• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

I'm sure I'll get accused of doing a double-reverse fakeout on this one, but color me skeptical of this story hitting the right-wing blogs today:

Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a “radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing.”

Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf:

Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia

Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State.

Defending Bin Laden’s violence
Click to expand...

Points that bother me:

1. The story is apparently originating at Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugs. Pam doesn't have a lot of credibility with me these days even though I agree with her on the mosque issue. For one thing, she hyped some supposedly anti-Semitic tweets from the Park 51 people which turned out to be just a lame joke; something about how if she was going to tell fairy tales, at least tell them in Yiddish.

2. Why did it take them four weeks to review 13 hours of audio tape?

3. It is not hard to imagine how the stated highlights might turn out to be creative interpretations of what the imam said and not all that different from other statements he has made.

4. They're not going to release the story until next week. Why? Presumably to get more blog traffic.
 
dudalb said:
I am just saying that there have enough outbreaks of Anti Muslim feelings in Europe..France in particular....that Europeans should not act morally superior to Americans about it.
And I wonder if Americans exist for you as a people, or just a bunch of cliches for you to feel superior to?
Click to expand...

Once again, Mr Racist Bigot... where is your evidence that I, personally, individually, have exhibited "Anti Muslim feelings"?

And stop projecting your attitude on me - it´s just pathetic.
 
Well, I did some Googling on Emerson and have had a bit of an acrid taste at the back of my mouth the whole time. Seems this dork was all over the TV news blaming Arabs for the OKC bombing, Jugoslavians for the 1993 WTC bombing and a bomb for Ftl 800.

Just your average guanophrenic hater.
 
I like Counterpunch's headline nickname for Emerson, "Terrorism Slut"...

The guy's a liar. No one other than whackadoodles will take this seriously. He could find "evidence" on the ingredients label on a box of couscous.
 
Brainster said:
I'm sure I'll get accused of doing a double-reverse fakeout on this one, but color me skeptical of this story hitting the right-wing blogs today:



Points that bother me:

1. The story is apparently originating at Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugs. Pam doesn't have a lot of credibility with me these days even though I agree with her on the mosque issue. For one thing, she hyped some supposedly anti-Semitic tweets from the Park 51 people which turned out to be just a lame joke; something about how if she was going to tell fairy tales, at least tell them in Yiddish.

2. Why did it take them four weeks to review 13 hours of audio tape?

3. It is not hard to imagine how the stated highlights might turn out to be creative interpretations of what the imam said and not all that different from other statements he has made.

4. They're not going to release the story until next week. Why? Presumably to get more blog traffic.
Click to expand...

And this is all irrelevant anyway. You still don't lose your First Amendment rights even if you're a bigoted anti-semitic who believes a bunch of religious nonsense that is out of the mainstream of other religious nonsense. [ETA: And I'm not agreeing there is any credible evidence that the people wanting to build fit that description, just considering the case if it were true. Even if it were true, it wouldn't matter.]

Now, if they're claiming that the people wanting to build the mosque and community center are terrorists or criminals of some other sort, then it's silly to discuss whether or not to issue them a building permit. We would then be discussing how to handle their criminal prosecution.

But since there is no evidence whatsoever that they are criminals (and in particular, that they are somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks), they should still be assumed innocent of any crimes and afforded their First Amendment rights.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
And this is all irrelevant anyway. You still don't lose your First Amendment rights even if you're a bigoted anti-semitic who believes a bunch of religious nonsense that is out of the mainstream of other religious nonsense.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't loose your rights, but it may not be irrelevant. It doesn't appear that he is, but if he was promoting radical terrorist type of ideas, that could likely attract similar minds to the location and thus there would be legitimate concerns as to whether the center should be built.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I like Counterpunch's headline nickname for Emerson, "Terrorism Slut"...

The guy's a liar. No one other than whackadoodles will take this seriously. He could find "evidence" on the ingredients label on a box of couscous.
Click to expand...

I remember when Emerson was respected.
 
The quotes about Rauf seem underwhelming. Everybody's trying to find dirt on him and the most you can find is some lame BS (from him) about "America having provoked 9/11"? True, he shouldn't have said that, but come on -- half the democratic party believes similar nonsense.
 
Skeptic said:
The quotes about Rauf seem underwhelming. Everybody's trying to find dirt on him and the most you can find is some lame BS (from him) about "America having provoked 9/11"? True, he shouldn't have said that, but come on -- half the democratic party believes similar nonsense.
Click to expand...

lots of people said things they regret, 10 years ago.

i.e. George Bush's "Nobel Crusade" comment.
 
Neally said:
Of course you don't loose your rights, but it may not be irrelevant. It doesn't appear that he is, but if he was promoting radical terrorist type of ideas, that could likely attract similar minds to the location and thus there would be legitimate concerns as to whether the center should be built.
Click to expand...

You're having a real problem letting that go, aren't you?
 
Neally said:
Making a point where a point needs to be made, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

I mind because once again you're ignoring all the times in these threads where it's been pointed out to you that it's not a point that needs to be made, and blithely assert for the umpteenth time that concern that extremists would be attracted to Park51 is a valid concern, when it's pretty much the exact opposite.
 
ANTPogo said:
I mind because once again you're ignoring all the times in these threads where it's been pointed out to you that it's not a point that needs to be made, and blithely assert for the umpteenth time that concern that extremists would be attracted to Park51 is a valid concern, when it's pretty much the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
And you continue to have the comprehension problem. This is the last spoon feeding for your comprehension:

I said IF the Imam was found to be a radical, there would be a valid concern with the location, not that there IS a valid concern with the information we have currently.

Put me on ignore if you can't handle the fact that I'll make a point when I feel a point needs to be made.
 
there is one very simple solution to this argument.

and to see if this is about hatred, or just proximity.

the Immam of the Cordoba Center should offer to move 10 blocks north.

..and then we shall see how the haters respond.



if they say "good, 10 blocks north is great. we appreciate it. we have no problem now".....then this is more about proximity.

but, if they say "NO. 10 blocks is NOT far enough. its too big!! we don't want it anywhere in New York!! its still an insult to family members!!"...then we know its about bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
said IF the Imam was found to be a radical, there would be a valid concern with the location, not that there IS a valid concern with the information we have currently.
Click to expand...

The only imdication I have seen that he is at all tolerant of Wahibis came out of some rightwhackers underwear. There was no problem until twits like Geller, Hannity and the Rushblob jumped on it.
 
Neally} said:
I said IF the Imam was found to be a radical, there would be a valid concern with the location, not that there IS a valid concern with the information we have currently.

Put me on ignore if you can't handle the fact that I'll make a point when I feel a point needs to be made.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be better to know where the enemy is, if this was the case? When was the last time the KKK was not allowed to built a center?
 
Thunder said:
there is one very simple solution to this argument.

and to see if this is about hatred, or just proximity.

the Immam of the Cordoba Center should offer to move 10 blocks north.

..and then we shall see how the haters respond.



if they say "good, 10 blocks north is great. we appreciate it. we have no problem now".....then this is more about proximity.

but, if they say "NO. 10 blocks is NOT far enough. its too big!! we don't want it anywhere in New York!! its still an insult to family members!!"...then we know its about bigotry.
Click to expand...

I really don't think this would answer any questions at all. Why would or should proximity matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom