DescentBB

Imam Abdul Rauf is the chief organizer for the ground zero mosque- endorsed by our president and now endorsed by terrorist group hamas.

From an NY Post article:

A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero -- insisting Muslims \"have to build\" it there.

\"We have to build everywhere,\" said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization's chief on the Gaza Strip.

An enthusiastic endorsement in the continuing jihad against the west.

Hamas first came up in the mosque debate earlier this summer when Abdul Rauf refused to describe the group as a terrorist organization -- despite the State Department listing that identifies it as such.

Tom Brown, a chief opponent of the mosque, said: \"This is what we've been saying . . . Imam Rauf is a radical Muslim who will not call Hamas a terror group.\"

A retired firefighter who was a first responder on 9/11, Brown lost 100 of his FDNY friends at the Twin Towers.

\"How much evidence do we need that this guy is a radical Muslim?\" he asked.

\"If Rauf really were a bridge builder and an interfaith guy and all the things he professes to be, he wouldn't be doing this to people.\"

Abdul Rauf raised eyebrows last week when he departed on a State Department-sponsored goodwill mission to the Middle East, despite concerns that the trip may be helping him with the mosque's $100 million fund-raising goal.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hama ... z0wlgBh7eM

Seems there may be a chance the Mosque will be moved to a different location:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/17/ ... ompromise/

Yet another shocker from the U.S. Government / Sith empire. :P

Hamas will say many things just to stir up trouble.

Agreed. The correlation is trivial at best.

Or, more likely, they see it as a move that advances their cause of jihad against the great satan.

And, a celebration of the 19 martyrs that died in the assault.

Why should what Hamas thinks matter to us in the least?

Because they’re terrorists?

By definition- all terrorist actions and statements are mostly symbolic because they can't engage in conventional warfare- so they rely on symbols.

Building a triumphal mosque on ground zero (originally named Cordoba, for the conquering mosque built in Spain) is a pretty big symbol.

Wouldn't it be a better expenditure of \"terrorist monies\" to build a hundred small bombs and sneak them onto greyhound busses around the country? You know, to actually cause terror?

Spidey wrote:Because they’re terrorists?

And they're also idiots. I'm generally not in the business of caring what idiots say.

ThunderBunny wrote:Building a triumphal mosque on ground zero (originally named Cordoba, for the conquering mosque built in Spain) is a pretty big symbol.

Not a mosque, not on Ground Zero, not triumphal. Lulz.

First it was “think” now it’s “say”…some of “you people” make having a discussion very difficult, without splitting every hair possible. (yes there is a big difference between the two, and it makes a difference to the point)

...seriously? I happen to type a different word because I didn't quote my first post verbatim, and you're going to nit-pick that?

Spidey wrote:…some of “you people”

What do you mean "you people"?...

Freakin' racists.

When liberals attack: Sticks, stones and stereotypes

The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card.

Top Gun wrote:...seriously? I happen to type a different word because I didn't quote my first post verbatim, and you're going to nit-pick that?

Yes because when you change words like that, you change the meaning, and by default change the meaning of “my” response…therefore making the discussion a “nit picking” contest, instead of a real discussion.

That was my point, and the fact you had to defend yourself, makes you sound very im-mature. A mature person would just have taken the point and moved on.

And JFTR there is a huge difference between what someone thinks and what they say…one is important, and one is not.

……….

Xamindar…note the quotes.

Spidey wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...seriously? I happen to type a different word because I didn't quote my first post verbatim, and you're going to nit-pick that?

Yes because when you change words like that, you change the meaning, and by default change the meaning of “my” response…therefore making the discussion a “nit picking” contest, instead of a real discussion.

That was my point, and the fact you had to defend yourself, makes you sound very im-mature. A mature person would just have taken the point and moved on.

...holy ****. This is ridiculous. You're being incredibly pedantic about my word choices, and then you're calling me immature because I asked you why? I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this.

And JFTR there is a huge difference between what someone thinks and what they say…one is important, and one is not.

Well if that differentiation makes such a massive difference to you, can we all just assume that I used the same word twice and leave it at that? Either way, I could give a damn less what idiots say or think.

\"You're being incredibly pedantic about my word choices\"

Guilty

ThunderBunny wrote:Building a triumphal mosque on ground zero ...

I keep seeing this come up in many places. Perhaps I need to clarify for those geographically challenged.

The location in question is not on ground zero. I will openly concede near or down the street from but to say that the plot of land in question is ON ground zero is irresponsible.

The building to be rebuilt into the mosque was struck by debris and possibly human remains from one of the hijacked planes- hence it is just as much a part of ground zero as the towers.

So should the strip clubs in Lower Manhattan that were presumably covered in dust from the collapse also be considered a part of it?

And if you have a problem with this location, why not have a problem with the commercial construction going on at the actual Ground Zero site? If we can build a new office complex where the World Trade Center physically stood, why can't someone else build a community center a few blocks away from it?

Top Gun wrote:So should the strip clubs in Lower Manhattan that were presumably covered in dust from the collapse also be considered a part of it?

And if you have a problem with this location, why not have a problem with the commercial construction going on at the actual Ground Zero site? If we can build a new office complex where the World Trade Center physically stood, why can't someone else build a community center a few blocks away from it?

because

um

sensitivity

What? So no one's going to be freakin' happy until it's moved to the far western tip of Alaska? Is that far enough? I guess not. Sarah Palin would throw a fit and fall in it. Muslims are just the new xenotarget that Nativist Americans are using to whip up controversy and fear in an election year.

It's just a rehash of what was done to the Catholics (a religion, not a race of people), French, Scandinavians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans and Russians during the past in this country. Today, the new targets are Mexicans and Muslims. It's just the same crap rehashed over and over and over and over...... Isn't this country made up of all these nationalities in the first place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_%28politics%29



If this area is such hollowed ground, why are the some of the families of 9/11 victims in support of the mosque being built in that location? But alas ThunderBunny, the lefties will be your savior. All the construction unions have come out in rabid opposition of even building the thing.

Speaking of other religion's shrines on foreign soil, what about Shinto Temples located on Oahu, Hawaii? OMG, PEARL HARBOR! On the hollowed ground of our war dead no less! I don't see anyone griping about these non-Christian temples near Pearl Harbor. GASP, SHINTO, a religion that must be bad because their followers started WWII!

http://www.japanprobe.com/2010/08/17/sh ... arl-harbor

But don't leave out those evil conquering Christians. They were allowed to build a Cathedral in Nagasaki, before WWII, which the U.S. proceeded to NUKE, and STILL the Japanese allowed it to be rebuilt! Are they more tolerant than Americans?

http://tenthousandthingsfromkyoto.blogs ... today.html

Americans should be ASHAMED!

ThunderBunny wrote:The building to be rebuilt into the mosque was struck by debris and possibly human remains from one of the hijacked planes- hence it is just as much a part of ground zero as the towers.

Typically the term "ground zero" is applied to the central-most location that an event has happened. Clearly in the drama that the mosque has created, people have extended the definition.

The epicenter of an earthquake has also been called "ground zero", but with this logic, should we not extend the area covered by the term to the areas affected by the earthquake as well?

It's pretty clear that a number of you do not know the nature of this conflict- and will not until it affects you personally.

Symbolic victories are every bit as damaging as those which level buildings and kill people.

Europe is finally realizing that islam is a threat- and only too late.

Yes, ISLAM is a threat to western civilization. If and until islam is reformed- its violent and supremacist teachings expunged- the ideology/system of religious governance will seek to put every one of us under its rule of law- by coercion if possible; by violence and murder if necessary.

Sharia is not a pretty thing.

I'm no bigot by any means- any more than people that do not cherish the thought of a nazi-like supremacist ideology taking hold.

Muslims born under islam have little choice in the matter and are maimed, killed or are in constant fear for their lives if they become apostates (leave islam.)

Did your parents threaten to kill you if you left your catholic/protestant/jewish faith? They often do in muslim families- and those threats are followed through.

d3jake wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Building a triumphal mosque on ground zero ...

I keep seeing this come up in many places. Perhaps I need to clarify for those geographically challenged.

The location in question is not on ground zero. I will openly concede near or down the street from but to say that the plot of land in question is ON ground zero is irresponsible.

I think you are either being obtuse or extremely naive to make that accusation considering the developers of the planned center/mosque stated they chose that building precisely 'because it is a part of Ground Zero as it was hit by one of the planes'...
So the significance of the site being part of Ground Zero is recognized by the developers even if it isn't recognized by you.

Obtuse is probably more like it Will- the lot of them just want to respond \"no its not\" to my \"yes it is.\"

I'm a guy that says, if you wanna worship the pink poodle god and wear your pink poodle ear hat to the pink poodle temple- hey go for it.

These pink poodle people (islamists) want your obedience or your dhimmitude if it takes blowing up your buildings or sticking a poodle statue taking a piss on your grave to do it however.

THAT, I won't stand for.

ThunderBunny wrote:I'm a guy that says, if you wanna worship the pink poodle god and wear your pink poodle ear hat to the pink poodle temple- hey go for it.

These pink poodle people (islamists) want your obedience or your dhimmitude if it takes blowing up your buildings or sticking a poodle statue taking a piss on your grave to do it however.

THAT, I won't stand for.

Normally I feel you're the complete opposite of me, but this is exactly how I feel.

I keep seeing this come up in many places. Perhaps I need to clarify for those geographically challenged.

The location in question is not on ground zero. I will openly concede near or down the street from but to say that the plot of land in question is ON ground zero is irresponsible.

I think you are either being obtuse or extremely naive to make that accusation considering the developers of the planned center/mosque stated they chose that building precisely 'because it is a part of Ground Zero as it was hit by one of the planes'...
So the significance of the site being part of Ground Zero is recognized by the developers even if it isn't recognized by you.

An excellent youtube piece on this subject:

d3jake, I dare you to watch it.

Explain to me exactly how you think Sharia law will magically supersede the United States Penal Code.

<--was joking.

Spidey wrote:Xamindar…note the quotes.

I haven't read much on this thread but I was wondering. If they build the mosque, is it possible there will be quite a bit of vandalism directed towards it? If the general public is truely upset and feel it is a threat wouldn't there be a few that will try burning it down or throwing things at it?

I can't imagine why they would want to build it so close to ground zero. Are there lots of muslims living in the area?

Xamindar wrote: If they build the mosque, is it possible there will be quite a bit of vandalism directed towards it?

Maybe.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nation ... xt_article

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nation ... xt_article

http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-06-14/b ... d-graffiti

I am sorry, that should be a yes. Before you think it Islamopbia

http://www.koamtv.com/global/story.asp?s=12051440

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/dec/2 ... n-unknown/

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/04 ... /na-arson4

Islam is not the only religion under attack. This whole nation seems to forget that there is a reglious intolerance to all religions. Lately though it seems Islam is worth being protected more than others.

Top Gun wrote: Either way, I could give a damn less what idiots say or think.

Even if they carry AK-47's, strap bombs around their waste and vow to kill you?

I don't think I've seen anyone like that recently walking around my neighborhood. I'll be sure to call the cops if I do, though.

Top Gun wrote:I don't think I've seen anyone like that recently walking around my neighborhood. I'll be sure to call the cops if I do, though.

Average responce time from a 911 call 18 minutes
.45 auto - 850 fps

yea yea cheap plug

woodchip wrote:

Top Gun wrote: Either way, I could give a damn less what idiots say or think.

Even if they carry AK-47's, strap bombs around their waste and vow to kill you?

Until they actually do that, it's just a load of posturing.

Cuda68 wrote:..
.45 auto - 850 fps

yea yea cheap plug

Gotta love a big slow bullet...goes in big and dumps all it's energy into the target without flying out the other side into possible friendlies!

ThunderBunny wrote:d3jake, I dare you to watch it.

Oh noes! A dare! That means I have to watch it!

For the sake of humor, I did watch it all of the way to the end. Although I cannot refute (nor would I care to waste time doing so) every thing that this fellow flung out, I can say that what he's saying isn't completely BS, and that some of it is rooted in fact, I noticed a number of sweeping generalizations that I must scoff at.

The most glaring one was one to the effect of "Islam is a religion entirely of violence." Now, I wouldn't refute that a number of folks have used Islam's teachings to justify violence, hatred, etc. etc., I find it hard to believe that the entire religion is full of these such folks. Perhaps I'm making a wild jump in logic, however but are there not other religions that at one time, and still do, have pockets of nutcases. Does that justify any of their existances? No.

As I said above, that fellow likely comes to logical conclusions, and also comes to ones that qualify for one or more logical fallacies. I haven't the time, nor desire to ferret all of them out in the name of discrediting the video. I will say, however, that I'm not too sore about losing that 6 minutes of my life.


As to my other comment, I must concede that the point I was making was rather... nieve\\ignorant, etc. Perhaps I hadn't changed my definition of ground-zero after the media branded this mosque project with its name. When you apply the symbolism of the term, extending its typical meaning, then, it does "square out in the end". I guess I hadn't made enough of a logical jump with all of the BS being thrown around by all sides of the media\\information\\misinformation frenzy.

You'll notice that the \"generalizations\" you mention do NOT apply to all muslims, yes?

Anyone within that religion that dares to speak out or deviate from its more backward or barbaric teachings, however, are immediately threatened or worse (as you heard Mr. Condell mention toward the end of the video) from its more \"devout\" quarters.

If islam is reformed and uniformly rejects its supremacist and murderously violent teachings against \"infidels\" and women, I will have no problem with a mosque on every street corner.

Good luck waiting for that to happen though.