Jump to content

Home

Ground Zero Mosque


jrrtoken
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was being sarcastic. I've had some annoying (admittedly unrelated) cases recently were people didn't listen/read all of what I was saying, but took parts of it and misinterpreted it.
Wasn't me, since you pretty much proved with your last post that I was interpreting you correctly. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was saying that in this one very specific case, and ONLY this case alone, we make one exception to the rule.

...

That's not to say, conveniently ignore the document whenever we want. I only advocate one exception alone.

 

The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for clarifying. I respectfully disagree, and at this point that's all I have to say without repeating myself.

 

That's fair enough.

 

I will say one thing though, I'm going to geuss you're a christian here.

 

If the Iranian government were to block Churchs from being built in Iran (whatever the circumstances) would you think they'd be entitled to do that? :raise:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".

 

Honestly, that can apply to any person in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, once you let politicians make "one exception", whether you want them or not, they're going to make more. And you can bet that they'll do them all in the name of "the will of the American people". There's never a such thing as "just one exception".

True enough, I suppose. I won't contest this point any further.

I will say one thing though, I'm going to geuss you're a christian here.

Sort of. I am actually half-Catholic, half-Buddhist with Jewish ancestry. Also, I am not an active church-goer, as I'm somewhat more individualist about my faith at the present.

If the Iranian government were to block Churchs from being built in Iran (whatever the circumstances) would you think they'd be entitled to do that? :raise:

Well, I'm guessing that they already have that sort of power already. Would it be deserved? I don't know, as I am forming my view by circumstance.

Wasn't me, since you pretty much proved with your last post that I was interpreting you correctly. :)

...

 

No comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic?
I disagree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :confused:

 

[...]and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

 

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?

*sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy, at least as a weapon against total ignorance... I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK *(obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" ) commenting about the name of the town (ok maybe it was after a few beers and a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something - the same idiocy could have easily come out of the mouth of some Canadian fellow countryman - but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing).

 

 

So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?

Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...

 

 

I suppose that makes me a heretic according to the mainstream view of American law, but I was under the impression that we tolerated all views.

Done so, along with the entire Constitution, the Amendments, the Federalist Papers, and a few other gifts for our law makers. Admittedly my memory is not the best, so I admittedly forget the exact wording of certain amendments on occasion..

I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitute hater against some people who do nothing wrong.

 

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. the constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.

 

I am not saying against Muslims or Mosques in general, just THIS MOSQUE.
I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?

 

We haven't even built the Freedom Tower yet, and they're already considering supporting the finances of an act that is very much against the interests and happiness of the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Aren't there any Muslims among the "American people" too? (
So every single act done by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is inherently Satanic? We've done some good there, and it's not like there aren't insurgents pouring in reversing a lot of that good.

 

And yes, that's what they do. We build schools for women, they tear 'em down and brutalize the students. We rescue captives, they use human shields. Need I go on?

 

Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.

 

 

Those who have died for laws, honor, and principles died not so that we'd just have laws, honor, and principles, but so that we'd have them for the benefit of the people.
No, it was also meant to be a safeguard against some mass extremist/stupid moves and guarantee some freedoms and rights tominorites despite that (protect them against the "tyranny" of the majority). Obviously we did not visit the same countries and neither did we read the same history books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :confused:

I presented examples of the US military improving the lives of foreign communities. You wrote:

This is one of the most arrogant and uninformed statement I've read on these boards...at least it's just words...

Therefore, out of slight irritation I assumed that you are implying that the US military is only responsible for heinous acts.

 

Please excuse me, I'm slightly tired of debating about seven people at the same time, having to re-clarify my views for each one, etc..

*sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy, at least as a weapon against total ignorance... I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK *(obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" ) commenting about the name of the town (ok maybe it was after a few beers and a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something - the same idiocy could have easily come out of the mouth of some Canadian fellow countryman - but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing).

Again, this label of ignorance....

Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...

As in, the ability to make a rational exception to a law based upon the situation of the law, the spirit of the law, and some common sense.

