Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destroyed


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destroyed Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/13/2010 9:31:27 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

Uh, okay Firm.  That was the saddest hand-waving evasion of a point I've seen in some time.  Congrats with that.

So this proposed building should be taken as a "victory mosque" because some other Muslims destroyed two Muslim prayer centers in the twin towers.  Got it.  A monument to Islam's victory over Islam.  And the sky is green and the moon is made of green cheese.  On Tuesdays.   Did I miss anything?


Yuppers.  You missed the point completely.

Was the attack against the WTC an attack specifically targeted against the two "pray areas for muslims" within the WTC?

Or was the attack an attack against an economic and cultural symbol of the USA?

Once you answer that question correctly, perhaps you can follow the logic yourself afterwards.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/13/2010 9:32:05 PM   
SuzanneKneeling


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline 		It's simply impossible to argue with pure hate.  Pure hate will bob, dodge and weave to live another day if it chooses to.  Reason and perspective have no bearing on it.

Good evening, all.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/13/2010 9:36:19 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

It's simply impossible to argue with pure hate.  Pure hate will bob, dodge and weave to live another day if it chooses to.  Reason and perspective have no bearing on it.

Good evening, all.



I guess "hate" is just your way of attempting to discredit my pov since you can't fathom logic or understand how someone can have a philosophical disagreement, without "hating"?

In other words, typical Alinsky attack.

Ok.  Good night Suzanne.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to SuzanneKneeling)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/13/2010 9:43:55 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Talk about willfully clueless ...

I'll use your post to address all of the ones attempting to make some kind of hay out of there being two "mosques" in the WTC before it's destruction.

Before the destruction of the WTC, there were two "mosque" in the buildings.  GREAT!

The WTC was destroyed by Muslim terrorist.  Bad.

Muslims now wish to place a mosque at or very near the WTC.  Bad taste.

See how that works?

Before. "Muslim Prayer areas".  No big deal.

Destruction.  By Muslims. For "religious reasons".  Thousands dead.

After. Muslims wish to build a mosque "at" the site. 

See those words in the middle?  The destruction by Muslim terrorists?  That's what's different between the "Before" and "After" words.

That's why it's a different situation.

Firm



You know Firm, I seem to recall a thread not too long ago when a doctor performing abortions was murdered by a Christian fundamentalist.

And if I recall correctly, you were one of the loudest voices complaining that all Christians opposed to abortion were being blamed for his actions.

How does that differ from what you are doing?


1.  Well, first you'd have to show me my actual comments in the earlier thread.  I've learned not to trust my own memory of exactly the context, words and intent of something I may have posted months ago, so I'm certainly not going to trust your possibly flawed understanding of something I may have said a while back.

2.  You seem to be implying that I am blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks.  I'm not sure where you are getting that thought.  You did read my "analogy" in the other thread, did you not?  If you did, but did not understand it, I'll 'splain it to ya, if you want.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/13/2010 9:47:14 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Talk about willfully clueless ...

I'll use your post to address all of the ones attempting to make some kind of hay out of there being two "mosques" in the WTC before it's destruction.

Before the destruction of the WTC, there were two "mosque" in the buildings.  GREAT!

The WTC was destroyed by Muslim terrorist.  Bad.

Muslims now wish to place a mosque at or very near the WTC.  Bad taste.

See how that works?

Before. "Muslim Prayer areas".  No big deal.

Destruction.  By Muslims. For "religious reasons".  Thousands dead.

After. Muslims wish to build a mosque "at" the site. 

See those words in the middle?  The destruction by Muslim terrorists?  That's what's different between the "Before" and "After" words.

That's why it's a different situation.

Firm



You know Firm, I seem to recall a thread not too long ago when a doctor performing abortions was murdered by a Christian fundamentalist.

And if I recall correctly, you were one of the loudest voices complaining that all Christians opposed to abortion were being blamed for his actions.

How does that differ from what you are doing?


