DescentBB

So, you want people to be more politically correct?

null0010 wrote:So, you want people to be more politically correct?

Do you? You do know thats pejorative term right?

null0010 wrote:So, you want people to be more politically correct?

I want the ones who are going to build it who claim they are doing it to heal the divide to explain how they are accomplishing that.
It isn't asking for political correctness to question their motive since on it's face it sure seems quite insincere. Maybe they are the ones who need to man up and tell it like it is....

Topgun,
I have no bigotry toward any religion nor do I have a favorite one. The followers of Islam have a much higher percentage of murderous bastard fundamentalists than any other religion I can think of and to know that, and to be unafraid to bring it up, isn't a sign of bigotry it is a sign that I have a frikken brain!

Yet still I support their rights but I also know that you would have to be a fool to think building the mosque there right now is going to lead to healing the wound that was caused by that high percentage of murderous fundamentalists that will celebrate the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero as a landmark staking out the site of their great victory.

Now you can try to tell me otherwise but I think there is ample evidence to support my perception and it isn't based on bigotry.

So there it is...detailed enough for you?

Will Robinson wrote:Topgun,
I have no bigotry toward any religion nor do I have a favorite one. The followers of Islam have a much higher percentage of murderous bastard fundamentalists than any other religion I can think of and to know that, and to be unafraid to bring it up, isn't a sign of bigotry it is a sign that I have a frikken brain!

Yet still I support their rights but I also know that you would have to be a fool to think building the mosque there right now is going to lead to healing the wound that was caused by that high percentage of murderous fundamentalists that will celebrate the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero as a landmark staking out the site of their great victory.

Now you can try to tell me otherwise but I think there is ample evidence to support my perception and it isn't based on bigotry.

So there it is...detailed enough for you?

Detailed, yes, but just as absurd. Thanks for taking the time, though.

You talk about percentages of "murderous bastard fundamentalists" and what the inhabitants of certain countries may think about what's going on, but I don't see why I or anyone else should give a damn about that. What I do give a damn about are the people here, the people building and utilizing the center. Let the Saudis and Iranians squawk all they want, because they have no part in this. By all accounts, the people who will be utilizing the building on a daily basis are just as much normal Americans as you or me, so I'm completely fine with the concept.

In the end, TechPro has it absolutely right. The most ironic thing about all of this uproar is that it's only reinforcing the message that those terrorists attempted to send nine years ago. We're supposed to be a country that embraces freedom of religious expression as one of its most fundamental tenets, a tenet that in no small part spurred on the disgusting actions of the men who perpetuated that attack. And yet here we are, nine years later, stating that a certain religion shouldn't build a cultural center in downtown Manhattan just because it might upset some people. The phrase "letting the terrorists win" has been tossed around a lot this past decade, but I feel like I've finally found something it truly applies to.

Top Gun wrote:...You talk about percentages of "murderous bastard fundamentalists" and what the inhabitants of certain countries may think about what's going on, but I don't see why I or anyone else should give a damn about that. ...
....By all accounts, the people who will be utilizing the building on a daily basis are just as much normal Americans as you or me, so I'm completely fine with the concept.

Funny, the Germans said basically the same thing about the Al Quds mosque in Hamburg when they denied the FBI to have access to their investigation of radicals there pre-9/11. It is the mosque where Mohammed Atta was transformed from nerdy Egyptian architecture student to the pilot of a suicide mission that helped create this situation we are talking about.
The Germans finally closed that mosque down in 2010 because it was being used again for recruiting and training radicals! They had been aware of the radicals and their recruiting and teachings inside for some time before Sept. 11 2001 but the Germans were hard to convince intervention was needed until it was too late, they have since rethought their one-concept-fits-all policy...

So you can be "fine with the concept" all you want but get off your high horse about those who are curious about the reality in the meantime. Frankly, considering what we know about the radicals methods, your blanket assumption of who and what will be using the mosque that you credit to "by all accounts" is quite naive.

