Panel Clears Way for Mosque Near Ground Zero

[Saint Elistan 106]

"Even though this mosque is supposed to be an example of moderate Islam, we now see that 9/11 is still painful within the hearts of New Yorkers. Therefore as an act of kindness we will take up the Mayors proposal to build our center in another location. Hopefully this shows the people of this great city that we want to pursue a goal of interfaith understanding and not controversy. And this is better achieved by not building our center so close to the Ground Zero."

 

Just like them thar dirty negros trying to move into white communities.

 

Redlining the Ground Zero Mosque?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-ali-hasan/redlining-the-ground-zero_b_688046.html

In an attempt to finesse a haphazard 'treaty,' Governor David Paterson, along with Congressman Peter King, are celebrating that the State of New York is prepared to offer developers of the Cordoba House, the Ground Zero Mosque, a parcel of state land, much further away from the World Trade Center area, free of charge, in exchange for their agreement to build their mosque on the state land, far from Ground Zero.

 

Free land in New York City? Pretty sweet deal, right? Unfortunately, for Paterson and King, they are practicing one of the most bigoted forms of public policy that has greatly hurt America - redlining.

 

As the jaw of integration sunk its teeth into local laws, municipal governments would proudly talk about the modern housing projects they would build and restore, like Cabrini-Green and Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago or the Roxbury Projects in Boston. And to these municipal leaders, these 'modern' apartments in Cabrini-Green would be state-of-the-art and zoned for 'lower-incomes' or 'rent-control,' meaning that good, 'hard working' Americans, could finally find a home, especially disenfranchised minorities. After all, for the municipal government to spend so much money and time in developing these apartments specifically for poor minorities - was this not the height of American compassion?

 

The result?

 

Documented cases show mortgage and loan companies often steering African-Americans and minorities into housing projects, concentrating them far from 'white' neighborhoods. Once placed in such projects, minority populations were aggressively redlined, with banks denying mortgage and business loans that would help minorities leave, sometimes only on the basis of geography.

 

But worse is the theory of 'planned shrinkage' often discussed by scholar Robert Wallace, who argued that as African-American and minority populations were increasingly concentrated into housing projects, municipal services would suddenly leave, leaving the inhabitants of the projects to their own devices, where sadly, street gangs determined the law of the land, as police forces, public schools, and all forms of government assistance subsided.

 

So allow us to review - Peter King and David Paterson are suddenly offering a group of minorities (Muslims) a free piece of land - a 'sweetheart' deal of compassion - in exchange for their permanently leaving a major business section of Manhattan and never coming back?

 

It is my hope that the developers behind the Cordoba House reject this awful deal. While the minorities of the 60's, 70's, and 80's were fooled by a compassionate face, the minorities of America today are far too educated to be bamboozled in such a manner - or so I think?

[KSB2424 3,148]

Just like them thar dirty negros trying to move into white communities.

Yup that's exactly the same thing.

 

You just lost your privledge to ever discount anyone else's analogies on this board. Evah.

 

SEIAFP

 

The P stands for posty.

[Saint Elistan 106]

This is the same Iman that said the US's policies were responsible for 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg

 

Here's a transcript of the 60 Minutes Interview on Sep 30, 2001 in which Imam Faisal Rauf and a couple of others denounce the attacks and provide the quote of which you are speaking. I'll quote his portions from the interview:

Bradley: What would you say to people in this country who, looking at what happened in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?

Faisal:Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That's just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity, or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will do peculiar things, and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But the Koran is... God says in the Koran that they think that they are doing right, but they are doing wrong.

 

Bradley: And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America's foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

Faisal: It is a reaction against the US government politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?

Faisal: Because 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.

Bradley: Bin Laden and his supporters were, in fact, recruited and paid nearly $4 billion by the CIA and the government of Saudi Arabia in the 1980s to fight with the mujahadeen rebels against the former Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. After the Soviets pulled out, the Saudis, our best friends in the Arab world, our staunchest ally during the Gulf War, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the newly-formed Taleban regime, and then felt that bin Laden and the Taliban were out of control. Bin Laden's faith is a strict, puritanical form of Islam called Washbasin, which was founded in the 18th century in Saudi Arabia, and is now that country's predominant ideology.

 

I really encourage you all to read the whole interview.

[Gepetto 1,354]

Just like them thar dirty negros trying to move into white communities.