1.  Well, first you'd have to show me my actual comments in the earlier thread.  I've learned not to trust my own memory of exactly the context, words and intent of something I may have posted months ago, so I'm certainly not going to trust your possibly flawed understanding of something I may have said a while back.

2.  You seem to be implying that I am blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks.  I'm not sure where you are getting that thought.  You did read my "analogy" in the other thread, did you not?  If you did, but did not understand it, I'll 'splain it to ya, if you want.

Firm



rml read with understandin and then respond honestly? About the same time Obama stops blaming Bush.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/13/2010 9:50:08 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
rml read with understandin and then respond honestly? About the same time Obama stops blaming Bush.


Nahh.

I hold out some hope for him, even yet.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/13/2010 9:53:06 PM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SUBSLUTwasOWNED

suck co ck



thats your job.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to SUBSLUTwasOWNED)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 6:08:15 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		"Before. "Muslim Prayer areas". No big deal.

Destruction. By Muslims. For "religious reasons". Thousands dead.

After. Muslims wish to build a mosque "at" the site.

See those words in the middle? The destruction by Muslim terrorists? That's what's different between the "Before" and "After" words.

That's why it's a different situation. "


Good grief Firm!

OK- try this one on....

Timothy McVeigh killed more US citizens in a terror attack on US soil prior to 9/11 than anybody else. He was some form of fundamentalist Christian if I have that right.

Hypothetically, let's say there was some type of religious room in the Federal building that got blown up, open to all denominations including Christians.

In order to commemorate the loss, Christians want to build a church within a block of the replacement building. Anybody got a problem with that?

Seems to me that your holding Muslims accountable to a different standard than anybody else. (Hence my earlier post about double standards.) Show me a meaningful connection between the folks building the mosque and the terrorists who flew airplanes into the Towers, and you've got a point. But both belonging to a religion with over a billion members? Not a very exclusive club I'm afraid, and not statistically significant. Furthermore, when last I checked, at least theoretically in this country, you're innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't that extend to the folks building the mosque- or are all Muslims guilty until proven innocent?


Sam

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:19:56 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

"Before. "Muslim Prayer areas". No big deal.

Destruction. By Muslims. For "religious reasons". Thousands dead.

After. Muslims wish to build a mosque "at" the site.

See those words in the middle? The destruction by Muslim terrorists? That's what's different between the "Before" and "After" words.

That's why it's a different situation. "



Good grief Firm!

OK- try this one on....

Timothy McVeigh killed more US citizens in a terror attack on US soil prior to 9/11 than anybody else. He was some form of fundamentalist Christian if I have that right.

Hypothetically, let's say there was some type of religious room in the Federal building that got blown up, open to all denominations including Christians.

In order to commemorate the loss, Christians want to build a church within a block of the replacement building. Anybody got a problem with that?

Seems to me that your holding Muslims accountable to a different standard than anybody else. (Hence my earlier post about double standards.) Show me a meaningful connection between the folks building the mosque and the terrorists who flew airplanes into the Towers, and you've got a point. But both belonging to a religion with over a billion members? Not a very exclusive club I'm afraid, and not statistically significant. Furthermore, when last I checked, at least theoretically in this country, you're innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't that extend to the folks building the mosque- or are all Muslims guilty until proven innocent?


Hi sam.

Well, first, Tim McVeigh was either an agnostic, and atheist, non-religious, a lapsed Catholic, or a "scientist", depending on who he was talking to at the time, it appears.

The attack by McVeigh wasn't religiously motivated.  The attack on the WTC was religiously motivated.

So that particular analog won't be real useful, but I do get your point.

If you read my analogy in this post, then I think that best explains it.

My arguments about this subject is simply that there are people who connect the two (the attacks and the later building of the mosque), and there are Muslims who will connect the two.  It can appear to be a symbolic act to the very subgroup of Muslims who planned and supported the original attack, even if not to the majority of Muslims. To the subgroup of Muslims who will see the symbolism of it, this will tend to encourage them, and solidify their position and beliefs.

It can be (and is) also a symbol to many Americans.

