Mosques No Where Near Ground Zero Meet Stiff Resistance

[S.A.M.]

Oh: some other interesting factoids on Sharif El-Gamal, the builder who is reported as having threatened the head of the MCC for asking too many questions about the mosque (which Bells doesn't quite believe):

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...#ixzz0xvR2Z7ie

Sounds quite the gentleman.

What does the credential of any US citizen have to do with the right to legally sponsor or build any building within the US?

 

[GeoffP]

Did you misunderstand my point in the dialogue with Bells? Let me know.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm looking for the point, actually. What is the point?

 

[GeoffP]

You should probably read the complete argument that Bells and I were having about El-Gamal, which is on the other thread.

Then again, discerning the point by jumping in at the last minute is a difficult maneuver at the best of times.

 

[IamJoseph]

Look carefully at the protest sign, which reads "You can build a mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a synagogue in Mecca."

Seems to me some minority is capitalizing on this issue for their own agenda.

Its still a good point: Jews and synagagoues predate both Islam and Arab race in this region. Do Muslims not believe in reciprocity?

 

[Bells]

Sorry, my statement was completely accurate.

Mmm hmm.. And I am the queen.

A lie: or demonstrate such a chain of events. "Sometimes" is a good word also - is it occurring here, or are you referring to some imagined event in the long-ago past.

Actually no. It is not a lie. It is something I have noticed with you before when you get into a debate with someone.

I have already described this: my suspicion is that if the mosque is Saudi-funded, there is a very good chance that it will be radical. I would like Rauf to disclose completely and unreservedly his funding sources. It isn't a big request, really. It's strange that it generates so much controversy. As it is, however, we already have $300K being donated by a Saudi prince, so I think the issue is looking worse and worse for your "side".

A $100 million dollar project and he supposedly received $300,000.. Yes.. massive funding there. I donated more in charity to that in the last financial year. That Saudi prince donates millions to News Corp and to the GOP. Yet, they do not consider him to be a fundamentalist or radical when they accept his money.

Don't you get it yet? No one has the right to demand who is funding him. If he were not a Muslim and it was not an Islamc centre, no one would be asking. But he is being asked this because he is a Muslim. Again, the hypocrisy of this whole issue would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. And then, there is always the fall-back line of it is "Ground Zero" and lets not forget your argument that they should be barred from building a Mosque anywhere the dust settles.

"Hallowed and sacred"? Where, exactly, have I said that?

Have you forgotten your plaintive 'it is Ground Zero' argument? How you said they should not be allowed to build anywhere the dust settles?

As for its "spiritual locale": http://bigpeace.com/mtodd/2010/08/24...t-ground-zero/

Nice. Now you're into ultra right wing websites, often quoted and used by the likes who frequent St0rmfr0nt.

Why am I not surprised...:shrug:

I've never understood your latter line of argument here: but they bet and strip near Ground Zero, Geoff! Surely we could have a Saudi-funded mosque there! Well, when radical jockey or radical strippers attack the World Trade Center, then by all means we should avoid giving them the opportunity to express radical opinions on jockeism or nudity near the site of their attack. As it is, we're concerned with possible radical Islamism. Still, I'm sure these others will have their day also. If it turns out that they are indeed radical Islamists, then I would support any legal means to block their construction, obviously. But let's read that again, so that it sinks in: legal means. Merely waving the Constitution of a nation of which you are not a member in front of the forum is not a valid counter-argument: it is not as universal as made out. It has limits.

You have still to prove that it is a Saudi funded Mosque. I repeat, it is a $100 million project. He supposedly received $300,000 from a Saudi prince. The GOP and News Corp receive millions of dollars. He owns billions dollars worth of shares in News Corp. Does that mean the GOP is funded by the Saudi's and should the US ban them from the political stage and remove Fox News and all the media networks and papers and magazines from sale in New York and around the US as a result?

As you have stated. You are concerned with possible radical Islam. And again, I shall remind you that you are supporting the discrimination and denial of Constitutional rights to a group of people based solely on their religion because of a possibility and because you are paranoid. But I forget, you consider that the Constitution only applies to a certain group of people and other Americans are not to be granted the same rights because they are Muslim.

Tell me, how big does the Muslim exclusion zone have to be for you and your lot to feel safe?

This is a fine idea, but not my point.

That is because you don't get the point.

You would not have heard about this if the right wing media did not decide to make it an issue. They praised it originally and then ignored it for 6 months and then decided to be against it for political gain. The very people protesting it, the politicians crying crocodile tears about the sacredness of the site are the very politicians who are being funded by the Saudis to the tune of millions of dollars of donations.

