"Ground Zero Mosque" - errrrrrrr...............

[lyonhibs]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

Here's another inexplicably contentious one - moderate Muslims have - through the entirely legitiimate means of fund raising then buying property (the scoundrels!!!) - plans to build a inter-faith centre, comprising of, amongst other things a swimming pool, a restaurant, a basketball court and - yes - a somewhat Mosque-ish prayer room.

As far as I can tell, externally, it won't even look that much like a mosque, not that that would inherently be a reason to oppose it. And it won't be remotely visible from Ground Zero, and Ground Zero from it, as downtown Manhattan isn't some arid wasteland, and there are umpteen other buildings in the area.

So what could people's problems possibly be with it, bearing in mind that insular hatred is what the extremist faction who hijack Islam as their "vehicle" are all about, and - apparently - is totally against the American values of freedom and liberty (and so on and soforth) that were attacked on 9/11.

Thoughts?? I'll be honest and say when it comes to liberty to express one's beliefs responsibly without harming others, I'm pretty left-wing.

[hibsdaft]

Thoughts?? I'll be honest and say when it comes to liberty to express one's beliefs responsibly without harming others, I'm pretty left-wing.

i think you mean liberal, not left-wing. soviet russia wasn't too hot on freedom of expression eh.

i've read both sides of this argument and neither are really being honest here. because it is actually surprisingly close to ground zero, bits of one of the planes fell on the actual site in fact. and it is possible that somewhere along the lines of the funding there is actually someone taking liberties with this and doing it on purpose. equally the opposition is mostly coming from ignorant, hysterical cretins.

the proof will be in the pudding. if they were genuine moderates they would back off given the hoo-ha, not all of which has come from gun-toting yankee idiots. and in fact there are a fair few muslim groups already opposing it i understand - it seems to be liberal americans, defending freedoms the believe in, that are most vigourasly defending it. which is admirable imo.

personally i quite like the building that sits there now and am against it being torn down full stop.

[Betty Boop]

Is the proposed site for the Prayer Centre, ( which is an interfaith area, opened to those of any religious affiliation ) not more than a few blocks away from Ground Zero ?

[Dinkydoo]

Is cultural and religious intolerance not what caused 9/11 in the first place........



I used to get numerous prompts to join these "anti Islam" groups on Facebook which seemed (to me) to simply breed hatred for the Muslim community in general.

Some people need to behave themselves.

[John_the_angus_hibby]

i think you mean liberal, not left-wing. soviet russia wasn't too hot on freedom of expression eh.

i've read both sides of this argument and neither are really being honest here. because it is actually surprisingly close to ground zero, bits of one of the planes fell on the actual site in fact. and it is possible that somewhere along the lines of the funding there is actually someone taking liberties with this and doing it on purpose. equally the opposition is mostly coming from ignorant, hysterical cretins.

the proof will be in the pudding. if they were genuine moderates they would back off given the hoo-ha, not all of which has come from gun-toting yankee idiots. and in fact there are a fair few muslim groups already opposing it i understand - it seems to be liberal americans, defending freedoms the believe in, that are most vigourasly defending it. which is admirable imo.

personally i quite like the building that sits there now and am against it being torn down full stop.

I agree with your post and I also have read a fair bit on this and it's a difficult one. It's already used by a Muslim group and it's the 11 storey development that most 'better informed' critics have an issue with. It is also not being called a Mosque by the group behind it as you cannot prevent any Muslim preaching in one and as the group only want moderate voices it will be termed a pray centre or such like so they can control entry.

If I lost a family member and the building became dominant and allowed a platform for less moderate views, I too would be upset. But, I also see that by supporting sush a developement it sends out a strong message re 'our' (western) values.

As I stated...a difficult one.

The most irksome part is that it has been hyjacked by loons such as Palin (not our globe trotting one) and the Tea Party brigade.

[Woody1985]

I'm surprised this hasn't popped up on here until now.

