1 Jun
NYC Ground Zero Mosque Founder Exposed…?
This entry was posted in Ground Zero "Mosque", Videos. Bookmark the permalink.
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 5:12 pm | 510 views
Just another Muslim attempt of gaining a foothold in this country. They have no remorse or intentions of peace. I think it is a disgrace to OUR NATION, and I would be ashamed of, and spat on anyone that even considered it.
BRETT:can you give me the bits and what of the video?. i cannot open the video cause i will crash on the first minute. bye
I agree with you Brett, except they already have footholds all over the country. This is the price we pay for “freedom”. I do not believe the founding fathers could foresee the separation of church and state taking us down a path of being over run by an anti-christian religion like Islam. I agree, it is a disgrace to OUR NATION and we should stand up and do something about it.
walid has written some /very/ interesting books. Very intellectual, but also very applicable from someone that grew up as a former-terrorist
Pingback: Tweets that mention NYC Ground Zero Mosque Founder Exposed…? -- Topsy.com
Where’s Wordsmith? I seem to recall he hinted I was overreacting about this moque.
This man did say something interesting. Apparently, shutting down a mosque will infuriate the Muslime world. something to ponder, and a new found purpose for the future? How does one go about shutting down a center for the Religion of Piece?
I’m sure you all forgot, but speaking about religious buildings. This is a video of Serbian Christian churches that were destroyed by Muslim Albanians.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3127933/8884152
Busy guy,
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/imam_unmosqued_0XbZMwCvHAVdRZEKgx29AK#ixzz0q4oXOy9v
@Missy: You mean this Imam isn’t the oh so moderate Muslim we are all led to believe he was?
I’m SHOCKED!
At the risk of incurring Mike’s wrath, I shall nest comfortably with Wordsmith on this one… as I did before. But again, like in the other thread, for completely different reasons which so many of you want to ignore because of the passion.
First of all, a word on this snap judgment. The Free Gaza Movement may be made up of those who are anti-Israel, but not necessarily jihadists. You’ll notice they have local affiliates in 24 countries, including four here in the US. So if this Iman supports it, are all of these people also jihadists? Afterall, you are playing the association game here to the max.
Fact is, not all of the Gaza aid flotilla ships are manned by jihadists. Remember there is genuine aid going thru as well, and Israel has let pass most of these flotilla ships in previous events. Are the nefarious trying to hide behind the skirts of the pro-Palestinian movements that are providing genuine aid, in order to sneak thru jihad supplies? Absolutely… which is why Israel needs to stop, search, inspect and stay a’top the situation. That is their right, and their duty for national security.
I have no doubt that Iman Rauf is pro-Palestinian. But he also has some Jewish rabbis in NY standing up for his character as well. Does he believe the US foreign policies contribute to the jihad movement? of course… then again, so do most Muslims and, for that matter, a monstrous amount of the liberal/progressive community. But they aren’t all jihad. So forgive me, but I still see absolutely nothing here, or in the past, that makes me believe this Iman is a firebrand who preaches jihad to his flock. Will this mosque become a jihad training center? Way too high profile. They will be under a particularly strong microscope.
But absolutely none of this “is he a jihadist, or not” chit chat has whit to do with their Cordoba mosque. Like it or not, this is a property owners issue… period. If the property is zoned for their intended use, then to prohibit it because of their religion is about as anti-American as you can get. Just as banning speech because you don’t like the content is anti-American. I know you all may think this is a cold way to look at it, but frankly, I’m more concerned wtih stripping rights of everyone when you start down this path.
In most building permits is the requirement that the surrounding neighbors are notified, and have hearings to raise objections to the planning council. That is where any objection should go…. and it should be up to the New York property owners in that region because it’s a local issue. The planning council may weigh the objections, but if it solely comes down to “it ain’t right”, the objections rightfully should be overruled. If the council sides with the objections of the neighbors’ emotions, then the building owners can take it to court… and they will. Just as they should.
Why do I believe this? I look ahead. Because one day your neighbors may not like your Christian religion, or your bloodline, or your choice of friends or politics….. and be empowered by this precedent to stop you from utilizing a building, or developing raw land in a way that conforms with zoning permitted uses.
Do you really want to travel this path? If you do, you may head down that slippery slope, sans my company.
You may not like Larry Flint, but he is the perfect example of how free speech and American freedoms apply to everyone, even when you don’t like what they stand for or what they say. You don’t have to like that a mosque is going up… yes, I agree is severely lacking in taste and sensitivity. But I choose freedoms without bias above being offended by their choice of location. And I leave the battle and the decisions to the neighborhood locals… as it should be.
MATA: hi, they should have you in the WHITE HOUSE, on the next election: because you know the law so much, no one can argument , when you come here and comment or AUTHOR a post, it tell of truth unquestioned by anyone. I WAS thinking if i may explain this: because the ennemies of AMERICANS are working so hard to impose theirs views including putting their moneys in winning their point, to impose their religion in any way they can: by diplomatie long trial, or by force: the freedom to show that it is not wanted in AMERICA by the majority, if demonstration of this power written in theCONSTITUTION of this land,which survive the last centurys to be just and fair to all AMERICANS; is not succesful, what is the next avenue for the people to have their rights, applied?. thank you. bye
@MataHarley: Tsk, tsk, tsk… The evidence is mounting that this Imam is a faux moderate Muslim.
You really want to stick with your ever weakening position?
Have some cake with your taqiyya.
Have a listen to Pat Condell and see if reality doesn’t dawn….
@Mike’s America:
Gee…thanks for 6 minutes and 9 seconds of my life wasted on listening to a religious bigot’s opinion on his version of reality. So what “reality” did you expect to have “dawned” on me from viewing that hate-spew?
Somewhere “in a cave”, bin Laden’s cheering him on.
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/
Shocker! Ground Zero Mosque Imam Prominent Member of Free Gaza Movement
…The imam behind a proposed mosque near Ground Zero is a prominent member of a group that helped sponsor the pro-Palestinian activists who clashed violently with Israeli commandos at sea this week.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a key figure in Malaysian-based Perdana Global Peace Organization, according to its Website.
Perdana is the single biggest donor ($366,000) so far to the Free Gaza Movement, a key organizer of the six-ship flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip Monday…
WORDSMITH: hi, no hate spew so far, i’m half way through, it’s all the truth as cold as it can be, bye
Since the above isn’t enough
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/911-mosque-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-blames-christians-the-us-and-the-west-must-acknowledge-the-harm-th.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/
Ground Zero Imam: ‘I Don’t Believe in Religious Dialogue’
Pajamas Media has uncovered extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic that raise serious questions about his true intentions in the construction of the mosque.
Keep believing he’s not an Islamic fascist. Evidence suggests otherwise.
Sorry to say that’s a predictable response from you. Hence my opening sentence in my comment.
Let me caution you… don’t confuse me with those you like to simply slap and dash with sticks and stones insults, guy. I assure you, I am quite up to the task of playing your schoolyard games with condescending insults.
As I pointed out – and apparently you choose to ignore – I’m quite sure that Rauf shares the same views as more than a few lib/progs, and more than a majority of Muslims in being critical of US foreign policy. Therefore your attempt to make this all about me, supposedly defending the personal views of a “moderate Muslim” is misplaced. I don’t agree with those views personally. I have stated my personal feelings about this mosque being offensive on many an occasion. I just happen to place my priorities in a different place, and refuse to cater to hot headed emotions that result in dangerous injustice for our freedoms.
If you will re’read my comment, very slowly, you will find that my objections to this is because it is an ugly, anti-property rights movement that is extremely short sighted and hypocritical. If you can deny building owners their rights to develop within current zoning regulations because of their religion, or your personal opinions about what they are building, then your future is seriously in jeopardy when someone moves in next door to you, and wants to prohibit you building your Reagan monument in your front yard…. or starting a Christian community center. Make up any scenario you want, it comes down to the same thing. If you can fuel enough nationwide public opinion to negate an owners development rights with PC police thought, these terrorists have won.
So if you feel the need to hurl your childish remarks my way, I suggest you concentrate on battling me on what I put forth as my reasoning – property rights – and stop reading imaginary crap into my commentary.
@Hard Right: your link adds nothing to Missy’s, which pretty much says exactly the same thing. So every member of the Free Gaza Movement is now a terrorist? My my… our nation is filled with the same then, and you can begin with our own anti-Israel Congress members.
My point is, you can be anti-Israel, and not be a terrorist. Last I looked in this country, people can have differing points of view. I don’t happen to agree with that sentiment, but I dang well respect the rights of others to have that opinion, and I don’t label all of them terrorists. The only reason for attempting to link Rauf with this particular ship, loaded with the Turkish terror group, is to paint a broader brush stroke to increase public dissent. However, as I have pointed out, the Free Gaza Movement is not a terrorist group. Anti-Israel? Most likely. But not terrorists.
If Rauf is found to be an Iman, preaching jihad and facilitating training, I’ll mea culpa and side with you guys. In the meantime, he’s just a Muslim who’s not much different than the average lib/prog or other Muslims that aren’t terrorist training camp grads.
@Wordsmith: ditto….
@ilovebeeswarzone: Why Mike’sA wants to elevate an atheist, British comedian to any status is beyond me. Pat Condell, who I consider just another entertainer with an opinion, is an admitted atheist, and a member of the National Secular Society – an organization who’s prime existence is to campaign against faith in the schools. I assure you, what he does to Islam, he’s just as happy to do to Christians, Jews and Buddists.
@Hard Right: you keep piling on nonsense, guy. How about we deny property rights to anyone that doesn’t support Israel? That work for you?
@MataHarley: I’m not sure why you are so offended by the suggestion you may be the victim of taqiyya and may be ascribing motives to this Imam that are not in line with reality but you can’t bluff or bluster away the weakening of your position.
That’s not an insult. It’s an observation.
I’m sure you understand the difference.
@Wordsmith: Pat Condell has seen the ugly reality of Islamofascism at work in Britain.
He’s merely trying to warn us that the same thing is happening here.
I’m sure you don’t deny it and I don’t think it is “bigoted” to point it out.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is providing funds to a radical, can I say JIHADI, mosque in Falls Church Virginia:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2516757/posts
Ah, but perhaps there are one or two moderates in that crowd so we should cut them all some slack?
@Mike’s America:
I’m responding directly to what Condell says in the 6 minute video. He doesn’t make a distinction between Islam and the term you just used, “Islamofascism”.
And your arguments are just plain weird when addressing someone like me who reads from much of the same conservative blogs as you, along with the typical posts warning of the dangers of Islamisation (some of which I’ve posted, myself). Londonistan is soooo 2006. So please don’t talk to me as if Islamisation of Europe is some novel concern I’m unfamiliar with. I’ve been sitting in on the conservative amen chorus for some time now, listening to all the familiar anti-Islamic tunes sung over and over again. I share some of those concerns; others I find gives validity to those on the left and in the center who look at some of us and think we are just conspiratorial nuts and bigots. And sometimes, I’m finding it harder and harder to disagree.
Telling me Pat Condell “has seen the ugly reality of Islamofacisms at work in Britain” is like telling me Al Franken has seen “the ugly reality of rightwing extremism at work in the United States” and Bill Maher has personally seen “the ugly reality” of the Bush Administration and Christianity because he lives here; therefore, they have automatic credibility and I should believe their point of view. That is the logic you’re selling me with. They have an opinion like Condell has an opinion.
@Wordsmith said: “So please don’t talk to me as if Islamisation of Europe is some novel concern I’m unfamiliar with.”
Where did I suggest that you were unfamiliar with the problem?
I said “I’m sure you don’t deny” the danger. How did you morph that into an accusation you are not informed?
Seems to me you and Mata are overly sensitive to the fact that your earlier defense of the Ground Zero Imam is based on the faulty assumption that the man is one of those moderate muslims we all wish we had more of.
