Jump to content

A Mosque On The Twin Towers Site?


Recommended Posts

When Muslims run the country, no other religion is legally allowed.When we run the country, all of them are.This place is not, nor ever, was being built for anyone but muslims.And the fact that it is a low population location, and an unsustainable fiscal location shows that the motives they have are 100% based on it's being built on a site destroyed by the 9-11 hijackers.You know why they don't dump $100 million on a cultural center for diversity in Yemen?
Well first of all, it isn't being built on the site. Secondly, Muslims died in those towers too. There were also Muslims among first responders. Just realize when you try and lump all muslims together as some group bent on world domination this includes people who risked their lives to try and help others.I think what a lot of you guys are missing is that this is exactly what radical Islam wants. They want Islam to be at war with the rest of the world, it helps to justify their holy war. Bin Laden has said that it is the duty of all Muslims to attack the infidel (not a direct quote). What better way to combat those attitudes than co-existence?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When Muslims run the country, no other religion is legally allowed.
Except in, among many other examples, the biggest Muslim country in the world.Of course, according to vbnautilus' logic, Indonesia must be the biggest terrorism country in the world since it has the most Muslims in the world. Clearly Indonesians hate us for our freedom because their religion tells them to. I mean, if Islam were a direct tract toward terrorism, as some claim, then this must be the case.Or is it possible that more than a billion Muslims around the world are culturally and intellectually diverse? If that is the case, could also be the case that Muslims in New York are probably among the most liberal and western-centric Muslims in the world? And if that were the case, would it make any sense to go way out of our way to alienate them? I mean, if we're not going to simply group together all Muslims (which would be SO much easier to do and would take so much less, you know, thinking), then maybe we should simply leave those peaceful Muslims in our cities alone and let them build Mosques/Basketball courts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what a lot of you guys are missing is that this is exactly what radical Islam wants.
What they're missing is the concept that we should live in peace with those who want to live in peace with us, and we should let people do as they will so long as it doesn't harm others. They should still be allowed to build a Mosque if no Muslims died in the towers. They should be allowed to build a Mosque no matter what Osama bin WhoCaresdin thinks, or what some backward people hiding in mountains thousands of miles away think.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What they're missing is the concept that we should live in peace with those who want to live in peace with us, and we should let people do as they will so long as it doesn't harm others. They should still be allowed to build a Mosque if no Muslims died in the towers. They should be allowed to build a Mosque no matter what Osama bin WhoCaresdin thinks, or what some backward people hiding in mountains thousands of miles away think.
All I was trying to say here is building a Mosque here is actually antithetical to the goal of the terror attacks.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What they're missing is the concept that we should live in peace with those who want to live in peace with us, and we should let people do as they will so long as it doesn't harm others. They should still be allowed to build a Mosque if no Muslims died in the towers. They should be allowed to build a Mosque no matter what Osama bin WhoCaresdin thinks, or what some backward people hiding in mountains thousands of miles away think.
Well, yea. But the point I was trying to make is trying to say this was part of some islamic master plan is rediculous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Take that back, or I will SO quarter troops in your home, you have no idea.
Hehe...Toronto is expensive, but not as much as Manhattan. I accept your offer if you leave our water and soft wood lumber alone. The troops can stay as long as they keep the place tidy and adhere to our recycling routines. And I would recommend fixed gear bikes for downtown patrolling.Also, on a more serious note, I missed posting on the 11th, but...To all those who were affected, either by loss of life, psychological trauma, whatever the case, I wish upon you peace of mind, well-being and restorative goodness. It was a bad day, but let it not blemish the rest of your lives with intolerance and hate.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What they're missing is the concept that we should live in peace with those who want to live in peace with us, and we should let people do as they will so long as it doesn't harm others. They should still be allowed to build a Mosque if no Muslims died in the towers. They should be allowed to build a Mosque no matter what Osama bin WhoCaresdin thinks, or what some backward people hiding in mountains thousands of miles away think.
That's fine, but you also advocate an individual mandate along with socialized medicine. Where do you draw the line between here (leaving them the fuck alone), and things like sodium requirements and san fucking fransisco (fucking with my life directly). I'm curious because it seems like you're selectively interpreting what you're for and against, kind of BG style. Respectfully.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Except in, among many other examples, the biggest Muslim country in the world.Of course, according to vbnautilus' logic, Indonesia must be the biggest terrorism country in the world since it has the most Muslims in the world. Clearly Indonesians hate us for our freedom because their religion tells them to. I mean, if Islam were a direct tract toward terrorism, as some claim, then this must be the case.
There's plenty of terrorism in Indonesia. It's home to Jemaah Islamiyah, one of the nastiest terror organizations there is. I don't get what your point about Indonesia is.
