# Ground Zero Mosque. Yes or No?



## taktularCBo (Aug 11, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> In 2010 controversy arose concerning the development of Cordoba House, a mosque and cultural center planned at a site two blocks from the World Trade Center site. The builders say it is intended to represent moderate Islam. But, given its proximity to Ground Zero, it has stirred controversy among people suspicious of the motives behind it, and led to comments for and against it being built at that location from families of 9/11 victims, politicians, organizations, and academics.


 _wikipedia_

What do you think?


_This Post does not have the Intention to insult Islam, I wish all Muslims a happy Ramadan. Its just a Poll to see what you guys (no matter if Christians,Jews,Muslims,Hindus, Buddhist and Atheists) think. Besides, in my opinion we are all Brothers and Sisters. Peace _


----------



## Scott-105 (Aug 11, 2010)

I don't think it should be built. I read an article in a newspaper saying even some people of the muslim religion don't want it.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

People that honestly believe the goal of the terroristic attacks of 9/11 was to build a mosque _near_ Ground Zero are idiots.

EDIT: Seems like so far, I'm the only person to say 'Yes', too.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 11, 2010)

Who gives a shit.

If they bought the land they can build whatever they want on there.


----------



## Scott-105 (Aug 11, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> People that honestly believe the goal of the terroristic attacks of 9/11 was to build a mosque _near_ Ground Zero are idiots.
> 
> EDIT: Seems like so far, I'm the only person to say 'Yes', too.


I don't think the goal of the attack was to build the mosque, but I still don't think it's right.


----------



## Issac (Aug 11, 2010)

I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think that there were any plans to the 9/11 attack to build a mosque (who does that anyway?).
But I do think that the people affected by the attack might hold a grudge against muslims (Even if far from all muslims thinks that the attack was a good idea, i'm not saying anything like that) and a mosque at ground zero is like literary strew salt in an open wound.

Feel free to build a mosque anywhere BUT in that place.

Muslim extremists attack USA -> crash planes into twin towers -> build muslim mosque close to that place....... just no....


----------



## Paarish (Aug 11, 2010)

There's no reason why it shouldn't be built. This is just blowback from Islamophobia


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 11, 2010)

It seems rather...inappropriate, to be honest. Look at Issac's Idea. It's a bit like -snippy- . It is inappropriate. Many muslims, no offence, get converted into extremists via mosques, and that would probably be the last place for one to be built. 
It's for racial harmony and safety. Every time you'd see that mosque, you'd think of extremism.

EDIT: I read back and I find it may have been slightly offensive. Sorry.


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 11, 2010)

Im against it, even I have muslim friends and  my girl comes originally from a Muslim Country not to mention the over 60 victims of the 9/11 attack which are Muslims etc. It feels wrong and inappropriate, not that I believe that most Muslims would feel spiteful - thats for sure not the case and I even doubt that terrorists will use the mosque as a propaganda -, but why not building the mosque in an other area? It looks like this people just wanted media attention and make the USA or "the Western-World" look like a fool.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

JetKun said:
			
		

> It seems rather...inappropriate, to be honest. Look at Issac's Idea. It's a bit like seeing your mum naked, then telling her she looks sexy. It is inappropriate.That's a rather... odd comparison. And it isn't a good one either.
> QUOTE(JetKun @ Aug 11 2010, 07:57 PM) Many muslims, no offence, get converted into extremists via mosques, and that would probably be the last place for one to be built.


Untrue.

EDIT: Oh, and as many have missed in my first post: it's not ON Ground Zero, but NEAR. It's TWO BLOCKS AWAY from Ground Zero.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 11, 2010)

Of course they should allow it. What, every time some nutter thinks the god of the bible is telling him to kill prostitutes are you going to ban churches for five blocks?


----------



## Westside (Aug 11, 2010)

Issac said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think that there were any plans to the 9/11 attack to build a mosque (who does that anyway?).
> But I do think that the people affected by the attack might hold a grudge against muslims (Even if far from all muslims thinks that the attack was a good idea, i'm not saying anything like that) and a mosque at ground zero is like literary strew salt in an open wound.
> 
> Feel free to build a mosque anywhere BUT in that place.
> ...


So you are saying that Islam is the motive behind the attacks?  That is like saying because gay pornography is not something to be viewed by kids, therefore no homosexuals should be allowed to go to school.  The good old American way of thinking huh?


----------



## oneesli (Aug 11, 2010)

sure no mosque (first time i am behind geert wilders)


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 11, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> JetKun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for pointing out.


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

9/11 was fake
it was done to make islam look bad
this is all a setup done by bush/administration
i saw this video (i cant find it in my email, but if someone wants to see it, ill look for it)
it showed how the 9/11 was fake and it couldn't have been done naturally
if a plane crashed on the 80-90 floor and it bust there, how is the damn building supposed to FALL

like what the heck
it was made of steel and steel melts at about 1370 degrees C (2500 F)
and fuel burns at  800-1200 C


			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> Jet fuel burns extremely hot. It can burn anywhere from 800 degrees to 1200 degrees. Some myths say it gets hot enough to melt steel but that's not true.



ok even if the burning fuel melted the steel
it could've only melted about till 70th floor and it was supposed to fall sideways, not downwards (PHYSICS)
and what happened was that it fell down
HOW??
the only way it could've was from bombs planted in the basement or 1st floor


IT ALL FAKE
to make islam/muslims look bad


on topic: yes i think it should be built on ground zero
its the least america can give us considering all the blame was put on us


----------



## Satangel (Aug 11, 2010)

Not there, definitely not there. 
Build it somewhere else, or better, don't build it all.


----------



## Whizz (Aug 11, 2010)

It's a dumb idea to put a mosque on a place where muslim extremists destroyed these buildings and killed a shitload of people. Of course there is a big difference between extremists and muslims, but it's just weird to build a place where they honour Allah on a location where one of the biggest terrorist attacks took place, and where the Islamic religion may have played a role.

It will only divide people even further. Plus those muslim's safety may be at risk. All it takes is one jackass who feels the need to take revenge (something like you destroyed the twin towers, I destroy the mosque). That should increase tensions between muslims and none-muslims.

Just put it somewhere else if it really needs to be build...


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

JetKun said:
			
		

> Thanks for pointing out.Thanks for spamming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bullshit.

People are still missing it: IT'S NOT _ON_ GROUND ZERO, BUT _NEAR_.


----------



## dinofan01 (Aug 11, 2010)

oh not this conspiracy theory crap.

Of course they should be allowed to build it. I want them to build it! If you guys didn't notice as Americans we have to practice this thing called "Religious Freedom." To not allow them to build that mosque on the land that they own would be unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if its by ground zero. This is just prejudice against muslims because most americans are to stupid to see muslims=/=terrorists.


----------



## Westside (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> 9/11 was fake
> it was done to make islam look bad
> this is all a setup done by bush/administration
> i saw this video (i cant find it in my email, but if someone wants to see it, ill look for it)
> ...


Steel looses its integrity at less than half that temperature.  Play-doh is a solid, and the twin towers weight approximately 300 thousand tonnes.  I don't think play-doh can support hundreds of thousands of tonnes.


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> JetKun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


do you think they only use steel to make a fricking tall building like that?
nuff said


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> i know its not on ground zero its near
> where did i write on?
> 
> 
> ...



These conspiracy theories are just stupid, don't even bother. You're probably trolling anyway. And does it matter how it happened? A lot of people died for no reason, regardless of who did it.


----------



## granville (Aug 11, 2010)

It makes no difference to me. It's retarded to judge an entire denomination or religion based on what a select few cultists did. You have nuts like the 9/11 squad in every religion. Seriously. If they purchased the property and want to build a mosque, that's their business. Unless they're using the site as an organization headquarters to murder and harm people, i say leave them be.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> kiafazool said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bet he isn't trolling and really believes 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Just like the moon landing was a fake.

Just like Elvis still lives and works in a café in Oklahoma.

And so forth.

So, you were going to show me the vid? May I enquire as to where it is, then?


----------



## dinofan01 (Aug 11, 2010)

come on guys. can we not get off track by the conspiracy theories. Whether its was faked or not has no bearing on this subject.


----------



## granville (Aug 11, 2010)

Hey chill out Ellie, you take this way too far! Everyone knows Elvis is still alive and well. Aliens just abducted him and made a dead body clone of his. Same with Michael Jackson and even JFK. How could you believe such lies about him being dead?


----------



## Ritsuki (Aug 11, 2010)

Man, it's no good to be muslim on these times... Seriously, I don't care. First of all, I don't live in the USA. But I admit that's maybe not the ideal place. A lot of people still have prejudices on muslims, and not only in the USA. It's sad, but for safety of everyone, I think they should build the mosque somewhere else.


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


actually i believe wat the truth is
and i know the moon landing was fake
elvis is dead
and i dont believe in any conspiracy
but was 911 did to the islam religion is still talked by alot of people

i just want to know WHY? WHY US?


----------



## Depravo (Aug 11, 2010)

I don't see how the US could disallow it and still claim to be a Free Country™. As has been mentioned before, the perpetrators may have been Muslim but this *does not* mean that all Muslims are terrorists. That would be like saying all Christians are paedophiles based on the deplorable acts of a few Catholic priests.


----------



## Westside (Aug 11, 2010)

@kiafazool

Then why would you say steel melts at such high degree?  Why do you think that they used steel as the main factor behind their argument?  It is because of the building is supported by steel.  Any civil engineers can tell you that the thing that keeps the framework, structure and integrity of a tall building is the steel framework.  If you are even thinking of concrete, you can forget about it as it is made out of oxide compounds like Calcium Oxide that melts at a much lower temperature.  The thing with the highest melting point in a building's main framework is steel.

Please do not believe in the conspiracies easily.  Even if some bad representatives of the Muslim community made us look like this do not judge us like this.  It is always the ones that screw it up for the rest of us that stands out.


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> 9/11 was fake
> it was done to make islam look bad
> this is all a setup done by bush/administration
> i saw this video (i cant find it in my email, but if someone wants to see it, ill look for it)
> ...




you sir are an fool and make muslims look like idiots, 
What comes next?
World War II was just a fake for making Germans look bad? 
Holocaust just an excuse to get Israel?

The Terrorism and the attacks are real and not made up by anyone, we here in europe live even with it, remember the Attacks of Madrid and London? Or do you believe that this was just a fake too, made by our governments to make the Islam looking bad?

Noone, at least intelligent people, say that Islam is bad, I would never generalize like this.
But you talk like a mother, which got the news that her son made a massacre at school "no, this was not my boy, someone else told him that he should do it...Kevin would never do this, he is such a good boy"


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> actually i believe wat the truth is
> and i know the moon landing was fake
> elvis is dead
> and i dont believe in any conspiracy
> ...


Dude, you can't possibly be this stupid. Are you serious? You just contradicted yourself more than once in just that post. I didn't deem that possible, but you have just shown it is.

EDIT: Also agreed with taktularCBo's last post.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> actually i believe wat the truth is
> and i know the moon landing was fake
> elvis is dead
> and i dont believe in any conspiracy
> ...



Stop being a fool. I'm gonna guess you saw the episode of South Park, thought "HOLY SHIT THEY'RE RIGHT!" and looked it up on the source of all reliable information, the internet. You found a few websites of people saying "OMG LOOK AT THIS!" and bought into it since you're gullible.

Thing about conspiracy theories is that whenever they're disproved, the people who believe in the conspiracy just say "Oh well that was just a cover-up" or "Well they're hiding the truth so your info is wrong".

Maybe the 9/11 attack was done by the actual cultists in an attempt to make people believe it wasn't them but in fact was the US all along so people would hate the US more. New conspiracy guys, and since this is the internet, of course it's true!


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

Westside said:
			
		

> @kiafazool
> 
> Then why would you say steel melts at such high degree?  Why do you think that they used steel as the main factor behind their argument?  It is because of the building is supported by steel.  Any civil engineers can tell you that the thing that keeps the framework, structure and integrity of a tall building is the steel framework.  If you are even thinking of concrete, you can forget about it as it is made out of oxide compounds like Calcium Oxide that melts at a much lower temperature.  The thing with the highest melting point in a building's main framework is steel.
> 
> Please do not believe in the conspiracies easily.  Even if some bad representatives of the Muslim community made us look like this do not judge us like this.  It is always the ones that screw it up for the rest of us that stands out.


yea you are right about that


----------



## Hakoda (Aug 11, 2010)

taktularCBo said:
			
		

> The Terrorism and the attacks are real and not made up by anyone, we here in europe live even with it, remember the Attacks of Madrid and London? Or do you believe that this was just a fake too, made by our governments to make the Islam looking bad?


I know you aren't implying this but remember that terrorism does not belong to any one race; it is simply a tactic to entice fear towards others and and get the point they are trying to make thoroughly through. 

Personally, if everyone saw the world as forgiving, we could do this. But America just wouldn't see it that way. A majority of society would simply discriminate them if they did this. I agree with those saying that if the land rightfully belongs to them then they can do it but if you look forward a bit you can see how this will cause more problems than its worth. We should just try to avoid those right now.

I'm voting no not because I don't want the building there, but more towards the sympathy of the people because if they did it, it would just cause unwanted problems.

Small history lesson to some of you. I actually did a report for my sophomore World History Honors class on the solution towards the War on Terror. In order to write the solution, I had to understand the problem. Osama Bin Laden made many videos on his motives behind the attacks and there were so many but I chose one that stood out to me and focused on it. Majority of those who believe in Islam are those of Arabic descent which leads to one of the many motives which was the partitioning of Palestine and Israel's occupation in the land. Due to the effects of the Holocaust, Palestine had been overpopulated with those who believed in Judaism. Due to the overpopulation, the native people (Arab) were now the minority and the government had been switched to those of the majority of the nation; the country was now reclaimed as Israel. Of course, the minority had objected to this movement. United States, with our ironic belief of freedom and democracy, had supported this movement. Which leads to the question, wouldn't you pissed if you the minority? Of course, Arab authorities are trying to repartition the land reasonably but some thought they need to take a more extreme approach and the small break off of Islamic Extremist had formed. They then attacked what they believed was the source of the partition problem, the United States; now known as 9/11.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

Fun fact: I'm really Elvis, I faked my death by going to the moon and from there, I planned all of 9/11.


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> kiafazool said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i dont watch south park
and i didn't say anywhere that i trust anything
i was just stating FACTS

what is with all of you and thinking i think that i believe those conspiracies

im just stating them


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

You contradicted yourself once again. You have three options:

1) Leave now.
2) Post a good argument instead of crap.
3) Prepare to be bashed.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 11, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> You contradicted yourself once again. You have three options:
> 
> 1) Leave now.
> 2) Post a good argument instead of crap.
> 3) Prepare to be bashed.



He's just either trolling or has the intelligence of a brick. There's no point debating with someone who refuses to consider logical points or is too stupid to understand them.

I'd just leave him be in his own stupidity Nathan, no point getting wrapped up in his pointless argument. He'll disappear from the discussion once his point of discussion does.

More appropriate response:


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> Ellie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I suppose so, though I'll watch what he does (that is, if he does anything at all, which I kind of doubt right now).


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> what is with all of you and thinking i think that i believe those conspiracies
> 
> im just stating them
> 
> ...



mhhh?

as I said, you make Muslims look like idiots and this is not fair, because most of them would never agree with what you said!


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

this argument is never gonna end

i pick number 1 because everyone has difference opinions and different viewpoints
1. stop calling me a fool
2. i dont make muslims look like idiots
3. im not trolling
4. i dont have an intelligence of a brick
5. again im a muslim and why the heck would i make ourselves look bad
6. I TOLD YOU I DONT BELIEVE IN ANY CONSPIRACIES OR THERIOES
7. this topic is going the wrong way
8. sorry if anything offended anyone
9. sorry to everyone
10. i dont want to talk about this anymore
11. this list is long and i should stop


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> this argument is never gonna end
> 
> i pick number 1 because everyone has difference opinions and different viewpoints
> 1. stop calling me a fool
> ...



do whatever you want, I just wanted to point out, as people love to generalize, that you (THANK GOD!) neither represent the average Muslim nor the average Canadian.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> 1. stop calling me a fool
> 2. i dont make muslims look like idiots
> 3. im not trolling
> 4. i dont have an intelligence of a brick
> ...


1. I do as I please.
2. You do.
3. If you aren't, you have the intelligence of a brick.
4. If you don't, you're trolling.
5. See 3 and 4 for further reference.
6. Yet everything you say makes us believe you do.
7. How so?
8. No one is offended (except by your trolling/intelligence, perhaps).
9. You just said nearly the same thing twice.
10. Then don't.
11. Eleven sentences aren't much. Heck, they aren't even sentences as you can't be arsed to use capitalizatian and/or punctuation marks.

This argument will only end when you finally admit your defeat. I always win.


----------



## Madridi (Aug 11, 2010)

Stop derailing the thread guys, it started off in a good way.. This is never good..
I havent read this entire thread, but I'll keep it at this:

My opinion as a Muslim:
- If it's on ground zero, then no.. There is nothing really wrong with it, but its just somehow inappropriate. It's sensitive to families of those who lost people in 9/11 .. We can have Mosques built at any other place, no reason to do a "stunt" like that..

- If it's near (I read two blocks somewhere?), I dont see why not.. at all!


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> kiafazool said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you win
there happy
you can now start making a list of people you beat in arguments
congratulation

and when you say i make muslims look like idiots and i have an intelligence of a brick
i feel offended


number 11 is just random


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 11, 2010)

Great, I hate it when polls like these come up. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I don't get why there is so much hate for Islam. Look at Hitler. He was Christian, and he eradicated a LOT of jews. Do they stop the building of churches in Germany? No.

The only reason there is so much hate is because people are UNFAMILIAR with Islam and the culture that goes along with it. Those extremists are just retarded, they are NOT a representation of Islam.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

I never said you had the intelligence of a brick. Read my post again: I said you were _either trolling_ or you had the intelligence of a brick.

But you really do make muslims look like idiots. At least madridi4ever provided a good argument. Which is why I didn't start hating on him.


----------



## kiafazool (Aug 11, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> Great, I hate it when polls like these come up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


my point exactly

and no one start with me again because i dont want to talk about this topic anymore


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 11, 2010)

Then why are you still here?


----------



## Madridi (Aug 11, 2010)

All in all, I dont see why anything that would create contraversy or deals with sensitivity issues would be (built in this case) .. 

There are always alternatives..

I'm not only talking about this issue, but in general, since there are alternatives, why go there?


----------



## 431unknown (Aug 11, 2010)

This thread is bs, personally I feel that this whole issue is just for propaganda use. If they must build it then let them and if it's pissing people off so much then talk the Catholics and Jews into building a church and a  synagogue on either side of it!


----------



## Whizz (Aug 11, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> Great, I hate it when polls like these come up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, while Hitler was raised Catholic it is unknown if he was a true Catholic because of contradicting statements made by himself and those around him. So it's not known if he handled the way he did because of his religion. With Muslim extremists it _is_ often known that they handle in the name of Allah, because they say so. So your argument doesn't really hold up.

You are absolutely right though that muslims and muslim extremists are completely different people, and people really shouldn't confuse the two. The extremist's Allah is not the same Allah as real muslims believe in.


----------



## Madridi (Aug 11, 2010)

Whizz said:
			
		

> Slyakin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you are confused a bit in a certain point (that, or I misunderstood you, in which I apologize)
Extremists BELIEVE that they ARE doing what Allah wants them to do (btw, Allah literally means God, it's just the Arabic translation for it)
Obviously that's wrong, and that's not the teachings of Islam..


----------



## Pyrate02 (Aug 11, 2010)

By the way, why doesn't anyone here look at who is behind building this mosque?  The Cordoba Initiative has a plan of world domination to go out and buy up OTHER houses of worship and turn them into mosques.  Simply put, the moslems want nothing less than complete world domination and to impose their religion on everyone else.  When will people realize this and wake up?


----------



## SylvWolf (Aug 11, 2010)

What I find funny about the whole "Bush did 9/11" crowd is that they then turn around and say Bush was an idiot. It's like, what, is he the glorious mastermind of the most devastating attack on America in decades, or is he a complete buffoon? The two sides don't really match.

Anyway, on the actual topic, I'm torn. I believe that if there's the demand for it, yes, they should be able to build a mosque. But if the people living there would be extremely against it, it might not be a good idea. I didn't have any personal relation to 9/11 (as in, no family/friends of mine died), so I don't know how many of those people would still feel about the issue. However, if they were against it to an extreme, there could be violence, and I think I'd rather see the mosque not be there than have it be attacked.

I don't know. It's a tough issue, and very opinion-influenced. I try to look at both sides, but that is tough sometimes.


----------



## emigre (Aug 11, 2010)

If I recall correctly there's been a makeshift Mosque in the area for several years. The 'Ground Zero,' Mosque is just to be a permanent residence.

It has to be said that this is really a non story. The proposed Mosque as mentioned earlier is being built two blocks away from where the World Trade centere stood. The way this has been reported has been deceiving. Also here's another thing, in the area there's a Buddist temple and a Synagogue so there's clearly a record of religious buildings being built in the area. The problem is Islam is being stigmitised in the last decade and there are plenty of people who not knowledgeable about Islam.  Hence why some people struggle to distinguish between moderate muslims and extremism. 

Personally I have no problem with a Mosque being built. I may not beleive in God or religion but I would never limit one's liberty to do so. And this story in hand just sounds like Social Conervatives trying to gain some political points here like Sarah Palin.

Summary: Tolerence FTW


----------



## Whizz (Aug 11, 2010)

madridi4ever said:
			
		

> Whizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What part? What I mean is, that while both extremists and regular muslims believe in Allah and handle in his name, the extremists have a different (fucked up) view. That is why I say that they don't have the same God. Technically, yes, they do have the same God. All Muslims honour one Allah, but I hope you get my point.


----------



## Issac (Aug 11, 2010)

Westside said:
			
		

> Issac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No I am trying as hard as I can NOT to say that (hence all the parenthesises!! I have many muslim friends and such I have nothing agains ANY religion).
And I'm not even american. (actually, the extremists say that they act by islam and stuff, even though I think that's just bullshit, and they use their religion in a fucked up way to blame their actions on).
SO I don't say that Islam is behind the attack, but the extemists behind the attack claim that they just "follow the quoran"... but please don't misinpret it that I think so :S
But anyway, what I said was that EXTREMISTS did it... could've been any religion but in this case they were muslims. and these particular extremists says that the quoran tells them that this is what they should do... and that is what THEY are thinking, not saying all muslims think that way, and I don't think any such thing could be interpreted from the quoran at all.
So, those muslim extremists made something there, and therefore I think it's inapropriate to build a mosque there. sure it is two blocks away, but all the media attention that it gets right now, it could've just been AT the actual site. 

So I think just build it a few more blocks away.

I would think the same if it were christian extremists who did the attack, and people wanted to build a christian church there... not approriate.

so please westside, don't misunderstand what I wrote. And i personally think that your metaphor is rather off. I just think that building a 6 story mosque and muslim community center so close to a place which by many americans (wrongly) accuse the muslims for destroying... still i say that there are people who think that way. I DON'T! but it is a sensitive thing for those over there, and therefore it's just stupid to do such a thing. 
by your metaphor, I think muslims are not allowed to exist in new york... and i never even said anything remotely like that.

Something that's bound to happen if they build it there: An (or a group of) american will feel the need to save the city from the "evil" and go blow it up or something... there's always angry psychos out there... so just don't build it so close.


----------



## Madridi (Aug 11, 2010)

Whizz said:
			
		

> madridi4ever said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep then I misunderstood.. My apologies


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 11, 2010)

No...I don't think it should be built. In the same vein I don't think that a Church, a Mormon or Jewish temple, or any place of worship should be placed there.

