• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

My favorite is Rove saying that the best way to stand up for freedom of religion is not to use it! The radical right must really think people are ignorant and susceptible to suggestion. Oh, wait... crap. they're right. lol. Seriously, I have a lot of Republican friends and family. They believe in certain economic theories, etc. I am not a rep., but think it is really sad what these radicals are doing to a legitimate party.
 
Front... Page... Mag...

Ya I clearly pointed that out when presenting the article anyways here's a link to the full guest list:

Ramadan Dinner at the White House: The Guest List | 44 | washingtonpost.com

The rest of it is speculation might I add. They weren't convicted of anything,

So what? Why is Obama inviting over unindicted terrorist co-conspirators and overt Islamists over for dinner?

and Obama has billions of people come to the White House,

lol, you don't get onto a guest list for dinner with the President just because. Why were they on the guest list? Who in his administration authorized them to be on the guest list? The President doesn't review the guest list prior to the event? There were only 44 people invited to that dinner, and two of them were overt Islamists and they weren't heads of Islamic states or ambassodors thereof or anything of that nature.

it's all politics, do you think he sits there scheming and plotting to have radical islamists come to the White House? I'm sure if he wanted to he'd do it a bit more secretively... I mean after all he is the president...

So once again you use a non-mainstream source to paint people radical.

Sorry but there were only 44 people at that dinner, those who were there had to have been hand picked.
 
How do we know when we're doing something wrong? Do we need to walk on eggshells? This is our country, our land, we have the right to be against something that is hurtful to our citizens.

It is NOT your right to tell people what they can do on their property when they've already done everything legal to get their permits.

It's not your right (like Pat Robertson did about my neighbors in Murfreesboro) to tell lies about people and then use those lies as justification to prevent them from practicing their religion.

It's inherently anti-American. A mosque or community center on private property isn't hurtful to anyone except those who want to blame an entire 1.5 billion people for the actions of 19 extremists and their funders.

Those against the Cordoba House project and those against the mosque in Murfreesboro are religious bigots and nothing more. You want to make your opinion more important than the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. Building a place of worship isn't shoving their belief in your face. You attempting to prevent them from building a place of worship IS shoving your belief in their face.

Anyone trying to prevent legally zoned and permitted houses of worship (hell, even the insanity that is Scientology) are against freedom of religion and you open the door for angry mobs to prevent the construction of ANY house of worship. God knows, we could use fewer churches in Nashville. So, I think I'll use your precedent and say that we've got too many as it is, so no more can be built. Too bad. God knows that a bunch of the churches here in Nashville are tacky and ostentatious in their architecture. I think I'll use that to prevent any more houses of worship from being built.

Why don't we come up with any excuse we can to prevent any more churches from being built. No more synagogues. No more stupas. No more temples. If you prevent one religion from building for any reasons aside from legal zoning issues, then you open the door for the prevention of all of them.

The mob doesn't get to tell the minority what to do.
 
This guy is just as bad as anyone from Fox, probably worse, cause he's saying stuff that he has made up to make people seem like they are against freedom of religion and that's not it. I've heard Rove speak and he's really just speaking the truth, that these Muslim's are being insensitive to New Yorker's when wanting to build this close to ground zero. They are Muslim's for crissake. Have they forgotten why the twin towers fell, and nearly 3,000 people died? It's because Muslim's in the name of their religion were hell-bent on killing all American's, or as many as possible. Most American's are against them building there. They should quietly take the offers they've been given, and go build their Mosque there.

So you think it would be equally offending if Christians attempted to build a church near Waco or in Oklahoma City?

The problem I see here is the generalization. You, like all who oppose this mosque, think all Muslims are or at least sympathize with al-Qaida and islamist terrorism. I don't see how this is anything but stereotyping prejudice.
 
It is NOT your right to tell people what they can do on their property when they've already done everything legal to get their permits.

It's not your right to tell me what I am allowed to protest. I have the right to exercise my freedom of speech, association, and assembly to protest the building of this Mosque, you have no right to silence me or anyone else.