This centre is a political issue and what is sad is the amount of bigoted retards who have fallen in line like sheep to tout about possible radical Islam being preached there and ranting about 'it's Ground Zero', while ignoring the hyporcisy behind such arguments when one considers that there are strip clubs closer to ground zero. You and your lot are being used as political pawns.

LMAO - that entire line was accidentally left in from your post, above. Sorry - who's playing the martyr again?

Geoff, you specifically goaded me to respond to you in this thread and then claimed it was to make sure that everyone could see how I attacked you, blah blah blah.. You play the victim when you invite the written slap.

Are you in denial?

Are you that starved for attention that you have to stalk me across the forum and goad me in the hope that I will respond to you?

I mean, do you get off on this sort of thing?:shrug:

Misrepresentation.

Only in your eyes. Which again shows how dishonest you are.

Ha - miscomprehension. I put that statement in as a form of insurance. I'd noticed you'd already posted in that thread, and I wanted to be sure I held the higher ground in case this happened. And it has.

I'm sorry, but what?

Insurance against what? Being seen as being a twat?

Let me get this straight. You saw that I had posted in this thread and you were not involved in the discussion I was having. So you then decided to goad me to make sure that you had the higher ground when I told you where to shove it?

I am sorry, but what higher ground do you think you have here?

Again, are you that starved for attention?

The latter I have apologized repeatedly for. I expect you bring it up presumably because you still feel victimized, and not to score points in this debate. As for the former, this is his first invocation and since I don't find you a particularly honest poster, I doubt at your statements. I suppose I should just take you at your word.

And again, you can 'shove it where the sun don't shine'.

In that you consider the report of the President of the Muslim Canadian Congress to be fallaciously reporting a threat.

I just found it strange that she would rush to the media instead of the police. Does that not strike you as strange? After all, they're meant to be dangerous radical Islamists and one of them threatens her on the phone. Wouldn't you go straight to the police?

Wrong again, unless you can demonstrate where I have been arguing for demonization, vigilante justice, persecution or mob rule.

It is attitudes such as yours that leads to that. Look at the video of the man who was attacked because the protesters against the centre suspected he was a Muslim. It is the mentality and suspicions such as what you have and are arguing for that led to that man being attacked like that by the mob gathered there.. it leads to vigilante justice and persecution. We are already seeing it in the simple fact that Muslims are being denied the right to practice their religion in other states also..

By contrast, should I assume that your attitudes are perfectly in line with those who verbally threaten and abuse women? Or are your attitudes more in line with religious leaders seeking to impose arbitrary punitive restrictions on women? You might condemn such actions as much as you want...or else brush them off, I guess. But what leads these people to restrict, oppress and even kill women is what you have been arguing for on this forum.

Why? Because I queried why she did not go to the police? It is a question I have asked many women and for many of those women, they were physically denied the right or ability to contact the police. None of those women went to the media first to report their threats and abuse. When I had a husband of one of the abused women I gave legal advice to at a shelter turn up on my doorstep at 1am with a knife, I called the police, not the media. But that is just me. I mean she might have felt threatened enough to be afraid to call the police and thus chose to go to the media first.. Who knows. But I am allowed to query why she chose that path. Does not mean she felt any less threatened. It just seems strange to me that she felt that threatened to call the media and report about it to them, but there is no proof that she actually contacted the police, something the media normally comment on in my experience.

Are you claiming that my saying that they should be allowed to build their centre that will be open to all, regardless of religion is leading "these people to restrict, oppress and even kill women"?

Which people? Muslims?

Those people?

Your very terminology is bigoted and racist. "These people".. I can't believe you actually termed them that way.

Do you have proof that any of "these people" will restrict, oppress and kill women? from what I can see, Rauf's wife does not look like the type who is oppressed, does she to you?

You do raise a curious idea, however: should we oppose nothing? Opposing anything does sound like an attitude that would breed fear and suspicion. I suppose the context and basis isn't important. All hail the new era of complete credulity!

Of course not.

But should anyone be allowed to deny a group of "these people" their constitutional rights because they are Muslims, because we are suspicious of "these people" for being those people?

 

[GeoffP]

Will the real slim Sufi please stand up?

Mmm hmm.. And I am the queen.

Of what?

Actually no. It is not a lie. It is something I have noticed with you before when you get into a debate with someone.

Then demonstrate, or be silent thereof. :shrug:

A $100 million dollar project and he supposedly received $300,000.. Yes.. massive funding there. I donated more in charity to that in the last financial year. That Saudi prince donates millions to News Corp and to the GOP. Yet, they do not consider him to be a fundamentalist or radical when they accept his money.