I have not argued that it's illegal (or even should be illegal), only in poor taste.

The attacks on the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House were conceived of as symbolic attacks, and as such, "rewarding" the Islamic groups who accept and condone such symbolism (while at the same time insulting the American people who may also see the same symbolism) doesn't seem like such a good idea to me.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the people building the mosque actually are supporters, or connected in any other additional ways.  I've not kept up with the debate about their politics, funding sources, or anything else, and it's really immaterial.

But, I will say, if they wanted to provide a memorial on or near Ground Zero, with some kind of a plaque or memorial, in which they specifically denied overall Muslim responsibility and expressed their outrage, and their support for the American people, I don't think very many people would complain at all.  It might be controversay, but I suspect that most people wouldn't have a sense of outrage.

But that doesn't seem to be the case.

It seems that they are building a mosque and "community center" for the benefit of "all Muslims".  Not even for the benefit of the majority of non-Muslims who inhabit the area, and apparently not really caring about the negative feelings that their actions will engender.

At best, this seems "tone deaf" and culturally insensitive to me.  Some might even see it as arrogant and dismissive of non-Muslims.

This help?

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:40:55 AM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		If a church is the place of worship for Christians, then it stands that a Mosque is a place of worship for Muslims

I believe the church states that it's doors are open to everybody who wishes to inquire, does that also hold for Mosques?

Would America and possibly the world be better served if people inquired into the Muslim people, actually met with them, asked of them instead of aiding politicians and media who feed on discord and disharmony.

We all rely on politicians to sort the world out, when it is proved they always have other interests and so fuck up anything they do, but what is wrong with people, can we not leave the politicians for dead and heal the rifts ourselves ?

All it takes is people who adopt an open mind and try.

Perhaps in years to come if it is seen America is at peace with it's American Muslims, it might very well send out the right signals to other Muslims the world over and America can once again be seen as the land of freedom not tyranny.

If economics is at the heart of this discontent, then it also stands that where there is poverty, or even a low standard of living in comparison to other places, there will be discontent and with discontent, many turn to religion, others to action, action always needs a name to fight for.

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:49:14 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
rml read with understandin and then respond honestly? About the same time Obama stops blaming Bush.


Nahh.

I hold out some hope for him, even yet.

Firm



I know I've mentioned this before, but it still continues to puzzle and amuse me at the same time.

Why are so many conservatives so insecure in their opinions that they have to play grab-ass with each other for support?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:52:34 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

If a church is the place of worship for Christians, then it stands that a Mosque is a place of worship for Muslims



Islam Online:

Sheikh M. S. Al-Munajjid, a prominent Saudi Islamic lecturer and author, states:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to allow any non-Muslim to enter Al-Masjid Al-Haram in Makkah and its sacred precincts, because Allah says: (O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram (at Makkah) after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.) (At-Tawbah 9: 28)

   Concerning other mosques, some Muslim jurists maintain that it is permissible for non-Muslims to enter them because there is nothing to indicate the unlawfulness of such act; others say that it is not permissible, by analogy to the case of Al-Masjid Al-Haram.

   The correct view is that it is permissible if it serves the interests of Shari`ah or meets a valid need, such as if a non-Muslim needs to enter a mosque to hear something that may encourage him to embrace Islam, or because he needs to drink water, or the like. This is pursuant to the way of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on this issue; he tied up (his prisoner) Thamaamah ibn Athal Al-Hanafi in the mosque before he became a Muslim, and the delegations of Thaqif and the Christians of Najran stayed in the mosque before they embraced Islam. Actually, many benefits were accrued from this: they were able to hear the speeches and sermons of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to see people praying and reciting the Qur’an, etc. (Fatawa Al-Lajnah Al-Da'imah - The Standing Committee for Islamic Research and Ifta’)

   Therefore, if non-Muslims seek permission to enter the mosque in order to see how Muslims perform prayer, there is nothing wrong in that, as long as they have nothing with them that could defile the mosque, and their women are not dressed in a provocative fashion, or any other reason that bars them from entering the mosque. So they can enter and sit behind the Muslims to see how they pray.

