The Mosque

[Iggy]

I'm a bit surprised no one has brought this topic up yet....

You know the one I'm talking about...

Discuss.

[Crazycarl]

I do not give a crap who builds what church where, and I am ashamed of my countrymen for making such an issue out of it.

[squeek.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQBrTROj2w

[Etzell]

I see no issue whatsoever.

[Bridget]

As Stefan Molyneux points out, the principle seems to be that people of the same faith as those who commit a terrorist attack are suddenly guilty by association and are unable to build a community center, let alone a Mosque, near the site of said terrorist attack. If this is the true principle, then how about we bring up the building of Christian churches in Iraq? What about the settlements we support built on the grounds near the genocidal war-crimes against Palestinians?

Americans and many people world wide have been fed nothing but propaganda bullshit from the State about the culture of Muslims, the religion of Islam, and general Arab culture for that matter. These are the people who are self-righteous from taking a one-lane drive down the road of history. I do consider Islam just as coo-coo as the other mainstream religions, but I see any attempt to vilify it as some "great danger" as merely the bullshit propaganda of another religion or stupid people ignorant of history (see: Pat Condell).

[Innoc]

Find some other place to build. Those of you already pissing on those who oppose it should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Bridget]

Why do they have to find some other place to build it? Why should I have I feel ashamed of myself for believing in freedom all of the time for everyone instead of only for myself and when it benefits me like you do? You wouldn't have a problem with a church being built there. You might mind now that I bring that up in retrospect, but we all know you wouldn't. In fact, you probably wouldn't even know a church was being built there. It wouldn't have been such a big deal! It would have just been built. So, why's it such a big deal?

[FrenchToast]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/

Yes, it's a Cracked article, but it's pretty conclusive. I find it hard to argue with as if it weren't already. Innoc you're going to have to explain your ideas here.

[uBeR]

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/08/11/the-daily-show-on-the-latest-in-municipal-land-disputes/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.html

watch both

[YomMamasHouse]

We shouldn't have to accommodate the emotions of people who make association errors between fundamentalist Muslims and the kind who have been getting along with other Americans for many years before the attack.


Find some other place to build. Those of you already pissing on those who oppose it should be ashamed of yourselves.


We need a little more convincing than a simple declaration by fiat, one containing what appears to be emotion. Do you have a rationale to your statement?

[BinaryLife]

We live in America. Land of the free, home of the brave and all that jazz. I feel like you can't claim that you love this country and not support its basic ideals like freedom of religion. These people can build their Mosque anywhere they like. It isn't immoral, illegal or wrong in anyway.


I feel the need to point out that most arguments against them building are based either directly, or loosely around punishing all Muslims for the acts of a few. This is the equivalent of holding all Christians morally accountable for the crusades, or the Inquisition.

[Iggy]

Find some other place to build. Those of you already pissing on those who oppose it should be ashamed of yourselves.

But aren't you pissing on the graves of those who fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy? After all, freedoms are not limited just to those deemed worthy... they are for everyone, or no one.

[Bridget]

Innoc only believes in freedom he may enjoy.

[Innoc]

But aren't you pissing on the graves of those who fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy? After all, freedoms are not limited just to those deemed worthy... they are for everyone, or no one.
Why do people so often assume this is a freedom issue? It isn't. I am unaware of anyone who's said they don't have the freedom to build where zoning and other restrictions allow.

I also don't believe for one minute that this is the only place in that area that has real estate available for them to build their place of worship. I believe that this site gives them the ability to attention whore in close proximity to ground zero. While there may be other reasons for their siting I believe this is primary for the choice. If there is any pretense of "living in peace" then they should build elsewhere.

Also...skip the parallels and analogies. I don't believe that there is any other situation that is an adequate parallel to this one.

By the way...I did not provide any other explanation in my first post deliberately as I was certain that some would "assume" my intent was to infringe on the freedoms of another.

Freedom also allows for the ability to show respect and kindness to others as opposed to doing whatever you want wherever you want. I also find it interesting that, by and large, in a country dominated by Islam I seriously doubt that the Jews or Christians would be shown the same support by those of you who have and will attack my position.

[Iggy]

Why do people so often assume this is a freedom issue? It isn't. I am unaware of anyone who's said they don't have the freedom to build where zoning and other restrictions allow.

I also don't believe for one minute that this is the only place in that area that has real estate available for them to build their place of worship. I believe that this site gives them the ability to attention whore in close proximity to ground zero. While there may be other reasons for their siting I believe this is primary for the choice. If there is any pretense of "living in peace" then they should build elsewhere.

Also...skip the parallels and analogies. I don't believe that there is any other situation that is an adequate parallel to this one.

By the way...I did not provide any other explanation in my first post deliberately as I was certain that some would "assume" my intent was to infringe on the freedoms of another.

Freedom also allows for the ability to show respect and kindness to others as opposed to doing whatever you want wherever you want. I also find it interesting that, by and large, in a country dominated by Islam I seriously doubt that the Jews or Christians would be shown the same support by those of you who have and will attack my position.

I made no analogies... nor do I intend to. Given your past explaination of "rights", they have the "right" to build there. You(and everyone else) are entitled to your opinion. As for assumptions, it seems interesting that you in no way said that you believe they have the right to do so, even if you disagree with it. Most people whom have served/sacrificed for this country, and what it believes in, should stand up and say exactly that.

Not bringing in an analogy, but an honest question: In the Oklahoma City bombing(another terrorist act), the perpetrator(s) were Christian. Would you oppose a Christian Church/Community Center 2 blocks away from that?

As for Islamic countries showing the same support for a similar situation... that's what makes the USA better than them. We claim to be tollerant, and yet this controversy proves otherwise. Which face should others trust?

[Crazycarl]

Why do people so often assume this is a freedom issue? It isn't. I am unaware of anyone who's said they don't have the freedom to build where zoning and other restrictions allow.

No, there's no law against it, but enough people bitch about something and you'll be amazed how quickly politicians will give somebody special treatment.

I also don't believe for one minute that this is the only place in that area that has real estate available for them to build their place of worship. I believe that this site gives them the ability to attention whore in close proximity to ground zero. While there may be other reasons for their siting I believe this is primary for the choice. If there is any pretense of "living in peace" then they should build elsewhere.

Attention whore for what? Is this the kind of attention anyone would want? By the same logic, you could say don't build it in NYC at all. There are plenty of other cities where "they" could go, after all.

Why shouldn't they use the building they've chosen? Is there some kind of sensitivity radius, outside of which these protesters are perfectly fine with mosques being built?

I also find it interesting that, by and large, in a country dominated by Islam I seriously doubt that the Jews or Christians would be shown the same support by those of you who have and will attack my position.
Well those countries aren't America, are they? Let them worry about their own society and values.

[Bridget]

Why do people so often assume this is a freedom issue? It isn't. I am unaware of anyone who's said they don't have the freedom to build where zoning and other restrictions allow.

I also don't believe for one minute that this is the only place in that area that has real estate available for them to build their place of worship. I believe that this site gives them the ability to attention whore in close proximity to ground zero. While there may be other reasons for their siting I believe this is primary for the choice. If there is any pretense of "living in peace" then they should build elsewhere.

They consciously made that decision. You're correct about that. However, your reasoning is terribly wrong. They wanted to point out the fact that Muslim-Americans died during the terrorist attacks. They wanted to reaffirm their position in the community. It was a little attempt at establishing a little tolerance. Their message would have gone unheard if it weren't for their decision to build it close to ground zero. It would have just been another vague building in some vague city with an opportunity missed.

Your argument reminds me of those who say homosexuality is a choice. Who purposely chooses to lower their quality of life? Who purposely chooses to open themselves up to hugely increased chances of harm? Likewise with this scenario, what dumb fuck would build a mosque near ground zero as if they were some kid prodding a bee's nest with a stick? It makes absolutely no fucking sense why someone would do that. REALLY. THINK ABOUT IT.

Unfortunately, even after trying, the message has been missed. The second the story went in one ear and out the other of the common American, his defense mechanism started grinding to a start. He started protesting in the streets about how America, the freest country in the world, should suppress the rights of American citizens. America! Yeah! Freedom! Freedom (for me only)! Freedom of (my) religion! Freedom (to do as I say!)


Freedom also allows for the ability to show respect and kindness to others as opposed to doing whatever you want wherever you want. I also find it interesting that, by and large, in a country dominated by Islam I seriously doubt that the Jews or Christians would be shown the same support by those of you who have and will attack my position.

The funny part of that statement is how they can build the cultural center whether or not the community agrees with it. They could begin construction this instant ignoring the ranting and raving of the sheeple. They haven't chosen to do that, though. Why? They wanted the community to voice opinion (big mistake). They wanted to the community to decide the center's fate. The only disrespectful and unkind folk were the dumb fucks bawin' their fucking eyes out in the streets.

Second, what are you suggesting there? I am definitely sure of the fact that Christians and Jews probably have their attempts at establishing religious places of worship snuffed out by Muslims in Islamic countries. Are you trying to use that as justification for the behavior displayed by people like you in protest? Are you suggesting we lower our standard to their level instead of upholding one better?

Gimmie a fuckin' break.

LOL INNOC IGNORE THIS POST AND CLAIM YOU HAVE ME ON IGNORE GG
WE ALL KNOW NO ONE 'IGNORES' OTHER PEOPLE.
YOUR EGO WON'T ALLOW IT.
YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT I WRITE TO FEEL SECURE.

[Etzell]

Freedom also allows for the ability to show respect and kindness to others as opposed to doing whatever you want wherever you want. I also find it interesting that, by and large, in a country dominated by Islam I seriously doubt that the Jews or Christians would be shown the same support by those of you who have and will attack my position.
So your contention is: "Why do we have to be better than 'insert other country here'?"

[YomMamasHouse]

I think the fact that we have higher standards than Saudi Arabia and Iran is a good thing. If we only set our moral bars as low as them then we are a sad group of people indeed.

[uBeR]

It should also be noted that the building was very cheap, considering it's NYC. It was an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory, for goodness sake. (That's some "hallowed" ground for you.) Go take a look around the area. There's basically nothing there. It's not like tourists go touring around there. It's practically abandoned. In fact, the place would benefit from a community center. So why not? Oh yeah, fucking Islamophobes like Innoc.

[squeek.]

I don't think Innoc's post has been replied to enough.

[YomMamasHouse]

Well, now that you mention it.

If there is any pretense of "living in peace" then they should build elsewhere.

Nothing says living in peace like a nice GTFO.

[Bridget]

Any minute now, Innoc is going to complain about people 'attacking' him in order to ditch the conversation like he always does. I feel it.

[Innoc]

I don't think Innoc's post has been replied to enough.
I think you're right. I know I'm done with it and I'm done with the spoon feeding those who can't seem to figure out what I posted.

...that the right to assemble and the right to speak out are not mutually exclusive. The same people can't seem to process and comprehend what is meant when it's stated that I am unaware of anyone saying, "Hey infringe on the rights of ______." It's always been expressing unhappiness over the siting choice and the suggestion/desire that they build elsewhere.
Well, now that you mention it.
Nothing says living in peace like a nice GTFO.
Actually I did not mention it or think it. That's you filtering what I said to suit the conclusion you reached before I ever posted.

[Iggy]

Innoc, you crack me up. No one said you didn't have a right to your opinion...you were simply asked to explain the reasoning behind yours. So now you claim to be a victim in the thread, and are taking your ball and going home.

[YomMamasHouse]

Its kinda hard to have a productive discussion when you won't explain your reasoning. There is no point in making a statement telling us to be ashamed, saying that the mosque should be moved, then not giving any reasoning for it. It leads us to susptect that your rationale is the same as the TV pundits who share the same views.

[Innoc]

Innoc, you crack me up. No one said you didn't have a right to your opinion...you were simply asked to explain the reasoning behind yours. So now you claim to be a victim in the thread, and are taking your ball and going home.
Truth is I'm extremely busy IRL and this feels like "more of the same" that is typical for here. Crazy Carl is ashamed of his countrymen...you and ymh assume that I am trying to squash someone elses Rights or Freedoms when I've expressed no such thing nor is that my position. Why should I explain where I am coming from when it seems clear you guys have already made your decision on my "views" even though it has no relation to what I've posted? (shrug)

[Bridget]

Why should I explain where I am coming from when it seems clear you guys have already made your decision on my "views" even though it has no relation to what I've posted? (shrug)

Yeah, the last thing I want to do when people wrongfully interpret my opinion is to clarify my opinion as to avoid the misunderstanding. That would just make no sense at all. Herp to the derp.

Innoc does this on every thread. He says something vague and suspicious, then when someone calls him on it, he acts all condescending and states something like "I'm done with the spoon feeding those who can't seem to figure out what I posted." while ironically complaining he's being personally attacked.

[qwertyuiop]

Truth is I'm extremely busy IRL and this feels like "more of the same" that is typical for here. Crazy Carl is ashamed of his countrymen...you and ymh assume that I am trying to squash someone elses Rights or Freedoms when I've expressed no such thing nor is that my position. Why should I explain where I am coming from when it seems clear you guys have already made your decision on my "views" even though it has no relation to what I've posted? (shrug)

Damn you guys are good, you called it perfectly.

[Iggy]

I think you're right. I know I'm done with it and I'm done with the spoon feeding those who can't seem to figure out what I posted.

...that the right to assemble and the right to speak out are not mutually exclusive. The same people can't seem to process and comprehend what is meant when it's stated that I am unaware of anyone saying, "Hey infringe on the rights of ______." It's always been expressing unhappiness over the siting choice and the suggestion/desire that they build elsewhere.

Actually I did not mention it or think it. That's you filtering what I said to suit the conclusion you reached before I ever posted.

I could make a wall of text by quoting all of the posts on the first page, but it wasn't until after your second post that someone called you a bigot. You also never answered my "Church near the Murrow building in OK" question.

[BinaryLife]

Innoc, why not just ignore the bs part of the posts and look at the real facts that were represented. Like that it isn't a mosque. Or that it isn't at ground zero. Wouldn't those issues have a serious impact on your opinion? If not then why don't they?

We jump to the conclusion of bias and distaste of all muslims because we can't think of another reason for this community center to be opposed. So if you have one sharing that reason would shed some light on your opinion and your reasoning would it not?

[Bridget]

[CRICKETS CHIRPING]

[Crazycarl]

Scuzzy wouldnt have given up so quickly :cry:

If you think i shouldn't be ashamed of people spreading hate and prejudice in my country's name, or that i'm mistaken, prove me wrong.

[WiFiDi]

ok i think what it really rules down to is this. why are they building a mosque, Muslims built mosques over christian sacred places, to claim victory. so that being said from a christian/paranoid person, point of view this could be considered just that. (hell that may be the reason there actually making the mosque.) however i really don't think that's the case or that it should be a huge issue. now if they were building right directly on top of ground zero it would then be a legit reason to have a beef.:twisted:

[Bridget]

ok i think what it really rules down to is this. why are they building a mosque, Muslims built mosques over christian sacred places, to claim victory. so that being said from a christian/paranoid person, point of view this could be considered just that. (hell that may be the reason there actually making the mosque.) however i really don't think that's the case or that it should be a huge issue. now if they were building right directly on top of ground zero it would then be a legit reason to have a beef.:twisted:

Ignoring the point that has been made a billion fucking times already, which is that the building plans call for a cultural center open to all religious and non-religious people and NOT a Mosque like the scaremongers want you to believe, can you show me some credible sources that confirm the Muslim 'build a Mosque to claim victory and conquest' bullshit? A lot of people have been mindlessly parroting that claim every since Newt Failgrich said it, and I don't consider something coming out of the words of a bigot to hold any respect for the truth.

Here are the facts.

1. It's a cultural center. It has plans for a basketball court among many other things. It's apparently open to religious and non-religious peoples. It does favor Muslim folk, considering that's the base religious practice for the building, but it's not a Mosque. It won't be exclusively Muslim. It won't be blaring calls to prayer five times a day. It won't be towering over the street in any intimidating fashion as to instill fear. It's just a fucking cultural center. (If it were a Mosque, still, who gives a shit?)

2. It is not being on ground-zero like some many dumb-ass Americans think. It isn't even being built 'a rock throw away' like some people want you to believe. It's actually a few blocks away hidden between abandoned buildings, which lead me to my next point. Why did they choose so close to ground zero? Well, the real estate there is super fucking cheap considering many people have closed down their businesses and left since the attack. The price of the building and its construction, while well into the millions, is 'pocket change' compared to the price they would have been charged elsewhere.

3.: Whether intentional or not, the building near ground-zero allows them publicity. Their message, however, is not aggressive or negative. They have said multiple times the center is open to everyone. It was created to honor those Muslim-Americans who died in the attacks. It was created to show they're part of the community as well. The location helps them get that message out. If it, again, were built anywhere else, it would be some vague mosque in some vague city without a public message of peace. Well, it might still be on the news because contrary to popular belief, no matter where you try to build a Mosque in this country, you're assaulted and protested against by retardo bozo fuckin' hick-ass 'merikunz who only believe in freedom when it's relevant to their self-interest.

4. The community's consent on this building's construction is irrelevant to whether it actually gets built. The construction could have began the second the prospectors decided upon putting the center there, but they decided to get the community's say on the matter. This meant being subject to death threats, heavy protesting, and intolerance. The dumb-ass Americans are the only ones doing wrong in this scenario. You people need to grow up.

5. Why is it in bad taste they're building it near ground-zero? If a Christian church had went up, it would have been revealed as some total place of peace and mourning to the victims. There's already a church up that many firefighters went to during the days after the attack. This, however, is in bad taste? Is it because they're Muslim? Islamic? What's wrong with that? OH!? The people who committed the terrorist attacks were Muslim? So what? Are you equating Islam with terrorism? The religion you knew nothing about before the government began its propaganda plan? Are all Muslims terrorists now? No? So, what's the problem?

