Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

[Bells]

I'm not sure. Is he planning to build a massive mosque complex there, probably with funds from Saudi Arabia? But by all means. Those who have nothing to hide and all. It's not impossible at all.

Because Mosques often have swimming pools and gymnasiums and coffee shops?

This is akin to the sceptics who think the Government is behind the 9/11 attacks. All fluff and no substance. Just pure paranoia and you and others have bought into it like sheep. I would suggest you read those articles. You might find them enlightening.

Riiight - I get this comment back every so often, usually because they interpret my response to some principal argument of theirs as my own major angle of argument.

Because you could not be wrong? It's everyone and not you?

When people point out the idiocy and the paranoia of your argument, you revert back to this:

Your case also ignores the central point of this case: Ground Zero.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2606956&postcount=431

It is not at Ground Zero, but 2 blocks away.

Again, what is the Muslim and Islam exclusion zone from that area?

Yup. Look, I've made this clear previously. I've even outlined specific cases and circumstances that would be less insensitive: open, clear communication would be one. Perhaps that's too much to ask. How is the argument "falling on its face"? You mean that you want more links to refuse to read?

Clear and open communication?

For?

You know who is behind building it and you know how much it will cost and all else inbetween. What else do you want to know? The simple fact is, you don't think Muslims belong there because you believe it is "Ground Zero". Something you have stated already in this thread.

Your argument is as cringe worthy and embarrassing as this song. Although not as cringe worthy and embarrassing as this:

In the five months after The Times’s initial account there were no newspaper articles on the project at all. It was only in May of this year that the Rupert Murdoch axis of demagoguery revved up, jettisoning Ingraham’s benign take for a New York Post jihad. The paper’s inspiration was a rabidly anti-Islam blogger best known for claiming that Obama was Malcolm X’s illegitimate son. Soon the rest of the Murdoch empire and its political allies piled on, promoting the incendiary libel that the “radical Islamists” behind the “ground zero mosque” were tantamount either to neo-Nazis in Skokie (according to a Wall Street Journal columnist) or actual Nazis (per Newt Gingrich).

These patriots have never attacked the routine Muslim worship services at another site of the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon. Their sudden concern for ground zero is suspect to those of us who actually live in New York. All but 12 Republicans in the House voted against health benefits for 9/11 responders just last month. Though many of these ground-zero watchdogs partied at the 2004 G.O.P. convention in New York exploiting 9/11, none of them protested that a fellow Republican, the former New York governor George Pataki, so bollixed up the management of the World Trade Center site that nine years on it still lacks any finished buildings, let alone a permanent memorial.

The Fox patron saint Sarah Palin calls Park51 a “stab in the heart” of Americans who “still have that lingering pain from 9/11.” But her only previous engagement with the 9/11 site was when she used it as a political backdrop for taking her first questions from reporters nearly a month after being named to the G.O.P. ticket. (She was so eager to grab her ground zero photo op that she defied John McCain’s just-announced “suspension” of their campaign.) Her disingenuous piety has been topped only by Bernie Kerik, who smuggled a Twitter message out of prison to register his rage at the ground zero desecration. As my colleague Clyde Haberman reminded us, such was Kerik’s previous reverence for the burial ground of 9/11 that he appropriated an apartment overlooking the site (and designated for recovery workers) for an extramarital affair.

At the Islamophobia command center, Murdoch’s News Corporation, the hypocrisy is, if anything, thicker.

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial darkly cited unspecified “reports” that Park51 has “money coming from Saudi charities or Gulf princes that also fund Wahabi madrassas.” As Jon Stewart observed, this brand of innuendo could also be applied to News Corp., whose second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family is a member of the Saudi royal family. Perhaps last week’s revelation that News Corp. has poured $1 million into G.O.P. campaign coffers was a fiendishly clever smokescreen to deflect anyone from following the far greater sum of Saudi money (a $3 billion stake) that has flowed into Murdoch enterprises, or the News Corp. money (at least $70 million) recently invested in a Saudi media company.

Were McCain in the White House, Fox and friends would have kept ignoring Park51. But it’s an irresistible target in our current election year because it revives the most insidious anti-Obama narrative of the many Fox promoted in the previous election year: Obama the closet Muslim and secret madrassa alumnus. In the much discussed latest Pew poll, a record number of Americans (nearing 20 percent) said that our Christian president practices Islam. And they do not see that as a good thing. Existing or proposed American mosques hundreds and even thousands of miles from ground zero, from Tennessee to Wisconsin to California, are now under siege.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html

I feel embarrassed for you. I really do.

But maybe that's just my perspective as a member of a different "species" or something. Or you could blame it on my being white, or Catholic, like the last time we clashed. Silly old typical bigoted me, huh? You know those white people! Am I right? And: "When all else fails" - great stuff. Because I was so losing the argument to this point that I had to reach into my bag of stupid and pull out a personal insult.

