As report by Fox News and The NY Post:
A founding member of an organization run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the driving force behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero, claims that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" and that Muslims have been made scapegoats, The Post has learned.
Faiz Khan -- who has preached at least twice at the former Burlington Coat Factory building, the site of the proposed mosque -- was for years Rauf's partner in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims, which is dedicated to promoting a better understanding of Islam.
Khan also serves on the advisory board of Muslims for 9/11 Truth and is a founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, known as MUJCA.
On MUJCA's Web site, Khan wrote that "the inescapable fact [is] that 9/11 was an inside job."
"The prime factor for the success of the criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from the quarter known as 'militant Islam,' although the phenomenon known as 'militant Islamic networks' may have played a partial role, or even a less than partial role -- perhaps the role of patsy and scapegoat," he wrote in documents uncovered by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
Khan was listed as one of three directors of the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims in its 1997 incorporation papers, when it went by the name of the American Sufi Muslim Association.
This puts a HUGE spotlight on Rauf and shows he associates with those who are radical and who won't except that Radical Islam carried out the 9-11 attacks.
Just like all those libs that think Bush did it all. They really are a bunch of dumbasses.
wow, now the Tea Party and Islam are even more alike, both have crazy conspiracy theory people in their group. You guys should be best pals.
But its not like we haven't heard the right suggest that Oklahoma City bombing was a government job. Damn Free Republic had thousands of posts about that.
You guys got Waco, Ruby Ridge, Ok City, New World Order, Birthers, Black Helicopters so if its all the same your side shouldn't point out anyone elses.
Joe's smokin the funny stuff again!
What conspiracy does the Tea Party have, Joe? Please elaborate.
And THIS is not a conspiracy. This is a fact the Rauf is an associate of Khan, and Khan has lectured about the truther beliefs twice with in the BCF site.
And the truther belief IS a leftist conspiracy theory, so looks like Radical Islam and the left have more closer alined.
Now as far as the rest... stop taking this off topic, this is not an open thread. :)
Chris, don't act like i am the only one to take things off topic. You don't lecture your rightwing buddies for it.
So an associate of his is a truther? the Tea Party is filled with Birthers? Its not just radical Islam that has kooks.
And i am well within the topic to compare the fact that your side has its share of anti-US-government types who believe the attack on the Oklahoma City federal building was an inside job. Its a fair comparison and you know it.
And please feel free to look up Alex Jones and Devvy Kidd, both rightwingers and both truthers.
In fact Alex describes himself as an AGGRESSIVE CONSTITUTIONALIST. Don't you regard yourself as something like that?
Now back to the topic. I am surprised that you mention the multi-religion coalition of supposed truthers in part because that seems to limit his radicalization. If he were in fact that radical he would not be working with Jews and Christians would he?
And i don't believe that ones associations for a greater purpose often make you the same in mind as the perosn or institutions you are dealing with. Take these two examples...
1. Both Bush and John McCain spoke and received endorsements from Bob Jones univeristy, which until recent years opposed inter-racial marriage. does this make both Bush and McCain prejudice?
2. The US involvement in Uzbekistan, where it had a air base in a country rife with religious persecution and limited freedoms.
So if we support, fund and help the military of such a country does that make us like them?
And finally does that make Prince Al-Waleed bin Tala, the second largest shareholder in faux news parent company and provider of 300,000 dollars to a project of American Society for the Advancement of Muslims a radical also? I mean if we judge the relationship then he should also be suspect.
In the end while i would prefer to see the people lined up to help be exceedingly squeaky clean, the fact that the Islamic world of finance doesn't work that way, as even a major Newscorp shareholder has some questionable ties.
Joe, blah blah blah, stay on the subject, your ranting off subject make you look weak.
I have seen your comments on Bonzai and you speak far more mature there. I know you have it in you, so let's take about the post.
"Both Bush and John McCain spoke and received endorsements from Bob Jones university, which until recent years opposed inter-racial marriage. does this make both Bush and McCain prejudice"
First off, what does prejudice have to do with anything of this topic? Nothing. You're interjecting prejudice in with topic of Islamic radicalism. Stay focused.
BUT no because Bob Jones University dropped the interracial dating rule in 2000.
Bush, nor McCain supported this dating rule. Receiving an endorsement doesn't mean a candidate supports or except an endorsement or controversial rules or are somehow in a "partnership" with Bob Jones.
"Prince Al-Waleed bin Tala, the second largest shareholder in faux news parent company and provider of 300,000 dollars to a project of American Society for the Advancement of Muslims a radical also? "
There is no relationship here, Joe. He is a shareholder and is a international investor with a net worth estimated at $19.4 billion. He is free to buy stock with any public company. Just because he holds shares with News Corp, doesn't mean he is a "Partner" of News Corp.
