Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (2 Viewers)

[drummer]

If you liberals were so right on all the issues, why do you always lose public opinion?

Always? Pretty sure liberals are just ahead of their time. See: Civil Rights, Women's Rights etc

Downhill ever since.

 

[McJose]

If you liberals were so right on all the issues, why do you always lose public opinion?

Always? Pretty sure liberals are just ahead of their time. See: Civil Rights, Women's Rights etc

Downhill ever since.

link

 

[Gigantomachia]

If you liberals were so right on all the issues, why do you always lose public opinion?

Always? Pretty sure liberals are just ahead of their time. See: Civil Rights, Women's Rights etc

Downhill ever since.

good thing they dont let chicks be mods round these parts.

 

[Parrothead]

If you liberals were so right on all the issues, why do you always lose public opinion?

Always? Pretty sure liberals are just ahead of their time. See: Civil Rights, Women's Rights etc

Downhill ever since.

good thing they dont let chicks be mods round these parts.

we'd have nothing but gardening, baking, and 'how to avoid sex' threads.. oof

 

[jon_mx]

Just on this page....cheeky, moops, sweeney, and Gigantomachia....don't really want to go back through all 25 pages. HTH

got capitalized, sweeeet.

You don't even capitalize yourself. Besides, I only listed people on page 25, I did not go through the whole thread. Consider yourself added to the little Red Book.

 

[Gigantomachia]

If you liberals were so right on all the issues, why do you always lose public opinion?

Always? Pretty sure liberals are just ahead of their time. See: Civil Rights, Women's Rights etc

Downhill ever since.

good thing they dont let chicks be mods round these parts.

we'd have nothing but gardening, baking, and 'how to avoid sex' threads.. oof

dont forget the what are you thinking thread.

 

[badmojo1006]

Just on this page....cheeky, moops, sweeney, and Gigantomachia....don't really want to go back through all 25 pages. HTH

got capitalized, sweeeet.

You don't even capitalize yourself. Besides, I only listed people on page 25, I did not go through the whole thread. Consider yourself added to the little Red Book.

 

[Statorama]

If you liberals were so right on all the issues, why do you always lose public opinion?

Always? Pretty sure liberals are just ahead of their time. See: Civil Rights, Women's Rights etc

Downhill ever since.

good thing they dont let chicks be mods round these parts.

That Italian chick isn't a mod anymore?

 

[Statorama]

Jesus, reading about that guy Rauf that's involved with this center is an eye opener. The dude wants Shiaria Law here and all kinds of other whacked stuff (says US was complicit in 9/11 attacks)

 

[mad sweeney]

Jesus, reading about that guy Rauf that's involved with this center is an eye opener. The dude wants Shiaria Law here and all kinds of other whacked stuff (says US was complicit in 9/11 attacks)

Link? Or are you basing it on his comment of America not deserving it but our policies were an accessory?

 

[Statorama]

Jesus, reading about that guy Rauf that's involved with this center is an eye opener. The dude wants Shiaria Law here and all kinds of other whacked stuff (says US was complicit in 9/11 attacks)

Link? Or are you basing it on his comment of America not deserving it but our policies were an accessory?

He said we were an accessory, which makes us complicit in the attacks

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Rauf said.

"Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A," Rauf said.

There's plenty more on this guy if you just do a simple google search. He's bad news bro.

 

[Novice2]

Jesus, reading about that guy Rauf that's involved with this center is an eye opener. The dude wants Shiaria Law here and all kinds of other whacked stuff (says US was complicit in 9/11 attacks)

Link? Or are you basing it on his comment of America not deserving it but our policies were an accessory?

He said we were an accessory, which makes us complicit in the attacks

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Rauf said.

"Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A," Rauf said.

There's plenty more on this guy if you just do a simple google search. He's bad news bro.

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-shariah-law-is-all-a_b_190825.html

 

[mad sweeney]

Jesus, reading about that guy Rauf that's involved with this center is an eye opener. The dude wants Shiaria Law here and all kinds of other whacked stuff (says US was complicit in 9/11 attacks)

Link? Or are you basing it on his comment of America not deserving it but our policies were an accessory?

He said we were an accessory, which makes us complicit in the attacks

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Rauf said.

"Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A," Rauf said.

There's plenty more on this guy if you just do a simple google search. He's bad news bro.

I don't see anything wrong with what he said there. I also note he used "we" when referring to the US as well as "crime", which both put his values on the side of the US and not with Muslims or "them". I guess I took the word complicit in this case to have meant pre-knowledge and/or actual involvement as opposed to an idealistic accessory by our policies and actions worldwide.

