'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less provocative

[shagdrum]

Foxy, we can deal with attempts to reframe the issue in a manner favorable toward one side all day and end up getting no where. Let's get away from "apples and oranges" false comparisons, false dichotomies and other means of confusing and complicating the issue.

If the 9/11 attacks had not occurred or had not happened through the efforts of Islamic terrorists, do you think this Mosque would be an issue?

If the 9/11 attacks had not, in any way, involved New York City and, specifically, the World Trade Center, do you think this Mosque would be an issue?

 

[foxpaws]

This mosque would have been built without a peep if it hadn't been for 9/11, correct? So, because of the actions of a few, we are punishing the many. Is this what America does? Do we blame the deaths in Oklahoma City on extreme gun rights activists? Do you not allow a gun shop to get a license within a certain radius of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building?

And I am going to continue to use comparisons, because it is a just way to look at this issue. Why don't we use the same set of rules for all situations - the reason you don't is because you are trying to isolate and target a certain group.

 

[shagdrum]

This mosque would have been built without a peep if it hadn't been for 9/11, correct? So, because of the actions of a few, we are punishing the many.

Who is suggesting punishment?

We are simply recognizing that the building of a Mosque there is at best insensitive to, and at worst an intentional insult to the 9/11 families, the City of New York and the nation as a whole.

If this issue is context dependent (in reference to the 9/11 attacks) why do your posts keep avoiding that context? Only in light of that context can opposition to the Mosque make logical sense yet you are comparing the issue to strip clubs; a comparison which implicitly takes the issue out of the context of the tragedy of 9/11 and the subsequent War On Terror. Where is your concern for the 9/11 families?

And I am going to continue to use comparisons, because it is a just way to look at this issue.

It is also a very effective way to misrepresent the issue.

Why don't we use the same set of rules for all situations - the reason you don't is because you are trying to isolate and target a certain group.

Are you accusing me of bigotry?

 

[foxpaws]

Who is suggesting punishment?

We are simply recognizing that the building of a Mosque there is at best insensitive to, and at worst an intentional insult to the 9/11 families, the City of New York and the nation as a whole.

It is 'punishment' of a sorts - their rights are being infringed on just because of who they are. They want to build a place of worship, Americans are saying 'no, we are insulted by your church, and it shouldn't be within xxx of this hallowed ground'.

It isn't hallowed ground, it is stepping on the rights of a specific group.

How many of the 9/11 families are protesting the mosque Shag? Is it a majority? Bloomburg is OK with it - and he represents New York - sort of. The people who live closest to it are for it (only 36% of Manhattan residents oppose the mosque).

If the victim's families came out in a majority against this mosque, or the neighborhood surrounding it - I think then it would be a matter between them and the church officials. It can't be about us, this should be a local issue, shouldn't Shag - isn't that what you are often touting?

You often claim I play upon the emotions of others shag - look at your post - isn't that exactly what this issue is about - emotions. Shouldn't you remove those and look upon this as a rights issue, not an 'emotional hot point'?

Case in point...

Where is your concern for the 9/11 families?

Where you this concerned about their feelings when Ann Coulter stated that the widows were just 'money grabbing, sleeping around anyway sluts'? Where was your concern then? Same appeal to emotion, yet, you didn't decry Coulter. Why not?

Are you accusing me of bigotry?

I wasn't using 'you' with regards to 'you personally' I was stating a way things get handled. Why would anyone not play by the constitution's rules (in this case right of property, freedom of religion, I am sure there are more) and appeal to an emotional defense instead? It could be because they trying to isolate and target a certain group.

Sorry - meant to be 'generic' and it didn't come out that way.

 

[hrmwrm]

We are simply recognizing that the building of a Mosque there is at best insensitive to, and at worst an intentional insult to the 9/11 families, the City of New York and the nation as a whole.

i stiil think it's funny that those closest to it have the least trouble with it.
these are the people who will have it in their neighbourhood.
and yet you still speak of it for what it's not. it's a muslim community centre, not a mosque.

 

[hrmwrm]

this is something i recieved from someone on facebook.

Ground Zero. The site of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center in New York. Americans know — it is sacred ground. But New York City, led by Mayor Bloomberg, is moving forward with plans to build an Islamic mosque on the very site where thousands of Americans were murdered. It’s a troubling and deeply offensive decision. Ground Zero is NO place for a mosque.
So the ACLJ is front and center, in court working to prevent this mosque from being built. We are preparing legal and governmental filings to challenge New York’s action. We have mobilized legal and legislative teams to take the action necessary to keep this mosque out of Ground Zero. In fact, we’re even representing a decorated NYC firefighter — a first responder who survived 9/11 but lost 100 friends in the attack.

Stand with the ACLJ today and send a message to New York — NO Mosque at Ground Zero. Declare your membership with the ACLJ and add your name to the Committee to STOP the Ground Zero Mosque.

COMMITTEE TO STOP
THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE

We are deeply disturbed by the decision to build an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero — the sacred site where Islamic terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Americans.

