Mosque at Ground Zero

[obfuscator]

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

Until then, please shut up. You don't even have a reason to be suspicious, let alone evidence. :roll:

 

Sure, I'd love to "shut up" because I don't agree with you. I hope you also "shut up" when someone who disagrees with you tells you to do so.

I'm further glad to see you're defending whichever parts of the constitution are most convenient, and disregarding those that aren't(freedom of speech, anyone?).

 

I'm not arguing for stopping building at all, as I've reiterated countless times so far.

 

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

We'll have a lot more problems than being offensive to people if we have a terrorist base in new york. But you're searching for a needle in 5 haystacks.

 

I never said it would be a terrorist base - I said that it may be possible that radical jihadist Muslims may use this community centre, and I stand by that.

[Nenga]

I'm not arguing for stopping building at all, as I've reiterated countless times so far.

 

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

We'll have a lot more problems than being offensive to people if we have a terrorist base in new york. But you're searching for a needle in 5 haystacks.

 

I never said it would be a terrorist base - I said that it may be possible that radical jihadist Muslims may use this community centre, and I stand by that.

There's a possibility that tomorrow we will be invaded by aliens (lizardmen from Jupiter). There's a possibility that we don't exist and are just in some one else's dream. There's a possibility that next week I will learn to fly and you will learn to teleport. Need I go on? There's always a possibility for everything.

[Troacctid]

Until then, please shut up. You don't even have a reason to be suspicious, let alone evidence. :roll:

Sure, I'd love to "shut up" because I don't agree with you. I hope you also "shut up" when someone who disagrees with you tells you to do so.

I'm further glad to see you're defending whichever parts of the constitution are most convenient, and disregarding those that aren't(freedom of speech, anyone?).

1. When I know I'm wrong, I will, and on many occasions, I have.

2. You are entitled to your freedom of speech. That's why I said "please." :ugeek:

 

I never said it would be a terrorist base - I said that it may be possible that radical jihadist Muslims may use this community centre, and I stand by that.

If they're within the law and not hurting anyone, then they have the right to do what they want and pray at whichever community center they choose. We may abhor their views, but that's all the more reason why their rights need to be protected.

[obfuscator]

I'm not arguing for stopping building at all, as I've reiterated countless times so far.

 

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

We'll have a lot more problems than being offensive to people if we have a terrorist base in new york. But you're searching for a needle in 5 haystacks.

 

I never said it would be a terrorist base - I said that it may be possible that radical jihadist Muslims may use this community centre, and I stand by that.

There's a possibility that tomorrow we will be invaded by aliens (lizardmen from Jupiter). There's a possibility that we don't exist and are just in some one else's dream. There's a possibility that next week I will learn to fly and you will learn to teleport. Need I go on? There's always a possibility for everything.

If you're seriously going to disregard every single one of my last 30 posts in this thread showing how there is a reasonable possiblity radical muslims would make use of this mosque, then I'm done arguing.

 

@troacctid: I'm glad you "know" that I'm wrong.

 

You abhor my views, yet I don't see you striving to have them protected.

[Yoko Kurama]

Do you even know the meaning of the word condone? If the church were to condone pedophilia and molestation they'd be making public announcements saying "Yeah, we're cool with pedophilia, you'll still go to heaven if you rape little boys".

 

Has this mosque or some Muslim authority made any such statements in favor of terrorism?

 

Cover-ups are meant to protect your reputation - this indicates precisely how clear it is that pedophilia and molestation are contrary to the overall teachings of the church.

 

I've also never stated I suspect Muslims of extremism more than any other group - rather I've said(and I stand by it) that as a faith community they are less likely to alienate those members of their faith who do practice extremism.

 

Sorry but protecting criminals from the reach of the law is not justifiable. Clearly, if you protect them you don't think they should be punished. In the case of the Church, not only did they NOT turn them in BUT they let continue their jobs in different locations where they could just harm other children. That goes beyond just a cover up, the least they could have done is dish out some kind of internal punishment. If I or you owned a daycare center and several of my employees were caught molesting children, and I tried to protect them from the reach of the law, I would be in prison right now.

