Oh Jesus H Christ. There are plenty of people in NYC who don't want the mosque built there. To try and claim otherwise is laughable. I'm not going to wast any of my time providing your sorry ass with links.
But I'm not the one either making unsubstantiated claims or outright lying. You're the one who first made a claim that it was a story all along. You claimed, "[t]here are plenty of people in NYC who have a problem with it. They had demonstrations and lawsuits over it. That's how it got the attention that spread and became noticed nationally, how it got it's "legs" so to speak."
I live less than two miles away from where Park 51's going to be built. In addition to reading the NYT occasionally both in print and online, I also follow a NYC blog and a neighborhood blog. I didn't hear of any demonstrations and lawsuits over it. None of my friends were talking about it before it was noticed nationally by the bigots and fear mongers.
Beyond my anecdotal evidence, the Salon timeline offers plenty of proof countering your claims. You've offered nothing to support your claims.
Duh, the journalist that wrote the article did the research, and didn't find any.
So put up some proof or admit you are wrong.
And we are still waiting on the proof about how most Muslims thought 9/11 was a worthy cause, another one of your fact-free posts.
But you will continue to ignore this, since you have no evidence or facts to back up your bullshits statements, which just goes to show you really don't know what you are talking about, as usual.
And 20 or 30 years from now people will still remember where they were and what thet were doing when they heard about the planes running into the WTC. I think it goes deeper into our physche then the JFK assasination.Seems not very relevant, but I agree; I think most still don't realize the impact on the country.
JFK was a very unusual president who could have kept the country going a better direction.
This shows where you get it wrong - that a Muslims mosque will 'remind people of who perpetrated 9/11'.
Muslims were the TARGET of 9/11, the perpetrators were Al Queda attacking the Muslims, trying to get the Muslims attacked by the US for their own interests in creating conflict.
You obviously have not understood who was behind 9/11 and who was not behind it, and the reasons to embrace the innocent Muslims' freedoms and rights Al Queda wants you to oppose.
As I've said before, you are making about as much as sense as those who would not let a black buy OJ Simpson's house because it would remind them of who commited a murder.
As an analogist, you are an epic failure. :thumbsdown:
Here's an analogy to your analogy.
An Afro-American gang pulls a home invasion robbery in a nice, up scale neighborhood and kills the family living in the house. A few years later, you show up looking at homes in the neighborhood, and though you happen to be Afro-American, you had nothing to do with the robbery, nor do you have any gang affiliation, whatsoever.
Your prospective neighbors don't know who you are or anything about your life, your work, your social affiliations or that you happen to run a charitable foundation dedicated to funding college educations for underpriviledged, gifted children of all races. All they know is that you're Afro-American so you LOOK LIKE the home invasion robbers.
Would you want your new neighbors to invite you over for tea, or would you prefer that they shoot first and only later lament having killed you because they believed that any Afro-American, including you, must be a home invasion robber?
But wait... There's more...
You buy the house, and you and your family move in. After a few years, a gay couple looking at homes in the neighborhood, and though they happen to be gay, they are a loving, devoted couple who have never been in trouble with the law, let alone having anything to do with the previous robbery or any gang affiliation, whatsoever. In fact, they happen to run a charitable foundation dedicated to promoting the arts and improving living conditions throughout the city.
Would you invite your new neighbors over for tea, or would you rant to your neighbors about their "un-Christian" ways to scare up homophobia and do whatever else you could to make their lives miserable?
Your ignorance is astounding, the hate you express is appalling, and the damage you are willing to inflict on others in that ignorance is frightening and tragic. :'(
By: Edward Koch
I am a strong believer in the importance of setting the record straight. I do not ignore inaccurate or incomplete statements about me or my record.
For example, on Aug. 26 I read a bloggers article mentioning me in a way I did not appreciate. The blogger, who is associated with Columbia University, wrote: For good measure, Ed Koch a conservative Democratic former mayor of New York who frequently supports Republican candidates has also written in support of the proposed Islamic Center.
I responded: You refer to me as a conservative Democrat. I refer to myself as a liberal with sanity. Would you please list the substantive issues where my support or opposition of them can fairly be described as conservative in view?
I have indeed crossed party lines about two dozen times in my political career of more than 50 years while voting for thousands of Democrats. One Republican by the way was John Lindsay for whom I voted twice.