It would seem you still suffer from extreme inability to read and understand.

Your 'I'm white' argument is funny considering this whole debate. The refusal of this centre and others around the country is inherently racist and bigoted in and of itself.

Am I a great fan of the Patriot Act?

I don't know. Are you?

The reason I ask is that you are quite willing to deny a group of people their Constitutional rights based on mere suspicion without any proof that your suspicion will eventuate into reality.

So why wouldn't you wish to deny individuals their Constitutional rights by laws such as the Patriot Act.

You also missed a comma there - after "wonder".

Can't or won't answer the question?

Actually, Rauf's connections and contradictions are reason enough to have a closer look at the man; or maybe he could just ante up in the interests of that outreach he keeps claiming. In the meantime I'll just keep being so "all for" that I dare to (shudder) question Rauf's funding source. Personally, I'd actually thought one could even be arrested on reasonable suspicion - much less a simple request for further investigation - but that's just silly old me.

The absolute irony of course is that Rauf is seen by some in the ME as being an American agent and his Muslim critics see him as an American 'accommodationist', because of the work he does with the US Government. So which is he?

I wonder, if you find that his funding source is acceptable, whether you will revert to the 'Ground Zero' argument. But then again, you already have done that, so it is a moot point.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

His connections

Of which hasn't even been proven.

Also, I think it's bullshit that automatically people are assuming he's a "radical," and fundamentalist," in league with terrorists, backed by the KSA and so on. Why? Has there been any proof for you to think this? Has there been anything to suggest this? No.

his contradictions

What contradictions?

his deafness to reasonable concerns.

Reasonable concerns? What? That you can't build your Centre because we think you're a terrorist and you need to prove yourself that you're not?

 

[IamJoseph]

Of which hasn't even been proven.

Also, I think it's bullshit that automatically people are assuming he's a "radical," and fundamentalist," in league with terrorists, backed by the KSA and so on. Why? Has there been any proof for you to think this? Has there been anything to suggest this? No.



What contradictions?



Reasonable concerns? What? That you can't build your Centre because we think you're a terrorist and you need to prove yourself that you're not?

The most terrible refrain in the world today is this:

'WE ARE AGAINST ALL FORMS OF TERRORISM"

Read, we hve no Fatwah against our neo prophet Osama.

 

[GeoffP]

I think you have it SAM. It is really laughable. So much fuss over nothing. It is ok for Muslims to pray at the Pentagon just a few feet from where the 9/11 airplane struck...by the way the Pentagon "multifaith center" is also new construction.

If Geoffp would recall, that part of the building was destroyed and rebuilt.

Yeees...and is an actual, verifiable multifaith centre. You could say there's a certain philosophical or functional difference between the two; and possibly more.

Because Mosques often have swimming pools and gymnasiums and coffee shops?

Yes, yes, Bells: right in the middle of the mosque. Let's be as nonsensical as we can, if possible, all right?

Because you could not be wrong? It's everyone and not you?

Oh, excellent: appeal to majority opinion. We're really pulling out the stops today: I mean, it's not even a good majority opinion appeal, is it, since essentially every media element from AP to CNN to the NYT refers to it as a mosque, including reporters printing interviews with Rauf himself. Now, perhaps those comments went to press without his approval, but it's quite unusual. But let's certainly start casting about in all directions.

Thanks for the articles: read them.

When people point out the idiocy and the paranoia of your argument, you revert back to this:

That is an absurd non sequitur, besides being false.

It is not at Ground Zero, but 2 blocks away.

Again, what is the Muslim and Islam exclusion zone from that area?

I love it when your "side" makes these strident demands for a - well, an exclusion zone - as if the issue were a specialized case of apartheid rather than a question of sensitivity. Let's reverse this: Bells, what do you consider Ground Zero to be? How close is close enough? How extremist is extremist enough? How insensitive is insensitive enough? Will women be required to worship in a separate area? Will hate sermons against non-Muslims be permitted? And so on. Take your time.

Clear and open communication?

For?

You know who is behind building it and you know how much it will cost and all else inbetween. What else do you want to know?

I thought I'd made this clear several times. I suppose I should feel vindicated that my opponent doesn't follow the discussion, but instead I merely feel sad. How about where is the money coming from? I know who is behind building it, but not who - the real who - this fellow is.

The simple fact is, you don't think Muslims belong there because you believe it is "Ground Zero". Something you have stated already in this thread.

I feel embarrassed for you. I really do.

Because a legitimate question about the philosophical leanings of a major undertaking with potentially vast international cultural and political significance is more embarrassing than resorting to libel, association, false attributation, insinuation and sheer ignorance.

