Clear thinking Muslims on the Mosque

Yes. You are wrong for asking. If it were any other religion you wouldn't care. The reason we exist as a nation is to escape people who care. Even if mainstream Muslims committed the crime, another unrelated group would still have a right to built where every they wanted, but the group that did it was a radical fringe in a religion as large and varied as Christianity. Grouping the builders with the 911 hijackers is a painful over simplification of the worst kind. Furthermore the site isn't right on top of ground zero. The entire debate is predicated on typical Palinian misconstruing of the facts.



These are established facts.

1. They're not the same religion as the 911 murderers.

2. It's not really at ground zero.




The debate is over, though in fairness it never should have began.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Yes. You are wrong for asking. If it were any other religion you wouldn't care. The reason we exist as a nation is to escape people who care. Even if mainstream Muslims committed the crime, another unrelated group would still have a right to built where every they wanted, but the group that did it was a radical fringe in a religion as large and varied as Christianity. Grouping the builders with the 911 hijackers is a painful over simplification of the worst kind. Furthermore the site isn't right on top of ground zero. The entire debate is predicated on typical Palinian misconstruing of the facts.



These are established facts.

1. They're not the same religion as the 911 murderers.

2. It's not really at ground zero.




The debate is over, though in fairness it never should have began.

Ignorance is bliss, my friend. If there were rumors that it was a Jewish Temple being built with funds possibly coming from terrorist ties, I would be asking the same questions. It's not real difficult to disclose these details... I do it every day.

And I think I've shared my thoughts on the ground zero part. I get the locals issue, but could persoanlly care less.

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Thomasdrrn09 wrote:

What is wrong with Imam Rauf. He has repetedly called the 9/11 attacks unislamic and he has written books. The center will have a whole giant section that is a mermorial to those who died on 9/11. I have yet to hear a good argument for why this builiding can't go up.

And I could write a book saying that I'm a 7' hermaphrodite looking to secure special rights for the latest minority group getting the shaft in America... But does that make it true or mean anything in the grand scheme? Everyone who writes a book now is completely honest and agenda free?

It's pretty simple... If you wanted to get a "cultural center" built and the people that live in the area you want to build in are asking some pretty basic questions... Wouldn't you answer those quickly so you can end any and all controversy? All I (And many others) want him to do is answer some questions that he seems hell bent on ignoring during this debate.

The first is to answer where the funds are coming from since there are rumors that they are coming from areas that have terrorist ties. I build commercial and residential projects for a living, and funding details have to be disclosed publicly with every project. The local newspaper lists out my plans, permits, timelines, environmental detailing and financials which include project cost and sourcing... Why should he be any different?

The second is to answer or explain his comments about the attacks themselves and his views of America... Quote, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." ... "We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA" ... "We tend to forget in the West that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims". You see, I would like expansion on these thoughts to see exactly where he is coming from... Don't you?

And I could care less about his defense or lack of opinion on Hamas as a terrorist group. Most Americans are completely uneducated on Hamas and only trust what they are being told by whatever media source they listen to. I tend to agree that they are extremist as a whole, but stop short of calling them terrorists. But again, his views here mean little to me on the issue of his heading up this mosque.

I think anyone who doesn't want answers prior to continuation is ignorant. It shocks me that there are people out there that don't have a red flag feature built in their brain. For me, answer a few questions, and if you pass the litmus test then build away. You can even build it right there if you want to continue to step on the feelings of the locals that still have issues. I live 3,000 miles away, so my views are limited to what Rauf is really about. But I do understand why it's sensitive to locals...

the answers to all your questions are in his book. u should read it.(im just making this up, but I'd guess that he has answered these questions somewhere(though are we to believe his explanations?)).

Those quotes were ultra un-politically correct(and I bet you rail against political correctness on many an occasion), however were they out and out wrong?

Also, is there proof that the funds are from terrorists sources, or are we assuming that because the funds are from Saudi Arabia and the like?

Add a new twist... I know Wolf doesn't care who is involved or where the money is coming from. But some others might want to hear updates on the progression of the story. Not all of us believe it's easier to live with your head in the sand than it is to think responsibly about safety in America.

