Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

JihadJane said:
'Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque'

http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/untangling-new-intrigue-behind-ground-zero-mosque
Click to expand...

That Observer article doesn't seem all that bizarre. One of the mosque's backers -- R. Leslie Deak -- is also a business consultant for a defense contractor. Which is not unsual, since his dad was once a spook, so he probably know people in the industry. He also has ties to Wachovia bank. But I would guess many wealthy contributors will have ties to various financial institutions, and one of them is bound to have some sort of connection to the defense industry -- because it's a big freaking industry employing lots and lots of wealthy people.

This seems like a long string of connect-the-dots that don't lead anywhere. It's certainly no more suspicious than the New York Observers' own admitted connection to Pam Geller -- one of the bigoted bloggers against the project. And by that I mean it's not really all that suspicious.
 
ANTPogo said:
Iran is more oppressive than Saudi Arabia!?
Click to expand...

Yes it is, and I am not talking of the rights of women to drive. Iran has had a coup by theocrats, which you don't see. Saudi has always been a theocracy, but it is, for now, a fairly stable and benevolent one. Did you just look up a Wikipedia entry to make your comparison and defend Iran?

I don't know how old you are. You make rational sounding arguments, but to me they sound like justifications for what you want to believe.

As to all the other stuff and the origins of this thread, Rauf is not qualified for the grand ambitions he pretends to have. He is no MLK and never will be. He now says that burning Korans (dumbass stunt) can be disastrous and moving his center can be as well, by giving ammunition to those who presumably otherwise would stick to herding their goats.

How does that grab all the 0.0001 percenters here?

I said that any fool could have predicted that this would be a bad idea long before Rauf opened his mouth, and he took quite a while to do so.

I don't know why I keep getting sucked in to repeat myself. Maybe it's my age.
 
Elind said:
Yes it is, and I am not talking of the rights of women to drive.
Click to expand...

What about the other things I mentioned? Which country, for instance, has a constitution which recognizes Judaism as an official religion with a parliament seat reserved solely for Jews (and likewise for Christians and Zoroastrians), and which country has banned the open practice of every single religion other than Islam and reserves the right to restrict any private practice it sees fit?

On the spectrum of "free" to "oppressive", both Iran and Saudi Arabia are at the far latter end, but Saudi Arabia's definitely a little bit farther than Iran is.

Iran has had a coup by theocrats, which you don't see. Saudi has always been a theocracy, but it is, for now, a fairly stable and benevolent one.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Iran is still run by the same theocrats that have been running it since the 1979 revolution. The current Supreme Leader, Khamenei, was selected by those theocrats to succeed Khomenei after the latter's death.

Saudi Arabia isn't really a "theocracy" in the same way as Iran, either - it's a monarchy. Iran is basically run by religious figures - Khamenei is Leader, both the head of state and the highest religious authority in the country. The succession and activities of the Leader are monitored and approved by a Guardian Council composed entirely of religious scholars. By contrast, King Saud is the head of state of Saudi Arabia, but isn't a religious figure, and his governmental ministers and are appointed by him and are are not required to be members of the ulama. Any laws and decrees that pass must get his approval (though he usually, though not always, also gains the approval of the ulama first). Succession is hereditary...when the current king dies, his son, Crown Prince, will become ruler of the country, regardless of any religious concerns.

And yet, despite its theocratic nature, Iran is slightly less oppressive than Saudi Arabia is by Western standards, because of the different types of sharia practiced in Sunni Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, and Twelver Shia Iran.

And you have a pretty odd definition of "benevolent".

Did you just look up a Wikipedia entry to make your comparison and defend Iran?
Click to expand...

Nope.

I don't know how old you are. You make rational sounding arguments, but to me they sound like justifications for what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

What is it you think I "want to believe"?

As to all the other stuff and the origins of this thread, Rauf is not qualified for the grand ambitions he pretends to have. He is no MLK and never will be.
Click to expand...

His chances of success are pretty irrelevant to the question of whether he's really a moderate or not.
 
Last edited:
ANTPogo said:
What about the other things I mentioned? Which country, for instance, has a constitution which recognizes Judaism as an official religion with a parliament seat reserved solely for Jews (and likewise for Christians and Zoroastrians), and which country has banned the open practice of every single religion other than Islam and reserves the right to restrict any private practice it sees fit?
Click to expand...

