Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts

Monday, January 19, 2015

Taking a stand, for the last time.



Last week, I said that A Pius Stand is coming.

It's finally going to be over.



If you've been with this blog since the beginning -- or if you've read "Pius Origins" link on the sidebar -- you know that this started out as a history paper gone amuck. It was a graduate paper in which I examined the truth behind Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust.



SPOILERS FOR A PIUS MAN, but, what I learned from my research was simple. Pius XII did more than any one person to save people in Europe during World War II.  More POWs. More Jews. More refugees. Because life was precious, and if they didn't like it, they could just come and get him.



But if you read any media around Pope Pius XII, you get Hitler's Pope. And Susan Zuccotti. And John Cornwell. And Gary Wills and Michael Phayer. The Wiki page on it has become more balanced, but still incomplete. You don't even want to know what it looked like when I started writing.  All of these great big names trying to spin a story I know to be false, and I spent a whole four months looking at primary documents as a grad student in America. They were journalists and historians. They should have known better.



I don't like liars.



The Pius Trilogy started out as a devotion. One that I tried to make readable for everyone. I wanted the opening to be dark and ominous to trap anti-Catholic to reading on, until they are so hip deep in the book that by the time that the revelation is given, the trap springs shut.



END SPOILERS.



The short version is, this was a devotion.  This was to sing the praises of God and His followers. This was a devotion to the truth, and a war on lies. At the same time, I was making it readable for other people. Heck, one of my friends on Facebook became a friend of mine BECAUSE of A Pius Man, and she's Jewish, I can't make it too much more open and readable than that.



The reason my cast was so big was simple -- I wanted to make it clear that the truth was not some subjective moving target. I needed a doubter, a neutral party, two red herrings, confirmation of the mystery ... well, you'll just have to read it to perform that matching column.



But my premise was that of philosopher Peter Kreeft -- this was an ecumenical jihad, a war against one very specific force of darkness, and one that the religions in A Pius Man could get behind. Because the liars I've been fighting since the beginning all have one thing in common.  What is that thing? Read A Pius Legacy.







But then I couldn't get the Catholic Writer's Guild Seal of Approval for APM. Why? Because the book was too violent, and some poor little dear was squeamish. I know this happened because I had officers of the Guild come up to me and suggested that there needed to be changes in the was the Seal of Approval was handled. Devotion to truth? Devotion to God? Who needs it? I've got a gun-toting Catholic! Run!


Then I had one or two of those officers write positive reviews. I'll take it.



The reason I kept going was that some things needed to be said. Some things needed to be put out there and thrown at people's heads until they either take notice or are bludgeoned to death.  Because the truth is not a game, or a weapon, except against lies. Truth is what happened, and maybe we can speculate about reasons, or about the why of things, and sometimes people will leave a diary detailing what and why they did. Then we hope the poor schmuck isn't a schizophrenic or a pathological liar.



And I kept going because I had to. Because writing is all I have. This trilogy has been my life for ten years. And now it's time for me to say goodbye.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Muslims Can't Be Good Americans ..... Huh?

A long while ago, I discussed one Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. He was, at the very least, one of the candidates most likely to be kicked out of the US Army, having given a June 2007 PowerPoint presentation that discussed “adverse events” that would occur if the Army did not accept the precepts of Islamic Shariah law and grant Muslims serving in the Army conscientious objector status.

I'm sure Maj. Hasan would be quite, quite happy to learn that the US Army has now taken his advise.

Enter Pfc. Naser Abdo, 21, a member of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky. He refused to deploy to Afghanistan, claiming that Sharia law prevented him from killing other Muslims.....

Ahem ....

Let's start with the fact that Sharia is the sort of thing used in Sudan to justify hacking off limbs for theft, stoning for adultery, and crucifying members of other religions.  This is the sort of thing that makes you arch an eyebrow and wonder "What the....?"  

All in all, this is a generally Bad Idea.

Not to mention that it is pure and utter garbage.[More below the break]

Monday, July 11, 2011

Holy Terror ... Batman? A writing Blog.

Frank Miller is a name you might be familiar with.  He wrote the comic books that would spawn the movies 300Sin City, several Batman titles, including the annoyingly omnipresent Batman: Year One, and he had a very popular run on Daredevil, and even created the character of Elektra, the assassin with father issues.  Miller was also the director on The Spirit-- and has a small lynch mob after him for that, I'm sure.

So, Miller gets around.

Several years and a few lifetimes ago, Frank Miller said he wanted to write a graphic novel called "Holy Terror, Batman!" a play on a line from the 1960s Batman TV show with Adam West.

Miller has debuted his Holy Terror and ...

It doesn't have Batman.

Miller decided to work with a new hero, it wouldn't be a DC comics project, etc, etc.

On the one hand, I can understand that Frank Miller has had issues lately with DC.  His All Star Batman and Robin, the Boy Wonder was, as I understand it, universally panned by reviewers, except for those who seem to want Frank Miller's baby. They weren't pretty, either way.

Miller's version: it was more Dirty Harry than Batman. It just didn't work with Batman.....

Really?

I guess Miller has a bit of a point. After all, why would al-Qaeda want to blow up Gotham city? Aside from the fact that it's a major metropolitan area, high-population density, the potential for massive body counts if they did it right .....

Oh wait, that would make Gotham a perfect target.

My friend Jason said that it wouldn't work because the larger DC universe would make it impossible for al-Qaeda to exist. After all, there's "The Society," Lex Luthor, Ra's al-Ghul, and a whole bunch of others who operate on an international scale.  It's like the problem someone had with Straczynski's Amazing Spider Man 9-11 issue, where he wrote that even the villains like Doctor Doom were offended by 9-11 .... to which someone replied online that "If Doctor Doom were offended by al-Qaeda, they'd be dead within 48 hours. All of them."

However, I must disagree with Jason in one respect -- this is Frank Miller, the continuity of the DC universe means about as much to him as it would to Franz Kafka.  He plays fast and loose with the universes as he pleases. The only hard and fast rule he would have to adhere to would be the layout and rules of engagement of Gotham city....

At which point, that becomes one of my short stories.... It would take too long to explain here, but for the Gotham universe, an al-Qaeda attack would probably go as follows.

Within the week, they would be out of money .... Catwoman would have robbed them. Repeatedly.

The first time they blew up a building with any amount of plants ... Poison Ivy would hunt them down and feed them to her vegetable garden.

The Joker would probably meet up with al-Qaeda .... for about five minutes. And then he would gas them because he didn't like their sense of humor, since, from what I can tell, they don't seem to have one.

And then, after the Joker starts killing them en mass, the organized crime outfits of Gotham would machine-gun the rest on the principle that al-Qaeda was muscling in on their territory.

