New York City mosque

[knapplc]

That wasn't a comment. It was support for an investigation. As if some congresswoman from California needs to be heard on matters that concern New York.

 

Is there an investigation? Who is conducting it?

[carlfense]

You are very selective. You have a habit of not addressing many parts of a reply/post but then parsing the crap out of certain words elsewhere.

 

1. I already pointed out that most Republicans have supported the President in Iraq & Afghanistan which you ignored. 2. They aren't going after him - no matter the cost.

The President made his position known, people reacted. 3. It isn't gotcha politics - people have an honest difference of opinion.

 

4. And as others have pointed out - who care's what Bin Laden says?

He's not an honest player. 5. The Dems have had policy agreements with him as well, so what?

 

If you'd prefer I can probably find the Bin Laden video itself and the transcript of Gingrich's speeches . . . ?

 

(And yes, I do consider Gingrich and the GOP nearly indistinguishable. More so than the GOP chairman anyways.)

5. How do you figure? 6. Because he is your favorite punching bag? 7. You like to paint with a broad brush?

 

8. Newt has not held office for over a decade and isn't likely to win the 2012 nomination. 9. McCain was the nominee in '08.

10. It is proably just frustrating that there isn't just one person to go after.

So you pick one out of a hat and do the collective guilt thing.

 

And yes. There are already mosques. That's even more reason why it should not be a big deal if they want to build a civic center that includes a mosque . . . that road has already been taken. What's the difference now?

11. Not really. As I said, the converse is true as well.

 

Also, I never said that victory in the war on terror balances on whether this mosque is built or not built. I said that if the war on terror becomes a war on Islam it is lost. That is not hyperbole.

12. That is merely a truism. Everybody gets that.

Despite guffawing from the left - that is why it is called the WoT.

 

13. How to do it is the issue.

My apologies. If I spent every minute responding to every word you post I won't be able to form a coherent argument will I? I'll try my best. (Note that if you make a dozen or more points in a post that I will probably not have time to address each of them each time. If you want to call that cherry picking, fine. To me it's just reality.)

 

1. My problem with this statement is that we are talking about the mosque . . . not Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't consider them linked in that the mosque does not affect our troops in either country. If you want to consider a church in the US a part of the war on terror, by all means do so.

 

2. Regarding the mosque, I'd disagree. They are seizing on an issue that is popular with a public that should know better to the detriment of our foreign policy and security. In my opinion, the politicians should either be more intelligent or less willing to bend to the winds of popular opinion.

 

3. And one side is backed by facts and analysis . . . while another is based on fear and emotion. I trust that you can figure out which is which.

 

4. I care what Bin Laden says because you must study the enemy to learn how to defeat him. Generally giving the enemy exactly what he wants is a bad decision . . . unless they are springing some enormous trap on him.

 

5. Because Gingrich is actually one of the more mainstream GOPers. I don't consider him as wingnutty as Palin/Beck/Limbaugh, and he has been extensively involved in policy decisions within the party for decades.

 

6. Favorite punching bag? You are really trying too hard if you think that. In fact I'm fairly sure that I've never mentioned Gingrich except in this thread. Again, feel free to prove me wrong, but I think you're stretching reality (or outright lying) if you are trying to attack my argument by saying that Gingrich is my favorite punching bag.

 

7. I suppose if the painting calls for it I do. I think if you'd like I could find a statement from nearly EVERY prominent GOP politician opposing the mosque. I used Gingrich as an example to keep the discussion manageable. Are you really claiming with a straight face that there are prominent GOP politicians who support the right to build the mosque? I haven't seen them.

 

8. So? Maybe he'd rather play kingmaker than king. William Buckley didn't run for president but he sure influenced the party didn't he?

 

9. Yep. And I used to be a big McCain supporter. Now he toes the party line. It's a little sad to see.

 

10. I'm not attacking one person. I'm attacking those who I think are discriminating demagogues. If that's one person, so be it. If that's a group of people, so be it. Doesn't matter to me. (It is interesting that you seem to support the GOP . . . who demonizes ONE PERSON at every opportunity but you accuse me of doing similarly. Hypocrisy is a stinky cologne.)

 

11. You can claim what you want. Maybe a new mosque is needed for space reasons, or because the old one is deteriorating, or for any other reasons. Have you investigated the facts?

 

12. Then why did you say this:

"But somehow if this new one doesn't get built Bin Laden wins! Or loses! [depending on POV]

Can we have a little more hyperbole? Cripes."

I didn't say that Bin Laden wins or loses . . . I said that would give him what he wants. Apparently that factual statement is hyperbole. Interesting. I think you are seeing what you want to from my post rather than reading what I am actually saying.

[Husker_x]

That wasn't a comment. It was support for an investigation. As if some congresswoman from California needs to be heard on matters that concern New York.

 

Is there an investigation? Who is conducting it?

 

If Pelosi has her way that information should be forthcoming.

[knapplc]

So until then, that was a comment. See how that works?

[Husker_x]

[knapplc]

So the answer is no, you don't see how that works. Gotcha.

[Husker_x]

[knapplc]

Technically your first pic was a double facepalm as well, since Picard had two hands on his face. But that's just a technicality.

[Husker_x]

Haha. No, it's not Pelosi's remarking on the Mosque that's an issue. It's when you start throwing around words like 'investigation' that makes me stop and think, "Why is the congresswoman from California" wanting an investigation?

 

Edit: BTW, why are my posts being previewed all of the sudden. I'm not about to stroll into the woodshed with an assault rifle.

[knapplc]

Kind of like how they wanted to investigate what went wrong on the BP oil rig? From what I recall, it wasn't only Congresspersons from districts bordering the Gulf who were calling for investigations.

 

It's all part of the political game. Not much to see here.

[sarge87]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday morning called for "transparency" in the funding behind a planned Islamic community center and mosque being built blocks from ground zero. But she also said there should be similar openness about the money behind conservative attacks aimed at thwarting the project.

 

The California Democrat, in a statement provided to POLITICO, adopted the split position of the Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan group dedicated to religious tolerance and separation of church and state. Although it blasted the Anti-Defamation League for strongly opposing the Park51 project, the Interfaith Alliance also agreed with the ADL's argument that the public should know where the money for the center is coming from.

 

"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance, that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center,'" according to Pelosi's statement, quoting the Alliance's position. "'At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.'"

 

Pelosi's view seems parallel with President Barack Obama, who said that the construction of a mosque is a constitutionally protected expression of religion, but said he would not comment on the "wisdom" of building one so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Pelosi's counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes the Park51 plan.

 

It's not the first time Pelosi has weighed in on the controversial Islamic center, which would include a recreation center as well as a place of worship.

 

On Tuesday, she said the mosque's location is a zoning issue that New Yorkers should work out among themselves, but she also noted that she believes most people respect the "right of people in our country to express their religious beliefs on their property." She reiterated that position in her statement Wednesday.

 

"The freedom of religion is a constitutional right," Pelosi said. "Where a place of worship is located is a local decision."

 

Earlier Wednesday, Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."

 

"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"

 

Republicans have signaled that they will try to turn the mosque into a campaign issue, and nearly all of the leading national Republicans have weighed in against the mosque's construction.

 

On Tuesday, the speaker blasted those making "concerted effort to make this a political issue." Yet on Wednesday, she seemed to do just that, taking a shot at opponents of a bill that bolstered health care for Sept. 11 responders. She urged those who are now expressing their concern for Sept. 11 attacks to reverse their opposition to the bill when Congress returns in September.

LINK

 

This is the whole text. I don't see where she got a couple of questions she didn't like at a presser. She wants transparency on both sides of this - who's funding the mosque and who's funding opposition to the mosque.

 

What's the problem?

 

Please don't put me in a position of defending Nancy Pelosi. Much as I hate to admit it, I think she's right on this instance. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, but that does NOT mean I'm a supporter of Pelosi. Far from it.

I'm not putting you in a position to defend Pelosi. You're doing that fine all by yourself.