Obviously, I don’t share that opinion. But that’s merely a side issue here. The issue is whether it is appropriate to build a monument to Mohammed in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero and to dedicate it on the 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
Perhaps in your broad understanding of the Islamic world you could share with us how this monument might be interpreted in the Muslim world. Is it not possible that many radicals might see this as a victory monument to their cause?
Jihadis don’t really appreciate the subtle differences you and Mata wish to see here. Besides, when this Imam travels in Arab lands he’s often quoted as saying things that are the opposite of what you might expect from a moderate.
I hope you won’t be offended if I side with Debra Burlingame and her assesment of the Imam:
Do you really want me to recount the many statements by Rauf that lead many to believe he’s not the moderate you want him to be?
This guy says one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. How often have we seen that before?
Mike, I’m going to have to agree with Wordsmith here. You address both of us as if we braindead to realities of the global Islamic jihad movement. That, in itself, is offensive.
Your comment about “cake with your taqiyya” is just a few degrees different from your usual “koolaid” comments to resident liberals here. In fact, whether you meant it as me, supposedly delivering lies, or me as a victim of lies, it’s remains an offensive personal, and demeaning comment either way. Either one is a schoolyard taunt, assuming my intelluctual faculties are somehow disfunctional and inferior to your personal brillance.
I see no “weakening” in my position, or Wordsmith’s. However I do see an increase in your defensive shields. Feeling a tad exposed, perhaps? I’d say that the debate over this on Curt’s Iran post (yup… we got waaaaaay OT there…) yields proof that many understand the point I am making about this mosque, and the dangers of selective restriction of property rights of owners if they are of a certain flavor. You prefer to focus on a view you imagine I have, as if I somehow personally sanction this cleric.
Note, this is not about profiling, which I see an inherent logic in most situations. This is about one set of rights for a particular flavor of US citizens because the rest of the nation doesn’t like their religious beliefs. And if/when that mosque gets built, they should be under a serious microscope… as should all mosques, in my opinion. If they are the chosen grounds for jihad conversion, we should watch those locations.
But I am concerned about this Islamophobia that seems to be running rampid with some conservatives. This does not bode well. When you actually approach some with imposition of restricted civil or property rights, many come close to admitting they are okay with that as long as it’s Islam. OMG…. WTF?
Disdain and/or fear of any particular religion or cult is never healthy. And advocating special rules for the same, because of that disdain/fear, is simply not the American way. As their freedoms go today, there go the rest of ours tomorrow. And I’m sure you can understand that reality… even if it doesn’t fit into your talking points here.
Again I will say that the main thrust of my oppposition is because of discrimination in property rights. Again I will repeat I don’t agree with this clerics position. But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to, and I don’t advocate abrogation of his rights.
I will, however, point out that no one has provided a lick of proof that this cleric advocates jihad in his teachings. You have merely demonstrated that he shares the same views of the US that the lib/progs and many Muslims do. BFD
But apparently, if he’s not flying the flag and doing a rah rah USA, he should be denied property rights. These owners hurdled every legal process, got almost unanimous approval of the council, and the neighborhood denizens were involved. But none of that means anything to you, who’s not even a resident, because you’re offended. Who’s the intolerant one, Mike?
While your Alinsky tactics are improving, you might want to try pulling the wool over the eyes of those less read.
@MataHarley: Thanks for confirming ONCE AGAIN, that you are overly sensitive to the weakened position you hold regarding this monument to Mohammed at Ground Zero.
This isn’t Islamophobia, or bigotry but a recognition that this mosque, built at this site is not only inappropriate, but offensive and counterproductive to winning the war on terror by giving the radicals a symbol to rally around.
I have a clear record of supporting moderate muslims. Wordsmith, who knows that record well, can attest to it. If you would like, I can share with you my posts on the subject. Surely, you are not accusing me of being Islamophobic?
Is it possible that you are creating bigoted straw men to avoid dealing with the reality here?
Do you dismiss Debra Burlingame as Islamophobic? The same for Walid Shoebat?
P.S. This isn’t about property rights. This is about right and wrong. There is a difference. The protestors have been very clear the Imam has the RIGHT to build but should not do so.
Let’s stop creating straw men here unless you are applying for a job with the Obama Administration!
Mike, it’s not that I don’t think you actually think I’m not informed; but when you wrote “Pat Condell has seen the ugly reality of Islamofascism at work in Britain.”, the way it came across when I first read it, due to me being “overly sensitive”, is that “the ugly reality of Islamofascism at work in Britain” is a new concept on me. I guess I read it in a bad light. I disagree with Condell’s rant in the video.
I haven’t gone forward or back either way. So far, I just see people on the right wanting to read into things what they want to see and believe.
MataHarley said it perfectly in comment #10:
What is not to understand in that answer?
Not wise; and predictably provocative. I would have recommended against it. I guess I don’t have confidence in my fellow American citizens not to reduce themselves to ethnic and religious prejudice, here. It is just asking for trouble.
Insensitive, too; but if the motives behind the decision are based upon good intentions, they might have been blind to the sensitive nature of this. Who knows? They don’t see Islam as having attacked us on 9/11. Unfortunately, many Americans associate 9/11 with Islamic terrorism with emphasis on ISLAM.
It will be now, due to the vocal, meda-attention-sucking opposition to the building of it.
It provides propaganda fodder to those who wish to convince fellow Muslims that America is at war with Islam, and is persecuting their faith. Zawahiri couldn’t have scripted this better.
Every instance of a “hate crime” against a Muslim in the States, a mosque being vandalized, is a win for the jihad movement. It validates their conspiratorial beliefs about America’s imperialism, racism, persecution of muslims.
al Qaeda looks upon secular Islamic societies and Muslims living here in the States as apostates. Any Muslim who participates in our way of life is a traitor. An apostate Grand Mosque at Ground Zero is a thumb in the eye to bin Laden and Zawahiri.
He is talking to a different audience, after all; but I don’t expect him to espouse my political beliefs regarding American foreign policy. Reference back to Mata comment #10. Now if you can find me something where he is in the Middle East speaking in Arabic for Muslims to go out and slay Christians, convert and kill non-Muslims, embrace the jihad, etc., then you have my attention.
This is like citing Mike’s America….just another opinionist who shares your belief, just as you cited Condell. These are her words and interpretations.
How often have we seen those with agendas to pick and choose and interpret how they wish to see things?
I don’t know enough about Imam Rauf to formulate an adequate opinion of him one way or the other; what I’ve been reading on him is mostly stuff coming out of the right side of the blogosphere. Reliably objective, I’m sure.
Me thinks you doth protest too much, Mike. It’s too bad we can’t use your ever increasing defensive shield on the borders, effectively making it nigh on impossible for illegal entry into the States.
That’s an interesting strawman you present, Mike. Especially in light of the reality that both Wordsmith and I have expressed we do not share, nor sanction, the Imam’s views on American foreign policy. And both of us have stated that we believe it is both inappropriate and insensitive. I find many things people do both inappropriate and insensitive. I am not willing to shatter our civil rights over that sensitivity.
You do, however, overlook the title of this thread: NYC Ground Zero Mosque Founder Exposed? Curt, in his wisdom, did put a question mark at the end of his headline. Your opinion has no question mark… you have pronounced him guilty. Neither Wordsmith, nor I, have found any such evidence that he preaches jihad. Merely that he shares a common opinion with lib/progs and our own POTUS.
Really? Let’s examine the rhetoric, shall we? From Andy McCarthy on June 1st.
hummmmm a “trap” that one more mosque in this location will lead to turning America into a “shariah society”. Talk about a leap into hysteria. I don’t know about you, but as a conservative, I put as much distance between me and this statement as I do neo-Nazis and KKK members who may agree with conservatives on any particular issue. None of that statement reflects how I view this mosque.
In fact, I don’t see McCarthy acknowledging their property rights at all. I see him blaming the council as being ignorant dupes instead of them actually following the rule of law. I’d say the overwhelming majority of them knew there were no legal grounds for denying the permit…. whether they approved personally or not. This is no different than a judge ruling on a case based on evidence, and not personal opinion.
Now, a contrast between a couple of comments:
From Charles Haynes at the Herald Net
Sometimes, Mike, you need to take a close look at those in your midst, and their intent. While some are genuinely wishing to take the only legal course… apply peer pressure to force the building owners to change their plans…. others are seizing on it to fuel their Islamophobia.
Wah! Wah! Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah!
The more you two attempt to justify your position, the weaker it gets.
You seem DETERMINED to erect straw men arguments rather than deal with the reality of a monument to Mohammed at Ground Zero.
Did I miss something in the flood of verbosity where you refute what Burlingame and Shoebat have said?
If so, please repeat it without burying it.
Also, did we miss Wordsmith’s recognition of my desire to support moderate Muslims?
Should I now start to provide links to those posts?
Come on you two: Don’t you have anything better to do than defend this weak position?????
@Patvann: Does that mean you are in agreement with Mata?
If so, please show me where I have been lax about the issue of border security.
@Mike’s America:
@Mike’s America:
Sure.
Why’d you call me out on comment #5? Like pushing buttons? Carrying disagreements over from previous threads?
Nice, reasonable letter in the NYTimes:
@Wordsmith: You just want to keep stirring that pot don’t you?
I would think after the disclosures about the Imam’s statements on Shariah, religious diversity and his connection to the Free Gaza provacateurs you might want to walk back some of those claims about this guy being a moderate.
And since you asked here’s a few of things I have been saying about supporting moderate muslims over the years:
I am sure I have a lot more examples, but that’ll do for now.
As I always, have, I support moderate muslims. I just have real and GROWING questions about whether this Imam is one of them. If he wants to build his mosque somewhere else fine. But not as a monument to Mohammed at Ground Zero opening on the 10th anniversary of the attacks.
Surely, the negative symbolism of such a move isn’t lost on you?
MIKE: hi, IT seems to be easyer for the muslim IMAN to be beleived, than to an ELITE TRUE AMERICAN like you have shown yourself to be in all your posts: I had to mentioned that. bye
@Mike’s America:
I know you’ve posted these before. I just love seeing ‘em in cyberprint.
I understand the perception of “negative symbolism” here. But what I also see in the rhetoric of opposition of some people is bigotry. And they can’t even see it!
With all the din being made by Geller and company, ya’ll have now got my attention and I’m tempted to make a post in favor of the Grand Mosque, whereas before I was ambivalent and on the sidelines about it, mostly thinking this isn’t a smart idea and only asking for trouble.
And I know there will be stupid people out there who will resort to vandalism and civil rights violations, harming the conservative movement politically.
They won’t be hurting Islam. They will be hurting themselves and doing a huge favor for al Qaeda and affiliates.
al Qaeda failed to rally 1.5 billion Muslims under the banner of jihad and the siren call of martyrdom. Maybe y’all will succeed where they had failed, by becoming what Zawahiri and bin Laden have been claiming all along about the West and its mistreatment of Muslims.
Islam plays a component in those who truly are our enemies; but some of these terrorists aren’t even pious Islamists and are motivated by other factors, related to ethnicity, culture, geo-political ingredients. But Islam remains the convenient scapegoat. Even in the absence of the Islam factor, men like Ramzi Yousef, Arafat, Saddam would still be murderous thugs. Others, of course, are driven primarily by Islamic religious fervor of the violent variation. But when that accounts for only a small fraction of 1.5 billion who call themselves practitioners of Islam, there is indeed some truth to be said about the much ridiculed PC-truism that “Islam is being hijacked”.
The global jihad movement should be marginalized, religiously. They are the biggest killer of Muslims. But you only strengthen their propaganda claims regarding the decadent West persecuting their faith, and give them credibility when you attack the whole of Islam.
WORDSMITH: please don’t make thoses faces to MIKE, he has a ligitimate argument for your comments; you are moderate, it’s ligitimate also. but we acknowledge what the muslim should not do, and what they should do in this beautifull AMERICA for AMERICANS; they are not acting like true AMERICANS, so until they do, they should not impose their beleifs to this LAND OF THE BRAVES. THEY shoul show grattitude to all the people; they are not spilling their bloods or dying
for AMERICA, and until they do, they should be thankfull to all and learn the CONSTITUTION, which is the reason for their FREEDOM. they must EARN the respect of the AMERICANS,who dont get fooled by them, but just very tolerants, which has it’s limit too. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Thank you Bees for that vote of support.