From a simplistic point of view it is seen as a spot (one/two blocks from pics I seen) where American's we're 'killed in the name of Islam'. I think common decency would tell you that it is ignorant and unsympathetic to build this in that location. I suspect that it could become a shrine for more hardline Muslims given it's locations.

But again, stereotypical western values are that they should be tolerant (are we really?) and allow your run of the mill/moderate Muslims (what is a moderate muslim? Are there different levels of muslim? The term moderate suggests that they could progress onto more hardline/lowline levels of Muslim belief which I'm sure is not the case, people will simply believe or not. This seems to be a phrase used alot.) build it there because they've stated that Islam has nothing to do with the attacks.

These questions have probably already been answered elsewhere but why have they chosen that site? Surely they'd know the implications.

Were there other potential sites that could have been developed in a similar location i.e. built up area that could be met at an equal or lower cost?

The cynic in me thinks that this is a deliberate plot to antagonise Americans and to have an Islamic symbol hanging over a significant piece of land where American's died as a show of Islamic power.

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

Here's another inexplicably contentious one - moderate Muslims have - through the entirely legitiimate means of fund raising then buying property (the scoundrels!!!) - plans to build a inter-faith centre, comprising of, amongst other things a swimming pool, a restaurant, a basketball court and - yes - a somewhat Mosque-ish prayer room.

As far as I can tell, externally, it won't even look that much like a mosque, not that that would inherently be a reason to oppose it. And it won't be remotely visible from Ground Zero, and Ground Zero from it, as downtown Manhattan isn't some arid wasteland, and there are umpteen other buildings in the area.

So what could people's problems possibly be with it, bearing in mind that insular hatred is what the extremist faction who hijack Islam as their "vehicle" are all about, and - apparently - is totally against the American values of freedom and liberty (and so on and soforth) that were attacked on 9/11.

Thoughts?? I'll be honest and say when it comes to liberty to express one's beliefs responsibly without harming others, I'm pretty left-wing.

The values of liberty and freedom dictate it should be ok to build this mosque.

As said by another poster it is ignorance of others belief systems that leads to intolerance.

Moderate Muslims did not cause 9/11, therefore they have the right to practice their beliefs at ground zero (as I am sure there will have been innocent Muslims killed in this horrific attack and having a faith centre on that site will mean a lot to them).

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is cultural and religious intolerance not what caused 9/11 in the first place........



I used to get numerous prompts to join these "anti Islam" groups on Facebook which seemed (to me) to simply breed hatred for the Muslim community in general.

Some people need to behave themselves.

:agree: Surely the basic tenet of Christianity is forgiveness? I take it is Christians who owned the land.

[Woody1985]

Interesting comment from a Muslim friend of mine.

The bible says Love your enemy.
The Quran says Keep hating your enemy.

I don't know if this is accurate as I've not read either of them.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Interesting comment from a Muslim friend of mine.

The bible says Love your enemy.
The Quran says Keep hating your enemy.

I don't know if this is accurate as I've not read either of them.

I wouldn't bother, they're not very good.:greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Never mind the mosque, someone is opening a muslim gay bar next door.

Now that is just going too far.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/post-34.html

[CropleyWasGod]

Never mind the mosque, someone is opening a muslim gay bar next door.

Now that is just going too far.


Why?

[Dinkydoo]

:agree: Surely the basic tenet of Christianity is forgiveness? I take it is Christians who owned the land.

I thought so anyway.............sadly though it seems to be one of the things that a lot of "christians" tend to forget when it comes to other cultures and religions - not meaning to generalise btw, just that through personal experiences it's something that I've found not to be uncommon.


Interesting comment from a Muslim friend of mine.

The bible says Love your enemy.
The Quran says Keep hating your enemy.

I don't know if this is accurate as I've not read either of them.

I've not read The Bible or Quran either but it's certainley an intresting thought - although I've always wondered what "Loving your enemy" would achieve if not leave you open to unexpected attacks (not the best choice of word, I know:wink:)................ I guess i'm too paranoid for Christianity :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Why?

