Mosque at Ground Zero

[Zygimantas]

Square you are right.

And explain how I'm wrong then troa?

If all you know about Islam is that it's the religion that extremist terrorist groups follow, then you don't know what Islam is.

 

It's like saying we shouldn't allow falafel carts near Ground Zero because falafel is a food that the extremists who caused the 9/11 attacks and many other extremists groups would eat.

Its not all I know about Islam. Do you prefer: "Islam is a religion that does not have many woman's rights."?

Okay, let me rephrase that: If you consider that (or that) to be the most important thing you know about Islam, or even a thing about Islam worth mentioning in the context of this discussion, then you don't know what Islam is.

I guess anything that I say against it is not considered important to you, becuase it is just such a wonderful religion :rolleyes: . So I'll just say that Islam is a monotheistic religion where the followers worship Allah and follow the word of the Qur'an. Happy now?

[Nenga]

Square you are right.

And explain how I'm wrong then troa?

If all you know about Islam is that it's the religion that extremist terrorist groups follow, then you don't know what Islam is.

 

It's like saying we shouldn't allow falafel carts near Ground Zero because falafel is a food that the extremists who caused the 9/11 attacks and many other extremists groups would eat.

Its not all I know about Islam. Do you prefer: "Islam is a religion that does not have many woman's rights."?

Okay, let me rephrase that: If you consider that (or that) to be the most important thing you know about Islam, or even a thing about Islam worth mentioning in the context of this discussion, then you don't know what Islam is.

You can know Islam without knowing what Islam is. I know the basic beliefs, and believe I know Islam, that doesn't mean i've studied the koran for years.

[Dupin]

Square you are right.

And explain how I'm wrong then troa?

If all you know about Islam is that it's the religion that extremist terrorist groups follow, then you don't know what Islam is.

 

It's like saying we shouldn't allow falafel carts near Ground Zero because falafel is a food that the extremists who caused the 9/11 attacks and many other extremists groups would eat.

Its not all I know about Islam. Do you prefer: "Islam is a religion that does not have many woman's rights."?

 

Christianity is a religion that does not have many woman's rights.

 

Troacctid's point is that just because a few Muslims believe in jihadist tactics and conservative laws doesn't mean all Muslims should be judged. Imagine if I said you speak English, so therefore you should be blamed for all of the rapes committed in the past year by English speakers.

[Troacctid]

I guess anything that I say against it is not considered important to you, becuase it is just such a wonderful religion :rolleyes: . So I'll just say that Islam is a monotheistic religion where the followers worship Allah and follow the word of the Qur'an. Happy now?

Which raises the question of why this is at all disrespectful to anyone in any way for people to practice it.

[Zygimantas]

I guess anything that I say against it is not considered important to you, becuase it is just such a wonderful religion :rolleyes: . So I'll just say that Islam is a monotheistic religion where the followers worship Allah and follow the word of the Qur'an. Happy now?

Which raises the question of why this is at all disrespectful to anyone in any way for people to practice it.

Its not, and I never said it is. I don't have a problem with building a community center a couple of blocks away from ground zero. I would have a problem if they built a mosque on ground zero. Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them. Its like if Christians bombed a school and then a church was placed there, makes no sense.

[Troacctid]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

No, it would actually be nothing like that. :thumbdown:

[Buzzcut3]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

 

That's like saying a Christian church is honouring Hitler.

[Zygimantas]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

 

That's like saying a Christian church is honouring Hitler.

No, Hitler didn't do what he did for Christianity.

[Zierro]

You should think that they're wrong, because it isn't. It's just a load of garbage with no basis in fact or reality that you made up on the spot. :thumbdown:

 

I guess hinting at you giving me some evidence instead of your mere hearsay wasn't enough.

 

Many mosques were originally "worship houses" for the people that the Muslims have defeated. Go look it up - there is a strong correlation between defeating enemies and then building mosques over the conquered's land. Now I'm not claiming to know whether this actually is symbol of conquest or not (hence why I specifically said the words "IF this is true"), but I am definitely not going to completely dismiss the idea if the best rebuttal you can come up with is literally, "NO TATS NOT TRUE," twice in a row now.

 

For Mr. Skully, who claims it's disrespectful to build a community center with a Muslim prayer site two blocks from the original site of the attacks, you're falling for the mass propaganda being spewed by the American right wing. Islam did not attack the towers, terrorism did. The Muslims involved in the community center have no connection to terrorists. If anything is disrespectful to the memories of those lost, it's the strip club that's right next door.

 

If I can recall correctly, I remember seeing a video where thousands of regular Muslim citizens (elderly, young, and surprisingly even children) were rejoicing and celebrating over their "victory" during the week of 9/11. Obviously not every Muslim condones in these actions, but it would be silly to think the whole terrorist regime is only limited to the ones who hijack planes and kill people.

[Troacctid]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

 

That's like saying a Christian church is honouring Hitler.

No, Hitler didn't do what he did for Christianity.

Fine then, it's like saying a Christian church is honoring the Inquisition.

[Dizzle229]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

 

That's like saying a Christian church is honouring Hitler.

