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

[atlantic]

I know Eddo, that is my biggest fear here. To build something for provocation purposes

[phreakwars]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

By a Republican/Tea Bagger. And they won't consider it a terrorist act :whistling:

.

.

[timesjoke]

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?

[snafu]

You got to love The Daily Show!

 

"If Fox News wants to play a game of guilt by association with Imam Rauf, Jon can find Rupert Murdoch's questionable ties to terrorism"

 

Enjoy!

 

www.thedailyshow.com

 

 

I like the Daily Show but this was a bit off point for comedy and a bit dishonest. I don't know of anyone who is making the argument that they don't have a First Amendment Right to build the mosque there, and that's what Stewart was trying to say in his comparison.

 

The comparison is more like that of the Westboro Baptist Church or Code Pink. They have the First Amendment Right to go to funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and spew their opinion on why God wanted them to die or Code Pink telling the mother of a fallen soldier that it was a good thing her son died, but just because you have the Right to do something doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.

 

That is point on IWS!

It has nothing to do with bigotry but the fact that this is hollowed ground.

[snafu]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

By a Republican/Tea Bagger. And they won't consider it a terrorist act :whistling:

.

.

 

Considering 64% of America disaproves of this being built it could be some liberal lune.

:blink:

[ImWithStupid]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

 

I disagree.

 

If it were to be built there may be some who protest, as their First Amendment Rights allow, but as far as a rash incident happening, I doubt it would happen.

 

We hear every time there is an Islamoterrorist incident how we shouldn't overreact and lash out at the Muslim community, we heard it after WTC bombing #1, USS Cole, US Embassy bombings, 9/11, Fort Hood, Christmas Eve bomber, Times Square bomber, and we shouldn't overreact. The problem is, history shows that it doesn't happen. Americans haven't lashed out at Muslims over these things and I find it unlikely to happen over building a Cultural center/Mosque at the cite of the 9/11 attacks, if it didn't happen as a result of terrorist acts.

[ImWithStupid]

If they build this - I predict it will be blown up or set ablaze. Save your money.

By a Republican/Tea Bagger. And they won't consider it a terrorist act :whistling:

.

.

 

You must mean like the first World Trade Center bombing.

 

[atlantic]

This whole thing is bullshit. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. To build this in this spot is WRONG. If it is built there will be problems.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

August 09, 2010

Muslims Speak Out Against the Ground Zero Mosque

Eileen F. Toplansky

 

In the Ottawa Citizen published on August 7, 2010, two Canadian Muslims write that "Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation." Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, both authors in their own right, sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

 

 

They ponder the "reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicenter of the worst-ever attack on the U.S." and wonder "why its proponents don't built a monument to those who died in the attack." Furthermore, it is not as if there are no Islamic centers of worship in New York City. The Islamic Society-Mid Manhattan is located on 55th Street. On the google map page there is an additional listing of nearby places of Islamic interest. Then there is the Islamic Cultural Center of New York on Third Avenue which caters to the Upper East Side and then there is the Assata Islamic Center at 172 Allen Street in lower Manhattan.

 

 

Raza and Fatah go on to say that "we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran."

 

 

From their Islamic perspective, these two authors state that "the Koran commands Muslims to "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" ~ i.e., Jews and Christians. Yet, Raza and Fatah state that to build a mosque at "the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive."

 

 

Like many others, Raza and Fatah want to know where the funding is coming from. They state that if "Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not."

 

 

In fact, both writers "passed on this message to [Rauf] through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer." Furthermore, they write that [Rauf] "could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to."

 

 

They consider it a "repugnant thought that $100 million" would be spent [in building this New York City mosque] instead of sending it to "dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan." "As Muslims," Raza and Fatah, "are dismayed that [their] co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth [sic] the pain."

 

 

While Raza and Fatah "understand [bloomberg's] and other liberals goodwill, they maintain that the "stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and [liberals] will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within."

 

 

One should ponder the last statement carefully. If Americans do not educate themselves about the horrors of sharia law, and begin to consider the dangers of a dual legal system in this country, then, in fact, we will face the genuine tyranny of Islamofasciam that is currently enveloping the world. Sharia law was thwarted in Canada because of the very concerns that Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah discuss but it is critically undermining Great Britain.

 

Hugo, do you have a link to this story?

[hugo]

August 09, 2010

Muslims Speak Out Against the Ground Zero Mosque

Eileen F. Toplansky

 

In the Ottawa Citizen published on August 7, 2010, two Canadian Muslims write that "Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation." Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, both authors in their own right, sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

 

 

They ponder the "reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicenter of the worst-ever attack on the U.S." and wonder "why its proponents don't built a monument to those who died in the attack." Furthermore, it is not as if there are no Islamic centers of worship in New York City. The Islamic Society-Mid Manhattan is located on 55th Street. On the google map page there is an additional listing of nearby places of Islamic interest. Then there is the Islamic Cultural Center of New York on Third Avenue which caters to the Upper East Side and then there is the Assata Islamic Center at 172 Allen Street in lower Manhattan.

 

 

Raza and Fatah go on to say that "we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran."

 

 

From their Islamic perspective, these two authors state that "the Koran commands Muslims to "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" ~ i.e., Jews and Christians. Yet, Raza and Fatah state that to build a mosque at "the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive."

 

 

Like many others, Raza and Fatah want to know where the funding is coming from. They state that if "Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not."

 

 

In fact, both writers "passed on this message to [Rauf] through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer." Furthermore, they write that [Rauf] "could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to."

 

 

They consider it a "repugnant thought that $100 million" would be spent [in building this New York City mosque] instead of sending it to "dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan." "As Muslims," Raza and Fatah, "are dismayed that [their] co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth [sic] the pain."

 

 

While Raza and Fatah "understand [bloomberg's] and other liberals goodwill, they maintain that the "stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and [liberals] will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within."

 

 

One should ponder the last statement carefully. If Americans do not educate themselves about the horrors of sharia law, and begin to consider the dangers of a dual legal system in this country, then, in fact, we will face the genuine tyranny of Islamofasciam that is currently enveloping the world. Sharia law was thwarted in Canada because of the very concerns that Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah discuss but it is critically undermining Great Britain.

 

Hugo, do you have a link to this story?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/muslims_speak_out_against_the.html

[phreakwars]

Another reason I like Ron Paul

 

.

.

[jokersarewild]

Ok, you people are horrible at research. They aren't putting the Mosque at Ground Zero. It's a few blocks away, and it's not a Mosque. It's a community center with an Islamic worship center inside of it. Sure, it's NEAR it. But who cares? Muslims aren't the cause of every problem in our country, and Muslims aren't the reason the towers were attacked. It was because TERRORISTS attacked us. Whatever flag they flew to rationalize it is unimportant, and those that believe that all Muslims are evil haven't actually sat down and thought about it in a logical way, instead letting their opinions run rampant.

 

On a similar note, I find it hilarious that people are arguing over the lies and filth that someone can post without doing any research on the topic at hand. Letting the media think for you and dictate your opinions just makes you look like you don't think. Sure, you can AGREE with media opinion, but you should do some research before you blindly fly in to the twin towers of Logic and Thought.

[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...

[ImWithStupid]

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.

[ImWithStupid]

[attach=full]2890[/attach]

[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.?

 

[attach=full]2891[/attach]