Mosque at Ground Zero

Originally posted by inimalist
OBL. jihadi groups are very aware of their tactics. attacks are planned to maximize the psychological impact.

Ok, but do you think they consider themselves to be terrorists, or freedom fighters who are using terror against a global world power that they are at war with?

It was a week statement to say "I don't see a problem with it as long as it's not used by terrorists". It will not be used by terrorists, but there is a possibility (however, small) that it could be used by freedom fighters using terror against the great Satan. My point was how important point of view is in this argument (thread topic).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, but do you think they consider themselves to be terrorists, or freedom fighters who are using terror against a global world power that they are at war with?

It was a week statement to say "I don't see a problem with it as long as it's not used by terrorists". It will not be used by terrorists, but there is a possibility (however, small) that it could be used by freedom fighters using terror against the great Satan. My point was how important point of view is in this argument (thread topic).

this distinction is only relevant if you think that the struggle of a freedom fighter is justified, where that of a terrorist is not, or if you consider "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" to be mutually exclusive terms.

as to your actual argument, the presumption that a building might be used for crime requires evidence. in this light, there is no more reason to think this community center would be a home for crime any more than the YMCA. any further extension becomes a clear case of profiling, the assumption of guilt over innocence, or even a form of prosecution without representation (the would be criminals, themselves, have faced no trial)

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
The elected officials of New York city are planning on building a Mosque close to where the twin towers fell on 9/11 as a commemoration of the lives lost that day and to please the Muslim population. Personally I find this insulting and quite ridiculous. What do you guys think?

Here is a link for a petition in opposition of the Mosque.

Clicky

It would be a disservice and insult to those familys to do so.

lol, I thought you were against big brother

Originally posted by Mr Parker
It would be a disservice and insult to those familys to do so.

No it wouldn't, because there isn't a mosque being built there.

Do just the tiniest bit of research, it's not that difficult.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011798,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51

"The center would replace an existing 1850s Italianate-style building that was damaged in the September 11 attacks, located two blocks (about 600 feet, or 180 meters) from the former World Trade Center site, although it would not be visible from the future memorial."

Wonder how many people signed the ePetition before doing the tiniest bit of research.

Could just be a ploy to get people's names, addresses, emails etc., for marketing purposes.

I'm tempted in making a bogus hotmail account and signing the petition, to see if that hotmail suddenly starts getting slammed with spam ads from dick-growth pills, to low rate loans.

Originally posted by inimalist
this distinction is only relevant if you think that the struggle of a freedom fighter is justified, where that of a terrorist is not, or if you consider "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" to be mutually exclusive terms.

as to your actual argument, the presumption that a building might be used for crime requires evidence. in this light, there is no more reason to think this community center would be a home for crime any more than the YMCA. any further extension becomes a clear case of profiling, the assumption of guilt over innocence, or even a form of prosecution without representation (the would be criminals, themselves, have faced no trial)

The distinction depends on your point of view.

I have not said anything about the building. I was talking about presumption of terrorist activity, and I was not restricting it to any building. In a way I was pulling an "inimalist" on the guy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The distinction depends on your point of view.

I have not said anything about the building. I was talking about presumption of terrorist activity, and I was not restricting it to any building. In a way I was pulling an "inimalist" on the guy.

ok, but let's look at buildings in general then. the accusation that "freedom fighters" might benefit from a building is a potential all buildings have, be they religious, secular, public or private.

in early 2000, when the media was all giddy about the rave phenomenon, some laws were drafted that placed legal onus on the owner of an establishment if it could be argued they should have known illegal activities would occur on the premise.

these were considered draconian and heavy handed, however, even under this perspective, prosecutors would have to show that the owner knew terrorism would occur there, indicating that the only reason the government could interfere with any building on the grounds you say, was if they, essentially, had the evidence that the owner was actively interested in planning terrorist activities.

like, otherwise we need to stop married couples from building homes, as we can't say the man isn't going to rape her inside.

less ridiculous examples would replace "rape" with "smoke pot". the probability that someone might get high, devoid of any evidence, is not grounds to deny them the place there is no evidence they might get high inside of.

freedom fighter or terrorists have nothing to do with the mosque, that is a pathetic stereotype made by people with either too little knowledge or too little sense or too much bigotry. reguardless there is NO legal grounds for not allowing a house of worship anywhere purchased legally{even if it was dead centre of the world trade centre site} in a country where relegious freedom is a right.

simultaneously the entire community under the first ammendment has a right to peacefully protest/publically defame and flat out boycott the mosque IN so long as the DONT "LEGALLY DEMAND" for it's existance to be outlawed.

the muslims who had this brilliant idea shud have the complete right to go forward with this, but no1 may give them the right to not be criticised for their ideals and for trying to make a statement by pursuing this. they deserve to be criticised and slandered, but no1 may take their right to build this mosque away from them.

lastly, the world trade centre has long lost its place as a remider of a wound that deserves pity or remembrance, the memory of the 300 lives lost has lost ay significance as a rationalisation or sympathising tool, after america's actions in iraq/afghanistan and around the world. no1 shall cry about it to justify unlawful and unjust behaviour and expect any1 to care, since america is responsible for far more atrocities the world over.{its a bit like israel and the holocaust, no1 shud give a shit anymore that 6 million jews died if it is brought up in reference ti jstify the atrocities againsts palestenians and other neighbouring states}

yea those fragmented and seemingly at odds point of view are what i think about the whole situation. needless to say, i think most people are neither entirely right nor entirely wrong on this issue.

So were you using "brilliant" in like a sarcastic tone there?

Because frankly, building a pro-muslim building in relative proximity to buildings that were destroyed by radical muslim terrorists, sounds like a very stupid idea. Perfectly legal, yes, and not inherently wrong, yes. But stupid.

Until you know for certain, that this is an attempt to infuriate and disrespect, Christians and or the events of 9/11...,there is no real justification for getting into such an uproar. Most of the reasons i hear on why this thing shouldnt be built are reasons quoted from pundits. I don't think people would give two shits about this if they weren't being brainwashed into what to think, by political pundits. With all thats going on, this hardly warrants this much attention.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Until you know for certain, that this is an attempt to infuriate and disrespect, Christians and or the events of 9/11...,there is no real justification for getting into such an uproar. Most of the reasons i hear on why this thing shouldnt be built are reasons quoted from pundits. I don't think people would give two shits about this if they weren't being brainwashed into what to think, by political pundits. With all thats going on, this hardly warrants this much attention.

i applaud thee.

this should never have been an issue to begin with. if american muslims want to build a community center, they have every right to. there have been plans to do this for a while, and nobody cared until political pundits told them they should. the whole thing has just become another tool to divide the country even more along party lines. there is nothing remotely insensitive or offensive about a religious building being built. is completely and utterly protected by the first and best known of all the amendments, and it can only be misconstrued as insensitive if people try to find ways to make it so.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So were you using "brilliant" in like a sarcastic tone there?

Because frankly, building a pro-muslim building in relative proximity to buildings that were destroyed by radical muslim terrorists, sounds like a very stupid idea. Perfectly legal, yes, and not inherently wrong, yes. But stupid.

Why is it stupid? Do you think that only white Christian Americans died on 9/11? Because that's the impression I get from people who say that building a Muslim center anywhere near Ground Zero is an insult and a stupid idea. And it's kinda, y'know, not true.

Besides, as far as I can tell from reading into this? Most people in NYC - the ones that were the most affected by 9/11, remember - do not take issue with this. It's only outside of New York that there's such a commotion about it.

Originally posted by Peach
Why is it stupid? Do you think that only white Christian Americans died on 9/11? Because that's the impression I get from people who say that building a Muslim center anywhere near Ground Zero is an insult and a stupid idea. And it's kinda, y'know, not true.

Besides, as far as I can tell from reading into this? Most people in NYC - the ones that were the most affected by 9/11, remember - do not take issue with this. It's only outside of New York that there's such a commotion about it.

