|
On August 26 2010 04:54 funnybananaman wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Build it elsewhere, that's the point. Most Americans are offended by the location, move it a couple blocks away and the opposition will cease. It's not Islamaphobia, it's a lack of sensitivity by the developer.
|
On August 26 2010 04:57 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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.
The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
|
Expecting a lot of hate for this which is silly because I am older, and have plenty of muslim friends. But the minority can ruin it for the majority. Sorry, but when a radical islamic did the 9/11 attacks, they basically ruined chances of getting a mosque up in the near vacinity especially with the history of victory Mosques (13 story 100 million estimate not big enough for you to consider it a victory mosque??). Yes we are the United States, and yes we have religious tolerance, yes move your mosque a few more blocks away.
To me, even though radical islamist are a very VERY small percentage of Muslim, they still used their religion to channel the hate into the attacks. The religion is part of it (UNFAIRLY) ,and the families and people of that location shouldn't have to worry about the mosque. It's very immature to use a statement like the few ruined it for the majority... but as far as a mosque at ground zero I have to say they did. Move it a few blocks away.
|
My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran
2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
|
On August 26 2010 05:04 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:57 Adila wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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. The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine.
You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
|
On August 26 2010 04:58 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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".
No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
|
On August 26 2010 05:06 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:58 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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". No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
Again, it's not a mosque.
|
On August 26 2010 05:05 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:04 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:57 Adila wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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. The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine. You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero.
Yes I do. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1
|
On August 26 2010 05:07 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:06 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:58 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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". No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it. Again, it's not a mosque.
It's a cultural center with a mosque. Is that okay with you?
Source: http://www.park51.org/facilities.htm . <- their website
|
On August 26 2010 05:07 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:05 TOloseGT wrote:On August 26 2010 05:04 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:57 Adila wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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. The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine. You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Yes I do. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1
I stand corrected.
Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
|
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.
My guess is its funded by the Saudi's. If you look at history you will see that the Saudi's have been apart of a financial jihad. Not actually attacking the United States finanicial structure, but investing so much that they have influence over officials.
For example in Ptech, based in Massachusetts, was private technology company that was funded by a Multi-Millionaire Saudi named Yasin al Qadi, who was actually considered a Global Terrorist. He invested 22 Million, which led to him and other Saudi's gained access to valuable information about some major U.S. corporations. Companies like ENRON, SYSCO, and the Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, and even the White House.
So I wouldn't put it past any foreign Gov't or Organizations to be a primary investor in the Mosque, but it still doesn't mean they are intruding on American's right with the construction of the Mosque.
|
The United States is the land of religious tolerance, we can't compare other countries directly in every sense. For example, the fact Saudi Arabia doesn't have Catholic Churches doesn't mean that we in turn should disallow mosques.
But try to use this relation. If another "free" religion country, whether it be Europe or Asia or SA or wherever.... was declared war on by Al Queda and had several of their key monuments attacked and destroyed. And then less then 10 years later then want to build a Gargantuan mosque at the location (with their history of victory mosques?), would they allow it without controversy??? Doubtful
|
On August 26 2010 05:06 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:58 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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". No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
There is no one involved in the construction of the community center that's been linked to any kind of terrorist organization. Extremists view both moderates and non-Muslims as heathens and have had no issues attacking the mosques of moderates in the past. I fail to see how a moderate mosque is a symbol of victory.
|
On August 26 2010 05:10 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:07 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:05 TOloseGT wrote:On August 26 2010 05:04 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:57 Adila wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine. You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Yes I do. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1 I stand corrected. Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me.
Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
|
On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote:
My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran
2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive.
IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
US is not an entity of Christianity. The separation of church and state is so huge during the founding of our country.
|
On August 26 2010 05:16 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:10 TOloseGT wrote:On August 26 2010 05:07 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:05 TOloseGT wrote:On August 26 2010 05:04 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:57 Adila wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:45 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:43 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:
[quote]
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. The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine. You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Yes I do. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1 I stand corrected. Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me. Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I see no ulterior motive.
|
Osservatore, i don't think you should associate the US with christianity - the one and only thing the US has been associated with is democracy (whether that means the US should promote democracy in other countries is another story).
the main thing about your argument is that its an over-generalization. like you, i won't pretend i know every facet of the argument (i'm an engineer, and i focus the bulk of my energies as such), but as far as i know the Quran does not preach violence. its the extremists who use religion as an excuse to carry out terrorist acts that we are fighting against.
therefore those trying to build the community center ARE NOT remotely the same as those who took down the WTC.
in the end, the US is supposed to be a land of tolerance, a land of many peoples - the community center would be there to say "we feel the hurt just as much as you did, and our posterity will know that something like this is a wrong thing to do". its a community center, not a terrorist training ground, and the center is an attempt to mend bridges that have been burned.
|
On August 26 2010 05:06 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:58 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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". No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
Oh, we get to use "common sense?" It is common sense that the folks building the mosque/community center are working to heal and build peace and understanding between the Western and Muslim cultures. It is common sense that assholes like thesighter have the same goal as Al-Qaeda: provoking conflict between the Western countries and Muslim countries.
|
On August 26 2010 05:17 xbankx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:05 Osservatore wrote:
My understanding of this is very limited because I don't follow much on television, but I don't feel comfortable with a $100M mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero.
1) We are currently fighting against muslims who believe and exercise the Quran
2) Muslims that donate and sincerely believe that they aren't widening the gap between the muslim community are kidding themselves
Y'all might call it a false analogy, but if an entity that you generally associate with Christianity (IE, United States) decided to nuke Mecca, and then built an icon of its culture just next door to the drop site, wouldn't you feel a little twinge of frustration?
Insert - Just so you guys don't disregard my post, I'm going to go ahead and say now why that would be a false analogy. First of all, the US has terrible foreign relations, and it's popular to hate America right now. Second, NYC is not known for having Christianity in practice in the way that Mecca is entirely Muslim. Third, nuclear technology is much more devastating, and my analogy presents itself much more as a cultural war.
I'm not going to say that I'm for the government defining a "no muslim zone" in a three mile radius of where the twins stood, but I am going to say that the founders of this mosque are being irresponsible and insensitive. IF mecca has religous freedom like US and if it was Christian Extremist that bombed mecca then fine. As long as it is to accord of the law. I am hoping that even though some people might be against the building of the mosque. They would at least have to admit the Muslims do have the right to build mosque anywhere even on ground zero if it follows the local zoning law.
Yeah, everybody knows they have the right the build it. Doesn't mean that they should do so if it's their stated intention for interfaith dialogue. Most of the location population is against the mosque.
|
On August 26 2010 05:06 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 04:58 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote: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". No sources, this is common sense. If you can't see this, I don't know what to say. $100M, 13 story mosque on the location of a building hit by WTC wreckage. Al-Qaeda will love it.
Again you're making a statement and then stating that its true. Why would Al-Qaeda love it? Contrary to what you may believe Muslims do not belong to one super entity that behaves like a hive mind. Muslims of one group hate Muslims of another group just as much if not more than they hate the US. The Imam that is behind this is not a Wahabbist and they would probably consider the Imam a heathen just as much as they consider most Americans to be heathens.
On August 26 2010 05:16 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:10 TOloseGT wrote:On August 26 2010 05:07 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:05 TOloseGT wrote:On August 26 2010 05:04 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:57 Adila wrote:On August 26 2010 04:53 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:45 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 04:43 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 04:35 JinNJuice wrote:
[quote]
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. The construction of the mosque will be viewed as a victory. The closest existing mosque is 4 blocks away. The proposed location is 2 blocks away, chosen because of its proximity to WTC wreckage. Move it 4 or back, and it'll be fine. You have no proof that the location was specifically chosen because of its proximity to Ground Zero. Yes I do. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1 I stand corrected. Although in the context of that news article, they chose it to spite Al-Qaeda. Very admirable if you ask me. Rauf's statement is just a PC response for the media to digest. There are ulterior motives at play. Building an "interfaith cultural center" at the WTC to spite Al Qaeda. Come on ... I wasn't born yesterday.
Again, when you have no evidence you just state that its true because you think its true. This is not how debates work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