Based on the above Fatwas, we can say that non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews, are allowed to enter mosques, but they should abide by the following conditions:

1- Non-Muslims are allowed to enter mosques – other than the Sacred Mosque in Makkah – with a prior permission of Muslims.

2- They must have a sound reason for entering the mosque.

3- They should respect the decorum of the mosque and keep in mind that it is a sacred place of worship.

4- Both men and women are not allowed to uncover their `Awarah (parts of the body which should not be exposed in front of others) when entering the mosque.

With regard to the issue of restoration, we can say that Muslims should have the priority in carrying out such work, unless it is necessary to seek the help of non-Muslims. There must be a need to seek their help, especially in issues related to mosques.

So ... it appears that mosque are not quite as open as Christian Churches.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:54:50 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
rml read with understandin and then respond honestly? About the same time Obama stops blaming Bush.


Nahh.

I hold out some hope for him, even yet.

Firm



I know I've mentioned this before, but it still continues to puzzle and amuse me at the same time.

Why are so many conservatives so insecure in their opinions that they have to play grab-ass with each other for support?



You must be kidding. It may be a bit more prevalent amongst the girls on this site, but the libs invented the sycophantic circle jerk.


_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:56:54 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I know I've mentioned this before, but it still continues to puzzle and amuse me at the same time.

Why are so many conservatives so insecure in their opinions that they have to play grab-ass with each other for support?



It's projection on your part, I suspect.

I don't believe that most conservatives are "insecure in their opinions".

I do, however, see many lefties "swarm" a thread or a person with many belittling, smartass, off topic and Alinsky-like attacks and attempts at deflection.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:59:38 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Firm

Well, it explains your viewpoint a bit better, but there are some problems here.

"My arguments about this subject is simply that there are people who connect the two (the attacks and the later building of the mosque), and there are Muslims who will connect the two. It can appear to be a symbolic act to the very subgroup of Muslims who planned and supported the original attack, even if not to the majority of Muslims. To the subgroup of Muslims who will see the symbolism of it, this will tend to encourage them, and solidify their position and beliefs. "

Well, I'll be damned if I'm going to lead my life or worry about what a bunch of terrorist towelheads think or feel. They can think that a pile of dog doo where the towers used to be is a sign of victory as well, and I really don't care. If you're wacko enough to think that flying airplanes into buildings and killing innocent people is going to get people to praise you as a martyr- well, that's nice. I see nothing in that act but an orgy of destruction, falsely justified by religious claims that most people would reject. From my perspective, the purpose of these terrorists is to terrorize, to strike fear into us. I blow a razzberry at them. I also think that if the terrorists are trying to influence us, the most important thing to do is NOT give in. So rather than say, gee, the terrorist towelheads might get a kick out of mosque two blocks away from the WTC site, my response is to not give them the satisfaction of changing our minds. There still is religious freedom in this country, and I agree with Bloomberg- they should build the damn mosque now, more than ever. To do otherwise knuckles under to the terrorist towelheads.

In terms of the siting of the planned mosque. Here's where your argument breaks down. In real estate, it's location, location, location. The planned mosque isn't that close to the site- a couple of blocks in NYC means that there are lots of other buildings in between you and your supposed victory site. If it's an attempt to gloat over the destruction of the towers- it doesn't do that well- it's just silly. It's too far away for the connection- especially if as you walk toward where the towers used to be, you pass a gentlemen's club on the way.

With respect to your taste comment....Taste is a local thing. Lots of cultures eat things that even I would gag on (I like to try a lot of different cuisines), taste is always local. Well, the New Yorkers have spoken in terms of taste of this mosque, and their viewpoint was that it was fine. During the planning sessions, nobody said boo. If there had been protests at the time, this taste argument would hold a lot more water. But there weren't- the biggest concerns that the local religious leaders had were was their going to be enough parking for the strollers. If the mosque really is a monument to the terrorist attack- how long do you think it will last? New Yorkers are vocal people- there would be pickets and commercial space in that building would be vacant. In short- give them enough rope, and if the planned mosque really is a monument in disguise, it will soon be a gaping eyesore- the locals will make sure of that. But I don't think it is.... and I think the earlier posts show what's really driving this brouhaha, and it's got little to do with Muslims, and a lot to do with why we invaded Iraq, under similar false pretenses I might add, claiming to be searching for nonexistent WMD....