What should be placed there is a phone booth. Yes, a phone booth where you will automatically linked into a voice mail server, and from there you will be able to say a soldiers name that has been sent overseas, and a message to that soldier. The message will then be relayed to whatever base he's staying at, for him to listen at his leisure. Yes. That's what should be built. and ON ground zero..not 2 blocks from it.


----------



## Issac (Aug 11, 2010)

madridi4ever said:
			
		

> Whizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually... Allah and the "christian" God is the same as well. just different interpretations (based on what my very religious muslim friend told me)


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 11, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> Great, I hate it when polls like these come up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This poll is not against Muslims, read my first post inside the topic, many of my friends are Muslims. I don't know how you can connect a normal poll with racism. I don't generalize, but you seem to do.

P.S Hitler hated Religion and tried to push it away in favor of nordic/normanic customs.

P.P.S I edite my first post, to make my intentions clear.


----------



## Madridi (Aug 11, 2010)

Issac said:
			
		

> Actually... Allah and the "christian" God is the same as well. just different interpretations (based on what my very religious muslim friend told me)


That's also true. Same goes for the God Jews worship


----------



## Ritsuki (Aug 11, 2010)

In fact, "Allah" means God in arabic. Just like "Dieu" in french or "Dio" in italian. The 3 monotheist religions are similar, they have the same prophets (the important ones, like Jesus, Abraham,... Even the angels are the same ones) but with a different interpretation.


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 11, 2010)

This is a touchy subject I know, but lets try and keep the discussion on topic and avoid flaming and arguments shall we? It saddens me how any topic relating to religion and sexuality ultimately always ends up getting closed here. It would make my week if there was no need to moderate this thread again guys.


----------



## Skizzo (Aug 11, 2010)

JetKun said:
			
		

> Many muslims, no offence, get converted into extremists via mosques...


No offence, but many Muslim extremists are created (entrapped) by the U.S. govt. themselves via their ex-con informants/agents. Ever heard of William "Jameel" Chrisman? http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/12/...risman-fbi.html

Not to mention that if you look at terrorism and its goals objectively, you'd see that the U.S. govt. has been and continues to be the largest participant in such acts, although we like to refer to those types of acts as anything but, because the U.S. is 'exceptional' and therefore can do no wrong, regardless of how many lives are destroyed or lost as a result of said actions. It's all GOOD! Like poisoning untold numbers of people with our DU munitions. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I better stop now lest the truth get me in trouble once again.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Aug 11, 2010)

People should realize that Islam is pretty simalar to the religions it was based of since it is the same thing just with another prophet because Islam came after Christianity and the only major difference besides that is that we dont believe Allah or God can have children so jesus isnt really the child of god in our religion


----------



## Skizzo (Aug 11, 2010)

And for all of you people who believe the 'official story' and believe that 9/11 was carried out by 'extremist Muslims', please define what extremist means in this context. Because it certainly doesn't mean that they follow Islam to an extreme, otherwise they wouldn't be seen in strip clubs, getting drunk, filling their noses with cocaine and munching down pork, such as it's been reported Atta did.

_Mohamed Atta, or rather the person playing the part of "Mohamed Atta," was in fact not a fanatical, religiously devout, suicidal, "jihadi" Muslim "terrorist." According to research articles published just after 9/11 in such mainstream publications as The Wall Street Journal, Atta was, surprisingly, a drunk, cocaine snorting, pork-eating playboy who enjoyed visiting the strip clubs in south Florida, and loved to loudly and drunkenly brag to everyone about how he was either a commercial pilot or a CIA agent. What he actually was, as will be illustrated later in this article, is a "patsy," a bit actor playing a role, for either American or Israeli intelligence, in a false flag terror operation that was to be officially blamed on "Muslim terrorist hijackers" working under the direction of a long-time CIA military-intelligence asset known as Usama bin Ladin./_


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 12, 2010)

The fact this is debated is incredibly ridiculous.  This is the United States of America.  Leave the Mosque alone.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 12, 2010)

I voted yes. It's not even ON ground zero. It's blocks away.


----------



## Westside (Aug 12, 2010)

Issac said:
			
		

> Westside said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, sorry if that sounded like a flame bait, and I know that you are not American.  However, I worded my post wrong and it ended up directing it at you.  What I meant to say is that according to you Americans are thinking this way, and it is incorrect, and even if they hold a grudge against Muslims that grudge is not good.  My country was taken over by Russians, and tens of thousands have been killed by Stalin's army, but at a present day I don't care if the Russians build a church in downtown of our capital city, as long as they bought that piece of land.  I have nothing against my Russian friends, because I know that Stalin does not represent Russians, and no other sane Uzbek person should feel grudge against them.


----------



## Bridgy84 (Aug 12, 2010)

I have a simple take on this really.  America was built on one thing,  Freedom.  It is the citizens of America that want to build this Mosque, no matter their religion,  the people that want this built live here.  Who are we to take that right.  I am not going to be that person that is all against Muslims.  Sure some people of that religion did terrible things.  I have news for you.  That Jewish next guy could go on a killing spree.  Unless the guy across the street, who happens to be German, tries to kill him first because i mean they hated Jews at one point so i mean they all do right.  Yeah not so much.  They are people and most of them decent.  It was not a religion that killed all those people.  It was the people who did it and that was all.  I just can't hate because of their beliefs.  Not what America is all about to me.  They are Americans like you and me.  I embrace their freedom to follow their religion and if ground zero is where they want to so be it

Woo sorry that was a bit more than i planned.  Sorry if this bothers anyone but it is how i feel.


----------



## monkat (Aug 12, 2010)

D34DL1N3R said:
			
		

> I voted yes. It's not even ON ground zero. It's blocks away.



this. Whats the big deal? Should Americans be banned from building, say, an Embassy in Hiroshima / Nagasaki?


----------



## Skizzo (Aug 12, 2010)

Bridgy84 said:
			
		

> I have a simple take on this really.  America was built on one thing,  Freedom.


Actually, if you do your research, you'll find that America was built largely on the backs of slaves and the slaughter and theft of Native Americans. Please, save this 'myth' of America for the less informed. Let's try and keep this discussion based on facts.

_As if that weren't enough, the myth also obscures the reality of American prosperity: that it is not solely or even primarily the product of American ingenuity and the inherent greatness of the American people, but of brute force, brutally applied. The story of American wealth begins with a continent rich in natural resources, devoid of natural enemies and protected from the rest of the world by two oceans, conquered through genocide and developed by slavery, fed by the most rapid destruction of resources mankind has ever seen, and growing by hammering the rest of the world, murdering innocent people and stealing the resources to which the victims and their progeny should have been entitled. For this you congratulate yourselves, and your politicians congratulate you, as righteous Christians whose worldly wealth signifies your holiness. Or something._

Here, for some self-edification...

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2010/04/...can-people.html

Let's just get all the bullshit about what America is and isn't out of the way and proceed from there...shall we?


----------



## Bridgy84 (Aug 12, 2010)

Skizzo said:
			
		

> Bridgy84 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am very well aware of what you are trying to get at here.  I am a 26 year old college educated Man.  There were many many injustices that happened while America was being built.  I think in today's day and age most people are aware of them.  There was still a underlying dream that i was speaking of.  The fact remains that we here in America enjoy a amount of freedom that so many people could only dream of.  I for one am thankful for it.  The path to where we are may not have always been correct, and some things will never be forgotten, but history is history.  We learned and truly try to make this a place of freedom for everyone.  I do at least.


----------



## 431unknown (Aug 12, 2010)

Skizzo said:
			
		

> Bridgy84 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats nice,if you feel that way then why don't you move to the middle east or maybe just shut your mouth. To think that some solider problly died today in some god forsaken shit hole just to defend your right to voice that yours and his nation is shit. Just that thought makes me sick you little puke!


----------



## Xarsah16 (Aug 12, 2010)

Damn, man, you're a little fired up.

I'm against the mosque, because Ground Zero is a memorial ground, and it's plain and simple that the people who caused the 9-11 tragedy in the first place were of the same ethnicity that honors Islam as their native religion. People died unnecessarily- no one inside that building deserved it. It comes down to tact and being respectful. Our nation was thrown on its head when the tragedy happened.


----------



## Skizzo (Aug 12, 2010)

431unknown said:
			
		

> Skizzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You see, your problem here is that the facts of the matter have nothing to do with how I feel about anything. They are facts, and they won't change one way or the other no matter how I, or anyone else, feels about them. And if you really think there are soldiers somewhere defending my right to freedom of speech, please explain how? By killing innocent civilians? Or even by killing some 'terrorists' in a distant country? The ONLY ones who can take away my freedoms are those who hold power, and in the context you are speaking, that would be our own government. It's funny that while at the same time you would suggest there are soldiers dying to defend my freedom of speech, in the same breath, you'd tell me to shut up because you don't like what I'm saying or the FACTS I'm conveying. I guess you're just too caught up or too emotional about the subject to see the fucking irony in that, eh? If you truly do believe in the freedom of speech, and that people are indeed dying to defend that freedom, then how is it you somehow think they're only dying to protect 'popular' speech? Wow...I guess you can't actually refute anything that's been said and this is the best you can do...tell people to shut up because after all, there're people dying to protect my right to do otherwise. Or not.


----------



## liquidnumb (Aug 12, 2010)

Isn't there already a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero? I'm pretty sure it's been there for a long time.


----------



## 431unknown (Aug 12, 2010)

Skizzo said:
			
		

> 431unknown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1: it's not that I don't like the facts that your conveying I never stated your facts were false, I'm tired of your kind having to restate those facts over and over again like it's some kind of debt that we need to repay to the rest of the world. I never started a war,I never Killed any Native Americans or stole their land, or owned any slaves. I don't feel I or the rest of the people of this nation need to apologize to any one.

2. contrary to your belief that soldier did die for you, they died believing that he or she were doing good for their country and protecting the rights of it's citizens. Sure you can argue against this all you want but I was there once. The men I served with all had a great feeling that they were doing something for their nation, How about you have you ever served? Do you ever have the urge to do something good for your country  or are you one of the ones who sits with his hand out looking to see what it will do for you?

3. Killing innocent civilians? I don't know where your trying to come at me with that and all I can say is shit happens and bad things happened to good people every day.

4. the only reason you and I have no power is because we secede it to others and some times bad decisions made. But just because we give them power it does not make it absolute. You see the beauty of our constitution is not that it gives us rights but rather it reminds us that we have free will (something which the king sought to suppress) then it's the rights that it gives us to use to defend our free will from any one who would seek to suppress it again. 


4. I don't know how old you are, you seem rather intelligent and contrary to what you may believe I understand your views and we probably would  agree on a lot of them if it this were a face to face  discussion.


----------



## Xarsah16 (Aug 12, 2010)

@431unknown - 

With all things said, though, in the end, it doesn't change the fact that the way you expressed your opinion was harsh and hurtful. There's a kind way and a mean way to express your opinion, and I was taken aback as well by the tone you expressed yours in. People are also going to think what they want, and you can't change that, such is life. It's also not about trying to prove your point and gain the last word. That's something my mother does, and just about everyone on the Fox News channel whenever she's watching it XD When an opinion is properly expressed, it gains the recognition it deserves.

Bottom line - I'd respect you and your beliefs if you respected other people's beliefs as well.


----------



## SkankyYankee (Aug 12, 2010)

Religious tolerance is what separates us from the very people we started fighting over twenty years ago. If we give that up we have become what we have fought so hard against. Its not right next to the wtc site either its 2 blocks away.


----------



## 431unknown (Aug 12, 2010)

Okkie dokkie.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 12, 2010)

What happened to Political Christianity's firm support of the free market and of the government not being allowed to interfere with that or in religion?  Oh, wait, when you're Sarah Palin arguments doen't have to make sense from one to the next, after all, consecutive words rarely make sense when they're coming out of her.

And I mean look at this chunt.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07...uslim-video.php



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, currently running third  in the state's Republican gubernatorial primary race, says he's not sure if Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion apply to the followers of the world's second-largest faith, Islam.



You have freedom of religion as long as you don't choose the wrong religion?  Why did all those puritan nutjobs get on the boats in the first place?

The current immigration hysteria in the US over hispanics and muslims is just the modern version of what happened years ago with the Irish.  "They've got a strange religion. They don't speak properly. They're uneducated. They take jobs from real Americans. They're dangerous and criminal."

BTW I see we've already gone through the "MEN DIED FOR YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO DON'T YOU DARE SAY THAT" argument, that's one of my faves


----------



## nutella (Aug 12, 2010)

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but whoever decided to build a mosque there has to know that SOME people will have a problem with it. Why go through all the controversy? It can be built somewhere else, unless I'm missing something terribly obvious.


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 12, 2010)

No Muslims were ever arrested for 9/11, only Jews.
Israel did 9/11 - ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 12, 2010)

Firstly, why should they? There was a time when interracial couples or "black" churches being built in the wrong area caused controversy and there were people who had the attitude "well I'm not against it, but they shouldn't do it because it will cause problems." It's just giving in to bullies, hear a similar option suggested about gay adoption, the kid might get bullied so just conform to the bullies rather than tackling them.

As for why there, same reason you build any amenity anywhere - there isn't one nearby that services the needs of the community there.

You don't have to look far even today to find outrage and controversy about the opening of Catholic churches, community centres and schools in areas where people are still raw about terrorist atrocities committed by Catholics there within the last ten years, how long do you hold the grudge against a religion for, how wide does the exclusion zone go and to what extent do you allow the followers of a religion who had no involvement in such activities to have their freedoms restricted because of the behaviour of others?


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 12, 2010)

clownb said:
			
		

> No Muslims were ever arrested for 9/11, only Jews.
> Israel did 9/11 - ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD



gosh...antisemitism seems to be really a big issue in the USA and I live in Germany, where we learned the hard way, what is the truth and to not follow blindly a "leader". If you would say those things in Germany, they would call you a Nazi and in my opinion you are...or you are just stupid believing in those theories.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 12, 2010)

taktularCBo said:
			
		

> clownb said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think in the US, and indeed the wider world, there's issues both with "J00s control the world!!1" type anti-semitism and the flip side of people who think anyone who dares criticise Israel for the prison camp they're currently operating in Gaza must be some kind of Jew hating hitler worshipper for even suggesting such a thing.


----------



## DCG (Aug 12, 2010)

I don't think it's smart to build it.
It can give certain people (relatives of the deceased) the feeling as if they are being mocked with.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 12, 2010)

Conversely, blocking it may make some relatives of the deceased feel like politicians are speaking on their behalf without their permission and using their private grief to further a personal agenda of removing religious freedoms and promoting bigotry.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 12, 2010)

It's true this country is free, and at least it ISN'T on GZ. I am still against it. People don't forget things like 9/11, and putting a mosque 2 blocks away from GZ is just asking for trouble. People didn't just die in the Wold Trade Center, they also died around it. Honestly, just build it somewhere else. Putting it in such proximity won't improve relations with Muslims.


----------



## emigre (Aug 12, 2010)

Or alternatively it could result better understanding and cooperation with the Muslim demographic?


----------



## Sterling (Aug 12, 2010)

emigre said:
			
		

> Or alternatively it could result better understanding and cooperation with the Muslim demographic?


Hey, it could happen. But with the way you people seem to think about Americans, it is a bad idea. Also how do you think one mosque can change something like that? We already have mosques dotting the landscape, I don't think one more will change something like that. Especially since this one would be near a place where basically a mass murder occurred. That's what most of you foreign tempers don't seen to get...


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 12, 2010)

Uh... Why was my post at the top of the page edited with the reason 

"This post has been removed by a moderator.
Reason: links to forums like that are not welcome here"

Don't think I posted a link to anything.

EDIT:  Guess it might have been something quoted.


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 12, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Uh... Why was my post at the top of the page edited with the reason
> 
> "This post has been removed by a moderator.
> Reason: links to forums like that are not welcome here"
> ...



You were replying to a post that linked to a rather nasty little anti Semitic hate forum.

I trashed the post you replied to and both responses to it.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 12, 2010)

Here's the sum up

It is bad for a mosque to be built on G Z because....
* reminiscent of 9/11
* makes locals feel uncomfortable
* lot of racial hate may spring up

It is good to build a mosque because...
* regular non-extremist muslims can come and pay their respects
* a place to pray and mourn the dead at G Z
* all faiths are equal - there's a church there, so why not a mosque.


----------



## emigre (Aug 12, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> emigre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You shouldn't generalise. I always thought America had a majority of reasonable people with just a idiotic loud minority like Sarah Palin. In an earlier post I stated that there's already been a makeshift Mosque in the area and this proposed Mosque/Islamic centre will be a permanet home. There seems to be a  wish for it and if everything is in place there shouldn't be any strong reason for it to be built. 

Yes 9/11 was tragic and as insensitive this may sound, things need to move on. It shouldn't be forgotton but it shouldn't hinder the way society treats each other in the future. If we can't progress than humanity do not have a hope.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 12, 2010)

emigre said:
			
		

> Sterl500 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. We must push things ahead, not dwell. Look at how many people disagreed with FaceBook's new design, but FB stood firm and ignored them. Now even more people use facebook than ever. (Not related, but good case-study)


----------



## controlio (Aug 12, 2010)

Ah well... we need an enemy... 30 years ago the Russian or communists where our sworn enemys...now there are the fanatic Islamists...
Religion comes in handy, it polarize people. As you can see in this threat.
I mean... there has to be a place to drop the bombs...
What would happen to all thoses workers working in the US arms industries when there is no need to replace this stuff?
They need the arms industries, sadly.

It doesnt matter if 911 was fake or not... the US had a good reason to start a long and bloody war in Afghanistan...
Oh, and Irak, suddenly Irak was also involved in 911 and had weapons of mass destruction, ehehe,...

For the mosque...they should allowed to build it... if you the US ARE the land of the free.... everything else would be hypocritical.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 12, 2010)

what's up...with the...ellpisis...? Are you about...to...collapse???


----------



## emigre (Aug 12, 2010)

My mental example was of the traditional problems between France and Germany going back teh Franco-Prussian War. Where the tensions were brought again by the World Wars but were finally brought to a peace by cooperation between the two states by the ECSC.


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 12, 2010)

why my post was removed..I diden't link to anything.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 12, 2010)

JetKun said:
			
		

> Here's the sum up
> 
> *snip*It's not built ON Ground Zero, but NEAR. Geeze, how many times do I have to repeat this before anyone will ever pay attention to it?
> 
> ...


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 12, 2010)

In my post I said how stupid this guy was and that antisemitism is the worse way, I even called him Nazi! Now it looks like I linked to a antisemitic hate forum. can't you be next time more specific, while deleting posts?


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 12, 2010)

Well, it takes time to type stuff, and it's not like the mods spend their entire lives on here, so of course they won't type perfectly appropriate descriptions everytime. p1ngpong explained the misunderstanding, so anyone actually reading the topic will know you didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## emigre (Aug 12, 2010)

Here's a decent article on teh whole situation.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 12, 2010)

I generally dislike relying on foreign websites to provide news about the US. There are a lot of people out there that dislike the US, and would love nothing less than a chance to demonize the general US populace.


----------



## Depravo (Aug 12, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> I generally dislike relying on foreign websites to provide news about the US. There are a lot of people out there that dislike the US, and would love nothing less than a chance to demonize the general US populace.


It works both ways - your own media may report the situation in a slightly more 'patriotic' light. It's best to see both sides and make your own mind up.


----------



## Skizzo (Aug 13, 2010)

Bridgy84 said:
			
		

> Skizzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WTF?! Regardless of who did it?! Are you fucking serious? It doesn't matter who did it, only that people died? Then why in the fuck did we go on to wage a war against a specific nation if it doesn't matter who did it? And you want to talk about stupid? Of course it matters who in the hell we placed the blame upon...otherwise there would be no fucking 'War on Global Terror'. While you talk of 'conspiracy theories', which if you knew the actual definition you'd know that the government's account of the event is nothing more than that as well, I take it you've never heard of Operation Northwoods. Not a conspiracy, but in fact, an actual military plan presented to Kennedy which called for the 'terrorizing' of Americans by govt. agents pretending to be Cubans in order to garner widespread public support for a war against them. Kennedy rejected it. I doubt had good old god loving (and godly message receiving) Bush been in power at the time, he would have done the same. It's freely available for your perusal should you actually wish to educate yourself on the matter instead of making blanket assumptions.

YES FOLKS, during the Cuban-American missile crisis, our President at the time was presented by the military leaders of the time with a plan to terrorize Americans, making it look like Cubans were to blame, all in order to wage a war against Cuba. THAT IS FACT. Not conspiracy theory. And all the documents are freely available to anyone doubting this. And YES, THIS INCLUDED THE POSSIBILITY OF KILLING INNOCENT AMERICANS.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

To the best of my knowledge this document has never been shown to be anything other than authentic.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 13, 2010)

I love the armchair demolitions experts that appear when 9/11 is brought up.  "XXXX had never happened before!!!"  When was the last time someone deliberately flew a passenger jet, with a completely full tank of fuel, into a huge building with loads of heavy floors above?  People are comparing that to normal fires in normal buildings, christ on a jetski.  "It fell down into itself, it looked like those controlled explosions I saw on TV!"  How are you expecting it to fall?  Timber!  Like a tree?  What forces are acting on it in a sideways direction?  Because I can think of only one force acting on it when the steel gave way and that was pulling it straight down.  "They fired missiles at the WTC!"  Why would you fire missiles at something that was about to get hit by two enormous bombs?  "Bush did it to gain public support!" So why did his response consist of sitting in a pre-school looking like he had no idea what the fuck to do?  "The Jews did it to start a war against their enemies!"  So why pin it on Afghanis rather than Syrians, Iranians or Lebanese?

Bush and Israel certainly exploited the situation for their own ends, used it as an excuse to go into a stupid and illegal war in Iraq and to enable Gaza to remain a prison camp, but anyone who thinks the act itself was arranged by anyone other than Islamic Extremists is pants on head retarded.

This tickled me when it came up a few years ago.



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> *Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?*
> 
> 1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?
> 
> ...


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 13, 2010)

Skizzo said:
			
		

> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He was trying to say that, nearly 9 years after the events, it really doesn't matter anymore. Heck, even when the crashes had just happened, it already didn't matter. One country will always accuse the other of doing something bad, et vice versa. The war on global terror is a joke, and you know it.

So, you should actually educate yourself on how people get a point across over the interwebz. Guild didn't make a blanket assumption (it wasn't even an assumption FFS).

*points at sig*


----------



## taktularCBo (Aug 13, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> The war on global terror is a joke, and you know it.



sorry, but this point isn't true.
Islamophobia is a joke and just stupid, but terrorism is not.


----------



## DunkrWunkah (Aug 13, 2010)

It would be in really bad taste to build a mosque near Ground Zero. It's just not a good idea, and offensive towards the families that lost loved ones during the attacks.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 13, 2010)

I don't exactly get WHY they want a masjid there.

If they want to build one, go over a few more blocks?


----------



## TrapperKeeperX (Aug 13, 2010)

kiafazool said:
			
		

> 9/11 was fake
> it was done to make islam look bad
> this is all a setup done by bush/administration
> i saw this video (i cant find it in my email, but if someone wants to see it, ill look for it)
> ...


Of course The Government with Bush Administration,The Bush Family,Larry Silverstein the one who had the Lease ad there is alot more people who knew about it anyway Lied about 9/11 it was so they can make money off this murderous plot. It's all about money & religion! I'm an Atheist and I don't want no Mosque anyway I don't like religion anyway and I hate religious extremists anyway they're ignorant & close minded and the extremists beliefs get the better of them. If you spread fear from religion your fucking retarded!!!!!