Then, if al-Qaeda was really lucky, Batman would arrest whoever was still alive.

So, I guess I could see Frank Miller's problem. Gotham city would eat the terrorists....

And now that I've suggested it, I'm fairly certain that someone is already starting to write the fan fiction (If that's true, then I ask you to please link to the blog. Other than that, have fun.)

Right now, I'm just hoping that Miller's writing ability hasn't completely failed him. Because if he puts out another piece of quality work like The Spirit, I think the lynch mob after him might get larger.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Index: Atheists, Lent, and Evil Religions

Throughout Easter and a Lent, I did a lot of what my friend Jason called "High Intellectual" articles.


I'm never making that mistake ever again.

However, since it did have some interesting fan support.... if "fans" could be people screaming for your blood ... I figured I'd put it into a nice, compact little section on the blog. Think of it as a season in review that, with luck, I'll never inflict on anyone ever again.

The Snarky Theology series. My way of translating dogmatic theology into something that human beings can understand.

Snarky Theology 1: Catholic Cannibals. Looking at the theology of Swallow the leader. Eating your deity.
Snarky Theology 2: FAQs about Lent. Some fun facts about Lent that turned into a minor war.
The Flame war is postponed:While I was busy having a flame war with an idiot on the blog, someone did something stupid online. I fought back in the name of all sane people everywhere.

Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other IrritantsEvolution, what is it good for? My answer: who cares?
Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays Pretty much what it says.

GOD H8TS JAPAN; Twitting with Phelps & Co.  Hint, it was published on 4-1-11

Snarky Theology 5: The Passion, Jews, and Good Friday. 

Snarky Theolgy 6: Easter: HE IS RISEN



Murder in The Vatican: The Church Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes

The Guest Blog Index -- "Catholic fiction"-- I had two weeks off from Snarky theology for two virtual book tours. One was a bit of Sherlock Holmes with Murder in the Vatican, and some Catholic science fiction from Karina Fabian's Infinite Space, Infinite God II

Murder in the Vatican Author Margaret Ann Lewis.

Guest blog (on writing historical figures in fiction) and Interview (on writing a book on Sherlock Holmes and Pope Leo XIII), and a Review of Murder in the Vatican, which can be found at Amazon.com

Infinite Space, Infinite God III did the same for Karina Fabian.

The Guest blog: where she talks about writing religion and science fiction

The interview, where I unleash my inner nerdom ...

And a review.

I think that was the most fun I had had that Lent. They were both a joy and a pleasure to have.

Evil Religions

The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And HitchensAnd, at the end of may, when the Easter season was almost over, I did a series I call, simply "Evil Religion." The title, for the record, was Ironic. It wound up covering a lot of atheist theology. Not sure why. Maybe because the Dawkins-Hitchens crowd tend to whine alot.


One called simply "Allahu Akbar" Guess what that's about.






The God DelusionAnti-theist complaints: Literal interpretations. I asked my friend Matt what he thought was wrong with religion. I answered him.  This was pretty much a series all it's own from here on in.


Indoctrination of Children. Because religious education is brain washing, don't you know?

Doctrine Crapshoot. Because everything is just pick and choose, right?

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.)Religious Superiority complexes: Because religion is the source of egomania, after all.

Random Beliefs. Because it's all so random, you know?

Conform, or else.... because no one ever goes against a secular norm.

Evil Atheist / Religion, Conclusion.  This is where I tie it all together.



Can you understand why this blog is now all nerd-dom all the time?  This was a draining, wrenching experience. One that I never want to relive. 

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Evil Religions 1: Allahu Akbar.


An evil religion blog post.



When I first proposed the "Evil Religions" series of blogs, I figured I would make it ironic. You may all remember the "first" Evil Religion post back on April 1st. This is the real one.



Before you get your panties in a twist, I warned readers of this blog quite some time ago that there would be a series of “Evil Religion” blog posts, and that it wouldn't be what you think it is. Guess what, it's still not going to be what you think it is. Read the rest of this preface here.



Now, let's start with our first “Evil Religion.”  The following can be footnoted in the works of Bernard Lewis, David Dalin, Ralph McInerny, or Roy Schoeman’s “Salvation is from the Jews



The Middle East has a problem, and it's not Islam. It's their culture... which is also not Islam.



Yes, sorry, hate to break it to all of you, the culture of the Middle East was not substantially altered by The Prophet. Mainly because there were no real fundamental building blocks for the culture to be altered …



The trouble with the Middle East, in part, can be traced to the Nazis.



No, I am not being allegorical, but literal.



If you're a newcomer to this blog, you may not have heard of the term “Hitler’s Pope”: that Eugenio Pacelli, aka Pope Pius XII, worked with, for, or around Hitler in support of the final solution of the Holocaust.



What I'm almost certain you never hear about is what has been labeled Hitler’s Mufti.



To be more precise, he is properly called the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Now, a bit of background: in the 1920s, as a prize of World War I, Palestine was a mandate of Britain—they ran it and everything in it. Al-Husseini was installed by the English; he had, in fact, been put into power by a Jewish Minister of the Palestinian Mandate, Robert Samuel. Samuel even rigged the votes a little, in part on behalf of an anti-Semitic “advisor” Ernest Richmond (who may or may not have been al-Husseini's boyfriend; there were rumors, and Richmond was British, after all....).



Through the 1920s, al-Husseini incited two “intifadas” that killed mostly Jews (which I can only assume means that intifada now translates as “pogrom”), and Robert Samuel caved in each time, eventually cutting off any and all Jewish immigration into Palestine.



And you thought British appeasement started with Neville Chamberlain, didn't you?



Hajj al-Husseini was, in essence, local aristocracy. His brother had been the previous Grand Mufti, and his family had been in government positions for the previous seventy years. Unfortunately, his mind had been a little warped by a propaganda piece out of Tsarist Russia called the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”



For those of you who don't know about the Protocols, it is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that makes anything Dan Brown has written look like a well-researched historical treatise. According to the Protocols, the entire world is run by three hundred Jews out of Europe. Al-Husseini got it into his head that the British forces in Palestine were, in fact, there on the behest of their Jewish overlords, therefore, the British were mere puppets of the vast Zionist conspiracy ...



At this point, it feels like the moment I should grab the Thorazine and cue The Illuminati Polka.



