On Aug 20, 11:28*am, Han wrote:
"JimT" wrote stnet:







"Han" wrote in message
.. .
snip

I'm against organized religion (for myself), but archbishop Dolan of
New York said that it was similar to a catholic proposal to build a
nunnery next to Auschwitz. *That was insensitive too, and was moved
quite a distance away, if it got built at all. *So Dolan proposed
also to move this
quite nice community center some disance further from GZ.

My thoughts on the subject are almost identical to Dolan's.

For the record - I think that all those who said this was a freedom
of religion issue, if all ordinances were followed, are right. *I
also think, as many do, that it is a bit insensitive to stick your
nose that close. snip

The 106th congress removed all doubt as to whether or not it is a
freedom of religion issue:

http://www.rluipa.com/index.php/article/398.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establi...First_Amendmen
t

Legally the opponents of the mosque don't have a chance.

Jim

I also think that legally the opponents of the cultural center don't have
a chance. *But this is a sensitivity issue, and the proponents have not
been cultivating the appropriate people properly, at least according to
what I read. *They should have had dialog with groups possibly against
their plan, rather than ignoring them. *Probably too late now to start
that dialog. *It's a pity that muslims could not have been included in
the GZ plans better. *After all, muslims died in the disaster just like
atheists, hindus and christians (note lower case).


Where is your evidence that Muslims were in any way treated
differently in the ground zero plans than Christians or Hindus? As
I recall, it was a redevelopment project focused on rebuilding and
creating a memorial to the 911 victims. I did not see any reports of
religous involvement from any faith and certainly never heard about
Muslims not participating. I would assume, since Muslims were
victims and are a significant percentage of the population of NYC,
that Muslims were involved all along, but not from a religous
perspective.







--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 20, 12:37*pm, "
wrote:
Han wrote:
"JimT" wrote in
tnet:

"Han" wrote in message
. ..
snip

I'm against organized religion (for myself), but archbishop Dolan of
New York said that it was similar to a catholic proposal to build a
nunnery next to Auschwitz. *That was insensitive too, and was moved
quite a distance away, if it got built at all. *So Dolan proposed
also to move this
quite nice community center some disance further from GZ.

My thoughts on the subject are almost identical to Dolan's.

For the record - I think that all those who said this was a freedom
of religion issue, if all ordinances were followed, are right. *I
also think, as many do, that it is a bit insensitive to stick your
nose that close. snip
The 106th congress removed all doubt as to whether or not it is a
freedom of religion issue:

http://www.rluipa.com/index.php/article/398.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establi...First_Amendmen
t

Legally the opponents of the mosque don't have a chance.

Jim

I also think that legally the opponents of the cultural center don't have
a chance. *But this is a sensitivity issue, and the proponents have not
been cultivating the appropriate people properly, at least according to
what I read. *They should have had dialog with groups possibly against
their plan, rather than ignoring them. *Probably too late now to start
that dialog. *It's a pity that muslims could not have been included in
the GZ plans better. *After all, muslims died in the disaster just like
atheists, hindus and christians (note lower case).

Sensitivity? *BS! *All of the idiots with islamaphobia should get an rx
to treat paranoia. *Sensitivity in NYC is a freaking oxymoron. *Grief
and loss are to be respected, at all times. *Where is the community
center allowed to be to comply with "sensitivity", and who decides? *The
US got hit, and hit hard, but it has happened before and will happen
again in some regard. *Two billion Muslims in the world, and 19 are
allowed to change how we think about the rest? *That is nonsense, and
the sensitivity bull crap is just another expression of prejudice, just
like the "Obama is a Muslim" and "Obama was born in Kenya" nonsense.

As if that were all there is to it. What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"? What about the fact that
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer? Seems a little strange, no? He has no problem in calling
the USA an accomplice, but won't call out Hamas? Where is the
$100mil funding for this mosque going to come from? How about the
fact that the Imam wants to see the USA move more toward compliance
with sharia law?

Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just want
to play the prejudice card.






Folks who vote on the basis of nonsense are what really scare me to
death, just as when Bill Clinton's sex life was an urgent national
issue.

Bill Clinton's sex life was never the issue. Perjury under oath was
the core legal issue. And from a moral and political perspective,
there are fortunately still a lot of us that don't want the oval
office disgraced by using it for sex with an intern.




*There are a lot of TV preachers, of all stripes...I think it
would be a big hit to have TV psychiatrists treating political paranoia,
along with some Prozac in the water supply )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 21, 9:43*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,





*"Cojoes" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Cojoes" wrote:

"

The constitution, which contains freedom of religion, is NOT just a
local
issue. Try again, this time go by facts of what was said.
* *I did. The main ways they are trying to stop the Mosque are not
freedom of religion issues. They are trying to stop it using local
zoning and other methods. It is whether or not the building should be a
historically preserved building and, now that the building commissioners
say it ain't, whether they followed their own procedures. *They don't
want them in, but they are using the local bureaucracy in a time-honored
manner that has been implemented to keep out strip joints, subsidized
housing or other kinds of NIMBY things for years.

Trashing the constitution, because you don't like a certain religion, is
Un-American.
* But using the constitution, the part about equal protection, isn't.

wrote in news:ec122443-37ae-4a43-a401-ffeb13e51f49
@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

As if that were all there is to it. What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"? What about the fact that
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer? Seems a little strange, no? He has no problem in calling
the USA an accomplice, but won't call out Hamas? Where is the
$100mil funding for this mosque going to come from? How about the
fact that the Imam wants to see the USA move more toward compliance
with sharia law?

Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just want
to play the prejudice card.

I have doubts about your supposed "quotes". Then it would be really
stupid to send him out to islamic countries for a goodwill mission.

As far as saying the US is complicit in the attacks on 9/11, the safety
systems in place did sort of fail the people who died on 9/11, right?
That is to some extent a measure of being an accomplish, by allowing it
to happen. It is an undeniable fact that for all the havoc of the TSA,
the "efforts" of the FBI and what have you other agencies, "they" still
keep slipping through the safety measures. But maybe incompetence is not
complicity ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 20, 6:03*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

-snip-



"Sensitivity" should cast SOME weight, but rubbing-their-face-in-it has got
to count for something too.

I don't see how building a center on a block with strip clubs, retail
businesses, and falafel stands is 'rubbing anyone's face' in anything.


You will when a couple of years later, they start having guest
speakers associated with Hamas, radical Islam, etc start showing up.
And unlike the strip club, it will be all over the news, for all of us
to put up with. That isn't too far fetched given the statements the
Iman has already made, eg the USA was an accomplice to 911, while
refusing to answer if Hamas is a terrorist organization. And
predictably it will be under the pretence of being open to listening
to everyone in the name of peace. Yet, they won't listen to the
overwhelming majority that wan't the mosque built further away and
slapped the governors hand away when he offered to try to find a
solution. And then guys like you will be arguing that is all peachy
keen too, because it's freedom of speech.







You raise some good points. But the issue won't go away. This controversy
has stepped on the president's message about the economy and such for a
whole week now.

Then, too, there's the small Greek Orthodox Church - built in 1832 - that
was destroyed when the towers fell. The Deacons of the church STILL have not
gotten permission to rebuild nine years later.