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 13, 2010)

TrapperKeeperX said:
			
		

> kiafazool said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is such a thing as an atheist extremist, and I think you fit the bill, good sir. quit spreading these retarded conspiracy theories. And, by the way, almost all religions are based on fear. Its not like anyone WANTS to go to hell right?


----------



## Skizzo (Aug 14, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> I love the armchair demolitions experts that appear when 9/11 is brought up.  "XXXX had never happened before!!!"  When was the last time someone deliberately flew a passenger jet, with a completely full tank of fuel, into a huge building with loads of heavy floors above?  People are comparing that to normal fires in normal buildings, christ on a jetski.


Yeah, love 'em about as much as you gotta love the armchair pilots. 'Completely full tank of fuel' means one thing and one thing only. Why would two planes, neither even coming close to their full capacity, nor coming close to their maximum flying distance, have 'completely full tanks of fuel'? Quite simply, they wouldn't, especially not Flight 11, a 767-200ER which can fly a distance of nearly three times the planned distance (under optimal conditions, but I seriously doubt the conditions were anything that would warrant carrying almost 3 times the necessary fuel) it was intending to fly. Seeing as how you fail so badly in your first point, why go on? I mean seriously, they were 'completely full' even though those planes were in the air for roughly 47 & 49 minutes? Hmm...pants on head retarded is one way of putting it I guess.

I don't recall anyone mentioning any specific buildings, but what makes the fires of the Towers so different? The fuel you mention? What do you think that huge black cloud was we all saw from both planes when they struck? It was the fuel exploding and being largely (notice I didn't say 'completely'!) consumed (not too efficiently I might add which the black smoke is an indicator of). Ever pour a bunch of lighter fluid onto charcoal without letting it soak in and instead immediately lighting it. Yeah, that doesn't work too well either. So, since we know it's not the fuel that makes the Towers' fires so different, what is it? And whatever you'd like to suggest it is, it better also be applicable to WTC7, which also collapsed after a very short time and a comparitively small fire. So, that would eliminate the planes' impacts, and even the jet fuel. What made that fire so less than normal then?


----------



## Fluto (Aug 14, 2010)

yes


its next to it also i dont get why people are so angry this is not a sign of "haha we bet you we are going t take over", No its not for those people out there.


----------



## liquidnumb (Aug 14, 2010)

This thread is full of rage and no longer about building a mosque.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 14, 2010)

Skizzo said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 14, 2010)

This thread is spiralling off topic, I don't really want to intervene too much because of my own personal views on 9/11. But please lets just stick to the original discussion. Should a Mosque be built close to the vicinity of ground zero. Lets not have any more futile arguments between the people who believe in the official story and those who do not please. Thats not what this thread is about. 



			
				BlueStar said:
			
		

> liquidnumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Aug 14, 2010)

You could always lock it.


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 14, 2010)

phoenixgoddess27 said:
			
		

> You could always lock it.



Im trying hard to avoid that, I want to see the spectrum of opinion of peoples views on this particular subject and this alone. I don't want to see arguments on what may or may not have happened during the attacks or what may or may not have caused them. That's not what this poll is intended for.


----------



## rancor01 (Aug 14, 2010)

Of course it should be built!  Religious freedom and tolerance is what this country was founded on.  Its the entire reason that the pilgrims left the U.K... To escape religious persecution, and practice the way they wanted.  

For those of you that say no - What would you say to a church being built next to the federal building in Oklahoma city that Tim McVeigh blew up?  He was a christian.  Is it insulting for a church to be constructed near the place that a christian extremist bombed?

There are still davidian churches around the world - I dont see anyone protesting them since their leader and his followers went up in flames in Waco, Texas.

Hell - The Aum cult that put sarin gas in the Tokyo subways is still around and practicing openly.  While they are protested, no one stops them from building their centers of worship and practicing their religion.

What makes muslims/islam any differeny?


----------



## Sterling (Aug 15, 2010)

rancor01 said:
			
		

> Of course it should be built!  Religious freedom and tolerance is what this country was founded on.  Its the entire reason that the pilgrims left the U.K... To escape religious persecution, and practice the way they wanted.
> 
> For those of you that say no - What would you say to a church being built next to the federal building in Oklahoma city that Tim McVeigh blew up?  He was a christian.  Is it insulting for a church to be constructed near the place that a christian extremist bombed?
> 
> ...


The stuff in this post is true. Americans however, don't think that way... Hell, I don't even think that way! Geez, I still think it's wrong to put it so close, and the President only supports this because he is Islamic.

*See below post*


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 15, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> The stuff in this post is true. Americans however, don't think that way... Hell, I don't even think that way! Geez, I still think it's wrong to put it so close, and the President only supports this because he is Islamic.



Obama's not a Muslim.

edit : I'll also throw in my 2 pence worth here.  While I totally agree that it's their land, their property and can decide what to do with it I do personally find it objectionable.  I know it's not at Ground Zero, but it's still close enough proximity to have caused upset.  Therefore tact should be used.  The building is also being built as an inter-faith community centre.  Scrap the Mosque portion of the building and use it solely as an inter-faith community centre.  Use it to hold out an olive branch and show that Islam truly is a religion of peace and unity.  The Mosque could be built elsewhere, somewhere that's not going to cause offence and grief to those who lost family in the attack.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 15, 2010)

Okay Trolly, a quick Google proves you're right. Now that I think about it, the news station I watch tells the same. Just proves how much propaganda sticks with you.


----------



## liquidnumb (Aug 15, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> I'll also throw in my 2 pence worth here.  While I totally agree that it's their land, their property and can decide what to do with it I do personally find it objectionable.  I know it's not at Ground Zero, but it's still close enough proximity to have caused upset.  Therefore tact should be used.  The building is also being built as an inter-faith community centre.  Scrap the Mosque portion of the building and use it solely as an inter-faith community centre.  Use it told hold out an olive branch and show that Islam truly is a religion of peace and unity.  The Mosque could be built elsewhere, somewhere that's not going to cause offence and grief to those who lost family in the attack.



First off, I just want to make sure you don't think I'm calling you out in these political threads 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. I just know you're going to deliver a tempered response and not fly off the handle.

I want to know what you think about the other two mosques that already exist near ground zero. Should they move those, too?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 15, 2010)

liquidnumb said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol Don't worry, call me out in any political thread you want!  I enjoy the discussion and debate. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Aren't those other two Mosques a fair distance away from the 9/11 site though?  Like more than just a few blocks?


----------



## Sterling (Aug 15, 2010)

liquidnumb said:
			
		

> I want to know what you think about the other two mosques that already exist near ground zero. Should they move those, too?
> How close are they? Also can you get the addresses? Two City blocks isn't far enough away, and five or six blocks is a lot better. I am sure they aren't within 5-6 blocks anyway.
> 
> 
> ...



Haha! I see we agree they must be farther away.


----------



## liquidnumb (Aug 15, 2010)

One is four blocks away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion...que.html?src=mv


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 15, 2010)

I say yes.

They are protected by the constitution. It allows freedom of religion. They can build it and no one can stop them because they want to build a religious center. There's nothing more American than allowing people to exercise their rights. Others who say no because of their feelings toward Islam are acting against the core values of the United States and are not true Americans. I believe it will be a step forward to strengthening America.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 15, 2010)

liquidnumb said:
			
		

> One is four blocks away.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion...que.html?src=mv


Wow... Honestly that was founded in 1970, why should something that had been there for over 30 years be moved just because of a tragedy. Something that is trying to force it's way into the vicinity 9 years after something that hasn't been completely healed is just wrong. Seriously, move something that has been there for over 30 years or prevent something before it gets started?

EDIT: I wonder who is funding the building of the mosque?


----------



## liquidnumb (Aug 15, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> liquidnumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's the difference between a mosque that's been there 40 years and one that was built yesterday?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 15, 2010)

liquidnumb said:
			
		

> One is four blocks away.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/nyregion...que.html?src=mv



I don't think they should be shut down or moved.  If it was a block or two away I would say the most respectful thing would be to move them if possible.  Building a new Mosque near the site is different though.  I don't see it as Muslims trying to proclaim a victory or anything daft like that, but I see it as a respect and compassion thing.  I'm still a little groggy from being on painkillers all week so it's a little hard to put things as well as I want so you'll have to forgive me if it seems a little incoherent.  It's like this, the Twin Towers were attacked in the name of Islam.  I know that the terrorists represent a small portion of the Wahabbi followers of Islam, but the fact still remains that it was done in the name of Islam.  Building a mosque there, specially within "prayer call" distance, is insensitive.  I would object to the building of new Synagogues in Palestine for similar reasons, or if say Shinto priests wanted to build a temple in Pearl Harbour.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 15, 2010)

Just like it would be inappropriate to put a sex shoppe right next to an elementary school, I think it would be inappropriate to put any single faith place or worship next to or on ground zero.


----------



## liquidnumb (Aug 15, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> ...or if say Shinto priests wanted to build a temple in Pearl Harbour.
> 
> There's one right around the corner.
> 
> ...



Would you be opposed to the rebuilding of the christian church that was destroyed in the attack?


----------



## jellyman223 (Aug 15, 2010)

I say it's fine to put one up near Ground Zero. Regardless of religious issues and etc, the mosque  is just another building. Yes the terrorists were Islamic Extremists but I don't think we should ban the mosque  because it the religious sanctuary for the Islamic religion. Obviously this is a serious issue but if this is a religious issue or a offense issue is up for debate. 

If they can't build a mosque near Ground Zero, what building is appropriate for that location? Starbucks, a mall, target, walmart, a sex shoppe? Would any of these buildings be more or less offensive or appropriate to build near the location? And how close is too close to the location to build a religious building regardless of which religion?


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 15, 2010)

taktularCBo said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You misunderstood what I said. Terrorism isn't a joke, anti-terroristic measures _are_. Try proving me wrong.


----------



## Mid123 (Aug 15, 2010)

I dont see any problem with this


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 15, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Michael R. Bloomberg is a former Wall Street mogul with a passion for the rights of a private property owner. He is a Jew whose parents asked their Christian lawyer to buy a house and then sell it back to them to hide their identity in an unwelcoming Massachusetts suburb. And he is a politician who regards his independence as his greatest virtue.
> 
> That potent combination of beliefs and history, those closest to Mayor Bloomberg say, has fueled his defense of the proposed Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan — a defense he has mounted with emotion, with strikingly strong language and in the face of polls suggesting that most New Yorkers disagree with him.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/nyregion/13bloomberg.html


----------



## Urza (Aug 15, 2010)

Do you know how much real estate costs in NYC? A fuck-ton.

If the locals don't want it built there, they should start a fund to purchase a lot elsewhere. The affiliated Muslims shouldn't be the ones to have to spend the immense and unnecessary amount of time, effort, and money to scout out a new location. If you don't put action behind your words, they're worth nothing.

That being said, this is really a non-story. It's an easy topic for people to pick sides to hate and discuss, because as we all know the _last_ thing the average person wants to do is _think_. It has no effect on the well-being of our nation, or the world as a whole, as both continue to face _real_ problems with far more dire consequences.

The news hype-machine at work. Stay ignorant, America.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 15, 2010)

liquidnumb said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your point being?


----------



## xxteargodxx (Aug 15, 2010)

I don't live in NY so I'm not bothered by what is put up over in that state.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 15, 2010)

After reading a bit more about this on Serebii (of all places), I found out there actually used to be a mosque there, which was destroyed in the attacks, too. You can't beat the fact that the muslims have every right to build a new one.


----------



## liquidnumb (Aug 15, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> liquidnumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you think it shouldn't be there?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 15, 2010)

liquidnumb said:
			
		

> Do you think it shouldn't be there?



As I said before I find it morally objectionable.


----------



## 0ddity (Aug 15, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> liquidnumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pretty much too bad. Equal protection under the law for everyone is a fundamental of the US Constitution. I find the WBC morally reprehensible, but I wouldn't try to take away their right to protest.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 15, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And I wouldn't try to take away their right to build to the Mosque, but at the same time I will object to it.  That's one of the joys of living in (reasonably) democratic secular societies.  We are free to voice our disapproval.


----------



## chiseen (Aug 16, 2010)

The funny thing is: there has been a mosque 4 blocks away from ground zero for a while now. If people who oppose the mosque, yet support religious freedom in general want the mosque to be built somewhere else, the only question I have for them is this. Exactly how far is acceptable? Where do we draw the line between to too close and far enough? 

IMO this should be a non-issue. If you can build it, then build it.


----------



## 0ddity (Aug 16, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> 0ddity said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe you wouldn't, but many others would, and are trying to. That's the problem.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 17, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> Maybe you wouldn't, but many others would, and are trying to. That's the problem.



I agree, you can't have freedom unless you're willing to see and hear things that anger or repulse you.  It should still never stop people raising a voice against those things though.  Forcibly stop them, no.  Appeal to them through protest in the hopes of changing their view or what they do, yes absolutely.  Although there are rare times people should be forcibly stopped obviously.


----------



## Schizoanalysis (Aug 17, 2010)

All religions kill... (eg. Christians in "the New World" America)

Singling out Muslims is just scapegoating.


----------



## jgu1994 (Aug 17, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.



I'll just leave this here...


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 17, 2010)

jgu1994 said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


QFT.

This is a perfect example of how INCREDIBLY STUPID the people of America are. We destroy, and ignore the evidence. The few extremists that attack US are suddenly put in the spotlight as fucking examples of Islam, even though they are CLEARLY not. There is something wrong with the media, and I am getting really pissed about it.


----------



## monkat (Aug 17, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> jgu1994 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's called capitalism. Ratings means money, and nothing gets more ratings than stretching truths to blame a group of people.


----------



## Westside (Aug 17, 2010)

My father has came up with a beautiful argument on this topic as it was discussed today at the dinner.  Americans claim to be a country of freedom while in reality they refused to let this thing happen.  If a church was to be built here instead of a mosque it would not be fought against, but because it is associated with Islam it was frowned upon.  If you want to say this is a holy war against Islam then come out and say it, because that's what they are doing right now by taking away right to own this religious property.  This is a war against terrorism not Islam.  If a bunch of people of certain ethnicity killed thousands of people in New York are you saying that other people of their ethnicity has to have their ethnic freedom taken away?  "No, black people you cannot build a community centre here because we are afraid of you."  I hope America is a little more liberal than that.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 17, 2010)

monkat said:
			
		

> Slyakin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are so true, and that is what pisses me off to no end. At least there are SOME people that agree with me. My whole class has even started to think of me differently now because of this. The bullying is also getting out of control.

The only thing that cheers me up is your avatar.


----------



## harg (Aug 18, 2010)

Hey!,Hey! Obama stop this stupid drama! WTF is going on?! It is perfectly fine to make this mousqe! Muslims have each right other people do! They may build the mousqe anywhere on THEIR property!
If the US did not want a mousqe there ,why did they sell the deed for that location!?


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 18, 2010)

harg said:
			
		

> Hey!,Hey! Obama stop this stupid drama! WTF is going on?! It is perfectly fine to make this mousqe! Muslims have each right other people do! They may build the mousqe anywhere on THEIR property!
> If the US did not want a mousqe there ,why did they sell the deed for that location!?


Cause every single living being in the USA with power hates Islam.

It's the way of life for me, and hundreds of thousands of others.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 19, 2010)

Should Catholics be allowed to build churches two blocks away from a school?


----------



## AsPika2219 (Aug 20, 2010)

There are more news about Barack Obama from any websites. Everyone talking about he is Muslim?


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 20, 2010)

AsPika2219 said:
			
		

> There are more news about Barack Obama from any websites. Everyone talking about he is Muslim?


Eh?

That doesn't really relate to anything...

I just think that Barack Obama has the balls to actually think rationally. Unlike the rest of America.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 20, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> AsPika2219 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's just what the government wants you to think. That's how they get you to scrutinize the government less.

On Topic: I would like to change my vote. I voted no purely because it is insensitive to proceed to build it. I would like to vote yes now because... Isn't that what The United States is all about? Freedom to practice anything you want? I may not like it, but this is why The United States was founded in the first place. Sure, it isn't the same thing as what the King of England (can't be arsed to look it up.) did to the colonies, but its on the same plane.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 20, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Slyakin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All I'M talking about is the religious factor. I don't give a shit about politics.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 20, 2010)

AsPika2219 said:
			
		

> There are more news about Barack Obama from any websites. Everyone talking about he is Muslim?



Presume you're talking about this abject stupidity

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...Bbh1QJsbf52MViw


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 20, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> AsPika2219 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Also, what's wrong with having a muslim president anyway? I know he isn't, but why is it a bad thing?

Why do Americans have to put down Muslims so much?


----------



## Sterling (Aug 20, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why is anything persecuted anywhere? Because something caused a problem which is associated with a certain way of thinking or ideology. Thus allowing persecution. Then again, not all Americans persecute Muslims.


----------



## injected11 (Aug 21, 2010)

Just build a church there. It would perfectly symbolize the big ball of hypocrisy the US has become.

I'm getting sick of everything being politicized and massively over-analyzed these days. What's the point of living in a country that brags about being the world's big bad super-power, yet is so scared of any minuscule thing that it openly infringes upon the rights of its citizens?


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 21, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Why is anything persecuted anywhere? Because something caused a problem which is associated with a certain way of thinking or ideology. Thus allowing persecution. Then again, not all Americans persecute Muslims.


Yeah, I guess I just had a sad.


----------



## Mid123 (Aug 21, 2010)




----------



## BlueStar (Aug 22, 2010)

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-...makes-no-sense/

Summation:
1) It's not at Ground Zero
2) It's not a mosque
3) You can't simultaneously acknowledge a right and insist that your government suppress it


----------



## bnwchbammer (Aug 22, 2010)

In some ways I do understand the "no" point of view.
But at the same time, I think it's a bit racist to be saying no.
It's not like all Muslims wanted that to happen.
This is a pretty good demonstration of the subtle racism in America.
Let them build it.
Would we be offended if there were Churches built at the sites of the Crusades?
(Well... there were Churches built there...)
But wutever.
Iunno my point.
The thing is, I shouldn't have to have a point, there's no reason it should offend people.
(Other than racism and fear that's been implanted in us from the media and former president Bush)
(Not that I want to get into that much either)


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Aug 22, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-...makes-no-sense/
> 
> Summation:
> 1) It's not at Ground Zero
> ...


That made a lot of sense.

I lol'd at this. "We all know people have the right to eat goat rhoti, but the question is, should they?" 
Sarah Palin's original quote - "We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?"


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 22, 2010)

I really don't see why this shouldn't be approved.

If someone can give me a valid reason, I will rethink my stance on this "issue".


----------



## tenkai (Aug 23, 2010)

i say no if they want a mosque build it somewhere else. why do they have to build it right near ground zero it feels they are insensitive to those who died at ground zero.i am not against them building a mosque,im only against them building it there.there are plenty of other places you can build a mosque build it somewhere else!!


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 23, 2010)

Charlie Brooker, right on the money as usual, people who are against it tend to actually know fuck all about if apart from the fact they've heard the buzzword "Ground zero mosque" and they think someone's building a mosque and it's at ground zero.  I'd say for most people opposition to it is down to good old fashioned stupidity and ignorance rather than bigoty, but maybe it's a little from column A and a little from column B.  Then there are the pundits and talking heads who know exactly what it is and are just being wilfully ignorant.



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> 'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less provocative
> 
> Millions of Americans are furious about the 'Ground Zero mosque'. But it doesn't exist



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...und-zero-mosque

It's basically the conservative version of political correctness really, isn't it?  "Oh, you have the right to do it, but you mustn't, it might offend somebody."


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Aug 23, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
I have nothing more to say.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

tenkai said:
			
		

> i say no if they want a mosque build it somewhere else. why do they have to build it right near ground zero it feels they are insensitive to those who died at ground zero.i am not against them building a mosque,im only against them building it there.there are plenty of other places you can build a mosque build it somewhere else!!


Apparently, you didn't read any of the arguments that were brought up and bashed down again. Your post contains all of 'em. You are against building a mosque anywhere, otherwise you would not protest so heavily.

tl;dr: lrn2read, kthxbai


----------



## tenkai (Aug 23, 2010)

thats not true i dont care if they build it somewhere else.plus i have a right to my own opinion dont i? that's just what i believe.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

Opinions are useless (unless they are stated by intelligent people), only facts truly matter.


----------



## tenkai (Aug 23, 2010)

what makes you right.....ughh this is a topic based off of peoples opinions and you keep on trying to start an argument...


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

You don't get it, do you?


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 23, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> Opinions are useless (unless they are stated by intelligent people), only facts truly matter.



This topic is supposed to be about peoples opinions regarding this subject. Hence the poll and everything. So your statement is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand and doesn't actually have any meaning to it.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

The point I was trying to make is that facts should be enough to change people's opinions, and because he didn't have any knowledge on what this was all about, his opinion is pretty much invalid.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make is that facts should be enough to change people's opinions, and because he didn't have any knowledge on what this was all about, his opinion is pretty much invalid.


This is a topic centered around religion, which is the antithesis of fact. In what meaningful way do you expect people to analyze facts?


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

People try to center it around religion, whereas this has nearly nothing to do with it (it's a 'cultural gathering place' after all). Which is a fact and should therefore not be ignored.


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 23, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make is that facts should be enough to change people's opinions, and because he didn't have any knowledge on what this was all about, his opinion is pretty much invalid.



Who says an opinion has to be based on any facts? Facts aside all an opinion amounts to is a particular persons perspective and views. As long its not way out offensive people are entitled to hold any opinion they want to for this discussion. Calling someone else's opinion invalid because it doesn't conform to your measure of what an opinion should be is pretty opinionated in my opinion.


----------



## Xellos2099 (Aug 23, 2010)

As much as I hate Obama, I agree on the issue, they have perfect "right" to build w/e there, but it is in very bad taste and should be frown upon.  The clear thing is: they have the right to build it and we have the right to protest upon it.


----------



## Bri (Aug 23, 2010)

They shouldn't build a mosque near ground zero any more than they should build a Catholic church near a playground.

-Bri


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Xellos2099 said:
			
		

> As much as I hate Obama, I agree on the issue, they have perfect "right" to build w/e there, but it is in very bad taste and should be frown upon.  The clear thing is: they have the right to build it and we have the right to protest upon it.



This is basically exactly how I feel.  People seem to forget that in an issue like this there's also a certain amount of sentimentality, emotionality and empathy that also enters into a persons opinion.  I agree they shouldn't be forced to have to stop construction, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with protesting and saying "I find this a little morally dubious".


----------



## Bri (Aug 23, 2010)

Morally dubious in what way?  What exactly is your concern with a Muslim cultural center 2 long blocks (roughly 6 regular blocks) from ground zero TrolleyDave?  If it was a synagogue, would that be morally dubious?

-Bri


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

I would love for an intelligent person to articulate why they feel it is "in bad taste".


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

p1ngpong said:
			
		

> Who says an opinion has to be based on any facts? Facts aside all an opinion amounts to is a particular persons perspective and views. As long its not way out offensive people are entitled to hold any opinion they want to for this discussion. Calling someone else's opinion invalid because it doesn't conform to your measure of what an opinion should be is pretty opinionated in my opinion.


His opinion is, in fact, offensive to the Muslim community in a way, because denying someone something they have all right to do, could be considered racist.

And perhaps is.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 23, 2010)

tenkai said:
			
		

> thats not true i dont care if they build it somewhere else.plus i have a right to my own opinion dont i? that's just what i believe.



Yep, you have a right to an idiotic opinion and a belief that you can't properly articulate why you hold, but other people have the right to call you up on it.