Your 'I'm white' argument is funny considering this whole debate. The refusal of this centre and others around the country is inherently racist and bigoted in and of itself.

Let's separate the latter: first, we're discussing the sensitivity and philosophical underpinnings of the Ground Zero mosque. Second: what race is Islam? Third: never really had an apology for your racist remark earlier.

The reason I ask is that you are quite willing to deny a group of people their Constitutional rights based on mere suspicion without any proof that your suspicion will eventuate into reality.

Your last sentence in that part of the post was missing a "?".

Am I really willing in the manner you describe? What evidence do you have of this? How is one required to demonstrate "proof that [a] suspicion will eventuate into reality"? ("Eventuate"??) I'd thought there was a consideration of "reasonable suspicion". I consider this reasonable. You do not. Since you're enamoured of general opinion, maybe we could infer something from, say, polls of support for the mosque in the United States?

Can't or won't answer the question?

I thought I just did, with scorn. :shrug:

Now, here's a question for you: do you support Sharia law? Does it seem a fair system to you? Make sure you answer the question.

The absolute irony of course is that Rauf is seen by some in the ME as being an American agent and his Muslim critics see him as an American 'accommodationist', because of the work he does with the US Government. So which is he?

Shh! Musn't ask, Bells. No reason to support further investigation. No evidence to ask more questions. Shh! Shhh!

I wonder, if you find that his funding source is acceptable, whether you will revert to the 'Ground Zero' argument. But then again, you already have done that, so it is a moot point.

Congratulations: you have partially understood the elements of a complex discussion. What you don't seem to understand is that any given proposition can have multiple causes, rather than a single one: I would submit that it is possible that the Ground Zero mosque can be both founded and funded by those with a sketchy moral philosophy - or even with inappropriate public sentiments for such an important post - and insensitivity towards a national tragedy. Nonetheless, I think you have made real progress here. Keep it up.

Good luck on your policy of non-engagement with me, by the way. It sounds promising.

 

[joepistole]

Opponents are protesting the funding of the Islamic center. I mean, who cares. I would only care if the money was coming from terrorists. And there is no indication that is the case. And if it were the case, it is illegal and will likely be caught and the offenders prosecuted.

So the funding is really a red herring. Who fracking cares? Not I. The building is old and run down and if someone whats to spend the money and employ some people, I say go for it. I would love for SAM to spend some of her money building a mosque here in the states.

 

[Just Curious]

You couldn’t make this up. Muslims destroy the twin towers and kill thousands of people so what do you do? ……erect a monument to them in the form of a mosque at the very site of the atrocity. How Bin Laden must be laughing at you Americans now.

 

[joepistole]

You couldn’t make this up. Muslims destroy the twin towers and kill thousands of people so what do you do? ……erect a monument to them in the form of a mosque at the very site of the atrocity. How Bin Laden must be laughing at you Americans now.

Yes I am sure Bin Laden is laughing at Americans right now. But not for the reasons you think.

And couple of fine points of detail, not that they will mater to you. But, it is not a mosque. It is a multicultural center....open to all faiths.

And two it is not at ground zero. And there are a lot of mosques with in a few blocks from this new location.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_ot/us_mosque_fact_check

 

[Photizo]

Ever hear of divide and conquer?...the responsibility to act 'correctly' is on the people who continue to push this despite the objections of their fellow americans.

To me, (and this is something I've learned over the years as a husband and father) insistence upon exercising one's right in pursuit of one's own happiness must be subordinated to the supreme rule of love. Love does not seek its own good but rather the good of others. To insist on having their way despite the pleas of these survivors (arising out of the emotional pain they've suffered), severely undermines their crediblity. The purported hope of these muslims is to help establish trust; understanding; what the real nature of Islam is; etc. Well, if they intend to build bridges, wonderful; but wisdom dictates another course of action other than the direct approach. Were they to take into consideration the feelings of the survivors (their fellow Americans) rather then their own feelings/agenda, they stand to make far more headway in the long run/court of public opinion... pouring salt into the wound is not helpful here. Who knows, deferring to these survivors might result in an invitation to build later.

They have a choice between selfishness or selflessness. If they want a memorial or 'place' near / beside their fellow Americans--who gave of themselves unreservedly in the immediate aftermath--I think the answer is obvious. Barring that, I can come to no other conclusion than this: we are dealing with a completely different 'spirit' here.

 

[Just Curious]

And couple of fine points of detail, not that they will mater to you. But, it is not a mosque. It is a multicultural center....open to all faiths.

Well, if you believe that then no wonder Bin Laden is laughing. You could claim a stable could be used to house many forms of animals but I would still expect to find only horses there.

