It was a segment that embarrassed "60 Minutes" and proved Scott Pelley doesn't do his homework, at least not where editing his own segment is concerned, or knowing the caliber of the people he is giving a platform.
It comes at about 4:26 in the video below, Pamela Geller being introduced by Scott Pelley as someone who writes a "far right wing blog" that mixes news and opinion, but also dabbles in "conspiracy theories," which is the kindest way you can spin crackpot hatemonger who also happens to have written a book about Pres. Obama claiming he's waging a "war on America." Geller's agenda is clear and has been for years. She's a flame throwing neoconservative propagandist whose goal is to incite Americans against Muslims instead of offering a bridge to moderate worshipers of Islam, something that would actually help U.S. national security interests. In other words, she's part of the problem, not the solution.
Geller kept writing, calling the project "an act of jihad" and "a grotesque flag of conquest on Ground Zero."
"To what degree are you obliged to tell the truth in your blog?" Pelley asked.
"That's all I do is tell the truth," she replied.
"To be accurate in your blog," Pelley asked.
"Okay, Scott," she replied.
"You moved the mosque to Ground Zero. It's not gonna be there. It was never intended to be there," Pelley pointed out.
"That building is Ground Zero. And I will say something else. Truth is the new hate speech. And you and I live in so tawdry an age that just telling the truth makes you a hero. And yet, there are so few heroes. Or makes you a devil, in the eyes of the media. That's all I do is tell the truth," Geller said.
Branding the Cordoba House as the "Ground Zero mosque" was a piece of extremist marketing meant to inflame people and create an emotional backlash. But allowing Ms. Geller to defend the indefensible of her writings and positions is only trying to legitimize hate.
There are plenty of other Americans who are against the Cordoba House who don't write hate filled screeds about all things Muslim, including Palestinians, while peddling truthiness that resembles the worst anti Islamic propaganda only meant to incite instead of inform. Just about anyone else would have been a better choice for "60 Minutes."
Ms. Geller has no business being interviewed and given the mantle of legitimacy through "60 Minutes" citing her as the "Islamic center's most ardent critic," to which she claimed to actually be a heroine for speaking the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth than Ms. Geller's rhetoric. She incites the mob, which has always been her primary goal, including against Pres. Obama. Today she takes out after First Lady Michelle Obama on her blog for her associations, evidently not understanding that reaching across all lines helps bring people of unlike minds closer together. Neoconservatives don't do diplomacy, not even when it's paramount for American security.
Geller's claim that the Islamic center is a "mega mosque" is not only ignorant, but a lie. At least "60 Minutes" proved that, also showing that Muslims are also praying at the Pentagon chapel, one of the three Ground Zero locations.
To add insult to Geller's appearance, "60 Minutes" also gave a few moments, however fleeting, to New York candidate for governor, the known racist Carl Paladino, who has also fathered a child by a woman not his wife, which showed him saying he'd make sure the Cordoba House wasn't built (at around 6:00 min. in the video): "As governor, I will use the power of eminent domain to stop the mosque." Mr. Pelley didn't bother to do his homework here either, ignoring Mr. Paladino's racist email smears against Pres. Obama or the hard core porn emails he distributed.
Though the segment did give the developer, Mr. El-Gamal, his first interview, as well as offer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf a moment to also get his very important message of tolerance out, using Geller and Paladino was irresponsible, because few individuals have shown more hatred and intolerance towards Muslims, but also Pres. Obama, than these two individuals.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst and veteran national political writer out of Washington, D.C.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
It is no more "reasonable" to hold Islam responsible for 911, than it is to hold Christianity as a whole responsible for the Crusades, or every Japanese man for Pearl Harbor, or every European American responsible for the genocide of the Native American population.
By stating the question this way, very forcefully, Pelley himself is not saying that these people feel perceive that they are being reasonable, but indeed positing that it IS reasonable, when in fact it is irrational bigotry, of a kind CBS News used to not coddle.
There you have it.
Every American must study the threat posed by Shari'a. Under Shari'a, when a believer dies, he goes to Islamic purgatory and passage to Paradise is by no means a sure thing. However, under Shari'a, if becomes a 'shaheed' (martyr) is GUARANTEED entry to Paradise. This is the ONLY guaranteed path to Paradise in Islam. Siding with the Infidels is, on the other hand, a guaranteed path to Islamic Hell. Keep this in mind when you hear Rauf tell Pelley in this interview (at 10:07): "If 9/11 happens ever again, I want to be the first to die." What does this bizarre commnet mean? Under Shari'a, Rauf's death wish can only understood as becoming a wish to become a martyr for jihad AGAINST the United States (unless you really believe that he wants to go straight to Hell). Also, when Rauf talks about building bridges, keep in mind that the only bridges allowed under Shari'a are those which BRING THE INFIDELS TO ISLAM. There are NO two-way "interfaith" bridges. The Muslim world knows this. Muslims hear Rauf with very different understanding than an utterly ignorant dupe like Scott Pelley.