Not exactly. * They *could* rebuild the same church where it was---
but they are negotiating with the city to get a bigger piece of land
for a bigger church.

Part of that long story was told in the NY Times last year-http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html

[and also note that the Islamic center has not even begun the process
of getting permits to build- I don't think they even have the
architectural drawings done-- Actual building is years down the road.]

Some should ask why the mayor
of New York and the president of the United States can so eagerly defend the
right of an Islamic center but say nary a word to help a small church get a
building permit.

Both have defended the religious rights of Muslims in general. * The
President has not weighed in on this particular site. * The Gov. has
offered to try to find an alternate piece of land for the Islamic
center. * * * Frankly, I think they should both STFU - it is a *local*
concern. * *



And, as to your question whether we should let 19 Muslims alter our view of
the remaining two billion, I think we can as long as there are fewer than 19
among the 2 billion stepping up to condemn the actions of the first group.

Then we shouldn't because at last count there 1.86789325 billion who
are peace seeking folks. * * *There were probably a couple hundred
Muslims killed in the towers. * *I'll bet 20 of their friends and
family condemn the hijackers.

Jim

The real question is how many of that 1.8 bil are radicals, seeking to
kill the infidels? That is where Islam differs from every other
religion today. A distinction some people still don't get.

On Aug 21, 10:31*am, Han wrote:
wrote in news:ec122443-37ae-4a43-a401-ffeb13e51f49
@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

As if that were all there is to it. * What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"? * *What about the fact that
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer? * Seems a little strange, no? * He has no problem in calling
the USA an accomplice, but won't call out Hamas? * *Where is the
$100mil funding for this mosque going to come from? *How about the
fact that the Imam wants to see the USA move more toward compliance
with sharia law?

Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just want
to play the prejudice card.

I have doubts about your supposed "quotes". *Then it would be really
stupid to send him out to islamic countries for a goodwill mission.


Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...utes-interview

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we're an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of--of
innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it--in the most direct
sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. "


Here's a link to what he said, or refused to say about Hamas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf

"During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Abdul Rauf
declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's
designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the
question, Rauf said, "I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues.
The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace
builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am
seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."


So, we have a guy who has no problem accusing his own country of being
an accessory to 911, but refuses to weigh in on Hamas. Sounds good
to you?




As far as saying the US is complicit in the attacks on 9/11, the safety
systems in place did sort of fail the people who died on 9/11, right? *
That is to some extent a measure of being an accomplish, by allowing it
to happen. *

Utter nonsense. A guy breaks into your house and kills you. By
your logic, you were an accessory or accomplice to your own murder
because you didn't have bars on your windows.




It is an undeniable fact that for all the havoc of the TSA,
the "efforts" of the FBI and what have you other agencies, "they" still
keep slipping through the safety measures. *But maybe incompetence is not
complicity ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

wrote in
:

On Aug 21, 10:31*am, Han wrote:
wrote in
news:ec122443-37ae-4a43-a401-ffeb13e51f49
@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

As if that were all there is to it. * What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"? * *What about the fact t
hat
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer? * Seems a little strange, no? * He has no problem in callin
g
the USA an accomplice, but won't call out Hamas? * *Where is the
$100mil funding for this mosque going to come from? *How about the
fact that the Imam wants to see the USA move more toward compliance
with sharia law?

Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just
want to play the prejudice card.

I have doubts about your supposed "quotes". *Then it would be really
stupid to send him out to islamic countries for a goodwill mission.


Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...und-zero-mosqu
e-imams-controversial-60-minutes-interview

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we're an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of--of
innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it--in the most direct
sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. "


Here's a link to what he said, or refused to say about Hamas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf

"During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Abdul Rauf
declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's
designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the
question, Rauf said, "I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues.
The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace
builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am
seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."


So, we have a guy who has no problem accusing his own country of being
an accessory to 911, but refuses to weigh in on Hamas. Sounds good
to you?




As far as saying the US is complicit in the attacks on 9/11, the
safety systems in place did sort of fail the people who died on 9/11,
right? * That is to some extent a measure of being an accomplish, by
allowing it to happen. *

Utter nonsense. A guy breaks into your house and kills you. By
your logic, you were an accessory or accomplice to your own murder
because you didn't have bars on your windows.




It is an undeniable fact that for all the havoc of the TSA,
the "efforts" of the FBI and what have you other agencies, "they"
still keep slipping through the safety measures. *But maybe
incompetence is n
ot
complicity ...


IANAL, but I believe that insufficient security can make you liable for
harm coming to someone on the premises that you control. Please check
that out for me.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 21, 8:40*am, "JimT" wrote:
"Mysterious Traveler" wrote in message

...





On 08/20/2010 02:39 AM, harry wrote:
On Aug 20, 4:24 am, "Bob *wrote:
harry wrote:

It's not a mosque. It's not at ground zero. What's the problem?

Seems to be a problem for lots of Yanks.
What would your queen look like wearing a burqa? By the time you
figure out you've lost your freedom, it'll be to late.

--
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
~Winston Churchill

“Islam is the crack cocaine of religion” ~John Bodart

"Religion is the opiate of the people" - Karl Marx

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Television now............

In article ,
Han wrote:


It is an undeniable fact that for all the havoc of the TSA,
the "efforts" of the FBI and what have you other agencies, "they"
still keep slipping through the safety measures. *But maybe
incompetence is n
ot
complicity ...


IANAL, but I believe that insufficient security can make you liable for
harm coming to someone on the premises that you control. Please check
that out for me.

Couldn't find any over about 20 minutes of looking. Found a
couple WalMart parking lot cases that were tossed because the employees
out in the Parking lot had no mention of security in their job
descriptions and were Courtesy Guards.
Also unable to find anything indicating any kind of judgement on a
couple of cases of women getting raped or people getting robbed in night
clubs that sued based on security.
Most of those I found that were successful were for things like
people getting passed doormen or other security. But in those cases it
was mostly premised on not attaining a standard that the building
voluntarily took on.
Maybe some people can find other things.
I would also like to mention that at the time, box cutters were
not considered contraband, shoulda been in retrospect, but weren't. Yo
also generally can't sue for closing the barn door after the horse got
out.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Aug 21, 4:12*pm, wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:31*am, Han wrote:





wrote in news:ec122443-37ae-4a43-a401-ffeb13e51f49
@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

As if that were all there is to it. * What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"? * *What about the fact that
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer? * Seems a little strange, no? * He has no problem in calling
the USA an accomplice, but won't call out Hamas? * *Where is the
$100mil funding for this mosque going to come from? *How about the
fact that the Imam wants to see the USA move more toward compliance
with sharia law?

Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just want
to play the prejudice card.

I have doubts about your supposed "quotes". *Then it would be really
stupid to send him out to islamic countries for a goodwill mission.

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we're an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of--of
innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it--in the most direct
sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. "

Here's a link to what he said, or refused to say about Hamas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf

"During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Abdul Rauf
declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's
designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the
question, Rauf said, "I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues.
The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace
builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am
seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

So, we have a guy who has no problem accusing his own country of being
an accessory to 911, but refuses to weigh in on Hamas. * Sounds good
to you?



