PDA

View Full Version : The WTC Mosque question....



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

bigross86
18 Aug 10,, 08:41
They're well within their right to build it, they just need to take into account that building it will have widespread negative repercussions that will be detrimental to the stated purpose of the Mosque, namely outreach and bridging the gap between Islam and the other religions

gunnut
18 Aug 10,, 09:08
Interesting how these people aren't "sensitive" to our culture while we have to be "sensitive" to theirs.

What happened when some cartoonist drew images of Mohamed? They were well within their rights to draw anything they wanted.

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 12:53
Interesting how these people aren't "sensitive" to our culture while we have to be "sensitive" to theirs.

*Agreed in some cases but not all cases. Nothing against the culture itself but respect ours as well and 911 became a part of our culture the day it happened. Its our politicians that are allowing this to take place until threatened with not being re-elected. These are the same politicians that rammed Health Care through among other Bills without agreement from both sides so therefore the American taxpayer public was shut out all together. IMO, get rid of this bunch because it wont end here. Maybe perhaps we should find a list of these politicians and axe them the very next time for re-election and send a very clear message to our government.

We can certainly do without alot of these politicians that fail to see without the American publics collective say so they cannot push through any Bills but yet they do it anyway making our voices a moot subject but yet we pay all the bills.

DV RULES
18 Aug 10,, 13:44
In my opinion, American government would consider this topic according to their nation’s opinion and their feelings. I think this is not appropriate place to construct any religious building because it could harm inter- religious relations.

Roosveltrepub
18 Aug 10,, 17:52
Bad question where is "They have a right to build it" and it isn't anyone outside NY's business

gunnut
18 Aug 10,, 17:54
Bad question where is "They have a right to build it" and it isn't anyone outside NY's business

You are free to make your own polls.

dalem
18 Aug 10,, 17:54
Bad question where is "They have a right to build it" and it isn't anyone outside NY's business

"should" and "could" are two different concepts.

-dale

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 18:12
Bad question where is "They have a right to build it" and it isn't anyone outside NY's business

*Fair enough, but put that vote to the people that live there not the Mayor or the Govenor. That way Obama's lackies dont wash away the people who pay their slaries wishes like they have so many other times so far.

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 18:16
I dont see anywhere as the case for "They have the right" if you dont even have the "Right" to drive then how can you possibly have the "Right" to build. You do have the Right to Freedom of Religion. But it doesnt say you have the Right to build wherever you choose.

And all the people that were killed in that attack were not from New York but several other states as well including Pennsylvania and New Jersey and more then likely Conneticut and others.

The Government (if they choose) can also invoke "Eminent Domain" and that would trump any arguments there are over the land. Threaten them with not being re-elected and see just how fast they move.:biggrin:

dalem
18 Aug 10,, 19:20
In the little Connecticut town where I did most of my growing up the local zoning board refused every chain restaurant that tried to open. Grounds? No lighted signs permissable larger than X by Y, and most chains refused to obey that, so blammo. I grew up with Bill's Drive In for burgers and Pizzaland "we DON'T deliver!" for pizza.

Did McDonalds have a "right" to build a restaurant there? Did the zoning board have a "right" to ignore the wishes of local citizens and businesses? This mosque thignie is no different.

-dale

2DREZQ
18 Aug 10,, 21:38
There is going to be a gay bar next door, and the muslims are upset that the owner isnt sensitive to muslim "sensitivities". I hope they open a "Porkland" Barbeque across the street and a 24-hour strip club right beside it.
Then we will see what "Tolerance" is made out of.

Besides, this is New York, man. You think any Union construction worker or contractor is gonna want to touch this thing with a mile-long pole?

Roosveltrepub
18 Aug 10,, 21:47
I dont see anywhere as the case for "They have the right" if you dont even have the "Right" to drive then how can you possibly have the "Right" to build. You do have the Right to Freedom of Religion. But it doesnt say you have the Right to build wherever you choose.

And all the people that were killed in that attack were not from New York but several other states as well including Pennsylvania and New Jersey and more then likely Conneticut and others.

The Government (if they choose) can also invoke "Eminent Domain" and that would trump any arguments there are over the land. Threaten them with not being re-elected and see just how fast they move.:biggrin:

Local laws were followed as with Bill's Drive Inn Dale referenced.

BenRoethig
18 Aug 10,, 21:48
They have every right to build it there, but I'm really concerned about their reasoning. Its position is extremely insensitive to victims on 911. Its imam tolerates terrorism at the very least if not being a supporter of it and is a supporter of legally binding Shira law. Its being funded by Saudi Wahhabi money. To be this sounds like a victory Mosque.

Officer of Engineers
18 Aug 10,, 22:09
Bad question where is "They have a right to build it" and it isn't anyone outside NY's businessWrong. I have the right to express my views whether you like it or not. I may not have the right to deny them the right to build where they can legally build up but I will make sure those responsible know I am not pleased. I have that right whether you like it or not.

As for this particular question, once OBL is dead, build it wherever you wish but not one second before.

Roosveltrepub
18 Aug 10,, 22:25
Wrong. I have the right to express my views whether you like it or not. I may not have the right to deny them the right to build where they can legally build up but I will make sure those responsible know I am not pleased. I have that right whether you like it or not.

As for this particular question, once OBL is dead, build it wherever you wish but not one second before.
Sure, and as long as they aren't denied their rights I am fine with it. The issue I have is those wishing to prevent them from doing so. I get a kick that this Iman had been sent to promote America's acceptance of all Religons in thepast.


FACT CHECK: Islam already lives near ground zero
By CALVIN WOODWARD (AP) – 22 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — A New York imam and his proposed mosque near ground zero are being demonized by political candidates — mostly Republicans — despite the fact that Islam is already very much a part of the World Trade Center neighborhood. And that Muslims pray inside the Pentagon, too, less than 80 feet from where terrorists attacked.

And that the imam who's being branded an extremist has been valued by both Republican and Democratic administrations as a moderate face of the faith.

Even so, the project stirs complicated emotions, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a complex figure who defies easy categorization in the American Muslim world.

He's devoted much of his career to working closely with Christians, Jews and secular leaders to advance interfaith understanding. He's scolded his own religion for being in some ways in the "Dark Ages." Yet he's also accused the U.S. of spilling more innocent blood than al-Qaida, the terrorist network that turned the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon and four hijacked airplanes to apocalyptic rubble.

Many Republicans and some Democrats say the proposed $100 million Islamic cultural center and mosque should be built elsewhere, where there is no possible association with New York's ground zero. Far more than a local zoning issue, the matter has seized congressional campaigns, put President Barack Obama and his party on the spot — he says Muslims have the right to build the mosque — divided families of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims, caught the attention of Muslims abroad and threatened to blur distinctions between mainstream Islam in the U.S. and its radical elements.

A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the known facts:

_"The folks who want to build this mosque — who are really radical Islamists who want to triumphally prove that they can build a mosque right next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists — those folks don't have any interest in reaching out to the community. They're trying to make a case about supremacy." — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate.

_Some of the Muslim leaders associated with the mosque "are clearly terrorist sympathizers." — Kevin Calvey, a Republican running for Congress in Oklahoma.

_"This radical is a terrible choice to be one of the faces of our country overseas." — Statement by GOP Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Peter King of New York.

THE FACTS:

No one has established a link between the cleric and radicals. New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said: "We've identified no law enforcement issues related to the proposed mosque."

Ros-Lehtinen and King were referring to the State Department's plan, predating the mosque debate, to send Rauf on another religious outreach trip to the Middle East as part of his "long-term relationship" with U.S. officials in the Bush and Obama administrations. The State Department said Wednesday it will pay him $3,000 for a trip costing the government $16,000.

Rauf counts former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from the Clinton administration as a friend and appeared at events overseas or meetings in Washington with former President George W. Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush adviser Karen Hughes.

He has denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombing as anti-Islamic and has criticized Muslim nationalism. But he's made provocative statements about America, too, calling it an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and attributing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to the U.S.-led sanctions in the years before the invasion.

In a July 2005 speech at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Center in Adelaide, Australia, Rauf said, according to the center's transcript:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."

While calling terrorism unjustified, he said the U.S. has supported authoritarian regimes with heinous human rights records and, faced with that, "how else do people get attention?"

In the same address, he spoke of prospects for peace between Palestinians and the Israelis — who he said "have moved beyond Zionism" — and of a love-your-neighbor ethic uniting all religions.

___

_"Mr. President, ground zero is the wrong place for a mosque." — Rick Scott, Republican candidate for Florida governor.

_"Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center." — Gingrich.

_"Just a block or two away from 9/11." — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, another 2012 GOP presidential prospect.

THE FACTS:

No mosque is going up at ground zero. The center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site. Its location is roughly half a dozen normal Lower Manhattan blocks from the site of the North Tower, the nearest of the two destroyed in the attacks.

The center's location, in a former Burlington Coat Factory store, is already used by the cleric for worship, drawing a spillover from the imam's former main place for prayers, the al-Farah mosque. That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds.

Another, the Manhattan Mosque, stands five blocks from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site.

To be sure, the center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence. The building was damaged in the Sept. 11 attacks and the center's planners say they want the center to stand as a statement against terrorism.

___

_"There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. ... America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization." Gingrich.

THE FACTS:

Gingrich's opinion is shared by some Americans, while others are more reluctant to paint the religion with a broad brush and more welcoming of the faith in this country. Bush himself, while criticized at the time for stirring suspicions about American Muslims, traveled to a Washington mosque less than a week after the attacks to declare that terrorism is "not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."

In any event, the U.S. armed forces field Muslim troops and make accommodations for them. The Pentagon opened an interfaith chapel in November 2002 close to the area where hijacked American Airlines flight 77 slammed into the building, killing 184 people.

Muslims gather there for a daily prayer service Monday through Thursday and hold a weekly worship service on Fridays, drawing no complaints. Similar but separate services are provided for other faiths.

Associated Press writers Tom Hays in New York and Anne Flaherty in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserv
Republicans are for the constitutional right to do things they approve of..

bigross86
18 Aug 10,, 22:28
This may not be appropriate, but this subject is not sacred, especially seeing as how I disagree with the mosque. My friend decided to come up with a list of names for the gay bar that was announced to be opened across the street from the mosque. It will be offensive, and that is it's intended purpose as a joke. If you have a problem with this post, please message one of the Mods, and I'll take it down without a problem.

1) Ram-a-Dan
2) HoMohammed
3) The Explosive Man Pouch
4) Que'eran
5) Osama Bin Bottom
6) Halal Meat
7) Afagistan
8)Hamass
9) Mahmoud Ab Ass
10) Islamic Castle (pronounced "Islamic asshole")
11) Fatwad
12) Babgatush
13) Lashes (it's what you wear to the club, and what you receive for going)
14) The Hairy Turban
15) The Persian Rug
16) No Burkah Zone
17) Achbearnah
18) Achbottomnah
19) Talibuns
20) Talibum

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 22:34
Local laws were followed as with Bill's Drive Inn Dale referenced.

Eminent Domain if you are not familiar with it gives the Government/State the right to confiscate (with ofcoarse fair market value) any tract of land they deem fit to further bridges,roads and public structure for the benefit of the greater good.

If indeed the governemnt (State or Local) does permit the building then just who do you think the public will point the finger at? Yep, you guessed it, those that will seek re-election (Namely the Democrats).

And an additional thought stolen from Bill Riley is.....Try finding a New York City Union that would build it.

Guess who mayors, govenors etc seek election help from come re-elections?

So comes the question, which shall it be? I dont think I have ever met a NYC Union employee (man or woman) that wasnt very proud of where they come from.

Call it what you will, but IMO I call it righteous for reasons of respect.

gunnut
18 Aug 10,, 22:41
There is going to be a gay bar next door, and the muslims are upset that the owner isnt sensitive to muslim "sensitivities". I hope they open a "Porkland" Barbeque across the street and a 24-hour strip club right beside it.
Then we will see what "Tolerance" is made out of.

I'll donate some money toward those causes. :biggrin:


Besides, this is New York, man. You think any Union construction worker or contractor is gonna want to touch this thing with a mile-long pole?

I was asking this question earlier. What if the union took their time to build and then overcharged the job? It could easily take 20 or 30 years to build this mosque. It could be hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The building inspectors just might find numerous faults with union labor and not pass the inspection. And of course you know the unionized government employees only inspect buildings on the 3rd Thursday of each month, within a week of a full moon, during spring and autumn, at 317pm sharp, after having a hotdog with ketchup and sweet relish from the cart on the corner of Broadway and Walker Street.

gunnut
18 Aug 10,, 22:47
Sure, and as long as they aren't denied their rights I am fine with it. The issue I have is those wishing to prevent them from doing so. I get a kick that this Iman had been sent to promote America's acceptance of all Religons in thepast.

Republicans are for the constitutional right to do things they approve of..

Simple question for you: why shouldn't we deny certain people of their "rights?" They do it all the time. No homosexuals, no christians, no bibles, no atheists...

Here's another interesting thing, muslims basically regard atheists as 3rd class citizen and homosexuals below that, but the liberals love the muslims. Why?

Dreadnought
18 Aug 10,, 23:02
Gun, basically what he is banking on is moot. There is no "Right" anywhere on the books that say they have any rights to build anything anywhere. The "Right" in this case is the Democrats "Right" to appeasement.

If the Imam is forward teaching Muslims that we respect their Culture and their Rights then he would understand our Culture and our Rights in this matter. Both of which changed in the days following 911 and anyone with a hint of respect for what people suffered that day would understand as well.

Whats a few blocks away in difference to settle this nonsense once and for all. Both parties are then happy. Just more tax dollars being burnt by the Dems. Go figure.

gunnut
18 Aug 10,, 23:15
8)Hamass

I'm sure you meant "Ham Ass" :biggrin:

bigross86
18 Aug 10,, 23:22
Either one. It's a list of suggestions. Feel free to add your own suggestions to the list

gunnut
18 Aug 10,, 23:28
Either one. It's a list of suggestions. Feel free to add your own suggestions to the list

I don't think I can top your list. :frown:

Dreadnought
19 Aug 10,, 00:07
Republicans are for the constitutional right to do things they approve of..


*So say the Democrats that give appeasement in the face of respect for the dead.

There is not one Constitutional Right you could possibly list that would have bearing on this matter. You can "graft" Freedom of Religion all that you would like but lets take a look at that right shall we?

Some could even argue that President Obama, The Govenor of NYC and the Mayor are all on very dangerous ground where as the "Wall of Seperation" clause comes in.

US Constitution- Amendment One, Freedom of Religion, Press and Expression

*Do take into mind that this Amendment was condensed into a much shorter form.

Originally New Yorks read:

New Yorkers had the same to say, but more succinctly:

"That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Now lets ask ourselves about the "conscience" part. That is not a place for Mr Obama, Govenor or Mayor to be treading without the peoples say for afterall it is indeed their conscience and their city as well as their tax money that supports said state officials in case we forgot.

And if they due impeed such it could be interpited as a breech of the Seperation Clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


So a bottom line here is Mr Obama should not even be addressing this issue whatsoever and neither should Congress. If anything it will go to the Supreme Court which hold higher authority of the Constitution then Mr Obama does and no doubt can interpit it in detail better as well.

As mentioned above, move it a few blocks away, You have respect for the Muslim Faith, and you have respect for those who lost loved ones on 911 altogether. Our tax money not wasted on bickering and endless tie ups in court and the Citizens pleased.

If not then put it to a vote of the people of New York, not Mr Obama and not Congress. If New Yorkers can live with it then so can we all.

But still, Chances are your Democratic leaders involved will pay for it with their careers. Why? Because people are fickle. And it's their Constitutional Right to be that way as well!:tongue:

ZekeJones
19 Aug 10,, 01:21
Needs to have Outfidel or The Third Hump on the list.

MIKEMUN
19 Aug 10,, 02:08
Greg liked You Mecca me hot.:-)

MIKEMUN
19 Aug 10,, 02:12
And Suspicious Packages.

zraver
19 Aug 10,, 02:52
Mohomohead

dalem
19 Aug 10,, 03:08
Local laws were followed as with Bill's Drive Inn Dale referenced.

It was in Monroe, right next to Trumbull where I grew up. Probably overbuilt nowadays. Good burgers though.

-dale

MIKEMUN
19 Aug 10,, 03:30
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday morning called for “transparency” in the funding behind a planned Islamic community center and mosque being built blocks from ground zero. But she also said there should be similar openness about the money behind conservative attacks aimed at thwarting the project.

The California Democrat, in a statement provided to POLITICO, adopted the split position of the Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan group dedicated to religious tolerance and separation of church and state. Although it blasted the Anti-Defamation League for strongly opposing the Park51 project, the Interfaith Alliance also agreed with the ADL’s argument that the public should know where the money for the center is coming from.




“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance, that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center,’” according to Pelosi’s statement, quoting the Alliance’s position. “’At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’”

Pelosi’s view seems parallel with President Barack Obama, who said that the construction of a mosque is a constitutionally protected expression of religion, but said he would not comment on the “wisdom” of building one so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Pelosi’s counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes the Park51 plan.

It’s not the first time Pelosi has weighed in on the controversial Islamic center, which would include a recreation center as well as a place of worship.

On Tuesday, she said the mosque’s location is a zoning issue that New Yorkers should work out among themselves, but she also noted that she believes most people respect the “right of people in our country to express their religious beliefs on their property.” She reiterated that position in her statement Wednesday.

“The freedom of religion is a constitutional right,” Pelosi said. “Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.”

Earlier Wednesday, Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”

“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”

Republicans have signaled that they will try to turn the mosque into a campaign issue, and nearly all of the leading national Republicans have weighed in against the mosque's construction.

On Tuesday, the speaker blasted those making “concerted effort to make this a political issue.” Yet on Wednesday, she seemed to do just that, taking a shot at opponents of a bill that bolstered health care for Sept. 11 responders. She urged those who are now expressing their concern for Sept. 11 attacks to reverse their opposition to the bill when Congress returns in September.

Read more: Pelosi wants 'transparency' on mosque - Jake Sherman and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41204.html#ixzz0x0zWkeUT)


I wonder if Grossie should also be investigated. He is leading the Israeli side.:-). Be afraid. Be very afraid.:biggrin::biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
19 Aug 10,, 04:06
Fine! They open their books. We open ours but since when does public opinion need books?

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 04:17
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday morning called for “transparency” in the funding behind a planned Islamic community center and mosque being built blocks from ground zero. But she also said there should be similar openness about the money behind conservative attacks aimed at thwarting the project.

The Wicked Witch of the West strikes again.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 04:19
Probably never occurred to her that The People can actually have an opinion, and express it, that doesn't rely on a 'message machine', focus groups, polling, or some dirty-tricks-cabal-StarChamber.

This is what happens when one's perspective gets warped by living inside the Washington monster's belly. She simply cannot grasp that normal Americans 'get' this on a gut level, and nobody manipulated them at all.

She needs to be fired. But she won't be.. No matter how isolated she is, no matter how out-of-touch her bubble is from OUR world, she will be returned to spill more poison into the body politic. There is literally no chance of EVER unseating her before she chooses to, at long last, go.

Blue
19 Aug 10,, 04:40
Bad question where is "They have a right to build it" and it isn't anyone outside NY's business

Did you bother to read the first post or can you just not comprehend plain english!? Allow me to conveniently quote the very first, handy-dandy, right in your face, lines of the #1 post of this thread............


The WTC Mosque question....
Please read the following before voting in the poll!

I think there is already threads on this, but I mainly wanted to take a poll on this subject.
It has been established that it is perfectly within our constitutional rights to practice any religion you like in this country.

You also have an obvious right to build a house of worship within the boundaries of the law(building and zoning codes).

I have bolded the pertinent part of it for you, will you be needing translation?

Blue
19 Aug 10,, 05:14
I was inspired to post this thread by lots of reports I have been hearing that many American Muslims are opposed to the building of this mosque because they understand the insensitivity of it. There are over 100 mosques, IIRC, in NYC.

I was hoping to hear from those as well as hear some coherent arguments from those who support the building of the mosque.

There is obvious deliberation in the message that these select Muslims, who are spearheading this project, want to send. From the name Cordoba house, to the mysterious funding sources(possibly terrorist org linked?)

My next big question is why in the hell are WE paying to send this imam on his little "friendship (fundraising?)tour". Have WE ever paid for Billy Graham to go on tour? I would think there would be a question of church/state separation there.

There is something similar happening in the county of which I live. There are a few adult book/video stores in our area, and the local moral orels want to have them banned in the county. They have just about regulated and taxed them out of business, but still, the bible beaters just keep banging away and you can bet they probably will get thier way.

Point is, its all first ammendment. I don't have any religion or go to church, and I don't enjoy porn of go to those places, but I defend the right of our citizens to make that choice and pursue thier happiness, even though I don't support or share what may bring them happiness. As long as it is lawful, yes, but that is not the question.

Dreadnought
19 Aug 10,, 05:24
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday morning called for “transparency” in the funding behind a planned Islamic community center and mosque being built blocks from ground zero. But she also said there should be similar openness about the money behind conservative attacks aimed at thwarting the project.

The California Democrat, in a statement provided to POLITICO, adopted the split position of the Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan group dedicated to religious tolerance and separation of church and state. Although it blasted the Anti-Defamation League for strongly opposing the Park51 project, the Interfaith Alliance also agreed with the ADL’s argument that the public should know where the money for the center is coming from.




“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance, that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center,’” according to Pelosi’s statement, quoting the Alliance’s position. “’At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’”

Pelosi’s view seems parallel with President Barack Obama, who said that the construction of a mosque is a constitutionally protected expression of religion, but said he would not comment on the “wisdom” of building one so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Pelosi’s counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes the Park51 plan.

It’s not the first time Pelosi has weighed in on the controversial Islamic center, which would include a recreation center as well as a place of worship.

On Tuesday, she said the mosque’s location is a zoning issue that New Yorkers should work out among themselves, but she also noted that she believes most people respect the “right of people in our country to express their religious beliefs on their property.” She reiterated that position in her statement Wednesday.

“The freedom of religion is a constitutional right,” Pelosi said. “Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.”

Earlier Wednesday, Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”

“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”

Republicans have signaled that they will try to turn the mosque into a campaign issue, and nearly all of the leading national Republicans have weighed in against the mosque's construction.

On Tuesday, the speaker blasted those making “concerted effort to make this a political issue.” Yet on Wednesday, she seemed to do just that, taking a shot at opponents of a bill that bolstered health care for Sept. 11 responders. She urged those who are now expressing their concern for Sept. 11 attacks to reverse their opposition to the bill when Congress returns in September.

Read more: Pelosi wants 'transparency' on mosque - Jake Sherman and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41204.html#ixzz0x0zWkeUT)


I wonder if Grossie should also be investigated. He is leading the Israeli side.:-). Be afraid. Be very afraid.:biggrin::biggrin:

*As well she should have "Dick" of a say in this matter as Speaker of the House. It should go to the Supreme Court if they have a disagreement in the State but keep in mind Congress nor the President can interpit the Constitution better then the Supreme Court can. Those individuals set the law of the land.

Nancy has absolutely no say in this matter, even as Speaker of the House. And its very questionable about her trying to influence the outcome. She's treading on very dangerous ground as far as the Constitution is concerned.

dalem
19 Aug 10,, 09:56
I'm trying to imagine what the reaction would be by the lefties and their aged hound dog press organs if a Republican Speaker of the House called for investigations of anyone who simply disagreed with, oh, the Iraq war.

More hanging of Bush in effigy, or less?

Dreadnought
19 Aug 10,, 15:04
Honestly which is worse,

a) Mr Obama thinking his say is the last word on this instead of it going to a Supreme Court ruling (Who can interpit the Constitution better then any one of you or Congress). Thats their job and what they get paid for not yours.

or

b) This moron above wasting taxpayers money to investigate who is disagreeing with it. Guess what...its called Freedom of Speech no matter who disagrees with it. So stop wasting taxpayers money trying to inforce your bullying tactics when it is not your say either that matters in the end.

This is shining example of how tax dollars are spent on things that are not their jobs but their preferences. Go figure.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 15:39
Pelosi and Roosveltrepublican are both Democrats. Really, that's all that needs to be said. It makes understanding this issue easy and absolutely clear on the question of right and wrong.

MIKEMUN
19 Aug 10,, 15:50
Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama's rescue
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
08/18/10 10:02 AM EDT
(File photo) Former President George W. Bush

There's a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama's waffling on the issue, they're calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America's relationship with Islam. It's an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America's image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States. Nevertheless, they are now seeing a different side of the former president.

"It's time for W. to weigh in," writes the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that "you can't have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam." Dowd finds it "odd" that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, "W. needs to get his bullhorn back out" -- a reference to Bush's famous "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. "I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue," Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. "He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views."

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. "Words I never thought I'd write: I pine for George W. Bush," Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. "Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion." Beinart longs for the days when Bush "used to say that the 'war on terror' was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…"

For the moment, with Obama failing to live up to expectations, Bush-bashing is over. It's all a little amusing -- and perhaps a little maddening -- for some members of the Bush circle. When I asked Karl Rove to comment, he responded that it means "redemption is always available for liberals and time causes even the most stubborn of ideologues to revisit mistaken judgments." But won't these Bush critics shortly return to criticizing Bush? "This Bush swoon by selected members of the left commentariat is temporary," Rove answered. "Their swamp fevers will return momentarily."

Bush himself has declined to comment on the mosque affair.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama's rescue | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html#ixzz0x3ztba87)

Dreadnought
19 Aug 10,, 16:10
My eyes must be decieving me, You mean they are actually painting "W" in a positive light for once?:eek:

Excellent! in how he declined to comment. Smart move "W" in not wanting to be the scapegoat of the Left. They blamed you for everything under the sun without hesitation and now they wish to hear from you?

Yes, you are indeed missed! Especially by those who dont appreciate waffeling nor appeasement.

You go "W"!:biggrin:

bigross86
19 Aug 10,, 16:17
Well that'll be the day. Who'da thunk it? The liberals want Bush back. That must be a real low blow to Barack "Everything I ever did wrong was actually Bush's mistake" Obama

MIKEMUN
19 Aug 10,, 16:43
Growing number in America believe Obama a Muslim - poll
Barack Obama Mr Obama, a Christian, celebrated Ramadan with Muslim Americans and foreign dignitaries this month

A growing number of Americans incorrectly believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim, research suggests.

Some 18% said the president was a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009, according to the Pew Research survey of 3,003 Americans.

Among Republicans, that number was 34%. Just a third of those quizzed correctly identified Mr Obama as Christian.

Polling was done before 13 August when Mr Obama defended Muslims' right to build an Islamic centre by Ground Zero.
Continue reading the main story
Related stories

* Obama attacked for mosque defence
* Nuanced row over NY mosque

Forty-three per cent of those questioned said they did not know what Mr Obama's religion was.
'Spreading falsehoods'

The White House attributed the mistaken beliefs about Mr Obama's religion to a "misinformation campaign" pursued by his political opponents.

"While the president has been diligent and personally committed to his own Christian faith, there's certainly folks who are intent on spreading falsehoods about the president and his values and beliefs," White House faith adviser Joshua DuBois told AFP news agency.

The poll found beliefs about the president's faith were closely linked to political judgments about him.

It found that people who believe Mr Obama is a Muslim "overwhelmingly disapprove" of his job performance, while a majority of those who identify him as a Christian approve.

News of the poll comes amid fears by some US Muslims that they will be targeted due to the fact that the holiday of Eid falls on 11 September this year, the anniversary of the terror attacks of 2001.

Some are concerned that the joyous festivals that mark the occasion will be misconstrued as celebrations of the attacks.

Meanwhile a national debate continues over a developer's plans to build a mosque and community centre two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York.

The plans have provoked vehement opposition from many conservatives, though Mr Obama, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the chairman of the US Democratic party and others have defended the developers' right to build there.

BBC News - Growing number in America believe Obama a Muslim - poll (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11027568)

art
19 Aug 10,, 17:58
Freedom of religion in the US should allow the Mosque to be build. If the Government interferes, Then what's next? the right to assembly, freedom of speech? These are the basics fundamentals of human rights in the greatest country in the history of the world. We must overlook our predigest of the Muslim religion and not blame them for what some terrorist are doing in the name of their religion. As I recall, Christianity did some horrible things in history but we are not stopping Christians from building churches are we?

highsea
19 Aug 10,, 18:19
I'm not interested in what Bush or any other republican politician has to say about the mosque. Hopefully they'll have the sense to keep their mouths shut from here out.

The dems have stepped in it, let them extract themselves. Let every question on the mosque from the media be directed to, and answered by dems. Repubs can sit back in silence while the dems backpedal from Obama's statement. The public will be listening.

If the repubs let themselves get sucked in by the media into this debate, it will be spun as an anti-first amendment position, like Rosie's trying to do.

Repubs need to stay on message and keep their focus on the economy. That's what will defeat dems in November.

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 18:21
Freedom of religion in the US should allow the Mosque to be build. If the Government interferes, Then what's next? the right to assembly, freedom of speech? These are the basics fundamentals of human rights in the greatest country in the history of the world.

Sure, the government shouldn't interfere. How about the people? Do they have a right to refuse?


We must overlook our predigest of the Muslim religion and not blame them for what some terrorist are doing in the name of their religion.

We're not prejudiced against muslims in general. Just this one.


As I recall, Christianity did some horrible things in history but we are not stopping Christians from building churches are we?

1. When did those "horrible" things happen?
2. Can you give some examples of those "horrible" things?
3. What would you say if the catholic church goes into Iraq and Afghanistan and build churches after every single village and city that the US troops had just entered in the name of "multiculturalism?"
4. How about building a cathedral in Mecca?
5. How about bringing some bibles into Saudi Arabia?

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 18:24
Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama's rescue
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
08/18/10 10:02 AM EDT
(File photo) Former President George W. Bush

There's a new argument emerging among supporters of the Ground Zero mosque. Distressed by President Obama's waffling on the issue, they're calling on former President George W. Bush to announce his support for the project, because in this case Bush understands better than Obama the connection between the war on terror and the larger question of America's relationship with Islam. It's an extraordinary change of position for commentators who long argued that Bush had done grievous harm to America's image in the Muslim world and that Obama represented a fresh start for the United States. Nevertheless, they are now seeing a different side of the former president.

"It's time for W. to weigh in," writes the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that "you can't have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam." Dowd finds it "odd" that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, "W. needs to get his bullhorn back out" -- a reference to Bush's famous "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. "I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue," Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. "He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views."

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. "Words I never thought I'd write: I pine for George W. Bush," Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. "Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion." Beinart longs for the days when Bush "used to say that the 'war on terror' was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…"

For the moment, with Obama failing to live up to expectations, Bush-bashing is over. It's all a little amusing -- and perhaps a little maddening -- for some members of the Bush circle. When I asked Karl Rove to comment, he responded that it means "redemption is always available for liberals and time causes even the most stubborn of ideologues to revisit mistaken judgments." But won't these Bush critics shortly return to criticizing Bush? "This Bush swoon by selected members of the left commentariat is temporary," Rove answered. "Their swamp fevers will return momentarily."

Bush himself has declined to comment on the mosque affair.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama's rescue | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html#ixzz0x3ztba87)

I thought this picture would be fitting...

zraver
19 Aug 10,, 18:29
Freedom of religion in the US should allow the Mosque to be build. If the Government interferes, Then what's next? the right to assembly, freedom of speech? These are the basics fundamentals of human rights in the greatest country in the history of the world. We must overlook our predigest of the Muslim religion and not blame them for what some terrorist are doing in the name of their religion. As I recall, Christianity did some horrible things in history but we are not stopping Christians from building churches are we?

Government officials are actively campaigning for the Mosque and have put its radical Iman on the government payroll in violation of US law. The Mosque will not hold to American values, women will be excluded from parts of it, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindi's and atheist will be denied entry. meanwhile Utah can't have crosses a now universal symbol of a tragic highway death as memorial markers for fallen highway patrolmen.

So what were you saying about government?

MIKEMUN
19 Aug 10,, 18:29
Yes, GW, we do...:-)

2DREZQ
19 Aug 10,, 18:30
we are not stopping Christians from building churches are we?

Uhmmm...actually, Yes, we are. Proposed churches all over the country have been stopped in their tracks when they posed zoning or traffic problems, or when neighbors objected. It doesn't usually happen, though, because people building churches are generally very tuned in and sensitive to the feelings of the community. I've seen it many times. (Helped build a few in my day.)

Also, didn't you hear about the Pope discouraging some Nuns from building a convent at Auschwitz, out of respect for the Jewish (and others) sensitivities?

zraver
19 Aug 10,, 18:31
I thought this picture would be fitting...

As the Bush presidency wound down, I was hopeful that the disaster his presidency was would be over. He was pro-government, big debt and anti-freedom. Now I know he was simply the oven pre-heating.

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 18:34
As the Bush presidency wound down, I was hopeful that the disaster his presidency was would be over. He was pro-government, big debt and anti-freedom. Now I know he was simply the oven pre-heating.

Oh yeah, I thought his domestic policies were atrocious except for the tax cuts. I always thought he spent too much money. He partnered with Ted Kennedy to write that "no child left behind" federal take over of local education. And I stated before Obama was elected that he would outspend Bush by a country mile. I have vastly misunderestimated Obama's ability to overspend and overreach.

Tronic
19 Aug 10,, 18:54
Please read the following before voting in the poll!

I think there is already threads on this, but I mainly wanted to take a poll on this subject.
It has been established that it is perfectly within our constitutional rights to practice any religion you like in this country.

You also have an obvious right to build a house of worship within the boundaries of the law(building and zoning codes).

Now to the mutiple questions....

Would building a Mosque at the proposed site near ground zero be appropriate?

Would it hurt the muslim population in defining itself as a religion of tolerance and sensitivity?

I have heard many American Muslims speaking out against the construction of this particular mosque and would be interested what international and American muslims here think on this.

I found out a bit more about it, and I don't see anything wrong with it; its not exactly at Ground Zero.

And as for second question, I'm going to be very honest, despite risking sounding offensive, but you're talking about Islam here. Yes, the religion does give examples of tolerance, but at the end of the day, the stated goal is to "spread the message" i.e. convert the world as Islam is the only true path, and all other people have either strayed off the true path (if they are "people of the book", i.e. people of the Abrahamic religions) or are quite simply led by the devil himself (if they are polytheists, atheists, or just anything other than Abrahamic). Really not too different from the evangelical Christians, but far more organized and a far better base of funding. So, all this talk of people proposing to open up gay bars and what not in retaliation to this Mosque; well that idea is just another bad joke, it actually reinforces the Muslim's beliefs about others and wins the Mosque more brownie points among their worshipers. And this is America, the land of open market competition, so what kind of competition are gay bars to religious centres?? That money is better spent on opening up a Church or something, and "educating" or "re-educating" the people in the area; that is the only real reply to such a centre; all this talk of "tolerance" and what not is really a bad joke. Infact, I'm still laughing at the comment on the other thread about this mosque being "Sufi-ish"; its being built at a cost of a $100 million, and most likely the funding can be traced back to the Saudis or other Arab states, the states responsible for funding the massacre of Sufis worldwide. This mosque is anything but Sufi-ish but a centre of influence and expansion for the Islamic ideology. Nothing Sufi about it.

JAD_333
19 Aug 10,, 19:03
Well, we wouldn't be arguing over all this were it not for the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Without it, the Islamic center would now be looking for a site in Hoboken.

The center's board was incredibly insensitive to how the public would react in light of 9/11. Or, was it? In our fight against Islamic terrorism, we have often criticized Islamic countries and Islamic fundamentalists for their intolerance and on occasion held up our system as an example of religious toleration. Now this. It may be fanciful to imagine that this whole flap was purposely designed by our enemies in the Islamic world to put us to the test. It really doesn't matter because either way we're showing the world that are not as tolerant as we claim. The other side of this is that it gave us an opportunity to contrast our way to that in some Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, where religious intolerance is built into the system. But we appear to squandering the opportunity...

I don't like any of the outcomes here, but I like least of all any that paints us as hypocrites.

zraver
19 Aug 10,, 19:07
I don't like any of the outcomes here, but I like least of all any that paints us as hypocrites.

No one is telling them they can't practice their religion or have a cultural center. It is the location they picked and the man running it that is a problem.

tbm3fan
19 Aug 10,, 20:40
Government officials are actively campaigning for the Mosque and have put its radical Iman on the government payroll in violation of US law. The Mosque will not hold to American values, women will be excluded from parts of it, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindi's and atheist will be denied entry. meanwhile Utah can't have crosses a now universal symbol of a tragic highway death as memorial markers for fallen highway patrolmen.

This is one of the better comments... LMAO:biggrin:

Roosveltrepub
19 Aug 10,, 21:03
I'm not interested in what Bush or any other republican politician has to say about the mosque. Hopefully they'll have the sense to keep their mouths shut from here out.

The dems have stepped in it, let them extract themselves. Let every question on the mosque from the media be directed to, and answered by dems. Repubs can sit back in silence while the dems backpedal from Obama's statement. The public will be listening.

If the repubs let themselves get sucked in by the media into this debate, it will be spun as an anti-first amendment position, like Rosie's trying to do.

Repubs need to stay on message and keep their focus on the economy. That's what will defeat dems in November.

Ironic I read this today.

Gene Healy: 'Mosque' debate is a red herring | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/_Mosque_-debate-is-a-red-herring-500293-100810999.html)

Basically, this is a distraction meant to get tea Partiers to focus on this rather than make actual commitments to cut goverment since they tend to be so unpopular if you are in the middle class because that's where the $ go.

This is worth a read not a skim from Ali Soufan a somewaht well known FBI Interrogater in forbes magazine hardly a liberal bastion

Commentary
The National Security Mosque
Ali Soufan, 08.18.10, 12:40 PM ET


The furor over the proposed Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero makes me think back to one of the most important lessons I learned from al Qaeda terrorists I interrogated--that they have a warped view of America. To them--and this they get from Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric--the U.S. is a country at war with Islam and Muslims, and so they had a duty to fight us.

While I was serving on the frontlines I found that this distorted view of America was common among ordinary Muslims too, and it was only by correcting this image did we encourage locals to help our investigations and turn against al Qaeda. Our efforts were helped by public statements, like from President Bush in the days after 9/11, declaring that America was at war with al Qaeda and not with Islam. I was in Sana, Yemen, on that day, and I remember our military and law enforcement group feeling encouraged that our leadership understood how to frame our battle.

But while we started off on the right note in dealing with the Muslim world, our leadership soon demonstrated that they failed to understand that our war against al Qaeda was not just a military fight, but an asymmetrical battle for the proverbial hearts and minds of Muslims across the world too. We should have been highlighting that al Qaeda has killed thousands of Muslims and blown up dozens of mosques around the world. But instead we failed to appreciate the importance of rebutting al Qaeda's propaganda and of turning ordinary Muslims against the terror network.

When we eventually did this, we had great successes. As commander in Iraq Gen. Petraeus reached out to local Sunni groups and convinced them that al Qaeda was their enemy and America their friend. That led to a remarkable turnaround in our fortunes in Iraq. He is now trying to do the same in Afghanistan. Just this weekend Meet the Press reported that when Gen. Petraeus learned that the Taliban attacked a mosque near the border with Pakistan, he ordered it to be publicized among the local population.

There are many reasons for supporting the Muslim community's right to build a cultural center and mosque on private property, not least of all the First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion. But from a national security perspective, our leaders need to understand that no one is likely to be happier with the opposition to building a mosque than Osama Bin Laden. His next video script has just written itself.

The potential damage to our national security is not only to our work abroad, but at home too. Today in America we are facing an increased threat of homegrown terrorism. While Bin Laden couldn't find a single American-Muslim to be part of the 9/11 plot, today, thanks to mixture of poor (and even harmful) leadership within the American-Muslim community and failed strategies from our government in dealing with the threat, some young Muslims are finding themselves increasingly isolated and marginalized--and are becoming easy prey for radicals.

When demagogues appear to be equating Islam with terrorism, it's making young Muslims unsure about their place in the country. It bolsters the message that radicalizers are selling: That the war is against Islam, and Muslims are not welcome in America. As a Muslim-American, I know that isn't true. Whatever some rabble-raising politicians say about one mosque doesn't trump what America really stands for--the values enshrined by our constitution that guarantee equality and freedom for all, whatever your race, religion or creed.

Young American-Muslims need to focus on comments by leaders like Mayor Bloomberg, whose stand on the issue exemplifies the very best in American leadership: educating people and standing up for the values of our Constitution, rather than playing on fear and ignorance.

It is because of the principles enshrined in our constitution that thousands of American-Muslims, like Americans from all races and religions, volunteer to serve our country in the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities. The Pledge of Allegiance, ending "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," is a constant reminder that America is worth fighting for.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To those politicians now saying a mosque can't be built near Ground Zero, I would like them to take a walk through Arlington Cemetery and learn the names and stories of American-Muslims who have died in service to our country. They should also learn a bit more about the victims of 9/11, such as Mohammad Salman Hamdani, a Muslim-American who was a New York City Police cadet and paramedic. When he saw smoke coming from the Twin Towers he ran to assist, where he died helping victims.

Another Muslim who died in the World Trade Center was Mohammad Chowdhury who was working at Windows on the World to support his pregnant wife and daughter. He never made it home that day, and his son born 48 hours later never knew his father. Al Qaeda didn't differentiate between Muslims and other Americans when it hit the Twin Towers--and neither should we.

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005. He is the president and CEO of The Soufan Group, an intelligence consultancy.

Follow Forbes Opinions on Twitter
Reading Unbound: The Forbes Booked Blog



So, all that work to prevent the hunt for and opposition to Terrorists who use passages as obscure as Leviticus( how to sell your daughter into slavery) from the Koran to justify their murder from painting this into a holy war on Islam have now left the building? We make sure the moslem world knows when the terrorists bomb Mosques for a reason. Protesting freedom of religon is not something to win hearts and minds or assimilate newcomers. Mosques are being protested across the country. Yet, in the midst ofd this you call for Republicans to remain silent? This is an issue that matters or it's a distraction. If it's the second then those making it so put party above country. If it's the first then how could you call for Republican silence?



I'd love to hear what Shek has to say about this myself. I've noticed and belive at times you remain silent rather than disagree. Silence is aquisence as 6 million jewish souls can attest to.

Roosveltrepub
19 Aug 10,, 21:06
No one is telling them they can't practice their religion or have a cultural center. It is the location they picked and the man running it that is a problem.

Seriously, you need to read up on him on some non idealogue sites. He was first sent to preach we are not at war at Islam and our respect for the religon by Bush. If you are anti Islam just say so. If you say you aren't at least point to someone of the religon you support if not this very tolerant man.

Roosveltrepub
19 Aug 10,, 21:09
I thought this picture would be fitting...
He had omg muslims giving and saying services about 911 less than a month afterwards. What I do miss is him saying this isnt a war on Islam. Can you imagine God forbid if Obama had Imans saying 911 sericies in 9/2001?

JAD_333
19 Aug 10,, 21:25
No one is telling them they can't practice their religion or have a cultural center. It is the location they picked and the man running it that is a problem.

You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, it amounts to the same thing. What some are saying in effect is, "your religion is Islam; since people who practice your religion caused the death of thousands of people 2 blocks away, you are equally to blame and all of Islam is to blame. Therefore, it is an insult for you to build a facility near this spot." Look, we can't hide from the truth here. Denying these people the right to build a facility where we would allow other religions to build is a direct attack on their religion and their right to practice it. Of course, public sentiment is a different matter. People have every right to object, but none to obstruct.

Some people say this center will be used as a symbol of Islam's victory over the US. I think just opposite will happen; it will become the symbol of America's love of freedom and commitment to law.

Roosveltrepub
19 Aug 10,, 21:29
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, it amounts to the same thing. What some are saying in effect is, "your religion is Islam; since people who practice your religion caused the death of thousands of people 2 blocks away, you are equally to blame and all of Islam is to blame. Therefore, it is an insult for you to build a facility near this spot." Look, we can't hide from the truth here. Denying these people the right to build a facility where we would allow other religions to build is a direct attack on their religion and their right to practice it. Of course, public sentiment is a different matter. People have every right to object, but none to obstruct.

Some people say this center will be used as a symbol of Islam's victory over the US. I think just opposite will happen; it will become the symbol of America's love of freedom and commitment to law.

I think you have summed up perfectly my feelings on the issue and won't comment again

Roosveltrepub
19 Aug 10,, 21:31
Uhmmm...actually, Yes, we are. Proposed churches all over the country have been stopped in their tracks when they posed zoning or traffic problems, or when neighbors objected. It doesn't usually happen, though, because people building churches are generally very tuned in and sensitive to the feelings of the community. I've seen it many times. (Helped build a few in my day.)

Also, didn't you hear about the Pope discouraging some Nuns from building a convent at Auschwitz, out of respect for the Jewish (and others) sensitivities?

When did neighbors objecting stop a church?

zraver
19 Aug 10,, 21:33
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, it amounts to the same thing. What some are saying in effect is, "your religion is Islam; since people who practice your religion caused the death of thousands of people 2 blocks away, you are equally to blame and all of Islam is to blame. Therefore, it is an insult for you to build a facility near this spot." Look, we can't hide from the truth here. Denying these people the right to build a facility where we would allow other religions to build is a direct attack on their religion and their right to practice it. Of course, public sentiment is a different matter. People have every right to object, but none to obstruct.

Some people say this center will be used as a symbol of Islam's victory over the US. I think just opposite will happen; it will become the symbol of America's love of freedom and commitment to law.

People are rightly saying that the center is being built by a man with links to groups that have killed Americans, who has known ties to terrorist groups, who blames the US for 9-11 and who openly calls for an end to our republican form of government. it is named after a mosque in Spain (also subjected to a terror attack) that was a Visigoth church. If that is not radical Islamic triumphalism what is?

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 21:33
He had omg muslims giving and saying services about 911 less than a month afterwards. What I do miss is him saying this isnt a war on Islam. Can you imagine God forbid if Obama had Imans saying 911 sericies in 9/2001?

I really can't make out what you are trying to say here. You might be missing some punctuation marks in the sentences.

Roosveltrepub
19 Aug 10,, 21:39
Pelosi and Roosveltrepublican are both Democrats. Really, that's all that needs to be said. It makes understanding this issue easy and absolutely clear on the question of right and wrong. So you believe it's just and in keeping with the USA's Constitutional principals to protest the construction of a religous facility in accordance to local zoning laws? I really am interested how you equate that pov with the prinipal of freedom of religon. Please at least don't fall back on they are free on different private property. Do you believe we are at war with Islam?

JAD_333
19 Aug 10,, 21:40
What is so radical about the imam behind the Cordoba house?

highsea
19 Aug 10,, 21:40
...Mosques are being protested across the country. Yet, in the midst ofd this you call for Republicans to remain silent? This is an issue that matters or it's a distraction. If it's the second then those making it so put party above country. If it's the first then how could you call for Republican silence?Rosie, I agree with most of that article you posted. But you mischaracterize- As JAD noted previously, none of the outcomes are desirable, but painting the US as hypocrites is probably the least desirable.

I don't think it's a distraction yet, but I think it's getting there. I want my party to focus on the election, which to me is putting country first. I don't see any gain for repubs by getting mired in this ideological debate while Rome burns.

It's a matter of priorities- like I said, the dems have stepped in it, and I like watching them squirm. I personally oppose the mosque at that location for reasons I have already stated. But it's not important enough to me to let it overshadow the more serious concern I have, which is an out of control federal governement spending us into the poorhouse and imposing this socialist/keynesian disaster on the country.

I want democrats crushed in November, and I want to see as much of this mess they've created cleaned up as possible. Then I want to see Obama sent back to his Chicago soapbox in 2012, so we can put the nation back on course.

Roosveltrepub
19 Aug 10,, 21:44
I really can't make out what you are trying to say here. You might be missing some punctuation marks in the sentences.
I reread and believe only someone with an IQ handicap rather than an LD like me couldn't figuire out the intent. You osted a do we miss Bush pic and I posted some history outlining the effort He went to in preventing the intolerant portion of his base from making this the culture war they are now making it.

Marko
19 Aug 10,, 21:45
ok, I havent had time to read the whole thread, so if this point has come up before, please tell me to shut up (but at least leave a smiley face!)..
Surely its AlQueda that attacked New York and not Islam?
IRA bombed Canary Wharf in London, but would anyone object to building a Catholic Church there?

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 21:45
What is so radical about the imam behind the Cordoba house?

Nothing. I believe he's just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill muslim, like the other 1+ billion on this planet. :biggrin:

JAD_333
19 Aug 10,, 21:55
People are rightly saying that the center is being built by a man with links to groups that have killed Americans, who has known ties to terrorist groups, who blames the US for 9-11 and who openly calls for an end to our republican form of government. it is named after a mosque in Spain (also subjected to a terror attack) that was a Visigoth church. If that is not radical Islamic triumphalism what is?

Z:

Did you research this guy. I am getting completely different info on him. What I've read is the FBI called on him to brief agents right after 9/11; has been invited to State to brief...etc.

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/685071)



'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts

By: Sam Stein – Tue Aug 17, 5:24 pm ET

In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.

Flash forward six-and-a-half years, and Feisal Abdul Rauf occupies a far different place in the political consciousness. The imam behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near those same FBI offices has been called "a radical Muslim," a "militant Islamist" and, simply, the "enemy" by conservative critics. His Cordoba House project, meanwhile, has been framed as a conduit for Hamas to funnel money to domestic terrorist operations.

For those who actually know or have worked with the imam, the descriptions are frighteningly -- indeed, depressingly -- unhinged from reality. The Feisal Abdul Rauf they know, spent the past decade fighting against the very same cultural divisiveness and religious-based paranoia that currently surrounds him.

"Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance," Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. "He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative. I liked his book, and I participated in some of the meetings in 2004 or so. This is why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He is the type of leader we should be celebrating in America, not undermining."

A longtime Muslim presence in New York City, Feisal Abdul Rauf has been a participant in the geopolitical debate about Islamic-Western relations well before 9/11. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement to promote a more positive integration of Muslims into American society. His efforts and profile rose dramatically after the attacks when, in need of a calm voice to explain why greater Islam was not a force bent on terrorism, he became a go-to quote for journalists on the beat.

"We have to be very much more vocal about protecting human rights and planting the seeds of democratic regimes throughout the Arab and Muslim world," he told Katie Couric, then with NBC, during an interview in October 2001.

Along the way, he rubbed elbows with or was embraced by a host of mainstream political figures, including several in the Republican Party. John Bennett, the man who preceded Isaacson as president of the Aspen Institute, was impressed enough by the imam's message that he became a co-founder of his Cordoba Initiative, which seeks to promote cross-cultural engagement through a variety of initiatives including, most recently, the center in downtown Manhattan.

In November 2004, Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in a lengthy discussion on religion and government with, among others, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In May 2006, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright placed the imam among a host of luminaries who inspired her book, "The Mighty and the Almighty." As the New York Times reported at the time:

She mentioned Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, the two Democratic presidents in whose administrations she served; King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of Jordan; Vaclav Havel and Tony Blair. She organized discussions with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a conservative Catholic. ''The epitome of this,'' she said, was ''a totally fascinating, interesting discussion'' with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York Sufi leader and author; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Albright eventually collaborated with Feisal Abdul Rauf and others on more substantive political projects. In September 2008, the two, along with a number of other foreign policy heavyweights (including Richard Armitage and Dennis Ross) signed a report claiming that the war on terror had been inadequate in actually improving U.S. security. No less a figure than Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, embraced the findings.

"The Project's report offers a thoughtful analysis of the current state of America's relations with the Muslim world and constructive recommendations on how we can approach this pressing concern in a bipartisan framework," said the senator.

Not that the imam has been without controversy. The most famous quote circulated by critics came when he talked to the Australian press in March 2004.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians," he said. "But it was Christians in World War II who bombed innocent civilians in Dresden and dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

Then there is the interview he gave to CBS's "60 Minutes" shortly after the 9/11 attacks occurred. "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened," he said by way of explaining the attacks. "But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

More often than not, he's pushed his audience to grapple with uncomfortable analogies in his efforts to contextualize Islamic radicalism, such as when he argued that the Ku Klux Klan was, likewise, drawn from a form of extreme religiosity.

Those statements, in the end, were not enough to convince the Bush administration that he was a militant. Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.

In February 2006, meanwhile, he took part in a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush. Months later, Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote favorably about his meeting with Hughes, noting that he wanted to further the discussion with other members of the administration.

The Huffington Post reached out to both Albright and Hughes for comment. Perhaps reflecting the political sensitivities of the situation, neither responded. Hughes' aide explained that the former Bush aide was "tied up with client travel and unable to give interviews at this time."

Related blogs: Sister Joan Chittister, OSB: The 'Ground Zero Mosque' Conundrum: Lessons From the Convent at Auschwitz, Bob Cesca: Ground Zero Mosque Opponents Have a Lot of Work to Do

Read More: Cordoba House, Cordoba House Center, Fbi Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, Feisal Abdul Rauf Fbi, Feisal Abdul Rauf Terrorism, Imam Bush Administration, Imam Cultural Center, Imam Fbi

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 22:11
So you believe it's just and in keeping with the USA's Constitutional principals to protest the construction of a religous facility in accordance to local zoning laws?
Well, SURE. What, you DON'T believe it's just and in keeping with the USA's Constitutional principles to protest, really, any dam' thing you feel inclined to protest about?

THAT figures; neither you nor Pelosi believes in the justice and Consitutionality of protest against what you both favor, and that stance explains WHY you're a Democrat.


I really am interested how you equate that pov with the prinipal of freedom of religon.
Wait, you're confusing me. I thought you wanted to talk about freedom of speech, the right to peacably assemble, the right to petition the government for redress of greivances, etc. Now you're on about Freedom of Religion? Since WHEN has that mattered a good goddam' (pardon the pun) to any Democrat when the religion wasn't shamanism, satanism, Wicca, Islam, or some New Age goobledygook? Because I can sure as hell (there I go again) point out a pretty comprehensive hostility toward the majority's religious beliefs by Democrats down through the years.


Please at least don't fall back on they are free on different private property.?
Why not? Are you uncomfortable with that line of argument? Because I can certainly see why you would be.

And you're being, as you are ALWAYS being, VERY disingenuous with your argument. Should sites of signifigance be free from exploitation, or should they not? Are people's sensibilities to be taken into accoun, or are they irrelevant?

You're a really irritating person, and your stances seem calculated to do just exactly what the imam is trying to do: infuriate as many people as you can. Well, may it profit you both to the exact same extent.


Do you believe we are at war with Islam?
I do not. But many of its adherants do what I'm restrained from doing: treating their enemies as enemies.

Let me ask YOU a question: is Islam compatible with consitutional government and the concept of American-style liberty?

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 22:13
ok, I havent had time to read the whole thread, so if this point has come up before, please tell me to shut up (but at least leave a smiley face!)..
Surely its AlQueda that attacked New York and not Islam?
IRA bombed Canary Wharf in London, but would anyone object to building a Catholic Church there?
Any objection to building a museum to detail the achievements of American military aviation at Hiroshima?