 

[mad sweeney]

Link? Or are you basing it on his comment of America not deserving it but our policies were an accessory?

He said we were an accessory, which makes us complicit in the attacks

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Rauf said.

"Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A," Rauf said.

There's plenty more on this guy if you just do a simple google search. He's bad news bro.

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/what-shariah-law-is-all-a_b_190825.html

Nothing he's saying in here is any different than other religious activists who want to change laws to conform to their Biblical codes. What I really find interesting in there is that he speaks as a very progressive Muslim:

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

You don't really hear many Imams talk like this here and definitely not in hardcore Muslim countries (at least not for long). He sounds like he's looking to modernize Islam and Shariah, especially for life in the US and play by the rules of the justice system. It doesn't look like he wants Shariah Law here as it is in Iran or SA, but one in unison, or at least in as much unison as any other religion's moral code is. If that's his "compromise" for life here in the US to match our "compromise" of allowing something that is legal and within his/their rights even though it's distasteful to a lot of us.

 

[drummer]

Pat Robertson say some crazy s**t too ya know.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Jesus, reading about that guy Rauf that's involved with this center is an eye opener. The dude wants Shiaria Law here and all kinds of other whacked stuff (says US was complicit in 9/11 attacks)

Link? Or are you basing it on his comment of America not deserving it but our policies were an accessory?

He said we were an accessory, which makes us complicit in the attacks

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Rauf said.

"Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A," Rauf said.

There's plenty more on this guy if you just do a simple google search. He's bad news bro.

There are a lot of people who feel this way, that a lot of our policies lead to people hating us and being attacked. That doesn't mean he is going to be training jihadists on American soil now.

Why is that statement so offensive to you?

 

[ericttspikes]

Jesus, reading about that guy Rauf that's involved with this center is an eye opener. The dude wants Shiaria Law here and all kinds of other whacked stuff (says US was complicit in 9/11 attacks)

Link? Or are you basing it on his comment of America not deserving it but our policies were an accessory?

He said we were an accessory, which makes us complicit in the attacks

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Rauf said.

"Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A," Rauf said.

There's plenty more on this guy if you just do a simple google search. He's bad news bro.

Glenn Beck is bad news too...

"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

 

[jamny]

Obviously some American policies anger other people but to say they are an accessory to the crime is a bit much. Wouldn't that mean that the policies were enacted purposely to create what happened on 9/11? I'm not up on the legal definition of the term as it applies to policies instead of individuals.

Maybe it's just a poor choice of word's by the Imam. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[flufhed]

Damn, more right-wing zealot hate-mongers coming out of the closet....

Howard Dean Comes Out Against Proposed Mosque Near Ground Zero

Published August 18, 2010 | NewsCore

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, in a surprise move Wednesday, became the second high profile Democrat to come out against the building of a cultural center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

“This is something that we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith," Dean said in an interview with WABC radio.

"We have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims.

"That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion … So I think a good reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.”

This is really sad and pathetic. How can the man be so ignorant? That site doesn't belong to any particular religion for the upteenth time, the community center is going to be built TWO BLOCKS AWAY!!!And why is it an affront to anyone, unless you blame 9/11 on American Muslims? I just can't fathom this willingness to give in to what appears to me to be nothing more than the worst sort of bigotry.

I thought the distance argument had been debunked.

Define "debunked" in this instance.

 

[timschochet]

There's plenty more on this guy if you just do a simple google search. He's bad news bro.

Even if the worst stories about this Imam are true (which I doubt) I still don't see how it changes the question at hand, which is whether an Islamic Community Center containing a mosque should be built two blocks away from Ground Zero.It reminds me of a debate I had a long time ago with my dad over Ruby Ridge. My dad defended the federal agents, and his reasoning was the guy holed up there was a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite. My comment was, so what? How does that justify what the Feds did? To me it did not.

 

[perry147]

Al Qaeda != Islam

The proposed center and the people that would use it have about as much in common to the 9/11 hijackers as people in a YMCA do to Timothy McVeigh.

'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts

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."

 

[Boston]

I don't know why the Mosque story is getting so much publicity...there are more important issues to concentrate on...Christmas is right around the corner and we need to make sure no one utters the words Merry Christmas or puts up anything resembling a cross on anything close to public land...now that's in bad taste...

 

[Christo]

Damn, more right-wing zealot hate-mongers coming out of the closet....