"Another Republican was George W. Bush in 2004 when I announced that while I did not agree with him on a single domestic issue, I supported his willingness to stand up to Islamic terrorism. The soft position of the Democrats and John Kerry on that issue compelled me to cross party lines.
"I also supported Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Republican, in three elections: when he ran against Mark Green, Fernando Ferrer, and Bill Thompson. As Jack Kennedy once said, 'Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.'
Also, my position on the building of the mosque near ground zero is different than Mayor Bloombergs position. He apparently does not believe that an effort should be made by anyone to convince the supporters of the mosque to move the location for sensitivity reasons. My position is that the feelings of 70 percent of all Americans on the issue, and particularly the family members of those who died and the survivors of the catastrophe, should be considered by the Muslim supporters of the mosque.
"They oppose the mosque on that site, because the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 were Muslims. However, if the Muslim supporters conclude that they see no sensitivity issue and seek as they allege to build a mosque as a bridge on that site, their rights should be protected and enforced.
Further, no one acting on behalf of government should seek to dissuade them. Finally, I also believe that everyone, regardless of which side of the issue they support, has a right to peacefully protest. All of these rights are protected by the same First Amendment. Is my position liberal or conservative in your lexicon?
There isn't anything such thing as a "journalist" anymore. These days they all have an agenda and they don't even care if people know. Grow up.
So you admit you have nothing, got it.
Thanks for playing.....next time, show some evidence next time. It isn't hard.
Let's rework that analogy. Say a gang of black separatists murders a white family in a mixed use southeastern urban area, then later a black man announces he has bought that house and will be razing it to build a community center for blacks. Most reasonable people agree the neighbors would have no problem, and if they did get a twinge they certainly wouldn't say anything. Then the neighbors learn that this particular black man advocates black people taking over the southeastern USA as a black-only country, says that the murdered white family was at least partially responsible just for being white and for society's past oppression of blacks, refuses to recognize that the black gang are murderers because it's "complicated". Now you're damned straight there are going to be problems. Very few people (outside of the most self-destructive progressives) are going to welcome a man who wishes to take over their way of life and replace it with a repressive structured society of his own liking, much less at a site where people expressing the same ideology (whether it be white supremacy, black separatism, or Islam with Sharia law) have committed mass murder.
Imam at center of Ground Zero controversy helped Bush administration
By Liz Goodwin
Controversy continues to rage over the proposed Islamic center that would house a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan. New polls show strong opposition to the project in New York and nationally, and every Republican front-runner for 2012 has been quick to condemn it. Even some Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have said they think the mosque should be built somewhere else.
One of the tactics of mosque opponents has been to vaguely accuse the imam behind the project of having "radical ties" — a charge that's been floated by Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, among others — while also casting aspersions on the project's funding. (A spokesman for the project said through Twitter that the center's backers have not yet begun fundraising.)
Controversy continues to rage over the proposed Islamic center that would house a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan. New polls show strong opposition to the project in New York and nationally, and every Republican front-runner for 2012 has been quick to condemn it. Even some Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have said they think the mosque should be built somewhere else.
One of the tactics of mosque opponents has been to vaguely accuse the imam behind the project of having "radical ties" — a charge that's been floated by Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, among others — while also casting aspersions on the project's funding. (A spokesman for the project said through Twitter that the center's backers have not yet begun fundraising.)
But such characterizations don't square with the project's mission — or the career of its spiritual leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. (Rauf heads up the Cordoba Initiative, the organization sponsoring the center.) Rauf was considered moderate enough during the Bush years to lecture FBI agents about Islam. And he is targeted on theological grounds by the same militant Islamists that mosque opponents claim he represents.
Rauf was sent by the State Department on several speaking tours in the Middle East under President George W. Bush, the Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports. He also attended a U.S.-Islamic World Forum with close Bush adviser and then-Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. (Hughes has so far not commented on Rauf and his project, though another former Bush adviser, Michael Gerson, wrote in the Washington Post that "a mosque that rejects radicalism is not a symbol of the enemy's victory; it is a prerequisite for our own.") Right now, Rauf is on another goodwill tour in the Middle East sponsored by the State Department, where he will talk about religious tolerance in the United States.
In 2003, the Kuwaiti-born Rauf was called on to speak about Islam to FBI agents, Stein reports. He is currently an adviser to the Interfaith Center of New York, which has come out in support of his plan to build the Islamic center, which Rauf says will be open to people of all faiths.