 

Redlining the Ground Zero Mosque?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muhammad-ali-hasan/redlining-the-ground-zero_b_688046.html

 

I don't know about you, but the negro areas in my city are severely run down and people are getting shot EVERY night.

 

:rollseyes:

[surferskin 30]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg

 

Here's a transcript of the 60 Minutes Interview on Sep 30, 2001 in which Imam Faisal Rauf and a couple of others denounce the attacks and provide the quote of which you are speaking. I'll quote his portions from the interview:

 

 

I really encourage you all to read the whole interview.

 

What's your point? That Ron Paul isn't always right?

[Saint Elistan 106]

What's your point? That Ron Paul isn't always right?

To the contrary, he's quite right. And Guilianni's mischaracterization and politicization of what Paul said is happening again with this building.

[itsbigmoni 1]

This is the same Iman that said the US's policies were responsible for 9/11. He wont back down because building this thing was never about helping relations. It's a giant, fock you.

 

He's also said a muslim utopia is more similar to america than anything in the middle east. He said a country practicing true islamic ideals is bin ladens hell. This guy supports america.

 

If you don't think american foreign policy had anything to do with being attacked, you're eyes are closed. That does not mean i think we deserved the attack, the attack was justified, i can see why they would do that, etc. I love this country and one of the reasons is i can criticize our foreign policies without the fear of being thrown in jail. There's nothing wrong with saying our policies contributed the hate that attacked this country.

[Gepetto 1,354]

Ground Zero Mosque Developers Refuse to Rule Out Using Funds From Iran and Ahmadinejad

[Excerpt: "The developers of the planned mosque near New York’s ground zero on Wednesday refused to rule out using funds from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran to build the $100 million project.

 

Mosque spokesman Oz Sultan was asked specifically whether the project’s fundraising would include Iran and Saudi Arabia."]

Newsmax

August 20, 2010

by Jim Meyers

 

The developers of the planned mosque near New York’s ground zero on Wednesday refused to rule out using funds from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran to build the $100 million project.

 

Mosque spokesman Oz Sultan was asked specifically whether the project’s fundraising would include Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

“I can’t comment on that,” was Sultan’s “not-ruling-it-out” reply, the New York Post reported. “We’ll look at all available options within the United States to start.”

 

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the Park51 mosque project planned for a site two blocks from ground zero, has told officials he would raise money for the mosque and community center from local Muslims, foundations and the sale of bonds.

 

But earlier this year he admitted to a London-based Arab newspaper that his fundraising would also extend to Muslim nations around the world. Rauf is now touring the Middle East on behalf of the State Department.

 

The Post observed: “The possibility of tapping the radical rogue Islamic state of Iran for funds comes as the United States just last month stepped up sanctions on the regime in retaliation for its support of terrorism and what is feared to be an illegal nuclear weapons development program.”

 

Meanwhile a Siena Research Institute poll released on Wednesday showed that 63 percent of New York State voters now oppose construction of the mosque near ground zero, up from 61 percent two weeks ago.

 

And a Time magazine survey found that 61 percent of Americans oppose the mosque, with 44 percent agreeing that the project would “be an insult to those who died” in the 9/11 attacks.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Gepetto 1,354]

Book - Because They Hate - Brigitte Gabriel

 

Book - They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It - Brigitte Gabriel

Review from Amazon.com:

We last saw Brigitte Gabriel emerging from her childhood, escaping Palestinian jihadis trying to kill her and her family for no better reason than that she was Christian, in her aptly-titled first book, Because They Hate. She was a forward scout in the resistance to jihad. Her first book was a literal debriefing, and They Must Be Stopped is an interpretive debriefing. Together they sound an alarm that must be heeded. Gabriel shows us that Islam is not a religion in the sense we understand the word. It is a political doctrine, and the central tenet of that doctrine is the conquest, through force, of all humanity. Gabriel gives us a concise summary of Islam's evolution through the ages into the implacable doctrine of hate that it is today. She describes Islam's rise (its occupation of the Holy Land and The Ottoman Empire) and its fall, which so perplexes muslims. Gabriel shows that it was the Industrial Revolution, which wholly bypassed the Islamic world, which ultimately defeated it. To this day muslims cannot fathom their humiliating status in the world, and they supplicate Allah to return their dignity and power.

