Mosque planned for ground zero. - Page 5

Originally Posted by FineTunes

I watched this and also the piece that ran after this. If you didn't catch it it is @

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...que.debate.cnn

It brings the issue of CAN they or do they have THE RIGHT to build the Park 51, Cordoba Project to an end and focuses on whether they SHOULD. There is no question that they have the right to build the center at the location, but there have been too many arguments about this part, ignoring whether is should be built. Please watch and discuss the issue on this perspective.

Originally Posted by Camp David

F
Not true at all.

Originally Posted by Camp David

what's the deal with Muslims and their endearment to Virgins? Are they so bad at the skill of love making they need virgins rather than skilled female partners?

Originally Posted by Camp David

F
I have my own thoughts here; since the Muslim is unclean and unshaven it may be they prefer untrained virgins to make a contrast upon themselves; a woman who has experience would laugh upon them methinks... Just a personal observation.

Originally Posted by Camp David

According to recent reports, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, near the former World Trade Center and destroyed on 09/11/01, is not to be rebuilt according to Port Authority of New York! This is despite the wishes of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and its congregation!

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

You shouldn't pretend disinterest here.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Just my personal observation, but you're a bit of a bigot.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Would they allow churches in Saudi Arabia?

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

You're prepared to throw away the very thing that makes America so special?

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

You have the moral high ground. You want to throw it away?

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

"This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands," said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. "Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

"It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn't be happier."

"USA, USA, USA," one group began. "No clubhouse for terrorists," taunted one sign. "When did it become OK to be a bigot and a racist again?" shouted another. The police did their best to keep the two sides on opposite sides of the street.

While that's how the debate has played out publicly for weeks -– pundits and politicians on the news shows and protesters on the sidewalks — out in the blogosphere, in password-protected radical web forums, there has been an altogether different view.

All this controversy and vitriol are not only encouraged; they're welcomed. Extremists and radical clerics posted a stream of "I told you so" messages: After years of telling followers that Islam was under attack by the West, the harsh reaction to a simple community center seemed to prove it.

That message, transmitted in a multitude of chat rooms and websites, has law enforcement worried. There have been a record number of homegrown terrorist plots in this country since late last year, and the conventional wisdom has been that the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have moved some young Muslims — many of whom came of age watching U.S. forces fighting in two wars on television — to join the fight.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Ron Paul is right. Again.

Demagoguing the Mosque and Islam

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

Or is it because the greek church don't want to bring up the money to build the church and expect the city/state to pay for it?

Originally Posted by tonton

Too bad he has no clue on the economy and how his ideas would affect the poor (or he has a clue and doesn't care), or I'd be a fan.

Haha, no, jazzy, we don't need to get into that again...

Originally Posted by tonton

Too bad he has no clue on the economy...

Originally Posted by Camp David

Perhaps but the majority of opinion today supports my view on this issue and not yours. Besides, since liberals wrongly call anyone disagreeing with them, on most any issue, bigots, it has become sort of a badge of honor today. Sadly, our view is castigated with such epithets simply because we choose not to accept the politically correct view. Luckily however, those of our opinion are in the majority, on this issue.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Now that's rich.

Originally Posted by tonton

No, it's the selective quoting out of context that's rich.

Originally Posted by tonton

Too bad he has no clue on the economy and how his ideas would affect the poor (or he has a clue and doesn't care), or I'd be a fan.

Too bad, from my narrow and biased viewpoint, limited perspective and superficial understanding of economics, he has no clue on the economy and how I think his ideas would affect the poor (or he has a clue and doesn't care), or I'd be a fan.

Originally Posted by stevegmu

There is no Muslim-light. One who is a devout Muslim must convert or kill the infidel. Conversion by the sword is one of the pillars of Islam. A true Muslim's only allegiance can be to Islam. If they haven't carried out, supported or sat by while terror acts are being discussed, planned or carried out, they are not true Muslims.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

How so? How does the additional context change anything here? Here's exactly what you said about Ron Paul (which what I clipped underlined):



I was simply commenting on one claim you made (i.e., that "he has no clue on the economy") which is rich coming from you! The rest of your statement is merely a statement conditional on your first presupposition.

What we could do is rephrase what you've said:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

which is rich coming from you!:

Originally Posted by tonton

This: "Too bad he has no clue on the economy and how his ideas would affect the poor."
(The bolded statement is a single compound object of the sentence.)
Does not have the same meaning as this: "Too bad he has no clue on the economy."

I should have made it clearer for the comprehension challenged.

Let me do that now:

Too bad he has no clue on how his ideas regarding the economy would affect the poor (or he does and he doesn't care).

Better?

Originally Posted by tonton

You can make that statement and I can make the statement that you must have been home-schooled and steered clear of any deep-thinking critical contact with ideas counter to the ones you were taught or chose to study.

Originally Posted by tonton

In other words, someone has brainwashed you and brainwashed you good.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I think Ron Paul has a great understanding of the economy and how his policies would affect the poor.

Let the Housing Market Normalize!

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

IT'S NOT A MOSQUE..?

Originally Posted by e1618978

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, they can't all be terrorists. If you want to blame all Muslims for 9/11, then are you willing to take personal responsibility for all the crappy stuff done by the world's 2.1 billion Christians?

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and thats a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Hatred, or mistrust of the Arab and the Muslim has been subtly taught to Americans *via the corporate media* since the end of WWII. Islamophobia,in various degrees has become institutionalized throughout most of middle America as a result, and 9/11 cemented that viewpoint.

Originally Posted by iPoster

Apologies if this was already posted earlier:

The 'Hallowed Ground' of the WTC?

Originally Posted by iPoster

"At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and thats a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position."

Originally Posted by tonton

I don't think it's fear. Hatred, yes. But it's more a case of anger and vindictiveness than fear. "You people want to build a mosque near ground zero? FUCK YOU!"

Originally Posted by tonton

I don't think it's fear. Hatred, yes. But it's more a case of anger and vindictiveness than fear. "You people want to build a mosque near ground zero? FUCK YOU!"

....pollsters, historians and other experts say that the nation's collective instincts toward Islam have been shaped over decades by a patchwork of factors. These include demographic trends, psychology, terrorism events, U.S. foreign policy, domestic politics, media coverage and the Internet.

A Gallup survey last year found that Americans who don't personally know any Muslims were twice as likely to admit to "a great deal" of anti-Muslim prejudice. Republicans and those without college educations tend to be less favorable toward Islam.

Anti-Muslim feelings aren't likely to decline substantially until American attitudes improve toward the religion itself, said Dalia Mogahed, the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.
Muslims are the most negatively viewed faith community in the country, Gallup found. However, Pew polling found Americans also think that Muslims face the most discrimination of any U.S. religious group.

Originally Posted by BR

If Muslims can't have a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, Catholics can't have churches within two blocks of schools, playgrounds, and daycare centers. Christians can't have churches within two blocks of hospitals that perform abortions. The right wing can't purchase fertilizer.

If it's good for the goose...

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Yeah. Maybe we could try freedom instead.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Then let Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque be built.

From where I stand, there has to be another way to deal with this that is sensitive to both sides, accepting of both positions, healing of both wounds and a monument to real peace. In that case, it will surely be a monument that will shine a strong Islamic light in the very face of that small part of Islam that wants, it seems, to shatter that glow.

"a sad day for America" if opponents successfully kill plans for a mosque proposed near the World Trade Center site.

Gingrich does not object to the project because the wrong sort of Muslims are building it. He objects to any Muslim house of worship on that site. He declares that "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."

..absurd non sequitur: Since when is a foreign state's intolerance an excuse for trampling Americans' constitutional rights?

Once you strip away the Orwellian rhetoric equating peaceful religious activity with violence, Gingrich's position really is as simple, and appalling, as that.

... The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.....

From where I stand, there has to be another way to deal with this that is sensitive to both sides, accepting of both positions, healing of both wounds and a monument to real peace. In that case, it will surely be a monument that will shine a strong Islamic light in the very face of that small part of Islam that wants, it seems, to shatter that glow.

Originally Posted by tonton

... on my ignore, but I clicked his post just to see how he replied to my point.

Originally Posted by tonton

..The people who oppose the community center are lumping all muslims into their hate along with those extreme few who were responsible for 9/11, hence the "you people".

Originally Posted by tonton

.And the survivors of 9/11 are not the ones who are irritated by the idea of this center.

Originally Posted by tonton

.It's only the haters who are irritated.

Originally Posted by tonton

And "why not build it somewhere else?" Why should they? It's their property. It's in an area where there is no Muslim Center. It is also in an area that may be visited by people who are interested in the political implications of 9/11, hence those that would benefit most from a little education and tolerance on the matter.

Originally Posted by Camp David

It is bad enough to tolerate liberals but closed-mined liberals are another thing entirely...

Originally Posted by Camp David

The "you people" remark was your discrimination and your construct; not mine.

Originally Posted by tonton

"The "you people" remark was your discrimination and your construct; not mine."

No, it was not my discrimination. It was not my statement. It was a hypothetical quotation.