----------



## Depravo (Aug 23, 2010)

It's the perfect opportunity for America to prove that it really is anti-terrorist and *not *anti-muslim. The protests are sending out the wrong message entirely.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> I would love for an intelligent person to articulate why they feel it is "in bad taste".



I can give you my reasons, but it won't change your mind nor will it probably sound acceptable as it's an opinion based more on a feeling than anything else.  It just feels wrong to me, it just feels morally dubious and a little insensitive.  I'd feel exactly the same way if some right wing Christian extremist blew up a Mosque somewhere and whichever Christian Church of your choosing decided to up and build a Christian Community Centre/Prayer Meeting Hall near the site.  Like I say, it's pretty much a non-answer as it's based more on emotion than logic.  I know it's not the entire Islamic religions fault that a few Wahabbi nutjobs committed a terrorist attack because they'd been taught to interpret various Surrah in a twisted way, but that's the way it is and there will be people in who it provokes an emotional response over an intellectual one.  It's human nature.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> there will be people in who it provokes an emotional response over an intellectual one.  It's human nature.


That is _animal_ nature. Human nature would be to have those emotions, but analyze them critically instead of acting upon them. Reason and logic are what supposedly separate us from lesser beings.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

But it's nowhere _near_ the site, it's two whole blocks away!


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know it isn't, but it still feels wrong to me.  We can debate rights, why it's ok, and why my response is irrational.  And hell, I'll even agree with you.  It still won't change my mind and it still it won't change the fact that to me it just feels wrong.


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An animals nature is more civilised than a humans in a way. Animals only fight or kill to survive and reproduce. They don't kill out of beliefs, or hate, or prejudice, or anything like that. We use our reasoning to justify the unreasonable. Wars didn't exist before man did. We invented that. We are waging unreasonable wars because of an unreasonable act right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or at least that's how some want to justify those wars. If we were more like animals 9/11 would have never happened in the first place. Those lesser beings aren't capable of that kind of hate to begin with.

The world isn't some kind of utopia you know. Its a nasty place, human nature is responsible for that, and solely responsible for it.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

While I can appreciate you being honest, if you admit that you are being irrational then there is no point in trying to sway you with rational discussion.

PingPong:
All sorts of animals kill purely for sport. Additionally, there are many groups of animals (of the same species) which do in fact fight within themselves.


----------



## Magmorph (Aug 23, 2010)

p1ngpong said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Humans are a species of animal. I don't know why there has to be a separation of humans and animals.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 23, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
> I have nothing more to say.


Why has no one quoted this?!

This video contains EVERYTHING that needs to be focused on.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Why has no one quoted this?!
> 
> This video contains EVERYTHING that needs to be focused on.


Because it is harder to add something useful to a post that already contains everything that should be focused on.

It's easier to bash other people's opinions (and, to be honest, it's a lot more fun, too).


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> While I can appreciate you being honest, if you admit that you are being irrational then there is no point in trying to sway you with rational discussion.
> 
> An irrational act has resulted in a long term irrational response from people. This isnt the first time that has happened and it wont be the last.
> 
> ...



That video pretty much sums up how ludicrous this all is. But that just human nature for you.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> BobTheJoeBob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are right. There is A FUCKING CHURCH there. Why is America such a hypocrite in this situation?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> While I can appreciate you being honest, if you admit that you are being irrational then there is no point in trying to sway you with rational discussion.



And I appreciate your politeness and courtesy. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Emotion is a powerful thing, and for me sometimes trumps logic and reasoning.  For me just because something can be rationalised doesn't necessarily make it feel morally right.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

It would seem to me that rationality is a prerequisite for morality.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 23, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, there are two.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> It would seem to me that rationality is a prerequisite for morality.



Not always in my opinion.  It's pretty easy to rationalise most things as far as rights are concerned.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If morality is irrational, can it truly be called moral?


----------



## Bri (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> For me just because something can be rationalised doesn't necessarily make it feel morally right.



While I agree that something isn't necessarily morally right just because it can be rationalized, that's a red herring.  We were discussing your opinion which you said _wasn't_ rational.  The question is whether an _irrational_ position can be morally right.  I don't see how it can be.

-Bri


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mah head hurtz.

Still, they should build the community center.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> If morality is irrational, can it truly be called moral?
> QUOTE(Bri @ Aug 23 2010, 09:26 PM) While I agree that something isn't necessarily morally right just because it can be rationalized, that's a red herring.  We were discussing your opinion which you said _wasn't_ rational.  The question is whether an _irrational_ position can be morally right.  I don't see how it can be.
> 
> -Bri



Ok, let's see if I can answer this, as it's a very good question.  It's taking us off track slightly but it's a good example of why an irrational opinion can be morally right.  And please don't for one second think I'm comparing the example I'm about to use to the building of a Islamic Community Centre/Prayer Hall.  It's just a nice easy example.

Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If something cannot be rationalized then it has no structure. There is no criteria to apply to other situations. Instead you are left with a situation in which anything that any person says is moral is moral, simply because they they claim it to be. This obviously renders the entire concept of morality bankrupt.

TLDR: if you cannot explain why you believe something then perhaps you should question why you believe it.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Ok, let's see if I can answer this, as it's a very good question.  It's taking us off track slightly but it's a good example of why an irrational opinion can be morally right.  And please don't for one second think I'm comparing the example I'm about to use to the building of a Islamic Community Centre/Prayer Hall.  It's just a nice easy example.
> 
> Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?


No, but it's also not very rational.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?


No, and let me explain rationally why that is the case. It is a well known scientific fact that the brain is still undergoing rapid development during childhood years and this actually continues well into the 20s. Due to this children lack higher thought-processes like abstraction, the concept of the self, and long-term consequences. It is for these same reasons that children are not allowed to smoke, drink, sign contracts, do pornography, etc.

Given that criteria a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old is not acceptable, as it is very likely the child does not fully understand the contract they are getting into.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 23, 2010)

Well, I am just going to re-enforce my stance on this subject:

It's definitely against the Constitution to bar any sort of attempt to get this Mosque put into place. While I agree it should be built, I can still protest the fact that I find it morally insensitive, because this is my right as an American citizen. American is a very opinionated country, and if you don't like that every person in America has the right to provide an opinion, you can get over it.


----------



## Bri (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Probably not under most circumstances.  But I'm not sure what that has to do with the question.

-Bri


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Well, I am just going to re-enforce my stance on this subject:
> 
> It's definitely against the Constitution to bar any sort of attempt to get this Mosque put into place. While I agree it should be built, I can still protest the fact that I find it morally insensitive, because this is my right as an American citizen. American is a very opinionated country, and if you don't like that every person in America has the right to provide an opinion, you can get over it.


I think you are arguing against an invisible enemy. No on is saying that you don't have the right to disagree with this (or with anything). What they are saying is that if you are going to argue against citizen's constitutional rights then the burden is on *you* to explain why.


----------



## Bri (Aug 23, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> While I agree it should be built, I can still protest the fact that I find it morally insensitive, because this is my right as an American citizen.



The reason your find it morally insensitive is because it's your right to find it morally insensitive?  Can you provide an actual reason that you believe it to be morally insensitive?

-Bri


----------



## Depravo (Aug 23, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> Sterl500 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Haha. It's also his right to poo his trousers in the privacy of his own home. I wonder if he does that too?


----------



## omgpwn666 (Aug 23, 2010)

I say no to a Ground Zero Mosque. To me it naturally sounds messed up to build it near the 9/11 site. Also I feel afraid for the Mosque, feel like racist pigs would vandalize or do something worse just to hurt people because they believe all Muslim are terrorist. The whole idea sounds bad, maby it would just be better for everyone to have it in a different area.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> If something cannot be rationalized then it has no structure. There is no criteria to apply to other situations. Instead you are left with a situation in which anything that any person says is moral is moral, simply because they they claim it to be. This obviously renders the entire concept of morality bankrupt.
> 
> TLDR: if you cannot explain why you believe something then perhaps you should question why you believe it.
> 
> ...



But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife.  If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 23, 2010)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> I say no to a Ground Zero Mosque. To me it naturally sounds messed up to build it near the 9/11 site. Also I feel afraid for the Mosque, feel like racist pigs would vandalize or do something worse just to hurt people because they believe all Muslim are terrorist. The whole idea sounds bad, maby it would just be better for everyone to have it in a different area.


It's not too close to Ground Zero, it's not even a Mosque. It's a community center for Muslim citizens.


----------



## Depravo (Aug 23, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> It's not too close to Ground Zero, it's not even a Mosque. *It's a community center for Muslim citizens*.


It's not even that. It's an Islam-themed community centre for citizens of all faiths.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife.  If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?


Again, what she thinks is most likely bollocks because she isn't old enough to understand (at least for most people this would be so), and thus she should (and will be) denied all right to marry the old geezer.

Et vice versa.

EDIT: Holy shit, I just noticed I already posted 25 posts in this topic.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Aug 23, 2010)

taktularCBo said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> > In 2010 controversy arose concerning the *development of Cordoba House, a mosque and cultural center* planned at a site two blocks from the World Trade Center site. The builders say it is intended to represent moderate Islam. But, given its proximity to Ground Zero, it has stirred controversy among people suspicious of the motives behind it, and led to comments for and against it being built at that location from families of 9/11 victims, politicians, organizations, and academics.



It says something about a mosque and a cultural center.


----------



## Pyrate02 (Aug 23, 2010)

It really doesn't matter if all the Islamists on GBAtemp say yes - what matters is what New Yorkers think.  And if you read the polls, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are AGAINST this.

It's unbelievable - the Islamists are trying to take over GBAtemp now!


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 23, 2010)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> taktularCBo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The video (and a bit of common sense) tells us otherwise.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Well it's pretty much like this.  I feel that if I lost someone in the attack that it would upset me that a religion, any religion, building a religious centre there would upset me.  Simply because it would feel like a religion not understanding the concept of how disturbing it is to another person that someone could be twisted enough by a religion, any religion, to massacre thousands of innocent people.  I understand this, and after all, aren't their emotions also worth respecting?


This is the awesome thing about the US and freedom of speech: you don't have the right to not be offended. Just because something has your panties in a bunch does not allow you to trample on the first amendment unless you believe it poses a real threat to you. And if you do think it poses a threat then you are basically admitting that you equate all Muslims with terrorists.

It is worth noting that more people die of hearth disease every *two* days in the US than died in the 9/11 attacks, yet there is a McDonald's at "ground zero".


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why does she need to be old enough to understand as long as he's not harming her physically or emotionally?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife.  If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?


She needs to make the decision to enter into that contract (both social and legal) on her own. She cannot do that until she is of a sound mind and fully understands what it implies.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Aug 23, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, help me out then please. I want to watch the video, where is it? You're supposed to help me out. lol Also thanks for the video if you link it.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why though?  I mean does she truly need to understand any more than she has a home for life, someone who will always take care of her and love her.  And after all, they could get divorced when she's older if she truly is unhappy with the situation.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> It really doesn't matter if all the Islamists on GBAtemp say yes - what matters is what New Yorkers think.  And if you read the polls, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are AGAINST this.
> 
> It's unbelievable - the Islamists are trying to take over GBAtemp now!


It matters what the constitution says, not New York. Freedom of religion isn't just for the Christians. It is telling that you can only imagine a world in which Muslims are the only ones who would not be against this.


----------



## Bri (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Simply because it would feel like a religion not understanding the concept of how disturbing it is to another person that someone could be twisted enough by a religion, any religion, to massacre thousands of innocent people.
> 
> I suspect that the terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Center twisted Islam in order to justify their actions rather than the other way around.
> 
> QUOTEYou can see where I'm going with this.



No I can't.  That sounds like a red herring to me.  Sure, someone could rationalize anything and that doesn't make it morally right.  But that's not what we were discussing.  We were discussing whether something irrational can be morally right.

You admitted that your position is irrational, but said that you believe it to be the morally right position.  I don't see how that can be.

-Bri


----------



## Pyrate02 (Aug 23, 2010)

Freedom of religion?  Either you are an Islamist or just an idiot Blood Fetish.  We will not permit the Islamists to take over hallowed ground.  Trust me, nothing good will come out of this if they build.  However, it's not surprising they want to build there, if you look at their history of taking over holy places belonging to other religions and building their mosques there.  Makes me sick....

The Islamists are trying to take over the world and now GBAtemp.  They want to push their religion on everyone - read the Koran lately?  

I saw a sign recently that sums it up - Everything I know about Islam I learned on 9/11...

There are no moderate Muslims.  They just disagree as to the means by which they want to accomplish their goal of world domination.  

How true.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now that's just being alarmist and paranoid.


----------



## Bri (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Something which I already previously stated.  It still doesn't make it feel any less morally dubious.
> 
> 1) If you agree then why did you state it the way you did?  2) Nobody said that what the terrorists did wasn't morally dubious.
> 
> QUOTEHmm, ok fair enough.  Let me cut it really short then.  Do you believe in the constitutional right to religion of freedom and the practice of the components of said religion.



Yes, I believe in the constitutional right to freedom of religion.  I also believe that one should be free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) as long as it doesn't involve interfering with the rights of others.

-Bri


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Freedom of religion?  Either you are an Islamist or just an idiot Blood Fetish.  We will not permit the Islamists to take over hallowed ground.  Trust me, nothing good will come out of this if they build.  However, it's not surprising they want to build there, if you look at their history of taking over holy places belonging to other religions and building their mosques there.  Makes me sick....
> 
> The Islamists are trying to take over the world and now GBAtemp.  They want to push their religion on everyone - read the Koran lately?
> 
> ...



I'm afraid to say that he might NOT be trolling, and he's just another example of how America needs to be EDUCATED, not fought over. I just hope for peace, neutrality, cookies, and this house of worship to be built.

Heck, it isn't even a house of worship. It's a COMMUNITY center based on the Islamic faith. I've seen thousands based on Christianity, so this seems appropriate.


----------



## Pyrate02 (Aug 23, 2010)

Ha, that's one thing I haven't been called before - cunning troll!

In this case, don't you mean freedom of religion = freedom for the Islamists to  impose Islam on the rest of us?  That is not what the great USA stands for.  Unfortunately, its not about freedom of religion for them.  It's quite clear what they want, and either you are an Islamist or an apologist for them.  

Do you even know what the Muslims say in their prayers?  They're not exactly fond of Christians.

WAKE UP AMERICA!  The enemy is here and they are gunning for you.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Ha, that's one thing I haven't been called before - cunning troll!
> 
> In this case, don't you mean freedom of religion = freedom for the Islamists to  impose Islam on the rest of us?  That is not what the great USA stands for.  Unfortunately, its not about freedom of religion for them.  It's quite clear what they want, and either you are an Islamist or an apologist for them.
> 
> ...


I'm a freaking muslim, and what we pray is just our servitude to God and our un dying loyalty to him.

That's what gets to these extremists. They want to please God (we have the same God as Christians, so you know) and don't know how. In the end, they blow something up.

PLEASE listen. WE are NOT evil, and I want more people to know this. Please.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Sorry Blood Fetish, that was meant to be a merge.


----------



## Pyrate02 (Aug 23, 2010)

Yeah right - they want to impose Sharia on everyone and have a global Islamic state....

You are so full of it Derp.

Look at what the Taliban is doing in Afghanistan.  Look at what is going on with Al Shabob in Somalia.

They want to do the same thing here in America.  

Any by desecrating Ground Zero, its a start.  

It has to be stopped, and it will be stopped one way or another.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!



			
				TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> When was I trampling on the first Amendment?  I've never stated that they should be forced to stop.  I said people should have the right to be offended and protest.  For me the protesting of said building is more of an attempt to appeal the same kind of emotion that I feel, and to understand why some people feel it is insensitive.  As for saying that people don't have th right to not be offended you've kind of got me confused?  Are you saying it's not alright to agree with the building?  And when have I ever said that I believe it poses a threat? (Sorry never noticed that part originally).
> I understand your point and apologize if that is truly how you feel. While it is certainly possible for people to be protesting in the hopes that the builders will simply choose not to build there, I really do not get the feeling that is what the vast majority of the protesters are about. This seems like more than an "emotional appeal" to the builders so much as them wanting to *force* construction to be halted; thus my comment about the first amendment.
> 
> 
> ...



I cannot tell if you are being serious or are just a cunning troll. I am tempted to type out a point-for-point reply, but I am confident you will not consider anything I say. As a fun game, you can replace "Islamists" (otherwise known as Muslims) with "Christians" in that sentence and it would be just as relevant. Freedom of religion means freedom for *all* religions, not just yours.


----------



## Samurai Goomba (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Bri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unless you're trolling (which is highly probable), it's people like you who make me sorry to be human... and glad not to be American. You really are sick (unless you are trolling, in which case you're just a dick).


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Yeah right - they want to impose Sharia on everyone and have a global Islamic state....
> 
> You are so full of it Derp.
> 
> ...


Of course, again, these are the TERRORISTS. The muslims aren't the ones that WANT this.

You must honestly learn before you speak, you asshole.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Yeah right - they want to impose Sharia on everyone and have a global Islamic state....


All religions want to "spread the word" to the rest of the world. Look no farther than Christian "missionaries". There are also quite a few Christian community centers around, you might know them by their more popular name the YMCA (among others).


----------



## Depravo (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Ha, that's one thing I haven't been called before - cunning troll!


He wanted to call you a _cunting_ troll but was just too polite.


----------



## Pyrate02 (Aug 23, 2010)

Last I heard, YMCA doesn't force women to cover up head to toe, force people to stop listening to music, force people to stop educating their daughters, force perverted values on everyone, and the list goes on and on...

Go back to whatever hole in Afghanistan you crawled out of.  If you want to live in an Islamist state, go live in Somalia or Afghanistan.  

We don't want or need people like you in the USA.


----------



## Magmorph (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Ha, that's one thing I haven't been called before - cunning troll!
> 
> In this case, don't you mean freedom of religion = freedom for the Islamists to  impose Islam on the rest of us?  That is not what the great USA stands for.  Unfortunately, its not about freedom of religion for them.  It's quite clear what they want, and either you are an Islamist or an apologist for them.
> 
> ...


Look at what the crusades did to Europe. We have to stop the practice of Christianity.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Let's not turn this into an anti-Islam debate, this should have nothing to do with being anti-Islam.  If you're simply anti-Islam then go out and pick up some books that aren't written by right wing alarmists.


----------



## Magmorph (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Last I heard, YMCA doesn't force women to cover up head to toe, force people to stop listening to music, force people to stop educating their daughters, force perverted values on everyone, and the list goes on and on...
> 
> Go back to whatever hole in Afghanistan you crawled out of.  If you want to live in an Islamist state, go live in Somalia or Afghanistan.
> 
> We don't want or need people like you in the USA.


Yes the Islamic community center defiantly forces women to cover up, forces people to stop listening to music, and teaches not to educate your daughter. Everyone knows that's what a community center is used for.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Let's not turn this into an anti-Islam debate, this should have nothing to do with being anti-Islam.  If you're simply anti-Islam then go out and pick up some books that aren't written by right wing alarmists.


Yeah, we really should get back to the topic on hand.

ANYWAY... That video posted a few pages back really summarizes what I wanted to say. Islam is NOT a hate religion, it is NOT a terrorist religion, and it is only the complete stupidity of AMER'CANZ (like Pyrate) that makes us look bad. 

Hopefully one of you guys accepts me as a person and not a terrorist, right?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Last I heard, YMCA doesn't force women to cover up head to toe, force people to stop listening to music, force people to stop educating their daughters, force perverted values on everyone, and the list goes on and on...
> Neither would this center.
> 
> QUOTE(Pyrate02 @ Aug 23 2010, 10:53 PM) Go back to whatever hole in Afghanistan you crawled out of.  If you want to live in an Islamist state, go live in Somalia or Afghanistan.
> ...


Sure you do, otherwise who would buy your french fries?


----------



## Pyrate02 (Aug 23, 2010)

Spoken like a true Islamist.

I guess you guys are attempting to take over GBAtemp now too...

How come there isn't a big mosque constructed on the home page yet?


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> Pyrate02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, did you just compliment him? He probably would kill to eat.


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 you can just quit trolling this thread now.

First and final warning.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

p1ngpong said:
			
		

> Pyrate02 you can just quit trolling this thread now.
> 
> First and final warning.


THANK YOU. If you want, I can delete my quotes...


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


----------



## Depravo (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Voltaire.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

Depravo said:
			
		

> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't get it.


----------



## Injury (Aug 23, 2010)

Didn't you know? Obama is a muslim! Hitler was a jew, and George Bush a Scientologist. I don't know where you all get your facts...


----------



## connor_walsh (Aug 23, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Ha, that's one thing I haven't been called before - cunning troll!
> 
> In this case, don't you mean freedom of religion = freedom for the Islamists to  impose Islam on the rest of us?  That is not what the great USA stands for.  Unfortunately, its not about freedom of religion for them.  It's quite clear what they want, and either you are an Islamist or an apologist for them.
> 
> ...


Take your KKK suit off and the foil hat now listen there's a difference between the extremist Muslims and normal everyday Muslims.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> 1) If you agree then why did you state it the way you did?  2) Nobody said that what the terrorists did wasn't morally dubious.
> 
> 1) Sorry, you've lost me.  Put it like how now?  Simply because they twisted a religion in order to justify their goals doesn't change the fact that it was done in the name of religion.
> 2) I wasn't referring to the terrorists.  You'd be hard pressed to find people who didn't think they were morally dubious.  I meant the building of a religious centre near the site of the attack.
> ...



This is a moot point now anyway.  I actually agree with what you were saying.  I was just going to show an example of how something can be justified with rights yet still be morally wrong.  I misunderstood what Bri was getting at though.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 23, 2010)

Depravo said:
			
		

> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's mistakenly attributed to Voltaire but it wasn't actually him who wrote it.  It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's what Google told me too.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 23, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just realized. You've been a member since 2002 and you only have around 400 posts. You must have posted more here in the topic than anywhere else, huh?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 23, 2010)

I forgot even making the account until earlier this year when I got an email about a new private message (which turned out to be a spambot). The GBA had only been out a year when I signed up here, hah.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 24, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> That's what Google told me too.



I already knew.  I looked it up a while ago.  And yep, I used Google.


----------



## Depravo (Aug 24, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 24, 2010)

Depravo said:
			
		

> I stand corrected.


I'm building a Voltaire Center right next to your post.


----------



## Depravo (Aug 24, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would be disrespectful. It has to be more than two blocks away.


----------



## Lockon Stratos (Aug 24, 2010)

I think not since we all know it was muslim extremists that attack the WTC and building a mosque there would only cause some sort of problem in relation to that


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Aug 24, 2010)

Pyrate02 said:
			
		

> Last I heard, YMCA doesn't force women to cover up head to toe, force people to stop listening to music, force people to stop educating their daughters, force perverted values on everyone, and the list goes on and on...
> 
> Go back to whatever hole in Afghanistan you crawled out of.  If you want to live in an Islamist state, go live in Somalia or Afghanistan.
> 
> We don't want or need people like you in the USA.


Do you kill people who have sex before marrige well do you I bet you yourself did that did you know if you read the bible its the same as reading the Quran and that its different because it was made in a later time did you realize all that?You are what america doesn't need you cite examples that arent real since all you mention are those retarded power hungry psychos.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Aug 24, 2010)

I though the video I posted before would of sorted everything out, but everyone ignored it. And I can see there are quite a few Anti-Islam tempers and I'm not surprised to see there all idiots.


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 24, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> I though the video I posted before would of sorted everything out, but everyone ignored it. And I can see there are quite a few Anti-Islam tempers and I'm not surprised to see there all idiots.


I fucking love that video. It explains everything.


----------



## Bri (Aug 24, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> 1) Sorry, you've lost me.  Put it like how now?  Simply because they twisted a religion in order to justify their goals doesn't change the fact that it was done in the name of religion.
> 
> Perhaps you mis-typed, but here's what you said:
> 
> ...



