What the Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero Means to Worldwide Islam

[IWS]

I love how the moronic truthers are the people who go around saying nothing but how Bush and his administration are so stupid, the least intelligent administration of all time, but in the same breath expect people to believe that they pulled off the most elaborate ruse in the history of mankind.

Can you say, whack-jobs.

Can you say, lying through my arse?

Bush looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights. Even managed to say he saw the first plane hit, not knowing that footage of that incident was not on the air.

Rickie Cheney did the hard yards. Wouldn't be surprised if he kept the prez in the dark.

 

[Angelica]

You got to love The Daily Show!

"If Fox News wants to play a game of guilt by association with Imam Rauf, Jon can find Rupert Murdoch's questionable ties to terrorism"

Enjoy!

www.thedailyshow.com

 

[IWS]

You got to love The Daily Show!

"If Fox News wants to play a game of guilt by association with Imam Rauf, Jon can find Rupert Murdoch's questionable ties to terrorism"

Enjoy!

www.thedailyshow.com

I like the Daily Show but this was a bit off point for comedy and a bit dishonest. I don't know of anyone who is making the argument that they don't have a First Amendment Right to build the mosque there, and that's what Stewart was trying to say in his comparison.

The comparison is more like that of the Westboro Baptist Church or Code Pink. They have the First Amendment Right to go to funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and spew their opinion on why God wanted them to die or Code Pink telling the mother of a fallen soldier that it was a good thing her son died, but just because you have the Right to do something doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.

 

[atlantic]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

 

[eddo]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

and Radical Islam would LOVE that to happen- not much would inspire more to join their ranks than to have the Evil US start something like that.

Don't think for a minute that thought hasn't crossed someone's mind....

 

[atlantic]

I know Eddo, that is my biggest fear here. To build something for provocation purposes

 

[Phreakwars]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

By a Republican/Tea Bagger. And they won't consider it a terrorist act :whistling:.

.

 

[Times]

The 1st:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofor abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It would be ubconstitutional to prevent a mosque from going up on the false pretense that the old building was of historical value. The constitution even protects scum.

I don't think so, we limit freedom of speach as I pointed out before because yelling bomb in an airplane because of it's severe and out of the normal negative potential. The right to own land is set aside for "the greater good" and the Government can take your land away and give it to someone else to build a Casino.

How do you think people would react if we wanted to build monuments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Engola Gay and President Truman?

 

[snafu]

You got to love The Daily Show!

"If Fox News wants to play a game of guilt by association with Imam Rauf, Jon can find Rupert Murdoch's questionable ties to terrorism"

Enjoy!

www.thedailyshow.com

I like the Daily Show but this was a bit off point for comedy and a bit dishonest. I don't know of anyone who is making the argument that they don't have a First Amendment Right to build the mosque there, and that's what Stewart was trying to say in his comparison.

The comparison is more like that of the Westboro Baptist Church or Code Pink. They have the First Amendment Right to go to funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and spew their opinion on why God wanted them to die or Code Pink telling the mother of a fallen soldier that it was a good thing her son died, but just because you have the Right to do something doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.

That is point on IWS!

It has nothing to do with bigotry but the fact that this is hollowed ground.

 

[snafu]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

By a Republican/Tea Bagger. And they won't consider it a terrorist act :whistling:.

.

Considering 64% of America disaproves of this being built it could be some liberal lune.

:blink:

 

[IWS]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

I disagree.

If it were to be built there may be some who protest, as their First Amendment Rights allow, but as far as a rash incident happening, I doubt it would happen.

We hear every time there is an Islamoterrorist incident how we shouldn't overreact and lash out at the Muslim community, we heard it after WTC bombing #1, USS Cole, US Embassy bombings, 9/11, Fort Hood, Christmas Eve bomber, Times Square bomber, and we shouldn't overreact. The problem is, history shows that it doesn't happen. Americans haven't lashed out at Muslims over these things and I find it unlikely to happen over building a Cultural center/Mosque at the cite of the 9/11 attacks, if it didn't happen as a result of terrorist acts.

 

[IWS]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

By a Republican/Tea Bagger. And they won't consider it a terrorist act :whistling:.

.

You must mean like the first World Trade Center bombing.