Howard Dean Comes Out Against Proposed Mosque Near Ground Zero

Published August 18, 2010 | NewsCore

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, in a surprise move Wednesday, became the second high profile Democrat to come out against the building of a cultural center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

“This is something that we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith," Dean said in an interview with WABC radio.

"We have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims.

"That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion … So I think a good reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.”

This is really sad and pathetic. How can the man be so ignorant? That site doesn't belong to any particular religion for the upteenth time, the community center is going to be built TWO BLOCKS AWAY!!!And why is it an affront to anyone, unless you blame 9/11 on American Muslims? I just can't fathom this willingness to give in to what appears to me to be nothing more than the worst sort of bigotry.

I thought the distance argument had been debunked.

Define "debunked" in this instance.

The pro-mosque side has made fun of the right wing talking heads for trying to come up with arbitrary distances which would make it okay for the mosque to be built. And throughout this thread the pro-mosque side has provided links to protests all over the country regarding mosques being built in their communities. The pro-mosque side has done a good job showing the distance argument is a farce. Therefore, it's hypocritial for someone on the pro-mosque side to now start arguing that an arbitrary distance somehow makes it okay for the mosque to be built.

 

[Burton]

Here's the main point: Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that this Imam is truly what his defenders claim he is: a moderate whose goal is to bring peace and understanding and better relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews. We have reached a point where the proposed building is not going to help bring those things about; this much is clear. If 68% of Americans, according to the latest polls, are against this, then putting the building where it is currently proposed will only heighten tensions.

Therefore if the Imam truly means what he says, and if his goal is really to lesson tensions and increase understanding, he will relocate the building. If he refuses to do so, what are we to make of his claims? Obviously, we can conclude at that point that they are false, and peace and understanding is not what he had in mind at all.

 

[Boston]

Here's the main point: Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that this Imam is truly what his defenders claim he is: a moderate whose goal is to bring peace and understanding and better relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews. We have reached a point where the proposed building is not going to help bring those things about; this much is clear. If 68% of Americans, according to the latest polls, are against this, then putting the building where it is currently proposed will only heighten tensions.Therefore if the Imam truly means what he says, and if his goal is really to lesson tensions and increase understanding, he will relocate the building. If he refuses to do so, what are we to make of his claims? Obviously, we can conclude at that point that they are false, and peace and understanding is not what he had in mind at all.

Too many pages to read her so maybe it's answered but have they disclosed where all the funding for this Mosque is coming from? Like anything else following the money is always a key to getting to someone's real intentions...

 

[timschochet]

The pro-mosque side has made fun of the right wing talking heads for trying to come up with arbitrary distances which would make it okay for the mosque to be built. And throughout this thread the pro-mosque side has provided links to protests all over the country regarding mosques being built in their communities. The pro-mosque side has done a good job showing the distance argument is a farce. Therefore, it's hypocritial for someone on the pro-mosque side to now start arguing that an arbitrary distance somehow makes it okay for the mosque to be built.

I never argued any of those things, so that doesn't make me a hypocrite (at least on this issue!) Personally I don't care how close the Community Center is. But since it's two blocks away, to claim that it's "at Ground Zero" is simply a lie, and lies need to be exposed.

 

[perry147]

I don't know why the Mosque story is getting so much publicity...there are more important issues to concentrate on...Christmas is right around the corner and we need to make sure no one utters the words Merry Christmas or puts up anything resembling a cross on anything close to public land...now that's in bad taste...

WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[saintfool]

Here's the main point: Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that this Imam is truly what his defenders claim he is: a moderate whose goal is to bring peace and understanding and better relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews. We have reached a point where the proposed building is not going to help bring those things about; this much is clear. If 68% of Americans, according to the latest polls, are against this, then putting the building where it is currently proposed will only heighten tensions.Therefore if the Imam truly means what he says, and if his goal is really to lesson tensions and increase understanding, he will relocate the building. If he refuses to do so, what are we to make of his claims? Obviously, we can conclude at that point that they are false, and peace and understanding is not what he had in mind at all.

or he could have the mosque built, become an active and conscientious member of the community, and defuse the situation that way. this will blow over and be a model for improving relations between different factions.

 

[flufhed]

Damn, more right-wing zealot hate-mongers coming out of the closet....

Howard Dean Comes Out Against Proposed Mosque Near Ground Zero

Published August 18, 2010 | NewsCore

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, in a surprise move Wednesday, became the second high profile Democrat to come out against the building of a cultural center and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.

“This is something that we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith," Dean said in an interview with WABC radio.