In short, the only way you see this planned construction as in bad taste is if you equate Islam with terrorism and presume every Muslim is a terrorist. End of story, good night, let me tuck you the fuck in and hit you in the face with a hammer. No more lying through your teeth. No more bullshit. Just admit you're for freedom in theory ('Well, they have the freedom, but') just not in practice ('they shouldn't build it.') where it really matters. Admit you're a bigot. Admit your intolerance. Just let it out! Maybe if you do, Innoc, like all those closeted homosexual Republicans, you'll one day come to enjoy freedom no matter who exercises it and help society progress in the right direction.

[YomMamasHouse]

Rights or Freedoms when I've expressed no such thing nor is that my position. Why should I explain where I am coming from when it seems clear you guys have already made your decision on my "views" even though it has no relation to what I've posted? (shrug)

We wouldn't have jumped to conclusion if you had explained it initially. If your arguments are not the same as the TV conservative pundits then all you have to do is explain them to us and we will not attempt to argue against points you didn't make (ok, certain individuals will, but they can't be helped). I don't even see why you would state your views in the first place if you wouldn't give your rationale, or provide it when asked.

[Bridget]

Innoc can't explain his the ultimate reasoning behind his opinion on the cultural center because that would reveal himself as the bigot he is. Why do you think he consistently dodges the conversation when the focus turns to his reasoning and opinions? Why do you think he has to constantly opt out of the conversation by calling everyone else aggressors and pretending to be a victim? It's bullshit. Why waste people's time lying through your teeth? Why waste time with the excuses? Just admit you're a bigot so we can move on.

[YomMamasHouse]

I have a legitimate interest in seeing what his reasoning is so could you at least take him on his word that he isn't rehashing O'Reilly and Hannity please.

[Bridget]

You got it backwards. I'll presume that until he provides me with a good reason to believe otherwise.

[YomMamasHouse]

Yes but if you antagonize him it will delay the process.

[BinaryLife]

Also if he was truely a biggot then why would he be so concerned with hiding it? That would be his opinion and he would state it. You aren't helping.

[Bridget]

Yeah, totally. If those republicans were true homosexuals, then why would they be so concerned with hiding it? That would be their choice, and they would state it.

[BinaryLife]

Your analogy is wrong. Homosexual is not the same as being a bigot. You are merely trying to flame your way into some sort of argument. Which is all fine and dandy. This is the internet. But it's foolish for you to pretend you have any sort of high ground. No one thinks you're "debating." That's the real reason innoc isn't responding to you, I think. Because you aren't worth it.

[Bridget]

The analogy wasn't comparing apples to oranges like you think. I'm not flaming my way into an argument. Innoc is a bigot. He has proven that point time and time again on multiple threads. It's just irritating when he runs from the arguments when he gets called out on it. I'm not debating. There's no question behind it. I just want him to man up and admit it. Oh, he's probably not responding to me because he apparently has me on 'ignore'. Ignoring people critical of you is the best way to persist in delusion.

So, Binary, continue to defend bigots. You're doing a good job.

[Etzell]

That's the real reason innoc isn't responding to you, I think. Because you aren't worth it.

This statement would be true if he'd responded to anyone asking for clarification. Regardless of Bridget being a prick about it, the simple fact is he's been asked by many people to clarify his stance, and he won't.

[GenghisTron]

Innoc can't explain his the ultimate reasoning behind his opinion on the cultural center because that would reveal himself as the bigot he is. Why do you think he consistently dodges the conversation when the focus turns to his reasoning and opinions? Why do you think he has to constantly opt out of the conversation by calling everyone else aggressors and pretending to be a victim? It's bullshit. Why waste people's time lying through your teeth? Why waste time with the excuses? Just admit you're a bigot so we can move on.

Funny, the same people who think the Second Amendment allows individuals to own army tanks, don't think that the doctrine of separation of church and state, and the abolition of religious intolerance applies to the mosque debate. Similarly, they also don't think that our status as a Constitutional Republic (ie, equal treatment under the law) allows for gays to be treated equally.

Cherry picking is fun.

[GenghisTron]

Also, you guys may be overlooking the fact that while his views are certainly bigoted, he might not even realize it because he's simply getting his views from other sources. In other words, his conclusions on issues are not arrived at based on his own introspection and philosophizing. It could be from watching/listening to the media, like FOX and it's proxy organizations, or it could be because his views are the only views he's socially allowed to keep. Perhaps if he started accepting gay marriage as the only logical conclusion, he'd be ostracized socially for doing so.

[Bridget]

We'll all be in the nursing home by the time Innoc explains himself.

[Iggy]

Funny, the same people who think the Second Amendment allows individuals to own army tanks, don't think that the doctrine of separation of church and state, and the abolition of religious intolerance applies to the mosque debate. Similarly, they also don't think that our status as a Constitutional Republic (ie, equal treatment under the law) allows for gays to be treated equally.

Cherry picking is fun.

I really don't see a problem with owning an army tank, so long as the firing mechs are removed. I mean, how would you apply for a "right to carry" for something like that? Yes, the vehicle itself could do major damage, but which ones couldn't?

[Bridget]

You don't even need the firing mechanisms removed. If you're capable of owning a tank, I should be capable of owning anti-tank weaponry.

[GenghisTron]

My point was broader than the specifics of the tank, jackasses.

[Bridget]

Take your attitude back to Taco Bell, GT.

[GenghisTron]

Bake me a muffin, faggot.

[Bridget]

My point was broader than the specifics of the food, jackass.

[GenghisTron]

nice avatar lol fag

[Bridget]

Oh, I see. You mad 'cause I'm vimmin' on you?

[Innoc]

Yes but if you antagonize him it will delay the process.
Don't worry. Bridget made it to my ignore list a couple of weeks ago.

The reason I haven't responded as I have in fact been very busy. Two major code projects approaching a developed state and lots of activity in my personal life.

Frankly I just realize that it's pointless to try to "discuss" anything here as few really read what I post any way and they quickly superimpose their immutable views about me or "my kind". The very same intolerance they claim to oppose is exhibited when any opportunity for dialogue occurs.

As implied before my view is that there was colossal tragedy that occurred close to this location. I would like to see the mosque built elsewhere out of respect and sensitivity for those that lost their dearest blood at the hands of the radical fringe of Islam. That's it. It seems to me that some of you really don't get the ability to agree to disagree without vitriol, insults or condescension.

Look...you see nothing wrong with them building it there. Fine. It's simply a difference in how we view and weigh things. And that's ok too.

[Etzell]

Innoc: I legitimately ask why you're letting the radical fringe define the entirety. You can claim that you're not, but you are. What of the American Muslims that died?

[GenghisTron]

Innoc: I legitimately ask why you're letting the radical fringe define the entirety. You can claim that you're not, but you are. What of the American Muslims that died?

He's a victim, duh!

[WiFiDi]

Also, you guys may be overlooking the fact that while his views are certainly bigoted, he might not even realize it because he's simply getting his views from other sources. In other words, his conclusions on issues are not arrived at based on his own introspection and philosophizing. It could be from watching/listening to the media, like FOX and it's proxy organizations, or it could be because his views are the only views he's socially allowed to keep. Perhaps if he started accepting gay marriage as the only logical conclusion, he'd be ostracized socially for doing so.

interesting view also note that all the other news stations are loaded with liberal bias so the guy that owns fox decided to make his station biased conservatively. its a genius plan and actually got more views than the other news stations. (and the more views the more money to fund his giant mansions that he has in Australia yea that's right hes an Aussie.) so my question for you is this while the guy that owns fox is sitting pretty out there in Australia, do you watch fox news or do you just watch the liberal biased stations. (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS etc...)

[Bridget]

Innoc supports Israeli settlements built by plain-as-day aggressors on land where Palestinians have been purged either through expelling them to the remaining few Palestinian territories or killing them off in genocidal fashion. On the other hand, when a few moderate Muslims who have committed no crime wish to build a cultural center in New York City to better establish tolerance within the community, step back, because Innoc's going to work saving America and the rest of the world from injustice.

[WiFiDi]

Ignoring the point that has been made a billion fucking times already, which is that the building plans call for a cultural center open to all religious and non-religious people and NOT a Mosque like the scaremongers want you to believe, can you show me some credible sources that confirm the Muslim 'build a Mosque to claim victory and conquest' bullshit? A lot of people have been mindlessly parroting that claim every since Newt Failgrich said it, and I don't consider something coming out of the words of a bigot to hold any respect for the truth.

Here are the facts.

ok first off newt failgrich (doubt that's his name) i don't know who this man is. so when i get around to reading who he is ill get back to you. also have you read a lot his work or just labeled him as a bigot because it was convenient.

also it states it in the Qur'an. read it look it up see what you think.

"I don't consider something coming out of the words of a bigot to hold any respect for the truth."

this is something your gonna come to regret later just you wait. and note bad grammer.