I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitute hater against some people who do nothing wrong.

 

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. the constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.

I understand what constitutionality means and how it works. What I am saying is that such a system may not always be functional. When this happens, we should reevaluate.

I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?

Here's the thing: I am establishing my opinion on this matter purely on a situational basis. I am not arguing for a principle that should be applied to all scenarios, my only concern in this debate is the potential Mosque at Ground Zero.

Aren't there any Muslims among the "American people" too? (

Yes, and I am not denying that there aren't. I don't know why people keep bringing this up, as I have no problem with Muslims in the US celebrating their faith. I never had. I welcome them to do so. Just not at Ground Zero. Hell, they can feel free to build one in my town and I'll visit sometime.

Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.

Again, this label of "total ignorance". Maybe I happen to have a different view and set of sources on this issue?

I disaggree with the American invasion but please, let me know where I've said that it was " inherently Satanic", because I don't know :clueless:

 

*sigh* this is where opening history books and traveling - not just as a tourist - comes in handy (I'll always remember this American student in Cambridge, UK - obviously his marks were high enough to have "made it" - comenting about the name of the town (ok maybe after a few beers a dip in the Cam river): "it's funny that people name their small towns after our famous towns" (you have no idea of how much I wanted to hide under something but the Cam river waters weren't too appealing)... at least as a weapon against total ignorance...

 

 

So you are assuming that the slightest flexibility with laws will result in the Third Reich all over again or am I missing something?[`/quote]

Please explain what you mean by this, especially the" flexibility with laws" part. Sorry, must be my Frenchglish...

 

I'm not American but a close neighbour :) I personally tolerate all views unless they are unconstitutional and/or do not constitue hater against some groups of people who do nothing wrong.

 

Still, you do not seem to understand what constitutionality means. The constitution sets the framework. If some law of government action goes against it, then it has to be invalidated. It is that pondering task that is given to judges.

I'm guessing this a copy of your earlier arguments.

No, it was also meant to be a safeguard against some mass extremist/stupid moves and guarantee some freedoms and rights tominorites despite that (protect them against the "tyranny" of the majority). Obviously we did not visit the same countries and neither did we read the same history books.

I agree with the latter statement.

I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should the majority of reasonable people pay for some extremists? (I'm saying this as a Christian too)

I believe this is also copy of an earlier part of your post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presented examples of the US military improving the lives of foreign communities.

 

Therefore, out of slight irritation I assumed that you are implying that the US military is only responsible for heinous acts.

 

It was my understanding that you see as improving lives of foreign communities as imposing a certain type of view/way of doing things without regard to the particulars such as history/culture/people/local politics, needs, groups, etc... Did it ever cross your mind that what may be suitable to one may not be fit for the other? That it might just create a huge mess, amongst others? The IMF policies were already very biased...

 

*Please excuse me, I'm slightly tired of debating about seven people at the same time, having to re-clarify my views for each one, etc...
So we all are.

 

Again, this label of ignorance......

Hmmm don't you submit to the majority's views?

 

As in, the ability to make a rational exception to a law based upon the situation of the law, the spirit of the law, and some common sense.
And this rationale comes from?

If I understand your previous argument, majority = automatic common sense even if it makes no sense and if people are uninformed/misinformed? (sorry for the non-sense but how can one answer to such an absurd situation late at night other than by more non-sense...hum...that was not meant to be a question but a mere comment.) Constitution = safeguard.

 

 

I still don't get on what rationale basis....if we were to look at all the crimes Christians or Muslims have committed, I would have to say no to all Churches in my neighbourhood...the same goes with Mosquees...Why should all reasonable people pay for some extremists?]

Here's the thing: I am establishing my opinion on this matter purely on a situational basis. I am not arguing for a principle that should be applied to all scenarios, my only concern in this debate is the potential Mosque at Ground Zero....
And the answer is???

 

 

Yes, and I am not denying that there aren't. I don't know why people keep bringing this up, as I have no problem with Muslims in the US celebrating their faith. I never had. I welcome them to do so. Just not at Ground Zero. Hell, they can feel free to build one in my town and I'll visit sometime.