Oh yeah- didn't McVeigh blow up the Murtagh building on the one year anniversary of the storming of the Branch Davidians? Seems to me that there's a symbolic relationship there- regardless of what he said later.

Come on Firm,

Learn from your mistakes....


Cheers,

Sam


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 8:03:03 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I know I've mentioned this before, but it still continues to puzzle and amuse me at the same time.

Why are so many conservatives so insecure in their opinions that they have to play grab-ass with each other for support?



It's projection on your part, I suspect.

I don't believe that most conservatives are "insecure in their opinions".

I do, however, see many lefties "swarm" a thread or a person with many belittling, smartass, off topic and Alinsky-like attacks and attempts at deflection.

Firm



I don't know, Willbeur just sent me a c-mail saying he loves your buns of steel.

Original Buns Of Steel

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 8:53:58 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I don't know, Willbeur just sent me a c-mail saying he loves your buns of steel.

Original Buns Of Steel


Let me know when you decide to quit making pointless personal attacks against both me and willbeurdaddy and discuss the issues of the thread.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 9:14:33 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Well, I'll be damned if I'm going to lead my life or worry about what a bunch of terrorist towelheads think or feel.

Which is the same reaction that some people had, when the comment was made that it might "incite" Muslim outrage if the mosque wasn't allowed.



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

They can think that a pile of dog doo where the towers used to be is a sign of victory as well, and I really don't care.

It doesn't matter if you care.  If it is seen as a "sign of victory" by the Islamic supporters of the attacks, it encourages them to continue to think they are correct, and to continue with other such attacks.



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I also think that if the terrorists are trying to influence us, the most important thing to do is NOT give in. So rather than say, gee, the terrorist towelheads might get a kick out of mosque two blocks away from the WTC site, my response is to not give them the satisfaction of changing our minds. There still is religious freedom in this country, and I agree with Bloomberg- they should build the damn mosque now, more than ever. To do otherwise knuckles under to the terrorist towelheads.

See my first comment above.



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

In terms of the siting of the planned mosque. Here's where your argument breaks down. In real estate, it's location, location, location. The planned mosque isn't that close to the site- a couple of blocks in NYC means that there are lots of other buildings in between you and your supposed victory site. If it's an attempt to gloat over the destruction of the towers- it doesn't do that well- it's just silly. It's too far away for the connection- especially if as you walk toward where the towers used to be, you pass a gentlemen's club on the way.

I'll grant that the question of "how close is too close" is a valid issue.  But as others (Archer, from memory) have pointed out, this location had parts of an aircraft found on it.  My personal opinion is that this makes it "close enough to count".



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

With respect to your taste comment....Taste is a local thing. Lots of cultures eat things that even I would gag on (I like to try a lot of different cuisines), taste is always local. Well, the New Yorkers have spoken in terms of taste of this mosque, and their viewpoint was that it was fine. During the planning sessions, nobody said boo.

Planning sessions aren't always filled with everyone who might care.  Not everyone has the time or interest to show up at every bureaucratic meeting.  They take a lot of time, are uncomfortable as hell, and generally very boring. 



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

If there had been protests at the time, this taste argument would hold a lot more water. But there weren't- the biggest concerns that the local religious leaders had were was their going to be enough parking for the strollers. If the mosque really is a monument to the terrorist attack- how long do you think it will last?

New Yorkers are vocal people- there would be pickets and commercial space in that building would be vacant. In short- give them enough rope, and if the planned mosque really is a monument in disguise, it will soon be a gaping eyesore- the locals will make sure of that. But I don't think it is....