Well they've got investors apparently so as well as being a wind up it must make business sense.

[CropleyWasGod]

Well they've got investors apparently so as well as being a wind up it must make business sense.

Sorry, I maybe misunderstood your original post, or you misunderstood mine. My "why?" was "why do you think it's a step too far?" rather than "why have they done it?"

[(((Fergus)))]

Sorry, I maybe misunderstood your original post, or you misunderstood mine. My "why?" was "why do you think it's a step too far?" rather than "why have they done it?"

it's a blatant windup rather than a suspected one.

[CropleyWasGod]

it's a blatant windup rather than a suspected one.

But the wind up is, as far as I can see, of Islam and its attitude to homosexuality. I don't see any problem with that.

The fact that it's close to Ground Zero is as relevant or irrelevant as the argument about the mosque itself. How far away from GZ would it have to be before it became "acceptable"?

[(((Fergus)))]

But the wind up is, as far as I can see, of Islam and its attitude to homosexuality. I don't see any problem with that.

The fact that it's close to Ground Zero is as relevant or irrelevant as the argument about the mosque itself. How far away from GZ would it have to be before it became "acceptable"?

Well, going out your way to wind people up is ultimately destructive but in principle I agree with you: when in Rome - or in this case, Sodom. :wink:

Not that I think we should appease Islam in any way. They should be given a hard time for this insensitive decision, however they are legally entitled to build the thing.

[Betty Boop]

The Americans don't have a problem with building massive military bases, in countries they have bombed back to the stone age. I bet the civilians in these countries feel these decisions are ignorant and unsympathetic.

[Dinkydoo]

The Americans don't have a problem with building massive military bases, in countries they have bombed back to the stone age. I bet the civilians in these countries feel these decisions are ignorant and unsympathetic.


:agree:

:top marks

[John_the_angus_hibby]

This is the most balanced article I have read on this suject. Was orginally published in the FT Magazine:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bf1110d8-a5b0-11df-a5b7-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=a712eb94-dc2b-11da-890d-0000779e2340.html

[--------]

This is the most balanced article I have read on this suject. Was orginally published in the FT Magazine:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bf1110d8-a5b0-11df-a5b7-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=a712eb94-dc2b-11da-890d-0000779e2340.html

:agree:

It's not a mosque, and it's not at Ground Zero. It's a Prayer Centre, and it's about tolerance and reconciliation between communities.

And the building it will replace is entirely unimprtant, except that it got hit by the nosewheel of one of the aircraft used in the 9/11 attack.

Actually, the very name 'Ground Zero' could be considered disrespectful and potentially antagonising to the people who died at the hands of the USAAF in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 100,000 at the time, and uncounted thousands since. Two towers compared to two whole cities, two B-29s compared to four airliners. I believe Boeing made all the aircraft concerned in these incidents. Wonder what folks would make of that? Ban Muslims from flying American Airlines? Ban Muslims from flying in Boeings?

The American right goes hysterical very easily over 9/11 - the New York one, that is, not the one that happened in Chile in 1973, engineered by the CIA, that led to the death of Chilean democracy and thousands of Chilean citizens.

I wonder how they would have coped with the likes of the Luftwaffe Blitz on the UK - 20,000 deaths plus?

Or the Bomber Command/US 8th Air Force campaign against the Third Reich - 800,000 deaths plus, countless whole cities destroyed?

Or the USAAF fire raids on Japan - 100,000 deaths, mostly civilian, in Tokyo on one night in March 1945?

I'm not a Muslim, and I have no sympathy for terrorism, regardless of the flag it flies. It pains me when semi-educated bimbos like Sarah Palin call on my fellow-Christians to "refudiate" (don't ask me - that's what she said) projects like this simply because they challenge the antagonistic, intolerant, blinkered and bigotted world-view they call patriotic Christianity. It isn't Christianity.

A Jewish rabbi, educated in the Hebrew University of Tarsus who also happened to be a Christian evangelist defined it this way:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres...."

