Imam fears moving NYC mosque could inflame tension......thanks for the threat.

reply to post by earth2


We're already in deep trouble thanks to the geniuses who opposed this Cultural Center. Now radicals across the world to point to the protests as a textbook example of American intolerance to Islam and get a ton more recruits. This is exactly the sort of thing terrorists feed from like vampires.

Park 51 was a massive opportunity to show the world that we understand the difference between ordinary 21st Century Muslim-Americans and the extremists who attacked us on 911. We failed miserably. If they moved it the outrage would be even greater and the opprotunity for terrorist recruitment would skyrocket.

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Its how he said it, almost like he was threatening us.

You mean with that scary Middle Eastern accent? Or was it something in his eyes? Sorry but that struck me as funny. Is it not possible to interpret "how he said it" more than one way? If I tell my kids not to walk down Forbes street because it is a dangerous street and their mere presence would be taken as provocation and violence would be the outcome, am I threatening them or do you need to hear how I said it?

reply to post by ljtg123

1. Physiological resistance to a poison.

One of my favorites next to #6





[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/429e68343cd2.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by earth2
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

So, did the Imam help the situation by getting on TV and spreading MORE fear?

I say no, he only told us what we already knew.

I agree with the other poster, he should SHUT up.

If he told you what you already know then why is this a big deal? Watch any 24-hour news channel and you'll see that they recycle programming and stories several times, it's all stuff you already know if you've been watching.

The Imam was asked his opinion in an interview, he gave it. If you already believed his opinion to be true, why tell him to shut up? I would think that ATS members of all people would never tell anyone to stop talking when they are speaking the truth.

I think the Imam made quite a valid point myself, that you Americans, are inflaming the situation and perpetuating the culture of fear through your own willful ignorance of Islam.

If you don't want to be afraid of being attacked, work to win and end the war. If you want to win and end the war, don't give your opponent more ideological ammunition. It's that simple.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I agree, he made valid points.
But, when I say he needs to shut up I mean he didn't need to perform the interview. Nothing new was learn..

Why fan the flame?

How did he help the situation? He didn't help, he made it worse obviously..

Originally posted by cindyremains

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Its how he said it, almost like he was threatening us.

You mean with that scary Middle Eastern accent? Or was it something in his eyes? Sorry but that struck me as funny. Is it not possible to interpret "how he said it" more than one way? If I tell my kids not to walk down Forbes street because it is a dangerous street and their mere presence would be taken as provocation and violence would be the outcome, am I threatening them or do you need to hear how I said it?

Ok a few things I want to remark here; first off, enough implying I am a bigot. My whole point is it is possible to interpret things in many ways. If not there wouldn't be a zillion different forms of islam, christianity or any religion. These religious groups split and differ due to interpretation of both written and spoken word.

As for if you told your kids not to walk down a certain street, you shouldn't even need to explain yourself. They are your kids, you are their guardian, and if you tell them not to do something they shouldn't do it. That is telling them something, not threatening them. But as for "hearing how you say it," tone conveys a LOT of meaning. For example take a dog, who does not understand english but does understand tone. You can go HEY PUPPY DOG! loudly, menacingly, and watch it fold its tail between its legs, lower its head and cower infront of you. Yet going "Hey puppy dog" in a cutesy, light tone and they will get excited and come up to lick you, unafraid and happy. You said the same thing, it was interpreted two ways.

Now imam rauf saying "If I knew that this would happen, that this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it"
If he is seriously, "devoted his life to peacemaking", it should be pretty obvious that some people (would be) sensitive to the location, no matter the intention. It IS a rather controversial location, as seen as soon as this became politicized even slightly, and most people with atleast half a brain and not stuck behind a brick wall of political correctness can realize that without giving it more than a glancing thought.
But then he follows with, "If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I’m less concerned about the radicals in America than I am about the radicals in the Muslim world."
which now puts us in a catch-22.

