The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Suspicious Fire Damages Tennessee Mosque Construction Site
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A spokesman for federal arson investigators said Sunday a fire that damaged construction equipment at the site of an Islamic center in suburban Nashville remained under investigation.
Related
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Eric Kehn said his department was working with the FBI and the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office to determine what happened at the site early Saturday morning.
"At this point, it's still an onging investigation," Kehn said. He declined to characterize the fire, which a spokeswoman for the center said appeared to have been set by someone who doused construction equipment with gasoline then set at least one truck ablaze.
Camie Ayash told the Daily News Journal the fire has frightened Muslims, who have been part of the community for decades.
"Everyone in our community no longer feels safe," Ayash said. "To set a fire that could have blown up equipment and, God forbid, spread and caused damage to the neighbors there ... When (officials) called me this morning, I started crying."
A sign marking the site of the future Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been vandalized twice in the past several months. But Ayash said the fire "takes it to a whole new level."
The incident marks the latest twist in an increasingly volatile debate surrounding the efforts of the local Muslim community to build a much larger house of worship. The proposed center on 15 acres would include a mosque, a multi-purpose facility, sports facilities, a pavilion and a cemetery, and serve approximately 250 families.
Digging had begun at the site, located directly beside a Baptist church.
Some opposition has come from those expressing concerns about infrastructure impact and traffic, but much has also come from from those implying the mosque would be a haven for terrorists.
Ayash said Islamic Center officials were contacted by the sheriff's department around 1:30 a.m. Saturday.
She said it appeared gasoline had been poured on several pieces of equipment at the site and one vehicle was lit on fire.
"I think they lifted the hood and poured gas into the hood and set it on fire," Ayash said. "The other equipment had gasoline poured on it but was not set on fire."
Authorities working the scene did not specify whether gasoline or some other accelerant was used to start the fire that gutted the engine area of an earth hauler.
Islamic Center officials contacted the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Saturday, according to Ayash, and sheriff's investigators "told us they will be investigating this as a hate crime."
Ayash later said sheriff's officials "asked her to correct her statement," adding they plan to explore several different motives while investigating the apparent arson.
Rutherford County resident Kevin Fisher, who has led protest efforts against the mosque on the grounds of infrastructure concerns and a lack of transparency in the county's planning approval process, issued a statement Saturday.
"We in this community believe strongly in the rule of law, and choose to settle our disagreements through peaceful deliberations and discussion, not vigilantism. ... We who stand in opposition to this mosque have made our concerns known through proper legal channels and have conducted ourselves with dignity, respect and out of a spirit of love for our community, and we will continue to do so."
___
Information from: The Daily News Journal, http://www.dnj.com
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Related
- Fire strikes future site
- Feds investigate fire at site of future Tennessee mosque
- Arson suspected in fire at proposed mosque in Tennessee, federal ag...
- Arson Suspected in Tennesee Islamic Center Fire
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesman Eric Kehn said his department was working with the FBI and the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office to determine what happened at the site early Saturday morning.
"At this point, it's still an onging investigation," Kehn said. He declined to characterize the fire, which a spokeswoman for the center said appeared to have been set by someone who doused construction equipment with gasoline then set at least one truck ablaze.
Camie Ayash told the Daily News Journal the fire has frightened Muslims, who have been part of the community for decades.
"Everyone in our community no longer feels safe," Ayash said. "To set a fire that could have blown up equipment and, God forbid, spread and caused damage to the neighbors there ... When (officials) called me this morning, I started crying."
A sign marking the site of the future Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been vandalized twice in the past several months. But Ayash said the fire "takes it to a whole new level."
The incident marks the latest twist in an increasingly volatile debate surrounding the efforts of the local Muslim community to build a much larger house of worship. The proposed center on 15 acres would include a mosque, a multi-purpose facility, sports facilities, a pavilion and a cemetery, and serve approximately 250 families.
Digging had begun at the site, located directly beside a Baptist church.
Some opposition has come from those expressing concerns about infrastructure impact and traffic, but much has also come from from those implying the mosque would be a haven for terrorists.
Ayash said Islamic Center officials were contacted by the sheriff's department around 1:30 a.m. Saturday.
She said it appeared gasoline had been poured on several pieces of equipment at the site and one vehicle was lit on fire.
"I think they lifted the hood and poured gas into the hood and set it on fire," Ayash said. "The other equipment had gasoline poured on it but was not set on fire."
Authorities working the scene did not specify whether gasoline or some other accelerant was used to start the fire that gutted the engine area of an earth hauler.
Islamic Center officials contacted the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Saturday, according to Ayash, and sheriff's investigators "told us they will be investigating this as a hate crime."
