Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (1 Viewer)

[Radio Free Homer]

I already figured out the math, but thanks for showing your work. The thing is I have no proof that those other offers existed. I have proof that this offer exists. I'm merely offering the two stories to show that there has been no attempt by the community center organizers to compromise throughout this entire ordeal. None. Zero.If Mr. Elzanhty is truly that bent out of shape about how hurt people are by the location choice, then why not accept one of those offers that are three times your investment and just wash your hands with it? If you're worried that your good gesture won't get the press it deserves, then accept The Donald's very public offer and do the press circuit after. If Mr. Elzenaty truly cared how others feel and truly wants to come across as a moderate who's willing to compromise, then why is he holding out for four times the amount? I understand that more money is always better, but he's missing a golden opportunity to show his compassionate statements aren't just lip service, and he's missing a golden opportunity to show that there can be compromise on this particular issue and compromise between moderate Muslims and America.What I'm reading from him, though, and what I'm reading from Rauf is that this particular location is not open for compromise.

I don't understand what there is to compromise. Moving the center isn't a compromise, it's giving in. What are those who want the center moved compromising if the center is built at another site?

Some people really don't get.

I admit I don't. What is the compromise?

You really don't understand the outrage and the symbolism this center at this location represents to millions of Americans. It is HIGHLY inflammatory and offensive to most people in this country. The compromise is everyone is happy. When you offend someone, you compromise to make peace. There are plenty of offers with people bending over backwards to make it worth their while and in reality be a much better location. But they will not listen to anything. This is gonna blow up into something where there is dead people on both sides, there is that much outrage over this. If this group is what they claim (and I know they are not), they would be willing to engage in talks and come to some kind of agreement.

Can I understand the outrage and still think it's stupid?What I didn't understand was how relocation was a "compromise" considering that it absolutely isn't.

 

[jon_mx]

Perhaps I can help.

Jon_Mx - please fill in the blank:

The Park 51 developers would be compromising by moving the site of the proposed cultural center.

The opponents of the proposed cultural center would be compromising by ____________________.

They get peace and respect. Right now Muslims are pissing off about 70% of the population. It is called public relations.

Fundamentalist Christianity could use some good public relations right now, too. What ideas have they proposed to earn the respect of Americans?

Besides being the backbone of building this country? It is not like this loon got much support. He was widely condemned.

 

[Jewell]

Perhaps I can help.

Jon_Mx - please fill in the blank:

The Park 51 developers would be compromising by moving the site of the proposed cultural center.

The opponents of the proposed cultural center would be compromising by ____________________.

They get peace and respect. Right now Muslims are pissing off about 70% of the population. It is called public relations.

What are stations doing by forcing Don Imus and Jimmy the Greek off the air? It's called public relations.Great Society legislation was not only about legal equality, but also about showing that we meant what we said about racial equality. It was legislation and public relations.

And all the steps I mentioned in my above post are forms of public relations.

Public relations are important in a multicultural - multitheistic society.

 

[jon_mx]

Can I understand the outrage and still think it's stupid?What I didn't understand was how relocation was a "compromise" considering that it absolutely isn't.

It is more stupid to be upset about burning some book. 9-11 was one of the most traumatic experiences that most Americans have ever or will ever experienced. If you can't understand the emotions this issue stirs up, I can't help you. There is a huge disconnect. It is not stupid at all. It is called being human.

 

[Steve Tasker]

They get peace and respect. Right now Muslims are pissing off about 70% of the population. It is called public relations.

Sorry for the tangent, but this quote particularly reminds me of the American Pluralism (read: diversity) class I took in college. One of the professor's major tenets was that there is ALWAYS one racial/ethnic/religious group who is the "outsider", so to speak, in America. As our class focused heavily on Asian Americans, we discussed at length the transfer between the Irish immigrants and the Chinese immigrants as to who would be the hated group.Quotes like the one above also remind me of the obviously hyperbolic, but strangely poignant hip-hop lyric from Talib Kweli: "N****s ain't become American til 9/11".I just think it's amazing how correct my professor was - I never realized it until I really started thinking about it.

 

[Radio Free Homer]

Can I understand the outrage and still think it's stupid?What I didn't understand was how relocation was a "compromise" considering that it absolutely isn't.

