What the Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero Means to Worldwide Islam

[jokersarewild]

The 1st:

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

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.

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.



How do you think people would react if we wanted to build monuments in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Engola Gay and President Truman?

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.

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...

If it isn't a mosque then how is it protected under the First Amendment?

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.

Oh hey, let me take apart your argument thusly:

If it's not a mosque, then what's the issue? Oh look, that's EXACTLY my point. Why the hell do people care?

And why is it the wrong thing to do? Tell me this. Why (in a factual way, with legal arguments, without opinions) is it wrong to put it there?

The answer: It's not. They've followed zoning laws, they've done everything correctly that they need to do.

You and the rest of the people who think that it's 'wrong' are looking at it as if it's offensive. Why are you offended? Did those specific Muslims who are putting this here kill your family? Are they responsible for 9/11? Did they personally fly the planes into the buildings? Are they terrorists? No. They are/did none of these things. You're simply having a kneejerk reaction to the fact that people, under the banner of radicalism, attacked our country. Those same people claimed to be working for Allah, and were saying that we're evil. That Western society is to blame for evil and naked women and whatever other problems we supposedly create. They claimed to be Islamic. And we've established that they are nutcases. And so people, essentially unrelated to them in almost every way try to build a community center near something they had absolutely no part of, and you're OFFENDED? Why shouldn't they be offended that you're blaming them for the mistakes of others? Hey, all white Christians are going to blow up buildings because Tim McVay did. sh t, we'd better make sure they don't build Christian churches anywhere, lest we offend somebody...oh, wait, if someone put that argument up to the same people opposing the community center for the SAME EXACT REASONS, they would be LAUGHED AT. "Why, you can't blame all of us for the few who cause problems," the white Christians would say. "But those Muslims, they're all terrorists. I firmly believe this." The lack of logic in this situation is mindblowing. The people putting up the community center did nothing to you. They did nothing to your family. They did nothing to America. How do you know that 9/11 didn't similarly affect them? They might have had family in that building. Friends in there. How can you even think, for one second, that they didn't suffer as you did, simply because they are Muslim? They're still Americans. The fact that you can seriously tell an American, "No, we don't want you building here because people in no way related to you, and associated by dubious claim, attacked your country," says something. It really does. It's disgusting. Truly disgusting.

 

[phreakwars]

Why the hell do people care?

Perfect political distraction to keep right wingers occupied. Gives them something to bitch about besides REAL problems like unemployment, which they, of course, have no solutions for.
.
.

 

[timesjoke]

Wow, nice bit of ranting there joker but IWS really made the best point, if it is not a religious center, where is it protected under the first amendment?


Well it is a mosque, who is to say what pieces and segments of rooms make a building more or less a religious building? Either this will be used for religious activities or it will not and we all know it will so that means the entire structure "IS" a mosque.




Now, on to your claim of this not being hallowed ground, did you know part of one of the planes hit that building? Did you know the building was worth 20 million before it was hit and this imam was able to purchase the damaged building for 5 million? There are around 100 mosques in New York already, there is no lack of access to religious opportunities in New York for Muslims and there is one just a couple blocks away from this site with low attendence so why build this mosque if they don't need the space? Common sense tells us that they must have some other reason.........



There are many unanswered questions about this mosque such as where the money is comming from that they refuse to answer and recently some disturbing quotes from this imam have been released that show he seems very sympathetic to terrorists:

"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 terrorists are just trying to get attention? They are not criminals?




I have said many times that I see this more agressive side of Islam to be similar to the dark ages with the Christians. I am sure you would agree that the crusades will forever go down in history as a Christian problem. Well like the Christians of old, a low percentage of Muslims are directly involved in the actual bad behaviors. Over 90% of all people who followed the Christian faith were not part of the radicals, but still this problem with bad behavior persisted until that majority of good Christians stepped up and stopped their radical elements themselves.

I believe the Muslims must do as the Christians did and take full responsibility for their radical element themselves. As long as it is only the "infidels" who fight them, they will never stop and will always gain supporters, but once the good Muslims all band together and directly fight these radicals in their own circles, these radicals will no longer be able to lay claim of opposing "infidels" and it will take away their recruiting almost completely.

Up to today, there has never been a unified voice of Muslims against the radicals. These same radicals live among them and recruit with their inflamed rhetoric among them where all can see. They are part of their communities and someone other than a radical know who they are and can turn them in but they choose not to.........

Why? Why does a good Muslim stay silent? Why does a good Muslim even offer support for these terrorists?

