Clear thinking Muslims on the Mosque

What do you mean we're responsible for the deaths of millions? It's not our job to feed these natives and their terrorism against our settlers can't be tolerated.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

We get nothing from protecting Israel. Zionists use us as hired muscle. I'm not cool with that, we get nothing from our relationship with Israel except terrorism. Then we use that terrorism to further justify aggression against them. Horrific.

Again, on this point I don't disagree with you...

GDPofDRC wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

From GDP:

Like I said, it's a loaded question. You think they have an obligation of disclosure because, why again? To start, because I am, so why should they be exempt? They are hiding behind being a non-profit. I've done churches as a non-profit, yet am told to disclose funding sources. Might it be different in New York?... Sure. But I don't think it's out of line for people to ask or to ask why they don't want to or even want to discuss it.

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. Which is why it shouldn't be a problem if the sources are clean. If they have nothing to hide, then just answer the question.

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. So wait, you don't think it's ignorant to look the other way and not question it when the rumor exists that the money might be coming from extremist ties? That kind of complacency is what leads to shit hitting the fan. I suppose you think it's overstepping our bounds to make people walk through metal detectors at airports as well, right?

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. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but if you want to avoid the lynch mob, lay your cards on the table and show that you are indeed there to bring the community closer. His actions (Or inaction) are doing the opposite. Some are saying that tolerance should be shown and we should just accept it for what it is... But he isn't really allowing people to see the whole picture. I can hand you an apple and with a smile say, "Please enjoy... It's a tasty apple". And you wouldn't know what I've given you until your lips are turning blue as you're gasping for life. This guy has done nothing to deserve trust OR distrust. But when asked a simple question, he won't answer. I'm not the only one that finds that odd. People ask simple questions and that's being called bigoted or prejudiced by some? WOW...

You know GDP, you criticize the fact that the majority of people want the Imam to answer a couple of questions but fail to acknowledge that if he and his property owner would do just that, that a lot of headaches would be avoided. We have as much a right to question his motives and ties as he does to build where he wants and not talk, right?

Thanks for clarifying. You would of been a great man in Salem around the 1600's.

GDP, how you equate some of these things baffles me. I and the 70% asking these questions are backasswards because we're cautious?

Oh my.

Quote :

It's all political leverage, Wolf. If you're a third world country relying on aid from a developed country... Don't you think you want to stay on the good side of the umbrella holder? If I have an employee come up to me and spit in my face, I'm not caring if he can feed his family or not because he knows damn well what the repercussions of his actions are. It's called life...

First, the premise of your argument is flawed, that it isn't our responsibility to feed them, yet we're absolved of guilt for taking an already poor country and cutting off further supplies and flow on their economy, making recovery and the ability to feed themselves a complete impossibility.

But what's mostly wrong in a strict factual sense is grouping Iraq in the third world that depends on handouts, which is completely wrong and ignorant in nearly every sense. Laughable. LTFG has no idea about what he's talking about.

Iraq wasn't a third world country. Not until we got involved.

Let's back this up a little bit.


LTFG do you understand what economic sanctions are vs economic aid?

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

They are hiding behind being a non-profit

How do you know?

There are rumors.

If the rumors aren't addressed as demanded does that make them true?

Yes!

What if the rumors are false?

We find another reason to burn them at the stake of course.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Oh my.

Quote :

It's all political leverage, Wolf. If you're a third world country relying on aid from a developed country... Don't you think you want to stay on the good side of the umbrella holder? If I have an employee come up to me and spit in my face, I'm not caring if he can feed his family or not because he knows damn well what the repercussions of his actions are. It's called life...

First, the premise of your argument is flawed, that it isn't our responsibility to feed them, yet we're absolved of guilt for taking an already poor country and cutting off further supplies and flow on their economy, making recovery and the ability to feed themselves a complete impossibility.

But what's mostly wrong in a strict factual sense is grouping Iraq in the third world that depends on handouts, which is completely wrong and ignorant in nearly every sense. Laughable. LTFG has no idea about what he's talking about.

Anyone who disagrees with you on any subject has no idea what they're talking about. I'm a little more heartless than you and understand why these things happen, nothing more.

