Thursday, August 05, 2010

Irony

Here's a commentary from the Asian Tribune by Habib Siddiqui, decrying the backlash again the proposed Cordoba Islamic Center in New York City. Shame on those bigots!, he concludes, and rightly so.

So it's rather ironic that he subscribes to three discredited claims about the World Trade Center, which undermine his argument.

First, he claims that "while the number of Jews working in the WTC numbered a few thousands, less than a dozen Jews died there." This is false. "...the number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 to 400. The lower figure tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area and partial surveys of the victims' listed religion. The U.S. State Department has published a partial list of 76 in response to claims that fewer Jews/Israelis died in the WTC attacks than should have been present at the time."

Second, he claims that "As a matter of fact more Muslims died there that day than Jews". There is no evidence in support of this claim. For example, this page of Muslim victims lists only 60, less than the partial list of 76 Jews mentioned above.

Third, he claims that Jews "were forewarned of the impending attack by an intelligence monitoring service, operating out of Israel". This is a nasty smear that cannot survive even the most cursory examination, and is debunked in the 9/11 commission report.

Yes, the backlash against the Cordoba Center is bigotry and every right-thinking person should condemn it. But publishing discredited anti-Semitic claims is also bigotry. Siddiqui should be ashamed.

Postscript: Habib Saddiqui is even worse than I thought. Compare his piece, as published in the Asian Tribune with what is apparently the the original version as published on his blog.

In the blog version, he's got the following lines: Steve Beckow is one such noble Jew who was a former Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. He wrote an article “To Muslims of America, I Apologize." He believes that “9/11 was truly, as has been said, an "inside job." It was an engineered false-flag operation in which some Muslims played a role, but in the employ of primarily American agencies like the CIA and FBI. It featured not only some Muslims, but also some Israelis as well as nationals from many other countries.”

This looniness was apparently too much even for the Asian Tribune.

It's really pathetic that some Muslims can't own up to the fact that the WTC terrorists were Muslims organized and directed by Osama bin Laden. Crazed accusations about "false-flag operation[s]" take away every shred of credibility Siddiqui aspires to. Siddiqui should read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It leaves no doubt about who was responsible for 9/11.

Post-Postscript
I wondered what kind of person Siddiqui's source for his 9/11 allegations, Steve Beckow, was. So I wondered over to his blog, only to discover a huge fountain of woo. Beckow apparently thinks that "At an early but unknown date, we can expect a world leader (probably President Obama) to disclose the fact that human beings from other star systems are here, in spacecraft around our planet – some cloaked, some in other dimensions – and that evolved life exists in many places in the universe." Yeah, he's a real credible source. Siddiqui should be ashamed to cite this psychoceramic.

30 comments:

Miranda said...

"Yes, the backlash against the Cordoba Center is bigotry and every right-thinking person should condemn it."

I agree with your entire post except this line.

Although I'm opposed to the government telling the mosque-planners where they can or can't build, I am also opposed to the mosque being built right near Ground Zero.

If they build an Islamic "community center" near Ground Zero, it will be just another location where they have marked their conquest. (such as their Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sofia church, and Moors' Cordoba.)

What is bigoted about my reason?

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Miranda:

Yes, you're a bigot. But we already knew that.

The Constitution protects property rights and freedom of religion. There aren't exceptions just because you happen not to like their religion.

And when you say, "If they build an Islamic "community center" near Ground Zero, it will be just another location where they have marked their conquest", who are the "they" you are talking about?

And why aren't you riled up about the mosque that's already near Ground Zero?

A commenter here has got your number:

"I don't think the Republicans should be allowed to open a campaign headquarters in my neighborhood. I know they have rights under the First Amendment and everything, but this isn't about rights, it is about what is right. Having a reminder of the Bush/Cheney Administration so close by causes me and my family too much pain."

Note for Miranda: that is something called satire.

Miranda said...

If you read my post carefully, Jeffrey, you would've realized that your comment about the Constitution is something I agreed with! I said the gov't should stay out.

Also, the argument about the 911 victims' families' sensitivities, (via that commenter's clever, but lame, satire) is an argument that I did not use.

Why you picked a mosque that was built before 9-11, I'm not sure. I'm not riled up about the Masjid Manhattan mosque because I don't have a problem with mosques in general (despite your baseless confidence to the contrary), It's this one (Cordoba) at Ground Zero that I don't like because I think the people behind it a) refuse to condemn Hamas, b) would favor shari'a in the US, and c) foresee it as a symbol of Islamic victory over the US. It's radical Muslims, not Muslims but radical Muslims, who are the "they" in my post.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

So, can I count on your support to oppose it when some Christian group (let's say, one that subscribes to dominionist theology, like that advocated by Rushdoony) that wants to make the Bible the supreme law of the land wants to build a church?

Sorry, but there's no exception in the Constitution for ugly religions that you don't like. The building is theirs; it's zoned for what they want to do; it has passed all legal review. You may not like it, but to oppose it is bigotry.

