have something out for Dolly. So Dolly posts something. Big deal. If you don't like it, so be it. But you must have your say. Your are a sad little troll.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (August 20, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
            7 8
            "MMFA points out that the rightwing media has been doing something offensive, and I point out WHY they are doing it"

            LOL! Oh, so basically they just hand the ball off to you?

            How did MMfA get along before you arrived as DellDolly. Oh that's right, Sue was there when MMfA broke the champagne bottle over the computer monitor.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (August 20, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
              4 9
              It's clear I DO provide a service to the readers. And MMFA has taken my suggestions to cover stories or different aspects of a topic many times in the past year, and so I don't apologize at all for pointing out that I did that here.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by westla (August 20, 2010 5:01 pm ET)
                7 7
                Can you really, I mean really, not tell that you are being made fun of, or to use a more familiar term to you - mocked?

                You really don't know that?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (August 20, 2010 5:16 pm ET)
                  9 3
                  She doesn't. She doesn't seem to understand that this is simply an internet comments section and that she is really not as important as she would like folks to believe.

                  She has decided that anyone who disagrees with her is a troll, that it is her duty to monitor all troll activity, and that it is her duty to admonish anyone who posts to someone that she has deemed a troll to cease and desist immediately, so that she can refute, mock and dismiss. When one disagrees with her it is because of "personal animus" for some perceived one-upping.

                  It's really very sad, if you think about it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by westla (August 20, 2010 5:31 pm ET)
                    6 4
                    It is sad. And her endless admonishments about veering off topic and personal attacks. On the other thread, she absolutely, without any provocation whatsoever, inserted a thread declaring Rational Conservative and Right ON to be the same poster and insulted both of them. No reason. No constructive addition to the thread. Only to attack. Only to derail.

                    She deserves any mocking or attacking she gets, 10 times over. Pathetic.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (August 20, 2010 6:01 pm ET)
                      6 8
                      Exactly. Look, I couldn't care less if she insults me in her sleep. But she polluted a very civil discussion between RC and myself. No name calling, no insults, just a very strong disagreement where we both tried to make our points.

                      She couldn't stand it, so she turned that "fair and reasonable" debate, something she says she applauds (lol), and muddied it up with her stupid nonsense accusations and childish name calling attacks. She is more of a phony posting as DellDolly than all of her other past screen names combined.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Disputed Zone (August 20, 2010 7:26 pm ET)
                        6 1
                        Where's your evidence? DD says those past screen names were not hers.

                        Get the guy who figured out that Anonymous was Joe Klein to analyze the posts and we'll talk.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by jediknight65 (August 20, 2010 7:35 pm ET)
                      5  
                      are you saying you are not guilty of the same sin? care to cast the first stone?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by coldteablues19577325 (August 20, 2010 7:27 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Whoaaaa, did I miss something here?

                    This is what happens when trolls (not calling you one bintx) are allowed to come aboard and hijack original topics/threads. If they can come in and cause mayhem then they've done what they've been paid to do, or been instructed to do.

                    Shame we can't learn to simply ignore trollish behavior.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (August 20, 2010 7:52 pm ET)
                    2 7
                    Thanks for lying about what I do and what I think, bintx - I just LOVE it when people like you can't figure out that failing to disguise your personal animus is a GOOD THING and exposing it is a BAD THING.

                    AND, DOOFUS, anyone can mock, refute and warn. I have NEVER said it has to be me, but you're apparently too ignorant to figure this out, even though it's been explained to you countless times. Were you born without the gene that tells MOST PEOPLE that it's a bad idea to show off your ignorance?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by angels4light (August 21, 2010 1:48 am ET)
                      5 3
                      DD, if you were appointed BY MMfA to go after what you think are trolls, then you have a leg to stand on. What I have seen you doing recently is looking for instances of RightON posting, then derailing the thread from there. Were his comments attacking you directly necessary? No, they were not. But you kept it going, and that is on you. And he kept it going, so that is on him. Both of you are exhibiting childish behavior, you seem to think that it is OK to "get back at" someone, and that is wrong.

                      I have seen it written, but cannot remember the attribution, that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" results in a blind toothless nation. I have also seen it juxtaposed with the other quote, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King".

                      Lets stop with the back and forth attacks that derail threads, both of you but actually especially you, DD, since when I started coming to this site you were a voice of reason and fact, where at the time RO was essentially the opposite.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (August 21, 2010 10:02 am ET)
                        4  
                        I may not agree with DD all the time but she in no way derailed this thread. She posted then was attacked by RO. Just look at the progression from the top of the thread.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (August 22, 2010 2:51 am ET)
                        1 2
                        You're lying or delusional then.

                        I don't EVER look for his postings. I look for dishonest postings and reply to him.

                        And HERE, dummy, it was HE who looked for MY post.

                        He says that he actually agreed with what I wrote too! Did you NOT see that? Yet he replied in a snarky way.

