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

[joepistole]

Never forget the act of President Bush whisking Bin Laden's family safely out of the country after the incident. And kissing the Saudi oil prince on the lips. The game is more complex then on it's surface. And little of it involves the further wanted, or unwanted, spread of Islam.

The Saudi princes have never been far away from young bush junior...always their to bail him out (e.g. his failed business & sports team). And curiously, the second largest stockholders of News Corp (Fox News) big supporters of American conservatives are the Saudis.

Gee I wonder why the right wing media does not even mention this connection.

 

[GeoffP]

Again: and you denounce my suspicious nature?

Broader world, sir.

 

[Bells]

How many cultural centres have mosques?

None that I know of. So is this building a mosque or a cultural centre? It is obviously not a mosque since it will be housing a gym, cultural centre, food court, etc.

This speaks to the other issue circling around these days: 'dishonesty' and who decides what that is. Tiassa's attempted this with me too: because you disagree with me, and because I know in my heart of hearts that I'm immaculately right, you must be i) ignorant or ii) dishonest. I'll pick neither for $500, Alex.

Again. Everyone but you, correct?

Your English is slipping again. I've already described how the issue is not a series of 'fall backs'. If you don't understand this, it's not my problem.

Yes dear.

Because it was me who started in with the accusations of bigotry on this thread, Bells?

Your argument is bigoted.

None of which pass the fundamental test of reasonability. Your other tactic is to lump me in with actual bigots who oppose the mosque. Surprise, Bells: they really do exist. And they exist everywhere, in every demographic; outside the (proposed) mosque, with signs, and inside mosques, praying. If you're implying they control the debate, that would be something to debate. But if your argument is merely that my opinion and theirs coincides with a particular outcome, you're barking madly up the wrong tree. I ignored the part about strippers, since we've been over that.

*Snort*

This coming from the man who cites hearsay of a supposed mysterious phone calls of which there is no record..

Geoff, I have watched you make comments about the religion of those who flew those planes, virtually accuse Rauf of being an extremist without any solid evidence, you have made snide remarks about Islam and Sharia Law. You want to talk about the "test of reasonability"?

The bigots do control this debate Geoff. The bigots are the one who made this an issue by being bigots. That is what you are not quite grasping here. For nearly 6 months, this issue was ignored. 6 months no one commented on its location, funding or anything else about it. Nothing.. And then the conservative media decide this will become an issue.. we then witness known racists and bigots storm to the forefront denigrating Muslims as a whole in their protest against this Mosque. Elusive claims are made about the funding for it, all of which are unfounded and all supported by the conservative media who actually get money from the Saudis and then donate it to the GOP. I mean, can you be more blind?

You ignored the part about strippers because you probably cannot give a coherent answer as to why a sacred site like Ground Zero cannot tolerate a cultural centre owned by a Muslim, but can tolerate a strip joint where men can go and get lap dances? Right. Again, your hypocrisy is as amusing as it is pathetic.

Proof, please. Thanks. Then you can figure out where my opinions and theirs diverge.

And this is where you are dishonest.

Reverting to comments about the religion of the extremists who flew those planes, snide comments about Sharia Law and women in Islam.. This is a cultural centre with a multi faith prayer room. You have complete ignored the very simple fact that the board of directors behind this building include Jews and Christians. You have yet to prove that extremism will be taught or condoned in this building. You have yet to prove anything nefarious about the funding, but have only cited bizarre stories of phone calls... from news organisations who actually are funded by the Saudis.. You have blithely ignored the actual racism of the leaders of those opposing this. Are you telling me you have not heard of Newt's comments about Islam in his condemnation of this centre? All of which has been linked in this thread.

"Side"? Bomb plots, bomb plots. Frankly, you'll always get those. I tend to dismiss them as hysteria. But how about death threats from the organizers of the mosque build, Bells?

Proof? I read what she said and frankly, I don't see a bomb threat. Do you?

This is what you have?

I give you direct interviews with people making bomb threats and you give me secondary evidence of a supposed phone call and someone taking "may Allah protect you" as a death threat?

*Snort*

You have still not identified the actual boundaries of Ground Zero, Bells. What are its precise physical dimensions? How is this determined?

Earlier in this thread, images were linked of the map of the area, where the boundaries of Ground Zero was clearly defined and the location of this centre also shown on the map. I would suggest you go back and have a look at it.

Now, how do you define "Ground Zero"? Where the dust settles? What of the Mosques that exist in those areas, one 2 blocks away from Ground Zero? What of the strip club that falls the same distance as this centre from "Ground Zero"?

Honestly, the rigid, simplistic way in which the proponents like to pose this line of inquiry makes me laugh.

And the hysterical bigotry expressed by you makes me want to cry.

Of course not. You have answered none of mine.

Oh, very well: I would support the Patriot Act to the extent that it permits reasoned investigation, rather than conclusion-jumping and arbitrary incarceration. Sort of a better answer than "the Law be the Law", there, Jebediah.

I did answer your questions.

The Patriot Act was not always applied as you support. In fact, it was applied much like you and others are reacting to this centre. With mere suspicion and no proof whatsoever.

Okay. Name them. From the article.

Read the articles and see for yourself. I'll give you a hint, it's on the first page. It is not my problem if you are lazy Geoff and frankly, I find this tactic of yours to be inherently dishonest.

It was a while back. You implied that I believed something or was arguing something because I was white, or that my opinion wasn't wanted because I was white. I forget the exact details. Shall I dig them up?

Could you please.

Because it was a) already present, b) not led by people with possible connections to either international or North American religious bigots/extremists, and c) a multi-faith prayer space, not a possibly Saudi-funded mosque.

a) If the land is sacred and Muslims flew those planes, as you have reminded us several times in this thread, makes it strange that you would all ignore an already existing Mosque and attack a cultural centre.

b) You have not given any proof that he has any such connections and are instead reacting to bigoted reports by the likes of Geller.

c) This building will have a multi-faith prayer space/room. Unlike the actual Mosque that already exists within 2 blocks from Ground Zero. You have also offered no proof that it is Saudi funded. What I gave you was the indirect funding of the GOP by the Saudis, but you don't even blink at that. Funny that.

I've asked for further investigation of Rauf, and public dissemination of the international funding for this mosque if any, not for him to be arrested. This is the "fall - back" argument you have been attacking with: I request the release of details, so I must be some kind of lynch-party fanatic, demanding the arrest of Rauf. Then, when I point out that I'm not demanding his arrest, you fall back to the accusations of bigotry, the false stripper comparison, the denial of established information, and so on. There's been a slow allegation of "racism" developing; I suppose I should expect that it will come to fruition in the next week or so. You could talk to Plazma about it, if you like: I encourage you to do so, if you think you have a case. But I warn you that the shoe is on your foot, not mine.

You have accused him of possibly being an extremist or being funded by extremists, without any proof whatsoever. You are on the side of those who have the lynch party mentality, who have and are actively calling for discrimination against Muslims in America. The stripper comparison is not false. A strip club is within the same distance as this centre will be, but apparently it is only sacred up to a certain point and naked women gyrating their naked crotches in men's faces is not insulting to a site where thousands died in a terrorist attack because, as you claimed, those planes were not flown by radical strippers, but by Muslims... Which begs the question, are all Muslims radical or terrorists to you?

You have consistently failed to respond as to why a multi faith centre in the Pentagon, steps away from where the plane actually hit is more acceptable to a multi faith centre 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

You are consistently claiming that this is being funded by extremists, when the reality is that extremists would not be funding a multi faith centre, being built by and controlled by a board that consists of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I mean, you ignore all of this and latch on to the types of arguments spouted by Geller and Williams.

I think you are a hypocrite and dishonest. It is not an accusation when I call you a bigot. It is not a question. I call you a bigot, because from where I sit, you are a bigot.

Actually, I was dredging up your attacks on me because I was white in the last huge fight we had about burkha wearing. That you don't remember it speaks more loudly for your dementia than mine. Also, I should take a moment to remind you that - if I'm not mistaken - it's permissable (or is now at least leaning that way) to call someone's arguments 'bigoted' or what have you, but not the person themselves. I'm not certain; this may be changing. But it sounds as though you're in violation of the forum rules, to be honest. Tsk tsk.

Ah yes. The Burkha debate.. where I asked why a white man who belongs to a religion that refuses to allow women to be priests, should be commenting on the dress of women of other religions? Where I asked why white Western men were trying to dictate what women of other religions and nationalities chose to wear?

