Sorry everyone, Truthdig is experiencing technical difficulties but we’re back!
11:14 Comment From Lisa
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:14:26 GMT
Comment:It’s just like the flag-burning issue. People want to turn it into a question of whether or not you should be able to burn the flag, and one sides says yes because saying no would infringe on your free speech rights, and the other side says no because saying yes would be disrespecting America. And the two sides have been going back and forth for years, never thinking to ask the question, “WHOSE FLAG IS IT?” So it’s an issue of private property, not free speech.
I never used to really get the full meaning of the premise, “Private property is the bulwark of freedom.” Now I do!
11:14 Comment From Theo
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:14:28 GMT
Comment:We need to move with speed and in great number against changes in Social Security: Is anyone working on this? We are livid about Obama’s and the Dem support of this and the commission.
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:16:09 GMT
Hi Bob, welcome to this week’s session.
11:16 Comment From Lisa
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:16:17 GMT
Comment:They left out the first part of my question, which was: Isn’t the issue of the mosque to be built at ground zero more about the right to build what you want on private property rather than one of religious freedom?
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:16:55 GMT
First question from Paco in Sydney, ME—The “irrational attack on Muslims everywhere” is clearly founded in the blame that Muslims received for the attack on 9/11. As unfair as that may be, few express doubt about the culpability of the 19 hijackers and their support network.
But within a few weeks following the fall of the towers on 9/11, the first doubts were raised about the official story-line of the 19 hijackers and since then numerous alternative narratives along with bits and pieces of supporting evidence have appeared, primarily on the internet but also in books and magazines. These alternative views are met with wide skepticism and often careful questioning.
However, the evidence supporting the official narrative seems never to have been seriously discussed - it is simply accepted by the media and the public at large. What exactly is the evidence in favor of the official narrative and can it stand up to the kind of serious scrutiny given to unofficial narratives?
11:17 Robert Scheer
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:17:00 GMT
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:19:46 GMT
Bob is answering the question from Sydney, feel free to submit other questions and we’ll add them to our queu.
11:19 Comment From Steve
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:19:49 GMT
11:20 Comment From Guest
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:20:34 GMT
Comment:Good morning All.
11:21 Comment From rowast
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:21:28 GMT
Comment:Robert looks very stoic in that icon pic
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:21:41 GMT
[you’ll notice a lag in our system, it is only so we can moderate the questions and make sure they make sense in terms of when Bob is answering them]
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:21:54 GMT
Seems as though we lost Bob due to technical errors. He’ll be back in a few.
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:23:09 GMT
And he’s back—
11:25 Robert Scheer
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:25:03 GMT
Well, let me just point out that what everyone thinks about the causes of 9/11, whatever version one accepts, that does not provide the justification for holding all Muslims responsible. WE don’t hold all Protestant or Catholic Irish responsible for attacks on co-religionists. So this whole notion of collective guilt and that this huge population of the world’s muslims—enormous population—should somehow be responsible for 9/11 is nonsensical. Obviously our own government both Republican and Democratic, under Bush and under Obama recognize the folly of holding Muslims responsible as a religion—practitioners of a religion—responsible allegedly for the actions of these religionists. I say “allegedly” because we haven’t held the trial of people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others who were supposed to have masterminded it. But anyway, that is irrelevant to the question of collective guilt for all Muslims for the act of a small group to be interpreting their religion. And the mosque—the community center, rather—in question, proposed to be built in lower Manhattan, is to be run by Sufi Muslims who are the most open and peaceful branch of the religion and who have been in fact attacked violently by al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:25:08 GMT
Next question—(from the Internet)...
Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:25:15 GMT
Is it still constitutional for a mosque to built if it threatens national security? Nobody argues the right of Muslims to build a mosque. However if that mosque is funded by terrorist organizations and this mosque at ground zero is a rallying point for radical Muslims shouldn’t that also make it a national security issue?