And yes, it isn't actually at ground zero but it's too close for comfort and totally insensitive.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes I am sure Bin Laden is laughing at Americans right now. But not for the reasons you think.

And couple of fine points of detail, not that they will mater to you. But, it is not a mosque. It is a multicultural center....open to all faiths.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_ot/us_mosque_fact_check

You realize that the first sentence of your link states:

WASHINGTON – A New York imam and his proposed mosque near ground zero are being demonized by political candidates — mostly Republicans — despite the fact that Islam is already very much a part of the World Trade Center neighborhood.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_ot/us_mosque_fact_check

 

[joepistole]

You realize that the first sentence of your link states:

I certianly do.

 

[Bells]

Yes, yes, Bells: right in the middle of the mosque. Let's be as nonsensical as we can, if possible, all right?

I am asking you. This building will be housing a swimming pool, gym, food court amongst other things. Does it sound like a Mosque to you?

Oh, excellent: appeal to majority opinion. We're really pulling out the stops today: I mean, it's not even a good majority opinion appeal, is it, since essentially every media element from AP to CNN to the NYT refers to it as a mosque, including reporters printing interviews with Rauf himself. Now, perhaps those comments went to press without his approval, but it's quite unusual. But let's certainly start casting about in all directions.

And I also see a lot of sensasionalism around this. It is usually accompanied with accusatios that Obama is a Muslim.

That is an absurd non sequitur, besides being false.

Actually no. You have been doing it repeatedly about this issue.

I love it when your "side" makes these strident demands for a - well, an exclusion zone - as if the issue were a specialized case of apartheid rather than a question of sensitivity. Let's reverse this: Bells, what do you consider Ground Zero to be? How close is close enough? How extremist is extremist enough? How insensitive is insensitive enough? Will women be required to worship in a separate area? Will hate sermons against non-Muslims be permitted? And so on. Take your time.

At present Ground Zero is ground zero. This building is not even on Ground Zero. It has a prayer room. Much like multifaith prayer rooms in hospitals I would imagine.

Now you are appealing to hysterics. Again, typical of you. And this continues and gets worse in your post.

I thought I'd made this clear several times. I suppose I should feel vindicated that my opponent doesn't follow the discussion, but instead I merely feel sad. How about where is the money coming from? I know who is behind building it, but not who - the real who - this fellow is.

The simple fact is, you don't think Muslims belong there because you believe it is "Ground Zero". Something you have stated already in this thread.

The hypocrisy of this is amusing when one considers the article I linked.

Can you tell me why the Muslims in the ME consider him to be an American agent? Can you tell me why Muslims who consider him to be an American agent would be giving him money to build this centre? But lets look at the Saudis, the ones you accuse of funding this for apparently nefarious reasons. The same Saudis who own billions of dollars worth of shares in the very news group that suddenly decided to make this story big, around 6 months after it was originally announced last year. But suddenly, Obama is a Muslim and they start in on this "issue". Can you also tell me why this very media group is following in the footsteps of a hack who believes that Obama is the son of Malcolm X? But back to the funding. Newscorp, the organisation who decided to bring this to public attention with a bunch of vitriol and bigotry and sly innuendo have received millions of funding from the Saudis. They also donated over $1 million to the Republicans.. the very Republicans who are carrying on about Muslim being evil.

So you were talking about funding?

Please, the hypocrisy of your argument is laughable and your argument itself is dishonest and bigoted.

Because a legitimate question about the philosophical leanings of a major undertaking with potentially vast international cultural and political significance is more embarrassing than resorting to libel, association, false attributation, insinuation and sheer ignorance.

The philosophical leanings of a man the Muslims consider to be too Americanised and not Muslim enough? Those against this have ensured the argument is full of insinuation and ignorance and using the fear against Muslims to further their agenda. For example. Lets look at you. In a discussion about the placement of a Mosque, where you apparently are only really against it because you are not happy with the lack of openness regarding the funding and his philosophical leanings, you come out with this gem:

Now, here's a question for you: do you support Sharia law? Does it seem a fair system to you? Make sure you answer the question.
​

Fear mongering much?

And you have the nerve to carry on about sheer ignorance and insinuation?

Let's separate the latter: first, we're discussing the sensitivity and philosophical underpinnings of the Ground Zero mosque. Second: what race is Islam? Third: never really had an apology for your racist remark earlier.

What racist remark Geoff? I believe you were the one going on about your white skin.

Again, how many mosques have swimming pools, gyms, food courts, gallery, shops, etc, in them?

And again, it is 2 blocks from Ground Zero itself, not in Ground Zero.. where rebuilding has barely commenced.

As for the race. Come on, do you really want to go there?

Your last sentence in that part of the post was missing a "?".

Again. A typo. And again, you dodge the question by attacking something completely irrelavent.

