castledoom.com

[CharlieBrown]

I haven't been on these forums in ages. But let me try and breath some new air into this section.

Recently, whether or not a mosque should be built relatively near to Ground Zero has become a big issue this past couple of months. It still remains to be seen if this debate survives to November to become an important influence on voter but either way I think that it raises important dialogue.

I've heard a few arguments for the restriction of building the Islamic Mosque near the sacred site of one of the most vulnerable moments in America's short history. One of them being that it would be insensitive to the victims and it would be like putting a Swaztika next to a Holocaust memorial.

I find it all to be bullshit. A mosque doesn't represent what happened on 9/11 like the Swaztika represents the methodic annihilation of certain populations in Europe. McVeigh was a Christian but I doubt that there was an effort to restrict any churches being built near the Oklahoma City Bombing site. I also find the disregard for religious freedom disturbing to say the least. Just to make the masses comfortable many are willing to throw away one of our most basic freedoms that we have.

Maybe this comes out of a distrust toward Muslims in general that many people have who I have encountered seem to have, believing that it is a violent religion that they follow which would make many people conclude that they are a violent people. I hope this is not the case for there are a billion muslims that live on our planet and only 300 million Americans. If the prejudice are right then we are all screwed.

[JuntaJoe]

You are looking at this with just the bald data.

You should look closer into the group behind this.

The Cordoba Institute.

Cordoba is a Spanish city, not Islamic and hasn't been since Ferdinand and Isabella overthrew the Caliphate of......here it comes.....Cordoba. They traced the company back and it has absolutely zero Spanish roots. So why the name?

According to Islamic law an area once Islamic is always and forever Islamic lands by right. The Muslim Brotherhood has many times bitched about losing Spain to the infidels and swore to get it back.

The same group said the recent Spain train bombings were in revenge for being evicted from Spain 500 years ago. Long time ago, right?

Muslim fundamentalists don't let 500 years get in the way. To them Cordoba means the same as the Alamo to us or Camerone to the French Foreign Legion. It is a rallying cry name.

Isn't a bit odd that a non-Spanish Islamic front company would pick the only single noun in the Spanish dictionary that means a rallying cry in the war of Islamic Jihad? Lots of other Spanish words to choose from. All of them, actually.


Just so you know, there was a similar outfit who tried to buy land right on the Lockerbe Scotland site to build a mosque as well. Also, the NYC mosque conveniently had a name change to recently become a "mullti-cultural center", but it was a mosque when they filed first with the planning commission.

Also, did you note their proposed grand groundbreaking date? 9/11/11 The 10th anniversary of the bombing to the day.

There is intent here that you don't get unless you do some digging.

Your argument makes more sense if the mosque was anywhere else in America.


Besides, talk about taboo! Imagine if the Japanese wanted to open a Shinto shrine right across from the USS Arizona memorial. Or the Germans opened a boys military school across the road from Auschwitz. Or if Israel decided it was time to rebuild Solomon's temple and blasted the Dome out of the Rock away. You can bet the last would end in nuclear fallout for sure.

Some things simply shouldn't be done. There is no need for a mosque there anyway. There is almost no residential space in that area near the old Trade Center and Wall Street. Muslims will need to bus all across town just to get there. Nor is this about costs. There is no more expensive real estate on Manhattan than in that business district. It's not like it was a wasted empty lot either. The entire block is built up and will need to be leveled first.

They even didn't want their Cordoba name too easily found. They picked the name of Soho Properties as yet another front company. There was no old established Soho Properties before they popped up a couple years ago. They don't own any property in Soho either. It's just a name that sounds local and familiar to hide the Cordoba Initiative backers. Backers who still haven't been properly determined. A company with almost no past to track I might add.

The point being this is way too many coincidences for it to be innocent.


Quit looking at this an an intellectual exercise in American values. Look at the case particulars instead and you will see something dark and murky hiding just out of sight.

Let them prove they are just any friendly Muslim group. A move uptown would be cheaper and closer to where people live. They do that and I'll properly apologize for doubting their intent.



Oh and hi, CB! :hi:

[CharlieBrown]

I think you read to much into the name. Just because their group is named after the one time caliphate capitol doesn't mean that they are radicals hell bent on restoring former glories.

And I'm just going to reiterate the freedom of religion and if there is no solid proof that this place is going to be used for nefarious purposes then your conjectural argument is not enough to suspend the freedoms of this group to build a place of worship.