I suspect that anyone who protests the mosque will be labelled as "racist" and an "Islamophobe".



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

and I think the earlier posts show what's really driving this brouhaha, and it's got little to do with Muslims, and a lot to do with why we invaded Iraq, under similar false pretenses I might add, claiming to be searching for nonexistent WMD....

Your reasoning here totally escapes me.



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Oh yeah- didn't McVeigh blow up the Murtagh building on the one year anniversary of the storming of the Branch Davidians? Seems to me that there's a symbolic relationship there- regardless of what he said later.

*shrugs*.  Dunno.  I'll take your word for it.

That doesn't make him some kind of religious fundamentalist, however.

I think the record is pretty clear that it was about McVeigh's belief that the Federal Government has become oppressive.  The Clinton Admin's handling of the Branch Davidians was pretty nasty and unnecessarily bloody, so I don't think it was the religious aspect that caught McVeigh's attention, but the out of control actions of the Federal Goverment agencies involved.



quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Learn from your mistakes....

When I make them.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 10:26:02 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Firm

You're missing a key point here and making an unwarranted assumption.

"It doesn't matter if you care. If it is seen as a "sign of victory" by the Islamic supporters of the attacks, it encourages them to continue to think they are correct, and to continue with other such attacks."

The assumption is that you can think like a terrorist towelhead, and that they're rational. Your comment that if they think they are correct as continuing to incite them to further attacks shows that you think they are capable of rational thought or understanding your value system. I strongly disagree here.

My comment is that I don't understand their value system (well, respect their value system would be more accurate- I suspect that I have a glimmer of understanding), don't want to, and don't want to be influenced by other's perceptions of what might incite them because I don't think that they can understand them either.

So if you're not ready to fly an airliner into a mosque in the Middle East, I don't see how you can say that you understand what motivates these people well enough to either comply or not comply with whatever nonsensical demands they make.

In terms of your response that my reasoning escaped you- allow me to elaborate a bit further then...

From my perspective, there was a clear agenda to invade Iraq during Bush II's presidency. 9/11 was used as a justification when the people organizing the attack didn't come from Iraq, nor was there state support for such an attack. The search for WMDs was fruitless, as some of us (not even the NY Times questioned this one) stated publicly that it was nonsensical- that Iraq simply didn't have the capability to manufacture chemical/bio weapons in quantity. (My sources were in the chemical industry- the companies that have produced chemical weapons in the past.) In short, there has been a group of people with political power in this country who have distorted facts and fabricated nonsense to create an atmosphere of fear and terror which has lead to diminished personal freedoms, (Obama's failure to live up to his campaign promises to close Gitmo etc. duly noted and cause for aggravation.) enormous and useless federal bureaucracy - Homeland Security was and still largely remains a sick joke, and has resulted in a windfall for companies which have supported these policies. In other words- follow the money. Not creating this overblown media storm over something which raised no ire of the residents (sorry-I've seen New Yorkers come out and bellyache when they don't like something- word gets around. This one just didn't cross the threshold of annoyance.) would have helped the healing process and encouraged the people where our troops are that the citizens of the US AREN'T their enemy.

So what's more important? Sending a potential signal to terrorist towelheads that they've got a victory mosque-far enough away from the target so that the mosque can't be seen? Or sending a signal to the rest of the Muslim world that we're unbowed by the terrorist towelheads, and we remain true to our ideals of religious freedom for all?

Sam

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 11:07:04 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You must be kidding. It may be a bit more prevalent amongst the girls on this site, but the libs invented the sycophantic circle jerk.


funny cos you  whiny little bitches seem to be doing the same thing!!
glass houses and that...
you cant back up your dumbass claims or change what you said with what you "meant" when caught..
Backpedalling is not something any of you do well. just blame the dems/libs etc,
The alinsky meme is so pathetic. really truly. You are all doing the same, but you refuse to see it and trying to be superior, and it just comes off like you just found out that Viagra gives you a new belly button
accept your failings laddies.



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destroyed Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125