Ah. And I still do. Do you follow yet?

Don't you get it yet? No one has the right to demand who is funding him. If he were not a Muslim and it was not an Islamc centre, no one would be asking.

More like: no one would be asking if his history of associations were not already sketchy, his claims of funding alternating between the United States (when in the US) and elsewhere (when abroad).

Have you forgotten your plaintive 'it is Ground Zero' argument? How you said they should not be allowed to build anywhere the dust settles?

I said exactly that? Careful now. Why don't you take the time to examine what I actually write? For instance: where did I write "hallowed and sacred"?

Nice. Now you're into ultra right wing websites, often quoted and used by the likes who frequent St0rmfr0nt.

Oh? And here I'd thought it was the message. If you don't like the website, that's fine: I don't like the ultra right wing, and I was interested in it only to the extent that it illustrated a few examples of some of the damage around Ground Zero, including right in front of the Burlington Coat Factory. However, your "StormFrent" throw-in is weasel language, as you know very well. I have no association with them whatsoever; I suppose in that vein I should bow to your greater experience.

Now that we've settled that, the author does make one or two good points. How much of that dust do you suppose is powdered human remains? Not much, I would guess, but it does seem a little insensitive of Rauf if he's simultaneously taking money from Saudi Arabia. Doesn't seem "proper". Insert whatever histrionics you prefer into the quotes.

You have still to prove that it is a Saudi funded Mosque. I repeat, it is a $100 million project. He supposedly received $300,000 from a Saudi prince. The GOP and News Corp receive millions of dollars. He owns billions dollars worth of shares in News Corp. Does that mean the GOP is funded by the Saudi's and should the US ban them from the political stage and remove Fox News and all the media networks and papers and magazines from sale in New York and around the US as a result?

Interesting. I like this idea. The same should go for the Dems, of course, as they strike me as extraordinarily fishy also. In point of fact, it appears that New York State may be financing much of the build: the proposed mosque appears to qualify for public financing. This may well be a good thing: a partially publically financed centre might be obligated to ensure that no hate speech is being disseminated within their building on peril of legal and financial penalty.

That is because you don't get the point.

No, I just don't care about your point; it is extraneous to the discussion, as you know full well.

You would not have heard about this if the right wing media did not decide to make it an issue.

And? Frankly, whatever their objectives, I prefer to know.

Geoff, you specifically goaded me to respond to you in this thread and then claimed it was to make sure that everyone could see how I attacked you, blah blah blah.. You play the victim when you invite the written slap.

Rather, I take the precaution to ward off tomfoolery, and the inevitable dishonest arguments that invite themselves to the party thereafter. There was a simple way to avoid it, Bells, which you did not take. Actually, a couple of ways.

Only in your eyes. Which again shows how dishonest you are.

That was possibly the most absurd argument on the thread yet. "You don't agree with me, so that proves your dishonesty." Councillor, give it a rest.

And again, you can 'shove it where the sun don't shine'.

Very well. I wish you to take no insult from my comments: first, since that would be unfair to you. I also would hate them to be the centrepiece of some internal argument, dragged up in perpetuity for reasons of personal malice.

I just found it strange that she would rush to the media instead of the police. Does that not strike you as strange? After all, they're meant to be dangerous radical Islamists and one of them threatens her on the phone. Wouldn't you go straight to the police?

Please illustrate evidence that she didn't go to the police. At this point, neither of us are able to say. If not, why not? Is she, too, a Republican plant? Did she perhaps feel that nothing could or would be done?

It is attitudes such as yours that leads to that. Look at the video of the man who was attacked because the protesters against the centre suspected he was a Muslim.

Really? I see: I am encouraging vigilantism, personal violence and riot. Because I hold a contrary opinion. Questioning Rauf's support and intentions must unfairly indite all Muslims because of some bizarre guilt-by-association (regardless of his views or his money sourcing), but linking my opinions to a bunch of thugs is perfectly acceptable. Tell you what, we'll venture back into the fairness zone again: please demonstrate evidence of your argument. Thanks.

Why? Because I queried why she did not go to the police? ...But I am allowed to query why she chose that path. Does not mean she felt any less threatened.

And, in so doing, to dismiss it. Otherwise why ask?

Are you claiming that my saying that they should be allowed to build their centre that will be open to all, regardless of religion is leading "these people to restrict, oppress and even kill women"?

Which people? Muslims?

