Bizarre, Politics, Society

King: A Mosque Near Groundzero Is “Very Offensive”

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has publicly condemned the proposal to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero in New York. King declared that such a project “is very offensive.” Fox News host Gretchen Carlson added her own condemnation on air, declaring it a “slap in the face.”

King appears to hold all Muslims responsible for the attacks despite that fact that many Muslims died in the attack. Nevertheless, he admits that the pesky first amendment is likely to bar any effort to block the move:

I believe it is very offensive and it’s wrong. I don’t believe that legally it can be stopped, however, because of the first amendment. But having said that, you know, the mosque will be there. It will be within walking distance of where so many Americans were killed by radical Muslims. And, obviously we cannot blame all of Islam for what a handful of terrorists did. What bothers me though is since then that so many Muslim leaders have failed to speak out against radical Islam, against the attacks. We had mosques here on Long Island who were actually blaming the attacks on the Jews, the CIA and the FBI. So, that’s why this is particularly offensive.

20 thoughts on “King: A Mosque Near Groundzero Is “Very Offensive””

  2. John:

    go to the 120% thread and read all that, then come back and tell us that you think it was explosives. Our very own Bob Esq and Slartibartfast had a months long discusion and hit every possible point and then some.

    a rehash here would be meaningless.

  3. John 1, May 17, 2010 at 7:54 am

    …

    There is NO WAY a steel building will go down like that just because of a fire like they claim….NONE!

    ============================

    I’m an architect. You’re totally wrong. Steel starts loosing strength at only 300 degrees F (149 deg. C). When designing buildings with steel structures, we go to great lengths to protect the steel from heat/fire. Even without the jet fuel, a large fire in those buildings combined with damage to the fireproofing on the steel structure could cause the collapse. It’s very simple and in no way controversial. Please look up the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” – I strongly suspect you are suffering from the effects at the low end of this.

    As for King and Carlson, why do we tolerate what is plain, simple bigotry?

  4. Is there ANYONE left in this country that doesn’t know that 911 buildings were exploded??

    The plane never made it to building #7, but they went ahead and blew it up too.
    There is NO WAY a steel building will go down like that just because of a fire like they claim….NONE!

  5. I wonder if Native Americans are offended that churches are built near places where so many of them were massacred by Christians.

  6. “… I don’t believe that legally it can be stopped, however, because of the first amendment. …” (Rep. Peter King (R-NY))

    Yeah, scum bag … which you swore to uphold.

    Typical Republican nonsense.

  7. TJ,

    Muslims are bad, so we can treat them however we want. Got it.

  8. I’m with Rosie. Peter King is HIGHLY offensive here – or anywhere else. Since this clearly an attempt to sway some form of opinion – our opinion is swayed – pointedly at YOU Mr. King to see how fast you can leave !

  10. Buddha is Laughing:

    “…Radicals? The Saudis are probably the worst of the lot as not only are they bent on our destruction in the West, they are a large part of the perpetually stirred pot between the Sunni and the Shia. They’d also love nothing better than to see those Kafir kill each other too.

    The destruction of Saudi Arabia, our actual attackers on 9/11, wouldn’t just be justice for us, but a boon to peace in the region as well as the world. They are radical fundie zealots of the very worst sort.”

    Yep. Not to mention the connection between the Saudi royal family and funding of Islamic terrorists, including some of the 9/11 perpetrators.

  12. ‘Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya‎ الوهابية) or Wahhabism ‘

    No, Bil, I know little of this. But I do know that as a civilian I have never heard my Government actually say that the Saudi’s were behind 9/11. We were led to believe that the ‘terrorism’ involved somehow was a reason for the invasion of Iraq and a bloody massacre of those Muslim people under some twisted self-righteous mission of revenge/self ‘protection’ which led to the destruction of that country and the delivery of that Nations oil into the hands of Halliburton and other private entity shit heads.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/invasion-and-war/invasion-of-iraq.html

    I also know that this ‘pre-emptive’ war idiocy is neither decent or American and it has made me consider moving to France or Canada or somewhere where the behavior of the people and the government appear to be more aligned with the spirit of what our founding fathers had in mind….