[s_stabeler]

:roll: while I agree it seems in poor taste, people talking about it being hallowed ground are talking absolute bullshit. It's not even on the WTC site, in which case I could see their point. Its a block or two over. The point about there not being many houses in the area I accept as being a good argument against it though. As for the goundbreaking day, I have to say, big deal. So it's on te same day as the 9/11 attacks were. 9 YEARS ago. Unles there is evidence other than the date that it was specifically chosen to offend, then I donlt give a damn. ( and yes, if it was in london on 7/7, i would sau the saem thing)

[JuntaJoe]

Both of you still don't get it.

You dismiss the number of points as conjecture. What you refuse to notice is the sheer number of points all at once. We will not get them to openly say their goals, obviously, so you will not be handed iron clad proof on a silver platter.

Example: The man's was seen in the area around the time of the attack. He had a feud with the victim. The cops found notes stating he really hated the victim. He has no alibi for the time of the crime. The crime was committed with a large knife and the man was known as a hunter who had that kind of skinning knife, which he will not produce and the cops cannot find.

In that example there still is no solid evidence the man killed the victim. But while prosecutors can't make a solid case you can bet the cops believe he did it. It's this kind of example that mirrors this mosque building. There are simply too many points to disregard as coincidence, but we have no smoking gun. If you choose to e-lawyer away some of the points as conjecture then you will convince yourself there is no evil to be had. Yet you simply cannot dismiss them all.


I have one more piece of the puzzle today for you. The Manhattan Mosque.

It is an older mosque that was already in NYC at 9/11. It is also only 5 blocks from the WTC area. Another few hundred yards away from the site being proposed and a little further away from the WTC. It has absolutely no ties to this Cordoba Group and is a well established entity. The locals have no problem with it either. No one protests outside its doors or harasses the users.

Remember me talking about the lack of need for a mosque in the area because of the low density of residential space?

The Manhattan mosque already serves what little need there is for Islamic service in the area. It is well known that the MM is not filling to capacity causing a local need for a new mosque. Any new mosque in the area will simply take away users from the MM and will still need to bring in a lot more from across town simply to fill the room.

There simply is NO NEED for the new mosque. Need are already being met by the old mosque. The only reason to build a new mosque there is to make some kind of point.


At what point do you accept there is enough circumstantial evidence that there is foul play involved?



Oh and Sstabeler? As a non-American you don't have the right to dictate what another culture claims as hallowed ground. If they had hit the Tower of London and the Brit people claimed it was now hallowed ground then what right would an American have to tell you that was bullshit?

As a point of fact, that building was hit by pieces of the plane, namely part of the tail assembly. It was an impact site. If we choose to label it as hallowed to us then it's our right to do so.

[NibbyCat]

JJ, from what I understand, there are at least a couple of different denominations, if you will, of Islam. If the MM and the proposed mosque are for the different groups, it would be like saying that there's no need for a Baptist group to build a church in a particular area because there's a Catholic church nearby.

[CharlieBrown]

Your argument is pure conjecture. You use the words of the Muslim Brotherhood as if it were the words of this institute. And your analogy of the murder suspect does not apply here for no one is really accusing this group of anything other then trying to build a mosque. There not being accused of of the bombings in Spain or the 9/11 attacks and there is no solid connection to any of these events besides that they share a name with a city in Spain. Not enough for them to denied a constitutional right, not simply an American value but a right protected by the law of the land.


I also have to agree with NibbyCat in that there are different facets in Islam and that this building could be servicing a different section of the community. I live in a very small town yet we have five churches (not small ones I might add).

And maybe they try and pass it off as a cultural center to avoid the anit-muslim centiment that clearly exists and all the other bullshit that comes along with it which can be clearly seen perpetuated by politicians who want to rally some scared voters for November.

Not every mosque is a haven for terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists who wants to restore an Islamic caliphate. I'm not saying that I think that anyone on these forums believes that but I know many people do and it has been exemplified with this proposed mosque.

[JuntaJoe]

This imam was already challenged to directly refute some of the worst elements of Islam, including terrorism, stoning of women, calling Jews animal names, and the prime tenet of bringing Sharia to all places on earth.

He was challenged by a known scholar on terrorism, who himself admitted was once part of a terrorist group, on doing that. The imam simply kept sidestepping with his Islam is peaceful bull.

