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

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... - 9/14/2010 4:24:33 PM

samboct

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

Hi Firm

Not hard- here ya go-

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532

Again- McVeigh's religious motivation is likely on par with the terrorists with airplanes- but also as noted earlier, trying to really suss out these folks is an exercise I'd rather not indulge in.

If you're hanging your hat on the notion that McVeigh wasn't religiously motivated, and that somehow makes his action different than the 9/11 terrorists- you're going to crash through that ice- hold your hat up.

Sam

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 61

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 4:58:41 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're being deliberately obtuse.

I firmly believe in the first amendment and religious freedom for all.

You and yours are advocating against this mosque and claiming it is disrespectful to build it so close to Ground Zero. So I want to know the conditions for this zone of exclusion? How many people need to die and how big is the area? We've established that for 120 people a worship site 0 feet away does not offend your delicate sensibilities but for 3000 odd, 2 city blocks is too close. So what is the criteria?

Now you are just making shit up.

"We've established" nada.

Make up your own criteria. You are going to anyway.

Reduce a moral question to numbers. You and Stalin are likely a lot alike in that respect.

Firm

You're the one who has reduced a question of morality to one of numbers. About 120 men, women and children were murdered by religious zealots strictly because they were not members of the zealot's religion. Now the descendants of the same zealots have erected a religious building on the site and it is ok with you. That compares with your outrage that a group of sufi muslims wish to build a mosque 2 blocks away from where a group of sunni muslims murdered 3000+. So in your morality 120 people requires no zone of exclusion but 3000 requires more than 2 city blocks. So I want to know what the metric is. Does 150 get a 1 foot exclusion? does 1500 get 1 city block? What?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 62

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 6:56:46 PM

StrangerThan

Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Firm

"Can't point out the hypocrisy, huh?"

See post #27. Assume for the moment that McVeigh's attack WAS religiously motivated (at least to the same order as the terrorists crashing airplanes) and try looking again....

Cheers,

Sam

No need to assume-here's a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/arts/television/19mcveigh.html?_r=1

McVeigh was at the Branch Davidian's compound in Waco when it was under siege.

Let's deal with the McVeigh issue. He did indeed know about Waco and did indeed reference it. His reference had nothing to do with religion though. His response to it was

"He believed that even if David Koresh had committed crimes, his followers did not deserve to be executed."

So how about we use some of his own words, and some other sources that aren't so slanted towards trying to find a connection.

"The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."

"Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly."

"It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being."

"ATF, all you tyrannical mother fuckers will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States. Remember the Nuremberg War Trials."

"A man with nothing left to lose is a very dangerous man and his energy/anger can be focused toward a common/righteous goal. What I'm asking you to do, then, is sit back and be honest with yourself. Do you have kids/wife? Would you back out at the last minute to care for the family? Are you interested in keeping your firearms for their current/future monetary value, or would you drag that '06 through rock, swamp and cactus...to get off the needed shot? In short, I'm not looking for talkers, I'm looking for fighters...And if you are a fed, think twice. Think twice about the Constitution you are supposedly enforcing (isn't "enforcing freedom" an oxymoron?) and think twice about catching us with our guard down – you will lose just like Degan did – and your family will lose"

Before the sentence was formally pronounced, McVeigh addressed the court for the first time and said simply:

"If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, 'Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.' That's all I have."

"If there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war.

"I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel."

McVeigh was strongly anti-government, paranoid, and disillusioned. His court psychiatrist wrote about him

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1382540.stm

"Timothy McVeigh saw himself as someone who struck a blow for freedom, according to the psychiatrist appointed by the court to evaluate his psychological state.
I'd say you'd like him - he's pleasant "

Some other links that might interest you.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighaccount.html
A farewell letter written by McVeigh in July to his boyhood friend, Steve Hodge, revealed the evolution of his thinking: "I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will....I have come to peace with myself, my God, and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets, Steve, Good vs Evil. Free men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/29/profile.mcveigh/

http://web.archive.org/web/20080119111020/http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/faces/Suspects/McVeigh/1st-letter6-15/index.html

He was raised Catholic. What you're going to have a hard time finding in much of the documentation about him is anything to do with religion. If do find it, it is anecdotal, except perhaps, for those who need it to be there in the same light they need folks who have an issue with the ground zero mosque to be racists or bigots. You don't find quotes of religious leaders instructing him on how to kill. You don't find splinter groups who take religion to the extreme training him.

And you don't find him shouting Allah Akbar when he slaughtered 168 people.

It's... a little different.

< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 9/14/2010 6:59:14 PM >

_____________________________

--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 63

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 7:33:31 PM

FirmhandKY

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're the one who has reduced a question of morality to one of numbers. About 120 men, women and children were murdered by religious zealots strictly because they were not members of the zealot's religion. Now the descendants of the same zealots have erected a religious building on the site and it is ok with you. That compares with your outrage that a group of sufi muslims wish to build a mosque 2 blocks away from where a group of sunni muslims murdered 3000+. So in your morality 120 people requires no zone of exclusion but 3000 requires more than 2 city blocks. So I want to know what the metric is. Does 150 get a 1 foot exclusion? does 1500 get 1 city block? What?

You must really be mad.

Making up more shit right and left, and attempting to both strawman me, and place words in my mouth that I never said.

Go fish.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 64

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 8:25:10 PM

samboct

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

Excuse me- but you guys are missing the point. My intention is not to debate the exact motives of McVeigh or to plow through whatever garbage he chooses to spew, merely to show that there is a double standard in terms of religions going on here. When the Murtagh building first blew up, most people thought that it was Muslim terrorists. Only folks that connected the symbolism of the date of the storming of the Branch Davidians in Texas began thinking that it might be a homegrown terrorist attack. Once McVeigh was found, then the mutterings about Muslims died down.

So when McVeigh proved not to be Muslim, nobody really pushed whether or not there was a religious connection, although the symbolism of the date remains pretty clear. Simply put- a splinter religious group doesn't speak for the majority of the religion.

The hypocrisy that I'm trying to point out is that both of you (Stranger Than and Firm) are intent on tarring all Muslims with the terrorist brush. Yet McVeigh didn't tar all of Christianity- nor should he have. In short, the actions of a few terrorists and their leaders should NOT speak for a religion as a whole. Even Bush figured out that we were not involved in a religious war with Islam- why haven't you guys figured that out as well?

Sam

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 65

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 9:18:51 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're the one who has reduced a question of morality to one of numbers. About 120 men, women and children were murdered by religious zealots strictly because they were not members of the zealot's religion. Now the descendants of the same zealots have erected a religious building on the site and it is ok with you. That compares with your outrage that a group of sufi muslims wish to build a mosque 2 blocks away from where a group of sunni muslims murdered 3000+. So in your morality 120 people requires no zone of exclusion but 3000 requires more than 2 city blocks. So I want to know what the metric is. Does 150 get a 1 foot exclusion? does 1500 get 1 city block? What?

You must really be mad.

Making up more shit right and left, and attempting to both strawman me, and place words in my mouth that I never said.

Go fish.

Firm

It must be embarassing to have no moral compass unless someone from FNC tells you what it is.

I'll keep at this till I get an answer that makes some sense. What is the moral difference between a religious group building directly on top of a site where members of that faith killed 120 people and the NYC mosque.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 66

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/14/2010 9:29:08 PM

StrangerThan

Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Excuse me- but you guys are missing the point. My intention is not to debate the exact motives of McVeigh or to plow through whatever garbage he chooses to spew, merely to show that there is a double standard in terms of religions going on here. When the Murtagh building first blew up, most people thought that it was Muslim terrorists. Only folks that connected the symbolism of the date of the storming of the Branch Davidians in Texas began thinking that it might be a homegrown terrorist attack. Once McVeigh was found, then the mutterings about Muslims died down.

So when McVeigh proved not to be Muslim, nobody really pushed whether or not there was a religious connection, although the symbolism of the date remains pretty clear. Simply put- a splinter religious group doesn't speak for the majority of the religion.

The hypocrisy that I'm trying to point out is that both of you (Stranger Than and Firm) are intent on tarring all Muslims with the terrorist brush. Yet McVeigh didn't tar all of Christianity- nor should he have. In short, the actions of a few terrorists and their leaders should NOT speak for a religion as a whole. Even Bush figured out that we were not involved in a religious war with Islam- why haven't you guys figured that out as well?

Sam

No one said we were Sam. Why haven't you guys figured that out yet?

Now you find me a place where I tarred all muslims, and I'll apologize.

_____________________________

--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 67

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 5:15:39 AM

samboct

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

Now you find me a place where I tarred all muslims, and I'll apologize.

Huh? This sounds like a deliberate non sequitur. If you're intent on telling people in this country that they can't build a place of religious observance where they want because of their religion, seems to me that they've been tarred. Especially when there's been no link- other than their religion, to the terrorists who crashed planes into buildings 9 years ago. If you want to strain at gnats and debate this point- feel free, but I'll not engage in such lawyerlike hair splitting.