1. It's a cultural center. It has plans for a basketball court among many other things. It's apparently open to religious and non-religious peoples. It does favor Muslim folk, considering that's the base religious practice for the building, but it's not a Mosque. It won't be exclusively Muslim. It won't be blaring calls to prayer five times a day. It won't be towering over the street in any intimidating fashion as to instill fear. It's just a fucking cultural center. (If it were a Mosque, still, who gives a shit?)

ok so its a Muslim building near a place where a Muslim lead terrorist attack was need i say more. sure its a place for Muslims to expand there religion im sure, before it was a mosque now its just a harmless rec center. personally i don't really mind it has a building but the statement it makes symbolically. is whats in question.

2. It is not being on ground-zero like some many dumb-ass Americans think. It isn't even being built 'a rock throw away' like some people want you to believe. It's actually a few blocks away hidden between abandoned buildings, which lead me to my next point. Why did they choose so close to ground zero? Well, the real estate there is super fucking cheap considering many people have closed down their businesses and left since the attack. The price of the building and its construction, while well into the millions, is 'pocket change' compared to the price they would have been charged elsewhere.

its actually just a block. don't flatter yourself. and real-estate isn't cheap in Manhattan. so i doubt that right next to ground zero is cheap either. show me the price and i might be convinced. i still doubt that they put it there because it was cheap, there are many other locations other than ground zero to put it that were cheap if not cheaper (and less offensive.). also you seem to just believe everything you are told without reading between the lines. just because they say its for everybody blah blah blah its a rec center. i don't really by all that why because that'd be taking them at face value. one i hardly ever believe anything said at face value in terms of news, government, even the pope. its all politics and frankly it shouldn't be taken at face value.

3.: Whether intentional or not, the building near ground-zero allows them publicity. Their message, however, is not aggressive or negative. They have said multiple times the center is open to everyone. It was created to honor those Muslim-Americans who died in the attacks. It was created to show they're part of the community as well. The location helps them get that message out. If it, again, were built anywhere else, it would be some vague mosque in some vague city without a public message of peace. Well, it might still be on the news because contrary to popular belief, no matter where you try to build a Mosque in this country, you're assaulted and protested against by retardo bozo fuckin' hick-ass 'merikunz who only believe in freedom when it's relevant to their self-interest.

ah more propaganda. ok first off yea it does gain them publicity it also fuels the war against the usa and gives radicals something to fight for. Muslims hate Christians how do i know this because the qur'an states that being christian is punishable by death. so basically they says it not violent but wait we have this fact. (so in there view they should kill me non violent my ass.)

also try reading some stuff in there qur'an there also allowed to lie in the benefit of there religion. so basically they could be lying to us this whole time and we would be taken for fools. though that's just theoretically.

third of all whether i like it or not its legal and they have the right to build it. and i believe in freedom. and because of this they have right to build it there good for them. (whether i like it or not.)

4. The community's consent on this building's construction is irrelevant to whether it actually gets built. The construction could have began the second the prospectors decided upon putting the center there, but they decided to get the community's say on the matter. This meant being subject to death threats, heavy protesting, and intolerance. The dumb-ass Americans are the only ones doing wrong in this scenario. You people need to grow up.

i think its because there offended, they think that the Muslims are disgracing America, and what happened on 9/11 was caused by radical Muslims. so them building a "rec center" there would be inappropriate as it will offend alot of people. its not about whether there all terrorists or not. its simple that it is offending people. there's other locations they could build it that's all innoc was saying. you just assumed he thought they were all terrorists. they have right to feel offended. whether you understand it or not is up to you.

the death threats really that's over board you have the right to protest. you also have the right to have your opinions about someone. but your not allowed to make death threats i can agree with you there. idiots...

5. Why is it in bad taste they're building it near ground-zero? If a Christian church had went up, it would have been revealed as some total place of peace and mourning to the victims. There's already a church up that many firefighters went to during the days after the attack. This, however, is in bad taste? Is it because they're Muslim? Islamic? What's wrong with that? OH!? The people who committed the terrorist attacks were Muslim? So what? Are you equating Islam with terrorism? The religion you knew nothing about before the government began its propaganda plan? Are all Muslims terrorists now? No? So, what's the problem?

it's offensive because, (radical) Muslims were responsible for 9/11 attacks. and they make mosque's on or near places to claim victory over there enemy. Christians do not put churches over places to claim victory they put them there to spread there word. I'm christian i should know. however if you wanna argue that they don't in fact put up to declare victory then you've got yourself a debate.

and stop with old are all Muslims are terrorists thing its getting old its all over your posts like an old broken record player. no one said that. show me where they said that.


In short, the only way you see this planned construction as in bad taste is if you equate Islam with terrorism and presume every Muslim is a terrorist. End of story, good night, let me tuck you the fuck in and hit you in the face with a hammer. No more lying through your teeth. No more bullshit. Just admit you're for freedom in theory ('Well, they have the freedom, but') just not in practice ('they shouldn't build it.') where it really matters. Admit you're a bigot. Admit your intolerance. Just let it out! Maybe if you do, Innoc, like all those closeted homosexual Republicans, you'll one day come to enjoy freedom no matter who exercises it and help society progress in the right direction.

whoa someones got there panties all tied up in a knot. "homosexual republicans" just let it all out there, you go girl show those true colors. this my friends is why you don't you don't ever bring your emotions to a debate or an argument. why because they will ruin you as im about to do right now. (enjoy the show :) )

a bit violent wouldn't you say i mean its just an opinion. "tuck you in, hit you with a hammer." i really hope you don't have kids. (especially if they are republican ;) ) are all republicans homo's really, if you believe that ya big BIGOT. (that's right i just called you that.) So why do you call us that were not all homo's. i mean absolute's are never true. so why is this magically true after all one of your main arguments is that not all Muslims are terrorists. so why are all republicans bigots? im flattered that you hate us this much really i am it only shows how much of your life you waste away on us.

so Bridget wanna know why your a bigot. for my (personal) entertainment ill give you a definition,

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

so from that you seem to hate homo's, republicans, and other bigots. so your also a hypocrite. and ill end with this. that's all folks, *loony toons closing scene.*

[Bridget]

ok first off newt failgrich (doubt that's his name) i don't know who this man is. so when i get around to reading who he is ill get back to you. also have you read a lot his work or just labeled him as a bigot because it was convenient.

also it states it in the Qur'an. read it look it up see what you think.

You made the claim, therefore you provide the evidence.

"I don't consider something coming out of the words of a bigot to hold any respect for the truth."

this is something your gonna come to regret later just you wait. and note bad grammer.

It was a wrong choice of word but is otherwise grammatically correct. Try again.

ok so its a Muslim building near a place where a Muslim lead terrorist attack was need i say more. sure its a place for Muslims to expand there religion im sure, before it was a mosque now its just a harmless rec center. personally i don't really mind it has a building but the statement it makes symbolically. is whats in question.

Yeah, I definitely am suspicious when someone says they want to reaffirm their position in the community, reveal that Muslim-Americans died in the September 11 attacks too, and are opening up a tolerant recreational center open to mostly Muslims, but anyone else who wishes to take part in it. Yeah, I am so suspicious of that. What are they going to do with those basketballs? Fill them up with shrapnel and drop them from the second story window? Look out! That guy's got a water-bottle. It could be a bomb in disguise. God, give me a fucking break.

its actually just a block. don't flatter yourself. and real-estate isn't cheap in Manhattan. so i doubt that right next to ground zero is cheap either. show me the price and i might be convinced. i still doubt that they put it there because it was cheap, there are many other locations other than ground zero to put it that were cheap if not cheaper (and less offensive.). also you seem to just believe everything you are told without reading between the lines. just because they say its for everybody blah blah blah its a rec center. i don't really by all that why because that'd be taking them at face value. one i hardly ever believe anything said at face value in terms of news, government, even the pope. its all politics and frankly it shouldn't be taken at face value.

http://i.imgur.com/gdbBu.png

The real-estate there is comparatively cheaper than the rest of Manhatten. Many businesses have abandoned the area due to structural damage and the vibe of being so close to ground-zero. So, the real-estate is cheap. Should they move elsewhere? No, why the fuck should they? They are causing no problem. The people up in arms are the ones causing a problem. It's backwards as fuck. Also, do you have the audacity to claim I, the one arguing against the public opinion, get my opinion fed to me by news organizations? You're parroting sloganized propagandized bullshit from the news, and yet I am the one taking everything in superficially? That's fucking comedy gold right there.

ah more propaganda. ok first off yea it does gain them publicity it also fuels the war against the usa and gives radicals something to fight for. Muslims hate Christians how do i know this because the qur'an states that being christian is punishable by death. so basically they says it not violent but wait we have this fact. (so in there view they should kill me non violent my ass.)

How does it give radicals something to fight for? Are they going to increase their efforts now that we're tolerant to moderate Muslims who don't support their extremist bullshit? I swear, if we modelled societal standards around the consequences of bigots, extremists, terrorists, and nay-sayers, then society would pretty much fucking blow. If being tolerant encourages backlash, then so be it. I'll shoot them with a peacemaker and smoke a cigar in their faces like Eastwood. That's how much I care for the opinion of the wicked. Also, show me evidence of this claim about the Quran.

also try reading some stuff in there qur'an there also allowed to lie in the benefit of there religion. so basically they could be lying to us this whole time and we would be taken for fools. though that's just theoretically.

No thanks, I don't waste my time reading excessive fairy-tales. I can use your argument against you right now. How do I know you're not lying to me about them lying? See, I can try to make vague arguments about potential but highly unlikely scenarios too to ditch my obligation to the truth. It's so easy!


i think its because there offended, they think that the Muslims are disgracing America, and what happened on 9/11 was caused by radical Muslims. so them building a "rec center" there would be inappropriate as it will offend alot of people. its not about whether there all terrorists or not. its simple that it is offending people. there's other locations they could build it that's all innoc was saying. you just assumed he thought they were all terrorists. they have right to feel offended. whether you understand it or not is up to you.

If that's the problem, and it seems it is, then the wrong-doers are those being offended. If you are stupid enough to judge every Muslim and the entire religion of Isam off the actions of a mere few extremists, then you are intellectually bankrupt. That's the only reason you could be offended by this whole situation, is if you wrongfully and unfairly equate every Muslim with a terrorist and the entire religion of Islam with terrorism. You have to stop looking at offense as good-guy/bad-guy scenario. There's not always an offender when people are offended. People can delude themselves into thinking they're offended, when they haven't been. This is one case. It shouldn't offend you in the slightest, unless, of course, you're an idiot and can't think rationally.

it's offensive because, (radical) Muslims were responsible for 9/11 attacks. and they make mosque's on or near places to claim victory over there enemy. Christians do not put churches over places to claim victory they put them there to spread there word. I'm christian i should know. however if you wanna argue that they don't in fact put up to declare victory then you've got yourself a debate.

Yes, you're right. RADICAL Muslims were responsible for the attacks. So, it shouldn't be offensive when NON-RADICAL Muslims choose to build there. Also, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202335.html. Also, can you provide some source or evidence that Muslims build Mosques on conquested territory? Then, can you prove that the mere cultural center being built near ground-zero is an attempt to do just that. That would be great.

and stop with old are all Muslims are terrorists thing its getting old its all over your posts like an old broken record player. no one said that. show me where they said that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implication

a bit violent wouldn't you say i mean its just an opinion. "tuck you in, hit you with a hammer." i really hope you don't have kids. (especially if they are republican ;) ) are all republicans homo's really, if you believe that ya big BIGOT. (that's right i just called you that.) So why do you call us that were not all homo's. i mean absolute's are never true. so why is this magically true after all one of your main arguments is that not all Muslims are terrorists. so why are all republicans bigots? im flattered that you hate us this much really i am it only shows how much of your life you waste away on us.

so Bridget wanna know why your a bigot. for my (personal) entertainment ill give you a definition,



so from that you seem to hate homo's, republicans, and other bigots. so your also a hypocrite. and ill end with this. that's all folks, *loony toons closing scene.*

For starters, I'm a male. Second, I don't have kids, and your post merely encourages me not to. No, I didn't state all Republicans are homosexuals. I was starting that there has been a recent trend of Republicans or otherwise conservative politicans either coming out of the closet as a homosexual or being 'caught in the act'. Someone said that if Innoc was a bigot, he would have no problem admitting it, because that's who he was. I was pointing out how that was a poor conclusion, as those select Republicans or otherwise conservative politicans are who they are, yet do not admit it because of the social consequences.

I don't hate homosexuals. That would require me to be self-loathing to a degree. I do despise Republicans as well as Democrats. They're both Statists, the only difference is which part of your private life they want the government to regulate or control. They're far from their defining ideals. The simple act of being critical of some group of people doesn't make me a bigot. I have an otherwise legitimate reason that doesn't (only) attack their person. Hating on Muslims simply because they're Muslim or being too much of a pussy to explain the reasons why you disapprove of them suggests there is no legitimate reason, it's just motivated by personal hatred. Also, hating bigots doesn't make me a bigot. Being intolerant of racists doesn't make me a racist. Get your thoughts straight.

ONLY SCRATCHES LOL

[WiFiDi]

hmm you made some good points.

ok first off i want to say maybe later ill go debate Islam with you. right now ill pass. ;)

yea but Christians aren't allowed to lie for the benefit of there religion. so actually point and case made. no easy way out for you.

also whether you believe in those "fairy-tales" reading the bible or qur'an or any other religious text might actually expand your knowledge. keep your friends close your enemies closer. they are classic text even if fairy tales does it stop you from reading other fairy-tales. (there more historical texts.)

the sad thing about politics is that there's 2 sides and both of those sides aren't great. i agree more with republicans than i do democrats. however i don't agree with everything. conservatives say either. especially now there starting to go to far the other way.

also you explained your bigotry remarks thank-you now i dont have to label you as a bigot.

[Iggy]

Hey, WiFiDi, since Innoc won't answer my question, what's your stance?

In the Oklahoma City bombing(another terrorist act), the perpetrator(s) were Christian. Would you oppose a Christian Church/Community Center 2 blocks away from that?

[WiFiDi]

Hey, WiFiDi, since Innoc won't answer my question, what's your stance?

ah heres how i see it. Christians do not build churches do declare victory but to spread there word. so that being said it wouldn't be that controversial. however Muslims build mosques as not only a place up worship but to declare victory. so no it wouldn't be the same.

however if christian radicals blew up a mosque, then a bunch of Christians built a church over the top of it. i wouldn't support it for similar reasons as to the mosque issue.

back to the mosque issue Muslims have the legal right to build it there and they should. whether there intentions are good or bad. (i don't like it but i don't have to like it. its there right.)

[GenghisTron]

*looks at Bridgets signature*

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/9805/1281109225377.jpg

[Bridget]

ah heres how i see it. Christians do not build churches do declare victory but to spread there word. so that being said it wouldn't be that controversial. however Muslims build mosques as not only a place up worship but to declare victory. so no it wouldn't be the same.

D'AT! DOUBLE STANDARD

[Bridget]

http://i.imgur.com/bonCX.jpg

[Iggy]

ah heres how i see it. Christians do not build churches do declare victory but to spread there word. so that being said it wouldn't be that controversial. however Muslims build mosques as not only a place up worship but to declare victory. so no it wouldn't be the same.

however if christian radicals blew up a mosque, then a bunch of Christians built a church over the top of it. i wouldn't support it for similar reasons as to the mosque issue.

back to the mosque issue Muslims have the legal right to build it there and they should. whether there intentions are good or bad. (i don't like it but i don't have to like it. its there right.)

Ok. While I disagree with that opinion.... I appreciate you explaining your reasoning behind it.

While I won't argue about the reason some Muslims build Mosques, I don't believe that ALL Muslims do it for that reason. There are several incidents around the country where Muslim Mosques are under construction, AND under attack(literally) from Right-Wing Christian groups.

I don't condone any of those actions. These are Americans, excersizing their rights, and(as I see it) to deny them that right is tantimount to shitting on the Constitution that guarentees those rights. As I've said in this thread; Freedom applies to all, or none. There is no middle ground.

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter who likes it and who doesn't.

Edit:
In the past, Christians HAVE torn down and rebuilt in their image, many religious buildings. Hell, it's happened in this country.

[Etzell]

ah heres how i see it. Christians do not build churches do declare victory but to spread there word. so that being said it wouldn't be that controversial. however Muslims build mosques as not only a place up worship but to declare victory. so no it wouldn't be the same.
I strongly suggest not looking up... any of the history of Christianity if you honestly believe that. All kinds of emperors ordered temples to be destroyed and built Christian churches on their ashes.

Also do you really think that this is is an attempt to "declare victory" instead of spreading the word? What victory? What of the fact that there are 2 Mosques nearby that have to turn away people because they're too full?

[WiFiDi]

D'AT! DOUBLE STANDARD


where i really dont see one please id like to know where. also you spent that much time making a cartoon, just for me thank you. :)

I strongly suggest not looking up... any of the history of Christianity if you honestly believe that. All kinds of emperors ordered temples to be destroyed and built Christian churches on their ashes.

OK from what this sounds like, these where when national religion was a common thing. kings did this all the time. whenever religion they were became the national religion. this was a common practice among most kings. whatever religion they were was the national religion. so from what your telling me that's what it sounds like. not in victory but more because this is what they believed was best for the people. this went for all religions if they changed to Muslim they'd destroy everything not Muslim. if they changed to any other religion same thing.

Also do you really think that this is is an attempt to "declare victory" instead of spreading the word? What victory? What of the fact that there are 2 Mosques nearby that have to turn away people because they're too full?

to be honest im not sure, but there raising money from all over the world to build this thing. i don't think that its just to honor those that died in 9/11. i think there's a little more to it than that. i was just trying to explain the view of the people that oppose this.

[Etzell]

OK from what this sounds like, these where when national religion was a common thing. kings did this all the time. whenever religion they were became the national religion. this was a common practice among most kings. whatever religion they were was the national religion. so from what your telling me that's what it sounds like. not in victory but more because this is what they believed was best for the people. this went for all religions if they changed to Muslim they'd destroy everything not Muslim. if they changed to any other religion same thing.
So your argument is: "They were all doing it, it's fine." I, honestly, don't see any difference in burning down one religion's temple and replacing it with your own "for the good of the land" and "in victory". It sounds like a cheap cop-out to me.

to be honest im not sure, but there raising money from all over the world to build this thing. i don't think that its just to honor those that died in 9/11. i think there's a little more to it than that. i was just trying to explain the view of the people that oppose this.
Yeah. Money from all over the world. Including a part-owner of Fox News.
The point is this: I'm trying to explain what I think you're just starting to catch on to, though I don't know if you realize it as such yet... a huge amount of the people who oppose it do so for reasons that are not valid.

[WiFiDi]

So your argument is: "They were all doing it, it's fine." I, honestly, don't see any difference in burning down one religion's temple and replacing it with your own "for the good of the land" and "in victory". It sounds like a cheap cop-out to me.

ah yea but more of a psychologically different in the way they go about doing it. not the end result so much. that's where the difference is. and also the context. for victory could me over a holy place or area after take over. where as restructure of religion would be a much more massive scale.

the thing is the people that are so adamantly agianst it. don't have any legal ground unless they can prove there's some sinister plot behind this, and even then. so basically all they can do is protest. which is almost silly but still there right. out of desperation (and anger) they'll believe anything that will help there cause.

[GenghisTron]

I think Stewart sums up this 'controversy' well.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap?xrs=share_copy
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition?xrs=share_copy

[YomMamasHouse]

As implied before my view is that there was colossal tragedy that occurred close to this location. I would like to see the mosque built elsewhere out of respect and sensitivity for those that lost their dearest blood at the hands of the radical fringe of Islam. That's it. It seems to me that some of you really don't get the ability to agree to disagree without vitriol, insults or condescension.

I suspected that was the reasoning - I know Etzell has already poised the question, but why should they feel the urge to move their mosque because of the atrocities committed by a radical members of their religion?

There have been past threads in which you defended the large body of normal Christians when other members of this board were berating them because of the actions committed by fundamentalists churches (such as the Westborough Baptist church or the morons who are trying to teach creationist nonsense in science classes). The individual situations may vary but at their heart they are governed by the same principle - that moderate people of a certain religion are being defined by the actions of lunatics who claim to be of the same religion - and that grouping is inherently unfair.

As someone who shares the views you expressed that we cannot hold anything against the average Christian as a result of the actions of radicals, I cannot understand why you think that the construction of a mosque with no evidence of radical links in proximity to the location of the trade center displays a lack of sensitivity.

[Iggy]

Very well put, YMH.

[WiFiDi]

i wouldn't be so sure there isn't more evidence. if i recall he did blame americas policy for the september 11th attacks in an inteview with 60 minutes or somthing like this.

wait heres the interview i think this sums it up. this guy being interviewed isn't he involved in the current building of mosque.

ED BRADLEY, CBS: (Voiceover) And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America's foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

Imam ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the US government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

BRADLEY: Are--are--are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we're an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of--of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it--in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

Does this sound like the moderate cleric so many in the media have been claiming he is?

For those interested, the entire September 30, 2001, "60 Minutes" segment is available here.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/08/19/ground-zero-mosque-imams-controversial-60-minutes-interview#ixzz0yLn3M752

after reading this i don't trust him. but then i didn't trust him before.

[GenghisTron]

You don't trust him because he's telling the truth?

Bin Laden himself came out and said that 9/11 was a retaliation for America's support of Israel in some conflict where Israel destroyed two towers. If you knew anything about America's foreign policy over the past 50 years, you'd agree with Rauf, the hate we receive around the world is mostly deserved. It doesn't help that we're best friends with Israel, which the entire Muslim world hates. Stop watching FOX news and reading 'newsbusters', a well-known proxy of FOX news.

[Bridget]

Everything immediately makes sense when you learn about Israel's history and actions in the middle east.

[Iggy]

The whole Israeli/Palestinian debate is for another thread.

[YomMamasHouse]

The usual error of causality vs culpability is made. He is entirely correct in saying that the USA's foreign policy is a driving cause behind the attacks against them. There are a lot of countries that radical Islam dislikes because of inherent conflicts in philosophy, but the USA is the primary target because of their actions in the Middle East.

Morally responsible? Not that I could say - but absolutely a causal factor.

[Etzell]

YMH, there's also piece of history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA-Osama_bin_Laden_controversy) that especially sucks. Doesn't mean we knew it was going to happen or deserved it or anything... just really sucks.

[GenghisTron]

Wait, you mean they don't hate us because we wear blue jeans? Lies.

[GenghisTron]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gingrich_make_ground_zero_a_national_battlefield_t .php?ref=fpblg

Flying spaghetti monster help us if this clown runs for President in 2012...

[stray kitten]

The usual error of causality vs culpability is made. He is entirely correct in saying that the USA's foreign policy is a driving cause behind the attacks against them. There are a lot of countries that radical Islam dislikes because of inherent conflicts in philosophy, but the USA is the primary target because of their actions in the Middle East.

Morally responsible? Not that I could say - but absolutely a causal factor.

You are confusing radical grossely extreme religious right wing islamic ideology with rationality.

[YomMamasHouse]

What? Elaborate.


YMH, there's also piece of history that especially sucks. Doesn't mean we knew it was going to happen or deserved it or anything... just really sucks.

Definitely something that needs brining up. Trying to install puppet governments didn't work in Vietnam, and I think there are dubious odds of it working in the Middle East. After seeing the picture of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam and hearing of the arming of rebels in that area I cannot accept claims that terrorist groups simply hate the US for their freedom (though that is still a factor).

[stray kitten]

The people who attacked the towers on 911 would have attacked and killed anyone with equal pleasure. A mall in London, a restaurant in spain, a subway station in Germany, some kids in Isreal, a family in India, their own brothers in Yemen, some women in the Sudan, a village in Moraco. Doesn't matter. And most Militias in Iraq are out for themselves taking advantage of the "opportunity". Like cartels in Mexico. But don't get me wrong, we FUCKED up going to Iraq.

[YomMamasHouse]

So you would contend that the choice of the trade center as a target had nothing to do with foreign policy?

[stray kitten]

No. If that is the case it's against the whole world not just us. It's more because we aren't their version of holy.

[YomMamasHouse]

My point was that the radical Islamic groups do hate the western world for the liberal, secular foundations of its society since that is something their religion condemns - but the violence they have committed against the US was very much result of anger primarily caused by US foreign policy in addition to the usual.

[stray kitten]

About the only foreign policy they had us on at the time would be Isreal, (UN policy if anything we keep their ass in check) our support of saudi arabia (at the request and expense of the kingdom) what else? Afgansitan support during Russion takeover? Maybe a personal vendetta for a nut job. Iran? Like they care what we think.

I honestly think that if we had the foreign policy of the swiss it wouln't have matter. They are just fucking crazy.

[Bridget]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[GenghisTron]

About the only foreign policy they had us on at the time would be Isreal

oh right, thats just a relatively minor thing

[stray kitten]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Reality is a hard pill to swallow

oh right, thats just a relatively minor thing

Like I said thats a UN position. And I do believe we keep them in check more than any other outside influence. But we've all had the Isreal discussion before.

[Innoc]

The people who attacked the towers on 911 would have attacked and killed anyone with equal pleasure. A mall in London, a restaurant in spain, a subway station in Germany, some kids in Isreal, a family in India, their own brothers in Yemen, some women in the Sudan, a village in Moraco. Doesn't matter. And most Militias in Iraq are out for themselves taking advantage of the "opportunity". Like cartels in Mexico. But don't get me wrong, we FUCKED up going to Iraq.
Or a disco in Indonesia...Country of India...or villages in the Phillipines...Or in various Russian villages.

Fact is there are plenty of examples of Islamic radical violence that has nothing to do with US Foreign Policy.

[GenghisTron]

Fact is there are plenty of examples of Islamic radical violence that has nothing to do with US Foreign Policy.

Right, extremists will always be extremists, but are you not understanding the correlation between our actions in the broader world, and the consequences (on our home soil, a la 9/11) of supporting the mortal enemy of these extremists? The entire Muslim world went toe to toe with Israel a couple decades ago, and lost. Obviously, on that front alone, supporting Israel is a very, very, very poor decision, many of these Muslim extremists live in a 13th century Machiavellian world, so naturally... we support Israel?

The incoherence is stupefying. Actions have consequences. Sure, muslims terrorize people from all over the place, and not just the US, but this is hardly evidence to the fact that America was just sitting there with it's hands folded and those big and bad evil Muslims attacked us because we wear blue jeans!