It's not your right (like Pat Robertson did about my neighbors in Murfreesboro) to tell lies about people and then use those lies as justification to prevent them from practicing their religion.

Actually it is his right to say whatever he likes, it is the right of those people to sue for libel, slander, and defamation.

It's inherently anti-American. A mosque or community center on private property isn't hurtful to anyone except those who want to blame an entire 1.5 billion people for the actions of 19 extremists and their funders.

No we are not blaming 1.5 billion people, we are pointing to the specific actions of an overt Islamist and saying "look right here he is part of the problem with Islam."

Those against the Cordoba House project and those against the mosque in Murfreesboro are religious bigots and nothing more.

Those who support this Imam and his actions and not just his right to engage in those actions are supporters of Islamism and Sharia in the US.

You want to make your opinion more important than the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.

No but apparently you do.

Building a place of worship isn't shoving their belief in your face.

Yes it is when they are building that place of worship where 3,000 Americans were slaughtered by their co-religionists.

You attempting to prevent them from building a place of worship IS shoving your belief in their face.

So you would have our first amendment and property rights violated then?

Anyone trying to prevent legally zoned and permitted houses of worship (hell, even the insanity that is Scientology) are against freedom of religion and you open the door for angry mobs to prevent the construction of ANY house of worship.

False dichotomy, you can be both against the building of this particular Mosque and for the freedom of religion, in fact you can even be for their right to build this Mosque and against them building it.

God knows, we could use fewer churches in Nashville. So, I think I'll use your precedent and say that we've got too many as it is, so no more can be built. Too bad. God knows that a bunch of the churches here in Nashville are tacky and ostentatious in their architecture. I think I'll use that to prevent any more houses of worship from being built.

You have every right to protest these churches and encourage others not to trade their labour for capital from those wishing to build these churches.

Why don't we come up with any excuse we can to prevent any more churches from being built. No more synagogues. No more stupas. No more temples. If you prevent one religion from building for any reasons aside from legal zoning issues, then you open the door for the prevention of all of them.

The mob doesn't get to tell the minority what to do.

The minority doesn't get to violate the First Amendment or property rights of the Majority. Nobody is calling for the state to intervene, and nobody is denying there freedom of religion, if they can get people to build the Mosque that's fine, they can not force people to build the Mosque against their will and they can not silence the opposition.

It is abundantly clear that you do not support the First Amendment or property rights whatsoever.
 
So you think it would be equally offending if Christians attempted to build a church near Waco

No because Waco was an example of the state initiated slaughter of innocent people for exercising their freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

or in Oklahoma City?

No because Timothy McVeigh a) was agnostic not Christian, and b) certainly did not do what he did in the name of Christianity.

But let's say that an organization wanted to build an Orthodox Church in the town of Srebrenica, I would be disgusted and seriously call into question the motives behind an organization which was attempting to engage in such a grotesquely insensitive act.

The problem I see here is the generalization. You, like all who oppose this mosque, think all Muslims are or at least sympathize with al-Qaida and islamist terrorism. I don't see how this is anything but stereotyping prejudice.

We are not generalizing whatsoever, we are pointing to the words and actions of a very specific Imam, it is you who is generalizing by trying to paint all Muslims as tolerant and peace loving when that is clearly not the case.
 
Last edited:
You really made my point about ignorance. What do the people who are building this mosque, and those who may attend it, have to do with 911? The guy who is in charge of this project helped the Bush administration in their efforts to fight terrorism. We are fighting intolerance (yours and Al Quaida's) not Islam. You make yourself sound so incredibly ignorant. Maybe we should stop allowing planes to fly near New York. After all it was PLANES that hit the buildings. Those guys who flew them were PILOTS! No pilots near ground zero! That's how much sense you make. Your attitude is an uninformed, emotional reaction.
 
You really made my point about ignorance. What do the people who are building this mosque, and those who may attend it, have to do with 911?

The man is trying to build a Mosque on the site where 19 of his co-religionists murdered 3,000 innocent Americans. This man said that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the US less than 3 weeks after 9-11. And this Imam supports a Sharia compliant U.S. the same as all Islamists including Bin Laden.

Was he directly involved in 9-11? No. Has he been directly linked to terrorism? No. But as an Islamist he is part of the problem as it is the Islamist ideology which is directly responsible for the epidemic of Islamist terrorism.

The guy who is in charge of this project helped the Bush administration in their efforts to fight terrorism.

Good for that, it still doesn't change the fact that he's an Islamist.

We are fighting intolerance (yours and Al Quaida's) not Islam.

Oh I'm certainly fighting the intolerance of Islam in which the only accepted mainstream views within all five major sects is that apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, and/or premarital sex are capital and/or corporal offenses.

You make yourself sound so incredibly ignorant. Maybe we should stop allowing planes to fly near New York. After all it was PLANES that hit the buildings. Those guys who flew them were PILOTS! No pilots near ground zero! That's how much sense you make.

Planes don't kill people, Jihadists flying planes into buildings kill people and these pilots didn't kill these people in the name of pilotry they killed these people in the name of Islam.

Your attitude is an uninformed, emotional reaction.

No it's actually informed I have informed myself as to the nature of the man spearheading this initiative, he has stated that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after 9-11, he has repeatedly refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and he supports a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular laws do not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths.

Tell me is there a large Muslim population in the area in pressing need of a Mosque? Doubtful considering that there are already several Mosques in the are.

Tell me why if this was an attempt at community outreach they didn't build something like a non-denominational community center or a memorial to the victims of 9-11? Why did they instead choose to build a Mega-Mosque?

Would you support the building of an Orthodox Cathedral in the town of Srebrenica?
 
Last edited:
And since when has New Jersey passed Sharia law in any bills? I'm just asking.
They haven't. NJ is where a judge ruled in favor of a Muslim who raped his wife because of his religious belief's that allow for that. It was later overturned. However I was just pointing out the very slippery slope we are on.
For those who think Sharia Law will never happen here, I say it probably won't either. However, we must stay vigilant to make sure it doesn't.
 
It's not your right to tell me what I am allowed to protest. I have the right to exercise my freedom of speech, association, and assembly to protest the building of this Mosque, you have no right to silence me or anyone else.



Actually it is his right to say whatever he likes, it is the right of those people to sue for libel, slander, and defamation.



No we are not blaming 1.5 billion people, we are pointing to the specific actions of an overt Islamist and saying "look right here he is part of the problem with Islam."



Those who support this Imam and his actions and not just his right to engage in those actions are supporters of Islamism and Sharia in the US.



No but apparently you do.



Yes it is when they are building that place of worship where 3,000 Americans were slaughtered by their co-religionists.



So you would have our first amendment and property rights violated then?



False dichotomy, you can be both against the building of this particular Mosque and for the freedom of religion, in fact you can even be for their right to build this Mosque and against them building it.



You have every right to protest these churches and encourage others not to trade their labour for capital from those wishing to build these churches.



The minority doesn't get to violate the First Amendment or property rights of the Majority. Nobody is calling for the state to intervene, and nobody is denying there freedom of religion, if they can get people to build the Mosque that's fine, they can not force people to build the Mosque against their will and they can not silence the opposition.

It is abundantly clear that you do not support the First Amendment or property rights whatsoever.

I've never said you can't complain about it. It's your right. It's your right not to work on the building. I've not read anywhere about anyone trying to force construction workers to remodel an old Burlington Coat Factory.

But those of you trying to prevents its construction are attempting to violate the freedom of religion of others.

What is the stated goal of the protest if not to prevent it from being built? If that's the case, then you're violating their 1st Amendment rights. Period. End of story.

If you desire it not to be built despite it being utterly legal - then you are attempting to violate someone's rights and freedoms. Simple. Not hard to understand.

If the goal is just to shriek about how wrong you think it is, then you're well within your rights. Trying to drive someone out of the neighborhood because you don't like them is a violation of their rights. This is no different that the legal protests of the KKK. It's within their rights to march. But if it's their goal to drive black people out of town, then they're violating people's rights. If the goal is try to prevent a synagogue, from being built, then it's a violation of people's rights. If the goal is to make noise and be obnoxious, then it's perfectly legal.