As far as saying the US is complicit in the attacks on 9/11, the safety
systems in place did sort of fail the people who died on 9/11, right? *
That is to some extent a measure of being an accomplish, by allowing it
to happen. *

Utter nonsense. * A guy breaks into your house and kills you. * By
your logic, you were an accessory or accomplice to your own murder
because you didn't have bars on your windows.



It is an undeniable fact that for all the havoc of the TSA,
the "efforts" of the FBI and what have you other agencies, "they" still
keep slipping through the safety measures. *But maybe incompetence is not
complicity ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cleric is exactly right. The USA has allied itself to the
fascist state of Isreal. Provided them with cluster bombs, phosphorus
and other weapons.
They are perfectly in order to strike back at their enemies and their
allies when these weapons are used. Especially in an indiscriminate
way.
BTW. I see Blackwater, agent of the US gov. has bee caught out with a
big fine.
The USA is the world's biggest exporter of terrorism.

wrote:

-snip-

As if that were all there is to it. What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"?

No matter how many times you repeat that in this thread, it will not
become truth. That statement has been proven untrue at least twice-
yet you continue to repeat it.

What about the fact that
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer?

That has also been answered, yet you refuse to believe the truth.
-snip-

Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just want
to play the prejudice card.

We calls 'em as we sees them. You are not acting rationally. You
won't listen to facts. What else could it be? It is either
prejudice or kool-aid drinking.

It is the same group of folks that oppose this building and a bunch of
Mosques as far away as California. The Imam was fine through the
last administration- yet now he's evil incarnate. . . .

This whole kerfuffel began with a gubernatorial candidate who is
behind his opponent by 30-40 points trying to gain some political
ground. [and he hasn't]

-snip-

Bill Clinton's sex life was never the issue. Perjury under oath was
the core legal issue. And from a moral and political perspective,
there are fortunately still a lot of us that don't want the oval
office disgraced by using it for sex with an intern.

Here's some of that common ground we're always looking for . .

Jim

wrote:
-snip-
Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...utes-interview

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.


Remember this radical? No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words]

But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]

Jim

On Aug 21, 12:22*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

Remember this radical? * No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words] *

But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]

Jim


Hmm, a post ago, you denied the Imam ever said the USA was an
accessory to 911. Yet, here it is, complete with reference, so
obviously you know it's true.

I'd like to see the references for that Glenn Beck quote. If he did
say it, then I'd say I strongly disagree with it too. But lets also
look at everything else Glenn Beck has said. If you asked him if
Hamas was a terrorist organization, do you think he'd have any problem
saying it is? The imam won't utter those words, only words directed
against the USA. Is Beck calling for the USA to move closer to sharia
law, like the Imam?

On Aug 21, 11:47*am, harry wrote:
On Aug 21, 4:12*pm, wrote:





On Aug 21, 10:31*am, Han wrote:

wrote in news:ec122443-37ae-4a43-a401-ffeb13e51f49
@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

As if that were all there is to it. * What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"? * *What about the fact that
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer? * Seems a little strange, no? * He has no problem in calling
the USA an accomplice, but won't call out Hamas? * *Where is the
$100mil funding for this mosque going to come from? *How about the
fact that the Imam wants to see the USA move more toward compliance
with sharia law?

Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just want
to play the prejudice card.

I have doubts about your supposed "quotes". *Then it would be really
stupid to send him out to islamic countries for a goodwill mission.

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we're an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of--of
innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it--in the most direct
sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. "

Here's a link to what he said, or refused to say about Hamas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf

"During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Abdul Rauf
declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's
designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the
question, Rauf said, "I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues.
The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace
builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am
seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

So, we have a guy who has no problem accusing his own country of being
an accessory to 911, but refuses to weigh in on Hamas. * Sounds good
to you?

As far as saying the US is complicit in the attacks on 9/11, the safety
systems in place did sort of fail the people who died on 9/11, right? *
That is to some extent a measure of being an accomplish, by allowing it
to happen. *

Utter nonsense. * A guy breaks into your house and kills you. * By
your logic, you were an accessory or accomplice to your own murder
because you didn't have bars on your windows.

It is an undeniable fact that for all the havoc of the TSA,
the "efforts" of the FBI and what have you other agencies, "they" still
keep slipping through the safety measures. *But maybe incompetence is not
complicity ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cleric is exactly right. *The USA has allied itself *to the
fascist state of Isreal.

Last time I checked, Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
For fascism, you need to look at Iran or Iraq and Afghanistan, prior
to liberation.


Provided them with cluster bombs, phosphorus
and other weapons.

Yeah, you'd prefer they lay down all their arms and let their enemies
destroy them, which is exactly what would happen. I have no problem
with responsible democracies having all the means necessary to defend
themselves.


They are perfectly in order to strike back at their enemies and their
allies when these weapons are used. Especially in an indiscriminate
way.

The only indiscriminate use of weapons has consistently been on the
Arab side. Israel, like the US, has always done whatever it can to
minimize civilian casualties. Ever see any Israeli suicide bombers in
a pizza parlor or on a bus? It's the Palestinians and Muslims who
are running around the world, indiscriminantly blowing civilians up,
from Israel, to the USA, to Russia, to Indonesia, Spain, Britain.

See a trend there?






BTW. I see Blackwater, agent of the US gov. has bee caught out with a
big fine.
The USA is the world's biggest exporter of terrorism.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:43 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,





"Cojoes" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Cojoes" wrote:
"
The constitution, which contains freedom of religion, is NOT just a
local
issue. Try again, this time go by facts of what was said.
I did. The main ways they are trying to stop the Mosque are not
freedom of religion issues. They are trying to stop it using local
zoning and other methods. It is whether or not the building should be a
historically preserved building and, now that the building commissioners
say it ain't, whether they followed their own procedures. They don't
want them in, but they are using the local bureaucracy in a time-honored
manner that has been implemented to keep out strip joints, subsidized
housing or other kinds of NIMBY things for years.
Trashing the constitution, because you don't like a certain religion, is
Un-American.
But using the constitution, the part about equal protection, isn't.
Your answer had nothing to do with Obama's comments about freedom of
religion. It appears you're attempting to skirt the issue, instead of
addressing your response of
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message " The point was
if he was gonna stick his nose into this local issue, why shouldn't he
also stick his into the other one? If he is going to bring the weight of
the office to bear on this building issue, why not another? "
The POTUS better defend the constitution, no matter how many feelings are
hurt. If he doesn't, it's time for him to go.
Actually I am right on the constitutional question. I am more
interested in the 14th (especially the Due Process Cause and the Equal
Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under
the law to all people within its jurisdiction).
While I am not suggesting the motives are remotely pure, the fact
remains that at this time they are going through the legal means to try
and stop it. So, we are going to deprive people of their right for equal
protection and toss out their legal challenges merely because we don't
agree with them.
It seems a touch hypocritical to wrap ones self in the
Constitutional banner while working REAL hard to ignore the parts that
are inconvenient to your view.
If he is to defend the constitution, then he has to defend ALL of
it.
BTW: If one would want to go Strict Constructionist on somebody's
ass, he should also defend the 10th Amendment providing that powers not
granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the
Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the
people.
Zoning, local building codes, etc are among the quintessential
powers delegated to the states. Yet another reason he should have kept
his nose out of it. Actually his second day statement about how they
shouldn't be doing this was the best thing to do from the get go.

