Mosque going up in NYC building

[nicky10013]

Because if it was there before, it wouldn't be being built on property available only because of 9-11. If it was there before, there wouldn't be a mosque on that property only because of 9-11. If it was there before, there wouldn't be any ties to 9-11. If it was there before, Imam Rauf wouldn't be singling it out for "building bridges" because of it's ties to 9-11. How many times does that have to be pointed out to you?

This mosque isn't tied to 9/11 even now.

[Guest American Woman]

This mosque isn't tied to 9/11 even now.

That's funny, considering Imam Rauf's statement concerning the project. Perhaps you best inform him of your superior knowledge ............

[Smallc]

Because if it was there before, it wouldn't be being built on property available only because of 9-11. If it was there before, there wouldn't be a mosque on that property only because of 9-11.

I like how you still try to say that you don't blame all Muslims for 9/11, and then you proceed to say that they shouldn't build on the spot, because it's only available because of 9/11. If you don't blame all Muslims, then why should it matter?

If it was there before, there wouldn't be any ties to 9-11.

But you said that there are none for these Muslims. No wait, you said that there are. No wait, you said that there aren't.....

If it was there before, Imam Rauf wouldn't be singling it out for "building bridges" because of it's ties to 9-11.

I like this. It should that you doubt his sincerity. It's funny, because you haven't been sincere on this subject since starting this thread.

How many times does that have to be pointed out to you?

That depends, I would expect. When is it going to start making since? You've had 155 pages to figure out that your position is logically unsustainable. I don't expect another 155 will make a difference. I guess you'll just have to keep trying, since you won't actually consider the absurdity of your own argument.

[Smallc]

That's funny, considering Imam Rauf's statement concerning the project.

Ah so you think that there are ties between these Muslims and 9/11.

[nicky10013]

That's funny, considering Imam Rauf's statement concerning the project. Perhaps you best inform him of your superior knowledge ............

I should rephrase. It isn't tied to 9/11 the way you're trying to tie it to 9/11. The people who want to pray there had nothing to do with 9/11. The imam had nothing to do with 9/11. It simply can't be a monument to anything unless the people who are actuall involved in building the thing hate the US. We all know that's not the case.

So, where's the problem?

[kimmy]

Ah so you think that there are ties between these Muslims and 9/11.

What she's referring to is that Imam Rauf himself has stated that the site's link to 9/11 is an important statement.

-k

[Shady]

I see, so Muslims can only pray in places that don't offend our sensibilities. They have to be modest. Out of sight, out of mind after all.

No, not at all. But Ground Zero represents a special place, and therefore a special situation. However, like I've already said. Why can't we all just agree to disagree? There's nothing wrong with that.

[nicky10013]

What she's referring to is that Imam Rauf himself has stated that the site's link to 9/11 is an important statement.

-k

How does that make this mosque a monument to extremism as you've claimed? I suspect it's more fear mongering, just as you won't admit that the Imam is a Liberal despite his own statements.

[Guest American Woman]

I should rephrase. It isn't tied to 9/11 the way you're trying to tie it to 9/11. The people who want to pray there had nothing to do with 9/11. The imam had nothing to do with 9/11. It simply can't be a monument to anything unless the people who are actuall involved in building the thing hate the US. We all know that's not the case.

So, where's the problem?

It's tied to 9-11 exactly the way I said it's tied to 9-11. I'm not "trying" to do anything; I've clearly stated the way it is, and Imam Rauf has tied it to 9-11 EXACTLY the way I am. You can deny that all you want, you can try to twist the facts all you want, but that doesn't change the reality.

[nicky10013]

It's tied to 9-11 exactly the way I said it's tied to 9-11. I'm not "trying" to do anything; I've clearly stated the way it is, and Imam Rauf has tied it to 9-11 EXACTLY the way I am. You can deny that all you want, you can try to twist the facts all you want, but that doesn't change the reality.

I'm not twisting anything. You, on the other hand, have been changing your story every other page.

