Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[J. J.]

Could a memorial to the victims of the attack be incorporated into the mosque building?

a) Why would it?

To honor the victims and recognize that Islam did not attack the WTC.

Why would they need to recognize that Islam didn't do the WTC attacks? Every level headed person knows this, particularly, American Muslims.

Why would the victims need to be honored at this community center? Were the victims honored, or a memorial build at other religious centers, or churches?

Why not?  There are many public and semi-public memorials in Philadelphia, why not NYC?

Why not do it as outreach to the non-Muslim world? 

You really have not answered my question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It still is not a business, though it might properly be called an institution.  As pointed out, various types of institutions, even sports arenas, do serve as memorials.

[Sbane]

And hopefully people will learn to better differentiate between Islam and the radical elements within it.

Islam is a complex matter.

There are many places in the world where "mainstream" Islam is indeed very radical.

The madrassa (Islamic schools) in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc routinely teach that the USA is the devil and should be destroyed, and the Wahhabism promoted/financed on a fairly global scale by the Saudis teaches jihad as an intrinsic element of faith.

Many have raised the Timothy McVeigh analogy saying McVeigh was a catholic, we should not condemn catholics, etc...

This analogy is valid conceptually, but is in error quantitatively.

The percentage of Roman Catholics being taught by the Catholic Church to blow up public building is, well, basically zero - The number of children in Islamic schools being taught to hate America and the west is very substantial, not a majority, but far more than a tiny fringe.

The core issue that needs to addressed is actually not one of religion however, it is the quality of Governance in many Islamic nations. - The USA, Israel, The west, Christians, all make an easy scapegoat for the pathetic living conditions and in many of these nations.

I guess it depends on what you consider to be fringe. About 10-20% of people in countries like Pakistan do love Al Qaeda, but that's nowhere near a majority. Hey, about 10-20% of Americans believe Obama wasn't born here.

And it's not as if America is making a compelling case to Pakistanis (and other muslims) against them. We have supported and supplied weapons to Israel since it's beginning. We created the Taliban in the 80's and left when our job was done, leaving Pakistan to deal with stone age tribes with stinger missiles. We installed a shah in Iran who ruled mercilessly and were then surprised when the Iranians revolted against him. We invaded Iraq for no good f'in reason. We are about to cut and run from Afghanistan again. Really, why should any Pakistani like America? And that kind of environment, in conjunction with poverty and wahabbism, leads to excellent recruitment for Al Qaeda.

You say Pakistan needs better governance, and that is quite obvious. Perhaps the first thing they should do is stop their intelligence services from helping terrorists in both the tribal regions of Pakistan as well as in Kashmir. Another humongous problem is of course wahabissm. The central front in the war on terror, beyond Pakistan, should be in Saudi Arabia. But instead what we have is a leadership in Washington which is either kissing the Saudi prince, or bowing down to him. Can you imagine what moderate muslims think when they see that? They think we are full of sh**t when we wax lyrical about democracy and moderation and fluffy bunnies.

See what surprises me isn't that there is so much extremism against America in the middle east, but why there isn't more in Central and South America where our wonderful foreign policy has also been very active. In the end it does come down to cultural differences. The middle east is a desert which means people lived in harsh conditions. This also led to a harsh and violent culture. It's no surprise that moderate Islam really flourished in India and is practiced today in such a way in that country as well as most of southeast Asia.

So what do I think we should do? Well, first of all we have to stay in Afghanistan for the long haul, though it's more of a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation. Secondly we shouldn't take sides in the struggle between Israel and Palestine. Third we should tell the Saudis where they can shove it and find some way to stop them from exporting wahabbism, which radicalizes an already violent and marginalized populace in places like Pakistan. But most of all, we should stay the hell out of the business of other countries. In the short term we may have to stay in Afghanistan and also stabilize Iraq, but as much as possible we need to stop being the world's policeman. All that does is create enemies.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Obama's position on this issue is the only Constitutionally correct one.