Ayash later said sheriff's officials "asked her to correct her statement," adding they plan to explore several different motives while investigating the apparent arson.
Rutherford County resident Kevin Fisher, who has led protest efforts against the mosque on the grounds of infrastructure concerns and a lack of transparency in the county's planning approval process, issued a statement Saturday.
"We in this community believe strongly in the rule of law, and choose to settle our disagreements through peaceful deliberations and discussion, not vigilantism. ... We who stand in opposition to this mosque have made our concerns known through proper legal channels and have conducted ourselves with dignity, respect and out of a spirit of love for our community, and we will continue to do so."
___
Information from: The Daily News Journal, http://www.dnj.com
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
"Perhaps you should have a better working relationship with your LE then. Here we don't have the issue often of worrying about personal speculations or "as far as I know". If there is an issue with a place, we are informed. Wierd how that works."
That's B.S., John. We have a great relationship with our law enforcement. That doesn't mean that they're going to tell anyone not involved in an investigation the details. If your law enforcement lets people not involved with an investigation know about it, sooner or later one of the non-L.E. people is going to blow the case for them.
I do quite a bit of training with people from all over the country, and the general consensus is that L.E. does not brief fire, EMS, or anyone else about their ongoing investigations. Without said briefings, NO incident rises to the standard of proof you want. That goes against the basics of firefighter safety. You don't always know the dangers for sure.
In the case of firefighter safety, reasonable suspicion is enough to make the "risk" side of the risk-benefit equation more important and the "benefit" less important, particularly when no life is involved other than the firefighters.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
The whole point about an informed source such as LE, is that it would tend to be more accurate than a speculation of a house of worship meerly because of the religion.
That is what the response is about, the inquiry of why even state "As far as I know, there aren't extremists there" So what? The same damn thing can be said about the Baptist church, why make it an issue other than one based off of stereotype? Point is the size up will be the determination.
In the case of firefighter safety, reasonable suspicion is enough to make the "risk" side of the risk-benefit equation more important and the "benefit" less important
And hence the word REASONABLE. Just because the house of worship would be a mosque, is there really any more reasonable suspicion there than a Baptist church?
-
-
"What's the matter Ben, didn't read the article so it is just me spreading such inflammatory remarks?" That is a straw man logical fallacy.
If there are any strawmen here, they are clearly being perpetuated by you. You responded to my opinion and educated guess as spreading INFLAMMATORY SPECULATION that this would be a hate crime. Whereas, had you actually read the article, you would have clearly seen that Islamic Center officials contacted the FBI and Department of Homeland Security on Saturday, according to Ayash, and sheriff's investigators "told us they will be investigating this as a hate crime."
Yet, somehow I am the one spreading such strawman fallacies. Sorry Ben, your credibility here is seriously lacking.
Nowhere did I say that it was "just you" spreading inflammatory remarks. Just because you have company doesn't make them less inflammatory.
Oh so this wasn't your response then?
Reply by Ben Waller 1 day ago
No, John, you speculated and generalized. How about waiting until there is some evidence that this actually was some kind of hate crime before throwing out inflammatory speculation?
Funny, I don't see you mentioning anyone else, nor do I see you mentioning the article. Maybe this is just a straw man, right? Maybe someone else responding under your log in.
-
-
Members of the Murfreesboro Islamic Center seem to agree with me. They're not convinced that the perpetrators were even locals.
How does that have anything to do with agreeing with you. Did I ever mention anywhere that this was perpetuated by locals? It wouldn't matter if the suspects were from Nome, AK, the investigations and pursuit of justice would be the same. One doesn't have to be local to commit a crime, nor even hate. How is it you do not know this?
-
-
My point is that hate crime "kicker" is bad law.
Not what you said. This is what you did say:
Crime is crime. It doesn't matter if any alleged hate is involved or not. If it's arson, then it's arson.
It doesn't matter if you think the hate crime "kicker" is a bad law, the law is the law.....or do you get to pick and choose which ones you want to follow? I'm sure there are people who don't think women should have a right to vote, but the law is the law, is it not?
The results of the crime are the same, regardless of the motive.
The results of an arson don't become magically worse just because of differing motives
No, the results don't get worse, but the motive does matter. It is one thing for arson to be committed for fraud, to collect money and one to instill fear, threaten, or harm another person.
If two similar arsons with similar damage occur, both of the perps are convicted, but one gets a hate crime kicker attached, then that violates the "Equal Justice Under The Law" provision of the U.S. Constitution.
Goes to the motive as I just mentioned.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
John,
I have to agree with the Chief on this;
"The results of the crime are the same, regardless of the motive."