Even more troubling is that this mosque is financially backed by an investor with reported ties to terrorism — reports indicate that Imam Rauf was one of the key financiers of the Gaza-bound flotilla that recently carried terrorists determined to attack Israel!

As radical Islam continues its bold and deadly march to erase freedom from the face of the earth — we must determine who we will honor: America’s fallen 9/11 victims or the terrorists who attacked them?

We stand with the ACLJ in strong opposition to this troubling move: Ground Zero is NOT the place to build a mosque. It is time to reject this wrong-headed plan once and for all, in honor of America’s 9/11 heroes.

this is from the aclj?
who are they? even they say it's ON the ground zero site.
but who's behind this disinformation?

The American Center for Law & Justice was founded in 1990 by evangelical Pat Robertson as a nonprofit public interest law firm.

It was conceived as a counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization which Robertson maintains is "hostile to traditional American values." It has attracted much media attention for its lawsuits, such as its campaign to oppose changes to the constitution of Kenya that would permit abortion and Islamic law, [1] and its attempts to block the construction of a mosque near the site of the September 11 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Center_for_Law_&_Justice

and if you really want to visit them

http://www.aclj.org/

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

But one thing is definitely true: if we ask our leaders to start dishonoring the freedoms that make this country great, the terrorists surely will have won. And I don’t want to see that. Because unlike those with power and influence who would lie to you, I love America.

:Beer:iconcur:

 

[cammerfe]

Bz, it's well established that there must be limits of a sort---witness the yelling of 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It's also a well-established fact that after jihad-type victories, Muslim shrines pop up somewhere close by. Witness Al Aqsa, and other, lesser sorts of constructs at places where terrorist atrocities have been perpetrated. Make no mistake about it, the 'Ground Zero' Muslim building is simply another example of the attitude that caused the cheering in the streets all over the world that accompanied the pictures on TV of the WTC towers collapsing.

The indignation in this country after Pearl Harbor has now been replaced, after 9/11, with the sort of appeasement thinking that must surely make our enemies rejoice.

There are certainly a lot of craven D U M B-F U C K US-haters extant these days.

KS

 

[FIND]

Bz, it's well established that there must be limits of a sort---witness the yelling of 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It's also a well-established fact that after jihad-type victories, Muslim shrines pop up somewhere close by. Witness Al Aqsa, and other, lesser sorts of constructs at places where terrorist atrocities have been perpetrated. Make no mistake about it, the 'Ground Zero' Muslim building is simply another example of the attitude that caused the cheering in the streets all over the world that accompanied the pictures on TV of the WTC towers collapsing.

The indignation in this country after Pearl Harbor has now been replaced, after 9/11, with the sort of appeasement thinking that must surely make our enemies rejoice.

There are certainly a lot of craven D U M B-F U C K US-haters extant these days.

KS

I would think our enemies rejoice in greater numbers when we allow ourselves to be controlled by fear and hatred instead of the ideals that make our nation great. Why give up on what makes us into the wonderful country we are and turn into them? Full of distrust, hatred, fear, and without all forms of freedom.

I can't really draw a connection between screaming, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and building a mosque a couple blocks away from a terrorist attack. I am sure if they wanted to make a shrine to the "victory" of a jihadist, they could come up with better things. Besides, I think the fear and distrust we show when we are so against them building a mosque and exercising their freedoms is a far greater monument to the "victory" of a terrorist than a place of peaceful worship will ever be.

Tell me though, what are these other "monuments" you speak of?

 

[foxpaws]

It is odd - America seems to talk the talk when it comes to religious freedom, freedom of speech, 'pursuit of happiness', but certainly in this case, we aren't walking the walk. You have to take what you dislike along with what you agree with - you may have to listen to hate speech by some white supremacist, but if they aren't allowed their voice, it won't be much longer before yours is silenced as well.

 

[cammerfe]

'There are none so blind as those who will not see.' Your 'make nice' is simply looked on as weakness. Those with the kind of agenda that creates the 'in-your-face' activities inherent in the ground zero mosque need, like the mule, to have the 2X4 'up-side the head' to get their attention. This is an all-out war. It's just beginning, and many are blind.

KS

 

[hrmwrm]

'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'

another one of those ironic moments.

 

[foxpaws]

'There are none so blind as those who will not see.' Your 'make nice' is simply looked on as weakness. Those with the kind of agenda that creates the 'in-your-face' activities inherent in the ground zero mosque need, like the mule, to have the 2X4 'up-side the head' to get their attention. This is an all-out war. It's just beginning, and many are blind.

KS

KS - check my response on one of the other of myriad 'muslim' threads. You are willing to fight a holy war, I wonder how many support that. We won't win. No one will win a holy war in the 21st century.

 

[fossten]

It is odd - America seems to talk the talk when it comes to religious freedom, freedom of speech, 'pursuit of happiness', but certainly in this case, we aren't walking the walk. You have to take what you dislike along with what you agree with - you may have to listen to hate speech by some white supremacist, but if they aren't allowed their voice, it won't be much longer before yours is silenced as well.

