'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less

[ExpandMyMind]

Millions of Americans are furious about the 'Ground Zero mosque'. But it doesn't exist

Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.

The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.

I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.

Continued: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

Really did make me laugh. Enjoy.

[SilverCougar]

My favorite part of this whole controversy was when the money trail was followed and came from the same company that's owned by the saudi prince that owns the second largest share of newscorp/fox news...

[ExpandMyMind]

My favorite part of this whole controversy was when the money trail was followed and came from the same company that's owned by the saudi prince that owns the second largest share of newscorp/fox news...

Same!

[SilverCougar]

And even when that became public knowledge.. People STILL are in a frenzy over it.. *facepalms* My country, it makes me sad...

[+susieice]

My favorite part of this whole controversy was when the money trail was followed and came from the same company that's owned by the saudi prince that owns the second largest share of newscorp/fox news...

Those FOX News pundits don't know who's signing their paychecks. Or choose to be blissfully ignorant. Now wait a minute, this Saudi prince is paying them to say what they say?

[ExpandMyMind]

Those FOX News pundits don't know who's signing their paychecks. Or choose to be blissfully ignorant. Now wait a minute, this Saudi prince is paying them to say what they say?

I think she simply meant that it's ironic that FOX, a news outlet that reported on the 'extremist funding' of the 'mosque', is actually funded by the same people.

I think.

[SilverCougar]

I think she simply meant that it's ironic that FOX, a news outlet that reported on the 'extremist funding' of the 'mosque', is actually funded by the same people.

I think.

Correct sah!

[+DieChecker]

My favorite part of this whole controversy was when the money trail was followed and came from the same company that's owned by the saudi prince that owns the second largest share of newscorp/fox news...

And the Saudi prince is footing the entire bill? Facinating. That is it then. Oh... wait... he is only one of many financiers, and they don't know who the other are entirely? Well shucks darn!

Owning stock is different then paying the "actors" on FOX News. The same guy could own stock in the Viacom, which pays the bills on The Daily Show, or in Time Warner, which supports CNN.

[The Silver Thong]

And the Saudi prince is footing the entire bill? Facinating. That is it then. Oh... wait... he is only one of many financiers, and they don't know who the other are entirely? Well shucks darn!

Owning stock is different then paying the "actors" on FOX News. The same guy could own stock in the Viacom, which pays the bills on The Daily Show, or in Time Warner, which supports CNN.

For one, spreading the lies (fox) owned in part by the same nation that funded the downing of the towers makes it far worse than a religion and generalizing that 1.3 billion where a part of it. Well shucks darn then we don't know squat except what you say so

[xYlvax]

The idea of blinding the dogs and pedestrians seemed cartoonish to me lol. Funny idea.

[TFSM]

Owning stock is different then paying the "actors" on FOX News. The same guy could own stock in the Viacom, which pays the bills on The Daily Show, or in Time Warner, which supports CNN.

This is true. I do, however, find it oddly ironic that the very people that Fox is always ranting about also owns a portion of their company.

[AROCES]

This is true. I do, however, find it oddly ironic that the very people that Fox is always ranting about also owns a portion of their company.

Well, pretty much shows the independence of Fox News, right?

[questionmark]

The point is that it was no-news until Newt Gingrich discovered it to get back in the news himself. The controversy was never about any mosque, it was the reactionaries jumping on the theme to rile the ignorant. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited September 8, 2010 by questionmark

[TFSM]

Well, pretty much shows the independence of Fox News, right?

No, not really.