[J. J.]

Obama's position on this issue is the only Constitutionally correct one.

Yet, if he's on the NYC zoning board.

[Badger]

The only possible reason to go against this is seeded in bigotry.

Did you read my post? Clearly not.

While I'm sure there are some racist people who oppose it on those grounds, it's more to do with human emotions. And emotions aren't rational.

For people like us who weren't directly affected by 9/11, we can think about it rationally. For those who lost loved ones will have a harder time doing so. That doesn't make them racist.

Also, while we're on the subject of race, the Liberals need to stop playing the race card at every opportunity. Not only is it a wrong assumption more times than not, it also greatly devalues the issue of race. Stop it.

I'm a die hard New Yorker and a libertarian. I'm a highly religious Roman Catholic, and I even believe the Catholics had the right to intervene for the sake of pilgrimage security.

Islam is not the culprit any more than Timothy McVeigh makes Roman Catholicism the culprit. It's okay to have Roman Catholic churches in Oklahoma City.

Basing anything off of emotion is what gives us abortions and bigotry.

#FF post.

Massively.

[Badger]

A serious question to those more familiar with Islam that I.  

Could a memorial to the victims of the attack be incorporated into the mosque building?

it does.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/26/2010-05-26_the_truth_about_the_mosque_the_leader_of_proposed_muslim_center_near_ground_zero.html


While I'm grossly offended by some of the shameless attempts to "motivate the base" by politicians opposing this, its also worth noting there are some prominent (non-fringe) Muslims who also question the wisdom of this project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_mosque#Muslims

Food for thought.

[The Vorlon]

So what do I think we should do? Well, first of all we have to stay in Afghanistan for the long haul, though it's more of a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation.

Former Senator Fritz Hollings once had a great quote about the US getting involved, I believe at the time he was talking about Beirut:

"It we get involved it will probably be a disaster, if we don't get involved it will definitely be a disaster...."

A sub-optimal set of  choices, to say the least

[patrick1]

Just a few sidebar notes: apropos of nothing.

McVeigh wasn't a Roman Catholic.  He was an agnostic.

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

[Sbane]

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

Mujaheddin?

[patrick1]

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

Mujaheddin?

Yep, they were disposable proxies so we thought. However, there was a lot of time and a few civil wars between when we funded them and when the Taliban arose.  A US relationship is further tenuous also because we funded Mujaheddin who would become Northern Alliance.   The early Taliban was a pretty grassroots organization- no doubt helped along with ISI money and support.

[Sbane]

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

Mujaheddin?

Yep, they were disposable proxies so we thought. However, there was a lot of time and a few civil wars between when we funded them and when the Taliban arose.  A US relationship is further tenuous also because we funded Mujaheddin who would become Northern Alliance.   The early Taliban was a pretty grassroots organization- no doubt helped along with ISI money and support.

Yeah, the ISI is certainly the cause of many problems in the region, but we did help destablize the region since the 1980's. A lot of Pakistanis still blame us for that. If only they could also blame their own government which was just as complicit.....

[Хahar 🤔]

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

Mujaheddin?

Yep, they were disposable proxies so we thought. However, there was a lot of time and a few civil wars between when we funded them and when the Taliban arose.  A US relationship is further tenuous also because we funded Mujaheddin who would become Northern Alliance.   The early Taliban was a pretty grassroots organization- no doubt helped along with ISI money and support.

Yeah, the ISI is certainly the cause of many problems in the region, but we did help destablize the region since the 1980's. A lot of Pakistanis still blame us for that. If only they could also blame their own government which was just as complicit.....

Well, they can't do anything about that.

[patrick1]

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

Mujaheddin?

Yep, they were disposable proxies so we thought. However, there was a lot of time and a few civil wars between when we funded them and when the Taliban arose.  A US relationship is further tenuous also because we funded Mujaheddin who would become Northern Alliance.   The early Taliban was a pretty grassroots organization- no doubt helped along with ISI money and support.