Yes, immoral acts can be (and usually are) rationalized by the perpetrator, making them no less immoral.  But that's not what we were discussing.  We were asking whether your position, which you admitted was irrational, could be the morally right position.  I still don't see how it can be morally right if it's irrational.

-Bri


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 24, 2010)

So you know, South Park did *not* censor their own episode. Comedy Central forced the censorship on them at the last minute.


----------



## Bri (Aug 24, 2010)

I stand corrected.  In that case, a similar comment would hold for Comedy Central, who chose to censor the show. I find their decision inconsistent with the nature of the network considering other topics they've covered in the past on that show and others, but I guess that's their call and not mine.

-Bri


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Aug 24, 2010)

Personally, the Ground Zero Mosque is just a religious figure. The reason I say that so bluntly is because the mosque reminds people about muslims which triggers the thought of 9/11. I find this kind of ironic because when the African Americans were dwelling on slavery they were told that 'it's in the past'.  Despite the emotional torment it have caused, no one seem to notice the pain from the other side. Now a religious building is being built NEAR not on, near the site of Ground Zero, the people in New York are now being reminded about those horrid images on that fateful day. When I'll say 'It's in the past'!

You can't have your freedom without sharing its meaning, that Mosque is only going to give people memories of 9/11 when they dwell on it. Others will feel insecure due to the culture shock of a different building they don't see near Manhattan. It's time for NY- America needs to wake up and see the fucking JAVA (Tons of it!). We ARE America!! We stand for tolerance, freedom, and liberty. We need to stop being so close-minded on matters that effects our influence with other cultural backgrounds. We need to start realizing that we already accept Asians, Jamaicans, Europeans, and a few others I can't recite at this moment. 

Why not Muslims? They have the same right to live here and express their religion. However, they need to realize that their God is only accepted those who believes in their religion. NOT ALL will except their allah which is the main reason I believe the complaint of the Mosque is the force teachings it can cause.


----------



## .Chris (Aug 24, 2010)

I say no.


----------



## wolffangalchemist (Aug 24, 2010)

i'd have to say no.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Aug 24, 2010)

Canonbeat234 said:
			
		

> Personally, the Ground Zero Mosque is just a religious figure. The reason I say that so bluntly is because the mosque reminds people about muslims which triggers the thought of 9/11. I find this kind of ironic because when the African Americans were dwelling on slavery they were told that 'it's in the past'.  Despite the emotional torment it have caused, no one seem to notice the pain from the other side. Now a religious building is being built NEAR not on, near the site of Ground Zero, the people in New York are now being reminded about those horrid images on that fateful day. When I'll say 'It's in the past'!
> 
> You can't have your freedom without sharing its meaning, that Mosque is only going to give people memories of 9/11 when they dwell on it. Others will feel insecure due to the culture shock of a different building they don't see near Manhattan. It's time for NY- America needs to wake up and see the fucking JAVA (Tons of it!). We ARE America!! We stand for tolerance, freedom, and liberty. We need to stop being so close-minded on matters that effects our influence with other cultural backgrounds. We need to start realizing that we already accept Asians, Jamaicans, Europeans, and a few others I can't recite at this moment.
> 
> Why not Muslims? They have the same right to live here and express their religion. However, they need to realize that their God is only accepted those who believes in their religion. NOT ALL will except their allah which is the main reason I believe the complaint of the Mosque is the force teachings it can cause.


I always thought the whole african americans dwelling on slavery thing kinda funny considering 2 things. African tribes sold their own people into slavery they weren't taken forcefully. And in the past Africans enslaved jews/caucasians and treated them a lot worse than african american slaves were.

But getting back on topic I would have to say no. At least not yet. Mainly because the attacks were from people who were muslims even though they were fanatics they still were muslim. To me it kind of seems like a "if you believed like us this wouldn't have happened" kind of thing. Now even though I personally say we aren't ready for it, I am not totally against it for one reason, if they have the money to purchase land and build one they can. Now I personally would be totally for it if one thing were to happen. If multiple religious denominations purchased lots in that area and each built their own Ground Zero prayer area and were ok with being right next to each other to be able to pray for better times I personally feel that would be a huge step forward to everybody living with less hate for other religions/ethnicities.


----------



## AsPika2219 (Aug 24, 2010)

I vote NO!


----------



## Revolution [9] (Aug 24, 2010)

I voted no. Not because I'm against the mosque nor am I a conservative (no offense intended to those who are), but because of the attitude of Americans.
Think about it: a mosque near Ground Zero on the site that was attacked on 9/11. Americans are extremely xenophobic, so regardless of the mosque's (which isn't even a mosque) opposition to terrorism, these Muslims are grouped together in the same category as terrorists. I mean, if brown people are being pulled aside for "random" security checks at the airport, what makes you think that it'll be any different at this mosque? Sooner or later, innocent Muslims will be subject to the biases of these Americans; it could be just jeering or it could escalate to some extremist bombing the area in "response to 9/11". Now, this may be a worst-case scenario, but worst-case scenarios DO happen.


----------



## Ferrariman (Aug 24, 2010)

When they have a mosque it will make it easier for them to steal our freedom.


----------



## Aeladya (Aug 24, 2010)

I really don't see a problem. It's not like it's right on top of where the WTC used to be. I can understand why people would be suspicious, and why this would stir up controversy, but I don't honestly see a problem with it. Worse things could be built there honestly. That's like when you have a loved one who was killed by cancer and you're boycotting doctors because they couldn't cure them (my grandmother died of cancer). If it was built right on it then I would have to disagree, but since it's only near it, I don't think it should be that big of a deal. Besides that I have to agree granville. It's dumb to judge an entire religion based on some stupid fucks. That would be like me blaming all Christian's for everything that the Westboro Baptist Church does. I'm not going to blame an entire religion based on some crazy stupid idiots, I'm going to blame the individuals responsible.


----------



## duhizy (Aug 24, 2010)

hey guys im muslim and im an engineer that lives in canada and iv got 4 years of unversity physics behind my back when i say that its is physically IIMMMPPOOOSSSIBBBLLLEEE for the towers to fall from a plane of its weight and the amount of jet fuel would not have been enough to do bearly anything except cause a fire on the floors near were the planes hit and if the tower were to fall not all of it would fall and it would fall to the side not straight down. a good example would be to try to playing jangaa and imagine removing one of the blocks from the side like what the planes did when they hit, the parts from were you took the piece out and above woul come tumbollingdown side ways however the bottom parts would be alright. this is just a good example and best part is that the twin towers were build so that they wouldn't fall at all lol isn't that interesting. it gets even better because owsama binladin was a pakistany and his whole family was rich and they eventually got to know the bush family because of it and the entire binladin family with a few known exeptions were all atheist lol muslim extremists my ass bush is retarded for thinking that this would bekeep a secret so hows that for prooof of consperacy. dont build a mosque because they would get to much hate and they would probabliy get attacked by the people but other than that they have the right to do what they want to do


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 24, 2010)

duhizy said:
			
		

> a good example would be to try to playing jangaa and imagine removing one of the blocks from the side like what the planes did when they hit, the parts from were you took the piece out and above woul come tumbollingdown side ways however the bottom parts would be alright.


Let me ensure I am clear on this. You claim to be an engineer and are comparing the structural integrity of two 400 meter towers to that of a game of Jenga?


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Aug 24, 2010)

duhizy said:
			
		

> hey guys im muslim and im an engineer that lives in canada and iv got 4 years of unversity physics behind my back when i say that its is physically IIMMMPPOOOSSSIBBBLLLEEE for the towers to fall from a plane of its weight and the amount of jet fuel would not have been enough to do bearly anything except cause a fire on the floors near were the planes hit and if the tower were to fall not all of it would fall and it would fall to the side not straight down. a good example would be to try to playing jangaa and imagine removing one of the blocks from the side like what the planes did when they hit, the parts from were you took the piece out and above woul come tumbollingdown side ways however the bottom parts would be alright. this is just a good example and best part is that the twin towers were build so that they wouldn't fall at all lol isn't that interesting. it gets even better because owsama binladin was a pakistany and his whole family was rich and they eventually got to know the bush family because of it and the entire binladin family with a few known exeptions were all atheist lol muslim extremists my ass bush is retarded for thinking that this would bekeep a secret so hows that for prooof of consperacy. dont build a mosque because they would get to much hate and they would probabliy get attacked by the people but other than that they have the right to do what they want to do


this is one of the most idiotic posts i have seen in awhile. If this isn't supposed to be a joke, how come you can't even spell university? And if it is supposed to be a joke you should get the hell out of this topic instead of making fun of things people take seriously.


----------



## ChuckBartowski (Aug 24, 2010)

I am not promoting it in any way, but i feel that they have the right to put it wherever they want. And that people who see it as a problem are ignorant. I think it is meant to mend, not hurt. Plus theres the fact that there is a strip club closer to the site than this will be. And they have plans to put a Mall in the ground where thousands of people died, and some may still be buried. Those two things are more offensive than the mosque in my opinion.


----------



## monkat (Aug 24, 2010)

Isn't it like...not even a mosque? On like...private property? Like...two blocks away?

...who cares?


----------



## Clookster (Aug 24, 2010)

Yes. So they can't destroy it another time.


----------



## Clookster (Aug 24, 2010)

That's the best R4 ever:

http://www.r4i-fifa.com/


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 24, 2010)

Out of interest, how far away from Claudy should there be a ban on Catholic Churches?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11064647


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 24, 2010)

RoboticBuddy said:
			
		

> I say no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ugh, even more people that just base their opinion off of lies. Read the topic for fuck's sake, then finally we can have a debate going on, but nothing's going to happen if you don't say any good argument. What you're doing now is just being plain ignorant.


----------



## Bri (Aug 24, 2010)

Jon Stewart's take on things.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-augu...omeland-edition

-Bri


----------



## monkat (Aug 24, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Out of interest, how far away from Claudy should there be a ban on Catholic Churches?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11064647



Five miles at least.


----------



## luckwii (Aug 24, 2010)

Very interesting. Christianity has all but been banned publicly in the U.S, but somehow the mosque needs some type of special consideration. 

I for one believe in the constitutional right of the idea, but this Imam is using this as a strategic political/militant victory. 

I can understand the people here in support of this in a constitutional sense, I totally agree. But those that support this as some sort of cultural outreach on one hand, and yet you slap down Christianity on the other, I will have to give a respectful "shame on you". 

Pandering to terrorists will only make things worse. They are not going to be your buddy, give up. This was the same type of nonsense that allowed Europe to be conquered in WWII, and other civilizations of the past ended up with the same. If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. 

I do not think the U.S. government should stop the mosque from being built. Again, it is their right to practice their religion. But it is our right as U.S. citizens to protest, and to peacefully attempt to stop it from being built.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 24, 2010)

luckwii said:
			
		

> Very interesting. Christianity has all but been banned publicly in the U.S,
> 
> Oh puh-leez.
> 
> ...



What led to world war two was people allowing themselves to get caught up in to a hate-filled jingoistic rage and scapegoating against what people wanted to portray as assorted dangerous minorities, exactly what you're doing here.  First they've come for the Muslims, and you're not speaking out because you're not a Muslim.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 24, 2010)

luckwii said:
			
		

> But it is our right as U.S. citizens to _peacefully_ attempt to stop it from being built.


Yeah right.


----------



## Bri (Aug 24, 2010)

luckwii said:
			
		

> But it is our right as U.S. citizens to protest, and to peacefully attempt to stop it from being built.



Sure, but don't you think that you should have at least _some_ rational argument for wanting to do so?

-Bri


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 24, 2010)

Don't you see, they just _have_ to do it, it's their right, nay, their duty to try and do everything they can to stop American citizens opening a community centre on their own private property because they're the wrong religion.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 24, 2010)

Hey guys, I was thinking on building a playground for our kids just 'round the corner, what do you think? Is it a good idea or not?

I'm muslim, would that make any difference? Yeah? Aww...


----------



## Bri (Aug 24, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> Hey guys, I was thinking on building a playground for our kids just 'round the corner, what do you think? Is it a good idea or not?
> 
> I'm muslim, would that make any difference? Yeah? Aww...



As long as you're not Catholic.  We know how Catholics can't keep their hands off children.

-Bri


----------



## Slyakin (Aug 24, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> Ellie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Uh huh. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I love how there are so many rational people taking an unbiased stand here. No doubt many of you are athiest, but you guys still stand up for religion. 

It makes me proud.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 24, 2010)

To be honest I'd rather get rid of every religion because they are one of the main causes of death and destruction (combined with a human's killer instinct, of course).

I just 'support' the muslims here because they have all right to do what they want to do, and any arguments to the contrary are irrational.


----------



## Bri (Aug 24, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> To be honest I'd rather get rid of every religion because they are the main cause of death and destruction (combined with a human's killer instinct, of course).



I suspect that in the absence of religion, human beings will find other justifications for their bad behavior.

-Bri


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 24, 2010)

Sure, but as for now it's pretty easy to blame everything on religion. A bunch of not-so-good stuff happened 'because God wanted it'. Like the crusades, etc. It'd be hard to justify the killings of thousands of innocents in name of anything other than God/religion.


----------



## Magmorph (Aug 24, 2010)

Slyakin said:
			
		

> I love how there are so many rational people taking an unbiased stand here. No doubt many of you are athiest, but you guys still stand up for religion.
> 
> It makes me proud.


If someone doesn't stand up for the oppressed then the oppression will continue and can easily spread.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 24, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> Slyakin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

~Pastor Martin Niemöller


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 24, 2010)

Please, for most people in the US "freedom" means freedom for what they agree with.


----------



## Bri (Aug 24, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> Sure, but as for now it's pretty easy to blame everything on religion. A bunch of not-so-good stuff happened 'because God wanted it'. Like the crusades, etc. It'd be hard to justify the killings of thousands of innocents in name of anything other than God/religion.



The Nazis killed millions of innocent people, and it wasn't a particularly religious movement.  Unfortunately, the Nazis are just one example of ethnic cleansing.  There are plenty of differences other than religion that people can exploit in order to justify their actions.

-Bri


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 24, 2010)

They killed jews.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 25, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> They killed jews.


This is true.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 25, 2010)

He didn't kill Jewish people for their religion though.  He killed them because of his belief in eugenics, his belief that they were an inferior race and much more.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 25, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> He didn't kill Jewish people for their religion though.  He killed them because of his belief in eugenics, his belief that they were an inferior race and much more.


The only thing that separated them from other people was their religion.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 25, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Nazis saw them as a race.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 25, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...







The Nazis were wrong...


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 25, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree.  You don't have to have descended from the original Judaic tribes to be considered Jewish so there's no race involved.


----------



## Bri (Aug 25, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Ellie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are at least two definitions of "Jew," one referring to a member of the Jewish religion and another referring to a descendant of the original Judaic tribes.

-Bri


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Aug 25, 2010)

Can we have a poll option of "Don't give a shit"?


----------



## Zetta_x (Aug 25, 2010)

I put no because people are way to devoted towards religion. Just last Sunday I went to Church and I remembered why I abandoned religion all together. In my opinion, the last thing we need is to support more religious activities. Not the fact that I don't believe in traditional religion, but because people get too crazy by religious ideas and none of them ever consider the possibility that what they are thinking is not true. Really, if there exists a God (which I believe), do we really need books, churches, and all these expensive things to learn about God? The fact we have to study religion by books, churches, and other possible exploits for bias people to insert their own teachings is terrorizing our community, not bombers.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

Basically what you are saying is freedom of speech should only apply to what you think is right, and everyone else should be forcibly silenced?

EDIT:
I think a better way of phrasing this is, if these were houses would you all protest Muslims moving into one? If not, why would you oppose this and what is different about it?


----------



## Zetta_x (Aug 25, 2010)

I don't know if that was directed towards me. 

I've been lost in my mind for several months now. What I have noticed is that there is really no such thing as good or bad. When something is deemed good or bad it has to be in respect to some opinion. Everything in my post above was by my opinion obviously not shared by many people.


----------



## Fudge (Aug 25, 2010)

I don't care. They can build whatever they want if they own the land.


----------



## Yoshimashin (Aug 25, 2010)

They should erect a giant bronze statue of Bush Jr with a cavalry saber pointing out towards battle!


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 25, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They called the jews a 'race', but there was still a difference in religion.


----------



## Bri (Aug 25, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> Bri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Nazis didn't kill the Jews in the name of religion.  They didn't even kill the Jews because of their religion.  Nor did they kill all those other groups of people because of their religion.  There are plenty of examples of killing innocents in the name of things other than religion (culture, race, politics, geographic location, etc).  Pretty much anything you can think of that distinguishes your group of people from another group of people can be used as justification for killing innocent members of that other group, usually by systematically instilling fear and resentment towards that other group.

In America, individuals have certain basic rights regardless of what group they belong to in order to avoid the slippery slope to discrimination and persecution (which was the primary reason that our European founders came here to begin with).  Of course this country isn't immune to systematic discrimination and persecution of innocent people (the Trail of Tears, slavery, and Japanese internment are some examples).  Let's not repeat the mistakes of history.

-Bri


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 26, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed.  But at the same time there were other groups indigenous to the area where the Judaic tribes were from who shared the same "race" (for want of a better word).  Their descendants are not classified as Jewish, so in my opinion "race" really plays no part in "Jewishness".  Kahanists would disagree obviously.  It's not really much different than Christians, Muslims or Buddhists.  There are those that descend from the original followers, but it in no way defines a necessary characteristic of being a follower of the religion.


----------



## VmprHntrD (Aug 26, 2010)

I voted no, but it's with a proviso.  Nothing against Islam nor their need for another center, but I think it could go wisely elsewhere considering there's already one near by as is a few more blocks away.

I originally didn't give a damn, and I was and still think it's their right to freedom of religion anywhere they like, but also had I a face in it I'd not say 'witch hunt' but try and talk to them about a nicer and hell safer for them place (enough nuts in NYC as is angry about it.)  The problem is the head developer we've seen lately in the press at first was pretty nice and calm about it, but now he's getting super snappy, ignoring questions, and taking a huge fuck you I'll do what I want attitude.  The tude though is pointed when asked about the feelings of the victims of a decade ago and their families, about respecting the 'zone' due to the landmark status being developed up there and the rest.  The guy seems to be backing himself into this spot of saying I'm right, you're wrong, don't give a shit about any victims or their family/friends, and islam will prevail wherever it damn well pleases.

At this rate he pisses me off as it gives me thoughts of thinking this is being a targeted construction to stick it to the stupid Americans and infidels.  It just seems fishy being all open and ok about it, then turning into a bitch about it and clamming up acting like a kid crying in the sandbox that it's hit toys and he'll play whenever and wherever he wants.  Also the Imam of the place appears to be an America hater as is with clips that have popped up (audio/video) and one who feels sharia law should be edict in this nation as we're ripe for its take over due to our 'open' laws.  It just throws up too many red flags as a big intentional slap to the face to help promote extremism and stupidity of islamo-fascism right on the grounds of the biggest attack of twats like that on our soil.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

Doesn't honor the memory of the victims, even though there are fast food chains, strip clubs, and more in the same block?

If you admire the US then you must love the constitution, right? If so, then why would you deny them the right to build there? Freedom of religion.
Do you think that because you disagree with someone or do not like their "attitude" they should lose their right to build there? Freedom of speech.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 26, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> Doesn't honor the memory of the victims, even though there are fast food chains, strip clubs, and more in the same block?



I know, OMG, did you hear?  They built a ground zero McDonalds!  And it has a bathroom!  People have been shitting on ground zero!  Because, you know, everything within two blocks is the 'ground zero' edition of that building.

The shrill hysteria over this would be hilarious if people don't really believe it, some people need to give their head a shake.


----------



## SylvWolf (Aug 26, 2010)

I've pretty much lost interest in this issue by this point. It's been blown way out of proportion and the arguments are never-ending, as nobody is ever willing to give up their ideological stance.

The only thing that still kinda pisses me off is that when a school shooting (or equivalent firearm-related tragedy) happens, Liberals decry and demonize the Second Amendment, but when something like this happens, they glorify the First. Ugh.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

The entire right-vs-left thing is fabricated by the media to keep the general populace under control. I recognize that I am definitely more "left" leaning than "right", and I am a huge proponent of the second amendment (and all others). Only fools vote according to the party line instead of the issues.


----------



## amptor (Aug 26, 2010)

I'd have to say that it should probably be yes and on permanent hiatus.  That would solve the entire problem  Just designate the spot and never build it but say that it will be there some day.

And I am serious too because it is a touchy subject.  If it is on hiatus indefinitely, neither side ever wins or loses.

But if you want to go on arguments about the crusades versus all the stuff the moors did and etc... well, then by all means go at it but realistically even the moslems once conquered parts of the country the owner of this forum is from as well as spain and other places which have converted all of the mosques into churches long ago.  some beautiful buildings I guess but I don't know the history of what became of the people who were originally in those lands, whether it was peaceful or not.

There's freedom of religion in the USA but take it from me to be careful.  Read up on the news and you will see why.  You don't want to be in certain places, but certain others are fine.  I had a chance to go to some mosques and the only reason why I turned down the opportunity was because I quite simply was unsure if it would be "a fun thing to do" (as far as fun goes, what I mean here is that during those times it was fun to go to a shopping mall and other things, but hadn't ventured into a church nor a mosque so I wasn't sure if it was something I wanted to do... very similar to the fact that going hiking at the time was not really on the list of things to do, so I didn't go hiking either.. just one example).

On the flipped side, a simple "no" argument would be that it would alleviate problems where people are going to retaliate against the place and continually cause damage to the site during or after it is completed.  It might be a better idea to place the mosque somewhere else because there's already been a lot of bad news in the media about things that have started to happen.  As any religion in this country, christian, islam, buddhist, or any other religion, I believe that the building of the place of worship as well as any functions should be kept a bit sacred as in not overly out in the media all the time.  I believe in this case since it got brought up in the news at that immediate point it should have been put on hold for a while and then relocated without the news media becoming involved.  The entire reason why we have a problem with this issue is almost 100% the fault of the news media speaking about it and getting people in a huge tizzy that otherwise may not have really even got involved in it.  Now it is like we have the entire country involved in a place that is in a vicinity of another place that I probably will never even go to either of.



			
				Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> The entire right-vs-left thing is fabricated by the media to keep the general populace under control. I recognize that I am definitely more "left" leaning than "right", and I am a huge proponent of the second amendment (and all others). Only fools vote according to the party line instead of the issues.



afaik, it can be political suicide to go from voting republican to voting democrat (I'm not saying here what party I vote).  I know a guy who thinks one day he might be in a political office, so he always votes republican and you hear on the news about how such and such didn't vote one time or such and such voted against his or her party in politics.  So for some reason it comes up but I don't know how.  So the person I'm talking about in particular votes entirely republican even though some people he knows vote democrat and he explains it is for political reasons.

I sometimes think that both of those parties fail but what can I really do.  It's either one of those to wins practically on everything (especially for president.  I think we have only had one president that was independent or something).  And on that subject, if one wants to blame the president of the USA for everything, even if there were no checks and balances, come on it is only one person how could that be.  I guess it could be maybe...I really don't know.  We aren't suppose to really be under a dictatorship after all.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 26, 2010)

amptor said:
			
		

> I'd have to say that it should probably be yes and on permanent hiatus.  That would solve the entire problem  Just designate the spot and never build it but say that it will be there some day.
> 
> How exactly would that solve the problem, rather than leading to just a permanent continuation of the status quo where people are having angry protests and constant arguments?  And once you've designated the spot, how do you stop them startign the building work with the permit, the land and their own money?
> 
> ...