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 22:19
I reread and believe only someone with an IQ handicap rather than an LD like me couldn't figuire out the intent. You osted a do we miss Bush pic and I posted some history outlining the effort He went to in preventing the intolerant portion of his base from making this the culture war they are now making it.

Dude...I had to read this post 3 times to figure out what you're trying to say.

Here's what your post SHOULD look like:



I reread and believe only someone with an IQ handicap rather than an LD like me couldn't figuire out the intent. You posted a "do we miss Bush" pic and I posted some history outlining the effort he went to in preventing the intolerant portion of his base from making this the culture war they are now making it.

You are missing letters and adding extra spaces, with some letters capitalized and a few punctuation marks short. It's very difficult to find out exactly where a sentence ends and another begins.

zraver
19 Aug 10,, 22:20
Feisal Abdul Rauf is on the board of Perdana (listed second after the known antisemitic former PM of Indonesia) the largest single donor group to the IHH. IHH was declared by a French court to be a terrorist front and part of the larger Islamic Brotherhood movement which includes Hamas. If you remember it was IHH that organized the blockade running flotilla that got into a fight (ambush) with Israel's legal action in enforcing the blockade of Gaza. Rauf also blamed the US inpart for 9-11, refuses to condemn Hamas and thinks the US should be Sharia not Constitution compliant.

His funding appears to come from the nephew of the leader of the Arab League who backs Hamas. Rauf also served with M. Hossein Mahallati on another obscure charity and in a TV promotional. Mahallati is linked to the Alavi Foundation which is a front in the US for Iran and is having its assets seized. Hossein Mahallati was one of the first to propose the project and it is likely that this whole thing is his project and he is controlled from Tehran.

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 22:26
Growing number in America believe Obama a Muslim - poll
Barack Obama Mr Obama, a Christian, celebrated Ramadan with Muslim Americans and foreign dignitaries this month

A growing number of Americans incorrectly believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim, research suggests.

Some 18% said the president was a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009, according to the Pew Research survey of 3,003 Americans.

Among Republicans, that number was 34%. Just a third of those quizzed correctly identified Mr Obama as Christian.

Polling was done before 13 August when Mr Obama defended Muslims' right to build an Islamic centre by Ground Zero.
Continue reading the main story
Related stories

* Obama attacked for mosque defence
* Nuanced row over NY mosque

Forty-three per cent of those questioned said they did not know what Mr Obama's religion was.
'Spreading falsehoods'

The White House attributed the mistaken beliefs about Mr Obama's religion to a "misinformation campaign" pursued by his political opponents.

"While the president has been diligent and personally committed to his own Christian faith, there's certainly folks who are intent on spreading falsehoods about the president and his values and beliefs," White House faith adviser Joshua DuBois told AFP news agency.

The poll found beliefs about the president's faith were closely linked to political judgments about him.

It found that people who believe Mr Obama is a Muslim "overwhelmingly disapprove" of his job performance, while a majority of those who identify him as a Christian approve.

News of the poll comes amid fears by some US Muslims that they will be targeted due to the fact that the holiday of Eid falls on 11 September this year, the anniversary of the terror attacks of 2001.

Some are concerned that the joyous festivals that mark the occasion will be misconstrued as celebrations of the attacks.

Meanwhile a national debate continues over a developer's plans to build a mosque and community centre two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York.

The plans have provoked vehement opposition from many conservatives, though Mr Obama, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the chairman of the US Democratic party and others have defended the developers' right to build there.

BBC News - Growing number in America believe Obama a Muslim - poll (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11027568)

I've said a long time ago that it doesn't matter whether we (Americans) believe he's a muslim or not. It matters more whether the muslims believe he's a muslim or not.

As I recall, his birth father was a muslim. His step father was a muslim. By muslim law, he's muslim. He said he converted to christianity. But according to muslim law, the penalty of doing so is death. There's no "fatwa" on his life from anyone or anywhere. What kind of conclusion can we draw from this?

JAD_333
19 Aug 10,, 22:30
I want my party to focus on the election, which to me is putting country first. I don't see any gain for repubs by getting mired in this ideological debate while Rome burns.

It's a matter of priorities- like I said, the dems have stepped in it, and I like watching them squirm. I personally oppose the mosque at that location for reasons I have already stated. But it's not important enough to me to let it overshadow the more serious concern I have, which is an out of control federal governement spending us into the poorhouse and imposing this socialist/keynesian disaster on the country.

I want democrats crushed in November, and I want to see as much of this mess they've created cleaned up as possible. Then I want to see Obama sent back to his Chicago soapbox in 2012, so we can put the nation back on course.

HS:

This is a hard call, isn't it? We keep out of it and stay on message with an eye to the fall elections, or stand up for what is right. This is not something politicians like. I recall when the shoe was on the other foot. The dems were using the war in Iraq as a springboard to win the 2008 elections, and did. It gave some aid and comfort to the enemy at the time. I was pretty mad about that because in the past the parties pretty much hung together when we were at war. The blatant politicizing of the war called out for criticism, and I recall Blues (in our community) blasting the dems both ways to Sunday. Well, here we are again, only the shoe is on the other foot. We're NOT going to speak out; we're going to let the dems take the heat for defending an Islamic facility 2 blocks from ground zero on Constitutional grounds. Our motive: win the election. Probably, it won't matter in the long run. It's too typical to matter. What bothers me is the idea that politics is trumping one of those rare moments when we should all be defending our Constitutional freedoms.

The political picture is clear. 61% of American oppose the building of the Cordoba house close to ground zero. I am one of them. But I wonder what the poll results would have been if Americans were asked if they believed (for the same reason) that the people behind the Cordoba House should be denied their constitutional rights. In that case I would have to say, no.

Dreadnought
19 Aug 10,, 22:38
The political picture is clear. 61% of American oppose the building of the Cordoba house close to ground zero. I am one of them. But I wonder what the poll results would have been if Americans were asked if they believed (for the same reason) that the people behind the Cordoba House should be denied their constitutional rights. In that case I would have to say, no.

@Jad333

I agree in part , however I dont think it is right for our Constitutional Rights to be interpited by Mr Obama, Pelosi,Reid or any other Congress,Senate or State members. Its a job for the Surpreme Court. Otherwise IMO, It will be used as a political tool to suite their needs each and every time they see fit. Let the Supreme Court decide this, Mr Obama should be paying attention to more important matters such as jobs, economy and infastructure and the well being of all citizens of this country. Pelosi should stop wasting taxpayers money on singling out those that disagree with their policy when it is a Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech no matter who you are.

Marko
19 Aug 10,, 22:44
to be honest.. not really..
that bomb, horrific as it was, saved a lot more Japanese lives than it took.
And the Japanese have never disputed that to my knowledge..

But I think, with the greatest respect, your blurring the issue. The Americans were at war with the Japanese. Pearl Harbour was an act of war, in the name of the Japanese Empire. Hiroshima was American self defence. 9/11 was a terrorist act by murderers trying to galvanise muslims into a war. You were not attacked by Islam.

gunnut
19 Aug 10,, 22:58
to be honest.. not really..
that bomb, horrific as it was, saved a lot more Japanese lives than it took.
And the Japanese have never disputed that to my knowledge..

But I think, with the greatest respect, your blurring the issue. The Americans were at war with the Japanese. Pearl Harbour was an act of war, in the name of the Japanese Empire. Hiroshima was American self defence. 9/11 was a terrorist act by murderers trying to galvanise muslims into a war. You were not attacked by Islam.

Terrorists acted in the name of...terror? Saudi Arabia? World peace? Oil? Homosexual marriage? Fat cat CEOs pay? Budget shortfall? I can't seem to recall. Can you refresh my memory a bit?

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 23:02
Feisal Abdul Rauf is on the board of Perdana (listed second after the known antisemitic former PM of Indonesia) the largest single donor group to the IHH. IHH was declared by a French court to be a terrorist front and part of the larger Islamic Brotherhood movement which includes Hamas. If you remember it was IHH that organized the blockade running flotilla that got into a fight (ambush) with Israel's legal action in enforcing the blockade of Gaza. Rauf also blamed the US inpart for 9-11, refuses to condemn Hamas and thinks the US should be Sharia not Constitution compliant.

His funding appears to come from the nephew of the leader of the Arab League who backs Hamas. Rauf also served with M. Hossein Mahallati on another obscure charity and in a TV promotional. Mahallati is linked to the Alavi Foundation which is a front in the US for Iran and is having its assets seized. Hossein Mahallati was one of the first to propose the project and it is likely that this whole thing is his project and he is controlled from Tehran.

And THIS is what passes for a moderate with the likes of Roosveltrepublican. Like I said, all you really need to know is who is backing this obviously horrible idea: Obama, Democrats in safe districts, Saudi Arabia, Iran...

This isn't really a tough one. But it is a sign of how insane the times we live in are, how upside down/inverted Reality has become, that there are some that think there should be no problem at all with this.

I've seen this type of national madness before. It was almost unbelievable how unmmored almost half the nation had become, and the descent into a continental asylum was evident almost everywhere you looked. It's happening again. We're actually having a Mad Hatter's Tea Party conversation about whether this guy should build his triumphalist monument over the gravesite of thousands of American dead, killed by men that shouted the exact same exhortation as they did while committing their warcrime that will ring out of that building, should it be built.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: this society is so degraded and decadent that it may not have what it will take to defend itself from an aggressive attack by a fighting faith. I've already written off the Europeans; they're more pathetic with every passing day. But as for my own country, the issue is very much in doubt, and the challenge from an irrecconcilable enemy is increasing, not abating.

highsea
19 Aug 10,, 23:06
...But I wonder what the poll results would have been if Americans were asked if they believed (for the same reason) that the people behind the Cordoba House should be denied their constitutional rights. In that case I would have to say, no.I don't know, I don't really see it as denying anyone their Constitutional freedoms. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. The location of the mosque is certainly controversial.

It's a catch-22. If it's built there, it will be treated as a trophy by AQ. If it's blocked, America will be painted as anti-Islam.

Obama should have kept his mouth shut, but he hasn't learned how to do that, and now his own party leaders are backpedaling. I can't help it if I find that amusing. I'd prefer the repubs didn't get bogged down with it- we have bigger fish to fry.

I honestly don't want to infringe on anyone's right to worship the deity of their choice, in the manner they choose. And I would leave it up to New Yorkers to decide, even though it affects everyone by the symbolism. When it's all said and done, I will bow to local standards.

Ultimately I think it will lead to violence, and I think it's a bad idea all around. But if New Yorkers say fine, then fine. I don't agree, but I won't make a big deal out of it.

Maybe the article Julie posted was right- they don't have the financing anyway, and it will just go away. That would be best for everyone.

But you're right, it's a hard call. The First Amendment isn't something we should take lightly.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 23:07
I've said a long time ago that it doesn't matter whether we (Americans) believe he's a muslim or not. It matters more whether the muslims believe he's a muslim or not.

As I recall, his birth father was a muslim. His step father was a muslim. By muslim law, he's muslim. He said he converted to christianity. But according to muslim law, the penalty of doing so is death. There's no "fatwa" on his life from anyone or anywhere. What kind of conclusion can we draw from this?

All good points. Furthermore, what are we to think of his words and actions? He's not merely a hard-left ideologue, although he's most certainly that. The only thing I simply can't explain is: why have the attacks against targets in Pakistan accelerated? On every other single question, he's acted in exactly the way I would act, should I stealth my way into being elected President of the United States, BUT in fact, I'm an enemy of America.

WHY is he killing the Brothers in Pakistan? Makes no sense.

Bluesman
19 Aug 10,, 23:09
to be honest.. not really..
that bomb, horrific as it was, saved a lot more Japanese lives than it took.
And the Japanese have never disputed that to my knowledge..

But I think, with the greatest respect, your blurring the issue. The Americans were at war with the Japanese. Pearl Harbour was an act of war, in the name of the Japanese Empire. Hiroshima was American self defence. 9/11 was a terrorist act by murderers trying to galvanise muslims into a war. You were not attacked by Islam.

You know dam' well you WOULD object, and so would anybody else with even a tiny atom of sensitivity.

Parihaka
19 Aug 10,, 23:38
Hypocrisy is a much overrated sin. Personally I can't get through breakfast without at least two cup-fulls of finest ground hypocrisy.

Parihaka
19 Aug 10,, 23:49
All good points. Furthermore, what are we to think of his words and actions? He's not merely a hard-left ideologue, although he's most certainly that. The only thing I simply can't explain is: why have the attacks against targets in Pakistan accelerated? On every other single question, he's acted in exactly the way I would act, should I stealth my way into being elected President of the United States, BUT in fact, I'm an enemy of America.

WHY is he killing the Brothers in Pakistan? Makes no sense.

It's an easy choice, far more politically acceptable than body bags. Obama is morally casual, it's mere coincidence that this decision happens to actually benefit those fighting.

JAD_333
19 Aug 10,, 23:50
Feisal Abdul Rauf is on the board of Perdana (listed second after the known antisemitic former PM of Indonesia) the largest single donor group to the IHH.

You mean the Perdana Global Peace blah blah, not Perdana Leadership Inst. Their website appears to be cut despite links in Google. I can't track Rauf's involvement, but there are plenty of articles saying he's involved. The group apparently did help fund the Gaza flotilla. Whether he went along I can't determine.


IHH was declared by a French court to be a terrorist front and part of the larger Islamic Brotherhood movement which includes Hamas. If you remember it was IHH that organized the blockade running flotilla that got into a fight (ambush) with Israel's legal action in enforcing the blockade of Gaza. Rauf also blamed the US inpart for 9-11, refuses to condemn Hamas and thinks the US should be Sharia not Constitution compliant.

IHH is also being investigated now by US as possible terrorist org.


His funding appears to come from the nephew of the leader of the Arab League who backs Hamas. Rauf also served with M. Hossein Mahallati on another obscure charity and in a TV promotional. Mahallati is linked to the Alavi Foundation which is a front in the US for Iran and is having its assets seized. Hossein Mahallati was one of the first to propose the project and it is likely that this whole thing is his project and he is controlled from Tehran.

It's all murky. I am pretty sure Rauf gets around and meets with radical Muslims at times. Is that bad? I don't know. He seems to be on a mission. He is consistent in trying to build bridges between Islam and the west. His analysis of Muslim anger in the ME against the west is sometimes harsh, but not unlike some non-Muslim commentators critical of old western policies that helped create some of the more repressive ME regimes. He likens some of the radical Muslim groups to the KKK.

In short, he seems to be a conciliator. Yes, his standing firm on the Cordoba House site doesn't strike me a conciliatory gesture.

Marko
19 Aug 10,, 23:54
Don't you think you'd object if you were Muslim and being swept under the carpet of terrorism?
I don't wanna make assumptions, but your making it pretty clear you don't differentiate between Islam and Al-Queda.

Bluesman
20 Aug 10,, 00:05
Don't you think you'd object if you were Muslim and being swept under the carpet of terrorism?
I don't wanna make assumptions, but your making it pretty clear you don't differentiate between Islam and Al-Queda.

Whether you wanna or not, you ARE making assumptions.

Don't YOU think you'd have a bit of heartburn over a mosque RIGHT THERE, were you a survivor of the attack, or had you lost a family member to it?

You know dam' well you WOULD, and I accept no other answer.

Here's the piece I was thinking about when I posted my question to you, and it's put WAY better than I ever could, so:


It would never even occur to me, or any decent person, to erect a Museum of American Achievements in Aviation in Hiroshima.

This is not a joke -- I am not saying a museum celebrating the bomb. I am saying a museum that does exactly as I said -- notes American achievements in aviation. Not the Enola Gay, but the Wright Brothers, etc.

The museum I am talking about, hypothetically, would not be baiting, nor celebratory of the bomb, in the least. It would just be a museum of American advancements in aviation.

But of course no sentient being could possibly fail to see how Japanese would take it as a direct provocation, and a nasty reminder of the bomb that fell on Hiroshima 6 August 1945.

And if I were so stupid, tasteless, and Asperger's-afflicted to have suggested such a museum in the first place, if Japanese then told me "That brings up horrifying memories," I wouldn't then arrogantly double-down and begin explaining to them how intolerant they're being, how irrational they're being, how unfair to my enthusiasm for American airpower they're being.

I would say, "Damn, I didn't think of that! I intended this as just a museum of aircraft, but I can in fact understand how you, a Hiroshima survivor, would even 50 years later have a rather more negative feeling about American airplanes in the sky that I do. Thank you for informing of this -- my bad. I'll put it up somewhere else."

Because -- why wouldn't I put it somewhere else.... unless my intent all along was in fact to remind Hiroshima residence of what happens when you defy the Big A? (A as in America.)

If I didn't have that in my heart, why would I want to visit such unwelcome and painful reminders on a population that experienced an awful tragedy 50 years ago at the hands of my fellow Americans?

Not me, mind you -- I didn't fly the plane. I didn't build the bomb. I didn't even vote for war. I wasn't even alive.

But they were Americans, thus my kin, and certainly I would not want to further traumatize the Japanese over reminding them of what my fellow Americans did to them that day.

(Which isn't to say I disagree with the decision -- it's to say I have enough respect and courtesy to not wish to remind them of the bombing every day as they walk to work.)

And because we all would understand that such a feeling is not only inevitable but perfectly reasonable, of course no American -- no nobody -- would ever dream of erecting such a museum in Hiroshima.

Such a museum is fine in and of itself-- there's a good one, I'm told, at the Smithsonian in DC.

But in Hiroshima? Utterly insensitive, inappropriate, cruel, triumphal, offensive, demeaning to the memory of the dead of Hiroshima, provocative, disrespectful, arrogant, shameless.

Mark that last word because that's the one that I think is most important. People keep saying what this debate is about, or isn't about. It isn't about this, it isn't about that. It's not about freedom of religion, it's about sharia. Etc.

What it's about is the utter shamelessness of this. The utter refusal for anyone involved in this grotesquerie to exhibit the sense of decorum and taste that even animals possess and evaluate what impact their designs may have on other people, including the direct victims of radical, triumphant Islam.

Shamelessness.

I would suggest that Cordoba House fixate itself less on selling Islam to the West and more on selling Western values of anti-terrorism, render-unto-Caesar, and tolerance to Islam.

Were they actually doing that, I would support this-- wholeheartedly!

But they're not. Next to a hole in the ground created by Muslim excess and Islamic equivocation over the rightfulness of murdering the infidel, they want to erect and advertisement -- not for peace, not for understanding, not for dialogue, not for anti-terrorism -- but just for Islam.

And they didn't bother to ask if anyone would have a problem with this, and that's because they never cared. It was never about that -- it was about, just as suspected, erecting a trimuphal tower to the might of Islam.

And they didn't ask about that, and now that people have -- since they weren't asked in private, we have to tell them in public -- they still don't care.

So don't tell me this is about tolerance and moderation and building bridges.

This is about a shameless attempt to grab up a piece of property on the cheap, a piece of property in downtown Manhattan that is only on the market at all because of the actions of some Muslims, and the shamelessness of other Muslims in plunking down cash of dubious sourcing to purchase the land at jet-fuel fire-sale prices.

JAD_333
20 Aug 10,, 00:18
I agree in part , however I dont think it is right for our Constitutional Rights to be interpited by Mr Obama, Pelosi,Reid or any other Congress,Senate or State members. Its a job for the Surpreme Court. Otherwise IMO, It will be used as a political tool to suite their needs each and every time they see fit. Let the Supreme Court decide this, Mr Obama should be paying attention to more important matters such as jobs, economy and infastructure and the well being of all citizens of this country. Pelosi should stop wasting taxpayers money on singling out those that disagree with their policy when it is a Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech no matter who you are.

I agree with you that Obama ought not to have jumped into this issue with both feet. He's now reaping the whirlwind. He could have simply urged all parties to the dispute to discuss their differences peacefully and to act in a law abiding manner.

As to interpreting the Constitution. The president has a duty to the extent that he his bound by oath "to uphold the Constitution...". To uphold you have to interpret. That does not mean he can prevent any act outside his branch of government with a wave of the wand. But he can order the Justice Dept to prosecute an apparent violation.

Bluesman
20 Aug 10,, 00:19
And here's another thought:

It's not a question of whether I differentiate between Islam and aQ, but whether THEY differentiate THEMSELVES. See, aQ says they're being faithful to their Law, and I think they are. They haven't hijacked Islam. The guys is Dubai have, with the drinking, the usury, the tolerance of the things that are intolerable to an observant Muslim. Here's where you got some stuff wrong with YOUR assumptions: the guys that you see on your street every day with the Islamic headgear, but no ill-will towards you, the ones we're all putting our faith in, as the 'good' Muslims? They're not following their law, as they were commanded to do.

The guys that killed so many people? THEY have more on the ball re: Islam than you want to admit.

Deal with this:

ISLAM IS OPPRESSION, and it is incompatible with Western Enlightenment values. Rights of women, homosexuality, renunciation or denunciation of Islam, freedom to behave as you dam' well please if it affects nobody else negatively...these are absolutely capital crimes in Islam, and ANY Muslim may take your very life for committing an act that is an offense solely to Islam, and to no other entity. They don't even need a court to pass judgement. Indeed, should they fail to act personally, THEIR lives are forfeit.

Now, then, you may be wondering what I would do about it. My answer is, I will follow MY law. I am NOT empowered to kill Muslims, even though I think their faith is inimical to me and my society. I will try to defend my life, property, and rights the best I can, with what I'm allowed to use. I will attempt to ensure that if a Muslim ever tries to enforce HIS law in contravention of MINE, he loses, and pays whatever price is appropriate.

Gun Grape
20 Aug 10,, 02:31
Build the thing. There has been a daily Muslim service at the Pentagon 9/11 memorial chapel since 2002.

Its a stupid distraction meant to keep your eyes off the important things going on this election year.

Dowd nails it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd


Our Mosque Madness
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Maybe, for Barack Obama, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

When the president skittered back from his grandiose declaration at an iftar celebration at the White House Friday that Muslims enjoy freedom of religion in America and have the right to build a mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan, he offered a Clintonesque parsing.

“I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he said the morning after he commented on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

Let me be perfectly clear, Mr. Perfectly Unclear President: You cannot take such a stand on a matter of first principle and then take it back the next morning when, lo and behold, Harry Reid goes craven and the Republicans attack. What is so frightening about Fox News?

Some critics have said the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers would be to allow a mosque to be built near ground zero.

Actually, the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers is the moral timidity that would ban a mosque from that neighborhood.

Our enemies struck at our heart, but did they also warp our identity?

The war against the terrorists is not a war against Islam. In fact, you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.

George W. Bush understood this. And it is odd to see Barack Obama less clear about this matter than his predecessor. It’s time for W. to weigh in.

This — along with immigration reform and AIDS in Africa — was one of his points of light. As the man who twice went to war in the Muslim world, he has something of an obligation to add his anti-Islamophobia to this mosque madness. W. needs to get his bullhorn back out.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are both hyper-articulate former law professors. But Clinton never presented himself as a moral guide to the country. So when he weaseled around, or triangulated on some issues, it was part of his ultra-fallible persona — and consistent with his identity as a New Democrat looking for a Third Way.

But Obama presents himself as a paragon of high principle. So when he flops around on things like “don’t ask, don’t tell” or shrinks back from one of his deepest beliefs about the freedom of religion anywhere and everywhere in America, it’s not pretty. Even worse, this is the man who staked his historical reputation on a new and friendlier engagement with the Muslim world. The man who extended his hand to Tehran has withdrawn his hand from Park Place.

Paranoid about looking weak, Obama allowed himself to be weakened by perfectly predictable Republican hysteria. Which brings us to Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich fancies himself an intellectual, a historian, a deep thinker — the opposite number, you might say, of Sarah Palin.

Yet here is Gingrich attempting to out-Palin Palin on Fox News: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” There is no more demagogic analogy than that.

Have any of the screaming critics noticed that there already are two mosques in the same neighborhood — one four blocks away and one 12 blocks away.

Should they be dismantled? And what about the louche liquor stores and strip clubs in the periphery of the sacred ground?

By now you have to be willfully blind not to know that the imam in charge of the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the moderate Muslim we have allegedly been yearning for.

So look where we are. The progressive Democrat in the White House, the first president of the United States with Muslim roots, has been morally trumped by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, two moderate Republicans who have spoken bravely and lucidly about not demonizing and defaming an entire religion in the name of fighting its radicals.

Criticizing his fellow Republicans, Governor Christie said that while he understood the pain and sorrow of family members who lost loved ones on 9/11, “we cannot paint all of Islam with that brush.”

He charged the president with trying to turn the issue into a political football. But that is not quite right. It already was a political football and the president fumbled it.

Gun Grape
20 Aug 10,, 02:43
Don't YOU think you'd have a bit of heartburn over a mosque RIGHT THERE, were you a survivor of the attack, or had you lost a family member to it?

You know dam' well you WOULD, and I accept no other answer.

Then you are narrow minded. Unlike the families of some WTC victims.

9/11 Victims' Families Have Mixed Reactions to Ground Zero Muslim Center (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/9-11-families-speak-out-on-ground-zero-muslim-center/19581141)

Lost a son

But Herb Ouida, whose son Todd died in the attacks, says he supports the Cordoba Initiative's project.

"To call it a mosque is not right. It's a community center that includes a prayer center," Ouida told AOL News today.

The 68-year-old father from River Edge, N.J., says he is deeply concerned about the tone of some of the opposition to the project.

"What we are doing [when we oppose the community center] is we are saying to the world that we are at war with Islam. And we can't be. I want my grandchildren to live in a better world," he said.

"To say that we're going to condemn a religion and castigate a billion people in the world because they're Muslims, to say that they shouldn't have the ability to pray near the World Trade Center -- I don't think that's going to bring people together and cross the divide."

Lost a wife

Charles Wolf of New York City lost his wife, Katherine, in the attacks. "She was a wonderful girl," said Wolf, 56.

He said he supports the Muslim community center "100 percent."

"I'm not going to brand any group for the actions of a few of the fringe," Wolf said. "The fact that the extremists who did this to us have now moved us in this direction through our fear and hatred, to be exactly like them ... it will come back to haunt us."


"This country was founded on the principles of religious freedom for all," he said. "Are we doing to start denying that to people? If we start doing that we start dismantling the values this country was founded upon."

Lost a sister

“I would never criticize and try to dissect the way other people feel,’’ said one member of the group, Terry Rockefeller of Arlington, whose sister, Laura, was killed in the attacks. “But for me, as someone who lost a relative on 9/11, this doesn’t insult her at all. This celebrates the city she loved living in. It is what makes America what we are.’’


From a survivor

n 9/11, Marvin Bethea rushed to the World Trade Center to try to save lives, and has had trouble breathing ever since. The former Emergency Medical Services worker says he had to retire in 2004 when the breathing problems he acquired from toxic materials at the site made it too hard for him to work. But Bethea said he supports the Islamic center anyway.

"Even though my life has changed, I don't hate the Muslims," Bethea, 50, said. "Especially being a black man, I know what it's like to be discriminated against. I've lived with that."

Bethea believes racism is stoking the controversy.

"I understand the families are hurt and lost," he said. But "how do you sit here and condemn all Muslims as being terrorists?" he said. "That's just bigotry and hatred. We're a better nation than that. The diversity that we have, this is what New York is about. But we have such prejudices, some of us. We have a long way to go."

I wonder what the Muslim survivors, of the familys of muslim workers killed think when they hear that to build a mosque is a sign of disrespect to those killed?

MIKEMUN
20 Aug 10,, 02:45
No Dowd, you don't get to drag Bush into this. The one you demonized for 8 years? The "imbecile", the "terrorist"? Obama made his bed. Let him lie in it. Hope and Change people. Hope and change.

MIKEMUN
20 Aug 10,, 03:05
The building is not, in fact, at Ground Zero

Yes, it is, and here’s why! (It has nothing to do with landing gear, either.)