Or is it possible that more than a billion Muslims around the world are culturally and intellectually diverse? If that is the case, could also be the case that Muslims in New York are probably among the most liberal and western-centric Muslims in the world? And if that were the case, would it make any sense to go way out of our way to alienate them? I mean, if we're not going to simply group together all Muslims (which would be SO much easier to do and would take so much less, you know, thinking), then maybe we should simply leave those peaceful Muslims in our cities alone and let them build Mosques/Basketball courts.
This part is a bit frustrating since I have directly responded to this claim about three times, but instead of responding to my point, you simply keep reiterating this. Muslims share something in common despite their diversity: Islam. Think of it this way: there is a poisoned well that people around the world are all drinking from. Some percentage of the drinkers will get sick. People from many walks of life, all colors, genders, nationalities drink from this well. For some reason we are only allowed to focus on whats wrong with those specific people who get sick, and if we suggest that the water supply is tainted, we are branded as bigots. Granted, figuring out why some people get sick and others don't might be helpful for their treatment, but really, let's stop serving people the frigging poison to begin with. The fact that not every single person who drinks it comes down with an acute form of the disease does not mean that the water is healthy.
What they're missing is the concept that we should live in peace with those who want to live in peace with us, and we should let people do as they will so long as it doesn't harm others. They should still be allowed to build a Mosque if no Muslims died in the towers. They should be allowed to build a Mosque no matter what Osama bin WhoCaresdin thinks, or what some backward people hiding in mountains thousands of miles away think.
This is also frustrating, since we established long ago in this argument that they are allowed to build a mosque. In fact, they are allowed to build a monument to jihad that celebrates all the great suicide bombings of the world and the subjugation of women if they want to. But make no mistake, the ideas which this organization wants to spread are not beneficial to our well-being. That water is poisoned, and we need to be able to run tests on it and recommend against drinking it without fear of reprisal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Think of it this way: there is a poisoned well that people around the world are all drinking from. Some percentage of the drinkers will get sick. People from many walks of life, all colors, genders, nationalities drink from this well. For some reason we are only allowed to focus on whats wrong with those specific people who get sick, and if we suggest that the water supply is tainted, we are branded as bigots. Granted, figuring out why some people get sick and others don't might be helpful for their treatment, but really, let's stop serving people the frigging poison to begin with. The fact that not every single person who drinks it comes down with an acute form of the disease does not mean that the water is healthy.
There's a town that's run down, and in this town a lot of people are sick. There's another wealthy town nearby and no one in that town is sick. Both towns share the same well. Is it the well that's making them sick?
This part is a bit frustrating since I have directly responded to this claim about three times, but instead of responding to my point, you simply keep reiterating this. ...This is also frustrating, since we established long ago in this argument that they are allowed to build a mosque.
Much like you feel the need to attack Islam, I feel the need to constantly assault bigotry and the judgement of people based on their being in a particular group, and not on their words or actions. Clearly they're allowed to build a Mosque. And you're allowed to say they shouldn't. And I'm allowed to say that you're wasting your breath and efforts saying they shouldn't and are sacrificing a lot of good treatment of others for no gain in your war against religious fundamentalism.Is that less frustrating?
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fine, but you also advocate an individual mandate along with socialized medicine. Where do you draw the line between here (leaving them the fuck alone), and things like sodium requirements and san fucking fransisco (fucking with my life directly). I'm curious because it seems like you're selectively interpreting what you're for and against, kind of BG style. Respectfully.
There's a difference between how we treat each other and the social contract that we all take part in so that we can have a functioning government. I don't believe that I can force you to pay me money on demand, but I believe the government can in the form of taxes. Without that, society wouldn't work. I believe that people should treat people with respect and dignity, and government should exist to allow us better to do that. There's no selective interpretation. But lets keep the healthcare in another thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Think of it this way: there is a poisoned well that people around the world are all drinking from. Some percentage of the drinkers will get sick. People from many walks of life, all colors, genders, nationalities drink from this well. For some reason we are only allowed to focus on whats wrong with those specific people who get sick, and if we suggest that the water supply is tainted, we are branded as bigots. Granted, figuring out why some people get sick and others don't might be helpful for their treatment, but really, let's stop serving people the frigging poison to begin with. The fact that not every single person who drinks it comes down with an acute form of the disease does not mean that the water is healthy.
There's a town that's run down, and in this town a lot of people are sick. There's another wealthy town nearby and no one in that town is sick. Both towns share the same well. Is it the well that's making them sick?
Analogy war!