@Wordsmith: I am not denying that there exists bigotry against Muslims. Are you denying that there are also Muslims who say one thing in English and another in Arabic like this Imam?
When you say
First: No one says “ya’ll” anymore and I live in the Deep South.
But let’s put that aside.
Aren’t you admitting that you are merely taking the pro-mosque point of view simply to irritate people whom you see as bigoted toward Islam?
Surely, you aren’t tarring me with that brush. I know you are not.
So, why can’t you see that the opposition here isn’t entirely focused on blocking a mosque in New York. Just one at Ground Zero?
How many mosques are there in New York? Dozens, hundreds or more? How can anyone with a straight face say we are “persecuting” Islam by suggesting this mosque be built at another site. Especially so since mosques are everywhere?
Had you been alive at the time, would you have supported a Japanese Cultural Center built at Pearl Harbor just a few years after the attacks?
I know you are not an appeaser. I went back and looked at what you said about the Danish Cartoons and South Park:
http://hammeringsparksfromtheanvil.blogspot.com/search?q=danish+cartoons
But should we now let any Muslim group, whether moderate or not, build a mosque wherever they want? Will it make them happy or will the radicals just demand more?
Question: Doesn’t it trouble you that the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque supports universal Shariah law?
Let me know when we build a Christian mega church in Mecca and I’ll reconsider my view.
Mata and Wordsmith, it is not often that I disagree with you guys, but this is definately one of those times. This mosque represents so much more than a mere gathering place for worship and spritual reflection. This is a self declared foreign enemy planting their flag upon U.S. soil. They are planting that flag on the very spot that they viewed as our symbol of freedom and economic success. They are choosing as the date to plant that flag the 10th anniversary of what they view as their great victory in tearing that symbol down. They have announced this truth in both english and arabic. Please do not insult the intelligence of everyone reading this blog by pretending that this is not the case.
As for you constitutional arguments, they hold merrit. I agree that it is a slippery slope, but the constitution was meant for American Citizens, and not foreign enemies of our Nation. The monies pouring into our country for this monstrosity are mostly from foreign sources. That slope is even more slippery. If we recognize this fact or not, we are at war with islamofacists. As a matter of fact, the whole world is. One of the major problems is that they are doing most, if not all of the fighting. Another problem which I see is the definition of moderate muslim. All too often, I see the moderate muslims cropping up in federal terror investigations, money laundering scheemes, or just plain double speak in arabic news sources. That may seem bigoted to say, but the truth of the matter is not caring about politically correct sensibilities. If there are moderate muslims, let them join us in fighting against the islamofacists.
MIKE’S AMERICA: just now, i click on your link and i had a warning, that reporting an “ATTACK SITE” check this up. bye
Come on now, Flyovercountry. I’ve racked up two with you lately…. :0)
But are you under the impression that the mosque is being built by Zawahiri or Bin Laden? Tell you what… as I said before, show me the evidence that this is the global islamic jihad movement building this mosque, and I’ll be happy to change my opinion. Not to mention that would be an easy thing to stop with freezing financial assets.
@MataHarley:
To be fair, two times in year is nearly total agreement, statistically speaking.
No, I do not believe that Bin Laden or Zawahiri are building this mosque. This one is a purely Wahabist initiative. That being said, this is not a tin foil hat moment. Just because our new enemy has multiple factions, who all want to be the guys in charge after the fall of the west does not mean that they don’t all have a terrifying goal in mind. It just happens to be our good fortune that these folks aren’t ever going to be united or even coordinated in their methodology for any extended period of time. Part of the reason they can be defeated is that they insist on fighting each other nearly as much as they are fighting us. Make no mistake about it though, we are merely in the way of their ultimate goal.
As a side note, I enjoy your opinions and writing too much to see you silenced by Sharia Law.
@MataHarley:
HotAir and BigGovernment.com had article linking the funding to Saudi Arabia, I’ll go looking for the links after my next client meeting. It may be tomorrow before I can bring them to your attention.
Not bad stats there, Flyovercountry. I’d be quite bored if I lived in a world of complete consensus all of the time. Debate ’tis what makes life interesting, because there are always various angles and repercussions to be examined. With most, but apparently not all, you can disagree and not be the target of juvenile insults and phraseology. Either way, my hide and belief system is quite intact, and able to withstand anything.
And no fear that Shariah law will ever wield power over me. I would go down, kicking screaming biting fighting. But that fight I take to Congress and the elected elite, not property owners.
I attempted to follow the money trail thru SA before I originally commented on this on other threads. I found nothing that necessarily raised an eyebrow. We do a lot of business with SE Asia, the Middle East… hang, even China. If I am to start some blind objection to foreign investment here in the States, where do I start drawing the line, if not at those that are designated enemies of the nation? In that case, it’s known terror groups and individuals, not nations or religions at large.
But I’ll accept your agree to disagree statement, made with the grace that a few should endeavor to emulate.
Maybe you should look a little closer at that Gellar grassroots organization title, Mike. It’s not “Stop the Ground Zero Mosque”… it’s “Stop the Islamization of America”. And again, you wish to make America’s standards the same as Saudi Arabia’s when you bring up Mecca. What SA does is their onus to bear. I do not wish to see the US behave the same.
And, for your information, I have tons of friends and relatives in the south who quite freely use the expression “ya’ll”. Ya’ll oughta get out more… LOL
Ms. Bees, they aren’t “imposing” their beliefs, nor running around forcing conversion to Islam. They are developing a building that houses community services, a mosque and a museum. And they did so by following our rules of law and procedure. I don’t believe there’s any plans for jihad training in their plans either, but I’m sure the feds would be keeping a close eye on that place.
In what you suggest, and what they are doing, there is a huge difference.
MATA: hi, I meant, by” imposing their beleifs”. that building on around bloody grounds; i want to
note also, that no other faights express the desire to build a religous testimony, because they know that thoses who where killed where attach to multiple faights, this would explain that they cared enouph,sensitive to the extreme pain from familys and friends, from all around the GLOBE. IT’S this particular note of that diffrence between the IMAN’S faith and all the others, that give the “CUE” to their “INTENT”. buy
@ilovebeeswarzone: Wordsmith’s page was an “attack site”?
Maybe that’s because he had so many links raising questions about the radical Islamists trying to censor Americans. Sort of like what I am battling against here.
@MataHarley: You’re clinging to straws.
Sure, some groups want to stop the “Islamization of America” a goal with which I have some sympathy.
But it’s YET ANOTHER STRAW MAN to suggest that opposition to this monument to Mohammed at Ground Zero being dedicated on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is that and ONLY that.
Where have I EVER mentioned Geller’s group as the only one with a valid opinion on this issue? Have I mentioned that group AT ALL?
Why is it that you insist on ignoring the warnings of Debra Burlingame and Walid Shoebat and even those of Dr. Jasser, a personal favorite of Wordsmith?
You and Wordsmith are being needlessly contrarian.
Shall we post this on the front F.A. page and give more readers a chance to weigh in?
“…needlessly contrarian”?? Excuse me, but who died and made you the conservative god of free speech? My personal opinions are not only not “needless”, but counter debate used to be considered healthy… to those with due respect for the 1st Amendment, that is.
@MataHarley: I see you have run out of ideas to support your WEAK position!
Did I miss something in your brief reply above? Did you find some endorsement by me of Geller’s group?
Why not save yourself the trouble and admit once again: “MIKE YOU ARE RIGHT?”
Admit they shouldn’t build this mosque at Ground Zero and dedicate it on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
Admit that this Imam isn’t the moderate some suggested he was.
Wordsmith has already unburdened himself by admitting that he took a contrarian position on this despite his earlier ambivalence.
Why not unburden yourself and agree that perhaps YOU ARE WRONG?
Why not take all those straw men arguments and use them to sop up the oil spilling into the Gulf.
Or do you have some insight that Debra Burlingame, Walid Shoebat and Dr. Jasser are not privy to?
The truth shall set you free and I stand ready to be your liberator!
Would it help you if I added a sting of happy emoticons?
P.S. I got one of these “unsafe site” warnings too.
I wonder if the Muzzies have this post tagged for censorhsip?
Mike, you are truly making a fool of yourself here. Have a bit of pride, guy. What are you, 12? But it’s always a trip to see just how high your personal defensive shields go when someone dares to disagree. Nor that you care if you cast your schoolyard barbs at friend or foe. Interesting side of yourself you’ve been revealing. I think I’ll just sit back and let you continue to hang yourself with juvenile behavior. Word probably has more patience with adolescents than this ol’ broad does.
@MataHarley: Tsk, tsk, tsk!
Calling me names yet decrying puerile insults is just proof of the emptiness of your position.
Is Burlingame wrong?
Is Shoebat wrong?
Is Dr. Jasser wrong?
Is this Imam a moderate who we should support?
Being an “ol’ broad” doesn’t excuse you from putting forward a coherent defense of your postion.
Sadly, when you toss away the straw men, you haven’t got a defense.
@Flyovercountry, in both my former blog, Sea2Sea, and in the FA archives is much I have said about the different factions of Islam temporarily uniting to fight a common foe, then slugging it out in the end. This is not news to me, and frankly I got tired of explaining to the novices that Shia and Sunni actually *do* work together when the end result benefits them mutually.
None of that has an iota to do with this particular construction unless, of course, you can connect the dots between the jihad movement and Rauf and his intent. The man is on record in his book that the Constitution is Shariah compliant. Oddly enough I got this from a very negative article I read on Pajamas Media from back in May, and before I commented one word on this bruhaha. Despite this lack of aggression in, supposedly, wanting to overthrow the US to make it Shariah law, that PJ author still dissed the text completely.
That same article wanted to take issue with Rauf’s opinion that “Muslims didn’t commit 911″. This is made abundantly clear when you read other commentary from Rauf that avers he doesn’t consider the 911 attack as any way Islamic, nor does he acknowledge these terrorists are followers of Islam as he and his flock subscribe to.
His father is the founder of another large Muslic cultural center in New York, the “96th St. Mosque”, or more formally known as the Islamic Cultural Center in New York. It was opened in 1989, and has run pretty much scandal free save some of the usual post 911 remarks that you heard from liberals, progressives, the anti-war movement, the terrorist and Muslims blaming US foreign policy. I think I’m pretty solidly on record INRE that argument being a bunch of horse manure.
But back to Rauf, the son. Is he much different than the liberals, progressives, the anti-war movement or other Muslims in his beliefs? Not that I can see. According to the PJ Media research, monies came not only from Qatar (which got the blanket “they are terrorist supporters” argument), but also from Holland’s Millennial Development Goals Fund, Carnegie Corporation, the UN Population Fund, Rockefeller Brothers and Hunt Alternatives.
Point is I do not see a “blame America” attitude in Raul that I don’t see in others that stand as elected officials in my Congress. I don’t read in his writings that overthrowing the US government is part of the agenda because that government and the Constitution is already Shariah compliant. I don’t see cash that’s being fed from jihad groups. And I don’t see that pro Palestinian supporters in the Free Gaza Movement are all jihadists, or a terrorist group.
But if ties to jihad money can be made, all this is gone in an instant with the freezing of funding from known terrorist groups. So far, that hasn’t been the case. And no one here has any evidence of that, save that Rauf… like ga’zillions of others… donated to Free Gaza Movement.
I reserve my emotions for my personal life, not politics. So it’s simply not enough for me to hear so many argue this is morally justifiable because a small fraction of Islam has it’s agenda. Well yeah… so the effin’ what? For heavens sake, I’ve been posting articles on that for years. And they certainly aren’t the only movement with despicable agendas.
But I deal with issues and the players one on one. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. So I keep a wary eye out for the questionable, and do some homework on the individual issue. And that homework is not based on a blanket hysteria against anyone who is Islamic… even tho I don’t agree with their religion or their way of life. Nor will I accept that bad taste and insensitivity is enough to usurp equal application of law in this country. It’s a simple concept. Apparently too hard for those succumbing to pure emotions to discern without driving them into some bizarro world of self defense.
What I do believe is if they assimilate, and play by American rule of law, then I will give them the due that the Founders intended… freedom of religion and a melting pot of tolerance. And oh, BTW… the CIA and FBI will be keeping serious tabs on it’s operations, as well they should.
Gotta tell ya, you never know when a post is going to strike gold and produce great debate material….and this post was just a quick featured video to boot….but it’s been a good read.
I come down on the middle of this issue, I see good points made by both sides. Sometimes the conservative side of the aisle will become just as hyperbolic about the Islam issue as the left does with, well…just about everything conservative. I agree, this does our side no good. There are many many good people who are Muslim, and there most definitely is the radical Islamists…but to paint all Muslims as out to convert/kill all non-believers is just simplistic (and no, I am not asserting that this is what you were saying Mike).
BUT…..
I most definitely see Mike’s point that the choice of this site is suspicious.
In the end this Mosque should go up as planned. It was approved through the channels it had to go through and to try and take it away by “eminent domain” or any other means would lead to a slippery slope I am not willing to back.
If I was in New York I would protest the selection of this place, this site, as a site for a mosque….but I would not demand the government confiscate it. No way no how.
@Mike’s America #41:
But I say “ya’ll” and I live in the deep West Coast. So? And we’ve been down this road already. Need I explain again:
I admit I’ve consciously used it here to get under your skin since you made such a fuss over it last time we broke lances. Think of it as my nyookular Bush moment (who actually knows how to pronounce it “correctly”…but chooses not to).
By the way…. Aye Chihuahua has also used it, addressing you specifically. Why didn’t you let him know you’re from the deep south and no one uses it? SoCal Chris types it a lot….ever call him on it? Patvann‘s occasionally typed it. Yonason‘s used it. Scott‘s used it. Mata uses it quite a bit.
While I will admit to a certain mischievous pleasure in going against the grain and kicking over ant hills just to see all hell break loose, I’m serious in my ponderance on a post advocating why the vociferous opposition to the Grand Mosque might be a win-win for the real enemies. YOU beyond all other commenters have been evolving my opinion on the matter. I really haven’t been following the story that closely because it’s not one that interested me much. But since you’ve more or less forced me to read more than I cared to by drawing me into this debate, I’m thinking this really is a big deal and one that can be politically disastrous for conservatives and harmful to America’s image, and a feather in the cap for al Qaeda.
I think it’s important to put a conservative voice out there that says “not all of us have jumped on the bandwagon”, since the overwhelming din amongst the rightwing blogosphere and FOX News watchers is to express outrage and opposition to the building of the Mosque.
Nope. I haven’t. I’m zeroed in on those who basically think Muhammad Ali is out converting or killing infidels because the Koran tells him to; or he must be practicing taqqiya and hiding his true nature from us, being the devious practitioner of (Sufi) Islam that he is.
Oh, I understand that some people can distinguish between “radical” Islam and other forms of Islam. But why can’t you see that there are those on your side of the issue who can’t? And they are making great noise and are harmful to not only to the conservative movement but to America’s image.
And why can’t you see (I don’t mind disagreement, but I’d appreciate clarity in understanding my position) why I believe a mosque at Ground Zero isn’t spitting in the face of the 9/11 victims and America, but a spit of defiance in the face of al Qaeda?
It’s a great point. But because this is garnishing so much attention, it makes great propaganda fodder for the Islamists. Reasonable people might be able to empathize and understand why there is such opposition, and that not all of it has to do with being religiously bigoted.
I’ve explained myself before regarding the analogy comparison; it doesn’t fly with me. Because to buy into that comparison, you would have to be equating Japan with Islam itself. And you’ve just basically insisted to me that you aren’t against Islam, but against radical Islam.
Now, if you wanted to equate Islamic terrorists with Japan and why we wouldn’t support an Islamic terror camp built at Ground Zero any more than a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor, then I accept the analogy.
I’m not offended. When I first heard about this, I winced and felt, “bad idea”. But debating this, reading a little more on it, I’m now more inclined to support the idea. So long as it isn’t a mosque inspiring the jihad movement and the promotion of political (anti-American) Islam. But as Mata says, they are following our laws, obtaining the proper zoning/building permits; and unless we are prepared to make it look as if we really do think we are at war with Islam by making civil rights violations, I say all this public pressure to bear in opposition, all this scrounging around for legal recourse actions….it’s just playing into the hands of bin Laden and Zawahiri who have been telling Muslims how badly imperial/racist America is persecuting Muslims and are at war with Islam; and for the political left who want to paint us (conservatives)a as intolerant racists/bigots.
Can you show me the link on that again? It’s hard to digest everything that I have to read.
Sure, it’d “trouble” me. And as Mata and I have more or less stated, we don’t support his political views, which may mirror that of any anti-war liberal activist (doesn’t the Pope more or less oppose violence and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?). But so long as he isn’t imposing Sharia on us through violent conversion or killing, then he’s no different than so many other belief systems and religions I will have no part of belonging to. But in this country, he’s free to believe in them.
What Mata said. (It really is a ridiculous attempt at a one-line “zinger”, Mike).
@Curt said: “I come down on the middle of this issue, I see good points made by both sides. ”
Isn’t that taking the easy way out?
As regards to conservatives hyperventilating over Islam, I don’t see it. Sure we have a few examples here on this thread but that viewpoint IS MINOR.
Bigotry towards Islam is NOT the issue here. The issue is whether this mosque at this site is appropriate and what are the real motives of those who are building it.
Mata and Wordsmith have seemed a bit desperate to take us off on some magical journey into La La land where bigots can be found under every rock. That’s just not reality.
@Wordsmith asks: “Question: Doesn’t it trouble you that the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque supports universal Shariah law? Can you show me the link on that again? It’s hard to digest everything that I have to read. ”
Oh come on. Really? You haven’t heard about this?
Did Google break on your computer?
Fine, here’s a quick sampling:
America should be “Shariah compliant.” A presentation by Sean Hannity with Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer:
And don’t forget, there are real questions as to whether Imam Rauf really believes in interfaith dialogue:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/?singlepage=true
While we are at it, let’s remember that Imam Rauf gave an interview to 60 Minutes on September 30, 2001 where he said the U.S. bears responsiblity for 9/11:
Does that sound like the words of a moderate Muslim?
And we are supposed to be worried about offending this guy?
Give it a rest!
As I said before and say again: when we build that mega church in Mecca, come and talk to me about tolerance! Your defense of this mosque is what is absurd.
@Flyovercountry:
Well, that’s one way of looking at it….
Here’s another: Some people keep crying out, “Where are the ‘moderate’ Muslims? Why aren’t they speaking out?” (ignoring how they have been speaking out and have been in this fight, with Islamists and the global jihad movement being the #1 killer of Muslims who don’t share their worldview and ideology). Well, assuming Imam Rauf is a “moderate” (and I know that question is being questioned, but let’s assume for sake of argument) as is his organization and those funding the Mosque, would you or Mike’s America still oppose its placement at Ground Zero?
al Qaeda regards the vast majority of Muslims who don’t share their narrow ideological interpretation of Islam as Muslim traitors. As Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, indicated, a Mosque- that in part has a Memorial dedicated to the victims of 9/11- would be a testament to the failure of al Qaeda to rally the Islamic world to its cause and is a “blow to the extremists”. Most Muslims have rejected al Qaeda theology. Why alienate Muslims, needlessly? Why give validity to the jihadists?
NYTimes letter linked earlier:
Yet when moderate Muslims stand up, we’re telling them to “sit back down” and go to the back of the bus?
Then they were never “moderate” Muslims. No? Let’s not forget that terror plots have been foiled thanks to tip offs by “moderates” (most recent in memory is the father of the Christmas bomber).
What if they’re trying to, but we’re too blinded, too busy lumping them in with the Islamofascists? Dumping on their religion (different but related to that practiced by al Qaeda)?
Thanks for the vid and transcript, Mike. Will take a look, but still going down the list of postings as well as other chores.
@Mike’s America #51:
*Badum bump*
Yeah, apparently Google listed my blog as having malware. Since around May 26th. Still haven’t found time to research into what I need to do to track down the bad link/clear my site.
Any ideas?
I suspect Jasser often sees it more beneficial to his Muslim community to side with conservative America on most issues raised, regarding “the Islamisation of America”. Politically, it keeps him out of the camp of being lumped in with CAIR and the Islamists, giving him more credibility as a voice for moderates who are deeply pro-American.
This said, it’s often the case that with very few exceptions, I never agree 100% of the time with even my most favorite conservative voices.
Actually, you’ve convinced me that this debate is much needed.
If you don’t, maybe I will; or create my post on the matter. You’ll definitely attract plenty of allies from the amen chorus of conservative voices here to pile on.
I for one would like it to be known that not all conservatives have jumped on the “opposition to the Grand Mosque at Ground Zero” gravy train bandwagon.
@Mike’s America #53:
Oh, Mike, Mike….as you say, “tsk, tsk, tsk”….
@Wordsmith, all other issues aside, the timing of this event and the close proximity to Ground Zero is the point of objection to the FA posters that do not favor the Mosque. It is an issue of sensitivity and a the lack of understanding of that sensitivity on the part of the Muslim Community that desires to build there.
I happen to view Ground Zero the same as the Murrah Federal Building site in Oklahoma City. It is hallowed ground in my opinion. That insensitivity has nothing to do with Civil or Property Rights but it does exist and there lies the objection. You must acknowledge that insensitivity as crass and insulting to those that object to this Mosque, the location and the timing or you have missed the point that some FA posters were trying to make.
I am as tolerant as I can possibly be but I see the objections as somewhat reasonable. I see the insensitivity as unreasonable after having spent over a decade in the Middle East. We in the Military have bent over backwards to respect the Customs and sensitivities of the Host Nations and were there at the request and approval of the Host Nations. Were we Occupiers or Unwanted Guests we would not have been there since Desert Shield and Desert Storm to contribute to Regional Stability. I have deployed to the Balkans to halt the ethnic cleansing and rape murder and mayhem committed against Muslims there.
The major objection is all about the lack of sensitivity, not Property or Civil Rights. Please acknowledge that. Off my soapbox now. I deal with Islam daily as well as Tribal issues. Those folks test my tolerance and patience daily over issues that I consider to be petty, archaic and absurd. My ability to function is all about tolerance and sensitivity here. I respect their Holy Sites and their faith. I am a “guest” here, although an armed one, and I will leave when my mission is done. I do expect American Muslims to exercise the same sensitivity, respect and tolerance that I have regarding their Mosque or Cultural Center.
@Mike’s America #56:
I don’t know. Needs further research. And as many times as I’ve liked listening to some of what he says, I’m not sure what to make of his questionable reliability.
Mike, why is it that you have to be so antagonistic and insulting whenever you get into debates that don’t really go the way you want it to go? I respect your point regarding the question of whether or not Imam Rauf is a moderate and questions about funding. I don’t find citing Hannity, Burlingame, Shoebat, and other conservative faves as conclusive proof.
So why is it that you seem to not really hear/comprehend the points Mata has put forth and the ones I have brought to the table? Sometimes, it’s like you avoid valid points if it means you having to concede anything. So you focus on supposed “strawmen” and start mocking and sounding bellicose and insulting. Why?
@Wordsmithreposts then comments: “‘Sadly, when you toss away the straw men, you haven’t got a defense.’ Mike, why is it that you have to be so antagonistic and insulting whenever you get into debates that don’t really go the way you want it to go? ”
It’s not an insult Wordsmithl It’s an observation. Besides, I see the debate going entirely in my direction. Don’t you?
Furthermore, your comment that: “I for one would like it to be known that not all conservatives have jumped on the “opposition to the Grand Mosque at Ground Zero” gravy train bandwagon” smacks of the same kind of tone you say you find offensive or insulting in my remarks. “Gravy train bandwagon?” What does that even mean?
