Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[sjw]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm - what y'all think of this? bigotry? or reasoned thoughts...

A comparison of the mosque issue to Hitler is pure hysteria completely disconnected from reality.

[sjw]

Which 'fans' am I referring to--who obviously have nothing resembling common sense? Your comment speaks for itself.

Passive aggressiveness and pragmatism, what a combination.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

If it is found that this is actually a Sufi project through and through, what Whittle said bears no relation to reality.

If it is found that the unsavory ties that surround Feisal Abdul Rauf actually lead to Sunni-backed (or worse, Wahhabi) or even Shi'ite-backed developers, whatever the case, using Sufi as a front, he has a point and a very good point.

But there's a problem. From his discourse, you get the idea that Islam is all one thing, equal to Nazism or something like that. I don't know if I would call the way he did that bigoted (after all, he did refer to peaceful American Muslims), but it is oversimplified to an unreal degree.

Anyway, the issue is changing and it looks like the address of the Mosque might be moving to a new place.The developers did not expect the degree of fury from the American public that surged, even after they got Bloomberg and Obama on board, so they are now entertaining the offer from New York Governor David Paterson to use state land. I presume this is a donation.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Which 'fans' am I referring to--who obviously have nothing resembling common sense? Your comment speaks for itself.

Passive aggressiveness and pragmatism, what a combination.

Further demonstrating my point. Thank you. Please feel free to continue the demonstration without further comment from me.

[anonrobt]

Robert,

If it is found that this is actually a Sufi project through and through, what Whittle said bears no relation to reality.

If it is found that the unsavory ties that surround Feisal Abdul Rauf actually lead to Sunni-backed (or worse, Wahhabi) or even Shi'ite-backed developers, whatever the case, using Sufi as a front, he has a point and a very good point.

But there's a problem. From his discourse, you get the idea that Islam is all one thing, equal to Nazism or something like that. I don't know if I would call the way he did that bigoted (after all, he did refer to peaceful American Muslims), but it is oversimplified to an unreal degree.

Anyway, the issue is changing and it looks like the address of the Mosque might be moving to a new place.The developers did not expect the degree of fury from the American public that surged, even after they got Bloomberg and Obama on board, so they are now entertaining the offer from New York Governor David Paterson to use state land. I presume this is a donation.

Michael

I wasn't able to add this earlier, but wanted to post this as well, since it bears on another viewing of the area, one not being expressed in general - http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/08/dear_rest-of-am.php

and gives a different, more to your view, notion of the reality of this... each side is convincing in its presentation which, for many, makes it difficult to clearly see...

[Libertarian Muslim]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm - what y'all think of this? bigotry? or reasoned thoughts...

What an absolute load of rubbish.

1. When the Iranians took the Americans as prisoners from the embassy it was BECAUSE they were under covert attack from the US as they'd overthrown the US installed dictator the Shah who came into power in the 1950's after the US CIA and British MI6 overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran through Operation AJAX which included terrorist bombings on civilian targets. The US government did not get those prisoners taken back because a tougher government was elected.. The US government had to, amongst other things, promise to never again interfere with Iran's internal affairs which was a part of the Algiers Accords.

2. The Islamic Community Center known as Cordoba House is a 13 story building. The fact is that only two floors, the two top floors are going to be a Masjid where as the rest of the other 11 floors will be a community center that includes sports facilities, swimming pools, culinary schools, lecture theatres and even a memorial to the victims of 9/11, of which there were many Muslims who both worked in the WTC complex or were rescue workers.

It is a place where all people will be welcome, not only Muslims.. Just as a YMCA is open to all.

3. The other Masjid mentioned is not big enough to support it's current requirements.

4. The notion that every time Muslims take over a country we take the most revered places and put a masjid there is ridiculous.. That hasn't been proven at all and hasn't occurred in most cases.. For example, did we take over all of the Christian Churches in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine? No.

I also hardly call an old coat factory the most important and revered place in the US.

5. I also find the comparison that building this community center two blocks from the WTC complex to building a Japanese Shinto temple outside of Pearl Harbor after the attacks to be ridiculous. First of all, there was no 'state' that was responsible like there was for the Pearl Harbor attacks. Secondly, what if Chinese or Tibetan Bhuddists had wanted to make a temple there? Would their rights have been infringed?

