Truemors
-1.jpg){kind=small}
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Ground Zero Imam Issues Threat To New Yorkers ... et al!
Share:
by Edmund Jenks | September 10, 2010 at 09:32 pm
602 views | 6 Recommendations | 38 comments
Videos
Photos
Ground Zero Imam Issues Threat To New Yorkers ... et al!
Or, about 70% of all Americans are RADICALS ... and RACISTS!
In what has to be a classic example of how the religion of perpetual outrage, Islam, takes a "finger in everyone's eye" approach to dealing with propriety, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the religious leader behind the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero - spoke to CNN about the Mosque placement controversy and issues a threat to New Yorkers ... and the rest of the free world.
Said Rauf, "If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world,” Rauf said later. “…. If we don't handle this crisis correctly it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.”
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says the reason he can’t move the Islamic center now is because of national security concerns, saying parts of the Muslim world would be violently inflamed at the news of the center’s relocation.
“The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack… (there’s) the danger of the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security, to the national security of our troops,” he said.
“If we do move,” Rauf continued, “it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence ... .”
"If we move from that location, the story will be the radicals have taken over the discourse," the imam told CNN in his first televised interview since returning from a two-week State Department-sponsored cooperation tour of the Middle East.
So he characterizes anyone who believes that Muslims have the right to build but object because of the context that Islam attacked us already by flying planes into the World Trade Center towers and killed thousands of innocent people not related to their outrage and grievance against freedom of thought of the free world ... as RADICALS.
We, at MAXINE, have to ask - Isn't flying hijacked commercial planes into buildings and killing thousands of people while destroying massive amounts of property ... RADICAL?
The truth is this mosque project, its location, its naming, and timing of its celebration of launch of September 11, 2011 ... exactly 10 years after radical Islams attack on the United States ... is the definition of RADICAL and it should not be allowed to stand.
Take this and all other Imam's threats of violence and throw them back into their face.
UPDATE - Additional Thought:
The highest level of threat that the Ground Zero Imam stated in his responses to Soledad O'Brian in the CNN interview-based article (Ground Zero Imam Issues Threat To New Yorkers ... et al!) is to label all of the people who do not think a Mosque should be placed at "Ground Zero" - named Cordoba, set to be launched exactly 10 years to the date of the attacks on the World Trade Center (about 70% of most American's asked) - RADICALS.
On ABC's Good Morning America, Meredith Vieira let a CAIR spokesman label these same Americans as Racists. When will the illegitimate name calling from Muslim-Haters end?
This excerpted and edited from NewsBusters -
Vieira let Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) Zead Ramadan go on, uninterrupted, as he proceeded to compare the protest surrounding the Ground Zero mosque to some of America's worst moments of intolerance as he went on to say:
"The issue with the public sentiment is that when an issue is related to bigotry, unfortunately our history has shown that sometimes we're on the wrong side. For example we interred Japanese during World War II, we segregated our military, our schools, and it took on Executive Order to undo that. And we also enslaved our fellow Americans. So I mean when it comes to bigotry we've got to be careful about the public sentiment."
Reference Here>>
This Ground Zero Mosque issue over principles is probably the clearest example that we are in a culturally-based Values War with Muslims and they are the ones looking for the fight. The Muslim culture would like to erase American culture and the freedoms it once guaranteed through the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution.
(ht: quotes excerpted and edited from CNN, Washington Post, & ABC News)
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Edmund Jenks
Los Angeles, California, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (38)
at 22:37 on September 10th, 2010
ahhh yes. americans must relent and allow this mosque at ground zero because of the fear of inflaming the muslim world islamist. burning the qu'ran will inflame the muslim world islamist. iraq inflames the muslim world islamist. afghanistan inflames the muslim world islamist. democracy inflames the muslim world islamist. submit. submit to the fear of the muslim world islamist. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist from burning the flag. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist burning the bible. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist desecrating christian churches and cemeteries. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist terrorist attacks on the world trade center. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist attacks on the pentagon. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist attacks on american consulates. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist attacks on american constitutionality. americans must not react to the muslim world islamist attacks on american laws and customs. americans must sit down and stfu and submit to the muslim world islamist. muslim world islamist get to do what ever they want or else there will be more muslim world islamist attacks. submit. submit.
at 03:52 on September 11th, 2010
As to the fact there is a culturally-based Values War with Muslims and they are the ones looking for the fight (read the above response)? ... P O I N T M A D E!