Tsk, tsk yourself!
P.S. No comment on the info you requested on the Shariah or blame USA for 9/11 comments from Imam Rauf? Is this what you would expect from a moderate Muslim?
@Mike’s America #60:
That’s a really odd statement to make. Bigotry is part of the issue here, as it may relate to the motives of those who are opposed to building of the Mosque. Geller seems to be one leading the charge and sounds Islamophobic. Some commenters here (not just this thread, but past threads) seem to have no problems admitting as much, although they don’t use that word.
I posed the question earlier to flyovercountry: If it were the case that Rauf were a “moderate”, would there still be opposition? My guess is, yes. So is the question of whether Rauf is a moderate or not, really, truly the issue?
Frankly, if it were Dr. Jasser who wished to open this Grand Mosque along with a memorial to the 9/11 victims, I strongly suspect the din of opposition would still be vociferous. And Jasser is as pro-Founding Fathers, Constitution-loving, believer of separation of Mosque and State as they come.
So what drives the passionate opposition?
The belief, overt or subliminally implanted, that Islam itself is the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. Not Islamic jihadis who share a version of the faith with a vast majority who had no part in the attack.
Nice characterization of our arguments, Mike.
I’m really sweating desperation here, Mike; not merely trying to carry on a dialogue.
Sorry to exasperate you, Mike. Sometimes I skim through things. I’ll try to make this topic my #1 priority from now on. Forgive me if I fall short of the expectation.
Aside from what Mata wrote in #57 on “sharia compliant”, here’s some interesting comments regarding Rauf on Sharia:
And I go back to my earlier comment regarding this matter.
And I repeat what Mata and I have been saying: it’s no different an expression of opinion than any other hippie liberal has. Does he have to be a politically conservative Republican pro-war on terror kind of guy to be labeled “moderate Muslim”? What’s the Pope’s stance on the Iraq War again?
@Mike’s America:
Lol…but Mike, come on, now: You ALWAYS see the debate going in your direction.
Mike….it’s 1:30am on the West Coast….I have no frakkin’ idea!
When is your East Coast bedtime, anyway?!
@Mike’s America:
Patience, sir! I was going down the list…skipped over Old Trooper (woulda been the last comment to tackle for the night) to come back to you. I’m juggling responding to you, checking my FB, going over your link, doing some research, watching Jimmy Fallon…gimme a break! *yawn* (Sleepy, not bored).
@Old Trooper #64:
Yeah, that goes in alignment to my initial feelings on the matter.
It’s like sporting an anti-Obama bumpersticker in South Central LA….you’re just beggin’ for trouble.
Insensitive from our perspective; but it could be (as Mata also brought up) that Muslims like Rauf who fervently believe Islam did not attack us on 9/11 and who regard al Qaeda as not “true Islam”, if that is their sincere belief, and being surrounded and pampered by political correctness in liberal NYC “egging” on the “Islam is a religion of peace and we support you and diversity” notions, they just might have been too naive to not have seen the potential backlash. It may not be intentional insensitivity if their intent is to heal wounds and stand up in defiance of Islamic terror through the building of a Mosque there.
I agree.
And that only speaks to the credit of who the U.S. military is. It goes in our favor and flies against anti-U.S. propaganda.
I wonder if it doesn’t go beyond that. There should be no issue if it’s accepted that there is a difference between the ones who attacked us and the religion as practiced by majority Muslims in the world.
I think Islam has a diverse range, and what you are dealing with is related to regional geo-political realities of tribes, customs, ethnicity, and culture where the Islamic faith is a part of all that.
WE HAVE TO NOTE, that this is the right time for the AMERICANS to make theirs voices heard as much: because “IF” that building is there they are the ones who will have to ANGRYLY look at it and wont still accept it, so the IMAN has to decide now and try to visualyse what the possible repercussions of the coming future. NOW WHEN this time is right for him to back off if he and his followers, realy listened to the real AMERICANS.
@Wordsmith said: “but Mike, come on, now: You ALWAYS see the debate going in your direction. ”
It’s no accident that it usually does.
I’ll look forward to your analysis of the less than moderate statements of Imam Rauf. Implementing Shariah Law in the United States and blaming us for 9/11 doesn’t exactly put him in the same league as Dr. Jasser.
And here’s a little something for your “gravy train bandwagon” whatever the hell that means:
MIKE’SAMERICA: that gravy train’ look good for my dogs; Does WALMART carry it?. bye
OLD TROOPER: hi, I always buy the dog cookies made by wallmart founder co., he had thoses made specialy for his dog OLD ROY; and my dogs realy go nuts for it: hope you are well. bye
No
Plenty of other examples from and on other’s blogs as well. Your putting blinders by ignoring it. While it’s not anywhere near the size nor the scope of the left’s hyperbole over anything conservative there most definitely is hyperventilating over Islam from SOME conservatives. In many instances this hyperventilating is completely justified, others not so.
I agree, and that’s why I addressed that issue as well as the issue’s other’s on this thread brought up.
CURT: AS you mentionned, it has nothing to do with POLITIC views; looking at all the people from equal partys expressing their beleifs, and we can also add many from other countrys who disapproved, thoses who also lost loved ones. bye
sigh…. Personally I thought Curt had the perfect “last word”. But I can see Mike’s not happy with that, accusing Curt for “taking the easy way out”, and the battles continue to wage. You’re an all or nothing kind of guy, eh Mike? Just feel the need to control the masses opinions? Not “an insult”, but “an observation”….
OT, I’d say that Wordsmith and myself, as well as @Curt have all stated that we find the choice to rebuild in that spot as highly objectional. In that point, there is consensus. However that is not where the debate lies. It lies in what to do about it. And apparently, in the quest to force something not particularly healthy for our rule of law, the gloves are off and any smear campaign is sanctioned. Dang… that is sooooo Alinsky and Obama’ish. This would be much simpler if there were unmitigated proof that terrorist funds were used, since would be stopped in it’s tracks with finance sanctions. However that doesn’t appear to be the case…. unless, of course, you’d like to consider the Carnegie Bros as a terrorist group.
I have also said everyone is certainly free to protest as much as they want… as is our 1st Amendment right. However it is unlikely to change the mosque owners mind about building, and that public protest will be used as fodder by the global Islamic jihad movement as proof that America is at war with Islam/Muslims, and not the jihad movement which represents a small segment of that religion. Then you can add the political talking point bonus for the Democrats, who will be happy to point out that the conservatives are Islamophobic.
My return request is *that* fact also be acknowledged. With our free speech comes the repercussions. Part and parcel of that treasured freedom. In this case, one can weigh the pros and cons… will they accomplish stopping the mosque? And at what cost?
Lastly, I beg to differ…. property rights are intrinsically entangled with this issue. It’s the crime/punishment aspect to this that makes it truly ugly. Because, listening to Mike and ilk, the question becomes: is poor taste and insensitivity, combined with public objection, enough to negate an individual’s development rights despite following the legal procedure?
God help us all if it is.
Nor does it do much good when the figure heads of this movement label this protest as stopping Islam’s growth in America. If bigots aren’t “under every rock”, as Mike doth protest, then one should be questioning the presentation by those spearheading this protest, and what they are shouting thru their megaphones. I’d say I’ve provided considerably more proof that those who share Mike’s feelings about the mosque do indeed harbor animosity toward all Muslims… which would be the very definition of bigotry. So my opinion is Mike’s sense of reality is quite distorted, or else he is determined to remain completely unaware of those who stand so solidly at his side in order to advance the agenda of stopping this mosque… and potentially others, if you listen to Gellar and Spencer.
I believe Curt mirrors Word’s and my opinion perfectly in objecting to their decision, but not wanting to support unequal application of the law in prohibiting it. Mike, however, has another agenda because we disagree with the end goal. Instead he appears determined to paint us as either naive, or supportive of a “blame America” opinion, which all of us clearly believe is erroneous. Since there are many Americans and elected officials who share the “blame America” belief (including our POTUS), that particular attitude isn’t isolated to Rauf or Muslims.
Additionally, Mike takes liberal interpretations of Rauf’s own words, in between his so called “observations”, INRE Rauf’s intent by definitively stating that he supports “universal Shariah”. This he bases on some commentary by apparent mind readers. WTF?
At best Rauf can be accused of supporting a system similar to Britain’s recent parallel Shariah court system for local domestic issues (i.e. divorces, etc). Something I in NO way support. However that isn’t Rauf’s decision, but that of Congress. So the focus of the venom… if and when that should come up… should be toward our lawmakers considering that move, not individuals who may support that idea. We have Americans who support communism and/or the lighter form of socialism. Shall we apply that same interference in unequal application of the law to them as well? Shall we prohibit development of any buildings that house Communist organizations?
Nope. It’s pretty obvious you do selective reading and vast quantities of liberal interpretation. After sundry comments on two separate threads, it’s crystal clear my position doesn’t entail consideration of his feelings at all. I care about what happens when you, Mike, don’t like what I believe and decide that you should be able to alter the law to stop me midstream in a legal endeavor.
But of course, there’s never a moment when you don’t like what I believe, right?
@MataHarley said:
That’s another straw man. My position has been consistent on this issue and you continue to misrepresent my opinion.
It’s not just my opinion. It’s shared by Sean Hannity, Debra Burlingame and Robert Spencer among MANY others. We can’t all be Islamophobes.
Curt reference blinders above. Can I borrow your pair?
Perhaps you can join Wordsmith on the “gravy train bandwagon.”
I thank @Old Trooper for his first hand experience and contribution to this discussion. He does an excellent job of summing up how I feel about the issue as well.
@Mike’s America #66:
What can I say…you bring out the worst in me?
Well, I apologize if I’ve taken on the same tone as you. Happy?
This from the king of misrepresentation…
In this instance, you just may be. Altho anyone that holds up Hannity as a bastion of intelligent commentary loses every ounce of credibility, IMHO. Spencer, along with Gellar, is a figure head that is morphing this from the mosque to everything Islamic based on their organization’s goal. Burlingame is just another woman with an opinion. And frankly, I’m not much on the herd mentality.
I’d say that Word, Curt and myself see both sides of the equation, where you choose not to see any but your own. So your blinders appear to be working just fine, and I possess none to lend to you.
But thanks again for another desperate juvenile remark made in self defense, Mike. Not “an insult”… just “an observation”.
@MataHarley: So you not only insult Sean Hannity but reject Debra Burlingame and Spencer as well.
How convenient.
Come on now… Are you suggesting I am an Islamaphobe?
And frankly, I haven’t seen a lot of the “both sides” of this question from you.
Me “desperate?” Not at all. Right yes!
@ilovebeeswarzone: Looks like you can still buy Gravy Train. I know I’m excited about it!
P.S. As far the “bandwagon” goes. I leapt on early. Sean Hannity took two weeks to pick up on it. I didn’t really have a lot of information about Imam Rauf when I first started talking about it but thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA and wants Shariah Law in the U.S. Those are facts in his own words and I never would have bothered to find them without the challenge.
The bottom line remains the same: Build the mosque somewhere else. But not at Ground Zero!
Of course I reject Burlingame and Spencer’s opinions, because I disagree. What of it? As far as Hannity, never liked the man and he’s inadequate, putting it kindly, to do more than simply run off a mantra of talking points. If he goes outside that line, he flounders. Again, what of it? Am I required by you to revere every conservative pundit?
Look, Mike. I can’t look into your heart on all things. I can only gauge where you are coming from on what you volunteer as your reasoning. In this case, you leap to assumptions because of a Free Gaza Movement donation, protest a “blame America” belief that is common amongst many that aren’t Muslim and that serve as elected officials in our Congress, and accept misrepresentation (as well as perpetuate) that Rauf advocates changing this nation to a Shariah nation. A misrepresentation you continue in your latest comment when you say: “…when I first started talking about it but thanks to Mata and Word I learned that he blames 9/11 on the USA and wants Shariah Law in the U.S.” As I said, Rauf is not in control of implementing any Shariah courts in this nation. Nor do I suspect that Muslims, who divorce is not legally recognized by their religion if done in the US courts, may entirely disagree. This, however, is completely different than making our Constitution… which he says is Shariah compliant for their freedoms… obsolete and replacing our government. Note the words “religious communities more leeway”. He advocates what Britain has done to allow judicial finality for the Muslim community, in accord with their beliefs. I don’t agree, but Britain is not a Shariah governed nation as a result.