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a difference between how we treat each other and the social contract that we all take part in so that we can have a functioning government. I don't believe that I can force you to pay me money on demand, but I believe the government can in the form of taxes. Without that, society wouldn't work. I believe that people should treat people with respect and dignity, and government should exist to allow us better to do that. There's no selective interpretation. But lets keep the healthcare in another thread.
I agree, but that's the easiest way for me to ask you this question. My next question would be where you draw the line, what your definitions are etc, because I still think you're using selective interpretation with regards to your views, but I guess everyone does that to a degree. I'm not even sure what 'selective interpretation' means, it's just the easiest way for me to convey what I feel like I'm observing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a town that's run down, and in this town a lot of people are sick. There's another wealthy town nearby and no one in that town is sick. Both towns share the same well. Is it the well that's making them sick?
I kind of wish you would actually apply this kind of deduction objectively. You're implying that violence is not related to Islam. I'm willing to have that discussion, but before we do that I need to make sure that my actual point here was taken. That point was: the fact that there is diversity among muslims does not argue against the claim that islam leads to violence. The diversity of islamic peoples does not mean that the ideology they share is healthy. I don't know if your analogy was actually suggesting an alternative explanation (poverty), or just that there "could be" an alternative. If you are actually saying that poverty explains the terrorist acts that's pretty easily falsified (people in both towns are sick).
Much like you feel the need to attack Islam, I feel the need to constantly assault bigotry and the judgement of people based on their being in a particular group, and not on their words or actions. Clearly they're allowed to build a Mosque. And you're allowed to say they shouldn't. And I'm allowed to say that you're wasting your breath and efforts saying they shouldn't and are sacrificing a lot of good treatment of others for no gain in your war against religious fundamentalism.
Discussing potential problems with muslim theology is not bigotry. Just like if there is a problem with Naziism or Scientology it is not bigotry to analyze it. In fact, it will benefit muslims perhaps more than anyone to confront this issue. I honestly think the biggest impediment to progress in this area is the liberal commitment to cultural relativism which labels the criticism of almost any culturally-supported idea as bigotry.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this point needs a little further discussion I think:

I feel the need to constantly assault bigotry and the judgement of people based on their being in a particular group, and not on their words or actions
What's actually wrong is when we judge people based on their being in a particular group when being in that group is irrelevant to the dimension we are judging them on. If I judge tall people to be stupid, that is wrong, but if I judge them able to reach high things, that is totally reasonable, because being tall is relevant to their ability to reach things. If I judge all white people to be smart, that is a mistake since their race has no bearing on their intelligence. If I judge Christians to be supporters of jesus, this is perfectly fine since their membership in the group of Christians tells us about their theological orientation.Being part of the group "muslims" similarly allows some perfectly justified conclusions about someone's ideological orientation, because that's exactly what it means to be part of that group. Find me a muslim who doesn't believe in an all-powerful deity named Allah who delivered his inerrant teachings through Muhammed, and I'll show you someone who isn't really a muslim.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a town that's run down, and in this town a lot of people are sick. There's another wealthy town nearby and no one in that town is sick. Both towns share the same well. Is it the well that's making them sick?
I am pretty sure there was an underground river that was flowing underneath the facility owned by Yves Massarde that was supposed to be destroying nuclear waste but instead he was storing it underground which allowed the waste to leak into the river that was poisoning the wells. But I could have my history wrong here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pretty sure there was an underground river that was flowing underneath the facility owned by Yves Massarde that was supposed to be destroying nuclear waste but instead he was storing it underground which allowed the waste to leak into the river that was poisoning the wells. But I could have my history wrong here.
Good book, bad movie.McCounaghey getting the nod as Dirk Pitt is awful.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good book, bad movie.McCounaghey getting the nod as Dirk Pitt is awful.
With you here. Ruined the franchise potential. Not that Cussler is all that good.Definitely no Vince Flynn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
With you here. Ruined the franchise potential. Not that Cussler is all that good.Definitely no Vince Flynn.
Fan of both. I think Cussler's best books are better than Flynn's but lately it is no contest.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fan of both. I think Cussler's best books are better than Flynn's but lately it is no contest.
Yea, having his son help him just proves that most writers are filling in blanket form story lines.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Much like you feel the need to attack Islam, I feel the need to constantly assault bigotry and the judgement of people based on their being in a particular group, and not on their words or actions.
so if i claimed to be a neo-nazi you would not judge me on this (knowing nothing else of my words or actions)?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Being part of the group "muslims" similarly allows some perfectly justified conclusions about someone's ideological orientation, because that's exactly what it means to be part of that group. Find me a muslim who doesn't believe in an all-powerful deity named Allah who delivered his inerrant teachings through Muhammed, and I'll show you someone who isn't really a muslim.
so if i claimed to be a neo-nazi you would not judge me on this (knowing nothing else of my words or actions)?