Our Executive leaders in this country are trying to have the observance of this day become a day of service to the country ... the observance/service that our leaders in the country should be asking for is not to "give back" to this country's government through service but to serve through upholding our American cultural values, based in our Judeo-Christian ethic-inspired Bill Of Rights and Constitution on September 11th.
Today, we honor those who innocently gave their lives at the World Trade Center in the pursuit of a living a free life that was based upon those very God given Rights spelled out and protected by the United States Constitution and Bill Of Rights.
at 04:26 on September 11th, 2010
Any religion which cannot humble itself to ridicule or criticism should be ridiculed and criticized out of existence.
That congregation in Florida should have the right to burn Korans (I hear they make great toilet paper in a pinch as well!) and if Islam doesn't like it let them go burn bibles.
For myself I say if there is a God who allows so many evil men with perverted motives to wage wars and other similar conflicts over who has the best way to gain his favour, and over his very vanity, he is not so great at all.
at 04:51 on September 11th, 2010
Evil is not the power of God. The power of God can only be seen in the hearts of the human who develops a relationship with the power that exists around us all.
The base proof that there is a power ... God's power ... is we all feel the never-ending search for answers through a faith that there has to be a power greater than ourselves. To not even touch upon this fact (through any philosophy) leaves one completely soul-less.
What is the state and nature of your soul, today?
Mine is strong and happy in the pursuit of a relationship I discovered over 18 years ago ... the very day I gave up smoking cigarettes and placing alcohol and any other mind-altering substances into my physiology. I have never looked back.
I wish for you, and others on this day, the same level of human serenity on this Earth that I have found for my life - based in the freedoms given to us through the power of God and guaranteed through the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.
at 13:16 on September 11th, 2010
It isn't that simple. In America such behavior is a hate crime. There is a difference between having the right to belief and having the right to commit hateful acts.
at 13:13 on September 11th, 2010
Edmund, I sincerely believe that a large Islamic population is aligned with the radical end of their religious spectrum and that moderates have little or no influence. What makes people radical probably has more to do with economic and political conditions than with the religion itself. The religion is high-jacked by radicalism in that regard. Since the religion is often a first-choice substitute for government, therein is a big part of the trouble.
at 12:57 on September 12th, 2010
Both YankeeJim and Edmund are spot on! It is about time you guys see that the "emperor has no clothes".
at 14:03 on September 11th, 2010
With cowboy diplomacy as its banner for decades as it engaged and coerced other nations, America has inflamed the passions of many throughout the world in general and for less than 30 years, within the Muslim world, for instance, by playing both sides toward the middle, positioning the U.S. between Iraq and Iran, during the Reagan administration and in Afghanistan, enlisting the Muhajadeen to aid in the U.S.' quest to vanquish the former Soviet Union.
The current situation in Afghanistan is being waged by the generational grandsons of the Muhajadeen, known today as al Qaeda, the direct result of what President Bush the Elder termed blowback.
Currently, the Right has set its sights on Islam and Muslims, heavily promoted by the likes of Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration Islamaphobe and Obamaphobe, who has used his platform to 'guide' his disinformation campaign regarding his pet peeve for nearly 3 decades. His campaign against President Obama has been about 4 years.
Mr. Gaffney and neo conservatives, acting as extremist ideologues, have promoted and steered the Right Wing toward its current expressions regarding Islam and Muslims.
What would be a most worthy task for all would be watching for the next 'Boogeyman' waiting in the wings to be unearthed by the Right Wing.
at 14:29 on September 11th, 2010
Couple of glaring holes in that position, Karen, namely:
Our involvement in Afghanistan in against the Soviets had little to do with Ronald Reagan and everything to do with a guy named Zbigniew Brzezinski, a stooge of Rockefeller capitalism who was not picked by Jimmy Carter for National Security Advisor- no, he picked Jimmy Carter for the elite's mouthpiece as our President. Once in the White House Carter filled his cabinet with Trilateral Commission henchmen of Rockefeller, including Brzezinski, a Polish born immigrant with a seeming fixation against communism. One of his first orders of business was to draw the Soviet Union into a conflict in Afghanistan that was to be their Vietnam. This policiy included a component of actively supporting a guerilla resistance.
