On September 13 2010 11:33 TwoPac wrote: Nothing should be built near ground zero imo. It should be declared holy ground like the Native burial grounds. There's nothing racist about it, it's just that an unfortunate event took place there and over 2000 people were killed.
Behold, 2pac speaking to us from the beyond using intrawebz.
Well, when I was in Canaduh on summer vacation, I mainly stayed in Toronto, ON.( Don't think there was as much Native Americans as in other parts of NA(?) area, and visited Alberta, from what I heard from people I befriended etc. they are building on Native American grounds? Altho that's only what I heard, I don't know this for a fact, but that's way worse then building a Community center like 1KM or whatever from GZ.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
I can't believe this guy was the only person on the last page to call out Hunter for comparing Imam Rauf (a Sufi Muslim) to Al Qaeda (an extremist Sunni organization) based purely on religion. It's clear that Hunter couldn't identify a Sufi Muslim if one punched him in the face. (Which, of course, Sufi being one of the most moderate and peaceful brands of Islam, would never happen.)
That's like comparing Mother Theresa to the IRA because they both share a "Catholic idiology". That's like comparing the Dalai Lama to Aum Shinrikyo because they both share a "Buddhist idiology".
i say what if the acts of terrorism were commited by a select few christian (and i put emphasis on if) extremists? Would people be protesting against building a church in exactly the same place? Because al qaeda is nothing more that! A small group of muslim extremists that in no way whatsoever speak or stand for all muslims. I think people should stop being so ignorant. Watch the discovery channel for a change! Read a book or something! How many of those people protesting even know that muslims themselves in afghanistan and iraq are just as badly and probably worsely affected by al qaeda activity? Its a mosque. Wake up. Dont you think everyone is reminded of that day every time they look at the location and see the empty space that was the wtc?
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
After reading many blogs and news articles on this matter, I'll share my opinion:
When I first got to know the story, I was pretty opposed to its construction... they have the right, but they're being insensitive if the mosque is being built next to the tower site. But, they're not building the mosque anywhere NEAR "ground zero", it's a few blocks away and that's why they have every right to do it. It's all blown out of porporations due to media sensationalism.
On September 14 2010 01:58 ArbAttack wrote: After reading many blogs and news articles on this matter, I'll share my opinion:
When I first got to know the story, I was pretty opposed to its construction... they have the right, but they're being insensitive if the mosque is being built next to the tower site. But, they're not building the mosque anywhere NEAR "ground zero", it's a few blocks away and that's why they have every right to do it. It's all blown out of porporations due to media sensationalism.
It's being built as close to ground zero as possible. The particular building was chosen for its "symbolic significance" in that a piece of WTC shrapnel damaged that building.
In his interview with Larry King, Rauf said that "moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals' ability to recruit followers and would increase violence against Americans."
What the hell does that have to do with anything? It just proves that living in the middle east is pretty lame, it doesnt have anything to do with Islam...
Except the fact that Islam has been there for 1400 years and it shapes and controls ALL life there. Only for a few intellectuals it's possible to escape this, get some info on Iran, probably the most advanced country in ME, culturalwise. Dunno how you could deny a connection between Islam and the fallback of this region. I'm not sure, but since the establishment of Islam, did there come anything good or valuable out of this region, as in philosophical/cultural values or technological advance?
nothing really except for maybe advances in astronomy, chemistry, biology, physics, mathematics, agriculture, architecture, literature, a better scientific method,
The Islamic Golden Age is nothing when compared to the contributions of Western, Indian, or Chinese civilizations. What has Islam contributed to the world in the last several hundred years? Other than misery or poverty.
lol at the islamic godlen age being nothing in comparison to other parts of the world's civilizations.
kicking a civilization while its down eh? it would be the same as the muslims bagging on the dark ages christian europe. at any point in time a whole civilization will collapse and enter a period of turmoil while it naturally rearranges itself. it would be useful to know that the renaissance used a lot of middle-eastern advances to build on. while the europeans used middle-eastern advances and began to build on them, the middle-eastern countries are now the ones having to do the catching up. europe did not magically catch up to the eastern world in a couple of years...it took hundreds of years and then the discovery of a whole new continent to provide the raw resources and materials to further economic growth and advancement.
who would have thought that after commodore perry sailed to japan in 1854 where he discovered a an isolated people that were very lacking in most forms of modernity for hundreds of years would become the world's leading economy by the 1970s. to discount the discoveries and progresses of civilizations based on their position in the world right now is absurd. if we were both middle easterners in the year 1200 and i told you that in about 300 years, the europeans will be the dominating civilization, it would sound absurd as it looked like at the time, the east had every advantage possible. today, your the one bagging on the middle-easterners...the next great civilization might even dwarf the accomplishments of the west...but to say what the west discovered was nothing...would be absurd.
