|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On August 26 2010 04:06 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 03:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 26 2010 03:52 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:48 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 03:44 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:31 Offhand wrote:On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote:
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there. You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so. By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect. The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this. At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me. I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it. it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across. Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'? The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for.
but this structure is not at all comparable to the structures they used to build as symbols of conquest, which were grand expansive mosques built on the backs of the conquered people. this is a community center with shopping space and a cooking school that happens to have two floors dedicated to prayer space. the two things are only comparable through an incorrect assumption, and 'not giving the extremists the victory they are looking for' is still not a valid reason.
|
On August 26 2010 04:11 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:06 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 26 2010 03:52 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:48 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 03:44 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:31 Offhand wrote:On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote:
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there. You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so. By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect. The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this. At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me. I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it. it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across. Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'? The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for. Ok, honestly. People are not going to look at that COMMUNITY CENTER and say..."Well shit, those terrorists sure showed America, look at that fucking mosque man." They're going to say, "Man America can show that even if they got attacked by a radical group of extremists, they can still show that they are accepting and understanding of other people's races and religions. Those terrorists were wrong, America is not the evil one, the terrorists are."
Doubt the average person will say that, given that 60% are already against it. Current reaction to the mosque is more along the lines of "r u serious?"
|
If we release the japanese from the internment camps the enemy will think its a victory.
+ Show Spoiler + I cant believe I spent so much time in grade school histroy thinking "Why are they teaching us this stupid stuff. Ill never use this in my life." Only to years later I realize they should have taught far more.
|
On August 26 2010 04:15 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:06 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:54 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:On August 26 2010 03:52 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:48 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 03:44 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 03:31 Offhand wrote:On August 26 2010 03:25 thesighter wrote:
You need to chill out with this flaming, you clearly don't understand the issue. I am not a bigot and neither are most Americans. I don't believe that the majority of Muslims are wife-beaters or terrorists. However, I am opposed to the mosque because it is too close to ground zero. They can build it anywhere else, just not near there. Building a mosque near ground zero will be viewed by terrorists as a victory.
Most New Yorkers and most Americans are against the mosque. Use google to verify, plenty of poll numbers out there. You can't claim to be free of racism or bigotry and then immediately say Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a place of worship. It's a complete failure of logic to try to do so. By attempting to prevent the [l]ground zero mosque[/l] community center 2 blocks away from ground zero, you are essentially associating Islam with terrorism. You're guilty of associating an entire religion (not to mention one of the largest religions) with the actions of a few people belonging to an extremist sect. The opposition to the mosque is its proximity. The opposition prefers that the developers build the mosque further away from the ground zero memorial. Nearly everybody knows that the developers can build the mosque wherever they like. The attacks were done by extremists in the name of Islam, the families don't want a mosque built near the attack site. I agree that there is a guilt by association factor in this. At this point, words are failing me. I think you, thesighter, highlight everything wrong with this debate. Your inability to see that condemning A WHOLE RELIGION by association immediately makes you either racist, or just a complete idiot is hilarious to me. I am not condemning a whole religion. I just don't want the mosque built next to ground zero in this case. It's offensive to the 9/11 families, is not supported by most americans or new yorkers, and will be viewed as a victory symbol for the Islamic terrorists. Any other mosque, any other situation, any other location, I'm fine with the developers building it. it's only offensive if you're ignorant, that's the driving point here. I don't mean to call you personally ignorant, you obviously have some sort of point but I don't think you're getting it across. Can you give some reason as to why it would be offensive other than 'because the attacks were carried out by Muslims'? The point is that people don't want Islamic extremists to have any sort of victory dance next to ground zero. Historically, Muslims built mosques as symbols of conquests over new territories. It is quite obvious Al-Qaeda and co will interpret the building as a victory. The opposition is fine with the construction of the mosque at another location. This will serve the intended Muslim population ( at a slight inconvenience), while not giving th extremists the victory they are looking for. but this structure is not at all comparable to the structures they used to build as symbols of conquest, which were grand expansive mosques built on the backs of the conquered people. this is a community center with shopping space and a cooking school that happens to have two floors dedicated to prayer space. the two things are only comparable through an incorrect assumption, and 'not giving the extremists the victory they are looking for' is still not a valid reason.
It's a $100 million, 13 story building funded by unspecified sources (rumor is foreign). It's not a $1B grand victory mosque, but it's not a typical mosque either.
|
On August 26 2010 04:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
If we release the japanese from the internment camps the enemy will think its a victory.
False analogy. Keep up the juvenile WW2 references.
|
...
Stop hurting logic. Please, please show some mercy to it. What did it ever do to you?
|
On August 26 2010 04:21 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:18 Archerofaiur wrote:
If we release the japanese from the internment camps the enemy will think its a victory. False analogy. Keep up the juvenile WW2 references.