Sam

(in reply to StrangerThan)

Post #: 68

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 9:08:27 AM

rulemylife

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Please show me where I personally attacked you.

I may have dismissed your comments. I may have been snarky.

But I haven't "personally insulted" you in this thread at all.

Oh, and "being offended" because I don't agree with you, and say so, isn't an "insult".

Firm

No, it wasn't an insult directly, and you had the right to do it, but it was very insensitive of you.

I think in the future these types of comments need to be kept at least five threads away from me.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 69

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 9:49:48 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

samboct, The "If you're intent on telling people in this country that they can't build a place of religious observance" is at the very least the start of the strawman.

MY POSITION, Firm's Position, and Strange's Position has been that it is in bad taste to build it there.

Not that they CAN"T, not that they shouldn't be ALLOWED TO, not that their rights should be squashed, but that doing so is in poor taste. PERIOD FULL STOP

Definition of strawman, put forth an argument that was not the argument put forth by the other side, but rather a more easily assaulted position.
Changed from "it is in poor taste" to "they can't build it there".

Yep that meets the definition pretty squarely

< Message edited by Archer -- 9/15/2010 9:50:26 AM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 70

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 9:55:02 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

DomKen 120 people died and they built a church or something on top of the site, I'm gonna call that done in poor taste too regardless of the religions/ cultures in question.

Whether it's a church, a mosque, a temple, or whatever building it on a graveyard of the opposition is in poor taste.

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 71

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 9:57:54 AM

StrangerThan

Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Now you find me a place where I tarred all muslims, and I'll apologize.

Huh? This sounds like a deliberate non sequitur. If you're intent on telling people in this country that they can't build a place of religious observance where they want because of their religion, seems to me that they've been tarred. Especially when there's been no link- other than their religion, to the terrorists who crashed planes into buildings 9 years ago. If you want to strain at gnats and debate this point- feel free, but I'll not engage in such lawyerlike hair splitting.

Sam

There are several tactics used out here to attack those who have a problem with this mosque. The first was to scream about rights and the Constitution. The second is and was to attack any other religion, specifically Christianity if tactic 1 failed. If the second gained no ground, the third is and was to paint any other opinion as racist, bigoted or phobic. Barring any of those, the fourth you just evidenced, which is backing off with some snide remark.

No where have I ever said they did not have the right to build where ever they choose. What I have said, and said repeatedly is that this structure at this place at this time, is insensitive. What I have said is that it will engender more ill will than it alleviates. I've even put it in as generic terms as possible to reduce the question of sensitivity to a simple one that takes all the political posturing out of it. What I have said, and said probably more than once is that I don't have a problem with muslims, but neither will I don rose colored glasses for them in the way that I won't for anyone else.

In that you accuse me of tarring all muslims and refuse to split hairs by showing me where I did.

That tactic doesn't work either and is a weak one. If you have nothing further to offer to the debate, then let's just call it here.

Because you either will see the insensitivity or refuse to.

It is that simple.

< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 9/15/2010 9:58:43 AM >

_____________________________

--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 72

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 10:51:38 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen 120 people died and they built a church or something on top of the site, I'm gonna call that done in poor taste too regardless of the religions/ cultures in question.

Whether it's a church, a mosque, a temple, or whatever building it on a graveyard of the opposition is in poor taste.

Yeah it is. The difference for me is the mosque isn't on the Ground Zero site but 2 blocks away.

BTW now that my point is made the incident is usually called the Moutain Meadows Massacre. A wagon train of 120+ settlers originating in Arkansas were set upon by mormons and slaughtered. The mormon church has spent the last 120 years first denying they did it, covering up their leader's involvement, blaming innocent local indians and finally building their own memorial to the massacre right on top of one of the mass graves.

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 73

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 11:10:40 AM

samboct

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

To Stranger Than-

From Firm's post on page 1 of this thread...

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

Note the following omissions and implications-

1) By Muslims. Implies mainstream acceptance of the 9/11 terrorist action by ALL Muslims.
2) For religious reasons. Infers that as part of the worship of Allah, Muslims find it helpful to self immolate and take as many infidels as possible.

Omissions- not noting that the terrorist attack on 9/11 did NOT have the approval of Muslims in this country or the approval of the people now attempting to build the mosque.

My litmus test is simple. Ask yourself if you would have the same objection to the "insensitivity" (I must admit, I find this to be weaseling.) if it had been a bunch of Timothy McVeigh's gun toting buddies chanting Khoresh was a Martyr as they flew airplanes into the WTC instead of Muslims. And would you have a problem with a different sect of Christianity building a church in this location?