i could provide you with dozens of factors as to why the east declined and the west overtook them..none of them would be islam
Middle Eastern advances were primarily based off rediscovering and innovating from Greek civilization (the west). Much of the middle eastern advances in sciences/mathematics were based off ideas which came from India.
begins to clap...and there is your lesson ladies and gentleman. many advances in civilization are based on the advances of a previous one that fell...
there were advances in mesopotamia, egypt and persia (east) that the greeks and romans advanced further. you could theoritically keep going with this...lol
what has islam contributed in the 500 years
edit: dont say suicide bombs
We could start with the accomplishments of the Ottoman Empire. I assume you'll selectively ignore those parts about them welcoming Jews fleeing from western Europe though.
But just from the Ottomans alone we can attribute: - Modern religious freedoms - Sassanid architecture - Modern Welfare (soups kitchens, bath houses, hospitals) - The earliest world maps (the most accurate in the 16th century) - optics (including basic understanding of the speed of light as a constant) - the earliest steam engine - mechanical clocks
lol, pathetic list. you left out the armenian genocide!! oh wait, that never happened.
User was temp banned for this post.
FFFFFUUUUU his ban has expired and now he's back to trash the thread again.
Americans seriously need to get over this mosque project. It's a good thing that it's being built. There are actual problems that deserve attention.
yes it's offensive to some, if u believe the whole muslim fanatic terrorist thing.
it's not a good idea even if it was true.
but since when was violating property rights, and going agianst the philosophy of a republic where u rule by law, not by the mob, and freedom of religion consistent with being american?
newsflash: freedom allows for offensive statements.
I can see it from both sides of the coin. The respecting the family's of the victims and the freedom to practice which so ever religion someone chooses. Personally I think it should be allowed as those who participated in 9/11 aren't true muslims anyway and have contorted and rearranged the muslim faith to suit their needs.
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote: Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
I can't believe this guy was the only person on the last page to call out Hunter for comparing Imam Rauf (a Sufi Muslim) to Al Qaeda (an extremist Sunni organization) based purely on religion. It's clear that Hunter couldn't identify a Sufi Muslim if one punched him in the face. (Which, of course, Sufi being one of the most moderate and peaceful brands of Islam, would never happen.)
That's like comparing Mother Theresa to the IRA because they both share a "Catholic idiology". That's like comparing the Dalai Lama to Aum Shinrikyo because they both share a "Buddhist idiology".
Oh wait, generic stereotypes don't work. Ever.
The sad fact is, most Americans couldn't tell you if Al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shia organization even 9 years after the attack. Most wouldn't have a clue as to what Sufism is either. American opinion lumps all Muslims together and that's where you get the Islam = terrorism association.
Brief pause for everyone reading the thread to go wiki these groups in a sad attempt to appear worldly.
I would think most Americans have some knowledge of the differences in other religions. Even if it's as simple as understanding why Jesus isn't on the cross in one church and is on the cross on another. Then I remember that most of my father's family accidentally converted from Episcopalian to Lutheran simply because the drive to church was easier...
the western is way too tolerance toward the minority, just take view on other side. For e.g there are already 2 attacks on church in indonesia within 2 months.
(what did they say? they dont want a church to be built there?)
now we have a good comparison between this two world
for eg this guy Alex Stewart already receiving death threat, that's not new from islam country. Funny is that he also burned bible but what? the reaction of the christian is as expected, clearly that they are more peaceful than the folks from other side.
sorry, claims that islam is peace is very different from the fact that I observed.
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
You're arguing with the same people that would have been screaming death threats at black children in integrated schools if it was 1954...
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
What's wrong with the standards in the Middle East? Are you saying they are morally inferior to us? Do you hate muslims or something?
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
What's wrong with the standards in the Middle East? Are you saying they are morally inferior to us? Do you hate muslims or something?
If we're talking about freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to vote, etc., then we shouldn't lower ourselves to the standards of the Middle East. We should be raising their standards while upholding and improving our own.
On September 15 2010 03:59 Melancholia wrote: Yes, nerokae, because we should definitely not hold ourselves to a higher standard than Indonesia or the Middle East.
What's wrong with the standards in the Middle East? Are you saying they are morally inferior to us? Do you hate muslims or something?
EPT