So why not at ground Zero, then?

 

Oh boy...Just as starters, comparing Afganistan and Irak shows your total ignorance of the Middle East situation.]

Again, this label of "total ignorance". Maybe I happen to have a different view and set of sources on this issue?.

Obviously ( I watch them in four languages)...I also watch Fox news once in while but I still don't know if I do it for laughs or cries though.

 

I believe this is also copy of an earlier part of your post. :)
Right! At least we agree on something!

 

Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.
Is this meant to be poetry or some type of heroic statement? :confused:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we don't know for a fact that the mujahedeen would have shut down after their war with the Soviets if we had supplied them money. It may be perfectly possible that they would have used it to take over as they did anyway (admittedly after much infighting leading to the rule of the even more extremist Taliban).

Obviously they wouldn't have shut down - because they wouldn't have been getting the money in the first place. Afghanistan after the Soviet War did not have a government in place to receive the aid, what it needed was a secure government with sound infrastructure and a complete disbanding of the mujahedeen.

 

So we must follow the Constitution to the absolute letter or we'll become a military junta?

Following a constitution to the letter happens to be why most of those are written. Violating them, one by one, in the interest of the People, has resulted in totalitarianism.

 

France is actually considering a ban on the burka in order to protect women's rights. Will they automatically become a totalitarian state as a result?

I don't support France's burqa law in the first place, but if it came into place (or has come into place, I don't remember), then it could very well be on that path. Switzerland, IIRC, passed a bizarre bill banning minarets in the country. So much for direct democracy.

 

I suppose, but you'll have to have more or less 24/7 surveillance around the thing, and that could just provoke an even stronger outcry. There are already extremist elements in the Right that could use this as further justification of their views (which are essentially that the Administration supports our enemies).

Actually, police protection and (indirect) 24/7 surveillance happens to be how we secure high-risk areas here. You can let the Right exercise their free speech as much as they like.

 

Though if worst comes to shove the Swiss Guard would be extremely effective....

Usually, the worst comes to worst, and push comes to shove, but if that happened, then yes, only the Swiss Guard can help.

 

This is true, but our representatives are supposed to act on our interests. I know that doesn't usually happen (I've seen the opposite in many cases) because politicians either have to make judgment calls on an issue or they had less pure interests in mind.

Exactly, and so we can bunk the sensationalist "democracy is rule by the people for the people" and make it "democracy is rule by people-elected representatives, for the people", or Anthro̱poi-eklegmenoekpróso̱pocracy.

 

Yes, but sometimes laws meant to regulate behavior cause unforeseeable problems.

I think I've lost the whole argument here, now - what unforeseeable problems are being caused because of the law, again?

 

My point is that I doubt one exception will lead to the transformation of the United States into a fascist dictatorship, military junta, communist oligarchy, or any such totalitarian state. Hitler's Reich, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc., did not occur over night. They were gradual changes caused by a COMPLETE elimination of the previous law.

Applicable to Mao to some extent, and Lenin; Hitler on the other hand, gradually wrested control from the Weimar Republic by instating laws that favoured his philosophy and seamlessly converting a republic into a totalitarian dictatorship. The Germans didn't notice and they didn't care, they went with the flow because it was favourable to them at the given moment.

 

It's purely dependent on what ideology or religion we are talking about. The idea is to oppose validating the goals of whatever extremists have assaulted this country, be it Muslim, Christian, communist, fascist, etc..

And what exactly are the goals of anti-American extremists? It isn't promotion of Islam - that is manageable. It's dismantling the United States - plain and simple. They hate everything there is about America, from the hubris and the decadency, to the imperialism and worlds-police attitude. They want to see the most powerful country in the world razed down to the ground just like the countries the US has razed to the ground. I don't think the Mosque is going to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was my understanding that you see as improving lives of foreign communities as imposing a certain type of view/way of doing things without regard to the particulars such as history/culture/people/local politics, needs, groups, etc...