So, we have to like it when the muslims rub our faces in it? No, we don't. Even if they have the right to build a victory mosque, it doesn't mean we should have to vocally support it, nor should our President vocally support it. And our unions also have the right to refuse to build the mosque, we have the right to build a gay BBQ bar right next door, we have the right to erect signs that say "Jihad begins here" right overhead, etc.

 

[fossten]

KS - check my response on one of the other of myriad 'muslim' threads. You are willing to fight a holy war, I wonder how many support that. We won't win. No one will win a holy war in the 21st century.

Peace at any price, eh fox?

 

[FIND]

So, we have to like it when the muslims rub our faces in it? No, we don't. Even if they have the right to build a victory mosque, it doesn't mean we should have to vocally support it, nor should our President vocally support it. And our unions also have the right to refuse to build the mosque, we have the right to build a gay BBQ bar right next door, we have the right to erect signs that say "Jihad begins here" right overhead, etc.

"Jihad begins here" signs would be going a bit overboard. That would be equal to screaming "fire" in a packed theater.

 

[cammerfe]

Holy War? Nah!!!!

KS - check my response on one of the other of myriad 'muslim' threads. You are willing to fight a holy war, I wonder how many support that. We won't win. No one will win a holy war in the 21st century.

Among all the other things that Islam is, it's a scorched-earth political system. No war over religion---war against their intent to take over the earth by force.

KS

 

[fossten]

"Jihad begins here" signs would be going a bit overboard. That would be equal to screaming "fire" in a packed theater.

Or, "Terrorist Training Ground."

Actually I like that one better.

 

[foxpaws]

So, we have to like it when the muslims rub our faces in it? No, we don't. Even if they have the right to build a victory mosque, it doesn't mean we should have to vocally support it, nor should our President vocally support it. And our unions also have the right to refuse to build the mosque, we have the right to build a gay BBQ bar right next door, we have the right to erect signs that say "Jihad begins here" right overhead, etc.

You have to support their right to build it, the fact that some might not like it is actually irrelevant. I hate white supremacy hate speech, but that opinion means actually very little in the whole scheme of things - I support entirely their right to spew whatever they want, that is really all that matters.

The president supported the Mosque's group right to practice their religion, that is what he is required to do, that he upholds the constitution - 1st amendment and all. He was asked a point blank question - the only correct answer was that the organizers of the project "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

Our unions do have the right to refuse to build it, we have the right to build a gay bbq across the street - you might want to check on who owns the airspace above the mosque on the last one.

 

[foxpaws]

Among all the other things that Islam is, it's a scorched-earth political system. No war over religion---war against their intent to take over the earth by force.

KS

It would be a holy war KS - that is all it could be if we go against an entire religion. 'Their intent' refers to the Muslim intent and not just a country or two - correct?

 

[fossten]

You have to support their right to build it, the fact that some might not like it is actually irrelevant. I hate white supremacy hate speech, but that opinion means actually very little in the whole scheme of things - I support entirely their right to spew whatever they want, that is really all that matters.

White supremacists didn't bomb the WTC and kill 3,000 Americans.

The president supported the Mosque's group right to practice their religion, that is what he is required to do, that he upholds the constitution - 1st amendment and all. He was asked a point blank question - the only correct answer was that the organizers of the project "have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."

The President didn't have to say anything. The fact that he did is very instructive and revealing. Furthermore, the whole 'upholds the Constitution' canard is a joke - he has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever; in fact, he hates it. It burns him that the Constitution restricts what he can do to people.

Our unions do have the right to refuse to build it, we have the right to build a gay bbq across the street - you might want to check on who owns the airspace above the mosque on the last one.

Billboards and walls/roofs of other nearby buildings should do the trick.

 

[fossten]

It would be a holy war KS - that is all it could be if we go against an entire religion. 'Their intent' refers to the Muslim intent and not just a country or two - correct?

Right, fox...it wasn't Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor, it was militant imperialist extremists flying Zeros and Vals that did that deed.

 

[Lincoln Jealous]

just walked by the mosque site yesterday, no one was protesting, there was a nyc cop car outside though, it looks like a run down crack house. took a picture of the world trade center cross made out of the left over metal beams. 2 baseballs were sitting up there, dont know who they're from.

 

[foxpaws]

White supremacists didn't bomb the WTC and kill 3,000 Americans.

No they didn't - however how many Americans did the Germans and Japanese kill in WWII - yet, we allow those groups full rights.

Billboards and walls/roofs of other nearby buildings should do the trick.

Good luck - most people have more sense than to make their building a target. I actually think that the mosque will be a target as well, equal target opportunities here if indeed some building owner is brave/foolish enough to start putting anti Muslim billboards on his building. The public opinion backlash alone would be extremely damaging.

 

[foxpaws]

Right, fox...it wasn't Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor, it was militant imperialist extremists flying Zeros and Vals that did that deed.

Well, actually it was terrorists of sorts - the Japanese government preyed on the nationalism of young Japanese men when they revived the concept of Kamikaze.