 

[atlantic]

This whole thing is bullshit. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. To build this in this spot is WRONG. If it is built there will be problems.

 

[RaE]

August 09, 2010

Muslims Speak Out Against the Ground Zero Mosque

Eileen F. Toplansky

In the Ottawa Citizen published on August 7, 2010, two Canadian Muslims write that "Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation." Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, both authors in their own right, sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

They ponder the "reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicenter of the worst-ever attack on the U.S." and wonder "why its proponents don't built a monument to those who died in the attack." Furthermore, it is not as if there are no Islamic centers of worship in New York City. The Islamic Society-Mid Manhattan is located on 55th Street. On the google map page there is an additional listing of nearby places of Islamic interest. Then there is the Islamic Cultural Center of New York on Third Avenue which caters to the Upper East Side and then there is the Assata Islamic Center at 172 Allen Street in lower Manhattan.

Raza and Fatah go on to say that "we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran."

From their Islamic perspective, these two authors state that "the Koran commands Muslims to "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" ~ i.e., Jews and Christians. Yet, Raza and Fatah state that to build a mosque at "the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive."

Like many others, Raza and Fatah want to know where the funding is coming from. They state that if "Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not."

In fact, both writers "passed on this message to [Rauf] through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer." Furthermore, they write that [Rauf] "could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to."

They consider it a "repugnant thought that $100 million" would be spent [in building this New York City mosque] instead of sending it to "dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan." "As Muslims," Raza and Fatah, "are dismayed that [their] co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth [sic] the pain."

While Raza and Fatah "understand [bloomberg's] and other liberals goodwill, they maintain that the "stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and [liberals] will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within."

One should ponder the last statement carefully. If Americans do not educate themselves about the horrors of sharia law, and begin to consider the dangers of a dual legal system in this country, then, in fact, we will face the genuine tyranny of Islamofasciam that is currently enveloping the world. Sharia law was thwarted in Canada because of the very concerns that Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah discuss but it is critically undermining Great Britain.

Hugo, do you have a link to this story?

 

[hugo]

August 09, 2010

Muslims Speak Out Against the Ground Zero Mosque

Eileen F. Toplansky

In the Ottawa Citizen published on August 7, 2010, two Canadian Muslims write that "Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation." Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, both authors in their own right, sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

They ponder the "reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicenter of the worst-ever attack on the U.S." and wonder "why its proponents don't built a monument to those who died in the attack." Furthermore, it is not as if there are no Islamic centers of worship in New York City. The Islamic Society-Mid Manhattan is located on 55th Street. On the google map page there is an additional listing of nearby places of Islamic interest. Then there is the Islamic Cultural Center of New York on Third Avenue which caters to the Upper East Side and then there is the Assata Islamic Center at 172 Allen Street in lower Manhattan.

Raza and Fatah go on to say that "we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran."

From their Islamic perspective, these two authors state that "the Koran commands Muslims to "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" ~ i.e., Jews and Christians. Yet, Raza and Fatah state that to build a mosque at "the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive."

Like many others, Raza and Fatah want to know where the funding is coming from. They state that if "Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not."

In fact, both writers "passed on this message to [Rauf] through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer." Furthermore, they write that [Rauf] "could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to."

They consider it a "repugnant thought that $100 million" would be spent [in building this New York City mosque] instead of sending it to "dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan." "As Muslims," Raza and Fatah, "are dismayed that [their] co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth [sic] the pain."

While Raza and Fatah "understand [bloomberg's] and other liberals goodwill, they maintain that the "stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and [liberals] will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within."

One should ponder the last statement carefully. If Americans do not educate themselves about the horrors of sharia law, and begin to consider the dangers of a dual legal system in this country, then, in fact, we will face the genuine tyranny of Islamofasciam that is currently enveloping the world. Sharia law was thwarted in Canada because of the very concerns that Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah discuss but it is critically undermining Great Britain.

Hugo, do you have a link to this story?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/muslims_speak_out_against_the.html

 

[Phreakwars]

Another reason I like Ron Paul

.

.