Islam is not a contradictory book like the Bible or Torah. It wasn't written by multiple and sometimes contradictory people. It is the word of Mohamed himself.

The part of it being peaceful is in an earlier part. The book itself says anything contradictory is solved by accepting a later passage. The later passages come during Mohamed's great expansion across Arabia and says Islam is about Jihad instead.

Learn a few things about Islam first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0deanRGb8w



Why is this new site is supposed to be an "interfaith center" then why didn't they add a church, synagogue, shrine, or temple to the plans?

Why did this group pick a name synonymous with Jihad?

Why won't the imam talk to the press?

Why is he in the pay of Obama in Europe right now?

Why did they pick the most expensive real estate in Manhattan as their choice for a location?

Why did they choose a location with the least need for residential users?

Why did they hide behind several front companies?

Why won't they open their books and say who funds them?

Why has this imam been caught raising money for Hamas and nothing done when we have laws against that?

Why did they chose the 10th anniversary of the bombing to celebrate its construction?

Why do they keep changing the building's name?

Why do they want it there?


They won't answer. So I have an answer for them. Hell no.

Be clear on this point, I've read enough websites to know there are plenty of radical right groups that will not simply shout about this. They will act. There will only be one ultimate end game to this unless they move it or it stays surrounded by military like the Baghdad Green Zone. That result will be another explosion.

If I had to guess I'd say this is a play by Obama to back this. He knows it will bring the crazies out of the woodwork. He wants this so he can find them, because they also represent the radical fringe right that is also a threat to him. Better to get them focused away from him and easy to trace due to heightened activity. It also conveniently changes the national focus away from a still weak economy after 18 months in office, his sloppy oil spill response, his stalled agendas, his 8th vacation in as many months of this year, and the furor over his wife's junket to Spain.


Consider this thought. Recent polling in NYC put negativity at the mosque at 2/3rd against this mosque. To say that NYC is a hot bed of conservative redneck attitude is preposterous. These people think Bloomberg is conservative! To think that even 30% of NYC is officially to the right of center is a long stretch. So a quite large slice of the middle and left are against the mosque there too. They are united across ideology lines against this mosque. And let's be clear here too, it is their home. The will of the local people there are against this. We have no right to demand they take this against their will. Too say otherwise is to be against the basic principles of democracy and some of the most important parts of the Constitution, namely the 9th and 10th Amendments. Where would the US be without local sovereignty? Would you want Texans to tell California that it cannot marry gays? Would you want Chicagoans to tell the people of Seattle to cut down their trees against their will so that there is enough newspaper to go around? I damn sure won't stand for Bostonians telling me in Texas I can't buy a gun when I want to.

NYC doesn't want the mosque. Polling is in the supermajority numbers there. So quit trying to support those who would ram it down their throats.

[NibbyCat]

JJ, can you give sources for your points? The people I debate with don't accept arguements without backup, and I can't just point to your word as my reference.

I'm not saying you're right, it's debate.

[JuntaJoe]

Ok Nibby, but I'm working of compilation of a bunch of mixed sources.

If they want an itemized link for each point you'll need to attach links to questions.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/sec5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_Cordoba
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=379&PID=0&IID=1885
http://www.alfassa.com/jihad_victory2.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/40-year-old-masjid-manhattan-caught-ground-zero-mosque-debate-2649279.html
http://txlady706.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/ground-zero-cordoba-mosque-developer-wont-sign-%E2%80%9Cfreedom-pledge%E2%80%9D/
http://soccerdad.baltiblogs.com/archives/2010/08/20/objectors_not_bigots.html
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/08/ground-zero-mos-2.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/19/2010-08-19_rudy_giuliani_former_new_york_city_mayor_speaks_out_against_ground_zero_mosque.html?r=ny_local
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/islamic-supremacist-mega-mosque-at-ground-zero-may-be-getting-cash-from-iran.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ground_zero_mosque_us_muslims


There is a lot more out there. I can barely keep track of it all. As for requiring links in an argument I understand that on one hand, but there has to be a limit. There are plenty of people who use links the other way. They pick one link apart and use that to tear down your entire premise. They essentially never planned to have an open mind anyway. They just wanted a corner they could tear at to try to discredit you. Worse of all they wanted you to do all the work instead of hunting for refuting links themselves. You have to watch for these people. Tell them if they wish to refute they should go fetch their own proof instead of trying to abuse yours.