 

They Must Be Stopped is a wake-up call for the West which "wallows in a state of denial and ignorance, bullied by political correctness and refusing to listen to our enemies who have an understanding of peace and tolerance different from ours." She shows that democratization is not an end in itself. Hamas and Hezbollah, for instance, are democratically elected terrorist organizations. More elections in the Islamic world would only create more radical Islamic regimes opposed to and threatening Western values. The unfortunate truth is that the repressive regimes in Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and Jordan are our natural allies in that they keep the cork in the bottle of Islamic terrorism. For readers unfamiliar with the global extend of Islamic terrorism since 9/11, Gabriel provides a summary. Conclusion: they have been very busy, not as subdued as you might have thought.

 

And if you think Gabriel is being bombastic or is exaggerating the threat which she knows so intimately, listen to Ayatollah Khomeini, "The Almighty himself taught us how to kill." Or read the Koran for yourself: "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them." (Koran 47:4), or "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes." (Koran 8:12). "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." (Koran 8:39) "Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy." (Koran 8:59)

 

Brigitte Gabriel is a crystal clear thinker and a compelling writer. She suggests, for instance, that if you think you know a "moderate" muslim, just ask him or her to condemn the atrocities committed against innocent civilians in the name of Islam, and you will learn just how thin that veneer of moderation actually is. She shows us how modern muslims veil terrorism by referring to it as "fourth generation warfare." She shows us that radical Islam is an adversary which will not reason, will not rest, will not compromise; it is inspired by both victory and by defeat, and its goal is your elimination. They Must Be Stopped.

 

Gabriel concludes her vitally important book with commonsense prescriptions for meeting the threat from radical Islam. The fact is that you are actually going to have to do something. In order to stem the growing tide of jihad we are all going to have to join the resistance in some way. Gabriel provides a thoughtful list of actions you can take. She finishes with a note of emotional gratitude to American men and women in uniform. "Words tremble on my lips and emotions swell in my heart for in gratitude for your service and your sacrifice...for protecting America and the world...Let my grateful tears thank you..."

 

http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/about-ms-gabriel

Ms. Gabriel is a former news anchor for “World News”, the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. She covered the Israeli withdrawal from Central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Her work was international in scope, bringing her in contact with world figures such as Margaret Thatcher, George H. Bush Sr., Itshak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Ariel Sharon.

Ms. Gabriel immigrated to the United States in 1989

...

 

http://www.actforamerica.org/

[Gepetto 1,354]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk4E-B5LDkw&feature=player_embedded#!

[Saint Elistan 106]

Fantastic piece of propoganda in that first one, Gepetto. I love how "We're starting domestic but wont rule out foreign investors" becomes "Funded by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad". Have you ever heard of Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal? He's one of Imam Rauf's primary patrons. You know what else he invests in? He owns 2.3 Billion - the second largest owner - in shares of News Corp. You may recognize that company; it's the parent company of Fox News. And he's exactly the type of investor they're refusing to rule out if they can't raise all the money domestically.

 

As for your two Islamphob followups, can I classify you, Gepetto, as someone who thinks that Muslims shouldn't be able to build Community Centers or Mosques in the United States at all? Or is it just this particular location?

[Gepetto 1,354]

Fantastic piece of propoganda in that first one, Gepetto. I love how "We're starting domestic but wont rule out foreign investors" becomes "Funded by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad". Have you ever heard of Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal? He's one of Imam Rauf's primary patrons. You know what else he invests in? He owns 2.3 Billion - the second largest owner - in shares of News Corp. You may recognize that company; it's the parent company of Fox News. And he's exactly the type of investor they're refusing to rule out if they can't raise all the money domestically.

 

As for your two Islamphob followups, can I classify you, Gepetto, as someone who thinks that Muslims shouldn't be able to build Community Centers or Mosques in the United States at all? Or is it just this particular location?

 

The developers of the planned mosque near New York’s ground zero on Wednesday refused to rule out using funds from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran to build the $100 million project.

 

Mosque spokesman Oz Sultan was asked specifically whether the project’s fundraising would include Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

“I can’t comment on that,” was Sultan’s “not-ruling-it-out” reply, the New York Post reported. “We’ll look at all available options within the United States to start.”

 

 

It never says it will be funded. You have to look at what was said. Hmmm, I wonder why he "can't comment on that,". Why is it a secret. Then states: "not-ruling-it-out,...well alrighty then.

 

As for your question directed at me; I haven't thought about it.