If you think I am violating the forum's rules, then I would suggest you hit the report button and PM the administrators of this site.

Bells, any person may be Muslim. Any at all. If it is racist to argue that the choice of the mosque location is insensitive, then it is racist to propose that the mosque be situated there as well.

Do mosques contain swimming pools, gyms, food courts, etc?

And as you have consistently reminded us in this thread. The terrorists who flew those planes were Muslims.. This site is owned by a Muslims. The greater majority of Muslims in the US are not white. No.. no racism there.

A mosque is already situated within 2 blocks of the site. And yet, not a single protest. This is a cultural centre with a prayer room, open to all and sundry. Not a mosque.

Strawman.

It is a valid question. Why was this building and plans to build this ignored for 6 whole months? Why did no one protest about it for 6 months?

Why was it not suspicious from December 2010, but only suspicious from May 2010?

Yes, in a manner that was very disappointing. I thought you said you worked in a battered women's shelter? So sharia, which is inherently misogynistic, is still acceptable to you. Shall I then answer you that the Patriot Act is "just another law"? After all, law is law, Bells. No?

Geoff, our legal system has judges that make spurious and ridiculous findings in rape cases (as one example). Our legal system as disappointing. It is misogynistic. My point is that Sharia Law, like our Western legal systems, aren't perfect and are misogynistic.

I volunteered my time in a battered women's shelter. Why do you think I think our legal systems are misogynistic? What do I think of police officers who refuse to take a woman beaten black a blue seriously, because they think she somehow deserved the beating for having dressed inappropriately, for example? What of police officers and judges who snidely question a woman's innocence in her own rape, for example? So you'll excuse me if I don't start holding my system as being above Sharia. We are above, but not by very much and we are in no place to start pointing fingers.

Do I think Sharia Law is perfect? No. But living in a glass house, I am not about to start throwing stones. When our legal system becomes perfect, then I will rant and rave more about Sharia Law.

No, you cannot. You cannot even ask if I live in New York State, unless you could illustrate why the answer mattered.

I find it curious that it is those who live outside of the State who are protesting more to it than those who live within it.

Running and hiding are better than lying and libel? If you say so.

I have not lied. My argument to you are completely honest and I provide proof. You have provided nothing but innuendo and suspicion, based on the idiot ramblings of the likes of Geller.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

I believe there actually is a fatwa out on Usama; I don't know who posted it. Someone at al-Ahzar? Unlikely, but possible. I doubt it would have been that asshole Khamenei.

How many times do I have to explain to you people that the term 'fatwa' does not mean "death setence."

 

[GeoffP]

None that I know of.

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelgui...ue_and_cultural_center_district_of_columbia-i

Didn't take long.

Your argument is bigoted.

It isn't, but I don't expect much.

This coming from the man who cites hearsay of a supposed mysterious phone calls of which there is no record..

Lost me on this one. No, no: please don't bother.

Geoff, I have watched you make comments about the religion of those who flew those planes, virtually accuse Rauf of being an extremist without any solid evidence, you have made snide remarks about Islam and Sharia Law. You want to talk about the "test of reasonability"?

Ah, interesting: I have now virtually accused Rauf. We're making progress. And you think your dubious account of my arguments invalidates the test of reasonability about this mosque? Please.

You ignored the part about strippers

A lie.

And this is where you are dishonest.

Reverting to comments about the religion of the extremists who flew those planes, snide comments about Sharia Law and women in Islam..

Accurate and reasoned, rather.

This is a cultural centre with a multi faith prayer room. You have complete ignored the very simple fact that the board of directors behind this building include Jews and Christians.

Supposition and rubber stamping.

You have yet to prove that extremism will be taught or condoned in this building. You have yet to prove anything nefarious about the funding, but have only cited bizarre stories of phone calls... from news organisations who actually are funded by the Saudis..

This is an astounding plea to conspiracy theory, if I read your comment right.

You have blithely ignored the actual racism of the leaders of those opposing this. Are you telling me you have not heard of Newt's comments about Islam in his condemnation of this centre? All of which has been linked in this thread.

I have not heard of "Newt's" comments. Why would these be relevant to my opinion? Let's pursue this further: I don't read Geller, but why don't you isolate exactly what it is she's done. Specifically. I'm curious to see your thinking on this matter.

Proof? I read what she said and frankly, I don't see a bomb threat. Do you?

Your "interview" was of sketchy relevance at best: Good God, someone called in a bomb threat? That's entirely new. Compared to an actual threat from one of the developers, which you dismiss out of hand, keeping in mind that the woman relating this threat is the head of the Muslim Canadian Congress. (Why, she must be a Fox plant! Hehe.)

Earlier in this thread, images were linked of the map of the area, where the boundaries of Ground Zero was clearly defined and the location of this centre also shown on the map. I would suggest you go back and have a look at it.

And again you avoid the question. This is too funny: the "pro" side demands an explicit exclusion zone - as if that were what this was about - but cannot define what Ground Zero is. It's amazing the kind of rabid, drooling zeal that some people will let fly with in order to justify the suppression of discussion.

I did answer your questions.

The Patriot Act was not always applied as you support.

You answered one, and alarmingly. Look above: you also mischaracterize my very extent of support for the Patriot Act - that is, to within reasonable bounds, as any law (and not as law itself, like a uniform good by definition of its existence). Instead, you pretend unrestricted support, and then presume to take the high horse. Please: enough distortions.

Read the articles and see for yourself. I'll give you a hint, it's on the first page. It is not my problem if you are lazy Geoff and frankly, I find this tactic of yours to be inherently dishonest.

So you can't find them. Won't you even try to support your unsupported assertion? I'm very willing to discuss it.

Could you please.

Sure.

They need to explain their beliefs to you, great white man of the West?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2590443&postcount=104

Trite, isn't it? I mean, what's the point of dragging my race into it?

a) If the land is sacred and Muslims flew those planes, as you have reminded us several times in this thread, makes it strange that you would all ignore an already existing Mosque and attack a cultural centre.

Unless, of course, my positions - which you ignore - are exactly as stated: that I object to a massive edifice of dubious support, not to Islamic worship per se at the location. Curious, eh? How will you reconcile these things?

b) You have not given any proof that he has any such connections and are instead reacting to bigoted reports by the likes of Geller.

I don't read Geller, but I do read AP, the NYT, the Telegraph, various "Stars", and so on. Rauf has provided no information on the source of his funding. It leads one to suspect the worst; particularly from a purported Sufi building a massive, austentacious center. He has links to ISNA, which is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism case. He misrepresents his positions and support. What's not to like?

c) This building will have a multi-faith prayer space/room. Unlike the actual Mosque that already exists within 2 blocks from Ground Zero. You have also offered no proof that it is Saudi funded. What I gave you was the indirect funding of the GOP by the Saudis, but you don't even blink at that. Funny that.

Because it's irrelevant to this issue. Or, I must be a sekrit Republican. Well, there goes my guise. Darn.

You have accused him of possibly being an extremist or being funded by extremists, without any proof whatsoever.

Another fabrication.

You are on the side of those who have the lynch party mentality, who have and are actively calling for discrimination against Muslims in America.

Because some of my beliefs coincide on this issue...I am on their "side"? Interesting. How do you figure this one?

The stripper comparison is not false.

Oh, it is. It's a last-gasp defence. "Well, why don't you object to strippers?" Because they didn't ram jets into the Towers. There's also something of a firebreak between morality laws and a reasoned interest in security. Did all Muslims? No. But it's possible that those that are supporting this centre are of the same ideological bent. That doesn't bother you; there are various reasons why this might be so. It does bother me. I would like a more thorough vetting of the case. You would like it to proceed irrespective, and are more than happy to cast around whatever personal attacks you can in the meantime. No, literally: so far, the extent of your discussion has been misconceptualization, misstating your own evidence, ad hominem, straw men, and misrepresentation. There is - almost literally - nothing else.

You have consistently failed to respond as to why a multi faith centre in the Pentagon, steps away from where the plane actually hit is more acceptable to a multi faith centre 2 blocks away from Ground Zero.

Another lie.

You are consistently claiming that this is being funded by extremists

Another lie: I have stated the possibility that it is being funded by extremists. I even consider it relatively likely, since Rauf's collection plate is not very full, AFAIK. But now you are claiming that I am "consistently claiming" something that I am not. Again.

Ah yes. The Burkha debate.. where I asked why a white man who belongs to a religion that refuses to allow women to be priests, should be commenting on the dress of women of other religions? Where I asked why white Western men were trying to dictate what women of other religions and nationalities chose to wear?

And the race - or even location - of these men matter why?

If you think I am violating the forum's rules, then I would suggest you hit the report button and PM the administrators of this site.

I suppose I probably should. Can you think of a reason I shouldn't?

Do mosques contain swimming pools, gyms, food courts, etc?

We've been over this. Several times.

And as you have consistently reminded us in this thread. The terrorists who flew those planes were Muslims.. This site is owned by a Muslims. The greater majority of Muslims in the US are not white. No.. no racism there.

You have to demonstrate that your insinuations of racism really trump in a functional way the concerns of people opposed to the build. I point out that there is - as even you acknowledge - already a mosque at the Burlington Coat Factory. If this is about racism, why is there no protest about that? If there were, can you demonstrate complete ideological overlap with those opposed merely to the Ground Zero mosque? Of course not. You make sweeping allegations about the basis of these protests, but without proof and without this last straw refuting any suspicions about Rauf.

It is a valid question. Why was this building and plans to build this ignored for 6 whole months? Why did no one protest about it for 6 months?

It is a strawman. Whatever the media's interest - which includes all the intermediate houses as well as the conservative ones - the facts of the case remain the same.

Do I think Sharia Law is perfect? No. But living in a glass house, I am not about to start throwing stones. When our legal system becomes perfect, then I will rant and rave more about Sharia Law.

Ah: do nothing until a trained professional arrives. One wonders why you get out of bed in the morning. If you think your officers are bad, you should try the excesses of religiously-inspired law.

I find it curious that it is those who live outside of the State who are protesting more to it than those who live within it.

??? Another amazing straw man. Most New Yorkers are against the mosque. Most Americans are, for that matter. This is fascinating: where do you draw your line of acceptable commentary, out of interest? It can't be the State of New York, since that angle simply is false. The United States? Why do you "find this curious"? Another fall-back? If so, this would be an abysmal one.

I have not lied. My argument to you are completely honest and I provide proof.

You misrepresent my positions and statements - quite possibly deliberately - you place absurd geographic restrictions on the debate, propose false arguments about the area of Ground Zero while not articulating what the term really means, misunderstand or misrepresent the terms of the debate, falsely attribute, falsely cite and then refuse to provide evidence of your statements. I cannot think of a single thing you have done on this thread that is honest, unless it be that you represent your honest opinion of me; this would appear to be corroborated. In short: you have lied. Quite a lot.

How many times do I have to explain to you people that the term 'fatwa' does not mean "death setence."

Then replace it with "death fatwa".

 

[Bells]

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelgui...ue_and_cultural_center_district_of_columbia-i

Didn't take long.

Soo.. Where are the pools, gymnasiums, food courts, theaters?

It isn't, but I don't expect much.

Of course you do not. You don't give much either.

Lost me on this one. No, no: please don't bother.

Lost on you? You linked an article about a supposed phone call where a person took "May Allah protect you" as a death threat. Because yes, when you threaten to kill someone, one does tell them that they hope god will protect them.. Makes sense..

Ah, interesting: I have now virtually accused Rauf. We're making progress. And you think your dubious account of my arguments invalidates the test of reasonability about this mosque? Please.

You are so dishonest. You have been arguing and ranting about Rauf being funded by the Saudis and connected to radicals without any proof. Mere suspicions. You have been saying that this centre should not be built because of this and because it is in Ground Zero.. which has been repeatedly pointed out to you that it is neither a Mosque or in ground zero but 2 blocks away.

You have made snide comments about Muslims - by way of reminding me and others that the pilots of those planes were Muslims.

You are dishonest.

A lie.

Actually no, it is not.

Accurate and reasoned, rather.

So you are an accurate and reasoned bigot?

Supposition and rubber stamping.

Why? Because the truth does not fit into what you want to believe and want to spread about Muslims and the board who own the building (a board that consists of Jews, Christians, Muslims and others)? You consistently ignore any argument that points to the hypocritical nature of your argument.

This is an astounding plea to conspiracy theory, if I read your comment right.

A conspiracy theory? It was cited in this thread. That you are too lazy to read it is not my concern.

I have not heard of "Newt's" comments. Why would these be relevant to my opinion? Let's pursue this further: I don't read Geller, but why don't you isolate exactly what it is she's done. Specifically. I'm curious to see your thinking on this matter.

Because, your opinion mirrors theirs. The arguments you cite in protest to this centre mirrors theirs.

We have discussed Geller. You even provided a video of one of her speeches a while back. So again, you have lied.

Your "interview" was of sketchy relevance at best: Good God, someone called in a bomb threat? That's entirely new. Compared to an actual threat from one of the developers, which you dismiss out of hand, keeping in mind that the woman relating this threat is the head of the Muslim Canadian Congress. (Why, she must be a Fox plant! Hehe.)

Called? That threat was from a protester who was there protesting against this building. It was stated directly to the journalist interviewing them face to face. Can you not read?

The threat you cited was a woman saying she received a phone call from someone who identified as one of the developer and she had no proof that it was that individual. She did not record it or anything. She said that his voice was intimidating and she took his "May Allah protect you" statement as a death threat. I have heard many death threats in my time and not once has any of them ever wished me God's protection in making said threat.

I guess we better start rounding up all priests who say 'may God protect you' to people.. Death threats!!

And again you avoid the question. This is too funny: the "pro" side demands an explicit exclusion zone - as if that were what this was about - but cannot define what Ground Zero is. It's amazing the kind of rabid, drooling zeal that some people will let fly with in order to justify the suppression of discussion.

Avoided the question? I answered you directly. I told you that there were maps marking off the boundaries of Ground Zero and also marked off where this centre would be located. The image and the link were provided in this thread. You are free to go back and have a look at it. How do you consider that a dodge?

I told you what I consider Ground Zero to be. A place where a horrendous crime occured, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. This centre is 2 blocks from where that horrible crime occured. On the other side, there is already an existing actual Mosque. No one protests against that?

You answered one, and alarmingly. Look above: you also mischaracterize my very extent of support for the Patriot Act - that is, to within reasonable bounds, as any law (and not as law itself, like a uniform good by definition of its existence). Instead, you pretend unrestricted support, and then presume to take the high horse. Please: enough distortions.

Nope. You support it as you support it. I find the Patriot Act and other laws of its kind to be against the very foundation the West considers democratic. Denying people the right to counsel, detaining without proof but mere suspicion without having to cite any reason. Apparently this makes us better?

So you can't find them. Won't you even try to support your unsupported assertion? I'm very willing to discuss it.

Again. You are dishonest. I provided you with the link. Told you it was on the front page. If you are too dishonest to read it, don't blame me and accuse me of not being able to find it. My assertions are fully supported. I stated that Muslims in the ME and in America consider him to be an American Agent, because he works with the State Department and they send him on speaking tours to Muslim countries, something he started to do for the State department since the days of Bush. I gave you the link to the article to support my assertion. The saying of camels being led to water but cannot force them to drink can be inserted here.

Trite, isn't it? I mean, what's the point of dragging my race into it?

Yep. And I still stand by that question. What right do you have, as a white man from the West, have to tell women of other religions and nationalities how to dress? The days of slavery and where white men had that kind of power are long behind us. Or supposedly behind us.

Unless, of course, my positions - which you ignore - are exactly as stated: that I object to a massive edifice of dubious support, not to Islamic worship per se at the location. Curious, eh? How will you reconcile these things?

And as has been stated to you, you discount an actual Mosque located the same distance to Ground Zero. No one has even looked at the funding of this Mosque, have they? I question your unsupported suspicions, based on mere snide comments in the right media. When that is thrown out on its head, you then refer to the location and have done consistently in this thread. I query the reasons behind the sudden protest of this, seeing that it was ignored entirely for 6 months. I have not ignored your positions. Quite the contrary. I have been questioning you about them for a while now and you slide around like a slug trying to twist everything around in a dishonest fashion.

Again, why were you not protesting against this in December in 2009 when it was first announced in a large front spread news story in a New York paper? Why did no one raise a peep of protest about it for 6 months? Why should we deny people their right to worship what they want (again, it's a multi-faith centre) on land that is not on ground zero but two blocks away, private land mind you, based on mere suspicion and bigoted innuendo raised by the likes of Geller and picked up by the likes of News Corps, who recently received over $3 million from the very suspicious connections Rauf is being accused of having, and who have a $3 billion dollar share in the News Corps empire?