It is more stupid to be upset about burning some book. 9-11 was one of the most traumatic experiences that most Americans have ever or will ever experienced. If you can't understand the emotions this issue stirs up, I can't help you. There is a huge disconnect. It is not stupid at all. It is called being human.

So is the comparison now between 9/11 and the bookburning thing? 'Cause if I could burn a few Korans and make it so 9/11 never happened, I would totally do it. BTW, I already said I understand the emotional outrage. And I still think it's stupid.

 

[the moops]

You really don't understand the outrage and the symbolism this center at this location represents to millions of Americans. It is HIGHLY inflammatory and offensive to most people in this country. The compromise is everyone is happy. When you offend someone, you compromise to make peace. There are plenty of offers with people bending over backwards to make it worth their while and in reality be a much better location. But they will not listen to anything. This is gonna blow up into something where there is dead people on both sides, there is that much outrage over this. If this group is what they claim (and I know they are not), they would be willing to engage in talks and come to some kind of agreement.

Have you seen the protests about mosques being built in Tennessee? What makes you think that if they move it 10 blocks, or 20 blocks, or to another borough that anything would change?People are more inflamed by the religion of Islam than of any location or symbolism.But of course you wont even consider the thought.

 

[Mister Martie]

This is gonna blow up into something where there is dead people on both sides, there is that much outrage over this.

 

[McJose]

Can I understand the outrage and still think it's stupid?What I didn't understand was how relocation was a "compromise" considering that it absolutely isn't.

It is more stupid to be upset about burning some book. 9-11 was one of the most traumatic experiences that most Americans have ever or will ever experienced. If you can't understand the emotions this issue stirs up, I can't help you. There is a huge disconnect. It is not stupid at all. It is called being human.

One of the benefits of being a human is the ability to control our emotions and not act upon our instincts. Some of us are better at it than others I suppose.Yes, 9/11 angered us. It still does. But we can't let it cloud our judgement. It's a shame that many people's anger is aimed in the wrong direction.

 

[tommyboy]

this whole nyc mosque thing stinks from the ground up. Its a dirty deal (read up on how the developer got the property, for one example). obviously, a sophisticate such as imam Rauf understands exactly that building this thing would cause a reaction and is quite pleased with it, otherwise he'd never have gotten involved from day one.

 

[Radio Free Homer]

this whole nyc mosque thing stinks from the ground up. Its a dirty deal (read up on how the developer got the property, for one example). obviously, a sophisticate such as imam Rauf understands exactly that building this thing would cause a reaction and is quite pleased with it, otherwise he'd never have gotten involved from day one.

In other words, you don't trust the moooslims.

 

[tommyboy]

this whole nyc mosque thing stinks from the ground up. Its a dirty deal (read up on how the developer got the property, for one example). obviously, a sophisticate such as imam Rauf understands exactly that building this thing would cause a reaction and is quite pleased with it, otherwise he'd never have gotten involved from day one.

In other words, you don't trust the moooslims.

in other words, its a bad idea. Just yesterday imam Rauf implied that because of this stink that has been created the US is now in danger of a far worse reaction from Islamic extremists...read it yourself

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation-

O'BRIEN: What's the risk? When you say "national security," what's the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

* * * *

If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world.

yes imam Rauf is implying a violent backlash if he doesnt' get his mosque built. Funny how a "moderate" such as him would decide on day one that it was a good idea to build a mosque in the ashes of ground zero, refuses to give up the obviously boorish and insensitive idea and now has in his own words endangered our country by his actions.idiot

 

[tommyboy]

dirty business behind the mosque

The New York Post has been digging around the financial background of the Ground Zero mosque. What they’ve discovered is that, far from being clear and transparent, the sale had plenty of oddities. For instance, mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal paid just $4.8 million for the building — despite the fact that another developer had offered $18 million in 2007. More from the Post:

Some 30 offers showered on the Pomerantz family in what was an overheated downtown real-estate market in 2007, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.

Yet Mitani previously told The Post the building, a former Burlington Coat Factory store that was damaged in the 9/11 attacks, was a tough sell. She said she was in debt and desperate to unload it after her husband’s death and insisted she had no buyers other than El-Gamal.