 

For one thing we know for a FACT that the Catholic community REFUSED to alienate members of their community who were involved in wrong-doing, the Muslim community has made no such efforts as far I am concerned. You apparently have no problem with the Vatican who we know for a FACT refused to alienate such members yet when it comes to Muslims you are are applying a double standard. So I guess, by your logic my point remains, we better start removing Catholic buildings from areas where kids were molested by priests because it is an affront to their suffering! And heck, they probably won't alienate Priests(like they haven't done so far) who have been involved in the molestation of Children, which makes it an even more greater affront.

 

 

As far as your last statement goes, it is total nonsense. How do you know the Muslim community is less likely to alienate such members? Are you implying the average Muslim has no problem with radicals or terrorism? In case you didn't notice, Al-Qaeda's terrorism is indiscriminate:Muslims did die on 9/11, they particularly also don't like Western Muslims/moderates, if I was the average Muslim, I would be pretty terrified by them too. Saying things like they won't alienate extremist members is basically saying in a round about way that it will be a safe haven for terrorism.

[Troacctid]

If you're seriously going to disregard every single one of my last 30 posts in this thread showing how there is a reasonable possiblity radical muslims would make use of this mosque, then I'm done arguing.

 

@troacctid: I'm glad you "know" that I'm wrong.

 

You abhor my views, yet I don't see you striving to have them protected.

1. You haven't "shown" anything. Just random ass-pull guesses, suspicions, and stereotypes. There's nothing to regard. No offense.

2. You have the right to express your views. Nobody is challenging that right. But defending your right to hold those views does not require defending the beliefs themselves. Your argument is based on premises that I refuse to accept. But you have the right to be wrong (within the terms of service of the Tip.It forums of course).

[Saru Inc]

I'm not arguing for stopping building at all, as I've reiterated countless times so far.

 

At some point, that what if will be certain fact; once they release a full funding statement for instance.

 

At that point, if they haven't accepted funds from radicals, great. If they have, they'll allow radicals use of the community center, and that can be seen as offensive to the memories of those who perished in 911.

We'll have a lot more problems than being offensive to people if we have a terrorist base in new york. But you're searching for a needle in 5 haystacks.

 

I never said it would be a terrorist base - I said that it may be possible that radical jihadist Muslims may use this community centre, and I stand by that.

There's a possibility that tomorrow we will be invaded by aliens (lizardmen from Jupiter). There's a possibility that we don't exist and are just in some one else's dream. There's a possibility that next week I will learn to fly and you will learn to teleport. Need I go on? There's always a possibility for everything.

If you're seriously going to disregard every single one of my last 30 posts in this thread showing how there is a reasonable possiblity radical muslims would make use of this mosque, then I'm done arguing.

 

@troacctid: I'm glad you "know" that I'm wrong.

 

You abhor my views, yet I don't see you striving to have them protected.

 

 

He lives in California, he's not going to get it.

[Nenga]

You keep saying it might be funded, might be used, etc. It's not me disregarding as I don't think we're seeing eye to eye.

 

What i'm saying, is it's a small chance that would happen. And the possibility it will, is the same possibility of anything else happening. What's most likely going to happen is it will be built, Americans will be pissed for a few months, then they'll accept it and move on to the next thing that's stupid to complain about. There will be nothing special about it, and we'll never hear about it again.

[obfuscator]

 

Sorry but protecting criminals from the reach of the law is not justifiable. Clearly, if you protect them you don't think they should be punished. In the case of the Church, not only did they NOT turn them in BUT they let continue their jobs in different locations where they could just harm other children. That goes beyond just a cover up, the least they could have done is dish out some kind of internal punishment. If I or you owned a daycare center and several of my employees were caught molesting children, and I tried to protect them from the reach of the law, I would be in prison right now.

 

I agree - it never is justifiable. See my previous post:

 

 

Well yeah, they did end up doing coverups and such. One of the reasons I'm not Catholic anymore ;)

 

But in general, they've been at least defrocked(should be criminally charged, although that doesn't happen quite as often).