Am I really willing in the manner you describe? What evidence do you have of this? How is one required to demonstrate "proof that [a] suspicion will eventuate into reality"? ("Eventuate"??) I'd thought there was a consideration of "reasonable suspicion". I consider this reasonable. You do not. Since you're enamoured of general opinion, maybe we could infer something from, say, polls of support for the mosque in the United States?

You still cannot answer the question?

Here is what I think of your suspicion. I think that you have bought into the media hype fed to you without doing much research. Were you aware that the issue of this "Ground Zero Mosque" remained untouched for months and months and was only picked up on by the Conservative media in May this year? Were you aware that when the story originally broke, the same conservative media ran a small piece on it and the journalist commented that she thought it was a good thing that this building was to be built there? Yes? No?

We owe thanks to Justin Elliott of Salon for the single most revealing account of this controversy’s evolution. He reports that there was zero reaction to the “ground zero mosque” from the front-line right or anyone else except marginal bloggers when The Times first reported on the Park51 plans in a lengthy front-page article on Dec. 9, 2009. The sole exception came some two weeks later at Fox News, where Laura Ingraham, filling in on “The O’Reilly Factor,” interviewed Daisy Khan, the wife of the project’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Ingraham gave the plans her blessing. “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it,” she said. “I like what you’re trying to do.”

As well Ingraham might. Rauf is no terrorist. He has been repeatedly sent on speaking tours by the Bush and Obama State Departments alike to promote tolerance in Arab and Muslim nations. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported last week, Rauf gave a moving eulogy at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan, at the Manhattan synagogue B’nai Jeshurun. Pearl’s father was in attendance. The Park51 board is chock-full of Christians and Jews. Perhaps the most threatening thing about this fledgling multi-use community center, an unabashed imitator of the venerable (and Jewish) 92nd Street Y uptown, is its potential to spawn yet another coveted, impossible-to-get-into Manhattan private preschool.


(Source)
​

My my..

Now, prior to May this year, there were no polls about this. No one really cared about it. But lets consider those you say are against this and how Conservative media have been reporting it:

Fox News continues to advance misinformation about Islamic center. Fox News has repeatedly pushed the falsehood that the Islamic cultural center was "plan[ning] to launch" on "9-11." However, Daisy Khan, executive director of one of the organizations leading the project, told Media Matters that the allegation is "absolutely false" and that "the timeline has yet to be determined."

Fox also hosted a GOP candidate to baselessly suggest that "terrorist groups" are funding the center. On the August 2 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Peter Johnson Jr. hosted George Demos, a Republican candidate in New York's 1st congressional district, to baselessly suggest that "terrorist groups" are funding the Islamic community center.

Fox promoting GOP candidate's petition, i.e. campaign website, against NYC Islamic center. On August 12, Fox & Friends hosted Republican congressional candidate Randy Altschuler and aired his ad comparing the Islamic center to the "Japanese government" erecting a "shrine to its World War II emperor in Pearl Harbor." Fox & Friends directed viewers to Altschuler's campaign website to sign a petition against building the center.

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


Media Matters reviewed Nexis transcripts of all original Fox News evening programming from May 13 to August 12 between 5 p.m. and 10:59 p.m. ET. (Fox News airs a repeat of The O'Reilly Factor at the 11 p.m. ET hour.) Transcripts of Fox News' evening program, Fox Report, are not available in Nexis, and therefore, the show was not included in the study.

Media Matters counted all guests who appeared in segments that involved a discussion of the controversy about building the New York City Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Each guest's position on the issue was derived from statements made during that guest's appearance. In some cases, guests expressed personal opposition to the mosque but acknowledged that the organizers had a right to build there. For instance, on the August 8 broadcast of Hannity, Juan Williams said, "I happen to agree with you [Sean Hannity] about the idea that they shouldn't build the mosque," later adding, "But that doesn't mean that we, as Americans, can say to him, 'No, you can't build here.' That's wrong." These few guests were categorized as "against" the mosque because of their personal opposition to its construction.

(Source)

Again, I am embarrassed for you.

I thought I just did, with scorn.

Now, here's a question for you: do you support Sharia law? Does it seem a fair system to you? Make sure you answer the question.

Which has what to do with this discussion?

Grasping at straws there Geoff?

Sharia Law? Like any law, it can have its faults. Like any law, if applied fairly, it would work for those who choose to live in that jurisdiction. Like any law, it can be fair as it can be unfair. What is your point?

Shh! Musn't ask, Bells. No reason to support further investigation. No evidence to ask more questions. Shh! Shhh!