Some of the offers were a mere flash in the pan, but others were legitimate, including a $17 million cash deal from one developer, the source said. …

But the Pomerantz family — for reasons that remain unclear — rejected the offers. …

Property in the area hovered between $250 to $290 a square foot. El-Gamal purchased the 45-47 Park Place property for the rock-bottom price of just over $100 per square foot.

If this wasn’t odd enough, the plot thickens in today’s story:

The owners of the former Burlington Coat Factory near Ground Zero — who sold the site for a song to the developer of the proposed mosque there — wound up investing in a $45.7 million deal with him four months later, city records show. …

It is evident that after the Pomerantz family accepted El-Gamal’s lower offer, several of the family members were eager to do business with him again.

When El-Gamal’s company, Soho Properties, plunked down a total of $45.7 million for a commercial building at 31 W. 27th St. in Chelsea, Mitani and two other family members chipped in some of the capital.

The widow invested $200,000, her late husband’s estate coughed up $500,000, and the couple’s son, Seth Pomerantz, 25 kicked in $200,000, real-estate records show.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/24581...-katrina-trinko

 

[Radio Free Homer]

this whole nyc mosque thing stinks from the ground up. Its a dirty deal (read up on how the developer got the property, for one example). obviously, a sophisticate such as imam Rauf understands exactly that building this thing would cause a reaction and is quite pleased with it, otherwise he'd never have gotten involved from day one.

In other words, you don't trust the moooslims.

in other words, its a bad idea. Just yesterday imam Rauf implied that because of this stink that has been created the US is now in danger of a far worse reaction from Islamic extremists...read it yourself

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation-

O'BRIEN: What's the risk? When you say "national security," what's the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

* * * *

If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world.

yes imam Rauf is implying a violent backlash if he doesnt' get his mosque built. Funny how a "moderate" such as him would decide on day one that it was a good idea to build a mosque in the ashes of ground zero, refuses to give up the obviously boorish and insensitive idea and now has in his own words endangered our country by his actions.idiot

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

Where do you think you fall on this spectrum?

 

[Radio Free Homer]

dirty business behind the mosque

The New York Post has been digging around the financial background of the Ground Zero mosque. What they’ve discovered is that, far from being clear and transparent, the sale had plenty of oddities. For instance, mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal paid just $4.8 million for the building — despite the fact that another developer had offered $18 million in 2007. More from the Post:

Some 30 offers showered on the Pomerantz family in what was an overheated downtown real-estate market in 2007, according to a source familiar with the negotiations.

Yet Mitani previously told The Post the building, a former Burlington Coat Factory store that was damaged in the 9/11 attacks, was a tough sell. She said she was in debt and desperate to unload it after her husband’s death and insisted she had no buyers other than El-Gamal.

Some of the offers were a mere flash in the pan, but others were legitimate, including a $17 million cash deal from one developer, the source said. …

But the Pomerantz family — for reasons that remain unclear — rejected the offers. …

Property in the area hovered between $250 to $290 a square foot. El-Gamal purchased the 45-47 Park Place property for the rock-bottom price of just over $100 per square foot.

If this wasn’t odd enough, the plot thickens in today’s story:

The owners of the former Burlington Coat Factory near Ground Zero — who sold the site for a song to the developer of the proposed mosque there — wound up investing in a $45.7 million deal with him four months later, city records show. …

It is evident that after the Pomerantz family accepted El-Gamal’s lower offer, several of the family members were eager to do business with him again.

When El-Gamal’s company, Soho Properties, plunked down a total of $45.7 million for a commercial building at 31 W. 27th St. in Chelsea, Mitani and two other family members chipped in some of the capital.

The widow invested $200,000, her late husband’s estate coughed up $500,000, and the couple’s son, Seth Pomerantz, 25 kicked in $200,000, real-estate records show.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/24581...-katrina-trinko

OK, so should we add the Pomerantz family to the terrorist watch list now? I mean, they did invest almost 2% in a future project of a man that can only be a terrorist supporter. Plus they sold him a building at a great price while they were desperate for cash.These people need to be investigated.

 

[tommyboy]

this whole nyc mosque thing stinks from the ground up. Its a dirty deal (read up on how the developer got the property, for one example). obviously, a sophisticate such as imam Rauf understands exactly that building this thing would cause a reaction and is quite pleased with it, otherwise he'd never have gotten involved from day one.

