Guy building ground zero mosque: terrorism is "complex question" [news item]

[samoth]

Not at Ground Zero - The Editors - National Review Online


Ms. Khan knows better, because she is also Mrs. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the wife of the main Islamic cleric behind the project. Rauf is no moderate. He presents himself as a peacemaking Islamic Gandhi, but he is in fact an apologist for the terrorist outfit Hamas, which he refuses even to identify as a terrorist organization. Nor is Rauf exactly full-throated in his rejection of terrorism, offering only this: “The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.” While he cannot quite bring himself to blame the terrorists for being terrorists, he finds it easy to blame the United States for being a victim of terrorism: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

 

[redsamurai]

well the guy does make valid points but a mosque has no business being that close to ground zero unless they inted on building a 9/11 memorial akin to the holocaust museum. Somehow I doubt that's on the agenda though. WTF is bloombergs problem? Why not put the thing on the other side of the city?

 

[bakemeacookie]

PC is gonna be tested. 10 bucks the PC white guilt crowd will win and the mosque. I'm gonna laugh the first report I hera about anti-american speeches at the mosque lol!

c

 

[cryptosporidium]

terrorism is an illustration of cause and effect and military necessity/stratagem; not the dumdum bad guy/good guy dichotomy that the semantics of the day try to paint it as.

do you think if the roles were reversed, an islamic state would accept an american church on their ground zero site?

 

[mrplunkey]

Someone should buy space next door and develop the world's most comprehensive collection of paintings and sculptures demeaning Mohammad.

If being offensive shouldn't be an issue, it also needs to work both ways.

 

[the_alcatraz]

Someone should buy space next door and develop the world's most comprehensive collection of paintings and sculptures demeaning Mohammad.

If being offensive shouldn't be an issue, it also needs to work both ways.

A mosque demeans no one my friend. "Intentionally" doing something like this does.

 

[mrplunkey]

A mosque demeans no one my friend. "Intentionally" doing something like this does.

A cartoon means nothing.

But building something like that so close to where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered is incredibly offensive.

There's no comparison.

 

[puddlemonkey]

A mosque demeans no one my friend. "Intentionally" doing something like this does.

But building something like that so close to where nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered is incredibly offensive.

And probably "intentionally" done at that.

 

[redsamurai]

A mosque demeans no one my friend. "Intentionally" doing something like this does.

under normal circumstances you would be correct. I have no issues with a mosque in new york, but not across the street from the 9/11 memorial site.

would palestinians tolerate a jewish temple anywhere in palestine let alone somewhere near an israeli massacre?

 

[mrplunkey]

And probably "intentionally" done at that.

Isn't it a Muslim tradition to build religious sites in conquered lands?

If so, they probably need to think again.

 

[PICK3]

I thought I heard something about the latest compromise suggesting a 911 memorial plaque (or something like that) in the entrance to the Mosque

 

[nimbus]

that mosque is gonna piss a lot of people off, and a waste a lot of money to protect it from vandals

very selfish to build it imo. but i guess whoever buys the land can do what they want?

 

[DannoMight]

Let them build it then blow it up. when its occupied of course just like the WTC. Then let them build another and do the same to account for both towers. Eye for an eye. Plus it will give peole jobs doing the rebuilding.

 

[mrplunkey]

that mosque is gonna piss a lot of people off, and a waste a lot of money to protect it from vandals

very selfish to build it imo. but i guess whoever buys the land can do what they want?

That's true.

Unless it's considered protected lands.

Or a historical site.

Or against building codes.

Or doesn't get a building permit.

Or declared environmentally sensitive.

Or declared part of eminent domain.

Or isn't zoned correctly.

I'd think NYC could find at least 30 different ways to deny them a building permit. There's a simple way to foil them though -- just spread a rumor that it's actually going to be a Tea Party headquarters built there. That would kill the project dead in its tracks.

 

[puddlemonkey]

Let them build it then blow it up. when its occupied of course just like the WTC.

um... tad extreme

 

[the_alcatraz]

And probably "intentionally" done at that.

I don't know what the intentions are. I have to admit it's not a very smart move. Just pick a different site. Not a big deal.

 

[the_alcatraz]

Let them build it then blow it up. when its occupied of course just like the WTC. Then let them build another and do the same to account for both towers. Eye for an eye. Plus it will give peole jobs doing the rebuilding.

That's a little extreme me thinks. What's an eye for an eye? Blowing a mosque where innocent people are praying because you want to get back at terrorists?

Most terrorists are muslims, but not most muslims are terrorists

 

[puddlemonkey]

I don't know what the intentions are. I have to admit it's not a very smart move. Just pick a different site. Not a big deal.

Exactly why it appears to be intentional. You'd think they'd want to avoid conflict and hassle.

 

[cryptosporidium]

lulz threat advisory!

 

[Sub-Zero]

seems like a stupid idea, just build a strip club and make everyone happy

 

[cryptosporidium]

seems like a stupid idea, just build a strip club and make everyone happy

not unless they wear burkas.