6. The example of Saudi Arabia's religious tolerance is a stupid one, most Muslims around the world disagree with these policies and they weren't enacted by the Prophet Muhammad pbuh rather they were put in after his death by people who had no right to rule in the first place. Do you want to compare a great nation that was founded on religious freedoms like the USA to an ass backwards nation founded on intolerance like Saudi Arabia? Are we lowering our standards that much?

7. Hundreds of Millions of Muslims don't call for the death to America and the death to Israel in mosques every week. It happens in Iran but not at all mosques either.. And the Death to America and Death to Israel that is preached is not calling for the death of Americans as a whole nor Israelis.. It's calling for the death of the Imperialism that has been and continues to be practiced.

8. Which laws would need to be changed to suit Muslims in a properly Libertarian nation like was the intentions of those like Jefferson where the government didn't get involved with your personal life?

Robert,

If it is found that this is actually a Sufi project through and through, what Whittle said bears no relation to reality.

How do you define Sufi?

If it is found that the unsavory ties that surround Feisal Abdul Rauf actually lead to Sunni-backed (or worse, Wahhabi) or even Shi'ite-backed developers, whatever the case, using Sufi as a front, he has a point and a very good point.

I think you may have some misunderstanding about what being a Sufi is, it's not mutually exclusive from being a 'Sunni' or a 'Shia' and I don't see what the problem would be with having such ties would be? Those 'Sunnis' and 'Shia' that follow the tenets of Islam wouldn't be extremists so why the objection?

Anyway, the issue is changing and it looks like the address of the Mosque might be moving to a new place.The developers did not expect the degree of fury from the American public that surged, even after they got Bloomberg and Obama on board, so they are now entertaining the offer from New York Governor David Paterson to use state land. I presume this is a donation.

Michael

Well no, that's not the case thus far.. Paterson has floated the idea but Imam Abdul Rauf hasn't met with him nor has there been communication between the two. I'd be disappointed and surprised if such a deal was accepted..

And to be frank, I'm disgusted with the behavior of such people who want to stop this from being built.. The actions are so contradictory to the ideas of the Founding Fathers and it's like they want to make Muslim and American mutually exclusive..

Didn't American Muslims die in the attacks? Weren't American Muslims victims too? Weren't we also sent to war as soldiers of the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq? Didn't we volunteer to work as translators of Dari and Pashto to help the efforts, putting our own lives in danger? Haven't we also been instrumental in stopping other terrorist attacks by getting involved in the criminal justice system?

Such Americans need to get over these attitudes and stop seeing us as an alien group.. We're not.. We're as much a part of the US as any group and to treat us differently will only result in the US becoming like places such as France.. That's what occurs when you alienate part of your society and treat them like dirt, like criminals and terrorists.. That is what you make them..

[sjw]

Adonis I agree with what you're saying but how exactly does the Muslim religion square with the individual rights you seem to at least implicitly support? I mean, if you consistently stood for individual rights, how could you also be a Muslim? Don't you want Sharia everywhere? I could ask the same thing of a serious Christian, but in America since it's so easy to be a Christian I think most of them are not serious, whereas if one is Muslim in America I will assume that they take their religion somewhat seriously because they bear an extra social burden. Also America has a long secular track record, I'm not aware of Islam nations that have this, for example in Dubai they have debtor's prisons and are throwing failed businessmen into prison, which is something America abolished around the time of the Constitution.

Let me admit (again) up front that I'm very ignorant of Islam.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis I agree with what you're saying but how exactly does the Muslim religion square with the individual rights you seem to at least implicitly support? I mean, if you consistently stood for individual rights, how could you also be a Muslim? Don't you want Sharia everywhere? I could ask the same thing of a serious Christian, but in America since it's so easy to be a Christian I think most of them are not serious, whereas if one is Muslim in America I will assume that they take their religion somewhat seriously because they bear an extra social burden. Also America has a long secular track record, I'm not aware of Islam nations that have this, for example in Dubai they have debtor's prisons and are throwing failed businessmen into prison, which is something America abolished around the time of the Constitution.