In other words, you don't trust the moooslims.

in other words, its a bad idea. Just yesterday imam Rauf implied that because of this stink that has been created the US is now in danger of a far worse reaction from Islamic extremists...read it yourself

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation-

O'BRIEN: What's the risk? When you say "national security," what's the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

* * * *

If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world.

yes imam Rauf is implying a violent backlash if he doesnt' get his mosque built. Funny how a "moderate" such as him would decide on day one that it was a good idea to build a mosque in the ashes of ground zero, refuses to give up the obviously boorish and insensitive idea and now has in his own words endangered our country by his actions.idiot

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

Where do you think you fall on this spectrum?

on the side that doesn't murder people if a mosque isn't built

 

[Radio Free Homer]

on the side that doesn't murder people if a mosque isn't built

Cool. So you're on the side of 99.9999999% of people that won't do that. Congratulations on being so mainstream.

 

[Mark Davis]

I already figured out the math, but thanks for showing your work.

The thing is I have no proof that those other offers existed. I have proof that this offer exists. I'm merely offering the two stories to show that there has been no attempt by the community center organizers to compromise throughout this entire ordeal. None. Zero.

If Mr. Elzanhty is truly that bent out of shape about how hurt people are by the location choice, then why not accept one of those offers that are three times your investment and just wash your hands with it? If you're worried that your good gesture won't get the press it deserves, then accept The Donald's very public offer and do the press circuit after. If Mr. Elzenaty truly cared how others feel and truly wants to come across as a moderate who's willing to compromise, then why is he holding out for four times the amount? I understand that more money is always better, but he's missing a golden opportunity to show his compassionate statements aren't just lip service, and he's missing a golden opportunity to show that there can be compromise on this particular issue and compromise between moderate Muslims and America.

What I'm reading from him, though, and what I'm reading from Rauf is that this particular location is not open for compromise.

I don't understand what there is to compromise. Moving the center isn't a compromise, it's giving in. What are those who want the center moved compromising if the center is built at another site?

I don't know if it's a compromise as much as it is a show of faith. And we just saw a show of faith from the overwhelming majority of Americans who raised up and spoke out against the Koran burning stupidity. The stupidity of National Draw Mohammed Day also fell flat. And mentions of Islam have been redacted from our national briefings. Good faith efforts have certainly been shown.

There are always going to be people who take it too far when such sensitive issues and symbolism is involved. The guy in Florida wanting to burn the Koran can legally do so, just as the mosque can legally be on that site in NY. The main problem with both is sensitive feelings, yet some only want to see one side of it because it fits their political leanings/philosophy. I'd personally choose not to do either, yet neither is bound to act in a way that doesn't inflame the situation. Personally I couldn't give $.02 if either was done. Common sense tells me though that there will be more backlash and repurcussions to come if either comes to fruition. Unfortunately, some of that backlash may be felt by those who had no hand in it, such as our troops, or Muslims in other locales. I'd be looking over my shoulder though if I were Mr. Elzanhty or this so called pastor in Florida. There are plenty of crazies on either side I'm sure that would love a shot at them. I'm not saying it's right, just that you have to figure there is a good chance of it.

 

[flufhed]

No, what's ridiculous is you looking at this like some run of the mill real estate transaction. This guy knows that whoever buys it is going to make a killing. Why shouldn't this guy get in on the action?

There was supposedly a better offer already. Any investor would have jumped on a $14 million offer for a $4.8 million purchase.

That's right. I forgot I'm talking to a real estate mogul.

 

[flufhed]

this whole nyc mosque thing stinks from the ground up. Its a dirty deal (read up on how the developer got the property, for one example). obviously, a sophisticate such as imam Rauf understands exactly that building this thing would cause a reaction and is quite pleased with it, otherwise he'd never have gotten involved from day one.

In other words, you don't trust the moooslims.

in other words, its a bad idea. Just yesterday imam Rauf implied that because of this stink that has been created the US is now in danger of a far worse reaction from Islamic extremists...read it yourself

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation-

O'BRIEN: What's the risk? When you say "national security," what's the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

* * * *

If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world.

yes imam Rauf is implying a violent backlash if he doesnt' get his mosque built. Funny how a "moderate" such as him would decide on day one that it was a good idea to build a mosque in the ashes of ground zero, refuses to give up the obviously boorish and insensitive idea and now has in his own words endangered our country by his actions.idiot

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

Where do you think you fall on this spectrum?