So, to sort all this out, while I think it probably one of the dumber
moves of the Century, they still have every right to do what they are
doing. If you want to defend the constitution it is probably even more
important that you defend the rights of those who don't get the good
press.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Agree completely. Polls have consistently shown that two thirds of
Americans say the Muslims have a right to build the Mosque. And a
similar percentage say that they are against them doing it. Yet,
some people, most notably our poster here and Obama, apparently don't
get it. Obama had two choices. Either continue to stay out of it as
he had done through his press secretary for months, or comment on the
real issue, which is whether it is the right thing to do. Instead,
he got it all screwed up and is now in a no win situation. And now
he refuses to comment on the "wisdom" of building it.

I pretty much share Obama's positions. First, of course, is the
constitutional right for the community center to build as any other
religious body may. Obama's opinion is on constitutional ideals.
Whether it is the "right" thing to do, he'd be foolish to voice an
opinion on the location. With all of our spouting our great history and
ideals, we have, throughout our history, displayed contempt for
minorities. Folks nowadays who harbor prejudice have mostly learned not
to voice those opinions openly. It's just the same old story, keep out
those who are unfamiliar and keep them "in their place".

Cojoes wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Then, too, there's the small Greek Orthodox Church - built in 1832 -
that was destroyed when the towers fell. The Deacons of the church
STILL have not gotten permission to rebuild nine years later. Some
should ask why the mayor of New York and the president of the United
States can so eagerly defend the right of an Islamic center but say
nary a word to help a small church get a building permit.

Actually, your half truths are worse than lies. You should follow the
story of the church more closely.

How you want to hold the present POTUS responsible for nothing being
done b/4 2009, is beyond any sane person's imagination. You probably
want to educate youself on exactly what year action started being
taken on this church. Then ask why nothing was done B/4 that year.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase your twisted opinion once you get a
straight story. And, I'm not here to educate your dumb ass, look it
up for yourself.

I did. Mayor Bloomberg took office January 1, 2002, three months after 9-11.
The holy fathers of St Nicholas Orthodox Church have been trying to rebuild
since the attack. They've met with obstacle after obstacle, mostly from the
New York Port Authority. So far as I've been able to tell, no one in
authority has come to their aid. That includes the mayor of New York since
January 2002 and the president since January 2009.

On August 15th last, the New York Port Authority had had enough of the
pleadings to rebuild the only church destroyed by the terrorist attack and
officially announced that all negotiations were off, that the penitents and
parishioners could wrap their lips around a tail-pipe. More important things
were in the air - such as accommodating uppity Muslims. One should take note
that neither the mayor nor the president have remarked on the decision by
the Port Authority.

wrote:

On Aug 21, 12:22*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

Remember this radical? * No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words] *

But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]

Jim


Hmm, a post ago, you denied the Imam ever said the USA was an
accessory to 911. Yet, here it is, complete with reference, so
obviously you know it's true.

What the Imam said-- and what Glenn Beck said-- was that the
*policies* of the US help lead us down that road-

Here's the video-
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/17/jo...ound-zero-mos/

Jim

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:56:37 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Han wrote:

harry wrote in news:aca109ad-afa1-4d89-b5bc-
:

I'm a Brit and I see your point. We have similar issues with
politicians over here too.


Going back many, many years ... Profumo, or something like that?

Profumo was nailed for sharing his mistress with a Russian spy. A
couple orders of magnitude worse than even Clinton in the Little Head
Does The Thinking category .

The real problem is when leaders let "the Little Head Do The Thinking". Who
knows what else slipped past the teeth?

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Aug 21, 12:22 pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

Remember this radical? No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words]

But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]

Jim


Hmm, a post ago, you denied the Imam ever said the USA was an
accessory to 911. Yet, here it is, complete with reference, so
obviously you know it's true.

What the Imam said-- and what Glenn Beck said-- was that the
*policies* of the US help lead us down that road-

Here's the video-
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/17/jo...ound-zero-mos/

Jim

I saw that clip and I've read on the internet the controversial statements
Rauf said after 911. Yes, he does imply the US was an "accessory" to 911,
but it isn't anything outragious. I don't think you have to take the word
literally in the legal sense. If the US "helped" knowingly or unknowingly
they would be an accessory.

Jim

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:49:54 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"JimT" wrote

Clinton's personality really came out with the BJ incident. Some
American's, myself included, hold their officials to a high standard of
morality. Republican, Democrat or whatever.

If we got rid of every politician that ever got an illicit BJ, it would be
mighty empty down there in Washington and every State capitol and town hall
around the country.

Of course the legal hooha wasn't because of the BJ, but rather lying
about it under oath, numerous times. Of course if we got rid of every
politician who lied, the results would be about the same.

lying lying under oath

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

I did. Mayor Bloomberg took office January 1, 2002, three months after
9-11. The holy fathers of St Nicholas Orthodox Church have been trying
to rebuild since the attack. They've met with obstacle after obstacle,
mostly from the New York Port Authority. So far as I've been able to
tell, no one in authority has come to their aid. That includes the
mayor of New York since January 2002 and the president since January
2009.

On August 15th last, the New York Port Authority had had enough of the
pleadings to rebuild the only church destroyed by the terrorist attack
and officially announced that all negotiations were off, that the
penitents and parishioners could wrap their lips around a tail-pipe.
More important things were in the air - such as accommodating uppity
Muslims. One should take note that neither the mayor nor the president
have remarked on the decision by the Port Authority.

Maybe if that new church is on PA-land, the PANYNJ does have a say. But
that is then evidence of the folly of having 2 states (or 3?) yield their
power to an authority that is not really responsive to the people ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 21, 2:06*pm, "JimT" wrote:
"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message

...





wrote:

On Aug 21, 12:22 pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

Remember this radical? No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words]

But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]

Jim

Hmm, a post ago, you denied the Imam ever said the USA was an
accessory to 911. * Yet, here it is, complete with reference, so
obviously you know it's true.

What the Imam said-- and what Glenn Beck said-- was that the
*policies* of the US help lead us down that road-

Here's the video-
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/17/jo...beck-on-the-to...

Jim

I saw that clip and I've read on the internet the controversial statements
Rauf said after 911. Yes, he does imply the US was an "accessory" to 911,
but it isn't anything outragious. I don't think you have to take the word
literally in the legal sense. If the US "helped" knowingly or unknowingly
they would be an accessory.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To each his own. I say coming days after the 911 attacks, it was
outrageous. Combine that with the fact that right now he refuses to
answer if Hamas is a terrorist organization and it tells me all I need
to know about him. Also, he claims that his purpose is to bring
together people. So, why is it that in the face of 70% opposition to
what he wants to do, he refuses to talk even with the governor of NY
about possible solutions that would put the mosque somewhere else?
Now, why would that be? One possible answer: Because in Islam
there is the concept of victory mosques that they like to build to
celebrate their victories in new conquered territory. If they build
that mosque, I can tell you right now what kind of people he will
bring together. Will you have Jews or Christians as guest
speakers? I think not. But I bet it won't be long before you have
radical Islamists speaking at the place. And then the left will be
saying, "Well, that's their first ammendment right...." Actually,
it probably won't happen, because it's unlikely the mosque will ever
be built. For starters, you won't find a construction crew in nyc
that will built it.