Incorrect. The only action I support in those countries are:

1) The removal of oppressive governments (the Taliban and Saddam's police state).

2) The reconstruction of those countries (as in public serves like roads, hospitals, etc.).

I do not support any manipulation of foreign cultures.

Did it ever cross your mind that what may be suitable to one may not be fit for the other? That it might just create a huge mess, amongst others? The IMF policies were already very biased...

Yes it crossed my mind. It crosses my mind on multiple occasions, and is often a subject of contemplation for me.

Hmmm don't you submit to the majority's views?

No I don't, but I try to respect those views rather than completely disregard them altogether. That's the point of what I am saying: I am not arguing any notion of "Muslims should conform to American ideals". I am arguing that "we should all respect each others ideals and situation, and our laws should reflect that".

If I understand your previous argument, majority = automatic common sense even if it makes no sense and if people are uninformed/misinformed? (sorry for the non-sense but how can one answer to such an absurd situation late at night other than by more non-sense...hum...that was not meant to be a question but a mere comment.) Constitution = safeguard.

Incorrect. Here's how it works: A culture creates a law to regulate its behavior. Those laws are made by men and are limited in quality by how capable man is. The culture creates amendments to those laws to adapt the laws to situations that culture faces. At some point, a culture may face a scenario where those laws, due to their limitations, are more harmful than good.

 

And the Constitution may be a safeguard, but it can only work so well. It's not perfect or divine, it is a piece of paper with laws written on it. Those laws may be very well-conceived, but they were conceived by limited humans nonetheless.

And the answer is???

As I've said, my answer is to build the Mosque somewhere else so that the interests of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are not supported.

So why not at ground Zero, then?

Because the goal of those terrorists is to institute a global caliphate, and to build a Mosque there is a symbolic victory for them.

Obviously ( I watch them in four languages)...I also watch Fox news once in while but I still don't know if I do it for laughs or cries though.

What does Fox News have to do with anything? I don't watch television news anyway (I still read the news online and sometimes in the local newspaper).

Is this meant to be poetry or some type of heroic statement? :confused:

Neither, just an observation. For example, we abolished alcohol in the US at one point, and the result was that the alcohol industry was driven underground and created a massive economic boost for the crime world.

Obviously they wouldn't have shut down - because they wouldn't have been getting the money in the first place. Afghanistan after the Soviet War did not have a government in place to receive the aid, what it needed was a secure government with sound infrastructure and a complete disbanding of the mujahedeen.

From my understanding the mujahedeen more or less became the government anyway. They were the counter-revolution to the Soviet-backed government that replaced Afghanistan's monarchy.

Following a constitution to the letter happens to be why most of those are written. Violating them, one by one, in the interest of the People, has resulted in totalitarianism.

And always will, no matter what happens?

I don't support France's burqa law in the first place, but if it came into place (or has come into place, I don't remember), then it could very well be on that path. Switzerland, IIRC, passed a bizarre bill banning minarets in the country. So much for direct democracy.

And the various states of America have arbitrary bans as state law (I don't have the list in front of me unfortunately). In the end, they have not made the country totalitarian, people just go about their daily lives and nothing really changes.

Actually, police protection and (indirect) 24/7 surveillance happens to be how we secure high-risk areas here. You can let the Right exercise their free speech as much as they like.

 

Usually, the worst comes to worst, and push comes to shove, but if that happened, then yes, only the Swiss Guard can help.

I suppose if it got to that point, the US would probably just end up in civil war, but that's another thread altogether.

Exactly, and so we can bunk the sensationalist "democracy is rule by the people for the people" and make it "democracy is rule by people-elected representatives, for the people", or Anthro̱poi-eklegmenoekpróso̱pocracy.

I'm guessing you are fluent in Greek.

Applicable to Mao to some extent, and Lenin; Hitler on the other hand, gradually wrested control from the Weimar Republic by instating laws that favoured his philosophy and seamlessly converting a republic into a totalitarian dictatorship. The Germans didn't notice and they didn't care, they went with the flow because it was favourable to them at the given moment.