This Rauf sounds like a pretty smart dood. That was very well stated.

 

[Jewell]

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

This Rauf sounds like a pretty smart dood. That was very well stated.

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?And while it's true that radicals feed off each other, that's not what's happening here. Instead, people are reacting to Rauf's decision to build at that location.

Rauf's quote involves no introspection of his role in this. He says that it's radicals who oppose the location, he goes on to say that radicals feed off opposing radicals, but he doesn't add those two steps together to realize how those he's dubbing radicals could also question his moderacy. There's no personal accountability there.

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

 

[TommyGilmore]

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?

That depends on how strongly they oppose the mosque. However, I've yet to see a poll that offers clarification. This poll merely states that 68% (not 70%, btw) "oppose the plan". That could mean a variety of things. Maybe they support the mosque but not the location? Maybe they support the location but not the timing? Or maybe they think the whole thing isn't terroristy enough, and they're outraged because the building doesn't look like a giant middle finger with the words "DOWN WITH USA" written across it?It seems pretty ignorant to just assume that 70% of Americans feel as strongly about it as you do.

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?

That depends on how strongly they oppose the mosque. However, I've yet to see a poll that offers clarification. This poll merely states that 68% (not 70%, btw) "oppose the plan". That could mean a variety of things. Maybe they support the mosque but not the location? Maybe they support the location but not the timing? Or maybe they think the whole thing isn't terroristy enough, and they're outraged because the building doesn't look like a giant middle finger with the words "DOWN WITH USA" written across it?It seems pretty ignorant to just assume that 70% of Americans feel as strongly about it as you do.

It's just as ignorant to assume they don't.

 

[the moops]

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?

That depends on how strongly they oppose the mosque. However, I've yet to see a poll that offers clarification. This poll merely states that 68% (not 70%, btw) "oppose the plan". That could mean a variety of things. Maybe they support the mosque but not the location? Maybe they support the location but not the timing? Or maybe they think the whole thing isn't terroristy enough, and they're outraged because the building doesn't look like a giant middle finger with the words "DOWN WITH USA" written across it?It seems pretty ignorant to just assume that 70% of Americans feel as strongly about it as you do.

Maybe if we stopped referring to it as a mosque funded by terrorists 68% of the public wouldn't be opposed to it?

 

[CBusAlex]

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

This Rauf sounds like a pretty smart dood. That was very well stated.

I like this guy and hope he gets to build his house of terror.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?

That depends on how strongly they oppose the mosque. However, I've yet to see a poll that offers clarification. This poll merely states that 68% (not 70%, btw) "oppose the plan". That could mean a variety of things. Maybe they support the mosque but not the location? Maybe they support the location but not the timing? Or maybe they think the whole thing isn't terroristy enough, and they're outraged because the building doesn't look like a giant middle finger with the words "DOWN WITH USA" written across it?It seems pretty ignorant to just assume that 70% of Americans feel as strongly about it as you do.

It's just as ignorant to assume they don't.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

This Rauf sounds like a pretty smart dood. That was very well stated.

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?And while it's true that radicals feed off each other, that's not what's happening here. Instead, people are reacting to Rauf's decision to build at that location.

Rauf's quote involves no introspection of his role in this. He says that it's radicals who oppose the location, he goes on to say that radicals feed off opposing radicals, but he doesn't add those two steps together to realize how those he's dubbing radicals could also question his moderacy. There's no personal accountability there.

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

And when a majority of Americans began to oppose our adventure in Iraq, I'm sure you said it was time to bring the troops home. Same thing in Afghanistan.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

This Rauf sounds like a pretty smart dood. That was very well stated.

I like this guy and hope he gets to build his house of terror.

Agreed. Any building that strikes terror in the likes of Palin, Geller, and Gingrich has my support.

 

[Jewell]

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?

That depends on how strongly they oppose the mosque. However, I've yet to see a poll that offers clarification. This poll merely states that 68% (not 70%, btw) "oppose the plan". That could mean a variety of things. Maybe they support the mosque but not the location? Maybe they support the location but not the timing? Or maybe they think the whole thing isn't terroristy enough, and they're outraged because the building doesn't look like a giant middle finger with the words "DOWN WITH USA" written across it?It seems pretty ignorant to just assume that 70% of Americans feel as strongly about it as you do.

