Calling it a "seed of peace" a New York City community board voted Tuesday night to support a plan to build a mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero. The decision came after hours of emotional public comment in which people were shouting "No Mosque" while carrying signs with pictures of the Sept. 11 victims on them.
Manhattan Community Board member Rob Townley told the Associated Press that the group believed they were making a significant step for the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism that has occured against them.
Really?
First of all, is there really that much fanaticism occuring against the Islamic community? Granted, shortly after September 11 there were plenty of incidents where misguided people hurled inappropriate epithets at anyone who claimed to be a member of the faith. In recent years however,most Americans have stopped spewing hate,(in fact "MOST" Americans never did) realizing there is a difference between Muslims who live in peace and those who call for Jihad.
Secondly, Islamic fanatics that have caused problems for America in recent years have all been affiliated with particular mosques inside the country, so one can understand the concerns of those who would live and work nearby the proposed New York site. The building will obviously not be earmarked as a place for terrorist training, but what or who will be able to stop the fanatics from coming in? It would seem that a site so close to the place where Islamic Jihadists destroyed the lives of thousands in 2001,would hve a special spiritual significance for those who thought the attacks were justified. After all,in recent weeks, we've witnessed a couple of unsuccessful terrorism attempts in Mid-Town Manhattan, so New York obviously remains a target.
Finally, since our country has become so consumed with protecting the rights of everyone but the majority, it's no surprise that a group of well meaning do-gooders have been blinded to the reality of just how insensitive this whole proposal is. Innocent people died that day. Do their families and friends really need to
be reminded of the terror every time they look out their window at the thriving Islamic establishment near the site where their loved ones were murdered? It is cruel.
While comparing all Muslims to the Jihadists who attacked the World Trade Center is ignorant and wrong, allowing this mosque to be built is equally ignorant and wrong. The proposal should not be allowed to go forward. The victims should not be made to suffer even more.
Ultimately those who say terrorism isn't confined to one particular race or religion are exactly right. Terrorism is nothing more than a misguided reaction on the part of thugs who refuse to accept law and order, and who think vigilante justice is the only way to make their point to the world. Terrorism ultimately comes in all shapes and colors. Terrorism is not confined to Islam. That point alone should serve as a reminder to those who are trying to push this temple project forward, that crazy is crazy and if the mosque is built it will bring even more fanatics out of the woodwork, putting even more innocent New Yorkers in danger.
Showing posts with label Associated Press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Associated Press. Show all posts
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, December 14, 2009
It's Too Close to Call
The debate is on about whether the death of Michael Jackson or the fall of Tiger Woods should be the top AP news story of 2009. Michael had it in the bag until November 27 when news broke that Woods had crashed his SUV into a tree and was found lying on the ground bleeding and passed out in front of his home. The accident was the tip of the iceberg for squeaky clean Tiger, as skeltons started jumping from the closet with reports about extra marital affairs, one longer term extra marital relationship, sexy text messages with his girlfriend, his backing out of his own golf tournament, and now his taking a leave of absence from golf, with the loss of some of his major sponsors.
For celebrity obsessed Americans, the literal and figurative deaths of two icons in one year is almost overwhelming. With Michael Jackson, the overdose of the surgical anesthetic Propofol gave overindulgent partygoers a moment of pause, as the search for the "big buzz" cost the King of Pop his life. The subsequent media coverage surrounding his funeral, the paternity of his children, the charges of murder against his doctor who injected him with the drug, and the settlement of his estate have created a frenzy that will have the sharks circling in the water for years to come.
Now, a new A&E reality series featuring the other four members of the Jackson 5 (brothers Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon) is a shining example of how even your own family will turn against you if money is the God they worship. Debuting last night, the show basically proved to all, that Jermaine is an egomaniac, Tito should be named Joe Jackson Junior, and Marlon, who seems to have it the most together, is the one who cracks jokes, seemingly to save his sanity. It's sad that a group who once was the shining star of Motown has allowed themselves to fall to such a low point. Maybe Neil Young was right when he said that it's better to burn out than fade away.