And, since you demonstrate vast reading miscomprehension, I will once again state that I am in no way in support of a parallel Shariah court system here…. despite the quandary it places Muslims in with their religious practice. But that battle I will wage with Congress, if and when that comes to pass.
Since all of the above are exaggerations of truth based on the evidence, I’m not left with much choice but to assume, that in this particular issue, you are demonstrating signs of Islamaphobia. And I’m sorry to say that a couple of posts on your blog 3-4 years ago don’t do much to discourage that. And believe you me, I don’t like thinking you are caught up in an attitude so sweeping in scope.
Speaking of misrepresentation, I’ve said more times than you can count on Billy Bob’s toes that I fully agree that the building of this mosque there is reprehensible. I do not agree with the proposed solutions, and I recognize the detriment of the bruhaha. I, unlike you, have weighed the pros and cons, and placed more weight on the damage than can be done if you proceed the path Gellar and Spencer have chosen for your movement.
You do choose to ignore that consensus of base disagreement. How was it you put it? “How convenient”.
That mosque need not be built where it is planned. The proximity is intentional and is for the purpose of eliciting a response- a response that plays directly on the feelings of the people of this country.
Either way, we lose.
If we don’t object, it will be a propaganda triumph over America.
If we do, it’s because we hate them.
It is a lose-lose proposal. Provocation is a political tactic. That’s what they did to Israel and it’s what they do to us.
Rauf knows this. His demands that the President of the US apologize to the entire Muslim world for everything bad that’s ever happened before there can even be progress in relations says all one really needs to know.
As if President Bowandscrape hasn’t apologized enough already.
No sensible person would do what Rauf is doing. Acting as though it’s reasonable is not reasonable.
Yes, DrJohn… it’s a lose lose for us, and a win win for terrorists. A point that both Wordsmith and I have been making for some time here.
Whether Rauf knew this, and it was done deliberately, is speculation on your part – unless, of course, he imparted that knowledge to you in a personal conversation. That may have been his motive, or it may be that he chose that location for exactly the reasons he states… as a finger to jihad. If that is the case, it’s entirely reasonable, and following his intent.
So let’s not confuse your personal speculation of what is in a stranger’s heart with facts. There’s already enough of that going around on this subject.
CURT: YOUR “POST” is so HOT, that i cannot barely touch my keyboard, HOPEFULLY MIKE’AMERICA,they will change their mind on building that kind of STRUCTURE,and re think the print: MAYBE DONALD TRUMP can give them some brilliant ideas on it, he surely would not accept to, loose his TENANTS on his HIGHRISES very expansives appartments buildings, who are paying big money for it, and like to keep their VIEW on NY. bye
@MataHarley: What a tame response to Dr. John.
Surely you aren’t more afraid of the Dentist’s drill than the Mike’s America mind meld?
As for your comment that “since you demonstrate vast reading miscomprehension,” I thought you were above the cheap shots.
O.K. you asked for it.
Careful you don’t wind up as one of the Burka Broads on Harleys!
Of course you know that some Islamic sects like Hamas refuse to allow women to ride bikes. Sheep yes, women no:
@ilovebeeswarzone: Maybe Donald Trump could redevelop that Mosque at Atlantic City as a Casinoe.
LOL! Now *that*, Mike, was funny.
But I assure you there is a vast difference between “fear” and preferring not to succomb to any particular brand of hysteria or herd mentality. Never been afraid of having my own opinions, even when they aren’t mainstream.
And that last photo with the sheep? Hysterical…. perhaps he was on his way to a “toy run”? Or has a bizarre penchant for girlfriends….
@Mike’s America #87:
@Mike’s America:
Mike, it’s the same belief about “blowback” shared by a lot of Americans, including those on the left, and some coming from the right like Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer.
I wonder what other spiritual leaders also “blame 9/11″ on some wacky claims.
Ok, so he believes aspects of America’s foreign policy and past wars has a share of the blame (although denies America “deserved” what happened). Do you deny that negative perception of American foreign policy contributes to anti-Americanism? What was one of the main thrusts of complaint bin Laden made in his 1998 fatwa? Occupation of the Arabian penninsula? Support for Israel?
Note he says “we” and not “you”? He’s identifying himself as American. And the belief that we have incurred backlash/blowback from past wars, military interventions, overthrow of dictators, etc. is a belief shared by many liberals.
“Osama bin Laden is made in the USA”. Sayyid Qutb is the father of al Qaeda theology. His experience in the United States was a direct contributor to his anti-Americanism; and his writings, in turn and as a result, inspired and shaped al Qaeda’s ideology. bin Laden sees America as imperialistic and turned sharply antagonistic against the U.S. when we put troops and bases on the Arabian penninsula….and stayed. He was furious and felt humiliated. At both the Saudi royals/government and at the U.S. It doesn’t mean he is right in his views. But the fact remains, his perception of American foreign policy contributed to Osama bin Laden’s hatred of the U.S., leading to the events of 9/11.
So we “made” bin Laden…we “made” Saddam….just Howard Zinnish worldview leftism.
Most spiritual leaders are opposed to war/conflict/violence.
How does this put him square in the camp of radicals and terrorists?
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I would say, if they dont built that mosque they dont loose and we dont win because it’s not suppose to be built there anyway, so they wont make a favor to AMERICANS by not doing it, and AMERICANS wont need to bother with abroads deductions of loosing the building, this is their problem not AMERICANS’s problems. ARE they AMERICANS or not?.
Bees, it’s not often we treat the FA community to the common, friendly infighting we occasionally do off forum, and behind the scenes. But it’s a tribute to the diverse authors Curt has selected. We are anything but an echo chamber.
But I daresay, like a family, we may fight amongst ourselves, but woe to those who attempt to attack us as a family unit.
Just be patient, Mike.
We only need wait a few years and as Mata encourages tolerance and understanding we’ll get to the point she’ll have to wear a burqa and be quiet.
So as not to offend Rauf and company.
Mike… did I just hear you admit you leaped to an uninformed opinion?? LOL And do you think that first emotional instinct may have any bearing on how you choose to absorb and exaggerate the two points you mention beyond reasonable comprehension?
as you say… tsk tsk
@Wordsmith: You may recall I am not a big fan of Ron Paul either. Have you changed YOUR opinion on the Paulbots? Perhaps we should embrace their opinion to avoid antogonizing moderate Muslims?
@MataHarley: The only fear I have is that you might get the Burka caught in the gears of the Harley. That’s not something I want to see happen.
It’s bad enough for you gals to get out of a car without getting something caught in the door frame:
P.S. I endorse your statement: “I daresay, like a family, we may fight amongst ourselves, but woe to those who attempt to attack us as a family unit.” Just admit you were wrong and life will be so much better!
@DrJohn #92: That’s a funny comment, Doc…especially given that Rauf’s wife Daisy Khan goes around burqa-free- in fact, not even a head scarf.
As for @MataHarley: “Mike… did I just hear you admit you leaped to an uninformed opinion?? ”
Seems to me you leapt to the opposite uninformed opinion.
Who’s right?
Does Rauf want to see Shariah Law in the U.S.?
Didn’t he say “Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.?”
Just admit you were wrong…. I’ll forgive you!
That’s not fair. I can’t post videos or pictures!
But that’s why it’s called “creeping Shar’ia”, Wordsmith!
@Wordsmith: What does Rauf’s wife (how many does he have?) wear when she’s in the Middle East? It would be no different than saying one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. Something we already notice Rauf is fond of.
And yes, kudos to Curt for this diversity!
@Mike’s America:
Are you purposefully being incapable of getting the point? Or just can’t get it?as MataHarley said in #83:
……
@DrJohn: Drop a link to photos and video and you can bet it will be posted forthwith!
@Wordsmith: “Are you purposefully being incapable of getting the point?” Tsk, tsk, tsk! Insults won’t win you any points.
Aren’t you sullying yourself and your already untenable position by stooping to what you claim is my level?
If I were a Muslim, you wouldn’t do it would you?
“Whether Rauf knew this, and it was done deliberately, is speculation on your part – unless, of course, he imparted that knowledge to you in a personal conversation. That may have been his motive, or it may be that he chose that location for exactly the reasons he states… as a finger to jihad. If that is the case, it’s entirely reasonable, and following his intent.”
If Rauf hasn’t been part of the flotilla organizing, if Rauf hadn’t said OBL was made in America, if he hadn’t demanded that the President apologize for pretty much everything bad on Earth, you might have a point.
It’s speculation, but I’m right.
I thought the father of Islamic Jihad was Amin Al-Husseini.
@Mike’s America: Not an insult…just an observation.
tsk, tsk, tsk…
@DrJohn #104: The foundation and inspiration for much of al Qaeda’s theology is found in Sayyid Qutb, and his work, “Milestones”. Reference Lawrence Wright and “The Looming Tower“.
So you choose to follow Mike down the path of deliberate mischaracterization so you look good, DrJohn? You might want to go back thru all my my comments here, and on the other thread, and you might… if you read slowly.. figure out that thisn’t about tolerance for me, but rule of law that shan’t be usurped on hype and lack of evidence. You will also find numerous references as to my opinion on parallel Shariah law in the US, and where I find relief for any attempt to do so.
Ya know, sometimes it’s just difficult to respond to this kind of imbecilic dissertation. I simply don’t function at that schoolyard level anymore.
Actually, no, Mike. I didn’t “leap” to any conclusion because I did my research before typing a single word. That I landed on the opposite side of the fence for the solution (not the disapproval of the location), is simply a matter of reading what Rauf said, and putting it into context with just about every lib/prog I know.
You’re my little FA brother, Mike. Have respect for your elders.
And of course you wouldn’t forgive me. If you thought I caved in on my beliefs by peer pressure or bully tactics, you’d lose all respect. This is an issue where we simply differ. What becomes somewhat frustrating is that you genuinely don’t get exactly where we differ and why, or you do and that’s simply not good enough for you.
I don’t have to agree with you, Mike. You’d be extremely bored if I did.
@DrJohn:
The problem here is that you are injecting your own colorization to what he said.
What do you suppose he meant by “OBL was made in America”? Reference back to my comment #89. (Which is, likewise, based upon my own speculation).
@Mike’s America #98:
Seriously, Mike?!
If she did wear a headscarf while visiting there, would it be any different than Hillary Clinton or Condi Rice? Are they some sort of hypocrites, closet Muslims, or is it about showing respect while on foreign soil?
Jesus Christ…..*mumble*
@Mike’s America #96:
Don’t kiss ‘im, Mata! It’s a trick! He’ll still be a frog with flybreath, at heart!
A little more fuel for the fire from the right side of the world for knowledge on Islam and a place where it is in “practice”….. I deal with both Imams and Tribal Leaders daily here so there may be room for 3% error on my part but I do know US Law as do my SJA Officers on Staff.
*Sharia is in direct violation of the US and All State Constitutions so if the Imam believes that it can be put into practice in the US, he is full of it. Let Him or His Followers try it…
*Polygamy is in direct violation of ALL State and Federal Laws in the US.
*Sponsorship of the “Flotilla” is most likely in direct violation of the US Patriot Act if it is proven that
either the Norks or Iran are Co-Conspirators or “contributors” to that endeavor.
*Honor Killings, Wife Beatings, Marriages involving Children and Adults are Prohibited but such are recognized legitimately as a Man’s prerogative under Sharia but illegal Everywhere in the US.
*Rauf needs to back the hell off of Sharia or “Other Common Practices” recognized as Legit by Islam if he does not want to get my dander up. His Civil Rights need to be clarified if I am to be convinced that practice certain elements of His Faith is not in violation of US Laws. Sharia is not acceptable by US Legal Standards. Period.
