It doesn't matter. There has always been foreign investment in countries. This building may have some foreign backers. So what?
Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero
- Thread starter pavlosmarcos
- Start date
It doesn't matter. There has always been foreign investment in countries. This building may have some foreign backers. So what?
3,000 is about the total death toll from 'The Troubles'. No single location, the campaign of terror was long, and drawn out. So we don't have a single location. This structure isn't at that single location, it's a couple of blocks away.
Why is it insensitive? Because a bunch of anti-Muslim bigots equate Islam with terrorism? MUSLIMS DIED IN THE WTC TOO. Allegedly you live in the 'Land of the free', with constitutional rights to freely practice a religion, and no religion shall be held above any other by the state. Why are you so keen to take a shit on your own constitution, and the freedoms it guarantees?
Ah, OK, so you do hate the freedoms of the constitution! Freedom of speech and expression, the right to free assembly! You are a totalitarian.
Only those of bigots.
Boohoo. There are many and various existing Muslim businesses in the area already. This is just one more, for the Muslim citizens of the USA, who have all the same rights as you do.
And would their complaint have been heeded? Would it have halted American Imperialism?
Except, of course, that they haven't.
Wait - an apparatus of the same government that created the Taliban and continues to permit CAIR to do its little end-run around the Constitution? You're surely right. America has never been wrong before; and that's a fact.
Yeees: and? You forget that I ask for an investigation of the man. This might encompass Masjid al-Farah, I suppose. And by rights to see their finances: those with nothing to hide generally have little to fear.
Just what the fuck has it got to do with you? You're not even an American, by the sounds of it. Why don't you let Americans (and residents) sort it out themselves?
So does the KKK, I expect. "Race relations" is probably the key phrase.
Because the guy pushing it has strange ties to Turkish extremist groups, a refusal to condemn Hamas' terrorism, a strangely supremacist book released in Malaysia only, and a funny habit of saying one thing to American audiences and another to foreign offices. I wonder: has his collection plate increased past $200? That would only leave them $100 million short, roughly.
Interesting. Your point is actually thus also that I if were to say that George Bush is a conservative dipshit and that his actions quite possibly criminal, that I am attacking all Republicans. Or Christians. Or Texans. I do think that the mosque as situated is an insenstive choice; but you'll notice the main issue is Rauf himself. Thus, I do not conflate Islam with terrorism any more than you conflate extremism with Islam, vis-a-vis the importation of Saudi values.
So nothing, if the backers are morally clean or relatively so. That's a not-infrequent precondition, you see: or at least a reasonable one.
A veritable stone's throw; and you also recognize the difference between this single site and the scattering of deaths from the Troubles. It would be in similar vein to putting a German cultural centre outside Dachau.
Very good: they did indeed, from Islamic extremism. Do you think their memory would be well upheld by letting another Islamic extremist organization move in and claim to speak for them whilst vomiting out supremacist propaganda? Perhaps it would be sensible to vet young Mr Rauf a little further, before handing him the microphone to speak to - and for - so many people?
It's funny, but these are all lessons that I thought had been well learned sixty years ago: that ignoring such a sociopolitical problem (if problem this be) was a poor outlook for everyone. I'd assumed we'd all learned to be a bit more cautious, from opposition to Sovietism all the way to Ike's dire warnings about the military-industrial complex. Yet it seems in many ways like people are poised to defend complete, absolute freedom against reasonable precaution. It is not a lesson I thought my generation should have forgot, but then again my peers actually come from one generation beyond that. Perhaps it's inevitable.
Ach, ja, Junge! Ich muB allen den idiotische freimarketen Socialdemokratisten toten! Please, now, and let us be sensible. I am indeed a totalitarian, however: a communist, specifically, and not a stupid one.
Oh dear. Like this person, then?. Or him? Or him? Maybe him? Or this guy, even? Which of them are the bigots? How do you know?
