Ground Zero Mosque

Amerika

wes wrote: »

So? He has every right to do that, in regards to the Islamic Center.

Here’s a question since Israel has been brought into the discussion. Does everyone here claiming "rights" agree (and would support) Israel having the "right" to tear down, say, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which was built on top of the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site? Or would you be opposed to such a move?

Amerika

wes wrote: »

What agenda would that be? I am sure you have proof of this agenda you attribute to those behind the Islamic Center?

Oh, and btw there own stated agenda in regards to there center is as follows:

I take it you either have a problem with the above, or have proof of another agenda?!?

Notice I state "IMO." And you actually provided a part of why I think so, when you provided their own stated agenda. So I ask you, cannot their stated agenda be accomplished a little farther away since so much of a firestorm has been made over the matter?

wes

Amerika wrote: »

Here’s a question since Israel has been brought into the discussion.

You brought up Hamas, first.

Amerika wrote: »

Does everyone here claiming "rights" agree (and would support) Israel having the "right" to tear down, say, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which was built on top of the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site? Or would you be opposed to such a move?

Seeing as it is in East Jerusalem, it would be against International law, just like all there colonization efforts are also against international law elsewhere. You are really going to have to a lot better than that .

So to answer the question, No, of course not, for the reason stated above.

So lets get back on topic...

wes

Amerika wrote: »

Notice I state "IMO."

So, you have no facts back up your opinion, so then its safe to dismiss it, as being essentially worthless then, unless you can provide some facts to back up your statement.

Amerika wrote: »

And you actually provided a part of why I think so, when you provided their own stated agenda. So I ask you, cannot their stated agenda be accomplished a little farther away since so much of a firestorm has been made over the matter?

No, it wouldn't be, as it would be giving into the bigots and liars, who are against them. By giving in, they are going against there own stated goals.

You are making all kinds of insinuations, but they have no basis in any kind of facts.

Amerika

wes wrote: »

Seeing as it is in East Jerusalem, it would be against International law, just like all there colonization efforts are also against international law elsewhere. You are really going to have to a lot better than that .

What about another Mosque, built upon a site holy to Judiasm, that doesn’t fall under International law?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

There already exists a mosque about 3 blocks from Ground Zero. I have no issue or problem with that.

"But 2 blocks - holy sh*t; NIMBY." ?

IMO, the building of this Mosque and cultural center at Ground Zero (and I do consider a building shuttered by the landing gear of planes hijacked and used to kill thousands of innocent people by Muslim extremists to be part of GZ) has little to do with religious freedom and more to do with another type of ideological agenda.

So is that thinking atypical?

no.

So I ask you, cannot their stated agenda be accomplished a little farther away since so much of a firestorm has been made over the matter?

What? One Additional Block away? To what purpose? Satisfy the bigotry of the Christian Right?

I would think No.

Also I'd like to point out you dont seem to be doing any fact checking. The existing Mosque being 4 blocks away, not 3. But by all means, keep thinking 3.

Nodin

Amerika wrote: »

First off, I believe (.....) far?

Rarely has so much mud been thrown in the direction of a glorified prayer room.....

Amerika wrote: »

What about another Mosque, built upon a site holy to Judiasm, that doesn’t fall under International law? ?

Seeing as no mosque is being built on ground zero, that analogy isn't even remotely apt.

I asked earlier if you considered all muslims the same, and you answered "no". If thats the case, how can you object to a prayer room in a muslim community centre?

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Also I'd like to point out you dont seem to be doing any fact checking. The existing Mosque being 4 blocks away, not 3. But by all means, keep thinking 3.

..they must be secretly moving it closer by cover of night.....

wes

Amerika wrote: »

What about another Mosque, built upon a site holy to Judiasm, that doesn’t fall under International law?

I fail to see the relevance to the current topic tbh. Also, all relevant rules for building should be adhered to regardless of what buildings are involved.

Also, what Holy site is the Islamic Center being built on top of? I fail to see how your comparison has any merit.

Amerika

Okay everyone, I concede, 4 blocks... not "about 3." I’m not about to get tarred and feathered am I? :eek:

wes wrote: »

I fail to see the relevance to the current topic tbh. Also, all relevant rules for building should be adhered to regardless of what buildings are involved.

Also, what Holy site is the Islamic Center being built on top of? I fail to see how your comparison has any merit.

I'm only addressing the question of "LEGAL RIGHTS," which most of you all seem to be using as the argument for the Mosque center to be built. Much merit IMO.

Amerika

wes wrote: »

So, you have no facts back up your opinion, so then its safe to dismiss it, as being essentially worthless then, unless you can provide some facts to back up your statement.

I’ve given plenty already. How about you showing me where the apparent funding will come from.

wes

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve given plenty already.

No, you haven't. You have provided nothing of any worth, and have been factually incorrect on several occasions.

Amerika wrote: »

How about you showing me where the apparent funding will come from.

Why should I do that? You are the one making accusation in regards to there funding and its up to you prove it.

BTW, they haven't sorted out funding yet, so good luck with that one:

Who’s financing the development of Park51?

We’ll be establishing a non-profit entity and applying for 501 c(3) federal tax-exempt status, and we’ll pursue future development with a mix of equity, financing and contributions.

We have not yet launched our fundraising campaign. Park51 will incorporate as a non-profit and seek federal tax-exempt status. We are pledging to pursue this fundraising campaign in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. We have hired legal counsel and top-notch auditors to oversee this process from start to finish.

We will hire security consultants to assist us in the process of reviewing potential financiers and philanthropists as we begin to establish our fundraising strategy. We will refuse assistance, financial or otherwise, from any persons or institutions who are flagged by our security consultants or any government agencies.

The information is on there web site for goodness sake, and you keep making you nonsensical insinuations in regards to there funding. They haven't begun fund raising yet, and I have already stated that earlier, but you have chosen to ignore that fact, and continue with your insinuations based on nothing more than fantasy.

wes

Amerika wrote: »

I'm only addressing the question of "LEGAL RIGHTS," which most of you all seem to be using as the argument for the Mosque center to be built. Much merit IMO.

No, no merit at all, as you did not present a situation that is like the one we are discussing.

Amerika

Just as I thought. Apparent double standards running amok.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

IMO, the building of this Mosque and cultural center at Ground Zero (and I do consider a building shuttered by the landing gear of planes hijacked and used to kill thousands of innocent people by Muslim extremists to be part of GZ) has little to do with religious freedom and more to do with another type of ideological agenda.

So is that thinking atypical?

I want to get back to this to put it in its place, because its a bunch of wash.

This is the Ground Zero site as it exists today.




This is the Site as it existed in September 2001. Google has extremely high resolution versions of this same aerial photograph available also:



Now, using MS Paint, I decided to place a radius Around Ground Zero, with the destructed area as the exclusion zone, loose projectiles aside:



Now, Where is this Mosque, Formerly Burlington Coat Factory, being placed? Right Here:



Now for a bit of fun, I tried to locate the existing Mosque but that will require more investimigation Still, I know its somewhere in between the 2 blue Radii below. I also know that previously and in the Future, there is and will be a Greek Orthodox Church inside of the Green Zone (heh) shown below:



So I have to ask, again, Why are people upset about this?

Oh right they're Muslims.

Amerika

How about doing your circle thingy on this photo.

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're not going to get a rational argument for objecting to this building; only irrational and emotive arguments. And that's all we can do: show that on one side of the argument is reason, and on the other is nothing but emotion.

Good man, I suppose if you have no real argument you could try being condescending. Still doesn't work.

Imam Rauf refuses to disclose the sources of funding for the Centre. He said it would be raised only in America. Well that's a lie......
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME
(I wonder if the NY Post is mainstream enough for the pc ostriches on here)

As for his commitment to dialogue..............
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true

But but but he is a Sufi...................
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/iraqi-sufis-donate-to-hamas-boast-of-jihad-activity-in-iraq.html

And last but not least why would a group dedicated to interfaith relations and on the face of it (for the gullible) dedicated to integrating Muslims into US society plough ahead with this Mosque knowing that 2/3 of American citizens disagree. Wouldn't the outcry cause them to think "hell we are causing a storm here people are upset we are wrecking bridges not building them we better stop"?


As for those who don't think this is provocation and asked for proof here is a Muslim viewpoint...........
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

Amerika

I think I’m now done with the discussion. I don’t need the Democrat Majority Leader (Third in line to the presidency) Nancy Pelosi’s thought police knocking down my door and hauling me and my family away.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque on Tuesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/

wes

Amerika wrote: »

Just as I thought. Apparent double standards running amok.

Oh please, you talking nonsense again. Get back to me, when you can actually back up anything you say with some facts.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

How about doing your circle thingy on this photo.

I figured you would do something asinine like reference the ash cloud from the implosion.

You do realize precisely how much of the city the Plume ultimately covered, don't you?

So in the name of common decency, I guess we should ask Muslims to leave Manhattan altogether? After all hell Pocono, we don't know if that ash was burnt building debris or Cremated victims do we? So yes in the name of all that is Holy Jesus Christ $^$%&#*( lets ban Muslims from NYC. Right?

Asinine. Truly, truly asinine. I'm glad you're done.

Amerika

Palmach wrote: »

As for those who don't think this is provocation and asked for proof here is a Muslim viewpoint...........
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

Thanks, but I’ve already provided that earlier. Obviously it’s not enough for them to even consider. I think they require an affidavit noterized and signed in blood and DNA tested. You see it’s another one of those It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

wes

Palmach wrote: »

Imam Rauf refuses to disclose the sources of funding for the Centre. He said it would be raised only in America. Well that's a lie......
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/foreign_mosque_money_OSkAG6ucmWz6yPAJU61cTO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME
(I wonder if the NY Post is mainstream enough for the pc ostriches on here)

According to there web site, they haven't sorted out the funding (which I posted earlier, but I take it you would rather ignore the facts as per usual), and no where in the article you linked does it say that the Imam claimed he would be using only US sources for funding. So he is not lieing, and you are once again incorrect.

Palmach wrote: »

As for his commitment to dialogue..............
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true

A right wing blog with a bunch of out of context quotes.

Palmach wrote: »

But but but he is a Sufi...................
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/iraqi-sufis-donate-to-hamas-boast-of-jihad-activity-in-iraq.html

Oh so smearing by association I see, and from Jihad watch. Pretty terrible attempt at a smear job, as it has nothing to do with the Imam in question, and it has nothing to do with your pervious post that was full of falsehoods either, where it claimed he was involved with Whabbi's etc, which with him being a Sufi is a basic fact to get wrong.

Palmach wrote: »

And last but not least why would a group dedicated to interfaith relations and on the face of it (for the gullible) dedicated to integrating Muslims into US society plough ahead with this Mosque knowing that 2/3 of American citizens disagree. Wouldn't the outcry cause them to think "hell we are causing a storm here people are upset we are wrecking bridges not building them we better stop"?

No, the storm was caused by right wing bigots and liars.

Palmach wrote: »

As for those who don't think this is provocation and asked for proof here is a Muslim viewpoint...........

Show me where those behind the Center are looking to provoke and not some guy who has nothing to do with it. Once again, you have no proof and are just stating the same nonsense again and again.

wes

Amerika wrote: »

Thanks, but I’ve already provided that earlier. Obviously it’s not enough for them the even consider. I think they required an affidavit noterized and signed in blood and DNA tested. You see it’s another one of those It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

The guy has nothing to do with the center. So its just more nonsense that doesn't prove what you claim it does. The fact that you are still contining with your blatantly false claim is laughable. You have 0 proof of provaocation, and are instead resorting to a article written by a Muslim, who is not involved in the center, which does not prove you point.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You do realize precisely how much of the city the Plume ultimately covered, don't you?

I guess not enough to make some people understand that the events of 9/11 still means something to some of us.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I guess not enough to make some people understand that the events of 9/11 still means something to some of us.

Don't give me that ****.

You remind me of Gangs of New York when the Butcher makes a pretend-whino about "A poor, Defenseless little Rabbit"

You don't seem to care about the Strip Clubs, for example. Even though those clubs were covered in the same ash. Shall we have the strip clubs stripped down as well?

It's also presumptuous of you to take a High Horse. This song rides around in my car 24/7 and gets played every september since 03.

I will agree however that 9/11 must mean something far different to you. One of those things not being the preservation of our values.

Overheal

Wes wrote:

A right wing blog with a bunch of out of context quotes.

Even so:

My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society. [emphasis added]

Whats wrong with this?

Do I need to root through our recent discussion on Arizona Immigration law where someone on the right argued that the Founding Fathers intended that very mechanic? It was a letter written by Jackson, iirc. And with regard to religion it's integration into American Society should be no different from the Integration of a Race or Nationality into American society. Am I wrong?

But no the Right-wing blogosphere wants to tell you that this is bad, and they're all Sleeper Agents and Terror Babies. Thats right: TERROR BABIES.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUA7obmYvPk

whatstherush

Palmach wrote: »

(I wonder if the NY Post is mainstream enough for the pc ostriches on here)

You're having a laugh!

metrovelvet

Overheal-

I dont quite get the point of your pictures but I think they would look a lot prettier if the pink dot were moved about five inches west and a little to the south and several degrees below sea level.

Overheal

Well at least someone has retained their sense of humor.

oscarBravo

More commentary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/18/joe-scarborough-takes-on-_n_686234.html