Islamophobia surge in the US: A Muslim is the boogeiman

[ANWAR]

Originally posted by Libaax-Sankataabte:

That is a Sufis mosque which is probably why it was approved.

ya i agree

[LayZie G.]

Stop being apologists and embrace what you're entitled to (the building of a mosque).

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A NEW YORKER AND VERY FEW HERE ARE, IF ANY AT ALL.

 

WITH THAT SAID, just as I have said on the che thread, I will say it again, you can not and will not pass judgement on issues that are of no concern to you.

 

THIS ISN'T us VS them battle, it will never be. This is a battle between good vs evil, evil being the 9/11 deniers and the good being the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

 

People who deny the 9/11 attacks should not cast stones at anyone or anything.

 

If you are critical of the 9/11 families who vehemently oppose the construction of the ground zero masjid, you are in fact a 9/11 denier.

 

You are probably having an 'ah-huh' moment, well........you should because a 9/11 deniers believe the anger and protest from the so called right(which is really few opportunists but mostly the 9/11 families) is not genuine, in fact its rooted in deep hate for the muslims aka the title of the thread.

 

A 9/11 denier believes that the attacks were not carried out by islamists invoking the name of allah as they drove those planes to those buildings, in fact, it never really happened, it was, how should I say? "jew propaganda", says your average 9/11 denier lol.

 

Really, these 9/11 deniers, some of their presents are felt in this thread believe that 9/11 attacks were just another ploy to make 'islam' look bad.

 

They live in this bubble, so much so that they, 9/11 deniers believe the attacks were not carried out in the name of "islam", so they deny that the attacks ever took place in american soil.

 

The mildly delusional of the group believe that it was President BUSH who carried the attacks, so they feel that they are owed and should be vindicated, hence north's "take what is yours" mantra lol.

 

Some of these 9/11 deniers never set foot in ground zero but they are the first to cry wolf against families who have to relive the loss of their loved ones over and over again but thats if this construction ever materializes.

 

The families of the 9/11 victims wound would never heal but nevermind their loss, they are neo-cons, hell bend on destroying everything "ISLAM", they are, how should I say it, islamophobes.

 

All in all, this isn't about whether the construction of the masjid is good or bad idea or whether its right to build so close to the site which took thousands of lives in abruptly and the site which holds the memories of those victims and the horrific acts committed against all of humanity NOR is this protest against whether this SHEIK who is leading the crowd has any compassion for the families of the victims of 9/11. Is the sheikh's intentions genuine? I dont know as I'm still waiting to see the financial records of this project, who is who in the multi-million dollar investment, thats how I will judge this project not who is throwing fit today.

[N.O.R.F]

As usual all over the place. Bal maxaad tidhi?

[LayZie G.]

^ you are as predictable as ever. When you are left speechless, you come back with, 'bal maxaad tidhi'? Bal orod ee quiz-kii aan meesha kale kugu soo qoray kasoo jawaab.....

[N.O.R.F]

^What exactly are you saying in your previous post? How does supporting the Mosque's construction equate to denying 9/11? Shall we consider constitutional rights? Shall we consider religious rights? Shall we consider the mosque being operation for years already?

 

Now, bal maxaad tidhi?

[LayZie G.]

^north, indha-is-tiriska aan kugu jeclahay. IF you read what I wrote, you would know exactly what I am after, which is the investors. I dont care for childish outbursts by few on the right or left of this masjid debate, nor do I have time to entertain folks who have mob mentality. With that being said, I am after the backers of this project, who are they? What are their motivations for proposing this project at this location? No one cares about whether the 2x4 room was there or how long it was there nor does anyone care under what premise was the construction given the go-ahead. IF you are an objective observer(which I am because this project is local project, which means it should be left to the building commission, ,residents, 9/11 survivors and family of the victims) and you are genuinely curious about this project, then you are after the big fish thats swimming in the hudson river that no one cares to discuss, atleast not yet and I dont believe I am alone in this at all.

 

As for the 9/11 deniers, I was discussing that in the context of this thread, if the critics of the ground zero masjid are islamophobes, then their assailants are 9/11 deniers.

[Jacpher]

^Spare us your nonsense. Neither the developers nor the opponents really care your little opinion.

 

The proposed building is not a mosque and not on site at ground zero as reported by some in the media. It is nearly three blocks away from ground zero and the the building is said to be a cultural center including museum, swimming pool, gym, sports area, and a prayer area. To call this building a mosque won't be any different than calling any large buildings that have prayer area (though they call it meditation rooms) a mosque. Many hospitals have meditation rooms but they're still hospitals.

 

What matters at the end of the day if the developers have the legal right to pursue their plan to build. If and when this goes to the high court, it'll be 9-0 guul for the private owners of the land to build whatever they want.

 

Jon Steward did a segment on this the other day - Watch Wyatt Senior Mosque Correspondent

[LayZie G.]

^hey, chronic baby, if my views were of very little value to the subject matter, why did you feel that you had the need to afford me a response?

 

Why look for validation from the so called 'opponents' and 'developers' as you put it(not that I ever uttered those words) when I have loyal fans like you who are anxious to hear what I have to say and glued to my every word? Tell me again why you felt it was necessary to respond if you didn't value my opinion? hear hear, CHRONIC baBY, you are suffering from layzie syndrome, go get treatment and I mean that in the best of way.

 

RAMADAN KARIM CHRONIC baby

 

As for the ground zero masjid, lets call this park 51 project for what it is, a place of worship, a masjid of a kind, the end.

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

What Ron Paul (the senior, not the little junior and the only Republican I have my respects for) has to say about this subject:

 

Is the controversy over building a mosque near Ground Zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

 

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

 

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

 

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

 

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

 

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

 

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

 

The claim that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

 

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

 

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

 

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

 

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

 

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

 

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

 

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

 

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam, the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

 

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support (are) irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society — protecting liberty.

 

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

 

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque — a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law — in order to look tough against Islam.

 

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

 

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

 

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.