So, who should be the top story? Poor drug addicted Michael Jackson, or poor promiscuous Tiger Woods? Some have said that both stories are an example of how those involved were simply human, and we should forgive them and move on. Others have reminded us that no athlete or musician should be held up as an idol of worship. That position belongs only to God. While both points of view have merit, the main thing that ties the Michael Jackson death scandal to the Tiger Woods scandal is that both men handed their lives over to excess.
For one it was drugs and death,for the other is was women and career suicide, but sadly the ultimate outcome was the same. King Solomon spoke about excess in the Book of Ecclesiastes, summing up a life filled with indulgence as meaningless, if it doesn't include God. When one turns their life over to the insatiable desires of their humanity, too much is never enough, and Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are both examples of that profound truth. Too many drugs, women, friends, too much money, or anything that our culture urges us to use as a substitute for God leads to destruction which will ultimately lead to a physical or spiritual death. While it's too late for Michael Jackson, hopefully Tiger Woods will learn a lesson from his sin, and will spend his time off getting his life back on track. He's been given a second chance whether he realizes it or not, and hopefully he will be smart enough to take advantage of it.
So top story, best story, worst story, who knows? Is it Michael or Tiger? I suppose we won't know until the dawn of 2010, but one thing is perfectly clear. The stories of Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are essentially the same, and they tie for the most tragic of 2009.
For celebrity obsessed Americans, the literal and figurative deaths of two icons in one year is almost overwhelming. With Michael Jackson, the overdose of the surgical anesthetic Propofol gave overindulgent partygoers a moment of pause, as the search for the "big buzz" cost the King of Pop his life. The subsequent media coverage surrounding his funeral, the paternity of his children, the charges of murder against his doctor who injected him with the drug, and the settlement of his estate have created a frenzy that will have the sharks circling in the water for years to come.
Now, a new A&E reality series featuring the other four members of the Jackson 5 (brothers Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon) is a shining example of how even your own family will turn against you if money is the God they worship. Debuting last night, the show basically proved to all, that Jermaine is an egomaniac, Tito should be named Joe Jackson Junior, and Marlon, who seems to have it the most together, is the one who cracks jokes, seemingly to save his sanity. It's sad that a group who once was the shining star of Motown has allowed themselves to fall to such a low point. Maybe Neil Young was right when he said that it's better to burn out than fade away.
So, who should be the top story? Poor drug addicted Michael Jackson, or poor promiscuous Tiger Woods? Some have said that both stories are an example of how those involved were simply human, and we should forgive them and move on. Others have reminded us that no athlete or musician should be held up as an idol of worship. That position belongs only to God. While both points of view have merit, the main thing that ties the Michael Jackson death scandal to the Tiger Woods scandal is that both men handed their lives over to excess.
For one it was drugs and death,for the other is was women and career suicide, but sadly the ultimate outcome was the same. King Solomon spoke about excess in the Book of Ecclesiastes, summing up a life filled with indulgence as meaningless, if it doesn't include God. When one turns their life over to the insatiable desires of their humanity, too much is never enough, and Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are both examples of that profound truth. Too many drugs, women, friends, too much money, or anything that our culture urges us to use as a substitute for God leads to destruction which will ultimately lead to a physical or spiritual death. While it's too late for Michael Jackson, hopefully Tiger Woods will learn a lesson from his sin, and will spend his time off getting his life back on track. He's been given a second chance whether he realizes it or not, and hopefully he will be smart enough to take advantage of it.
So top story, best story, worst story, who knows? Is it Michael or Tiger? I suppose we won't know until the dawn of 2010, but one thing is perfectly clear. The stories of Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are essentially the same, and they tie for the most tragic of 2009.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Surge, Will it Win the War?
Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus -- Sort of.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Looking in the Nooks and Crannies for Jihad
The Associated Press reported yesterday that Major Nidal Malik, the accused shooter in the Fort Hood massacre, had ties to the same mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers. Attackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour were attending Virginia's Dar al Hijarh Islamic Center, when Malik held his mother's funeral there. It's not known if Malik associated with Hazmi and Hanjour, but Fox News reports that the Islamic Center is known for preaching radical messages, and worries about Malik's radical beliefs had been previously brought up at Fort Hood.
US Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is now calling for an investigation into the Fort Hood shootings to determine if they were a terrorist act. Liberman said that if Hasan was showing signs of being an extremist, the U.S. Army should have had zero tolerance and should have discharged him. You think?
The AP is also now reporting that Hasan's classmates in a 2007-08 masters program at a Texas military college had complained about his radical views, saying he had told fellow students that Islamic law was to be followed before the U.S. Constitution, and he reportedly arugued that suicide bombing is a justifiable act.
Why was Major Malik allowed to remain in the Army? Is our military so hard up for recruits that they tolerate these type of threats with no repercussions to those who made them? Thirteen people died and thirty others were injured and it's unbelievable that we have to question whether or not this was a terrorist act. Of course it was! There's an old military adage that says to defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy, and it would certainly seem that the best way to know the enemy is to become one of them. For Major Malik, the United State government was the enemy and he left plenty of warning signs that this shooting was going to happen.
While it's imperative that all religions be respected in America, it's equally imperative that we put absurd concepts like political correctness aside and investigate when people begin to threaten our security. Radical Islam or Jihad, calls for the extermination of Israel and its people and any person or group who supports them or their country. As a result, America belongs in the class of the hated. That fact alone gives us the right to investigate anyone who will be responsible for the security of our country, especially those who so openly attack our government as an element of expressing themselves. We also need to investigate any mosque that is rumoured to be preaching a message of hate.
No, all Muslims are not terrorists, but those familiar with the Koran will tell you that Jihad is a principle that is taught in its pages. We must be cautious without being paranoid about people who consistently threaten what we stand for, as it's not a violation of anyone's rights for a government to protect itself by acting in the best interest of its citizens.
One can only hope that Senator Lieberman will follow through and demand an extensive investigation into the Fort Hood shootings and the role that radical Islam played there. He should also investigate the potential that exists for this type of thing to happen elsewhere. In addition, every U.S. lawmaker should join Lieberman in his call for investiagation, putting their fears about the rights of others to rest.
Fanaticism is not limited to radical Islam, and we've seen the damage that fanatics have done in the past, even those like Timothy McVeigh, who were American born. Anyone has the potential to become a terrorist, especially if they are so vocal in their hatred of the country they claim to serve. It's time for us to wake up and take a closer look at everyone who chooses to reside on a U.S. military base, even before they move in. If we don't, it won't be long before another shooting incident will once again catch us offguard.
US Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is now calling for an investigation into the Fort Hood shootings to determine if they were a terrorist act. Liberman said that if Hasan was showing signs of being an extremist, the U.S. Army should have had zero tolerance and should have discharged him. You think?
The AP is also now reporting that Hasan's classmates in a 2007-08 masters program at a Texas military college had complained about his radical views, saying he had told fellow students that Islamic law was to be followed before the U.S. Constitution, and he reportedly arugued that suicide bombing is a justifiable act.
Why was Major Malik allowed to remain in the Army? Is our military so hard up for recruits that they tolerate these type of threats with no repercussions to those who made them? Thirteen people died and thirty others were injured and it's unbelievable that we have to question whether or not this was a terrorist act. Of course it was! There's an old military adage that says to defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy, and it would certainly seem that the best way to know the enemy is to become one of them. For Major Malik, the United State government was the enemy and he left plenty of warning signs that this shooting was going to happen.
While it's imperative that all religions be respected in America, it's equally imperative that we put absurd concepts like political correctness aside and investigate when people begin to threaten our security. Radical Islam or Jihad, calls for the extermination of Israel and its people and any person or group who supports them or their country. As a result, America belongs in the class of the hated. That fact alone gives us the right to investigate anyone who will be responsible for the security of our country, especially those who so openly attack our government as an element of expressing themselves. We also need to investigate any mosque that is rumoured to be preaching a message of hate.
