Oh hey, let me take apart your argument thusly:If it isn't a mosque then how is it protected under the First Amendment?Uh, what? So building a COMMUNITY CENTER THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY ON THE 'HALLOWED GROUND' OF THE WTC is the same as our limiting "free speech" so that it doesn't endanger lives? Oh, bet you didn't actually know that, did you? That it's A COMMUNITY CENTER? Thought I'd relay that to you.I don't think so, we limit freedom of speach as I pointed out before because yelling bomb in an airplane because of it's severe and out of the normal negative potential. The right to own land is set aside for "the greater good" and the Government can take your land away and give it to someone else to build a Casino.The 1st:
It would be ubconstitutional to prevent a mosque from going up on the false pretense that the old building was of historical value. The constitution even protects scum.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofor abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
How do you think people would react if we wanted to build monuments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Engola Gay and President Truman?
But seriously, how do the two actually correlate? Your 'limiting of free speech' stops people from possibly dying. We have such things in place for a reason. Mind you, that's not necessarily 'free speech', as much as it is 'attempted murder'.
Building a community center a few blocks away from somewhere that was destroyed by people claiming to be part of some religion? Not a hate crime, not murder (or any offshoot thereof), and NOT illegal. For instance, if I wanted to build a Christian Church 3 blocks away from the site of the OK City Bombing, would anybody object? If a vegetarian killed some meat eaters down the street, would anybody care if I grew a garden in my front yard? No, because we as rational human beings DO HAVE THE ABILITY to determine that what one person does has no bearing on the thoughts of another.
There will always be people who are insane, and take things too far. What banner they do this under is inconsequential. We, as RATIONAL people have to see that a few mentally unstable human beings aren't necessarily representative of a whole group.
An interesting look at the debate...
Again. You need to do some research. Nobody is saying they can't build the mosque there or they don't have the "R"ight to build the mosque there. The debate is over it being the "r"ight thing to do.
Perfect political distraction to keep right wingers occupied. Gives them something to ***** about besides REAL problems like unemployment, which they, of course, have no solutions for.Why the **** do people care?
So terrorists are just trying to get attention? They are not criminals?"But after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of U.S. support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?"
So yes, while I do understand that not all Muslims are attacking innocent people, I also understand that all Muslims are needed to step up and force out the radicals in their midst.Palestinian suicide bombers are sacrificing "their souls for freedom."
"When young men and women offered their souls for the sake of freedom and independence and in defense of their religion, dignity, self and family, the United States could not find anything to describe these great sacrifices except to say they are terrorist, criminal actions."
"What's the difference between the taking of innocent lives in New York and Washington and the taking of innocent lives in Ramallah and Bethlehem?."
-- Amhed al-Tuwaijri, member of the Consultative Council of Saudi Arabia, in a letter to President George W. Bush and members of Congress. April 16, 2002
Ghazi Algosaibi never attacked anyone, in all examples he is a great and peaceful Muslim, but his words inflame and add support to the terrorists and provide comfort to the families of terrorists as well as provide an example to all living Muslims of what he feels describes the modern "Myrtyrs"."Tell Ayat , the bride of loftiness … She embraced death with a smile while the leaders are running away from death. Doors of heaven are opened for her."
"We complained to the idols of a White House whose heart is filled with darkness"]
--
, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.K. and noted poet, in a poem titled "Martyrs." The poem appeared on the front page of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat. April 12, 2002
( Reference to Ayat Akras, an 18-year-old Palestinian female suicide bomber who attacked a Jerusalem supermarket on March 29, killing two and injuring 25).
The Crusades happened because the Pope decided to use the powers he had to attempt to *****-slap some Muslims and get more area for Christians. So yes, it was one guy who happened to be power-hungry that told the Crusaders it was their duty to *** to do such things. They were essentially so devout they believed him. And no, I don't blame Christians who weren't Crusaders for the crimes they committed. Because that would be stupid.And under normal laws you can even have your property taken away and given to someone else to build on it. You have any idea how much land has been taken away from Americans to give to some other American to use for private purposes the City/State/Federal Government prefered over the original owner's usage of that same piece of property?
How many times are land owners who want to open strip clubs or bars told no?
Why don't they have a right to open any business they want to open without the community speaking out and stopping it? Should the community have a say in the building of a strip club or not? Does the Government hold itself outside of the wants of the public or should that Government follow the wants of that public that elects them?
In all cases of Eminent domain you have a couple government people who decide to take away your land then they go through the process. The land owner has the right to fight but in most cases will not be able to win. So why is it a couple Government workers can decide to take away your property or stop your use of your property but millions of residents of the same comunity cannot? What makes the two or three people in Government office better than the millions? These officials are supposed to be representing the people of that community but in this case they are ignoring the will of the people just to be politically correct for the Liberal elite?
This issue is no different than the public speaking out against a strip club in a residential area. If you can see where having a strip club next to a elementary school is bad form, then you can understand why a mosque at ground zero is the exact same thing.
I would really like you to respond to my point of how this Muslim issue is similar to the Christian issue of the Crusades. Do you consider the Crusades to be connected to Christians or a seperate series of actions by fanatics and they had nothing to do with Christians?
I would also like you to respond to my point about people like Ghazi Algosaibi who never attack any innocent but who publically support terrorists and call them all heros and "Myrtyrs". Don't you think Muslims need to get their own people under control just like the good Christians did to stop the Crusades and the mentality that made those actions possible?
But it was not the pope all by himself, the rest of the leadership as well as thousands of followers all were involved. They were not stupid and not blind followers, they were individuals who made a choice to do very bad things in the name of their religion.The Crusades happened because the Pope decided to use the powers he had to attempt to *****-slap some Muslims and get more area for Christians. So yes, it was one guy who happened to be power-hungry that told the Crusaders it was their duty to *** to do such things. They were essentially so devout they believed him. And no, I don't blame Christians who weren't Crusaders for the crimes they committed. Because that would be stupid.
They had wins and losses but why did they lose?Also, the Crusades stopped because they kept losing.
Taking a side to support terrorist activities and even said himself he wished he could be a Martyr.As for the Ghazi Algosaibi, do some research. His poem "The Martyrs" praises Palestinian suicide bombers for killing Israelis, who he believes committed war crimes. Not necessarily the best way to go about it, but he even said that he'd change his view on the whole deal "if the Board of Deputies of British Jews 'has the moral courage to refer former Israeli prime ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and the present one, Ariel Sharon, as terrorists and the Israeli actions in Jenin as war crimes.'" A link to the crimes he was talking about. So he was actually just taking a side, and not necessarily supporting terrorism, but believed that the acts of the Palestinians were justified.
The same people forget it was America who stopped Russia from invading them, it seems they have very selective memories about things like that and yet they ignore the evils fo their own societies where a woman being raped by a man and does not have several male witnesses to prove she is innocent will be stoned to death. Instead of pointing their fingers at America, maybe they could accomplish a lot more in fixing the evils of their own circles first?Also, I find it funny that when they attack us the only way they really could (they don't exactly have an army that could match ours in any way), we call it "terrorism". What the **** are we doing over there? Bringing them flowers and candy? No, we're trying to kill the "terrorists", who are trying to kill us because A) We're invaders, and B) Some of them are actually nutcases bent on our destruction. Either way, if they amassed an army and shot at us, they wouldn't be called "terrorists", they'd be called "an army", no matter how many more/less people they killed.
And what the **** does "Eminent Domain" have to do with this argument? I find it interesting that you brought it up, but it adds absolutely nothing to your cause besides stating that "Sometimes, people can have their land taken away. Sometimes, people can't build stuff on some property." Yeah, ok. But sometimes they can. Which, you know, is the case here.
I have to totally agree. There are many different types of nutcake religious fanatics nowadays, but none as extreme and in numbers as Muslims.How many innocent people have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last 20 years?
How many innocent people have been killed by Christian extremists in the last 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Do you have to go all the way back to the Crusades to come up with a number even comparable to the deaths by Muslim Extremists in just the last 20 years?
Seems one group has progressed since the Dark Ages, and one hasn't...
I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.But it was not the pope all by himself, the rest of the leadership as well as thousands of followers all were involved. They were not stupid and not blind followers, they were individuals who made a choice to do very bad things in the name of their religion.The Crusades happened because the Pope decided to use the powers he had to attempt to *****-slap some Muslims and get more area for Christians. So yes, it was one guy who happened to be power-hungry that told the Crusaders it was their duty to *** to do such things. They were essentially so devout they believed him. And no, I don't blame Christians who weren't Crusaders for the crimes they committed. Because that would be stupid.
I don't blame all Christians but I certainly do believe bad things happen when good people refuse to stand up for what is right. The majority of good Christians let this happen.
They had wins and losses but why did they lose?Also, the Crusades stopped because they kept losing.
Because they lacked the support of the majority of Christians to win. It is like trying to win a football game with only 5 guys on your side of the ball, unless everyone is on board you will end up fighting a losing battle.
These Christians could also had done the "terrorist" thing where fighting them any way you can could go on forever but it was the hearts and minds of the Christians that changed enough to directly stop this mindset of Christians to no longer want to behave that way. This is what needs to happen with the Muslims. They need to offer a unified voice against this terrorist mindset or nothing will ever change. Us "Infidels" can't stop it from the outside, there is no way to appease this monster, only fellow Muslims can slay this monster.
Taking a side to support terrorist activities and even said himself he wished he could be a Martyr.As for the Ghazi Algosaibi, do some research. His poem "The Martyrs" praises Palestinian suicide bombers for killing Israelis, who he believes committed war crimes. Not necessarily the best way to go about it, but he even said that he'd change his view on the whole deal "if the Board of Deputies of British Jews 'has the moral courage to refer former Israeli prime ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir and the present one, Ariel Sharon, as terrorists and the Israeli actions in Jenin as war crimes.'" A link to the crimes he was talking about. So he was actually just taking a side, and not necessarily supporting terrorism, but believed that the acts of the Palestinians were justified.
My point is even educated and powerful Muslim figures show support for terrorist acts under their religion, that takes these acts clearly into acceptable behaviors in their society and helps to perpetuate terrorist activities in other ways as well. If you justify one attack of innocents under your religion, then obviously you can make the same allowance for other "similar" events.
Ghazi Algosaibi and other leaders like him take these actions out of the realm of fanatics and bring it home to the base of their faith. You can't claim these actions are outside when insiders are supporting them.
The same people forget it was America who stopped Russia from invading them, it seems they have very selective memories about things like that and yet they ignore the evils fo their own societies where a woman being raped by a man and does not have several male witnesses to prove she is innocent will be stoned to death. Instead of pointing their fingers at America, maybe they could accomplish a lot more in fixing the evils of their own circles first?Also, I find it funny that when they attack us the only way they really could (they don't exactly have an army that could match ours in any way), we call it "terrorism". What the **** are we doing over there? Bringing them flowers and candy? No, we're trying to kill the "terrorists", who are trying to kill us because A) We're invaders, and B) Some of them are actually nutcases bent on our destruction. Either way, if they amassed an army and shot at us, they wouldn't be called "terrorists", they'd be called "an army", no matter how many more/less people they killed.
I wonder if Ghazi Algosaibi has a pretty poem about the greatness of 'honor killing' their daughters?
And what the **** does "Eminent Domain" have to do with this argument? I find it interesting that you brought it up, but it adds absolutely nothing to your cause besides stating that "Sometimes, people can have their land taken away. Sometimes, people can't build stuff on some property." Yeah, ok. But sometimes they can. Which, you know, is the case here.