Even after al-Husseini became grand Mufti, he called for an anti-Jewish jihad in Palestine during the 1930s, saying “Murder the Jews! Murder them all!”  This was how he started riots in 1929 and 1936-1939. He would later move his rhetorical style to Berlin radio, stating in one “Kill the Jews—Kill them with your hands, kill them with your teeth! This is well pleasing to Allah!” Al-Husseini’s connection with Hitler begins in 1933, when he sent emissaries to Berlin, first lending support, then suggesting collaboration. When the German anti-Jewish laws went into effect in 1934, the Islamic world sent them congratulations. Husseini would become friends with Adolf Eichmann (the banal evil that logistically engineered the Holocaust), and pushed for the extermination of Jews as soon as possible.



In 1937, al-Husseini met with Hitler, and they apparently got along quite well. Afterwards, Al-Husseini tried for a Nazi tour of the middle east; he briefly led an overthrow of the government in Iraq, only to be run out by the British. He hid in the Japanese embassy in Iran for a little bit, until the British and the Soviets invaded. He ran through Turkey and made it to Mussolini's Italy. He finally ended up in Germany.



SS chief Heinrich Himmler took Husseini on tours of the death camps, and the mufti pushed for greater diligence in running the gas chambers. Eichmann’s deputy Dieter Wisliceny mentioned that the mufti “played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews.” At the Nuremburg trials, he stated that “the mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler… one of Eichmann’s best friends” And don't think Dieter got anything out of saying all of this—he was executed after the trial.



Al-Husseini also had a Muslim clerical school in Dresden, where Muslims could be trained in Nazism, and introduce it to the Middle East. In exchange for this service, Husseini went into Bosnia to recruit Muslims for the SS, Hanjar (or Handschar) units, who wore specially marked fezzes with the swastika on them. You can also see photos of Husseini in Bosnia inspecting the SS troops (see: Shoeman, 258. If you want to see more research on Muslim/Arab Nazis, hit the Yad vashem archives , or the Simon Wiesenthal Center). The Muslim SS Hanjar (“sword”) unit massacred about 90% of Bosnia’s Jews.



Husseini made it to France after the war, after the Swiss kicked him out. The pro-Nazi French government (which was still in charge for a while) refused to extradite him, and by the time the Allies could lay their hands on him, it was inconvenient to prosecute him (Tito didn't want the “Handschar units” as an issue in his ethnically-divided Yugoslavia; the new English government didn't want to antagonize the Arabs in their Middle East mandates, and the Soviets had their eye on the middle east as future clients). He managed to stay free and clear until 1974, when death caught him.



So why does Mufti al-Husseini matter today? Well, let’s start with the fact that the grand mufti imported Nazi experts to train young Palestinians in guerrilla tactics—the start of a group we know as the Palestinian Liberation Organization.



During the Six Day War in 1967, Israelis found Egyptian prisoners carrying issues of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Ironically, it had been translated into Arabic by a man known as el-Hadj…aka former Nazi propagandist Lius Heiden. Mein Kampf would be republished by Yassir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority in 2001 and was an instant bestseller throughout the Middle East—in 1999, it was sixth on the bestseller list in Palestine (and this is before the reprint). By the way, did I mention that “Schindler’s List” is banned?



The legacy of al-Husseini lives on into the 21st century. To start with, it was in the form of his nephew—Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. If you blink you miss the key word—Arafat. Yes, that Arafat. Second Lieutenant Wilhelm Boerner, a guard at Mauthausen concentration camp, and Erich Altern (Gestapo, head of their “Jewish Affairs” section), trained members of the Palestine Liberation Front. Former Nazi Johann Schuller, supplied arms to Fatah. Jean Tireault, neo-Nazi, also paid by Fatah. In the 1970s, neo-Nazi Otto Albrecht was hired by the PLO to act as a middle man for weapons.



Then there’s the Grand Mufti’s grandson, Skeikh Ekrima Sabri, the current Mufti of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. He said recently “The figure of 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust is exaggerated…It was a lot less. It’s not my fault if Hitler hated the Jews. Anyway, they hate them just about everywhere.” Nice guy.



And let’s not forget that the Socialist nationalist party of Syria had a “Furher” and their banner donned the swastika as well. It's also known as the “Ba'athist party.” The one that's currently running Syria, and used to be Saddam Hussein's party.



Remember that pro-Nazi coup that got Husseini tossed out of Iraq? One rally member was a man named Khayrallah Tulfah. After the war, he lived with his nephew, and in the main room of his house he had an idolized portrait of Hitler on the wall. He raised the nephew personally, and had al-Husseini over to his home repeatedly until Husseini died. This nephew would grow up to be one mean fellow—one of his mistresses noted that he would look himself in the mirror and state “I am Saddam Hussein. Heil Hilter!”



The Grand Mufti, this (literal) Islamofascist, helped form the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And let us not forget Egyptian leader Gamal Nasser, who helped the Nazis in Egypt during the war, and who later led the Six Day War against Israel. He even adopted the slogan “One folk, One party, One leader.” His successor, Anwar Sadat, also had ties to the Reich—he spied for Germany during the war. Johannes von Leers, Goebbel’s executive officer, was put in charge of Egypt’s Ministry of Information in 1955. Gestapo man Hans Becher went on to become a police instructor in Egypt.



Let's look at the bad stuff that have come out of the middle east in the last hundred years, shall we? The psycho dictators have decided to enforce laws written down when Islam was still an emerging power, using the literal xenophobic rules of the day to enforce their own will. In fact, most of the stuff they're using isn't really the Koran, but bastardized versions of it, at best. They tend to work with scholars who have very.....old views about how Islam works, or should work.



Many of these were laws that were not in place during the Ottoman empire. It falls, and within a few decades, tada, archaic rules that no one noticed suddenly become applicable, and some which were completely made up two hundred years ago, or two decades ago – basically, whatever they “found” that could be useful. There is no Islamic Vatican. They devolved into a bunch of different opposing viewpoints that tended to disassociate Islam from itself more than anything.



Such transparent bull …



And let's target Israel, because, yes, a nation the size of Vermont is a threat to an Islamic geographical area equal to or greater than the entire United States of America … Israel just reminds Arabs that they're no longer on top of the world, and that there's no changing it.



One of the problems these psychos have taken advantage of is : you can't translate the Koran in the Middle East. Seriously, it's illegal. Which becomes a problem because most people can't read the Koran. I'm serious. Imagine how hard it is to read Shakespeare. It takes entire college courses, because it's poetry, and requires historical context. Now take the Bible, which also requires whole college classes (my bible course took a whole semester, and we only got through the Old Testament), because it's partly written in poetry, and also requires historical context. You get the worst of both possible worlds in the King James Bible.



Now, imagine that the King James Bible was written in Olde English—and I mean Beowulf English, not Chaucer.



And now you have the Koran, a document that's heavy on poetry, that is illegal to translate, study, dissect, or give any historical context to, written in a language no one has used in fifteen centuries.