But the biggest question I want you to answer is why this became important in May 2010 but was not important enough in December 2009?

I don't read Geller, but I do read AP, the NYT, the Telegraph, various "Stars", and so on. Rauf has provided no information on the source of his funding. It leads one to suspect the worst; particularly from a purported Sufi building a massive, austentacious center. He has links to ISNA, which is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism case. He misrepresents his positions and support. What's not to like?

All of which has been consistently discounted. Geller and the support she receives from News Corps in allowing her the media platform to vent her bigotry has more links to the Saudi Royal family than Rauf has been proven of having, because of the sheer number of money the Saudis have pumped to Murdoch and News Corps.

He has stated his opinions repeatedly. He has demonstrated his positions repeatedly for years, from even before 9/11. The board who are building this support him.. the very board that consists of Jews, Christians, Muslims and others.

You have yet to provide any proof that he has any suspicious connections. All you have given us has been suspicions of suspicions.

Because it's irrelevant to this issue. Or, I must be a sekrit Republican. Well, there goes my guise. Darn.

Because you keep harping on about its location by reminding us it is ground zero, but an actual Mosque located the same distance away is ignored. It is not irrelevant at all.

It is hypocritical and dishonest..

Another fabrication.

Actually no, it is not. Again, you are being dishonest.

Because some of my beliefs coincide on this issue...I am on their "side"? Interesting. How do you figure this one?

Ermm because you are like a male version of Geller. You spout exactly the same arguments against this centre. Even to the point of snide remarks about women in Islam and Sharia Law..

:shrug:

Oh, it is. It's a last-gasp defence. "Well, why don't you object to strippers?" Because they didn't ram jets into the Towers. There's also something of a firebreak between morality laws and a reasoned interest in security. Did all Muslims? No. But it's possible that those that are supporting this centre are of the same ideological bent. That doesn't bother you; there are various reasons why this might be so. It does bother me. I would like a more thorough vetting of the case. You would like it to proceed irrespective, and are more than happy to cast around whatever personal attacks you can in the meantime. No, literally: so far, the extent of your discussion has been misconceptualization, misstating your own evidence, ad hominem, straw men, and misrepresentation. There is - almost literally - nothing else.

You mean the very people who are funding News Corps, who first broke the scandalous story of this "mosque" by giving Geller a platform from May 2010?

And again, you are snidely making spurious comments about the Muslims and non-Muslims who will be using this centre. Yes, radical and extremists Muslims slammed those planes into those buildings. Yes, radical and extremist Muslims also slammed a plane in the Pentagon, where another Multi-Faith centre exists and where Muslims pray on a daily basis.

You don't give a flying shit about how this is vetted. as you have said, it wasn't the strippers who flew those planes into those buildings. It was Muslims. You have failed to provide any substantial proof that it is being funded by extremists. You have consistently swung between arguments in this thread - from discussions about his funding, to the building being in that location, to the religious beliefs of those who flew those planes. You have no proof that Rauf, or the board he represents (consisting of Jews, Christians and Muslims) are funded by extremists or anyone with terrorist connections, you have no proof that this multi faith centre will be used to spread extremism or radical Islam, you have no proof that it is even a Mosque. All you have is inuendo and and bigotry.

Another lie.

So why aren't you protesting against that?

Another lie: I have stated the possibility that it is being funded by extremists. I even consider it relatively likely, since Rauf's collection plate is not very full, AFAIK. But now you are claiming that I am "consistently claiming" something that I am not. Again.

So you support refusing people their Constitutional Rights based on an unproven possibility?

And the race - or even location - of these men matter why?

You are telling me that you do not see the racism behind white Western men telling coloured women what to wear and what not to wear?

I suppose I probably should. Can you think of a reason I shouldn't?

Here is the thing. If you feel that I am in breach of this forum's rules, then it is up to you to follow it up by reporting me. What I think has nothing to do with what you do Geoff. If you feel I broke the rules, then report me. It is that simple.

We've been over this. Several times.

And you have failed to answer.

Mosques do not contain such things. Hence why this is a cultural centre, much like the Jewish Y it is apparently modelled on. It will have a multi-faith prayer room - which is not a mosque. It would be akin to the multi-faith rooms that one finds in hospitals and Government buildings in the US.

It is a strawman. Whatever the media's interest - which includes all the intermediate houses as well as the conservative ones - the facts of the case remain the same.

Yes it does. So why did they ignore it for 6 months?

Most importantly, why did you ignore it for 6 months? Why was it not important to you then but important to you from May 2010? Why wasn't it important enough for you to discuss this in December 2009 and in the time up to May 2010?

Why did you ignore this for 6 months? Why weren't you questioning his funding sources for 6 months? Why did you not protest against this for 6 months?

Ah: do nothing until a trained professional arrives. One wonders why you get out of bed in the morning. If you think your officers are bad, you should try the excesses of religiously-inspired law.

Not at all.

??? Another amazing straw man. Most New Yorkers are against the mosque. Most Americans are, for that matter. This is fascinating: where do you draw your line of acceptable commentary, out of interest? It can't be the State of New York, since that angle simply is false. The United States? Why do you "find this curious"? Another fall-back? If so, this would be an abysmal one.

Seeing the voices of support for this centre, one would have to say that "most New Yorkers" is a bit of an exaggeration. But I am curious as to why those who are protesting against this are outsiders.

But again, why did "most New Yorkers" ignore this and not protest this for 6 whole months? Why did most Americans not say a single thing about this for 6 whole months?

You misrepresent my positions and statements - quite possibly deliberately - you place absurd geographic restrictions on the debate, propose false arguments about the area of Ground Zero while not articulating what the term really means, misunderstand or misrepresent the terms of the debate, falsely attribute, falsely cite and then refuse to provide evidence of your statements. I cannot think of a single thing you have done on this thread that is honest, unless it be that you represent your honest opinion of me; this would appear to be corroborated. In short: you have lied. Quite a lot

I have quoted you directly. Your positions and statements are as you made them. I queried you directly about what you have said.

I have answered all the questions you have asked of me about Ground Zero and what it means, I have given you links which you appear to not have read, I have pointed you in the direction of the boundaries of the actual Ground Zero site and where this centre is to be built and you have refused to look at it. I have asked you questions about your motives and why you and others have not said a single thing about this project for 6 months. I have provided you with direct links and interviews. You have responded with mere suspicions and possibilities, without any proof whatsoever. You queried the morality of its location and I queried the morality of a strip club and an actual Mosque in the same vicinity and distance as this multi-faith centre.

So you have lied and you have been dishonest, not only about what I have directly provided you, but about me as well.

 

[Michael]

I like the idea of a multifaith Mosque being built here. I'd like to see Muslims being taught, during Friday prayers, about Buddhism and Hinduism and Shinto Faith and about the Gods worshiped by Native Americans, whose land the center is built on. I'd love to see female Imam's preach in the Mosque and to see men and women gather during the same ceremony. Finally a platform for supporting the Ahmadiyya Community. Let's talk about what makes a tolerant belief system and what makes an intolerant belief system. What better opportunity for the New York Muslim community to step forward and show how progressive and tolerant they are?

It's really an ideal venue really.

One could say this is almost too good to be true. I can't wait for the liberal supporters, the people who are pushing for the center to be opened, to be some of the first invited speakers to talk about the rights of New York homosexual female Imam's to preach in the center to men.

We need to get behind this thing and make it a reality

 

[GeoffP]

Because it's easier. :shrug:

Soo.. Where are the pools, gymnasiums, food courts, theaters?

Because the specific layout of the overall building matters?

Lost on you? You linked an article about a supposed phone call where a person took "May Allah protect you" as a death threat. Because yes, when you threaten to kill someone, one does tell them that they hope god will protect them.. Makes sense..

Yeees - I wonder if you'd be so callous about a woman being threatened by a man in any other situtation. And you say you used to volunteer in a battered women's shelter. How can these things possibly jive?

You are so dishonest. You have been arguing and ranting about Rauf being funded by the Saudis and connected to radicals without any proof. Mere suspicions.

No kidding. Really? So suspicion is not a cause for grounds of further investigation. This is great epistemological stuff, Bells: when does one investigate an issue further? I'm fascinated to hear the keen legal mind behind this position: here I'd thought one needed proof to make a conviction, not to engage in further investigation.

You have been saying that this centre should not be built because of this and because it is in Ground Zero.. which has been repeatedly pointed out to you that it is neither a Mosque or in ground zero but 2 blocks away.