If you pick up a gun and kill someone, they are dead and it's murder.
If you pick up a gun to admire it, it accidentally discharges and they are dead, it's murder.
It shouldn't matter that one was intentional and the other was accidental, "The results of the crime are the same, regardless of the motive."
Moreover, only the end result should be considered. It shouldn't matter whether you kill someone with a gun, car, or failure to fix that loose step on your front porch. If a person ends up dead then the penalty should be the same, "The results of the crime are the same, regardless of the motive."
-
-
John,
Just because I didn't mention anyone else in a post directed at you doesn't mean that I think you're the only one using the tactics for which I called you out.
Nowhere did I state that - YOU did. That makes the straw man your responsibility.
I gave a specific opinion about what you posted, I didn't attribute it to anyone else, and I made it clear that I said it.
You need to learn the definition of "straw man" before you use the term in a way that clearly doesn't fit the definition.
-
-
Let's see, John, the top-line post included details about locals questioning the mosque site based on "infrastructure and traffic", and includes discussion of a previous act of vandalism at the site.
Then you go on to talk about "homegrown terrorists" and "the KKK" in the state where the KKK was founded, and then talk about how that kind of terrorism used to be directed at African-Americans and civil rights workers, and is now - according to you - directed at Muslims.
And you're not accusing locals of the alleged arson...RRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT! Get back to me when you learn the definition of "innuendo".
-
-
Bad laws are changed all the time. It's time to change this particular bad law.
Please explain how it's worse to burn a truck because due to disliking some person or group than it is to burn an identical truck for profit, for sick gratification, or because the perp is drunk or stoned and did something stupid???
"Hate crime" is a manufactured escalation of something for which there is adequate punishment without it.
And John, your comment about picking which laws to follow has nothing to do with this, because we're not talking about that at all. We're talking about the need to change a very bad law.
-
-
Jack, you're talking about the difference between an intentional act and an accident, which is not the same thing as what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about an unfair difference in the level of punishment for the same intentional act, with no accident involved.
I'm not asking for accidents to be judged as crimes - just that similar crimes have similar punishments.
-
-
Then you go on to talk about "homegrown terrorists" and "the KKK" in the state where the KKK was founded, and then talk about how that kind of terrorism used to be directed at African-Americans and civil rights workers, and is now - according to you - directed at Muslims.
Do you understand what a comparison is Ben? My remarks about the KKK is in response to the question posed by Jim in the very first post of this thread where he asks about fighting a fire at the mosque near where he lives, and I quote:
"Would I fight a fire there as hard as I would at my own Baptist Church? As far as I know....Because as far as I know, this mosque does not house a radical fundamentalist group."
Now the comparison to the KKK is because they are not Muslim and religious affiliation can be Christian in nature. Henceforth the chance that in Jim's very own Baptist church, there could be members of the KKK. The whole line of questioning goes towards integrity because there could be radical fundamentalists associated with any place of worship.
And you're not accusing locals of the alleged arson...RRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT! Get back to me when you learn the definition of "innuendo".
Really? How about getting back to me when you learn the definition of "Accusation".
Way to take a leap to think that because I made mention of the KKK that I am blaming this incident on the locals. Talk about Straw Man and I am actually appalled that a so called chief would seriously stoop this low. This is way out of line to make such an accusation. Can you really go any lower? Can you?
I never once mentioned I thought this was done by locals. I clearly stated this could have been perpetuated by anyone. Just remember it was you taking the leap to accuse me the way you are here. I truly lost a lot of respect for you right there, I can't believe you would resort that freaking low. I sure hope to hell you are ashamed of yourself for stating that.
-
-
Please explain how it's worse to burn a truck because due to disliking some person or group than it is to burn an identical truck for profit, for sick gratification, or because the perp is drunk or stoned and did something stupid???
Because one can allude to instilling fear or threaten others whereas the others don't.
"Hate crime" is a manufactured escalation of something for which there is adequate punishment without it.
Adequate punishment without? So a person is convicted of murder and sentenced but has a chance of parole after XX years. However, because the victim was killed simply because of their lifestyle or religious beliefs, etc a hate crime kicker is applied and the person gets no chance of parole. What if the victim was one of your own family?
And John, your comment about picking which laws to follow has nothing to do with this, because we're not talking about that at all. We're talking about the need to change a very bad law.
You said it is a bad law, your opinion, go forth and fight to change it for all your worth, but just remember, even if you may feel it is a bad law, it is still the law. Which still makes this comment....
Crime is crime. It doesn't matter if any alleged hate is involved or not. If it's arson, then it's arson.....wrong.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