I would commend the sentence in bold print to my American "brothers" and "sisters". :rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

Burn a Koran day in Florida. Pathetic!! :bitchy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-warns-florida-church-not-to-burn-koran-2073137.html

[khib70]

Burn a Koran day in Florida. Pathetic!! :bitchy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-warns-florida-church-not-to-burn-koran-2073137.html
This is a church with less than 50 members who have rightly been told in no uncertain terms by the US government that they are out of order. The only pathetic thing is your constant knee-jerk anti-Americanism.:yawn:

And Doddie, your attempt to show moral equivalence between US bombing of Japan and 9/11 is unworthy of you. There was a war on, which the Japanese started. In the course of it they committed acts of total barbarity. Horrible as the atomic attacks were, they cost less lives than several Allied raids on Germany, and shortened the war, saving countless more. 9/11 was an act of pure evil, and to even imply that somehow America had it coming beggars belief.

And the "moderate Muslim" "cultural centre" argument would hold more weight if one of the people behind it hadn't contributed large sums of money to the terrorists of Hamas.

[--------]

This is a church with less than 50 members who have rightly been told in no uncertain terms by the US government that they are out of order. The only pathetic thing is your constant knee-jerk anti-Americanism.:yawn:

And Doddie, your attempt to show moral equivalence between US bombing of Japan and 9/11 is unworthy of you. There was a war on, which the Japanese started. In the course of it they committed acts of total barbarity. Horrible as the atomic attacks were, they cost less lives than several Allied raids on Germany, and shortened the war, saving countless more. 9/11 was an act of pure evil, and to even imply that somehow America had it coming beggars belief.

And the "moderate Muslim" "cultural centre" argument would hold more weight if one of the people behind it hadn't contributed large sums of money to the terrorists of Hamas.


This post displays a remarkable capacity for simplifying hugely complex questions.

For example, how can anyone tell whether the A-bomb attacks "shortened the war"? the war ended when it did - we'll never know what "would have happened" if the bombs hadn't been dropped.

What's more, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki raids were simply two more in a long series of fire-raids inflicted on Japanese cities through the later part of 1944 and 1945 - the only difference was that those raids employed much more effective weaponry. All these raids were carried out without consideration for the incidental deaths of women, children and old people. they were simply collateral damage. the A-bomb raids weren't different in kind from what had gone before - the only difference was that technology had finally caught up with the desire to kill.

It might interest you to know that the indiscriminate terror-bombing of civilians and non-combatants was outlawed by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949.

Just how area-bombing as practised by both the RAF and the USAAF in WW2 and the "shock and awe" tactics employed by Coalition forces in Iraq in two Gulf Wars differs from "terror-bombing" I would really like to know.

I did NOT suggest that the people who died in 9/11 "had it coming to them". The point I was raising was that the American right is highly sensitive to any offence caused to them by THEIR enemies, but entirely insensitive to any offence that THEY might cause in the way they portray and interpret events like 9/11.

For 56 years the name "Ground Zero" referred to the T-shaped bridge in the middle of Hiroshima used by the bomb-aimer in 'Enola Gay' as his aiming-point for the first atomic bomb. No one knows how many people died in the immediate blast or in the days following. No one knows how many have died since of radiation-related illnesses. Conservative estimates are ALL in 6 figures - over 100,000. With all due respect to the American people, even 9/11 pales in comparison to such an event.

indeed the Japanese Empire did fight a horridly dirty war - and the Allies, in particular the American forces in the Pacific and the Philippines, retaliated in kind. Don't believe me - read Laurence Rees's book "Horror in the East", written to go with the BBC TV series of the same title.

And as for "there was a war on" - how do you think people in the Middle East perceive the actions of the USA and her Western Allies over the past half-century in THEIR countries towards THEIR people? Could it be that they have reason to see those actions as acts of aggression against them? Even acts of war?