Wrong again. I've said that I think it's insensitive as sited and planned, that it will be taken as a triumphal monument by Islamic conservative racists, and that non-disclosure of the sources of funding by the builders is shady. Rauf says in American that Americans will be financing it, and in Arabic says something quite different. It strikes me as suspicious, and I would like an explanation. If he can be compelled to do so by legal means, then so be it.

You have made snide comments about Muslims - by way of reminding me and others that the pilots of those planes were Muslims.

??? In comparison to your argument about strippers. Wait - were they strippers, Bells? Is it somehow offensive now to mention their religion at all, in any context? Which contexts are acceptable? You are making idiotic propositions again.

Actually no, it is not.

It is. I have stated the possibility that it is being funded by extremists. I even consider it relatively likely, since Rauf's collection plate is not very full, AFAIK. But now you are claiming that I am "consistently claiming" something that I am not. Again.

So you are an accurate and reasoned bigot?

Besides being false, offensive and foolish, this is another little rule-violation. I know you're big on rules, Bells. But not today, seemingly.

There was some other nonsense about how what doesn't fit into my perspective, etc, etc: and yet my position passed your little A-B-C test. So who is it who's ignoring the facts?

Because, your opinion mirrors theirs. The arguments you cite in protest to this centre mirrors theirs.

Now illustrate the wrongful basis for my arguments. Should be an easy step, Bells. You can do it.

We have discussed Geller. You even provided a video of one of her speeches a while back. So again, you have lied.

I'd be interested in seeing this. Of course, you haven't illustrated that I support her arguments, or that those arguments are based on a racist perspective, or even that mine are. This sounds like bluster to me, Bells.

Called? That threat was from a protester who was there protesting against this building. It was stated directly to the journalist interviewing them face to face. Can you not read?

Well thank god he wasn't one of the organizers of the mosque. That would have been strange.

The threat you cited was a woman saying she received a phone call from someone who identified as one of the developer and she had no proof that it was that individual.

It came directly from his number. But perhaps he lets people passing by on the street just use his phone. And supplies them with the phone number of Ms. Raza, and her affiliation, and her comments at the meeting about the Ground Zero mosque. I'm sure this is all possible. Somehow.

I guess we better start rounding up all priests who say 'may God protect you' to people.. Death threats!!

The height of disingenuity.

Avoided the question? I answered you directly. I told you that there were maps marking off the boundaries of Ground Zero and also marked off where this centre would be located.

My apologies: this is partially correct. You indeed cited a map, somewhere in the thread. But what I was asking was what you considered it to be. Me, I think the structure as proposed is insensitive pretty much anywhere the dust fell. Sort of has a poetic ring to it.

On the other side, there is already an existing actual Mosque. No one protests against that?

Guess not.

Guess why.

Nope. You support it as you support it. I find the Patriot Act and other laws of its kind to be against the very foundation the West considers democratic. Denying people the right to counsel, detaining without proof but mere suspicion without having to cite any reason. Apparently this makes us better?

Again, you mischaracterize me, since I made specific comments on its morality and where my support for that morality fails; you also deliberately delimit your discussion thereof to matters that I would not support. By the same token, I may now confirm that you support sharia law; you seem to think that wife-beating, religious bigotry and general misgyny "makes us better". It's okay, by your lights, to beat your wife - maybe you feel that in some cases, after chastising and separating them from your presence, a good thump in the back of the head is a reasonable thing. Or the face, perhaps. How big a stick is an acceptable one to use, Bells? I guess we differ therein also. That's probably a good thing.

Again. You are dishonest. I provided you with the link. Told you it was on the front page.

Read it. Didn't say what you said. Called you out. You did a runner. Look, just cite me which people believe this about him, or which general movement does. This should be simple.

Yep. And I still stand by that question. What right do you have, as a white man from the West, have to tell women of other religions and nationalities how to dress? The days of slavery and where white men had that kind of power are long behind us. Or supposedly behind us.

Yes: my disapproval of potential misogyny makes me a slave-owner. A fine leap; you cleared three tropes at least.

Again, why were you not protesting against this in December in 2009 when it was first announced in a large front spread news story in a New York paper?

Because I didn't see it? :shrug: And this is proof of....? This is your "biggest question". You should be able to answer it. What does it mean, Bells?

All of which has been consistently discounted. Geller and the support she receives from News Corps in allowing her the media platform to vent her bigotry has more links to the Saudi Royal family than Rauf has been proven of having, because of the sheer number of money the Saudis have pumped to Murdoch and News Corps.

Then she does seem to strangely bite the hand that feeds her. What is your point here?

He has stated his opinions repeatedly.

Yes; and alternately, in different languages.

Because you keep harping on about its location by reminding us it is ground zero, but an actual Mosque located the same distance away is ignored. It is not irrelevant at all.

Only if one ignores context and proportionality and philosophy and funding source. One might have thought this would underscore my points about my opposition. But for you it is a further conspiracy of some kind. Interesting. How do you figure?

Ermm because you are like a male version of Geller. You spout exactly the same arguments against this centre. Even to the point of snide remarks about women in Islam and Sharia Law..

Interesting. Because women are not susceptible to abuse in Sharia law? But they are susceptible to abuse in Western law. This is fascinating. How did you arrive at this conclusion?


I just deleted the next three paragraphs and much of the rest since a) you were trying to drag Muslims and non-Muslims into some kind of attack that I'd apparently made on them - you actually tried the same thing with Dywyddyr's moderation a month ago when I said I didn't trust your moderation, b) you were on the strippers and NewsCorp thing again - again, why is Geller biting the hand that feeds her? And c) it was repetition. Arguments consolidated.

You are telling me that you do not see the racism behind white Western men telling coloured women what to wear and what not to wear?

Er - are you actually telling me you see racism in a humanitarian gesture based on equality? Or that you do not see the misogyny in coloured men telling coloured (And: really? "coloured" is the appropriate word?) women what to wear? Is actual misogyny preferable to your impressions of racism?

Here is the thing. If you feel that I am in breach of this forum's rules, then it is up to you to follow it up by reporting me. What I think has nothing to do with what you do Geoff. If you feel I broke the rules, then report me. It is that simple.

As you like, then.

Yes it does. So why did they ignore it for 6 months?

Most importantly, why did you ignore it for 6 months?

Because my section commander hadn't told me it was an issue. The internal ZionCorp memo system is a menace, really; messages go here, messages go there. You'd think that old Nazi rigidity and organization would have rubbed off on us when we absorbed all those Lizardoids from Hitler's group, but no. Same old same old.

Seeing the voices of support for this centre, one would have to say that "most New Yorkers" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Then you would be wrong. I have posted a link. Is there any reason you took the link out of your response? Usually when you quote something, the link stays in, so far as I'm aware.

??? Another amazing straw man. Most New Yorkers are against the mosque. Most Americans are, for that matter. This is fascinating: where do you draw your line of acceptable commentary, out of interest? It can't be the State of New York, since that angle simply is false. The United States? Why do you "find this curious"? Another fall-back? If so, this would be an abysmal one.

But I am curious as to why those who are protesting against this are outsiders.

This is a false declaration again. You're saying that all those protesting this are outsiders. I think a scan of elementary probability and joint probability would be advantageous.

But again, why did "most New Yorkers" ignore this and not protest this for 6 whole months? Why did most Americans not say a single thing about this for 6 whole months?

They're Lizardoids too. Look, Bells: if you want to say that one or another news group revitalized this discussion, or even started it, that's fine. But every news group in the United States is carrying it now. The OP cites it; I noticed and commented. Simple stuff, really.

I have quoted you directly. Your positions and statements are as you made them. I queried you directly about what you have said.

And misrepresented my positions and opinions. And misconstrued the contrasts in the case, or ignored them. And ignored my answers, or misrepresented them to mean what you want them to mean. On what high horse is it you think you sit?

 

[joepistole]

I like the idea of a multifaith Mosque being built here. I'd like to see Muslims being taught, during Friday prayers, about Buddhism and Hinduism and Shinto Faith and about the Gods worshiped by Native Americans, whose land the center is built on. I'd love to see female Imam's preach in the Mosque and to see men and women gather during the same ceremony. Finally a platform for supporting the Ahmadiyya Community. Let's talk about what makes a tolerant belief system and what makes an intolerant belief system. What better opportunity for the New York Muslim community to step forward and show how progressive and tolerant they are?

It's really an ideal venue really.