Nygdan said...

I don't think that all the backlash against the Cordoba House is bigoted, but the bulk of it is. Its an Islamic Cultural center. Its two blocks from ground zero. That is hardly a mark of militant islamist victory over America. Infact, I suspect that most islamists will not like what comes out of the Cordoba house.
And while the city of Cordoba was conquered by muslims, so what? The period of Moorish Spain was nearly a mini-rennaisance, it represents a time when Islam and the West were able to cooperate, to both their benefits. If the muslims wanted a symbol of militancy, they'd've replaced the "Freedom Tower" with a minaret and called it the Grenada Spire, not made a community center non-adjacent to the site and called it Cordoba.
AND they've changed the name to Park51, in sensitive response to claims that 'Cordoba' can only mean 'West-devouring Islamic Caliphate' (which is an idiotic claim in the first place).
Bottom line, the reason there is hostility to this building is because of a fear of muslims, and a stereotypical attribution to all muslims of militancy, secret or otherwise.

Ty said...

"What is bigoted about my reason?"

You mean other than everything?

Miranda said...

"Sorry, but there's no exception in the Constitution for ugly religions that you don't like."

Need I repeat myself that I agree with this?

"So, can I count on your support to oppose it when some Christian group...that wants to make the Bible the supreme law of the land wants to build a church? "

Yes, you can count on my opposition. But note: "oppose" has a wide range of definitions. My only plan to oppose it is to share my comments on small time blogs like yours. In other words, when I said I oppose it, all I meant is that I don't like it.

Nygdan wrote: "Its an Islamic Cultural center."

Not a mosque at all? Just askin'.

"Bottom line, the reason there is hostility to this building is because of a fear of muslims, and a stereotypical attribution to all muslims of militancy, secret or otherwise."

Nygdan seems to be the expert at stereotyping. In no way do I attribute militancy to ALL Muslims.

Takis Konstantopoulos said...

What I find rather amusing in Miranda's first comment is this:

If they build an Islamic "community center" near Ground Zero, it will be just another location where they have marked their conquest. (such as their Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sofia church, and Moors' Cordoba.)

In other words, she seems to be thinking in terms of "Islam against Christianity". This is totally irrelevant. The 9/11 attack had nothing to do with this (only in the minds of fundamentalists of both religions).

On the other hand, what does Hagia Sophia have to do with the proposed Islamic Center in New York? Hagia Sophia was a Christian church that was tranformed into a mosque after the Ottomans captured Constantinople. Christians did similar things when they captured other other people's lands. Hagia Sophia has been a mosque ever since 1453 CE and that's that. (And who cares?)

Second, what does the conquest of Cordoba in 711 CE have to do with the proposed Islamic Center in New York? As Nygdan mentioned above, the period that followed was a period of great development: Cordoba became one of the most advanced cities in the world, a cultural, political, financial and economic center and had the largest library in the world. A bit later, Arabs too, built the "House of Wisdom" in Baghdad which (until its destruction by the Mongols) was a great center of learning and discovery (mathematics, philosophy, medicine,... paper-making,... Al-Khwarizmi,...) At a time when Christians (both in Byzantium and the West) were hypnotized by their religion which demanded them not to think because thinking was devil's work, Cordoba and other Arabic centers preserved, promoted, and expanded upon older science (e.g. Greek mathematics). Had it not been for them, we would not have had Renaissance.

I don't know much about the Dome of the Rock. I believe it was constructed by Muslims in the 7th c. CE, later captured by Christian crusaders and transformed into a church, and then back by Muslims who made it into a mosque. Again, I fail to see why this is a mark of "their" conquest. Christians do leave their marks too.

So, the three examples Miranda gave are irrelevant.

Actually, what Miranda should do is try to find the two typos in Jeffrey Shallit's posting. Like she usually does :-)


P.S. As for Steve Beckow's blog, I particularly like this eye-witness drawing of a UFO in the UK. Clearly, UFOs exist. And, clearly, this Steve Beckow is very credible.

Anonymous said...

This is a bit of a tangent, but there were a couple of credible stories of forewarnings of 9/11. The first may be the inspiration for the "Jews were warned" woo-woo that you mention: multiple executives of Israeli instant messaging firm Odigo reported receiving warnings of the attack a couple of hours prior:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579

Willie Brown reported receiving advance warnings:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-09-12/news/17616221_1_airport-security-mayor-willie-brown-city-hall

There was also a Pakistani grade school student in Brooklyn who claimed on September 6 that the WTC buildings would not "be there" the next week:
http://www.newsweek.com/2001/10/11/between-the-lines-online-a-chilling-tale.html

Lots more cited here, with varying degrees of credibility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Anonymous:

Back when I looked into such claims, I found that most of them were easily explained by people who didn't understand time zones.

Miranda said...