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=khib70;2570936]This is a church with less than 50 members who have rightly been told in no uncertain terms by the US government that they are out of order. The only pathetic thing is your constant knee-jerk anti-Americanism.:yawn:



I can always count on you, to come out with the standard propoganda insult. :greengrin

[--------]

This is a church with less than 50 members who have rightly been told in no uncertain terms by the US government that they are out of order. The only pathetic thing is your constant knee-jerk anti-Americanism.:yawn:

And Doddie, your attempt to show moral equivalence between US bombing of Japan and 9/11 is unworthy of you. There was a war on, which the Japanese started. In the course of it they committed acts of total barbarity. Horrible as the atomic attacks were, they cost less lives than several Allied raids on Germany, and shortened the war, saving countless more. 9/11 was an act of pure evil, and to even imply that somehow America had it coming beggars belief.

And the "moderate Muslim" "cultural centre" argument would hold more weight if one of the people behind it hadn't contributed large sums of money to the terrorists of Hamas.


From the FT article:

“We insist on calling it a prayer space and not a mosque, because you can use a prayer space for activities apart from prayer. You can’t stop anyone who is a Muslim despite his religious ideology from entering the mosque and staying there. With a prayer space, we can control who gets to use it.”

The whole point of NOT building a mosque is that a mosque can be infiltrated very easily by any Muslim of any degree of extremism. It's not a matter of semantics - there's a real practical difference here.

And in case you and Sarah and Newt haven't noticed, Hamas is still the legally-elected government of Gaza, and was elected in an election that was a lot less questionable than the one the Coalition held in Afghanistan a few months ago.

[(((Fergus)))]

This post displays a remarkable capacity for simplifying hugely complex questions.

For example, how can anyone tell whether the A-bomb attacks "shortened the war"? the war ended when it did - we'll never know what "would have happened" if the bombs hadn't been dropped.

What's more, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki raids were simply two more in a long series of fire-raids inflicted on Japanese cities through the later part of 1944 and 1945 - the only difference was that those raids employed much more effective weaponry. All these raids were carried out without consideration for the incidental deaths of women, children and old people. they were simply collateral damage. the A-bomb raids weren't different in kind from what had gone before - the only difference was that technology had finally caught up with the desire to kill.

It might interest you to know that the indiscriminate terror-bombing of civilians and non-combatants was outlawed by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949.

Just how area-bombing as practised by both the RAF and the USAAF in WW2 and the "shock and awe" tactics employed by Coalition forces in Iraq in two Gulf Wars differs from "terror-bombing" I would really like to know.

I did NOT suggest that the people who died in 9/11 "had it coming to them". The point I was raising was that the American right is highly sensitive to any offence caused to them by THEIR enemies, but entirely insensitive to any offence that THEY might cause in the way they portray and interpret events like 9/11.

For 56 years the name "Ground Zero" referred to the T-shaped bridge in the middle of Hiroshima used by the bomb-aimer in 'Enola Gay' as his aiming-point for the first atomic bomb. No one knows how many people died in the immediate blast or in the days following. No one knows how many have died since of radiation-related illnesses. Conservative estimates are ALL in 6 figures - over 100,000. With all due respect to the American people, even 9/11 pales in comparison to such an event.

indeed the Japanese Empire did fight a horridly dirty war - and the Allies, in particular the American forces in the Pacific and the Philippines, retaliated in kind. Don't believe me - read Laurence Rees's book "Horror in the East", written to go with the BBC TV series of the same title.

And as for "there was a war on" - how do you think people in the Middle East perceive the actions of the USA and her Western Allies over the past half-century in THEIR countries towards THEIR people? Could it be that they have reason to see those actions as acts of aggression against them? Even acts of war?

The Japanese surrendered a couple of days after Nagasaki. Coincidence? The Japanese were preparing to fight to the last man and in fact the last soldier surrendered in something like 1974! Only unconditional surrender would have been enough to destroy the militaristic Japanese empire.