No, all Muslims are not terrorists, but those familiar with the Koran will tell you that Jihad is a principle that is taught in its pages. We must be cautious without being paranoid about people who consistently threaten what we stand for, as it's not a violation of anyone's rights for a government to protect itself by acting in the best interest of its citizens.
One can only hope that Senator Lieberman will follow through and demand an extensive investigation into the Fort Hood shootings and the role that radical Islam played there. He should also investigate the potential that exists for this type of thing to happen elsewhere. In addition, every U.S. lawmaker should join Lieberman in his call for investiagation, putting their fears about the rights of others to rest.
Fanaticism is not limited to radical Islam, and we've seen the damage that fanatics have done in the past, even those like Timothy McVeigh, who were American born. Anyone has the potential to become a terrorist, especially if they are so vocal in their hatred of the country they claim to serve. It's time for us to wake up and take a closer look at everyone who chooses to reside on a U.S. military base, even before they move in. If we don't, it won't be long before another shooting incident will once again catch us offguard.
Friday, October 9, 2009
And The Winner Is.............
President Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in what the Associated Press is calling a "stunning decision" that was designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world, and stress diplomacy. Obama is only the third sitting president to win the prize, with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson coming before him. (Former president Jimmy Carter won in 2002, long after he left office. )
While the award is an honor for the president and America, some Nobel observers say it comes too early in his presidency. The deadline for nominations was February 1, which was less than two weeks after he took office.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood brought about by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, but also recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit, such as reducing the stockpile of nuclear arms, easing tensions with the Muslim world, and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. Former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, said President Obama hasn't had enough time to act on many of these issues and he felt that he should have been given time to act and perservere before winning the award.
What do you think? Is it too soon? The award is no doubt an honor, and the president is to be commended for being in the elite club of three. I only hope that the prize encourages him to do a better job of making better decisions for America in a more timely fashion. The recent discussion surrounding the controversy over Obama's relationship with General McChrystal and the action that is desparately needed in regards to more troops for Afghanistan is the perfect example of how his past indecision has hurt America. Hopefully, the "peace prize" won't encourage him to take even longer to decide on the important issues facing this country.
No matter what your politics or opinion of the president, today is a day of honor for him, and he should be allowed to savor it. His efforts should be applauded by all of us as he reaches out to the international community in the hopes of making the world a safer place. But it is also critical that he remember the 300-million people that need him here in the U.S., and our own security, economy, and healthcare concerns must come before all of his international efforts.
While it is great to have a president who is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner , it is even better to have a president who remembers that service and dedication begin at home.
Congratulations, Sir, and be sure to enjoy your award today, because the hard work resumes tomorrow.
While the award is an honor for the president and America, some Nobel observers say it comes too early in his presidency. The deadline for nominations was February 1, which was less than two weeks after he took office.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood brought about by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, but also recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit, such as reducing the stockpile of nuclear arms, easing tensions with the Muslim world, and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. Former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, said President Obama hasn't had enough time to act on many of these issues and he felt that he should have been given time to act and perservere before winning the award.
What do you think? Is it too soon? The award is no doubt an honor, and the president is to be commended for being in the elite club of three. I only hope that the prize encourages him to do a better job of making better decisions for America in a more timely fashion. The recent discussion surrounding the controversy over Obama's relationship with General McChrystal and the action that is desparately needed in regards to more troops for Afghanistan is the perfect example of how his past indecision has hurt America. Hopefully, the "peace prize" won't encourage him to take even longer to decide on the important issues facing this country.
No matter what your politics or opinion of the president, today is a day of honor for him, and he should be allowed to savor it. His efforts should be applauded by all of us as he reaches out to the international community in the hopes of making the world a safer place. But it is also critical that he remember the 300-million people that need him here in the U.S., and our own security, economy, and healthcare concerns must come before all of his international efforts.
While it is great to have a president who is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner , it is even better to have a president who remembers that service and dedication begin at home.
Congratulations, Sir, and be sure to enjoy your award today, because the hard work resumes tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
