None of what you post are facts. They're your opinions.
No those are the facts sport.
Here's a link to the full 60 minutes transcript along with the relevant portion:
Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?
Faisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam
Here's him refusing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization:
According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."
Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.
"The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.
"There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."
Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.
"I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy," Rauf said, insisting that he wants to see peace in Israel between Jews and Arabs.
Rauf also would not answer a question about Egypt's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.
"I have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. My father was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood," he said, disputing a rumor.
Muslim Imam leading push to build a mosque near Ground Zero wavers on questions about Hamas as a terror group - NYPOST.com
Here's the link to the Podcast of the interview which starts about 13 minutes in:
News Talk Radio 77 WABC New York
And here is his own article calling for Sharia in the U.S.:
At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
On Faith Panelists Blog: How Islamic Law Can Work - Feisal Abdul Rauf
Were those your opinions of Rauf when he worked for the Bush administration?
They are not opinions they are facts therefor they were facts both during and after this supposed tenure with the Bush Administration.
Here are facts: they legally bought the property. It is their property. They have obtained all legally required codes to procede with their building.
Agreed.
It's not your f'ing right to tell them what they can do on their property. Unless you want to give up that right yourself, then I recommend that you shut up and take it.
No it's our right to protest what they intend to do with that property, it's called freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, it is likewise the right of the workers to refuse to enter into contractual agreements to build the Mosque, that is called the right to self ownership.
Americans DO NOT try to take others property and tell them what to do with it if the building follows legal code.
Nobody is trying to take their property, we are exercising our own rights to try and prevent the Mosque from being built. We are not asking for state intervention and I personally oppose state intervention, this will be handled without anyones property rights being violated. They have the right to own property and practice their religion, we have the right to protest them and to refuse to do the construction work necessary to build their victory Mosque.
While protest is legal, the goal of the protest is to supercede the rights of freedome of association, religion, private property, and eminent domain.
You don't have the right to force people to build something they don't want to build and you don't have the right to tell me not to protest something. We are not violating their rights to freedom of association, religion, or private property, (wtf does eminent domain have to do with this?), they are still free to associate, to practice their religion, and to continue to own this property, what they do not have the right to and never had the right to
ever was to force people to enter into involuntary contracts to build their Mosque, what they never had the right to was to silence the opposition. Property rights are a two way street, they have the right to own that property and individuals retain the right of self ownership and refusal to enter into contracts to sell the labour produced by their own body. You simply can't have this both ways, either you support the first amendment or you don't, either you support property rights or you don't, you can not say you support the property rights and religious freedom of the Mosque proponents while trying to deny the right of assembly, speech, and self ownership to the opponents. Your argument is inconsistent and you are a hypocrite, you couldn't give a damn about property rights or the first amendment because as is now made clear the second someone uses them for an agenda which you oppose you suggest that they should be stopped I assume through the coercive force of the state. Hypocrite.
If I disagree with you (and I do), would you like for me to try to get your church taken down and moved further away from me?
Nope you don't have the right to infringe upon my property rights.
Clearly not.
Can I protest your house because I disagree with you?
So long as you stay on public property and abide by the state and local codes pertaining to freedom of assembly and speech. Protesting my house would be quite difficult considering that I live in a privately owned residential community; wherein, organized protests are banned under the home owners agreement signed by each member of the community and this would include the privately owned sidewalks and streets within the community.
What if I found out you wanted to live in my neighborhood and I said we needed to investigate you because you've said things I disagree with and I think you could be criminal. Just maybe. Not saying you are, just that you should be checked out. And what if my neighbors believed my propaganda and started protesting you building your home and - even though you'd abtained all legal rights to do so - they continued so loudly that they drove you and your family out?
Woud you say that I and my neighbors were right to do so?
They have the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech so long as they keep on public property, don't step foot on my property, and abide by the various state and local codes for freedom of speech and of assembly; such as, public noise regulations, not to mention they would have to conduct this protest more than 5 blocks away out of site and hearing range as they would not be allowed to conduct such a protest within the private community in which I live; furthermore, if the accusations were not true I would sue you for libel, defamation, and/or slander. Are you suggesting that convicted child predators should not be singled out by the community in which they live?