No my friend, the case here is if the "people" (community) or the Government has the right to stop the construction of a building that is not "appropriate" for the area. How is it you cannot understand that point?
I think your just playing stupid on this point, you have to see how it is relivent to the discussion of how sometimes the Government steps in to take possession of property and in this case should do so for the will of the people, that would certainly be more reasonable than taking possession of property just to give it to Donald Trump so he can make billions off of that property without having to buy it for a reasonable price from the owner.
One of your points was about them having the "right" to build what they wanted on their land, my point was the right to own and build on property is not absolute, you can't seriously expect me to believe your incapable of understanding that, you just don't want to admit I am right.
I will say this again, until ALL Muslims take a direct and agressive stand against the radicals in their midst, this problem of Muslim terrorists will never go away. The radical elements among the Christians was cast out, even with the losses of the Crusades, if the general attitues of Christians had not changed against those who conducted themselves in that way had not changed, then they would have simply shown it in other ways. It was the rejection of those actions and mindsets directly that eliminated the radicals from the Christian circles.
To date, Muslims have not openly rejected the radicals in their religion, sure a few here and there will say they reject them in a television interview, but even their Quran tells them to lie to the Infidel, I don't care what they say as much as what their actions are and we see every day that the radicals are very safe and protected in their communities.
Some Muslim leaders like Ghazi Algosaibi even fan the flames of terrorist activities as being the work of "Myrtyrs", not criminals and if a 'good Muslim' like this will do this in the open, how many will do this and more in private?
Until all of the Muslim community steps up to the table and directly fights the terrorist link to their religion, they must be given part of the blame. Muslims like Ghazi Algosaibi are what keep the terrorist groups going and recruiting, not anything America does.
Well eddo.. I'd venture to guess that our country has killed exponentially more innocent people around the world in our military forays over the last 50 years than every "Islamic terroristic act" combined in the history of the world. ****, make that the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq alone.. Did either attack us and declare war on our country? I don't think so.. 16 of the people that flew planes into the trade center, as well as Bin Laden, came from Saudi Arabia.. what the **** are we doing?How many innocent people have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last 20 years?
How many innocent people have been killed by Christian extremists in the last 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Do you have to go all the way back to the Crusades to come up with a number even comparable to the deaths by Muslim Extremists in just the last 20 years?
Seems one group has progressed since the Dark Ages, and one hasn't...
BS...That being said, people (many "Americans") are stupid and some will most likely turn to violence and commit terroristic acts upon it if they build it,
hahahahaha.. and just what prompted our last 2 invasions and wars in Muslim countries? Possibly considered "hate crimes"?BS...
Hate crimes against Muslims has actually decreased.
Just like I said. We get lectured by the liberal left every time we get attacked by radical Islam, not to overreact or retaliate. We never have, over 30 years of attacks by radical Islamist, but idiots keep saying the American people will do so.
******' retards.
thank you.I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.
I support the right of communities to have the kind of environment they want, this is about the will of the people, not one or two progressives kissing behinds and being politically correct.The Eminent Domain argument: And why should the government step in for the "will of the people"? The "will of the people" can be easily manipulated. And no, there IS NO RELEVANCE here. You keep trying to say "Well, this could happen, and should happen." So you think it should be completely OK for the government to just mow over the many laws we have and decide "Well, they got permission to build it...not doing anything illegal...ah, screw it, they don't need a building there"? So you're perfectly OK with it?
This is why I gave you a couple examples of how non-terrorists can show support to terrorist actions but not be a terrorist themselves, your again pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting this is a valid point. Did you see the quote I posted from this idiot? He said terrorists are just trying to get attention in the only way they can, as far as I am concerned he is showing support to them too.And why is it "inappropriate" for the area? As I previously explained, the Imam had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. He wasn't responsible for this. I don't want to retype the whole thing here. Basically, you're still blaming him for other's actions.
This is not going to be a residence so I have no idea what your talking about, they don't need this monument to live in.Oh, and by the way, "Eminent Domain" says that you don't have a place to live if the government so chooses. Why anybody would ever support such nonsense, I've yet to figure out.
(Response to Terrorism coming soon)
I was saying that being "for" Eminent Domain can go either way for you. Remember that.thank you.I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.
I support the right of communities to have the kind of environment they want, this is about the will of the people, not one or two progressives kissing behinds and being politically correct.The Eminent Domain argument: And why should the government step in for the "will of the people"? The "will of the people" can be easily manipulated. And no, there IS NO RELEVANCE here. You keep trying to say "Well, this could happen, and should happen." So you think it should be completely OK for the government to just mow over the many laws we have and decide "Well, they got permission to build it...not doing anything illegal...ah, screw it, they don't need a building there"? So you're perfectly OK with it?
Murder is only illegal in America because as a society of people we have decided murder is wrong, this was not a idea imposed by one or two politicians but by society as a whole. America is not supposed to be mob rule, I give you that, but it is also not supposed to be a dictatorship where our American values and needs are set asibe just because a couple politicians want to "look" politically correct.
This is why I gave you a couple examples of how non-terrorists can show support to terrorist actions but not be a terrorist themselves, your again pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting this is a valid point. Did you see the quote I posted from this idiot? He said terrorists are just trying to get attention in the only way they can, as far as I am concerned he is showing support to them too.And why is it "inappropriate" for the area? As I previously explained, the Imam had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. He wasn't responsible for this. I don't want to retype the whole thing here. Basically, you're still blaming him for other's actions.
The idea of putting this monument to terrorists on ground zero is simply obscene. They already have another one a couple blocks away and it has low occupancy, there is no need for this thing other than to rum American's faces into their victory.
This is not going to be a residence so I have no idea what your talking about, they don't need this monument to live in.Oh, and by the way, "Eminent Domain" says that you don't have a place to live if the government so chooses. Why anybody would ever support such nonsense, I've yet to figure out.
(Response to Terrorism coming soon)
So, in order to not look like a dictatorship, we're going to stop construction on this building so we can appease some narrow-minded morons. Yeah. That's a good idea.it is also not supposed to be a dictatorship where our American values and needs are set asibe just because a couple politicians want to "look" politically correct.
#1- why would we pin the actions of the US on a religion? or specifically Christianity? I can't recall the US attacking anyone because Billy Graham said to do so. Or Jerry Falwell. or Rick Warren. or even the pope. Am I missing something?Well eddo.. I'd venture to guess that our country has killed exponentially more innocent people around the world in our military forays over the last 50 years than every "Islamic terroristic act" combined in the history of the world. ****, make that the last 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq alone.. Did either attack us and declare war on our country? I don't think so.. 16 of the people that flew planes into the trade center, as well as Bin Laden, came from Saudi Arabia.. what the **** are we doing?How many innocent people have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last 20 years?
How many innocent people have been killed by Christian extremists in the last 20 years? 50 years? 100 years? Do you have to go all the way back to the Crusades to come up with a number even comparable to the deaths by Muslim Extremists in just the last 20 years?
Seems one group has progressed since the Dark Ages, and one hasn't...
Should we pin it on Christianity?
again, you are comparing my comment about Christianity to the United States. I'm not arguing that, and that isn't the issue as brought up by JAW that my comment refers to.One's Islamic extremist terrorism and the other is what? Pick a word.. unfortunately, words don't fool me, so don't waste your time trying. Granted, we do it a lot prettier than someone strapping a bomb on their chest and blowing up a bus in Israel, but dead is dead, isn't it? Shock and awe on an entire city is good... flying planes into 3 buildings is bad? .. Is that how that works?
Yep.. we've progressed alright.. into the most lethal, advanced killing machine ever known in the history of the world.. we should be proud.. not.