No, Hitler didn't do what he did for Christianity.

Fine then, it's like saying a Christian church is honoring the Inquisition.

I feel an incredible need to make a Monty Python joke, but I just can't see how to do it.

[Buzzcut3]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

 

That's like saying a Christian church is honouring Hitler.

No, Hitler didn't do what he did for Christianity.

 

And obviously these Al'Queda terrorists did it solely because Allah told them to in a dream, right?

[Troacctid]

You should think that they're wrong, because it isn't. It's just a load of garbage with no basis in fact or reality that you made up on the spot. :thumbdown:

 

I guess hinting at you giving me some evidence instead of your mere hearsay wasn't enough.

 

Many mosques were originally "worship houses" for the people that the Muslims have defeated. Go look it up - there is a strong correlation between defeating enemies and then building mosques over the conquered's land. Now I'm not claiming to know whether this actually is symbol of conquest or not (hence why I specifically said the words "IF this is true"), but I am definitely not going to completely dismiss the idea if the best rebuttal you can come up with is literally, "NO TATS NOT TRUE," twice in a row now.

"Hey guess what, I heard that what they're really building is a VAMPIRE MOSQUE where they lure innocent people inside and turn them into VAMPIRES! Now I'm not claiming to know if this is true or not. I'm just saying it might be true. And don't just go telling me I'm wrong unless you can offer some proof."

 

Seriously, there's nothing to prove. All you did was pull some random [cabbage] out of your ass and treat it as if it were plausible. Why should I have to disprove something that you just made up?

[Flyingjj]

You should think that they're wrong, because it isn't. It's just a load of garbage with no basis in fact or reality that you made up on the spot. :thumbdown:

 

I guess hinting at you giving me some evidence instead of your mere hearsay wasn't enough.

 

Many mosques were originally "worship houses" for the people that the Muslims have defeated. Go look it up - there is a strong correlation between defeating enemies and then building mosques over the conquered's land. Now I'm not claiming to know whether this actually is symbol of conquest or not (hence why I specifically said the words "IF this is true"), but I am definitely not going to completely dismiss the idea if the best rebuttal you can come up with is literally, "NO TATS NOT TRUE," twice in a row now.

 

There is also a strong correlation between lands Europeans conquered and where churches were built. Big deal. It's a correlation. Mosques aren't built for being disrespectful to the newly conquered, they're built because they hope/force those conquered to convert. Of course, that's when land disputes and taking over new territory was common in the "developed" world, now they just tend to build Mosques where there are already concentrations of Muslims.

 

This issue is really, really starting to get to me. If America starts disallowing the building of Mosques, I am very afraid of the next steps it will go down. I can't even convey how much it frightens me.

[Zygimantas]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

 

That's like saying a Christian church is honouring Hitler.

No, Hitler didn't do what he did for Christianity.

Fine then, it's like saying a Christian church is honoring the Inquisition.

If a church was built close to or on top of a memorial for the victims of the Inquisition then it would be disrespectful to the victims. It would not necessarily be honoring the Inquisition because the Catholics did not purposely bury themselves with the victims.

[Zygimantas]

Only because the hi-jackers did it in the name of Allah, it would be honoring them.

 

That's like saying a Christian church is honouring Hitler.

No, Hitler didn't do what he did for Christianity.

Fine then, it's like saying a Christian church is honoring the Inquisition.

If a church was built close to or on top of a memorial for the victims of the Inquisition then it would be disrespectful to the victims. It would not necessarily be honoring the Inquisition because the Catholics did not purposely bury themselves with the victims.

What if it was built a few blocks away, near a strip joint and a few restaurants?

Then I think that is fine, and that's why I don't have a problem with this community center.

[Zierro]

"Hey guess what, I heard that what they're really building is a VAMPIRE MOSQUE where they lure innocent people inside and turn them into VAMPIRES! Now I'm not claiming to know if this is true or not. I'm just saying it might be true. And don't just go telling me I'm wrong unless you can offer some proof."

 

The whole Spaghetti Monster argument is literally the worst piece of logic I have ever heard in my entire life. It's called appeal to ridicule, and what you're actually doing is drawing a parallel between the subject being argued over and the most ridiculous subject thinkable. Nothing more. Do you really just pick and choose what is true and what isn't, without any logical or empirical grounds?

 

Seriously, there's nothing to prove. All you did was pull some random [cabbage] out of your ass and treat it as if it were plausible. Why should I have to disprove something that you just made up?

 

Lol I just made it up? Actually, I've been reading about it across a few different sites and heard it from a friend prior to that. If this is seriously the only rebuttal you can spout, I think the whole argument speaks for itself. You have nothing of importance to say and so you try to ridicule me (someone who is merely trying to get to the bottom of this, and not picking any sides) to compensate for your lack of logical tact.

 

Maybe if you didn't make the claim that mosques are not symbols of conquest, I wouldn't ask for evidence or proof. ;-)

 

Are you honestly implying that the actions of people thousands of years ago or of select individuals in the present are grounds to deny religious freedom to a group of perfectly innocent people?

 

This is why you should read up a little more before jumping to conclusions. I do support the erection of this building, on legal grounds. I'm merely questioning the motives behind erecting the mosque.

 

There is also a strong correlation between lands Europeans conquered and where churches were built. Big deal. It's a correlation.

 

True, but I don't see any Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, so it obviously is a big deal to them.

 

Back then we also lived in a more physical manner than the secular one we see today, so when a church was built over enemy land, there were no enemy survivors to complain about it - it physically wasn't their land anymore because no one was alive to claim it. Compare that to today where our territories have remained pretty stagnant over the past couple of decades/centuries. Physical conquests are unheard of now. The only possible way to spread your symbol of conquest would be to work from the inside, stealthily, rather than forcefully. Not saying that the Christians were justified (some of the crap they did was disturbing) - it's just not a very good comparison.

 

Mosques aren't built for being disrespectful to the newly conquered, they're built because they hope/force those conquered to convert.

 

Wow, that sounds even worse.

[Flyingjj]

There is also a strong correlation between lands Europeans conquered and where churches were built. Big deal. It's a correlation.

 

True, but I don't see any Christian churches in Saudi Arabia, so it obviously is a big deal to them.

Then you're not looking hard enough.

 

Mosques aren't built for being disrespectful to the newly conquered, they're built because they hope/force those conquered to convert.

 

Wow, that sounds even worse.

Only because you took it completely out of context. I meant that they were built for those reasons, as evidenced by the statements following it.

[Troacctid]

I'm merely questioning the motives behind erecting the mosque.

Okay, I'm gonna stop you here. Why? Why are you questioning the motives behind erecting this building (which for the record is not actually a mosque)? You have no reason to do so. You're just making baseless assumptions that anyone who's Muslim is automatically associated with...I don't know, radical overthrowing of our culture or something. That's ridiculous.

 

Also, this didn't just happen in the BC's.

(Also, no duh. Muhammad wasn't even born until, like, the 6th century C.E.)

[Zierro]

You're questioning the motives behind a group of religious people building a community center.

 

Yeah, what's wrong about that? I'm curious.

 

Political threads really make TIF shine.

 

Okay, I'm gonna stop you here. Why? Why are you questioning the motives behind erecting this building (which for the record is not actually a mosque)? You have no reason to do so. You're just making baseless assumptions that anyone who's Muslim is automatically associated with...I don't know, radical overthrowing of our culture or something. That's ridiculous.

 

Like I told Rocco, I was curious. I also have every right to question whatever I wish, you fascist.

 

Plus, I'm not the one making baseless assumptions.

 

You're claiming that I think anyone who is Muslim is automatically associated with terrorism, and you're also claiming that mosques are definitely not symbols of conquest. I'm simply trying to find out whether they are or are not. All you've been doing is preventing me from doing so and revealing the fact that you have bias running right up your spine. Great for your credibility in the future. PS: I'm a liberal.

 

(Also, no duh. Muhammad wasn't even born until, like, the 6th century C.E.)

 

That was in response to Rocco talking about what people did thousands of years ago, but I think it's okay that you felt the need to make that jab. *Looks at score* Yeah, you could use all the points you can get at this point.

Edited August 26, 2010 by CrustyGoblinFoot

[Giordano]

Guys I got a great idea.

 

All Muslims stop caring about Allah.

 

All Americans care for 9/11 the same as Attila's victims.

[Zierro]

Like the Troacctid said, you're trying to make assumptions about a group of people based on isolated examples of other people.

 

What the hell?

 

No, all I am doing is reading about the possibility that mosques are built as a symbol of conquest, coming on here and stating my opinion on the matter IF THAT WAS TRUE (rhetorically), and asking for some reasons why I should dismiss the idea, but only getting absolute garbage responses. That's all I am doing, yet I keep getting responses like these. That's okay. It shows how utterly biased you guys are.

 

And Fly, where are these Christian churches in Saudi Arabia you speak of? I Googled it and only saw them talking about the possibility of a church, and with very strict regulations at that.

[Troacctid]

Like I told Rocco, I was curious. I also have every right to question whatever I wish, you fascist.

 

Plus, I'm not the one making baseless assumptions.

 

You're claiming that I think anyone who is Muslim is automatically associated with terrorism, and you're also claiming that mosques are definitely not symbols of conquest. I'm simply trying to find out whether they are or are not. All you've been doing is preventing me from doing so and revealing the fact that you have bias running right up your spine. Great for your credibility in the future. PS: I'm a liberal.

Right, so in other words, you're trolling. :thumbdown:

[Flyingjj]

And Fly, where are these Christian churches in Saudi Arabia you speak of? I Googled it and only saw them talking about the possibility of a church, and with very strict regulations at that.

I'm sorry, I misread my google search. I just saw the "5% of Saudia Arabia being Roman Catholic" and jumped to conclusions.

[Zierro]

Right, so in other words, you're trolling. :thumbdown:

 

I might enjoy stirring up a little controversy, but I wouldn't call it trolling. To troll would mean I don't actually believe what I said.