And it has been translated. I've read it … it's still bloody unreadable.



Congratulations, your local leaders can now make it say whatever they like. Say what you like about the Bible, but it has been poked, prodded, dissected, vivisected, and footnoted to within an inch of its life, and it gets a new translation every few years.



And in Europe, you have a whole bunch of immigrant youth, being brought up in Mosques so insane that they're run by rejects from the Middle East, because they were so nuts even the Wahhabi's wouldn't take them. They're all in an environment that is either so antithetical that they're hostile (Chirac's France) or so accommodating that they're letting the nutjobs take over (Holland).



Oh, and you didn't have suicide bombers in the 1920s. Or the 1940s—and the technology was there, the Japanese Imperial Army had suicide bombers near the end of the war in the pacific. Suicide bombers were not invented in the Middle East ... they were invented by the Ayatollah Khomeini, in the 1980s, when he was fighting a war against Iraq, and losing, badly. Suicide bombers were his way of balancing the scales. And as one book notes, Khomeini was inspired by … post-modern, French deconstructionists.



At the end of the day, does being Muslim make you evil? Hell no. Otherwise we would already have the Caliphates of Dearborn Michigan, Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, and possibly Detroit. The problem with the modern Middle East actually start in the “Post-Christian” Europe, with Fascism, and Tsarist Russia creating the Protocols … if you never thought anything good ever came out of Tsarist Russia, well, you were right.  However, all of this grew up in a soil rich for planting – the middle east has a culture that hasn't changed in over two thousand years.



And it has nothing to do with the religion. It has everything to do with a warped cultural and political sense that occasionally intersects with bad religion and bad people. And the culture that is so very very static …



Still don't believe me?



There is An example that recently came to my attention: an old text that discusses the locals making their women cover their faces.



Was this written in the Wahabist 19th century? No.



In the High Imperial, Ottoman time period, in, say, the 1500s? No.



Was it even back in Mohammed’s time? No.



It was the Bible.



One of Joseph's brothers sleeps with a “Canaanite woman” who had her face covered, in the custom of “her people.” It was a scam, but it made me think. Canaan was a long, long time ago… does anything ever change there?



Because in the beginning, there was the Persian Empire. You know them, you saw 300—and the Persian Empire was actually worse than the film portrayed. No, they weren't Lord of the Ring-like mutant orcs, that was dramatic license when the story is told in bardic format. But the Persian Empire had no concept of freedom or liberty. No concept. No frame of reference. Not even the basic idea. How do I know? Simple.



There was no word for “freedom.”



Eight hundred years later, after Darius III, Alexander the Great, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Byzantines … all of whom weren't big on freedom, unless you were a citizen of said empire (and that only came in with the Romans). And up comes the rise of Islam, The Prophet, blah blah blah … When exactly was the word “freedom” supposed to come into play?



Add Western fascist ideology. Stir well.



I believe I will leave the last word to my friend, Jason Bieber (this is paraphrased, so bear with me).  "Islam changed the culture at the top. It didn't change the culture at the bottom."



And, when you consider that large parts of the culture hasn't changed much since Xerxes, that says something.




********************



Comments are welcome.  Disagreements are encouraged, but only if you are coherant, and can at least offer evidence for your arguments (references wouldn't hurt).  Also, this is a PG blog.  Any R-rated language will result in your comments being deleted, no matter how good your points are.  I dislike pointing that out, but prior events have made it a necessity.

Monday, May 2, 2011

Osama Is Dead: Requiem for a Terrorist


Osama bin Laden is dead.



Last week, a man who has been a plague on mankind was put out of our misery by some US Navy Seals via a gunshot to the head; if I hear correctly, Osama had been using a woman as a human shield at the time.  It was a fitting end -- Osama wanted a culture that would require women to wear nothing but burka and veil, an outfit that would make a Catholic nun look like she was wearing a slinky dress in comparison, and he died hiding behind a woman.



At the very end, the man went out showing his true colors.  He could send the poor, the desparate, the starving, and the mildly insane to their deaths, but he couldn't try for a standup fight with soldiers.  Considering he came in at the last minute of the Soviet war with Afghanistan, and made himself into the John Kerry of the Talbian ("I fought in Afghanistan against the first Great Satan!"  When he fired a few rounds at the Soviet's retreating backs).  In the end, he went out like a cowardly movie villain, and the noble hero gets to make an impressive killshot.



Osama bin Laden is dead .... Now what?





To start with?  There are going to be numerous thriller authors in mourning, seeking a new bad guy. The fiction post-Saddam Hussein went into a tailspin, trying to come up with someone else to beat up on.





After that, there's a little issue of where he was found: in a mansion, in a city just outside of Islamabad.  A town filled with miltary personnel.  Conflicting reports state that the Pakistanis were in on the kill, others state that they were informed after the fact.  In either event, the man was living there for at least six months. Someone is going to want to explain that.  I suspect there will be several some bodies on the ground, with their heads in a separate corner of the room.



I am a little sad that Osama is dead.  Why?  Because I think there will be people who will use Osama's death to say "Great, the war on Terror is over, let's go home and pretend this never happened."  Which would be nice if Osama didn't have, you know, an entire terrorist network.  And if Osama has really been a figurehead for years, as some have suggested, then the work isn't over.  It's a good start though.



Also, I'm even more worried about the intelligence issue.  If I were in charge of intelligence on this, the press release about Osama's death would be ... premature.  I would have sent in SEALS with orders to capture bin Laden alive, then ship him off to one of the fabled "Black Sites," where he could be interrogated for as long as possible.  There are that state that the interrogated would lie through their teeth; to start with, perhaps, but that's why (again, if I were running things) I would say Osama was dead, so that everyone he knows personally would feel safe and secure knowing that Osama couldn't talk to anyone. Facts could be corroborated, and then repeat the process until the truth comes out.  If this were the case, I would have released photos of Osama "dead," covered with Hollywood makeup.  And frozen in place with a hint of curare.


But that would be me.  I don't mean to spread conspiracy theories.  I'm probably ahead of the curve on the tinfoil hat brigade.  And if they aren't there yet, they have a conspiracy, gratis.  That he's dead means that we would have to rely on whatever paperwork was lying around in his immediate vicinity.  I'm not encouraged, but I may just be a pessimist.






Now, there have been philosophers who have argued there must be a Hell, if only because there are some crimes so insidious that it cries out for justice.  If there weren't an afterlife, the sheer horror of these crimes would create one, just for those particular bastards.





I believe that Osama is in for a surprise.  Not even for a Christian deity.  But for something else. 