You're arguing over 2%? 2% is milk not room for argument. That's less than the average margin of error in most polls. As you can see below from my post in the Islam poll thread I'm more than willing to give every benefit of the doubt to moderate Islam. That's a peculiar position to take for somebody as "ignorant" as me...

It's more than "a few idiots". You'll see varying surveys on what percentage of Muslims hold radical beliefs. These figures generally vary from 7% up to 20%. Even if we accept the lowest figure that's 7% of 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. That leaves us with 91 million Muslims that hold radical beliefs.

 

[Jewell]

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

This Rauf sounds like a pretty smart dood. That was very well stated.

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?And while it's true that radicals feed off each other, that's not what's happening here. Instead, people are reacting to Rauf's decision to build at that location.

Rauf's quote involves no introspection of his role in this. He says that it's radicals who oppose the location, he goes on to say that radicals feed off opposing radicals, but he doesn't add those two steps together to realize how those he's dubbing radicals could also question his moderacy. There's no personal accountability there.

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

And when a majority of Americans began to oppose our adventure in Iraq, I'm sure you said it was time to bring the troops home.

Yes, I did. Actually, I felt that way before the majority of Americans because I never saw the Iraqi link to 9/11, WMDs, etc. If anything, Sadam curbed fundamentalism in that region.

 

[TommyGilmore]

You're arguing over 2%?

Uh, no.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides -- you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

This Rauf sounds like a pretty smart dood. That was very well stated.

Except it's not just radicals that oppose that location. It's 70% of Americans. So are 70% of Americans radical?And while it's true that radicals feed off each other, that's not what's happening here. Instead, people are reacting to Rauf's decision to build at that location.

Rauf's quote involves no introspection of his role in this. He says that it's radicals who oppose the location, he goes on to say that radicals feed off opposing radicals, but he doesn't add those two steps together to realize how those he's dubbing radicals could also question his moderacy. There's no personal accountability there.

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

And when a majority of Americans began to oppose our adventure in Iraq, I'm sure you said it was time to bring the troops home.

Yes, I did. Actually, I felt that way before the majority of Americans because I never saw the Iraqi link to 9/11, WMDs, etc. If anything, Sadam curbed fundamentalism in that region.

So you thought our policy with regard to Iraq should be based on what was right, not what the majority wanted. And yet with regard to the former Burlington Coat Factory store two blocks from Ground Zero Muslim Community Center with a prayer room inside you think the majority should rule. Why the difference?

 

[Jewell]

So you thought our policy with regard to Iraq should be based on what was right, not what the majority wanted. And yet with regard to the former Burlington Coat Factory store two blocks from Ground Zero Muslim Community Center with a prayer room inside you think the majority should rule. Why the difference?

Simple -- Because from my perspective, the Iraq invasion was not right and this location is not right. The majority agrees with me this time, but my standard has always been what's right. And once again, that's just my opinion. You're free to disagree, and obviously a vocal minority disagrees on the location.

 

[Fennis]

I'm Starting With The Man In The MirrorI'm Asking Him To Change His WaysAnd No Message Could Have Been Any ClearerIf You Wanna Make The World A Better PlaceTake A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

Are you seriously quoting Michael Jackson lyrics as some kind of argument?

 

[Fennis]

In 54 pages have we established how many blocks away is acceptable?

 

[tommyboy]

now 70% of us are 'radicals'. If the arguments get any worse than that it'll be criminal

 

[Jewell]

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

Are you seriously quoting Michael Jackson lyrics as some kind of argument?

Yep, absolutely. Wisdom ran deep in that one.Here's another view of humanity from him. Of course, he's talking about the white man here, but the refrain could just as easily apply to how majority of Americans feel on the location issue. Enjoy this Michael classic...

They Don't Really Care About Us

 

[Fennis]

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

Are you seriously quoting Michael Jackson lyrics as some kind of argument?

Yep, absolutely. Wisdom ran deep in that one.Here's another view of humanity from him. Of course, he's talking about the white man here, but the refrain could just as easily apply to how majority of Americans feel on the location issue. Enjoy this Michael classic...