 

For one thing we know for a FACT that the Catholic community REFUSED to alienate members of their community who were involved in wrong-doing, the Muslim community has made no such efforts as far I am concerned. You apparently have no problem with the Vatican who we know for a FACT refused to alienate such members yet when it comes to Muslims you are are applying a double standard. So I guess, by your logic my point remains, we better start removing Catholic buildings from areas where kids were molested by priests because it is an affront to their suffering! And heck, they probably won't alienate Priests(like they haven't done so far) who have been involved in the molestation of Children, which makes it an even more greater affront.

 

They probably won't alienate priests? Priests are defrocked and criminally charged regularly.

 

You're attempting to equate renegades explicitly breaking the laws of their religion with people following part of their religion. I don't think I need to start quoting the Qu'Ran here, but I can if you'd like to push the point.

 

As far as your last statement goes, it is total nonsense. How do you know the Muslim community is less likely to alienate such members? Are you implying the average Muslim has no problem with radicals or terrorism? In case you didn't notice, Al-Qaeda's terrorism is indiscriminate:Muslims did die on 9/11, they particularly also don't like Western Muslims/moderates, if I was the average Muslim, I would be pretty terrified by them too. Saying things like they won't alienate extremist members is basically saying in a round about way that it will be a safe haven for terrorism.

 

The Muslim community as a whole doesn't preach that it's a sin to be a jihadist. The catholic community as a whole preaches that it's a sin to be a pedophile.

I'm quite sure the average muslim is terrified of them, so wouldn't they want to rid them from their community?

 

Make no mistake about it, many muslim communities are doing exactly that - I don't remember the name of them now, but the governing body of Islam in Canada released a statement a few weeks back stating that value of human life supersedes religious law, thus making it pretty clear that radicals cannot be considered faithful muslims.

 

Honestly - I don't see what's so hard to do about it.

 

All the Iman sponsoring the mosque has to do is explicitly state that radicals and jihadists will not be accepted in the community, and that they will refuse funding from any organization labeled as radical or otherwise. There you go, riots over.

 

 

 

You keep saying it might be funded, might be used, etc. It's not me disregarding as I don't think we're seeing eye to eye.

 

What i'm saying, is it's a small chance that would happen. And the possibility it will, is the same possibility of anything else happening. What's most likely going to happen is it will be built, Americans will be pissed for a few months, then they'll accept it and move on to the next thing that's stupid to complain about. There will be nothing special about it, and we'll never hear about it again.

 

Might be funded: They've already declared their intention to ask for foreign donations. Foreign donations means middle east. Middle east means some radical jihadists. These jihadists MAY fund the mosque. How likely it is, no one can honestly say, until the official funding statement is released.

 

If it does come to pass that radical Muslims have funded the mosque, the mosque will cater to radical Muslims. They're scarcely going to say "oh, thanks for the several million dollars, but you can't come in here.".

 

Americans will be pissed for a few months? Those who jump on the GB Tea Party bandwagon, sure. Those whose lives have been forever altered by the 911 attacks? I doubt they'll "get over it".

[Alg]

The thing I keep seeing is people not from the States saying what the States should do, and within the States people not from New York saying what New York should do. In all of these cases we're missing the context of someone from New York who lived through 9/11, but still pushing our views on him whether he agrees or not. And if he doesn't agree, we're calling him a bigot, a xenophobe, et cetera.

Let's let New Yorkers decide whether or not they want it there, it really isn't our place.

[Saru Inc]

The thing I keep seeing is people not from the States saying what the States should do, and within the States people not from New York saying what New York should do. In all of these cases we're missing the context of someone from New York who lived through 9/11, but still pushing our views on him whether he agrees or not. And if he doesn't agree, we're calling him a bigot, a xenophobe, et cetera.

Let's let New Yorkers decide whether or not they want it there, it really isn't our place.

 

 

lolracist

 

 

 

IN B4 SERIOUS TIME.