They didn't care, but I think they did notice. Admittedly, the Germans didn't get a very good deal with the Treaty of Versailles, but that's a discussion for later.

And what exactly are the goals of anti-American extremists? It isn't promotion of Islam - that is manageable. It's dismantling the United States - plain and simple. They hate everything there is about America, from the hubris and the decadency, to the imperialism and worlds-police attitude. They want to see the most powerful country in the world razed down to the ground just like the countries the US has razed to the ground. I don't think the Mosque is going to do that.

No it won't. However, it will be a symbolic victory that will empower them, and the fact that our government is supporting its construction does not help with the relationship between the people and their leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American here.

 

I don't give two $*#* about where the Mosque is. I don't care if it's at Ground Zero. I don't care if it's a million miles away. Our country's values are such that anyone has the right to express their religious views, without persecution, wherever they damn well please. Building a Mosque at the former WTC site is a good thing since it shows that we as a people can move on and still adhere to our original principles instead of blatant fearmongering.

 

I say build it.

 

@LOH- I find your argument....inconsistent. You claim you don't have any problem with Muslims being Muslim, yet you say building a Mosque near GZ is letting the terrorists win. You do realize that there are American citizens who are Muslim who want to practice their religion as is their right under our Constitution, don't you? You do realize that non-Muslims may want to check the Mosque out to gain an appreciation of a different and oft-slandered culture, yes? How does allowing private citizens to buy space and build a Mosque, as is their right, let the terrorists win? (also, who gives a crap whether they do or don't, the threat has been blown seriously out of proportion)

 

By NOT allowing the Mosque to be built there, not only is that blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, but you are essentially telling a not-insignificant section of our citizenry that the majority of the country fears them, hates them, doesn't want to see them, and wants nothing to do with them. That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear. Hate begets hate. Treating American Muslims as second class citizens only breeds hatred and resentment, which lead a few misguided idiots to become terrorists.

 

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

It does not read "Congress shall make.....grievances, unless they are of Middle Eastern descent, are brown, and/or are followers of Islam."

 

Treating the First Amendment as if it does read as such is letting the terrorists win. I don't consider a handful of pissed off Muslims to be a threat to our nation. That would be the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, since they actually vote in elections.

 

Build the Mosque, give ignorant idiots the finger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LOH- I find your argument....inconsistent. You claim you don't have any problem with Muslims being Muslim, yet you say building a Mosque near GZ is letting the terrorists win. You do realize that there are American citizens who are Muslim who want to practice their religion as is their right under our Constitution, don't you?

Yes.

You do realize that non-Muslims may want to check the Mosque out to gain an appreciation of a different and oft-slandered culture, yes?

Yes.

How does allowing private citizens to buy space and build a Mosque, as is their right, let the terrorists win? (also, who gives a crap whether they do or don't, the threat has been blown seriously out of proportion)

1) In this case, it empowers their moral and helps give their existence meaning. The symbolic act of their goals being achieved.

2) I respectfully disagree that this threat is entirely out of proportion. Currently, we are facing the full might of the Taliban (allies and sponsors of Al-Qaeda,) an organization that spans both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are a guerrilla army that is causing significant casualties to the ISAF. Meanwhile, the Iran Revolutionary Guard has provided significant training and finances to other significant terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as many Shiite militant groups in Iraq.

By NOT allowing the Mosque to be built there, not only is that blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, but you are essentially telling a not-insignificant section of our citizenry that the majority of the country fears them, hates them, doesn't want to see them, and wants nothing to do with them.

Yes that may be the case, but on the other hand by allowing the Mosque to be built there you tell the majority of the country that their government doesn't respect their wishes and supports that not-insignificant section of our citizenry over them.

 

I personally identify with neither group, but rather with the whole of the country. I support everyone's right to be here, enjoy the rights of this Constitution, and live out their lives and express their cultures however they want.

 

I am also starting to believe that whether this mosque is built or not, we will be further divided by the event.

That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear. Hate begets hate. Treating American Muslims as second class citizens only breeds hatred and resentment, which lead a few misguided idiots to become terrorists.