The Iranian constitution is a farce and lately has become irrelevant. There is no opposition in Iran that isn't a token, allowed for people like you. The Republican Guard, the 12 rulers and their little mouthpiece have made it certain that no opposition will be tolerated. Do you follow no news at all?

On the spectrum of "free" to "oppressive", both Iran and Saudi Arabia are at the far latter end, but Saudi Arabia's definitely a little bit farther than Iran is.
Click to expand...

Yes Saudi is a land of religious bigotry. Muslim religious bigotry, which I suppose derives from having Mecca on their territory. I would however fear saying the wrong thing much more in Iran than in Saudi.



Saudi Arabia isn't really a "theocracy" in the same way as Iran, either - it's a monarchy. Iran is basically run by religious figures - Khamenei is Leader, both the head of state and the highest religious authority in the country. The succession and activities of the Leader are monitored and approved by a Guardian Council composed entirely of religious scholars. By contrast, King Saud is the head of state of Saudi Arabia, but isn't a religious figure, and his governmental ministers and are appointed by him and are are not required to be members of the ulama. Any laws and decrees that pass must get his approval (though he usually, though not always, also gains the approval of the ulama first). Succession is hereditary...when the current king dies, his son, Crown Prince, will become ruler of the country, regardless of any religious concerns.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know all that.

And yet, despite its theocratic nature, Iran is slightly less oppressive than Saudi Arabia is by Western standards, because of the different types of sharia practiced in Sunni Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, and Twelver Shia Iran.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that many of the other religious sects would agree with you, including the few thousand Jews still left.


And you have a pretty odd definition of "benevolent".
Click to expand...

*shrug* I spent quite a few years there. Just a personal opinion.

What is it you think I "want to believe"?
Click to expand...

Any spin that makes you feel good.

His chances of success are pretty irrelevant to the question of whether he's really a moderate or not.
Click to expand...

Really? I guess you could say these are two issues. I think his chances are poor because he is not qualified, and I thought that before I heard him speak recently, not because some might call him an extremist.

I'm sure you are right that he should be called a moderate, but I don't think he is a reformer of the faith by any stretch of the imagination. He just says what he thinks people, non Muslims, want to hear and probably believes most of what he says, including that he had no idea this matter could become controversial (stupid naivety), and that opposing it could be dangerous for the USA (just plain stupid).
 
Elind said:
The Iranian constitution is a farce and lately has become irrelevant. There is no opposition in Iran that isn't a token, allowed for people like you. The Republican Guard, the 12 rulers and their little mouthpiece have made it certain that no opposition will be tolerated. Do you follow no news at all?
Click to expand...

Okay, now I know you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

There's certainly opposition in Iran. That just doesn't translate to opposition we may hope for. Just because there's no opposition force who's vying for a Western-style democracy doesn't mean there's no opposition. I also wouldn't call hundreds of thousands and possibly a couple million a token opposition. Yes, there is certainly a junta-like crackdown in the Iranian government over the last year, mostly the result of the last five years of palpable unrest and on top of that nearly two decades of a growing dissatisfaction with the government over there. The executive in Iran may very well have overplayed its hand in the last election fallout while the Supreme Leader has actually been openly questioned publicly by Iranians about his claims of moral authority. More people are demanding more rights, and one of those groups has been women.

You've bought into the political rhetoric a bit too much. There are serious problems with Iran, but the only difference between it and Saudi Arabia is that we're in an amicable relationship with the Saudi leadership and we're not with the Iranian ones. Other than that, they're pretty much the same, with the only exception being that since Saudi Arabia has consistently had gobs of cash flowing through it (from us and others) they're able to maintain their boots firmly on the necks of their people without the West making much of a stink.
 
GreNME said:
Okay, now I know you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

There's certainly opposition in Iran.
Click to expand...

The only chances for an opposition to the junta ruling Iran is a violent revolution. I suspect that time has passed.

Trust me, I have more than a clue what I'm talking about. I just have a reluctance to spell everything out, even though I frequently find myself doing so lately.

Have you ever asked yourself why Iran is so anti western? I suspect you will say it's because of the legacy of the Shah.
 
Elind said:
The Iranian constitution is a farce and lately has become irrelevant. There is no opposition in Iran that isn't a token, allowed for people like you.
Click to expand...

For people like me, huh?

The Republican Guard, the 12 rulers and their little mouthpiece have made it certain that no opposition will be tolerated. Do you follow no news at all?
Click to expand...

