WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[Cutlass]

Ironic in that your comment had nothing to do with it (the consitution) either....

The consitution doesnt make what he says irrelevant, just that he has the right (within reason) to say it.

Whats relevant is that same constitution also protects our right to make his comments relevant....or not. We can either simply ignore them....or comment on them by virture of our own freedom of speech.

And this just in apparently: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...investor-contributed-designated-terror-group/



I wonder if this is why Imam Rauf wouldnt outright call Hamas a terrorist organization?

That logic is twisted as a snake. If you knew what the Constitution said, you would know that sharia is not, and never can become, an issue in the US.

 

[MobBoss]

Perhaps you would care to make a donation to an organization the FBI claims is a terrorist organization yourself?

So, you fail to list any prominant US citizens who 'openly' donate to this group as you alleged.

Dang, Form, how many times are you going to make an allegation that you cant back up factually?

It's obviously no "red herring" to mention how hypocritical this clearly is after you brought the subject up.

Its got nothing to do with the mosque situation in NYC, at all. Indeed its an attempt to misdirect the point onto something utterly unrelated to the topic at hand...thus its a Red Herring.

If anything, you mentioning it is the real "red herring" here since it clearly has nothing to do with why a handful of bigots were so "offended" in the first place.

You keep saying 'handful'....since when is upwards of a 70% majority merely a 'handful'?

And I see you clipped off the part about investigating those who gave to organizations that committed terrorist acts in the US against abortion clinincs and its workers. Coincidence, or don't you wish to discuss that hypocrisy as well?

No, actually, I am all for tracking that stuff. I didnt reply to it because I didnt have any reason to refute it.

That logic is twisted as a snake. If you knew what the Constitution said, you would know that sharia is not, and never can become, an issue in the US.

Your two posts that I was replying to was referencing the imams speech, and didnt mention sharia at all. Thus that was my point of reference.

 

[Ajidica]

Can the protesters acomplish anything besides complaining about it? I mean Park51 already owns the land to build there. The only thing I could see the government being forced to do is use eminant domain which would be iffy.

 

[MobBoss]

Can the protesters acomplish anything besides complaining about it? I mean Park51 already owns the land to build there. The only thing I could see the government being forced to do is use eminant domain which would be iffy.

Well, the city of NY may own it eventually. It seems the park51 folks are way, way, WAY behind on paying their property taxes....

 

[Ajidica]

Source?

 

[MobBoss]

Source?

Was linked in another thread. Let me see if I can find it again....

EDIT: Here ya go. Lots of references about it if you google/bing it. http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...-developers-face-tax-trouble/?test=latestnews

The New York Post first reported that 45 Park Place Partners owed $224,270.77 in back real estate taxes and penalties, and that debt is growing by the day. The city charges an interest rate of 18 percent. The latest check of city records has upped the money owed by another $3,000, and unless someone writes a check and soon, the bill will continue to increase.

Sharif El-Gamal, a real estate developer involved in the planned mosque, did not return a call seeking comment, but earlier, his spokesman told the NY Post that all back taxes have been paid.

An official with New York’s Finance Department says the debt is still on the books, adding that at this point the developer does not have the tax exempt status afforded to not profit organizations.

According to city records, another tax bill for $97,118.18 will be due Jan. 1. That could put the developer in the red for more than $300,000 if past bills aren't paid.

 

[illram]

Can the protesters acomplish anything besides complaining about it? I mean Park51 already owns the land to build there. The only thing I could see the government being forced to do is use eminant domain which would be iffy.

Well, Cities have wide ranging powers via land use and zoning laws to closely regulate what is and is not built on City land. From what we've heard already though it seems the permitting process is not an issue for these guys. (From a property value perspective I think a terrorist command center is significantly more valuable than a Burlington Coat Factory.)

Of course if the City does do something to prevent the project, then the carefully constructed facade of "well we support their right to do it we just want them to be sensitive" comes crashing down.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So, you fail to list any prominant US citizens who 'openly' donate to this group as you alleged.

So you fail to realize that showing a public URL indeed "proves" that anybody can make a donation to a known terrorist organization? That I never claimed to know any "prominent US citizens" who had donated to the JDF? That you just fabricated it to attack me instead of addressing the issues?

Dang, Form, how many times are you going to make an allegation that you cant back up factually?

The point you are apparently missing is that I don't have to "prove" anything to your satisfaction. And I can provide "facts" to support any of my opinions. To claim otherwise is obviously quite ludicrous. What I can't and won't provide are "facts" to support your continual distortions of my opinions.

And you are also apparently forgetting that you constantly make "allegations" you can't possibly "prove", as you so frequently insist others do with their own personal opinions. Don't you think that is rather disingenuous at best? Wouldn't it be better to actually discuss the subject instead of constantly trying to attack my credibility, and others, is such a weak manner?

 

[MobBoss]

So you fail to realize that showing a public URL indeed "proves" that anybody can make a donation to a known terrorist organization?

In your comparison you imply that they have donted and do so OPENLY.

Again, if it is indeed openly, then give us a the names of a few donors and their significance in comparison with the park51 situation.

That I never claimed to know any "prominent US citizens" who had donated to the JDF? That you just fabricated it to attack me instead of addressing the issues?

Well, I assumed since you were making the comparison with the contributors to Park51, that they would be somewhat prominant. Do you desire to alter your goalposts?

The point you are apparently missing is that I don't have to "prove" anything to your satisfaction.

You are right, you dont. You then just become someone who constantly alleges a bunch of unprovable crap without providing any proof to back up their claim.

You get to choose the level of your credibility around here. If that's the way you want to play it, so be it.

And I can provide "facts" to support any of my opinions. To claim otherwise is obviously quite ludicrous. What I can't and won't provide are "facts" to support your continual distortions of my opinions.

/waiting....

I read a lot of rhetoric....havent seen a single fact proven yet.

And you are also apparently forgetting that you constantly make "allegations" you can't possibly "prove"

Didnt you just ask me for proof that the families of 9/11 victims oppose the mosque? Didnt I provide it to you?

Of course I did.

Didnt Adjica just ask me for proof the the Park51 tax situation? Did I provide it?

Of course I did.

/sheesh.

Actually the reverse is true, Form. I more often than not back up my claim with proof when asked, and if I cant I simply say I cant. I certainly dont dance around and say people are making strawmen for asking for said proof. End of story.

as you so frequently insist others do with their own personal opinions.

So do you have anything to back up or in support of your personal opinion?

Don't you think that is rather disingenuous at best?

Nope. I get asked to do that all the time around here. I just dont make it a big a deal as some people do I guess.

Wouldn't it be better to actually discuss the subject instead of constantly trying to attack my credibility, and others, is such a weak manner?

I was discussing the subject. You're crediibility only comes into question because you utter fail to back up your comments with any links or proof. Thats not my fault, or even my problem......thats yours.

 

[naterator]

You didnt allege that they *could* donate...you said that they OPENLY donate and HAVE donated.

Please dont tell me I have to explain to you the difference in being able to donate and actually having donated.

No, he said we CAN openly donate; please don't tell me i have to explain to you the difference between a verb meaning to own or possess, and one meaning to be able to or know how to.

That's why I love freedom of speech so much. Their own words are really their worst enemy.

And I love how US citizens can openly give money to terrorist groups like the Jewish Defense League. But they are evil incarnate if they give money to any group which could possibly be associated with Muslim "terrorism", even if they gave the money two years before it was designated as being "bad".

Is it time we start compiling similar lists of those who gave money to organizations that bombed abortion clinics and killed or injured their workers, even if those organizations had never done so before the donations were made?

 

[MobBoss]

No, he said we CAN openly donate; please don't tell me i have to explain to you the difference between a verb meaning to own or possess, and one meaning to be able to or know how to.

So you think he merely was making the point they could give money to them...but havent?

Seriously?

Remember, he was comparing this to one of the backers of the park51 mosques having given money previously to a Hamas front. Was I wrong in interpreting his comment was saying people have indeed given money to the JDL?

And what would the point be to compare the situation to a terrorist entity that you can give money to, but no one apparently does?

However, you have made a point, and I recognize it and will edit my other comment appropriately.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Formalogic? Or Mobbic, for that matter...

 

[Ajidica]

Well, the city of NY may own it eventually. It seems the park51 folks are way, way, WAY behind on paying their property taxes....

Well thats separate from what the protesters can do. Is there anything that the protesters themselves can do to force Park51 away? The only way I can see it legaly happening (without the city using a BS eminent domain rational) is if the owners decide to move it away. If they decide not to, then I can't see anything the protestors can do.

 

[JollyRoger]

Getting tax exempt status will likely solve the property tax problem. They probably inherited a tax debt from the failed capitalist operation that was there before. The city likely does not want to own it - the current mayor probably has a lesser need for a love nest in the area than the mayor 9 years ago.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Remember, he was comparing this to one of the backers of the park51 mosques having given money previously to a Hamas front. Was I wrong in interpreting his comment was saying people have indeed given money to the JDL?