Fast forward to 2007, you think Barrack Obama rose to be your choice for President by some random chance or purely on charisma- well the latter he did have, but the fact is he did come to be in that position the same way Jimmy Carter did- the chief foreign policy advisor position in Barrack Obama's early campaign was none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, and when Obama took office it was a perfect replay of 1977, with Obama filling his cabinet with Trilateral Commission members.
(Ronald Reagan apparantly sold his soul to the Trilateral Commission, criticizing them and their CFR parent group fiercely until right after the 1980 Republican convention, during which a relative unknown named George Bush was selected as his running mate instead of the favored selection of Reagan, Gerald R. Ford. Right after taking office Reagan also filled his cabinet with Trilateral Commission members)
I cordially invite you to check and/or attack a single factual point raised above, they are to my knowledge wholly truthful and accurate- and educate me if they are not, or yourself if they are.
The people creating these messes behind the scenes depend greatly upon partisan bickering to obscure their actions. As inadvertant as I'm sure it is, you only serve to advance their goals with eager participation.
at 15:23 on September 11th, 2010
I addressed the NeoCon conservative machinations that have always advocated an 'Us against Them' methodology, batvette.
I also referred to the Reagan ADMINISTRATION, which would include all cabinet members as well as those acting as advisers.
The Democratic and Republican Parties have traditionally taken turns playing 'good cop, bad cop', as they go about pursuing U.S. interests.
However, at this juncture, the Republican Party, conservatives and the Neo Cons can be seen to clearly be promoting xenophobia while seeking to destroy and reshape the world in their desired image.
As I've stated, it will be interesting for all to watch whomever is raised to the level of Boogeyman in the future by the Right Wing.
at 23:04 on September 12th, 2010
Your post had the clear implication that the causes of anger in the muslim world, starting in Afghanistan, had their roots in actions of the Reagan administration supporting the rebels there.
You went on to criticize the "us VS them" aspect which is far more troubling if the very same people are the reason it happened in the first place.
Yet as I detailed, our "meddling" in the muslim world, in this case Afghanistan, is certainly a Democrat endeavor as well. The Carter administration drew the USSR into a full blown conflict there, and continued to support militants and handed that policy over to Reagan. The "good cop, bad cop" scenario you allude to is less real than you would hope. It's just that Republicans make no bones about what they do and the Democrats write the history books trying to blame it on the Republicans.
They both pour koolaid, you think the blue tastes better.
However, at this juncture, the Republican Party, conservatives and the Neo Cons can be seen to clearly be promoting xenophobia while seeking to destroy and reshape the world in their desired image.
The blender you used to spin that with must be powered by a 454 chevy!
News flash, Islam is on the march to become not just the world's dominant religion, but the sole religion. I don't recall any part of US foreign policy under "neocons" to be spreading Christianity to Muslim countries- because we're not. Xenophobia is defined in various places as:
"Xenophobia is an irrational, deep-rooted fear of or antipathy towards foreigners."
and a Xenophobe:
"A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples"
I don't think this applies here at all. Muslims attacked America on 9/11. Those responsible and those who share their beliefs called for the destruction of this nation and the killing of its citizens worldwide. Islam is working to become the sole religion of the world, even moderate Muslims would not deny this. Islam and the culture surrouding it spread oppression, and stifle intellectual freedoms.
How can you say that fear or hatred of Islam is irrational or undue when the majority of its believers will say they want to depose Christianity, the faith of those you call xenopohobic? Why am I xenophobic even as an agnostic, for not wanting my culture of free speech and artistic expression, destroyed by those who kill people for drawing cartoons about their prophet, riot at an untrue rumour about a book being defiled, killing 17 people?
at 15:48 on September 13th, 2010
Xenophobia, a fear of strangers or foreigners or of what is strange or foreign, is the definition offered by Merriam-Webster.
Batvette, it would seem that for the last 4 years, conservatives, the GOP and its offspring, which has come to be known as the TEA Party, as all three entities have veered to the extreme Right Wing, have expanded the definition by insisting that the Democratic Party and those believed to be moderate Republicans that do not share their view of how the stewardship of America should proceed.