A business, all other things being equal, is not of any concern. (If they were selling little models of planes crashing into the Towers, that would be another thing.) Even a mosque from the right people - that is to say, not questionably-motivated semi-Sufis ("Sefis?") - would be no issue in the right circumstances. But this Rauf in particular is questionable.
So you do see that they were imposed upon, rather than consulted? Will the complaints of Americans be heeded? Will it halt extremist Islamic Imperialism? (If, as I say, this indeed be.)
It seems to be, as nearly as anyone seems to know, Saudi Arabian citizens going about some business they refuse to discuss.phlogistician said:
Now it's "Islam", not "Muslim culture"?phlogistician said:
I see no evidence you, or anyone who is talking, knows what the centre is "for" - that would depend on the goals of its supporters and financiers and builders, and they're not talking.
I can find out. This one, I can't.phlogistician said:
Why would you think that? You already pointed out that you don't know who is building it, and there aren't enough American Muslims in the area to routinely fill the ground floor of over a dozen.phlogistician said:
They do not appear to have a laudable mission. They are certainly off to a bad start, for any laudable project. But any time they want to show up and explain otherwise, I will listen.phlogistician said:
Last edited:
Just gonna jump in here quickly...
Didn't have much respect for the ADL to begin with, but their reflexive stance on the mosque issue was ridiculous and childish to the extreme, and now those guys simply make me want to retch. Their job is to prevent discrimination, not justify it. If they had a real reason to believe this cultural center was going to encourage some form of discrimination, they should have taken the time to gather the relevant facts and to make a nuanced case about it rather than throwing in their useless gab the moment it was announced. The ADL promotes an image of Israel as a spoiled drug-addicted teen from a wealthy family with a persecution complex, and their free-flowing accusations of antisemitism cheapen the lives of every single victim from the Holocaust.
I don't personally know what the real intention of this cultural center/mosque is supposed to be, and I think it's a worthwhile question to ask and answer before the first shovel is allowed to hit the ground. I'm just thoroughly disappointed with all the opinionated reactionaries jumping to conclusions and encouraging a divide between liberal Muslims and other Americans, before anyone really has the full story. As one news article I recently read put it, do you guys really think this took the FBI by complete surprise, and now they're scrambling to plug the gap in our terrorism defense net? Until we know for certain that there's some kind of threat or intention to pour salt in the wound, throwing accusations against this cultural center is like calling the new WTC a middle finger pointing at the rest of the world.
Didn't have much respect for the ADL to begin with, but their reflexive stance on the mosque issue was ridiculous and childish to the extreme, and now those guys simply make me want to retch. Their job is to prevent discrimination, not justify it. If they had a real reason to believe this cultural center was going to encourage some form of discrimination, they should have taken the time to gather the relevant facts and to make a nuanced case about it rather than throwing in their useless gab the moment it was announced. The ADL promotes an image of Israel as a spoiled drug-addicted teen from a wealthy family with a persecution complex, and their free-flowing accusations of antisemitism cheapen the lives of every single victim from the Holocaust.
I don't personally know what the real intention of this cultural center/mosque is supposed to be, and I think it's a worthwhile question to ask and answer before the first shovel is allowed to hit the ground. I'm just thoroughly disappointed with all the opinionated reactionaries jumping to conclusions and encouraging a divide between liberal Muslims and other Americans, before anyone really has the full story. As one news article I recently read put it, do you guys really think this took the FBI by complete surprise, and now they're scrambling to plug the gap in our terrorism defense net? Until we know for certain that there's some kind of threat or intention to pour salt in the wound, throwing accusations against this cultural center is like calling the new WTC a middle finger pointing at the rest of the world.
Why are you unwilling to let Muslim Americans go about their business? My interest is that you appear to be trampling on your own constitution. I find that quite unnerving.
So does the KKK, I expect. "Race relations" is probably the key phrase.
Can you keep this on topic perhaps?
Hamas, like it or not, are now an elected government. One thing that we learned in the UK wrt terrorism, is that you don't stop it by meeting it with force, but with negotiation, and encouraging them to take democratic paths. Hamas have done exactly that. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and I'm anti-zionist. So you'll gain no ground bringing Hamas into the discussion here.