BTW many more people died in the firebombing of Japanese cities:

Deaths from firebombing (Japan): 1,000,000 approx.
Deaths from A-bombs: 200,000 approx.

Why the fuss about the A-bombs? Because more people died in a shorter space of time? What other difference is there?

Back on topic: do you really believe there is a moral equivalence between 9/11 and America's defensive war against the Japanese?

[(((Fergus)))]

From the FT article:

“We insist on calling it a prayer space and not a mosque, because you can use a prayer space for activities apart from prayer. You can’t stop anyone who is a Muslim despite his religious ideology from entering the mosque and staying there. With a prayer space, we can control who gets to use it.”

The whole point of NOT building a mosque is that a mosque can be infiltrated very easily by any Muslim of any degree of extremism. It's not a matter of semantics - there's a real practical difference here.

And in case you and Sarah and Newt haven't noticed, Hamas is still the legally-elected government of Gaza, and was elected in an election that was a lot less questionable than the one the Coalition held in Afghanistan a few months ago.

Hamas staged a coup in Gaza where they killed or expelled other legally elected public representatives whom they disagreed with. In addition, new elections were due more than one year ago, i.e., they are illegitimate for at least two reasons.

This is what democracy looks like in Gaza:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee8_1195321817

[--------]

Hamas staged a coup in Gaza where they killed or expelled other legally elected public representatives whom they disagreed with. In addition, new elections were due more than one year ago, i.e., they are illegitimate for at least two reasons.

This is what democracy looks like in Gaza:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee8_1195321817


But unless I'm much mistaken, Gaza is under blockade, and there's a war on.... :rolleyes:

[(((Fergus)))]

But unless I'm much mistaken, Gaza is under blockade, and there's a war on.... :rolleyes:

Does that make a difference? Do either of those conditions necessitate the purging of other parties or the suspension of elections? It's not as if they have to "suspend democracy" to deal with an invading force - opposite: Israel withdrew its military and ethnically cleansed the territory of Jews and Bedouins in 2005.

[--------]

Does that make a difference? Do either of those conditions necessitate the purging of other parties or the suspension of elections? It's not as if they have to "suspend democracy" to deal with an invading force - opposite: Israel withdrew its military and ethnically cleansed the territory of Jews and Bedouins in 2005.


Well, it's supposed to when it applies to in indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets by us and the US in WW2....

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hamas staged a coup in Gaza where they killed or expelled other legally elected public representatives whom they disagreed with. In addition, new elections were due more than one year ago, i.e., they are illegitimate for at least two reasons.

This is what democracy looks like in Gaza:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee8_1195321817

Ah, still just making stuff up I see Fergus? Good to see.

Or it's the perennial problem of you insisting on holding forth on subjects you know absolutely nothing about.

It really would be absolutely fantastic if you could explain how Fatah cadres being sent through Gaza checkpoints by the I.D.F. and the C.I.A. with the express intention of violently unseating the democratically elected Hamas government (which was unsurprisingly, and succesfully, resisted) amounts to Hamas 'staging a coup'. Go on, have a go.

New elections are due, yes. Do you think it's a big surprise that they haven't been held?

[--------]

Ah, still just making stuff up I see Fergus? Good to see.

Or it's the perennial problem of you insisting on holding forth on subjects you know absolutely nothing about.

It really would be absolutely fantastic if you could explain how Fatah cadres being sent through Gaza checkpoints by the I.D.F. and the C.I.A. with the express intention of violently unseating the democratically elected Hamas government (which was unsurprisingly, and succesfully, resisted) amounts to Hamas 'staging a coup'. Go on, have a go.

New elections are due, yes. Do you think it's a big surprise that they haven't been held?


What he said.

And I'm interested, too.

It seems that there's a fair bit of terminological inexactitude going on in certain quarters on this thread. :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Ah, still just making stuff up I see Fergus? Good to see.

Or it's the perennial problem of you insisting on holding forth on subjects you know absolutely nothing about.