New York Times contributor William Dalrymple noted in an op-ed this week that Rauf represents a peaceful, mystical sect of Islam called Sufism. Sufi mosques are often attacked by more radical Muslims in the Middle East who oppose its pluralistic teachings, as well as the Sufi practice of permitting a wider public role for women in religious worship. Dalrymple points out that "in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, [Rauf] is an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination."
.
.
(continues)
Your analogy is not analogous to the situation with the Islamic center in New York. The leader of that group, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, acted as a peace emmisary for the Bush administration and is currently on another goodwill tour in the Middle East sponsored by the State Department.
This Imam is no terrorist, nor is he affiliated with any terrorists. If you can't make intelligent, informed distinctions between human beings and, instead, claim that, by their very existance, ALL Muslims must be terrorists planning to kill and wound any Americans, that is the very essence of bigotry. Citing such unfounded beliefs as a pretext for denying their Constitutionally protected civil rights betrays our Constitution and our entire nation. :'(
What will you think, and what will you do, when your group (whatever group that may be) is the one targeted for such un-American treatment?
No one said otherwise. All I've said is that you were making things up when you claimed there were lawsuits and demonstrations before the extreme right wing loons started making up a fuss. More than five months after it made front page news.Oh Jesus H Christ. There are plenty of people in NYC who don't want the mosque built there. To try and claim otherwise is laughable. I'm not going to wast any of my time providing your sorry ass with links.
Sure. I remember there was video of some Palestinians purportedly cheering after hearing of the attacks on 9/11. I can't claim to read their minds, but I suspect they were cheering an attack on an Israeli ally more than an al-Qaeda attack. There wasn't anything happening stateside, nor worldwide, nor "Muslim world" - wide. I'd ask for proof otherwise, but when confronted with the facts, you seem to run in the other direction.nobodyknows said:I think we were the targets. Remeber the Muslims who cheered in the streets when they found out about the planes hitting/bringing down the WTC?
Speaking now on "Larry King Live," the imam behind the proposed New York Islamic center said that moving the project would increase violence against Americans.
[Updated, 9:48 p.m.] When asked if the State Department was correct in saying Hamas is a terrorist organization, Rauf said: "I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."
bullshit. how could he NOT see this coming?!
And 20 or 30 years from now people will still remember where they were and what thet were doing when they heard about the planes running into the WTC. I think it goes deeper into our physche then the JFK assasination.
I think we were the targets. Remeber the Muslims who cheered in the streets when they found out about the planes hitting/bringing down the WTC?
Even if what you say were true, how does building a mosque there promote healing when so much of the country disapproves of such an action. If anything , I fear that instead of promoting peace and understanding it will turn into a gathering place for the more radical elements of the Islam religion. Combine that with the deep wound we have in our american physche and that seem to be a recipe for disaster to me and is the reason many Muslims also disapprove of the location.
how could he NOT see this coming?!
"Rauf said: 'I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism.'
When asked what he thought about the 9/11 hijackers claiming they were doing what they did in the name of Islam, he said:
'That is a travesty. Just as the inquisitors in Spain were committing a travesty [against] the teachings of Jesus Christ. We do have people in our communities who [commit travesties] against Islam.'"
So he's gone on the record as condemning Hamas and nearly calling Hamas a terrorist organization.
Rauf said that if he knew how controversial the project would be, he 'never would have done this - not have done something that would create more divisiveness.'
However, he said he is convinced he shouldn't move the center now because 'our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it and what we do.'
By that, he said, he means that if the controversy forces a move, "it means the radicals … will shape the discourse on both sides.'
'If we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,' Rauf said. '... If we don't handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.'
He said moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals' ability to recruit followers and will increase violence against Americans.
He said again that if he knew ahead of time the controversy this would create, he wouldn't have made the plans to build the center at the currently planned site."
Sounds like a reasonable stance to take.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/obama-backs-mosque-near-ground-zero/
Another unpopular position Obama has taken on an issue. He's on a hot streak!
He assumed Americans didn't make a habit of stereotyping a fifth of the planet, and support individual rights and freedom of religion. Bad miscalculation on his part.
He also supports peoples Constitutional rights to burn the Koran.
That's why he spoke AGAINST it. Because he "supports" them.
That's why he spoke AGAINST it. Because he "supports" them.
There's a difference between supporting the right to do something and supporting the actual act of doing it.
That's a pretty dangerous assumption with the amount of people who vote (R) every election.