For several years at the Take Back America rallies, hosted and attended by the GOP, conservatives and TEA Party types, those gathered have lambasted and decried all who do not share their view as un-American who should be feared and have recently began advising some form of gun play if their views are not addressed.
Source: rightwingwatch.org
at 18:12 on September 13th, 2010
sounds like your crowd during the bush years. left-wing progressives drawing swastikas on bush, calling him a nazi and refering to his administration as facsist and his policies hitleresque. same as todays drawing of swastikas on glen beck and sarah palin. you are getting your own medicine handed to you and now you are whining about it's unfairness. the republicans had to weather eight years of the very same abusive accusations by the so called progressive left. you have no defensible position so quite your whining because it only makes you look the hypocrite. and if you would like proof i can download all 9,960,000 google hits full of nothing but abusive, hateful rantings against bush and his administration.
at 12:35 on September 14th, 2010
It seems there is some disconnect in mental dexterity that occurs when any attempt is made to offer evidence of logical progession and escalation of the use of isolationist techniques, as relates to the Right Wing, which has taken over the Republican Party, as it is constantly pushed by its offspring, the referred to TEA Party, anymoose (not verified).
Any and all of the expressions you have mentioned regarding former President Bush were not accepted nor were they embraced by mainstream Democratic Party members, unlike the lovefest that is occurring between key mainstream Republican Party members and many of the most extreme and nutcase expressions offered by the Right Wing, in the person of and represented by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, WorldNetDaily, FreeRepublic, Washington Times, and FOXNews, to name but a handful of the thousands of Right Wing personalities, on the radio, cable network 'news' and the hate filled commentray in the Right Wing blogosphere.
Claiming some bizarre form of reverse hate because this ugly, dangerous trend in the Republican Party and all who embrace and are drawn to their politics is made note of IN their Party, is bizarre.
How many hits would only be relevant if those expressions defaming and mocking President Bush were condoned and embraced by major Democratic Party officials and representatives. They were NOT.
Many key Republican figures have bent over backwards, for nearly 4 years, to make sure they tip their hats to the kooks' and hate mongers' expressions that relate to President Obama, his administration and the Democratic Party.
at 13:34 on September 14th, 2010
Spare me. You can't cite one "left wing" progressive with an audience like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh to name just a few, that has done what you are feebly trying to equate with the current assault against Obama by the "main stream" right. Did you see any of the 9,960,000 google hits being aired on the so called liberal media outlets? Please correct me, if I'm mistaken. Poor George Bush, a victim of the left. Typical. Ineptitude and incompetence exposed is somehow an indictment on those that have the audacity to state the obvious: " The Emperor Has No Clothes."
I'm not speaking for Karen, she is more than capable of defending her position against the likes of you and Tikun. With warmest, and best regards, Nanute.
PS I'm not crazy about a lot of what Obama has done since being elected. He's done a wonderful job of perpetuating and escalating the erosion of civil liberties instituted by your poster boys George Bush and Dick Cheney. You should be applauding the accomplishment.
at 01:19 on September 15th, 2010
you really have to be in a state of denial to think anyone is being harsh on Obama compared to the way the left treated Bush.
Death threats:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
A near endless list of Bush=Hitler articles, proudly displayed by a Bush hater:
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush+Hitler+Comparison
So please "spare me!" :-)
Typical. Ineptitude and incompetence exposed is somehow an indictment on those that have the audacity to state the obvious: " The Emperor Has No Clothes."
Yeah someone in one of those threads astutely pointed out the tactics of the hypocrital Bush haters. "But Bush REALLY IS like Hitler so it's okay for us to say it."
Oh but that IS an interesting point about ineptitude and incompetance. Want to talk about the Democrats and their votes on the joint resolution in October 2002? You know, the single period in Bush's administration where he had Democrats, many with decades of experience in Washington even having been on intelligence oversight commitees, "led by the nose" to "do his bidding".
A guy with no public speaking ability, an alleged double digit IQ, completely inept, incompetant, for one brief period was a megalomaniac mastermind able to have Democrats forget their sworn duties to the constitution as a balance of powers, lead them by the nose, forget they by law have their own conduit of intelligence through DCI channels, and against all common sense approved the President's request to wage war against Saddam Hussein.
At least that's the way it went when they needed to use the war as a campaign platform to unseat him. But then neither of us is so ignorant that when we speak of Bush's "incompetance" and "ineptitude", we mean Bush policies as in he authored them himself, are we?