Sorry: what? I'm sorry, but I cannot believe you would be so ignorant as to think that this meant all Muslims, rather than conservative Muslims the like of the Saudis. I must expect that this is another tactic of yours.

Edit: Or I would, if not for...

Your very terminology is bigoted and racist. "These people".. I can't believe you actually termed them that way.

And I can't believe you're trying to rephrase the argument this way. Although...initially I wasn't sure whether you were trying to base your argument on some seized-on association that you've created ("Muslims" as opposed to "Conservative Muslims in the Saudi style", the latter being obviously the intended target), or if you really believed this was my point. Then I saw your answer below:

But should anyone be allowed to deny a group of "these people" their constitutional rights because they are Muslims, because we are suspicious of "these people" for being those people?

First off, "those people" (the adherents of Conservative Islam) certainly exist. Are "these people" (Rauf, El-Gamal, etc) "those people" (Saudi philosophists)? It's a valid question, and one that deserves an answer.

Although, see the bolded text above, where you make the unfounded accusation without any room for maneuver. So which really is your belief on this matter? Is it merely an argumentative ploy - as I suspect - or is it your actual belief? You seem to distance yourself from it underneath. It's a very twisted stance. You can PM me with the truth if you like - I give you my word not to reveal your answer.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Inquiry

Mod Hat — Inquiry (of a sort)

I have been reviewing the thread in order to figure out just how much I need to cut away, but then I paused to wonder if it's really worth it.

Thus, a simple question: Is this discussion actually going anywhere?

Useful, I mean? I mean, of course I have my own inclinations and sympathies, but as far as this silly green hat is concerned, they're irrelevant.

Thus, I'm left looking at something that could be asserted as the Sciforums variation of gladiator sport. And while that can be entertaining, for a while at least, it seems we're getting away from the topic itself while carrying out this spectacle in its orbit.

Personally, I don't object; as a policy matter, though, I am inclined to notice, and in noticing, wonder.

 

[Tiassa]

Balancing acts, all around

Questioning Rauf's support and intentions must unfairly indite all Muslims because of some bizarre guilt-by-association ....

Would you show the same scrutiny to the State Department?

In recent weeks, Mr. Abdul Rauf has barely been heard from as a national political debate explodes over his dream project, including, somewhere in its planned 15 stories, a mosque. Opponents have called his project an act of insensitivity, even a monument to terrorism.

In his absence — he is now on another Middle East speaking tour sponsored by the State Department — a host of allegations have been floated: that he supports terrorism; that his father, who worked at the behest of the Egyptian government, was a militant; that his publicly expressed views mask stealth extremism. Some charges, the available record suggests, are unsupported. Some are simplifications of his ideas. In any case, calling him a jihadist appears even less credible than calling him a United States agent.

(Barnard)​

Imam Rauf apparently cannot get a break. On this side of the Atlantic, he is accused of being subversive. Across the pond, in Egypt, he must disclaim that he is not a propaganda tool of the American government.

The act of questioning is not in and of itself problematic. The foundations of the question, however, are of paramount importance to assessing the inquiry itself, just as the basis of the answer one prescribes is essential to measuring its credibility.
____________________

Notes:

Barnard, Anne. "For Imam in Muslim Center Furor, a Hard Balancing Act". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page A1. NYTimes.com. August 29, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html

 

[Tiassa]

Arson at Murfreesboro mosque construction site

A story to follow:

Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb.

Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson.

Special Agent Andy Anderson of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CBS News that the fire destroyed one piece of construction equipment and damaged three others. Gas was poured over the equipment to start the fire, Anderson said ....

.... Digging had begun at the site, which was planned as a place of worship for the approximately 250 Muslim families in the Murfreesboro area, but no structure had been built yet, according to Saleh Sbenaty, a member of the planning committee and a professor of engineering technology at Middle Tennessee State University.

"This is a shock," said Sbenaty. "We've had small act of vandals. But this is going to be a crime and whoever did it, they should be punished to the full extent of the law."

The center had operated for years out of a small business suite. Planning members said the new building, which was being constructed next to a church, would help accommodate the area's growing Muslim community.

"We unfortunately did not experience hostilities for the 30 years we've been here and have only seen the hostility since approval of the site plan for the new center," said Sbenaty.

Opponents of a new Islamic center say they believe the mosque will be more than a place of prayer; they are afraid the 15-acre site that was once farmland will be turned into a terrorist training ground for Muslim militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

"They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group," Bob Shelton, a 76-year-old retiree who lives in the area, told The Associated Press.

Shelton was among several hundred demonstrators who recently wore "Vote for Jesus" T-shirts and carried signs that said "No Sharia law for USA!," referring to the Islamic code of law.

Others took their opposition further, spray painting a sign announcing the "Future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro" and tearing it up.

Earlier this summer opponents criticized the planned mosque at hearings held by the Rutherford County Commission, as supporters held prayer vigils.

At one such prayer vigil, WTVF reported opponents speaking out against construction.

"No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don't want it. I don't want them here," Evy Summers said to WTVF. "Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity."

(CBS and Associated Press)​

As of now, there are no suspects. The fire could be anti-Islamic terrorism as easily as it could be a disgruntled employee of the construction company or an insurance scam. But with tensions in Murfreesboro so high, and such vociferous opposition to the planned mosque, many are naturally suspecting that the arson targeted the site as a statement against Islam.

Let us, then, follow this story, and discover in time whether this was just an act of idocy or a defense of the "land of the free and the home of the brave".
_____________________

Notes:

CBS and Associated Press. "Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson". CBS News. August 28, 2010. CBSNews.com. August 29, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/28/national/main6814690.shtml

 

[arfa brane]

I liked the part "This is a Christian country, based on Christianity".

A real gold-plated crock is that one. I thought the founding principles were based on capitalism, hence "Christian millionaires" who chase the good dollars.

 

[GeoffP]

Mod Hat — Inquiry (of a sort)

I have been reviewing the thread in order to figure out just how much I need to cut away, but then I paused to wonder if it's really worth it.

Thus, a simple question: Is this discussion actually going anywhere?

It's largely pointless. Essentially the majority is me defending myself against a round of the same baseless allegations as in a previous thread. You're correct when you call it gladiator sport: two posters enter, one poster leaves.

Would you show the same scrutiny to the State Department?

:shrug: Of course. If we're going to call the whole thing political, then the other side is face in the Arab world.

Actually I read this article a while back - there's this vague assertion by Rauf that he's had to deny that he's an American agent. I pressed Bells on this but didn't get anything; WRT the article it boils down to his denying it to a couple of students or the like in the audience of one of his lectures. The 'widespread accusation' appears to be sufficiently wide so as to be completely elusive.

Imam Rauf apparently cannot get a break. On this side of the Atlantic, he is accused of being subversive. Across the pond, in Egypt, he must disclaim that he is not a propaganda tool of the American government.

The latter being debatable so far, who knows which way his wind blows? Schwartz wrote a while back on his questionable Sufist strategy here; I suppose it's rare that you meet one so determined to seem like an asshole.

The act of questioning is not in and of itself problematic. The foundations of the question, however, are of paramount importance to assessing the inquiry itself, just as the basis of the answer one prescribes is essential to measuring its credibility.

I'm all for questioning the questioners, so long as the questioning of the questioners is open to question. But if the questioning of the questioners was carried out in a questionable way, then this would render those questioners subject to question. This is a question I've been dealing with recently; I haven't gone as far as to question those questioning the questioners, even if the answers they provide merely raise more questions.

 

[GeoffP]

A story to follow:

Assuming that one accepts the central tenet of the opposing argument. Otherwise, it's highly offensive fallout.

I liked the part "This is a Christian country, based on Christianity".

A real gold-plated crock is that one. I thought the founding principles were based on capitalism, hence "Christian millionaires" who chase the good dollars.

Ar.

 

[Bells]

Of what?

Then demonstrate, or be silent thereof.

You mean like you did it before?

More like: no one would be asking if his history of associations were not already sketchy, his claims of funding alternating between the United States (when in the US) and elsewhere (when abroad).

So sketchy that he has been working for the State Department since Bush was in power? Or are you saying that your Government is "sketchy"?

Really, the credibility of this argument just keeps on failing.

I said exactly that? Careful now. Why don't you take the time to examine what I actually write? For instance: where did I write "hallowed and sacred"?

Actually, you did say exactly that. And having examined what you write, I have to admit it makes me like you less and less.

Oh? And here I'd thought it was the message. If you don't like the website, that's fine: I don't like the ultra right wing, and I was interested in it only to the extent that it illustrated a few examples of some of the damage around Ground Zero, including right in front of the Burlington Coat Factory. However, your "StormFrent" throw-in is weasel language, as you know very well. I have no association with them whatsoever; I suppose in that vein I should bow to your greater experience.

Now that we've settled that, the author does make one or two good points. How much of that dust do you suppose is powdered human remains? Not much, I would guess, but it does seem a little insensitive of Rauf if he's simultaneously taking money from Saudi Arabia. Doesn't seem "proper". Insert whatever histrionics you prefer into the quotes.