They Don't Really Care About Us

Is that the one where he sings about diddling small boys?

 

[Mario Kart]

now 70% of us are 'radicals'. If the arguments get any worse than that it'll be criminal

It could be said that 70% (or 68%) that do not want freedom of Religion to be practiced in New York that our Founding Fathers saw as a right to all are not following what the Constitution gives. So, yes, that 70% (or 68%) that do not want to follow the laws our Constitution has granted us as Radical thinking... then yes, they are Radical.

 

[the moops]

now 70% of us are 'radicals'. If the arguments get any worse than that it'll be criminal

We could use the word stupid, but radical sounds a little better.

 

[tommyboy]

In 54 pages have we established how many blocks away is acceptable?

mosque site http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/...n_b_660585.htmlpreferred mosque site http://maps.google.com/maps?q=dubuque,+ia&...mp;t=h&z=16

 

[the moops]

In 54 pages have we established how many blocks away is acceptable?

mosque site http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/...n_b_660585.htmlpreferred mosque site http://maps.google.com/maps?q=dubuque,+ia&...mp;t=h&z=16

Why do you hate Iowans?

 

[Jewell]

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

Are you seriously quoting Michael Jackson lyrics as some kind of argument?

Yep, absolutely. Wisdom ran deep in that one.Here's another view of humanity from him. Of course, he's talking about the white man here, but the refrain could just as easily apply to how majority of Americans feel on the location issue. Enjoy this Michael classic...

They Don't Really Care About Us

Is that the one where he sings about diddling small boys?

No, that's the rest of his catalogue.

That reminds me of this joke...

What's somewhat brown and often found in kids' underpants?

Michael Jackson's hand

 

[trogg78]

I wouldn't say 70% of Americans are radical just because their views against Islam are radical. Most people's only exposure to islam is from 9/11, so of course they're going to have a radical view against the religion. Is that really shocking?

It's a lot like when the first black person moved down the street. People are scared sheep imo.

 

[tommyboy]

I wouldn't say 70% of Americans are radical just because their views against Islam are radical. Most people's only exposure to islam is from 9/11, so of course they're going to have a radical view against the religion. Is that really shocking? It's a lot like when the first black person moved down the street. People are scared sheep imo.

i disagree. I think most people on the 70% side are opposed to this particular location rather than Islam itself. I also believe we as Americans have had plenty of exposure to Islam over the last decade.

 

[Jewell]

now 70% of us are 'radicals'. If the arguments get any worse than that it'll be criminal

We could use the word stupid, but radical sounds a little better.

Do you try to be condescending or does it just come natural to you?

 

[the moops]

now 70% of us are 'radicals'. If the arguments get any worse than that it'll be criminal

We could use the word stupid, but radical sounds a little better.

Do you try to be condescending or does it just come natural to you?

It's Friday. Laugh a little bit.

 

[Jewell]

now 70% of us are 'radicals'. If the arguments get any worse than that it'll be criminal

We could use the word stupid, but radical sounds a little better.

Do you try to be condescending or does it just come natural to you?

It's Friday. Laugh a little bit.

I am. That's why the

 

[trogg78]

I wouldn't say 70% of Americans are radical just because their views against Islam are radical. Most people's only exposure to islam is from 9/11, so of course they're going to have a radical view against the religion. Is that really shocking? It's a lot like when the first black person moved down the street. People are scared sheep imo.

i disagree. I think most people on the 70% side are opposed to this particular location rather than Islam itself. I also believe we as Americans have had plenty of exposure to Islam over the last decade.

The exposure we have had was very biased against Islam.

 

[Fennis]

I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror

I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways

And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place

Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

Are you seriously quoting Michael Jackson lyrics as some kind of argument?

Yep, absolutely. Wisdom ran deep in that one.Here's another view of humanity from him. Of course, he's talking about the white man here, but the refrain could just as easily apply to how majority of Americans feel on the location issue. Enjoy this Michael classic...

They Don't Really Care About Us

Is that the one where he sings about diddling small boys?

No, that's the rest of his catalogue.

That reminds me of this joke...

What's somewhat brown and often found in kids' underpants?

Michael Jackson's hand

What comes in small white cans?