 

--------

 

ok srs time now.

 

You're exactly right, I would give you a kiss, but gays are gross.

[Myweponsg00d]

The thing I keep seeing is people not from the States saying what the States should do, and within the States people not from New York saying what New York should do. In all of these cases we're missing the context of someone from New York who lived through 9/11, but still pushing our views on him whether he agrees or not. And if he doesn't agree, we're calling him a bigot, a xenophobe, et cetera.

Let's let New Yorkers decide whether or not they want it there, it really isn't our place.

 

You do't live in my apartment building, I'm gonna go kill my neighbors.

 

You have no right to tell me it isnt right, since you dont live here.

 

EDIT: again theres another reason why your argument is completely ludicrous. Okay, maybe someone lives in new york, but they dont live in the neighborhood where the towers were. Okay, well wait maybe it should be closer, maybe you have to live within 5 blocks to where it happened. You know what, nobody is authorized to have an opinion on it unless they were in the tower and survived. etc... How can you say how close is close enough? And how far is too far away?

[Low C]

They should seriously put a japanese restaurant mega-complex outside of pearl harbor. No but in all seriousness I wrote a rhetorical essay on this issue of the mosque near ground zero for english so hopefully I get a good grade.

[Alg]

 

You do't live in my apartment building, I'm gonna go kill my neighbors.

 

You have no right to tell me it isnt right, since you dont live here.

 

EDIT: again theres another reason why your argument is completely ludicrous. Okay, maybe someone lives in new york, but they dont live in the neighborhood where the towers were. Okay, well wait maybe it should be closer, maybe you have to live within 5 blocks to where it happened. You know what, nobody is authorized to have an opinion on it unless they were in the tower and survived. etc... How can you say how close is close enough? And how far is too far away?

Argument? It was an observation. That's what I've been seeing since this issue started up a week or so back.

Though if you look through the thread, it isn't so wrong, is it? Everyone who's posted here, including me, is acting as an absolute moral voice in this, without any consideration to the people that will actually live near it.

I don't think I'm going to touch the analogy there. It misses the point in a number of ways, but I'm not sure I could come up with a better one.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

You do't live in my apartment building, I'm gonna go kill my neighbors.

 

You have no right to tell me it isnt right, since you dont live here.

 

EDIT: again theres another reason why your argument is completely ludicrous. Okay, maybe someone lives in new york, but they dont live in the neighborhood where the towers were. Okay, well wait maybe it should be closer, maybe you have to live within 5 blocks to where it happened. You know what, nobody is authorized to have an opinion on it unless they were in the tower and survived. etc... How can you say how close is close enough? And how far is too far away?

Argument? It was an observation. That's what I've been seeing since this issue started up a week or so back.

Though if you look through the thread, it isn't so wrong, is it? Everyone who's posted here, including me, is acting as an absolute moral voice in this, without any consideration to the people that will actually live near it.

I don't think I'm going to touch the analogy there. It misses the point in a number of ways, but I'm not sure I could come up with a better one.

 

And I'm asking you what the hell proximity has ANYTHING to do with whether or not someone can weigh in on the morality of the debate?

 

If anything, I would trust someone who lives far far away from the site to be an UNBIASED voice on the issue. The people who live right next to the site are more likely to have their thinking clouded by animosity.

[Saru Inc]

The thing I keep seeing is people not from the States saying what the States should do, and within the States people not from New York saying what New York should do. In all of these cases we're missing the context of someone from New York who lived through 9/11, but still pushing our views on him whether he agrees or not. And if he doesn't agree, we're calling him a bigot, a xenophobe, et cetera.

Let's let New Yorkers decide whether or not they want it there, it really isn't our place.

 

You do't live in my apartment building, I'm gonna go kill my neighbors.

 

You have no right to tell me it isnt right, since you dont live here.