I also have a feeling that the Mujihadeen didn't like the fact that they were used as a tool by the CIA/US Government to fight the Soviets, and were quickly discarded once they served their purpose. Nor do I think that Iran appreciates us assassinating their democratically-elected leaders, installing a pro-US dictator, all to serve oil interests (Modern-day BP), who were fucking over the Iranian people.

Nope, they hate us because we wear blue jeans.

[GenghisTron]

Like I said thats a UN position. And I do believe we keep them in check more than any other outside influence.

Yea, we keep them 'in check' by teaching them to make nuclear weapons (secretly of course, the UN doesn't acknowledge the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons program, we all know who runs the operation behind the scenes), then, we ALSO sell Iran components to make nuclear weapons, but 30 years later, all of a sudden it becomes a HUGE SURPRISE that Iran is making nuclear weapons. So, the US allows Israel to secretly make nuclear weapons, selling them the technology, but we sell the same technology to Iran, and get mad when they attempt to use it. Apparently keeping them 'in check' is a perverse way of saying 'double standard'.

Also, bringing up the UN in a discussion about foreign policy is nothing more than a joke. The UN is the least competent organization in the world, it has virtually no resources, and is little more than a PR stunt on a global scale. Perhaps the only part of the UN which has any weight to toss around, is the Security Council, which, playing into the general theme here, the US basically has supreme control over. Which makes the existence of the UN kind of redundant.

[Innoc]

Right, extremists will always be extremists, but are you not understanding the correlation between our actions in the broader world, and the consequences (on our home soil, a la 9/11) of supporting the mortal enemy of these extremists? The entire Muslim world went toe to toe with Israel a couple decades ago, and lost. Obviously, on that front alone, supporting Israel is a very, very, very poor decision, many of these Muslim extremists live in a 13th century Machiavellian world, so naturally... we support Israel?

The incoherence is stupefying. Actions have consequences. Sure, muslims terrorize people from all over the place, and not just the US, but this is hardly evidence to the fact that America was just sitting there with it's hands folded and those big and bad evil Muslims attacked us because we wear blue jeans!

I also have a feeling that the Mujihadeen didn't like the fact that they were used as a tool by the CIA/US Government to fight the Soviets, and were quickly discarded once they served their purpose. Nor do I think that Iran appreciates us assassinating their democratically-elected leaders, installing a pro-US dictator, all to serve oil interests (Modern-day BP), who were fucking over the Iranian people.

Nope, they hate us because we wear blue jeans.
"The incoherence is stupefying"

Please clarify who you are directing that comment to.

[Bridget]

In before victim

[GenghisTron]

"The incoherence is stupefying"

Please clarify who you are directing that comment to.

I'm just speaking to the universe. People who think that supporting Israel is a good idea is what stupefies me. What do you think will happen when you become best buddies with Israel, the mortal enemy of Muslims? As I pointed out, the entire Muslim world went toe-to-toe with Israel a couple decades ago, and lost. Do you reallllllllllllllly think it's a good idea for us to sit there and become Israel's pimp daddy after an event like that? If you actually LOOK at what the Taliban says, and not what TV anchors tell you they say, you'd find the motivations behind their hate pretty clear. They want us to stop supporting Israel.

It's funny how you (wrongly) try and claim that I straw manned you in the immigration thread, and now, here you are, straw manning me. I already know you disagree with my previous post in this thread, so I'm surprised you brought up that sentence, and not the rest of my post. Whereas, in the other thread, I didn't bring up the rest of your post because I agreed with it. The standard is double.

[Innoc]

I'm just speaking to the universe. People who think that supporting Israel is a good idea is what stupefies me. What do you think will happen when you become best buddies with Israel, the mortal enemy of Muslims? As I pointed out, the entire Muslim world went toe-to-toe with Israel a couple decades ago, and lost. Do you reallllllllllllllly think it's a good idea for us to sit there and become Israel's pimp daddy after an event like that? If you actually LOOK at what the Taliban says, and not what TV anchors tell you they say, you'd find the motivations behind their hate pretty clear. They want us to stop supporting Israel.

It's funny how you (wrongly) try and claim that I straw manned you in the immigration thread, and now, here you are, straw manning me. I already know you disagree with my previous post in this thread, so I'm surprised you brought up that sentence, and not the rest of my post. Whereas, in the other thread, I didn't bring up the rest of your post because I agreed with it. The standard is double.I straw manned you here? I don't think you understand the concept. I merely asked for clarification as to whom you were addressing. Frankly I'd rather see you discuss things with people who actually read this board and post here than launch into some tirade against people who aren't here and will never respond to said tirade. Ironically it would appear that you've propped up another straw man as a target for your railing.

[Etzell]

Uh oh... Now what? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html?_r=1&hp)

[Bridget]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUH3JQjcweM

[WiFiDi]

I straw manned you here? I don't think you understand the concept. I merely asked for clarification as to whom you were addressing. Frankly I'd rather see you discuss things with people who actually read this board and post here than launch into some tirade against people who aren't here and will never respond to said tirade. Ironically it would appear that you've propped up another straw man as a target for your railing.

ah the truth so true. however, why do Muslims hate Israel lets see well the birth of Christianity and there are Jews there. so assuming my theory is right anyone who lets christian religions in there country they gonna hate

diplomatic reason is because we backed Israel however, if we don't support them now its just worse because then were not supporting our ally and our enemies still hate us because we supported them. its to late to change them hating us. we have to deal with the cards dealt

[Bridget]

No.

[GenghisTron]

ah the truth so true. however, why do Muslims hate Israel lets see well the birth of Christianity and there are Jews there. so assuming my theory is right anyone who lets christian religions in there country they gonna hate

diplomatic reason is because we backed Israel however, if we don't support them now its just worse because then were not supporting our ally and our enemies still hate us because we supported them. its to late to change them hating us. we have to deal with the cards dealt

http://www.memedepot.com/uploads/0/207_not_sure_if_serious.jpg

[Etzell]

Sometimes, Fox News still manages to surprise me. (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009100005) With idiocy.

[Bridget]

I'm sure the victims of 9/11 would have agreed to their deaths being used to justify intolerance.

[Etzell]

And in nice: "Here's where we found body parts" infographic style. Who doesn't want that?

[BinaryLife]

Anyone else notice that even in their graphic the building site was away from all the action? They aren't a news show. News shows have facts. Everyone in that video shouldn't be allowed to call themselves journalists.

[WiFiDi]

ah as long as a journalist is presenting facts, (which now many mainstream journalist aren't.) cbs, abc, nbc is biast one way fox biased the other. all news has pretty much become corrupt since someone decided that itd be a good idea to tell people what to think (it worked surprisingly.) instead of just presenting facts and letting someone decide. so watching fox or any other news isn't bad but make sure you know both sides of a story always. take the facts and sort them out and come up with a conclusion. people just got lazy me thinks wanted the thinking done for em.

[BinaryLife]

Not to hijack the thread, but if what I understand you saying is correct, then I agree with you.

While I hate that these networks aren't broadcasting what I would classify as real news they are clearly making lots of money and being very successful. Fox being at the top, I think. O'Reilly is also among the best and the same flaws are with his show.

If all of the American people agreed with me, then shows like his simply would not make any money. Alas.

[WiFiDi]

Not to hijack the thread, but if what I understand you saying is correct, then I agree with you.

While I hate that these networks aren't broadcasting what I would classify as real news they are clearly making lots of money and being very successful. Fox being at the top, I think. O'Reilly is also among the best and the same flaws are with his show.

If all of the American people agreed with me, then shows like his simply would not make any money. Alas.

this is true sadly i have to watch fox to get one side and watch the other stations to get the other side i don't like doing this but talk shows are taking over news. it scares me more than anything.

[Bridget]

That's like saying "I can get a rotten apple here and a rotten orange there." I prefer to shop in the fresh produce section (aka avoid mainstream news/talk shows as much as possible).

News stations are so overwhelmingly hyped up to get attention. They're always full of negative stories to keep you depressed, and any 'feel good story' is of low quality because they really didn't go out of their way looking for one. There's always a story about freedom and all that jazz, then another where your freedom is being demolished practically in your face. The anchors are all morons. The weathermen can't make an accurate prediction to save their lives. It's going to rain? No, it'll be dry. It's going to be dry? No, it's going to rain. Apparently 5 mph winds constitute a tornado warning. Oh shit, look, it's sprinkling, take cover.

Don't get started on talk shows. They're all biased, which is okay considering they're talk shows, but they're biased toward their own stupidity and misunderstandings about the world. Take The View for example. They should just rename that show to The View of Stupid Women or The View of Stupid People if you want to be a faggot and call me a sexist. They all argue so matter-of-factly about shit they clearly do not understand, especially that Hasselbeck ignoramus. S'like FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU. They're all Statists, really. They argue for the State, and attempt to sound smart, but anyone with a brain realizes they're still arguing within a context of a State, so their arguments become nil, null, zero, 0, false, undefined, etc.