No, nobody gives money to the JDL. That's why they solicit donations on a public website and have a number of members both here and in Israel.

And you still haven't addressed why we aren't treating Christians who support organizations that have bombed abortion clinics and killed their workers the same way as you want to treat those who gave to organizations long before they were declared as supposedly supporting terrorism. Aren't they also evil "terrorists" like those who support Hamas? Should we use your standard against those who made contributions even before the organizations engaged in terrorism as you wish to do here?

And why haven't you openly condemned these organizations as much as Imam Rauf has condemned Muslim terrorism?

 

[bernie14]

It's around 50% of those who are against the mosque, actually - that's what the polling has indicated - who are against it due to genuine intolerance; the rest are simply sympathetic towards those who are intolerant or otherwise don't think it's a wise idea in the same way that one wouldn't feel that a black man dating a white woman is a good idea in the 50s.

your numbers "a little off" by the latest polls, as is your logic;

How one views Islam informs how they feel about the proposed construction of the mosque near Ground Zero. Those who have a favorable opinion of Islam are more inclined to think the mosque is appropriate with 50 percent calling it appropriate and 42 percent saying it isn't. Those who view Islam unfavorably decidedly think it's inappropriate 88 percent going against it to 9 percent.

so according to the poll, u can have a favorable view of islam and still be against the mosque?

That's why I love freedom of speech so much. Their own words are really their worst enemy.

And I love how US citizens can openly give money to terrorist groups like the Jewish Defense League. But they are evil incarnate if they give money to any group which could possibly be associated with Muslim "terrorism", even if they gave the money two years before it was designated as being "bad".

Is it time we start compiling similar lists of those who gave money to organizations that bombed abortion clinics and killed or injured their workers, even if those organizations had never done so before the donations were made?

....if members of the JDL crashed two planes into the twin towers in the name of judaism, i would be against building a new synagogue at the proposed site....

Can the protesters acomplish anything besides complaining about it? I mean Park51 already owns the land to build there. The only thing I could see the government being forced to do is use eminant domain which would be iffy.

i would not agree with the gov pulling an eminant domain....personally, i would be satisfied with changing the mosque to an interfaith chapel (like the pentagon), but unless the imam does this voluntarily, i dont know if anything else should be done....could be that lawyers on both sides will stall the building and make alot of money but i dont know if i would be for that....

however,if a marginalised group contradicting the challenges they face in making themselves heard act in any violent or illegal manner whatsoever, they should be seriously dealt with

 

[Ajidica]

i would not agree with the gov pulling an eminant domain....personally, i would be satisfied with changing the mosque to an interfaith chapel (like the pentagon),

What would be your opinion if they were to add an interfaith chapel in addition to the mosque?

however,if a marginalised group contradicting the challenges they face in making themselves heard act in any violent or illegal manner whatsoever, they should be seriously dealt with

Fully agree.

 

[JollyRoger]

Can we get all the religious buildings within five blocks of ground zero to change to interfaith? We need uniters, not dividers near such hollowed ground.

 

[naterator]

So you think he merely was making the point they could give money to them...but havent?

Seriously?

I believe he meant what he said: That there is a double standard when giving to questionable charities, with those lines drawn along religious lines. Hence why you can log on and make a (tax deductible?) donation to the JDL with your visa or mastercard (if you support bombing mosques and congressmen); but those who have donated to a muslim group YEARS before they were considered "terrorists" suddenly are 'terrorist supporters'.
____________________________________________________________________________

Latest protest involves carting decommissioned missiles around the site with signs like "Obama, with a middle name 'Hussain'[sic], we understand... Bloomberg: What's YOUR excuse?"

Ya... that's not racist or threatening at all...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Apparently, Temecula, CA is also far too close to hallowed ground zero for many:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012134,00.html

Temecula, Calif., has little in common with New York City. But the debate over a new mosque in the sleepy suburban town east of Camp Pendleton echoes many of the themes expressed in the controversy surrounding the Park51 Islamic center to be built near the World Trade Center site.

In Southern California, the question is whether the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley should be granted a permit to build a mosque on land it owns next to two established churches. The Islamic center currently holds prayer services in a warehouse next to a pipeline company, down the street from a smog-test station and a masonry-supply yard. During Friday prayers on July 30, around 25 local conservative activists stood outside shouting slogans of hate through a bullhorn, carried signs with messages like "No More Mosques in America" and brought along several dogs, hoping to offend Muslim sensibilities.

(Does America have a Muslim problem?)

"We've never had a problem with anybody before this," says Imam Mahmoud Harmoush, the center's spiritual leader and a lecturer at California State University in San Bernardino. "It is common sense that you don't disrupt a religious service by creating noise and bringing dogs."