It's pretty easy to look at a picture of a man that looks a bit like a chimpanzee, stutters a bit, then attach him to an unpopular war and declare "Bush and his war are stupid", as if thousands of well qualified, degreed analysts weren't really behind that. Children do that.
Never mind, just rambling.
at 08:40 on September 15th, 2010
Changing the subject doesn't make for a response to my original point. You link to a series of pictures by fringe war protesters, and equate them as having the same platform of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh among other media personalities, not to mention prominent elected officials?
Just rambling is accurate.
Are you trying to tell me that because Bush convinced Democrats and most analysts to agree with going to war that at the end of the day Bush wasn't incompetent? Remember, at the time in question (just after 9-11), everyone was trying to give the President support. And the few sane voices of reason were branded as traitors and unpatriotic Americans. There were warnings from the administration's surrogates to watch what one says. Remember?
at 12:06 on September 15th, 2010
At the end, Batvette did admit he was rambling, Nanute.
at 12:16 on September 15th, 2010
Yes, I gave him credit for it.
at 20:51 on September 15th, 2010
The second link contained a list of articles which, had you clicked on a number of the sites still linked through the "more" links, (many are dead, probably taken down in shame after the fact) showed a number of prominent Democrat sources (including Common Dreams, Truthout, MoveOn, etc etc) publishing views in support of the Bush = Hitler comparison.
One story documented the views of one fmr Vice President Al Gore's rhetoric on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/25/usa.comment
I don't know nor care what Rush Limbaugh's fan numbers are, he's an idiot blowhard. If you want to stand on the point that Obama's bad taste criticism is unprecedented and not fully equalled by that against Bush by people equally prominent in the ranks of their party, I would offer you may have been hiding those 8 years or so embraced the message you didn't see the vile form of language employed. This is such a no brainer and I can offer endless substantiation if you like.
Are you trying to tell me that because Bush convinced Democrats and most analysts to agree with going to war that at the end of the day Bush wasn't incompetent?
Still chugging that blue koolaid, I see... can I refer you to an insignificant little document called the US Constitution, that details there are to be three branches of government as a balance of power? How about the various acts passed into law in the late 70's, which dictate that the Legislative Branch should have an entirely separate conduit of intelligence products available to them from the nation's intelligence community, from the Executive branch?
http://www.public-domain-content.com/books/cia_factbook_on_intelligence/legislative_oversight.shtml
The idea that "Bush fed Congress intelligence" (you don't state that but it's usually associated with what your position is) is absurd, and if you would like to produce for me a congressman or senator who will admit on the record that their vote on the Joint Resolution was decided because Bush told them they should do it then you just march their sorry keister up for an official recall.
Their job is to do the will of their constituants entirely independent of the Executive Branch- in fact their very existence is to preclude abuse of power by it.
Was Bush "competant"? That's not for you or I to decide.
Thank you for considering my opinion- and BTW I'm not arguing pro-Bush. I think he was lackluster and hardly the best man for the job. Considering a monkey with the right smile and mannerisms could get through 4 years okay there isn't a lot to judge here.
at 00:18 on September 15th, 2010
And Merriam-Websters also defines "Xenophobe" with the unduly qualifier. The two passages above are from credible online dictionaries, I hope you aren't trying to stand on semantics.
Normally Xenophobia pertains to that attitude being held out of ignorance. We are quite aware of Islam's intent and I think people are justified in being apprensive about embracing a culture with so much oppression and intolerance, and that's what makes your position on his all the more fallacious.
And that's probably why you chose to turn the direction of discussion down another road. I can't defend the extreme right wing's hatred of Obama any more than you could begin to defend the antics of the extreme left during Bush's administration. I could find a counter to every point you claim above that was said about Obama, by someone on the left about Bush.
I doubt we'll get any further discussing this because (IMO) you aren't here to rationally discuss the mosque at ground zero issue, but use that issue as a vehicle to malign the conservative far right.