On Aug 21, 12:12*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-



As if that were all there is to it. * What about the fact that the
Imam behind the mosque went on 60 Minutes in the days after the 911
attack and called the USA an "accomplice"? * *

No matter how many times you repeat that in this thread, it will not
become truth. * *That statement has been proven untrue at least twice-
yet you continue to repeat it.

So then the Ed Bradley 60 Minutes interview must be a fabrication
according to you. Otherwise his statement is right there and I
provided a link.





What about the fact that
when asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, he refuses to
answer? *

That has also been answered, yet you refuse to believe the truth.
-snip-

Answered by whom? Tell us what the answer is? Why when he was on
WABC did he refuse to answer if Hamas was a terrorist organization?
He has no problem saying the USA was an accessory to 911, but won't
say squat about Hamas. That;s apparently OK with you and just makes
him a reasonable and swell fellow. He should fit right in with the
reverend Wright. Hmmm, maybe that's why Obama wants to help him out.
He reminds him of the hate monger he listened to for 20 years, but
never heard anything Wright said.




Funny how instead of addressing the real issues, some guys just want
to play the prejudice card.

We calls 'em as we sees them. * You are not acting rationally. *You
won't listen to facts. *What else could it be? * * * It is either
prejudice or kool-aid drinking. * *

I presented you with links that show what the ******* said. Those are
the facts.



It is the same group of folks that oppose this building and a bunch of
Mosques as far away as California. * * The Imam was fine through the
last administration- yet now he's evil incarnate. . . . * *

He wasn't proposing to build a mosque near ground zero back then and
wasn't on anyone's radar map. Except of course for his remarks on 60
minutes, which clearly astounded even Ed Bradley.




This whole kerfuffel began with a gubernatorial candidate who is
behind his opponent by 30-40 points trying to gain some political
ground. [and he hasn't]

Maybe he hasn't, but it's taken Bloomburg down by 15 points. And
Obama will probably go from the low 40s to the 30s with his flip-
flopping. It's got Howard Dean and Harry Reid on one side, and
Obama and Pelosi on the other. And it will probably cost the Dems
another 5 seats in the house because two thirds of Americans say the
mosque shouldn't be built there. And it has zippo to do with
prejudice. I suppose you think Pelosi's idea to start an
investigation of those opposed to the mosque is the way to go. She
should start by investigating Harry Reid.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, "JimT" wrote:
"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message

...





wrote:

On Aug 21, 12:22 pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos...

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

Remember this radical? No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words]

But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]

Jim

Hmm, a post ago, you denied the Imam ever said the USA was an
accessory to 911. Yet, here it is, complete with reference, so
obviously you know it's true.

What the Imam said-- and what Glenn Beck said-- was that the
*policies* of the US help lead us down that road-

Here's the video-
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/17/jo...beck-on-the-to...

Jim

I saw that clip and I've read on the internet the controversial statements
Rauf said after 911. Yes, he does imply the US was an "accessory" to 911,
but it isn't anything outragious. I don't think you have to take the word
literally in the legal sense. If the US "helped" knowingly or unknowingly
they would be an accessory.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To each his own. I say coming days after the 911 attacks, it was
outrageous. Combine that with the fact that right now he refuses to
answer if Hamas is a terrorist organization and it tells me all I need
to know about him. Also, he claims that his purpose is to bring
together people. So, why is it that in the face of 70% opposition to
what he wants to do, he refuses to talk even with the governor of NY
about possible solutions that would put the mosque somewhere else?
Now, why would that be? One possible answer: Because in Islam
there is the concept of victory mosques that they like to build to
celebrate their victories in new conquered territory. If they build
that mosque, I can tell you right now what kind of people he will
bring together. Will you have Jews or Christians as guest
speakers? I think not. But I bet it won't be long before you have
radical Islamists speaking at the place. And then the left will be
saying, "Well, that's their first ammendment right...." Actually,
it probably won't happen, because it's unlikely the mosque will ever
be built. For starters, you won't find a construction crew in nyc
that will built it.

==


FWIW: The 1st Amendment, in itself, doesn't mention the words building or
church intentionally.

Here is the actual law:

http://www.rluipa.com/index.php/article/398.html

Another interesting read:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-poli...nstitution-law

"....A decade ago, when, evidently, it was thought in Washington that the
language of the Bill of Rights was too vague ("Congress shall make no
law..") to stop campaigns to restrict the building of temples that offended
somebody, Congress, in its wisdom, passed a law that adds some pertinent
specifics in the form of a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Actof 2000, which declares without whisper of ambiguity: "No government
shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against
any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious
denomination."

end quote

Jim
..

In article ,
"JimT" wrote:

somebody, Congress, in its wisdom, passed a law that adds some pertinent
specifics in the form of a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Actof 2000, which declares without whisper of ambiguity: "No government
shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against
any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious
denomination."

That wouldn't impact this case anyway. The hooha (at least so far)
is based on generic historic buildings rules and regs. Nothing in the
act says that religious institutions get a bye on rules made for
everyone. Just that they can't single out a religion.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"JimT" wrote:

somebody, Congress, in its wisdom, passed a law that adds some pertinent
specifics in the form of a Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons
Actof 2000, which declares without whisper of ambiguity: "No government
shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates
against
any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious
denomination."

That wouldn't impact this case anyway. The hooha (at least so far)
is based on generic historic buildings rules and regs. Nothing in the
act says that religious institutions get a bye on rules made for
everyone. Just that they can't single out a religion.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

I guess I'm not following you. It's just saying the zoning board (or any
other govt agency) can't deny the right to build based on religion. Sure, if
no one could build a church there then there wouldn't be a problem. I
apologize if I'm missing something obvious. g

Jim

wrote:

-snip-
together people. So, why is it that in the face of 70% opposition to
what he wants to do, he refuses to talk even with the governor of NY
about possible solutions that would put the mosque somewhere else?
Now, why would that be? One possible answer: Because in Islam
there is the concept of victory mosques that they like to build to
celebrate their victories in new conquered territory.

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me where it says that in the
Koran-- or where any Islamic expert has made that claim. I've
heard the Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity crew repeat it often-- but so far I
haven't seen any evidence that it is true.


-snip-
saying, "Well, that's their first ammendment right...." Actually,
it probably won't happen, because it's unlikely the mosque will ever
be built. For starters, you won't find a construction crew in nyc
that will built it.

New York is a very big [and diverse] city.

Rudy Guliani got a chuckle out of that. Some hardhats came up to
him in an airport to tell him how it wouldn't be built because the
unions would stick together on it. Rudy said he'd been in NY long
enough to know that if a building was being built, there would be no
shortage of workers. [saw it on one of last Sunday's talking-head
shows]

Jim

wrote:

-snip-
prejudice or kool-aid drinking. * *

I presented you with links that show what the ******* said. Those are
the facts.