Sharif El-Gamal who was a waiter just a few years ago is now the CEO of SoHo Properties which is an all Muslim real estate company formed in 2003. Last year, Sharif El-Gamal purchased 45-47 Park Place in Lower Manhattan (The proposed site) for just under $5,000,000... CASH. Anyway, when El-Gamal was approached by a reporter yesterday and asked about the cash purchase of the building, he turned his back and walked away without saying a word. Why are people hiding from simple questions here?

El-Gamel made another pricey purchase four months later. It's an office building on 31 West 27th Street with a price tag of $45.7 million, where he again plopped down a $5,000,000 cash down payment. With credit tighter than ever and prices dropping like a rock, he paid $45.7 million for a 12-story, 108,000 sq. ft. commercial building in Chelsea that sold three years earlier during the boom for $31 million? El-Gamal had backing from a man named Hisham Elzanaty. Elzanaty is the guarantor on the $39 million loan El-Gamal's company secured to buy the building. A crew of reporters tracked down Elzanaty twice yesterday and simply asked how he knows El-Gamal. And twice he ducked into his car and drove off without saying a word?

It's a good thing that everything is so transparent... Again I ask, why doesn't anyone involved in this thing want to talk about where the money is coming from? I'm not given a choice and for some reason these guys are not only not being asked by people that should be asking, but they are ducking the media (The part that's not humping their legs) at every turn. It might be nothing... But I think it's irresponsible for us to not demand that they answer the questions.

captain organic wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Thomasdrrn09 wrote:

What is wrong with Imam Rauf. He has repetedly called the 9/11 attacks unislamic and he has written books. The center will have a whole giant section that is a mermorial to those who died on 9/11. I have yet to hear a good argument for why this builiding can't go up.

And I could write a book saying that I'm a 7' hermaphrodite looking to secure special rights for the latest minority group getting the shaft in America... But does that make it true or mean anything in the grand scheme? Everyone who writes a book now is completely honest and agenda free?

It's pretty simple... If you wanted to get a "cultural center" built and the people that live in the area you want to build in are asking some pretty basic questions... Wouldn't you answer those quickly so you can end any and all controversy? All I (And many others) want him to do is answer some questions that he seems hell bent on ignoring during this debate.

The first is to answer where the funds are coming from since there are rumors that they are coming from areas that have terrorist ties. I build commercial and residential projects for a living, and funding details have to be disclosed publicly with every project. The local newspaper lists out my plans, permits, timelines, environmental detailing and financials which include project cost and sourcing... Why should he be any different?

The second is to answer or explain his comments about the attacks themselves and his views of America... Quote, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." ... "We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA" ... "We tend to forget in the West that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims". You see, I would like expansion on these thoughts to see exactly where he is coming from... Don't you?

And I could care less about his defense or lack of opinion on Hamas as a terrorist group. Most Americans are completely uneducated on Hamas and only trust what they are being told by whatever media source they listen to. I tend to agree that they are extremist as a whole, but stop short of calling them terrorists. But again, his views here mean little to me on the issue of his heading up this mosque.

I think anyone who doesn't want answers prior to continuation is ignorant. It shocks me that there are people out there that don't have a red flag feature built in their brain. For me, answer a few questions, and if you pass the litmus test then build away. You can even build it right there if you want to continue to step on the feelings of the locals that still have issues. I live 3,000 miles away, so my views are limited to what Rauf is really about. But I do understand why it's sensitive to locals...

the answers to all your questions are in his book. u should read it.(im just making this up, but I'd guess that he has answered these questions somewhere(though are we to believe his explanations?)).

Those quotes were ultra un-politically correct(and I bet you rail against political correctness on many an occasion), however were they out and out wrong?

Also, is there proof that the funds are from terrorists sources, or are we assuming that because the funds are from Saudi Arabia and the like?