Thanks for jumping to conclusions though. That totally doesn't make you look just like the type of knee jerker that you criticize so much. 😐

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I didn't say it was an insult, did I? I said it was stupid. Truth is, I'm in the same boat as you, as far as how I feel, personally about the mosque being there.

Thanks for jumping to conclusions though. That totally doesn't make you look just like the type of knee jerker that you criticize so much. 😐

soo...you didn't mean for it to be an insult when you called it stupid??

sorry, don't mean to sound too confrontational, but my initial reaction was the same as peach's.

could you explain what you mean?

he doesn't care about the muslim community center being built personally, but any reasonable person could have guessed at how politically volitile the issue would have been.

Maybe not predicted the nationwide sensation, but at least that there would be some people who didn't think it was copacetic.

First off i want to say that the people who are building this mosque are not only Muslim, but they are American too.

What if Germans decided that they would not allow any Christian churches to be built near any land that Hitler utilized during the holocost because he was a Christian.

There is a need for a new mosque because in that tri-state area there are over 1 millon muslim-americans, and their old building cannot possibally hold all of them. they need more space. Muslim-Americans have been worshipping on this ground that the mosque will be built on for a few years now, just without the title of a mosque. Think about it, its new york city, are there really THAT many places where they can build their own building?

The muslim-Americans who are going to build this mosque and the people who attend the current one and also utilize the new one have accepted people of different religions to sit in on their services, not to try to get them to become muslim, but to show that they are not so different. They also plan to carry this over to the new building, yes this will mainly be for Muslim-Americans, but they are not going to throw out anyone who is not their faith.

Muslim and Christianity (no im not implying that all Americans are Christian, but it is a predominate faith in this country) are not too different with the basic sense of their religion. People who are muslim believe in one god, as do christians, the only difference is that muslims don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, but a messenger sent by god because there is no one like him. Which yes it is a difference, but it really isn't that far fetched.

I really believe that building a mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero should not be a problem, the people using this building are not the ones who were behind the terroist attack. Merely people the same religion/culture. Peope of most faiths have others that follow that faith who have done something horrible such as mass murder, so if a murderer was Christian, would that mean just because i am christian I would do the same thing? No. Or heres another one, many murderers have very high intelligence, so that means anyone who is super smart is going to go kill someone..... Uh, yeah right.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I didn't say it was an insult, did I? I said it was stupid. Truth is, I'm in the same boat as you, as far as how I feel, personally about the mosque being there.

Thanks for jumping to conclusions though. That totally doesn't make you look just like the type of knee jerker that you criticize so much. 😐

Maybe you should bother to, like, specify what your actual personal opinion is? Don't lead people to certain conclusions and then get annoyed when it's not the conclusion you want, even if it lines up with what you say.

Originally posted by inimalist
he doesn't care about the muslim community center being built personally, but any reasonable person could have guessed at how politically volitile the issue would have been.

Maybe not predicted the nationwide sensation, but at least that there would be some people who didn't think it was copacetic.

Well, of course. People will complain about anything. Most of the complaints about this, though, come from completely untrue claims and fear mongering.

Originally posted by Peach
Maybe you should bother to, like, specify what your actual personal opinion is? Don't lead people to certain conclusions and then get annoyed when it's not the conclusion you want, even if it lines up with what you say.

Or maybe you can just not jump to conclusions. Perhaps if you read a post that says "I think building a mosque close to the WTC's is a stupid idea." Instead of automatically assuming that it has something to do with white christians and other liberal crap you'd instead just... inquire as to why I think it's stupid. 😐

Either way works. But I noticed that Inimalist got it just fine.

Originally posted by Vanity
What if Germans decided that they would not allow any Christian churches to be built near any land that Hitler utilized during the holocost because he was a Christian.

Not that this is in any way a statement on my position on the issue- which is, I have no problem with the development- but as you mention this, I think it is worth noting that a Nunnery built near Auschwitz after the war was later actually closed on grounds of sensitivity. Not because Hitler was a Christian, and like most of the Holocaust this was in Poland, not Germany, but the case does bear comparison.