The right in the US only like _part_ of the Second Amendment, you never hear them quoting it in full and including the words "well regulated".


----------



## broken parts (Aug 26, 2010)

Freedom of religion is not optional in America. There is only one right decision here, and it's the one that is protected by the constitution.


----------



## amptor (Aug 26, 2010)

it would not be the very first false promise ever given in this country.  think of it this way, there's a lot of other things that have been promised here that never have materialized.

this one issue is yet another political scheme by the government that shifts the general populace's focus away from things that are going wrong within the federal government or other places in the country.

this topic will just continually guide Americans into political oblivion when there are worse things going on in this country than this.


Oh and by the way did anyone skip over the FACT that we are on the virge of a double dip recession? (isn't this actually a triple dip recession we are going into? remember how the stock market crashed months ago due to a computer glitch, remember how many people lost jobs soon after that at large firms such as Microsoft?) or are we all just suppose to watch Obama over and over again say "I believe that everyone has a right to freedom of religion" (which is just and right for various thousands of reasons and what else are you suppose to expect from the president of the USA? Bush Jr. would say the same thing) rather than focusing on other real national issues at hand? come on, guys.  I'm sure someone will rebuttle this but do you really want the entire country burning down in flames while everyone focuses on one issue that is super controversial and regardless of whether or not this place gets built, our economy is sinking into the ground?  I find this a bit counter productive.


And as far as people in the USA having a natural born right to freedom of religion.  I believe it expands globally. There is really no way to disallow any one individual on earth from freely practicing his own religion.  In many faiths, prayer is done within the mind and there is no way for anyone to control what goes on up there.





			
				BlueStar said:
			
		

> amptor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 26, 2010)

So you basically agree there should have been no controversy in the first place and it should just have been allowed to go ahead like any other project, and that the people against it should just shut up and drop their objections?


----------



## amptor (Aug 26, 2010)

I think I could still stick with yes but the problem is, if it gets built.. you know that  it is going to cause catastrophe.  The one thing you may have to figure out is if it really is legal to build it there.  There is one strong part of US law that is under the freedom of speech part that I think applies here.  If it is used to cause harm or incite the possibility to cause harm, it is illegal.  I think this can possibly be applied here because there is a large possibility that whoever attends this mosque can become harmed and thus it might not really be legal to place this right there.  I'm no lawyer, but I think there's probably more than one part of the constitution that is going to apply to this difficult subject.  People have already been stabbed over this, after all.  Keep in mind.



			
				BlueStar said:
			
		

> So you basically agree there should have been no controversy in the first place and it should just have been allowed to go ahead like any other project, and that the people against it should just shut up and drop their objections?



There's almost a 50/50 split on this yes/no over this on here so my moral background for freedom of religion says yes, but my logical background says no.  so I guess I am 50/50 as well but initially i was only against it because it seems like kind of an absurd place to put that type of place of worship to begin with.

however if they were going to replace it with a christian church, I would say no because that would just be a stupid idea altogether after finding that they couldn't build a mosque there for whatever reason. if no mosque, no other place of worship should go there either.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 26, 2010)

amptor said:
			
		

> I think I could still stick with yes but the problem is, if it gets built.. you know that  it is going to cause catastrophe.  The one thing you may have to figure out is if it really is legal to build it there.  There is one strong part of US law that is under the freedom of speech part that I think applies here.  If it is used to cause harm or incite the possibility to cause harm, it is illegal.  I think this can possibly be applied here because there is a large possibility that whoever attends this mosque can become harmed and thus it might not really be legal to place this right there.  I'm no lawyer, but I think there's probably more than one part of the constitution that is going to apply to this difficult subject.  People have already been stabbed over this, after all.  Keep in mind.




Law doesn't work that way, you don't punish the victim.  When black churches were being attacked and burned down, that didn't make it illegal to build black churches in states with high incidents of racial violence and nor should it. 

Does this backwards logic apply to other buildings?  "Sorry, Islamic extremists have been known to attack synagogues, so we're making it illegal to build synagogues in areas where there is a muslim population."  Presumably all PETA have to do to stop a new KFC opening is threaten to harm the staff and thus make it illegal for it to be built? 

If people attack the mosque, you arrest them and lock them up.  You don't surrender to violent criminals and give them what they want, taking away the rights of law abding citizens in the process, because you don't want there to be a fuss.  It's cowardice.


----------



## cracker (Aug 26, 2010)

My 2 cents:
I side with Ron Paul (NOT his son RAND Paul), Michael Bloomberg, and others with the same reasoning that a large part of what America was founded on is freedom of religion and bigotry/prejudice/painting all Muslims with the same brush were allowed to prevent the building of this mosque then it would chip away at the Constitution. In doing so it would be a sign that the terrorist _are_ winning *yet again* because the government will have subverted freedoms once again that we (used to) hold dear. Not only that but the terrorists will further win by causing more of a hatred for America by blocking a mosque that is the brainchild of a known peaceful Muslim (and his wife).

Lastly, the 'two blocks' in NYC is a further than blocks in most cities. I calculated it with the average feet per block and got ~3.8 average length blocks. So it's almost double the distance from ground zero that people not living around NYC are lead to believe.


----------



## DjoeN (Aug 26, 2010)

I said no,

If it was in a muslimland, dear we try to build a church on it.
On the otherhand, if it's not really on ground zero, but in the neighberhood, i would lean to, maybe yes.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 26, 2010)

DjoeN said:
			
		

> If it was in a muslimland, dear we try to build a church on it.
> 
> There are many muslim countries where there are christian churches, nice big ones.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bri (Aug 26, 2010)

cracker said:
			
		

> My 2 cents:
> I side with Ron Paul (NOT his son RAND Paul), Michael Bloomberg, and others with the same reasoning that a large part of what America was founded on is freedom of religion and bigotry/prejudice/painting all Muslims with the same brush were allowed to prevent the building of this mosque then it would chip away at the Constitution. In doing so it would be a sign that the terrorist _are_ winning *yet again* because the government will have subverted freedoms once again that we (used to) hold dear. Not only that but the terrorists will further win by causing more of a hatred for America by blocking a mosque that is the brainchild of a known peaceful Muslim (and his wife).
> 
> Lastly, the 'two blocks' in NYC is a further than blocks in most cities. I calculated it with the average feet per block and got ~3.8 average length blocks. So it's almost double the distance from ground zero that people not living around NYC are lead to believe.
> ...



I love this argument.  A take on Newt Gingrich's statement that New York should ban the lower Manhattan mosque "so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."  So let me get this right...in one breath Newt criticizes Saudi Arabia for not being tolerant but proposes that we should be more like them?

-Bri


----------



## shyam513 (Aug 27, 2010)

I'd Say Yes.

Nowadays, I believe too many people believe Al-Qaeda and Islam are the same thing. I know many muslims who detest the very idea of being linked with 9/11. Building A Islamic Cultural centre on the site of Ground Zero may help the people see that there is more to Islam than what terrorists do.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 30, 2010)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/28/...in6814690.shtml


			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb.
> 
> Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson.



Why can't these Muslims learn to compromise!?  Don't they realise how disrespectful it is to build a mosque a mere hundreds of miles away from the hallowed ground of Ground Zero?!


----------



## Bri (Sep 1, 2010)

I'm sure that those who claim that the problem with the proposed Islamic Center is simply its location near "hallowed ground" will be equally outraged over the proposed Christian Center:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_roo...und_zero_church

Not a peep from Newt yet.

-Bri


----------



## Sterling (Sep 1, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> I'm sure that those who claim that the problem with the proposed Islamic Center is simply its location near "hallowed ground" will be equally outraged over the proposed Christian Center:
> 
> http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_roo...und_zero_church
> 
> ...


Nothing should be built near Ground Zero... Nothing. The only thing that should even be in the vicinity is a memorial. I don't care if I am a Christian, this is wrong and everyone knows it. If a mosque cannot be built there, neither may any other religious place of worship. I stand by my belief in the Constitution.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 1, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Nothing should be built near Ground Zero... Nothing.



So there should be nothing two blocks from ground zero?  What should be there, just wasteland?  What happens to all the businesses, the community centres etc that are already there, how do we get rid of them, just a bulldozer or something?  Or, like in the case with the proposed Islamic Centre, when a building stops being used for one thing do you just refuse any requests to turn it into something else and let the area slowly become a slum where every other building is boarded up?


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 1, 2010)

DjoeN said:
			
		

> If it was in a muslimland, dear we try to build a church on it.


What a stupid argument. Aside from the arguments already spoken about this, isn't this a childish mind set? "If you can build it here why can't we build it there?" Also, there's probably very little, if not any christians in Saudi Arabia. What would be the point?


----------



## Bri (Sep 1, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Nothing should be built near Ground Zero... Nothing. The only thing that should even be in the vicinity is a memorial. I don't care if I am a Christian, this is wrong and everyone knows it. If a mosque cannot be built there, neither may any other religious place of worship. I stand by my belief in the Constitution.



How far away from ground zero should this "hallowed ground" extend?  The area where the Twin Towers stood and the memorial will be is already about 4 blocks square.  The proposed Islamic Center is at the site of an abandoned building another 2 blocks away.  There are already huge buildings and businesses in-between the area where the Twin Towers stood and the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory where the Islamic Center will be.  If you closed everything that is 2 blocks away from ground zero you'd be shutting down a large chunk of Lower Manhattan, including well over 50 very large buildings that are within a 2-block radius of ground zero.

Here's a video showing just how far the abandoned Burlington Coat Factory building is from ground zero and the types of activity you're proposing be shut down:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/...n_b_660585.html

Here's a map showing ground zero and all the other buildings that are already in the area, as well as the shortest route from ground zero to the site of the proposed Islamic Center:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...010943&z=17

You can even do your own virtual walk using Google's "street view" feature and get a feel for the types of buildings and businesses you're proposing be shut down.  This link will put you at Broadway and Park in view of the Burlington building (ground zero is two blocks to the right):

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...010943&z=17

-Bri


----------



## Sterling (Sep 1, 2010)

Just let me say that nowhere in my post did I say shut down existing facilities. I have heard multiple accounts that they are going to tear the building down/remodel it. What I meant by my post is that no new facilities should be built at an inappropriate distance to Ground Zero. Which I guess is a 2 block reference now.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Sep 1, 2010)

Tempers still flare in this thread.
I don't believe this is what the OP intended when they made the thread.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Sep 1, 2010)

The muslim land argument is retarded since America is America not muslim land puhlease


----------



## Sterling (Sep 1, 2010)

ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
			
		

> The muslim land argument is retarded since America is America not muslim land puhlease


If they are American Citizens, then yes they can have Muslim land. It is their right as citizens of the USA.


----------



## mightymuffy (Sep 1, 2010)

shyam513 said:
			
		

> I'd Say Yes.
> 
> Nowadays, I believe too many people believe Al-Qaeda and Islam are the same thing. I know many muslims who detest the very idea of being linked with 9/11. Building A Islamic Cultural centre on the site of Ground Zero may help the people see that there is more to Islam than what terrorists do.



Can't say I read more than the last couple of pages, but agree with this post - to a certain extent.... what I suspect I'd find if I read more would be (and no offense to our American chums) certain US members nearly kicking off at the fact that this was even thought up, and that is the very reason there may be problems with this being given the go ahead.... just like the whole Al-Qaeda/Islam scenario, there's a very small percentage of overly.......erm....patriotic shall I say??... Americans who just might try and bomb the thing! Like Al-Qaeda, it's not even 1% of the American public, just a tiny minority that will not listen to a word anyone says, spoil it all for the rest of the US people and go for this building.... I remember an old US bloke running down some random Islamic girl in the streets after 9/11 because of what 'they' did to his beloved country - THAT sort of person is your problem!

For that reason alone, I'm gonna say no..... if we could make sure such types don't get near the building though, then it's a definite yes on all accounts!


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 1, 2010)

mightymuffy said:
			
		

> shyam513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't that giving in to the "Over patriotic" Douche bags? Don't give them their way, that's the worst thing to do.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Sep 1, 2010)

phoenixgoddess27 said:
			
		

> Tempers still flare in this thread.
> I don't believe this is what the OP intended when they made the thread.


Tempers as in emotions?

Or Tempers as in the site members?


----------



## Sterling (Sep 1, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> phoenixgoddess27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First one I believe. Don't let the stuff going on now fool ya', none of it has anything to do with this thread.


----------



## Bri (Sep 2, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Just let me say that nowhere in my post did I say shut down existing facilities. I have heard multiple accounts that they are going to tear the building down/remodel it. What I meant by my post is that no new facilities should be built at an inappropriate distance to Ground Zero. Which I guess is a 2 block reference now.



Then I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing.  Keep in mind that "ground zero" is actually a large area -- about 4 blocks by 4 blocks (see the map linked from my previous post).  When opponents say that the proposed Islamic center is 2 blocks away, they mean 2 blocks from the closest edge of ground zero, not from the center of ground zero.  So there's already a large area set aside for a memorial and whatever else people feel is "appropriate" for ground zero.  Adding another 2 block radius to what's already there encompasses an area of about 8 blocks by 8 blocks.

That said, what do you think should happen to the Burlington building that's the proposed site of the Islamic center?  What should happen to other buildings in that 8-block by 8-block area?

Why did you deem 2 blocks from the edge of ground zero "inappropriate?"  Why not 1 or 3 or 4?  Or 0 for that matter -- what's wrong with the 4 blocks by 4 blocks that are already known as "ground zero?"  You're OK if the proposed site of the Islamic center were, say, a half block further away?

Are you equally opposed to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center itself, which is, after all, actually ON ground zero.  What could be a more "inappropriate" distance than right ON hallowed ground?

-Bri


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 2, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Just let me say that nowhere in my post did I say shut down existing facilities. I have heard multiple accounts that they are going to tear the building down/remodel it. What I meant by my post is that no new facilities should be built at an inappropriate distance to Ground Zero. Which I guess is a 2 block reference now.



So you just let disused buildings rot and crumble because you're not allowed to remodell them, use them for anything new or rebuild them?  Sounds like a fitting tribute.

I like the way that "now" two blocks is too close, just coincidently the exact distance away muslims want to open something.


----------



## SaddQ (Sep 2, 2010)

A big resounding 'YES' from me.

A country which prides itself over its freedom should not impede anyone's freedom of religion by banning the construction of a mosque.


----------



## Ferrariman (Sep 2, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Bri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing should be built in London because it got bombed in WW2

Nothing should be built in hiroshima or nagasaki because the US bombed that in WW2

Nothing should be built in New York because of 9/11


----------



## VmprHntrD (Sep 2, 2010)

I think the concept here is the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem, and without an open discussion about it in general and the usual brush off and silence causes many to suspect other motives.

Given some of the comments I have seen, it wouldn't surprise me if someone returned the favor and blew the place to bits either in construction or once finished.  Of course the argument would be that it's pay back, freedom of expression in kind, who knows what but I bet it would be along those lines.  Guaranteed many will find some sick amusement in it, or at least a fleeting thought of tit for tat while others probably would laugh once they start bitching it happened to them on their land.

If it goes up where they want it, expect trouble.  To what degree who knows, but considering the history of this country with overly religious, patriots, or those who just have taken just too much shit looking for an excuse this will be prime material in the making.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 2, 2010)

Do I have to clarify yet again? I meant by my post that if this mosque was barred from construction, then nothing else should be built as a result. This was in response to another post that another person was countering this mosque with a church. At which I was outraged. If this mosque cannot be build, then nothing else that represents a religious faction should be able to either. Also I think that rebuilding the WTC would be best because it would be a sign that America is rebuilding.




			
				Ferrariman said:
			
		

> Nothing should be built in London because it got bombed in WW2
> 
> Nothing should be built in hiroshima or nagasaki because the US bombed that in WW2
> 
> Nothing should be built in New York because of 9/11


Those are completely wrong. If you don't rebuild, then you cannot complete the healing process. It's as simple as that.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 2, 2010)

Vampire Hunter D said:
			
		

> I think the concept here is the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem,



The right in the US have only just decided this.  The Bush administration worked closely with him and praised him as a moderate, Beck implied Rauf was one of the 'Good muslims."  It's only now they're trying to paint him as a radical.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...r_for_peace.php
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008230004


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 2, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Ferrariman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He was just joking around and mocking the haters.


----------



## Bri (Sep 2, 2010)

Vampire Hunter D said:
			
		

> I think the concept here is the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem, and without an open discussion about it in general and the usual brush off and silence causes many to suspect other motives.



FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan fact-checking website:

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-abo...nd-zero-mosque/

Specifically, the section "Is Imam Rauf an anti-American radical?" is relevant to your statement above.

-Bri


----------



## Bri (Sep 2, 2010)

Sterl500 said:
			
		

> Do I have to clarify yet again? I meant by my post that if this mosque was barred from construction, then nothing else should be built as a result. This was in response to another post that another person was countering this mosque with a church. At which I was outraged. If this mosque cannot be build, then nothing else that represents a religious faction should be able to either. Also I think that rebuilding the WTC would be best because it would be a sign that America is rebuilding.



So you're saying that IF the mosque is barred then churches should be barred too.

Fair enough.  But do you think the mosque should be barred?  If so, should _nothing_ should be built closer than 2 blocks outside of ground zero or just not places of worship?  What should be allowed there and what shouldn't and why?  How about the church that was actually at ground zero that was destroyed on 9/11?  Should it be rebuilt?

-Bri


----------



## VmprHntrD (Sep 3, 2010)

Seriously factcheck?  I've seen that place before it's not 100% on the level.  Regardless they do a decent write up of the facts for the most part, but not entirely which is why i don't trust that site entirely.


----------



## Bri (Sep 3, 2010)

Do you have some evidence that FactCheck.org is not "100% on the level?"  They cite their sources, so anything they post should be pretty easy to verify.

Specifically, do you have any evidence concerning Imam Rauf that contradicts the information in that article and supports your statement that "the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem?"

-Bri


----------



## VmprHntrD (Sep 3, 2010)

Did I ever say I did research on it or Rauf in any detail?  No.  I just said that past experience I've seen them not be 100% straight is all back during the 2008 election and no 2 years later I can't dig up and cite the shit out of facts for you to stop being so defensive about it.

My entire point was that not everyone is going to want that there, and there likely will be someone to try and cause some damage to the property in retribution, much like McVeigh did in Oklahoma City back in the 90s.  When you get a patriotic nut, a cause, and a means anything can happen.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 4, 2010)

Sorry, if you can't actually cite and specify what they got wrong in 2008, I don't believe you. That's the reality of making claims to strangers on the internet I'm afraid.


----------



## Bri (Sep 4, 2010)

Vampire Hunter D said:
			
		

> Did I ever say I did research on it or Rauf in any detail?  No.  I just said that past experience I've seen them not be 100% straight is all back during the 2008 election and no 2 years later I can't dig up and cite the shit out of facts for you to stop being so defensive about it.



Asking for evidence to support your statements isn't being defensive.  Without evidence in support of your claims and in light of evidence to the contrary, I'd be apt to disregard them.  If you can present some facts that back up your statements, I might reconsider.

-Bri


----------



## Private|Par (Sep 4, 2010)

Cracked's Ground Zero Mosque Article. This tells you basically why this whole debate is a non-issue.


----------



## Schizoanalysis (Sep 4, 2010)

Yes.

If you say no, you seem to be somewhat racist.


----------



## Bri (Sep 4, 2010)

Private|Parts said:
			
		

> Cracked's Ground Zero Mosque Article. This tells you basically why this whole debate is a non-issue.



Pretty good article, although factually incorrect on at least one point:  the Muslim community center will indeed include a mosque (not just a prayer area).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...ot-even-mosque/

-Bri


----------



## injected11 (Sep 4, 2010)

Vampire Hunter D said:
			
		

> My entire point was that not everyone is going to want that there, and there likely will be someone to try and cause some damage to the property in retribution, much like McVeigh did in Oklahoma City back in the 90s..


Since this started, I've heard at least 3 news stories already about people elsewhere vandalizing and burning mosques, 1 about people burning the machines at a mosque's construction site, and a story about a Muslim cab driver being repeatedly slashed and stabbed by a fare who got in and just asked, "Are you muslim?". It's already happening. Americans are becoming terrorists to torture Muslims.


----------



## VmprHntrD (Sep 4, 2010)

That was my intitial point but people like Bri like to get all uppity on people and nitpick posts which is why I said I wouldn't go digging two years back taking time to back up other shit as it was pointless.  I can tell when someone doesn't look the type to change their mind or concede and learned it years ago so I find better things to do.

You are right though that it's happening now, hell today there's story out of some people torching a Tennessee mosque, yeah, arson -- called it.  Someone pissed at muslims taking it out on their property, big revelation.


----------



## Bri (Sep 5, 2010)

Vampire Hunter D said:
			
		

> That was my intitial point but people like Bri like to get all uppity on people and nitpick posts which is why I said I wouldn't go digging two years back taking time to back up other shit as it was pointless.  I can tell when someone doesn't look the type to change their mind or concede and learned it years ago so I find better things to do.



You stated that "the Imam in charge at this site to be is a known problem."  I posted an article from FactCheck.org that seems to contradict your statement.  Instead of presenting evidence to support your original statement, you attacked FactCheck.org, again without presenting any evidence to support your attack.

Your statements that I "like to get uppity on people and nitpick posts" and earlier calling me "defensive" is known as an "ad hominem" attack, and is often an attempt to distract from the fact that no actual evidence has been presented.

Since I previously stated that if you were to present compelling evidence that I would consider changing my opinion, your statement "I can tell when someone doesn't look the type to change their mind or concede" is also without basis.

-Bri


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Sep 5, 2010)

Yes the Mosque should be built, why is America going through a culture shock?! Muslims are people too not terrorist, look at how the Asians, Europeans, Russians, and other cultural backgrounds can live in peace with us. However, we seem to feel that Muslims have no right to express their freedom. Even if they move the Mosque farther from Ground Zero, its still going to be denied because NY don't want that reminder of the terror on Sept. 11th. 

I don't blame them for their offensive argument about the building, that should also include that nothing can't be built there.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 5, 2010)

"Nitpicking" apparently meaning "Not letting me make groundless claims without having to back them up, no fair, that's cheating."


----------



## Sterling (Sep 5, 2010)

@ Bri

I actually voted no, but thinking on the Constitution... I wanted to change it to yes. I don't think the church should be rebuilt, maybe at the very least put a modest monument respecting said church, but don't rebuild it. I think places of business should be allowed to be built there (Not on, but around), because that is basically what the WTC stood for right? We Need to put out some site that we are recovering from the shock... Right?


----------



## Bri (Sep 5, 2010)

I agree that business should resume at the site where possible.  A memorial is appropriate as well.

I also think that any law-abiding religious group has the right to build in the area just like anyone else. 

-Bri


----------



## akamepi (Sep 7, 2010)

It is just not an appropriate time to build mosque. Not yet. People are still traumatized with 9/11. Building mosque there only create bigger hatred and suspicion.

9/11 shows that there are actually a gap between Islam and western civilization. Many people in America (and world globally) still have false understanding about Islam. This is the first thing that must be repaired. 

I think what more important is build the center of interfaith dialogue (and of course civilizations). It is more effective than building the mosque, if you want to promote understanding between different religions and civilizations. That just my opinion anyway...


----------



## Snorlax (Sep 7, 2010)

No.
They can take their mosque else-where.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Sep 7, 2010)

akamepi said:
			
		

> I think what more important is build the center of interfaith dialogue (and of course civilizations). It is more effective than building the mosque, if you want to promote understanding between different religions and civilizations. That just my opinion anyway...


Perhaps some sort of "cultural center" where people of all beliefs could go to learn?


