Thursday, September 09, 2010

An Implied Threat?


The back and forth has been getting interesting in the New York City mosque flap. First, check out this Fox News story (which quotes a CNN interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf). Here's an exerpt . . .

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told CNN that the discourse surrounding the center has become so politicized that moving it could strengthen the ability of extremists abroad to recruit and wage attacks against Americans, including troops fighting in the Middle East.

"The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack," he said, but he added that he was open to the idea of moving the planned location of the center, currently two blocks north of the World Trade Center site.

"But if you don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world," he later said, predicting that the reaction could be more furious than the eruption of violence following the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.


James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal had something to say about that in his column today . . .

What was initially marketed as a gesture of conciliation has turned into a protection racket: Give Rauf what he wants, he tells us, or there's no telling what those angry Muslim extremists might do. Rauf's outrageous comments ought to erase all doubt that the construction of the Ground Zero mosque would be a victory for terrorism.

With this development, I'm inclined to agree with James. Now that we've got an implied threat, my own view has hardened a bit. I'm certainly not going to burn Qurans in protest, but as long as we have to proceed under blackmail, my feeling is "no mosque."

You don't give in to a child having a temper tantrum. And you certainly don't give in to people rioting, burning and killing to get their way.

No comments: