The Ground Zero Mosque

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm was published by the same group in June 1996 and was authored by American Neo-Cons who held key positions in the Bush administration for covering up 911 on behalf of Israeli incoming PM Benjamin Netanyahu. It called for the removal of Saddam and the redefining of Iraq.



Coincidentally :rolleyes:, CIA associate Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa (religious ruling) against the US just 2 months after this report was published.

...

The rest is history. 911 justified the removal of Saddam and the destruction and colonisation of Iraq and her oilfields.

But people need to be reminded of history which is why I think this situation with the Mosque has come about.

It's worth pointing out that there was no Bush administration in '96, and the IASPS do nothing but advocate 'getting tough' with Islam. It was business as usual with them, and unlikely to provoke anything except a yawn.

I'm not sure how you imagine Douglas Feith 'covered up 9/11' - he had pretty much nothing to do with it - he had lots of involvement in the invasion of Iraq, and spin over WMD etc, and was lambasted for his effectiveness in that role. None of the others were 'key players' in the later Bush administration.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that there was no Bush administration in '96,

It is? I know the sentence wasn't structured the best but I have to assume I am not dealing with total idiots.

911 happened in 2001 there was a Bush presidency in 2001. Shouldn't be to hard to put 2 and 2 together.

alastair wrote: »

Iand the IASPS do nothing but advocate 'getting tough' with Islam. It was business as usual with them, and unlikely to provoke anything except a yawn.

That is bollox. Abandoning the Oslo Accords, seeking the overthrow of neighbours, redefining the whole region in Israel's favour, attacking Palestine on a whim for self-defence, attacking other regional rivals etc is "getting tough with Islam"? Give it a rest...:rolleyes:

alastair wrote: »

I'm not sure how you imagine Douglas Feith 'covered up 9/11' - he had pretty much nothing to do with it - he had lots of involvement in the invasion of Iraq, and spin over WMD etc, and was lambasted for his effectiveness in that role. None of the others were 'key players' in the later Bush administration.

Of course you would take that because everything you need to know is in the 911 commission report.

Q. Who was the lead author of the Clean Break paper and what was he doing in 2001?

Sparticle

I think this is kinda relevant. (In a totally non-NWO way)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-pxUIBO5EU

If you start infringing on the rights of others you're no better than the terrorists you fight against.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is? I know the sentence wasn't structured the best but I have to assume I am not dealing with total idiots.

911 happened in 2001 there was a Bush presidency in 2001. Shouldn't be to hard to put 2 and 2 together.

What, and get 22? There's no logic to your assumed 'connections'.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is bollox. Abandoning the Oslo Accords, seeking the overthrow of neighbours, redefining the whole region in Israel's favour, attacking Palestine on a whim for self-defence, attacking other regional rivals etc is "getting tough with Islam"? Give it a rest...:rolleyes:

Yep - try and find any report from the IASPS that sings any really different song. It's just more of the same from them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course you would take that because everything you need to know is in the 911 commission report.

Q. Who was the lead author of the Clean Break paper and what was he doing in 2001?

Everything I need to know about the events on the day are in the commission report - yep. I notice you aren't prepared to speak up about what 'theory' you actually subscribe to (quite the norm with the 'truther' scene I've noticed) - so I wouldn't be quite so quick to laugh.

Douglas Feith was supposedly the main man in that report and he was up to his neck in Iraq in 2001 - well away from any 9/11 responsibilities.

everyday taxi

alastair wrote: »

What's distasteful is the casual association of a community centre for Muslims with a bunch of terrorists that they have no connection to.

Is this casual? Dont you think this is at the very least suspicious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djb_oSoZLDc&feature=player_embedded


If its not muslims who have the connection with all the terrorism, who is it that does? I mean one of the associations behind it(the ground zero mosque) is "the american society for muslim advancement". Why chose the word advancement? The agenda is staring people in the face. Even you will surely admit, muslims do take their "ideology" very serious (cant quite bring myself to abuse the word religion), so we'll take that as a giving, whats your view on their belief that they will take and rule the world?

Brown Bomber

everyday taxi wrote: »

Is this casual? Dont you think this is at the very least suspicious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djb_oSoZLDc&feature=player_embedded


If its not muslims who have the connection with all the terrorism, who is it that does? I mean one of the associations behind it(the ground zero mosque) is "the american society for muslim advancement". Why chose the word advancement? The agenda is staring people in the face. Even you will surely admit, muslims do take their "ideology" very serious (cant quite bring myself to abuse the word religion), so we'll take that as a giving, whats your view on their belief that they will take and rule the world?

oooooooooooh advancement :D. Sorry to interrupt. You were suggesting a pogrom I believe? Please, do carry on.

Oh, and maybe lay off the Daniel Pipes and atlasshrugs for a while yeah?

everyday taxi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

oooooooooooh advancement :D. Sorry to interrupt. You were suggesting a pogrom I believe? Please, do carry on.

Oh, and maybe lay off the Daniel Pipes and atlasshrugs for a while yeah?

Riot my ass! Just hoping commonsense prevails. Ohh, and on the word advancement, words are chosen for a reason. This word reflects true muslim belief. I know people will think its just a word, but it is a statement. Also i think its a very fair conclusion to assume that, if this was proposed a couple of months after 9/11, it would have been blown out like a light from everyone, you included.
Now i asked this question already and still got no answer, whats the difference between now and then?

old_aussie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The CT is that the Mosque is purposely being used to cause conflict between Christians, mainly evangelical Christian Zionists and Muslims. Divide and conquer.

After the evangelical Christian Zionists and Muslims have been divided, who will conquer them?

Darlughda

Seems like a good move to me. A genuine hand towards the muslim population.

bonkey

everyday taxi wrote: »

Riot my ass! Just hoping commonsense prevails. Ohh, and on the word advancement, words are chosen for a reason. This word reflects true muslim belief. I know people will think its just a word, but it is a statement.

So the adherents of a religion wish to advance their belief, its spread, and its influence. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Indeed, I'd say its something that they are entitled under the US constitution to do, as long as they do so in a law-abiding manner. Last time I checked, opening a center wasn't illegal.

Also i think its a very fair conclusion to assume that, if this was proposed a couple of months after 9/11, it would have been blown out like a light from everyone, you included.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I seem to recall that on the Politics forum at the time, there were very very few voices agreeing that recriminations against the Islamic religion or middle-eastern people in general was a good idea. Most people were agreed that such blind lashing out would be, in fact, a really really dumb idea.

I may, of course, be misremembering, and imagining that more people agreed with me then actually did.

Now i asked this question already and still got no answer, whats the difference between now and then?

The main difference, I suspect, is that a greater proportion of people (now compared to then) are likely to act rationally rather then emotionally.

Run_to_da_hills

I would have no problems with a mosque being built at this site however I would have serious problems if there was word of a Synagogue being built.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would have no problems with a mosque being built at this site however I would have serious problems if there was word of a Synagogue being built.

Why?

Yitzhak Rabin

There is more anti-Islamic sentiments in other states now too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/31mosque.html

Incidents at Mosque in Tennessee Spread Fear
By ROBBIE BROWN
Published: August 30, 2010


ATLANTA — After a suspected arson and reports of gunshots at an Islamic center in Tennessee over the weekend, nearby mosques have hired security guards, installed surveillance cameras and requested the presence of federal agents at prayer services.
Related


Muslim leaders in central Tennessee say that frightened worshipers are observing Ramadan in private and that some Muslim parents are wary of sending their children to school after a large fire on Saturday that destroyed property at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Federal authorities suspect that the fire was arson.

The Islamic center has attracted national attention recently because its planned expansion into a larger building in some ways parallels a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York.

The Murfreesboro center, which has existed for nearly 30 years, suddenly found itself on front pages of newspapers this month and on “The Daily Show.” *It became a hot topic in the local Congressional race, with one Republican candidate accusing the center of fostering terrorism and trying to link it to the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

Then, on Saturday, the police say, someone set fire to construction equipment at the site where the Islamic center is planning to move, destroying an earthmover and three other pieces of machinery. And on Sunday, as CNN was filming a news segment about the controversy, someone fired at least five shots near the property.

“We are very concerned about our safety,” said Essam Fathy, head of the center’s planning committee. “Whatever it takes, I’m not going to allow anybody to do something like this again.”

No people were injured in either incident. The cases are being investigated by the police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

In a statement on the center’s Web site, a spokeswoman called the fire an “arson attack” and an “atrocious act of terrorism.”

In Nashville, 30 miles northwest, local imams met with representatives of the United States attorney’s office on Monday to discuss the risk of further anti-Islamic violence. Several mosques have requested police surveillance, they said, especially with the end of Ramadan this year nearly coinciding with the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We’re worried that these attacks could spill over into Nashville,” said Mwafaq Mohammed, president of the Salahadeen Islamic Center there. “We don’t want people to misunderstand what we’re celebrating around Sept. 11. It would be better to take precautionary measures.”

Another mosque, the Islamic Center of Nashville, has installed indoor and outdoor surveillance cameras, hired round-the-clock security guards and requested that F.B.I. agents be on site during worship services, according to the imam, Mohamed Ahmed.

“Whoever did this, they are terrorists,” Mr. Ahmed said. “What’s the difference between them and Al Qaeda?”

But in other parts of Tennessee, including Chattanooga, Knoxville and Memphis, Muslim leaders reported that they had experienced no hostility and saw no reason to increase security.

A version of this article appeared in print on August 31, 2010, on page A10 of the New York edition.

*This bit certainly fits in with the CT.

The centre and the non-muslim residents have co-existed peacefully side-by-side for the past 30 years, until the media starts to whip up a bit of anti-islamic sentiments among the community. Culminating(well at least I hope its the culmination) with an arson attack and gunshots being fired.

At best it is unneccesary and distasteful journalism, at worst it is as outlined in the OP and a concerted effort among the media to raise tensions between muslim and non-muslims in the area.

everyday taxi

bonkey wrote: »

So the adherents of a religion wish to advance their belief, its spread, and its influence. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Indeed, I'd say its something that they are entitled under the US constitution to do, as long as they do so in a law-abiding manner. Last time I checked, opening a center wasn't illegal.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I seem to recall that on the Politics forum at the time, there were very very few voices agreeing that recriminations against the Islamic religion or middle-eastern people in general was a good idea. Most people were agreed that such blind lashing out would be, in fact, a really really dumb idea.

I may, of course, be misremembering, and imagining that more people agreed with me then actually did.


The main difference, I suspect, is that a greater proportion of people (now compared to then) are likely to act rationally rather then emotionally.

On the point of advancement, can you answer a direct question? Are you familiar with islamic preaching and the view they will rule the world? You see this word as a kind of "muslims hope to encourage and convert non muslims to turn to islam", when they see it as, "you will all submit before allah, we will take the world by stealth".
The proof is out there. Lets look at global warming as a pointer. If people provide proof climates are changin and give you the reasons and consequences, its pretty much accepted. Yet people are pointing out the rapid growth rates of muslim communities all over the west, made bigger by they're higher birth ratio compared to western families. Now with mosques propping up everywhere, and western laws constantly changing to try and integrate a religion which has little respect for them. So if we look to the future the same way we do with global warming, its clear there are going to be massive social problems if things are not giving the genuine concern they need. We've all seen our own moderate muslims try dictate to us here in little ole Ireland that our christian ways such as christmas cribs, statues of Mary etc "upset" them, and ask for them to be stopped or removed. Respect is a two way street. Muslims demand respect of their religion, but dont return the courtesty. This is the prime reason i have little respect for them. Of all the religions im familiar with, islam is the only modern day violent, anti western one.

Sparticle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0

Brown Bomber

everyday taxi wrote: »

On the point of advancement, can you answer a direct question? Are you familiar with islamic preaching and the view they will rule the world? You see this word as a kind of "muslims hope to encourage and convert non muslims to turn to islam", when they see it as, "you will all submit before allah, we will take the world by stealth".
The proof is out there. Lets look at global warming as a pointer. If people provide proof climates are changin and give you the reasons and consequences, its pretty much accepted. Yet people are pointing out the rapid growth rates of muslim communities all over the west, made bigger by they're higher birth ratio compared to western families. Now with mosques propping up everywhere, and western laws constantly changing to try and integrate a religion which has little respect for them. So if we look to the future the same way we do with global warming, its clear there are going to be massive social problems if things are not giving the genuine concern they need. We've all seen our own moderate muslims try dictate to us here in little ole Ireland that our christian ways such as christmas cribs, statues of Mary etc "upset" them, and ask for them to be stopped or removed. Respect is a two way street. Muslims demand respect of their religion, but dont return the courtesty. This is the prime reason i have little respect for them. Of all the religions im familiar with, islam is the only modern day violent, anti western one.

Completely disagree with everything you've said.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Timothy McVeigh supposedly is the Oklahoma bomber.

This guy -



did this -



Here is a map of Christian Churches in the Oklahoma City area.



Got a problem with this? If you don't you are a hypocrite.

It's the atheists you really need to worry about anyways.





Not forgetting of course the Judeo-Christians...

Who by any reasonable definition are the biggest terrorists of all

Brown Bomber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

يجوز للكونغرس أن يسن أي قانون خاص بإقامة دين من الأديان أو يمنع حرية ممارسته

everyday taxi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Completely disagree with everything you've said.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Timothy McVeigh supposedly is the Oklahoma bomber.

This guy -



did this -



Here is a map of Christian Churches in the Oklahoma City area.



Got a problem with this? If you don't you are a hypocrite.

It's the atheists you really need to worry about anyways.





Not forgetting of course the Judeo-Christians...

Who by any reasonable definition are the biggest terrorists of all

Judeo christians, timothy mcveigh, you having a laugh right? To suggest these come remotely close to islamic terrorism is funny. I'll try a different angle for a giggle. How do you feel about beating up one's wife? Whats that the koran says, its ok if you dont bruise her, was it? Lets here your views on this. You clearly want to ignore the stealth argument. Better still, answer yes or no to the following..
does the koran promote violence to non muslims?
does the koran say its ok to beat your wife?
does the koran say to kill homosexuals?
does the koran tell muslims to go and conquer the world?
do muslims treat women badly? Sharia and all that, ya know?

uprising2

everyday taxi wrote: »

On the point of advancement, can you answer a direct question? Are you familiar with islamic preaching and the view they will rule the world? You see this word as a kind of "muslims hope to encourage and convert non muslims to turn to islam", when they see it as, "you will all submit before allah, we will take the world by stealth".
The proof is out there. Lets look at global warming as a pointer. If people provide proof climates are changin and give you the reasons and consequences, its pretty much accepted. Yet people are pointing out the rapid growth rates of muslim communities all over the west, made bigger by they're higher birth ratio compared to western families. Now with mosques propping up everywhere, and western laws constantly changing to try and integrate a religion which has little respect for them. So if we look to the future the same way we do with global warming, its clear there are going to be massive social problems if things are not giving the genuine concern they need. We've all seen our own moderate muslims try dictate to us here in little ole Ireland that our christian ways such as christmas cribs, statues of Mary etc "upset" them, and ask for them to be stopped or removed. Respect is a two way street. Muslims demand respect of their religion, but dont return the courtesty. This is the prime reason i have little respect for them. Of all the religions im familiar with, islam is the only modern day violent, anti western one.

I think you got a medical condition there, ask the dr for an Islamaphobia pill. They're great, I'm munching my way through a box a day.

Also Mr Christian see what the Bible says about statues of mary and other crap, it fukking says they should be smashed up aswell, it's not just a muslim thing.

Yitzhak Rabin

everyday taxi wrote: »

does the koran promote violence to non muslims?
does the koran say its ok to beat your wife?
does the koran say to kill homosexuals?
does the koran tell muslims to go and conquer the world?
do muslims treat women badly? Sharia and all that, ya know?

You could almost certainly find justifications for all of these things in the bible if you wanted.

You've been watching too much Pat Condell.

everyday taxi

uprising2 wrote: »

I think you got a medical condition there, ask the dr for an Islamaphobia pill. They're great, I'm munching my way through a box a day.

Also Mr Christian see what the Bible says about statues of mary and other crap, it fukking says they should be smashed up aswell, it's not just a muslim thing.

Mr ignorant, the bible never mentions statue of mary. I think your making a link to the idea not to honour false gods? Study a bit harder there good lad.

everyday taxi

yekahs wrote: »

You could almost certainly find justifications for all of these things in the bible if you wanted.

You've been watching too much Pat Condell.

Justifications certainly not. Pat Condell has some good theories, however Mr Geert Wilders is closer to the truth. I know it seems i hate muslims, but thats not true, i hate their ideology. Its only my belief, you dont have to agree, but i believe the islamic faith does not believe in true freedom, and as a result doesnt not truely relate to western values.

everyday taxi

The views of a former muslim woman. Very telling IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l4gy25ic3I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzia1V-l_Xs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGI7yvD0UUk&feature=related

Di0genes

everyday taxi wrote: »

Justifications certainly not. Pat Condell has some good theories, however Mr Geert Wilders is closer to the truth. I know it seems i hate muslims, but thats not true, i hate their ideology. Its only my belief, you dont have to agree, but i believe the islamic faith does not believe in true freedom, and as a result doesnt not truely relate to western values.

Thats a massive sweeping generalisation. Yes some Muslims want Sharia law across the globe, and a united world under Muslim rule, but they are the tiny frothing minority.

It would be like saying Pastor Fred Phelps is an example of Christianity. Taking a minority extremist point of view, and applying it to the entire religion isn't fair or right.

Yitzhak Rabin

everyday taxi wrote: »

Certainly not???? Ok what do you make of these verses?

does the koran promote violence to non muslims?

Bible promotes killing even your own family members if they preach a different religion.

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.(Zechariah 13:3)

Or how God approves of the slaughter of an entire town by Micah

"Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) "

(Note that God approves of this slaughter in verse 6.)

Another God approved slaughterfest by Judah

" When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD gave them victory over the Canaanites and Perizzites, and they killed ten thousand enemy warriors at the town of Bezek. While at Bezek they encountered King Adoni-bezek and fought against him, and the Canaanites and Perizzites were defeated. Adoni-bezek escaped, but the Israelites soon captured him and cut off his thumbs and big toes. Adoni-bezek said, "I once had seventy kings with thumbs and big toes cut off, eating scraps from under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them." They took him to Jerusalem, and he died there. The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire. (Judges 1:1-8)

I can keep going if you wish.

does the koran Bible say its ok to beat your wife?

Not sure, but it advises rape victims are to be married to their attackers.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)"

God definitely condones rape of innocent people. Look at his punishment to David

"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

does the koran bible say to kill homosexuals?

Absolutely, a number of times:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Bible, Leviticus 20:13)

does the koran bible tell muslimsChristians/Jews to go and conquer the world?

Have a quick read of the book of Joshua and get back to me if you still think God doesn't condone and assist in the conquering of the region.

do muslims Christians treat women badly? Sharia and all that, ya know?

Well again if we follow the advice of the bible, then we are allowed to make sex slaves of them;

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11


But, not all Christians dogmatically carry out all of the commandments in the Bible. Just like not all Muslims act out every verse in the Koran. You can use those old books to justify just about anything you want.

Thankfully, people adapt their religions to fit with modern morals.

I can tell you one thing though. Removing people's freedom to practice their religion, is just about as anti-western ideology I can think of. I am not a religious person, and would love to see a world free from it. That does not mean I would ever advocate the suppression, in any way, of people's freedom to practice religion. Because one thing I can guarantee you that happens when you do that, is that genuine, good, moderate religious people, will become radicalized.

Brown Bomber

everyday taxi wrote: »

Mr ignorant, the bible never mentions statue of mary. I think your making a link to the idea not to honour false gods? Study a bit harder there good lad.

Really?

And I suppose you've read the "koran" then yeah? And I suppose that you've realised your error by now that most of the stuff your misinterpreting doesn't come from the Quran but the Hadiths.

You've got your knickers in a twist about Sharia Law in Ireland when there is no Sharia Law practiced in the majority of countries where Muslims are the majority.

Think about that...

Sparticle

Ugh never has a topic caused me such much cognitive dissonance.(+why is this in the CT forum)

All religions are equally ridiculous but some are more violent than others. Islam and Christianity are religions that when taken literally are horrendously violent and destructive. Islam in it's purest form is a violent religion(Same as most) but almost all muslims are not violent nor fundamentalist so in my opinion they should be allowed to go about their business in peace at park 51.

I do however think it was a bad idea to put anything islamic related near ground zero as of course it would flair up islamophobia in the US(and Europe it seems) causing suffering to muslims across the globe as a backlash. The builders should have shown more tact but then again hindsight is 20 20.

Yitzhak Rabin

Sparticle wrote: »

Ugh never has a topic caused me such much cognitive dissonance.(+why is this in the CT forum)

We have gone on a tangent. The CT is that it is either being purposely financed in order to increase tension. Or that the media is purposely igniting emotions on this story.
.

I do however think it was a bad idea to put anything islamic related near ground zero as of course it would flair up islamophobia in the US(and Europe it seems) causing suffering to muslims across the globe as a backlash. The builders should have shown more tact but then again hindsight is 20 20.

What have the Muslims in New York got to do with 9/11? Why should they have to observe some kind of cordon around the site of the terrorist attack? As BB pointed out, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the building in Oklahoma, it didn't cause its location to be a no go area for Christian churches.

Sparticle

yekahs wrote: »

What have the Muslims in New York got to do with 9/11? Why should they have to observe some kind of cordon around the site of the terrorist attack? As BB pointed out, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the building in Oklahoma, it didn't cause its location to be a no go area for Christian churches.

I not saying they can't I'm just saying that park 51 had unintended consequences which with hindsight leaves me wondering was it worth the backlash against muslims everywhere.

Brown Bomber

Sparticle wrote: »

I not saying they can't I'm just saying that park 51 had unintended consequences which with hindsight leaves me wondering was it worth the backlash against muslims everywhere.

I think your missing the point of the CT: the proposed cultural centre had the intended effect of causing a backlash against Muslims everywhere.