  13. To me, Peter King’s very presence is horribly offensive, and everything he says is politically motivated. When he speaks, I close my ears.

  14. The thing that is true of Islam is that does not reciprocate when it comes to consideration of religious values and or latitude, when US Soldiers are in Muslim nations they cannot bring with them a bible, when Rome allows a Mosque to be built Saudi Arabia one of the most despicable nations on earth in my less than humble opinion does not allow a Christian church to be built there!

    This acceptance of Islam’s one way street only enhances or reinforces their perspective of our being weak and without resolve thus unworthy of respect mutual respect!

    It is less important to me what Peter King a certified moron thinks than what Islam thinks and views this as..

    Remember 9/11 was not just a terrorist event by Islamic barbaric scum murderers but also an event of human sacrifice that right those towers were altars upon which these barbarian pigs sacrificed martyrs victims innocent victims including Muslims to a blood thirsty god for reward that makes martyrdom as Islam currently practices and defines it as Human Sacrifice!

    You cannot kill innocent people and yourself by choice and call it martyrdom it is human sacrifice and it is practiced and supported by many warped evil members of the Islam!

    So is this a monument to their practice of human sacrifice have they addressed this not as far as I am concerned for the most part though to their credit some few Muslim clerics have directly honestly condemned Terrorism and this perversion of Islam that is sadly so wide spread…

    If you don’t agree, you’re wrong and a part of the problem not the, or any solution..

  15. W=c,

    Know much about the state religion of Saudi Arabia aside from they are Islamic?

    “Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya‎ الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a name given to people who strictly follow Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.[1] In fact, the commonly used term wahabbi is used at Salafis which although believe that Abdul Wahab was their great Imam some do not admit that the base of their belief is entirely with Abdul Wahab. The sect attributed to Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th-century scholar from what is today Saudi Arabia. He advocated a process of purifying Islam from what he considered innovations in Islam (Bidah) violently. He believed that those who practice innovation in Islam are Kafir.” [emphasis added] from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

    Radicals? The Saudis are probably the worst of the lot as not only are they bent on our destruction in the West, they are a large part of the perpetually stirred pot between the Sunni and the Shia. They’d also love nothing better than to see those Kafir kill each other too.

    The destruction of Saudi Arabia, our actual attackers on 9/11, wouldn’t just be justice for us, but a boon to peace in the region as well as the world. They are radical fundie zealots of the very worst sort.

  16. I believe having a lamebrain bigot like Peter King so close to the seat of power is dangerous. “I believe it is very offensive and it’s wrong. I don’t believe that legally it can be stopped, however, because of the first amendment Art. I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution. But having said that, you know, the mosque King will be there. … What bothers me though is since then that so many Muslim Republican leaders have failed to speak out against radical Islam neo-cons, against the[ir] [bigoted]attacks. We had mosques Rep. King here on Long Island who were was actually blaming the attacks on the Jews, the CIA and the FBI any ethnic group he doesn’t like. So, that’s why this is particularly offensive.”

  17. “…where so many Americans were killed by radical Muslims”

    I still don’t believe that radical Muslims did this. Radical Muslims being used by radical fascists maybe…and I put the blame for my confusion squarely on the shoulders of my political leaders…who NEVER, in any meaningful way, laid blame on the instigators. So I guess I am a radical too?

  18. Yep. Prevention because of “offense” would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. There would be all kind of entanglement arguments. In addition, if people are stupid enough to want to build what in NYC will be tantamount to a graffiti magnet because of (literally) their poor choice of location? I say let ’em have at it.

    If we’re going to talk offensive, Mr. King?

    How about the fact that traitors like Cheney walk free and you spineless graft toads won’t do anything about it? Hmm? How about let’s talk about being offended at illegal actions before you getting your panties twisted about a legal action that is merely personally offensive to you and the meatheads at FAUX?

    Peter.

    King.

  20. To not allow this, would not this constitute a violation of the establishment clause?

Comments are closed.