I know. Its a completly different situation. Totally unrelated and with no similarities at all. I should probably have used one of a hundred other examples from America's long struggle with racial, sexual and religous equality...
|
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
|
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/the_keane_edge/is-fox-news-evil-or-stupid-jon-stewart-parses-ground-zero-mosque-funding-101402379.html
Also, anonymous donations are made to pretty much every community funded church, school, museum, and park ever. Assuming anonymous donations toward the community center are from terrorists is pretty much as blatantly racist as you can get.
|
On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason?
It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government.
EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
|
On August 26 2010 04:31 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason? It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government. EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this.
Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
|
On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:31 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason? It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government. EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this. Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts.
come on, you got to do better than this.
http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm
Straight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque
Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
|
On August 25 2010 13:02 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 12:53 IntoTheBush wrote:On August 25 2010 12:11 thesighter wrote:On August 25 2010 12:10 TOloseGT wrote:On August 25 2010 11:55 thesighter wrote:On August 25 2010 11:53 IntoTheBush wrote:
Didn't they mention them building a Mosque at Ground Zero a year or so ago? It didn't really seem to make major news then, but now it is? Honestly I have no problem with it considering Muslims weren't the ones to flew those planes into the Towers, and the Pentagon. Unfortunately the media casts a large shadow over the truth of 9/11. If the rest of the U.S. knew the truth behind the attacks we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm sure that if it does get built Obama will be the one to blame. Just another topic the Republican party can use as ammunition during the next elections. Also it's sad that a majority of the U.S. is against the construction of the Mosque. Makes me sick that people still aren't allowed to have their freedom in this Country. 9/11 was a set-up, which makes this whole topic pointless. Unless you beleive everything you see in the media, and/or you're Republican. /rant
My 2 cents =) You're ignorant. thereligionofpeace.com - list of attacks done in the name of Islam over the past 10 years He's ignorant? Look at yourself first. Why am I ignorant? He thinks 9/11 is a setup. Oh, 9/11 wasn't a set up. Can you tell me why Tower 7 had to be "pulled" after the other Towers fell? Don't tell me because of the fires, because there was an even more intense fire in Tower 7 during the 80s yet it didn't collapse on itself. I'd like to see the proof you have that 9/11 was 100% funded, and carried out by Al Queda. Also wheres the remains of the planes at the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania? Osama's family was flown out of the United States immediately after the attacks when ALL flights were grounded. Nothing suspicious about any of that I guess. You can PM me ur proof since this isn't a topic about 9/11. If you provide evidence I have no problem saying you're right. Until then you should be a little less naive. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842You really don't want to go here. Bill Mahr had a choice "word" to call those who continue to fly this flag.....
Too bad that someone else's mind has been altered by the corrupt propoganda in the United States 
|
On August 26 2010 04:43 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 04:31 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason? It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government. EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this. Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts. come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htmStraight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world.
You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
|
logic has nothing to do with it, it's just a word people say to make arguments sound smart -- like the identification AND usage of ad hominems: Personal attacks used to cover the issue.
thesighter specifically SAID (posted August 26 2010 04:31): "I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded." So, no, he doesn't think that all "big players" are terrorists. He...he SAID that he doesn't. It's...right...there.
My pathetic human brain tells me that less time spent insulting means more time spent debating maturely.
Something 2 blocks from Ground Zero means nothing; I thought originally they were parachuting a building smack onto the old Twin Towers for all I knew, but now that I know it's 2 blocks away I can't possibly see the harm. Perhaps it will be a victory to whomever, but NOT building it allows them 2 say, "hey, look at those oppressive Americans."
Edit: Zeal, I could be completely wrong, but it seems to me he is saying that even though the terrorists didn't build it, they'll call it a victory. However, I personally think that they would achieve a victory much more useful as propaganda if we DIDN'T build it . . . .
|
On August 26 2010 04:45 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:43 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 04:31 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason? It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government. EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this. Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts. come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htmStraight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world. You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
|
On August 26 2010 04:45 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:43 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 04:31 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason? It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government. EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this. Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts. come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htmStraight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world. You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero?
By virtue of arguing semantics, basically.
|
On August 26 2010 02:34 thesighter wrote:
1. First of all, Ron Paul is a nutjob.
2. All recent polls show that a large majority of Americans, as well as New Yorkers, are against construction of the mosque. Why are the developers insistent upon constructing the mosque when it is only going to make people angry?
3. At this point, the mosque is not "bridging cultures." It's pissing people off and contributing to "Islamophobia."
4. If is constructed, it will be seen as a symbol of victory by the jihadists and will be trumpeted throughout the Middle East.