[capricorn]

But Ground Zero represents a special place, and therefore a special situation.

Absolutely. The fact that the remains of so many of the dead were never found adds to the notion that the area around GZ is a very special place and it should be recognized as such.

[Smallc]

What she's referring to is that Imam Rauf himself has stated that the site's link to 9/11 is an important statement.

That's not really what she's trying to say at all. She's trying to link this leader and this centre to 9/11 and extremism i any way she can. She's trying to cast doubt on the intentions of those involved in the project. I don't expect you to see it, because you've been doing the same thing.

[Smallc]

Absolutely. The fact that the remains of so many of the dead were never found adds to the notion that the area around GZ is a very special place and it should be recognized as such.

How far around ground zero? How far away should Muslims have to stay? Or can they go there, but just not pray near there? If they open a prayer house near the site of 9/11, what have they don't wrong?

Edited September 11, 2010 by Smallc

[kimmy]

How does that make this mosque a monument to extremism as you've claimed? I suspect it's more fear mongering, just as you won't admit that the Imam is a Liberal despite his own statements.

I didn't say it's a monument to extremism, just that it's a monument.

While it's builders no doubt believe they're building a grand symbol of Islamic outreach, others will interpret its symbolism differently. For a lot of third-world scumbags, it will assuredly be viewed as a symbol of Muslim triumph and a monument to extremism.

As for him being a Liberal, I don't even think he's a liberal.

-k

[waldo]

Yes, but that synagogue is being built for local Jews, not the Jews who caused the carnage. You can't blame all Jews for the actions of some who caused these crimes in the name of God. If you start punushing Jew X for the actions of Jew Y, then you're giving Jew Y ready fodder for his propaganda campaign, and you can guarantee he'll use this to legitimize further carnage...

... Oh, kind of parallel to the New York centre.

No, it's not "being built." It was already built. Decades ago. It's being renovated. There's no "parallel" at all to the mosque being built on property only available because of the destruction on 9-11.

you keep trotting that out... minimal damage to the roof... Burlington Coat Factory (BCF) was already in a phase of national restructuring... the area was/is repressed... BCF chose not to stay in that location (since you seem to know so much, state why BCF chose to close it's Park51 location)... location was sold.

but, EUREKA moment! American Woman... just view this proposed community centre as a renovation to the existing mosque. You seem to have no objections to renovations! There... thread closed! Move on now!

[CANADIEN]

Because if it was there before, it wouldn't be being built on property available only because of 9-11. If it was there before, there wouldn't be a mosque on that property only because of 9-11. If it was there before, there wouldn't be any ties to 9-11. If it was there before, Imam Rauf wouldn't be singling it out for "building bridges" because of it's ties to 9-11. How many times does that have to be pointed out to you?

I go away for a few days to do things FAR MORE interesting and usefulthan bing here, and when I get bored and come back, it's to the same... well.... absurdist argument.

(mandatory disclaimer, that will of course be ignored: the term "some people" as used below does not refer to the opponents to the Cordoba Project as a whole, not even to a majority of them, and not to AW)

Never mind the weak argument that "that piece of propoerty woukd not have been available if not damaged by 9-11" - there is a number of other ways the property could have become available, so that argument is not even remotely logical. As for more often it needs to be repeated... it will not be a valid argument even if repeated over 10000 pages.

If there had been a msque on that precise site on the morning of September 11, tehre some people would still object to it being there, some people would still cry foul at any attempt to use that mosque as a statement for peace, some people would still use legitimate concerns andd and opposition to further their intolerant agenda. Period.

Edited September 11, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Smallc]

I didn't say it's a monument to extremism, just that it's a monument.

So? Are all monuments bad now? Should we tear down the one on Vimy Ridge, because some people might consider it to be a glorification of armed combat?

While it's builders no doubt believe they're building a grand symbol of Islamic outreach, others will interpret its symbolism differently.

Ummm....so?