And unfortunately, if we ignore the larger part of American citizens, they will become hateful and resentful, and a large number of them will become militants.

 

Ironic, no?

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

It does not read "Congress shall make.....grievances, unless they are of Middle Eastern descent, are brown, and/or are followers of Islam."

I never said that, nor do I support such a notion.

Treating the First Amendment as if it does read as such is letting the terrorists win. I don't consider a handful of pissed off Muslims to be a threat to our nation. That would be the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, since they actually vote in elections.

Unfortunately, BOTH pissed off Muslims and pissed off Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians are a problem.

 

Pissed off Muslims oppress innocents, kill innocents, not to mention use them as human shields to kill US soldiers.

 

Pissed off Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians can do about the same.

 

At the moment, however, the world has more pissed off Muslims. As much as I would like to avoid having an increase in either, this situation can create such depending on who wins.

Build the Mosque, give ignorant idiots the finger.

Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.

 

From my stand point, we have a foreign war on our hands. We do not need violent civil unrest on top of that, nor do our troops out on the battlefield.

 

Granted, we could call in the Swiss Guard as Sabretooth suggests, but they'll be dealing with one big and possibly well-armed mob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when I said that denying the construction of the mosque would probably incite more Islamic terrorism than building the mosque in the first place? Well, I don't want to say "I told you so", but...

 

America’s enemies in Afghanistan are delighted by the vehement public opposition to the proposed “Ground Zero mosque.” The backlash against the project has drawn the heaviest e-mail response ever on jihadi Web sites, Zabihullah claims—far bigger even than France’s ban on burqas earlier this year. (That was big, he recalls: “We received many e-mails asking for advice on how Muslims should react to the hijab ban, and how they can punish France.”) This time the target is America itself. “We are getting even more messages of support and solidarity on the mosque issue and questions about how to fight back against this outrage.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOH:

 

Your pissed off Muslims are on the other side of the ocean and they do things in the name of Allah but in fact know nothing about the meaning of the words of Allah. The pissed off Muslims here are people like you and me who want to worship as they please peacefully but are not allowed to.

 

Need I remind you that this proposed mosque is NOT at the WTC site but like two blocks away in a building that has already been in use as a prayer center for Muslims?

 

Heck I don't need to give a lesson on sacrilege since the Christians have been doing that since the Inquisition. Oops I should say Catholics since it was first the Spaniards who sacked and nearly wiped out whole Native American populations with disease and war in search of gold and then to add insult to injury build churches on top of temples that can't be excavated because of a holy issue. OH and let's not forget the forcing upon Catholicism on native groups. Then there were the Indian boarding schools...

 

I tell ya the United States has a long history of discrimination against minorities. A convient forgetting in these modern time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it does not take much to provoke Extremist Terrorist. They hate us and want to kill us. Build the Mosque, don’t build the Mosque, it really does not matter if your only goal is to placate the terrorist. It isn’t going to work. They already think we are the great Satan and that isn’t going to change with a few kind words and some trinkets. Either way (allow it to be built, or not) they will use the propaganda to recruit others to their goals. Either way, they will attempt to attack our citizens and infrastructure in the future. It is a no win situation, pure and simple. To call it anything differently is disingenuous.

 

So why do I support it being built.

 

1. It is legal and more importantly it is their right.

 

2. I’m not worried about pleasing or displeasing the extremists. Like I already wrote they hate us now matter what we do. What I’m worried about our actions pushing the moderates into the extremist category. Violating our own laws and beliefs, falls right in line with the Extremist propaganda of us being at war with all Muslims. It also makes our own propaganda of bringing freedom to the Middle East moot.

 

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.

 

Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.
I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :( Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Not American, so This only effects me in the way that People are Dead, Killing, committing suicide/genocide, Arguing, spending Millions on Media and "Place of Worship" building, falling out in Star Wars Forums, and generally wasting life on it... So the first thing we need to do in this century is Stop making such life or death mass media decisions Based on Religion, Then we can Start worrying about building a 16 million Dollar Mosque in the Name of Allah two Blocks away from the site 3 thousand people died in the name of Allah... well... I guess if those decisions stop being made we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

Like Mimartin said, whether you build it or not, The extremists are still gonna want to Kill you.