I see this business on every Deployment to the ME in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, AF/PAK and other Islamic States. I am tolerant to a degree on Deployments but NOT in the US. Religious Practices vary but in the Philippines “faux crucifixion” is viewed as a testament of faith. I won’t go for acceptance of Human Sacrifice anywhere or doing peyote as a Tribal/Religious sacrament.
Brand Me as Intolerant if You wish but My Tolerance and Sensitivity has limits.
Sharia is not Constitutional in the US. Period.
Rauf needs to be better informed than to even attempt to back Sharia in the US.
You cannot Legally Eat Your Cake and Have It Too.
BTW, DrJohn… since you decided to step in it, and also demonstrate your limited focus…
Rauf did not organize the flotilla.. which BTW has also passed legitimate aid to Gaza. Rauf is like many others who donated to the Free Gaza Movement. Nor did he found that organization, nor is he on the Board of Advisors or Interim Board of Directors. Feel free to check it out yourself.
As far as your other two “not okay for Rauf, but okay for many elected officials and lib/prog” points, we’ve already been over and over that numerous times here. I’ve made my point, you and Mike have made yours Your guilt by association broad brush still doesn’t justify unequal application of the law, IMHO.
OT, Rauf did not “sponsor” the Turkish ship. As I said, he… like countless others… contributed to the Free Gaza Movement. As I said way above, I have no doubts that the Iman is, on the whole, anti-Israel … just as many a lib/prog and elected official. Tho it’s interesting that he enjoys the personal support of many a NY rabbi.
Still not enough to justify unequal application of US law.
Polygamy is illegal, and the Mormons have adapted their polygamy beliefs to function in the US for the most part. When not, they… like any Muslims that attempt the same… would be hauled in front of US courts.
US Muslims assimilate differently than those outside the US, as the Pew poll from 2007 I linked on the other thread reveals. Were there any viable indication that there are different degrees of modern Muslim practice, the US Muslims would be that harbinger. If Rauf believes that the US Constitution and our republic can live in harmony with his interpretation of Islam, he can take that up with Zawahiri and OBL, who believe that any kind of democratic (or republic) government is unIslamic. That disagreement is between them, and their interpretation of Islamic doctrine. I do not wander into those waters myself.
I wouldn’t brand you as intolerant, OT… because if any attempt at a Shariah parallel court system were attempted by our government, we would all be on the same side of that issue. But I still cannot justify unequal application of US on this mosque merely because someone believes something that I don’t. Nor am I likely to give them an inch beyond what our US Code allows.
OLD TROOPER: HI, WHAT more can the BIG GUNS say, [MATA, WORDSMITH, AND MIKE'SAMERICA]. you stole theirs last words; YOU WIN, they all loose: and I might have the last comment, if they can find anything else to do,somewhere else and LEAF us alone. bye
Bees… surely that isn’t a “STFU” comment from you, is it? LOL
MATA: you know, i was just kidding, bye
Attempting to start another smear campaign, Mike? Or did you want to do something unusual, and research that point before you spread it around?
@MataHarley: How many wives does Rauf have? Do you know?
And does head wife wear the burka when in Moslem countries?
Thanks again to @Old Trooper who said: “Brand Me as Intolerant if You wish but My Tolerance and Sensitivity has limits. Sharia is not Constitutional in the US. Period. Rauf needs to be better informed than to even attempt to back Sharia in the US.
You cannot Legally Eat Your Cake and Have It Too. ”
Are you listening Mata?
And your “little brother” (oh please… watch what happens if I try that on Wordsmith) will just repeat this until you pay attention to it:
In a book published back in 2004, “What Is Right With Islam,” Feisal Abdul Rauf, he wrote of his fondness for Sharia Law and his belief that the U.S. can accommodate it. He argued, quote, that “the American political structure is Sharia compliant,” continuing, quote, “For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia’ compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”
The bottom line remains the same: Build the mosque somewhere else. But not at Ground Zero!
@ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, don’t be intimidate by Muzzie Harley… O.K., I’m just kidding too!
MIKE’S AMERICA: PLEASE dont make that face to MATA, her gun is loaded now, I don’t want to
be hit, and lose some bees, bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Oh, that “ol broad” (her words) doesn’t scare this “littler brother.”
I’m pretty fast on the draw myself. Though I am a much better shot with a shotgun than a pistol.
Your beehive is safe. You’ll keep your bees.
@MataHarley…”I do not wander into those waters myself”…I swim in those waters every day.
Both Politically, Socially and news arrives slowly here… Open a School where girls will attend and get “Discomfort”, treat Females as equals to Males and face “Discomfort”, give Priority of Medical Care to Children and Mothers and not to Military Age Males or Tribal or Government types and face
“Discomfort”. (Argument within Their Logic but in Confliction with My Values)
If the Cleric Rauf wants to drop a little cash, let Him take a look at AF/PAK where Sharia and Tribal crap is Knee Deep and according to my Surgeon here, care is needed…triage defeats Sharia Law in my Camp. Life threatening issues get treated first. Then Women and Children, then the rest. US wounded are always first in line.
GSW is always suspect. (WOW, why were they shot??? and by whom???)
This FA pissing contest can go on without my participation.
*****************************************
If NYFC wants to declare high dollar Real Estate as Tax Exempt, a few tens of meters away from Ground Zero, in the US or in then that is up to them. No Sharia in Montana as my Daughter says,
“Or Else!!!”.
No further posts on this subject from here.
*****************************************
@Ms Bees, I have three dogs back home. They eat dry food mixed with eggs and “bone meal” which is available from the Butcher Shop where they cut meat. Ask around. I used to buy horse meat for them but it is no longer available. They are Shepard and Labrador mix and eat like horses because they stay out on the range for company for my Hands that look after cattle.
My Daughters Cat eats dry food mixed with eggs and Tuna. A stray cat that is named “Blackie” and was adopted by Ms. Cadet Jana, my Daughter because she was found by the road three years ago.
Your reference to fresh fish and beer had me laughing. I like both. Especially during Lent as I give up Cuban Cigars that are Legal in Canada but not in Montana. We eat fresh caught Trout and no Gorton’s products there.
Coffee is on here and I have a wound cleaning, bandaging and another freeze dried egg and cheese “Kandahar Omlette” to look forward to. The Coffee is real and the bread for toast is good. Your Dogs would not eat either nor would mine.
***********************************************
Civil Rights per the Constitution or else?… choose wisely because the Republic can go away in the blink of an eye…if too many Values get compromised. Then the things You don’t want are a “Way of Life” …
Off to Ops for a briefing on things relevant here…
OLD TROOPER:thank’s; great idea for dog food. I have a GERMAN SHEFFARD, and a mix wippet jack russel, they are getting old but good shape still: A super beautifull day after 10 days of rain, I enjoyed it outside picking weed overpowering the stawberry plant, good exersize. don’t neglect the change bandaging, or else. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone, Ms Bees, I know about Six Battalions or so folks here that would rather fight for strawberries, wild or cultivated rather than MRE’s and without hesitation.
We get citrus fruit and figs but FRESH apples, strawberries, blackberries, peaches or cherries are not available here but in demand.
Canned/Dried fruit is like Obama Government…it does not smell, taste or look like the Real Thing…
Gee, Rauf had nothing to do with the flotilla….
Other than his Perdana group forked over $366,000 to Free Gaza, the biggest single contributor.
And gosh, we all know Free Gaza wouldn’t lie.
I heard a guy from Free Gaza claim that the IDF was shooting as they rappeled down the ropes when the IDF first boarded.
I also noticed that Reuters cropped out knives in the hands of the Free Gaza personnel (who are not associated with Rauf) used to stab the IDF forces.
Israel said the activists attacked its commandos as they boarded the six ships taking tons of supplies to Gaza, while the flotilla’s organizers said the Israeli forces opened fire first.
But there goes my imagination again….never mind the video tapes. Who’re you gonna believe? Me or your own lyin’ eyes?
The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric invited to Sydney by Premier Bob Carr.
New York-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who impressed Mr Carr at an international conference last year, arrives in Sydney today for two weeks of meetings and public talks.
Speaking from his New York mosque, Imam Feisal said the West had to understand the terrorists’ point of view.
So if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it’s a squirrel.
OLD TROOPER: yes they are perishable,and would not be allowed to ship. as i learn, yesterday, someone left a link and i click it was a web site that prepare packages and help in other ways to have people who want to send something and they mention what not to send as they don’t allow it when it get there: it’s name http://www.anysoldier.com; it was interesting to read, bye
@DrJohn: “So if it looks like a duck amd walks like a duck it’s a squirrel.”
That sounds about right since this bunch is full of nuts.
@Mike’s America #118:
Do you?
Cute…”head wife”…..as Mata asked, are you trying to start a smear campaign?
I didn’t realize burqas were a requirement in most Muslim countries, Mike.
What, Mike? What would happen?
To add to the debate, it’s only fair to hear from the other side:
You brung it up, Mike. Do your own homework before you begin your smear campaign, please. I’m just calling you on your unfettered crap you insist upon spreading. But why don’t you take a wild guess, dude. He’s lived in the US since he was 23 (in 1971), and since he’s walking around a free man, he’s not likely practicing bigamy/polygamy.
And BTW, Mike…. I love OT dearly, as he knows. However I don’t consider him a scholar on Islam, or more knowledgable than an Imam on the nuances of Islamic doctrine. Also, where OT is, they don’t believe the US or any democracy or republic is Islamic. Different breed of Muslim he’s dealing with than the US assimilated Muslims. That’s why I said the question of the Constitution and Shariah is Rauf’s battle with Zawahiri or OBL… not with Old Trooper.
And most importantly, just because OT has his opinion, it doesn’t mean I have to be of the same opinion. The difference between you and the Troop is he doesn’t whine, bully, or hurdle adolescent taunts when someone is of a different opinion. A level of maturity I hope you strive to reach one day. (unless, of course, he considers them seriously anti-American…. LOL)
Other than that, I’ve pretty much made my points here… over and over and over again for the reading challenged. At the end of it all, and without knowing jack sheeet about the organization, DrJohn has decided to usurp the feds authorization and name the Free Gaza Movement as a terrorist group, and has appointed Rauf the leader. No doubt he also thinks they called Rauf personally to ask how to get the Turkish ship thru in that particular flotilla too.
You, Mike, think that property rights are doled out based on the criteria of right and wrong (not sure *who’s* concept of right or wrong, but knowing you and your Obama’esque ego, it’s likely your call…). Then we can’t forget that you believe that Rauf wants to overthrow the US government and put a Shariah government in it’s stead. Oh yes… let’s not forget that you’re surprisingly incensed to hear that a Muslim may believe that US policies contributed to 911. Wow… what a novel thought… never heard that argument before. /sarc
Oh yes, you may want to keep reprinting those paragraphs until you comprehend them, Mike.
My heavens.. do you even listen to yourselves? No matter what data, links and info are put forth, you two want to desperately cling to your conspiracy exaggerations and hyperbolic fantasies, all of which are driven by sheer emotion. I get more cogency out of a menopausal woman in the middle of hot flashes and out of progesterone. Hang, even my 7 year old granddaughter has a better learning curve and analytical mind.
So have at it. I’m with Troop… I’m done with this pissing match. My educational input here is done.
@Wordsmith #129
As long as
1. We understand the terrorists’ point of view and
2. The President apologizes to all Muslims around the world and
3. Here comes the next flotilla and
4. America adopts Shar’ia side by side with its laws.
Then it’s all good.
YOU can fool some peoples sometimes but you cannot fool all people all of the times: SPEECH to defend the project, is not rallying the support,
“not with Old Trooper. And most importantly, just because OT has his opinion, it doesn’t mean I have to be of the same opinion. The difference between you and the Troop is he doesn’t whine, bully, or hurdle adolescent taunts when someone is of a different opinion.
A level of maturity I hope you strive to reach one day.