Also important is you can't always just go fetch some things. If you saw it on the TV news there are times you can't go back and fetch it. There needs to be a modest level of latitude allowed for more basic stuff. I can certainly agree that for controversial points or really damning claims those had better be well documented, but when you need links to just open the door I just walk off. Lazy jerks won't even accept general info without me having to fetch grows old soon.

[CharlieBrown]

I love the that you bring "local sovereignty". Local sovereignty doesn't mean jack crap in the face of federal law. Did the Little Rock Nine have to bow to the public opinions of the local? Just because the majority believes one thing is right over the other doesn’t make it so. That is a basic fallacy and an argument cannot be proven right in such a way. One has the right to gather peaceably and also has the right of freedom of religion. How many times do I have to state this fact? Do we need to have another civil war to reestablish the Federal Law’s superiority?

I also love that you said "conservative redneck attitude". You are the first one to bring these words up in this debate. I never mentioned any wing of the political spectrum and will reiterate that I believe that there is a distrust in Muslims by the general population of America. There is no specific side that is immune to fear of what they don‘t know. Ex. Most black people vote to the left yet most black people in Cali voted against supporting the right for gays to marry.

Also, let me state that many generalize an entire population by a few vocal radicals. Ex. some people of the left or the right generalize the other side of the aisle by the words of extremist. I don’t believe that every republican is a fascist and I would like to believe that not everyone one the right believes that we on the left are commies. Not every Christian takes the word of the Bible literally. Why can't that be said about the Muslims? Compared to modern ethics and morals the Bible is an affront to both. So is the Koran when taken literally. But many Christians are able to believe in equal rights for women and an abolishment of slavery even if the Bible doesn't necessarily support these points. So why should one believe that Muslims can't do the same? Why can't they forsake aged religious beliefs for the modern ethics that we strive to?

If you haven’t guessed by now I am an atheist. I believe that what Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, ect believe is mostly bullshit but unlike a lot atheist I don’t think every person of religion is absolutely moronic. I have known many who are completely reasonable, mostly logical, people. Many aren’t fundamentalist is what I’m trying to say. Many choose to think for themselves and I don’t see why that should be isolated to only a few religions. Not every Christian wants to blow up an abortion clinic. So why should I believe that every Muslim wants to blow up the Willis Tower?

(For those of you who don’t know the Sears Tower was renamed Willis Tower)

[JuntaJoe]

Do we need another civil war to deal with Federal sovereignty?

Maybe we do. Washington is far too deep into our lives. I'm hoping that a strong enough force of governors and state sponsored amending of the Constitution lets us avoid that because I see the fissures forming that will tear us apart.

Seriously Washington, get off my lawn! :x


Please don't take my "conservative redneck attitude" comment out of context. The mainstream press pundits frequently point to the reaction of "middle America" as being the prime source of this backlash, while completely ignoring what the local NYC polls show. My point was if the casual, cosmopolitan, and liberal sensibilities of NYC precisely mirror the far more conservative parts of the country then this issue has moved beyond the usual tents we Americans like to group ourselves under. The antipathy involved against this mosque proposal has forged a rallying cry that transcends our usual differences and has united most of us against it. So this clearly isn't an event driven by a few radical voices. Never has a radical voice in America garnered such a majority of Americans to their banner. If anything it is the radicals that cause fracturing into even smaller groups as the majority steps away from those extreme voices. If any radical voices are heard in this issue you can simply label them as camp followers who are catching the wave that the majority is creating on its own. This backlash to the mosque is assuredly grassroots in origin, no matter what special interest group tries to hitch its wagon to it.


As for the idea that Islam is like all other religions with its usual collection of radicals, I say we can't believe that. Just about every major world religion holds truth as holy. Mind you truth is a relative term used here and two religions can hold differing ideas on what the "real truth" is. But both religions would tell you that its followers should wear their truth proudly in the face of adversity. Your belief and unwavering support is the right thing to do and will be rewarded either on earth or in the afterlife.

Islam differs from that standard all other religions use. Islam allows the lie to the outsider in order to cement your power into his midst. You are permitted to lay down the words and tenets of Islam if your ultimate goal is to increase Islam's power base. You need only give fealty secretly in your heart, no matter what your outside words and actions tell others. Thou shalt not lie is supposedly inviolate in all of the religions of Abraham, but Islam gives an official pass if your ultimate goal is to subvert other religions.