Top Gun wrote:In the end, TechPro has it absolutely right. The most ironic thing about all of this uproar is that it's only reinforcing the message that those terrorists attempted to send nine years ago. We're supposed to be a country that embraces freedom of religious expression as one of its most fundamental tenets, a tenet that in no small part spurred on the disgusting actions of the men who perpetuated that attack. And yet here we are, nine years later, stating that a certain religion shouldn't build a cultural center in downtown Manhattan just because it might upset some people. The phrase "letting the terrorists win" has been tossed around a lot this past decade, but I feel like I've finally found something it truly applies to.

You fail to open your mind to the point being raised...again.
Some of us do not fit the template you complain about. Some of us do not want to state that a certain religion can not build their center. But we do find the comments about why they want it there to be questionable. We do find their deaf ear turned to the protests to be symptomatic of the exact opposite of what they claim and of the "concept" that you embrace....

Their meaning of the word Islam translates to Submission and their attitude seems to be to seek submission as their clerics teach it should be sought, not just submission by believers to god but submission by outsiders to the faithful Muslim.
So your concern about "letting them win" has more than one way to manifest itself. A mosque built on that site will be a victory.
Is it too much to allow us to call them out on their claim that what they are doing is healing things?!? Or should we all just submit to their wishes? Why is building a mosque on that site not at least as outrageous to you as my pointing out the downside to seeing one built there?

I'm sure it is easy for you to dismiss these points and continue to lump them into the arguments that you seem more equipped to deal with but that won't make it go away or cause us to accept your comfort with a concept as a panacea.

Will Robinson wrote:The followers of Islam have a much higher percentage of murderous bastard fundamentalists than any other religion I can think of

Oh wait you're serious.

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The followers of Islam have a much higher percentage of murderous bastard fundamentalists than any other religion I can think of

Oh wait you're serious.

You could look up the word "percentage" then look up examples of Islamic terrorism and of Christian terrorism....do the math.

You could also look into examples of Christianity taught in schools with lessons on who you are compelled to kill in the name of your religion....then look for the same examples under Islam and you'll find no Christian schools teaching young people to grow up thinking non-Christians are less than human and yet that same lesson is widespread under Islam!

So yea, I'm serious, and you are just not making sense.

Do I have to bring up the Crusades?

null0010 wrote:Do I have to bring up the Crusades?

Please do. Lets look deeply into why the Christians have evolved, progressed and matured into relatively benign cultures leaving their medieval roots back in the history books you are trying to drag them back to so that your argument could possibly hold water....

The lack of social evolution of the cultures thriving under Islam is indeed an interesting study.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:Do I have to bring up the Crusades?

Please do. Lets look deeply into why the Christians have evolved, progressed and matured into relatively benign cultures leaving their medieval roots back in the history books you are trying to drag them back to so that your argument could possibly hold water....

The lack of social evolution of the cultures thriving under Islam is indeed an interesting study.

Yes, it is, if you look at it in-depth and don't simply conclude that Arab culture is savage and backwards.

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The followers of Islam have a much higher percentage of murderous bastard fundamentalists than any other religion I can think of

Oh wait you're serious.

Yet not one death or bombing were mention in any of those links, where thousands have died in a single act by a Christian. Yet every day you can turn on the news and hear about bombings taking place in the name of Allah.

Talk about building a scarecrow.

Edit:Oh I see you are just on the troll again.

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:Do I have to bring up the Crusades?

Please do. Lets look deeply into why the Christians have evolved, progressed and matured into relatively benign cultures leaving their medieval roots back in the history books you are trying to drag them back to so that your argument could possibly hold water....

The lack of social evolution of the cultures thriving under Islam is indeed an interesting study.

Yes, it is, if you look at it in-depth and don't simply conclude that Arab culture is savage and backwards.

I made no simple conclusions but one conclusion I reached remains undeniable and that is there is a higher percentage of murderous fundamentalists in the practice of Islam than any other religion I know of.

Islam seems to have more than their share fair of evil lunatics. But they DO have company:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/inde ... full/94132

TechPro wrote:Sure, it's proximity to the Twin Towers location is painful to some (mostly those who hate the religion, not the perpetrators) and that may seem insensitive to those people. It's not meant to be, and it wasn't the religion that was the perpetrators of 9/11, it was perpetrated by filled with hate.