So my interpretation, or how I read that, is, "Well I regret choosing that location, but now that we have, we can't even consider moving it due to radicals 5,000 miles away in another country for fear of what they may do" It is just poor judgement, poor choice of words, poor attempts to mediate, and poor ideology to bring this issue to receive as much political attention as it has. It has turned into one big giant controversial marketing campaign with nationwide attention, instead of the local NYC attention it should have been limited to.

We need to start worrying more about our own country then others. We have enough problems of our own then being in fear that some radical Al Quada is going to fly in and try to bomb civilians here due to wanting to move the mosque a few blocks. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN TRYING SINCE BEFORE A MOSQUE CONTROVERSY and they certainly aren't going to stop either just if we build a mosque here or not.

However you tend to see this issue, it is obviously a slap
in the face of every American citizen to build this mosque
at that site. Go ahead and build the mosque, but don't rub
it in at the same time. Kind of like adding salt to the wound.

I understand that if a pig were to be buried on that site, the
ground would then be considered unholy to muslims, and they
would then have to build elsewhere. Just saying.....

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils

Originally posted by SpectreDC
reply to post by tungus

 

But I do want to know his reasoning for choosing that location to begin with. ....

because this location was hit by the fusellage from the second plane... it is consecrated ground for them

location is of outmost importance as a symbol of islamic conquor.

edit on 9-9-2010 by SlasherOfVeils because: fixing tags

Sorry, should have specified. I wanted an answer derived from reasoning and logic. Not asinine paranoid bigotry.

Here you go..

O'BRIEN: And the big debate really is over how Muslims have engaged with the American community. You're living that right now.

So let's walk back to the very beginning. When did you settle upon this location, which is just about two blocks north of Ground Zero, for your new Islamic cultural center? Why that particular spot?

RAUF: Well, first, I must remind everybody that I have been imam of a mosque just 10 blocks from that spot, 12 blocks from Ground Zero. I've been serving that community and that neighborhood for the last quarter of a century.

When 9/11 happened, we couldn't reach our mosque in the Tribeca area. You know, and finally we came back. There was flower, letters. We're part of this community. I've served this community. And this is a community that I have worked for so long. And is important for us as Muslims, as Muslims who are in Lower Manhattan, to want to give back to the city and the country that's given us so much.

O'BRIEN: So why that particular spot?

O'BRIEN: Well, what happened was Sharif Gamal, the owner of Soho Properties, a member of my congregation, has noticed how our -- the need for prayer space has expanded. He felt a commitment to do something for his community. And he found this particular building. And he negotiated it, acquired it, and offered it for us to use and to establish a center that would be the space for a vision that I've had for over a decade, or 15, almost 20 years, which is to establish a space which embodies the fundamental beliefs that we have as Jews, Christians, and Muslims, which is to love our god and to love our neighbor, to build a space where we'll have a culture of worship. And at the same time, get to know each other and to forge personal bonds because that's how society, how community, is built, and how we can create something that will snowball to push back against the radical discourse that has just hijacked the discourse in our country and in much of the world.

edition.cnn.com...

Originally posted by earth2
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

I agree, he made valid points.
But, when I say he needs to shut up I mean he didn't need to perform the interview. Nothing new was learn..

Why fan the flame?

How did he help the situation? He didn't help, he made it worse obviously..

Well as someone in the news media, I can say that we really do like to show the views and opinions of people that are at the heart of stories because of the context and gravity it gives.

If you agree that he made valid points and generally agreed with his views, then the new information here was that this Imam, who has been rather demonized by some pundits in the American media, is in fact a reasonable individual with rational views. That's a very good story and a good reason for him to do the interview.

A lot of America believes this man is a radical nutjob, and this interview was an important part of presenting his real views and opinions directly from his mouth.

Originally posted by endtimer

I understand that if a pig were to be buried on that site, the
ground would then be considered unholy to muslims, and they
would then have to build elsewhere. Just saying.....

Yup ...just Saying....

they want us to be tolerant of the intolerant...hmmmm

Now...Just because I hate things taken out of context, I will provide the full quote by the Imam here...

RAUF: When I found the Cordoba initiative after 9/11 in response to a perennial question was, how can we fix this relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. I found the Cordoba initiative as a multi faith and multinational initiative. Because it became very clear and very apparent that if we were going to do this, we have to have Muslims and non-Muslims in this country and internationally cooperating together, in addressing the fundamental causes that have caused this and are continuously fuelling this.

O'BRIEN: But the controversial itself--

RAUF: So the Cordoba house --

O'BRIEN: --though, right, isn't that causing to some degree an instability and a risk, a risk of safety? I mean, there's an address now that has become the flash point for a lot of anger. Isn't that a risk to Muslims and Americans?

RAUF: There is a certain anger here, no doubt. But if you don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much larger footprint in the Muslim world. If we don't handle this crisis correctly, it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.

O'BRIEN: Do you ask yourself how did you miss that? I mean, it's been your life's mission, and you and I have spoken in the past years, to build bridges and reach out. And yet, given what you know now, would you have built?

RAUF: As I mentioned it, this story is not new. People knew about it.

O'BRIEN: Right, but given what you know now, would you have said, listen, let's not do it there? Because it sounds like you're saying in retrospect wouldn't have done it.

RAUF: Well, yes.

O'BRIEN: You would not have done it?

RAUF: If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it. My life has been devoted to peacemaking.

O'BRIEN: There are so many people who say, so if you're saying it was a mistake, then why can't you get out of it and not do it?

RAUF: Because we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict.

edition.cnn.com...


In this part of the interview he explains 1st...HE DIDN"T EXPECT THE CONTROVERSY.

IMO this is a miscalculation that many make. What becomes the next flash-point in the circus of rhetoric lately is easy to paint as predictable (in hindsight)...but not so easy to predict without it.

He had a Mosque already in NYC for over 25 years that was running out of room. A Mosque, by the way, that was effected by 9-11 to the extent that they weren't allowed to return to the building for weeks. Someone offered him a building a couple of blocks from Ground Zero...who knew Fox News would make it into a life or death struggle with the Muslim world....yada yada.

We can say it was predictable now...but EVEN FOX WAS FOR THE MOSQUE, back in Decmeber..

www.thedailyshow.com...

Predictable? With hindsight maybe at best...

In the five months after The Times’s initial account there were no newspaper articles on the project at all. It was only in May of this year that the Rupert Murdoch axis of demagoguery revved up, jettisoning Ingraham’s benign take for a New York Post jihad. The paper’s inspiration was a rabidly anti-Islam blogger best known for claiming that Obama was Malcolm X’s illegitimate son. Soon the rest of the Murdoch empire and its political allies piled on, promoting the incendiary libel that the “radical Islamists” behind the “ground zero mosque” were tantamount either to neo-Nazis in Skokie (according to a Wall Street Journal columnist) or actual Nazis (per Newt Gingrich).

www.nytimes.com...


2nd ...HE SAYS IF HE KNEW IT WOULD BE THIS CONTROVERSAL HE WOULDN"T HAVE DONE IT

3rd ...NOT A THREAT...GENERAL PATRAEUS SAID THE SAME THING...

Question...How do you win a war against an insurgency? By winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. This is the strategy in afgahnistan. Every time we prove to the world that we are in fact intolerant and hateful toward muslims...we endanger Americans abroad...soldiers and travellers. All the BS and political rhetoric in the world does not change that fact.

The Imam IMO is trying to find a compromise. Multi-faith center...anything at all that wouldn't affirm radical islams claims about us.

Originally posted by tspark

Yup ...just Saying....

they want us to be tolerant of the intolerant...hmmmm

YES!!! That is exactly what America is built upon.

That is why we allow the KKK to rally.

Because no one has a monopoly on the truth and all voices have a right to be heard in America.

Do you not think that some people view the Tea Party as "Intolerant"...the Mosque Protestors? The GOP?

We either tolerate all religions and speech or we can sell the statue of liberty for scrap metal IMO.

Once Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are compromised ...we become an Islamic Republic of a different flavor...how about "Christian Republic"? Ban all other religions, censor news outlets, arrest protestors.