It is essential to realize, therefore, that under Islamic law any Muslim who chooses not to engage in jihad against us is NOT choosing to follow a "religion of peace" but choosing NOT to follow a well-established and long-standing WAR doctrine of Shari'a..
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6902812n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel#ixzz10lLazIpB
Sharia law in US a preposterous idea? A combination of apathy, the willful blindness of the media, and the determination of Islamists, make it is a real possibility. Your reply above illustrates a widespread ignorance of the workings of Islamists in the US and Europe. There are numerous declarations from Imams that make their goals very clear. You only need to pay attention. Here are a few representative statements:
Imam Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali: Masjid Al Islam mosque, Oakland, CA:
"We must implement Islam as a totality (in which) Allah controls every place... the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress."
Imam Siraj Wahhaj: Masjid Al-Taqwa mosque. Brooklyn, N.Y:
"In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing left will be Islam."
Imam Zaid Shakir: Former Muslim Chaplain at Yale University:
"Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it is against the orders and ordainments of Allah."
Imam Muzammil Siddiqi: Islamic Society of North America:
"We must not forget that Allah's rules have to be established in all lands..."
These people will be very happy to see that you do nothing to thwart their plans and would appreciate your support for more mosques.
Doesn't CBS and Pelley have an obligation to point out that while the Mayor and the residents of lower Manahattan fawningly approved this Islamic supremacist project in less than a year, a Christian Greek Orthodox church, St. Nicholas church, which was DESTROYED in the attack on Ground Zero when Tower 2 fell, has, after more than NINE YEARS, yet to be allowed to rebuild? Isn't that worth a passing mention? Does Pelley not have an obligation to ask: if El Gamal and his partner Rauf are such moderates, why is El Gamal being given an award on October 9 by CAIR, an unindicted co-conspitor in the federal Holyland Hamas terrorism funding trial and an organization dedicated to the destruction of our Constitution and its replacement with Islamic Shari'a law (a goal explicitly shared by Rauf)? Why is he not condemning them instead. Can't Pelley tell when someone is bald-faced lying to him. Why no questions to the "moderate" Rauf about America being responsible for 9/11? Why no questions about the threat that if he isn't allowed to build at this site, other Muslims might attack us?
Six months later, the Port Authority said negotiations ended because St. Nicholas demanded too much money and approval power over a vehicle security center beneath the sites. Port Authority spokesman Stephen Sigmund said the church can return to its original location.
"In 2009, we made our final offer, which again included up to $60 million in public money, and told St. Nicholas Orthodox Church that the World Trade Center could not be delayed over this issue," he said in a written statement. "They rejected that offer." "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/ground-zero-greek-orthodo_n_691708.html
"Can't Pelley tell when someone is bald-faced lying to him."[sic] Maybe he is just being a standard incompetent journalist. Your bald-face lies are frankly too obvious.
Sigmund said the church can go back to Cedar Street, but nothing can be built there yet, either. It's obvious the PA just doesn't think this is important, and neither do you or 60 Minutes.
The real reason that the CBS puff piece should be embarrassing to CBS is how it deceived viewers about what Islamic law says about Infidels, jihad, war and conquest and concealed the true agenda of both El Gamal and Rauf. In fact, I would ask CBS and Scott Pelley the same question they put to Geller: "Don't you have an obligation to tell the truth, to be accurate?" Why, if the landing gear of one of the hijacked planes fell through the roof of the building, isn't it legitimate to consider it part of Ground Zero? Incidentally, the FIRST person to call it the "Ground Zero mosque" wasn't Geller but Imam Rauf himself in 2009. Is it too much to ask Pelley to do some basic research before his hatchet job on Geller? So, yes, it IS at Ground Zero and IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED by the developers and Rauf to be at Ground Zero. That's why Rauf says in the interview: "The Muslim World needs it" The obvious question is: "Why does the Muslim world need this mosque in this location?" Because they need a triumphalist monument to their "VICTORY" over the Great Satan, America. That's why offers to buy the site from the developers at a tremendous profit have been rebuffed without counter-offers, That's why THEY WON'T MOVE IT, despite the fact that they know that more than 70% of this country opposes the construction at that site.