 

And NO she is not right. You can't go around violating one group's rights to protect another's. The only people who have raised the spectre of how the opposition is funded are Congress critters because they are getting a little heat from voters. Next thing your going to tell me is the IRS has never been used to punish political opponents. The FEC is no different and won't hesitate to bank some political capital.

 

There was no mention of any transparency anywhere in her original statement. She knew she was going to get questions about this subject when her counterpart (Reid) came out against building the Mosque in that location, and she had a prepared answer. It was only when the sh*t hit the fan in the press when she was throwing around the "looking into the opposition finances threat" is when her aides went into CYA mode.

 

What you have there is the non-clarification clarification version of what she said. This is the original unedited audio of the presser, and the pertinent text below provided by me word-for-word.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LKW3gPKrPD8

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."

 

None of this clap trap would have happened if the President would have just kept his big fat pie hole shut. But no, every time an issue comes up, he thinks he has to wow the masses with his superior intellect, and weigh in on an issue without completely thinking it through -- ala the William Gates fiasco. Who the hell are his advisers, because I would be flushing the toilet in the West Wing right now? Sometimes you have to know when to shut up, defer to the locality, and respect the rights of both parties to the issue. How can a political machine that crafted it's message so brilliantly in 2008, look like amateur hour vying for the job of village idiot two years later?

[Husker_x]

sarge you make me laugh sometimes.

[carlfense]

Interesting take. I don't see much that I disagree with here:

 

Republicans pander over 'Ground Zero mosque'

 

By Eugene Robinson

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

 

Lies, distortions, jingoism, xenophobia -- another day, another campaign issue that Republicans can use to bash President Obama and the Democrats. First it was illegal immigration. Now it's the so-called Ground Zero mosque, which is not at all what its opponents claim.

 

 

First, it's not at Ground Zero. The site in question is two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan; an existing mosque is just a few hundred feet more distant from the site of the collapsed towers. Second, while the planned building would indeed house a place of worship, it is designed to be more of a community center along the lines of a YMCA. Plans include a fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, bookstore, performing arts center and food court. Kebabs do not threaten our way of life.

 

Most important, organizers have made clear that the whole point of the project is to provide a high-profile platform for mainstream, moderate Islam -- and to stridently reject the warped, radical, jihadist worldview that produced the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

"It will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, said in May as she argued for permission to build the center. "It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum."

 

Actually, it will take much more than one community center to stop radical jihad in its tracks. But it's hard to think of a better way to give extremist ideology a major boost than to demonstrate what far too many of the world's 1 billion Muslims already believe is true: that the West rejects not just extremism but Islam itself.

 

"Three hundred of the victims [of the Sept. 11 attacks] were Muslim," Khan told CNN. "We are Americans, too. The 9/11 tragedy hurt everybody, including the Muslim community. We are all in this together, and together we have to fight against extremism and terrorism."

 

President Obama was correct to say Friday that Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in the country," and that this "includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances." Obama's remarks came at a White House dinner marking Ramadan, the Islamic holy month.

 

The first White House observance of Ramadan was hosted in 1805 by Thomas Jefferson. He invited the Tunisian ambassador to the President's House for dinner and changed the time of the meal from the usual "half after three" to "precisely at sunset" so the envoy could comply with the Ramadan obligation to fast during daylight hours.

 

Jefferson's well-thumbed copy of the Koran is now in the Library of Congress. If the author of the Declaration of Independence were alive today, he would surely face censure from the big-mouthed, small-minded coterie of Republican presidential hopefuls.

 

Sarah Palin wrote on Twitter that the "Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts." Newt Gingrich wrote that "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said that the mosque would "degrade or disrespect" the site. Mike Huckabee asked whether supporters of the project believe "we can offend Americans and Christians, but not foreigners and Muslims." Mitt Romney is against it, too, citing "the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda."

 

This is pandering -- and that goes for Harry Reid too. A CNN poll showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed a plan by "a group of Muslims in the U.S." to build "a mosque" two blocks from the World Trade Center site. I wonder what the results might look like if pollsters had phrased the question differently -- if they had asked, say, whether "a group of Americans" should be allowed to build "a center promoting moderate, peaceful Islam." It might be, though, that most people would oppose the project however the issue was framed.