The term Ground Zero was coined and defined in reference to the bombings at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and is defined as follows:

“Ground Zero” encompasses a one mile radius surrounding the actual pinpoint location of the explosion, the pinpoint location being known as the “epicenter”.

Therefore, the World Trade Center buildings were the EPICENTER on 9/11 and a radius of one mile surrounding the WTC epicenter IS and always WILL BE, GROUND ZERO.

tigerlily on August 19, 2010 at 7:58 PM


Got this from the folks over at HotAir. Is he technically correct, by defining Ground Zero like that?

Blue
20 Aug 10,, 03:44
[QUOTE=Gun Grape;752897]Build the thing. There has been a daily Muslim service at the Pentagon 9/11 memorial chapel since 2002.

Its a stupid distraction meant to keep your eyes off the important things going on this election year. Absolutely agree, and to be fair, Rosie posted the same sentiment first a few pages back. I just don't want him to think I agree with him on anything.



Dowd nails it. Dowd should hail herself to something heavy and go jump. That bee-otch ripped on Bush for eight straight years and then writes this. BS.

Blue
20 Aug 10,, 03:49
This matter has made the US go crazy(crazier than before anyway). Dems are splitting on it, GOP ain't sayin' squat(cowards), and Islamophobia continues running its course.

Why does some here keep saying "well we couldn't build a such and such over there (pick a muslim country or evidently, hiroshima)!" Well here's a newsflash, THEY AREN"T US as in U.S. baby! THEY don't have OUR constitution, THEY don't have ANYTHING like we got (except for Wal-Mart) and that's the bottom line simply......THEY are not US!

With liberty and justice for all, right?

zraver
20 Aug 10,, 04:04
This matter has made the US go crazy(crazier than before anyway). Dems are splitting on it, GOP ain't sayin' squat(cowards), and Islamophobia continues running its course.

Why does some here keep saying "well we couldn't build a such and such over there (pick a muslim country or evidently, hiroshima)!" Well here's a newsflash, THEY AREN"T US as in U.S. baby! THEY don't have OUR constitution, THEY don't have ANYTHING like we got (except for Wal-Mart) and that's the bottom line simply......THEY are not US!

With liberty and justice for all, right?

Enemies of our country with links to terrorist groups who openly espouse abandoning the constitution are squarely in the sights of Court rulings that limit their constitutional rights. The Iman behind the whole debate has ties to Hamas and Iran. He has openly said the US was at least in part to blame for 9-11 and advocates placing all non-Muslims into Dhimmi status in the US and supports the oppression of women. He is not a moderate, he is an enemy.

astralis
20 Aug 10,, 04:15
eric,

i gotta say, sometimes you surprise me now and then. it'd be good if more of the country were free-thinkers like yourself.

dalem
20 Aug 10,, 05:17
Its a stupid distraction meant to keep your eyes off the important things going on this election year.


No. It's yet another important illustration of the tactics of the Left. Instead of engaging, they demonize. It is a valid question to ask "should a mosque be built so close, especially a mosque sponsored by these particular people?"

The answer may be Yes, the answer may be No, but it is undeniable that it is an effort in bad taste, and it is sheer bullying to try and cast those who are either asking the question or answering it with "No" as bigoted, racist, or in any other way suspicious.

But that is the Way of the Left.

So as an instructional event it it very valuable.

-dale

astralis
20 Aug 10,, 06:21
keith,


It's not a question of whether I differentiate between Islam and aQ, but whether THEY differentiate THEMSELVES. See, aQ says they're being faithful to their Law, and I think they are. They haven't hijacked Islam. The guys is Dubai have, with the drinking, the usury, the tolerance of the things that are intolerable to an observant Muslim. Here's where you got some stuff wrong with YOUR assumptions: the guys that you see on your street every day with the Islamic headgear, but no ill-will towards you, the ones we're all putting our faith in, as the 'good' Muslims? They're not following their law, as they were commanded to do.

that i reject altogether. AQ breaks far more serious prohibitions than say, the freewheeling muslim in dubai, seeing as how they're just fine with raping, kidnapping, and executing not just the so-called misbelievers but people of their supposed own faith. that's a tad worse than drinking or flirting with women (which THEY do as well). who are you to raise the salafist jihadi school over the sufi peaceful mystic school?

as i've said countless times, religions are made by their observers. christianity as we recognize it today is a wholly different beast from the militant faith that existed in the middle ages, despite using many of the same texts.

and the US has influenced this. a decade into the war on terror and AQ's popularity has dropped worldwide-- does that mean suddenly the muslim world has become less observant, or more aware of AQ's perfidy and selective use of islam? we win the war not by "breaking" islam or converting muslims-- we win the war by persuading them that the highest fulfillment of their religion does not involve violence.

S2
20 Aug 10,, 07:47
Build it.

Ground Zero Mosque (http://politicallyillustrated.com/index.php?/news_page/video/1822/)

If I own the land, don't tell me where I can build in America my parish, synagogue, mosque, church etc...

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 09:15
And here's another thought:

It's not a question of whether I differentiate between Islam and aQ, but whether THEY differentiate THEMSELVES. See, aQ says they're being faithful to their Law, and I think they are. They haven't hijacked Islam. The guys is Dubai have, with the drinking, the usury, the tolerance of the things that are intolerable to an observant Muslim. Here's where you got some stuff wrong with YOUR assumptions: the guys that you see on your street every day with the Islamic headgear, but no ill-will towards you, the ones we're all putting our faith in, as the 'good' Muslims? They're not following their law, as they were commanded to do.

The guys that killed so many people? THEY have more on the ball re: Islam than you want to admit.

Deal with this:

ISLAM IS OPPRESSION, and it is incompatible with Western Enlightenment values. Rights of women, homosexuality, renunciation or denunciation of Islam, freedom to behave as you dam' well please if it affects nobody else negatively...these are absolutely capital crimes in Islam, and ANY Muslim may take your very life for committing an act that is an offense solely to Islam, and to no other entity. They don't even need a court to pass judgement. Indeed, should they fail to act personally, THEIR lives are forfeit.

Now, then, you may be wondering what I would do about it. My answer is, I will follow MY law. I am NOT empowered to kill Muslims, even though I think their faith is inimical to me and my society. I will try to defend my life, property, and rights the best I can, with what I'm allowed to use. I will attempt to ensure that if a Muslim ever tries to enforce HIS law in contravention of MINE, he loses, and pays whatever price is appropriate.

Well if they are my assumptions they are based on muslims I know, Theres a lot in this part of England - I work with several - I know a gay muslim, a couple of muslim pot-heads - some muslim footy fans and a few devout ones. Theyre normal people dude - honestly - just with beards. It sounds like your experience of muslims is through the internet or tv. They didnt attack new york. Maybe you should think about your own assumptions.

Ps. You follow your own law. Good for you. Now let them build that mosque.

dalem
20 Aug 10,, 09:39
Ps. You follow your own law. Good for you. Now let them build that mosque.

No one here, not once, has claimed they don't have a legal right or ability to build there.

-dale

Officer of Engineers
20 Aug 10,, 09:40
Ps. You follow your own law. Good for you. Now let them build that mosque.Those same laws allows MSgt Bluesman the right to let his feelings be known whether anyone likes it or not.

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 09:48
did I try and and muzzle him?

Officer of Engineers
20 Aug 10,, 09:50
did I try and and muzzle him?Yes, you told him to let them build that Mosque. There is nothing in those laws that says that he cannot try in every legal way to stop them.

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 09:54
emm... never said he couldnt. Are you his dad or something?

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 10:33
Terrorists acted in the name of...terror? Saudi Arabia? World peace? Oil? Homosexual marriage? Fat cat CEOs pay? Budget shortfall? I can't seem to recall. Can you refresh my memory a bit?

Terrorists acted in the name of Al Queda. Really, its not that difficult. Al Queda would love the fact you think they represent Islam, but they dont.

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 10:43
Whether you wanna or not, you ARE making assumptions.

Don't YOU think you'd have a bit of heartburn over a mosque RIGHT THERE, were you a survivor of the attack, or had you lost a family member to it?

You know dam' well you WOULD, and I accept no other answer.



I honest to god would not mind! If there was a monument to radical Islam or the terrorists yes I would, but not a mosque.
I dont think a mosque is attributed to AlQueda.

McFire
20 Aug 10,, 11:35
The issue is that it's not that a mosque is being built in the US, or New York state, or even NYC. For heavens sake, there are 100 mosques in NYC (17 in Manhattan!). The issue is a grand mosque so close to Ground Zero, the distrust of muslims (since they've yet to give any reason for any real degree of trust) and the muslim penchant of making mosques into victory symbols. And..it's just plain rude.

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 11:49
I think its far more rude to blame someones religion as for the actions of a few. Many Muslims died in that attack too.
But the muslim community could show its above the petty prejudice and withdraw the application.
Would be a nice gesture.

Dreadnought
20 Aug 10,, 13:18
More from survivors families.....

NEW YORK (AP) - Talat Hamdani traveled to Mecca to pray that her missing son, an EMT, was safe in the days after 9/11. She held out hope that his Muslim background had led to his detention as a suspect, considering it better than the alternative.

When part of his body was returned to her - his lower half shattered into 34 pieces - it was final proof he had indeed been killed when Islamic extremists brought down the World Trade Center. As Americans take sides over plans to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque blocks away, Hamdani says it feels personal.

"Why are we paying the price? Why are we being ostracized? Our loved ones died," she said at her Lake Grove, N.Y., home. "America was founded on the grounds of religious freedom," and opposition to the cultural center "is un-American. It's unethical. And it is wrong."

The thousands of relatives of the 2,976 victims have no single representative and no unified voice, even as another 9/11 anniversary approaches. The conflict is dividing a group that in many ways has never been united, with some saying the cultural center would reopen old
wounds too close to hallowed ground and others say that opposing it is tantamount to bigotry.


And some, like Vandna Jain, walk a middle ground.

"It is unfair to persecute the group, however, in turn, there should be some respect for the feelings of the people that are forever attached to this site due to their losses," the New City, N.Y., resident, whose father, Yudh, died in the north tower, wrote in an e-mail. "I think people have a right to be upset about it, just as much as people have a right to build a mosque."

Jim Riches, a former New York Fire Department deputy chief whose son, Jimmy, was killed at the trade center, believes the dispute has nothing to do with religious freedom.

"We're not telling them not to practice their religion. ... It's about location, location, location," he said, asking why the mosque couldn't be built farther away from the land that he still considers a cemetery. "It's disrespectful. You wouldn't put a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor."
Liza Murphy feels differently. Her brother, Charlie, died at ground zero, but she says she doesn't lay claim to the sprawling, 16-acre site.

"It's a place where a terrible tragedy took place, but I don't see what makes it sacred," said the Brooklyn resident. "Nine years later, that now belongs to the public. And my brother and his death are private and belong to me."

Murphy says she has no objection to the planned mosque and wouldn't want to judge one group of Muslims based on the actions of another.

But Peter Gadiel says he owes no apologies for singling one group out. Since his son, James, was killed at the trade center, Gadiel has argued publicly that all Muslims should share some collective guilt for what happened on 9/11.

"The fact is that Islam does not coexist well with other religions, and you can't separate that from Islam," the Kent, Conn., resident said, explaining his stand against the mosque. "If that sounds intolerant on my part, that's too bad."

The families' impassioned responses to the prospect of the mosque have influenced the public debate.

Gov. David Paterson has suggested moving the project further away from the trade center site out of respect for opponents' feelings, while Mayor Michael Bloomberg came out in support of the mosque, calling it a test of the separation of church and state.

President Barack Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build the Islamic center as a matter of religious freedom, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.

The imam leading plans for the center on Friday called extremism a security threat in both the West and the Muslim world. Feisal Abdul Rauf made his comments to Associated Press Television News in Bahrain during a Mideast tour funded by the U.S. State Department, but he wouldn't discuss the uproar over the Islamic center.

Relatives of those slain on Sept. 11 have made their diverging voices heard on a number of issues over the years - from whether to try the suspects in a civilian court to the location of a proposed freedom museum at ground zero that is no longer planned for the site.

Charles Wolf, who lost his wife, Katherine, at the trade center, says emotions among family members are especially raw right now.

"This is anniversary season. It's really, really hard," the Manhattanite said. "Passions are up and this is bringing up a lot of hurt in people."

He says he worries that any decision to respond to public pressure and move the mosque would be used by extremists to paint Americans as intolerant.

"The powers of evil were piloting those airplanes," he said of the Sept. 11 attackers.

Now, with the mosque dispute, "here is where we're falling into the terrorists' trap ... trying to tear each other apart. Good people fighting other good people - does that sound like evil at work?"


*So tell us all that believe we should allow this, when are we building a Japanese Cultural Center in Pearl Harbor?:confused:

Officer of Engineers
20 Aug 10,, 13:44
emm... never said he couldnt. Are you his dad or something?Yes you did. You told him NOT to try to stop it. You told him to allow it.

astralis
20 Aug 10,, 14:09
dread,


"We're not telling them not to practice their religion. ... It's about location, location, location," he said, asking why the mosque couldn't be built farther away from the land that he still considers a cemetery. "It's disrespectful. You wouldn't put a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor."

that argument is a bad one, because it conflates AQ salafism with islam-- which is the LAST thing we want to do, and the FIRST thing OBL wants.

in fact, the ONLY arguments that's been made here against the mosque that make any sense is the proclivity of the conspiracy-fueled islamic triumphalists to proclaim this as a propaganda victory and the imam's views. but then again, they trumpet EVERYTHING as a victory, and would probably claim a moral victory if US rangers were to one day show up with a tied up OBL in NYC. for one, i'd be interested in seeing what the imam's views are, past the ten second blurb about the US and 9-11.

Officer of Engineers
20 Aug 10,, 14:14
I rather be seen as anti-Islamic in AQ's eyes than being caving into their demands. They know I am their enemy in the first instance wheras they know they've won in the second.

Dreadnought
20 Aug 10,, 14:40
dread,



that argument is a bad one, because it conflates AQ salafism with islam-- which is the LAST thing we want to do, and the FIRST thing OBL wants.




in fact, the ONLY arguments that's been made here against the mosque that make any sense is the proclivity of the conspiracy-fueled islamic triumphalists to proclaim this as a propaganda victory and the imam's views. but then again, they trumpet EVERYTHING as a victory, and would probably claim a moral victory if US rangers were to one day show up with a tied up OBL in NYC. for one, i'd be interested in seeing what the imam's views are, past the ten second blurb about the US and 9-11.

*So tell us all that believe we should allow this, when are we building a Japanese Cultural Center in Pearl Harbor HI?

This seems as a relevant question I think, War with the Japanese didnt start until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The War against Terror didnt start until after 911. If you will note, no Japanese have ever asked for any kind of establishment in Pearl Harbor HI. (Mr. Obamas home state). We have never asked to put anything within the area of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki or for that matter anywhere else.

I wonder why that is? Respect is why. And yet we maintain excellent relationships with Japan and vise versa and our war cost untold more lives then the war on terror.

IMO, The problem here is we are negating respect for ourselves in light of what many believe Bin Laden can make of this. Who really cares what he can make of this. He's hidng out for the rest of his life. If he steps foot in public hes a dead man no doubt either by fire fight or drone strike.

As always, the fear of the boogeyman outweighs many valid arguments.

Why care what others think about us, we do more on this globe in support of caring and respect for all individuals then any other country bar none, we give aid out the wazoo to countries that harbor terrorists including Bin Laden and ones that support attacks against our troops. What others think of us is one thing but when we look at ourselves in the mirror its quite another.

I'm with OOE on this, label me what you wish. But this wrong IMO and nothing more then politics in play and as always with this administration were giving in.

*I'll refrain from posting anymore on this thread, I've said my peace, you guys can argue politics, rights and the boogeyman until your blue in the face.

I argued for something far more important to me then these idiots and their politics and what someone else may think or say about me or my country if they dont get their way. In a word, Respect. Good day gentlemen.

Blue
20 Aug 10,, 14:47
I just can't believe how galvanizing this has been for Americans. Wish they could have got all red, white and blue, flag waving and such, before the last friggin election! Or how about before congress and the current and last admin ran our debt through the roof, or when people where taking advantage of our freedoms exploiting for financial gains, or whenever the president dumps millions in the name of the welfare of the people or economy to shore up his union buddies pension funds at our expense.

The mosque is a minor issue compared to all the problems we have and people are taking thier eye off the ball. Though it is nice that the dems are distracted(or seem to be, could be a ruse) so they might quit spending some money( yeah, right!)

This imam could very be the inside terrorist supporting type, but at least he's not really pretending to be anything else. I'm more worried about democrats that call themselves progressives when they are really socialists at best, commies at worst, and Republicans that would say or do anything to get back in power.

Lets get our own house in order before we tackle something else.

Even if building this mosque "empowers" or somehow declares a victory for the extremists, what the hell are they really going to do over what they are already doing?

Will it mean the same to American muslims as an AQ? Will the American muslims feel even betrayed by the constitution they have adopted and support?

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 14:55
what the arab papers are saying

Many commentators noted with concern rising Islamophobia in America. Hossam Eitani, writing in Dar al-Hayat, a pan-Arab daily, places the current bout of anti-Islamic feeling in a wider context of intolerance of minorities being championed by the tea-party movement:

Some key figures in the Republican Party, such as former vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin and former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, have come out in support of those opposed to the construction of mosques. The Tea Party movement supports them because it backs the Republican Party and is counting on a majority of Americans to contribute to the movement's religious, social and racist chauvinism. The group began by targeting Mr Obama and his social programme. It did everything possible to hinder his healthcare reforms. It has gone on to support Arizona's racist immigration law, designed to prevent Latin American immigration to America. Now it is taking an active role campaigning against building mosques.

Some are concerned about what this populism means for America’s democracy. In Jordan’s al-Ghad newspaper, Yasser Abu Halala argues that America must choose what it wants New York to symbolise—war with the Islamic world or the integration of the country's Muslims:

A rational person would prefer to build rather than tear down, but whoever said that public opinion is rational and democracy not fragile?

But other influential figures have suggested that the issue can be viewed in a different light. Writing in Okaz, a Saudi daily paper, Hani Naqshabandi uses the fact that the Cordoba Initiative, the project’s backer, was granted building permission by New York’s local authorities to hold up America as an example for Arab nations:

In the Arab world, freedom makes way for security. We have become overly paranoid about everything. Look at the story of this mosque that is set to be built in the financial capital of America. America was burnt by the fire of extremism in its own backyard when it was attacked by Islamic extremists. It is both the number one target for religious extremism and the leading nation opposing that extremism. But still it has overcome its fears by allowing Muslims to build the mosque. Even so, Muslims who might meet in that mosque might be as close to extremism the site of the mosque is to Ground Zero.

Other prominent Arab voices suggested that, in the face of so much public resentment, it might be better to build the mosque elsewhere, as Salama Ahmed Salama, a moderate Egyptian columnist for the independent daily al-Shorouk, wrote:

I do not think that President Barack Obama’s intervention supporting the construction of a mosque and Islamic centre near the site of the World Trade Centre in New York… was prudent or wise for several reasons. While it was based on the principle of defending freedom of worship in America and the rights of Muslims to practise their religion, the fallout from the campaigns inciting hatred against Muslims will be greater than the symbolic significance of his decision. […]

In my opinion, it is better for the Muslims of New York to build their mosque somewhere else, far away from this American commotion and harm. Muslim groups are already beginning to complain of growing American hostility towards them....

More controversially, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, a regular contributor to Saudi-owned London-based daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat and the managing editor of the Saudi pan-Arab news channel al-Arabiya, argued in an article entitled “A mosque or a symbol of destruction?” that the media has blown the issue out of proportion. According to Mr al-Rashed, there is little Muslim demand for a mosque to be built near ground zero:

What Americans don't understand is that the battle with the terrorists behind 9/11 is not their fight, but rather a battle for Muslims, as over twenty Islamic states struggle against terrorism. Some Muslims will consider the construction of a mosque there [by Ground Zero] as a commemoration and immortalization of what the terrorists, who committed their crime in the name of Islam, did. I don't think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a place of worship that could become a place for terrorists and their Muslim followers to take pride in. Or a building that could become a shrine of hatred against Islam that turns public opinion against it, as seems to be the case at the moment, with claims that a mosque is being built on the bodies of three thousand dead Americans, buried alive as some people shout "Allahu Akbar", the same call which will be heard from the mosque. It is a false battle; [...] there are no devoted Muslims who want a place of worship there.

Mr al-Rashed’s article met with criticism in a popular Emirati publication, Al-Khaleej, where Habib al-Sabegh writes a scathing response:

Raising ideas of this kind is harmful and irrational. What Mr al-Rashed has apparently missed is that, through his article, he is actually linking the mosque and terrorism. This contrived link, based on irrational and illogical preconceived notions, deepens the stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in the collective memory of the other. Islam is not "al-Qaeda" and Muslims are not Osama bin Laden.

Blademaster
20 Aug 10,, 16:56
I rather be seen as anti-Islamic in AQ's eyes than being caving into their demands. They know I am their enemy in the first instance wheras they know they've won in the second.

Then what about this?

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081906506.html?hpid=topnews)

This totally flies against your face.

Vinod2070
20 Aug 10,, 17:00
I rather be seen as anti-Islamic in AQ's eyes than being caving into their demands. They know I am their enemy in the first instance wheras they know they've won in the second.

This simple logic is proving far difficult for some who think of this opposition as "bigotry"!

Officer of Engineers
20 Aug 10,, 17:08
Then what about this?

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081906506.html?hpid=topnews)

This totally flies against your face.I see no contradiction. I am not against Islam. I am against a monument to an Al Qaeda triumph. For all I care, people can pray on Ground Zero in whatever form they like but something that OBL can scream at and says, I've won. That I am just opposed.

As I stated earler, once OBL is dead, build it anywhere you like but not one second before. I do not ever want to let him have a give-me.

dalem
20 Aug 10,, 17:29
Terrorists acted in the name of Al Queda. Really, its not that difficult. Al Queda would love the fact you think they represent Islam, but they dont.

They're the only loud Muslim voice MOST of us ever hear.

-dale

gunnut
20 Aug 10,, 19:03
Terrorists acted in the name of Al Queda. Really, its not that difficult. Al Queda would love the fact you think they represent Islam, but they dont.

It doesn't matter what I think. It's what they think that matters.

Has Al Queda EVER claimed that it is fighting a holy war in the name of islam? Even once?

It's the same as Obama being a muslim or not. It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what muslims think.

Marko
20 Aug 10,, 19:43
Obama a muslim? errrr... ok then.
Why dont you find real life muslims and talk to them? I think youll find them quite human.

ace009
20 Aug 10,, 19:56
Try this for effect ...

Mosque-Erade - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/16/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade)

gunnut
20 Aug 10,, 20:59
Obama a muslim? errrr... ok then.
Why dont you find real life muslims and talk to them? I think youll find them quite human.

I never said muslims aren't human. Nor did I ever say Obama is a muslim.

All I'm saying is Al Queda claims to be muslim and muslims seem to think Obama is muslim.

I can prove it:

Obama's birth father was a muslim. Obama's step father was a muslim. By islamic law, he's muslim.

Obama claims to have converted to christianity. By islamic law, the penalty for converting from islam is death. No muslim cleric/imam or whatever, any where, has called for Obama's death. Therefore either they all think Obama is still a muslim, or they think converting from islam is OK. The strange thing was there was a man in Afghanistan who recently converted from islam to christianity. There was call for his death by local clergy. It seems like it's still NOT OK to leave the faith.

Hmmmm....

Roosveltrepub
20 Aug 10,, 21:16
I never said muslims aren't human. Nor did I ever say Obama is a muslim.

All I'm saying is Al Queda claims to be muslim and muslims seem to think Obama is muslim.

I can prove it:

Obama's birth father was a muslim. Obama's step father was a muslim. By islamic law, he's muslim.

Obama claims to have converted to christianity. By islamic law, the penalty for converting from islam is death. No muslim cleric/imam or whatever, any where, has called for Obama's death. Therefore either they all think Obama is still a muslim, or they think converting from islam is OK. The strange thing was there was a man in Afghanistan who recently converted from islam to christianity. There was call for his death by local clergy. It seems like it's still NOT OK to leave the faith.

Hmmmm.... MMMMM according to leviticus I can sell my daughter into slavery mmmmm
Islamaphobes just love to quote the wicked portions only a few stand by as the main stream


Obama claims to of converted to christianity....do you have doubts?

bigross86
20 Aug 10,, 21:37
Did you even read what he posted? It doesn't matter what he thinks, it matters what the Muslims think, and if you follow his chain of evidence (so to speak) Obama is either still a Muslim or deserving the death penalty.

Parihaka
20 Aug 10,, 21:46
Then you are narrow minded. Unlike the families of some WTC victims.

9/11 Victims' Families Have Mixed Reactions to Ground Zero Muslim Center (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/9-11-families-speak-out-on-ground-zero-muslim-center/19581141)

Lost a son


Lost a wife


Lost a sister



From a survivor


I wonder what the Muslim survivors, of the familys of muslim workers killed think when they hear that to build a mosque is a sign of disrespect to those killed?

You haven't posted any quotes from those survivors and families who are opposed to the mosque. Do their voices not count?

ASparr
20 Aug 10,, 23:35
dread,



that argument is a bad one, because it conflates AQ salafism with islam-- which is the LAST thing we want to do, and the FIRST thing OBL wants.

in fact, the ONLY arguments that's been made here against the mosque that make any sense is the proclivity of the conspiracy-fueled islamic triumphalists to proclaim this as a propaganda victory and the imam's views. but then again, they trumpet EVERYTHING as a victory, and would probably claim a moral victory if US rangers were to one day show up with a tied up OBL in NYC. for one, i'd be interested in seeing what the imam's views are, past the ten second blurb about the US and 9-11.

I aint touching the rest of this thread again, but here's an interesting piece from the Atlantic about him.

'Ground Zero' Imam: 'I Am a Jew, I Have Always Been One' - Politics - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/ground-zero-imam-i-am-a-jew-i-have-always-been-one/61761/)

ASparr
20 Aug 10,, 23:37
I never said muslims aren't human. Nor did I ever say Obama is a muslim.

All I'm saying is Al Queda claims to be muslim and muslims seem to think Obama is muslim.

I can prove it:

Obama's birth father was a muslim. Obama's step father was a muslim. By islamic law, he's muslim.

Obama claims to have converted to christianity. By islamic law, the penalty for converting from islam is death. No muslim cleric/imam or whatever, any where, has called for Obama's death. Therefore either they all think Obama is still a muslim, or they think converting from islam is OK. The strange thing was there was a man in Afghanistan who recently converted from islam to christianity. There was call for his death by local clergy. It seems like it's still NOT OK to leave the faith.

Hmmmm....


Or perhaps they're not stupid enough to call for the killing of the President of the United States?


Or perhaps they don't follow every single tenant of Islamic law? Much like how 99% of Christians do not follow every single tenant of Biblical law?

Gun Grape
21 Aug 10,, 05:42
You haven't posted any quotes from those survivors and families who are opposed to the mosque. Do their voices not count?

Reading is fundamental.

Mine was in response to the asinine post that stated.

Don't YOU think you'd have a bit of heartburn over a mosque RIGHT THERE, were you a survivor of the attack, or had you lost a family member to it?

You know dam' well you WOULD, and I accept no other answer.

I included that in my post. So you couldn't have missed it.

Just showing how narrow minded that post was by showing that there actually are survivors and families of 9/11 victims that are not against building the mosque.


Personally I could care less about what public opinion has to say. Those 9/11 families didn't protest the strip clubs that are a block away from their "sacred ground". Nor the betting parlor or the peep shows.