----------



## Depravo (Sep 7, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> akamepi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a much better idea. And instead of building it a ground zero how about two blocks away? Surely nobody could protest about that?


----------



## david432111 (Sep 7, 2010)

Depravo said:
			
		

> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They could, but there's no space and they don't own any land there.


----------



## Bri (Sep 7, 2010)

david432111 said:
			
		

> Depravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If only there were some sort of unused, dilapidated building that they might be able to purchase, that would be perfect!

-Bri


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 7, 2010)

People, you aren't even aware of the circumstances of the building, so how can you be for/against it? The site isn't *on *ground zero, its a couple freaking blocks away. Jeezzzzus. Here's a map, to  make it easier:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source...%B236%E2%80%B3W


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 7, 2010)

I really don't see the point getting pissed off at it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It's not like the people who have anything to do with it are the terrorist. This just seems like another excuse to isolate and pick on another group of people due something that weren't even part of.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 7, 2010)

akamepi said:
			
		

> It is just not an appropriate time to build mosque. Not yet. People are still traumatized with 9/11.


Well then, I ask, when _would_ be the appropriate time? A century from now? For fuck's sake, the attacks were nearly *10* years ago.

Also, I laughed at how you got trolled real bad and didn't even notice.

READ THE TOPIC.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Sep 7, 2010)

You know this issue is becoming bland because the tolerance in America depends on the country as a whole and not one individual differing the purpose. The Mosque itself shouldn't be built, however like 'Blood Fetish' have typed why not a cultural center? 

Americans weren't hurt on that day; everybody who had live here and saw that destruction were hurt also in the same manner. This can only be justified by showing a influence on cultural beliefs which can either make us or break us. The so call 9/11 scare-tactic needs to stop now (Really its like how people complain they can't get a job but aren't doing anything about it!) The people over in the middle east fought and died to support this country. If we are still scared about the incident on 9/11 then we are only showing that the terrorist already did their part of making us miserable about that day. Will our wounds ever heal from our that day? Didn't it already did when we started working with our normal lives once more?

What kind of 'damage' can a Mosque do to *'US'* that the terrorist hasn't accomplished on 9/11?


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 7, 2010)

It _is_ a cultural center.

Everyone was just trolling around.


----------



## thaddius (Sep 7, 2010)

I can't believe that people are falling for this crap.

1) It's not a mosque;

2) It's not ON ground zero, it's blocks away;

3) Islam itself did not attack the twin towers, al-Qaeda did. They are not one and the same, and;

4) It's none of your business where someone builds a _private_ building. It's the business of the people who are building it.

Therefore this is a non-issue.


----------



## Bri (Sep 7, 2010)

It's a cultural center that includes a mosque.

-Bri


----------



## Pliskron (Sep 7, 2010)

the real issue should be why the hell is there a hole in the ground where the towers used to be. It took like 150 days to build the Empire State building.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 7, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> It's a cultural center that includes a mosque.
> 
> -Bri



There is a mosque _inside _the Pentagon, so how is this an issue?


----------



## Slyakin (Sep 7, 2010)

Pliskron said:
			
		

> the real issue should be why the hell is there a hole in the ground where the towers used to be. It took like 150 days to build the Empire State building.
> Yeah, I think that it would be a bit nicer to patch things up and get over the fucking problem. Almost 10 YEARS, how long will it take to get over the collapse?
> 
> 
> ...









 Really? Wow, never knew that.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 7, 2010)

It's not actually a dedicated Muslim only place of worship, but a non-denominational chapel that holds Muslim services as well as others.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 7, 2010)

Snorlax said:
			
		

> No.
> They can take their mosque else-where.


Wow, I'm compelled by your excellent argument.


----------



## Slyakin (Sep 7, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> Snorlax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me too, it brings shivers of pure debate-ness down my spine.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 7, 2010)

So let me get this straight....

There's 3 churches, a chapel, and a synagogue all located closer to ground zero than this proposed "mosque" yet there is an issue here somewhere?


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 7, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> Bri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WWW.factcheck.org/2010/08/no-pentagon-mosque


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> There is a mosque _inside _the Pentagon, so how is this an issue?
> 
> Someone already beat me to it, but there's no mosque in the Pentagon, just a non-denominational chapel.
> 
> ...



There used to be a Greek Orthodox church AT ground zero which was destroyed on 9/11.  The rebuild is under negotiation due to a lot of technical issues including a lack of private funds to rebuild it.  As far as I know, there are currently no religious institutions closer than the proposed Islamic community center, although if the Greek Orthodox church is rebuilt it will likely be closer.

There's currently a strip club about the same distance from ground zero as the proposed Islamic community center.

-Bri


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

Old8oy said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight....
> 
> There's 3 churches, a chapel, and a synagogue all located closer to ground zero than this proposed "mosque" yet there is an issue here somewhere?



Derp.

The issue is that no church members were responsible for the slaughter of thousands in the 9/11 attacks, so that is a moot point.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Sep 8, 2010)

Warrior522 said:
			
		

> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So?
No mosque members "were responsible for the slaughter of thousands in the 9/11 attacks". The terrorists were Islamists. They're not like other muslims.


----------



## 0ddity (Sep 8, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> WWW.factcheck.org/2010/08/no-pentagon-mosque
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did either of you bother reading my next post, instead of just jumping straight for the fast reply button?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 8, 2010)

Warrior522 said:
			
		

> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Google Maps says otherwise.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Sep 8, 2010)

Warrior522 said:
			
		

> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because the members of a mosque that has yet to be built even 10 years after the disaster were responsible?

How about you think about what you're saying and stop being such a racist fuck?


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

0ddity said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I said "Someone already beat me to it..." but what I didn't realize is that it was YOU who beat me to it.  Nonetheless, I was answering your question (namely, "so how is this an issue?").

-Bri


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

Old8oy said:
			
		

> Bri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right.  I stand corrected.  There are quite a few actually.  Presumably they all predate 9/11.

-Bri


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

I say no.

In the interest of full-disclosure however, before I explain why I say no (which is a simple answer), I want everyone to know that I may be biased:  I am a Soldier.  A COMBAT Soldier (Army Infantry).  I have spent 32 months in Iraq, and am preparing to go to Afghanistan within the next 60 days.  I made several (good) friends over there (primarily in the form of my interpreters) and have even lost a few.  So...

I say no because it is down-right disrespectful.  I know, as much as anyone, that no, no one in that mosque or as a member of that assembly had anything to do with the Twin Towers.  The six-degrees-of-separation game probably couldn't link anyone at that mosque to the bombing.  BUT (there's always a but....), you (as in the Mosque people, staff, owners, whatever) know, KNOW, that it WAS Islamic/Muslim radical extremists, that did this.  You know, KNOW, that doing this will offend LARGE amounts of people.  You can decry the executioners of this act as vehemently as you would like, but that changes nothing.  Radical extremists or not, they ARE/WERE *bad seeds* of your tree, and yet you don't care how many people are offended.

Now, on the same note, I do come from a Nation of equality and fairness, so for that I also say this:  since there shouldn't be a Mosque there, there also should not be anything else there, other than maybe a nondescript, quiet, unaffiliated, "prayer" room.

But that's my two cents.....


RisnDevil


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil,

I'm offended that Catholic priests have molested children.  Therefore, Catholics need to stop building a church in my neighborhood (and any others that are closer than 2 blocks from children).

I say no because it is down-right disrespectful. I know, as much as anyone, that no, no one in that Catholic church or as a member of that assembly had anything to do with the molestation of any children. The six-degrees-of-separation game probably couldn't link anyone at that church to molesting children. BUT (there's always a but....), you (as in the church people, staff, owners, whatever) know, KNOW, that it IS Catholic priests, that did this. You know, KNOW, that doing this will offend LARGE amounts of people. You can decry the executioners of this act as vehemently as you would like, but that changes nothing. Child molesters or not, they ARE/WERE bad seeds of your tree, and yet you don't care how many people are offended.

Guilt by association is a very slippery slope.

-Bri


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

Bri,

I like (absolutely no sarcasm there, though I know stating this makes it seem like I do mean sarcasm, but whatever) your attempt to "turn the tables" and show how my statements are wrong, but I do not think your parallel is correct.  Lets try this scenario for you....

Father Mulcahey (sorry M*A*S*H*, first name I could think of) raped and molested little boys in his neighborhood for 13 years.  The only thing that stopped him was when Erich, a boy just hitting 15 who could no longer take the abuse, went on a "rampage" shooting up the church, and setting a fire that burned down THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, PLUS SEVERAL OTHER CLOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, resulting in THOUSANDS DEAD.  Not just offended, dead.  As massive money gets poured into the reconstruction, one of the first things being built is a new, bigger, better Catholic Church.  Sorry, but just an "I'm sorry for what THAT OTHER GUY DID" from the Catholic Church just doesn't cover what sprouted from someone within their ranks.

And I never said they were guilty of the crime, only callous disrespect to many, MANY people.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 8, 2010)

So is this discussion about people's "feelings" or is it about what's "right" based on our Constitution?

If it's about feelings then Americans should stop building ANYTHING on this soil.  It is a callous disrespect to the Native Americans from whom they stole the land and murdered.


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil,

You would find it disrespectful for the people who had nothing to do with the molestation or the subsequent rampage to rebuild their church?  Unless somehow you feel that the church members were negligent and should have prevented the molestation or the rampage, you'll have to explain that one.  How many blocks from the neighborhood should the church be required to be in order to be rebuilt?

How many blocks from the neighborhood should Father Mulcahey's family, or the boy's family, be allowed to rebuild their homes that were destroyed?  How about the school the boy attended, should it be allowed to rebuilt in the neighborhood?  The boy was a member of the Cub Scouts -- should they be allowed to meet in the neighborhood?  Should any Catholic priests be allowed to remain in the area?  How about the other boys who were abused?  Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to live there either.  After all, we can't be sure that they don't sympathize with the boy and might do the same thing again.  It would be downright _disrespectful_ for them to remain there.  What do you think?

-Bri


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Sep 8, 2010)

Absolutely. No opinion interprets the jurisdiction of Constitutional law. They have every and any right to build there. Even if they wanted to build ON ground zero, I have no objections.

"They have the constitutional right to, but should they?" - Sarah Palin. Shut the fuck up, idiot. Threats of mass hysteria against the mosque won't work. *In a country accent* That's terrorist talk right there, is what that is. 

Waleed, the man who's funding the community center, owns 7% of Fox News, and the reporters who did a report on this are retarded for patronizing their own boss. 

This whole "ordeal" is meaningless. It's just a building. Being built. Big fucking deal. Who cares if part of it will offer a Muslim worship center?


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

Yes, I do find the Church negligent and that it should have prevented the molestation.  The school did nothing to the boy making him go on this rampage, so they are clear, along with Mulcahey's and the boys families.  Mulcahey and "his" church, are persona non grata, and to rebuild in the neighborhood that they wrecked, or allowed wrecked, is blatantly disrespectful.  They want to make amends, apologize, or show a true desire to make things better, wait to be invited.  Help from the outside with no "professional/personal" or private gains.


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

So, you think that all Muslims (or at least the ones building that community center near ground zero) are negligent for not preventing 9/11.  Gotcha.

So...back to that new Catholic church in my neighborhood.  You agree that all its members are negligent for not preventing Catholic priests from molesting children, right?

-Bri


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 8, 2010)

i am genuinely amused at all the analogies we are spewing forth right now


----------



## heat6jones (Sep 8, 2010)

I think they should build it in the middle east instead.


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

I never once said, or implied, that I felt that about the Muslim community or members of that church.  I only said that in direct relation to the church analogy, which (sadly) is not a perfect parallel.  That does not change the fact that the person(s) (re)building this mosque are being callous and blatantly disrespectful.

Back to the church again, it is not entirely the members of the church that have the burden of blame to bear, but the other "staff" members of the church who allowed it.  Take any psych class or some class that shows criminal behavior and its affects, and you will see that if these people(s) had cared to actually look, or pay attention to what they saw, they would have seen something.  Just because you don't talk about the pink elephant in the room (or the fact that Father Mulcahey takes really long "private confessions" with little boys outside of the confessional booth) doesn't mean it's not there or happening.

And Uncle FEFL, I never said that they were not allowed to build there, only that they shouldn't out of respect for their fellow human beings.  Yes, they have every right, but not from a "country bumpkin" standpoint the question of if they should IS actually pretty valid.

PS - Bri, my wife really likes your choice of methodology in your (initial) counter-argument, and feels you have valid points, but also agrees that there is a callous disrespect essentially in their choice of location, not what they are building (which I much point out, is pretty must what I am saying).

edit:  typo


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

heat6jones said:
			
		

> I think they should build it in the middle east instead.



Why?  Because they are Islamic/Muslim?  Fine, go build all your churches in England and Italy, and keep them out of this country.  That is the kind of close-minded statements that promote hate, not open discourse.


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> I never once said, or implied, that I felt that about the Muslim community or members of that church.  I only said that in direct relation to the church analogy, which (sadly) is not a perfect parallel.  That does not change the fact that the person(s) (re)building this mosque are being callous and blatantly disrespectful.
> 
> Back to the church again, it is not entirely the members of the church that have the burden of blame to bear, but the other "staff" members of the church who allowed it.  Take any psych class or some class that shows criminal behavior and its affects, and you will see that if these people(s) had cared to actually look, or pay attention to what they saw, they would have seen something.  Just because you don't talk about the pink elephant in the room (or the fact that Father Mulcahey takes really long "private confessions" with little boys outside of the confessional booth) doesn't mean it's not there or happening.
> 
> ...



Personally, I think my analogy is better than yours, given that all I did was take your argument and change "mosque" to "Catholic church" and "Islamic/Muslim radical extremists" to "Catholic priests" and "destroying the Twin Towers" to "child molestation."

Unless you feel that all Muslims are somehow responsible or negligent for 9/11, I'm not sure why you feel that it's a sign of "callous disrespect" for a group of them to build a community center two blocks away from ground zero where (as someone pointed out earlier in the thread) there are already plenty of churches and synagogues.  In my opinion, the insinuation that all Muslims are somehow responsible for 9/11 or negligent in not having prevented it is the epitome of callous disrespect.

-Bri


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

There is no need to assume anything about what I am saying, as I have a habit of stating what I feel and not leaving it open to interpretation.

I VERY clearly stated that the mosque SHOULD NOT be built ON GROUND ZERO (I will admit that I was not clear that it only should not be built there, but now I have) NOT because its members/owners/builders were responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, but because it is disrespectful to build something (anything really) like that that will KNOWINGLY offend or disrespect a VERY LARGE number of people.  Look at the poll here and see nearly (not completely, but nearly) half of the people say no.

Also, I very clearly stated that I DID NOT feel that the MEMBERS of the church were negligent, but its STAFF MEMBERS, and there is no one in all of God's green Earth that you will convince me that NOT SO MUCH AS A SINGLE STAFF MEMBER had any kind of inclination or proof of said actions.  See my post related to psych and such.

You want to build a mosques "ten millimeters" away from GROUND ZERO; go ahead.  Just don't build one on ground zero.  Have some respect for your fellow human beings who feel that that is a flagrant display of arrogance and hubris, or just downright rude.  "You" didn't do it, I know.  I am not saying you CAN'T worship, pray or build where you want:  I am "asking" you to think of your fellow man, just like you will be asking people to treat you with common respect and courtesy when people offend or disrespect you (sadly, often times with violence).

Again, I have now said at least three times, that I DO NOT feel that all Muslims are in ANY WAY responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, so please stop saying that I am implying that.


----------



## MMX (Sep 8, 2010)

the general population isn't very educated and chances are they read newspapers that use fear and panic for higher sales, like all media. 

It's also so much easier to see the world in black and white. 

The same debate is going on in my hometown (Mönchengladbach) and they're protesting every week against a mosque.

Before 9/11 nobody cared if a mosque was built and now they think it's a secret base for planning terrorist attacks and spreading propaganda.

PS: this reminds me sometimes of Spy vs Spy from MadTV. It's basically the same on both sides


----------



## emigre (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> There is no need to assume anything about what I am saying, as I have a habit of stating what I feel and not leaving it open to interpretation.
> 
> I VERY clearly stated that the mosque SHOULD NOT be built ON GROUND ZERO (I will admit that I was not clear that it only should not be built there, but now I have) NOT because its members/owners/builders were responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, but because it is disrespectful to build something (anything really) like that that will KNOWINGLY offend or disrespect a VERY LARGE number of people.  Look at the poll here and see nearly (not completely, but nearly) half of the people say no.
> 
> ...



but its not being built near Ground Zero. Its several blocks away from it and it wouldn't be visable from Ground Zero.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 8, 2010)

emigre said:
			
		

> but its not being built near Ground Zero. Its several blocks away from it and it wouldn't be visable from Ground Zero.




I can't believe this has been pointed out just about every page for 30 pages and people still don't get it.

Amazing how people can have such strong feelings about something they haven't even looked at enough to know the most basic facts of.

The whole "Ooh, it might offend people" is what people on the right usually call political correctness, "Oh, you have the right to do it, but you _mustn't_."

What about the families of 9/11 victims who've come out to say they're offended by people hijacking their grief and using it to spread bigotry and intolerance?  If you say the mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero in case it offends some 9/11 families, why aren't you saying that people should be stopped protesting the mosque near ground zero in case it offends 9/11 families?


----------



## emigre (Sep 8, 2010)

Well when people are bloody minded, they seem happy to ignore fact, reason and logic.


----------



## MadClaw (Sep 8, 2010)

People seem to care more about not offending Muslims than they do the people who's lives were effected by 9/11. What's up with that?


----------



## emigre (Sep 8, 2010)

MadClaw said:
			
		

> People seem to care more about not offending Muslims than they do the people who's lives were effected by 9/11. What's up with that?



I call it being abel to tell the difference betweent eh decent majority than teh bad minority. And people's lives won't be affected by this building. There's been no decent, cohesive and logical arguement against it. The 'tehe feelings of the victims' arguement is just a poor attempt at emotional blackmail. THere's nothing constitutionally wrong with this place being built. Ergo they should be able to build it without narrow minded fuckers like Sarah Palin taking advantage of people's fear for their own political gain.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 8, 2010)

MadClaw said:
			
		

> People seem to care more about not offending Muslims than they do the people who's lives were effected by 9/11. What's up with that?



People seem to care more about not offending tea-baggers and soccer mom's who don't even know where the centre's going to be built than they do about the constitution, what's up with that?

It's the mosque protester's side of the argument that's solely based on political correctness and getting all up in arms about 'offence', the people who want to build the mosque have a lot more at stake than just their sensibilities, they're in danger of having an actual right taken away from them.

And I've still not seen any argument against the centre that didn't amount to essentially that - that it shouldn't be built because it wouldn't be politically correct.


----------



## Depravo (Sep 8, 2010)

MadClaw said:
			
		

> People seem to care more about not offending Muslims than they do the people who's lives were effected by 9/11. What's up with that?


...which means you're missing the point entirely. It's about the 'protesters' trying to deny US citizens their constitutional rights. This would be a greater blow to the American Way Of Life™ than any number of community centres. The 'offending those affected by 9/11' argument is just a way to gain the support of people who are small-minded, bigoted or just too lazy to think for themselves. The fact that they insist calling it the 'Ground Zero Mosque' when it is in fact neither should be proof of this.


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> There is no need to assume anything about what I am saying, as I have a habit of stating what I feel and not leaving it open to interpretation.
> 
> I VERY clearly stated that the mosque SHOULD NOT be built ON GROUND ZERO (I will admit that I was not clear that it only should not be built there, but now I have) NOT because its members/owners/builders were responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, but because it is disrespectful to build something (anything really) like that that will KNOWINGLY offend or disrespect a VERY LARGE number of people.  Look at the poll here and see nearly (not completely, but nearly) half of the people say no.
> 
> ...



I didn't imply that you felt that Muslims were responsible.  You gave an example that you said was similar to the situation with the mosque in question, and said that you felt it disrespectful that the members of that church rebuild because of the negligence of its staff to prevent the tragedy.  So my question is if the people who want to build the mosque are NOT negligent in preventing 9/11, then why in the world would it be disrespectful for them to build a mosque?  Do you think this is an unfair question to ask?

-Bri


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

MadClaw said:
			
		

> People seem to care more about not offending Muslims than they do the people who's lives were effected by 9/11. What's up with that?



What about offending the families of victims of 9/11 who have spoken in FAVOR of the mosque?  What about offending Americans who want to make sure that innocent people of ALL faiths aren't discriminated against?  Is it OK for the opponents of the mosque to offend them?

It seems to me that in a disagreement where there are two sides, you're going to offend one of them.  So why didn't you even consider the other side when you wrote that?   Why is better to offend the proponents of the mosque than the opponents of the mosque?

-Bri


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 8, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> What about offending the families of victims of 9/11 who have spoken in FAVOR of the mosque?



And for that matter, what about the families of the many Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks?  Or are the views of the familes of victims only sacred if they're the right religion, origin and political affiliation?


----------



## zeromac (Sep 8, 2010)

Why so much Islamaphobia guys? Man society has some wacked up views on how they view each other these days..


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> ...Therefore, one can assume that you feel that the Muslims who want to build the community center and mosque are somehow negligent....Unless you feel that all Muslims are somehow responsible or negligent for 9/11, I'm not sure why you feel that it's a sign of "callous disrespect" for a group of them to build a community center two blocks away from ground zero where (as someone pointed out earlier in the thread) there are already plenty of churches and synagogues.  In my opinion, the insinuation that all Muslims are somehow responsible for 9/11 or negligent in not having prevented it is the epitome of callous disrespect.
> 
> -Bri



So I was wrong when I decried your statement about how I felt?  You stated it pretty clearly, several times.  My analogy wasn't perfect, I got that.  Very, VERY, few analogies ever are.  Instead of another analogy, if the tables were completely turned, and a hateful, close-minded, poor excuse of a christian fire-bombed a government structure in, say, Iraq, and then some other guy(s) tried to build a christian worship center there, they would be just as equally wrong.

I AM guilty of one thing:  not reading hardly any of the 28 pages of posts before I stated my opinion.  You know what though, it wouldn't have changed anything.  If it is being built two blocks away, I don't care or need to know what is already there, as it doesn't matter.  I would also like to point out, that no one seemed to have noticed where I said that, in the interest of being just and fair, no other religious centers should be on ground zero either....funny.....

Also for emigre, BlueStar, and Depravo:  I never said that it is out of respect ONLY for victims/families of the victims.  There are a good many people who, for various different reasons, don't mind a mosque being built, just don't want one built on ground zero.  And you can tell the difference between the close-minded hate mongers and the others who, like myself, usually don't know that it is being built two blocks away, and are okay with that.  Being two blocks away does nothing to change the opinion of whether one should be built at ground zero, nor would/should it.  I also never said not to build mosques, and even told heat6jones to all but go f*** himself for his close-minded hate mongering.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 8, 2010)

I've brought this up before, but there are many places in the UK which have been the victim of sectarian terrorist bomb attacks from both protestant and catholic terrorists, should there be exclusion zones for religious community centres on those sites as well?



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> don't mind a mosque being built, just don't want one built on ground zero.



No problems then, because there isn't one being built on ground zero. Now if only people would bother themselves to find that out before objecting to it. It's like if people started started saying "I'm really against every church in the USA burning Korans on 9/11 on the orders of the Pope."


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> Bri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was extracting from your analogy (albeit in a sarcastic way) since you said that the reason you felt the church in your analogy was disrespectful is because (some of) those associated with it were negligent.  You'll note that in the second sentence I said "*unless* you feel that all Muslims are somehow responsible or negligent" which I think makes it pretty clear that I didn't make the assumption that you necessarily felt that way.

That said, I understand how you misunderstood and I apologize for putting it like that.