5. The mosque is two blocks away from ground zero (it's 1 block from a subway stop, 2-3 min walk from ground zero). Doing some quick research, the closest mosque in the area is the Masjid Manhattan, which is 4 blocks away to the NW, that mosque has been in NYC for 40 years. I don't know of any other mosques closer than that one.
6. If the developers were able to purchase property and build a mosque 1 block away from Ground Zero, they would do so.
7. The construction of the "cultural center" is extremely offensive to the families of 9/11.
Alright i'm going to break that up and respond to each of the points individually:
1. You can think that if you want but if you watched the video the stuff he said in it made a lot of sense and doesn't seem at all crazy to me.
2. Totally irrelevant that the majority of people are against it. Civil rights are not the subject of majority vote. The developers want to construct it because having it there would be an important symbol of america and all its religions uniting together and showing that islam can be about peace and love and cooperation (and all the other dumb stuff that goes on in churches and mosques) as opposed to violence or terrorism.
3. At this point the mosque isn't doing anything because it doesn't exist yet. Its purpose is to unite different religions and you can judge whether or not it does a good job of that once it's built. And It isn't contributing to islamophobia, i would say it's revealing islamophobia. The fact that it's pissing people off is a reflection on those people rather than the mosque, since there is nothing sinister or objectionable about their purpose.
4. Well since this mosque/cultural center has nothing to do with jihadists and is about connecting different religions through peace i don't see why jihadists would see its construction as a victory.
jihadists just use islam as a front for their violent political agenda, all the stuff they do goes against the basic ideas of islam so they really have no connection to this mosque. Some normal muslims in the middle east may be happy about its construction because it would show that america is embracing peaceful regular islam as an alternative to violent extremism. Since the ideas of this mosque go against everything jihadists stand for it wouldn't make sense for them them to be happy about.
5. I wasn't talking about other mosques i meant this particular one. Their old mosque was in the neighborhood and they had been there for many years (i don't know exactly how long or exactly where it was, but thats not really important. even if their old mosque was in north dakota i wouldn't have a problem with it).
6. I don't see how this is relevant to anything we're talking about. And nobody knows for sure what they "would do", they may have very well been able to purchase some property 1 block from ground zero but chose not to. Or maybe they couldn't find a space there. It doesn't matter. Neither of us have any idea whether thats true or not so its pointless to argue about.
7. It is a legitimate cultural center so i don't know why you put it in "quotes". The construction of the cultural center is probably offensive to some 9/11 families, but definitely not all of them. And the fact that people are offended by something doesn't really mean a whole lot. There are plenty of muslim families and people that lost loved ones on 9/11, i saw an interview on cnn of some muslim lady who lost her brother or something on 9/11 and she was really upset that all of islam was being held accountable for the actions of foreign terrorists and couldn't have a mosque there. And there's no good reason anybody (9/11 family or otherwise) should be offended by this mosque (for reasons i already stated), and it would be against one of the major basic principles america was founded on to prevent it from being built.
|
On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:45 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:43 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 04:31 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason? It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government. EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this. Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts. come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htmStraight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world. You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero? It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Not having it built now would be an even bigger propaganda victory.
And I've yet to hear just how far away from the WTC is actually acceptable for it to be built.
|
On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:45 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:43 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:On August 26 2010 04:31 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:24 JinNJuice wrote:
So everything that is funded by sources that are unspecified immediately make it terrorist funded? I mean, I'm pretty sure we're going to notice if they're training terrorists in there don't you think? You're reasons are still not valid, and when people make analogies based on your reasons, you say that they are false analogies. It's not a mosque. Period. Therefore it can't be a victory mosque. Can you give another reason? It is a mosque, there is a large amount of prayer space set aside. I'm not saying that it is terrorist funded, more likely foreign government/organization funded. Many of the large mosques in the world have been funded by the Saudi government. EDIT: it's a $100M building. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that big players are at play in this. Lots of hospitals have chapels in it for weddings/prayer. Does that make them churches? I think not. And so all big players = terrorists now? Your logic is so fallible it hurts. come on, you got to do better than this. http://www.park51.org/facilities.htmStraight from the horses mouth - facilities include a mosque Big players = governments/organizations, not terrorists. The Saudi government funds most major mosques around the world. You posit that this mosque is a victory mosque by the terrorists. If the terrorists aren't the ones funding it or using it, how is it in any way a victory mosque and not a mosque that happens to be built near ground zero? It will be interpreted as a victory mosque by the extremists, even if it is not built by them. There are ulterior motives at play.
Do you have any sources for these? Interviews with Al Qaeda or something saying "ya bro I'll be super happy here in Pakistan if they build a mosque in NYC for some reason" or is this just pointless speculation? And even if you did have some sort of source that indicates this, who really cares? Onoes we should stop the construction because someone somewhere might obtain an intangible "victory".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