From what I see, I don't think the goal is just to make a lot of noise.
 
I've never said you can't complain about it. It's your right. It's your right not to work on the building. I've not read anywhere about anyone trying to force construction workers to remodel an old Burlington Coat Factory.

But those of you trying to prevents its construction are attempting to violate the freedom of religion of others.

And what do you mean by "trying to prevent" if you mean those who want the state to intervene then you are absolutely correct, if you mean those exercising their right to protest the Mosque and encourage others not to help build it then you are absolutely wrong. They do not have the right to silence the opposition and they do not have the right to have someone build their Mosque, if they want they can build it themselves, no one is suggesting they can't practice their religion or that they can not own this property. We are exercising our rights not violating their's.

What is the stated goal of the protest if not to prevent it from being built? If that's the case, then you're violating their 1st Amendment rights. Period. End of story.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Only the state can violate someone's 1st amendment rights. The 1st amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" has anyone suggested that there should be legislation passed banning this Mosque from being built? Not to my knowledge.

What you are suggesting is that our 1st amendment rights should be violated IE the rights of free association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech.

By your logic someone protesting the Nazi party is trying to violate the Nazi parties right to free association. :roll:

If you desire it not to be built despite it being utterly legal - then you are attempting to violate someone's rights and freedoms. Simple. Not hard to understand.

lol yep Ghandi engaging in non-violent protest against the British were attempting to violate the rights and freedoms of the British colonialists. I guess Dr. MLK jr. was using the bus boycot to attempt to violate the rights and freedoms of the bus owners. :roll: We are not in any way trying to ban their religion, or ban the practice of their religion, or ban them from owning property. What we are doing is using our rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and association to protest how they are exercising those rights and encouraging others not to enter into voluntary contracts with them in order to build that Mosque.

If the goal is just to shriek about how wrong you think it is, then you're well within your rights. Trying to drive someone out of the neighborhood because you don't like them is a violation of their rights. This is no different that the legal protests of the KKK. It's within their rights to march. But if it's their goal to drive black people out of town, then they're violating people's rights. If the goal is try to prevent a synagogue, from being built, then it's a violation of people's rights. If the goal is to make noise and be obnoxious, then it's perfectly legal.

Once again only the state can violate peoples first amendment rights. Simply protesting does not violate anyones rights, now if the KKK were to say use violence and threats in order to drive those black people out of town then you would have a point but so long as they are only engaged in non-violent protest then they are not violating anyones rights.

From what I see, I don't think the goal is just to make a lot of noise.

The goal is to stop this Mosque from being built. By your logic non-violently protesting the construction of a KKK meeting hall is a violation of the KKK's right of free assembly and association.
 
The goal is to stop this Mosque from being built. By your logic non-violently protesting the construction of a KKK meeting hall is a violation of the KKK's right of free assembly and association.

Except for the fact that the KKK is not a religion, but is, in fact, a terror organization.

But - if the goal is to prevent a house of worship from being built, then your goal is to restrict the free practice of a religion.

The protest is your right. But you can't deny that your goal is to prevent the free practice of religion for a group of people. If your goal was to prevent the KKK from building a meeting center, then your goal would be to prevent them from their first amendment rights of free assembly.

I've not once said you can't protest it, therefore, I'm not restricting anything. But you have to admit that your goal is to prevent a group of people form enacting their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religious expression. Just because you're not asking the government to do it, doesn't mean that you're not restricting their rights.

If you don't want the rights of those you abhor to be practiced freely, then you should expect those same rights of yours to be equally as tenuous.

Despite my issues with the practice of Islam, American Muslims are free to worship as equally as you are. You want to tell them where they can and cannot do it through pressure (and Pat Robertson wants to sue them to prevent them from asserting their rights).

I simply want them to follow proper laws of zoning and get the proper permits - as all churches should do. That's the only thing anyone should ask of a house of worship or anyone regarding their private property.