                        And yeah, it's okay to refute a personal attack. If you think that it's necessary to ignore a personal attack, then you're wrong.

                        You couldn't be more off-base than you were with this post! I don't have to have been "appointed" by MMFA or anyone in order to recognize the damage that trolls and troll posts do to a site and to the discussion on a site, just as I fully recognize the damage that the rightwing's nonsense does to our national discourse. Just because YOU don't understand how toxic it is, and YOU don't understand the role that EVERY poster should take in dealing with trolls and troll posts, that doesn't mean that I should be lazy, disinterested and/or ignorant too!

                        I swear, get a clue!
                        Report Abuse
        • Author by coldteablues19577325 (August 20, 2010 7:23 pm ET)
          7  
          "And it's "repeatedly" because nobody listens or pays attention to you. Obviously nobody, the posters here, MMfA, the right wing media. No use repeating yourself Sue, it just never sticks." --right ON

          Right On, please, PLEASE, stop speaking for me! I have never given you the authority to do so. Sure, there are times I do not agree with DD, and we have exchanged opinions (respectfully I feel) at times. But, with you, you're consistently sniping at her and hijacking the topic. Please stop.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (August 20, 2010 7:28 pm ET)
          3  
          no need to be a jerk
          Report Abuse
      • Author by bludog1 (August 21, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
          4
        Sometimes, and this idea may be alien to you, deferring to the sensitivities of those directly involved in and affected an event, especially by tragedy, is a noble thing to do. No one questions the legal right to build. The questions and criticisms have to do with the deaf ear syndrome. And yes, as I noted below, Pope JP II set an extraordinary example, precedent in his action with respect to the convent, if news reports are to be believed.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (August 21, 2010 5:27 pm ET)
          1  
          comment directed to delldolly
          Report Abuse
        • Author by soze169880 (August 21, 2010 11:49 pm ET)
          1 1
          No one questions the legal right to build.

          Actually, lots of people do. Pay attention.
          deferring to the sensitivities of those directly involved in and affected an event, especially by tragedy, is a noble thing to do.

          Unless we're talking about, say, a black person whose experiences have made them suspicious of the white power structure. Then they're a vile racist and moreover, just like Hitler. And by all means, tell me why you don't have a problem with the strip club that's the same distance from Ground Zero as Park51.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (August 22, 2010 2:59 am ET)
          2  
          Nope, we have NO obligation to defer to the sensibilities of bigots. In fact, I believe we have an obligation to our nation and our national discourse to call out bigots whenever possible!

          The idea that we need to indulge those bigots is ridiculous!

          We don't indulge murder victim's families and allow them to become vigilantes before the criminal is arrested or punishment inflicters after determination of guilt, do we? Of course not - we recognize that their personal experiences are NOT likely to allow them to react fairly and reasonably!

          Unless there's actually something wrong with this innocent group building near Ground Zero, there's no reason for them to indulge those who mistakenly think that there IS something wrong with building there.

          And the ONLY reason for thinking that there's something wrong with this group building there is if there's some linkage between them and the extremist Muslims around the world who have attacked us! And there's no linkage.

          Back during the Revolutionary War, there were people born in the USA who remained loyal to the British, and there were people born in the USA who didn't. Should we have treated ALL those people from Britain the same way? Of course not.

          And we shouldn't treat all Muslims the same way. And unless we treat them all the same way, there's NO reason to be upset by a peaceful Sufi sect building a community center 2 1/2 blocks from Ground Zero. And so NO, we shouldn't "defer to their sensitivities!"
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bludog1 (August 22, 2010 2:07 pm ET)
              2
            Bigots? How quickly the discussion turns to name calling. If that be true then clearly 65+percent of the American people are"bigots" on this subject. The point is, dd, that we don't need to do anything. If you carefully reread what I wrote above, the point I was making was one of sensitivity by the proponents of the community center/mosque to the feelings of those who oppose the proposal(especially those who lost family members). Much like (again as I noted above) when Pope JP II reversed the convent decision.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by soze169880 (August 22, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
                 
              clearly 65+percent of the American people are"bigots" on this subject.

              Yep. I know this may be news to you, but majority rule doesn't always equal morally right. If 99% of Americans were against freedom of worship, they would still be bigots.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bludog1 (August 23, 2010 11:02 am ET)
                   
                the issue is not "rule." It is sensitivity. The need right now is less protest and more dialog among those most deeply affected. Had this been done in an open and sensitive way, the chances would have been greater for at least a deeper understanding of each group's concerns with the goal of arriving at a solution that would be acceptable to those groups.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by the Grey Path (August 20, 2010 2:01 pm ET)
      5  
      Under their logic, my backyard is a haven for terrorists.

