|
On August 26 2010 05:20 Zealotdriver 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. 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.
Can somebody report this guy for ad hominem? I'm not provoking conflict, I'm the sole person talking to the lot of you in this thread. The quesiton is why are they building the center at the location to "promote peace", when it is clear that most people want them to move away a little bit ? If they promote peace with a mosque 4 blocks away, there will be no opposition for the 911 families.
|
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.
of course al-qaeda would love that, but how many Muslims in the United States SUPPORT Al-Qaeda? Let me see that national poll :D
|
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.
Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers).
You also understand that unity under an extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
I'm glad your knowledge of history and current events helps you understand this!
|
On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote:
There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision.
Best post of the thread. Articulated very well the situation.
|
On August 26 2010 05:31 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:16 thesighter wrote: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:[quote] 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. Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers). You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism.
The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi <- good article about the Saudi influence
Wahhabi extremist influence in over 80% of mosques in the US
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/10/the_boston_mosques_saudi_connection/
|
On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote:
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.
Of course. Thats why I labeled it myself as a false analogy for that exact reason. My purpose in that post was to attempt to say that "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should."
You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press?
Lets see if I can't coin a new phrase - "Guilt by association." 99 percent of muslims in the US probably do not want to kill their neighbor for reasons other than that they play their stereo too loud. But when you hear about a muslim, you don't think of a constructive, deliberative human being. Instead you think of a population rapidly taking over Europe, and people that strap bombs to children - and those are people just as real, even if not as many as the moderate.
So should they be allowed to build a mosque? Of course! Should they? Of course not! It isn't the government's job to decide where you can practice your amendments just yet. Currently muslims suffer from a serious dilemma where they are associated with terrorists. Even if it takes a long time, this will eventually come to pass. People simply are not responsible enough for a hybrid "mosque community center" to be placed next to ground zero until the heat cools down.
|
On August 26 2010 05:24 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:20 Zealotdriver wrote: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. 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. Can somebody report this guy for ad hominem? I'm not provoking conflict, I'm the sole person talking to the lot of you in this thread. The quesiton is why are they building the center at the location to "promote peace", when it is clear that most people want them to move away a little bit ? If they promote peace with a mosque 4 blocks away, there will be no opposition for the 911 families.
It is still going against what this Nation was founded upon, which is FREEDOM. Just because there was a "Terrorist" attack on U.S. soil doesn't mean we abolish this nations Constitution. If the Mosque is not built it will just show that our Gov't is above its own Laws. Honestly if the families of 9/11 victims still beleive that the attacks were solely work of Muslim Extremists I feel really bad for them.
|
On August 26 2010 05:21 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:17 xbankx wrote: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.
Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
|
On August 26 2010 05:37 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:31 Offhand wrote:On August 26 2010 05:16 thesighter wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers). You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism. The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi <- good article about the Saudi influence Wahhabi extremist influence in over 80% of mosques in the US http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/10/the_boston_mosques_saudi_connection/
No. don't just say random speculation. Give evidence or don't make baseless accusations, especially ones that big.
|
On August 26 2010 05:36 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 00:19 Hawk wrote:
There's no legal reason for the mosque being denied. It's definitely tasteless as far as the choice of the location and the timing—I don't even see how that's up for debate, these people are morons for wanting it there—but I'm more worried about the precedent than hurt feelings.
This gets denied then it opens the door for future denials based on someone's faith... a predominantly Jewish community blocking out a church, or stuff of the sort. Instead of all the stupid shit that's getting tossed around (Republican cries of TERRORISTS IN OUR BACK YARD!!) are just fanning the flames. Politicians need to find a less hostile way to make these people realize the emotional impact of their decision. Best post of the thread. Articulated very well the situation.
Unless we see Jewish extremists flying a plane into the Empire State Building, and wanting to build a synagogue on its ruins, there won't be a precedent of blocking places of worship irrationally.
|
On August 26 2010 05:41 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:37 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:31 Offhand wrote:On August 26 2010 05:16 thesighter wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers). You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism. The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi <- good article about the Saudi influence Wahhabi extremist influence in over 80% of mosques in the US http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/10/the_boston_mosques_saudi_connection/ No. don't just say random speculation. Give evidence or don't make baseless accusations, especially ones that big.
Not random speculation, read the articles.
|
On August 26 2010 05:38 Osservatore wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote:
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. You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press?
Because the media is making it out to be more than it is.
![[image loading]](http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss194/GAT_00/Religion/TacgJ.jpg)
|
On August 26 2010 05:40 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:21 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:17 xbankx wrote: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. Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics.
Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
|
On August 26 2010 05:37 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:31 Offhand wrote:On August 26 2010 05:16 thesighter wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Then you're aware of how such extremist movements got started, yes? After the failure of Nasser's Pan-Arabism the politically motivated youths of the day had few causes to rally behind following the Six Day War. Islam experienced a kind of revival in which religious institutions opened their doors for the more secular minded youths. The result, religious based group that held many of the same political beliefs (Arab unity and non-interference by western powers). You also understand that such unity under extremist doctrine means everyone follows the exact same practices as the extremist sect. This puts most Muslims at odds with radical groups, making the ground zero mosque an affront to extremism. The situation is not that simple. The ground zero mosque is likely funded by the Saudi government. Although governments in the Middle East are secular, they often are funding the very same extremists that plague other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi <- good article about the Saudi influence Wahhabi extremist influence in over 80% of mosques in the US http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/10/the_boston_mosques_saudi_connection/
Wahhabism is one of the most conservative sects of Islam. It would do you well to read your own articles though.
Noah Feldman, draws a distinction between what he calls the "deeply conservative" Wahhabis and what he calls the "followers of political Islam in the 1980s and 1990s," such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While Saudi Wahhabis were "the largest funders of local Muslim Brotherhood chapters and other hard-line Islamists" during this time, they opposed jihadi resistance of Muslim governments and assassination of Muslim leaders because of their belief that "the decision to wage jihad lay with the ruler, not the individual believer".[40]
Karen Armstrong believes that Osama bin Laden, like most extremists, follows the ideology of Sayyid Qutb, not "Wahhabism".
Still, you refuse to admit that moderate Islam is at odds with radical Islam and that a moderate mosque is in no way a victory symbol... Given the chance, Al Qaeda would just as soon blow up a moderate mosque in the US as they would anywhere else in the world.
|
On August 26 2010 05:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:38 Osservatore wrote:On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote:
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. You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press? Because the media is making it out to be more than it is.
I'm sorry that that is as much thought as I could provoke out of you from a 500 word post.
|
On August 26 2010 05:44 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:40 Pandain wrote:On August 26 2010 05:21 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:17 xbankx wrote: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. Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics. Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one. (See I knew id find another example  )
Can we go over again what equality means?
|
On August 26 2010 05:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:38 Osservatore wrote:On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote:
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. You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press? Because the media is making it out to be more than it is.
It's a 13 story building, it's not going to be insignificant. Middle picture in this link.
http://batteryparkcity.com/real-estate/developer-sharif-el-gamal-sees-park-51-mosque-as-empire-state-building/
|
On August 26 2010 05:46 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:44 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:40 Pandain wrote:On August 26 2010 05:21 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:17 xbankx wrote: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. Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics. Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans. You can drink from a water fountain....just not this one. See I knew id find another example
I really don't know what to say. Water fountain does not equal to ground zero where thousands died from Islamic extremists.
|
On August 26 2010 05:46 Osservatore wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:43 ZeaL. wrote:On August 26 2010 05:38 Osservatore wrote:On August 26 2010 05:19 n3mo wrote:
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. You're saying that it's a community center and not a terrorist training ground. Of course it isn't a terrorist training ground! But if it was only a community center, then why would it be getting so much bad press? Because the media is making it out to be more than it is. I'm sorry that that is as much thought as I could provoke out of you from a 500 word post.
I just wanted to point out that the bad press is more a function of latent anti-Muslim sentiment in the US than anything the people building the facility are doing. As for the rest of your post, moving it because a bunch of easily scared people aren't ready for it is no reason to not do it. Most southern whites were not ready for black people to attend university but it happened whether they liked it or not. Treating a group differently because the majority views them unfavorably is not an American value.
|
On August 26 2010 05:44 thesighter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2010 05:40 Pandain wrote:On August 26 2010 05:21 thesighter wrote:On August 26 2010 05:17 xbankx wrote: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. Most of the local South was against freeing their slaves too. Doesn't mean its the right thing, or that they should be allowed to exert their assumed "superiority" over others. Why shouldn't they do it either? I mean, its more a community center than a mosque. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to practice their religion peacefully just because of some fanatics. Again, nobody is against the mosque. Just build it two blocks further away. The location of the mosque is tasteless, insensitive, and is opposed by most locals, as well as Americans.
Its already two blocks away. Its in new york city man. To get another place would be so expensive . What IS tasteless and insensitive is that Americans think that they have the power to say that a group of religious people are not allowed to worship where they please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
