It seems likely to me that the Islamic groups supporting/funding this are trying to make a political statement and offend, especially considering the name.

...while some Muslims opposed it as an unnecessary provocation.

It appears that more than just the "white establishment" is against it. Why am I not surprised?

Edit: Okay, you're going to have to help me out here (later on in the Cordoba House article):

"Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote that Abdul Rauf gave a 'mixed, muddled, muttered' message after 9/11.[169] Nineteen days after the attacks, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes that fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam, but Rauch considered his message 'muddled' because when asked if the U.S. deserved to be attacked, Rauf answered, 'I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.'[52][45] Rauch commented: 'Note the verb. The crime "happened"?'"

What's wrong with the term 'happened'? It's just saying that it occurred...which last I checked...is true. I mean, if one were to question that statement, I would figure they would center on the accessory part of the sentence.

Seriously, anybody? Am I missing some nuance to the word 'happened' that makes this all make sense as to why one would be noting the verb in particular? (For the record, I know too little to have any opinion of the rest of that particular section of the article.)

(Also, hey, look, I'm questioning something on the side of questioning the building of the mosque. Interesting...would you have thunk that I could do more than blindly attack its construction?)

"The sponsors of Cordoba House said the name was meant to invoke 8th–11th century Córdoba, Spain, a time and a place where Muslims, Christians, and Jews co-existed peacefully." I don't see how that's supposed to be a deliberately offensive name; quite the contrary.

And I wouldn't call Abdul Rauf a "terrorist sympathizer" because he recognizes the fact that when a country practices a policy of killing civilians en masse and generally violently invading other countries, some members of those victimized countries are going to get peeved and retaliate. It doesn't make the attacks any more justified, it just means that they didn't happen in a vacuum. I think in this sense, the US and its modus operandi in foreign military relations was very much an accessory to the crime.

Also, many of the Muslims who "oppose" the mosque do so on the grounds of what is essentially "Muslims assume that Americans are reasonable and tolerant enough to recognize that an entire group isn't responsible for the actions of a few of its radical members. They aren't, so building this is probably going to make them mad."

Good job missing the entire point about 'happened' being a reasonable term and that questioning his motives seems to be stupid.

If by peaceful they mean Christians and Jews living as Dhimmis. Although the Christians were worse when they returned. See Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali for a better understanding of how the violence by Muslims is not just an extreme fringe.

I wasn't addressing that, the thread is young enough that I was giving a base opinion on the matter.

But "happened" is a questionable verb, if you consider terrorism to be the crime in question, as I think many do, since in the context of his comments, he is calling the US an accessory to extremist Al Qaeda violence in general. In this sense, the crime isn't over, it is still very much ongoing.



Violence by almost anyone isn't an extreme fringe. People at any point in the past in almost any setting have been responsible for violence, especially in the case of groups one is born into. You can't blame the group itself and all of its members for the actions of individuals, only for inherent qualities. The intention claimed for the choice of name was promotion of peaceful coexistence, and there is no evidence to suggest the contrary.

Yes but there is a tendency among our Political Class to constantly say that Islam is peaceful, but groups funded by Saudis like the Muslim Brotherhood have preached Anti-Semitism and hatred of the west throughout Islam, and have great influence.

You'd hate the west too if they invaded your country, killed your countrymen, eroded your culture and sovereignty, and forced you to give them your resources. And you'd hate the Jews if they claimed that your most sacred place on the planet, if not the universe, was theirs and did everything in their power to try to occupy it. Not saying the Muslims are any more entitled to it, but it's all a matter of your perspective and what side you were raised on. Further, there is still a difference between Islam and Muslims, just as there is a difference between any set of beliefs or philosophies and those who hold them. These people are still human, still flawed in how perfectly they practice their beliefs, and they still get angry when constantly provoked and controlled. Christianity itself and the mass populace of Christians aren't personally responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics, even though most do tend to agree with the basic ideals that drive those radicals who are responsible.

Honestly, I think the controversy is stupid, fear-and-hate-driven (probably by GB and FOX as well as probably CNN to get ratings)and shows how focused we are on our past. These type of anti-mosque protests are happening against local mosque-building sites in Staten Island, Tennesee, Wisconsin, and California. It's just that the "Ground Zero" one (which is, by the way, blocks away from Ground Zero, not actually on it) is getting attention. I think this speaks to the discrimination Muslims have to face at the hands of a supposedly tolerant nation-the same as homosexuals have to face, that the Jews had to face, that women had to face, that Catholics (yes, Catholics) had to face, and that African-Americans had to face in days supposedly gone.

Doesn't the GOP support the Saudi government? And where's the proof? I have not met a single anti-Semitist Muslim, most are tolerant, and they probably hate Osama more than we do "You're making us all look crazy!"

I didn't say that every Muslim was a crazy anti-Semite, just like everyone in America isn't a crazy homophobe. But there are significant pluralities of both. Also doesn't Obama support the Saudis? I wasn't aware that the Democrats had condemned them. Also I'm not registered with a political party, never have been. I already referred you to Infidel. I think the mosque should be allowed to be built, just like everyone should be allowed to do whichever non-coercive acts they want. However, it's ironic that they want to teach us tolerance. In addition, some Muslim groups have condemned the Mosque as overly provocative. So it's hardly just racist white people who think it's too much.

This controversy brought to you by Fox News, who is paying a lot of money to keep the eye off of the Republican Congress blocking the 9/11 First Responders Bill.

There is no such thing as an unbiased news agency anymore. Before you single out Fox News, look closely at the other ones.

That being said, not knowing what the 9/11 First Responders Bill is, I cannot say if I agree with it or not. (No, I don't pay much attention to politics in general. I don't need to follow what crooks called politicians are doing to know that the world is screwed up and getting worse daily.)

Whether or not the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be just a house of religion or as a statement of acceptance, the mosque is not being given the same eligibility as a similarly followed religion's house of religion would be likely given because of intolerance. If the restriction is touted as a safety provision, then the mosque should be allowed to stand, with the liability of criminal attack.

Side note: The blocking of the 9/11 First Response bill is a tremendous f-you to 9/11 responders who put their lives on the line to save the lives of those initially afflicted by the Twin Towers' collapse.

There is no such thing as an unbiased source. The question isn't about whether or not bias exists, it's about the degree and it's about the willingness of Fox News to peddle falsehoods to sell a preconceived narrative that aids the Republican Party.

It's not about bias, it's about disingenuity.

And I guarantee that they have no more willingness to do so than any other news agency. The media's goal tends to be swaying public opinion before informing the public.

If you really care about the first responders so much, there are plenty of funds and charities that you can donate to. Don't have the government apparatus of coercion steal money from other people to give to them.

They go further than anyone in that, and there are news media dedicated to informing the public (Well, it all depends on if you count The Daily Show as news or comedy, because it seems to try to inform the public about "mistakes" of other media through a comedic frame. If you think it has a bias, remember "Reality has a well known liberal bias")

It isn't even a mosque, guys. It's a community center, no different than a YMCA or a JCC.

Liberal in the classical sense perhaps?