[Saint Elistan 106]

As for your question directed at me; I haven't thought about it.

 

How can you post in this thread and not have thought about it? It's a simple question.

 

Do Muslims have the right to build Community Centers and places of Worship in the United States? Do you simply object to this location or all locations?

[Gepetto 1,354]

How can you post in this thread and not have thought about it? It's a simple question.

 

Do Muslims have the right to build Community Centers and places of Worship in the United States? Do you simply object to this location or all locations?

 

Yes. I object to this location. I could consider objecting to all locations but like I already said I haven't thought about it enough; currently I have no opinion on that one way or the other.

 

I could say "I can't comment on that" like your Muslim friend did when asked if proceeds from Iran could be used.

 

How would you react if I said: "I can't comment on that"? What would you conclude when someone says that?

[Saint Elistan 106]

Yes. I object to this location. I could consider objecting to all locations but like I already said I haven't thought about it enough; currently I have no opinion on that one way or the other.

 

I could say "I can't comment on that" like your Muslim friend did when asked if proceeds from Iran could be used.

 

How would you react if I said: "I can't comment on that"? What would you conclude when someone says that?

 

Since it's a question about your opinion, I wouldn't understand. But since the question asked of this spokesperson is one of fact on the matters of a fundraiser process that they haven't even started yet, I can understand that maybe he just doesn't know the answer. Like he said, they're going to try to get the funds domestically first. Then they'll open it up to overseas investors. And what does it even matter if some of the funds used to build Park51 came from an Iranian investor? I guess we're going to stereotype all Iranians now too?

 

So, next question. If you object to this location, would you object to them accepting Governor Patterson's offer to build elsewhere in the city?

[Gepetto 1,354]

Since it's a question about your opinion, I wouldn't understand. But since the question asked of this spokesperson is one of fact on the matters of a fundraiser process that they haven't even started yet, I can understand that maybe he just doesn't know the answer. Like he said, they're going to try to get the funds domestically first. Then they'll open it up to overseas investors. And what does it even matter if some of the funds used to build Park51 came from an Iranian investor? I guess we're going to stereotype all Iranians now too?

 

So, next question. If you object to this location, would you object to them accepting Governor Patterson's offer to build elsewhere in the city?

 

no

[Saint Elistan 106]

no

 

And do you believe there is some truth to what ACT! says? That "The deeper one looks, the more this appears to be a “Trojan Mosque”…and Rauf and Kahn the soft side of a larger objective to plant mosques throughout the United States, and use them as “settlements.”?

[Gepetto 1,354]

And do you believe there is some truth to what ACT! says? That "The deeper one looks, the more this appears to be a “Trojan Mosque”…and Rauf and Kahn the soft side of a larger objective to plant mosques throughout the United States, and use them as “settlements.”?

 

It's a possibility.

[Frank M 181]

How can you post in this thread and not have thought about it? It's a simple question.

 

Do Muslims have the right to build Community Centers and places of Worship in the United States? Do you simply object to this location or all locations?

 

 

Why do you even ask the question? Guys like Gepetto and drobeski don't want any Muslims in the United States, period. The twisting he's doing to object to the mosque yet paint himself as tolerant is sickening.

 

[Gepetto 1,354]

The Muslim Agenda:

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

 

Real World Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Congress_(Sudan)

[Saint Elistan 106]

It's a possibility.

 

So, putting your answers together...

 

Do you object to this location?

Yes.

Would you object to them accepting Governor Patterson's offer to build elsewhere in the city?

No.

Do you believe that Park51 could be a "Trojan Mosque".

It's a possibility.

 

You believe that Park51 could be used as a "Front" for the Muslim takeover of America, but you're ok with them building it just as long as it's not within a two block radius of Ground Zero.

 

Got it. And that, Frank M, is why we ask these questions.

[Gepetto 1,354]

So, putting your answers together...

 

Do you object to this location?

Yes.

Would you object to them accepting Governor Patterson's offer to build elsewhere in the city?

No.

Do you believe that Park51 could be a "Trojan Mosque".

It's a possibility.

 

You believe that Park51 could be used as a "Front" for the Muslim takeover of America, but you're ok with them building it just as long as it's not within a two block radius of Ground Zero.

 

Got it. And that, Frank M, is why we ask these questions.

 

I didn't say I would be OK with it, I said I wouldn't object.

