Alarming News

May 26, 2010

No I don’t hate Muslims but thanks for asking

There are things I will never understand:

-Why women buy Kate Spade bags.

-Really, Eliot Spitzer, hookers!?

-And why our options are A) hating Muslims or B) building a mosque at Ground Zero.

Let’s review. On 9/11/01, nearly 9 years ago though it seems more like 90, 19 men who were all of the same religious faith, killed thousands of people by turning planes into missiles and flying them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

They were motivated to do this by that faith.

Whatever other argument can be made, that they were radicalized by American actions, that they were undereducated and poor with few options, that they were brainwashed by powerful people, the fact remains that they were all Muslim and that this was no coincidence. It wasn’t 18 Muslims and 1 Christian guy. There wasn’t an agnostic in the group. Their actions were part of a jihad, what Wikipedia defines as “an Islamic term, a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” ” Their religion was at the forefront of their actions.

Do non-Muslims commit terrorist acts? Sure, let’s go with that. But do these non-Muslim terrorists commit their acts in the name of their religion, with a global network which supports, condones, or at the minimum merely looks the other way and half-understands? Find me Timothy McVeigh’s global network. Show me the Unabomber’s support group connected to his faith.

Are there Muslims who don’t support this jihad? OF COURSE. And it is a travesty that these terrorists act in their name. But that does not mean that these terrorists acts are not tied to Islam. Ultimately they are, they are, they are, and saying so doesn’t mean that I hate Muslims who live peacefully and don’t want to see me dead. It is a fact that Islam is inextricably tied to the murder of 3000 people in this one attack, and to many more dead in others.

And that is why a mosque at Ground Zero is just unacceptable. It is one thing to celebrate and worship Islam 20 blocks away in either direction. It’s another to have it at the site where the slaughter of innocents took place in the name of Islam. It isn’t a sign of openness and understanding to put a mosque in this location. It is a prize to those who hate us, it is a monument to the side that won the battle that day.

The peaceful Muslims who have no quarrel with us? They should understand that this mosque should not be built on or very near this space. Choose another location, and let’s move on.

Posted by Karol at 01:31 PM |
Comments

Too bad there isn’t some sort of free market system where, say, the property owners get to decide what gets built on their property.

Posted by: Jim Lesczynski at May 26, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Pretty sure the libertarian philosophy includes the community deciding what gets built in their neighborhood. Every libertarian argument I’ve ever heard concludes in a localized decision making (say, about teaching creationism in schools or allowing the carrying of guns). Why not this?

Posted by: Karol at May 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Dennis Prager said it best (as he often does): Even if only ten percent of Muslims affirmatively support jihad, that’s 100 million people. Just imagine the uproar if ten percent of Jews went to pro-PLO rallies, or if ten percent of Christians wanted abortion clinics bombed. Front page news for months.

Posted by: mike at May 26, 2010 at 1:50 pm

Everything Fred Phelps does, he does “in the name of” Christianity. Everything Timothy McVeigh did, he did in the name of white people, or America, or some other group that he chose to speak on behalf of that would be embarrassed by his claiming affiliation. You can’t damn a whole group by what the worst of them do. By deciding that a “mosque” – not a mosque run by a particularly frothy imam or a noted terror- supporting group, just a mosque – you are lumping all Muslims together despite your protests that you are not.

And I think you are talking to some halfhearted libertarians. The ones I know get worked up over all kinds of wackadoo local legislation.

Posted by: Charles at May 26, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Really? I have never heard any such libertarian arguments, unless you’re defining “the community” as, for example, a privately built gated community where the decision-making authority is spelled out contractually. Otherwise, any libertarian I know would say that the community can go pound sand as far as what’s built, who carries gun, and what’s taught in the privately owned schools. (The only libertarian position on government schools, of course, is that they shouldn’t exist. Anything else is libertarian-leaning at best, IMO.)

Posted by: Jim Lesczynski at May 26, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Jim, so you’re saying construction of a mosque at Ground Zero is OK with you as long as the land was purchased in free transaction?

Does a word “symbol” means anything to you?

Posted by: Tatyana at May 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm

What a liberal thing to say, Tatyana!

Posted by: Charles at May 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm

Depends what you mean by that word.

It’s not a “progressive” thing to say, for sure – as the “progressives” in the community board HAS allowed the construction of that insulting atrocity.

It would be …er..not smart, all of a sudden to start acting as if free market in downtown NY exist – or will magically appear starting erection of this building. How many grants, city and government support this blasted organization receives? Who was the previous owner of the property they purchased?

And, since we talking about my personal views: I didder from Karol: I hate muslims. I do.

I have reasons for it.

Only fool

Posted by: Tatyana at May 26, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Let me state right now that I am against the building of this mosque. But not for the reasons you stated, save for one. The main reason I am against this project, at this time, is that it isn’t particularly sensitive. I would have no problem if this were strictly a community center, or a small outreach program, but building an enormous $100 million mosque that touches on so many aspects of Islam is just a fight that doesn’t need to be fought at this time. Small steps are what’s required to bridge the divide between Muslims and the rest of us, not broad strokes.

Now, to break down a few of your arguments:
But do these non-Muslim terrorists commit their acts in the name of their religion, with a global network which supports, condones, or at the minimum merely looks the other way and half-understands?

The Irish Republican Army exactly describes this statement. When the IRA was active, they committed terrorist acts, in the name of religion, funded by an international network (quite a bit of which came from right here in the U.S.A.) which supported them and looked the other way when babies died in car bomb explosions.

But that does not mean that these terrorists acts are not tied to Islam.

Back to the IRA analogy; it’s impossible to condemn Catholics or Protestants for the actions of a splinter group. It’s a logical fallacy to condemn Islam or it’s adherents for the actions of a terrorist cell. Subsets don’t speak for the larger group.

It is a fact that Islam is inextricably tied to the murder of 3000 people in this one attack, and to many more dead in others.

No, the people who committed those acts are followers of Islam (or so they claim). Islam itself is not responsible for their acts. You’re using reverse logic where it isn’t applicable. Christianity isn’t “tied to” Timothy McVeigh’s heinous acts, simply because he is a Christian. I know you’ll say that the two things aren’t analogous because McVeigh didn’t have a religious motivation for his actions. I submit to you that what the 9/11 attackers did was also not motivated by Islam. Oh, they probably believed that, but it is the same as lumping in cultist splinter religions in with their parent sources. There are multiple Catholic and Jewish cults, some of whose members do despicable things in the name of their ‘religion’, but we don’t say that JUDAISM or CATHOLICISM is linked to those actions. Fanatical thought is a product of the fanatacism borne of that particular person and their particular teachings. The hundreds of millions of peaceful Islam worshipers should be evident proof that Islam itself is not advocating outright terrorism. Islamic offshoots and cults of personality, yes. The parent religion, no. More than once in the last 50 years, Jewish fanaticals have shot up mosques and killed innocents in murderous rages. And if someone told me that Judaism is to blame for those tragedies, I’d be pretty upset. At the same time, I don’t think I’d build a shul at the site either.

I know very well that my comments above will be met with derision and incredulity by most of the readers of this blog. So be it.

Posted by: Jamie at May 26, 2010 at 2:38 pm

No, Jamie, not with incredulity. You’re not as original, you know. We’ve seen it before.

Luckily, there are normal people, people with good common sense, people whose brains are not washed with antisemitic nonsense, such as “in the last 50 years, Jewish fanaticals (sic!) have shot up mosques and killed innocents in murderous rages.”
There are more of us than of you.

You are mistaken if you think otherwise.

Posted by: Tatyana at May 26, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Muslims tend to mark their conquered territory with mosques. See Israel’s Temple of the Mount, um, Dome of ….

All over the world this is the case. And the case is no different here…

Build your mosque. But watch out for low flying airplanes….

Posted by: daprof at May 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm

Let them built it and burn it down. The whole moderate muslim thing is a peace of crap. It is time to be willing to support violents in defense of our liberty.

Posted by: Minh at May 26, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Jewish fanaticals (sic!)
My apologies, ‘fanatics’. I’ve never met such an ardent proponent of proper grammar in my life.

You call me anti-Semitic, but that cannot be further from the truth. I am not anti-Semitic and I am not a self-hating Jew. I am just expressing a truth you refuse to believe; Jewish extremists and cultists exist and some of them are violent. Are there as many as violent Islamic extremists and cultists? Of course not, and I am not comparing the two at all. I am simply stating that there have been violent actions by Jewish extremists in the past and we don’t blame Judaism for them.

Here’s a short but revolting list that anyone with access to Google can find:

Baruch Goldstein kills 29 and injures dozens of others at a mosque in Hebron. The extremist Kach movement to which he belongs is subsequently banned and labeled a TERRORIST organization by Israel
Alan Harry Goodman, an American Jew, kills two and injures dozens of others at a mosque on the Temple Mount
A recent mosque fire said to be arson by Jewish extremists

Now, I’m going to try to make myself clear but I doubt the more rabid readers will care. But someone with half a brain might understand me. I am NOT trying to match Islamic themed terrorism with Jewish themed terrorism. I am NOT trying to equate the two in any way. Both are despicable and awful in every way. I am ONLY trying to say that we don’t equate Judaism with the demented actions of a handful of it’s cultish adherents.

Posted by: Jamie at May 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Actually, it is a Muslim tradition to place a mosque upon the holy sites of lands the Muslims conquer. For example, the placing of AlAqsa on the site of the Jewish Temple and throughout India where until this date there are fights over mosques constructed on former Hindu holy sites. There is a good chance that the mosque is being put there as a symbol of the conquest of the WTC which is as close to an American shrine as you can get. Everyone has to decide for themselves whether they stand for or oppose the construction of the Ground Zero mosque. But just be aware that there may be motives at work other than just the Muslim community that Ground Zero sure would be a great place for a mosque because the Muslims in the area are under served by mosques.

Posted by: Phil Dayton at May 26, 2010 at 3:23 pm

I think there are too many people who don’t understand the goals of Islam.

Posted by: LarryG at May 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Another question popped up after the Allahabad High court ordered the archeological department of government of India to undertake a thorough excavation work at the site below the destroyed mosque to find whether a Hindu temple once stood on the spot where the Babri mosque was constructed later when to stop excavation. The Hindus of Ayodhya all along have been contesting the Babri Mosque was built by the invading Muslims over the site of the old Hindu temple. The historian BB Lal opined that the ruins of a temple dedicated to Lord Tama exists underneath the spot where Babri mosque once stood. He further contented that when the Babri mosque was demolished an inscription was unearthed that states, ‘a temple was constructed by a King Nayachandra in the 12th century to honour Ram.’

Summary of the main findings may be stated as follows:

There is ‘archeological evidence of a massive structure’ below ground where the Babri mosque was destroyed in 1992.
The structure bears distinctive features associated with ancient temples of northern India.
There is evidence of building work there from as far as the 10th century.

The excavated area covered beneath the disputed land at least 14,000 sq.ft over which the report said, ‘There is sufficient proof of existence of a massive and monumental structure having a minimum dimension of 50×30 meters in the north-south and east-west directions, respectively, just below the disputed structure.’ The report said that excavation clearly showed distinctive features of a tenth century temple below the ruins of the Babri Mosque. It further mentions discovery of 50 pillar bases, decorated bricks bearing features of 10th century, deities of Hindu gods and goddesses, lotus motifs, and curved architectural pieces

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ajoy/asi_report_babri.htm

Posted by: Phil Dayton at May 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm

Jamie, don’t waste pixels.
From now on I’m not reading a word you’re writing: it’s not worthy of my attention.

Posted by: Tatyana at May 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm

A large part of the reason the supporters want to build the mosque at ground zero is to acknowledge the roll Muslims played in the attack and to try to include Muslims in the healing process. That’s and admirable sentiment. However, by wanting to build the mosque they are themselves implicitly associating the attack with Islam. So why is it hard to understand that people would find it offensive? As one person put it; “They’re building a mosque on top of a Christian burial ground”. The decision to build it is divisive, not unifying, and only serves to inflame prejudices.

Posted by: Yosoff at May 26, 2010 at 3:36 pm

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/is-a-giant-mosque-at-grou_b_578195.html

“About fifteen years ago I visited the site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp for the first time. I was taken aback by giant Christian crosses that dotted the deathly landscape. Wherever you looked there no Jewish symbols only Christian ones. I asked my close friend Prof. Jonathan Webber, one of the world’s leading authorities on Auschwitz and my guide at the camp, why there were so many Christian symbols when more than ninety-five percent of the people who died there were Jews. He explained to me that the Jewish response to Auschwitz was one of emptiness and silence. Something unspeakable and inexplicable had happened here. The horror was too great to capture, the meaninglessness of the act too profound to be justified with any kind of memorial. Jews did not want to give meaning to something so utterly meaningless. Indeed, Jewish theologians speak of the holocaust as a time of Hester Panim, the hiding of G-d’s presence. Hence, the Jewish community took the approach of leaving the slaughterhouse empty of symbolism or memorials. Christians might seek to redeem it, but some places remain unredeemable. The Jewish community discussed this with our Christian brothers and many of the Christian symbols were removed.

In the same way it behooved our Christian brothers to allow us Jews to choose to commemorate the extermination of our people in the manner we saw fit, it likewise behooves our Islamic brothers and sisters to approach the families of those who died on 9/11 and ask them how they wish the site to be commemorated. And if as a body they object to any kind of mosque being built there, then their wishes should be respected.”

Posted by: gracie at May 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm

Great post. Couldn’t agree with you more, Karol.

Posted by: change100 at May 26, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Tatyana, yes I understand what a symbol is. I also understand when something is really none of my business.

Posted by: Jim Lesczynski at May 26, 2010 at 3:45 pm

“Dennis Prager said it best (as he often does): Even if only ten percent of Muslims affirmatively support jihad, that’s 100 million people.”

I’ll meet that and raise you one. (And this is for Jamie too.) 2% of all Muslims is more than all the Jews in the world, period. So if even 2% of all Muslims believe in jihad, that’s at least one jihadist for every Jew. And you know it’s way more than that. And you know not even 2% of Jews believe anything close to what jihadists believe.

Posted by: Yehudit at May 26, 2010 at 4:09 pm

Yehudit,

I’m not disputing that there are a fuckload of jihadists and extremist (by my own definition) muslims in the world. I’d even venture to say, though I really have no clue, that the number is higher than 2%. Personally, I could care less if we hunted down each one and shot them in the head, on Pay-Per-View. I also agree that there are a far far far smaller proportion of extremist Jews.

But my point was, and still is, that we shouldn’t paint the other 98% (or 95% or 90%) of Muslims as believing in the same extremism as those other pieces of shit. They are two separate things. The same way that Baruch Goldstein shouldn’t reflect badly on most Jews, the 9/11 bombers shouldn’t reflect badly on most Muslims.

Now don’t think I don’t understand that I’m shouting into the wind on this point. Most anyone who takes a contrary position to me has already made up their mind in their heads that the actions of the 9/11 scumbags are reflective of Islam. There ain’t nothing I’m gonna be able to say to dissuade them otherwise. But I feel like being combative and speaking my mind today, for no other reason than I’m a little bored at work.

Thank god Tatyana isn’t reading this.

Posted by: Jamie at May 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm

Hey Karol,

Are you gonna weigh in here? Or do you just like dropping the bomb and watching it go off? It’s like you threw a piece of meat into a dog pit here! What do you think? You’re one of the few whose opinion I respect here anyway.

Posted by: Jamie at May 26, 2010 at 4:22 pm

I’ve just been informed that Karol isn’t commenting at the moment because she’s in a Mommy and Me class. Wow, that has to be the most adorably cute reason for being absent I ever heard of.

All the anger I ever had just melted out of my body.

Posted by: Jamie at May 26, 2010 at 4:30 pm

“But my point was, and still is, that we shouldn’t paint the other 98% (or 95% or 90%) of Muslims as believing in the same extremism as those other pieces of shit. They are two separate things.”

Jamie,
At what % would it be fair to use the actions of a minority to tarnish a group as a whole? If 98% were in favor of violent jihad, would you still object to smearing Islam because 2% were peaceful? I posit that the “smear %” threshold should be lowered for particularly repugnant actions, like decapitation of converts, as opposed to less ugly things which we might disagree with (not eating pork, for example).

If the combined percent of muslims who (a) affirmatively support violent jihad; and (b) do not affirmatively support it, but do not even passively oppose it either; tops 33%, I say that is high enough to smear the entire religion as morally defective.

Posted by: wooga at May 26, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Very troubling that so many intelligent people are ignorant of what we are facing.Enough of the child-like repetitive disinformation and taqiya.

Please inform yourselves about Islam. They do not care if you don’t hate them,if you respect them or if you tolerate them.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Posted by: Open your eyes at May 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm

I am not a New Yorker but I am an American who does not want to see a mosque build at or near the site of the World Trade Center.
I have read the Koran and some of the Hadiths. Islam, not extreme Islam, is directly responsible for the actions of the nineteen who attacked us on 9/11. These terrorists practice Islam just as Mohammad intended. It is a violent political and social ideology masquerading as a religion. Make no mistake about that. It is my understanding that this mosque is to be named “Cordoba” and dedicated on 9/11. This is meant as a stick in the eye of all Americans. The Caliphate of Cordoba was the name given to a Spanish city conquered in 711 by the Moors (moslems). This is the muslim way of showing dominance over a vanquished foe. If this mosque is allowed to be built, there will be dancing in the streets of the muslim world and they will have been greatly emboldened by our submission to their will. Now, there may be many “nice, peaceful muslims”, but that does not mean they do not approve of what happened 9/11. They will say they condemn terrorism but you must parse their words. They do not consider what happened on 9/11 as terrorism, but a legitimate act of war. Ask a muslim if they will condemn all Islamic/Muslim terrorism and you will get a different response. These people are instructed to practice “taquia” when living in a non-muslim country. In other worlds, they are to LIE to non-believers. Americans have been sold a bill of goods regarding this specious “religion”. Practiced correctly, it is incompatible with modern western societies. Practiced any other way, it is not Islam. Do not let American tolerance blind you to the real intent of Islam and the muslims living in this country. Islam is not Buddhism or Hinduism. It is not just another path to God. It is an evil LIE told by a lying, thieving, murdering, epileptic pedophile named Mohammad.

Posted by: SpiderMike at May 26, 2010 at 5:17 pm

Jamie: “It’s a logical fallacy to condemn Islam or it’s adherents for the actions of a terrorist cell. Subsets don’t speak for the larger group.”

It’s also a logical fallacy to attempt to win an argument by moving the changing the propositions. This is pure straw man stuff.

Jamie: “I submit to you that what the 9/11 attackers did was also not motivated by Islam.”

And I submit to you that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You speak with the smug certainty of someone so insulated from reality that you can afford to reduce this to academics. Your submitted opinion, as uninformed about the manifest forces animating radical Islamists as it is, isn’t worth the pixels you wrote it on.

Jamie: “The hundreds of millions of peaceful Islam worshipers should be evident proof that Islam itself is not advocating outright terrorism.”

Should be, in the prism that you are looking at this issue through. But it isn’t. That means your paradigm is at odds with reality. You can hope reality will change to fit your worldview. Let us know how that works out for you.

Posted by: BadHatHarry at May 26, 2010 at 5:29 pm

The Irish Republican Army exactly describes this statement. When the IRA was active, they committed terrorist acts, in the name of religion, funded by an international network (quite a bit of which came from right here in the U.S.A.) which supported them and looked the other way when babies died in car bomb explosions.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this. The IRA was NOT fighting in the name of Catholicism, the IRA was continuing the war that began sometime around 1691, with the British invasion and colonization of Ireland. The British and the settlers who were encouraged to take native Irish land were Protestants and the native Irish were Catholic, but the IRA was an anti-colonialist force.

That’s not to say that everyone who was Catholic or who was in favor of a united Ireland supported the IRA, especially when they turned into a terrorist army in the ‘70. The people who openly opposed the IRA and who sought the dissolution of the IRA and of Unionist terrorist armies were mostly Catholics. They knew that both terrorist groups were not fighting for religion or for their various ideologies – they were thugs who used the smokescreen of ideology/religion/general anomie to get political power, money and everything else they didn’t deserve.

The same is true of the thugs and criminals who are financing this mosque near ground zero. According to the article in PJ media, titled “The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams”

The prospective developer of a $100 million, 13-story mosque 600 feet from Ground Zero presents himself as a Muslim moderate (1). Yet Kuwait-born Faisal Abdul Rauf also boasts of his issue from an “Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship” (2). Indeed, Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a criminal financial/political organization that manages the petrodollar-fueled offshore accounts which finance Sunni-supported terrorism. This organization pays the bills and invests wisely for al Qaeda and Hamas.

Muslims are willing to work closely with the Muslim Brotherhood and with the oil ticks who support Terrorism Inc., but the British government, our government and most nations around the world also work closely with these terror supporters. Until we’re willing to criticize our own government for its alliances, and to confront the Saudi “friends” who finance atrocities like this MobMosque, these issues will continue to be a problem.

Posted by: Mary at May 26, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Stop asking questions or the Muslims will cut your head off.

Posted by: asdfaf at May 26, 2010 at 5:33 pm

“The main reason I am against this project, at this time, is that it isn’t particularly sensitive. I would have no problem if this were strictly a community center, or a small outreach program, but building an enormous $100 million mosque that touches on so many aspects of Islam is just a fight that doesn’t need to be fought at this time. Small steps are what’s required to bridge the divide between Muslims and the rest of us, not broad strokes.”

Very well said Jamie. I agree with not going forward with the mosque for precisely the reason you have stated–it would be too insensitive. It seems plenty of the commenters on this thread feel they know exactly why the mosque on ground zero is being built without doing any research or providing any evidence as to the actual thinking behind the building of the mosque. Speculation is no grounds for opposing the building of a mosque in a FREE nation.

Some have also commented on the fact that if an appropriately large percentage of Muslims support Jihad it should reflect poorly on the entire religion. Sadly, (I am from a Muslim family), I have to agree with this too. ALL the Muslims that I know are professionals who care about their families. However, you will notice that there are many different ethnicities in the West from many different backgrounds–South Asian Hindus, Africans, East Asians etc. However, it is primarily Muslims who are involved in terrorism. Even though a majority of Muslims are indeed peaceful they need to do more to separate themselves from violent extremist political Islam. So far the West (especially America) has gone out of its way to respect our traditions and make us feel at home in America (at least that is my personal experience). It is time Muslims return the favor.

Posted by: Sajid at May 26, 2010 at 5:33 pm

I also understand when something is really none of my business.

If you’re a NewYorker, an American, a person with basic understanding of right and wrong, then this is your business: construction of a religious institution in exact place where 19 monsters motivated by that same religion pulverized 3000 of your neighbors needs to be addressed.
And not in the academic terms of hypothetical free-market transaction.

Posted by: Tatyana at May 26, 2010 at 5:56 pm

Have you seen the dispute this post started over at Hot Air in the Headlines section?

Posted by: Alo Konsen at May 26, 2010 at 6:43 pm

[...] our side isn’t that the mosque is unwelcome, it’s that it’s unwelcome there. As Karol Sheinin says, “I will never understand … why our options are A) hating Muslims or B) building a [...]

Posted by: Hot Air » NYC community board approves mosque near Ground Zero at May 26, 2010 at 7:35 pm

I wonder if supporters of this mosque would feel differently had any of their family members or friends been murdered on September 11?

Posted by: Rita at May 27, 2010 at 12:53 am

Everything Fred Phelps does, he does “in the name of” Christianity. Everything Timothy McVeigh did, he did in the name of white people, or America, or some other group that he chose to speak on behalf of that would be embarrassed by his claiming affiliation. You can’t damn a whole group by what the worst of them do. By deciding that a “mosque” – not a mosque run by a particularly frothy imam or a noted terror- supporting group, just a mosque – you are lumping all Muslims together despite your protests that you are not.

Charles, where are Fred Phelps or Timothy McVeigh’s millions of supporters? Where is there international funding network? Who protested in the streets in support of McVeigh after the Oklahoma bombing? Show me. And most of all, show me the tribute to McVeigh or any of his beliefs at the Oklahoma site.

The funding for this mosque is coming from Saudi Arabia. I don’t know who the imam will be but that is extremely unsettling in and of itself. Saudi Arabia exports the most extreme type of Islam and 14 of the 19 murderers that day hailed from there. No, thanks.

More than once in the last 50 years, Jewish fanaticals have shot up mosques and killed innocents in murderous rages. And if someone told me that Judaism is to blame for those tragedies, I’d be pretty upset. At the same time, I don’t think I’d build a shul at the site either.

Jamie, your last line is the sum total of my point. That’s it, no shul on the site. Take it elsewhere. Show some respect.

Posted by: Karol at May 27, 2010 at 1:38 am

Hey “Jamie at May 26, 2010 at 3:14 pm”

You try to make a point about an extremist Jewish group, but right in the link itself, it says condemned and banned by Israel.

I defy you to find just one example of a Muslim majority nation EVER condemning ANY murderous bastards acting in their religion’s name.

Posted by: Robert Arvanitis at May 27, 2010 at 8:32 am

Iran’s Supreme Leader condemns 9/11 attacks

One example, as requested. Where’s my cookie?

Posted by: Jamie at May 27, 2010 at 9:02 am

How did this thread turn into a discussion on Judaism?

CB1 approved this project and it’s not in ground zero but in a building that has been abandoned for over a decade and has become an eyesore.

Posted by: Dan Dee Man at May 27, 2010 at 10:17 am

Just wanting to point out that nobody’s made a bigger ass of themselves here than Charles (of the fourth post), who declares that what he’s defending is “not a mosque run by a particularly frothy imam.” Charles needs to do some homework.

Posted by: ThePointer at May 27, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Jamie, you truly think Khameini “condemning the 9/11 attacks” was at all sincere? He’s no more truthful than all the boys who tell teenage girls “I love you” when all they want is sex. “Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned” — coming from the supreme leader of a country that sponsors terrorists and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Think about it: he “condemned” the 9/11 attacks as a coded (and untrue) criticism of Israel. So I have no doubt that he was celebrating just like all the Palestinians shown on the news, except that he had the political “smarts” to keep quiet about it.

Tatyana, there’s nothing ever “hypothetical” about a true “free-market transaction.” If it’s your land, you have the right to sell it to whomever you want. Now, I’m mad as hell about the mosque. I understand exactly what it is, and anyone with an ounce of brain knows it’s a symbol. I would really love to believe it’s being built by purely peaceful Muslims, but the location is no coincidence. Who’s the one lacking “respect” and “sensitivity,” we or the ones who know they’re rubbing it in our faces? And I didn’t even realize the significance of the name.

But Jim is right. It’s privately owned land, and “the community” has absolutely no right to dictate usage that stays within the bounds of the property. If they were making noise, planning terrorist attacks or allowing rodents to breed and scatter around the neighborhood, that would be a different matter. Until then, we can’t tell them what to do. That’s the price of freedom, and it’s what distinguishes us from them. We’re nothing like (or at least shouldn’t be) like our “friend” Saudi Arabia that forbids churches and Bibles.

Which is the greater danger, jihadists who we can take action against, or “a community” that is legitimized tyranny in that it can dictate the rules of our lives when we harm no one? What if a community voted against opening a synagogue because it would offend Muslims in the area? That’s your own standard used against you. “Do unto others” can also be, “Do not wield power over others that you would not want anyone to have to wield over you.”

You and I consider this construction to be morally wrong, but if we’re not being harmed — which does not include “being offended” — then there’s nothing we can do.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Jim L. sounds like one of the capitalists Lenin had in mind when he remarked that “Many capitalists would sell me the rope that we’ll hang them with!”

Posted by: Joe at May 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm

The biggest problem with building a mosque near Ground Zero is that irregardless of the good intentions of it’s builders it would be a symbol of victory for Jihadists. The purpose of Jihad is to destroy the Infidel and replace it with Islam. Destroying the WTC and putting up a Mosque there would be seen as a victory …and as Karol put it, a prize to those who hate us.

Posted by: Paul at May 27, 2010 at 7:21 pm

Perry, I said nothing about community having any say in the matter (that was Karol’s objection). I don’t think this is their business.

What I think is this is not a clear pure free-market transaction: 1. I want to know who the owner of that parcel of land/building is; since it has been abandoned – it could be that it belongs to the city now or to one of city-connected non-profits – and thus I have a suspicion they created a preferential conditions for Cordoba House as a purchaser.
2. Jamestown Sun (sorry, registration req’d, so I don’t supply the link) wrote “The land is bought — with $4.85 million in unaccounted for cash” – aren’t there laws demanding disclosure of the funds with R.E. purchase?
3. How much public money, in various forms, this Cordoba House receives? Who were the other bidders on the property – or the sale was not open and it was direct transaction to a predetermined party? If there were other bidders, how much they bid and how come Cordoba House was able to outbid them – did they use any of public money for this purpose?

These are some of the issues that potentially might make this transaction NOT a normal sale transaction between 2 private parties.

Perry, I’ve some experience with commercial R.E. in this city; nothing is “free-market” here as it’s supposed to be.

Posted by: Tatyana at May 27, 2010 at 8:45 pm

Abu Imran, leader of Sharia4Belgium -
Because we are Muslims and thus we are victors, who are here to dominate. And those who cannot accept the dominance of Islam will have to leave. For my part, to hell.”

Anjem Choudary, leader of the in England banned Islam4UK, sounded very threatening in Antwerp.
“We will only rest when the flag of Islam flies everywhere.”

How does sound to you infidels?

Posted by: LarryG at May 27, 2010 at 9:19 pm

Diversity is a wonderful thing, the ideals of diversity are growing throughout the world. Today, even the most inflexible idealogues are slowly embracing diversity. Next thing you know cathedrals will be built in Baghdad and Kabul, gay bars and strip clubs will open in Mecca right next to the Great Mosgue. Once again the West leads the way by allowing a triumphal Mosque to rise right on the scarred wound of 911.

Posted by: David at May 28, 2010 at 1:39 am

Wether you like it or not Muslims are apart of American society.

Should they be treated like Japanese-Americans during WW2?

It would be naive of one to think there aren’t “some” radicals in the American Muslim population and that explains why folks don’t want the mosque. But it’s also naive to think that a majority of muslims are radicals and prone to violence.

I see both sides and when the news initially broke I was very wary of the project. Looking at it in a historical context it actually is a good thing. We are in fact better than “them”.

On a side note, if it’s a religious institution that will be subsidized via re or other taxes you are damn right the people have a say in it’s approval.

Posted by: Dan Dee Man at May 28, 2010 at 11:08 am

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil — that takes religion. Any religion. Growing up in the south, I saw a huge network of “Christians” hanging my grandparents friends in the 30s and burning crosses in our lawns. There were thousands of them – they were in the Senate, in the house, even our Governor was a klansman once. There are still several overt and “retired” members in both the GOP and Democratic parties.

So – you may try to apologize your dislike for these brown people all you like, rationalize it away, whatever … but all I see are your people burning crosses when you talk like that.
Do something about the three churches and the synagogue proposals for the same neighborhood and maybe you won’t sound like such a hypocrite. I don’t like the muslims any more than any other religionists, but seriously, if you’ve got something against one of the most progressive muslim congregations out there, good luck with anyone believing a word of what comes out of your mouth.

Posted by: Terrell Bowers at May 28, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Dan, it should definitely not be subsidized by taxpayers, nor should synagogues, churches, Jehovah’s Witnesses meeting halls, a Hindu temple, or the Boy Scouts. When government doesn’t take money to spend on a few, then nobody needs to worry that his tax money is being spent on something he doesn’t approve. That said, this appears to be a fully private initiative of $100 million. The Saudi government will probably help channel terrorist money for half of it.

Tatyana, I know full well that there’s no free market in city real estate. But let’s be very clear on what a free market is: it simply means that the government isn’t interfering with the natural right of willing private parties to conduct peaceful exchange on their own terms. If the city has taken over “abandoned” land, even for non-profit, that’s of course not a free market. That’s my money being used to support something I didn’t want involvement in (otherwise I’d have freely participated with my own money without government getting/making me involved). But laws and regulations demanding disclosure of funds — as much as we think they could come from terrorism — are not a free market either. Why should Donald Trump or Sheik-whoever have to reveal where every cent is coming from? If you think there’s something fishy with the financing, e.g. the money was ill-gotten gains or is being used for criminal purposes, then show evidence and get a warrant.

Besides, even if we look at the practical side, financial records are so easy to use to hide illicit money: shell corporations, overseas accounts, even some sheik’s personal foundation account. If all else fails, money can be transferred in plain sight: the Saudi government will threaten to stop cooperating in anti-terrorism once one of their corrupt nationals is caught. So while it’s important to locate and freeze terrorists’ assets, laws disclosing are far more harmful to peaceful citizens.

The building was a Burlington Coat Factory for 150 years. As far as I can tell, it was and still is still privately owned. So this isn’t “hypothetical,” but a very real free market transaction (as much as it could be in New York) in that this “Cordoba Initiative” made a peaceful offer that was willingly accepted. They’re using it right now, in fact. The permission they’re seeking is to raze the site to build the new mosque. It’s bullshit that they had to wait for the local board to approve it, and it’s equally bullshit for opponents to use “landmark status” as a way of stopping this.

If a piece of property hasn’t been used in decades, what gives a political jurisdiction any right to seize it? What if a great-grandson learns later on about his inheritance and can produce a deed or other records to prove his claim? If there are no known owners, and it seems to be truly “abandoned,” then let some private individual take control — when “the government” does it, that means it’s through tax dollars, and I as a taxpayer want no part of such things.

Suppose an abandoned building is an eyesore, or it’s an old farm in Westchester (whose various towns spend millions each year to “preserve” these worthless fields of weeds and dried-out swamp). Jim says, “Look, all that crumbling plaster and garbage is blowing into my lot here. I’m taking it over to clean it up and preserve my own property, then sell it to recover my losses.” Bob and Marie then say that they’ve suffered damages too. So they all pitch in for pre-determined shares of the proceeds. George next door wasn’t harmed enough by the garbage blowing around to feel like participating, and Marie on the other side of town didn’t care because she was never harmed. But in a situation where a government gets involved, they’d have nonetheless been forced to become involved, via taxation and the government force used to collect taxes.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Well, obviously I support lynching if I think it’s insensitive to put a mosque at Ground Zero. That just stands to reason!

Posted by: Karol at May 28, 2010 at 12:40 pm

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”

Really? A “good” person willfully, cognizantly doing evil doesn’t sound “good” at all. That sounds like a bad person to me.

I’m a Christian, specifically Southern Baptist. Do you lump me with the cross-burners and lynchers?

“your dislike for these brown people”

So you’re accusing us of racism? That’s a relief, I thought you’d accuse us of hating Muslims for their religion.

Being half-Asian and half-European by descent, there are Saudis with lighter skin tones than mine.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at May 28, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Trade-Off: A mosque at the WTC site for a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue in downtown Mecca.

Posted by: MDWhite at May 28, 2010 at 1:24 pm

Because we want to be like Saudi Arabia.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I like this ^^^^^^

Posted by: Dan Dee Man at May 28, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Dan, I too don’t support Congress making any such law. So?

Posted by: Karol at May 28, 2010 at 9:29 pm

“Trade-Off: A mosque at the WTC site for a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue in downtown Mecca.”

I’ve already heard this horseshit more times than I can count. I’m downtown Manhattan were the one of the holiest sites in the Christian or Jewish faiths, you might almost have something that approaches a point, assuming you squinted really hard and didn’t didn’t have high standards for truth. As it stands, however, you’ve got nothing.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 28, 2010 at 10:03 pm

A 2 year old can figure out that 9/11 was carried out as a false flag operation with Muslims be used as patsies.You are obviously a)COINTELPRO
or b)dumbed down by the corporaterrorist owned
mainstream media. Good luck.

Posted by: Mike S at May 28, 2010 at 10:07 pm

I was just thinking this thread was missing a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

Posted by: Karol at May 29, 2010 at 12:10 am

Oops. “If,” I meant to type.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 29, 2010 at 12:52 am

Karol:…and a muslim nut threatening a fatwa on our heads

Posted by: Tatyana at May 29, 2010 at 11:49 am

This is New York. There’s bound to be a bureaucratic obstacle that will cause a delay.

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at May 30, 2010 at 2:56 am

You are seriously misguided about Islam and its teachings and how removed these terrorists are from the religion in its purest form, straight from the Koran. This terrorism is a distortion of the Muslim faith– like people who confuse and abuse the Christian faith– Ku Klux Klan, White power movements, even Pat Roberts, televangelist who claimed Haiti deserved the earthquake. That’s not Christianity, despite the fact that these people are Christians. It is irresponsible to blame an entire faith or culture for such atrocious acts as 9/11.

Posted by: kim at May 31, 2010 at 10:49 pm

kim: seriously, why you strayed from the script? omitting “religion of peace” – how could you?!

Posted by: Tatyana at June 1, 2010 at 7:08 am

Karol, my post was in response to the people who think everything would be fair if a church was built in Mecca.

It certainly sounded like you were however looking for a legal solution to your issue:

“And that is why a mosque at Ground Zero is just unacceptable.”

No, you did not provide convincing reasons why it is unaccetable.

And actually the 1st Amendment is why it is acceptable, so…?..yeah.

Muslim-Americans should be apart of the re-building and allowed to celebrate their faith. Saying that Muslim-Americans should be restricted or excluded because of acts by foreign fanatics, makes one reek of bigotry.

Posted by: Dan Dee Man at June 1, 2010 at 9:16 am

They can celebrate their faith, Dan, and they can be part of the rebuilding (as contractors, architects, advisors, etc) but I don’t see how it’s bigotry to point out that the faith practiced by the hijackers, distorted or not, shouldn’t have a monument built to it on the place of the attack. Again, move it 10-20 blocks away and get no opposition from me. And no, I don’t want a legal solution, I want the community to oppose it, same as they would a strip club, a building that didn’t fit the neighborhood aesthetic, etc.

Posted by: Karol at June 1, 2010 at 11:39 am

“It is irresponsible to blame an entire faith or culture for such atrocious acts as 9/11.”

Yeah, thanks for looking out for the hundreds of millions of Muslims out there who can’t find time in their busy days to condemn the last 50 years of butchery in the name of Islam.

I guess we shouldn’t ‘condemn’ all nazis for the violent behavior of a few, either, should we? Cuz there are probably some ‘nice’ ones out there, huh?

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at June 1, 2010 at 11:24 am

“I’ve already heard this horseshit more times than I can count. I’m downtown Manhattan were the one of the holiest sites in the Christian or Jewish faiths, you might almost have something that approaches a point, assuming you squinted really hard and didn’t didn’t have high standards for truth. As it stands, however, you’ve got nothing.”

It’s the broader issue of a site’s significance, holiness or otherwise. (Even then, a lot of Americans think the vicinity of Ground Zero has a sort of “holiness” to it. I personally don’t.) So whether it’s a mosque near Ground Zero or a synagogue anywhere in Mecca, it’s about locals not wanting an “enemy religion” to build a place of worship there.

I guess all of Saudi Arabia is so holy that you can’t even possess a Bible.

This is weird. I was on vacation, and in that time period some comment threads display in reverse chronology?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 4, 2010 at 2:57 pm

That tune is totally brilliant, and I’m not really into that type of music!

Posted by: Amir Thompson at June 5, 2010 at 11:52 pm

[...] as a reminder, no I still don’t hate Muslims, but thanks for asking. Posted by Karol at 12:44 PM | Comments Post a [...]

Posted by: The case against the mosque at Ground Zero at August 4, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Post a comment