Opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque should think twice about basing their opposition to it solely on the provocative nature of the proposed site. To say, "They can build it anywhere else" seems like a reasonable compromise, but in the long run it may prove to be a strategic mistake. Once you say that your only objection to the building of a mosque is its location, you've given up the 99 other arguments that can and should be used to prevent the Islamization which regularly accompanies the introduction of a mosque into a community.
Each time a new mosque is proposed—whether it's in Chicago or Atlanta or Pleasantville—its proponents will be quick to remind the opposition of the many previous assurances that the only objection to the New York City mosque was its location. And, of course, local and national media will chime in with the same reminder—along with not-so-subtle suggestions that the real objection to mosques is and always has been nothing but a matter of pure bigotry. Thus, "You can build it anywhere else" is a formula for insuring that future mosque construction in America will be all the more difficult to oppose.
"Location, location, location" may be the first three rules for buying a house, but you don't want to bet the farm on the issue of location—the farm in this case being the jihad resistance movement. Unless you hone the other arguments for a Sharia-free America, you might end up confirming the liberal contention that there are no other arguments. As liberals see it, if you take away the location argument, the only other reason why people would oppose mosques is that they are hopelessly bigoted and ignorant. Thus, the liberal elites may be willing to concede that the people of New York have a point, but from their point of view the people of Pleasantville can have no case at all.