 

I just said I wouldn't object to it being in a location away from ground zero. I said it's POSSIBLE it's a TROJAN Mosque. Stop jumping to conclusions about my thoughts. Not every question has a perfect answer.

 

To summarize, now and over time it would be a constant reminder of Islam very near the same location of ground zero where the World Trade Centers were brought down and many people murdered in the name of Allah (Islam). It could easily be viewed as a triumph by Al Quaeda, Muslims everywhere, and the entire world and mostly cause sadness and anger for many New Yorkers to see it in person and for many Americans to see it in pictures and whenever they might visit New York. World History could eventually view it in a similar light. And for all of that to happen it doesn't even have to be a "trojan mosque".

[Gepetto 1,354]

I'm not so bad Frank M and Saint E.

 

I disagree with everything you believe pretty much yet I tolerate you.

[Saint Elistan 106]

Ron Paul to Sunshine Patriots: Stop Your Demagogy About The NYC Mosque!

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

 

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

 

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

 

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

 

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

 

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

 

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

 

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

 

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

 

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

 

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

 

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

 

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

 

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

 

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

 

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

 

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

 

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

 

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

 

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

 

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

 

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

[drobeski 3,061]

Mdc was right, nobody cares in new York

[MDC 7,298]

Mdc was right, nobody cares in new York

 

I underestimated the ability of Republicans to exploit religious intolerance for votes - I was wrong, mea culpa.

 

By the way, it's not a mosque - it's a community center that has a prayer room.

[Gepetto 1,354]

I underestimated the ability of Republicans to exploit religious intolerance for votes - I was wrong, mea culpa.

 

By the way, it's not a mosque - it's a community center that has a prayer room.

 

There wil be a mosque. I already pointed this out on page 8 of this thread. Here's the link: http://www.park51.org/whynow.htm

[MDC 7,298]

There wil be a mosque. I already pointed this out on page 8 of this thread. Here's the link: http://www.park51.org/whynow.htm

 

Alright. Well then ... so what? They're Americans, they have every right to put up a mosque on the property they own. God Bless this country.

[Gepetto 1,354]

Alright. Well then ... so what? They're Americans, they have every right to put up a mosque on the property they own. God Bless this country.

 

Yea, they have the right. Just like those against it have a right to protest and run commercials against it.

 

Fock, these Muslims and these property rights fanatics are insensitive.

[MDC 7,298]

Yea, they have the right. Just like those against it have a right to protest and run commercials against it.

 

Fock, these Muslims and these property rights fanatics are insensitive.

 

They have a right to build. You don't have a right to not be offended.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You don't have a right to not be offended.

 

 

Jessy Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a fortune from being offended.

[Gepetto 1,354]

They have a right to build. You don't have a right to not be offended.

 

When this community center and mosque doesn't get built, then I'm going to be all I WIN I WIN I WIN.

[MDC 7,298]

Jessy Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a fortune from being offended.

 

And they're whiners too. You're in good company.

[MDC 7,298]

When this community center and mosque doesn't get built, then I'm going to be all I WIN I WIN I WIN.

 

Hooray for sensitivity trampling property rights!

[Saint Elistan 106]

When this community center and mosque doesn't get built, then I'm going to be all I WIN I WIN I WIN.

 

So will Al Qaeda.

[Gepetto 1,354]

Hooray for sensitivity trampling property rights!

 

Just when it goes my way.

[Gepetto 1,354]

So will Al Qaeda.

 

That's cute (you're cluelessness). More college should do you good.

[Saint Elistan 106]

That's cute (you're cluelessness). More college should do you good.

If you really think that they're not loving every minute of American intolerance and Muslim alienation in the West then you're dumber than I thought - which I wasn't sure was possible.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If you really think that they're not loving every minute of American intolerance and Muslim alienation in the West then you're dumber than I thought - which I wasn't sure was possible.

 

 

So if we let them put a mosque anywhere and everywhere they want, hug each and every one of them, they will stop killing us? Um no, not according to them.

[Saint Elistan 106]

So if we let them put a mosque anywhere and everywhere they want, hug each and every one of them, they will stop killing us? Um no, not according to them.

 

Who is "them" exactly? Or do you not know the differences in Muslim denominations? Integrating into Western Culture is heresy to the Wahhabi's (Al Qaeda).

 

Ever wonder why Al Qaeda blows up Iraqi's and Afghani's? Heretics are doomed to death.