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

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.

"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).

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".

 

[jokersarewild]

Times, if it's not a mosque, then it's protected by the "f it, I can build stuff here" laws. Since, you know, they have the right to build it, as they've followed all applicable laws. So the first amendment doesn't protect it? Cool. Turns out it's legal anyway. Other laws protect it, then.

I'll respond more later, fatigue hits me.

 

[timesjoke]

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?

 

[jokersarewild]

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?

The Crusades happened because the Pope decided to use the powers he had to attempt to bitch-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 God 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.

Also, the Crusades stopped because they kept losing.

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.

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 hell 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 hell 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.

 

[timesjoke]

The Crusades happened because the Pope decided to use the powers he had to attempt to bitch-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 God 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.

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.

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.

Also, the Crusades stopped because they kept losing.

They had wins and losses but why did they lose?

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.

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.

Taking a side to support terrorist activities and even said himself he wished he could be a Martyr.

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.

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 hell 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.

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?

I wonder if Ghazi Algosaibi has a pretty poem about the greatness of 'honor killing' their daughters?

And what the hell 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.

 

[eddo]

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...

 

[Chi]

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 have to totally agree. There are many different types of nutcake religious fanatics nowadays, but none as extreme and in numbers as Muslims.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Does what to D.C.?

View attachment 2891

 

[jokersarewild]

The Crusades happened because the Pope decided to use the powers he had to attempt to bitch-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 God 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.

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.

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.

Also, the Crusades stopped because they kept losing.

They had wins and losses but why did they lose?

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.

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.

Taking a side to support terrorist activities and even said himself he wished he could be a Martyr.

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.

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 hell 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.

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?

I wonder if Ghazi Algosaibi has a pretty poem about the greatness of 'honor killing' their daughters?

And what the hell 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.

I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.

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?

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.

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)

 

[wez]

Personally.. I could care less.. build it.. I'm smart enough to know that "Muslims" didn't attack the trade center.. 19 assholes did.. and they're dead.. Why connect a terrorist act with an entire race and religion? I think it would say a lot about our character as people to not condemn an entire culture for the choices of a few. Totally agree with everything Obama had to say about this.. I'd of been worried if he fed into the small minded, moronic, petty, ridiculous hate mongering. Why don't we just put up a military checkpoint and sign that says no Arabs allowed in Manhattan?

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, somehow thinking they are morally justified in their terrorism and have the right to condemn/punish/kill/destroy/people and their property that had absolutely nothing to do with 19 idiots that flew planes into a skyscraper.. kinda like the redneck jackass who shot that guy from India after 9/11 because he thought he was arabic.. what a genius.

I also think our country is guilty of a tad bit of terrorism ourselves throughout the world for the last 70 years.. people in glass houses and all that.. Should the world blame it on Christianity because that is the predominant religion around these parts?

But I digress.. I guess it's not terrorism if ya put on a green camouflage outfit and have sophisticated weapons you can shoot/launch/drop from a safe distance to terrorize and intimidate people.. nor is it terrorism to covertly subvert legitimate governments in foreign countries to "secure resources", as our friend Fellatio would say.. oh.. wait.. yeah.. it is..

Real terrorists don't get their hands dirty.. hopefully someday the "muslims" will rise to our level and learn how to terrorize and control people properly, eh?

What happened to the "melting pot", TJ?

 

[wez]

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...

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. Hell, 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 hell are we doing?

Should we pin it on Christianity? 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.

Hey TJ.. now come explain how we only attack "military targets" (even though the claim is not the reality and you damn well know it). Be just as easy for them to claim they were also attacking military targets don't ya figure? After all, the plan was to destroy our economy, of which the economy and "money" is the only reason we've been sticking our nose and soldiers into their area of the world killing people and manipulating their politics since WWII, isn't it?

Destroy our economy then sit back and watch us destroy ourselves.. seems they were successful so far.. The might = right of our military was no match for 19 morons.. here we are 10 years later still flailing around the middle east murdering people, going miles below broke, and trying to exact our revenge on 19 dead idiots... Brilliant..

Hypocrites stink..

 

[ImWithStupid]

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,

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.

Fukkin' retards.

View attachment 2892

View attachment 2893

 

[wez]

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.

Fukkin' retards.

hahahahaha.. and just what prompted our last 2 invasions and wars in Muslim countries? Possibly considered "hate crimes"?

I still get warm fuzzies recalling Bush at ground zero..