Some locals, however, rallied to the Muslim community's defense. "We had about 75 people in solidarity with the mosque," said the Rev. Joe Zarro, co-chair of the local interfaith council. "The Temecula area is very fair and tolerant. There are a lot of social conservatives but they mostly support the mosque. The people speaking out against the mosque don't have any relationship with Islam and are coming from a place of ignorance."

They certainly come from a place of paranoia: one of the anti-mosque protest leaders, Diana Serafin, 59, says Muslims want to take over the U.S. from within. "We have a constitutional right to freedom of religion," she argues. "But Islam is more than a religion. It is an ideology to enforce Shari'a law [Islamic jurisprudence] in America, and Shari'a law is in direct contrast to the American Constitution."

The proposed 25,000-square-foot mosque would be approximately the same size as the churches next door and would hold between 150 and 300 worshippers, say mosque officials and city planners. Assistant Temecula city manager Bob Johnson says the city will do a traffic study before the mosque goes before the Planning Commission for final approval in November. In addition to the protest and a petition drive against the mosque, the Islamic Center of Temecula must also contend with a church neighbor whose pastor is anything but friendly.

Pastor Bill Rench, whose Calvary Baptist Church sits just across the cul-de-sac from the mosque site, says Islam and Christianity are like "oil and water" and that Islam is "intolerant at its core." He argues that when Islam becomes dominant in a society, "you also see a repression of freedom of speech and religious expression. In my view, building a mosque in Temecula would act as a magnet. It would embolden the more aggressive acting on the beliefs." In an interview with TIME, Rench accused the Imam of refusing to disavow Islamic terrorism. Harmoush says this is patently untrue. "Unconditionally, I have explained to him [Rench] and others, that I disagree and condemn all sorts of violence by the mentioned organizations," Harmoush explains. On Tuesday, Rench and Harmoush squared off on CNN in an interview conducted by John King. They did not bridge their differences.

Ron Patterson, 65, says a lady recently canvassed his neighborhood with a petition to stop the mosque. She told him that 3,000 people would be attending the mosque with services three times a day. The retired mailman signed because he is concerned about increased traffic and about possible religious extremists. "I am sure most mosques are perfectly fine, but it is a natural concern." Patterson says he thinks the mosque will be built. "If the city says O.K., what are you going to do? It's freedom of speech and religion."

Antagonism toward Islam in Temecula breaks largely along generational lines. At a small, well-manicured park near the churches and the proposed mosque's site, a group of young adults playing basketball shrugs off the controversy. Finishing a jump shot, Dante Paez, a 29-year-old African American, says, "I am not religious, but it seems something like that should never be wrong. I say build it." Paul Lopez, 34, adds, "Why are people mad about something that brings joy to people. To each his own." Brianna Bowers, 16, has Muslim friends and said there had been discussions about the controversy at school and at her home. She says her Muslim friends observe that there are dozens of churches in town and wonder what is wrong with building one mosque. Bowers, who is African American and Latino, says, "I think it would broaden the culture in Temecula."

At a local shopping center, Disa Dearie, a 39-year-old mother of four and born-again Christian, is not hostile to the local project, although she opposes the New York City one. "I don't have a problem with the mosque down the street," she says. "[But] I have a problem with the mosque in New York at Ground Zero. The mosque in New York is an aggressive affront to our nation. I believe in religious freedom, but a landing gear fell on that site. Why not a nondenominational chapel?" She says opposition to the local mosque in Temecula comes from older residents, not from her peers.

Madera, CA mosque attacked three times in one week:

Mosque attack in California refers to Ground Zero

An Islamic center in Madera, CA, was vandalized Tuesday with a sign that read, "No temple for the god of terrorism at Ground Zero."

Another sign read, "Wake up America, the enemy is here."

Both signs were signed by ANB, which stands for the American National Brotherhood, a group local authorities said they were not aware of.

An Islamic center in Madera, CA, was vandalized Tuesday with a sign that read, "No temple for the god of terrorism at Ground Zero."

Another sign read, "Wake up America, the enemy is here."

Both signs were signed by ANB, which stands for the American National Brotherhood, a group local authorities said they were not aware of.

It is the third attack on the center within a week, with another sign left last week and a brick thrown at a window at the center on Sunday.

Authorities are treating the incidents as hate crimes.

"What do Muslim Americans tell their children?" Hooper said. "What do you say when every day they see their faith maligned and they read of violent attacks? Has the hatred peaked? Is it going to get worse? I don't know. But it is getting scary out there."