One could say this is almost too good to be true. I can't wait for the liberal supporters, the people who are pushing for the center to be opened, to be some of the first invited speakers to talk about the rights of New York homosexual female Imam's to preach in the center to men.

We need to get behind this thing and make it a reality

Where is your evidence that liberals are pushing for it? Liberals are merely supporting the rights of those wishing to construct the Islamic center. In other words, they are defending our constitutional rights...minor detail.

 

[GeoffP]

Joe, do you see Constitutional rights as absolute? Are there no circumstances in which such Rights may be abrogated, temporarily or otherwise?


PS: Thanks for a more civil debate than some.

 

[joepistole]

Joe, do you see Constitutional rights as absolute? Are there no circumstances in which such Rights may be abrogated, temporarily or otherwise?

PS: Thanks for a more civil debate than some.

I do view the rights as absoulte. Are there exceptional circumstances whereby it would be ok to abrogate our rights under the Constitution, perhaps in the event of an extreme and immediate calamity. And it is hard for me to envision what the clamity would be.

But violating the Constitution just because some people are going to have their feelings hurt is not a good reason to sacrifice our Constitution.

 

[phlogistician]

But violating the Constitution just because some people are going to have their feelings hurt is not a good reason to sacrifice our Constitution.

Indeed. This non-situation is not a state of national emergency. It's just a bunch of bigots exposing their racism. No reason to tear up constitutional rights of citizens because a bunch of bigots are whining.

Why are right wingers so keen to abuse their own constitution?

Oh, btw, GeoffP, on the funding of the Cultural Centre? Well, $300k is coming from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns 7% of Fox News. Happy now?

 

[GeoffP]

I do view the rights as absoulte. Are there exceptional circumstances whereby it would be ok to abrogate our rights under the Constitution, perhaps in the event of an extreme and immediate calamity. And it is hard for me to envision what the clamity would be.

But violating the Constitution just because some people are going to have their feelings hurt is not a good reason to sacrifice our Constitution.

The argument isn't merely that: it's that it's Saudi money financing the mosque. To wit:

Oh, btw, GeoffP, on the funding of the Cultural Centre? Well, $300k is coming from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns 7% of Fox News. Happy now?

Ha! Well, well: Saudi money is financing it after all? Spectacular. I'm sure this means its operation will be held to the highest moral standards. And after dear old Faisal promised that it was only going to be American cash! Dear me, what to think. Doesn't he also fund the "George Walker Bush" scholarship? Brilliant.

Got a link?

 

[joepistole]

Indeed. This non-situation is not a state of national emergency. It's just a bunch of bigots exposing their racism. No reason to tear up constitutional rights of citizens because a bunch of bigots are whining.

Why are right wingers so keen to abuse their own constitution?

Oh, btw, GeoffP, on the funding of the Cultural Centre? Well, $300k is coming from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns 7% of Fox News. Happy now?

Yes, one of the things that scares me about the extremist right wing - which is most of the right wing these days - is that they have a bunch of conflicting "gotta haves" all at the same time. For example, the case of the Islamic center, we gotta trash the Constitution to prevent it from being built. In the case of citizenship, we gotta change the Constitution to limit citizenship. In the case of spending for things they do not like, the Constitution is immutable and only a "strict constructionalist" intrepretation of the Constitution is acceptable. On the other hand, a liberal intrepretation of the Constitution is perfectly acceptable in cases like Terri Shaivo and the george II appointment to the presidency in 2000 by a conserrvative activist supreme court.

How they are able to rationalize all of these conflicting positions is simply amazing and at the same time scary should they gain more political power.

 

[Bells]

Because the specific layout of the overall building matters?

Because Mosques don't contain swimming pools, gymnasiums, food courts, theaters, art centers, etc.

Yeees - I wonder if you'd be so callous about a woman being threatened by a man in any other situtation. And you say you used to volunteer in a battered women's shelter. How can these things possibly jive?

Here is the thing Geoff. I have been threatened. I know hundreds of women who have been threatened with violence and death at one time or another. Not a single one of them has ever been threatened by way of a blessing before. Not one. I have never been either.

She did feel threatened by a phone call and a blessing. And she should have contacted the police immediately. I am surprised she chose not to. After all, if she saved his number and it matches up to his office as she claims, why did she not go to the police?

No kidding. Really? So suspicion is not a cause for grounds of further investigation. This is great epistemological stuff, Bells: when does one investigate an issue further? I'm fascinated to hear the keen legal mind behind this position: here I'd thought one needed proof to make a conviction, not to engage in further investigation.

You have absolutely no proof. There has been a concerted effort to run a smear campaign against this man and not a single person has been able to provide proof. Instead, they have resorted to citing suspicion.

Wrong again. I've said that I think it's insensitive as sited and planned, that it will be taken as a triumphal monument by Islamic conservative racists, and that non-disclosure of the sources of funding by the builders is shady. Rauf says in American that Americans will be financing it, and in Arabic says something quite different. It strikes me as suspicious, and I would like an explanation. If he can be compelled to do so by legal means, then so be it.

It is the same distance as an actual Mosque that has existed in the area for over 10 years. It is the same distance as a strip club.

Do you actually think that Islamic conservative racists are going to find a building with a swimming pool, gymnasium, food court, theater and art centre, as well as a child care centre (apparently), all open to all members of the public (except fo the child care centre that is to be private) and without restrictions.. Yes, I can see how the likes of Osama would find it just wonderful and triumphant.

There was a piece written by a nun, by the name of Sister Joan Chittister, about this centre and the feelings it has aroused in the community. She pretty much hits the nail on the head about this building. Brilliant article.

??? In comparison to your argument about strippers. Wait - were they strippers, Bells? Is it somehow offensive now to mention their religion at all, in any context? Which contexts are acceptable? You are making idiotic propositions again.

Again, you are being dishonest and twisting things around.

It is. I have stated the possibility that it is being funded by extremists. I even consider it relatively likely, since Rauf's collection plate is not very full, AFAIK. But now you are claiming that I am "consistently claiming" something that I am not. Again.

Again, based on a mere possibility, you are willing to deny people their Constitutional rights? You support that? Because of a possibility? You have absolutely nothing to show that your "possibility" is even remotely possible.

But lets have a look at some of the funding, shall we?

The opponents of the proposed Cordoba Initiative Islamic center planned for lower Manhattan are fond of suggesting, by way of lengthy and often confusing chains of causation and association, that its principal planner Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is connected to terrorism. "The imam has been tied to some shady characters," Fox Business Channel's Eric Bolling recently said, "so should we worry that terror dollars could be funding the project?" Blogger Pamela Geller, who has become a regular talking head on cable news channels to denounce the mosque, has noted Rauf's involvement with a Malaysian peace group that funded the group that organized the Gaza flotilla under the headline, "Ground Zero Imam Rauf's 'Charity' Funded Genocide Mission."

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart skewered these antics as a "dangerous game of guilt by association you can play with almost anybody," and proceeded to tie Fox News to Al Qaeda by connecting Fox News parent News Corp's second-largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, to the Carlyle Group, which has done business with the bin Laden family, "one of whose sons--obviously I'm not going to say which one--may be anti-American." But Stewart didn't need to take all those steps to make the connection: Al-Waleed has directly funded Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000. If Fox newscasters can darkly suggest "terror dollars" are sluicing into the Islamic Center's coffers via "shady characters," then are Al-Waleed, and News Corp. leader Rupert Murdoch, by the same logic, also terror stooges? (The "Daily Show" video appears after the jump.)

Indeed, as none other than Rupert Murdoch's New York Post reported last May, the Kingdom Foundation, al-Waleed's personal charity, has donated a total of $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a leadership and networking project sponsored jointly by two of Rauf's organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative. Al-Waleed owns a seven percent, $2.3 billion stake in News Corporation. Likewise, News Corporation owns a 9 percent, $70 million stake--purchased in February--in Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate. Put another way: Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are in business, to the tune of billions of dollars, with one of the "Terror Mosque Imam's" principal patrons.

(Source)

And it gets even funnier.

Keep in mind also that Murdoch also donates millions to the GOP. Talk about connections upon connections.. So who is being really funded by apparently terrorists? Murdoch and the GOP? Or the $300,000 or so given to Rauf..

Hmm..

Besides being false, offensive and foolish, this is another little rule-violation. I know you're big on rules, Bells. But not today, seemingly.

There was some other nonsense about how what doesn't fit into my perspective, etc, etc: and yet my position passed your little A-B-C test. So who is it who's ignoring the facts?