However, this Imam has stated he is a moderate, but he was for years Rauf's "PARTNER" in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims. There is a big difference between hold public shares and partnerships.
"you mention the multi-religion coalition of supposed truthers"
Did I? Or are you just putting words in my mouth?............
The belief that the murder of 3000 of our American citizens by it's own government, based on NO facts and based on NO motive is a radical propaganda movement backed by some liberals and Radical Islam.
"Alex Jones and Devvy Kidd, both rightwingers and both truthers"
Good, THEY'RE WRONG. See how that works, Joe. But Jones sees himself as a libertarian. Devvy Kidd is a member American Independent Party and left the GOP in 1996
I am not an "AGGRESSIVE CONSTITUTIONALIST". I am a strict Constitutionalist and does not, in no way "Partner" me with their "opinions" as truthers.
Joe you're re-directing the conversation and you do it well, but I have been around the block numerous times to fall for that trap.
I am not a truther, but a Republican Tea Party Conservative who wholly believes in the Constitution.
Just because Jones and Kidd are truthers, does make me an associate AKA "Partner"
Joe, "the Tea Party is filled with Birthers?"
Here is the difference between truthers and Birthers.
Truthers have no evidence for which they believe. None.
Birthers however have
-An Admission from an Official with in the Kenyan parliament that he was born there.
-An official Kenyan Birth Certificate has been swore in the federal court as authentic.
Awaiting a court date.
-Obama has refused to provide his long form BC.
-And I will refer you to this post on what "does Congress really know".
Pretty damn evidence.
Your argument isn't about Islam but the nature of the RELATIONSHIP that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has with a supposed radical leader Faiz Khan. You did a good job of establishing Faiz Khan is not a simple moderate.
The problem is that you don't understand what the debate is. I am not questioning your evidence against Faiz Khan. i am questioning your assertions of their RELATIONSHIP, which is in fact the main point of this article. Without linking Faiz Khan to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf this post is just an indictment on Faiz Khan right?
So now that we agree that our debate is concerning how we establish relationships between people, i can go on. And in questioning the relationship i am making two points.
1. That all groups working towards a specific goal have people who believe in conspiracy theories. I made this point by discussing birthers within the Tea Party.
2. That all public people; political, social, etc. have associations with people who advocate for questionable causes and concerns. Would you have preferred i used Jack Abramoff ties to Bush and the republican congress, or Enron and its same ties? It really doesn't matter because everyone has them.
so we can agree that this Faiz Khan is not the most moderate of Muslisms but that in movements and groups not everyone is always the best people to have.
Mark, as for putting words in your mouth, i did not.
Joe said, "you mention the multi-religion coalition of supposed truthers"
the original text from your post is this...
"and is a founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, known as MUJCA."
I would be right in calling it a multi-religion coalition right? At least by name. I didn't look it up any further.
And off topic. I can establish a more serious connection between Al-Waleed bin Talal and conservatives like Rupert Murdoch and even the Bush family than you believe. And i can establish him having a relationship with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf too.
So where does that leave Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has these relationships with both a seemingly radical Muslim not connected to conservatives and a seemingly radical Muslim who is connected to powerful conservatives within the US.
and how does one decipher whose's radical Islam connections are the worst?
Adams, i thought i was much more respectful and thoughtful here than at Bonsai. I like to be much more crude and aggressive there.
Perhaps i have been alittle less so here lately, but certainly not like i can be there.
I think you and Mark are much better presenters and offer better points of debate.
Well go figure, an islamofacist is a 911 truther. who would have thought?
“Your argument isn't about Islam but the nature of the RELATIONSHIP that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has with a supposed radical leader Faiz Khan.”
Rauf who claims to be a moderate has been discovered to have “partnered” in an organization WITH a radical, and they both happen to be Islamic. Yep, I guess that is my argument.
“i am questioning your assertions of their RELATIONSHIP”
Joe, there no assertion, it IS public record that both where partners, and Khan as admitted to holding a radical, truther belief.
“So now that we agree that our debate is concerning how we establish relationships between people, i can go on.”
Oh, is that what it is? LMAO!!!! Nice try though. We have come to a conclusion, IMO, that your injection that endorsements/stockholders vs. partnerships are one in the same. They are not.
Now on to the debate.
Issue is Rauf was a partner with Khan and that Khan is a radical truther.
The only thing I ‘think’ we agree on is truthers are nuts. Maybe not.
-"putting words in your mouth, i did not"
Joe, read waaaaaaaaaaaaaay at the top. See that little thing called "As reported by Fox News and The NY Post"
And that "I am surprised that you mention the multi-religion coalition"
Not my words. I didn't mention it. It's the words of the author of the article that said it.
I just posted what someone else wrote.
Christopher, most of them are. I mean radicals that is. :)
Post a Comment