Let me admit (again) up front that I'm very ignorant of Islam.

Hi there sjw,

Thank you for your question.

I think it depends on your understanding of Shariah.. I don't believe that Shariah law is the way the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Iran or any other nation in the Middle East and claims to have Shariah is actually correct Islamically.. Their understanding of Shariah is limited to their very limited understanding of Islam itself.

I believe that individual rights are enshrined in Islam.

[sjw]

I believe that individual rights are enshrined in Islam.

That strikes me as an extraordinary claim. For example, doesn't Sharia say that a woman is half of a man or some such?

If individual rights are enshrined in Islam, I would think there'd be some book or article somewhere that would elaborate on so momentous an issue, even arguing that Islam is the true foundation or at least a possible foundation of America. Do you know of any?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

You are disgusted with the attitude of Americans not wanting a mosque where Islamist terrorists staged a murderous attack?

OK.

No problem.

What about a large Catholic Cathedral, with a civic center of course, say about 13 stories high, in Mecca?

Would you be agreeable to that?

Of course, it would designed to be open to Muslims, not just Catholics.

The idea is religious tolerance, right?

Michael

EDIT: I don't think Sufi is exclusive. I just don't want Sufi on the outside and Wahhabi (or Hamas flotilla folks) on the inside. I think it bears looking into.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is another view from the son of the founder of Hamas. He thinks this is a mosque of division.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JxmuUzkBm0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JxmuUzkBm0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JxmuUzkBm0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is just in from ABC:

Islamic Center Backers Won't Rule Out Taking Funds from Saudi Arabia, Iran

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN

Aug. 18, 2010

ABC

From the article:

The developers behind the Islamic center planned for a site near Ground Zero won't rule out accepting financing from the Mideast -- including from Saudi Arabia and Iran -- as they begin searching for $100 million needed to build the project.

. . .

When asked if they would then turn to foreign donors, Sultan replied, "I can't comment on that."

Pressed on whether the developers were willilng rule out accepting donations from the governments of Saudi Arabia or Iran, he repeated, "I can't comment on that."

Now why am I not surprised?

Peace and love, right?

If it looks like a Trojan Horse, acts like a Trojan Horse, and talks like a Trojan Horse, I wonder what it must be...

Michael

[sjw]

This is just in from ABC:

I don't know if anyone could have predicted that Americans would get their panties into such a bunch over a non-mosque not actually at "ground-zero" and instead at a hole-in-the-wall coat factory, so I kind of doubt that your conspiracy theory about Iran etc. is correct.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

You are disgusted with the attitude of Americans not wanting a mosque where Islamist terrorists staged a murderous attack?

OK.

No problem.

What about a large Catholic Cathedral, with a civic center of course, say about 13 stories high, in Mecca?

Would you be agreeable to that?

Of course, it would designed to be open to Muslims, not just Catholics.

The idea is religious tolerance, right?

Michael

EDIT: I don't think Sufi is exclusive. I just don't want Sufi on the outside and Wahhabi (or Hamas flotilla folks) on the inside. I think it bears looking into.

I believe there should be no prohibition whatsoever on the building of Churches or Synagogues or any place devoted to the worship of God anywhere, especially in Mecca. The Middle East is the birthplace of the Abrahamic religions and things are changing slowly in the Middle East with Qatar allowing the building of churches.. Change will come incrementally there..

And for the record, even if you believe the BS story of 9/11 those terrorists were just terrorists (which I don't).. They didn't represent any faith and have been condemned by the overwhelming majority of Muslims and especially Muslim scholars and their actions have been shown to be unislamic..

We lost Muslims on 9/11 too who were innocent civilians working in the WTC Complex and first responders trying to rescue innocent people.. Why are people trying to separate us from the USA exactly? You can be a good Muslim and a good American, in fact that's Imam Abdul Rauf's point, the title of his book of course is 'What's Right with Islam IS what's Right with the America'. So why is this even an issue? American Muslims are American Muslims.. They're citizens and deserve the same rights as any American, including the right to build places of worship on our own land, wherever that is.

I'm particularly disgusted with Libertarian candidates that are so opposed to this mosque being built.. To them I say, if you're not willing to accept Muslims as citizens with full rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then please remove the word Libertarian from any way you describe yourself. This isn't a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic that guarantees those rights.. That's why so many Muslims love America and want to live there.

[Darrell Hougen]

Just some general comments:

1. As far as I am concerned, this is a foreign policy issue, not a property rights issue. The U.S. government could legitimately prevent foreign investors, especially foreign governments from contributing funds for the construction of the mosque and, in my view, should do so. Neither foreign governments nor foreign persons have unbridled property rights in this country.

2. Most, if not all, predominantly Islamic countries have signed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, designed to compete with the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is incompatible with rights of conscience, free speech, freedom of religion, etc., spelled out in the latter.

3. Whether the Ground Zero Mosque is at Ground Zero or not is a matter of debate. The building that is the site of the proposed mosque was badly damaged on 9/11 and has been unoccupied since that time, so it is arguably part of Ground Zero. A red shaded region on a map purporting to show the location of Ground Zero proves nothing.

4. The fact that the building was damaged on 9/11 is significant. It would not have been available for purchase at the going price if it had not been damaged on that date. So, selling it to develop a mosque is sort of like rewarding the perpetrators of the crime.

5. The mosque building project is called the "Cordoba Initiative," a clear reference to the Cordoba Mosque in Spain that enshrined the Muslim Conquest of Spain. If the people behind the mosque had good and peaceful intentions, they would have chosen a different name.

Darrell

[sjw]

Just some general comments:

1. There is no such thing as an "unbridled" right, there is either a right or there is not, and you either support rights of all individuals or you do not. And you do not. This is not a foreign policy issue either. If it were, and if some foreign interest *that had violated the rights of individuals* was funding this or that, then *on those grounds* once the funds came to America they should be confiscated to pay for the damage they caused, and maybe war should be declared upon this interest, *regardless of what that money was being used for*. In other words, it would have nothing to do with this particular non-mosque.

2. This is pure collectivist/tribalist reasoning not worthy of refutation.

3. Pure mystical reasoning. Are you religious? Just curious.

4. If the people building this are the ones who perpetrated the crime, then you should be arguing for prosecuting them. Why aren't you? Are you a hypocrite? If you're not a hypocrite, then argue for stripping all the rights from all Muslims, argue for bombing all the mosques in America, etc.

5. And they say Muslims are touchy. Unbunch your panties and grow up.

[Darrell Hougen]

Hereis some more information on the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights. It states, in part:

... the Cairo Declaration allows stoning as punishment, prohibits Muslims from changing their religion, prohibits usury, does not give women equal rights and divides the world between Muslims and infidels. It makes it clear that Muslims are the “best nation” whose duty it is to make you become like them. While it is supposedly a document about rights, it also a document containing restrictions. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is a harsh document that comes from a harsh faith.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

1. There is no such thing as an "unbridled" right, there is either a right or there is not, and you either support rights of all individuals or you do not.

A foreign government is not an individual and a representative of a foreign government is not acting as an individual. Try to parse what I'm saying.

... This is not a foreign policy issue either. If it were, and if some foreign interest *that had violated the rights of individuals* was funding this or that, then *on those grounds* once the funds came to America they should be confiscated to pay for the damage they caused, and maybe war should be declared upon this interest, *regardless of what that money was being used for*. In other words, it would have nothing to do with this particular non-mosque.

If, during WWII, a representative of Germany came to this country to set up a radio station funded by the German government to spew Nazi propaganda, should that be allowed? Would that person have a "right" to do such a thing?

Is your only tool of foreign policy to go to war? If a criminal regime is doing something to harm this country or the citizens thereof, are there no other means of fighting back? Use your brain.

The rest of your rubbish doesn't merit a response.

Darrell

[sjw]

A foreign government is not an individual and a representative of a foreign government is not acting as an individual. Try to parse what I'm saying.

Only individuals exist. If the particular grouping of them is acting in concert then their individual rights are still in effect. Try to parse what I am saying.

If, during WWII, a representative of Germany came to this country to set up a radio station funded by the German government to spew Nazi propaganda, should that be allowed? Would that person have a "right" to do such a thing?

Is your only tool of foreign policy to go to war? If a criminal regime is doing something to harm this country or the citizens thereof, are there no other means of fighting back? Use your brain.

If any individual or group had violated rights, then any number of actions against them are warranted. And there is this thing called "due process" that we would use to determine whether such was the case. It wouldn't be about a non-mosque being built at some particular location, it would be about the crime that was allegedly perpetrated. Are you alleging a crime was perpetrated? Stop using analogies, point to the guilty parties here, and advocate going after them REGARDLESS of where this non-mosque is built. Unless you're a hypocrite. If you're a hypocrite just keep your panties in a bunch and calm right back down when they move the non-mosque from this patch of dirt to that one.

The rest of your rubbish doesn't merit a response.

Uh huh...

[sjw]

Hereis some more information on the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights. It states, in part:

... the Cairo Declaration allows stoning as punishment, prohibits Muslims from changing their religion, prohibits usury, does not give women equal rights and divides the world between Muslims and infidels. It makes it clear that Muslims are the “best nation” whose duty it is to make you become like them. While it is supposedly a document about rights, it also a document containing restrictions. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is a harsh document that comes from a harsh faith.

Darrell

Based on my quick read of this Declaration, I surmise that this is quite biased in its analysis, and pretends that gross injustices haven't existed in spades in "Western" governments both in recent history and presently.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I believe there should be no prohibition whatsoever on the building of Churches or Synagogues or any place devoted to the worship of God anywhere, especially in Mecca. The Middle East is the birthplace of the Abrahamic religions and things are changing slowly in the Middle East with Qatar allowing the building of churches.. Change will come incrementally there..

Adonis,

I do not have time to write anything right now and I only logged on for a quick look-see.

But this answer of yours moved me.

I was already pleased to know you. Without going into detail, let's say that just increased a lot.

These are good seeds we are planting regardless of the acrimony swirling around this issue.

More later.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

A foreign government is not an individual and a representative of a foreign government is not acting as an individual. Try to parse what I'm saying.

Only individuals exist. If the particular grouping of them is acting in concert then their individual rights are still in effect. Try to parse what I am saying.

If, during WWII, a representative of Germany came to this country to set up a radio station funded by the German government to spew Nazi propaganda, should that be allowed? Would that person have a "right" to do such a thing?

Is your only tool of foreign policy to go to war? If a criminal regime is doing something to harm this country or the citizens thereof, are there no other means of fighting back? Use your brain.

If any individual or group had violated rights, then any number of actions against them are warranted. And there is this thing called "due process" that we would use to determine whether such was the case. It wouldn't be about a non-mosque being built at some particular location, it would be about the crime that was allegedly perpetrated. Are you alleging a crime was perpetrated? Stop using analogies, point to the guilty parties here, and advocate going after them REGARDLESS of where this non-mosque is built. Unless you're a hypocrite. If you're a hypocrite just keep your panties in a bunch and calm right back down when they move the non-mosque from this patch of dirt to that one.

...

Well, then, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc., are all illegitimate regimes that do not protect individual rights. Therefore, as a matter of foreign policy, the U.S. government need not allow them or their surrogates to spend money in this country. The absense of their right to spend money in this country is a consequence of their illegitimate nature.

Have a nice night.

Darrell

[sjw]

Well, then, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, etc., are all illegitimate regimes that do not protect individual rights.

Such as the United States for example.

Therefore, as a matter of foreign policy, the U.S. government need not allow them or their surrogates to spend money in this country. The absense of their right to spend money in this country is a consequence of their illegitimate nature.

As a matter of foreign policy, the US should confiscate funds from rights-violators and use it to repay those whose rights were violated.

So what if the funding came from inside the US? Would you legally allow the non-mosque be built then? I'm not asking if you'd like it.

[sjw]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis201.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I kind of doubt that your conspiracy theory about Iran etc. is correct.

Shayne,

This remark has nothing to do with reality. I don't have enough information to have a theory yet. Noticing warning signs is not a theory.