Whether the quotes are accurate or inaccurate in my opinion is irrelevant. I just want clarification or expansion on those thoughts to get a better understanding of where he's coming from is all. My bigger worry is the money. There are rumors of the ties to unsavory people in Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, etc. If not true, then talk about it. Explain where it's coming from. Show good faith to those asking by answering a simple question. If it's money that's raised legitimately or even gifts from individuals... It can't hurt to discuss it. Dodging the questions make them look like they have something to hide. And that makes me just a little uncomfortable.

"unsavory" ties? Bush, Obama, the Clinton's all have supposed "unsavory" ties at home. I'm sure the UFC's money could be eventually linked to some group that some think tank or Neo-con puppet has labeled a "terrorist group". I think the US tosses that label around more loosely than Tiger is with his DNA.

i love how the funder of the mosque is a big share holder in FOX News and has donated to the American Army Relief Funds and Soldier charities

Oh, to Fox news? Then he does support the Israeli terror campaign against the free people of PALESTINE.

he is the 2nd largest stock holder isnt that ironic

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
He doesn't think the US deserved it but thinks the us is partially accountable. A simple look at foreign affairs could go a long way to understanding why there are a lot of people who think the same. But isn't understanding the true enemy here?

"We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA"
True.

"We tend to forget in the West that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims"
True

Great article.

Quote :

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
He doesn't think the US deserved it but thinks the us is partially accountable. A simple look at foreign affairs could go a long way to understanding why there are a lot of people who think the same. But isn't understanding the true enemy here?

"We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA"
True.

"We tend to forget in the West that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims"
True

All this is true. I remember when Ron Paul said as much and was called unAmerican for it by Bible thumping scum.

What's all the fucking fuss about??? Tell em to build the damn mosque near a muslim neighborhood. What's so hard about that? You think things are controversial now? Wait until the Gambino family gets involved in this.

Torch and Pitch Fork #4, where did the evil money come from? Is it really hard to believe people tied to religion have money? Idiots all over this country bribe their gods every day. But Islam = terrorist so money coming from America or the Middle East is worse and has American blood on it. Right.

Islamic mujahid, look them up with Bin Laden, keep reading the timeline.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

"unsavory" ties? Bush, Obama, the Clinton's all have supposed "unsavory" ties at home. I'm sure the UFC's money could be eventually linked to some group that some think tank or Neo-con puppet has labeled a "terrorist group". I think the US tosses that label around more loosely than Tiger is with his DNA.

Sure Wolf... And if you use the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon theory, money I have used to build has ties to hush money from Tiger. Even you're smart enough to know the difference between this and direct funds? 100 mil for the project and 5 mil for the building and no one wants to answer the simple question of, "Where is the money coming from"?

That is a loaded question.

GDPofDRC wrote:

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
He doesn't think the US deserved it but thinks the us is partially accountable. A simple look at foreign affairs could go a long way to understanding why there are a lot of people who think the same. But isn't understanding the true enemy here?

"We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA"
True.

"We tend to forget in the West that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims"
True

On the first point, what's to understand GDP? I'm simply asking for clarification of the funds.

On the second point, explain exactly how we created Osama. A nutball not liking our ideas therefore directing others to kill thousands of Americans is our doing? So, Wolf dislikes Christians... he should then direct a group of atheists to blow up Basilica and we could all say it's the Catholic's fault for creating him?

On the third... Show me. If you can show me where we have spilled more Muslim blood than they have non-Muslim, I'll concede that point. Remember that statement was made shortly after the attacks of 9-11.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
He doesn't think the US deserved it but thinks the us is partially accountable. A simple look at foreign affairs could go a long way to understanding why there are a lot of people who think the same. But isn't understanding the true enemy here?

"We have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA"
True.

"We tend to forget in the West that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims"
True

All this is true. I remember when Ron Paul said as much and was called unAmerican for it by Bible thumping scum.

And non-Bible thumping sc... errr people. I have always thought Paul was a moron.

Quote :

On the second point, explain exactly how we created Osama. A nutball not liking our ideas

Ya, extreme Muslims hate our "ideas". That's it. Not our policy or actions that directly impact the lives of hundreds of millions or anything.


Have ever listened to what Osama actually says is his beef? Like, even once ever? Why do you think they don't play his tapes or report his comments in the mainstream media? Oh ya, I remember, because he could be sending coded messages that the terrorists wouldn't otherwise have access to. Because terrorists only watch the news waiting for their signals. Or something.