You have yet to provide any proof that Rauf is an extremist or that he will be breeding extremists in this centre. I mean I guess those taking aerobic classes could be secretly coerced into becoming extremists.. 'And lift... and down.. and lift.. kill the infidels.. and down.. feel the burn in the buttocks?.. and lift and down..'..

The funding.. again.. sheer innuendo and fear mongering. What we do have is the Saudis having a major stake in the GOP thanks to Murdoch donating $1 million to them.. after receiving millions from the very Saudis you are accusing of funding Rauf.. without any proof mind you.

It really is laughable Geoff.

But hey, you have lapped it all up. Again, I am embarrassed for you.

Congratulations: you have partially understood the elements of a complex discussion. What you don't seem to understand is that any given proposition can have multiple causes, rather than a single one: I would submit that it is possible that the Ground Zero mosque can be both founded and funded by those with a sketchy moral philosophy - or even with inappropriate public sentiments for such an important post - and insensitivity towards a national tragedy. Nonetheless, I think you have made real progress here. Keep it up.

Good luck on your policy of non-engagement with me, by the way. It sounds promising.

Insensitivity towards a national tragedy? Tell me, what of the Mosque that does exist 2 blocks from "Ground Zero" and has been there for years? Not a single protest about that. What of the strip club that is open close by to "Ground Zero"? I'm guessing people getting lap dances on the sacred ground is fine? I am guessing having a naked woman grind her crotch in men's faces to music near ground zero is not insensitive towards the national tragedy at all, eh Geoff? What moral philosophy approves of a strip club in the area but not a cultural centre with a prayer room?

Again, your argument is hypocritical as it is bigoted.

Good luck on your policy of non-engagement with me, by the way. It sounds promising.

I think the break did wonders, don't you?

 

[joepistole]

And couple of fine points of detail, not that they will mater to you. But, it is not a mosque. It is a multicultural center....open to all faiths.

It is so good of you to be able to plagiarize me.

Well, if you believe that then no wonder Bin Laden is laughing. You could claim a stable could be used to house many forms of animals but I would still expect to find only horses there.

Say what? Are you sober?

And yes, it isn't actually at ground zero but it's too close for comfort and totally insensitive.

Back to my points, it is not at ground zero and it is not a mosque. And how is this place any different from the placed used at the Pentagon by a Muslim cleric to conduct prayer services?

And how is this place any different from the other actual mosques in the area?

Yes Bin Ladin has won if he suceeds in causing us to violate our Constitution and sacrafice our liberties all in fear of the big boogie man. It truely is sad.

 

[pjdude1219]

This is true, the Muslims initiated the crusader war by first invading Spain, after they invaded and robbed Jewish Palestine [Judea]. I say this because it is factual history, even though the crusaders were first and foremost targeting Jews. There is a candy coated false presentation of history by muslims, even in documentaries of the quran - it is falsely sqeeky clean.

Erecting mosques in the most prominent and iconic centers of other nations is an Islamic trademark, and a first step in the negation of the inhabitants, and Israel is a light unto the nations again: the desecration of Jerusalem with a huge mosque is starring at all the world's capitals today. The new kid on the block says death to the infidels.

The blame of Islam's actions can and must be seen as resultant from Christianity's deeds: the Muslims destroyed a church dumped on the Jewish site - a horrific deed of aspired genocide candy coated as a favor to Jews, and this was emulated by the Arabs. Its a repayment by a sign and omen.

But one cannot talk with Christians and Muslims over such attrocities - each will commit them and chant IN JC and ALLAH AKBAR while perpetrating humanity's greatest crimes. They forget who's hands did the dirty - it wasn't Jesus or Allah. Today, we see the consequences of Europe's creation of Islamic Regimes - it is coming back to haunt them and they never dreamed it would target anyone else but the Jews.

not a god damn thing you have said about the history of the area(palestine) has been true or factual

 

[iceaura]

This is akin to the sceptics who think the Government is behind the 9/11 attacks. All fluff and no substance.

It seems to be, by appearance, the other way around, in this case. What it looks like so far: We are treated to some fine sounding rhetoric about high minded purposes, peace and understanding and a generalized appeal to tolerance etc.; a reasonable example of high class fluff - and presented with a direct provocation and quite sophisticated move in the propaganda field of international power politics; the substance.

For example:

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial darkly cited unspecified “reports” that Park51 has “money coming from Saudi charities or Gulf princes that also fund Wahabi madrassas.” As Jon Stewart observed, this brand of innuendo could also be applied to News Corp., whose second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family is a member of the Saudi royal family.

Let's just avoid the obvious question, since no one seems willing to answer it anyway - are they perchance the exact same people !? because that's too spla for the moment - - so moving right along:

Now how about if we hypothesize, for a second, that the Wahabi fundamentalist alliance with the riches of the Ghawar field is not a matter of especially inept, ignorant, or unsophisticated men? That the marketers of Mecca understand the uses of Murdoch's empire, and the uses of symbolism such as "Ground Zero"? That the story of the camel's nose is just one of many with two sides to its implications, from a deep tradition of commerce and trade in the crossroads of the world?