Edited by adamqd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, not American, and i've not really been engaged by this whole debate (although even if I were interested, I probably wouldn't care that much either way), but...

 

That is letting the terrorists win, by depriving fellow citizens of their rights under the Constitution out of baseless fear.

 

That was my thought, as well.

 

Surely, by violating the Constitution to prevent the construction of the Mosque, that would grant the extremists an even bigger 'victory' than if the Mosque were to be built?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it feels pretty...provocative. I don't think it should be built so close-by, but that's just me.

 

And since it rubs people off so much why not relocate it? why feed the fire?

Because in actuality, it doesn't matter where this is built... someone is going to have a problem with its very existence if it's anywhere near a place where it can be identified as any kind of Muslim gathering place and get pissy about it.

 

The only thing they got wrong by planning to build their community centre so close to "Ground Zero" (btw, that's such a lame name)... is that they should've figured it would obviously make some people go nuts. But, like I said, it doesn't have to be near "Ground Zero" for people to react... it just has to be anywhere where people can identify it and someone will gather up their little squad of protesters and start marching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOH:

 

Your pissed off Muslims are on the other side of the ocean and they do things in the name of Allah but in fact know nothing about the meaning of the words of Allah. The pissed off Muslims here are people like you and me who want to worship as they please peacefully but are not allowed to.

And who is preventing them from doing so? Mostly each other, due to the cultural war between Sunni and Shia.

Need I remind you that this proposed mosque is NOT at the WTC site but like two blocks away in a building that has already been in use as a prayer center for Muslims?

No, you don't. But the fact is that a full on Mosque so close to Ground Zero would provoke an extremely powerful reactionary movement within the United States that would further culturally divide us.

Heck I don't need to give a lesson on sacrilege since the Christians have been doing that since the Inquisition. Oops I should say Catholics since it was first the Spaniards who sacked and nearly wiped out whole Native American populations with disease and war in search of gold and then to add insult to injury build churches on top of temples that can't be excavated because of a holy issue. OH and let's not forget the forcing upon Catholicism on native groups. Then there were the Indian boarding schools...

 

I tell ya the United States has a long history of discrimination against minorities. A convient forgetting in these modern time.

It is equally convenient to forget that the US has a history of defending individual liberty and well-being. You merely have to look at history differently.

 

The US is neither the perfect shining beacon of light nor a nest of ignorant bigots. It is an active attempt at balancing the interests of many cultures.

Of course it does not take much to provoke Extremist Terrorist. They hate us and want to kill us. Build the Mosque, don’t build the Mosque, it really does not matter if your only goal is to placate the terrorist. It isn’t going to work. They already think we are the great Satan and that isn’t going to change with a few kind words and some trinkets. Either way (allow it to be built, or not) they will use the propaganda to recruit others to their goals. Either way, they will attempt to attack our citizens and infrastructure in the future. It is a no win situation, pure and simple. To call it anything differently is disingenuous.

All the more reason why it would be preferable to not provoke an extremist uprising within our own country on top of that external threat.

So why do I support it being built.

 

1. It is legal and more importantly it is their right.

 

2. I’m not worried about pleasing or displeasing the extremists. Like I already wrote they hate us now matter what we do. What I’m worried about our actions pushing the moderates into the extremist category. Violating our own laws and beliefs, falls right in line with the Extremist propaganda of us being at war with all Muslims. It also makes our own propaganda of bringing freedom to the Middle East moot.

 

3. The Federal Government stopping the construction would violate the Constitution in more than one way. A. States Right (This is a New York City and State issue), B. Religious Rights and C. Property Rights. Some may argue that the founding fathers were not perfect men and created an imperfect document. Can’t argue with that, but they were intelligent enough to know that and have included a mechanism that allows the Constitution to be changed.