Looking at the Koran a moment, there is Sura 81, “When the girl, buried alive, is asked what what crime she is slain … ” and it goes on for a very long while. Sura 81 is “the Cessations,” and deals with the punishment of the wicked on Judgment day … and it has nothing to do with Skynet.





I've read that particular verse (Sura 81: 8-9) interpreted by a mullah as being a matter of "God will punish the murderer of children, for children have committed no crime." In Sura 5, “the Table”, that those who fight against God or "His Apostle," thereby bringing disorder to the world should be exiled, or be crucified. Considering how many Islamofacist terrorists have butchered plenty of children, and their fellow coreligionists, if they were to be looking at the whole thing literally, Osama would have been nailed to a set of 2x4s by his own people.  And does inviting the United States military to come down on parts of the Middle East like the hand of God count as spreading disorder?





But, at the end of the day, Osama was just a guy conveniently clipping lines from the Koran for his own convenience.  He didn't like Western Culture.  And the way he went about it, if anyone were honest, would have gotten him killed under the culture he claimed to fight for.





If atheists are right, Osama is nothingness now.  If believers are right, he is either in a purgatory for the insane, or in Hell.  Unless he discovered a sudden desire for forgiveness before the end.  It's possible.





Though I doubt it.


Thursday, November 18, 2010

For Those of You Just Tuning into A Pius Man.....

[This is the Short version of how A Pius Man came to be.  The longer version is 13 pages long, in fort parts, and starts here]



In graduate school, I was a history major, and I did a paper on Pope Pius XII and his history during the holocaust—essentially: what did he do, what did he know, and when did he know it. I went through the standard procedure: primary documents (papers of the day), and secondary sources (books written later by people who weren't there at the time). Along the way, I came across non-historians, forgeries from convicted criminals, historians who had done jail time for slander, and deliberate liars (for example, one idiot said that “X person should have done Y thing”... but cited articles where it was STATED that X did Y, making him either brain dead or a liar).



One of the most interesting things about this is that one side of this conflict doesn't acknowledge the other. One side takes the opposition's statements and theories, vivisect them with a scalpel, the end result looking like shredded wheat, and the second side acts as though there are no alternate theories, interpretations or evidence.



Anyway, by the time I was finished, it was fairly clear who was right. I had enough primary documents to work on that alone. I left motivations alone, because I wasn't going to break out my Ouija board to ask a dead pope what he was thinking at the time. “These are the actual events; to the best of our knowledge, this is what happened, and this is how the people reacted to it AT THE TIME.”



The average reader is probably thinking “Duh.” The average reader would be right. No, I wasn't going for high intellectual value. Much of the paper was a simple narrative, and many of the conclusions were very “duh” worthy. I finished the paper, game over.



Shortly thereafter came some … other books. Novels where the history was so bad, it was painful to read. And people were getting their history from these books; in some cases, more than from actual texts. Did these inspire me on a rampaging crusade? No. I was bored, I moved on.





Then I read a completely different novel, also using historical events as a background to the primary action. Premise … nothing new, really. Evil Nazi Catholic church, blah blah, snore … "But, hmm, wait, I know that character's name. It's historical …" Skip to the back of the book to read the author's note, which collected the works used to create that novel. I had assumed that this author had read one side of the argument, and wrote another “evil Catholic church” story based on that. But, no, I had read these books. All of them. He had done his homework, and had completely and utterly screwd up the history. I could take it if he had just said “I'm writing fiction, not commenting on a historical debate.” But he took a side and even lied about facts that everyone agreed on.



Dominoes fell in my brain. People not only read this crap, they believed this crap. Most readers would have almost no intellectual background to separate the wheat from the chaff (seriously, how many people read about the religious and cultural activities of Europe in World War II?)



My reaction was somewhere akin to the quote of the eminent physician and research scientist, Doctor Bruce Banner: Hulk smash.



Fine. Two could play at this game. If people got their history from entertainment, I would take up the strangest project ever imagined. I would write a thriller that was (a) thrilling, (b) factually accurate about the Catholic Church in the Holocaust.



Now how the HELL was I going to do that?




**********



Before I continue, I should make something clear. I've wanted to write for a living since I was sixteen. By the time I had started A Pius Man, I had written almost a dozen other novels; a space opera; a thriller trilogy about a Secret Service Agent and a CIA assassin; a murder mystery in a Catholic high school summer camp, and another at a science fiction convention; a hostage novel; I won't discuss the short stories. They were not published, but I had other things to do—high school, two bachelor's in three years, a master's in one, I was generally busy.



My point: writing wasn't an issue. I had more or less taught myself keyboarding, and had developed a mental habit of innovation out of the weirdest little things, as well as the ability to write for thirty hours straight.



But now, a new project. Working on a thriller encapsulating everything I had learned about Pope Pius XII. So, when in doubt, the title had to be a bad pun. Title: A Pius Man.



Step one, where to set it?



A few years prior, I had wanted to make a murder mystery set in the Vatican. I had never gotten past page one, but I wanted to have the scene open with a dead priest and a knife in his back.



So, when dealing with the Roman Catholic church, go to Rome. Check.



We need a conspiracy—what fiction with the Catholic church in it doesn't have some kind of deep dark conspiracy? Not counting The Exorcist.... few. Who's behind it? Well, the standard options are the government, the Church, or intelligence agencies.... I came up with a fun combination of all three.



Next step: who was I going to use in this mischegas of a plot?



One character was someone I had already invented—Commander Giovanni Figlia of the Vatican Office of Vigilance. His job is to protect the Pope. But if the Pope is guilty of a crime, or of conspiracy to commit murder, then what can he do? And just how do you arrest a pontiff anyway?



… But what could possibly get him involved in a conspiracy going back decades?



Oh, that's easy. Kill an academic. Someone going through the Vatican archives. The “secret” archives, even though that's a bad translation error. Kill someone looking into Pope Pius XII.



Now, are we going to kill this guy in the Vatican? Really? Because I can't imagine how else we're going to involve Figlia...



Oooooh, wait, a bomb can fling a body a good distance, right? I can work with that.



Next, we need a fish out of water who we can explain stuff to, someone who fell down the rabbit hole of European Catholicism ... how about an American Jew? Enter Wilhelmina “Villie” Goldberg. Immediately, I had a vision of a short Italian acquaintance come to mind. She'd do for a physical model—about 4'11”. She'd have to be part of a security service, and making her American would make her a Secret Service agent. Though she would be a little short for a human shield … so, she's simply provided technical support. Have her be there when we drop a body on Figlia... or his general area, at least. Check.