I mean, yes, I'm not saying that one can't group Muslims together under the belief in Allah and Muhammad. Those things are central to being a Muslim. Just as hating Jewish people is central to being a neo-nazi (I guess). My issue is with the extension from belief in Muhammad to susceptibility to violence. Violence is not central to being a Muslim (even though the Koran may have violent passages. The bible has violent passages, and I wouldn't say that violence is central to Christianity either). This is where the argument gets sticky, and one has to be careful. Just because there are Muslims who are violent, and because there are Muslims who believe that violence is central to Islam doesn't mean that it is central to Islam for all Muslims. We have to be careful what we mean by "Islam" because it's a subjective word, not an objective one. It's up to interpretation (aside from the most obvious central tenants, which we already discussed).This is where my plea for recognizing diversity applies. Group A's interpretation of a religion doesn't mean that group B will interpret that religion in the same way. Just because terrorists in Afghanistan see jihad as the calling of their religion doesn't mean that people in New York will do the same. Just as if a Christian blew people up in the name of Christ doesn't mean that all Christians believe in violence, or just as if an Atheist started murdering religious people doesn't mean that I'm about to do the same.My overall point is that most Muslims in America are no more crazy than the average American Christian. If you really want to go on a crusade against Mosques, then you should equally go on one against churches. This is NOT to say that today's most radical Christians are as dangerous as today's most radical Muslims. I believe radical Muslims to be a horrible group that needs to be eliminated (I don't think I'll get much argument there). But Muslims living in western cities, London, New York, wherever, aren't those people, and don't even really follow the same religion as those people, though they call it by the same name and worship a god and prophet by the same name.Look, in the right forum, I'll be the first guy to argue with the central tenants of Islam. I'll be the first to say that the world wasn't created 5000 years ago, that a guy in the desert didn't fly up to heaven after writing some book, etc etc. Just as I'm among the first to do the same for Christianity, Judaism, Shinto, whatever. But I limit such things to their proper place and do them with a proper proportion. I would never tell a Christian that he couldn't build a church, but I'll still argue with him over his beliefs. That's how I see the NYC Mosque situation: let them build a Mosque legally if that be their desire. If you want to change minds or argue philosophy and religion, do so, but don't actively prevent people from living their peaceful lives, or protest things that bring no harm. Leave that sort of stuff to more fanatical groups.
Link to post
Share on other sites
so if i claimed to be a neo-nazi you would not judge me on this (knowing nothing else of my words or actions)?
I would just like I would judge someone if they said they were a member of Al Qaeda. Just being a Muslim has not risen to this level yet by an stretch.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My issue is with the extension from belief in Muhammad to susceptibility to violence. Violence is not central to being a Muslim (even though the Koran may have violent passages. The bible has violent passages, and I wouldn't say that violence is central to Christianity either). This is where the argument gets sticky, and one has to be careful. Just because there are Muslims who are violent, and because there are Muslims who believe that violence is central to Islam doesn't mean that it is central to Islam for all Muslims. We have to be careful what we mean by "Islam" because it's a subjective word, not an objective one. It's up to interpretation (aside from the most obvious central tenants, which we already discussed).
this is exactly why islam is such an evil moral belief system. how do you know what's central to islam and what is not? both the moderates and the extremists can justify their actions based on the ambiguous and contradictory text of the koran, the word of their god. so who is right? what's the true interpretation? a belief system that presents the absolute word of a supernatural god that can be logically interpreted in a number of ways, including mass murder of perceived aggressors to god, is completely corrupt. it will lead to both moderates and extremists, and everything in between, and to say that the moderates are the ones who got it right and the extremists are just some crazy people who are putting words in allah's mouth (as you seem to imply) is where you are wrong.you say violence is not central to islam. but many VERY devoted muslims would disagree with you, now and throughout its history. they would tell you that violence against non believers is essential. and they could cite evidence from the koran backing them up. so, can a moral belief system that produces dangerous and destructive extremists, but also many moderates, be called evil as such? i say it can. after all, not everyone in the nazi party was at the helm of a death camp. there were many more moderate nazis who just wanted a strong germany. is still call nazism evil. (and yes, i know there are degrees involved. christianity suffers the same root problem, but is much more moderate overall for a few reasons. however, study what goes on in many of the large muslim dictatorships in the middle east and tell me they cant be related to nazi germany)
Link to post
Share on other sites
My overall point is that most Muslims in America are no more crazy than the average American Christian. If you really want to go on a crusade against Mosques, then you should equally go on one against churches.
What do you base this on?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...