Given that Muslims died in the WTC, no it's not. It's not 'us vs them', but you seek to make it that. Shame on you.
If Rauf uses the place for anything illegal, you'll have an axe to grind. Until then, it's time to let American Muslim citizens enjoy their freedoms. There really is no argument here.
'Scattering', same death toll though. And we solved our problem with Irish terrorism through diplomacy, not by being reactionary. And btw, I don't see a difference. I've been evacuated from railway stations where there have been IRA bombs, had one blow up outside a friend's flat, been stuck on the Underground after a rocket attack on the MI6 building, can walk through Hyde Park, or Regents Park, both sites of IRA bombs, walk past the House of Commons where Airey Neave was murdered with a bomb, ours was a long and protracted terror campaign, not a one off event. And you know what? We didn't start shunning the Irish. We recognised that while tragic, these events were rare, and you have let terrorists win if you modify your behaviour because of their actions. Stop living in fear, eh?
Given that Dachau is in Germany, and it was Nazis that killed German Jews, I don't quite get your comparison here. Oh, sorry, it's Godwin's Law, many people feel that once you have sunk to this, you've effectively resigned all attempt at reasonable debate.
It's a Saudi Embassy now? No, it's a centre for US Citizens, who follow Islam. You don't know who is paying for it, not that it matters. If the place is later used for any illegal activity, you can investigate it if it happens. Until then, it's supposed to be 'land of the free' with constitutional guarantees about the practice of religion. Perhaps you'd be happier leaving the US, if you don't love it?
What do you see as being different between the two? Is there an argument to be made either way? Or was that just a petty nit pick 'cos you've tun our of reasonable arguments? (not that you ever had any).
I'm sure there'll be a brochure available to tell you once the place is built.
They do have a laudable mission. It's about understanding.
I'm sure persuading you they are allowed to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights is top of their agenda! Maybe you missed their fax already
lol !you hit on why I think these groups are doing this. they don't want moderate Islam to connect because than it may gain some influence which would interfere with their plans. there are probably 3 main groups for this
right wingers/republicans= they want to keep Islam and a boogeyman to scare people so they can get easy votes and you know not have to come up with solutions to problems.
christian groups mostly conservative and protestant= they don't want Islam becoming main stream because it hurts their plans to turn the US truly into a state that gives christians precedence over people of other faiths
Jewish groups=they just don't want any competition for influencing the US middle eastern policy.
In a lot of cases it actually does matter who builds something, and what for.
Calling it the Cordoba house, and the location for it is enough indication in what direction this project is headed to, at least for me. There do not seem to be any peaceful intentions behind this project, otherwise they would have tried to relocate an other lot for their 'peaceful' project that is supposed to evoke mutual understanding between 'Muslims' and uhm...dhimmis (and would have never ever considered to pick a lot located just two streets away from Ground Zero just to label it with a name that is the quintessence of Islamic conquests in the West). I wonder why (no I'm actually not really wondering) they had to use a name that epitomises the Islamic conquests in the 'West'. If it was to build a bridge between the Muslim world, and the non-Muslim world, then why not use something that would designate it more efficiently (something along the lines of 'House of mutual understanding' - okay, realise that this is just an example), and that would not immediately lead to suspicion. Okay, now it's been renamed to Park 51, but the initial name of this and the location picked for it were just really tasteless, and flaunting off how there exists zilch understanding on the initators side for the Western outlook on historical events - a bad fundament to build the bridge of mutual understanding on. I'm not doubting the earnestness behind the project, I just fear that this is a one sided bridge at its core, where only those who seek to understand Islam and its followers are allowed to cross, and not the other way around - therefore they're right when they claim that they're building a bridge of understanding, but that's about as far as the bridge reaches.. The name of the initiative says it all, just like Feisal Abdul Rauf and his companions' views. According to his wife it's not a big deal, hey, if that's the kind of mindset then I wonder what kind of 'understanding' they're after, really.