Geoff, if you wish to remain credible, citing reports from ultra-rightwing groups that show an intense paranoia and bigotry in their reporting (just look up the Obama section for a small example) is not exactly the way to go about it.

Granted, if you are into reading such sites, then knock your socks off. But posting anything from them as proof or evidence will result in people laughing at you. I am laughing at you right now.

Rather, I take the precaution to ward off tomfoolery, and the inevitable dishonest arguments that invite themselves to the party thereafter. There was a simple way to avoid it, Bells, which you did not take. Actually, a couple of ways.

Yes. Don't intentionally goad me to take notice of you in a thread. You were not trying to ward off "tomfoolery". You wanted it and ensured you got the attention you seem to need.

Please illustrate evidence that she didn't go to the police. At this point, neither of us are able to say. If not, why not? Is she, too, a Republican plant? Did she perhaps feel that nothing could or would be done?

That is the thing. Normally in such news reports, they always comment on whether the police are involved. This time they have not.

Really? I see: I am encouraging vigilantism, personal violence and riot. Because I hold a contrary opinion. Questioning Rauf's support and intentions must unfairly indite all Muslims because of some bizarre guilt-by-association (regardless of his views or his money sourcing), but linking my opinions to a bunch of thugs is perfectly acceptable. Tell you what, we'll venture back into the fairness zone again: please demonstrate evidence of your argument. Thanks.

When you become suspicious and intolerant of "these people" and post views that you have posted on here, what else is it going to lead to?

Do you think the protesters were encouraging vigilantism, or anything else? Their signs mirror your arguments on this site. Their words mirror yours on this site. Yet they saw fit to attack a man on the suspicion he was one of "these people". That is what belief such as yours often leads to.

And, in so doing, to dismiss it. Otherwise why ask?

I actually did not dismiss it. Asking 'did you call the police?' and 'why not?' if the answer is no, is something I always ask. Always. Lack of a call to the police does not mean it did not happen. But it would normally make my job that little bit harder. Call it habit..

Sorry: what? I'm sorry, but I cannot believe you would be so ignorant as to think that this meant all Muslims, rather than conservative Muslims the like of the Saudis. I must expect that this is another tactic of yours.

Edit: Or I would, if not for...

You said:

"But what leads these people to restrict, oppress and even kill women is what you have been arguing for on this forum. "​

I have been arguing that the Constitutional rights of Muslims should be upheld. And you respond with that.

First off, "those people" (the adherents of Conservative Islam) certainly exist. Are "these people" (Rauf, El-Gamal, etc) "those people" (Saudi philosophists)? It's a valid question, and one that deserves an answer.

Although, see the bolded text above, where you make the unfounded accusation without any room for maneuver. So which really is your belief on this matter? Is it merely an argumentative ploy - as I suspect - or is it your actual belief? You seem to distance yourself from it underneath. It's a very twisted stance. You can PM me with the truth if you like - I give you my word not to reveal your answer.

There is no proof that Rauf is a radical or an extremist. Absolutely none. Quite the contrary, he is viewed as being too far to the left.

As I said, I have been arguing for not restricting the Constitutional rights of Muslims and you respond by saying what you did. Do you think I am encouraging the mistreatment and abuse and murders of women by saying that Muslims should have equal rights under the Constitution to build whatever they damn well please on land they own and have received approval for?

Frankly, your calling them "these people" and how you used the term fits in well with how you have conducted yourself in anything that concerns Muslims on this forum. I guess I should not be surprised that you even said "these people" in the manner that you did. Considering the sites you seem to visit for views about the "spiritual locale" of the centre in New York, I should not be surprised really.

 

[GeoffP]

In search of reason

You mean like you did it before?

Demonstrate, in context.

So sketchy that he has been working for the State Department since Bush was in power? Or are you saying that your Government is "sketchy"?

Because governments - and in particular the American government - are so very hard to fool? The Taliban, bin Laden, Iraq, Afghanistan. Sure sure. Talk about failing arguments...

Actually, you did say exactly that.

Actually, I'm requesting that you locate where I said it. Find it.

And having examined what you write, I have to admit it makes me like you less and less.

Good. I'm happy to shed delusion of any sort.

Geoff, if you wish to remain credible, citing reports from ultra-rightwing groups that show an intense paranoia and bigotry in their reporting (just look up the Obama section for a small example) is not exactly the way to go about it.

Let's pause a moment and examine here: which exactly is it I cited from there? Their rabid anti-Obama...section? Or whatever the hell it is you're referring to. Or was it rather a series of photos illustrating a lot of dust at the Burlington Coat Factory? So where does Ground Zero end? It's an interesting question.

I am laughing at you right now.

Well, ok there, Salt/Tomb Raider/Sheena/Xena. I'll try to pretend to some concern.

Actually, that was a lie. I'm not going to even pretend that.

Yes. Don't intentionally goad me to take notice of you in a thread. You were not trying to ward off "tomfoolery". You wanted it and ensured you got the attention you seem to need.

Not in the slightest. You could have ignored the post, or just stopped in and said "acknowledged, evil Geoff" or said you'd earnestly read my writings. Instead, here you are, carrying on with the same unsubstantiated nonsense as in the last thread. Virtually prophetic, wasn't I?

Given your record about "playing the martyr", I don't see what relevance your denials of the pattern have.

.. Playing the martyr?

LMAO - that entire line was accidentally left in from your post, above. Sorry - who's playing the martyr again?

[Accidentally left in from Bells' post] If it is against the forum rules, then report me. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. My posts are as they were posted.

[Actual quote]If it is against the forum rules, then report me. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. My posts are as they were posted.

...

That is the thing. Normally in such news reports, they always comment on whether the police are involved. This time they have not.

Uniformly? Hardly. That wasn't any small-box in-town comment about domestic abuse. Not the same thing.

When you become suspicious and intolerant of "these people" and post views that you have posted on here, what else is it going to lead to?

Increased skepticism of conservative religious assholes? I'm sure you're right: no one really wants that, Bells. Let us not even ask. Clearly this, too, would be offensive.

Do you think the protesters were encouraging vigilantism, or anything else? Their signs mirror your arguments on this site. Their words mirror yours on this site. Yet they saw fit to attack a man on the suspicion he was one of "these people". That is what belief such as yours often leads to.

Interesting: which of my words "mirror theirs"? (And is it through a mirror darkly?) Which of my intents are theirs? It's very easy to wave a hand at some shared political perspective without making any kind of functional connection. When you have evidence that I've advocated for a riot or random beatings-up, you let me know. In the meantime, I can argue as easily and accurately that opinions such as yours lead to the kind of rabid misogyny we could well do without. Would this be a fair comparison?

You said:

"But what leads these people to restrict, oppress and even kill women is what you have been arguing for on this forum. "​

I have been arguing that the Constitutional rights of Muslims should be upheld. And you respond with that.

Conveniently ignoring the point of our entire argument, and my response to your unvarying attempts to make my comments about Islamic radicalism/Islamic/conservatism mean what you want them to mean. Pathetic.

There is no proof that Rauf is a radical or an extremist. Absolutely none. Quite the contrary, he is viewed as being too far to the left.

As I said, I have been arguing for not restricting the Constitutional rights of Muslims and you respond by saying what you did.

- which you deliberately misconstrue to mean what you want it to, despite repeated corrections to the contrary, which is the absolute definition of trolling, while pretending that I'm arguing some kind of blanket ban on this site rather than due process and reasonable investigation: yes, yes -

Do you think I am encouraging the mistreatment and abuse and murders of women by saying that Muslims should have equal rights under the Constitution to build whatever they damn well please on land they own and have received approval for?

I think you really don't care either way, Bells. I think you're not interested in vetting this Rauf because you don't care where his funding comes from, and what those who will assume the financial reigns of this mosque do or don't believe. Why you don't particularly care is anyone's guess: this simplistic appeal to "thu Constitushun" is as ill-conceived as it is tiresome. But just ignore nuance, Bells. Pretend it never happened.

Truly pathetic, Bells. Pick up what little honour you have left in this debate and move on.

 

[Bells]

Since we are going around and around in circles with the majority of the stuff you post, I am just going to respond to this for now:

I think you really don't care either way, Bells. I think you're not interested in vetting this Rauf because you don't care where his funding comes from, and what those who will assume the financial reigns of this mosque do or don't believe. Why you don't particularly care is anyone's guess: this simplistic appeal to "thu Constitushun" is as ill-conceived as it is tiresome. But just ignore nuance, Bells. Pretend it never happened.

Paranoid much?

Vetted? You don't think the last to Governments have vetted him enough (the man works for the State Department for goodness sake)?

He is getting a minute amount of funding from a Saudi Prince who donates millions upon millions of dollars to charitable organisations in the US, and donates millions to the GOP, all of whom are happy to take his money. You are expecting me to believe that the $300,000 given towards a project expected to cost in excess of $100 million is giving the Saudis financial reigns of a centre that will include a prayer centre open to those of all faiths and a swimming pool, gym, food court, etc? Are you seriously still sticking to this argument?