I'll leave these arguments for another time, as we've already debated the principles behind them rather thoroughly. :)

I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(

I just figured four is a solid, even number that is far enough to be away from the site. Your radius is not invalid

Surely, by violating the Constitution to prevent the construction of the Mosque, that would grant the extremists an even bigger 'victory' than if the Mosque were to be built?

At this point, it can be argued that either will be a victory of equal magnitude.

Because in actuality, it doesn't matter where this is built... someone is going to have a problem with its very existence if it's anywhere near a place where it can be identified as any kind of Muslim gathering place and get pissy about it.

 

The only thing they got wrong by planning to build their community centre so close to "Ground Zero" (btw, that's such a lame name)... is that they should've figured it would obviously make some people go nuts. But, like I said, it doesn't have to be near "Ground Zero" for people to react... it just has to be anywhere where people can identify it and someone will gather up their little squad of protesters and start marching.

That assumes that the American people fundamentally have a problem with Muslims. Granted such a segment of our society exists, but its size is overestimated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That assumes that the American people fundamentally have a problem with Muslims. Granted such a segment of our society exists, but its size is overestimated.

No, it doesn't assume that at all. But as you've just said, there's only a small group who actually would be feel that way, but then I think we've all learned pretty clearly that it only takes a few to blow up a situation... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the only part of my post directed at you

 

Or we can build the Mosque at least four miles away from the site, not give anyone the finger, and avoid further splitting the country in half.

I understand 4 miles is your number, but will the other 70% of those opposed to the Mosque also support your 4 mile mark. I mean my radius is 22 3/4 Feet, what makes your radius more valid than mine? My uncle's radius is 5026 miles, why is his mark any less valid than yours? Naturally my uncle will not be supporting your 4 mile mark, nor my mark either. :(

I know you must have just overlooked it because you wrote this earlier.

At this point, I'm only posting because people reply to me and I do not like to leave posts unanswered.
Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that if they moved the mosque/convention center elsewhere in NY that it will remove the bulk of the protestors on the issue and mollify them. You'll never get rid of all people that protest, but America is full of protesters on a wide list of issues. So far as I've seen to this point, most of those are vs the current proposed location, not the existence of mosques or muslims in general. There are >1000 mosques throughout the US and >3+ million muslims as well. If the city of NY wants to be evenhanded in it's approach to the center, perhaps it shouldn't be dragging its ass on the Greek Orthodox church either. That one has had to wait since the attacks to be rebuilt b/c of govt red tape. Meanwhile, till someone can prove that mosques US wide are being shut down wholesale, the mantra that muslims are being denied their right to pray and observe their "first amendment rights" is nothing more than overheated rhetoric aimed at inflaming the issue......which is the location of Rauf's proposed building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't assume that at all. But as you've just said, there's only a small group who actually would be feel that way, but then I think we've all learned pretty clearly that it only takes a few to blow up a situation... ;)

Yes, and do we need to give those few fire?

You missed the only part of my post directed at you

Actually, I replied:

I just figured four is a solid, even number that is far enough to be away from the site. Your radius is not invalid

And I think the most moderate elements of that 70% will be satisfied if the Mosque is moved about that much.

Seems to me that if they moved the mosque/convention center elsewhere in NY that it will remove the bulk of the protestors on the issue and mollify them. You'll never get rid of all people that protest, but America is full of protesters on a wide list of issues. So far as I've seen to this point, most of those are vs the current proposed location, not the existence of mosques or muslims in general. There are >1000 mosques throughout the US and >3+ million muslims as well. If the city of NY wants to be evenhanded in it's approach to the center, perhaps it shouldn't be dragging its ass on the Greek Orthodox church either. That one has had to wait since the attacks to be rebuilt b/c of govt red tape. Meanwhile, till someone can prove that mosques US wide are being shut down wholesale, the mantra that muslims are being denied their right to pray and observe their "first amendment rights" is nothing more than overheated rhetoric aimed at inflaming the issue......which is the location of Rauf's proposed building.

THIS!

 

Thank you, Totenkopf. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...