Or do we fall back on the assumption that all this is surprising to a group of goodhearted but naive organizers from out of town: that it never occurred to the people who selected this site, named their building the "Cordoba House", and solicited financial support from Muslim fundamentalists around the world, that there would be anything to object to about their efforts?

 

[kathaksung]

This topic is created to fool people. It is how the inside group rules this country.

There was a false flag terror attack on 911 to justify their war in Mid-east. The Muslim is accused as terrorist. Now they build a Mosque in WTO site to show how tolerant and fair they are. It's a trick of propaganda.

It's funny that people flock to argue about "religion", "victim of 911".... The real mastermind of the 911 grins at the soap opera they directed. They lied for a war to grip the oil. Then throw out an issue to let people know how tolerant and democratic they are.

 

[pjdude1219]

It seems to be, by appearance, the other way around, in this case. What it looks like so far: We are treated to some fine sounding rhetoric about high minded purposes, peace and understanding and a generalized appeal to tolerance etc.; a reasonable example of high class fluff - and presented with a direct provocation and quite sophisticated move in the propaganda field of international power politics; the substance.

For example: Let's just avoid the obvious question, since no one seems willing to answer it anyway - are they perchance the exact same people !? because that's too spla for the moment - - so moving right along:

Now how about if we hypothesize, for a second, that the Wahabi fundamentalist alliance with the riches of the Ghawar field is not a matter of especially inept, ignorant, or unsophisticated men? That the marketers of Mecca understand the uses of Murdoch's empire, and the uses of symbolism such as "Ground Zero"? That the story of the camel's nose is just one of many with two sides to its implications, from a deep tradition of commerce and trade in the crossroads of the world?

Or do we fall back on the assumption that all this is surprising to a group of goodhearted but naive organizers from out of town: that it never occurred to the people who selected this site, named their building the "Cordoba House", and solicited financial support from Muslim fundamentalists around the world, that there would be anything to object to about their efforts?

if this was a provacation for you than you were looking for a problem. an honest person wouldn't have had a problem with this. But know you make baseless acussation to cover blind hate and fear.

 

[GeoffP]

Hey, how about reading what I write this time?

I certianly do.

I wonder if you do. Your argument was that it was a multi-faith center. Perhaps I missed it: where in that article does the author say that it's a multi-faith center?

I am asking you. This building will be housing a swimming pool, gym, food court amongst other things. Does it sound like a Mosque to you?

And I answered you, a little testily. It's a complex of several facilities, one of which is apparently a mosque. You believe that a mosque must be a stand-alone building, seemingly. May I ask why? Do Muslims object to food, or exercise, or swimming?

And I also see a lot of sensasionalism around this. It is usually accompanied with accusatios that Obama is a Muslim.

You may find this surprising, but I find no accusatios that Obama is a Muslim in the AP, NYT or other articles that I have read and/or cited. Could you be more specific? Which of these have I dragged into the conversation?

Actually no. You have been doing it repeatedly about this issue.

This is a deliberate mischaracterization. I do not "revert", nor am I doing so now. I have illustrated the (low-order) complexity of the issue, which you have ignored again in order to score (farsical) points. Meanwhile, none of you have presented anything remotely supporting your arguments: you start out on a high road, or else start to pick at erroneous particulars or false definitions, and when that fails fall back on personal attacks.

At present Ground Zero is ground zero.

This is a dodge, so I will ask again: what is Ground Zero, Bells? Define it. How extremist is extremist enough? For example: will women be required to pray in a separate area? Etc.

This building is not even on Ground Zero. It has a prayer room. Much like multifaith prayer rooms in hospitals I would imagine.

Except that it's planned as a massive Islamic complex, towering over the 9/11 Memorial. Now, while that's quite legal, it's also a little unusual, even suspicious.

Can you tell me why the Muslims in the ME consider him to be an American agent? Can you tell me why Muslims who consider him to be an American agent would be giving him money to build this centre?

Sorry: "a host of allegations"...from unnamed "sources". In short, scuttlebutt and rumor. When the Washington Post does it, you slam it. When you do it, you seem to think it justifiable.

But lets look at the Saudis, the ones you accuse of funding this for apparently nefarious reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_accusation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

The same Saudis who own billions of dollars worth of shares in the very news group that suddenly decided.....