To say that a religion of roughly .700 billion - 1.570 billion people is entirely a bunch of terrorists is so laughable that if I were to cave in to the tendency I would miss my first week of classes next week. Due to sheer law of averages that's going to be untrue. You'll always have nutcases, and you'll have those who don't want to have anything to do with those nutcases. Every religion has folks that use it for hate, teach hate, and live hating what they believe to be subhuman. Singling out any one among others is a joke.

THIS IS AMERICA! We claim to be the "Land of the Free" and "Home of the Brave" and it is a land of Religious Freedom and that is one of founding principles of this Nation. If we can't adhere to the tenet of Religious Freedom, then we would be behaving no better than the people who wrongly herded thousands of Japanese descent Americans into internment camps during World War II. It was wrong then it is still wrong now.

I'm reminded of how throughout history there have always been groups irrationally feared, and written off: Jews, Japanese-Americans, the entire Japanese culture, Germans, anyone of "red" leanings, and now Muslims. This is yet another stop along this line of reasoning.

Will Robinson wrote:You fail to open your mind to the point being raised...again.
Some of us do not fit the template you complain about. Some of us do not want to state that a certain religion can not build their center. But we do find the comments about why they want it there to be questionable. We do find their deaf ear turned to the protests to be symptomatic of the exact opposite of what they claim and of the "concept" that you embrace....

Their meaning of the word Islam translates to Submission and their attitude seems to be to seek submission as their clerics teach it should be sought, not just submission by believers to god but submission by outsiders to the faithful Muslim.
So your concern about "letting them win" has more than one way to manifest itself. A mosque built on that site will be a victory.
Is it too much to allow us to call them out on their claim that what they are doing is healing things?!? Or should we all just submit to their wishes? Why is building a mosque on that site not at least as outrageous to you as my pointing out the downside to seeing one built there?

I'm sure it is easy for you to dismiss these points and continue to lump them into the arguments that you seem more equipped to deal with but that won't make it go away or cause us to accept your comfort with a concept as a panacea.

You may not accept these points, but I'll feel free to continue to snicker at the general self-obfuscation and FUD-spreading going on here. The more things change in nine years, the more they stay the same, right? But I do agree that building the cultural center on that site will be a "victory"...a victory for both true American values and general religious tolerance. This letter that null linked is worth posting again, because it makes crystal-clear what the real "defeat" would be.

You want to know the most hilarious thing about all this? All of the naysayers, yourself included, keep talking about "that site," as if this Muslim group was attempting to plop down a building on the soil of Ground Zero itself. But last time I checked, all they're doing is working on a property a few blocks away from said site, a property that is also a few blocks away from their pre-existing building. So tell me, how far away would constitute not being on "that site"? Ten blocks? Twenty? Out of Lower Manhattan entirely? Where is that arbitrary line where this community group no longer has to worry about hurting someone's feelings? How much should they bend over backwards before their construction becomes acceptable?

That guy’s letter is one man’s opinion…it seems to be getting way too much clout.

Oh yea…and too much of your argument is ad hominem to be credible.

Top Gun wrote:...So tell me, how far away would constitute not being on "that site"? Ten blocks? Twenty? Out of Lower Manhattan entirely?

Well I already said I'd settle for a simple explanation of how they think building the center there is healing the wound. But if you want to assign the authority to me in hypothetical-land I'll take the job.

How about build it anywhere outside of the radius of the debris of the towers that fell...or outside of the jurisdiction of any fire/police station that lost the lives of it's members responding to the attack that day or add the total length of all the dead bodies from that attack and make that the radius... ...you can pick which ever one serves you best.

Top Gun wrote:Where is that arbitrary line where this community group no longer has to worry about hurting someone's feelings? How much should they bend over backwards before their construction becomes acceptable?

Your question implies they have even made an attempt to accommodate any outsider. I don't believe there is any evidence they have the slightest care in the world what anyone thinks which is exactly why I find their plans offensive.

Will Robinson wrote:I don't believe there is any evidence they have the slightest care in the world what anyone thinks which is exactly why I find their plans offensive.

I'm not surprised that many people find it offensive. It was certainly, as you have pointed out, a poor publicity move. It's also, as you have said, none of the Governments business.

They have a right to build on any (properly zoned) private property they can purchase.

People ALSO have a right to be offended. Heck, you have the right to be offended by anything you darn well want to be offended by.