I have answered the questions you have asked, while I have watched you dodge the issues and the questions asked of you.

My comment stands as a response to your comment.

If you feel it was in breach of the rules, then report me.

Now illustrate the wrongful basis for my arguments. Should be an easy step, Bells. You can do it.

I am going to put this bluntly.

This "Mosque" was announced in December 2009. You did not say a single word about it. It was front page news in New York. No one protested against it. But suddenly in May, Geller decides to attack it and soon after, you appear on the horizon using the same arguments as hers against this project.

You have failed to substantiate anything at all and keep relying on the possibility. When that is shot down, you then revert to the location of this centre as a basis for rejection. Again, your argument mirrors Gellers.

Did you come up with all of this on your very own? Why wait so long to actually question the funding? Why wait over 6 months before you question the motives behind it. Was it less nefarious or suspicious in December 2009? What made you change your mind to attack it now?

Well thank god he wasn't one of the organizers of the mosque. That would have been strange.

Again, attempt to derail this.

It came directly from his number. But perhaps he lets people passing by on the street just use his phone. And supplies them with the phone number of Ms. Raza, and her affiliation, and her comments at the meeting about the Ground Zero mosque. I'm sure this is all possible. Somehow.

She claims it came from his offices. She has no proof that it was him on the phone. She also failed to contact the police and file a report. Why not? If someone threatens to kill me, I'd be calling the police immediately. She did not. She had the person's phone number. It would have been easy for the police to track him down. But she did nothing about it.

The height of disingenuity.

Why? She saw it as a threat.

My apologies: this is partially correct. You indeed cited a map, somewhere in the thread. But what I was asking was what you considered it to be. Me, I think the structure as proposed is insensitive pretty much anywhere the dust fell. Sort of has a poetic ring to it.

What do I consider Ground Zero to be? The burial site of a childhood friend and the son of a friend of my mother's.

You proprose that the structure would be insensitive anywhere the dust fell. The dust carried far and wide. So is that the Muslim exclusion zone for you? Where the dust fell is the boundary? What about the Mosque that had the dust fall on it? Why is that allowed to remain in place?

Hell, why not ban them from the entire zone.. You know, because the dust fell on it?

Guess not.

Guess why.

Because it already existed before? But you don't want any more in the area?

The less the better, because you know, the dust fell there and Muslims flew those planes and all that? Issues about funding of this centre, all based on mere suspicion and possiblity, all unfounded and unproven... Would that be it?

Again, you mischaracterize me, since I made specific comments on its morality and where my support for that morality fails; you also deliberately delimit your discussion thereof to matters that I would not support. By the same token, I may now confirm that you support sharia law; you seem to think that wife-beating, religious bigotry and general misgyny "makes us better". It's okay, by your lights, to beat your wife - maybe you feel that in some cases, after chastising and separating them from your presence, a good thump in the back of the head is a reasonable thing. Or the face, perhaps. How big a stick is an acceptable one to use, Bells? I guess we differ therein also. That's probably a good thing.

You can find where I have claimed that I support Sharia Law. At all. Good luck with that by the way.

You claimed you support the Patriot Act up to a certain point. I never made such claims of support about Sharia Law. So again, you are stretching it beyond breaking point here and clutching at straws.

Read it. Didn't say what you said. Called you out. You did a runner. Look, just cite me which people believe this about him, or which general movement does. This should be simple.

That was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s message, but not everyone in the Cairo lecture hall last February was buying it. As he talked of reconciliation between America and Middle Eastern Muslims — his voice soft, almost New Agey — some questions were so hostile that he felt the need to declare that he was not an American agent.

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 U.S. 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.”

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

One critique of the imam, said Omid Safi, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, is that he has not been outspoken enough on issues “near and dear to many Muslims,” from Israel policy to treatment of Muslims after 9/11, “because of the need that he has had — whether taken upon himself or thrust upon him — to be the ‘American imam,’ to be the ‘New York imam,’ to be the ‘accommodationist imam.’ “

Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University, said Abdul Rauf’s holistic Sufi practices could make more-orthodox Muslims uncomfortable, and his focus on like-minded interfaith leaders made him underestimate the uproar over his plans.


(Source)
​

Yes: my disapproval of potential misogyny makes me a slave-owner. A fine leap; you cleared three tropes at least.

That is not how it was meant, and you know it.

Because I didn't see it? And this is proof of....? This is your "biggest question". You should be able to answer it. What does it mean, Bells?

You didn't see it?

Why not?

It was front page news. But not a single person said a thing about it. Tell me, when did you see it? When did you decide to be suspicious about the funding? What led you to be suspicious about the funding? Do you always demand that builders of Mosques show you their funding so that you can be assured that they are not funded by extremists? Have you queried the other Mosque in the area, to ensure that it is not funded by extremists?

Then she does seem to strangely bite the hand that feeds her. What is your point here?

My point is simple. You have allowed the conservative media to spoon feed you and you repeat what they say accordingly. 6 whole months and you didn't say boo. You did not see it, so you did not think it was important. Neither did any of the other sudden opponents to this.

My point is that this is inherently political. That if there was no gearing up for a vote in the near future in the US, this would have been built without any fuss made about it at all.

Yes; and alternately, in different languages.

Refer to above.

Only if one ignores context and proportionality and philosophy and funding source. One might have thought this would underscore my points about my opposition. But for you it is a further conspiracy of some kind. Interesting. How do you figure?

Of which you have no proof. Just a belief of a possibility..

Interesting. Because women are not susceptible to abuse in Sharia law? But they are susceptible to abuse in Western law. This is fascinating. How did you arrive at this conclusion?


I just deleted the next three paragraphs and much of the rest since a) you were trying to drag Muslims and non-Muslims into some kind of attack that I'd apparently made on them - you actually tried the same thing with Dywyddyr's moderation a month ago when I said I didn't trust your moderation, b) you were on the strippers and NewsCorp thing again - again, why is Geller biting the hand that feeds her? And c) it was repetition. Arguments consolidated.

Because this centre has nothing to do with Sharia Law or its misogynistic ideology.

YOu deleted the paragraphs because you continue to dodge the questions raised in them.

Er - are you actually telling me you see racism in a humanitarian gesture based on equality? Or that you do not see the misogyny in coloured men telling coloured (And: really? "coloured" is the appropriate word?) women what to wear? Is actual misogyny preferable to your impressions of racism?

You see arresting women who wear the Burkha and forcing them to remove it as a humanitarian gesture based on equality?

My point in that thread, which I stated repeatedly, was that no man should order any woman about how she wanted to interpret her religion and her faith or belief. My point is that any man who does this dismisses the ability of the woman to judge for herself, which is inherent misogynistic in and of itself. My point was that women should be allowed to make determinations about what they wore without any external pressure.

Because my section commander hadn't told me it was an issue. The internal ZionCorp memo system is a menace, really; messages go here, messages go there. You'd think that old Nazi rigidity and organization would have rubbed off on us when we absorbed all those Lizardoids from Hitler's group, but no. Same old same old.

Nice dodge.

But I will repeat the question. Why did this issue suddenly become important in May 2010 but remained unimportant from December 2009 to May 2010?

Then you would be wrong. I have posted a link. Is there any reason you took the link out of your response? Usually when you quote something, the link stays in, so far as I'm aware.

I quote from a different web page and copy and paste in. The link remains in your original post.

I go quicker quoting that way for myself.

This is a false declaration again. You're saying that all those protesting this are outsiders. I think a scan of elementary probability and joint probability would be advantageous.

So why didn't any of them start protesting this project when it was first announced in December 2009? After all, it was front page news in New York papers. Not a single person commented on it and not a single protest comment was made until Geller reared her ugly head in News Corp media to denounce this as she has.

They're Lizardoids too. Look, Bells: if you want to say that one or another news group revitalized this discussion, or even started it, that's fine. But every news group in the United States is carrying it now. The OP cites it; I noticed and commented. Simple stuff, really.

Why didn't they carry it from December 2009 then?

And misrepresented my positions and opinions. And misconstrued the contrasts in the case, or ignored them. And ignored my answers, or misrepresented them to mean what you want them to mean. On what high horse is it you think you sit?

I have asked you questions openly and honestly. You have responded by either dodging them, ignoring them or making trolling comments about "Lizardroids". You have failed to provide any proof about the possibility, instead relying on suspicion.