And I hate those idiots as much as anyone. :-P
at 13:00 on September 12th, 2010
Karen, Stop with this tired radical "blame the victim" mentality. Poor folks are just bombing the hell out of the West and just want their share of world dominance because us "bad guys" or rather "cowboys" made them do it. Please we are a bit smarter then this nonsense.
at 21:36 on September 12th, 2010
Please do not misrepresent and twist my commentary to project your limited understanding onto my observations, Tikun.
at 04:14 on September 13th, 2010
What an interesting way to avoid the criticism. Hmm. I do have much to learn from your reports. I am just sorry if I am beneath your level of intelligence. You apparently live in some form of rarefied air that doesn't allow us regular folks to get it.
at 07:23 on September 13th, 2010
My comment regarding ".... your limited understanding" is directly related to, as is your habit, Tikun, the constant re-write and misrepresentation of any comments I make.
I describe your understanding as limited in relation to what I have stated.
Contrary to the gist suggested by your comments, which occurs often, you state that which has not been stated by me.
at 14:58 on September 11th, 2010
Regardless, about 70% of Americans polled (in poll after poll so it is fairly consistent) have been labeled as RADICALS by the Imam and RACISTS by the spokesperson for CAIR for holding the principled position that out of sensitivity to those families who lost loved ones, the Cordoba Mosque Initiative should not come to fruition this close to where the WTC buildings were brought down through a terrorists act initiated out of the Muslim World (a world, I might add, that does not ... and will not ... tolerate any other religion to reside near where it is established itself as a functional theocracy).
at 16:38 on September 11th, 2010
Source: mediamatters.org
Source: articles.cnn.com
at 21:44 on September 11th, 2010
Selling fear of the second and third order. Some one ought to remind the Obama administration that freedom of speech is the freedom to speak with out censorship, or limitation, or both. And that surrendering that freedom is so wrong on so many levels. "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." John Milton
at 05:09 on September 12th, 2010
T H A N K Y O U! ... We are not all RADICALS or RACISTS for holding and voicing the opinion that this Cordoba Mosque initiative is tantamount to an assault on tolerance and sensitivity ... the tolerance and sensitivity toward those who are left behind to suffer from the original assault on the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and Flight 93.
Those who choose to disagree to this point of view through the isolation and calling of names tactic put forward by Saul Alinsky in his book "Rules For Radicals", may suffer from this same assaultive level of insensitivity and intolerance.
at 18:09 on September 13th, 2010
The problem is when looking at the present flock that attended the prayer room at the now designated site for the new Islamic cultural center, swimming pool and prayer room. We will see a cleric and a very moderate flock of Sufi Muslims. What is interesting is not known about sufism and its difference to radical Islam that is mainly found in the middle east. Well the big difference is its all most Buddhist and Hindu spiritual approach to Islam. The interesting fact that many radical Muslims do not consider it a true following of the ways of Islam. Yep that means that not many radicals would not wish to pray in a Sufi pray room. On the argument of Sharia law, please note that most non radicals are anti sharia law. The propose site is not actually on the remembrance ground zero site, nor will it look like a mosque. just a normal building that fits in the sky line policies of Manhattan Island. if we then look at the cleric, we will note that he does not wish to be involved in politics, he support Israel as a state and is backed by the local Jewish Rabi. Then hey the local christian priest also backs the cleric. We can see that we have a Muslim cleric that promotes interfaith, yes even interfaith prayer sessions and that is geared to this new prayer room. What has been a problem from the onset is that a known Saudi Prince of whom helps fund Islamic culture through out the US. He is the man that has caused a conspiracy theory that radical Islam wishes to build a victory mosque in Manhattan. Maybe that's so, but the Sufi Cleric is I believe innocent of that charge. Look we have to be sensible and understand Islam when it comes to borrowing money. Its a sin to pay or charge interest, that means clerics have to look to the Muslim world to raise funds. The Saudi Prince funds Islamic culture and is the normal port of call. Now we see a big problem in the US and that is the element of right wing radical Christian movements that hate Islam with some intensity. Then politicians who have seen this problem wrongly as a vote collector. What we are now seeing is the terrorist groups operating under the flag of Islam, winning one more goal against the war on terrorism. due to a mixture of Islamic hatred and Islamic propaganda. If not halted it will make many of America's friends in to enemies and lead to high recruitment by the terrorist groups. Radical religion is being used as a tool that's going to causes war and not peace. its a very worrying scenario, 1.25 Billion moderates Muslims being tarred with the same brush because of radical religion. The real terrorist number in low thousands that are using religion as a tool, seemingly they are winning.