Look, I have two GINORMOUS churches just down the street from me. Any attempt to head East on a Sunday is basically impossible. It pisses me off that what is essentially a major thoroughfare is shut down for two giant Christian churches that, for some reason, were allowed to build on two corners of a major intersection.

I suppose I could protest, but I'm not going to. Because it's their right to worship and the city gave them permits to build where they did.

I truly fear the motives of those who are protesting this. Just as I basically KNOW what the motives of those fighting the mosque in Murfreesboro, TN are. They're not simply about not wanting to see a mosque. They're about suspicion, fear, and a lack of understanding. It's about people who can't fathom seeing a crescent as something other than a threat.
 
Except for the fact that the KKK is not a religion, but is, in fact, a terror organization.

A) They are not currently designated as a terrorist organization I don't believe.

B) They still have the right of free association, assembly, speech, and property rights.

C) To suit your definition of who in this country is actually entitled to rights then fine then you wouldn't be able to protest the construction of a Christian Identity Church. Do you know what Christian Identity is?

But - if the goal is to prevent a house of worship from being built, then your goal is to restrict the free practice of a religion.

They have the right to practice their religion, but their religion does not take precedence over my right to free speech, free association, and free assembly or my right to self ownership to refuse contract to anyone for whatever reason I see fit.

By your logic protesting the construction of a Christian Identity church is a violation of their freedom of religion.


The protest is your right. But you can't deny that your goal is to prevent the free practice of religion for a group of people.

I can't deny them that right, the only way I could deny them that right is if I walked in to their Mosque and threatened to do violence if they did not cease and desist, my protest does not violate their freedom of religion in any way.

If your goal was to prevent the KKK from building a meeting center, then your goal would be to prevent them from their first amendment rights of free assembly.

You simply are completely delusional. Only the state can violate the 1st amendment. Exercising my right of protest is not a violation of any one else's rights.

I've not once said you can't protest it, therefore, I'm not restricting anything. But you have to admit that your goal is to prevent a group of people form enacting their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religious expression. Just because you're not asking the government to do it, doesn't mean that you're not restricting their rights.

My goal is to prevent a Mosque from being built at ground zero, I do not have the power to violate their freedom of religion as I can not pass legislation preventing the free exercise of Islam, only the state can do that. You can not simultaneously be exercising your own rights and violate the rights of another, if that were the case then the protest of anything ever is a violation of the organization being protested rights. :roll:

If you don't want the rights of those you abhor to be practiced freely, then you should expect those same rights of yours to be equally as tenuous.

They have the right to practice their religion freely, they DO NOT REPEAT DO NOT have the right to silence the opposition or to force people to build their Mosque. That is not and never has been anyones right.

Despite my issues with the practice of Islam, American Muslims are free to worship as equally as you are.

Yep, and they're free to counter-protest our protests.

You want to tell them where they can and cannot do it through pressure (and Pat Robertson wants to sue them to prevent them from asserting their rights).

I can't force them to do anything, what I can do is protest the building of the Mosque, and encourage others not to help them build it, unless I initiate the use of force to stop that Mosque from being built I am not violating anyones rights but rather exercising my own.]

]I simply want them to follow proper laws of zoning and get the proper permits - as all churches should do. That's the only thing anyone should ask of a house of worship or anyone regarding their private property.

Look, I have two GINORMOUS churches just down the street from me. Any attempt to head East on a Sunday is basically impossible. It pisses me off that what is essentially a major thoroughfare is shut down for two giant Christian churches that, for some reason, were allowed to build on two corners of a major intersection.

I suppose I could protest, but I'm not going to. Because it's their right to worship and the city gave them permits to build where they did.

They do not have the right to keep you from protesting, you have the right to non-violent resistance to anything you wish, the only way you could possibly violate their right of freedom religion is if you engaged in violence or threats of violence against the Churches in question
I truly fear the motives of those who are protesting this.

I truly fear the motives of an overt Islamist who blames the U.S. for 9-11 and is building a Mega-Mosque at ground zero.