 

And that's why we have a Bill of Rights that protects our freedoms against the whims of public opinion. Jefferson understood this. A bunch of opportunistic politicians -- who love to quote him -- obviously do not.

 

link

[sarge87]

Interesting take. I don't see much that I disagree with here:

 

Republicans pander over 'Ground Zero mosque'

 

By Eugene Robinson

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

 

Lies, distortions, jingoism, xenophobia -- another day, another campaign issue that Republicans can use to bash President Obama and the Democrats. First it was illegal immigration. Now it's the so-called Ground Zero mosque, which is not at all what its opponents claim.

 

 

First, it's not at Ground Zero. The site in question is two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan; an existing mosque is just a few hundred feet more distant from the site of the collapsed towers. Second, while the planned building would indeed house a place of worship, it is designed to be more of a community center along the lines of a YMCA. Plans include a fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, bookstore, performing arts center and food court. Kebabs do not threaten our way of life.

 

Most important, organizers have made clear that the whole point of the project is to provide a high-profile platform for mainstream, moderate Islam -- and to stridently reject the warped, radical, jihadist worldview that produced the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

"It will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, said in May as she argued for permission to build the center. "It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum."

 

Actually, it will take much more than one community center to stop radical jihad in its tracks. But it's hard to think of a better way to give extremist ideology a major boost than to demonstrate what far too many of the world's 1 billion Muslims already believe is true: that the West rejects not just extremism but Islam itself.

 

"Three hundred of the victims [of the Sept. 11 attacks] were Muslim," Khan told CNN. "We are Americans, too. The 9/11 tragedy hurt everybody, including the Muslim community. We are all in this together, and together we have to fight against extremism and terrorism."

 

President Obama was correct to say Friday that Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in the country," and that this "includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances." Obama's remarks came at a White House dinner marking Ramadan, the Islamic holy month.

 

The first White House observance of Ramadan was hosted in 1805 by Thomas Jefferson. He invited the Tunisian ambassador to the President's House for dinner and changed the time of the meal from the usual "half after three" to "precisely at sunset" so the envoy could comply with the Ramadan obligation to fast during daylight hours.

 

Jefferson's well-thumbed copy of the Koran is now in the Library of Congress. If the author of the Declaration of Independence were alive today, he would surely face censure from the big-mouthed, small-minded coterie of Republican presidential hopefuls.

 

Sarah Palin wrote on Twitter that the "Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts." Newt Gingrich wrote that "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said that the mosque would "degrade or disrespect" the site. Mike Huckabee asked whether supporters of the project believe "we can offend Americans and Christians, but not foreigners and Muslims." Mitt Romney is against it, too, citing "the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda."

 

This is pandering -- and that goes for Harry Reid too. A CNN poll showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed a plan by "a group of Muslims in the U.S." to build "a mosque" two blocks from the World Trade Center site. I wonder what the results might look like if pollsters had phrased the question differently -- if they had asked, say, whether "a group of Americans" should be allowed to build "a center promoting moderate, peaceful Islam." It might be, though, that most people would oppose the project however the issue was framed.

 

And that's why we have a Bill of Rights that protects our freedoms against the whims of public opinion. Jefferson understood this. A bunch of opportunistic politicians -- who love to quote him -- obviously do not.

 

link

 

Why don't we hear from real Muslim's instead of a race baiting bomb thrower who couldn't even bring himself to criticize the 70% of black voters who supported California's Prop 8 against same sex marriage, instead it was those evil Mormons in Utah who were to blame and can't vote in California.

 

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

 

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand. The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

 

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

 

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

 

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

 

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

 

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

 

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

 

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

 

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

 

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

 

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

 

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

 

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

 

Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad ... Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

 

Read more

[knapplc]

Why don't we hear from real Muslim's instead of a race baiting bomb thrower who couldn't even bring himself to criticize the 70% of black voters who supported California's Prop 8 against same sex marriage, instead it was those evil Mormons in Utah who were to blame and can't vote in California.

 

What does this guy's race have anything to do with his article? And why are you using extreme right-wing labels like "race baiting bomb thrower?" Who talks like that?