 

[jokersarewild]

Ok, you people are horrible at research. They aren't putting the Mosque at Ground Zero. It's a few blocks away, and it's not a Mosque. It's a community center with an Islamic worship center inside of it. Sure, it's NEAR it. But who cares? Muslims aren't the cause of every problem in our country, and Muslims aren't the reason the towers were attacked. It was because TERRORISTS attacked us. Whatever flag they flew to rationalize it is unimportant, and those that believe that all Muslims are evil haven't actually sat down and thought about it in a logical way, instead letting their opinions run rampant.

On a similar note, I find it hilarious that people are arguing over the lies and filth that someone can post without doing any research on the topic at hand. Letting the media think for you and dictate your opinions just makes you look like you don't think. Sure, you can AGREE with media opinion, but you should do some research before you blindly fly in to the twin towers of Logic and Thought.

 

[jokersarewild]

The 1st:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofor abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It would be ubconstitutional to prevent a mosque from going up on the false pretense that the old building was of historical value. The constitution even protects scum.

I don't think so, we limit freedom of speach as I pointed out before because yelling bomb in an airplane because of it's severe and out of the normal negative potential. The right to own land is set aside for "the greater good" and the Government can take your land away and give it to someone else to build a Casino.

How do you think people would react if we wanted to build monuments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Engola Gay and President Truman?

Uh, what? So building a COMMUNITY CENTER THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY ON THE 'HALLOWED GROUND' OF THE WTC is the same as our limiting "free speech" so that it doesn't endanger lives? Oh, bet you didn't actually know that, did you? That it's A COMMUNITY CENTER? Thought I'd relay that to you.

But seriously, how do the two actually correlate? Your 'limiting of free speech' stops people from possibly dying. We have such things in place for a reason. Mind you, that's not necessarily 'free speech', as much as it is 'attempted murder'.

Building a community center a few blocks away from somewhere that was destroyed by people claiming to be part of some religion? Not a hate crime, not murder (or any offshoot thereof), and NOT illegal. For instance, if I wanted to build a Christian Church 3 blocks away from the site of the OK City Bombing, would anybody object? If a vegetarian killed some meat eaters down the street, would anybody care if I grew a garden in my front yard? No, because we as rational human beings DO HAVE THE ABILITY to determine that what one person does has no bearing on the thoughts of another.

There will always be people who are insane, and take things too far. What banner they do this under is inconsequential. We, as RATIONAL people have to see that a few mentally unstable human beings aren't necessarily representative of a whole group.

An interesting look at the debate...

 

[IWS]

The 1st:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofor abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It would be ubconstitutional to prevent a mosque from going up on the false pretense that the old building was of historical value. The constitution even protects scum.

I don't think so, we limit freedom of speach as I pointed out before because yelling bomb in an airplane because of it's severe and out of the normal negative potential. The right to own land is set aside for "the greater good" and the Government can take your land away and give it to someone else to build a Casino.

How do you think people would react if we wanted to build monuments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Engola Gay and President Truman?

Uh, what? So building a COMMUNITY CENTER THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY ON THE 'HALLOWED GROUND' OF THE WTC is the same as our limiting "free speech" so that it doesn't endanger lives? Oh, bet you didn't actually know that, did you? That it's A COMMUNITY CENTER? Thought I'd relay that to you.

But seriously, how do the two actually correlate? Your 'limiting of free speech' stops people from possibly dying. We have such things in place for a reason. Mind you, that's not necessarily 'free speech', as much as it is 'attempted murder'.

Building a community center a few blocks away from somewhere that was destroyed by people claiming to be part of some religion? Not a hate crime, not murder (or any offshoot thereof), and NOT illegal. For instance, if I wanted to build a Christian Church 3 blocks away from the site of the OK City Bombing, would anybody object? If a vegetarian killed some meat eaters down the street, would anybody care if I grew a garden in my front yard? No, because we as rational human beings DO HAVE THE ABILITY to determine that what one person does has no bearing on the thoughts of another.

There will always be people who are insane, and take things too far. What banner they do this under is inconsequential. We, as RATIONAL people have to see that a few mentally unstable human beings aren't necessarily representative of a whole group.

An interesting look at the debate...

If it isn't a mosque then how is it protected under the First Amendment?

Again. You need to do some research. Nobody is saying they can't build the mosque there or they don't have the "R"ight to build the mosque there. The debate is over it being the "r"ight thing to do.

 

[IWS]