I posted the links a week ago-- Where we disagree is in how we
interpret what the Imam said. I find it curious that remarks from 8
years ago brand him a radical when he was considered a friend of the
US through 2 administrations.



It is the same group of folks that oppose this building and a bunch of
Mosques as far away as California. * * The Imam was fine through the
last administration- yet now he's evil incarnate. . . . * *

He wasn't proposing to build a mosque near ground zero back then and
wasn't on anyone's radar map. Except of course for his remarks on 60
minutes, which clearly astounded even Ed Bradley.

He must have been on some radar. He was on 60 minutes- and he was
sent to the mideast by the Bush State Department. He has never been
'below the radar




This whole kerfuffel began with a gubernatorial candidate who is
behind his opponent by 30-40 points trying to gain some political
ground. [and he hasn't]

Maybe he hasn't, but it's taken Bloomburg down by 15 points. And
Obama will probably go from the low 40s to the 30s with his flip-

Polls are fun-- have you looked at the similar numbers that Obama and
Reagan have posted?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Pr...al-Center.aspx

Obama is just a little higher than Reagan was at this point-- but
their graphs have crossed a couple times. Reagan was at 35% in Jan
1983.

Jim

Han wrote:

Maybe if that new church is on PA-land, the PANYNJ does have a say.
But that is then evidence of the folly of having 2 states (or 3?)
yield their power to an authority that is not really responsive to
the people ...

You're probably right. This opens another question: How could the New York
Port Authority obtain ownership of the land in the first place? The PA was
established in 1921, some 90 years after the church was built.

I guess they could have obtained ownership by imminent domain...

I'm not a member of the Orthodox Church, but I can still recognize the
shabby treatment they've received. I can also hold up that treatment in
contrast to the toady accommodations seemingly rendered to the adherents of
another religion.

In article ,
"JimT" wrote:

"
That wouldn't impact this case anyway. The hooha (at least so far)
is based on generic historic buildings rules and regs. Nothing in the
act says that religious institutions get a bye on rules made for
everyone. Just that they can't single out a religion.



I guess I'm not following you. It's just saying the zoning board (or any
other govt agency) can't deny the right to build based on religion. Sure, if
no one could build a church there then there wouldn't be a problem. I
apologize if I'm missing something obvious. g

Jim

I was just saying that law would not be part of the Mosque case
anyway. As currently being argued, anyway, it based on laws that apply
to all buildings. Since this doesn't single out religious buildings, or
the buildings of a specific religious group, it won't be involved in
this particular fight. Much like this law couldn't be used to supercede
any zoning height restrictions if someone wanted to put a too tall
minaret on a mosque.
My writing sometimes manages to obscure the obvious (g).

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Maybe if that new church is on PA-land, the PANYNJ does have a say.
But that is then evidence of the folly of having 2 states (or 3?)
yield their power to an authority that is not really responsive to
the people ...

You're probably right. This opens another question: How could the New
York Port Authority obtain ownership of the land in the first place?
The PA was established in 1921, some 90 years after the church was
built.

I guess they could have obtained ownership by imminent domain...

I'm not a member of the Orthodox Church, but I can still recognize the
shabby treatment they've received. I can also hold up that treatment
in contrast to the toady accommodations seemingly rendered to the
adherents of another religion.

I'm pretty sure the land was obtained by eminent domain for the original
World Trade Center construction. I wasn't aware of that church's
maltreatment, but in NY anything is possible.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 22, 7:14*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

together people. * So, why is it that in the face of 70% opposition to
what he wants to do, he refuses to talk even with the governor of NY
about possible solutions that would put the mosque somewhere else?
Now, why would that be? * *One possible answer: *Because in Islam
there is the concept of victory mosques that they like to build to
celebrate their victories in new conquered territory.

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me where it says that in the
Koran-- or where any Islamic expert has made that claim. * * I've
heard the Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity crew repeat it often-- *but so far I
haven't seen any evidence that it is true.


I see. Only the koran or an Islamic expert are acceptable sources.
I guess that's why you reject the Ed Bradley interview with the imam
in the days following 911 where he said the USA was an accessory to
911. Or where he refused to weigh in on whether Hamas was a terrorist
organization while on WABC a couple months ago.

Here's a link that gives you a list of mosques that have been built
either following a Muslim military victory, in celebration thereof, or
that were part of driving out another religion.

http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/is...victory-mosque


Just use the link as a starting point and then do a bit of googling on
the individual mosques and see how and when they came to be.

"I think New Yorkers ought to be grateful. America should be
grateful.In every other place in the world when the Moslems erect a
Victory Mosque they do it on the exact site of the important and
central cultural symbols they are trying to erase, replace and show
they conquered for Islam.Whether the Bari mosque in India, the Fethiye
Camii in Turkey, the Ummayad Mosque in Damascus, the Qutub Minar in
Afghanistan, the Asqa Mosque in the Hague (formerly a Synagogue), and
of course all in Israel: the Al Asqa Mosque/ al-Haram ash-Sharif, the
Mosque in Tomb of the Patriarchs, the mosque attached to the Rambam
shul (Hurva), to name just a few well known examples (and there are
plenty more examples from all around the world).In fact, this practice
started with Muhammad himself when he conquered Mecca in the year 630
and converted the Ka’aba into a central Islamic site. "


We're all supposed to be soooo tolerant to Muslims. Yet, with two
thirds of Americans against building that mosque at that location,
where is their interest in some tolerance and compromise with us?
Hmmm? And why is it that non-Muslims are forbidden from even
setting foot in Mecca? Muslims can go to the Vatican, can't they?




-snip-

saying, "Well, that's their first ammendment right...." * *Actually,
it probably won't happen, because it's unlikely the mosque will ever
be built. * For starters, you won't find a construction crew in nyc
that will built it.

New York is a very big [and diverse] city.

Rudy Guliani got a chuckle out of that. * *Some hardhats came up to
him in an airport to tell him how it wouldn't be built because the
unions would stick together on it. * Rudy said he'd been in NY long
enough to know that if a building was being built, there would be no
shortage of workers. *[saw it on one of last Sunday's talking-head
shows]

Jim


Why don't you tell us what Rudy has said about building the mosque
near ground zero.

On Aug 21, 11:39*am, wrote:
On Aug 21, 12:22*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:



wrote:

-snip-

Here's a link to him on 60 minutes where he said the USA's policies
were an accessory to 911:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...round-zero-mos....

"BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the
United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what
happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the
crime that happened.

Remember this radical? * No one accuses him of anti-Americanism;
"When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But
were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and
abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

I think that echoes what the Imam said 8 years ago. [curious that the
Imam wasn't branded a radical for 8 years for these words] *

But Glenn Beck said it just a few months ago.
[credit to Jon Stewart for showing this clip first]

Jim

Hmm, a post ago, you denied the Imam ever said the USA was an
accessory to 911. * Yet, here it is, complete with reference, so
obviously you know it's true.