Thanks, Takis, for setting me straight. I'll be sure to chastise my friends, Raheel Raza, Tarek Fatah, and Neda Bolourchi for their negative, bigoted reaction about the mosque.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
"we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran."

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html
"A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else' ... The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering — may genuinely seek to focus on “promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture,” as its Web site declares — but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not. "

PS: Jeffrey, I like your succinct answer to Anonymous.

Takis Konstantopoulos said...

Miranda, you are welcome. Glad to see you agree that your examples (Cordoba, etc.) had nothing to do with the muslim center.

Ideally, in an ideal world, we'd have no need for muslim or christian centers, no mosques, no churches, no need for one of the most idiotic human concepts, i.e. religion. Unfortunately, people seem to have a need for it because they are not able to think rationally; they have a need for myths. So, what can we do? Let them have a center. I wish mankind grew out of the disease of religion, but it doesn't look like there is going to be a cure any time soon. The only hope is to try to teach people how to think for themselves and have no need for Lords and such.

Miranda said...

> "Glad to see you agree that your examples (Cordoba, etc.) had nothing to do with the muslim center."

You have no idea if they do or don't, and you don't seem to care to find out.

March Hare said...

The problem with viewing the Muslim Centre as a 'conquest' is that they were perfectly able to build their centre there before 9/11 so nothing has actually changed.

I'm sure some will not see it that way but if I had conquered somewhere I'd want some additional benefits to those I had beforehand.

Miranda said...

Well, were the three Muslims I quoted, the ones who disapprove of the mosque near Ground Zero, bigots or not?

Takis Konstantopoulos said...

Miranda, if your examples were not original, then my previous comments (i.e. that I find them laughable) extend to those who used them first.

You have no idea if they do or don't, and you don't seem to care to find out.

This is exactly right: I don't care to find the source of a silly comment. You wrote it and if you want to write something more, go ahead and do it, but don't ask me or anybody else to search for references!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Jeffrey Shallit for clearing up the Asian Tribune article.

I've always thought the Cordoba Center was a ploy to make money. Create an out cry and unload the property for twice what you paid for it. I think the owners will next unveil the 20 ft. neon Muhammad that will shine 24/7. That should do the trick.

Miranda said...

Would you believe Harry Reid if he told you he wasn't a bigot?

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/16/reid-breaks-with-obama-opposes-mosque-near-ground-zero/

Eamon Knight said...

Every objection I have seen to the Cordoba project amounts either to some form of blaming all Moslems for 9/11, or paranoia about "Islamic victory" (IOW: obvious bigotry), or "being sensitive" to other people's feelings (IOW: caving to bigotry).

Mr. Reid is doing one or the other, and I don't care which.

GeorgeG said...

Eamon, how about the investigation of the leanings of Rauf, the driving force behind the building?

Abraham said...

Personally, I don't trust this Imam Feisal Rauf fellow. Here's one reason why:

http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/17/ground-zero-mosques-hidden-websites-follow-the-shariah/

Abraham said...

I'm glad I came back to this post to read your postscripts. Thanks.

I wanted to add to my previous comment by offering this post:

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/09/ground-zero-victory-mosque-imam-on.html

"In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.""

Miranda said...

Wow, there sure are lots of racist Muslims out there:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493711825224290.html

"A survey by Elaph, the most respected electronic daily in the Arab world, saw 58% object to the building of the WTC mosque."

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Miranda:

What kind of survey? An online poll?

Miranda said...

It's pointless to even answer that. Even if only two percent of Arabs oppose the mosque near Ground Zero, you would have to figure out a way to demonstrate that they are either all racists, like you called me, or that you've found a non-racist explanation for them -- while at the same time demonstrate that an ordinary American like me who opposes the mosque there is still stuck with the racist label.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Ah, Miranda's devotion to truth is on display.

Her modus operandi: find an article with a stat that backs her up, but avoid figuring out whether the stat has any meaning at all.

Miranda said...

Your avoidance of my oft-mentioned point is even more on display.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Miranda:

It must be really difficult for you, arguing with all those voices in your head.

I don't know what your "oft-mentioned" point is.

And I never called you a "racist".

Keep up the lies, it's just in keeping with your character.

Miranda said...

Oops, I meant bigot. Whatever. Wanna rewrite that whole comment assuming I had written 'bigot'?

My point is that you don't know how to differentiate between me (as well as millions of Americans like me) who don't like the idea of this mosque near Ground Zero and a few million Moslems who also don't like the idea.

March Hare said...

While I have no interest in getting in between Miranda and Jeffrey on this I would like to point out that the reasons for people objecting to the GZM are important.

If the (2% of) Muslims are against it because it pokes a stick in the eye of the US and enrages them to bomb more Muslims then that is a very relevant fact, do you not think? And that reasoning certainly goes to show that not everyone objecting to the the GZM is bigoted or irrational.

That's not to say most of the objections are bigoted, or emotional and irrational at least, but I think it shows you cannot label everyone with an objection a bigot.