 

EDIT: again theres another reason why your argument is completely ludicrous. Okay, maybe someone lives in new york, but they dont live in the neighborhood where the towers were. Okay, well wait maybe it should be closer, maybe you have to live within 5 blocks to where it happened. You know what, nobody is authorized to have an opinion on it unless they were in the tower and survived. etc... How can you say how close is close enough? And how far is too far away?

 

To be completely honest, DEPENDING on what happened in *that* building, you may be completely justified. Locale isn't the defining factor, but everything located inside is.

[Riku3220]

 

You do't live in my apartment building, I'm gonna go kill my neighbors.

 

You have no right to tell me it isnt right, since you dont live here.

 

EDIT: again theres another reason why your argument is completely ludicrous. Okay, maybe someone lives in new york, but they dont live in the neighborhood where the towers were. Okay, well wait maybe it should be closer, maybe you have to live within 5 blocks to where it happened. You know what, nobody is authorized to have an opinion on it unless they were in the tower and survived. etc... How can you say how close is close enough? And how far is too far away?

Argument? It was an observation. That's what I've been seeing since this issue started up a week or so back.

Though if you look through the thread, it isn't so wrong, is it? Everyone who's posted here, including me, is acting as an absolute moral voice in this, without any consideration to the people that will actually live near it.

I don't think I'm going to touch the analogy there. It misses the point in a number of ways, but I'm not sure I could come up with a better one.

The people who are living near it will be living near a new community center that's open to everyone. There's absolutly no reason to think that this will be anything but a normal community center.

[Alg]

And I'm asking you what the hell proximity has ANYTHING to do with whether or not someone can weigh in on the morality of the debate?

 

If anything, I would trust someone who lives far far away from the site to be an UNBIASED voice on the issue. The people who live right next to the site are more likely to have their thinking clouded by animosity.

But at the same time they're the ones that have to live with it there. As wrong as it is to stop it from being built, it's worse to force the issue when nobody near it wants it there. But of course, that decision becomes a lot easier when everyone that objects to you becomes a bigoted xenophobe who shouldn't be making decisions anyway.

[Myweponsg00d]

And I'm asking you what the hell proximity has ANYTHING to do with whether or not someone can weigh in on the morality of the debate?

 

If anything, I would trust someone who lives far far away from the site to be an UNBIASED voice on the issue. The people who live right next to the site are more likely to have their thinking clouded by animosity.

But at the same time they're the ones that have to live with it there. As wrong as it is to stop it from being built, it's worse to force the issue when nobody near it wants it there. But of course, that decision becomes a lot easier when everyone that objects to you becomes a bigoted xenophobe who shouldn't be making decisions anyway.

 

It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

[Alg]

It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

Does it give us the right to force them to accept a black person into their neighborhood though, regardless of what they may do to him/her?

[Myweponsg00d]

It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

Does it give us the right to force them to accept a black person into their neighborhood though, regardless of what they may do to him/her?

Yes, I am pretty sure that this community would have some serious problems if they did not want to sell a house to a black person...

[Troacctid]

It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

Does it give us the right to force them to accept a black person into their neighborhood though, regardless of what they may do to him/her?

Yes, there are federal laws against discrimination on the basis of race.

[Alg]

It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

Does it give us the right to force them to accept a black person into their neighborhood though, regardless of what they may do to him/her?

Yes, there are federal laws against discrimination on the basis of race.

And you win there.

 

Just trying a bit of DA, though. I do think it should be built, though I refuse to force it if nobody there wants it.

[Saru Inc]

It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

Does it give us the right to force them to accept a black person into their neighborhood though, regardless of what they may do to him/her?

Yes, I am pretty sure that this community would have some serious problems if they did not want to sell a house to a black person...

 

In your point of view. For all you know, black people came in and enslaved everyone who wasn't black. And they just recently were freed.

 

It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

Does it give us the right to force them to accept a black person into their neighborhood though, regardless of what they may do to him/her?

Yes, there are federal laws against discrimination on the basis of race.

 

Legally. No one said emotionally they have to accept them.

[Troacctid]

Legally. No one said emotionally they have to accept them.

Right, which brings us back to the bigotry issue again.