Just as I basically KNOW what the motives of those fighting the mosque in Murfreesboro, TN are. They're not simply about not wanting to see a mosque. They're about suspicion, fear, and a lack of understanding. It's about people who can't fathom seeing a crescent as something other than a threat.

Oh I understand this Imam, he is an overt Islamist and an enemy of the secular liberalism upon which this country was founded.
 
Irrelevant red herring, he has professed his wish for a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular laws do not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths he is an overt Islamist.

Said it where and to what non-right-wing conspiracy-theory source?

And why did Bush hire him? Why is his wife an award-winner of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding.

Read more: Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam Behind the 'Ground Zero Mosque' - TIME

You have no proof, other than some out-of-context statements. If you provide any evidence that he has funded terrorism or was dancing in the street when the Towers fell (which would be weird, since his current mosque is in the Tribeca neighborhood and he likely lost worshippers in the incident).

Additionally, your proof that he wants Sharia for the US? Do you refer to this writing? Where he clearly explains that he sees Sharia as needing to be understood in America so that we can encourage change in it in other nations, where brutal sentencing takes place? How, if we learn what Sharia is and apply our system of justice as a framework for its understanding, we can more effectively rid nations where it's used to brutalize women to change their ways?

Because if that's your proof that he wants American to follow Sharia, then it's not a civics lesson we need to give you - it's reading comprehension.

Plus, I note that you've not provided a single source throughout any of this.
 
Said it where

In an article he wrote.

and to what non-right-wing conspiracy-theory source?

The Washington Post:

At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

On Faith Panelists Blog: How Islamic Law Can Work - Feisal Abdul Rauf

And why did Bush hire him?

Irrelevant.

Why is his wife an award-winner of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding.

Irrelevant.

You have no proof, other than some out-of-context statements.

I provided the whole article straight from his own keyboard, in it he clearly promotes Sharia, his only opposition to current Sharia is the stringent penal codes involved, however, though the punishments would not be as severe this would still entail the criminization of homosexuality, apostasy, premarital sex, adultery, along with the various gender discriminatory regulations found in Sharia; such as, unequal inheritance for women even when they are of equal relation to the deceased as the male heir.

If you provide any evidence that he has funded terrorism or was dancing in the street when the Towers fell (which would be weird, since his current mosque is in the Tribeca neighborhood and he likely lost worshippers in the incident).

Additionally, your proof that he wants Sharia for the US? Do you refer to this writing? Where he clearly explains that he sees Sharia as needing to be understood in America so that we can encourage change in it in other nations, where brutal sentencing takes place? How, if we learn what Sharia is and apply our system of justice as a framework for its understanding, we can more effectively rid nations where it's used to brutalize women to change their ways?

Because if that's your proof that he wants American to follow Sharia, then it's not a civics lesson we need to give you - it's reading comprehension.

Plus, I note that you've not provided a single source throughout any of this.

You're laughable, he was promoting Sharia in that article, he was saying that he wants reform in the penal code, not that he opposes Sharia, in fact he clearly says that he wants is to "...ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad....".

And I have provided sources for every single one of my claims.

Here's a link to the full 60 minutes transcript along with the relevant portion relating to his blame the victim terrorist apologetics:


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.

Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam

Here's him refusing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization:

According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."

Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.

"The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.

"There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."

Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.

"I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.

Rauf also would not answer a question about Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

"I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood," he said, disputing a rumor.

Muslim Imam leading push to build a mosque near Ground Zero wavers on questions about Hamas as a terror group - NYPOST.com

Here's the link to the Podcast of the interview which starts about 13 minutes in:

News Talk Radio 77 WABC New York
 
Last edited:
You've misinterpreted his writing on Sharia, as I've pointed out in another thread.

It wouldn't make sense that his father or he were members of an Egyptian organization, since he's Kuwaiti. And what he says regarding Hamas, he's right. If he is to be a peacemaker, pissing them off isn't the best method to creating peace.

And he clearly said that he doesn't blame the US or that the US deserved to be attacked - but added that bad foreign policy decisions over the years added to the likelihood of the attack.

Do you deny that the US funded the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during Soviet occupation (and no, I'm not arguing that they directly funded bin Laden)? And did that not come back to haunt us in essentially creating the Taliban? And didn't the Taliban shelter the planners of the attacks that brought down the towers?

Thus, is it not accurate to say that foreign policy mistakes are part of what caused the attacks? That's not the same thing as blaming America and that's not what Rauf said. If he'd said that, then I guarantee you that Bush wouldn't have hired him as a bridge-builder to the Middle East.

This is a manufactured controversy by the right-wing to stir xenophobia, anti-Muslim behavior, and hopefully keep the Tea Party so artificially fired up that they can get control of the House.

Ironic that it was ignored for months - even though the founders were on Fox News back in December talking all about it (where Laura Ingraham said it was a good idea) and, when Republican numbers start to drift a bit (Democrats take generic ballot lead - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com), it suddenly becomes a cause celebre for the right-wing brought up by the New York Post and Fox News...Hmmm...
 
You've misinterpreted his writing on Sharia, as I've pointed out in another thread.

I didn't misinterpret a thing he was advocating Sharia law but said that he didn't support the stringent penal code. Just because he doesn't support the death penalty or corporal punishment for homosexuality doesn't mean that he doesn't support the crimilization of homosexuality, the same is true for apostasy, adultery, and pre-marital sex. He supports Sharia or in his words he wants to ensure that our"... secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad....". Aside for the aforementioned criminalization of non-criminal acts that would, also, entail such things as gender discrimination in property cases and the like.

It wouldn't make sense that his father or he were members of an Egyptian organization, since he's Kuwaiti.

What the Muslim Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood is international not Egyptian though I have not claimed that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, I have seen no evidence to that effect, but being Kuwaiti and being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood are not mutually exclusive as the Musliim Brotherhood is a Sunni fundamentalist organization not an Egyptian nationalist organization.

And what he says regarding Hamas, he's right. If he is to be a peacemaker, pissing them off isn't the best method to creating peace.

Hamas intentionally murders men, women, and children, if you're for peace then you must be opposed to Hamas, if you're having trouble labeling them a terrorist organization then there's something wrong here.

And he clearly said that he doesn't blame the US or that the US deserved to be attacked - but added that bad foreign policy decisions over the years added to the likelihood of the attack.

He said the U.S. didn't deserve it, but he did blame the U.S. he clearly said that the U.S. was an "accessory" to the 9-11 attacks and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after 9-11.

Do you deny that the US funded the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during Soviet occupation (and no, I'm not arguing that they directly funded bin Laden)?

I'm denying that they directly or knowingly and intentionally indirectly funded, armed, or trained the foreign Mujaheddin which would go on to form AQ, in fact AQ was what was left over of the fund-raising network of the foreign Mujaheddin.

And did that not come back to haunt us in essentially creating the Taliban? And didn't the Taliban shelter the planners of the attacks that brought down the towers?

Not really a lot of the people we directly funded and aided went on to become the primary adversaries of the Taliban; such as, Ahmad Shah Massoud leader of the Northern Alliance.

Thus, is it not accurate to say that foreign policy mistakes are part of what caused the attacks?

No it is not accurate because we did not fund the foreign Mujaheddin that would go on to become AQ.

That's not the same thing as blaming America and that's not what Rauf said. If he'd said that, then I guarantee you that Bush wouldn't have hired him as a bridge-builder to the Middle East.

No he said that we were an accessory to the crime.

Accessory - An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.

Words mean things.

The U.S. was not an accessory to 9-11, we did not create AQ, we did not create the Taliban, we did not aid in the creation of AQ and we did not aid in the creation of the Taliban. We aided indigenous Afghan Mujaheddin some of which would go on to form the Taliban, but if you want to play this 10 degrees of separation BS then we can say that the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan prompted us to support the domestic insurgency thus the Soviet Union is an accessory to 9-11, or we can say that Mohammad created the philosophy of Jihad in the defense of fellow Muslims thus prompting the foreign Mujaheddin to want to go to Afghanistan in the first place, thus Mohammad is an accessory to 9-11. And hey why stop there? If it wasn't for the ancient Israelite s then Mohammad never would have formed a monotheistic Abrahamic religion, thus the Jews are accessories to 9-11, or wait, if it wasn't for the Jewish contact with the Zoroastrian King Cyrus of Persia who released them from the Babylonian Captivity then the monotheistic Abrahamic religion of Judaism would never have existed, thus King Cyrus and the Babylonians are accessories to 9-11. Hey Babylon and Persia are modern day Iraq and Iran, Iraq and Iran were accessories to 9-11.

