The mosque near ground zero

@maxsadys

We know who flew the planes and where they came from and where they received their funds. We know the men who did this were extreme Islamic zealots. We know their entire backgrounds and where they were trained. Al Queda took responsibility after 9-11. We have intelligence tapes of conversations amongst Al Queda followers. We have intercepted communication on the web and via telephone. What other evidence do you need?

Amazing how many spineless folks live in the U.S. This is not about religious freedom. There are 100 other mosques in NYC. This is about building "Cordoba House", a victory mosque near the site where just 10 years ago burning bodies were jumping from 100 stories. Are your memories so short? The jihadists murdered your fellow countrymen in the name of Allah, believing they would be rewarded with 70 virgins in heaven. Have you forgotten the insanity of highjacking planes to fly into the WTC? The Cordoba mosque is just as bold, just as aggressive as 9/11. The crazy, whispering Imam and his supporters are now threatening us with "either let us build it, or there will be consequences". The 70% of Americans who oppose the Cordoba Mosque are not willing to let their friends, colleagues, and countrymen be dishonored by a victory mosque. Our allegiance and sympathies should be with the victims, their families, the many military people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, the aftermath of 9/11.

To bring any thread of validity to the argument that a "Community Center" should not be built near Ground Zero, one has to be patently clear that the Muslim community orchestrated and carried out 911. There is a great deal of doubt around the "Official US Report". Motive, abundant evidence, US reticence to investigate 911, and US incongruent behavior strongly point to the US, Larry Silverstein, and Israel being the central players in this egregious crime. In any False Flag event their must be a perceived enemy. A great deal of the American public have been made to believe by our mass media in concert with our governmet that Muslims are the perpetrators. This Muslim baiting extends to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where are media make Israel look like the innocent victims with no culpability for their inhumane and imperilaistic treatment of peoples who are being poorly treated, ghettoized, having their land bulldozed, and insensitively demonized as "Uncivilized Barbarians". So to be really fair lets put the blame for "911" where it is squarely deserved, our US government.

It is time we should all show our accomodation to other's view. The three dominant Abrahimic religions, Judhaism, Christianity and Islam are now Over 2,000 years, 2,010 yrs and 1,500 years old. None of these religions need any protection. They have their own followers. Moses professed God's word, Christ was no different, Muhammad did the same. It seems there is lack of communication and understanding about each other's religious stand. Why we cant seek common principles, avoid dissembling and disputing :True Religion? Why people of other faiths are not taken into confidence when religious preachers preach their respective religion. At the end of the day any religion is for human beings not human beings made for religion.

Rather than say that this article is an out and out lie, lets just say that its got its facts wrong! Newt Gingrich has stated clearly and publicly that the radical backers who want to force this Mosque down the throats of the families of the 9/11 dead, and the vast majority of the American people who oppose it at the ground zero location, have a right to build it. He's also said very clearly that building it is an afront to the feelings of the families of those killed in the name of extreme Islam on 9/11, and Moderate Moslems interested in outreach and understanding, rather than in your face hatred, should move it to another location. The deaths of 3000 Americans on 9/11, murdered in the name of extreme Islam, and the additional attacks and attempts since then, did not create a vague sense? They created a very real and ongoing concern and fear of extreme Islam! There is a time when common sense and decency cry out for a minority to exercise restraint, even when our Constitution gives them the right to do something. Telling Americans they've killed more innocents than Al-Qaeda, and that they are responsible for 9/11, as the Imam backing this Mosque has done, is not a reassuring exercise in moderation or restraint. And it should be pointed out that while Obama started this firestorm by siding with extreme Islam, the next day he retreated saying that he wouldn't comment on the wisdom of putting the Mosque next to ground zero. So as far as we know Obama actually holds exactly the same position on this Mosque as Newt Gingrich? If he doesn't let him tell the world what his position really is?

At first I did not care much, and even now I hesitate to focus on the structure itself. But the sheer volume of anti-knowledge that crops up in the screeds around here is amazing. The idiots who run our schools (and you just have to know I'm not talking about the teachers) must be proud: the knowledge of history is becoming as rare as edible bread in America. Islam ( = peacefully saying 'Uncle' to a force that would otherwise kill you) has conquered as much of the world as it could. After overrunning North Africa and the Middle East, it raided Europe (visiting even Rome) for centuries, biting off the weakest and most vulnerable parts along the southern edge of the Continent. As any empire "on the roll," it brought order, discipline and even luxury to its newly stolen possessions. Non-believers were tolerated as dhimmi, protected payers of extra taxes and permanent subjects of contempt. We have written documents of this. When the conquest became more difficult, the aq-sakal (white bearded ones) who appointed themselves to be the interpreters of the Law, manufactured more and more reasons to turn Muhammad's dream into a nasty piece of hell on earth, which is what Muslim lands are today. I suspect that the Prophet would laugh at some of these haddith (real and fake) which seem to govern the lives of billions in the 21st century. Just consider: the length of your beard, the hatred of dogs, the love of the color green, etc etc What do these have to do with anything spiritual? (I will not even mention the anti-Quranic notion of choosing to become a "martyr," or the cluster of re-virginable virgins awaiting....)
But more seriously, it is just a plain historical fact that Muslims have been lustily massacring each other. (Another 40 or so yesterday in Mesopotamia.) So have others, I know, but the NY promoter-Imam's repeated claim about the US having more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Q ought to discredit him as a "moderate."
Let Rauf and his oil-sheik buddies build the God-damned thing, I say. But let's quit bullshi** ing the people: It will be considered a Mosque by Muslims world-wide, and they will ululate about it as another sign of their superiority. In gratitude, al-Quaida will send a fruitcake to mayor Bloombery.

If it was a Nazi cultural center, it would be insensitive, but I dont see how a German Cultural Center would be. Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11, not Islam.

Just a thought:

Would it be insensitive for the German government to open a German cultural center outside of Auschwitz, even 60 years after the fact? After all, no one is making the argument that all Germans - or even the some Germans - are Nazis or Nazi supporters. We understand that the overwhelming majority of Germans are just as disgusted by Hitler as the rest of the world, and we know that any such center would be opened for genuinely benigne reasons. However, we also know that such a center would not and could not ever be built without an unbelievably strong backlash from Jewish leaders, the Polish government, and many Germans themselves.

Why should we be surprised that a mosque so close to Ground Zero is generating so many strong emotions when it hasn't even been 10 years since 9/11?

i do believe they have every right... and they should build it to break the barrier and cut the stereotyping that all Muslims are terrorists .. they will get harassed but i think in the end it would be for the better.... if America is ready to accept this =\

As far as where the community center could go? It could go into a residential neighborhood instead of a commercial zone. Very few people live there so it is not clear what community they will be serving. For example, this 130 foot structure could be located in China town, i.e. just North of the Brooklyn Bridge.

As far as property rights, New York City's zoning and building are heavily controled by the government, and are frequently political. For example, Columbia University using eminant domain to purchase property in Harlem. Who here complained about Allianz not being allowed the naming rights for Giant's Stadium due to public outrage. I feel the same way about both issues.

The press keep telling us that they are moderate muslims, but that it is not clear that that is in fact the case. He has stated that he believes in a one state solution for Israel, which would likely end the State of Isreal as we now know it. Also, it is clear that it is the symbolism of the site as well as the size of the building that are important to him. Why? Why would someone building bridges and reconciliation need such symbolism. On the other hand, there is now all kinds of propaganda in the press about how racist Americans are, including people spreading these lies, which will play well in the arab world. For propaganda purposes, this is already a big winner.

Are African-Americans racist because they do not want the confederate flag flow on Southern state houses? No, and neither are New Yorkers.

fjfoley:

You stated that they should "Build the center somewhere else. It can serve its stated purpose and not offend the families of those killed in the 911 attack."

What do you think an acceptable radius around ground zero be deemed a "No Muslim Zone"?

About the whole meme of moderate Muslims not condemning extremists enough. How many of you are reading a lot of Arabic language newspapers and magazines in countries where extremism is a problem? If you don't read these sources, how do you know if they are denouncing them or not? I suppose Imams could start denouncing extremism on Fox News and the NY Times, but this would be a waste of their time as well as those media sources time. Extremists and Muslims sitting on the fence between extremism and mainstream Islam aren't reading the same sources you are so any denunciations occurring aren't in mediums you would see. Would you rather they go through efforts to provide a pantomime show for you that they are making an effort, or to instead make an effort where it counts in the media where it matters. When was the last time you read a fatwa at all, do you have any idea of how many fatwas concern mainstream vs. extremist positions?

I would ask the Muslims to take consider the impact of this center so close to the 911 site. While the have the right to build the site at this place I would ask the question "should they?". They claim the purpose is to promote knowledge of Islam and social harmony. They have already failed as far as social harmony is concerned.

The best example I can give is that as an American you have the right to burn an American flag in public....I would question the wisdom on doing so.

Build the center somewhere else. It can serve its stated purpose and not offend the families of those killed in the 911 attack.

The perception problem with Muslims in the United States is that we do not see the Muslim community be outspoken against terrorist attacks my Muslims terrorist around the world. While we do not believe that the majority of Muslims are terrorists, the majority of terrorists are Muslims...that is the fact that cannot be overlooked.

Commenter bampbs’ remarks on jurisdiction:

- reflect a legalistic approach that is blind to the underlying realpolitik and Game Theory; and

- fail to address the underlying logical issue of a priori privileging.

Any restriction which the Supreme Court may recognise regarding its original jurisdiction on a matter “arising under this Constitution” is itself a choice of the judges from time to time. They may (for example, in Hans v Louisiana) consent to limit their jurisdiction to hear a suit against a state by one of its own citizens. But that remains a choice of the judges, a choice that may vary according to circumstances over time.