Calling it the Cordoba house, and the location for it is enough indication in what direction this project is headed to, at least for me. There do not seem to be any peaceful intentions behind this project, otherwise they would have tried to relocate an other lot for their 'peaceful' project that is supposed to evoke mutual understanding between 'Muslims' and uhm...dhimmis (and would have never ever considered to pick a lot located just two streets away from Ground Zero just to label it with a name that is the quintessence of Islamic conquests in the West). I wonder why (no I'm actually not really wondering) they had to use a name that epitomises the Islamic conquests in the 'West'. If it was to build a bridge between the Muslim world, and the non-Muslim world, then why not use something that would designate it more efficiently (something along the lines of 'House of mutual understanding' - okay, realise that this is just an example), and that would not immediately lead to suspicion. Okay, now it's been renamed to Park 51, but the initial name of this and the location picked for it were just really tasteless, and flaunting off how there exists zilch understanding on the initators side for the Western outlook on historical events - a bad fundament to build the bridge of mutual understanding on. I'm not doubting the earnestness behind the project, I just fear that this is a one sided bridge at its core, where only those who seek to understand Islam and its followers are allowed to cross, and not the other way around - therefore they're right when they claim that they're building a bridge of understanding, but that's about as far as the bridge reaches.. The name of the initiative says it all, just like Feisal Abdul Rauf and his companions' views. According to his wife it's not a big deal, hey, if that's the kind of mindset then I wonder what kind of 'understanding' they're after, really.
Last edited:
you don't have to be a Jew, Christian, or a Republican to look at the initiator's idea of mutual understanding with scepticism.
I think your just looking for a way to have a problem it just like many if not most of the detractors.
And I, on the other hand, think that you're just trying to find a way to get personal (which you're doing right now). Maybe you should cut down on making baseless assumptions about the posters, and instead, focus on the content of the post, how about that?
Aren't you making a lot of assumptions here? Based on what?
Say what? It's a cultural centre, not a missile battery.
Assumptions yes baseless no. There is not a shred of evidence nor good reason to oppose this and yet you do.
Geoff is many things.
?? Completely without reference to either the players in this little drama or the specific locale being suggested? Let's not be disingenuous here.
Your heartfelt terrors at my common sense are noted. (Technically, it isn't "my Constitution" and there is such a thing as context.)
Phlog, if you spread around platitudes, then expect me to draw in relevant examples.
Ha.
Not with those whose minds are fixed, no. But he could have done much by condeming Hamas' charter. Rauf's other connections are equally odd.
It certainly is insensitive; enough of this "us vs them" talk. You've already pointed out that your position on this is labile.
I disagree. I like to remain proactive. Simply put: if Rauf tries to disseminate hate from this mosque - and, let's be honest again: given that the funding is almost certainly coming from Saudi Arabia, the odds are that he will be - it is far more likely that he will simply be ignored by the authorities. In this case, it's better to get concrete answers now and either shame him out or produce enough outrage to make life hard on him. And the bolded text above: enough, really. You're not helping by pretending this is a human rights issue. A mosque by a real Sufi would look nothing like this situation. Rauf is a Wahhabi/Salafi. End of story.
In this case, such people would be behaving foolishly. There are any number of other examples, and I have given several on this thread.
but Geoff is not disingenuousness your bread and butter tactic?
considering you haven't even attempted to prove these petty and ridiculus asserations it not even the begining of the story let alone the end. do you care to try and prove he is a Wahhabi/Salafi or are you just assuming he is because you dislike him?
I'm not getting personal. the fact that you thin k negative things about it without the factual evidence is troublesome and should be noted.
No. Is not getting into personal insults and temp bans for unsupported accusations yours?
Well, let's see: he's constructing a mosque in a place no Sufi would even consider, owing to it's insensitivity; he's linked to the Marmara incident; he's almost certainly seeking financial backing from Saudi Arabia; he's published highly questionable books on the subject of 9/11.
You're right. He must be a Mormon.