"We have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims.

"That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion … So I think a good reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.”

This is really sad and pathetic. How can the man be so ignorant? That site doesn't belong to any particular religion for the upteenth time, the community center is going to be built TWO BLOCKS AWAY!!!And why is it an affront to anyone, unless you blame 9/11 on American Muslims? I just can't fathom this willingness to give in to what appears to me to be nothing more than the worst sort of bigotry.

I thought the distance argument had been debunked.

Define "debunked" in this instance.

The pro-mosque side has made fun of the right wing talking heads for trying to come up with arbitrary distances which would make it okay for the mosque to be built. And throughout this thread the pro-mosque side has provided links to protests all over the country regarding mosques being built in their communities. The pro-mosque side has done a good job showing the distance argument is a farce. Therefore, it's hypocritial for someone on the pro-mosque side to now start arguing that an arbitrary distance somehow makes it okay for the mosque to be built.

 

[Mario Kart]

Here's the main point: Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that this Imam is truly what his defenders claim he is: a moderate whose goal is to bring peace and understanding and better relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews. We have reached a point where the proposed building is not going to help bring those things about; this much is clear. If 68% of Americans, according to the latest polls, are against this, then putting the building where it is currently proposed will only heighten tensions.Therefore if the Imam truly means what he says, and if his goal is really to lesson tensions and increase understanding, he will relocate the building. If he refuses to do so, what are we to make of his claims? Obviously, we can conclude at that point that they are false, and peace and understanding is not what he had in mind at all.

Holy ####. I truly hope you are not in this kind of mindset. Lets say he is a moderate and decides to relocate the Mosque. How many hours of television will be devoted on Fox News to "good Americans voices were heard and won. The Mosque is going to be relocated." people cannot really think this way, can they? Geez

 

[Jewell]

Too many pages to read her so maybe it's answered but have they disclosed where all the funding for this Mosque is coming from? Like anything else following the money is always a key to getting to someone's real intentions...

Regarding Rauf and the funding...

During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, "U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA." Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.

Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization. CAIR is also the initiator of numerous cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic processes to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic.

Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a "peace and love" image. But that's not the whole picture. Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war, too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, explains the contradiction between Rauf's image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?

A previous Rauf project, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, clearly shows on its website that it is headed and funded by individuals from Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned fifteen of the nineteen jihad jockeys who rode the 9/11 planes of destruction. The funding for the mosque at Ground Zero is much murkier so far. All that has been publicly disclosed is that the support comes from unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim-ruled Malaysia. Rauf reportedly says he paid $4.85 million for the property -- in cash. Where exactly did this money come from? Was it Wahhabist-supporting Saudi sources, which have already funded many other mosques in New York City? LINK (An admittedly Conservative site)

 

[mad sweeney]

Too many pages to read her so maybe it's answered but have they disclosed where all the funding for this Mosque is coming from? Like anything else following the money is always a key to getting to someone's real intentions...

Regarding Rauf and the funding...

During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, "U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA." Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.

Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization. CAIR is also the initiator of numerous cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic processes to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic.

Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a "peace and love" image. But that's not the whole picture. Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war, too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, explains the contradiction between Rauf's image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?

A previous Rauf project, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, clearly shows on its website that it is headed and funded by individuals from Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned fifteen of the nineteen jihad jockeys who rode the 9/11 planes of destruction. The funding for the mosque at Ground Zero is much murkier so far. All that has been publicly disclosed is that the support comes from unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim-ruled Malaysia. Rauf reportedly says he paid $4.85 million for the property -- in cash. Where exactly did this money come from? Was it Wahhabist-supporting Saudi sources, which have already funded many other mosques in New York City? LINK (An admittedly Conservative site)

While this may be all true, I tend to doubt we're being told everything about the claims by the author. He, like most anti-mosque writers conveniently leaves off the first part of Rauf's statement when he said "America did not deserve this crime". If he's not going to tell the whole story about that quote, I doubt he's telling the whole story in regards to the other stuff.

 

[Christo]

The pro-mosque side has made fun of the right wing talking heads for trying to come up with arbitrary distances which would make it okay for the mosque to be built. And throughout this thread the pro-mosque side has provided links to protests all over the country regarding mosques being built in their communities. The pro-mosque side has done a good job showing the distance argument is a farce. Therefore, it's hypocritial for someone on the pro-mosque side to now start arguing that an arbitrary distance somehow makes it okay for the mosque to be built.