So whats the fuss here?

Will Robinson wrote:Your question implies they have even made an attempt to accommodate any outsider. I don't believe there is any evidence they have the slightest care in the world what anyone thinks which is exactly why I find their plans offensive.

You don't seem to really care what they think, or what I think, either.

Also, please cite your sources that you used to determine that Islam is the bloodiest modern religion.

null0010 wrote: You don't seem to really care what they think, or what I think, either.

Is there a 2 way street here? You really don't care what he thinks nor do they care what we think. Since when can't a person not be free to speak his mind? Are they the only ones with rights?

Here is a wiki page that answers some questions for me. Of course with anything this controversial I have to be skeptical of the authors intentions and wonder if the info is factual or did some spinmiester throw this up in hasty defense of the project.
Assuming it is legit it puts to rest some of my suspicions about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
At least those regarding his motives. His sensibilities are still doubtful to me.

Example, when he says:

\"The specific location of the planned mosque, so close to the World Trade Center “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” was a primary selling point for the Muslims who bought the building.[28] Abdul Rauf said it “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” and “We want to push back against the extremists”.\"

The first thing that came to my mind is if you really want to send an \"opposite message\" then build a monument to the victims...
a place where their children can come and recieve financial aid toward higher education funded by muslims....
build a health center for survivors families...
build a museum that chronicals the Islamic faiths struggle to oust fundamentalists from it's fold...ok, so that last one would be a small one room display but still...

But all venom aside, if the wiki page is legit then I like the idea and understand how a place where muslims could frolic in newly forged moderate glory would be quite an anti-Ossama statement but if they had any kind of clue about their host countrymen they would back off the location by a few more blocks. the connection of their proposed site to the attack may have some kind of meaning for them but it has one hell of a big meaning for the victims side that they just don't seem to understand.

Like I said, they have the right to build it but the reasons are quite curious to me.

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Your question implies they have even made an attempt to accommodate any outsider. I don't believe there is any evidence they have the slightest care in the world what anyone thinks which is exactly why I find their plans offensive.

You don't seem to really care what they think, or what I think, either.

No, I've been primarily focused on "what they think" if you have been paying any attention to what I've actually written you would know that.

null0010 wrote:Also, please cite your sources that you used to determine that Islam is the bloodiest modern religion.

So you can't find anything to counter my claim can you
Here's the condensed version:
Watch the news for the last 20 years and pay attention to the bad guys.

If the actions of a fringe minority of Muslims define Islam, should the actions of the minority (pedophile Catholics or the Aryan Nation, for example) define Christianity? If a minority of Americans attack their schools or workplaces with firearms, does that make all Americans murderers?

I cannot counter a claim made with no hard evidence. It is your responsibility to provide proof for your claim.

The president wants to have his cake and eat it too, first he said that they have the right to build, then he says…that should not be used to construe the wisdom of building it. (paraphrase)

No Bee, I don’t have a link, I heard in on the News Hour…take it up with them.

…………………………….

I have not seen anybody in this thread blame an entire religion with anything, but I have however seen someone blame \"everyone\" that opposes this thing a bigot.

Spidey wrote:The president wants to have his cake and eat it too, first he said that they have the right to build, then he says…that should not be used to construe the wisdom of building it. (paraphrase)

No Bee, I don’t have a link, I heard in on the News Hour…take it up with them.

I don't think that's a "have cake and eat it too" situation. He merely commented on the constitutionality and legal issues of the scenario.

Right, and then after getting a great deal of flak, he placed his finger in the wind…and “clarified” his position.

Spidey wrote:Right, and then after getting a great deal of flak, he placed his finger in the wind…and “clarified” his position.

That's how politics works.

Spidey wrote:The president wants to have his cake and eat it too, first he said that they have the right to build, then he says…that should not be used to construe the wisdom of building it. (paraphrase)

Not denying that he may be playing politics. But I'm with null0010 on THIS one.

There are MANY things that it is legal to do, but not wise.

It's not against the law to be stupid.

Be “with” whoever you want Kilarin, my comment had nothing to do with the factuality of his statements…

null0010 wrote:Outrage against 'ground zero mosque' manufactured by fringe right-wing blogger

Hell don't you know it's always Bushes fault. As left as you are you should know that by now.