But, if the Israelis wouldn't be interested in this subject, who would? So, send in Mossad. And have a dead terrorist with no confirmed killer—it looks a bit suspicious. And a second dead body connected to Pius XII, seriously suspicious.



The Germans would be involved anyway, given the subject matter—they are sort of touchy about the 1930s and 40s. So, throw in someone from German Intelligence. Two spies, check.



A neutral party would be good; someone who has no investment in Pius XII being guilty, innocent, or not guilty by reason of insanity … if the Pope were to tour the Middle East, there would be a security specialist to coordinate with Figlia. But it would be too easy to have him be visibly neutral and good. Hmm... oh, yeah, it seems that he stoned his wife to death. That'll work.



Check one investigative team: Papal Security, the Secret Service, and someone from, oh, Egypt.



And we need a wild card. Just to make everyone wonder what the hell goes on at the Vatican ... well, the man who shot Pope John Paul II was first jumped by a nun. And if that should ever happen again, I would sure as hell want to train the priests and the nuns of the Vatican … Enter mercenary Sean A.P. Ryan. Wild card, check.



And what good is a mystery without a murdered witness? They have Vatican trials for saints. Witnesses appear. Make it an Irish witness … I had another character all ready and sketched out: Interpol Agent Maureen McGrail. And I had given her a previous professional dislike of Sean Ryan. We get to have some more fun that way. And her arrival will confirm that the events were all about Pope Pius XII—a dead academic may be accident, a murdered terrorist coincidence, but a murdered witness is enemy action.



Now, we're in a thriller with the Catholic church, we must have a highly suspicious looking pope, someone so invested in the reputation of Pius XII, he'd do practically anything to see it's protected. Hence Pope Pius XIII, who wants to make the World War II pontiff a saint, make him a figure to rally around....for...? Oh, something. Make it Darfur. And make him somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. He's using Pope Pius XII as a banner, Pius XII as hero and saint.



But, the Pope needs something every good Evil Overlord requires—a lackey. We need another priest. Make him former special forces. He has martial training, kicks ass, and he has silver hair, and pale skin—no one would ever take him for an albino. Of course not. Suspicious looking lackey, check.



A three-layered plot with a wandering priest tying them all together. Conspiracy, check. Characters, check.



Now it has to be written … Oh, shoot me now …




*



During that winter break, I had gone through great pains to finish my thesis. That made up three credits of a semester where I had only two other classes, and no social life. The paper was mostly finished before the semester had even begun. I was even more finished when I pounded out two term papers before the first month was out. What part of “no social life” do you not understand?



I started writing A Pius Man in February, 2004. I was finished with it by April. There were a lot of nights where I was up until three in the morning. The story wouldn't get out of my head or leave me alone. For the first time in my life, instead of making it up when I went along, I did an outline. I drew sketches and diagrams. I even footnoted the darned thing.



And it all came naturally to me. The spies look into a dead terrorist research the Vatican archives, and they discover yet another dead researcher—a crime investigated by Giovanni Figlia. They would have to find Figlia and company. “Sinister looking priest #1” would have to keep up as well, to make certain that nothing inconvenient would be discovered. The Interpol cop from Ireland would have to fly in and confirm that all this was, yes, linked together to Pope Pius XII.



And, thanks to maps on the internet, I can make the bus terminal arriving from the airport be one point on a straight line from the Vatican to the Spanish steps. And for some reason, I couldn't get one image out of my head—an armored SUV going down the Spanish steps.



After that, the characters had to connect the dots, do the research, and most of all—what is worth killing over for a secret over sixty years old? If someone proved that Pope Pius XII was a Nazi, or that he was a hero, who would kill for that?



End result: the book was eight hundred pages long. Two hundred thousand words, when the average novel was only one hundred thousand. And I had brought in EVERY, SINGLE, CHARACTER I had ever written, over a dozen books, excluding the science fiction ones. Because what had started with a simple and straightforward murder turned into an all out war, and I needed every person I could conceive of to support what protagonists I had standing. A very small army of light against a large army of darkness, and I didn't even have Sam Raimi.



From 2004-2007, there were several variations on the story. The first had an additional character. One had a character introduced from the very beginning who was used to bring in most of the history; he didn't disappear, but he was shifted. One version took out about 50% of the story and made it around five hundred pages.



Then there was the easy version. Split it up into three books. One character gets deleted, one gets transferred into book two, several sequences get shifted so that the character moments aren't all in one place or another, and ta da, instant trilogy.



Two major plot points in the story became a matter of what intelligence agencies call “blowback.” Blowback means that an operation has come back to bite you on the ass: either an assassination went wrong and the target wants to return the favor; some dictator dislikes you blowing up his favorite weapons research facility and would like to bury you, that sort of thing.



If I used the blowback as the basis for completely different books, then dang, book one is only over a hundred thousand words. Excellent. Fill in details and character in books two and three, not to mention “previously, in A Pius Man” moments that I can use to pad the book.... or keep the audience up to speed. Either way.... I still had too many people. Book had nine characters— the opening cast of the Lord of the Rings. Book two had more to come. I still needed to take out people IN ADDITION to those I had already shot, stabbed, and blown up.



After looking through book two (tentatively titled A Pius Legacy), I looked for the person who had the fewest amount of lines. Who could disappear from the book with no problem at all? I found one character who had been mentioned a whopping half a dozen times. Suddenly, upon a review of A Pius Man, this character had a shiny new target on their back.




***********



In my usual description of A Pius Man, things slip through the cracks. It's a thriller. It's a war story. It's apologetics with bullets. It's a political techno thriller. There's a shootout down the Spanish Steps. We shot up the Vatican, blew up a hotel, blew up an airport, waged war against mercenaries, the Swiss Guard, killer priests, a dozen nations, have some fun with the UN, the World Court, and everything short of killer robots.



Oh, yeah, I have a love story in there too.



Don't look at me like that. I wasn't going to fill every page with shootouts, chase scenes, and explosions. None of my characters remotely resemble Bruce Willis. They all have hair, for one. Nor are they some sort of bloodless, passionless plot device—none of them look like Tom Hanks.



As strange as it might seem, I am a romantic at heart. That said, if someone hands me something that even has a mild tinge of a romance novel, it better have a fantastic, original plot, or I will smack that someone with the novel. And possibly make them eat it.



I am uncomfortable and suspicious of any book that has a hero and heroine fall in love inside of one book. It has to be done well, or take place over a good period of time. That said, there are circumstances I can believe. It's common knowledge that high stress situations can lead to intense emotional bonding. In Stockholm syndrome, it happens over the course of hours, if not days. And that takes place between terrorists and their hostages. It shouldn't be too unreasonable that it should happen between two allies.



I had one character I had designed previously—Scott “Mossad” Murphy, first member of the Goyim brigade of Israeli Intelligence. I wanted his attention dragged to Rome from a tip by a German intelligence officer.



Designing this German was easy—I wanted the exact opposite of Murphy. Scott Murphy, the perfect spy, was short-ish, pale, with almost no distinguishing features. Slap on some makeup, he's whatever he wants to be. Therefore, physically she had to be beautiful. All eyes could be on her while he slipped into the background.



But how do I create a woman who was believably beautiful without turning her into something out of a fantasy novel? Simple—I use the physical features of someone I know. And what do you know, the previous year, I had someone who had to match that description perfectly. Her name was Manana Kull.



Enter Manana “Mani” Shushurin of German intelligence... she was raised in East Germany, hence the last name.



Murphy could blend in and disappear. However, when I made him, he had a disdain for weapons. He was spy—he was not Jason Bourne, he was not James Bond, though he could pass for George Smiley. He didn't do weapons. If he needed a weapon, he wasn't doing his job.



Therefore, Shushurin had to be the expert in weapons and hand-to-hand combat.



I would bear no idiots in my books, so they were both smart, capable professionals, with complimentary skill sets and equal intelligence.



And somewhere along the line, two people who existed in a very lonely profession wound up falling in love in the middle of my thriller. Obviously, they weren't busy enough getting shot at. They were too good at keeping their heads down.



Ironically, this was part of the story I hadn't planned. The characters did it themselves.



Yes, for those of you who are wondering, writing fiction has been described as a form of schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder—usually by the authors themselves. Then again, when you generate an entire character biography in your head, have to decide what is perfectly in character for them to do at any given moment, make their reactions consistent... having another person in your head is the easiest way to put it.



Thankfully, I managed to tie the romance subplot into the overall story fairly easily. It even became critical to the book. How can two people falling in love save the world?



Well, you'll have to read the book to find that out.




Hey, it worked for Terry Goodkind.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Europe Has Some Problems.


Europe Has Some Problems.



[Before reading this blog, I would to ask readers to go through it with a critical eyes. I would prefer it if someone could supply me with numbers for or against anything I am saying here. I am relying heavily on anecdotal evidence and half remembered details. I retain a lot, but that doesn't help much. In short, I'm flying blind. Any numbers for or against what I'm saying would be appreciated.]



In the Brooklyn museum, during the reign of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, there was an issue involving two piece of “art.”



One, was an image of Jesus Christ, symbol of the entire Christian faith, in a jar of urine.



The other was a statue of the Virgin Mary, symbol of at least the Catholic church, smothered in elephant dung with photos of female genitalia plastered all over.



While Giuliani went postal, and complained about the museum, nothing really happened. No one was assaulted. There were no riots. Nothing was burned down. The “artists” were not hunted down and burned at the stake by a horde of angry Christians. Though I think the “artists” should be forced to stare at their own creations for a week.



Let's go to Europe.



There was a Danish political cartoonist who wanted to note how much Muslims self-censor any condemnation of Islamic terrorists, and that you can't even do a critical analysis of Islam like you can of, say, the old testament.



And, to show that Islam could tolerate criticism and would not censor anyone ... they had weeks of riots in reaction to the criticism and tried to censor the danish cartoonist.



I will grant you that political cartoons aren't funny, but this is like Norway having a riot over Hagar the Horrible. Were the cartoons worth the lives of over a hundred and thirty nine people and over eight hundred injured in the international rioting?



Imagine if it wasn't a cartoon, but a movie. Then you can imagine Theo Van Gough being knifed to death in an alley.



Not long ago, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that creating a multi-cultural society has completely failed.



Apparently, this little bon mot was started by central bank board member saying the country was being made “more stupid” by poorly educated and unproductive Muslim migrants.



Merkel's comment: “Multikulti”, the concept that “we are now living side by side and are happy about it,” does not work. “This approach has failed, totally,” she said, adding that immigrants should integrate and adopt Germany’s culture and values.



“Subsidising immigrants” isn’t sufficient, Germany has the right to “make demands” on them, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages.....



I'm going to agree that Europe's idea of multiculturalism is stupid. Multiculturalism on the continent is more Balkanization than anything else. The Balkans were held together by Empires and dictators for centuries; there were multiple groups, with separate cultures and identities, who did not want to associate with each other, hated each other's guts, and wanted to kill each other for about a thousand years.



In France, they keep their Muslim immigrant population in glorified slums.



In Holland, government officials have suggested making sharia law officially part of the legal system of the Netherlands (sharia: stone female adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, and a legal defense for rape ).



I live in Queens. We have 167 ethnic groups speaking 117 different languages. We get along fine. I am the whitest guy I know, yet can walk through the Barrio, Harlem, three Chinatowns, and Brighton Beach, without anyone looking at me like I came from another planet. Then again, within four miles of me, I have dozens of flavors of Christianity, a Bhuddist temple, a synagogue, and a cultural mix of Hispanic, Asian, Indian, Italian, Irish, and those are just the restaurants. We generally all speak English, or we at least attempt to, and if we can't understand each other, there is usually someone who will translate nearby.



So, what the hell is Europe's problem?



They have several. France, for example, insists on a cookie-cutter policy. If you deviate or stand out in anyway, you're a target. The only place for hajibs or yarmulkes are in Catholic schools. Wearing a cross is also banned. Most of these policies were passed under Jacques Chirac, and don't seem to be going anywhere.



Then you have the Netherlands, where the growing Muslim population are mostly young, the first generation born in country (mostly young folk) are growing up with extreme feelings of identity—to their religion. This could just be their version of being a teenager, but instead of being Goth or Emo, it's extreme religion. Unfortunately, until recently, for over ten years no one objected when they assaulted groups of Jews, or committing assorted other hate crimes.



And, recently, one of their politicians was put on trial for … being politically incorrect in a film. Since I haven't seen it, I can't say how offensive it is, but in America, CAIR could have just filed a lawsuit, and made money. People would have boycotted the film. Life moves on. In the Netherlands, you can't even say bad things about Muslims, even when there is a segment of the population that is becoming an issue?



I'm not 100% certain about Germany's problems, if their Islamic population has any specific grievances, or what trouble, if any, they may have caused in Germany in order to spark Merkel's comment.



So, I agree with Merkel that Europe has no idea what they're doing. Time for them to come to Queens.



Then there is Merkel's next line … “We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don’t accept them don’t have a place here.”



Wait, what? I'm sorry, I'm going to hit the brakes right here. Christian values? This is the same Europe that rejected anything religious in the European Union, right? The EU founded on anti-religious Enlightenment ideas? When Pope John Paul II suggested that Europe even had Christian roots, he was told to stuff it. So, Chancellor, you're a little late.