Yeah, the ISI is certainly the cause of many problems in the region, but we did help destablize the region since the 1980's. A lot of Pakistanis still blame us for that. If only they could also blame their own government which was just as complicit.....

Yeah, after playing a lot of games during the Cold War we were not very judicious in spending that peace dividend.

As for the mosque, I think both sides are trying to make points that are not worth making.

[Sbane]

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

Mujaheddin?

Yep, they were disposable proxies so we thought. However, there was a lot of time and a few civil wars between when we funded them and when the Taliban arose.  A US relationship is further tenuous also because we funded Mujaheddin who would become Northern Alliance.   The early Taliban was a pretty grassroots organization- no doubt helped along with ISI money and support.

Yeah, the ISI is certainly the cause of many problems in the region, but we did help destablize the region since the 1980's. A lot of Pakistanis still blame us for that. If only they could also blame their own government which was just as complicit.....

Well, they can't do anything about that.

And yet they blame the US and India for terrorist attacks orchestrated by groups that were created/helped by their own government. 

[Zarn]

Just a few sidebar notes: apropos of nothing.

McVeigh wasn't a Roman Catholic.  He was an agnostic.

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

He actually requested a Catholic chaplain for prior to his execution.

[patrick1]

Just a few sidebar notes: apropos of nothing.

McVeigh wasn't a Roman Catholic.  He was an agnostic.

The US didn't create the Taliban in the 80's.  They didn't exist and were founded in the mid 90's with some funding from the Pakistani ISI.

He actually requested a Catholic chaplain for prior to his execution.

A deathbed re-conversion or just Pascal's wager for the bastard huh?  Interesting story
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.03/index.html

[J. J.]

A serious question to those more familiar with Islam that I.  

Could a memorial to the victims of the attack be incorporated into the mosque building?

it does.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/26/2010-05-26_the_truth_about_the_mosque_the_leader_of_proposed_muslim_center_near_ground_zero.html

Okay, then why are we NOT hearing more about it.  I don't mean from the Iman.

If people of the Islamic faith wish to honor the victims of 9/11 and wish to show that the terrorist attack was not Islam, I'm fine with it.  More power to them.

[patrick1]

Since I derailed the thread, maybe I should try to flesh out my previous statement,

As for the mosque, I think both sides are trying to make points that are not worth making.

To me I think many of the opponents are against on a misplaced sense of vengeance, anger and cultural misunderstanding.  For many Americans and even New yorkers their only real exposure to Islam was from the events of 9/11. That event still colors their beliefs, but they should me more open minded and educate themselves to the broader Islamic community. 

For the mosque organizers, I think it is misguided on their part to start a dialogue through this building. It irritates an open wound and this is just the wrong time and place. While they have every right to open the mosque, I would just think it would be better for them to be more subtle.

[Beet]

This is a stupid issue, but Obama shouldn't have said anything about it.

[J. J.]

This is a stupid issue, but Obama shouldn't have said anything about it.

Bingo!  Even when the guy does something I kind of agree with, he screws it up.

[??????????]

This is a stupid issue, but Obama shouldn't have said anything about it.

Agreed, an Islamic victory mosque in a building that the landing gear of a 9/11 plane hit certainly means nothing.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm not entirely sure what a "victory mosque" is. Explain?

[??????????]

I'm not entirely sure what a "victory mosque" is. Explain?

Think of the Mosque on the temple mount, in Constantinople, etc.

[Beet]

This is a stupid issue, but Obama shouldn't have said anything about it.

Agreed, an Islamic victory mosque in a building that the landing gear of a 9/11 plane hit certainly means nothing.

You're right States, it means nothing.

You know what does mean something?

After 9 long years, ground zero is being rebuilt! Woohoo!!!! About Freaking time!!!



Lower Manhattan of the future:

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think this issue might actually be more inane than the flag burning issue. Crazy that we would have had a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning if Lieberman had voted aye.