It really would be absolutely fantastic if you could explain how Fatah cadres being sent through Gaza checkpoints by the I.D.F. and the C.I.A. with the express intention of violently unseating the democratically elected Hamas government (which was unsurprisingly, and succesfully, resisted) amounts to Hamas 'staging a coup'. Go on, have a go.

New elections are due, yes. Do you think it's a big surprise that they haven't been held?

With respect, I only have your word for that. Anyway, whether Fatah eliminates Hamas or Hamas eliminates Fatah, it amounts to the same thing: one-party rule. Fatah rule in the West Bank is just as undemocratic. They too are scared to have an election. I would estimate that it was because they are afraid of losing their positions of privilege. You, being more informed on this subject, will probably know the true root cause.

[--------]

With respect, I only have your word for that. Anyway, whether Fatah eliminates Hamas or Hamas eliminates Fatah, it amounts to the same thing: one-party rule. Fatah rule in the West Bank is just as undemocratic. They too are scared to have an election. I would estimate that it was because they are afraid of losing their positions of privilege. You, being more informed on this subject, will probably know the true root cause.


Which seems to me to be the position adopted by Big Fat Gordo and the New Improved Labour Government for all the time BFG was PM.

No?

[Betty Boop]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990 :greengrin

[--------]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990 :greengrin

:greengrin

Even now Sarah Palin's agent is seeking Scott Gentries out.

She wants him to be Secretary of State in her Cabinet when she becomes President. His world-view and hers are identical... :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

:greengrin

Even now Sarah Palin's agent is seeking Scott Gentries out.

She wants him to be Secretary of State in her Cabinet when she becomes President. His world-view and hers are identical... :greengrin

So true ! :faf:

[LiverpoolHibs]

With respect, I only have your word for that.

Well no, you don't.

If you actually researched the subject (in which you clearly have something of an interest) properly - ie. away from the most rabidly right-wing, racist parts of the blogosphere - then you would be aware that what you posted was a complete and utter lie.

All you had to do was quickly search Google.

David Rose's lengthy article in Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804)

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.

As he notes, the plan was strikingly similar to the Iran-Contra Affair.


Anyway, whether Fatah eliminates Hamas or Hamas eliminates Fatah, it amounts to the same thing: one-party rule. Fatah rule in the West Bank is just as undemocratic. They too are scared to have an election. I would estimate that it was because they are afraid of losing their positions of privilege. You, being more informed on this subject, will probably know the true root cause.

I don't know what you mean. Both Hamas and Fatah are too scared to call elections as they'll both lose? That won't happen, one or the other is going to be the main party in the P.L.C.

Fatah are a bit more popular now than they have been for quite a while. Hamas's approval ratings are very up and down - attacks on PFLP and DFLP rallies led to a plummeting of support which was regained to an extent in the wake of the slaughter on the Mavi Marmara.

It doesn't amount to one party rule and if it did no-one supportive of U.S./Israeli policies towards the Occupied Territories could use it as a stick to beat the Palestinians with as, er, the U.S. and Israel would have been largely responsible for bringing it about. Divide and rule is still the go-to tactic of imperialism and abnormal situations will inevitably create abnormal political structures, even if the vibrancy of Palestinian civil society goes some way towards attenuating this.

[magpie1892]

Ah, still just making stuff up I see Fergus? Good to see.

Or it's the perennial problem of you insisting on holding forth on subjects you know absolutely nothing about.

It really would be absolutely fantastic if you could explain how Fatah cadres being sent through Gaza checkpoints by the I.D.F. and the C.I.A. with the express intention of violently unseating the democratically elected Hamas government (which was unsurprisingly, and succesfully, resisted) amounts to Hamas 'staging a coup'. Go on, have a go.

New elections are due, yes. Do you think it's a big surprise that they haven't been held?

Here 'ee is! What kept you?!

Still unable to stay on topic, LH? Good to see...!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Here 'ee is! What kept you?!

Still unable to stay on topic, LH? Good to see...!

What?