I'd like to see the references for that Glenn Beck quote. * If he did
say it, then I'd say I strongly disagree with it too. *But lets also
look at everything else Glenn Beck has said. * If you asked him if
Hamas was a terrorist organization, do you think he'd have any problem
saying it is? * The imam won't utter those words, only words directed
against the USA. *Is Beck calling for the USA to move closer to sharia
law, like the Imam?

I don't have a link to the clip where Glen Beck made those statements
but I have seen it. He had the list written on a blackboard. But, of
course Glenn Beck is a POS that will say anything that he thinks will
keep him in the limelight bringing in those big bucks no matter who he
hurts or what he lies about.

On 22 Aug 2010 13:17:31 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
om:

Han wrote:

Maybe if that new church is on PA-land, the PANYNJ does have a say.
But that is then evidence of the folly of having 2 states (or 3?)
yield their power to an authority that is not really responsive to
the people ...

You're probably right. This opens another question: How could the New
York Port Authority obtain ownership of the land in the first place?
The PA was established in 1921, some 90 years after the church was
built.

I guess they could have obtained ownership by imminent domain...

I'm not a member of the Orthodox Church, but I can still recognize the
shabby treatment they've received. I can also hold up that treatment
in contrast to the toady accommodations seemingly rendered to the
adherents of another religion.

I'm pretty sure the land was obtained by eminent domain for the original
World Trade Center construction.

Then why was the church still there on 9/11? If it was seized for "the
greater good", why wasn't the "greater good" done with it?

I wasn't aware of that church's maltreatment, but in NY anything is possible.

Do look it up. It seems that they still are being treated very poorly.

wrote:

On Aug 22, 7:14*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

together people. * So, why is it that in the face of 70% opposition to
what he wants to do, he refuses to talk even with the governor of NY
about possible solutions that would put the mosque somewhere else?
Now, why would that be? * *One possible answer: *Because in Islam
there is the concept of victory mosques that they like to build to
celebrate their victories in new conquered territory.

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me where it says that in the
Koran-- or where any Islamic expert has made that claim. * * I've
heard the Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity crew repeat it often-- *but so far I
haven't seen any evidence that it is true.


I see. Only the koran or an Islamic expert are acceptable sources.

I prefer those resources to bloggers and entertainers. Sue me.

I guess that's why you reject the Ed Bradley interview with the imam
in the days following 911 where he said the USA was an accessory to
911. Or where he refused to weigh in on whether Hamas was a terrorist
organization while on WABC a couple months ago.

Here is some more from the 60 minutes interview-- and why I think we
hear the Imam's words differently; [I wish I could find the entire
interview someplace- but here is some of it;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/ny...imamfacts.html

"MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.
That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity
or — or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who
will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing
things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know,
God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but
they’re doing wrong. ...

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of
innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct
sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A. ...

Note the use of the word "we" in that sentence.
[referring to how the CIA created the monster in the first place]

Here's a link that gives you a list of mosques that have been built
either following a Muslim military victory, in celebration thereof, or
that were part of driving out another religion.

http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/is...victory-mosque


Another blogger. . ..

Just use the link as a starting point and then do a bit of googling on
the individual mosques and see how and when they came to be.

#1. The Bari Mosque. Seems to only exist in that bloggers mind. If
it was a typo for Babri- I read a couple histories on the Babri Mosque
and don't see anything about it being a 'victory mosque'.

#2. "Fethiye Camii " in Istanbul, turkey- Was built as a church in
11-12th centuries. Converted to a Mosque in the 1600's by the Sultan
Murad III, who named it Fethiye Camii to honor his conquest of Georgia
and Azerbaijan.

He's 0 for 2- so I think I'll quit jousting windmills and wait for a
cite from the Koran-- or at the very least someone with some Islamic
history background to say Muslims build mosques on site of their
conquests.

-snip-

New York is a very big [and diverse] city.

Rudy Guliani got a chuckle out of that. * *Some hardhats came up to
him in an airport to tell him how it wouldn't be built because the
unions would stick together on it. * Rudy said he'd been in NY long
enough to know that if a building was being built, there would be no
shortage of workers. *[saw it on one of last Sunday's talking-head
shows]

Jim


Why don't you tell us what Rudy has said about building the mosque
near ground zero.


Remembered where I saw that-- It wasn't a Sunday show, it was the
Today show. And, not surprisingly, Rudy stuck with his party on this
and said they shouldn't build the center on Park Place. He went
out on a bit of a limb by saying emphatically that they had every
right to.

Jim

" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
I'm pretty sure the land was obtained by eminent domain for the
original World Trade Center construction.

Then why was the church still there on 9/11? If it was seized for
"the greater good", why wasn't the "greater good" done with it?

I wasn't aware of that church's maltreatment, but in NY anything is
possible.

Do look it up. It seems that they still are being treated very
poorly.

This suggests that there is movement, perhaps?
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dai...yor-bloomberg-
says-deal-to-r.html
(sorry for wrap)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 22 Aug 2010 19:51:49 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
I'm pretty sure the land was obtained by eminent domain for the
original World Trade Center construction.

Then why was the church still there on 9/11? If it was seized for
"the greater good", why wasn't the "greater good" done with it?

I wasn't aware of that church's maltreatment, but in NY anything is
possible.

Do look it up. It seems that they still are being treated very
poorly.

This suggests that there is movement, perhaps?
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dai...yor-bloomberg-
says-deal-to-r.html
(sorry for wrap)

Shamed into capitulating? After nine years you'd think they'd have the think
built!

On Aug 22, 1:13*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:14*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:

-snip-

together people. * So, why is it that in the face of 70% opposition to
what he wants to do, he refuses to talk even with the governor of NY
about possible solutions that would put the mosque somewhere else?
Now, why would that be? * *One possible answer: *Because in Islam
there is the concept of victory mosques that they like to build to
celebrate their victories in new conquered territory.

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me where it says that in the
Koran-- or where any Islamic expert has made that claim. * * I've
heard the Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity crew repeat it often-- *but so far I
haven't seen any evidence that it is true.

I see. *Only the koran or an Islamic expert are acceptable sources.

I prefer those resources to bloggers and entertainers. * *Sue me.

And you apparently prefer them to all other sources too.



I guess that's why you reject the Ed Bradley interview with the imam
in the days following 911 where he said the USA was an accessory to
911. *Or where he refused to weigh in on whether Hamas was a terrorist
organization while on WABC a couple months ago.

Here is some more from the 60 minutes interview-- and why I think we
hear the Imam's words differently; [I wish I could find the entire
interview someplace- but here is some of it;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/ny...imamfacts.html

"MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.
That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity
or — or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who
will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing
things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know,
God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but
they’re doing wrong. ...

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of
innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct
sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A. ...

Note the use of the word "we" in that sentence.
[referring to how the CIA created the monster in the first place]



The CIA "creating" Bin Laden is another loon lie repeated. Is it in
the koran?






Here's a link that gives you a list of mosques that have been built
either following a Muslim military victory, in celebration thereof, or
that were part of driving out another religion.

http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/is...the-victory-mo...

Another blogger. . ..

Just use the link as a starting point and then do a bit of googling on
the individual mosques and see how and when they came to be.