Not only is that an oversimplification, none of that contradicts any of what I said.

Yes Saudi is a land of religious bigotry. Muslim religious bigotry, which I suppose derives from having Mecca on their territory.
Click to expand...

It's a lot more complicated than that.

I would however fear saying the wrong thing much more in Iran than in Saudi.
Click to expand...

That's pretty dependent on what the particular "wrong thing" you say is.

Yes, I know all that.
Click to expand...

Then why did you say otherwise?

I'm not sure that many of the other religious sects would agree with you, including the few thousand Jews still left.
Click to expand...

You think the Jews in Iran would receive better treatment in Saudi Arabia?

*shrug* I spent quite a few years there. Just a personal opinion.
Click to expand...

I know a number of people who have visited and lived in Saudi Arabia. Not a single one of them has ever described it as "benevolent".

Any spin that makes you feel good.
Click to expand...

Lots of things make me feel good. So please, tell me what, specifically, you are referring to here.

Really? I guess you could say these are two issues. I think his chances are poor because he is not qualified, and I thought that before I heard him speak recently, not because some might call him an extremist.
Click to expand...

So why did you post the link to Jasser's essay?

I'm sure you are right that he should be called a moderate, but I don't think he is a reformer of the faith by any stretch of the imagination. He just says what he thinks people, non Muslims, want to hear
Click to expand...

Really? So why has his book also been published in Malay, for the Indonesian and Malaysian market? Both those countries are almost entirely Muslim.

and probably believes most of what he says, including that he had no idea this matter could become controversial (stupid naivety),
Click to expand...

So, according to you, after getting his project talked about in the New York Times and having his wife talk about it on Fox News' "Bill O'Reilly Show" (where the guest host, Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham told her "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it" and "I like what you're trying to do"), all without any controversy at all, he therefore should have known that controversy would erupt six months later?

If that's "stupid naivety" to you, I admire your paranormal ability to predict the future.

and that opposing it could be dangerous for the USA (just plain stupid).
Click to expand...

And it's stupid because...?
 
Last edited:
There's already a mosque in the area. This guy just wants to build an expanded community center there. But he's Islamic, therefore he should die.
 
Elind said:
The only chances for an opposition to the junta ruling Iran is a violent revolution. I suspect that time has passed.
Click to expand...

No, that's what a great deal of political hawks and nearly all of the Iranian-American population who fled here at various times since 1978 would prefer, but that's not the only option. I might agree that it could be the quickest option, but it would also be the bloodiest one since the majority of the current Iranian population is so young (under 35, I believe).

Elind said:
Trust me, I have more than a clue what I'm talking about. I just have a reluctance to spell everything out, even though I frequently find myself doing so lately.
Click to expand...

Blah blah worked in Saudi Arabia, where the state is friendly to outsider companies with money as long as they keep where they're told. I hear Sri Lanka is pretty swank as long as you're not a Tamil, and that Tibet is beautiful and wonderful vacation land as long as you're not a native.

Elind said:
Have you ever asked yourself why Iran is so anti western? I suspect you will say it's because of the legacy of the Shah.
Click to expand...

Well, considering most Iranians aren't really all that hostile to the West at all (quite the opposite), and considering pretty much all of the anti-Western rhetoric and talking points comes from partisans over there or state-sponsored signs and propaganda, I'd say that you seem to be asking a trick question or poorly conflating one of the tools of the ruling government with that of the greater Iranian people.

But why is the government so hostile? Easy: it's a simple propaganda tool... you know, kinda how Truthers focus on the Jews and Republicans focus on anyone who's not a Republican. ;)
 
I remember a daily show correspondence clip that showed how anti american iranians were.....they weren't at all.it's their govt that is the problem.
 
ANTPogo said:
No, I simply asked you who revealed that verse, when, and why.

Does this mean you aren't able to answer that?
Click to expand...

The fact is this verse is in the qu'ran. In what context it's there I don't have the time to look it up. Again, it is there and taken literally by terrorist it gives them license to kill in the name of islam.
 
Yes, but not too open that the brains fall out as it seems they have in a few here.
 
amb said:
The fact is this verse is in the qu'ran. In what context it's there I don't have the time to look it up. Again, it is there and taken literally by terrorist it gives them license to kill in the name of islam.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no clue, and absolutely no desire whatsoever to educate yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom