Originally Posted by quinn14

I don't think the KKK would be allowed to build their worship spot there.

You didn't get the analogy. Moslems are to terrorists as Christians are to the KKK.

Originally Posted by quinn14

Yes, they have the right to build there, but they shouldn't. It is a poke in the eye or salt in the wound and for anyone to say that that is not what they are trying to do, is naive.

I really doubt that the planned project is intended to rub our noses in it, and it's unfortunate that many Americans see it that way. As M Richardson said, it may be an insensitive location, but the objections seem to me to be hypersensitive.

I suspect those that do not see this as ludicrous, do not have a close relationship to the city and the downtown financial district. I'll be kind, you're naive. Those that do, tend to see the grossness of siting this facility here. As pointed out, there is another facility not far away. There are over 200 mosques in NYC, so the claim for more space needed is not a valid one. The cleric tied to this project has known connections to the radical Muslims. This is not a question of what's constitutionally allowable, the organization behind this proposal is purely leveraging the leftist PC mumbo jumbo to gain what the radical Muslims want....a site close to the WTC to worship the attack and terrorists.

The proposed a 13-story, $100 million mosque/Islamic Center is just 600 feet from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. The proposed name of the structure -- "Cordoba House" -- implies conquest. The first Cordoba mosque was built in the Spanish city of Cordoba after the Muslim conquest of Christian Spain in the 8th century AD.

The group's imam and leader of the NYC project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has refused to call the Palestinian group Hamas a terrorist organization. Rauf is a permanent trustee of the Islamic Cultural Center (ICC).

The head of the ICC was Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who said that “only the Jews” could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks; that if Americans only knew about this Jewish culpability, “they would have done to Jews what Hitler did”; and that Jews “disseminate corruption in the land” and spread “heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs.”

Gemeaha’s successor at the ICC, Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, said there was no “conclusive evidence” proving that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This was after the perpetrators had been identified and linked to Al-Qaeda and radical Muslims.

Rauf aligns himself with Hizb-ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) which has been banned in many countries — Germany, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia — but not in the United States or Britain. He was observed and photographed attending the 2007 meeting in Kuala Lumpur where he was promoting his book. Rauf’s book has two different titles, one for non-Muslims and one for Muslims. In English, it is called What’s Right With Islam: A New Vision For Muslims and the West. But in Muslim-ruled Malaysia — a country whose language Rauf knows well since he has spent a great deal of time there — the book was published as A Call To Prayer From the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.

The Islamic Dawa is a militant Shiite Islamic group that was involved in at least one other terrorist bombing in addition to being behind the bombing of the US embassy in Kuwait.

Hizb-ut Tahrir is similar ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood. Both seek worldwide Islamic supremacy and the imposition of Islamic law to replace the Constitution and democracy. But Hizb-ut Tahrir differs by also espousing Marxist-Leninist methodology, and is entirely open about its ambition to dominate the world, unlike the more discreet Muslim Brotherhood.

On two occasions, Hizb-ut Tahrir in America called for terrorism recruitment conferences in Chicago to establish their long-awaited caliphate, which would knock down capitalism, democracy, and equal rights for non-Muslims and women, and institute a Muslim-run society under sharia law.

Ata Abu-Rishta, the international head of Hizb-ut Tahrir, is said to have “whipped the 100,000-strong crowd” at the August 2007 annual conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, “into a frenzy … by calling for a war on Jews.” Rishta has also declared that it is “permissible” to kill Jews in Israel, and by extension, everywhere: “There can be no peaceful relations with the Jews: this is prohibited by Islamic law.”Hizb-ut Tahrir in Pakistan issued a leaflet in September 2008 urging Pakistan’s army to use nuclear weapons “to injure and bruise an already battered America to an extent to which she cannot afford to stomach right now.”

In 2005 an interviewer asked him to comment on the fact that “some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties.” Rauf replied: “We believe that a certain portion of every [Islamic] charity has been legitimate.

"A certain portion" - what's that tell you?

My position remains simple: the core of the attack on the World Trade Center, the roots of it, were, are, is, remain, religion. Yes, right wing, radical religion; but religion nonetheless. So given that religion is so tied in to what happened, and given that there are ashes of the dead still on, in and around the buildings in the area making it all a memorial, a graveyard, I do not want any kind of religious expansion there; be it Christian or Muslim. Yes, the site is a graveyard; the former Burlington Coat factory building was demolished in the Trade Center collapse. There are remains of the WTC occupants on that site and to build a mosque, yes there will be a mosque on the site, where Islamic radicals will be able to worship their martyrs is ludicrous in my opinion. Rauf is a shrewd and leveraging the US Constitution only to achieve his ultimate aim " the imposition of Islamic law to replace the Constitution and democracy"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#38731398

Olberman totally ignored the character of individuals behind the proposal and the ties to terrorist factions. He should be as thorough in an investigation of Rauf and his ties to terrorist sects.

PS, the proposal is for 13 stories with the top two for religious purposes. The existing structure is only 9 stories. Add 4 stories and the top floors will have a view of the new buildings and can be seen from the new buildings, but Olberman ignored the fact. As for the vacancies in the area, most of the buildings have not yet been cleaned of the WTC ash and debris which has proven to be extremely hazardous, including Burlington.

The owners have no insurance to do so and the cost has skyrocketed since virtually everyone involved in past clean-ups has filed lawsuits against the building owners. A lot of the properties, which catered to WTC occupants, have no one to sell to, walked away from their stores and left the buildings owners with no revenue. Most are up for sale, or have been taken over by the city on tax liens. With all of the hazardous waste inside Burlington, the entire building is a virtual waste dump and will have to be handled as same when it is dismantled.

Originally Posted by RYou

The group's imam and leader of the NYC project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has refused to call the Palestinian group Hamas a terrorist organization.

Yet, he has condemed the 9-11 attacks as un-islamic.

Originally Posted by RYou

Rauf is a permanent trustee of the Islamic Cultural Center (ICC).

The head of the ICC was Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who said that “only the Jews” could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks; that if Americans only knew about this Jewish culpability, “they would have done to Jews what Hitler did”; and that Jews “disseminate corruption in the land” and spread “heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs.”

When did Rauf become a trustee in the Islamic Cultural Center? Gemeaha left the ICC in 2001 before making the remarks you mention. And even if Rauf was a member under Gemeaha it doesn't mean that he agrees with him on every issue.

Originally Posted by RYou

Gemeaha’s successor at the ICC, Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, said there was no “conclusive evidence” proving that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This was after the perpetrators had been identified and linked to Al-Qaeda and radical Muslims.

While Abu-Namous might not think there is conclusive evidence of who carried out the 9-11 attacks, he has also condemed them as being un-Islamic and has been involved in a series of dialogues with prominent Islamic and Jewish leaders which the leaders of the ICC are still involved in.

Originally Posted by RYou

Rauf aligns himself with Hizb-ut Tahrir al Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) which has been banned in many countries — Germany, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia — but not in the United States or Britain. He was observed and photographed attending the 2007 meeting in Kuala Lumpur where he was promoting his book.

What exactly does 'aligns himself' mean? that he attended a conference they hosted as part of a book publicity tour? That's hardly evidence that he subscribes to any of their beliefs.

Originally Posted by RYou

Rauf is a shrewd and leveraging the US Constitution only to achieve his ultimate aim " the imposition of Islamic law to replace the Constitution and democracy"

What exactly is the evidence that he wants to replace the consitution?

Originally Posted by quinn14

This will just create protests and controversy. Which is what they want. Then they can claim that they are being persecuted. THis group is not a peaceful group. They are, as in the analogy, the same as the KKK saying that they represent Christianity. And the sad fact is, you would all see right through the KKK, but you are ignoring this particular group of Islamists.

I think it's pretty clear that you have a complete and utter lack of understanding of Spider's analogy.

Spider's point was that to say that to assume that terrorists represent all Muslims is as asinine as saying the KKK represents all christians. Being against building a mosque because terrorists commited atrosities makes as much sense as being against christian churches because the KKK did bad stuff.

I've read and responded to RYou's post, there is nothing in there that suggests that the Iman in charge of the project harbors any ill-will or wishes any harm on the US. He's publically spoken out against the 9-11 attacks calling them un-islamic and is married to an advisor to the 9-11 memorial committee.