It's disturbing how a successful business owner in 2010 with the internet at his finger tips who should be wise has refused to do even basic homework. The whole "they hate our ideals, our freedom" is Bushian horseshit. It amazes me every day that people can believe this. You still buy their WMD stories too?

CIA funded, with several hundreds of millions of US dollars, Bin Laden and the group he was with, Mujahideen, around 1980. Birthed militant Al Queda as a result. They had the resources and training to carry out terrorist acts initially made possible by actions of the US. Bin Laden and Al Queda would not exist today, probably, if not for the US helping them not be annihilated by the USSR. But that's all common knowledge in the know.


On the third... Show me. If you can show me where we have spilled more Muslim blood than they have non-Muslim, I'll concede that point. Remember that statement was made shortly after the attacks of 9-11.
The fact you even ask this shows how blind and deaf you are to any fact that doesn't align with your views. But I'll feed you. Gulf War 1, civilian casualties, Iraq = Civilians Murdered>100,000, more civilians murdered on the first night of air raids than Americans murdered on September 11th, 2001.

Quote :

On the third... Show me. If you can show me where we have spilled more Muslim blood than they have non-Muslim, I'll concede that point. Remember that statement was made shortly after the attacks of 9-11.

A quick google found this article. I don't know anything of the author or much about this source website, but this article seems like a fantastic starting point for LTFG's reform.

Quote :

Why they hate us (II): How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, November 30, 2009 - 5:38 PM Share

Tom Friedman had an especially fatuous column in Sunday's New York Times, which is saying something given his well-established capacity for smug self-assurance. According to Friedman, the big challenge we face in the Arab and Islamic world is "the Narrative" -- his patronizing term for Muslim views about America's supposedly negative role in the region. If Muslims weren't so irrational, he thinks, they would recognize that "U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny." He concedes that we made a few mistakes here and there (such as at Abu Ghraib), but the real problem is all those anti-American fairy tales that Muslims tell each other to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

I heard a different take on this subject at a recent conference on U.S. relations with the Islamic world. In addition to hearing a diverse set of views from different Islamic countries, one of the other participants (a prominent English journalist) put it quite simply. "If the United States wants to improve its image in the Islamic world," he said, "it should stop killing Muslims."

Now I don't think the issue is quite that simple, but the comment got me thinking: How many Muslims has the United States killed in the past thirty years, and how many Americans have been killed by Muslims? Coming up with a precise answer to this question is probably impossible, but it is also not necessary, because the rough numbers are so clearly lopsided.

Here's my back-of-the-envelope analysis, based on estimates deliberately chosen to favor the United States. Specifically, I have taken the low estimates of Muslim fatalities, along with much more reliable figures for U.S. deaths.



To repeat: I have deliberately selected "low-end" estimates for Muslim fatalities, so these figures present the "best case" for the United States. Even so, the United States has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher, and a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities (based mostly on higher estimates of "excess deaths" in Iraq due to the sanctions regime and the post-2003 occupation) is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost.

Figures like these should be used with caution, of course, and several obvious caveats apply. To begin with, the United States is not solely responsible for some of those fatalities, most notably in the case of the "excess deaths" attributable to the U.N. sanctions regime against Iraq. Saddam Hussein clearly deserves much of the blame for these "excess deaths," insofar as he could have complied with Security Council resolutions and gotten the sanctions lifted or used the "oil for food" problem properly. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the United States (and the other SC members) knew that keeping the sanctions in place would cause tens of thousands of innocent people to die and we went ahead anyway.

Similarly, the United States is not solely to blame for the sectarian violence that engulfed Iraq after the 2003 invasion. U.S. forces killed many Iraqis, to be sure, but plenty of Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, and foreign infiltrators were pulling triggers and planting bombs too. Yet it is still the case that the United States invaded a country that had not attacked us, dismantled its regime, and took hardly any precautions to prevent the (predictable) outbreak of violence. Having uncapped the volcano, we are hardly blameless, and that goes for pundits like Friedman who enthusiastically endorsed the original invasion.