 

[nirakar]

Unlike in much of Europe (and the world), there's this nifty un-bending Constitution that tends to tame even the most yappity right-wingers.

The constitution is good and helps but:

I don't think it is really the constitution that tames them. The constitution has been bent before.

Japanese internment, Separate but equal only not really equal, Mccarthyism purges of the left, California hounding the Chinese out of many locations, Jim Crow, poll taxes, Cointelpro, assassination of Fred Hampton, blah blah blah blah blah, etcetera etcetera.

It is the majority not allowing the yappity right wingers (and more importantly the more powerful right wingers who would use the yappity right wingers) to bend the constitution that stops the constitution from being bent more than it is bent now.

 

[nirakar]

GeoffP I guess you are against a mosque being within a few blocks of ground zero but I did not see where you said that.

A lot of people around the world object to US funded institutions for similar reasons to why you object to Saudi funded institutions. More than any nation the USA has spent money in other nations to try to influence how they think and what they do.

 

[GeoffP]

The conspiracy grows!

Because Mosques don't contain swimming pools, gymnasiums, food courts, theaters, art centers, etc.

Then you agree that the mosque is in the centre, not the centre in the mosque.

Here is the thing Geoff. I have been threatened. I know hundreds of women who have been threatened with violence and death at one time or another. Not a single one of them has ever been threatened by way of a blessing before. Not one. I have never been either.

Then bravo! You have just learned of a new and interesting way to threaten a woman. You know for a fact that she did not go to the police?

You have absolutely no proof. There has been a concerted effort to run a smear campaign against this man and not a single person has been able to provide proof. Instead, they have resorted to citing suspicion.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/792

Suspicion no longer.

Do you actually think that Islamic conservative racists are going to find a building with a swimming pool, gymnasium, food court, theater and art centre, as well as a child care centre (apparently), all open to all members of the public (except fo the child care centre that is to be private) and without restrictions.

The Islamic conservative racists will focus on the mosque, and forget the centre, as the uncritical supporter focuses on the centre, and forgets the mosque.

Not to mention that there's such a thing as da'wa.

There was a piece written by a nun, by the name of Sister Joan Chittister, about this centre and the feelings it has aroused in the community. She pretty much hits the nail on the head about this building. Brilliant article.

Och, I don't know: she sounds like a Catholic, Bells. I can't be reading the works of those evil people - I know it would upset you. I admit that I did glance at it, and even she seems to have put together two and two about the cross a bunch of assholes tried to erect at Auschwitz, for fuck's sake. So she gets it, but not that much of it.

Again, you are being dishonest and twisting things around.

Wrong. (Why do I bother?) You asked about strippers. I answered you. There's nothing twisted about it: radical strippers did not attack the WTC. If they had, I would consider a new stripper club more than tacky and veering to "inappropriate". I would consider it suspicious if they refused to say who was funding their new stripper centre, even if it had pools and child care and a theatre (probably a giveaway) and a gym.

If it had a library, I'd know something was wrong.

But lets have a look at some of the funding, shall we?

Indeed, let us.

the Kingdom Foundation, al-Waleed's personal charity, has donated a total of $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a leadership and networking project sponsored jointly by two of Rauf's organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative

Yes. A Saudi Arabian. Done and done, as they say.

My comment stands as a response to your comment.

At this point, and due largely to your inaccurate citing, I have almost no idea what this is meant to refer to. I assume it has to do with your question about whether or not I support the Patriot Act - a response that you then twisted to fit your own prejudices - but you forget that it was you who asked me first about that.

If you feel it was in breach of the rules, then report me.

Very well.

I am going to put this bluntly.

This "Mosque" was announced in December 2009. You did not say a single word about it. It was front page news in New York. No one protested against it. But suddenly in May, Geller decides to attack it and soon after, you appear on the horizon using the same arguments as hers against this project.

And? I am going to put this bluntly: I saw the OP and chimed in. Your comment about the first surfacing of this issue looks much like paranoia. Usual question: do you have a link?

Again, attempt to derail this.

Not in the slightest. I've already discussed this: of course there are bomb threats. Lots of organizations get bomb threats. There's nothing to derail except a child's choo-choo.

She claims it came from his offices. She has no proof that it was him on the phone. She also failed to contact the police and file a report. Why not? If someone threatens to kill me, I'd be calling the police immediately. She did not. She had the person's phone number. It would have been easy for the police to track him down. But she did nothing about it.

Sheer supposition on your part. You have no idea at all what she did and didn't do, and your defense of every aspect of this cherished idea of yours borders on the fanatical: it is far more likely that it was he who called, unless, again, he gives out regular access to his phone lines and her number and her philosophical bent.

What do I consider Ground Zero to be? The burial site of a childhood friend and the son of a friend of my mother's.

Hard to believe. Sorry.

You proprose that the structure would be insensitive anywhere the dust fell. The dust carried far and wide. So is that the Muslim exclusion zone for you? Where the dust fell is the boundary? What about the Mosque that had the dust fall on it? Why is that allowed to remain in place?

More hysteria. We've discussed all the aspects of this: moving on.

Would that be it?

Nnnope. Try again.

You can find where I have claimed that I support Sharia Law. At all. Good luck with that by the way.

You claimed you support the Patriot Act up to a certain point. I never made such claims of support about Sharia Law.

A lie.

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?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2607855&postcount=472

My claims of your complete support for sharia are at least as solid as your accusations of my support for the Patriot Act, and at least as relevant. You understand now, I hope?

That is not how it was meant, and you know it.

That is precisely how it was meant: an unqualified attack on me, and on the opinion of at least one group who doesn't fit into your narrow definition of who is allowed to have a legitimate opinion on the subject. And you know it.

You didn't see it?

Why not?

My point is simple.

No, your point is simplistic: why is Geller biting the hand that feeds her?

My point is that this is inherently political. That if there was no gearing up for a vote in the near future in the US, this would have been built without any fuss made about it at all.

Then partisan politics has uncovered an issue that is genuinely an issue, as illustrated by Saudi support of the mosque.

YOu deleted the paragraphs because you continue to dodge the questions raised in them.

I deleted the paragraphs because they were repetitions and had already been dealt with.

You see arresting women who wear the Burkha and forcing them to remove it as a humanitarian gesture based on equality?

I see my interest as inherently humanitarian, because I am a humanitarian. I tried to have some kind of a conversation with you about this - balancing the greater of the two evils - but you threw a tantrum at every turn. Your claim that you want no man to dictate what a woman wears wore a little thin when you turned a blind eye to the issue of forcible compliance.

Nice dodge.

Actually, it was treating your bizarre fixation as something to be pitied or ridiculed. To wit:

But I will repeat the question. Why did this issue suddenly become important in May 2010 but remained unimportant from December 2009 to May 2010?

Repeat away: it is of no relevance now.

I have asked you questions openly and honestly.

You have done almost literally nothing of the kind. Every comment of yours is loaded, every question an accusation, every honest and fair response twisted by you into something unseemly.

You have responded by either dodging them, ignoring them or making trolling comments about "Lizardroids".

Well, as they say: garbage in, garbage out. You seem to be trying to delve into my 'conspiratorial ways', which simply don't exist. "Why didn't you see it then, Geoff?! Why not?! It was front-page news, Geoff!? Except that it was reported on really quietly and slipped by everyone?!" I've no idea when such reports even occurred, yet you seem to think I've been following this since then with my sekrit decoder ring. So I treat you appropriately; your behavior, as they say, is "unfit". This is not my fault.

You have failed to provide any proof about the possibility, instead relying on suspicion.

Also wrong. Heck, now that I bother to glance at one of your links, you've provided it yourself.

:bravo:

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP I guess you are against a mosque being within a few blocks of ground zero but I did not see where you said that.

It's more complicated than that, really: this group, this place. There's a number of other combinations that would work, but when they get proposed, I get attacked by several people. I think I'll let others discuss those details.

A lot of people around the world object to US funded institutions for similar reasons to why you object to Saudi funded institutions. More than any nation the USA has spent money in other nations to try to influence how they think and what they do.

Yes: but it doesn't make this mosque right. The Americans are clumsy children, fiddling here and there; but they're not politically malevolent. The Saudi conjunction of religion and politics is. I could certainly agree with the denial of American influence in a number of spheres. Frankly, the way it's done, it's bad for a lot of people. (Not constantly, but often.)

 

[Gustav]

The project's organizers state that it is intended to be "a platform for multi-faith dialogue. It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally,"


so ah...mr rauf
how is that working out for you?

/snicker