I doubt it. Hence, although you refuse to don rose colored glasses with regards to Islam, your actions don't pass the sniff test.

Furthermore- your claim that building this mosque essentially sends a positive reinforcement to the wrong people- well, show me some evidence backing up this conjecture. Because that's all it is- a guess on your part. Last time I checked, most of the Muslims in that part of the world seem to equate the US and Big Bird. They have no clue as to who we are or what we are- how could they? Access to the internet? What's the literacy rate? One of the sorriest parts of this whole sordid tale is that the Talibs are running the only schools in the region- get rid of them, and there's nothing.

Sorry- but the real cost of this debate about this mosque is to our own religious freedoms, and whether they're worth defending, not on some nonsensical worry about what some potential towelhead terrorist is going to think or feel.

Sam

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 74

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 11:37:10 AM

Archer

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

And there DomKen we have the difference you limited ground zero it seems to the exact footprint of the towers or something.

I expanded it to cover as stated in the other thread the area covered by what I defined as significant debris, which includeds the roof of that building and the street behind it.
Had the plan been for one more block away, I'm likely to have been fighting on your side of this issue.

Again no way shape or form do I believe the government should do anything to prevent the building of the community center/ mosque/ bingo hall or whaever other name they want to put on it. But equally no way should people feel obliged to be silent in their expression of distaste for putting it there.
The Imam should feel the heat of the opinions and they should weigh heavy on his mind.

There should be no violence perpetrated on Muslims from that mosque, there should be no racially based slurs or protests that exceed a civil standard of behavior.

I recognize that many will let the power of their emotions get thebest of them, I can offer only Ghandi's best advice for them. If you lack the strength to be civil in your disobedience then stay home and do not join the protests. (paraphrased and likely poorly)

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 75

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 12:54:41 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Hang on, has anybody said that people should be obliged to like this? I think it's more the underhand attempts to get the place moved and disinformation driven scaremongering that the evil liberals in this forum are taking issue with.
(That and a few Republicans and allied talking heads using the deaths of thousands of their countrymen as a partisan strawmanto take a cheap poke at the other party, of course. I'm one of the most insensitive people on here, and even I find that a bit much, frankly.)

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 76

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 1:10:53 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And there DomKen we have the difference you limited ground zero it seems to the exact footprint of the towers or something.

I expanded it to cover as stated in the other thread the area covered by what I defined as significant debris, which includeds the roof of that building and the street behind it.
Had the plan been for one more block away, I'm likely to have been fighting on your side of this issue.

Again no way shape or form do I believe the government should do anything to prevent the building of the community center/ mosque/ bingo hall or whaever other name they want to put on it. But equally no way should people feel obliged to be silent in their expression of distaste for putting it there.
The Imam should feel the heat of the opinions and they should weigh heavy on his mind.

There should be no violence perpetrated on Muslims from that mosque, there should be no racially based slurs or protests that exceed a civil standard of behavior.

I recognize that many will let the power of their emotions get thebest of them, I can offer only Ghandi's best advice for them. If you lack the strength to be civil in your disobedience then stay home and do not join the protests. (paraphrased and likely poorly)

My problem with the larger than Ground Zero thing is lower Manhattan is an incredibly densely built up area. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people work and live in the area. saying that using any property in the area as a mosque is unacceptable would deny innocent people a place to worship which, even I an atheist, find distinctly unAmerican.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 9/15/2010 1:11:46 PM >

(in reply to Archer)

Post #: 77

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 2:07:34 PM

luckydawg

Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline

Archer clearly said just places actaully hit by significant derbis, buildings actually damaged in the attack. Like the site in question.

That is not hundreds of thousands,( millions?). You are way smarter than that.

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 78

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 2:23:21 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

debris, and read what he said----- the number is followed by 'WORKS IN THE AREA'.....(and there is the small matter of the huge number of respiration problems from the debris (take a picture in your mind....say it aloud debris)) that republicans are refusing to continue healthcare for.....even some of those people who may have been in one or the other mosques in the world trade center the day it was destroyed, and subsequent to their immediate evacuation stood nearby watching the horror unfold and got dusted with the nasty shit coming out of those buildings.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to luckydawg)

Post #: 79

RE: There were two mosques in the WTC,when it was destr... - 9/15/2010 2:26:47 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

So some debris landed on the building where they want to build the ~~community centre~~victory mosque?
Big fucking deal: three airplanes landed on the WTC.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 80

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

0.102