Given that you seem to be OK with the mosque now that you know it's not ON ground zero, I don't think we disagree.  Hopefully you can now provide accurate information about the mosque to others who oppose it.  I have yet to hear a coherent argument against the mosque in question.

-Bri


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 8, 2010)

Ugh... hopefully people will see it this time.

This whole argument is a non-issue, because:
1. It isn't a mosque, though the building will 'contain' a mosque;
2. The building isn't ON Ground Zero, but TWO BLOCKS AWAY;
3. No one should be denied the right to build what they want if they BOUGHT the place;
4. Muslims ? terrorists;
5. Would you want anything in a 1 kilometre radius from Ground Zero to turn into barren wasteland?

Tsk.

YOU BLIND ASSHOLES​


----------



## Depravo (Sep 8, 2010)

Overlord Nadrian said:
			
		

> Ugh... hopefully people will see it this time.
> 
> This whole argument is a non-issue, because:
> 1. It isn't a mosque, though the building will 'contain' a mosque;
> ...


You forgot to add the part about the words 'Terrorist' and 'Muslim' *NOT *meaning the same thing. A lot of people don't seem to get that.


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Warrior522 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excuse me? When the hell did I say that I hated muslims? I merely stated that the location of other religious organizations are irrelevent, as they had no role in the 9/11 incident. I honestly don't give two fucks as to where they put their mosque, and as stated above, any argument against it is flatly irrelevent due to it being TWO FUGGIN' MILES AWAY, as well as 9/11 being 9 YEARS AGO.

Muslims: put up your mosque, and critics? Shut up. That's like saying we can't build any churches near the sites of the crusades, because they had a sub population of fuckups a while back...

...besides, if someone was an extemist terrorist of any religion, I suspect they would want to be as far away as their organization's last known siting as physically possible, so I have good reason that this is not going to be some terrorist training ground, as certain geniuses seem to think...

Wanna know my reasoning for that? How are you gonna train people in the art of fighting inside a mosque IN THE MIDDLE OF NEW YORK CITY?


----------



## Popid (Sep 8, 2010)

I'm Australian and I would never presume to tell New Yorkers what they should or shouldn't do when it comes to the fallout from such a devastating thing as 9/11, but I did wanna say that I think it's a shame that the people who were affected by 9/11 can't see the idea of a mosque near ground zero as basically the biggest "fuck you" to extremist Islamic morons possible...Building such a thing so near that site to me seems like a great way of affirming the basic principles by which American people are proud to live, namely freedom and equality. To deny such a building seems to some extent like these terrorists have won with their inexcusable terror. I heard on the news tonight about some American pastor who wants to burn a copy of the Koran on the upcoming anniversary of the event, and that kind of knee-jerk hatred - and misunderstanding of who is to blame and what happened - is exactly what people need to strive to pass beyond, despite how hard it is. It might hurt, a lot, and come with all that doubts anyone can imagine, but it's the best way or maybe the only way to stand resolute, impenetrable and uncompromised against those who in their own idealogies and values stand so opposite us


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> And Uncle FEFL, I never said that they were not allowed to build there, only that they shouldn't out of respect for their fellow human beings.  Yes, they have every right, but not from a "country bumpkin" standpoint the question of if they should IS actually pretty valid.


My post was a "lone wolf," so to speak. I was just stating my opinion backed up by some facts. I wasn't replying to you, but now...

Respect for human beings? Humor me this: why is it that idiots in the Muslim religion destroy the religion itself for everyone else who practice it normally? Yet the same does not happen for Christians, or ANY other religion for that matter?

Read my post again. Clearly it states that opinions hold no jurisdiction in Constitutional law. And they don't. That is a fact. I don't care what any American thinks.

No, it's not valid in the slightest. Al-Waleed bin Talal, the man who owns 7% of Fox News, is building the community center. The report done on it by Fox is contradictory.


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

Popid said:
			
		

> I'm Australian and I would never presume to tell New Yorkers what they should or shouldn't do when it comes to the fallout from such a devastating thing as 9/11, but I did wanna say that I think it's a shame that the people who were affected by 9/11 can't see the idea of a mosque near ground zero as basically the biggest "fuck you" to extremist Islamic morons possible...Building such a thing so near that site to me seems like a great way of affirming the basic principles by which American people are proud to live, namely freedom and equality. To deny such a building seems to some extent like these terrorists have won with their inexcusable terror. I heard on the news tonight about some American pastor who wants to burn a copy of the Koran on the upcoming anniversary of the event, and that kind of knee-jerk hatred - and misunderstanding of who is to blame and what happened - is exactly what people need to strive to pass beyond, despite how hard it is. It might hurt, a lot, and come with all that doubts anyone can imagine, but it's the best way or maybe the only way to stand resolute, impenetrable and uncompromised against those who in their own idealogies and values stand so opposite us



...my respect for you just skyrocketed. This PERFECTLY SUMMARIZES the logic of what is happening here. The true spirit of America is one of caring; we don't hate Muslims because one subgroup of screwups slaughtered thousands; that would be as insane as saying that we shouldn't let any troops come home to our nations because a few of them did things that have been deemed morally wrong? It's the same thing here: this is the land of the free and the home of the sane; not letting them build the mosque would make us hypocrytes for trying to break our own laws and racist for not acknowledging that THE TERRORISTS WERE A FREESTANDING SUBGROUP. 

Muslim =/= Terrorist.

End of.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 8, 2010)

Popid said:
			
		

> I'm Australian and I would never presume to tell New Yorkers what they should or shouldn't do when it comes to the fallout from such a devastating thing as 9/11, but I did wanna say that I think it's a shame that the people who were affected by 9/11 can't see the idea of a mosque near ground zero as basically the biggest "fuck you" to extremist Islamic morons possible...Building such a thing so near that site to me seems like a great way of affirming the basic principles by which American people are proud to live, namely freedom and equality. To deny such a building seems to some extent like these terrorists have won with their inexcusable terror. I heard on the news tonight about some American pastor who wants to burn a copy of the Koran on the upcoming anniversary of the event, and that kind of knee-jerk hatred - and misunderstanding of who is to blame and what happened - is exactly what people need to strive to pass beyond, despite how hard it is. It might hurt, a lot, and come with all that doubts anyone can imagine, but it's the best way or maybe the only way to stand resolute, impenetrable and uncompromised against those who in their own idealogies and values stand so opposite us



somebody gets it


----------



## Demonbart (Sep 8, 2010)

Definitely no. 
Ground zero has to be made into a memorial for the people who died on 9/11. Nothing else. And since the twin towers were destroyed by muslim extremist, placind a mosque there would be bad taste.
No offense towards Muslims intended.

EDIT: @ Popid: placing a mosque there will make the extremists thinjk they've won and that the Islam conquered America, and then they'll proceed with the rest of the world.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 8, 2010)

so now we're back to placing "taste" over the rights and freedoms of American citizens...

edit:  lol @ your edit


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 8, 2010)

Demonbart said:
			
		

> Definitely no.
> Ground zero has to be made into a memorial for the people who died on 9/11. Nothing else. And since the twin towers were destroyed by muslim extremist, placind a mosque there would be bad taste.



You obviously missed the huge font explaination at the top of this page, which has also been repeated about 30 bazillion times in this thread. 

It's. Not. Being. Built. On. Ground. Zero.  

I guess if people are determined to be wilfully ignorant and make their conclusions without even the briefests of looks at the facts there's not much you can do.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Sep 8, 2010)

...but Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin said it was being built ON Ground Zero?!?!?!   Why would they lie?


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

Old8oy said:
			
		

> ...but Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin said it was being built ON Ground Zero?!?!?!   Why would they lie?



Let me get my list...


----------



## Popid (Sep 8, 2010)

@Demonbart: I agree that literally the site itself should be/have a memorial, I mean obviously those people who lost loved ones in this event deserve to be recognized and appreciated as having lost so much - and those who died deserve respect and recognition - but the Mosque isn't right there on the spot; as people have pointed out it's a couple of miles away. I agree that it's possible that some extremists will believe that the placement of a mosque there or near there is a win for them, or else could just try to spin it that way...but I believe it's much _more_ likely that refusing to build the mosque there will provide them with ammunition: "you see, the Americans hate us. They preach equality but it is only in their own service.." etc. Those extremist people who are set on hating America/the west will not be swayed either way, but the important thing is to show the world that Americans truly mean it when they assert their conviction in the rights which they hold dear, and that they won't be cowed or convinced that acting against their principles is the best course of action when the shit hits the fan...


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

Not saying that it "excuses" not knowing (even though I was one of the uninformed), but when someone first sees a thread with 30+ pages of replies, they usually don't read all/any of the other replies before posting.  When the thread TITLE says "Ground Zero Mosque," some people, like myself, were answering THAT QUESTION, not "Mosque X Distance Away, Yes or No?"

Just saying.


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

With the above post in mind, would it be fair to say that a retitle of this thread to avoid further confusion is a good move at this point?


----------



## Popid (Sep 8, 2010)

Warrior522: I'd say yes - it can hardly hurt, and inaccuracies like that are part of what lead to argument, people being hurt, and just general noise that isn't useful. The media have a lot to answer for


----------



## Blood Fetish (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> Not saying that it "excuses" not knowing (even though I was one of the uninformed), but when someone first sees a thread with 30+ pages of replies, they usually don't read all/any of the other replies before posting.  When the thread TITLE says "Ground Zero Mosque," some people, like myself, were answering THAT QUESTION, not "Mosque X Distance Away, Yes or No?"
> 
> Just saying.


You were so uninformed about this topic that you do not even know where it is being built. With that in mind: why on Earth would you form an opinion on something you literally know nothing about? I hope you aren't in a habit of doing this with other topics, like voting issues.


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

Popid said:
			
		

> Warrior522: I'd say yes - it can hardly hurt, and inaccuracies like that are part of what lead to argument, people being hurt, and just general noise that isn't useful. The media have a lot to answer for



Ain't that the truth.


----------



## RisnDevil (Sep 8, 2010)

Blood Fetish,

To be honest, I don't pay attention to REAL news (really only gaming news) because I know how glorified or sensationalized most news is, having been to places like IRaq myself and see what the news does with those stories and situations.  As such, I didn't even know there was a mosque being build anywhere in relation to ground zero, until this thread.  When the thread was titled GROUND ZERO MOSQUE, I thought about how I felt about that, and I answered.  Where it actually is located (which I now have a better understanding of) IN NO WAY impacts my opinion that no, a mosque should not be built on ground zero.  Your comments are simply condescending and in no way relevant to the topic at hand.

When I do make something my concern, such as say, my children's education (which is along the same lines as voting, especially when you got involved with School Boards and such) I go out of my way to make sure I know as much as I can about the subject to ensure that I am not some opinionated, loud-mouthed weirdo, shooting off at the mouth.  I do not appreciate your attempted insult into other aspects of me or my life, which you know nothing about.

Good day to you sir.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 8, 2010)

Well some people in america are idiots. There going to burn a copy of the quran on the anniversary of 9/11. How intelligent, that's effectively inviting a terrorist attack and giving them a reason. (even if it's not a reason to kill innocent people)


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> Well some people in america are idiots. There going to burn a copy of the quran on the anniversary of 9/11. How intelligent, that's effectively inviting a terrorist attack and giving them a reason. (even if it's not a reason to kill innocent people)



...that's as moronic as burning one of our flags. Yes, I get the symbolisim, but at the end of the day, it's a pointless and (in my opinion) idiotic thing to do.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 8, 2010)

I find it hypocritical that a country full of people preaching about respect for the victims of 9/11 are burning a quran. (No not all americans)


----------



## emigre (Sep 8, 2010)

This reminds me of something. About ten years ago there was an IRA bombing at a place called Ealing Broadway. Next door to the site there's now an Irish bar 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

But seriously though, I'm disgusted in how certain individuals are overplaying the building of the centre for their self-gain. Palin and Beck are a disgrace in how she's been taking advantage of fear of ignorance, in order to further their already uber conservative narrow minded existance.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 8, 2010)

Gonna defend FOX and bash Glenn for just a sec: GZ Mosque Article. This Article according to the stuff in this thread, is correct in saying the Building is 2 city blocks away. Glenn isn't stating all the facts, and isn't providing a bit of sustanece {I hope that is spelled right} for the people to think on. FOX is correct this time and Glenn is just increasing outrage. I am going to watch him more closely now. Going to call him on it in a few too.

EDIT: Here is a post I made on his Face Book:
Glenn, I love your show and the history you have brought to my attention. You claim to want to stay with the Constitution. Being the Supreme law of the land that it is, the First Amendment grants freedom of religion to all American Citizens. This includes what many people consider an unwanted edition to New York, an mosque. I myself feel that it is insensitive, but as an American, I believe in the constitution. I believe that in order to move on, and recover we as a people must accept the building of things that these people have a right to, even if we do not like it. This is what the United States stands for, and will always stand for. We all have the right to protest this, but what good does it do when the fundamental right to practice (or not) whatever religion (or lack thereof ) you wish is denied in the process. I agree it is insensitive, but for pete's sake when will we be ready for a recovery? It's been almost 9 years since 9/11... (out of words for the post)


----------



## Blood Fetish (Sep 8, 2010)

It isn't about respect, obviously. Hating just feels really good, especially for people living in New York. It fulfills this primal urge to stop thinking and start destroying.


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> I find it hypocritical that a country full of people preaching about respect for the victims of 9/11 are burning a quran. (No not all americans)



The thing I find hypocritical is that a church, a place that is supposed to be a safe haven from this screwed up world (in my experience: yeah right 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) is burning another religious book. What was that Jesus said about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you?


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 8, 2010)

emigre said:
			
		

> This reminds me of something. About ten years ago there was an IRA bombing at a place called Ealing Broadway. Next door to the site there's now an Irish bar
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know the place, it's like a 15 minute drive away for me.
America's full of idiots, it amazes me how oblivious and media controlled they can be.


----------



## Popid (Sep 8, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> It isn't about respect, obviously. Hating just feels really good, especially for people living in New York. It fulfills this primal urge to stop thinking and start destroying.



Because hatred and anger really do seem to work wonders when it comes to submerging/ignoring more difficult and complex unpleasant emotions. I wonder what studies there are on that, a million I'm sure, I'd be interested to read about some though, and esp the relationships between hatred and fear with regard to racism and xenophobia etc. Although I don't know why hating would feel especially great for people living in new york; that's just a bit citiest of you ;P Unless you mean because they bore the brunt of 9/11, then yeah it's understandable. Anger and hatred do as you say feel "really good" on some basic level which is a large part if not the biggest part of what fuels violence the world over


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> Your comments are simply condescending and in no way relevant to the topic at hand.


Ironically, you described your first posts in this topic exactly.


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> Not saying that it "excuses" not knowing (even though I was one of the uninformed), but when someone first sees a thread with 30+ pages of replies, they usually don't read all/any of the other replies before posting.  When the thread TITLE says "Ground Zero Mosque," some people, like myself, were answering THAT QUESTION, not "Mosque X Distance Away, Yes or No?"
> 
> Just saying.



I think the OP assumed that those responding had some prior knowledge of the topic since it has been in the news for several weeks now.  The term "Ground Zero Mosque," although entirely inaccurate, is how opponents have referred to the community center from the beginning.  Granted, they probably used the term in order to whip up opposition to it, but that name pretty much stuck and that's how many news reports regularly refer to the community center.

So it's almost always a good idea to Google a topic before forming an opinion, because it's almost never as cut and dry as either side would want you to believe.  Unfortunately, in this case, the misinformation that's spread by some politicians who oppose to the community center in order to gain political points is downright dangerous and irresponsible.

-Bri


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> I find it hypocritical that a country full of people preaching about respect for the victims of 9/11 are burning a quran. (No not all americans)



It's one small church with fewer than 50 members, and they've been known to do similar things for publicity for their church.

The outcry against it has been pretty forthright from nearly everyone else.

It's inaccurate to say that "a country full of people preaching about respect for the victims of 9/11 are burning a quran," almost as inaccurate as it would be to say that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11.

-Bri


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 8, 2010)

Just as an aside as the Koran burning day has been mentioned... If someone were to go to one of these events and hand out arabic translations of the bible, would the koran burners know the difference, and would they burn them thinking it was the koran until you told them later?  Just putting the idea out there


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 8, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Just as an aside as the Koran burning day has been mentioned... If someone were to go to one of these events and hand out arabic translations of the bible, would the koran burners know the difference, and would they burn them thinking it was the koran until you told them later?  Just putting the idea out there



Formatted correctly, mebbe... >83

...although that would likely only cause more trouble...


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 8, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> BobTheJoeBob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, I guess it is. But I didn't say ALL americans.
@Bluestar, it's supposed to be spelt quran not koran, although I know your not the first person to make that mistake.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Sep 8, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> @Bluestar, it's supposed to be spelt quran not koran, although I know your not the first person to make that mistake.


Spelling differs from one country to another. In Belgium, it's Koran (capitalised).


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 8, 2010)

Overlord Nadrian said:
			
		

> BobTheJoeBob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough, although I do think there should be a universal way of spelling it in English.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 8, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> Overlord Nadrian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you're dealing with words from a language that doesn't use the western alphabet, you're always going to find variants in the way it's anglicised unfortunately.


----------



## Bri (Sep 8, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> Bri said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You said "a country full of people preaching about respect for the victims of 9/11 are burning a quran."  The phrase "a country full of people" would imply a lot more than 50 out of roughly 310 million people.  Also "not all Americans" is a major understatement.  Almost all Americans are not in favor of it.

-Bri


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Sep 8, 2010)

Bri said:
			
		

> BobTheJoeBob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't disagreeing with you but was clarifying that I didn't say all Americans, which I didn't. I do realise that a very small minority of the population agree with it.


----------



## Warrior522 (Sep 9, 2010)

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1

...well, I'm impressed.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Sep 9, 2010)

BobTheJoeBob said:
			
		

> @Bluestar, it's supposed to be spelt quran not koran, although I know your not the first person to make that mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, no, no! The book in Arabic is "Qur'an." The English translation is "Koran." The title of a book is always capitalized (except for prepositional words smaller than five letters, unless it's the first word in a title). Not to mention if someone really wanted to be a grammar Nazi, they're also supposed to be italicized if they're foreign words or long books (ie, name of a magazine, newspaper, short story isn't capitalized). So, correctly it's _Qur'an_, and _Koran_. Whatever the user wants to say.

Pronunciation is "core-on," not "core-an" as some might think.

??????


----------



## Bri (Sep 9, 2010)

Warrior522 said:
			
		

> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1
> 
> ...well, I'm impressed.



Not so impressive:


"People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation -- much like building a mosque at Ground Zero," said the former Alaska governor. 

-Bri


----------



## gringosam (Sep 9, 2010)

It's not at Ground Zero, it's close to Ground Zero, hell, anywhere on Manhattan is close to Ground Zero.  I take offense at the vast majority of news outlets declaring it on Ground Zero when it's not, in a deliberate attempt to raise outrage and making this thing into something it's not.  Go manipulate the simple people.   Oh wait...guess it IS working...


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 9, 2010)

Uncle FEFL said:
			
		

> No, no, no! The book in Arabic is "Qur'an."
> 
> Well, no,  as you point out at the end of your post the book in Arabic is ??????
> 
> ...



It's more like kuu-rahn, but seeing as how both Arabic and English speakers across the world speak with different accents you can't dictate one exact correct pronunciation any more than you can mandate an official anglicisation of the spelling.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Sep 9, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Well, no,  as you point out at the end of your post the book in Arabic is ??????That's not what I meant by what I said, but I see your point. Muslims (when writing in English) spell it out as "Qur'an."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 9, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> That's not what I meant by what I said, but I see your point. Muslims (when writing in English) spell it out as "Qur'an."
> 
> Not all of them.
> 
> ...


----------



## jane.doe (Sep 9, 2010)

don't care, it's within their constitutional rights to build it.


----------



## m3rox (Sep 9, 2010)

Why are you guys arguing about the spelling of some religious book?  Completely off-topic, don't ya think?


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 9, 2010)

m3rox said:
			
		

> Why are you guys arguing about the spelling of some religious book?  Completely off-topic, don't ya think?



Not completely, I think it's the nature of discussion boards that you may end off going off on a slight tangent about things like correct/preferred spelling of one of the words related to the topic.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Sep 10, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Not all of them.
> 
> http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/It's nearly the same, but again, I see your point.
> 
> ...


Depending on the situation, I'd argue the contrary; that's exactly what it means. A writer using fragments as a rhetorical strategy to prove whatever it is the writer's trying to prove and calling said fragment a sentence is wrong. The fragment is still not a sentence. The writer is still grammatically incorrect. The answer to that would be to say that it was the writer's intention to do so. Which is virtually always the case, seeing as how writers edit many, many times.

If I said "WHAT?!" I'm still grammatically incorrect, but it was intended. That would be my style of writing.


----------



## 754boy (Sep 10, 2010)

jane.doe said:
			
		

> don't care, it's within their constitutional rights to build it.



I agree. I could see protesting if they were building the thing on the actual ground zero site, but this thing is like 2 blocks away.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 10, 2010)

Uncle FEFL said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bri (Sep 10, 2010)

Jon Stewart's take (i.e. "Weekend at Burnies"):

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-sept...ies?xrs=eml_tds

-Bri


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 12, 2010)

Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life


			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> Given the vitriolic opposition now to the proposal to build a Muslim community center two blocks from ground zero, one might say something else has been destroyed: the realization that Muslim people and the Muslim religion were part of the life of the World Trade Center.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html


----------



## Chaosruler (Sep 12, 2010)

Nothing is true, Everything is permitted


----------



## RE4zombie (Sep 12, 2010)

Westside said:
			
		

> Issac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel like most Americans have this fear of Muslims because of a tiny group of individuals who do not accurately represent that religion.  Saying that Muslims are terrorists is like saying that Jim Jones represents most Christians.  Remember all the crimes committed in the name of Christianity.  Constitutionally, they can build it where ever they want, and I'm sick of shitheads like the pastor in Florida and Glenn Beck in flaming people against Muslims.  Ground Zero is not sacred, the death of 3,000 people from violence is sad, but no more so than every person who dies from hunger every 2 seconds.  It's time to move on.


----------



## Koumori_Knight (Sep 14, 2010)

@ RE4zombie: two thumbs up!

@everyone else:
This is all bull....I mean really? 
Let's divorce the issue from "islam", and look at the fact that this is America. Unless there is a sign that some kind of illegal activity going on, ie: pedophiles, hate-mongering, bomb-making  and so on, let  it be built.
No religion is sin less. 
Catholics have that whole pedo thing, christians have, well...that's another topic, Hindus have a strange penchant for burying baby girls...
The list goes on, so if you are going to say no mosque, that's fine-- please make sure no religious place of worship is built there, ever.

If, however, you believe that the actions of the few are not the actions of all then by all means, build that mosque.

Remember, extremists trade on that same way of  thinking; one stupid little pastor threatens to burn a Koran, therefore all Americans hate islam and will bomb them back to the stone age. That makes it ok for them to hurt innocent people in their eyes. Our duty as Americans is to rise above that hateful way of thinking and follow our own words, our own word:freedom.


----------



## smile72 (Sep 28, 2010)

I don't understand why anyone cares. It's two blocks away, this is just stupidity, if it was a god damn church for Christians no one would have a problem, but because it's a mosque. And mosques are muslim places of worship , and some bad muslims attacked the World Trade Center. Everybody makes such a big deal out of moronic things, I can't understand how this country's news is made by bigoted Christians  by that I mean Fox News.


----------



## Mewgia (Sep 30, 2010)

people who have never been to that area don't even understand. do you know how far two city blocks is there? it's like a whole nother continent


----------