Being heartless is one thing, but pretending not to understand why our actions lead to the deaths of millions and the subsequent anger over it(terrorism) under the guise of your heartless self identity is another.

Ok LTFG, fine, you're so heartless and cruel, look at you, wow. I'm impressed. Shut up.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Being heartless is one thing, but pretending not to understand why our actions lead to the deaths of millions and the subsequent anger over it(terrorism) under the guise of your heartless self identity is another.

Ok LTFG, fine, you're so heartless and cruel, look at you, wow. I'm impressed. Shut up.

LOL... Says the guy that goes cocksucker every time someone disagrees with him...

GDP says...

They are hiding behind being a non-profit (TRUE... It's the reason that Bloomberg is giving for them not having to disclose their financials)

How do you know? Becasue Bloomberg said so.

There are rumors. No rumor on this one.

If the rumors aren't addressed as demanded does that make them true?

Yes!

What if the rumors are false?

We find another reason to burn them at the stake of course.


I don't think your intention was about them being non-profit. If so, it's not a rumor... It's a fact. If you were attempting to draw a line suggesting that I would still search for things to talk about even if they answered the questions about funds, you couldn't be more mistaken. Some others, perhaps... But I have no personal agenda here. If the Imam shows where the money comes from, I'm satisfied. I have no stake as I live 3,000 miles away. I understand people's feelings that are close to it, but don't have issue with it going in. I think it shows poor taste when so many are against it, but hell I've built some VERY unpopular structures and have no room to comment about stepping on other's toes.

So Bloomberg said they don't have to concede disclosure because they are hiding behind being a non-profit. Fact right?

'They are hiding' according to what? Rumor. Or is it a fact that they are actually for-profit?

"We have not yet launched our fund raising campaign. Park51 will conduct it's fund-raising campaign in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. We have hired legal counsel and auditors to oversee this process from start to finish. We will refuse assistance, financial or otherwise, from any persons or institutions who are flagged by our security consultants or any government agencies." out of the mouth of the developer, Sharif El-Gamal.

Sounds like the funding process is in the initial stages and has private and public oversight from a local community board(not require but still initiated by the Park51 team), legal and financial professionals, and relevant government agencies. What did you want to know again?

I shouldn't have to draw the line for you, but I'll entertain you... The hiding comment was referring to their reasoning behind stating that they don't have to disclose where the funds will come from. Bloomberg said they don't have to disclose due to being a non-profit... I assert they are using it as an excuse.

As far as the quote about funds... I guess if that's what the waiter says, I have to accept it as I do believe everything I hear and or read, no matter how conflicting. Seriously, a quote from the waiter on a Muslim blog is supposed to dispell all rumors, really? I'm actually waiting for the Imam to speak on the issue... Why won't he?

Quickly, the rumors of questionable funding really picked up steam after an "investigation" about it by Doug Hagmann. Now, Hagmann is an investigator that focuses on government issues and tends to lean conservative... Meaning he could have something or just be using his right wing agenda to sling mud (Something the left or right rarely ever does).

My point is, when a rumor surfaces (Regardless of how petty or who drops it in a case like this) I think it needs to be dispelled by the target of said rumor no matter how silly (Someone accuses me of cheating and I'm doing everything I can to clear my name... Maybe that's just me). And judging by how much attention all of this has garnered, I would venture to say it isn't a small issue. And if possible, proof should be provided (Sounds like the waiter has this under control, huh?... It will be interesting to see how this process really plays out) as the funds come in (I knew about the funds not being there as I said previously noting just a few thousand in Rauf’s accounts). I do however wish I could turn a channel on the non-music part of the radio and not hear more rhetoric about this damn thing... Thank God for sattelite.

Anyway, you know my stance. They show funds (As the waiter says) and I'm feeling fuzzy all over. If the money doesn't stink of C4 trace, I say build the damn thing wherever you want.

What is your assertation based on?

Is rumor, no matter how silly, a just basis for the demanding of their disclosure of what you say you know doesn't yet exist?

classic american capitalist story. We go in to foreign places (mostly latin america, now middle east) that are trying to set up true democracies, over throw their government because a truly representative government which wants money for it's own natural resources to go towards it's people is the last thing american business wants. The "Free" Market is an excuse to commit horrific crimes against humanity as the Unites States has proven throughout history.