In other words, Islam by definition is a liar to the rest of us. It is official written doctrine laid down by Mohamed to increase the hold of his religion.

So in order to halfway believe a Muslim when they tell you they are a peaceful religion you must require them to officially renounce portions of their faith in front of the other Muslims in their community. To believe an Imam you must expect an edict issued that renounces portions of Mohamed's gospel and make that integral to their preachings to their flock. Dissembling that is not necessary is simply proof they are not ready for their own personal reformation.

Martin Luther risked everything to renounce his religion and expose the flaws of his faith. His followers did the same. They paid with their lives by the multitudes. Only one price was too much to pay and that price was to lie to hide how they felt. Death, exile, torture, caste reduction, etc. All were the price of saying what they really felt to the rest of the world.

So until I see followers and clerics of Islam loudly renounce sections of their faith as wrong I must assume they lie to me about their intentions.

Al-Taqiyya. Look it up. Until it is expunged from Islam we all live under the threat of subversion and sedition.


Also, I noted earlier about the other mosque nearby with 40 years of serving that small community. Because of the uproar their lease expired and were not allowed to renew. They are trying desperately to get another lease nearby, but aren't having any luck. They have been forced to gather near their old site and worship on the sidewalk. This is causing them no small amount of grief. Had this new mosque been willing to move or give up the idea this small mosque likely would have had their lease renewed or found something else nearby without much issue. The locals were fine with it and have gone out of their way to protect this small group, but the future looks grim. The new mosque is hurting the local Muslims and yet Cordoba keeps forging ahead. What kind of religious leader runs roughshod over fellow faithful simply to get the prestige he so craves?

[NibbyCat]

I appreciated the links. I understand what you say about if you see something on a bunch of news outlets, you can't really point to one. However, you have to take into account the source of the information.

On some of your points, though, I found this one site that debunks the ones that gave me the most reason to wonder about the motives of the mosque organizers. FactCheck.org

I'm not psychic, I don't know what the organizers are really thinking, what their intent is. While there apparently is a need for another mosque in the general area, the proximity does bother me. I don't think they're actively planning something, but surely they had to have considered how it would be perceived by the general populace. Was that site truly the only one available when they were property shopping?

[JuntaJoe]

I read it, Nibby, and they cover only a few questions.

Mosque or not?

Distance to WTC?

Other mosques nearby?

Opening 9/11/11?

Evidence on the Imam?

Where's the money coming from?


Let's look at these a bit. It is important to note the time frame on a few of these things and I'll explain each time.


Mosque or not? Time frame is relevant here. The Imam's press release is only stating what the name is now. But they filed to build quite a while ago. When paperwork was filed with the zoning board what was the building title then? All FactCheck is doing is grabbing the current press release by the Imam's group after the furor started. FactCheck noted also that a building permit was filed for, but even today they have no listed architect, engineer, or designer listed. No blueprints on record either. That's just smoke and mirrors. To build on a strictly limited site with supposedly grand ambitions for the building and they have no design, blueprints, or building professional? Impossible. More like they do not want the architect or engineer to talk to the press. It also is buying them time to shuffle the design around to reflect their current public posture after all the noise was started.

Distance to WTC? FactCheck Pointed out the distance is about the length of a football field or a small neighborhood park. Something you could shout across. Yes, if NYC was quiet for a second a person could holler from the proposed site to Ground Zero. Close enough a good belly laugh could cover the distance or the unaided call to daily Islamic prayer.......

Other mosques nearby? Yes and this new mosque is causing them problems in a big way. These older mosques were legitimate neighbors on the day of attack. They have stayed good neighbors and have repudiated this new mosque. The only reason there might be a need for a new mosque is because the new one is pissing off landlords enough to evict existing mosque tenants. That's happening to one mosque already! The case for the need for a bigger one is taken directly from the Imam's website. There was no study done. No other mosques were asked. The neighborhood wasn't polled. So FactCheck is simply taking the Imam's word that a new one is needed.

Opening 9/11/11? Again, just the public release info from the Imam. Yet another time sensitive point. So he says it will not be 9/11/11 now, but what about before people began hollering? FactCheck didn't investigate prior announced opening dates.

Evidence on the Imam? The biggest part of the story and also a big bunch of hearsay from a few sources, primarily the Imam and his supporters. The man is in bed with Obama too. He spends most of his time on US taxpayer funded junkets paid by the State department. It also keeps the Imam conveniently out of town most of the time. I put almost no credence in the defense given for the Imam by his fanboys.