I never argued any of those things, so that doesn't make me a hypocrite (at least on this issue!) Personally I don't care how close the Community Center is. But since it's two blocks away, to claim that it's "at Ground Zero" is simply a lie, and lies need to be exposed.

Yes! It MUST be exposed!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Christo]

I thought the distance argument had been debunked.

Define "debunked" in this instance.

The pro-mosque side has made fun of the right wing talking heads for trying to come up with arbitrary distances which would make it okay for the mosque to be built. And throughout this thread the pro-mosque side has provided links to protests all over the country regarding mosques being built in their communities. The pro-mosque side has done a good job showing the distance argument is a farce. Therefore, it's hypocritial for someone on the pro-mosque side to now start arguing that an arbitrary distance somehow makes it okay for the mosque to be built.

So you believe the distance argument has merit?

 

[Jewell]

Too many pages to read her so maybe it's answered but have they disclosed where all the funding for this Mosque is coming from? Like anything else following the money is always a key to getting to someone's real intentions...

Regarding Rauf and the funding...

During a recent Friday sermon, this writer did due diligence as a mosque monitor and heard Rauf deny that Muslims perpetrated 9/11. In an interview with CNN shortly after 9/11, Rauf said, "U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA." Elsewhere, Rauf has stated that terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims. And that it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.

Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization. CAIR is also the initiator of numerous cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic processes to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic.

Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a "peace and love" image. But that's not the whole picture. Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war, too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, explains the contradiction between Rauf's image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?

A previous Rauf project, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, clearly shows on its website that it is headed and funded by individuals from Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned fifteen of the nineteen jihad jockeys who rode the 9/11 planes of destruction. The funding for the mosque at Ground Zero is much murkier so far. All that has been publicly disclosed is that the support comes from unidentified sources in Saudi Arabia and Muslim-ruled Malaysia. Rauf reportedly says he paid $4.85 million for the property -- in cash. Where exactly did this money come from? Was it Wahhabist-supporting Saudi sources, which have already funded many other mosques in New York City? LINK (An admittedly Conservative site)

While this may be all true, I tend to doubt we're being told everything about the claims by the author. He, like most anti-mosque writers conveniently leaves off the first part of Rauf's statement when he said "America did not deserve this crime". If he's not going to tell the whole story about that quote, I doubt he's telling the whole story in regards to the other stuff.

Fair criticism.

 

[flufhed]

I thought the distance argument had been debunked.

Define "debunked" in this instance.

The pro-mosque side has made fun of the right wing talking heads for trying to come up with arbitrary distances which would make it okay for the mosque to be built. And throughout this thread the pro-mosque side has provided links to protests all over the country regarding mosques being built in their communities. The pro-mosque side has done a good job showing the distance argument is a farce. Therefore, it's hypocritial for someone on the pro-mosque side to now start arguing that an arbitrary distance somehow makes it okay for the mosque to be built.

So you believe the distance argument has merit?

I am simply laughing at your argument.But, since you asked, I don't see these two things to necessarily inconsistent: (1) making fun of right wing talking heads for coming up with arbitrary, "ok" distances; and (2) poiting out that the Ground Zero Mosque is not, in fact, at Ground Zero.Hope this helps.

 

[Christo]

Define "debunked" in this instance.

The pro-mosque side has made fun of the right wing talking heads for trying to come up with arbitrary distances which would make it okay for the mosque to be built. And throughout this thread the pro-mosque side has provided links to protests all over the country regarding mosques being built in their communities. The pro-mosque side has done a good job showing the distance argument is a farce. Therefore, it's hypocritial for someone on the pro-mosque side to now start arguing that an arbitrary distance somehow makes it okay for the mosque to be built.

So you believe the distance argument has merit?

I am simply laughing at your argument.But, since you asked, I don't see these two things to necessarily inconsistent: (1) making fun of right wing talking heads for coming up with arbitrary, "ok" distances; and (2) poiting out that the Ground Zero Mosque is not, in fact, at Ground Zero.

Hope this helps.

Ah, yes. The always convenient qualifier.

 

[flufhed]

Ah, yes. The always convenient qualifier.

Words have meaning.How about "not inconsistent?" That work better?

 

[Christo]

Ah, yes. The always convenient qualifier.

Words have meaning.How about "not inconsistent?" That work better?

It addresses the qualifier. But it still doesn't address the fact that timmy's response was to Howard Dean's position which doesn't depend on the mosque being "at ground zero." Clearly, Dean thinks that the location of the site (even though it is near rather than at ground zero) warrants them rethinking building the mosque there. By referring to it being two blocks away, timmy was clearly relying on the distance argument with his "for the upteenth time, the community center is going to be built TWO BLOCKS AWAY!!!" statement.