I think iceaura has answered this aspect quite well above, so I'll leave it to him. As usual, your accusations of bigotry are unfounded - and suspicious, given your previous racist comments - and also I suspect that you don't know what "hypocrisy" means.

because you are not happy with the lack of openness regarding the funding and his philosophical leanings, you come out with this gem:

Now, here's a question for you: do you support Sharia law? Does it seem a fair system to you? Make sure you answer the question.
​

You asked me whether or not I supported the Patriot Act - ignoring momentarily not only the relevance of the issue, but also the fact that I'd never actually asked for Rauf to be arrested:

So why wouldn't you wish to deny individuals their Constitutional rights by laws such as the Patriot Act.

My response question to this is in as much parallel as your Patriot Act inquiry, which you seem to recognize. I also note that in your comment above, "because" ends up as another non sequitur.

What racist remark Geoff? I believe you were the one going on about your white skin.

Really? Evidence, please. Here's another of those:

Your 'I'm white' argument is funny considering this whole debate. The refusal of this centre and others around the country is inherently racist and bigoted in and of itself.

So apparently I have made an "I'm white" argument. Where did I propose this argument? What was my objective? What did it mean?

As for the race. Come on, do you really want to go there?

Evidently you do: again - which race is Islam?

Again. A typo. And again, you dodge the question by attacking something completely irrelavent.

You still cannot answer the question?

Which question? Your baseless assertion? That wasn't a question. Rephrase and return.

Were you aware that when the story originally broke, the same conservative media ran a small piece on it and the journalist commented that she thought it was a good thing that this building was to be built there? Yes? No?

?? I'm sorry: is there any point at all to the personal opinion of the reporter, original or otherwise?? Yes? No? In short: why would anyone care? It's a mystery.

Sharia Law? Like any law, it can have its faults. Like any law, if applied fairly, it would work for those who choose to live in that jurisdiction. Like any law, it can be fair as it can be unfair. What is your point?

Err....actually, as I explained above, that was a parallel-argument designed to point out that your question about the Patriot Act was, similarly, a non sequitur. Your answer, however, to the question was unexpected and bizarre: like any inherently misogynistic law, it can be fair?? Let's continue this on another thread, say.

Insensitivity towards a national tragedy? Tell me, what of the Mosque that does exist 2 blocks from "Ground Zero" and has been there for years? Not a single protest about that.

Correct: no discussion about a pre-existing structure, because that would be unfair. (This isn't Indonesia, you know.)

What moral philosophy approves of a strip club in the area but not a cultural centre with a prayer room?

The one that recognizes that radical strippers didn't pilot a pair of jets into the Twin Towers.

I think the break did wonders, don't you?

I hope you don't mean for your sanity or logical processing.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Taken from from the new issue of Time Magazine:

"The battle in Wilson recieved little national attention until this month, when a much larger and noiser uproar erupted in New York City over plans to build a Mulsim cultural centre and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Park51, as the project is called, is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, American Muslims well known for promoting interfaith dialogue. Their plan has been approved by city authorities and has the backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but it has ignited a nationwide firestorm."

Take from their article titled "Is America Islamophobic?"

The article begins with talking about an American Muslim and doctor whom wanted to build a masjid in Sheybogan County Wisconsin whose name was Dr. Mansoor Mirza. He is a well known and respected doctor in his area. He hasn't done anything wrong nor has any connection to either Saudis or "terrorists." Yet, his proposal to build a masjid in this county is being opposed. The article quoted some of the concerns of the towns folk:

"I don't want it in my backyard."

"I just think it's not American."

It also paraphrases a lot of the comments of the towns folk which include things like:

-Islam is a religion of hate.
-Muslims are out to wipe-out Christianity.
-There are 20 jihadi training camps hidden across rural America.
-Muslims murder children.
-Christian kids already have enough problems with drugs, alcohol and pornography, they don't need Islam too.

A church has also joined in the debate on whether or not the masjid should be constructed. The First Reformed Church in Ootsburg. Rev. Wayne DeVrou had this to say about the masjid construction debate:

"The political objective of Islam is to dominate the world...and to have dominatino of all other religions militarily."

Dr. Mirza, the one behind the Sheboygan proposal said the following in responses:

"If we are praying, we don't stink. We don't make noise. We just come, pray and leave."

"I never expected that the same people who came to me at the hospital and treated me with respect would talk to me likes this."

He even owns the property in which he wants to build said masjid! The same type of argumentation is being used against Imam Rauf and CI. Automatically it is assumed that they are terrorists out to take over America, make it Muslims and build a "triumphant," monument on "ground zero."

All of this is ridiculous, absurd and racist.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Read, we hve no Fatwah against our neo prophet Osama.

Can you define the word "fatwa," for me? Because it doesn't fucking mean "death sentence." Nor is Osama bin Laden considered a "neo-prophet," by anyone. How many times do I really have to point this out to you? Are you seriously this fucking stupid?