In an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien last night, Feisal Abdul Rauf claimed that U.S. national security depends on the building of the Ground Zero Mosque. Here (via the Corner) is the key part of the interview:

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation-

O’BRIEN: What’s the risk? When you say “national security,” what’s the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides — you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

* * * *

If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world.

If Rauf is correct, then he has placed the security of the United States in jeopardy through his in-your-face drive to build the mosque at this location. But I doubt that Rauf’s purported concern has any substantial factual basis.

More likely, Rauf is concerned about the consequences for Rauf of backing down on the mosque. Doing so would diminish his credibility in the Arab world, particularly among its more radcial elements whose good side Rauf consistently attempts to remain (probably because he shares many of their goals). That’s a price I’d be willing to pay.

As for U.S. interests, the real threat here is the ability of anti-American, sharia supporting Muslims like Rauf to leverage their demands for concessions within the U.S. through claims of dire consequences if we do not comply.

Rauf is an old hand at this. Recall his claim that the U.S. was “an accomplice” to 9/11 by virtue of its foreign policy. This represented, in effect, a demand that the U.S. change its foreign policy or else face more deadly attacks.

Thus, we have an additional reason, if any were needed, to strive, within the limits of the law, to prevent the building of the Ground Zero Mosque.

Apologists will insist Islamic warfare forbids the killing of “innocents,” and hope listeners will project their own cultural understanding of the term onto what they are hearing. In practice, the discussion of “innocents” in jihad attacks all too easily becomes an elaborate shell game relative to concept’s usefulness in advancing Islam’s agenda at the moment — i.e., whether or not the casualties are bad enough for business (note how Hamas always seems to get a pass). Ultimately, it is informed in spirit by the Qur’an’s dehumanization of unbelievers as “apes and swine” (Qur’an 2:63-66; 5:59-60; and 7:166) and the “vilest of creatures” (98:6).

As such, the victims in this market were apparently not innocent enough for this jihadist attack. “Suicide attack in Russia kills 17, wounds over 130,” by Sergei Venyavsky for the Associated Press, September 9:

ROSTOV-ON-DON, Russia – A suicide car bomber hit the central market of a major city in Russia’s North Caucasus on Thursday, killing at least 17 and wounding more than 130 people in one of the worst attacks in the volatile region in years, officials said.

The attacker detonated his explosives as he drove by the main entrance to the Vladikavkaz market, according to the Emergency Situations Ministry.

At least 17 people, including the suicide bomber, were killed and 133 were wounded in the explosion, said Alexander Pogorely of the Emergency Situations Ministry’s branch in southern Russia. He said 98 of the injured were hospitalized, many in grave condition.

Russian television stations showed a shrapnel-littered square in front of the market, with blood stains on the pavement and rows of vehicles scarred by the blast.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sent his regional envoy to Vladikavkaz to help coordinate efforts to help the victims. He urged the investigators to “do everything to track down the beasts, the scoundrels who conducted that terror attack.”

No one has immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing, which was the deadliest such attack in the region since a double suicide bombing killed 12, mostly police officers, in the province of Dagestan in April. Twin suicide bombings on Moscow subway in March killed 40 people and wounded over 100.

The market and its surrounding blocks has been the target of several bomb attacks over the past dozen years, in which scores of people have died.

Vladikavkaz is the capital of the Russian republic of North Ossetia. Although it is less plagued by violence than some other republics in the region such as Chechnya and Dagestan, North Ossetia has experienced ethnic tensions and frequent attacks.

Which ethnicity is Islam again?

Read the original story at Jihad Watch.

That said, I’d like to point out that I find it hilariously funny, and all too typical, of the reaction from not just the left, but everybody. Here we have this little known hillbilly Christian church planning to make a statement on the anniversary of 9/11 by burning the Islamic Q’uran. And like clockwork, because it is a Christian church, we have a tidal wave of objection coming from every which way. Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus, Bloomberg, Gibbsy, Angelina Jolie, The Vatican. Everyone is eager to voice their opinion on how hateful and intolerant and *gasp* extremist this church is. Maybe so. But where are all you left wingers now to shout to the world of the wonderful freedoms of the 1st amendment like you so often do? You do it for those who burn the flag. You do it for those that spit on the Bible. You do it for those that want to build a victory mosque over sacred ground. You do it for militant homosexual rights protesters, terrorist detainees, convicted murderers, and illegal immigrants who openly criticize this nation. Where are the rights of this church to burn the Q’uran? Have they none just because they are Christian? If this was a group of atheists burning Bibles it would be “free speech”. What a joke.

Like I said earlier, I don’t think this is good strategy, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with burning a book that inspires hate and breeds actions that slaughter thousands of innocent people worldwide. It should be done more often.