I will stick with the country our founding fathers died to create.

just my 2 cents.

reply to post by maybereal11


Now I just do not believe it, or buy what the Imman is stating in the interview, and the question is why can he not be absolutely truthful with what he states and says?
Consider this, and use a bit of common sense on the matter: An extremist group, under one banner attacks another group of people. How much of a controversy would it be if the more moderate group wants to come and build something in the name of the ideal behind the attack? It has been stated that this is similar to the Japanese going to Pearl Harbor to build a shrine to those Japanese who died during World War II, and putting a friendly spin on it, stating it is a cultural center to bridge the east and west. That is offensive in its own right, and that is what many people view this: Extremist elements of the Islamic world attacked the US, plunging the US into a war and now they want to build a mosque near the site of the attack, and call it a cultural center to bridge the understanding between America and the Islamic world, and is totally shocked that people are objecting to this in the numbers that are coming out? Does this imman, this learned person not have the simple common sense to understand that this is going to really upset people to the point of forcing them to choose between backing and supporting the islamic religion and religious bigorty? And to make matters worse, when people who actually stand up and say no, not there, they are slandered by the supporters of this mosque and are asked to back down. If anything this is not going to end well, unless this time the other side, the ones who want to build the cultural center backs down and accepts an alternative site. Many of the fringe elements on both sides are gearing up to take a more radical position. This is going to lead to a more far worse situation, for both sides, with the claims that the other threw the first punch. The religious leaders are not doing any good to calm the fires in the people minds and souls.

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
Its how he said it, almost like he was threatening us.

ALMOST? Heck ... he definately was threatening America. He's a business man who wants to make his $$$ and he's willing to call in the hoods in order to get business done. He claims the cultural center is for peace ... but then makes threats that if all doesn't go the way he wants it then there will be violence. (kinda sounds like Chicago politics!)

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by tspark

Yup ...just Saying....

they want us to be tolerant of the intolerant...hmmmm

YES!!! That is exactly what America is built upon.

That is why we allow the KKK to rally.

Because no one has a monopoly on the truth and all voices have a right to be heard in America.

Do you not think that some people view the Tea Party as "Intolerant"...the Mosque Protestors? The GOP?

We either tolerate all religions and speech or we can sell the statue of liberty for scrap metal IMO.

Once Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are compromised ...we become an Islamic Republic of a different flavor...how about "Christian Republic"? Ban all other religions, censor news outlets, arrest protestors.

I will stick with the country our founding fathers died to create.

just my 2 cents.

Cheers to you mate, well said! The BBC today had to publish and article that explained the American view on free speech, primarily for our fellow Europeans.

I have always been so impressed with the American ability to tolerate completely insane hateful bigots in the name of freedom. If one is free to speak then all should be.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Now I just do not believe it, or buy what the Imman is stating in the interview, and the question is why can he not be absolutely truthful with what he states and says?

Whether you choose to believe what this Imam says is your choice...What's to say to that. I can construct all types of logic around simply assuming someon is lying.

I think you are not being truthful, why are you lying?...it's a pretty easy thing to do.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Consider this, and use a bit of common sense on the matter: An extremist group, under one banner attacks another group of people. How much of a controversy would it be if the more moderate group wants to come and build something in the name of the ideal behind the attack?

Not in the name of "the ideal" behind the attacks. You are confusing Al-Qaeda with the Muslim faith.

Shall we ban Catholic Churches from building near schools since thousands of priests were found to have molested thousands of our children while the hierarchy concealed the issue?

What about those god-loving christians that shoot doctors in parking lots?

And the Christian bombers..
Erik Rudolph anyone?

Nope. Holding a Billion plus followers of Christianity or Islam accountable for the deeds of thier worst members just doesn't fly in my opinion and is distinctly unamerican in it's bigotry.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
Its how he said it, almost like he was threatening us.

ALMOST? Heck ... he definately was threatening America. He's a business man who wants to make his $$$ and he's willing to call in the hoods in order to get business done. He claims the cultural center is for peace ... but then makes threats that if all doesn't go the way he wants it then there will be violence.