Historically, in hearing rights cases (as the present case would be):

a) the judges have varied the original Hans decision as required in order to impose their preferences. Ex parte Young - a mere 18 years after Hans - back-tracked by allowing sovereign immunity to be waived where a state was deemed to have acted unconstitutionally. The truly extraordinary thing about Young was the imaginative interpretation of “due process” used by the judges to bring the profits of railway monopolies under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . at the same time as they were imaginatively excluding personal rights from such protection; and

b) circumstances generally have not made it necessary to revisit the decision further. Where Congress has been prepared to play along with the judges, the judges have been prepared to play along with Congress and restrict state immunity accordingly (as with Fitzpatrick v Bitzer).

In other words, judges have not re-expanded their jurisdiction where they have had no desire to do so, and where they have had the desire they have done so immediately!!

Were circumstances to change – especially on rights cases - there is no guarantee that earlier doctrines would not be overturned or distinguished.

Moreover, as explained earlier, the ability of Congress to bring pressure to bear on the judicial oligarchy may be diminishing over time as the institutions of government become more ever complex, intertwined and entrenched.

It has become ever more difficult - even for politicians - to modify judicial power without causing collateral damage both to themselves individually and to the overall operation of government. Each politician may prefer to alter the balance of judicial power but - under conditions of Prisoners’ Dilemma - each may also have a dominant strategy of sitting put. With the pressure of legislation on Congress, even finding time to have a bill debated is a major hurdle.

And this doesn’t even address the Prisoners’ Dilemma facing individual citizens who can initiate nothing on their own but are forced to act entirely through (so-called) “representatives”.

In summary, viewing the behaviour of the Supreme Court over the past century, one could make a case that the judges have become bolder and bolder in imposing their preferences as their position has become ever more firmly entrenched and the possibility of challenge has been put ever further out of reach by Prisoners' Dilemma.

More importantly, bampbs has not even begun to address the logical problem of a priori privileging posed earlier. By what principle are bampbs’ preferences to be privileged over those of other people? A Charter from Heaven?

If given a free choice in the matter, the people of the United States might well choose a constitutionally entrenched judicial oligarchy. However, as a matter of historical record:

- the people have never been given the freedom to choose their institutions of government thus;

- where people have had that freedom (to a limited extent in some US States, more famously in Switzerland) they have adopted Democracy, typically to the greatest extent made available to them; and

- where people enjoy the freedom to revise the institutions of government, they manifestly do not use that freedom to repeal Democracy – even thought it is a straightforward matter to call a referendum to do so.

So who has decided to deny the people the freedom to choose their form of government?

And by what principle have their preferences been imposed over those of the people???

The prrof of good intentions from this Imam would be that he has done a lot of good work for the local community, with no regard for their religion.

That would have shown his goodwill towards others.
Otherwise this man is just a troublemaker

Blaming Muslims for the Twin Towers attack, and politically pursuing them to get votes, is akin to nazis blaming the Jews for the problems of Germany, just to collect political support.

And this creates the same hate towards Muslims in USA.

If there were an Al Qaeda cultural center going up, or a Taliban Hall of Fame, I would understand the outright bias and hatred. BUT, this is a Mosque. A place of worship for the world's second largest religion which spans world wide, not just the Middle East. A religion that prays to the same God as everyone else. To dehumanize the followers of this religion by denying them their freedom to build and pray in their house of worship is completely un-American.

In spite of the fact that building this mosque near Ground Zero would be perfectly legal according to the law, it would nevertheless be totally tactless and provocative. I agree with the majority of pols who would deem this act "insensitive".

It is not right to say that every Muslim is a terrorist, for it is not true. Everybody should respect their belief. The problem is that the ones who claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks were Muslims. They asserted they were acting in the name of Allah, the Almighty in the Islamic religion.

Given the fact that the New Yorkers suffered heavy losses and damage on 9/11, I think it hasn't been really smart to suggest the construction of a mosque near the place where the twin towers used to stand. People of Lower Manhattan will at first think about provocation, which is maybe not what the backers for the project initially intended. And if the backers were only aiming at hitting the headlines, well this is a sad and coward way to get talked about.

Consequently, building this mosque would be somehow discourteous. It would be like rubbing salt into the wound of the New Yorkers. There are plenty of other places where they could have it built.

@Make Love not War

At least you made your bigotry obvious, unlike some other fools that attempt to cover up their Islamophobia with twisted notions and lies. Despite your facts being horribly wrong, I actually kind of respect you for being upfront with your blatent hatred of Islam.

---------
McGenius wrote:

You're using Wikipedia as the definitive source for what the term "Ground 0" Means? Impressive! And the site you send me is to something on the World Trade Center site?

My definition is for the location of the initial damage as caused by the 9/11 terrorists down in lower Manhattan- thus all the places where airplane parts caused damage. You've drawn a cordon of yellow tape around the World Trade Center and claim any damage outside that tape can't possibly be part of "Ground 0"? Regardless if it was a direct result of the attack? As I said, impressive!
---------

I noticed you dodged all my arguments against your so-called restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. Impressive!

But back on point, at least I provided a source that's actually well-monitored and well-maintained and you immediately dismiss it. All right, fine. Do you at least have the decency to reply back with a credible source? Nope, you make up your own definition of Ground Zero instead. Impressive!