For a lot of third-world scumbags, it will assuredly be viewed as a symbol of Muslim triumph and a monument to extremism.

And again, so?

[kimmy]

That's not really what she's trying to say at all. She's trying to link this leader and this centre to 9/11 and extremism i any way she can. She's trying to cast doubt on the intentions of those involved in the project. I don't expect you to see it, because you've been doing the same thing.

She can speak for herself, but no, that's not what she's saying at all.

As for myself, I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of Rauf's intentions. I don't believe he's linked to extremism, but I do believe he's just trying to exploit 9/11 to spread his message, and to spread Islam in general.

-k

[waldo]

Absolutely. The fact that the remains of so many of the dead were never found adds to the notion that the area around GZ is a very special place and it should be recognized as such.

ya, ya... two blocks and around the corner away! Did anyone actually check the roof of the current mosque??? Hey now - perhaps there are remains there... two blocks and around the corner away!

so set up the boundaries. Many in this thread have continued to ask, "how far away, is far enough"? 3 blocks... 5 blocks... 20 blocks? What are the boundaries?

[nicky10013]

So? Are all monuments bad now? Should we tear down the one on Vimy Ridge, because some people might consider it to be a glorification of armed combat?

Ummm....so?

And again, so?

I was going to respond but you've done a good enough job here. Wow these arguments make no sense.

[CANADIEN]

So? Are all monuments bad now? Should we tear down the one on Vimy Ridge, because some people might consider it to be a glorification of armed combat?

Ummm....so?

And again, so?

The "some third world scumbags will see it as a symbol of a Muslim victory" argument is as relevant as "not building the Centre there will bolster Al-Quaeda's claim that the West as a whole is Islamophobic". That is, not bery relevant at all.

[nicky10013]

and to spread Islam in general.

-k

And there it is.

[Smallc]

She can speak for herself, but no, that's not what she's saying at all.

I've been reading her posts for 156 pages now. It's what she's trying to do.

As for myself, I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of Rauf's intentions. I don't believe he's linked to extremism, but I do believe he's just trying to exploit 9/11 to spread his message, and to spread Islam in general.

Yes, and there's a certain degree (OK, a large degree) of paranoia in that.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

As for him being a Liberal, I don't even think he's a liberal.

-k

I asked this question before and I'll ask it again. If he believes in peace and pluralism, how does that not make him a liberal?

[waldo]

She can speak for herself, but no, that's not what she's saying at all.

As for myself, I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical of Rauf's intentions. I don't believe he's linked to extremism, but I do believe he's just trying to exploit 9/11 to spread his message, and to spread Islam in general.

-k

so the U.S. State Department is an enabler for your believed exploitation - hey?

State Department sponsors Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's visit to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates

Let’s get something straight. Probably most Muslims are not radical extremists and are probably as harmless as the average Christian. There is tolerance for all religions in America.

Some people, radical extremists, exploit their religious belief to justify terrorism and attacks on the USA. They may be a small percentage, but it is of a very large population and therefore is a viable threat and concern.

Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf is working to demonstrate that Muslims in America are an integrated part of society, as they should be. Only when religions of any kind undermine the higher order rights of American citizens do we get crosswired.

The State Department’s sponsorship of the Iman as an ambassador of sort is perfectly acceptable and desirable at this point.

“U.S. State Department sending imam of proposed New York mosque to Middle East

By Matthew Lee

Thursday, August 12, 2010

The imam behind controversial plans for a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks is being sent by the State Department on a religious outreach trip to the Middle East, officials said Tuesday, in a move that drew criticism from conservative lawmakers.

The department is sponsoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's visit to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where he will discuss Muslim life in America and promote religious tolerance, spokesman P.J. Crowley said. He said that the imam had been on two similar trips and that plans for the upcoming tour predated the mosque controversy.

"We have a long-term relationship with him," Crowley told reporters, noting that Rauf had visited Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in 2007 and went to Egypt this January as part of an exchange program run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs.

"His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States," Crowley said.”