(kinda sounds like Chicago politics!)

Yeah...this exactly what i took away from it too....

Watch my smile....not my hands...

reply to post by maybereal11


When 9/11 happened, they did not do it in the name of the Taliban, or Al-quada, they did it in the name of Islam. They used Islam as a means to justify the attacks and the terrorist activities.
You do not need a college degree to know that this is a bad idea. Extremist muslims attacked the United States, they did it in the name of Islam, so it is a bad idea to build a mosque or something that is heavily Islam related near that site. Everyone who is against this holds that position, that it is ok to build such, but build it farther away from the Ground Zero site. And the more that this Imman keeps going, the more he is irritating the survivors and people who were directly affected by 9/11. And the more that this continues, the more that people in the rest of the country are going to back the survivors and people affected by 9/11, and not the muslim community.
I say the man is lieing, not cause of what he has not stated, but cause of what he has stated. He did not expect this kind of outcry and controversy? That is like stating that the african americans were not going to riot after Dr. Martin Luther King got shot, or there was not going to be trouble after the Roddney King video tape aired and the verdict for the police was put out.
You do not need a college degree to see that this was going to be trouble from the first public hearing on this, and that the Imman, a person who is suppose to be building bridges and seeking peace has so far refused to accept or even consider any and all compromises that have been presented to him. That every time someone has spoken out publically, the first thing that comes out, is that the people against this are Islamaphobes, or racists or religious bigots. All this is doing is dividing the people, and adding gas to a very volatile situation.
And as long as the lack of common sense tends to flow from both directions there will be no happy solution. Tolerance is a 2 way street, it has to go both ways, if you ask people to be tolerant of anothers belief, then do not be so intolerant or force that belief on those people. To force or fail to give that tolerance to one side, then all you do is harden the hearts of all those involved.
The wise course of action is for the Imman to back down, and accept the compromise, moving the location of the proposed cultural center and mosque for peace and tolerance on the part of the Islamic community. Anything else will only serve to grow hate in the non muslim citizens of the country.

So we are not going to burn the Holy Koran,good, I have read the Koran a little and it reminds me of the Old Testiment.
Anyways, now Islam, is this Mosque controversy a distraction or a legitimate issue?Now here again Islam is very recent in this country we know precious little about it, and now we are being held accountable to keeping Muslims from going berserk if we look @ them the wrong way,if we have an opinion or a question,we are in danger of a "terrorist attack"?I believe this is a good example of the old American axiom" If your not happy here in America go back to where you came from".A Mosque @ ground Zero is like a shine to the 7th cavalry @ wounded knee.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by maybereal11

 

When 9/11 happened, they did not do it in the name of the Taliban, or Al-quada, they did it in the name of Islam. They used Islam as a means to justify the attacks and the terrorist activities.

How old are you? Serious question. Just wondering because there is a whole lot of revisionist history going on at present.

Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, not the Muslim faith.
Al-Qaeda is a militant terroist group that is interested in power, always have been.
Al-Qaeda has mudered more Muslims than Westerners
85% of the casualties from all al-Qaeda attacks in 2004-08 were Muslims, compared with 15% Westerners.
www.nationalpost.com...

Somewhere in the ballpark of 12,000 US Troops who are combatting terrorists in the Middle East ARE MUSLIMS.

There are enough muslims working in the Pentagon within the Anti-Terror division that they have a Mosque in the Pentagon! Right next to where the plane, flown by AL-QAEDA BTW, crashed into it.

I know it's all the "rage" in conservative circles to rant and rave against Islam et al. , It's convenient political rhetoric for the politicians to appeal to baser emotions and bigotry, but at the end of the day American Muslims have shown themselves as patriotic americans who have chosen this country, and are willing to give their lives for this country, and I will be damned if I will sit silently while folks denigrate them and call for revocation of thier rights. They are Americans and that means they are ours...that's it in my book.

The Anti-Mosque crowd has the right to protest...I'd even fight for thier right to do so.

I have a right to call them on their bigotry.

United We Stand...everything else is just BS.