This doctrine of practicing deceit against the non-believer in defense of Islam is known as 'al taqiyya' and is expressly sanctioned under Islamic law. (That's why, for example, the 19 hijackers on 9/11 did not sport the beards required by men under Islamic law. That way they did not attract undue attention to themselves and their jihadist plot.)
I also regularly read this site and Geller's and many others so as to avoid the parochial tunnel vision so evident in many of the commnets here and by some commenter's on Geller's site. Although there are some commenters on her site who say hateful and inappropriate things, I defy anyone to find something actually said by Geller herself about Islam or jihad that is factually untrue.
The problem is that under Islamic law, that which was revealed later abrogates (that means CANCELS AND REPEALS) anything revealed earlier that is no longer consistent. This is justified on the theory that Allah has the power to change his mind and replace earlier "revelations" with "better" revelations. A good place to start is an excellent translation for English speakers by Al Maudoodi, whose translation has been authenticated and endorsed by Al Azhar University in Cairo, the leading institution of Islamic law and thought in the Sunni Muslim world.
It is in the LATER Medina portion where jihad gets rediefined as using whatever force is necessary to engage in permanent war against all infidels until Islam rules the world. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the doctrine laid out in detail in the authoritative sacred texts. It has been Islamic law for 1400 years. I defy anyone on this site to find any passage THAT HAS NOT BEEN ABROGATED under Islamic law that supports the "flower children" view of Islam that is commonly put forward on this site and elsewhere under the rubric of the "religion of peace." Anyone who tells you that the Meccan surah (verse) which says: "There shall be no compulsion in religion." is still valid is a starry-eyed non-Muslim in the throes of politically correct ignorance or they are a Muslim who is lying to you to put you off your guard.
I am an attorney and I have studied Islamic law and Islam for almost 40 years. I have actually read the Qur'an and other sacred texts of Islam. It is obvious to anyone who has, that neither Taylor Marsh nor most of the commenters on this site have done so since they display an abyssmal ignorance of Islamic law. I encourage everyone to read the Qur'an and the other sacred texts of Islam so that you at least have a clue about what you are talking about. When you do, however, make sure to realize that the Qur'an was "revealed" in stages, The first part was in Mecca, when Mohamed was pennyless and powerless.That's the part with all the flowery stuff about tolerance and peace and where jihad is defined as an internal struggle for self-fulfillment. The second part was written many years later when Mohamed was the Governor of Medina. That's the part with "kill all the infidels, exterminate the Jews, kill all the gays, beat your wife, treat women like property and many other 7th century concepts for which any true liberal should be embarrassed to voice support. (to be continued)
That seems to be a complete contradiction to the history of Mohammed (according to the dictionary, Mohamed is not one of the correct spellings) I have read. About how his first wife was older and ran the family trading business very successfully. Mohammed was a good trader and after he did even better as an employee, she arranged through go betweens to suggest marriage.
All the Abrahamic religions are based on a very violent and aggressive Old Testament God. Unfortunately, certain elements of all three seem unable to give up that part of their particular religion and continue with the parts that are good. We have Christians intent on rewriting the Constitution to conform with their interpretation of the Bible. Their likelihood of doing that is what? And the possibility of Sharia law being instituted here? With our very Christian Supreme Court?
What I really despise, everywhere in this discussion, is the total blackout of information on the Golden Age of Islam. 750 to 1250 AD. We are all indebted to the Muslim scholars of that era for the phenomenal discoveries and contributions they made to the foundation of modern science. No, I have not studied the Qur'an, it is supposed to be read in Arabic to truly understand it. History I have studied and you seem to be short in that area. Even with decades of study, ignorance persists.
Jews are the people of the book, and were considered the 'Ansar' or the Helpers, and are told to be treated with respect, as all people are. Women are not treated like property in ISLAM, sadly however, there are many CULTURES who degrade their women. Look into Hinduism and see how poorly women are treated if you want to talk about woman's rights.
As in most situations, the best approach is to present the facts fairly, allow the interested parties to have their say, and let people form their own opinions. You don't have to stuff your own views down people's throats.
After the segment i thought to myself, the US needs a lot more factual reporting like that.
These are New York's problems now, since they proved no barrier at all to his victory in the primary. But they are but passing problems -- on November 6th, he will shuffle off to Buffalo once more, from whence he will be heard not at all.
We can only hope that listening to both sides will change those who fear the Muslim community. What is happening to our country. Good grief this country was founded on our freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and now it seems that Christians feel they have to take that away from people who are different then they are.
Then again as my daughter pointed out to me back during the times of slavery the Christian churches were big proponents of slavery. And condoned horrible and brutal punishments on the slaves.