No problem getting a lap dance and placing a bet near ground zero but don't pray to anything but a christian god.


Ruling by Public opinion leads to the Tyranny of the majority that Mills warned us in his essay "On Liberty". The people protesting loudest about not listening to "The will of the people" vice the rule of law, are the same ones that complained that Clinton ruled by opinion polls. Pot Kettle Black.

dalem
21 Aug 10,, 06:07
Personally I could care less about what public opinion has to say. Those 9/11 families didn't protest the strip clubs that are a block away from their "sacred ground". Nor the betting parlor or the peep shows.

Probably because it wasn't daddy-hating chicks named "Chelsea" and "Thumperella" who slit the throats of those stewardesses that morning, nor was it guys named "Fat Tony" or guys shouldering squeegee mops who piloted the airliners into their targets whilst screaming "Allahu Akhbar!" It was, in fact, a bunch of guys named Mohammed who just that morning had hit their knees facing Mecca and prayed for the blessings of their god.

Surely you can grant the people who do not like the idea of a temple dedicated to the glory of that same god being put so imposingly at the site of such directed perfidy their disagreement? Whether you agree with their goal or not?

And Hell's bells, if these Mosque clowns really want to promote brotherhood and dialog, they'd erect a chapel, not a mosque.

What they're doing instead reeks of an un-hinted-at "gift" of lingerie from a guy to his gal.

Thanks but no thanks, and yeah, now I'm pissed.

-dale

Blue
21 Aug 10,, 06:23
I'm going to throw this video in the mix. It doesn't seem far fetched, especially after the time I have spent researching the Imam and his organizations and motives.

I still stand by constitutional rights to worship whatever in these Unites States, but this is shaping up a bit stinky(after much investigation!! I am not throwing this out there wontonly.

My line of thinking is that if an honest, American Muslim based group where to back this, it would be more acceptable to Americans, but it is not. I am finding more and more Mslim Americans against it. I spoke with two muslim friends(one a business aquaintance, one a former co-worker) over the last two days. They both abhoor the idea of the mosque there.

/v/RxFzFIDbKpg?fs

Officer of Engineers
21 Aug 10,, 06:25
Ruling by Public opinion leads to the Tyranny of the majority that Mills warned us in his essay "On Liberty". The people protesting loudest about not listening to "The will of the poepole" vice the rule of law, are the same ones that complained that Clinton ruled by opinion polls. Pot Kettle Black.By the same token, GS, are we allowing the rule of the minority? That I cannot and will not tolerate, much less than mob rule. Thus far and I am stating this out front, our opposition is public opinion and public opinion alone. I do not want AQ to have a propaganda victory whatsoever. That is NOT LEGALLY BINDING!

So, the question is, if you can build and I can do nothing to stop you, why are you stopping?

JAD_333
21 Aug 10,, 06:25
Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
I never said muslims aren't human. Nor did I ever say Obama is a muslim.

All I'm saying is Al Queda claims to be muslim and muslims seem to think Obama is muslim.

I can prove it:

Obama's birth father was a muslim. Obama's step father was a muslim. By islamic law, he's muslim.

Obama claims to have converted to christianity. By islamic law, the penalty for converting from islam is death. No muslim cleric/imam or whatever, any where, has called for Obama's death. Therefore either they all think Obama is still a muslim, or they think converting from islam is OK. The strange thing was there was a man in Afghanistan who recently converted from islam to christianity. There was call for his death by local clergy. It seems like it's still NOT OK to leave the faith.

Hmmmm....

Interesting, but minor point. No fatwas for kid apostates?

Was Barack Obama a Muslim? :: Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/5286/was-barack-obama-a-muslim)


...the punishment for childhood apostasy is less severe than for the adult version. As Robert Spencer points out, "according to Islamic law an apostate male is not to be put to death if he has not reached puberty (cf. ‘Umdat al-Salik o8.2; Hidayah vol. II p. 246). Some, however, hold that he should be imprisoned until he is of age and then ‘invited' to accept Islam, but officially the death penalty for youthful apostates is ruled out."

On the positive side, were Obama prominently charged with apostasy, that would uniquely raise the issue of a Muslim's right to change religion, taking a topic on the perpetual back-burner and placing it front and center, perhaps to the great future benefit of those Muslims who seek to declare themselves atheists or to convert to another religion.

But would Muslims seeing Obama as a murtadd significantly affect an Obama presidency? The only precedent to judge by is that of Carlos Saúl Menem, the president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999. The son of two Muslim Syrian immigrants and husband of another Syrian-Argentine, Zulema Fátima Yoma, Menem converted to Roman Catholicism. His wife said publicly that Menem left Islam for political reasons—because Argentinean law until 1994 required the president of the country to be a member of the Church. From a Muslim point of view, Menem's conversion is worse than Obama's, having been done as an adult. Nonetheless, Menem was not threatened or otherwise made to pay a price for his change of religion, even during his trips to majority-Muslim countries, Syria in particular.

Officer of Engineers
21 Aug 10,, 06:27
My line of thinking is that if an honest, American Muslim based group where to back this, it would be more acceptable to Americans, but it is not. I am finding more and more Mslim Americans against it. I spoke with two muslim friends(one a business aquaintance, one a former co-worker) over the last two days. They both abhoor the idea of the mosque there.I would ask a favour. What are their views once OBL is dead? If this can no longer be seen as a trophy?

JAD_333
21 Aug 10,, 06:43
My line of thinking is that if an honest, American Muslim based group where to back this, it would be more acceptable to Americans, but it is not. I am finding more and more Mslim Americans against it. I spoke with two muslim friends(one a business aquaintance, one a former co-worker) over the last two days. They both abhoor the idea of the mosque there.


A lot of Muslims who have been here a long time, don't like it. My mother's Muslim maid of 40 years and her family (one who served in the USMC) think it will make Americans more hostile to them. It may. But I think it ultimately comes down to what the group behind the Center want to do, and if they want to go ahead, and do everything legally, then I don't see how anyone
can stop them only on the basis that it's "too close" to where the WTC stood. And I don't see how smearing the imam leading the group makes any difference other than to stir up fear and hate. By many accounts he's done a lot to build bridges between Islam and the west. How can he do that without talking to both sides, and particularly some thought of as radical on the Muslim side? A mediator who talks to only one side is useless.

Blue
21 Aug 10,, 06:52
I would ask a favour. What are their views once OBL is dead? If this can no longer be seen as a trophy? They tell me?....That they hate OBL, AQ(and all thier deeds) and all the special attention being drawn to AMs(american muslims). They are businessmen, laborers and one is a doctor. They are Americans, and they support this country and oppose sharia and most of the accoutrements of "these other" muslims. They are against the mosque, even though some a-hole redneck set fire to the sign of the first mosque ever in Joplin, MO, back in 2007 or 2008.(google it, there was an FBI invest.) They had a nice little peaceful building out in the country, that was a former methodist(or something) church. It didn't have minarets or any of the gaudy trappings. It looked like more of a Jehovah witness hall, but anyway, islamophobia right here in my hometown, scared them enough to close it.

They hate OBL, or at least that is what they say to me. All my indications point that they are true blue americans that love what this country has allowed them to do and that is to be successful and free.

The only person that had to leave town a couple years after 911 was some greek a-hole that publicly stated that "America had it coming" the day after 911. His business was going broke(only after his mouth ran off on the local news channel...stupid.), he sold the business and went back to Greece. I don't know if he made it back(don't care), he was a jerk off.

I am heavily "medicated" (glenlivet serum) tonight, did I answer your question Col? ;)

JAD_333
21 Aug 10,, 07:09
I would ask a favour. What are their views once OBL is dead? If this can no longer be seen as a trophy?

If people think it is a trophy, it won't be because the people who want to build it say it is. It will be the opponents who label it as such. From afar Muslims will not see this as a trophy. They live in countries where the authorities could simply say no to a building project if they so choose. Instead they will be impressed. What they will see is a country that is indeed true to its founding principles, and where everyone's freedom is equally protected. If, on the other hand, legal tricks are used to kill this, our hypocrisy will be obvious.

Of course, people have a right to express their disapproval, and if that should dissuade the center's backers, so be it.

Blue
21 Aug 10,, 07:15
A lot of Muslims who have been here a long time, don't like it. My mother's Muslim maid of 40 years and her family (one who served in the USMC) think it will make Americans more hostile to them. It may. Which it probably will, for those who know no better. Thats a shame.


But I think it ultimately comes down to what the group behind the Center want to do, and if they want to go ahead, and do everything legally, then I don't see how anyone
can stop them only on the basis that it's "too close" to where the WTC stood. There is no legal basis to stop it. All that can happen is pressure from protest and if every contractor from everywhere unites and refuses to do the work. It would also help for AMs to stand up and give ashout out as well!


And I don't see how smearing the imam leading the group makes any difference other than to stir up fear and hate. By many accounts he's done a lot to build bridges between Islam and the west. How can he do that without talking to both sides, and particularly some thought of as radical on the Muslim side? A mediator who talks to only one side is useless. That is a damn good point! Negotiator/Mediator jobs aren't plenty on monster.com, that could be the reason why.;)

However, my main contention is not with the Imam alone, but the Cordoba Initiatve and the American society for Muslim advancement. I have much suspicion here. Newly formed of course, as I was unaware of these orgs till weeks ago. It is questionable at least.

Officer of Engineers
21 Aug 10,, 07:16
I am heavily "medicated" (glenlivet serum) tonight, did I answer your question Col? ;)Since I am no longer allowed to drink, I will ask a 2nd favour,

I will ask you to relay my wishes.

The second OBL dies, I want the biggest, grandest, most beautiful mosque to be built on Ground Zero. I want the Crown of the Commonwealth, the Pope, the Patriach of Alexandria, the Dali Lama (even though I think he is a freaking fake), Bishop Tutu ...

But be advised, I do not want any of this happening while OBL still breathes. I want him to die with all his dreams crushed

But the second he dies, I want the US to welcome Islam like we did the Japanese and Germans. I want to welcome them into our world to be shared and I want Islam to appreciate the beauty before them ... but not one second before OBL dies.

Parihaka
21 Aug 10,, 07:22
Reading is fundamental.

Mine was in response to the asinine post that stated.


I included that in my post. So you couldn't have missed it.
.
I didn't miss it. What I missed was any recognition when using some of the victims of 9/11 to prove your point you missed the other victims of 9/11 who disproved it.
You then go on to claim hypocrisy of anyone who objects, including those unquoted 9/11 victims, because somewhere near ground zero there will almost certainly be a strip club.
Pot, kettle, black.

Officer of Engineers
21 Aug 10,, 07:25
If people think it is a trophy, it won't be because the people who want to build it say it is.The target audience is Al Qaeda's audience.


It will be the opponents who label it as such. From afar Muslims will not see this as a trophy. They live in countries where the authorities could simply say no to a building project if they so choose. Instead they will be impressed. What they will see is a country that is indeed true to its founding principles, and where everyone's freedom is equally protected. If, on the other hand, legal tricks are used to kill this, our hypocrisy will be obvious.I don't get your point, JAD. If the mosque goes through, them Islam is right. If the mosque does not go through, then, we are the enemy. In either case, find me a popular view in Islamic countries outside the US that says that the mosque should not go up on Ground Zero.


Of course, people have a right to express their disapproval, and if that should dissuade the center's backers, so be it.I would argue that Americans have a right to determine their own affairs without fear of outside backlash.

I have absolutely zero say in New York. I expressed my disapproval. I hoped someone in New York listened but beyond that ... the Canadiens over the Rangers in 5.

Blue
21 Aug 10,, 07:25
[QUOTE=Officer of Engineers;753118]Since I am no longer allowed to drink, That is a shame, I hope it is not your health and just a preference?


I will ask a 2nd favour,

I will ask you to relay my wishes. I would, without delay!!


The second OBL dies, I want the biggest, grandest, most beautiful mosque to be built on Ground Zero. I want the Crown of the Commonwealth, the Pope, the Patriach of Alexandria, the Dali Lama (even though I think he is a freaking fake), Bishop Tutu ...

But be advised, I do not want any of this happening while OBL still breathes. I want him to die with all his dreams crushed

But the second he dies, I want the US to welcome Islam like we did the Japanese and Germans. I want to welcome them into our world to be shared and I want Islam to appreciate the beauty before them ... but not one second before OBL dies.

Sir, There are better odds of me surprisingly winning the lottery, in the next ten minutes, without ever purchasing a ticket, than OBL.....EVER Showing up dead!!!! I'll bet next years salary!:frown:

nvishal
21 Aug 10,, 07:27
This is something i do not see in american politics but it is almost a regular thing in india. Question is whether a certain group should enjoy the benefits of the constitution like all others?

Problem is:
1) This certain group does not believe in any constitution that does not resemble a certain green book
2) The only time it embraces an infidel constitution is to expand itself - Like this episode.
3) Overtime, the objective is to lead way to install a constitution which it think is "halal".

The free world likes to keep it's fundamental rights intact. This little episode will teach you why you shouldn't hold onto a rigid stand.

My dastardly side is certainly enjoying it as i watch this. Of the millions the western world pumps in through missionary channels into india under the cover of humanitarian aid, this is like a blow back under the cover of fundamental rights.

MIKEMUN
21 Aug 10,, 08:22
Which it probably will, for those who know no better. Thats a shame.

There is no legal basis to stop it. All that can happen is pressure from protest and if every contractor from everywhere unites and refuses to do the work. It would also help for AMs to stand up and give ashout out as well!

That is a damn good point! Negotiator/Mediator jobs aren't plenty on monster.com, that could be the reason why.;)

However, my main contention is not with the Imam alone, but the Cordoba Initiatve and the American society for Muslim advancement. I have much suspicion here. Newly formed of course, as I was unaware of these orgs till weeks ago. It is questionable at least.


Are non Muslim contractors allowed to to do work on Muslim places of worship? I may be wrong, but I thought that a mosque can only be built by Muslims.

Parihaka
21 Aug 10,, 08:56
Should they be allowed to build it? Absolutely. Apart from basic planning issues, neither the state nor local individuals have any right to stop what they do with their money on their property.
Is it a calculated insult? Of course it is, it's primary purpose is to demonstrate Americas own freedoms can be used against it. It's not a building for dialogue, it's a political statement in it's own right, designed to flip the bird to those who view Islam as the enemy.
The idea however that it should or shouldn't be built on moral grounds and all this talk of hypocrisy is absurdist from both points of view. It's a building, with a specific purpose of celebrating a religion that was invoked as justification when thousands of people were killed within spitting distance of where they were murdered. A religion which dictates and which even it's most 'moderate' adherents beleive is incompatable with the society in which it is being built.
It's nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with demonstrations of power.

Vinod2070
21 Aug 10,, 10:10
Should they be allowed to build it? Absolutely. Apart from basic planning issues, neither the state nor local individuals have any right to stop what they do with their money on their property.
Is it a calculated insult? Of course it is, it's primary purpose is to demonstrate Americas own freedoms can be used against it. It's not a building for dialogue, it's a political statement in it's own right, designed to flip the bird to those who view Islam as the enemy.
The idea however that it should or shouldn't be built on moral grounds and all this talk of hypocrisy is absurdist from both points of view. It's a building, with a specific purpose of celebrating a religion that was invoked as justification when thousands of people were killed within spitting distance of where they were murdered. A religion which dictates and which even it's most 'moderate' adherents beleive is incompatable with the society in which it is being built.
It's nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with demonstrations of power.

Yes, legally there is no issue in building this mosque. The issue is all about the symbolism, the name Cordaba signifies the intent very well (based on a mosque that was built on a destroyed Church).

I always remember this when I hear some people argue about the legality or morality of the issue.


When KSM was captured in March 2003, he refused to answer questions, informing his captors: "I'll tell you everything when I get to New York and see my lawyer." But the Bush administration did not send KSM to New York. Instead, he was sent to a CIA "black site," where he was questioned, not for evidence in a criminal trial but for intelligence about future terrorist attacks. When asked about his plans, he told the CIA, "Soon, you will know." And he declared that Americans were weak, lacked resilience, and were unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.

But after undergoing "enhanced interrogation techniques" — including waterboarding — KSM became prolific. According to declassified documents, he provided information that led to the capture of a cell of Southeast Asian terrorists KSM had tasked to hijack a plane and fly it into the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles. He provided information that led to the capture of Ammar al-Baluchi and Walid bin Attash, just as they were completing plans to blow up the U.S. consulate and Western residences in Karachi, Pakistan. He provided information that helped lead to the arrest of Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, two businessmen with whom KSM was plotting to smuggle explosives into the USA. He provided information that helped break up an al-Qaeda cell that was developing anthrax for terrorist attacks inside the U.S.

It was legal for this terrorist to expect Miranda rights and a lawyer and a right to remain silent, just as it is legal for some people to make a triumphant statement that they are winning.

nvishal
21 Aug 10,, 14:35
http://media.ny1.com/media/2010/8/20/images/ProMosqueProtest8e201d53-0ab2-498f-8bb2-eb9b24133687.jpg
Where are all those international/UN/some country sponsored "religious freedom" groups now? Where, oh where have they gone? Still in india? The minority muslims in NY needs you. How about a UN report on religious freedom in NYC?

Roosveltrepub
21 Aug 10,, 15:47
http://media.ny1.com/media/2010/8/20/images/ProMosqueProtest8e201d53-0ab2-498f-8bb2-eb9b24133687.jpg
Where are all those international/UN/some country sponsored "religious freedom" groups now? Where, oh where have they gone? Still in india? The minority muslims in NY needs you. How about a UN report on religious freedom in NYC?

Those would be Americans protesting against those qat war with our culture of Constituruinal freedoms. America stands for freedom of religon therefore those wishing to treat one religon different than another would be trying to destroy our culture.

Roosveltrepub
21 Aug 10,, 17:09
Yes, legally there is no issue in building this mosque. The issue is all about the symbolism, the name Cordaba signifies the intent very well (based on a mosque that was built on a destroyed Church).

I always remember this when I hear some people argue about the legality or morality of the issue.


It was legal for this terrorist to expect Miranda rights and a lawyer and a right to remain silent, just as it is legal for some people to make a triumphant statement that they are winning.
Where did you get the idea the Cordoba Initiative’s goal was to build a monument to triumph on 911? Please don't sight Moslem actions in the 8th century unless you are willing to explain why their were Christians and Jews living in Cordoba then and there weren’t once Christians were in charge. What part of their actual mission statement do you find offensive? If no part offends you then you might ask yourself if your prejudices against Islam have trumped the actual facts? How is someone reacting to writings from someone hostile to Islam any different than those who propagated and perpetuated the hateful myths in “ the sons of Zion”? Neither are true and both seek to paint a picture of a minority as “the other” and a threat to our way of life. Explain how you came to believe Cordoba is a byword for Islamic triumphalism? Seems to me Christians Jews and Moslems lived in peace there till the Christians took over didn’t they?


See me i think it's a statement of the triumph of American ideals of Freedom that American Moslems wish to build a center with a stated misssion that is anathema to the monsters of 911
Our Mission
Solving some of the most intractable conflicts in the world today requires innovative strategies for cross-cultural engagement. Cordoba Initiative tackles this mandate with forethought, expertise and the ability to leverage contacts in influential positions within the Muslim World and the West. Thinking outside the box about international and intercultural conflict resolution also means thinking introspectively about each side's place within its own historical narrative with a view to devising internally oriented solutions. [/quote]

Here is the actual goal the center is aiming to fullfill and some corrections of a few of the lies those who would demagog this issue to either gain viewership on tv, distract us from asking what they will actually do if elected or, those as a brave few( not sarcasm) here admitted who believe Islam itself is a threat to their way of life and hostile to American values.

the actual mission of the project
Frequently Asked Questions
The Proposed Community Center Project in Lower Manhattan
FAQs

Who is organizing this project? What is the relationship of the Cordoba Initiative to this project?

The Cordoba Initiative, of which Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is founder and chairman, is a multi-faith non-profit organization whose aim is to improve relations between different communities, and in particular between the Muslim world and the United States of America.

The proposed community center in Lower Manhattan will serve as a platform for multi-faith dialogue. It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally.


Daisy Khan is a board member of Cordoba Initiative and also the Executive Director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). ASMA is committed to helping Muslim women and youth to improving their lives within their communities through projects on contemporary issues.

Both Imam Feisal and Ms. Khan are strong advocates for multi-faith collaboration. They share a vision of a community center in which various religious leaders and civil society will work closely together to foster community cohesion and advance the shared goals of moderation, peace and understanding. Through programs offered by the Cordoba Initiative and ASMA, the community center will crystallize this shared vision of peace into bricks and mortar.

Why are you building a mosque at Ground zero?

The community center is not located at Ground Zero.

It will be a multi-floor community center open to all New Yorkers, much like a YMCA or Jewish Community Center (JCC) with a designated prayer space (mosque) in one area to serve the needs of the large existing community of American Muslims in the neighborhood.

The community center will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their culture or background, will find a place of learning, arts and culture, and, most importantly, a community center guided by the universal values of all religions in their truest form – peace, compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

Why did you choose this site so close to Ground Zero?

We were always close to the World Trade Center. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been the Imam of a mosque twelve blocks from the Twin Towers for the last 27 years.

Who is funding the community center?

No funds for this project have been raised to date. A project of this scale will require very diverse fundraising sources, including individuals from all faiths and beliefs –who are committed to peace and understanding. We expect that our sources of funding will include individuals of different religions, charitable organizations, public funds, institutional and corporate sponsors.

You will need a lot of contributors. Who will review your donor list?

The New York Charities Bureau and the US Treasury Department will review the donor list to assure that all funding sources are vetted to their satisfaction and approved. In addition, our Trustees and Advisory Board will be comprised of a multi-faith group of distinguished individuals who will ensure that the community center stays true to its objectives of peace, tolerance and understanding between all.

How did you purchase the building?

SoHo Properties, a New York real estate development firm based in lower Manhattan, acquired the property a couple of years ago. Sharif El Gamal, owner of SoHo Properties, is a member of Imam Feisal’s lower Manhattan congregation that has been in the neighborhood for a number of years.

Why so close to Ground Zero?

We have been residents and neighbors who are deeply committed to the neighborhood for the last 27 years. American Muslims have been peacefully living, working and worshipping in this neighborhood and were also terribly affected by the horrific events of 9/11.

As Muslim New Yorkers and Americans we want to help and be part of rebuilding our neighborhood in lower Manhattan. It is important for all of us to show the world that Americans will not be frightened or deterred by the extremist forces of hatred.

Isn’t this insensitive given that the 9/11 attackers were Muslims?

The events of 9/11 were horrific. What happened that day was terrorism, and it shames us that it was cloaked in the guise of Islam. It was inhumane, un-Islamic and is indefensible regardless of one’s religious persuasion. Not only Americans but also all Muslims are threatened by the lies and actions being perpetrated by these self-serving extremists and their perverted view of Islam.

The community center will be a platform to amplify the voices of the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose love for America and commitment to peace gets drowned out by the actions of a few extremists. It will become a platform where the voices of those who resist religious extremism and terrorism can be amplified and celebrated.

But, why not build it a little bit farther away? Let’s say a mile away?

No one should be driven out of his or her own neighborhood – especially for religious reasons. It is unconstitutional and un-American. Our congregation has been peacefully worshipping in this area for almost three decades. Our neighbors have encouraged us to remain here and the City and the Community Board have encouraged our continued presence here. The community has backed up their support by approving every resolution and challenge in the community center’s favor.

What about the 9/11 families? Don’t you see their pain?

Like all New Yorkers and Americans we were too devastated by 9/11. We share and respect the incredible pain and loss suffered by the victims of 9/11. We fully recognize their legitimate concerns and sensitivity to the community center. It shames us that extremists who profess to be Muslim perpetrated murder on such a horrific scale for political and financial gain in the name of Islam.

We look forward to actively engaging with leaders of the victims of 9/11 to respond to their concerns and obtain their support for our efforts.

Will the extremists take over the Community Center once it’s built?

Extremism on both sides is the danger – it’s what we’re working against. A community center that celebrates diversity and multi-faith collaboration is antithetical to the extremists’ worldview. This center will be a blow to all extremists.

In addition, the multi-faith Trustees and Board of Advisors will also help assure that our good intentions are not hijacked by extremist elements who are against our vision of peace, tolerance and understanding.

Are you not building a project that will be one of conquest? Isn’t this a victory for the extremists?

The community center is opposed to religious extremists of all faiths. It demonstrates that Americans cannot be intimidated and will join together to promote moderation, peace and understanding when challenged.

The extremists will not find victory or comfort in a community center whose sole purpose is to bring peace through multi-faith collaboration and celebrate the diversity of views in our world.

This center is an important step towards building understanding and peace. Just as we strive to understand the faith and traditions of our neighbors, this center will invite others to learn about the true nature of Islam. A religion of peace, tolerance, and understanding.


So what will happen at this community center?

The community center will meet the needs of all New Yorkers with six programmatic areas:
1. Culture and Arts - 500-seat auditorium, exhibition)
2. Education - Lecture hall, conference rooms, library, classrooms,)
3. Social Cohesion,(cooking classes, senior citizens space, child care, banquet hall)
4. Religion + Healing - Muslim prayer space, Contemplation and reflection area, 9/11 victims memorial
5. Global Engagement - Mapping studies on trends in the Muslim world, resources on good governance and principles of liberal democracy, women’s empowerment issues, youth development, countering religious extremism.
6. Recreation - pool, gym, medical education and wellness programs

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++

Clearing up false charges made against Imam Feisal:

“On 60 Minutes, the Imam said that American Foreign policy is an accessory to terrorism”

The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the CIA made in the 1980s by financing Osama Bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared within the US and the US Government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting “friends of convenience” who may in the future become our enemies. This is common sense.

Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the US State Department to tour Muslim majority and western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the FBI after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of FBI agents.

“Imam Feisal has not condemned Hamas”

Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his 1995 book “What’s Right With Islam is What’s Right with America” and his hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic. In his book, he even went so far as to include a copy of the Fatwa issued after 9/11 by the most respected clerics of Egypt defining the 9/11 attack as an un-Islamic act of terror and giving permission to Muslims in the U.S. armed forces to fight against those who committed this act of terror. Imam Feisal included this in his book to prove that terrorism must be fought even if Muslims have to fight fellow Muslims to stop it.

“Imam Feisal is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood because his book was translated into Arabic by a publisher with ties to the Brotherhood.”

Both charges are false. Imam Feisal has no connection whatsoever to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Arabic translation rights to his book were arranged by the Arabic book program at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, United States of America.

“Imam Feisal is a member of the Perdana Global Peace Organization, which is a funder of the flotilla that attempted to deliver aid to residents of Gaza.”

Imam Feisal has never been a member of this group. Several years ago, Imam Feisal was invited to Malaysia, the most moderate Islamic country in the world, to participate in a Peace Conference sponsored by the Perdana Peace Group. He was one of the hundreds of speakers present. He has no political, advisory or business affiliation of any nature with the Perdana group. A photo of Imam Feisal was taken at the conference, and this has been used to “prove” his membership in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, but the allegation is false. Because of the controversy surrounding Perdana, we have requested the Perdana Group to remove the photo of him from their publicity.

“Imam Feisal wants to establish a ‘shariah state’ in America.”

Actually, quite the contrary. Imam Feisal believes that all Muslims must adhere to the laws of the land in which they reside, including in America. This is a basic tenet of Islam. He has repeatedly stated that America is already one of the most Shariah compliant countries in the world because of America’s adherence to our Bill of Rights and because it allows members of all religions, including Muslims, to practice their faith freely. In other words, Imam Feisal believes that Muslims practice Shariah when they fast, pray, give to charity and uphold the commandments of protecting life, liberty, dignity, the pursuit of happiness and the right to freedom of worship.

“Why isn’t Imam Feisal currently in New York? Isn’t he supporting this?”

Imam Feisal travels the world in his life-long endeavor to bring the message of moderation, peace and understanding to both Western and Islamic countries.

Currently, he is in Malaysia working on projects designed to counter radical Islamist ideology within the region and the world. As the leading moderate Muslim country in the world, Malaysia is strongly interested in developing such initiatives and has requested Imam Feisal's assistance in their formulation.

Following this, Imam Feisal has been requested by the US State Department to make an extended tour, sponsored by the US Government, of Islamic countries throughout the Middle East to further his moderate Islamic message of peace and understanding with scholars, religious leaders and political leaders in the region.

His absence should not be construed in any way as a diminution of his deep commitment and concern regarding the issues surrounding the community center.

It is unfortunate that some events related to the center transpired during his extended travels but he has full confidence in his staff and and partners, including the team at SoHo Properties, and Daisy Khan, Executive Director of ASMA and one of the founders of Park51 – to carry on in his absence.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
Thank You!

We wish to thank the following organizations for their support:

September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, J Street, The Arab American Family Support Center, CLAL–The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Auburn Seminary, American Jewish Committee, Cause New York, Chautauqua Institute, Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, Faith House Manhattan, Friends of the Arava Institute, Interfaith Youth Core, Intersections, Interfaith Center of New York, The Interfaith Alliance, Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, Lutheran Seafarers and International House, New York Buddhist Church, Odyssey Networks, New Seminary, Out of Cordoba, Averros and Miamonides, NY interfaith Disaster, One Voice, One Spirit, St. Bartholomew's Church, Same Difference Interfaith Alliance, The Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew, Tanenbaum Center, The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, Trinity Wall Church, The Healing of the Nations Foundation, The Migration Policy Institute, Union Theological Seminary, St. Peters Church, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Asia and the Pacific,

For more information, contact info@cordobainitiative.org
i'd suggest you email them and ask them if what you have heard from the "Culture wars are good politics crowd is true". 600k Moslems live in the metro area. A few here have said the only Moslem voices they here are extremist and moderate Moslems either are a myth or don’t exist. I am left believing partisan media outlets are whipping you up and engaging in the politics of hate after reading that QA on the extremist Iman. Why are they doing that?

Vinod2070
21 Aug 10,, 18:08
Where did you get the idea the Cordoba Initiative’s goal was to build a monument to triumph on 911? Please don't sight Moslem actions in the 8th century unless you are willing to explain why their were Christians and Jews living in Cordoba then and there weren’t once Christians were in charge. What part of their actual mission statement do you find offensive? If no part offends you then you might ask yourself if your prejudices against Islam have trumped the actual facts? How is someone reacting to writings from someone hostile to Islam any different than those who propagated and perpetuated the hateful myths in “ the sons of Zion”? Neither are true and both seek to paint a picture of a minority as “the other” and a threat to our way of life. Explain how you came to believe Cordoba is a byword for Islamic triumphalism? Seems to me Christians Jews and Moslems lived in peace there till the Christians took over didn’t they?


See me i think it's a statement of the triumph of American ideals of Freedom that American Moslems wish to build a center with a stated misssion that is anathema to the monsters of 911
Our Mission
Solving some of the most intractable conflicts in the world today requires innovative strategies for cross-cultural engagement. Cordoba Initiative tackles this mandate with forethought, expertise and the ability to leverage contacts in influential positions within the Muslim World and the West. Thinking outside the box about international and intercultural conflict resolution also means thinking introspectively about each side's place within its own historical narrative with a view to devising internally oriented solutions.

Here is the actual goal the center is aiming to fullfill and some corrections of a few of the lies those who would demagog this issue to either gain viewership on tv, distract us from asking what they will actually do if elected or, those as a brave few( not sarcasm) here admitted who believe Islam itself is a threat to their way of life and hostile to American values.

the actual mission of the project i'd suggest you email them and ask them if what you have heard from the "Culture wars are good politics crowd is true". 600k Moslems live in the metro area. A few here have said the only Moslem voices they here are extremist and moderate Moslems either are a myth or don’t exist. I am left believing partisan media outlets are whipping you up and engaging in the politics of hate after reading that QA on the extremist Iman. Why are they doing that?

Isn't the victory over Spain considered a great triumph of Islam? Spain was not an Arab country, it was not a Muslim country.

it was a Muslim invasion over a non-Muslim country, much violence, rapine and slavery were part of that victory as it was common in those days with Muslim victors. Apparently 30,000 women of Visigoth nobility were sent back to the Caliph as his 20% share of the booty.

So isn't it a not so well disguised celebration of that ancient invasion and triumph?

It may be completely innocent but that would be a long shot. In that case may be they would have likely chosen an example of Muslim tolerance in a non invaded Islamic country.

JAD_333
21 Aug 10,, 19:16
Should they be allowed to build it? Absolutely. Apart from basic planning issues, neither the state nor local individuals have any right to stop what they do with their money on their property.
Is it a calculated insult? Of course it is, it's primary purpose is to demonstrate Americas own freedoms can be used against it. It's not a building for dialogue, it's a political statement in it's own right, designed to flip the bird to those who view Islam as the enemy.
The idea however that it should or shouldn't be built on moral grounds and all this talk of hypocrisy is absurdist from both points of view. It's a building, with a specific purpose of celebrating a religion that was invoked as justification when thousands of people were killed within spitting distance of where they were murdered. A religion which dictates and which even it's most 'moderate' adherents beleive is incompatable with the society in which it is being built.
It's nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with demonstrations of power.

Pari:

It is probably not a calculated insult. Rather it is a failure to think through the symbolism.

Park51 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51)


The sponsors of Cordoba House, said that their name is meant to invoke 8th–11th century Córdoba, Spain, a time and a place where Muslims, Christians, and Jews co-existed peacefully.

I believe this is a laudable goal, and what Rauf hoped the center would achieve. But either he failed to perceive or ignored signs that it could have the opposite effect or he felt himself justified by the logic that a group of Islamic radicals attacked the WTC, not all of Islam. If his goal is peaceful co-existence, then it would have served his goal far better to have graciously withdrawn the project and looked for a more distant site.

But at the moment, he is hanging on to his dream. It may be that his sensibilities are clouded by the fact that a lot of the practical preliminaries for the project have been met. As any developer will tell you, starting over is painful. Or, he could be hoping that Americans "come to their senses" and stop opposing his "laudable" goals. It won't happen, in part because his intransigence up to now has stoked too much anger and because if Americans see the center as an insult, so it will be regardless of any logic to the contrary.

devgupt
21 Aug 10,, 19:50
If the goal of the project as stated is to promote harmony between Islam and America, then the response it has received has simply been opposite.
So its a failure from the start itself.
It doesnt matter if your intentions are good.What matters is the result of your actions. And even before the actual action,the opposite of one's intentions is happening. Isnt this the time to do a rethink and plan things differently?
What does the imam wants?
A mosque near ground zero?
OR
Inter faith harmony in USA?

Red Seven
21 Aug 10,, 20:28
My humble opinion: It's legal...but it's wrong. It's just as wrong as it would be if the American Nazi Party wanted to build a headquarters near a Jewish Community Center. It's in bad taste and it's an insult to the hundreds of millions of Americans who wept on 9/11. It's just wrong.

I'd defend to the death their legal right to build it...but it's still just f*ckin wrong.

bigross86
21 Aug 10,, 20:42
Just like the NSPA in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977. Legal, but in extremely, extremely poor taste

Freeloader
21 Aug 10,, 22:01
Mohomohead

That's awesome. I liked "Jihard" too.

In short - disagree with the mosque that close, disagreed with the mosque inside the Pentagon, and would disagree with a giant statue of Joseph Smith on top of an area if they flew planes into that as well.

I asked people elsewhere if we caught people plotting terror inside mosques here, how many times would they need to be caught in order for people to feel Islam was dangerous. It's a vague question, but I got a few replies of "would take several times before I felt it was a danger" as if three or four times of being bagged plotting terror, would be normal and OK with them. I aslo asked if European nations have the right to protect their sovreignty of their individual countries. Surprisingly - I was told those countries have NO RIGHT to keep people out, in order to protect their own country's customs. I was surprised. This was white Europeans and Americans saying this too - not Muslims. How dare France want to keep French traditions alive in their own country, right?

It's no secret every religion has had their day in the sun for being corrupt and murdering people in the name of (insert their god here) but currently, Islam is that religion in the United States. Precautions should be raised. They know there is a Constitution in this country that protects them, so I think America should keep a serious eye on any and all mosques built, and areas with growing Muslim populations. 9/11 was not a isolated incident. Look at Europe and the problems with terror they have had, and how they are being overrun in their own countries by Muslims.

JAD_333
21 Aug 10,, 22:13
The target audience is Al Qaeda's audience.

The audience is the same of course. There is basically only one. But there are many Islamic leaders with different messages trying to sway the audience to their POV. What we, as a nation, do influences the audience, and if we do something that affirms AQ's message, well...then AQ's message gains ground. But if we do something else that affirms the message of an Islamic group diametrically opposed to AQ, then AQ's message loses ground.


I don't get your point, JAD. If the mosque goes through, them Islam is right. If the mosque does not go through, then, we are the enemy.

The premise in that case was legal rights. The center backers have the legal right to build on the site in they've chosen. All the legal hurdles have been met. If public outrage leads officials to block the project in spite of the center's rights, then we are the enemy, so to speak, of our own professed principles and the rule of law.


In either case, find me a popular view in Islamic countries outside the US that says that the mosque should not go up on Ground Zero.

Comment on most Arabic English language newspapers is pretty much confined to news reports. This one has several articles on it. This one makes some interesting observations.

http://www.arab2.com/akhbar/f/f.html?http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/


I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district. Is there a side that is committed to this mosque? The fact is that in the news reports there are names linked to this project that costs 100 million dollars!

JAD_333
21 Aug 10,, 22:23
Anyone who wants to get a fuller understanding of what this issue is about should read the excellent Wiki piece on it. It also contain photos, maps, and numerous quotes from 9/11 survivor families and their opinions.

Park51 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51)

Kansas Bear
21 Aug 10,, 23:18
Isn't this area, Park51, already being used as a "Muslim worship center"(ie. mosque)??

My apology if this has already been stated.

Roosveltrepub
21 Aug 10,, 23:24
Isn't the victory over Spain considered a great triumph of Islam? Spain was not an Arab country, it was not a Muslim country.

it was a Muslim invasion over a non-Muslim country, much violence, rapine and slavery were part of that victory as it was common in those days with Muslim victors. Apparently 30,000 women of Visigoth nobility were sent back to the Caliph as his 20% share of the booty.

So isn't it a not so well disguised celebration of that ancient invasion and triumph?

It may be completely innocent but that would be a long shot. In that case may be they would have likely chosen an example of Muslim tolerance in a non invaded Islamic country.

Was the culture of the moslem city of Cordoba the most religously tolerant in Western Europe? Cordoba had swung between Roman, Visigoth and Byzantine rule for 300 years prior to the muslim invasion. I don't doubt what you say is true but that happened all over the Iberian penisula and was typical of the time not something specific to moslems or Cordoba was singled out for. Again, did you read the information I posted? Nothing like first hand information on a matter. Is Islam the enemy? Should it be limited?

Roosveltrepub
21 Aug 10,, 23:25
yeah, till it became something to woo voters even Fox had been portraying it in a positive matter

bigross86
21 Aug 10,, 23:27
Isn't this area, Park51, already being used as a "Muslim worship center"(ie. mosque)??

My apology if this has already been stated.

I'm pretty sure it has been mentioned, more than once. Two things, however:

A- There is a large and distinct difference between a couple existing Muslim centers and a brand spanking new $100 million monument to Islam in close proximity to a massacre site perpetrated by supposed followers of Islam.

B- The fact of the matter is, the average American that is opposed to this project probably doesn't know nor care that it's an existing Muslim center. To them, all it is is a brand spanking new $100 million monument to Islam in close proximity to a massacre site perpetrated by supposed followers of Islam.

That's the main problem. Whether you agree with that point of view or not, that's how a very large amount of Americans see it, and it offends them. Just as you and I and most decent human being don't go too far out of our way to insult someone unless we feel they actually, really and truly deserve it, same thing here with the Mosque. It seems that they are going deliberately out of their way to offend the average American.

Parihaka
22 Aug 10,, 00:25
Pari:

It is probably not a calculated insult. Rather it is a failure to think through the symbolism.

Park51 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51)



I believe this is a laudable goal, and what Rauf hoped the center would achieve. But either he failed to perceive or ignored signs that it could have the opposite effect or he felt himself justified by the logic that a group of Islamic radicals attacked the WTC, not all of Islam. If his goal is peaceful co-existence, then it would have served his goal far better to have graciously withdrawn the project and looked for a more distant site.

But at the moment, he is hanging on to his dream. It may be that his sensibilities are clouded by the fact that a lot of the practical preliminaries for the project have been met. As any developer will tell you, starting over is painful. Or, he could be hoping that Americans "come to their senses" and stop opposing his "laudable" goals. It won't happen, in part because his intransigence up to now has stoked too much anger and because if Americans see the center as an insult, so it will be regardless of any logic to the contrary.

Jad, I'm afraid I don't attribute the naivete you do to the builders intentions. With Cordoba, all those peacefully co-existing religions were in the context of Spain being an occupied nation. The religions of Judaism and Christianity continued to exist at the beheast of the ruling class, Islam uber alles. There is nothing inherently wrong with that I guess, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with the British and French occupations of Arabia and Persia, where indeed Christian, Muslims and Jews in the main lived in peaceful co-existence, nor of the current occupation of tracts of Arabia and Afghanistan. I'm quite sure the current members of Cordoba House see those previous and the current occupations in just the same way as they see the occupation from which they take their name.

Islam is a growth religion in just the same way as is Christianity and it's off shoots. It's adherents are tasked with the promulgation of their religion in just the same way the Christians and their off-shoots are. They may claim interfaith dialogue but they're not building a Temple or Church along with their Mosque, but a Mosque alone. This is about the spreading and primacy of their faith and they would be failing in their duty as Muslims if it was not. The location is as deliberately choosen as is their mission to acheive the rule of Islam.

ASparr
22 Aug 10,, 01:27
Boy, building that mosque should would be quite the propaganda victory for UBL, huh?

Oh wait...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/world/21muslim.html?hp


“I know people in this debate don’t intend it, but there are consequences for these kinds of remarks,” said Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism for the New America Foundation here.

He said that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric hiding in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots, has been arguing for months in Web speeches and in a new Qaeda magazine that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification.

“When the rhetoric is so inflammatory that it serves the interests of a jihadi recruiter like Awlaki, politicians need to be called on it,” Mr. Fishman said.

Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks militant Web sites at the security consulting firm Flashpoint Global Partners, said supporters of Al Qaeda have seized on the controversy “with glee.” On radical Web forums, he said, the dispute over the Islamic center, which would include space for worship, is lumped together with fringe developments like a Florida pastor’s call for making Sept. 11 “Burn a Koran Day.”

“It’s seen as proof of what Awlaki and others have been saying, that the U.S. is hypocritical and that most Americans are enemies of Islam,” Mr. Kohlmann said. He called the anti-Islam statements spawned by the dispute “disturbing and sad” and said they were feeding anti-American sentiment that could provoke violence.



Let's ask Ali Soufan while we are at it.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/18/ground-zero-mosque-controversy-opinions-contributors-ali-soufan.html



There are many reasons for supporting the Muslim community's right to build a cultural center and mosque on private property, not least of all the First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion. But from a national security perspective, our leaders need to understand that no one is likely to be happier with the opposition to building a mosque than Osama Bin Laden. His next video script has just written itself.

When demagogues appear to be equating Islam with terrorism, it's making young Muslims unsure about their place in the country. It bolsters the message that radicalizers are selling: That the war is against Islam, and Muslims are not welcome in America. As a Muslim-American, I know that isn't true. Whatever some rabble-raising politicians say about one mosque doesn't trump what America really stands for--the values enshrined by our constitution that guarantee equality and freedom for all, whatever your race, religion or creed.

Another Muslim who died in the World Trade Center was Mohammad Chowdhury who was working at Windows on the World to support his pregnant wife and daughter. He never made it home that day, and his son born 48 hours later never knew his father. Al Qaeda didn't differentiate between Muslims and other Americans when it hit the Twin Towers--and neither should we.


Can we now please drop the laughable notion that building this mosque would be a victory for UBL?

Officer of Engineers
22 Aug 10,, 01:54
Funny that you are quoting others thinking what the terrorists think. So, I will wait for Osama Bin Ladden's next message where he will state that this Mosque is wrong and it should never be built.

JAD_333
22 Aug 10,, 02:47
Isn't this area, Park51, already being used as a "Muslim worship center"(ie. mosque)??

My apology if this has already been stated.

Yeah, KC, it has. Check out the wiki link above. No apology necessary. Not everyone knows it.

ASparr
22 Aug 10,, 05:25
Funny that you are quoting others thinking what the terrorists think. So, I will wait for Osama Bin Ladden's next message where he will state that this Mosque is wrong and it should never be built.

Right, because UBL would totally do that. You ever watched an as-Sahab video?

Interesting you're the one discounting the counter-terror experts now and are "waiting" for UBL because you certainly had no problem talking in absolutes earlier without any evidence.

Vinod2070
22 Aug 10,, 05:48
Was the culture of the moslem city of Cordoba the most religously tolerant in Western Europe? Cordoba had swung between Roman, Visigoth and Byzantine rule for 300 years prior to the muslim invasion. I don't doubt what you say is true but that happened all over the Iberian penisula and was typical of the time not something specific to moslems or Cordoba was singled out for.

The fact that it may have happened in other places too still doesn't make it a cause celebre! I hope they are not looking to repeat it again.


Again, did you read the information I posted? Nothing like first hand information on a matter.

I did.


Is Islam the enemy? Should it be limited?

I think this issue is not about it. There are several mosques in the area and all over USA.

YellowFever
22 Aug 10,, 05:58
Boy, building that mosque should would be quite the propaganda victory for UBL, huh?

Oh wait...


Can we now please drop the laughable notion that building this mosque would be a victory for UBL?

Well, there's your first problem.

You're posting opinion pieces of journalists and thinking it's facts.

ASparr
22 Aug 10,, 06:05
Well, there's your first problem.

You're posting opinion pieces of journalists and thinking it's facts.

Well, there's your first problem. You didn't take the time to find out who you're dismissing as journalists.

Brian Fishman works as a terrorism consultant at the New America Foundation and is also an assosciate at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

Evan Kohlmann works as a terrorism consultant and works to compile open source information about jihadi groups.

Ali Soufan is a former FBI counter-terrorism expert who is probably one of the best minds on al-Qaeda that we have. He was extensively involved in the investigation into the Embassy bombings.

So yeah, not journalists.

Parihaka
22 Aug 10,, 06:48
Well, there's your first problem. You didn't take the time to find out who you're dismissing as journalists.

Brian Fishman works as a terrorism consultant at the New America Foundation and is also an assosciate at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

Evan Kohlmann works as a terrorism consultant and works to compile open source information about jihadi groups.

Ali Soufan is a former FBI counter-terrorism expert who is probably one of the best minds on al-Qaeda that we have. He was extensively involved in the investigation into the Embassy bombings.

So yeah, not journalists.

Do you seriously think either the building of the mosque or the not building it will make a blind bit of difference to the way the international Muslim community views the United States? Do you really think the international Muslim community is that stupid?

Mihais
22 Aug 10,, 06:49
Was the culture of the moslem city of Cordoba the most religously tolerant in Western Europe? Cordoba had swung between Roman, Visigoth and Byzantine rule for 300 years prior to the muslim invasion. I don't doubt what you say is true but that happened all over the Iberian penisula and was typical of the time not something specific to moslems or Cordoba was singled out for. Again, did you read the information I posted? Nothing like first hand information on a matter. Is Islam the enemy? Should it be limited?

So you would rather had lived under the Caliph than the Visigoth king?
Islam is not the enemy.With all due respect to our Turkish friends,a good proportion of Muslims may be.

ASparr
22 Aug 10,, 07:01
Do you seriously think either the building of the mosque or the not building it will make a blind bit of difference to the way the international Muslim community views the United States? Do you really think the international Muslim community is that stupid?

When you see people basically blaming you and your way of life for the actions of a monster; when you see people conducting campaigns across the country to keep mosques out of their cities; when you see a pastor hold the "Burn a Koran Day"; when you see people saying the US is at war with Islam; when comments like "they will always want infidels dead, and killing them is honor."; when 43% of Americans admit anti-Muslim bias*; that all combines to give credence to UBL's narrative that the US/West is at war with Islam.

So, do I think that seeing prominent US politicians trying to restrict Muslims ability to freely practice their religion and seeing them equate the actions of a barbarian with all of Muslims will help UBL by giving his narrative credence. Do I think this one issue will radicalize anyone by itself? No. But it sure isn't helping.

And if you want an example of what crap people will believe, take this bit of translation from "My Path to the Jihad" by Eric Breininger who was a German citizen who left to fight in Afghanistan.


I spent a lot of time with Adbuallah since we now lived together. Hussayn came to visit us often and spoke about the problems and the suffering of the Islamic Nation. After a little while Hussayn left the country. He told me he was leaving, but I didn’t know where he had gone. We followed the events in the region where Jihad was taking place and watched videos on how the Mujahidun fought against the Crusaders. What really shocked us the most above all was the news about the prisons, and how the Crusaders treated our brothers; how they tortured and oppressed them. And also the fact that these infidels are putting innocent women in prison, raping them day after day and then afterwards some of them would have to carry the babies in their bellies. That these honorable women were being treated like crap just fanned the flames of hatred within me towards the infidels. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how most Muslims in the world would rather concern themselves with other things and can just simply ignore these shameful acts…
… I quickly realized that I had to do something against these Crusaders, who are humiliating our brothers and sisters. Every Muslim should instill in themselves that one must live according to Allah’s laws and that we need to rebuild an Islamic Nation. Yet, most seem to be satisfied with living in a country of infidels.


* In U.S., Religious Prejudice Stronger Against Muslims (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/Religious-Prejudice-Stronger-Against-Muslims.aspx)

JAD_333
22 Aug 10,, 07:04
Jad, I'm afraid I don't attribute the naivete you do to the builders intentions. With Cordoba, all those peacefully co-existing religions were in the context of Spain being an occupied nation. The religions of Judaism and Christianity continued to exist at the beheast of the ruling class, Islam uber alles. There is nothing inherently wrong with that I guess, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with the British and French occupations of Arabia and Persia, where indeed Christian, Muslims and Jews in the main lived in peaceful co-existence, nor of the current occupation of tracts of Arabia and Afghanistan. I'm quite sure the current members of Cordoba House see those previous and the current occupations in just the same way as they see the occupation from which they take their name.

Islam is a growth religion in just the same way as is Christianity and it's off shoots. It's adherents are tasked with the promulgation of their religion in just the same way the Christians and their off-shoots are. They may claim interfaith dialogue but they're not building a Temple or Church along with their Mosque, but a Mosque alone. This is about the spreading and primacy of their faith and they would be failing in their duty as Muslims if it was not. The location is as deliberately choosen as is their mission to acheive the rule of Islam.

Pari:

I don't think we know what the builders intentions are. I was speculating like everyone else. For all we know, their intention may have been to spark just the controversy we see. Or it may have been exactly what they say it is: a place to promote peaceful coexistence between Islam and the west.

What concerns me more is what Americans believe. For now, 61% believe that its location is offensive to victims of 9/11. That sense of offense is driven by the belief that Islam is to blame for 9/11. There it is in a nutshell. I know that's not true; you know it's not true; and by now most everyone on this thread knows it's not true. And had Americans wanted, they could have said, build it because we want you to know that we don't blame all Muslims for 9/11.

One more axe to grind: Some people equate this to putting up a Swastika next to a synagogue, but they forget that the Swastika was the symbol the Nazis, not of all German speaking people. Equating the center to a Swastika is like saying all Muslims participated in 9/11.

Officer of Engineers
22 Aug 10,, 08:22
One more axe to grind: Some people equate this to putting up a Swastika next to a synagogue, but they forget that the Swastika was the symbol the Nazis, not of all German speaking people. Equating the center to a Swastika is like saying all Muslims participated in 9/11.JAD, WAB banned an Indian Brigadier for arguing that he has a perfect right to post the swastika because India had that symbol long before the Nazis.

He was right ... and WAB is officially wrong ... but no one at WAB could ever tolerate the swastika. I cannot. I will not.

No, I am not saying we are at war wtih Islam but what I am saying is that if American Muslims wants to win this war against OBL, then this Mosque is not the way to do it.

Officer of Engineers
22 Aug 10,, 08:33
Right, because UBL would totally do that. You ever watched an as-Sahab video? Backtracking.


Interesting you're the one discounting the counter-terror experts now and are "waiting" for UBL because you certainly had no problem talking in absolutes earlier without any evidence.Because I already know the script. If we built the mosque, OBL says he won. If we refused it, then OBL says we're the enemy. I CHALLENGE YOU RIGHT NOW TO FIND ME ONE SCRIPT THAT SAYS OBL DOES NOT WANT THE MOSQUE TO BE BUILT.

What you've posted is a spinmaster of future events. I will GUARRANTE YOU that OBL will NEVER say that he doesn't want the mosque to be built. It is his victory and he knows it.

bigross86
22 Aug 10,, 08:39
When you see people basically blaming you and your way of life for the actions of a monster; when you see people conducting campaigns across the country to keep mosques out of their cities; when you see a pastor hold the "Burn a Koran Day"; when you see people saying the US is at war with Islam; when comments like "they will always want infidels dead, and killing them is honor."; when 43% of Americans admit anti-Muslim bias*; that all combines to give credence to UBL's narrative that the US/West is at war with Islam.

Has all this sprung up out of nowhere, out of thin air, or is there a reasoning behind it, however skewed it may be? Islam has done nothing to help itself the past 20 years or so, and now must live with the consequences, even if it's only a few bad apples. Once they remove the bad apples, they can do whatever they want. The problem is that those bad apples view themselves as being in the right and the rest of the world as wrong.

What we have here, is failure to communicate, which is how you get what we have here today. Well, if that's the way they want it, they'll get it. I don't like it anymore than you do.

There have been alternative options suggested and some of them are extremely viable. For example, moving the site a few blocks further down. If they are truly interested in outreach and bridging the gap, such a simple request which could solve everyone's problems could easily be granted, right? But once again, you'll find that Islam and compromise don't mesh that well...

Roosveltrepub
22 Aug 10,, 08:57
Jad, I'm The religions of Judaism and Christianity continued to exist at the beheast of the ruling class, Islam uber alles. .

And how many moslems and jews were left in Cordoba once benevolent christiandom was in control?

Roosveltrepub
22 Aug 10,, 09:02
So you would rather had lived under the Caliph than the Visigoth king?
Islam is not the enemy.With all due respect to our Turkish friends,a good proportion of Muslims may be.

if I was a jew or moslem hell yes...christians of the time persecuted jews and moslems...moslems wer more tolerant

Officer of Engineers
22 Aug 10,, 09:04
if I was a jew or moslem hell yes...christians of the time persecuted jews and moslems...moslems wer more tolerantTammerlane.

Roosveltrepub
22 Aug 10,, 09:10
Tammerlane. What exactly does a 14th century Mongol have to do with Iberia? Again though what christian kingdom was more tolerant in the 14th century?

Officer of Engineers
22 Aug 10,, 09:13
What exactly does a 14th century Mongol have to do with Iberia? Again though what christian kingdom was more tolerant in the 14th century?Your exact words were that Muslims were more tolerant and Tammerlane was not a Mongol though he claims to be one. He was a Turk. As for which Christian kingdom was more tolerant than Tammerlane, all of them.

Roosveltrepub
22 Aug 10,, 09:44
Your exact words were that Muslims were more tolerant and Tammerlane was not a Mongol though he claims to be one. He was a Turk. As for which Christian kingdom was more tolerant than Tammerlane, all of them.

Oh, ok since Cordoba is the issue how close did Tamerlane get to Cordoba? Which christian kingdom was more tolerant than islamic Cordoba? Pointing to Timur to highlight Cordoba is like pointing to Tim mcveigh to highlight christiandom

Officer of Engineers
22 Aug 10,, 12:56
Back stepping.

Swift Sword
22 Aug 10,, 15:02
Those talking heads objecting the loudest to the construction of this facility near the former site of the World Trade Center are the same people who shamelessly exploited the death and destruction of September 11'th, 2001 to advance their own political agendas and increase their own power.

Those deceived once whereby would do themselves, their families and this Republic a good thing by not succumbing to the siren song of such chicanery a second time.

William

Mihais
22 Aug 10,, 16:01
if I was a jew or moslem hell yes...christians of the time persecuted jews and moslems...moslems wer more tolerant

But you're not and that's all that matters.Like it or not there are different sides in a conflict and you must choose.
To say that muslims at the time were more tolerant is blatant ignorance of the status of the conquered Christian populations.I humbly remind you that political Europe just 2 generations before the conquest of Spain included much of Middle East and North Africa.I say whatever ''intolerance'' was shown to the muslims was quite justified.

Parihaka
22 Aug 10,, 17:16
And how many moslems and jews were left in Cordoba once benevolent christiandom was in control?

How many christians and Jews are left in Arabia and Persia and Afghanistan and Pakistan? Now that is. Not 500 years ago.

Blademaster
22 Aug 10,, 17:56
How many christians and Jews are left in Arabia and Persia and Afghanistan and Pakistan? Now that is. Not 500 years ago.

Not to mention Hindus.

Roosveltrepub
22 Aug 10,, 18:49
How many christians and Jews are left in Arabia and Persia and Afghanistan and Pakistan? Now that is. Not 500 years ago.

As many as want to be in Iran...and they have a seat in the Parliment. But if they were calling it the Khomeni inititive that might be relevant but they aren't They are calling it The Cordoba inititive and it's mission statement is not at all ambivilent is it? Those calling it a victory mosque are not moslems.

Roosveltrepub
22 Aug 10,, 18:52
But you're not and that's all that matters.Like it or not there are different sides in a conflict and you must choose.
To say that muslims at the time were more tolerant is blatant ignorance of the status of the conquered Christian populations.I humbly remind you that political Europe just 2 generations before the conquest of Spain included much of Middle East and North Africa.I say whatever ''intolerance'' was shown to the muslims was quite justified.

and the jews and those christians not of the "true" faith? The reason the mid east and Africa fell is the local christians were Monophysite

Julie
22 Aug 10,, 18:57
It was Muslims who pulled off the horrific event at Ground Zero and because of that no Mosque should NOT be put within a Gnat's ass of that place. PERIOD. It would be very disrespectful to the victims' families to do so, and if I was a New Yorker, I would do anything and everything in my power to stop it.

ASparr
22 Aug 10,, 19:39
Has all this sprung up out of nowhere, out of thin air, or is there a reasoning behind it, however skewed it may be? Islam has done nothing to help itself the past 20 years or so, and now must live with the consequences, even if it's only a few bad apples. Once they remove the bad apples, they can do whatever they want. The problem is that those bad apples view themselves as being in the right and the rest of the world as wrong.

What we have here, is failure to communicate, which is how you get what we have here today. Well, if that's the way they want it, they'll get it. I don't like it anymore than you do.

There have been alternative options suggested and some of them are extremely viable. For example, moving the site a few blocks further down. If they are truly interested in outreach and bridging the gap, such a simple request which could solve everyone's problems could easily be granted, right? But once again, you'll find that Islam and compromise don't mesh that well...

This is the problem. The west (incl Israel) has a tendency to see itself as more important to the problem than it sometimes is. This kind of thinking puts "us" in one category and "Islam" in another and makes no distinction between Salafists and Sufis, despite the enormous gaping chasm between the two in reality. Well, in reality it's much less a GWOT in West v. Islam as it is a civil war within Islam -- remember 85% of the victims of al-Qaeda have been Muslims, not westerners.

You're restricting the ability of Muslims to freely practice their religion because you blame them for the actions of al-Qaeda. And like it or not, that's exactly what you're doing. Saying they can practice their religion wherever they want, as long as it's not here, is restricting their religious freedom. You're empowering al-Qaeda by making them the de facto spokesman of the entire ummah.

Are you saying that they can build the mosque when al-Qaeda is defeated? Well, if there's a civil war within Islam, the best course of action would be to embrace and support the tolerant elements of Islam and not push them into the arms of people like al-Qaeda, would it not?

al-Qaeda pushes it's insane ideology of the West being at war with Islam as the basis of its struggle, and so far, their efforts have been a miserable failure: no apostate government has been overthrown, Iraqis are voting in free and fair elections, Israel continues to exist as a flourishing liberal democracy, ~180,000 Western troops are in Muslim lands, there has been no successful terrorist attack against the US since 9/11* and UBL and al-Qaeda enjoy a rock bottom approval rating in the Muslim world -- let's keep this trend going by refusing to give them a status they don't deserve as speaking for all Muslims, let's empower the Imam who once called himself a Jew and a Christian, let's show the Ummah what America is really about -- religious tolerance and liberty and justice for all people, let's stop distinguishing between Us and Them and start uniting as Americans so that this nation can truly be one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

*I know, Ft Hood, but I don't count that as a terrorist attack per se because terrorism is directed at civilian targets. A distinction without much of a difference, I admit.

Now, let the bashing of my "naivete" begin!

Also,


It was Muslims who pulled off the horrific event at Ground Zero and because of that no Mosque should NOT be put within a Gnat's ass of that place. PERIOD. It would be very disrespectful to the victims' families to do so, and if I was a New Yorker, I would do anything and everything in my power to stop it.

It was the Jews who pulled off the horrific event at the King David hotel and because of that no terror temple should be put within a flies ass of that place. COMMA. It would be very disrespectful to the victim's families to do so, and if I lived in Jerusalem, I would do anything and everything in my power to stop it.

Also, how big should the Muslim Exclusion Zone be?

And furthermore, here's a thought experiment: Did you know how far away the Mosque was before you were against it?

Julie
22 Aug 10,, 19:54
It was the Jews who pulled off the horrific event at the King David hotel and because of that no terror temple should be put within a flies ass of that place. COMMA. It would be very disrespectful to the victim's families to do so, and if I lived in Jerusalem, I would do anything and everything in my power to stop it.If that were the case, so be it.

JAD_333
22 Aug 10,, 20:14
JAD, WAB banned an Indian Brigadier for arguing that he has a perfect right to post the swastika because India had that symbol long before the Nazis.

He was right ... and WAB is officially wrong ... but no one at WAB could ever tolerate the swastika. I cannot. I will not.

I fully agree, although my point had to do with using it as an analogy. I'll leave it at that.



No, I am not saying we are at war with Islam but what I am saying is that if American Muslims wants to win this war against OBL, then this Mosque is not the way to do it.

Again I agree. But your point argues more for building the center. Although Muslims are no more in a war with OBL than Catholics were in a war with the IRA, the term "war" could be applied to their struggle to differentiate mainstream Muslims from OBL's strict fundamentalism and war of terror. Visibility is one way to bring that point home to non-Muslims.

The proof is in the pudding. Let them build if they can raise the money, which effort this controversy has probably enhanced. Then we will see if they are true to their mission statement. What can we lose? We gain the image of tolerance and shed the title of hypocrite. We say to loyal American Muslims and peaceful Muslims, you did not do this. What can they lose? They gain an opportunity to condemn terror, promote brotherhood among all religions, and show their true colors.

And we should keep in mind that the man behind the center is not a Shia or a Sunni. He is Sufi, a sect that tolerates much that fundamental Muslims rail at, like sacred dancing and interfaith brotherhood.


Sufism – What is it?

Sufism (http://www.allaboutreligion.org/sufism.htm)

Sufism (Sufism) may be best described as a mystical practice that emphasizes certain unique rituals for guiding spiritual seekers into a direct encounter with God. Muhammad is considered their chief prophet and many consider Sufism to be a mystical brand of Islam.
...

Sufis teach that Sufism may be practiced with any religion -- it is the “heart” of religion. No one faith or belief is questioned; each can follow his own church, religion, or creed.


Fundamentalist hate Sufism. They recently blew up a Sufi mosque during prayers. They consider Sufism a threat to their movement. They are right.


The attackers, assuming they're part of the constellation of radical Sunni groups operating in Pakistan, are violently opposed to differing views of Islam. Shi'ites, Ahmadis, and Sufis are all considered heretics or apostates to most of the militant groups, and thus worthy of being killed.

Pakistan questions foreign hand in Sufi shrine attack that kills 50 - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0702/Pakistan-questions-foreign-hand-in-Sufi-shrine-attack-that-kills-50)

In Somalia, the Sufi are fighting the AQ-backed group al-Shabaab. Sufi group backs more African Union troops in Somalia - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/07/31/somalia.sufis.fighting/index.html)

JAD_333
22 Aug 10,, 20:23
It was Muslims who pulled off the horrific event at Ground Zero and because of that no Mosque should NOT be put within a Gnat's ass of that place. PERIOD. It would be very disrespectful to the victims' families to do so, and if I was a New Yorker, I would do anything and everything in my power to stop it.

Not worry, Julie, there are a couple of billion gnat asses between it and the old WTC site.

Parihaka
23 Aug 10,, 01:51
Not to mention Hindus.

Indeed.

Parihaka
23 Aug 10,, 02:38
As many as want to be in Iran...and they have a seat in the Parliment. But if they were calling it the Khomeni inititive that might be relevant but they aren't They are calling it The Cordoba inititive and it's mission statement is not at all ambivilent is it? Those calling it a victory mosque are not moslems.

Right, so when I contend that using the name Cordoba is a political one as it highlights a time and place where Islam was a benificent ruler of a multi-faith society, you say Christians killed em all when they took over.
When I said, well Islam does that as well, you say not Iran, ignoring both the massive genocide elsewhere in Arabia and Persia and the severe limitiations on Judaism within Iran itself.
You then seem to go on and agree with my original contention that this is a political statement (here, I'll help you with the original post).


Jad, I'm afraid I don't attribute the naivete you do to the builders intentions. With Cordoba, all those peacefully co-existing religions were in the context of Spain being an occupied nation. The religions of Judaism and Christianity continued to exist at the beheast of the ruling class, Islam uber alles. There is nothing inherently wrong with that I guess, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with the British and French occupations of Arabia and Persia, where indeed Christian, Muslims and Jews in the main lived in peaceful co-existence, nor of the current occupation of tracts of Arabia and Afghanistan. I'm quite sure the current members of Cordoba House see those previous and the current occupations in just the same way as they see the occupation from which they take their name.

Finally you zoom off in another direction about 'Victory Mosque', something I've never mentioned and which while I wouldn't guarantee hadn't been mentioned in this thread, nobody seems to be arguing about.

So, are you posting from a handbook where if a word pops up you have a set of tangential responses all set to paste, are you mistaking forums and accidentally puting replies to me that are for arguments elsewhere, or are you simply agreeing with me but in your own special way?

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 03:06
As many as want to be in Iran...and they have a seat in the Parliment. But if they were calling it the Khomeni inititive that might be relevant but they aren't They are calling it The Cordoba inititive and it's mission statement is not at all ambivilent is it? Those calling it a victory mosque are not moslems.You're ****ing kidding me! The only Jews who are allowed to sit are those who refused to believe in the Final Solution. Are you that freaking stupid?

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 03:15
I fully agree, although my point had to do with using it as an analogy. I'll leave it at that.No, JAD, you've missed my point. The victims and the victors can never tolerate that symbol again. India is somewhat unique but be advised, those who served in the British Indian Army have no love lost for the INA and I am talking about Indians.


Again I agree. But your point argues more for building the center. Although Muslims are no more in a war with OBL than Catholics were in a war with the IRA, the term "war" could be applied to their struggle to differentiate mainstream Muslims from OBL's strict fundamentalism and war of terror. Visibility is one way to bring that point home to non-Muslims.

The proof is in the pudding. Let them build if they can raise the money, which effort this controversy has probably enhanced. Then we will see if they are true to their mission statement. What can we lose? We gain the image of tolerance and shed the title of hypocrite. We say to loyal American Muslims and peaceful Muslims, you did not do this. What can they lose? They gain an opportunity to condemn terror, promote brotherhood among all religions, and show their true colors.And you're missing the point here. This being a Mosque and this will be a Mosque and not a prayer centre as much as the builders wants you to believe, a mosque cannot and will not refuse Osama Bin Ladden. Otherwise, it will not be a mosque. A mosque cannot and will not refuse Muslims approaching for prayer ... and it is not up to an Iman to determine who is a Muslim or not.

Granted, there will be security procedures in place to prevent OBL from doing so but those who states that only non-Muslims are calling this a victory mosque, you are extremely STUPID.

Julie
23 Aug 10,, 03:46
Oh cool, the thread is back open. :cool:

Seems the key word tonite is STUPID, so I'm going to go with that. :biggrin:

I think it is so stupid to build this Mosque with the abundance of opposition to it because it may break ground, but I don't foresee it ever being finished. And if it is finished, I forsee a radical Christian (yes those do exist), flying his twin-engine plane into it.

Some of you guys can bark all you want about Americans opposing this as not allowing religious freedoms. But, what you have to understand is that we did, until 9/11. After that date, there are many of us who are intolerable to Islam in a general sense.

You see, after that date, it opened the eyes of many Americans to this religion and much reading began occurring on the subject. I can not speak for none but myself, but what I read in the Quran was very disturbing to me. I am not against each and every Muslim, but I can say, I am not at all impressed by this religion and the practice thereof, nor am I crazy about it setting up shop in my backyard.

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 03:54
Julie,

With this, I will come to the Muslim's defence ... or rather explain their cowardice. The Mistress of the Muslim Household is the Mother and woe be the idiot who challenges that authority, be it the husband or the eldest son.

Julie
23 Aug 10,, 04:11
Julie,

With this, I will come to the Muslim's defence ... or rather explain their cowardice. The Mistress of the Muslim Household is the Mother and woe be the idiot who challenges that authority, be it the husband or the eldest son.Hmmmm, now I'm confused because this is what I read:

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

Gun Grape
23 Aug 10,, 04:20
What gets me, is that this whole brew up was started by the birther idiot Pam Geller and her Jihad Watch buddy Robert Spencer just as their new book "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America" hits the stores.

I'm sure it had nothing to do with wanting to sell books.

The same woman that claims Obama was born in Kenya, writes weekly about how he is a "Secret Muslim, and loves those skin heads over in the English Defense League.


Just goes to show how dangerous one idiot and the internet can be. First the "Muslim" kid that threatened South park now Miss Geller.

If we won't allow a mosque near ground zero why do we tolerate a statue of Jesus near the OKC memorial? McVeigh was raised a Christian. Doesn't that make OKC a Christian terrorist attack? And the Statue was placed there by the Catholic church. Didn't I read about some terrorist acts in Northern Ireland that involved Catholics?

diablo49
23 Aug 10,, 04:23
The question was was it appropriate, not whether it was legal, so I answer no, it isn't appropriate, especially not after the obvious outcry against it.

Better to move it or save it for another day, like after the WTC is rebuilt.

This is going to harm relations no matter what as it is good media fodder. Ultimately it will harm relations If it is built, and it will harm relations if it is killed. Best option would to see it moved farther away and built (not that anyone's explained how they're supposed to do that in New York, and i'm not familiar with how it is building things there). A compromise between tolerance and respecting sensitivities. It would harm relations the least imo.

A different one could possibly be to wait until the WTC is built before resuming construction, probably the easier of the two too.

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 04:50
If we won't allow a mosque near ground zero why do we tolerate a statue of Jesus near the OKC memorial? McVeigh was raised a Christian. Doesn't that make OKC a Christian terrorist attack? And the Statue was placed there by the Catholic church. Didn't I read about some terrorist acts in Northern Ireland that involved Catholics?GS,

The difference is that McVeigh was sent home to hell. OBL is sitll alive and kicking.

Julie
23 Aug 10,, 05:02
More difference is there hasn't even been a new WTC built as of yet either.

Parihaka
23 Aug 10,, 05:19
Mmmm, how about a real multi-faith centre within the new WTC itself? You know, donations from all the major religions to buy out space within the building to promote interfaith harmony, prayer spaces open to all, libraries and histories of the religions etc etc etc. Kind of put the Cordoba centre to shame wouldn't it?

Kansas Bear
23 Aug 10,, 05:34
Have any new worship centers/mosques/churches/synagogues been built within the vicinity of Ground Zero, since 9/11?

Julie
23 Aug 10,, 06:06
Have any new worship centers/mosques/churches/synagogues been built within the vicinity of Ground Zero, since 9/11?No. However, prior to the September 11 attacks, at least two mosques existed near the World Trade Center. This particular site is 600' North of Ground Zero.

bigross86
23 Aug 10,, 07:08
It was the Jews who pulled off the horrific event at the King David hotel and because of that no terror temple should be put within a flies ass of that place. COMMA. It would be very disrespectful to the victim's families to do so, and if I lived in Jerusalem, I would do anything and everything in my power to stop it.

I would just like to point out for the record that the Irgun sent 3 separate warnings before actually carrying out the bombing. The French Consulate next to the King David even opened it's windows and closed the curtains to minimize blast damage.

What warnings did the folks on 9/11 get, aside from planes already crashing into buildings?

Parihaka
23 Aug 10,, 07:23
al-Qaeda pushes it's insane ideology of the West being at war with Islam as the basis of its struggle, and so far, their efforts have been a miserable failure: no apostate government has been overthrown, Iraqis are voting in free and fair elections, Israel continues to exist as a flourishing liberal democracy, ~180,000 Western troops are in Muslim lands, there has been no successful terrorist attack against the US since 9/11* and UBL and al-Qaeda enjoy a rock bottom approval rating in the Muslim world -- let's keep this trend going by refusing to give them a status they don't deserve as speaking for all Muslims, let's empower the Imam who once called himself a Jew and a Christian, let's show the Ummah what America is really about -- religious tolerance and liberty and justice for all people, let's stop distinguishing between Us and Them and start uniting as Americans so that this nation can truly be one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Nicely put.

Roosveltrepub
23 Aug 10,, 11:15
I would just like to point out for the record that the Irgun sent 3 separate warnings before actually carrying out the bombing. The French Consulate next to the King David even opened it's windows and closed the curtains to minimize blast damage.

What warnings did the folks on 9/11 get, aside from planes already crashing into buildings?

Don't stoop to using relativism to minimize acts of terror. A single member of Hamas firung a rocket into Israel is every bit the terrorist the Irgun did that were and the Al Queda who perpeptrated 911 were. I think Asparr covered this well.

Those protesting this Mosque and others are acting in opposition to American principles of relogous liberty. Freedom of speech is a responsibility and like those Nazis marching in Spokane, Glenn Beck choosing a date and sight "sacred" to the civil rights era to have his cultural protest, those protesting against other Americans religons are free to do so but irresponsible. The signs at the anti Mosque protest in NY were mostly just anti Moslem not anti mosque. The all seek to point to "the other" as a danger to their way of life. It's sad but typical this kind the Architects of these kinf of jingoist protests have an easier time attracting adherents in times of economic turmoil. Though well intentioned those protesting this have for the most part been creating propaganda images for a movement that is dieing out in the mideast.


(Julie, there is another 1200 feet away as well. It's about a quarter mile and around the corner from the 16 acre ground zero site.)


This building has as much connection to those who attacked on 911 as an Evangelical church has to Eric Rudolph or Tim Mcveigh. Since, they aren't connected except in some 7 degrees of separation way I can't see the problem unless people equate Islam with Al Queda. All the extremist lies and rhetoric against the Iman have been shown to be overblown distortions. Those who made the BS claims have long histories of distortion and a loose belief in truth. I understand the visceral reaction from people who view Islam as the enemy. Those offended by this have real feelings but they are based on a faulty belief Islam is connected to 911 the same way anyone saying Christianity is connected to an bombing at a Planned Parenthood center. The local boards recognized this and acted in a manner reflective of America’s best principles.

It's hard to not view this as anti Islamic when so many who attack the project at the same time make false and distorted attacks on the Iman as an extremist of some type. The few saying the group is well intentioned and of moderate beliefs not hostile to traditional American ones but misguided in this I respect but disagree with. The truth is so much of the rhetoric even in this thread if you reread it is anti Islam rather than anti extremist and attacks the group and Islam as extremists. IMO religious hatred should be aggressively challenged in a free society. It's the real threat to our way of life not American Moslems.

Those few Pols that are stoking this type of thinking are comparable to Blaine in 1884 whipping up the fear of Catholics and the wide spread belief their religion was hostile to American values and a threat. In my lifetime A candidate actually had to state He wouldn’t be subject to the papacy in an attempt to dispell the continued ignorance and hostility still present to Catholics. Substitute Jew, Catholic, Mormon, black or any of the other past whipping dogs of cultural prejudice and reread some of the beliefs about Islam in America or Europe. It's worth reading up a bit on the history of nativist movements in the USA as well as the western world to give today's protests perspective. This kind of movement is dangerous and hostile to democratic ideals. It has a very long history of tragic outcomes later regretted or looked at today as something that could never happen. It has no/zero history in actually protecting enlightenment ideals of western freedom. Rather than protecting traditional values the movements are the actual threat to them

How is a man carrying a sign attacking Islam different than one attacking Judaism or Catholicism? How is someone stating Islam is his enemy and he is ready to strike back when they do what Moslems want to and threaten his freedom different than someone stating Judaism is his enemy and he is ready to strike back when Jews do what Jews do and threaten his freedom? Nativism and western intolerance for religious minorities is a box of shit wrapped in colorful Patriotic wrapping paper.

Monash
23 Aug 10,, 13:42
Allahu Akbar' rings out at the Pentagon
Nancy Youssef
August 23, 2010

WASHINGTON: Inside the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial Chapel, a female air force sergeant unlaced her combat boots, set them under the pews and slipped her black veil around her hair and over her camouflaged uniform.

The men pushed back the altar for Christian services to make room for their large, green prayer rugs; then moved the podium from one side of the room to the other so that the congregation would be facing Mecca.

''Allahu Akbar,'' called out Ali Mohammed, a contractor who works at the Pentagon, raising his hands to his face as he chanted the call to prayer. ''Allahu Akbar.''

While politicians in an election year may be debating the propriety of building a Muslim centre, including a mosque, two blocks from the World Trade Centre site in New York, there's no such debate at the Pentagon.

Instead, about 400 worshippers, including Muslims, attend prayer services every week in the chapel, a non-denominational facility built over the rubble left when American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon.

Opponents of the New York mosque, including the former House speaker Newt Gingrich and the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, say it would be disrespectful of those killed on September 11, 2001, to allow Muslims to pray near the World Trade Centre site.

That's never been an issue at the Pentagon, where 125 people who worked there died that day. Muslims have been praying at its chapel since 2002, gathering every day at 2pm around the time of the second of five prayers Muslims are supposed to offer daily.

According to army statistics, of the more than 1 million serving in the army, there are 1977 active duty Muslims, 603 Muslim reservists and 464 National Guardsmen. But there are only six Muslim chaplains.

The chapel, which was dedicated in November 2002, allots time for nine faiths to worship, including Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus.

Army officials said no one had objected to Muslims worshipping at the Pentagon chapel. Before the chapel was dedicated, those of any faith who wanted to pray gathered in various conference rooms because there was no chapel.

On September 11, 2001, 189 people were killed at the Pentagon, 64 of them on Flight 77. At least 27 people killed in New York were Muslim.

Tribune Media Services

Roosveltrepub
23 Aug 10,, 14:15
Right, so when I contend that using the name Cordoba is a political one as it highlights a time and place where Islam was a benificent ruler of a multi-faith society, you say Christians killed em all when they took over.
When I said, well Islam does that as well, you say not Iran, ignoring both the massive genocide elsewhere in Arabia and Persia and the severe limitiations on Judaism within Iran itself.
You then seem to go on and agree with my original contention that this is a political statement (here, I'll help you with the original post).


Finally you zoom off in another direction about 'Victory Mosque', something I've never mentioned and which while I wouldn't guarantee hadn't been mentioned in this thread, nobody seems to be arguing about.

So, are you posting from a handbook where if a word pops up you have a set of tangential responses all set to paste, are you mistaking forums and accidentally puting replies to me that are for arguments elsewhere, or are you simply agreeing with me but in your own special way?
I used Victory Mosque because the word has been bandied about it wasn't aimed at you per se. I do have a bad habit of replying to a post and including seperate thoughts. I am a bit scattered that way and admit written communication is my weakest form and thank you for your tolerance. Feel free to ask for clarification anytime I recognize it's a shortcoming. . For it's time it was as tolerant a society as could be found in Europe or the Mideast and I view it as a bastion of learning and tolerance relative to the period so view the name as symbolism what it was relative to that. I wouldn't justify the conditions jews experience in fundamentalist mideast countries.
I do agree with you in part but where i differ is I don't believe it's accurate to view 700 years of moslems living in and governing Al Andulus as an occupation. They moved in the same as the Visigoths had 300 years earlier. It would be like saying Hungarians were occupying Moravia if the South Serbs had pushed them out 700 years later. To claim it an occupation like British Palestine is to ignore the huge and in some parts majority population of moslems who lived there with their families. They were no more Occupiers than Israel is occupying the State of Israel.

I didn't get the handbook comment. I don't recieve my marching orders from party Central :) I think what I think and part of why I come here is to challange that. But, yeah i was agreeing with you but disagreeing with some of the logic around the claims Al Andulus was an occupation not just another migration of the like occurring all over the region during the period. It just wasn't a permanent one and 700 years after they got there those who hadn't converted or left were shown the exit.

Roosveltrepub
23 Aug 10,, 14:17
This being a Mosque and this will be a Mosque and not a prayer centre as much as the builders wants you to believe, a mosque cannot and will not refuse Osama Bin Ladden. .

My ardent hope is this is built and Osama comes to visit while a few hundred Americans are in the building praying..... If He makes it off the subway He sure won't make it out of the building

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 14:26
The very fact that he can pray at the sight of his triumph is a victory for him.

Roosveltrepub
23 Aug 10,, 14:42
The very fact that he can pray at the sight of his triumph is a victory for him. Why do you think He could pray there? Osama walks into a room full of Americans and your outcome is He prays....my belief is he pays.

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 14:45
A mosque being a mosque cannot refuse him entry to prayer. At the very least, he would be allowed to finish his prayers before being swamped, making him a marytre.

JAD_333
23 Aug 10,, 14:58
No, JAD, you've missed my point. The victims and the victors can never tolerate that symbol again.

Of course not. But you missed my point. Construing a symbol that distinguishes a group within a group to be the symbol of the whole is unjust, unless the whole supports it. Not all Germans supported the the group that used the Swastika. Islam is the whole and AQ is a group within it. Not all Islam supports AQ. Thus to condemn, segregate or curse all of Islam is unjust. Therefore, when Newt Gingrich and others say that putting the center so close to the WTC site would be like hanging a Swastika next to the Holocaust Museum, they make an error in logic, e.g. ascertaining the guilt of all by the guilt of a few. That was my entire point.


And you're missing the point here. This being a Mosque and this will be a Mosque and not a prayer centre as much as the builders wants you to believe, a mosque cannot and will not refuse Osama Bin Ladden. Otherwise, it will not be a mosque. A mosque cannot and will not refuse Muslims approaching for prayer ... and it is not up to an Iman to determine who is a Muslim or not.


Refuse him how? Are you talking about sanctuary? Sermons in abstentia? Sales of his writings and tapes?




Granted, there will be security procedures in place to prevent OBL from doing so but those who states that only non-Muslims are calling this a victory mosque, you are extremely STUPID.

Permit me to disagree. I may be "extremely stupid" but the threat that some Muslims will call this a victory mosque is thin gruel for arguing against the center. My mentor in politics had a favorite saying for dealing with civil matters: It is better to err on the side of trust, than to err on the side of distrust. The center organizers say they wish to promote interfaith harmony and draw attention to the fact that most Muslims condemn what OBL did on 9/11. Say it is true; say it is untrue. In the end, it's just one unproven opinion against another.

I think. therefore, that we Americans should use this opportunity to enhance our image abroad, namely to affirm the principle of religious freedom and tolerance. Confound our critics... Let's risk erring on the side of trust. Let's do it for loyal American Muslims, if for no one else. We will gain by it no matter how things turn out. And if the center becomes a dog and pony show for the likes of OBL, then the argument will be settled, and laws on the books to shut it down will be enforced. This is the way to test all our opinions.

Mihais
23 Aug 10,, 15:26
JAD, WAB banned an Indian Brigadier for arguing that he has a perfect right to post the swastika because India had that symbol long before the Nazis.

He was right ... and WAB is officially wrong ... but no one at WAB could ever tolerate the swastika. I cannot. I will not.

No, I am not saying we are at war wtih Islam but what I am saying is that if American Muslims wants to win this war against OBL, then this Mosque is not the way to do it.

Aha,finally I got what happened to Ray.Sir,I don't understand your position.How can anything solid be built when it stands against the truth?
We all agree the mosque is a political statement.I agree with you that it will be a propaganda victory for the enemy.Time will show if we're right or wrong.However,this is happening now,in a war we're fighting in the present.WW2 ended 65 years ago.The swastika was used for ~20 years as a symbol of a political movement.I sure as heck hope that no nation that uses the eagle as a symbol will continue with that horrible practice.After all,it was used by those evil Romans,the genocidal maniacs,slavers and perpetrators of a holocaust.Actually the Romans were worse than the nazis.Not only they killed Jews in equal proportions with the Nazis,but they destroyed the second Temple and scattered the survivors in all corners of the world.
My question is how long will we continue fighting WW2?And how long tradition will be collateral damage of that war?Pardon my off-topic rant.

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 17:42
Of course not. But you missed my point. Construing a symbol that distinguishes a group within a group to be the symbol of the whole is unjust, unless the whole supports it. Not all Germans supported the the group that used the Swastika. Islam is the whole and AQ is a group within it. Not all Islam supports AQ. Thus to condemn, segregate or curse all of Islam is unjust. Therefore, when Newt Gingrich and others say that putting the center so close to the WTC site would be like hanging a Swastika next to the Holocaust Museum, they make an error in logic, e.g. ascertaining the guilt of all by the guilt of a few. That was my entire point.Is it fair? No. Is it real. Yes. Fair or not, OBL declared Holy War on 11 Sept, to not expect public repulsion to OBL's declared religion is naivety at best. Yes, it is guilt by association and it is not fair but the trama of 11 Sept expects emotions to run high and hard. To ignore it guarantees opposition and woe be he who trivialize it.

Is this fair? Not on your life but war never is. This centre got a hell of a lot more work ahead of it before this repulsion can be overcome.


Refuse him how? Are you talking about sanctuary? Sermons in abstentia? Sales of his writings and tapes? No mosque on earth can deny OBL entry for prayer. Whether he can get to the gates is another question.


Permit me to disagree. I may be "extremely stupid" but the threat that some Muslims will call this a victory mosque is thin gruel for arguing against the center.But the repulsion is real and to have OBL claims victory, that just adds to repulsion.


My mentor in politics had a favorite saying for dealing with civil matters: It is better to err on the side of trust, than to err on the side of distrust.I am thinking to deny the enemy.


The center organizers say they wish to promote interfaith harmony and draw attention to the fact that most Muslims condemn what OBL did on 9/11. Say it is true; say it is untrue. In the end, it's just one unproven opinion against another.And one of their mistakes. You cannot logic away an emotion as strong as repulsion, especially when you are seen not to compromise on anything.


I think. therefore, that we Americans should use this opportunity to enhance our image abroad, namely to affirm the principle of religious freedom and tolerance. Confound our critics... Let's risk erring on the side of trust. Let's do it for loyal American Muslims, if for no one else. We will gain by it no matter how things turn out. And if the center becomes a dog and pony show for the likes of OBL, then the argument will be settled, and laws on the books to shut it down will be enforced. This is the way to test all our opinions.The Muslim world abroad don't really care about New York one way or the other. This is not about them. This is about us. No one is placating the repulsion.

I see at least two more propaganda victory for OBL. If the mosque succeeds, then it has become corrupted by the Americans. If it is shut down, the Americans can only tolerate the Islam that they can control.

Officer of Engineers
23 Aug 10,, 17:45
My question is how long will we continue fighting WW2?And how long tradition will be collateral damage of that war?Pardon my off-topic rant.We've tried compromises but the Brigadier would not budge. We have no issues if a swastika is displayed within context of a strictly Indian religious symbol, ie on a Buddha but the Brigadier refuses to post anything that does not scream Nazi at first glance.

The issue came ahead when we banned an obvious Nazi who used the swastika at first as an Indian religious symbol. We let it go for a while but when his Nazism came out, we banned his ass and his swastika. The Brigadier took offence and that's when a big hoopla occurred.

Mihais
23 Aug 10,, 18:18
I do agree with you in part but where i differ is I don't believe it's accurate to view 700 years of moslems living in and governing Al Andulus as an occupation. They moved in the same as the Visigoths had 300 years earlier. It would be like saying Hungarians were occupying Moravia if the South Serbs had pushed them out 700 years later. To claim it an occupation like British Palestine is to ignore the huge and in some parts majority population of moslems who lived there with their families. They were no more Occupiers than Israel is occupying the State of Israel.

I didn't get the handbook comment. I don't recieve my marching orders from party Central :) I think what I think and part of why I come here is to challange that. But, yeah i was agreeing with you but disagreeing with some of the logic around the claims Al Andulus was an occupation not just another migration of the like occurring all over the region during the period. It just wasn't a permanent one and 700 years after they got there those who hadn't converted or left were shown the exit.

Come on Roos.You cannot have mass migration in the absence of some form of conquest.Conquest=>occupation,as tough at it sounds.You know that the Spanish term is Reconquista.That is someone else conquered Iberian lands and occupied them .And you know of course that it was,despite all intricacies a common goal of the Christians for some 500 years.I'd say that rather the Spanish were using a rhetoric similar to the Israeli one,that of the natives returning home after a long time.

Mihais
23 Aug 10,, 18:26
The issue came ahead when we banned an obvious Nazi who used the swastika at first as an Indian religious symbol. We let it go for a while but when his Nazism came out, we banned his ass and his swastika. The Brigadier took offence and that's when a big hoopla occurred.

That's fair enough,Sir.Usage of the symbols in an appropriate historical or religious context with the condemnation of the criminal rhetoric(for which the ancestors have nothing to do) is the way to go,IMO.But I'm still sorry for the Brigadier,he was a valuable member.

gunnut
23 Aug 10,, 18:39
So....who's funding this mosque? Donations from the average folks? Or someone with more money and possibly some political motives? What if we found out the money comes from the same source as the one funding AQ?

We're not saying they couldn't build the mosque. We're saying they SHOULDN'T build the mosque.

The swastika was a good example. It's a religious symbol originated in India. It was spread via buddhism and we could see it displayed prominently in temples in Japan and China (of course it's flipped over; or should I say it's in the correct orientation), not to mention in India. Hitler hijacked the symbol much like AQ hijacked islam for political purposes. Hitler dirtied the swastika with his horrific acts. It is now universally reviled in the west. Indians have perfectly good argument to use that symbol in the US, as protected by the constitution. But out of respect for the jewish community, they don't. That's the difference between building a mosque, and building a mosque near ground zero.

They have all the rights in the world to build the mosque there. But out of respect and sensitivity, they shouldn't. Much like we don't build hindu temples with swastikas next to a jewish community center. We have the right, but we shouldn't.

Those who want the mosque built are insensitive to us like a klan rally in Harlem is to the black community.

There, I just pulled the race card.

Stan187
23 Aug 10,, 21:08
So....who's funding this mosque? Donations from the average folks? Or someone with more money and possibly some political motives? What if we found out the money comes from the same source as the one funding AQ?

We're not saying they couldn't build the mosque. We're saying they SHOULDN'T build the mosque.

The swastika was a good example. It's a religious symbol originated in India. It was spread via buddhism and we could see it displayed prominently in temples in Japan and China (of course it's flipped over; or should I say it's in the correct orientation), not to mention in India. Hitler hijacked the symbol much like AQ hijacked islam for political purposes. Hitler dirtied the swastika with his horrific acts. It is now universally reviled in the west. Indians have perfectly good argument to use that symbol in the US, as protected by the constitution. But out of respect for the jewish community, they don't. That's the difference between building a mosque, and building a mosque near ground zero.

They have all the rights in the world to build the mosque there. But out of respect and sensitivity, they shouldn't. Much like we don't build hindu temples with swastikas next to a jewish community center. We have the right, but we shouldn't.

Those who want the mosque built are insensitive to us like a klan rally in Harlem is to the black community.

There, I just pulled the race card.

Below, I've included some interesting links discussing the funding but I have some comments as well. As you have implied, this is not an issue of what is legal. This is an issue of respect. Its not illegal to build near Ground Zero. But it is damn well in bad taste, it is sticking in the eye of America, and it lets us know where everyone stand. It is appalling that more moderate Muslims are not coming out in droves voicing their disapproval like that beauty queen.

This is no less than a PSYOPS campaign. When Muslims conquered Jerusalem, it was a strategic move to build the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque on top of Temple Mound. Know your place, you have been conquered, so to speak. This is a very similar move. And if it happens, it certainly sends a message of triumph over the US to Muslims worldwide. Sure, the conquest is more subtle. The Umma will understand the subtle message in that specific way, even if part of the American people refuse to. It is not called the Cordoba Project at random.

Regarding the funding, it is still undisclosed. Some of the links I've provided talk about the issue. They will not refuse funding from Iran or Saudi Arabia. We should definitely be worried about it. If you recall, it is not just a mosque being built, it is an Islamic center. This is not a comparable concept to the local JCC or YMCA. It has a symbolic role, and it is a distinctly Saudi idea. And guess what, wherever there is an Islamic center founded on the Saudi model, Wahhabi-Salafiya ideology tends to follow.

Ground Zero mosque developers refuse to outright reject funding from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/builders_leave_door_open_to_unholy_NadIfsGSyhBFOms S7S2QOL)

J O S H U A P U N D I T: Pelosi: “Investigate Who's Funding Ground Zero Mosque Opponents" (http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2010/08/pelosi-investigate-whos-funding-ground.html)

Funding for the Ground Zero mosque is a big secret, Saudi oil money likely needed | The Keane Edge | IrishCentral (http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/the_keane_edge/funding-for-the-ground-zero-mosque-is-a-big-secret-and-likely-saudi-big-oil-money-101313304.html)

JAD_333
23 Aug 10,, 21:14
Is it fair? No. Is it real. Yes.

Real, indeed. Or, we wouldn't talking about it.


Fair or not,

We already agree it's not fair, although I used the word unjust. I should have said illogical. Taking it to the extreme, it's illogical to blame you for 9/11 because you are a human and humans were to blame. If we blame the whole class, in this case Islam, we set ourselves in opposition to the whole class. What returns to us is hostility and then all the follow-on effects.



OBL declared Holy War on 11 Sept, to not expect public repulsion to OBL's declared religion is naivety at best. Yes, it is guilt by association and it is not fair but the trama of 11 Sept expects emotions to run high and hard. To ignore it guarantees opposition and woe be he who trivialize it.

Col, I expected the revulsion (shared it, too) and have acknowledged it all along. I understand
the heartfelt emotion and the sincere outcry. But along with it comes arguments (as if the emotions can argue) driven by misinformation and misunderstanding. Am I being naive to give voice to a different perspective? Should I go curl up on a couch and ignore it, not discuss it, not question the logic, not look for a solution?

I know OBL declared holy war on us, have known it since he attacked our embassies and the USS Cole. A small band of Muslim terrorists committed a whole religion to war? I don't think so, but that is what many people believe. Better he had been a Christian. Then this Christian nation could not have done more than blame him, for to blame Christianity would be to blame themselves.


Is this fair? Not on your life but war never is. This centre got a hell of a lot more work ahead of it before this repulsion can be overcome.

That is an understatement.


No mosque on earth can deny OBL entry for prayer. Whether he can get to the gates is another question.

Pretty much true of any religion. But the days of sanctuary are gone in this part of the world. If the center harbors him, there will be arrests and convictions.



But the repulsion is real and to have OBL claims victory, that just adds to repulsion. I am thinking to deny the enemy.

I'd bet my bottom dollar, the center being Sufi-run will disavow any claims to that effect made by OBL. The only victory I see ahead is being created by the very outcry we're witnessing now. If the center is built over the opposition it now faces, it will be a victory of sorts.


And one of their mistakes. You cannot logic away an emotion as strong as repulsion, especially when you are seen not to compromise on anything.

In your long life I am sure you've heard people try to explain their emotions. I don't believe people can, beyond describing the genesis of them, which explains why reason never suffices to quell emotions. The emotion of 9/11 is not going to go away for a century or more. But emotion is not per se a block to the exercise of intelligence. For example, I was angry at my son for something he did; then I learned that he didn't do it. I was still angry, but no longer at him. I was angry that my county board of supervisors passed a new tax, but not angry at the board members who voted against it. Emotion and intelligence can work together. In my experience honest people will redirect their emotions the more they learn about the cause of them.


The Muslim world abroad don't really care about New York one way or the other. This is not about them. This is about us. No one is placating the repulsion.

I care less about what the Muslim feels about NYC than I care about how we react to our revulsion.


I see at least two more propaganda victory for OBL. If the mosque succeeds, then it has become corrupted by the Americans. If it is shut down, the Americans can only tolerate the Islam that they can control.

Damned if you do; damned if you don't. So do the right thing and trust that the rest of the world is not as cynical as he is.

Pleasure...

highsea
23 Aug 10,, 21:15
...The only thing I simply can't explain is: why have the attacks against targets in Pakistan accelerated?

<snip>

WHY is he killing the Brothers in Pakistan? Makes no sense.Maybe he doesn't know?

I think he's handed the CT over to Biden. Hillary makes the foreign policy decisions, Obama concentrates on his domestic agenda.

So Obama hears about the strikes, but after the fact.

JAD_333
23 Aug 10,, 21:26
Allahu Akbar' rings out at the Pentagon
Nancy Youssef
August 23, 2010
...
The chapel, which was dedicated in November 2002, allots time for nine faiths to worship, including Muslims, Jews, Christians and Hindus.

Army officials said no one had objected to Muslims worshipping at the Pentagon chapel. Before the chapel was dedicated, those of any faith who wanted to pray gathered in various conference rooms because there was no chapel.

Tribune Media Services

No opposition. Victory denied.

highsea
23 Aug 10,, 22:00
No opposition. Victory denied.Can the two be compared? Will the cordoba mosque allow 9 different religions to worship there?

JAD_333
23 Aug 10,, 22:28
Below, I've included some interesting links discussing the funding...

Although the links don't really enlighten us much, funding is critical to a good many people's point of view. IMO, many people who do not now oppose the center's Park Ave location would drop any support if they learn the money is coming from any source with connections to Iran or any person or country linked to AQ or other terrorist organizations. Anyway, were that the case, the avowed purpose of the center would be hopelessly compromised.

The problem is finding out money sources prior to construction The only way is for the center to stick to its plan to raise the money from American Muslims, being careful to ensure that no donor is acting as a funnel for money from Iran, etal, and then volunteer to be totally transparent. Too much is riding on it for them to leave unanswered the question of financing. If people believe, true of not, that OBL put one dollar into it, it will never accomplish its purpose, and will be, as many people now fear, a monument to the 9/11 attackers. A mosque or center that wants to represent the best of Islam can't succeed if the worst of it is the paymaster.

JAD_333
23 Aug 10,, 22:41
Can the two be compared?

hmmm...well the Pentagon is hallowed ground and the chapel is right inside. While we're on the subject, the Army was very wise in doing this. It has a fair number of Muslim members and civilian workers, and it wanted to be sure they weren't held to blame for what happened. It was saying to them, you're one of us, not one of them. The big difference I see is that the US gov't funds the chapel/mosque/temple...


Will the cordoba mosque allow 9 different religions to worship there?

I wondered about that too. Is there any reason why not?

Parihaka
23 Aug 10,, 23:01
I used Victory Mosque because the word has been bandied about it wasn't aimed at you per se. I do have a bad habit of replying to a post and including seperate thoughts. I am a bit scattered that way and admit written communication is my weakest form and thank you for your tolerance. Feel free to ask for clarification anytime I recognize it's a shortcoming. .

You don't need to appologise to me matey, I just get confused over your posts sometimes. If I'm abrupt it's just the way I am. I recognise that you can be tangential in the same way I can be abrupt. ;)

Parihaka
23 Aug 10,, 23:05
Aha,finally I got what happened to Ray.Sir,I don't understand your position.How can anything solid be built when it stands against the truth?
We all agree the mosque is a political statement.I agree with you that it will be a propaganda victory for the enemy.Time will show if we're right or wrong.However,this is happening now,in a war we're fighting in the present.WW2 ended 65 years ago.The swastika was used for ~20 years as a symbol of a political movement.I sure as heck hope that no nation that uses the eagle as a symbol will continue with that horrible practice.After all,it was used by those evil Romans,the genocidal maniacs,slavers and perpetrators of a holocaust.Actually the Romans were worse than the nazis.Not only they killed Jews in equal proportions with the Nazis,but they destroyed the second Temple and scattered the survivors in all corners of the world.
My question is how long will we continue fighting WW2?And how long tradition will be collateral damage of that war?Pardon my off-topic rant.

With Ray it was more complex than that. It wasn't the fact he argued about the swastika, it was the abuse he then leveled both publicly and privately against the moderators and admins when we made the decision the swastika couldn't be used as an avatar. Wrong or right, admin/mod decisions are final. Ray is still welcome back if he decides to abide by the forum rules.

sappersgt
23 Aug 10,, 23:25
I recognise that you can be tangential in the same way I can be abrupt. ;)

I first thought he was talking about the nudie beach...;):biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
24 Aug 10,, 05:44
Real, indeed. Or, we wouldn't talking about it.



We already agree it's not fair, although I used the word unjust. I should have said illogical. Taking it to the extreme, it's illogical to blame you for 9/11 because you are a human and humans were to blame. If we blame the whole class, in this case Islam, we set ourselves in opposition to the whole class. What returns to us is hostility and then all the follow-on effects.




Col, I expected the revulsion (shared it, too) and have acknowledged it all along. I understand
the heartfelt emotion and the sincere outcry. But along with it comes arguments (as if the emotions can argue) driven by misinformation and misunderstanding. Am I being naive to give voice to a different perspective? Should I go curl up on a couch and ignore it, not discuss it, not question the logic, not look for a solution?

I know OBL declared holy war on us, have known it since he attacked our embassies and the USS Cole. A small band of Muslim terrorists committed a whole religion to war? I don't think so, but that is what many people believe. Better he had been a Christian. Then this Christian nation could not have done more than blame him, for to blame Christianity would be to blame themselves.



That is an understatement.



Pretty much true of any religion. But the days of sanctuary are gone in this part of the world. If the center harbors him, there will be arrests and convictions.




I'd bet my bottom dollar, the center being Sufi-run will disavow any claims to that effect made by OBL. The only victory I see ahead is being created by the very outcry we're witnessing now. If the center is built over the opposition it now faces, it will be a victory of sorts.



In your long life I am sure you've heard people try to explain their emotions. I don't believe people can, beyond describing the genesis of them, which explains why reason never suffices to quell emotions. The emotion of 9/11 is not going to go away for a century or more. But emotion is not per se a block to the exercise of intelligence. For example, I was angry at my son for something he did; then I learned that he didn't do it. I was still angry, but no longer at him. I was angry that my county board of supervisors passed a new tax, but not angry at the board members who voted against it. Emotion and intelligence can work together. In my experience honest people will redirect their emotions the more they learn about the cause of them.



I care less about what the Muslim feels about NYC than I care about how we react to our revulsion.



Damned if you do; damned if you don't. So do the right thing and trust that the rest of the world is not as cynical as he is.

Pleasure...Jad, you are still trying to logic out the emotion. You are not hearing the victim. All the victim wants is to scream. Let her scream. Do not try to stop her. Do not even try to change her mind. Let her scream. Let her finish screaming. Then and maybe then, you can argue some logic.

This Mosque is at the wrong time, wrong place. There is absolutely no question about that. The emotion is NOT exhausted. It is that raw. That hurt. Your analogy is wrong. It is not that you found your son did something wrong and then learned you were mistaken. I will give you one better because I've learned one better.

Discover your daughter was raped ... which one of your daughter's former boyfriends would you trust to leave her alone with, especially with your daughter screaming for her father? Do you want an ex boyfriend of your daughter to say after that that she was a good or a bad laid ... no matter how true or how false it is.

And as an ex boyfriends go, do you want any of them saying they had sex with your daughter?

I know I am pressing it but you are NOT feeling it personal as I do. I want OBL to die with all his dreams crushed and if that means that a mosque cannot be built, then so be it. This is about winning a war, NOT a popularity contest.

kuku
24 Aug 10,, 05:59
I choose the 'they should not build it' and 'it will not harm relations' options, really if the situation is such that any moslem centre is going to aggravate people, then the relations could not be any worse building the mosque would not make a difference might even incite violence.

Is there a legal side of this, can anyone really stop them from building the mosque (legally), as i understand it- eventually everything ends up in the legal system.

Officer of Engineers
24 Aug 10,, 06:01
You've missed the point. No, building the mosque would not make it any worst ... but not building the mosque can make it better. The Mosque leaders making a gesture.

kuku
24 Aug 10,, 06:56
You've missed the point. No, building the mosque would not make it any worst ... but not building the mosque can make it better. The Mosque leaders making a gesture.
Don't see how not building the mosque makes any difference (for the better or worse), especially for a person who does not want a mosque to be built at that spot (seems to be more of a win loose situation to me).

There seems to be a lot of work that the moslem community will have to do in USA(and the world) to improve their image, meanwhile every terrorist caught and every terrorist act will keep on damaging it.

Officer of Engineers
24 Aug 10,, 06:58
No target and therefore no target of opportunity ... and therefore, forcing the terrorist to do his homework to choose a better target instead of an obvious target.

JAD_333
24 Aug 10,, 16:11
Jad, you are still trying to logic out the emotion. You are not hearing the victim. All the victim wants is to scream. Let her scream. Do not try to stop her. Do not even try to change her mind. Let her scream. Let her finish screaming. Then and maybe then, you can argue some logic.

I cannot logic out the emotion. You are right there. But that is not my purpose. I want the emotion to be directed at the right culprit. The culprit is not all Islamic people; it's OBL. I've gotten many people to see that without diminishing their anger and outrage.


This Mosque is at the wrong time, wrong place. There is absolutely no question about that.

I must disagree. There is very much a question about that, as we can see by the national debate going on. But as to wrong time, wrong place...wrong place is crux of the issue. And it is an issue made manifest by all the fuss generated by self-serving politicians. They are clamoring about the proximity and most of the public is going along, not having been there, not knowing all the circumstances, but simply because they accept the premise--all Islam is to blame, ergo no Islamic-connected buildings should be near the WTC site. If the premise is right, they are right. If it's wrong, acting on it is not good for our country. Rejecting is.


The emotion is NOT exhausted. It is that raw. That hurt. Your analogy is wrong. It is not that you found your son did something wrong and then learned you were mistaken. I will give you one better because I've learned one better.

Discover your daughter was raped ... which one of your daughter's former boyfriends would you trust to leave her alone with, especially with your daughter screaming for her father? Do you want an ex boyfriend of your daughter to say after that that she was a good or a bad laid ... no matter how true or how false it is.

And as an ex boyfriends go, do you want any of them saying they had sex with your daughter?


The analogy is fine, and you are right, as far as it goes, but first I would make sure the boy accused is the right one.


I know I am pressing it but you are NOT feeling it personal as I do. I want OBL to die with all his dreams crushed and if that means that a mosque cannot be built, then so be it. This is about winning a war, NOT a popularity contest.

I don't know how to compare your feelings to mine. I am pretty angry about it still and I would like to see OBL get his. But unlike you, I don't believe moving this center brings us any closer to getting him. Maybe it takes us farther from it. What help can we expect from all the Muslims who had nothing to do with the WTC attack and condemned it, if we say to them, you are equally responsible as OBL. One final thing, this is about winning a war. It's public diplomacy, a tool that is used all the time by governments to draw sympathy away from our enemies.

Whatever happens, I still want you in my foxhole.:)

Gun Grape
25 Aug 10,, 00:44
I'm not normally a Ron Paul fan. But he makes some good points in this article

Demagoguing the Mosque by Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul690.html)




Demagoguing the Mosque

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

]There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam – the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society – protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque – a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law – in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

gunnut
25 Aug 10,, 01:08
My question is still the same: why do we have to be "sensitive" to muslims while they don't give a flying rat's ass about us?

dalem
25 Aug 10,, 01:26
When did it become wrong to simply dislike things? Or people?

-dale

Kansas Bear
25 Aug 10,, 02:49
We're not saying they couldn't build the mosque. We're saying they SHOULDN'T build the mosque..


I believe this is the real issue.

With all the hype and publicity, maybe the gunnut's statement should be our perspective.

The individuals involved in building this "worship center", should be the ones worried about showing respect for those murdered on 9/11. Regardless of the legalities of the issue, the "ethical issues", in reality, are being shouldered by them(whether they care to acknowledge it or not).

JAD_333
25 Aug 10,, 03:05
My question is still the same: why do we have to be "sensitive" to muslims while they don't give a flying rat's ass about us?

I guess by sensitive you mean "care about". I can't answer your question, but I'll throw out a few thoughts about sensitivity.

First of all, you may be sensitive to someone who is insensitive to you or vice versa.

We tend to expect mutual sensitivity, and retaliate when we don't get it, e.g., "dude, if you don't care about me, why should I care about you?"

But, in reality, sensitivity demands nothing of you, especially not to act against your better judgment, e.g. The judge felt sorry for the defendant, but sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

In the same way, sensitivity of the WTC victim's feelings doesn't justify trampling on the rights of others, whether they be sadists, deadbeats, creeps, or people with no sensitivity for you.

zraver
25 Aug 10,, 03:18
whether they be sadists, deadbeats, creeps, or people with no sensitivity for you.

The problem is, as has now been revealed this Iman and his backers support the killing of Americans and American allies. He is tied to Hamas, IHH, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. We the people are currently paying him to tell Arabs that America is worse than Al Queda, he supports the destruction of the Jewish state etc ad nausuem.

This shouldn;t be about religion, but about taking an enemy to our breast. The Iman wants to build there for no other reason than Islamic triumphalism. His wife publicy said anyone who disagrees with them is full of hate and is a racist. Her husband has rendered material support for terrorists whose attacks have killed Americans. He should be in jail for treason. The religion is unimportant, he could twist any of them to support his antisemitism and anti-American agenda, his actions are the issue.