      All I see is two small children and a dog.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (August 20, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
        3  
        But what kind of dog? Can he prove he truely IS a dog? I'm a bit suspicious...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (August 20, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
          3  
          Yeah and where did the "dog" get the funding for his ground zero doghouse?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Old_Benjamin (August 20, 2010 4:48 pm ET)
            2  
            Yeah! I'm not saying it's true - just that we have legitimate questions.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by raddave43 (August 20, 2010 5:18 pm ET)
              3  
              Not that I don't think your dog has a right to a doghouse, but why did he choose that exact location for it?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dogbreath (August 20, 2010 6:42 pm ET)
                2  
                I am sure that your dog has a right to build it, but should he? Is he really being a good neighbor? Shouldn't he just forego his rights because others are feeling victimized by people who had NOTHING to do with the previous attack on his doghouse?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (August 20, 2010 6:44 pm ET)
                  1 4
                  And that doghouse will just become a potential recruiting haven for wild hyenas and flesh eating wolves.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by the Grey Path (August 21, 2010 12:42 am ET)
          2  
          No complaints about the children?

          I have a few, but since they're cute .....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by angels4light (August 21, 2010 1:50 am ET)
            1  
            Nah, no comments, we already know that you have fully indoctrinated them beyond all redemption.

            Just kidding, of course!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by the Grey Path (August 21, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
              1  
              actually it's the opposite ... the dog gave them the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, and they passed it on to me.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (August 21, 2010 12:11 pm ET)
            1  
            The children are probably anchor babies looking for government handouts.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Winski (August 21, 2010 12:43 pm ET)
         
      So Morris's pay master (so they get to call him bitch on the set), and the second largest cluster-fox shareholder is a direct contributor to the Park51 facility's group?? And Morris is ok with that?? Oh, I forgot, Morris is just their 'bitch' not their critic.. so he CAN'T say anything negative or he gets his auto-nuke necklace tweaked... That's great.. nothing like watching Morris squirm....

      I have a pal who, because he has a dog that misbehaves, has one of those "invisible" fences to try and get the dog to stay inside the fence.. doesn't work to well because the dog seems to actually LIKE being body shocked by the device 5 or 6 times every ten minutes or so.. But I can't help but laugh every time he does this because it reminds me of Morris on billo's or hanratty's program... Every time he says something stupid (every 5-10 seconds) he looks like he gets a jolt of joy juice shot thru him by a collar.. it's an enduring image..
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MsYellowDog (August 21, 2010 6:22 pm ET)
         
      I do so wish that everyone would stop for a second and CONSIDER THE SOURCE on a lot of this RightWing propaganda.Why do people seem to be unable to recall that DICK MORRIS HIRES PROSTITUTES AND THEN BEGS TO SUCK THEIR TOES? Do you think he has changed his preferences since he was "outed" for this? I have no objection to the man earning a living,but it is way out of line to quote him as some kind of arbiter on religions,or is it zoning he's supposed to be an expert on? He makes me sick:call me prejudiced,but anything he's "for," I'm against.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by leftofwhat (August 22, 2010 1:34 am ET)
          1
        From a pretty mellow poster here,this whole thread should never have happened.DD and RO please chill out.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (August 22, 2010 3:03 am ET)
          2  
          What a jerk and a doofus you are....

          This whole thread started with THIS post from me below - on topic, to the point, expanding on what MMFA had written, addressing the issue, tying it together with other relevant points - how is it that YOU assert that it's my fault? How is it MY fault that RightON decided to attack me despite that fact that he agrees with everything I wrote? How is it my fault that I defended myself from that unfair and untrue attack? How is it my fault that he then lobbed multiple further attacks at me?


          As I've repeatedly pointed out, the ONLY potential justification for opposing this site IS to say that the peaceful Sufi Islamic sect is connected to the extremists who planned and executed 9/11.

          That would be the only legitimate way to be upset by the Islamic Community Center that the group is planning on building - if they were somehow either culpable in the attack or implicated in potential future attacks due to their connection with radical Islamics.

          But they aren't connected to those extremists or their attacks or their terrorist philosophies. Just like Japanese-Americans and German-Americans and Italian-Americans weren't connected to those who attacked us on December 7th and during WW II. Just like not all rightwingers are culpable or suspect due to the attacks on the USA by one rightwinger in Oklahoma City!

          But they're desperate. They realize that without that linkage, the disapproval of this structure and the antagonism towards the leaders of this group is pure bigotry!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by whatIthink (August 22, 2010 2:45 am ET)
      2  
      Because of the actions of people like Eric Rudolph, the Westboro Baptist church, Shelley Shannon, Army of God, Concerned Christians, Lambs of Christ, Hutaree, Pat Robertson, etc, can we accuse Christian churches as being havens and breeding grounds for domestic terrorists? Or does this conflation of religion and terrorism only apply to brown skinned people?

      Or are these same hypocrites going to go up in flames for equating all Christians based on the actions of a few extremists while doing the same to muslims?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (August 22, 2010 3:06 am ET)
        2  
        Of course reasonable people don't do that! And they shouldn't.

        Yet we're told that we should be deferential to their hurt feelings - feelings that are there because of the unfair ginning up of this controversy by the rightwing media.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.