You will excuse me if I don't give in to paranoia fed by bigotry, leading to a fear mongering and smear campaign against a man who has done nothing to deserve such treatment or to warrant such scrutiny.

I find the whole debate against this centre, by the majority, to be highly hypocritical and dishonest and based solely on bigotry.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I think Rauf is an idealist.
His views are pro women's emancipation, and peace loving.
He may have a few ideas on the Middle East which don't toe the American line, but that is true of a lot of people.

The current UK Prime Minister has called Gaza a prison.
Tony Blair's own wife said that she could understand why people became suicide bombers.
She was quickly gagged, and avoided the subject thereafter.

This project should be shelved though.
It's a really bad idea, which can only cause greater conflict, and maybe bloodshed.

 

[Tiassa]

I much prefer you when you're less dishonest

Actually I read this article a while back - there's this vague assertion by Rauf that he's had to deny that he's an American agent.

Are you sure you read that article?

But one young Egyptian asked: Wasn’t the United States financing the speaking tour that had brought the imam to Cairo because his message conveniently echoed United States interests?

“I’m not an agent from any government, even if some of you may not believe it,” the imam replied. “I’m not. I’m a peacemaker.”

That talk, recorded on video six months ago, was part of what now might be called Mr. Abdul Rauf’s prior life, before he became the center of an uproar over his proposal for a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center.

(Barnard; boldface accent added)​

I guess recorded on video and reported by a journalist boils down to some vague assertion that is completely elusive.

The latter being debatable so far, who knows which way his wind blows?

And this is how it works. Misrepresent, downplay, then play ignorant.

Yes, we're quite familiar with this routine: Anything to doubt a Muslim.

I'm all for questioning the questioners, so long as the questioning of the questioners is open to question. But if the questioning of the questioners was carried out in a questionable way, then this would render those questioners subject to question. This is a question I've been dealing with recently; I haven't gone as far as to question those questioning the questioners, even if the answers they provide merely raise more questions.

Except for you: You're beyond being questioned, aren't you?
____________________

Notes:

Barnard, Anne. "For Imam in Muslim Center Furor, a Hard Balancing Act". The New York Times. August 22, 2010; page A1. NYTimes.com. August 29, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html

 

[Bells]

I guess recorded on video and reported by a journalist boils down to some vague assertion that is completely elusive.

Which was frustrating in the extreme. It was linked several times. Then he accused me of not giving him anything about it. Short of ramming it up his left nostril, could it have been more obvious from the article?

/Hands Tiassa a brick

You might find smashing your head with it to be more pleasurable.

 

[GeoffP]

Same to you - or have we ever been there with you?

Are you sure you read that article?

I guess recorded on video and reported by a journalist boils down to some vague assertion that is completely elusive.

Er - one guy in the audience frowned at him. I see. While that may constitute massive support at your threshold, I was wondering if you had anything else. It's funny - I'm happy to accept your position, if you can support it. But if I don't go on what amounts to heresay at this point, I'm being obtuse? Please. Talk about playing ignorant. If you want to make this point, back it up. Otherwise back it up.

Except for you: You're beyond being questioned, aren't you?

It's a surprisingly simple thing, Ti: question away. Then, when the accused responds, read what he says rather than making up your own dialogue to suit your pre-conclusions, which are obviously and patently wrong. It's not hard. I fail to see why you two are struggling so mightily with it. Would you have more skepticism for Mr. Rauf if he came from Alabama, say, or some other state deemed less-than-Tiassa-acceptable? We're all old enough that we can reign in our juvenile angst; let's give that a shot now. I've already specified a few scenarios in which I would have no possible political objection, so let's not pretend - again - that it's some kind of blanket condemnation. Mmkay?

Anyway: Kremmen is on to something here. I don't know that it would promote bloodshed - or bloody hope that it would not - but perhaps there's some other ground.

As for Bells: don't give me this "hey a guy in Egypt though he were talkin' funneh" and expect that to constitute an argument. Let's explore here: even if he were treated with the general skepticism that you and Ti are pleading, what exactly would that matter to his backing and planned philosophy? Because...the Taliban were never funded by the US? Brilliantly done.

I find the whole debate against this centre, by the majority, to be highly hypocritical and dishonest and based solely on bigotry.

Ah - so am I one of the majority or not? It's a good way to float a loophole in your flat condemnations so far, I admit. Very impressed. I guess I accept your oblique semi-not-quite apology or vetting...?