(unless, of course, he considers them seriously anti-American…. LOL) Other than that, I’ve pretty much made my points here… over and over and over again for the reading challenged. At the end of it all, and without knowing jack sheeet about the organization, DrJohn has decided to usurp the feds authorization and name the Free Gaza Movement as a terrorist group, and has appointed Rauf the leader. No doubt he also thinks they called Rauf personally to ask how to get the Turkish ship thru in that particular flotilla too. You, Mike, think that property rights are doled out based on the criteria of right and wrong (not sure *who’s* concept of right or wrong, but knowing you and your Obama’esque ego, it’s likely your call…). Then we can’t forget that you believe that Rauf wants to overthrow the US government and put a Shariah government in it’s stead. Oh yes… let’s not forget that you’re surprisingly incensed to hear that a Muslim may believe that US policies contributed to 911. Wow… what a novel thought… never heard that argument before. /sarc My heavens.. do you even listen to yourselves? No matter what data, links and info are put forth, you two want to desperately cling to your conspiracy exaggerations and hyperbolic fantasies, all of which are driven by sheer emotion.
I get more cogency out of a menopausal woman in the middle of hot flashes and out of progestrone.
Hang, even my 7 year old granddaughter has a better learning curve and analytical mind.
So have at it. I’m with Troop… I’m done with this pissing match. My educational input here is done.”
Hmm. Sounds a lot like bullying and whining and taunts.
A slightly smaller dose of self-righteousness might be a good thing too.
As I said, the mosque can and should have been built elsewhere. It is being planned as it is to be a stick in the eye of NYC residents, and in the eye of Americans. It is a lose-lose for us.
You have admitted that, and still you insult us for saying it.
@DrJohn:
Dr. John, is partisanship making you reading comprehension-challenged? None of you have proven Rauf to be a wahhabi-entrenched Islamist fundamentalist or even worse, an Islamic jihadist or supporter of Islamic terrorism. When you can provide evidence (not simply other opinionists stretching the linkage) of direct ties of financial support, then you might be on to something substantive.
As far as his viewpoints #1 and #2, to spell it out for you once again, it’s no different than the one shared by multiculturalists, pacifists, and liberal progressives. It does not make him an Islamic boogeyman.
As far as 4, Mata lays out perfectly where the issue lies. He’s a religious leader, not much different than Robertson and Falwell in desiring a more spiritual country. I no more want them unionizing church and state any more than Rauf on mosque and state. What makes you so sure his idea on sharia is even the same thing as that of the salafis and Taliban breed of Islamists? Do you see his wife walking around covered head to toe in a burqa (again, since Mike brought it up, how many regions in Muslim countries actually force that on women to wear?).
Basically, Rauf says things we may like, but you no-sell them. Oh, must be practicing taqqiya (a shi’a tradition, and I’d say rather distorted by Spencerian conservatives who think it applies to any and every situation and practiced by everyone of Islamic faith; a friend of mine in Indonesia, incidentally, who is a practicing Muslim had never even heard the term when I asked him about it- [sarcasm]or he’s lying to me since he’s Muslim [/sarcasm
]). And when he says something that you can hate politically (views aligned with those on the left), you seize upon that as anti-Americanism and religious jihadism? What a stretch! Maybe you should be a contortionist, while you’re at this. You already have the distortionist angle covered. 
I’d say this is a reasonable and balanced opinion.
@DrJohn:
Dr. John, you would have to go back to the beginning of this and look at how the “bullying and taunts” began. Mata’s been very restrained in her barbs, since we’re arguing with friends and allies, here; but if she’s losing patience and throwing in a few insults here and there (as I have), well there is this thing called “blowback”. Check back to how the flow of conversation began and who deteriorated the dialogue. This did not have to be a “pissing contest”; nor does it still.
As far as “stick in the eye ot NYC residents”, that’s for them to decide. And “in the eye of Americans”? Only if you think we are at war with Islam itself as having attacked us on 9/11. Do you really want to give the world, especially the Muslim world, that impression? Do you really want to hand that victory over to bin Laden and Zawahiri?
Yeah, it’s a lose-lose situation. But for the reasons I stated earlier.
You say this as though it’s a good thing. Yikes. They’re all screwed up.
We’re on the same side of that issue.
Please find for me Rauf’s sharia law. Everything else I can find is not very flexible. Here’s another view from a fellow contortionist:
@Wordsmith: Oh, that’s right… Neither Wordsmith or Mata started the insults and bullying!
You two are starting to remind me of Obama.
Next, you’re going to tell me this mosque fracas is BUSH’S FAULT!
I’ve heard every excuse, every tortured explanation you can muster to support your claim and yet none of it alters my basic conclusion that this is the WRONG PLACE TO BUILD A MOSQUE!!!
And as for “handing a victory over to bin Laden” how do you think he and his cohorts will view the opening of a mosque at Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of attacks?
I haven’t heard one compelling argument coming from either you or Mata (and yes, IF you made one, I would listen). Don’t you think it’s time to cut your losses and move on?
Time to put your stubbornness aside and get back to job #1 which ISN’T defending the indefensible.
@Mike’s America:
You’re entitled to your opinion. Quite hyperventilating. Neither of us has to sound exasperated. I understand you think it’s the wrong place to build it. I leaned the same direction until I began seeing the potential damage all this shrill opposition may have. Comments like the one Mark Williams made (and as a leader of the Tea Party movement, fer crissakes!) is harmful to us, both as Americans and as political conservatives.
I don’t think the decision for the “mosque” (is it even going to be an actual mosque?) was smart, only because this kind of opposition was predictable. Just begging for trouble and controversy, so long as so many people have it in their heads that Islam was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. American Muslims who stand opposed do so because it once again puts their faith on display in a negative light, and they stand an increased chance of being persecuted by the racists in the country and religious bigots who can’t distinguish them from the Islamists.
Now go read comment #129 and entertain the idea that Rauf may have been this naive to the backlash, on account of his desire to put Islam in a good light. If Islam was “hijacked” by the terrorists, he’s trying to take it back….but y’all won’t let him. At least not in this way (some sentiments of which I share and understand).
It’s really the Gellers, the Mark Williams, and the arguments put forth here that have pushed me over into distancing myself from the amen chorus of conservative indignation and outrage. You’ve made yourselves easy targets for the accusation of religious intolerance and bigotry; which is not to say that there aren’t legitimate questions to be asked and non-bigoted opposition involved.
Do you not understand when you ask this, that we have already been through this over and over, already?! How many more times do I need to spell out my point of view until you at least “get it”, Mike?! I don’t expect agreement, but is clarity of position too much to ask for so we don’t keep walking in circles here? I’ve heard you, loud and clear, but have you even bothered to read my comments for what they are and not what you wish to hear them, to be? Talk to me as you would a friend and not as you do one of your liberal punching dummies. Try and understand my reasons for why I take the stand that I do, even if you disagree with it.
Greatness in your own mind, Mike? Obviously, that mind has no room to accept “compelling arguments” from either Mata or myself.
Not an insult, Mike. An observation.
@drjohn #`37:
Um…yeah. But do you understand the point? Should we create laws that are prejudicially opposed to liberals based upon their political beliefs? Wait! Don’t answer that…..
Neither Mata nor I agree with his likely Zinnish views on American foreign policy anymore than we agree with them when they’re espoused by liberal mouth-breathers. But holding such political views that are not aligned with consevative views on matters of foreign policy is not evidence that he is a radical, Islamic fundamentalist supporter of Islamic jihadism.
@drjohn #137:
Naw, Jasser’s more like a skilled acrobat. Let’s look at more from what he wrote, beginnging with him blockquoting Rauf:
Excellent! Basically, neither Jasser nor myself think religious law has any business here. Rauf, like Robertson or Falwell and other spiritual leaders can’t see the harm in mixing government and religion. But to the side argument of Rauf’s ideas on Sharia- are they the same ones held by salafis, wahhabis, the Taliban, and other “radical” fundamentalists? Or is his version more of the “new agey” “Islam is a religion of peace” ilk? I don’t know. Is it relevant to the argument against the “mosque” at Ground Zero what kind of Sharia he believes in?
I ask again the question that’s gone unanswered: If there weren’t these questions as to his status as a “moderate” Muslim with questions of ties to terror financing- if it were Jasser himself- a proven “moderate” who happens to also be aligned with pro-war-on-Islamic-terror conservative Republicans- wishing to build this Muslim community center at Ground Zero, would there still be this opposition? If so, then these arguments trying to dig dirt up on Rauf with wishful wanting of his “radicalism”….isn’t it all just smoke cover? Isn’t it really about being against Islam itself?
I think it’s gone both ways, but it’s your blog, not mine. I’m only an interloper.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/06/new.york.ground.zero.mosque/index.html
What kind of impression was there already when we were attacked on 9-11, WTC 1, or Khobar or the embassies or the Cole?
Islam must separate religion from government.
I don’t think he ever would. And that’s the difference.
@drjohn:
Yeah, not all of which are NYers. Nor do picketers represent and speak on behalf of all NYers/Americans; not unless you think all those hippies protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent the majority of mainstream Americans.
bin Laden and Zawahiri already believe American imperialism and American decadence and modernity are to blame for the state of affairs in the Muslim world. They failed to convince the vast majority of their religious brethren on this. Their failures in Iraq and the murderous killing spree of Muslims there by Zarqawi only marginalized and exposed them even further as Islamic apostates by more mainstream Muslims.
So how does crapping on Islam itself help us and not al Qaeda?
@drjohn:
That’s side-stepping the question. Of course Jasser wouldn’t. He’s not an imam Islamic scholar. And he fervently believes in the separation of mosque and state while considering himself a devout Muslim. But even if someone like Jasser did want a Muslim community center built there for reasons stated by Rauf in the article I posted, would there still be fervent opposition? Against him because of who he is, or because of his faith, for what people think it is (different from the one believed in by al Qaeda)?
Why not ask “What if Reagan became a Communist?”
I think a reasonable person inquires into motives, especially with hot button issues. Someone like Jasser would be more likely to be more successful than Rauf because of his quasi-First Amendment philosophy.
But he just wouldn’t pick that spot, and that would make him far more successful. Rauf is picking the spot so it becomes an issue. He could have picked somewhere else for a “community center” but it would not have attracted the attention this did.
@Wordsmith said: “Obviously, that mind has no room to accept “compelling arguments” from either Mata or myself.”
Well, once again YOU ARE WRONG!!!
But let’s put that to the test. When you make a compelling argument I’ll let you know if I agree with it. You might have noticed that I have in the past MANY TIMES.
I’m going to let you have the last word on this since I think we have ALL wasted ENOUGH time. So, you go ahead and get in whatever final dig you need to boost your ego. My ego is already inflated to full pressure.
IMAM and others, have to realise that they are a minority, in AMERICA , like it or not. and his RIGHTS are promised by a CHRISTIAN MAJORITY, which are not a senmblance but a real power from the real CONSTITUTION.
MIKE’S AMERICA: don’t be a quiter, just when we have WORDSMITH in our pocket. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Not quitting. I just don’t want Wordsmith, or Mata, in my pocket.
Besides, I think we have won the argument. Don’t you?
MIKE’S AMERICA: THEY QUIT also, so like MATA would say; Does that men, they won?. bye y’all. i love this blog.
@ilovebeeswarzone: We love you too Bees. And I am sure I speak for Mata and Word.
Though, not so keen on the use of the contraction “y’all.”
Wordsmith’s bad habits must be catching!
MIKE’S AMERICA: i love the expression “Y’ALL” i find nothing wrong with it. but WHAT mrgreen does mean? bye
CURT: how come”DOCUMENT COMPARISON” gave a comment, but does not appear here, only in my home place where i receive the comments. bye just curious to know, he said [very interesting post]
CURT: to be precise he said[very very interesting article.
Bees, it was a spam site origination. We get those that just put things like “great blog” or “I really like your website layout” or “very interesting” or “you gave us much to think about”. Just robots trolling and spamming. It was sent to the spam filter, where it belongs.
MATA: thank’s, first time i experience that one. bye