Where's the money coming from? FactCheck put up a big goose egg on this one. Just buying the land takes a fat pile of cash and requires deep pocket investors, but the Imam is putting up the facade the money isn't there yet and he's as poor as a church mouse hoping for a handout. Yeah, right.....


Honestly Nibby, that FAQ looked like it was cranked out by a junior staffer in an afternoon who heard some of the hearsay about the Imam being a saint and then running to the Imam's website and google maps to flesh it out. There was no serious digging involved. Where are the zoning board interviews? Where are the interviews of the area locals, including those that go to those other mosques? Where is the digging on the prior iterations of the foundation's name? Who is on the foundation board? Who has paid for the groundwork so far?

What about all those other unanswered questions of mine as well?


I've seen better in-depth reporting from a local tv station on school board corruption. I don't see the effort being made for that article. Straight up, I could write a better defense piece for the Imam and mosque in a day, if I wanted to.

I'm not saying FactCheck is covering for the Imam. I'm saying they didn't bother with any real effort on the matter. It wasn't a priority for them to do anything more than a fast fluff piece.

[NibbyCat]

Ah, this is what happens when I read things after work, at 2 am. I had missed that the bit about the need for another mosque, that there was some over crowding at prayer times, came from the organization's site.

It did seem odd that they wouldn't have some sort of plans, even an artist's rendering, when they made the announcement of their intent. While in and of itself not a sign of malicious intent, it does show lack of organization.

The fact that a call to prayer would be audible at ground zero is part of my concern on proximity. Most mosques use some sort of PA system instead of human lung power, these days. Again, it's not a sign of malicious intent, but a lack of consideration of people's feelings.

I've been reading and re-reading the issues of Time and Newsweek on it, I didn't get the answers you seek, but, to be honest, my work schedule has me running at a sleep deficit, I can't process long passages to get to the nugget of information I need or want. Not quite teal deer, but more like "too long, can't comprehend". I can't be sure if they covered it or not. I need the Reader's Digest version of the Reader's Digest Version. ~grin~

[JuntaJoe]

After perusing it again I noted several referrals to Politico, a centrist-left news outlet. They aren't "in the bag" like MSNBC or CNN, but they won't hammer the left unless it is all too obvious.

My guess is someone at FactCheck decided there needed to be an official entry for this. So they pawned the job off on a new-ish staffer. The staffer read a Politico article on the Imam's character and then the staffer looked at the Imam's website. A fast check of google maps too. That's the limit of the research done, imo. Plagiarism from two sources that won't put the Imam in a bad light. Snopes style investigation it is not.

As for building plans the sheer scope of building such a place requires someone to evaluate the site for suitability. Can the ground hold such a structure. No one buys Manhattan property with intent to build a structure on a whim. What if the site had some kind of liability that would preclude a mass gathering place. Toxic waste, asbestos, radon, ground sublimation, lack of sufficient municipal utilities access, etc. You just don't plop down millions for a plot of land with an an ancient and attached building in Manhattan without doing professional evaluation. Those evaluations are required by zoning commissions. I could see them saying they haven't finished the designs completely, but the basics had to be done in order to spend the kind of cash to buy the property and file with the city. To say they haven't done that yet tells me that they are choosing to keep that info away from investigations. If I wanted to take a stab at it I would guess the people who did the prelim work were foreigners. People sent by the monetary backers from Islamic countries. That doesn't mean they couldn't do a proper job as there are untold numbers of competent building professionals in the Islamic world, but their origin would only add fuel to the controversy if their names were made public. So the Imam is lying about these evaluators and the extent of the plans to keep people from poking their nose in. Just imagine if some rich Saudi backers insisted on sending a few engineers that worked for the biggest Saudi construction firm.....Bin Laden. While the company is very reputable and skilled the name alone would create mass hysteria here.


The reason you don't find many hard answers, Nibby, is because it is clear to me the Imam is currently in emergency PR mode. They also knew from the beginning the idea would be risky. So they limited info right from the outset and are currently trying to change the public perception through friendly intermediaries. That the Imam or any registered official from his front group doesn't come out in public with actual paperwork and financial data says a lot to me. No one does that kind of snow job if they have nothing to hide.

They tried to stealth their way in and now they are trying to get time, distance, obfuscation, and proxies to make everything die down so they can proceed.