Here's where I seriously start developing problems: A recent study by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank showed around one-third of Germans feel the country is being “over-run by foreigners” and the same percentage feel foreigners should be sent home when jobs are scarce. And nearly 60 percent of the 2,411 people polled thought the around four million Muslims in Germany should have their religious practices “significantly curbed.”





Now my BS detector is going into red alert.



Germany has already banned something labeled as a religion. Scientology has been outlawed as being fascist. But I'm assuming that there were not four million scientologists in country when they passed the law.



If this new German thought process is an indication of where Europe's policy is going, I'm worried. It is one thing to ignore, kowtow, or be afraid of a problem, it is another to blindly lash out at a whole group only because a percentage of the group is being a problem.



Maybe if Merkel's “Christian Values” are more like France's Catholic schools, we can talk. But would anyone want to place money on that?  In Europe's past, they have shown only two settings: cower in a corner, or go fascist.  I'm hoping for something in the middle.



Maybe the Brooklyn museum would like to make an image of Muhammad and cover that in excrement. If anyone complains, it can always be covered by free speech.  Should there be a riot in America, like there was in Europe, I wonder if the NYTimes would refer to it as fascist censorship, (like they said about Giuliani) or if they would call it "freedom of religious expression."

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Ground Zero Mosque. Or: Why I hate Politics.

Thriller writers seem to be dragged into a lot of politics. Vince Flynn, because his protagonist is a government counter terrorist agent; Lee Child, because his protagonist is a former Military Policeman, and deals with a lot of army politics.

I personally hate politics, but, since I've already started by having a discussion on the Church, the Pope, and handling priests, I figured I'm due for another round....

Some may not know, and fewer may care, but there is talk of a mosque going up in downtown Manhattan, on what is currently a vacant lot, or a giant hole in the ground, depending on your point of view. Yes, someone wants to put a mosque at Ground Zero, the site of the New York City 9-11 attack.

There are multiple points of view on the matter, but I would like to address the one that no one else seems to be considering: The Muslim point of view.

Yes, I know I'm Catholic, but I'm turning on my empathy for five minutes. And it's not too hard. For example, we can break down the Islamic world into three camps: those who want to kill us, those who don't care, and those who rather like America and who have either already moved here (or want to).

From the “kill them all” camp (terrorists, supporters, sympathizers, Ron Kuby), I can only imagine a mosque over the scene of the biggest, most successful terrorist attack on American soil would be like planting a flag over captured enemy territory. From their point of view, a mosque would be a great idea, the bigger the better. Party time..

From the “I don't care” camp, I could only imagine a reaction of “What the....?” This mosque is going to be fourteen stories tall in the middle of downtown Manhattan— bigger than St. Patrick's Cathedral. Nearby areas consist of Greenwich Village, Chinatown, Wall Street, and a very Little Italy. Now, unless the Village has undergone a drastic demographic shift, or the official religion of China has become Islam, I can't imagine too many people going to this great big mosque. There's a heavy Muslim population in New York... in Brooklyn, on Atlantic Avenue. I would imagine that someone, somewhere out there, is wondering “Whose bright idea was this? And why couldn't we get them to build this near a major Muslim population center?”

The “moderate Islam” we hear so much about, who like America, hate terrorists, and came to this country to FLEE customs in the homeland, I can imagine being disturbed. I know that if my coreligionists had launched a terrorist attack on my country of residence, I would want as much distance between my faith and the attack site as possible. I could imagine this side of the Islamic spectrum viewing the mosque like the terrorist viewpoint, as a flag of victory, and consider that a very bad, disturbing thing.

Someone is going to try to put any of the above statements into my mouth and proclaim them mine. So I'll make my viewpoint clear...

In the biggest attack on American soil, Pearl Harbor, we have a war memorial. One of the ships that was irrevocable lost is still there, hull partially out of the water, one drop of oil coming up every minute or so. We did not put a Shinto shrine. With another slaughter, Gettysburg, it's also a war memorial, of sorts. We did not put up a Christian church; I believe there are smaller, individual crosses for the deaths of people who all happened to be one variety of Christian or another, but no massive Cathedral (I couldn't find one, feel free to check).

It isn't possible to make a war memorial in lower Manhattan on the scope of either of the above mentioned, since the real estate rates are somewhere in high orbit. If you built another World Trade Center with a war memorial in the lobby, and antiaircraft batteries on the roof, and make the rest of the building dedicated to standard business practices, I think that would cover all bases. The original lobby was huge, and all the things you need for a memorial are already constructed: I recall that we have a Vietnam-style wall with the names of those lost, we have a cross made out of I-beams that was put up by the construction workers (I would put it there less for religious reasons and more for the fact that it was created from pieces of the Twin Towers), and believe we have a statue of the iconic image of the three firemen raising the flag at Ground Zero. You get a memorial to the dead, patriotism, and a physical piece of what was lost.

As for the mosque itself, I'm more curious about other things...

(1) Are there really so many Muslims in lower Manhattan that we need something the size of a small skyscraper? If you take the terrorist attack out of the equation, building the Mosque anywhere in lower Manhattan isn't the brightest move. When the biggest groups are the Chinese, Wall Street, and the people of the Village, it's a bloody stupid idea.

(2) If there aren't “so many Musilms”, whose bright idea what this? I can tell you people who support it, but I can't tell you who's funding it. It's possible it's funded by someone who doesn't know New York City demographics, or someone with cross-cultural public relations problems, or someone who really does want to plant a flag on Ground Zero.

(3) Do American Muslims really want to put a mosque that close to an area of mass slaughter? I would think that would be up there with putting a temple on top of a graveyard.

(4) Before everyone plans for the war memorial, the mosque, or anything else, I would like the politicians to do one thing: BUILD US ANOTHER WTC.... I don't care if it's the 1776-foot tall “Freedom Tower”, or if they just build the originals again.

My position is simple: it's been nine years and three Governors since we lost the World Trade Center, and construction should have been started at least five years ago (count four years of red tape). Someone, get to work....

Oh, and no matter what designs are picked, I want the battery of Surface-to-Air-Missiles... and a giant sign that says “TRY AGAIN. PLEASE.”

Please feel free to comment; I put in as much data as I could find, and everything I can think of without going into a rant. If I have any Muslim fans of the book, I want to hear from you in case I missed something; like I said, I turned my empathy on for five minutes, so the above analysis of opinion is, essentially, a guess.

UPDATE [1-31- 2011]



And, maybe, just maybe, someone should tell this Imam how close he is to the village before he starts talking like this.