This is a manufactured controversy by the right-wing to stir xenophobia, anti-Muslim behavior, and hopefully keep the Tea Party so artificially fired up that they can get control of the House.

There is nothing manufactured about it, this is an overt Islamist who blamed the U.S. for 9-11 and said that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after the attacks, whorefuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and who supports Sharia law.

Ironic that it was ignored for months - even though the founders were on Fox News back in December talking all about it (where Laura Ingraham said it was a good idea) and, when Republican numbers start to drift a bit (Democrats take generic ballot lead - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com), it suddenly becomes a cause celebre for the right-wing brought up by the New York Post and Fox News...Hmmm...

Not that it changes a thing regarding my views about the victory Mega-Mosque but what exactly did Laura Ingraham say about the Mosque, because I seriously doubt she would say it's a good idea and if she did then she's a hypocrite and needs to be taken to task.
 
Last edited:
The man is a bold faced liar. If a Sharia supporting Islamist who says that America is an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after the attacks, and refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, is moderate then what's a radical?


Hey Ferris.....
 
Last edited:
The man is a bold faced liar. If a Sharia supporting Islamist who says that America is an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after the attacks, and refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, is moderate then what's a radical?


The man is trying to build a Mosque on the site where 19 of his co-religionists murdered 3,000 innocent Americans. This man said that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the US less than 3 weeks after 9-11. And this Imam supports a Sharia compliant U.S. the same as all Islamists including Bin Laden.

Was he directly involved in 9-11? No. Has he been directly linked to terrorism? No. But as an Islamist he is part of the problem as it is the Islamist ideology which is directly responsible for the epidemic of Islamist terrorism.

Good for that, it still doesn't change the fact that he's an Islamist.

Oh I'm certainly fighting the intolerance of Islam in which the only accepted mainstream views within all five major sects is that apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, and/or premarital sex are capital and/or corporal offenses.

Planes don't kill people, Jihadists flying planes into buildings kill people and these pilots didn't kill these people in the name of pilotry they killed these people in the name of Islam.

No it's actually informed I have informed myself as to the nature of the man spearheading this initiative, he has stated that the U.S. was an accessory to 9-11 and that OBL was made in the USA less than 3 weeks after 9-11, he has repeatedly refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and he supports a Sharia compliant U.S. in which secular laws do not contradict the Koran or the Hadiths.

Tell me is there a large Muslim population in the area in pressing need of a Mosque? Doubtful considering that there are already several Mosques in the are.

Tell me why if this was an attempt at community outreach they didn't build something like a non-denominational community center or a memorial to the victims of 9-11? Why did they instead choose to build a Mega-Mosque?

Would you support the building of an Orthodox Cathedral in the town of Srebrenica?

Man, you sure got your paranoid buzz words down pact, doncha ferris?

YouTube - How to use Talking Points to Scare Dummies
 
Man, you sure got your paranoid buzz words down pact, doncha ferris?

YouTube - How to use Talking Points to Scare Dummies

Holy **** stating facts is now paranoia. **** half of those words are paraphrases of Sharia law (oops I guess we can't call Islamic Fiqh Sharia law :roll:) and half are what the Imam himself has actually said.

I guess this what happens when you completely run out of argumentation, resort to attacking word choice. Christ that's so ****tarded that I don't think they've even bothered to label it a logical fallacy yet, "reductio ad-wordenum", has a certain ring to it but not entirely accurate, oh I know "argumentum ad-verbum," patent pending.
 
Back
Top Bottom