You apparently have a theory. Do you have enough information to be comfortable with it?

http://www.lewrockwe...argolis201.html

This link goes to an article called "New York Mosque: Bigotry Rears Its Head" by Eric Margolis.

I'm glad you posted that because it is good to see how certain bigots who have infiltrated liberarianism disguise their bigotry. In other words, it's good to look at all forms of bigotry, not just the anti-Islam form.

After congratulating Obama and Bloomberg on being courageous for standing up (he is proud to say) to our "misled countrymen," and making a bunch of statements with the subtext that anyone who opposes the mosque is a neocon bigot, he ends with a bang. Margolis's fundamental message is Islamophobia is an evil form of bigotry--but my form of bigotry is better.

Look at his own words:

The dragon teeth of religious hatred planted by the Bush administration, and nurtured by the neocons and religious far right, are blooming.

Islam had no more to do with 9/11 than Christianity did with World War II. The men who staged the attacks were Muslims, and spoke in its idiom, as most Muslims do, but their inspiration for this awful act was punishing the US for Palestine, overthrowing Mideast governments, expropriating resources, and imposing brutal tyrannies on the Muslim world.

That's a pretty blatant smokescreen of trying to sound reasonable. It's a rhetorical device of stating a bland truth (the basic message being that people commit crimes, not religions) in order to get people nodding so Margolis can smuggle in a boneheaded conclusion.

Here is what is wrong and/or left out of that ending:

1. Religious hatred has existed in the USA far, far before Bush ever took office.

2.The litany of "inspiration" Margolis gives for Islamist terrorists is about as selective and boneheaded as, say, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" gives for Jews. It is so lopsided it isn't credible--unless you understand the bigotry behind it.

Let's take the 3 things in order:

• Overthrowing Mideast governments -Islamist terrorists work actively to overthrow Muslim governments in the Mideast.
• Expropriating resources - Islamist terrorists actually do expropriate resources from Muslim owners.
• Imposing brutal tyrannies - Islamist terrorists actually do impose their own brutal tyrannies on Muslims when they can get away with it.

So it looks like the "inspiration" of the Islamist terrorists for hating the USA enough to ram airplanes into USA skyscrapers is the same "inspiration" in their own hearts and it is what drives them to seek power by violence.

It is evil when Americans do it. But a virtue when Islamist thugs do it. That's called a double standard. Now why would Margolis make such an oversight? I say he is a bigot.

Setting aside the double standard, something is missing, no?

How about Nazism as an inspiration? Doesn't that ring a bell? That's a pretty big "inspiration" to leave out, too.

In fact, such omission is the tell-tale sign of Margolis's bigotry, not his complaints (some of which are valid) against Bush and neocons. Before continuing, though, here is a whole bunch of historical evidence of the Nazi roots of Islamism. This evidence is provided by Muslims:

Tell The Children The Truth

Now what do Nazi-Islamist thugs do in today's world? They destroy others and seek power by force.

What do American businessmen who are in bed with governments do? Well, they destroy some folks, but they also produce, provide jobs they create, increase wealth in the world, etc.

I do not condone the being in bed with governments part of large American corporations, but I also recognize that they are producers.

It's a hell of a choice if you have to choose one over the other and swallow evil as if it were good, which is why I never frame my arguments that way. I despise the part of American interventionism where Americans have trained the secret police of bloody dictators, etc. I have written about this elsewhere. Oppression is oppression, no matter who does it. But supposing I did have to frame my arguments in terms of a choice, I would have to choose some production over total destruction and power lust.

It's a no-brainer.

(And let me make it clear that I do make such choices because I do not condone oppression.)

Margolis makes it clear that Nazism to him is just the status quo, so much that you don't even need to mention it when talking about Islamist terrorists.

Margolis prefers Nazi thugs to American businessmen when they get involved with governments. He makes that message unmistakable. And he even goes further. He claims that Nazi-Islamist thugs would not be Nazi-Islamist thugs if it were not for evil American businessmen and politicians on the neocon side.

Margolis doesn't use this language, but his message rings loud and honking: his bigotry is better than the other side's bigotry.

That's BS by the ton-load.

He is correct about one thing. Bigotry has reared its ugly head--right in his very article.

Michael