Third, the fact that people died as a result of certain U.S. actions does not by itself mean that those policy decisions were wrong. I'm a realist, and I accept the unfortunate fact that international politics is a rough business and sometimes innocent people die as a result of actions that may in fact be justifiable. For example, I don't think it was wrong to expel Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 or to topple the Taliban in 2001. Nor do I think it was wrong to try to catch Bin Laden -- even though people died in the attempt -- and I would support similar efforts to capture him today even if it placed more people at risk. In other words, a full assessment of U.S. policy would have to weigh these regrettable costs against the alleged benefits to the United States itself or the international community as a whole.

Yet if you really want to know "why they hate us," the numbers presented above cannot be ignored. Even if we view these figures with skepticism and discount the numbers a lot, the fact remains that the United States has killed a very large number of Arab or Muslim individuals over the past three decades. Even though we had just cause and the right intentions in some cases (as in the first Gulf War), our actions were indefensible (maybe even criminal) in others.

It is also striking to observe that virtually all of the Muslim deaths were the direct or indirect consequence of official U.S. government policy. By contrast, most of the Americans killed by Muslims were the victims of non-state terrorist groups such as al Qaeda or the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans should also bear in mind that the figures reported above omit the Arabs and Muslims killed by Israel in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. Given our generous and unconditional support for Israel's policy towards the Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular, Muslims rightly hold us partly responsible for those victims too.

Contrary to what Friedman thinks, our real problem isn't a fictitious Muslim "narrative" about America's role in the region; it is mostly the actual things we have been doing in recent years. To say that in no way justifies anti-American terrorism or absolves other societies of responsibility for their own mistakes or misdeeds. But the self-righteousness on display in Friedman's op-ed isn't just simplistic; it is actively harmful. Why? Because whitewashing our own misconduct makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches.

Some degree of anti-Americanism may reflect ideology, distorted history, or a foreign government's attempt to shift blame onto others (a practice that all governments indulge in), but a lot of it is the inevitable result of policies that the American people have supported in the past. When you kill tens of thousands of people in other countries -- and sometimes for no good reason -- you shouldn't be surprised when people in those countries are enraged by this behavior and interested in revenge. After all, how did we react after September 11?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/30/why_they_hate_us_ii_how_many_muslims_has_the_us_killed_in_the_past_30_years

Quote :

On the third... Show me. If you can show me where we have spilled more Muslim blood than they have non-Muslim, I'll concede that point. Remember that statement was made shortly after the attacks of 9-11.
The fact you even ask this shows how blind and deaf you are to any fact that doesn't align with your views.

Agreed. LTFG is the oldest here yet the least qualified to talk on this issue. It's indefensible. He isn't some kid. He has all the resources. He just chooses to avoid anything outside his comfort zone.

Like I said, it's a loaded question. You think they have an obligation of disclosure because, why again?

And he's not taking anytime to dispell the rumors that the majority of those funds are coming from sources in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran.
Aren't these countries filled with Muslims? Wouldn't logic suggest a money funnel? What would an audit of Vatican City turn up I wonder, probably that all of their revenues come from Vatican City no doubt.

The first is to answer where the funds are coming from since there are rumors that they are coming from areas that have terrorist ties.
There it is. There are terrorists in the Middle East. He is getting some of the money from the Middle East. He is getting money from terrorists.

Again I ask, why doesn't anyone involved in this thing want to talk about where the money is coming from? I'm not given a choice and for some reason these guys are not only not being asked by people that should be asking, but they are ducking the media (The part that's not humping their legs) at every turn. It might be nothing... But I think it's irresponsible for us to not demand that they answer the questions.
They are ducking the lynch mob. The trend of swallowing ones bigotry is being bucked and celebrated more and more and these bucker's have attempted to pervert what constitutes freedom/right/wrong/truth/etc, as a calling. Being prejudice isn't a just basis for the demanding of any unlawful disclosure. There is a sad and increasing amount of exploitative pandering and mental manipulation going on on issues very much like the South Manhattan Community Center.