#1. *The Bari Mosque. * *Seems to only exist in that bloggers mind. If
it was a typo for Babri- I read a couple histories on the Babri Mosque
and don't see anything about it being a 'victory mosque'.



You did't look very hard to find the truth, did you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque

"History
Hindu account
When the Muslim emperor Babur came down from Ferghana in 1527, he
defeated the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri,
using cannon and artillery. After this victory, Babur took over the
region, leaving his general, Mir Baqi, in charge as viceroy.

Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed the temple at Ayodhya, built by the
Hindus to commemorate Rama's birthplace, and built the Babri Masjid,
naming it after Emperor Babur.[9] Although there is no reference to
the new mosque in Babur's diary, the Baburnama, the pages of the
relevant period are missing in the diary. The contemporary Tarikh-i-
Babari records that Babur's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at
Chanderi"[10]


Must it include the word "victory" to get the point across?






#2. *"Fethiye Camii " in Istanbul, turkey- Was built as a church in
11-12th centuries. *Converted to a Mosque in the 1600's by the Sultan
Murad III, who named it Fethiye Camii to honor his conquest of Georgia
and Azerbaijan.

He's 0 for 2- so I think I'll quit jousting windmills and wait for a
cite from the Koran-- or at the very least someone with some Islamic
history background to say Muslims build mosques on site of their
conquests.

-snip-

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/t...-fethiye-camii

History
The church of Theotokos Pammakaristos was founded in 1292 by John
Comnenus and his wife Anna Doukaina. In 1315, a small mortuary chapel
was added for Michael Glabas Ducas, a former general, and his family.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate used this church as its headquarters
from 1456 to 1586.

In 1591, Murat III converted the church into a mosque, naming it
"Fethiye" in memory of his conquest of Georgia and Azerbaijan. Today
the building is a museum


So, obviously it;s YOU who are zero for two. But, again, when you
will only accept the koran as a reference, that's where you wind up.






New York is a very big [and diverse] city.

Rudy Guliani got a chuckle out of that. * *Some hardhats came up to
him in an airport to tell him how it wouldn't be built because the
unions would stick together on it. * Rudy said he'd been in NY long
enough to know that if a building was being built, there would be no
shortage of workers. *[saw it on one of last Sunday's talking-head
shows]

Jim

Why don't you tell us what Rudy has said about building the mosque
near ground zero.

Remembered where I saw that-- It wasn't a Sunday show, it was the
Today show. * And, not surprisingly, Rudy stuck with his party on this
and said they shouldn't build the center on Park Place. * * * He went
out on a bit of a limb by saying emphatically that they had every
right to.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, right. Like Giuliani has to stick with his party on every issue
and has no mind of his own. If you follow events, he clearly isn't
with his party on some other key issues, like abortion. I'd say his
opposition to the mosque is for the same good reasons 70% of Americans
are against it.

wrote:

On Aug 22, 1:13*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

-snip-

#1. *The Bari Mosque. * *Seems to only exist in that bloggers mind. If
it was a typo for Babri- I read a couple histories on the Babri Mosque
and don't see anything about it being a 'victory mosque'.



You did't look very hard to find the truth, did you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque

"History
Hindu account
When the Muslim emperor Babur came down from Ferghana in 1527, he
defeated the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri,
using cannon and artillery. After this victory, Babur took over the
region, leaving his general, Mir Baqi, in charge as viceroy.

Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed the temple at Ayodhya, built by the
Hindus to commemorate Rama's birthplace, and built the Babri Masjid,
naming it after Emperor Babur.[9] Although there is no reference to
the new mosque in Babur's diary, the Baburnama, the pages of the
relevant period are missing in the diary. The contemporary Tarikh-i-
Babari records that Babur's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at
Chanderi"[10]


Must it include the word "victory" to get the point across?


It would help because that is what the anti folks are calling the NYC
Islamic Center. There is no mention that these mosques are built
to commemorate anything. The Muslims conquer an area, then build
mosques. That's the way wars work. Are all the old Dutch
Reformed and Episcopal churches in NY 'Victory Churches' ? The old
Catholic churches in Maryland & Florida?

-snip-

In 1591, Murat III converted the church into a mosque, naming it
"Fethiye" in memory of his conquest of Georgia and Azerbaijan. Today
the building is a museum


So, obviously it;s YOU who are zero for two. But, again, when you
will only accept the koran as a reference, that's where you wind up.


How does a Mosque in Turkey- named for some successes hundreds of
miles away - become a 'Victory Mosque' -

The reason I am focused on the Koran as a source is because you folks
keep saying it is Islamic Law that says they build victory mosques---
yet no one can cite the law.

Jim

On Aug 23, 9:23*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:13*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

-snip-







#1. *The Bari Mosque. * *Seems to only exist in that bloggers mind. If
it was a typo for Babri- I read a couple histories on the Babri Mosque
and don't see anything about it being a 'victory mosque'.

You did't look very hard to find the truth, did you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque

"History
Hindu account
When the Muslim emperor Babur came down from Ferghana in 1527, he
defeated the Hindu King of Chittodgad, Rana Sangrama Singh at Sikri,
using cannon and artillery. After this victory, Babur took over the
region, leaving his general, Mir Baqi, in charge as viceroy.

Mir Baqi allegedly destroyed the temple at Ayodhya, built by the
Hindus to commemorate Rama's birthplace, and built the Babri Masjid,
naming it after Emperor Babur.[9] Although there is no reference to
the new mosque in Babur's diary, the Baburnama, the pages of the
relevant period are missing in the diary. The contemporary Tarikh-i-
Babari records that Babur's troops "demolished many Hindu temples at
Chanderi"[10]

Must it include the word "victory" to get the point across?

It would help because that is what the anti folks are calling the NYC
Islamic Center. * * There is no mention that these mosques are built
to commemorate anything. * The Muslims conquer an area, then build
mosques. * * *That's the way wars work. *Are all the old Dutch
Reformed and Episcopal churches in NY 'Victory Churches' ? * *The old
Catholic churches in Maryland & Florida?

-snip-

If you read the link I gave you to the history of the Fethiye mosque
in Turkey, they converted a church into a mosque and named it in
memory of their conquest. Isn't that enough? Must they have
called it "Victory mosque xyz?







In 1591, Murat III converted the church into a mosque, naming it
"Fethiye" in memory of his conquest of Georgia and Azerbaijan. Today
the building is a museum

So, obviously it;s YOU who are zero for two. *But, again, when you
will only accept the koran as a reference, that's where you wind up.

How does a Mosque in Turkey- named for some successes hundreds of
miles away - become a 'Victory Mosque' - * *

Because they named the freaking mosque to celebrate their victories in
Georgia and Axerbaihjan. Duh!




The reason I am focused on the Koran as a source is because you folks
keep saying it is Islamic Law that says they build victory mosques---
yet no one can cite the law.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I never said any such thing. Nor have I heard anyone else citing
Isalmic law as talking about victory mosques. Your argument is like
arguing that Christians don't routinely put up Christmas trees in Dec
and anyone that claims they do is wrong because there is no specific
mention of Christmas trees in the bible.