I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you and the people!! -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon! ~ Cowboy George
View attachment 2894


Errrrrrr.. the people who knocked those buildings down are dead George.. aint gonna hear sh t..

Who's the fukkin' retard?

 

[timesjoke]

I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.

thank you.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.



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.

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)

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.

 

[wez]

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism ​

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."


Gee.. kinda embarrassing that our government fits it's own definition of terrorists.. they've intended to intimidate and coerce many a civilian population, including their own.. they've influenced many a government policy by intimidation and coercion, and have tried to affect the conduct of governments by assassinations and kidnappings..

What should we do about it? Blame Islam?

 

[jokersarewild]

I'll give you the point about the lack of support for the Crusades.

thank you.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.



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.

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)

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.

I was saying that being "for" Eminent Domain can go either way for you. Remember that.

Also, "monument to terrorists"? Really? That's quite a description for a community center. I'm mildly impressed.

And as it turns out, terrorist acts tend to get attention. What are they going to do? Tell us to get out of their country and leave their stuff alone? How well will that work? Obviously they're so passionate about what they believe that they think the only way to get their message across is to kill people. If there's one thing that people respond to, it's death. I don't think it's right, but they obviously think it's worth it. So maybe we need to figure out a way to get people against their views, instead of killing them and making others believe they were killed for their views. Creating martyrs is a horrible way to fight someone.

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.

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.

 

[eddo]

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...

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. Hell, 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 hell are we doing?

Should we pin it on Christianity?

#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?

Many Islam clerics have called for the destruction of the US. Many more fund it. Parts of the Islamic religion are most definitely at war with the United States- and will be if we fight back or not.
Your comparison seems way off.

#2- Your numbers are way off too, but I'll give you a chance to prove them if you can. Go ahead. I'll wait.

...

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.

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.

Tossing in your hatred for the US is irrelevant in this part of the discussion. Now if you want to compare Christianity vs. Islam vs. the United States, you could possibly have a legit discussion. But equaling Christianity with the United States, especially when so many citizens have tried so hard to remove all governmental acknowledgments to God, is frankly, silly.

BTW, Have you moved to Canada yet?

 

[wez]

#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?

Funny you mentioned Billy Graham..

"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language."

The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'" -- Alan M Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.-- George W Bush

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them. -- George W Bush

To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda.... All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. -- George W Bush

"Suspected terrorists" ? Interesting..

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. -- George W Bush

When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive.-- George W Bush

[I encourage] employers to permit their workers time off during the lunch hour to attend the noontime services to pray for our land -- George W Bush

We come before God to pray for the missing and the dead, and for those who loved them.... Our purpose as a nation is firm, yet our wounds as a people are recent and unhealed and lead us to pray.... This world he created is of moral design. Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end, and the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.... Neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities, nor powers nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth can separate us from God's love. -- George W Bush

Through my Faith-Based and Community Initiative, my Administration continues to encourage the essential work of faith-based and community organizations. Governments can and should support effective social services, including those provided by religious people and organizations. When government gives that support, it is important that faith-based institutions not be forced to change their religious character. -- George W Bush

Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God. -- George W Bush

I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our nation and its leaders in every level of government. -- George W Bush

That answer your question as to why? Apparently you missed a lot.. Need more? There's plenty..

#2- Your numbers are way off too, but I'll give you a chance to prove them if you can. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Being that no one in our government feels it necessary to count the number of civilians killed, here is the best estimate from foreign sources found here.. Mind you, this is just Iraq for the last 7 years.. Even if our "crusaders" didn't directly kill each and every one, our presence there is fully responsible.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

“We don’t do body counts” ~ General Tommy Franks

Documented civilian deaths from violence

97,461 – 106,348 (2003 - 2010)

How about I give you the chance to prove the greater total killed by "muslim extremists" than just those in the last 7 years in Iraq if you can.. go ahead.. I'll wait

..

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.

Tossing in your hatred for the US is irrelevant in this part of the discussion. Now if you want to compare Christianity vs. Islam vs. the United States, you could possibly have a legit discussion. But equaling Christianity with the United States, especially when so many citizens have tried so hard to remove all governmental acknowledgments to God, is frankly, silly.

I hate the US? How ya figure? I'd lie to myself and others and try to create different terms and double standards to fool people into thinking I'm better than someone else if I didn't hate it?

Maybe the difference is I don't hate muslims either, or excuse the actions of me and mine whilst judging, labeling, and looking down on others for a sliver of our log, like you.

I'm with you or against you, George Jr.?

BTW, Have you moved to Canada yet?

Nope.. not yet..