Spidey wrote:my comment had nothing to do with the factuality of his statements…

Then your objection is that he added the "wisdom" comment only after he realized there was a lot of outrage?
Yeah, I think he's playing politics too. They all do. It's sad.

News Flash…

American Stupidity Traced Back to First Hollywood Movie.

.......................

Kilarin... Correct.

Heretic wrote:

null0010 wrote:Outrage against 'ground zero mosque' manufactured by fringe right-wing blogger

Hell don't you know it's always Bushes fault. As left as you are you should know that by now.

null0010 wrote:If the actions of a fringe minority of Muslims define Islam, should the actions of the minority (pedophile Catholics or the Aryan Nation, for example) define Christianity? If a minority of Americans attack their schools or workplaces with firearms, does that make all Americans murderers?

I cannot counter a claim made with no hard evidence. It is your responsibility to provide proof for your claim.

All Americans are not murderers based on the actions of some just as all Muslims are not murderous based on the actions of some.

Too bad for you I never made the accusation that all Muslims are murderers or you might have a point...
I said that Islam has the highest percentage of murderous radicals compared to any other religious group today.

I'm not going to bother trying to re-broadcast the news reports of the last few decades and tally the numerous hijackings and beheadings and hostage takings and car bombings and suicide bombings and stoning of Islamic women charged with promiscuity or count all the bodies from decades of honor killings. I won't bother to tally the state sponsored terrorism from Iran alone that is responsible for sanctioned executions of the enemies of Allah on just about every continent on the planet as well as the formation of Hezbollah and Hamas sustaining the Palestinians as proxy warriors in their jihad against Israel.

Yes I know Eric Rudolph set off bombs that killed two people and a handful of abortion clinic doctors have been killed in the same time period. I don't recall any mayors or governors or presidents of Christian nations condoning those event though nor is their any law in a country run by Christians that legalizes the murders unlike Islamic countries....

I'll just know that anyone over 12 years old who has been paying even minor attention to world events will remember enough of those events...and the memory of how many times those events have been repeated over the years....to know they outnumber the events of that kind perpetrated by Christians.

I also contend that water is wet and refuse to prove that as well.

Show me a compilation of statistics, a smattering of news reports, a picture you drew in MSPaint...

or do you not have any evidence whatsoever to back your claim? I think you know that you can't prove it, and that any evidence you advance can easily be countered. Otherwise, you'd be waving your irrefutable evidence in my face.

null0010 wrote:Show me a compilation of statistics, a smattering of news reports, a picture you drew in MSPaint...

or do you not have any evidence whatsoever to back your claim? I think you know that you can't prove it, and that any evidence you advance can easily be countered. Otherwise, you'd be waving your irrefutable evidence in my face.

I'm laughing at you. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last two decades you are just being completely ridiculous. I'll take my chances that most people reading this haven't been under that rock with you.

.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:Show me a compilation of statistics, a smattering of news reports, a picture you drew in MSPaint...

or do you not have any evidence whatsoever to back your claim? I think you know that you can't prove it, and that any evidence you advance can easily be countered. Otherwise, you'd be waving your irrefutable evidence in my face.

I'm laughing at you. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last two decades you are just being completely ridiculous. I'll take my chances that most people reading this haven't been under that rock with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectariani ... w#Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_War_%281838%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... ira_Gandhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_C ... _Activists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covena ... f_the_Lord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_burning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Volunteers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... f_Nagaland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_L ... of_Tripura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedomites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lambs_of_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Emunim_Underground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_th ... s_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League

I could go on...


In other news, there already exists a mosque very close to ground zero. In fact, it is only 686 feet farther away from ground zero than the Cordoba Center will be.

null0010 wrote:In other news, there already exists a mosque very close to ground zero. In fact, it is only 686 feet farther away from ground zero than the Cordoba Center will be.

So? It already existed, thus it's proximity to the 9/11 event is purely coincidental, making it not very applicable to this matter. Perhaps they would like the proposed facility to supplement that. Perhaps that one is already being fully used and they want more space. Besides, it's not a "Cultural Center".

In a city like New York, you often have to get the property you can find because what you really want is probably already owned (and in use).