 

[timschochet]

Ah, yes. The always convenient qualifier.

Words have meaning.How about "not inconsistent?" That work better?

It addresses the qualifier. But it still doesn't address the fact that timmy's response was to Howard Dean's position which doesn't depend on the mosque being "at ground zero." Clearly, Dean thinks that the location of the site (even though it is near rather than at ground zero) warrants them rethinking building the mosque there. By referring to it being two blocks away, timmy was clearly relying on the distance argument with his "for the upteenth time, the community center is going to be built TWO BLOCKS AWAY!!!" statement.

You described my position correctly. But let me add:1. I believe that conservative commentators, and especially those on Fox News, are deliberately deceiving the public by describing this proposed building as a "Mosque at Ground Zero." It is not a mosque, nor is it at Ground Zero.2. I believe that if the American public was more aware that the building was a community center which included a mosque, and that it was being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero, the percentage of those opposed would not be nearly as high. Unlike some people, I don't regard the public as bigoted, simply misinformed.3. That's why I found Dean's comments so disappointing- not only do I disagree with him, but he played right into the right-wing rhetoric on this issue.

 

[Christo]

Ah, yes. The always convenient qualifier.

Words have meaning.How about "not inconsistent?" That work better?

It addresses the qualifier. But it still doesn't address the fact that timmy's response was to Howard Dean's position which doesn't depend on the mosque being "at ground zero." Clearly, Dean thinks that the location of the site (even though it is near rather than at ground zero) warrants them rethinking building the mosque there. By referring to it being two blocks away, timmy was clearly relying on the distance argument with his "for the upteenth time, the community center is going to be built TWO BLOCKS AWAY!!!" statement.

You described my position correctly. But let me add:1. I believe that conservative commentators, and especially those on Fox News, are deliberately deceiving the public by describing this proposed building as a "Mosque at Ground Zero." It is not a mosque, nor is it at Ground Zero.2. I believe that if the American public was more aware that the building was a community center which included a mosque, and that it was being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero, the percentage of those opposed would not be nearly as high. Unlike some people, I don't regard the public as bigoted, simply misinformed.3. That's why I found Dean's comments so disappointing- not only do I disagree with him, but he played right into the right-wing rhetoric on this issue.

1. No way, no how. I don't know and haven't heard anyone say that they believe that the mosque is actually being built exactly where the WTC was located. And you can complain all you want about it being a community center but the fact is that there is going to be a mosque at the community center.2. Howard Dean's position contradicts this argument.

 

[jon_mx]

Rima Fakih, Miss USA weighs in on the issue....

“It shouldn’t be built so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than with religion.”

 

[jamny]

Rima Fakih, Miss USA weighs in on the issue....

“It shouldn’t be built so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than with religion.”

/thread

 

[BobbyLayne]

Rima Fakih, Miss USA weighs in on the issue....

“It shouldn’t be built so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than with religion.”

more pics less words TIAI do <3 brunettes

 

[jon_mx]

No ground zero = no money for project......this project is all about being at ground zero (and the pro-terrorist statement that makes). Some people are too naive. I am 100% certain of this.

 

[jon_mx]

Rima Fakih, Miss USA weighs in on the issue....

“It shouldn’t be built so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than with religion.”

more pics less words TIAI do <3 brunettes

Not my words...but the words of one of the hottest Miss America's of all time.

 

[MongoL3]

Rima Fakih, Miss USA weighs in on the issue....

“It shouldn’t be built so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than with religion.”

more pics less words TIAI do <3 brunettes

I dont think she's all that...

 

[Radio Free Homer]

No ground zero = no money for project......this project is all about being at ground zero (and the pro-terrorist statement that makes). Some people are too naive. I am 100% certain of this.

How many times are you going to try to make this point with absolutely no evidence whatsoever?

 

[jon_mx]

No ground zero = no money for project......this project is all about being at ground zero (and the pro-terrorist statement that makes). Some people are too naive. I am 100% certain of this.

How many times are you going to try to make this point with absolutely no evidence whatsoever?

There are dozens of pieces of evidence. Their actions speak very loudly on what their intent is. You just refuse to listen.

 

[drummer]

No ground zero = no money for project......this project is all about being at ground zero (and the pro-terrorist statement that makes). Some people are too naive. I am 100% certain of this.

IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL BOMB!!