The news is controlled anyway. So, it doesn't matter where you go. There's an illusion of choice because news channel #1 has a different point than news channel #2, but you would be ignorant to presume that because you've found something that is different from what is obviously false, that it's suddenly true. It could just be they're both wrong (it is) and you have to look elsewhere and/or draw your own conclusions.

[Iggy]

"The View" went seriously downhill when Merideth Vierra left. She had good timing, IMHO.

[stray kitten]

Both sides seem obsessed with bodies? Republicans and Democrats are secret death cults. :)

All the body/parts counting stopped being plastered on every media outlet after Obama was elected. Now the republicans are mapping body parts on their little fox news network to get their point across. Did anyoine else think, that's a lot of fucking body parts? Holy shit. Now I want a burger.

[stray kitten]

Yea, we keep them 'in check' by teaching them to make nuclear weapons (secretly of course, the UN doesn't acknowledge the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons program, we all know who runs the operation behind the scenes), then, we ALSO sell Iran components to make nuclear weapons, but 30 years later, all of a sudden it becomes a HUGE SURPRISE that Iran is making nuclear weapons. So, the US allows Israel to secretly make nuclear weapons, selling them the technology, but we sell the same technology to Iran, and get mad when they attempt to use it. Apparently keeping them 'in check' is a perverse way of saying 'double standard'.

Also, bringing up the UN in a discussion about foreign policy is nothing more than a joke. The UN is the least competent organization in the world, it has virtually no resources, and is little more than a PR stunt on a global scale. Perhaps the only part of the UN which has any weight to toss around, is the Security Council, which, playing into the general theme here, the US basically has supreme control over. Which makes the existence of the UN kind of redundant.

Hate to dig up an old post since I have not been around at all recently but...

If we had supreme control over the security council our foreign policy status would actually fit what you believe it is. And if we didn't keep Isreal in check they would have completely eliminated the West Bank and Gaza by now.

Are we all in agreement that Iran is making nuclear weapons now? When did this happen?

[Bridget]

Who gives a shit if Iran is developing a nuclear weapon?

[GenghisTron]

Who gives a shit if Iran is developing a nuclear weapon?

The ironing is that Iranians have strong dislike for Muslims (Something Conservatives love!) but, oh, too bad, they still have brown skin. Too bad Iran, we'll be bombing your front door in within the decade.

If we had supreme control over the security council our foreign policy status would actually fit what you believe it is.

How can you logically deny that we don't have supreme control over the security council. Do you know anything about international politics? The US undeniably controls the Security Council, and we have the second-in-command (UK) in our back pockets. This isn't some secret, it's fairly well-known.

And if we didn't keep Isreal in check they would have completely eliminated the West Bank and Gaza by now.

Right, 'we' keep 'Israel' in 'check' by sending them $3 billion a year, signing record weapons deals, allow them to have unarguably the most powerful political lobbying force int he world (AIPAC), because it's us who is keeping them in check.

Hey, I have a bridge to sell you.

Are we all in agreement that Iran is making nuclear weapons now? When did this happen?

Is national autonomy and recognition on an international something reserved for certain countries? Do you really think that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a huge issue? All it does is weaken our political influence in international politics. No one is crazy enough to try and attack the US or it's allies, a la M.A.D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction).

Allow me to let you in on a secret. A nuclear weapon is basically a way of buying your way into international politics. When you have a nuclear weapon, people will listen to you. It gives you bargaining power. This is what Iran wants. In fact, it's what all countries want.

[BinaryLife]

Iran is a country that still stones women to death for adultery.

I don't necessarily think that we have the right to decide who gets to have what weapon. However, I do think that Iran is farther behind than other countries who are after nuclear weapons.

The reason it matters is because they aren't reliable leadership. This is a country governed by a man who fixes elections and is known to be violent and hateful towards the west (that's us). We should be concerned when he is trying to put his hands on a more effective way of killing us.

[GenghisTron]

Iran is a country that still stones women to death for adultery.

I don't necessarily think that we have the right to decide who gets to have what weapon. However, I do think that Iran is farther behind than other countries who are after nuclear weapons.

The reason it matters is because they aren't reliable leadership. This is a country governed by a man who fixes elections and is known to be violent and hateful towards the west (that's us). We should be concerned when he is trying to put his hands on a more effective way of killing us.

Iran is much like the US, in that it's people are progressive and forward-thinking, but their leaders are keeping them back from achieving what they want. Iran is under the control of religious extremists, but it's peoples are largely secular and modern.

Tell me, when your Government does things you don't like, is it fair for people in other countries to hold the belief that such and such policy was the fault of all the people in your country (including you)?

If you said no, why is it fair to apply that standard to Iran?

[Iggy]

That could be said of almost every country on the planet. Which basicly says that the wrong people are in power, and no government should be trusted.

[GenghisTron]

That could be said of almost every country on the planet. Which basicly says that the wrong people are in power, and no government should be trusted.

Exactly!

;)

[BinaryLife]

Iran is much like the US, in that it's people are progressive and forward-thinking, but their leaders are keeping them back from achieving what they want. Iran is under the control of religious extremists, but it's peoples are largely secular and modern.

Tell me, when your Government does things you don't like, is it fair for people in other countries to hold the belief that such and such policy was the fault of all the people in your country (including you)?

If you said no, why is it fair to apply that standard to Iran?

Generalizing a statement doesn't make your argument fit. I don't agree with the tax policy that exists, but that doesn't mean I should be punished for my governments feelings on taxes.

However, when it comes to policies on wanting to kill innocent people for reason, or waging war with large nations because your government wants more power, then yes I absolutely think it's fair to prevent that government from attaining nuclear weapons.

Also, no one said Iran's people were at fault. Part of the problem is that Ahmadinejad cheated his election to take control. You can't cheat an election legitimately. By very definition this means that his people are not sharing his political views. It also means that they want him out of there. They are clearly not responsible for his actions. The nature of the conversation shows us that.

I just don't think it matters. The man wants to use his armies to cause hate, war and death. The source of that claim makes no difference, it's true and regardless of who thinks it it's still true. Men like that should t be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

[Iggy]

Also, no one said Iran's people were at fault. Part of the problem is that Ahmadinejad cheated his election to take control. You can't cheat an election legitimately. By very definition this means that his people are not sharing his political views. It also means that they want him out of there. They are clearly not responsible for his actions. The nature of the conversation shows us that.



The same could be said for President Bush(remember Florida?)... I've seen it happen here in MD locally. Apparently, in Maryland, it's legal for dead people to cast a vote.

[Bridget]

Iran stones people to death, and we recently killed a man via firing squad. I look past the method. It's still murder either way, so spare me the hypocrisy.

[BinaryLife]

Like I said, america doesn't really have the right to run around telling everyone what to do. Also, no one. Including america should have nuclear weapons. But no one includes Iran and my arguments are meant to point out that there is reason for the us to care about the subject. Other countries as well.

[GenghisTron]

Generalizing a statement doesn't make your argument fit. I don't agree with the tax policy that exists, but that doesn't mean I should be punished for my governments feelings on taxes.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point is that, in the international world, countries are perceived based on the actions of their leaders. For instance, Europeans largely dislike Americans because of the actions of President Bush, and they make the mistake of thinking that we are like Bush, or that we agree with him.

The same goes for places like Iran. Neo-cons are screaming bloody murder at the prospect of Iran going nuclear, but most sensible people realize that Ahmadinejad is just a glorified troll, and that they should be allowed to go nuclear. After all, we let Israel secretly develop (Who am I kidding, we blatantly gave them the info and technology) a nuclear arms program that, to this day, has not been officially recognized by the UN, but it's kind of just 'hush hush' that Israel has nuclear arms.

Going back to my earlier point, a nuclear weapon is merely an invitation to the big boy's table in international affairs. No one is insane enough to actually use the weapon. It's merely a hall pass to go to the bathroom.

However, when it comes to policies on wanting to kill innocent people for reason, or waging war with large nations because your government wants more power, then yes I absolutely think it's fair to prevent that government from attaining nuclear weapons.

The reason why Governments like Iran want more influence, is because they've been raped by Western Governments. All you need to do is look back 50 years or so, and you'll see the hand of the CIA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4kHclb74Nk

Feed your brain, and don't believe everything the media tells you.

[BinaryLife]

When I was in high school there was this kid that for some reason didn't like me very much. I think it turned out that I was annoying on the bus by singing a long with my music. But it's not important. What is important is that every chance he got he would start a fight with me. I would tell him to leave me alone, or chill or even that I was sorry for whatever it is that I did. But you know what I wouldn't do? Let him hit me. If he told me he owned a knife, and brought it to school you know what I'd do? I'd tell a teacher and get his knife taken away. Do you know why? I don't like getting stabbed. Getting stabbed hurts.


I'm clearly oversimplifying. But ultimately my message is incredibly simple. I'm not debating the US's influence on the east. Clearly, it's a spotted history. But then, go far enough back in history and you realize it was the more civilized eastern countries that almost suffocated the western expansion. The two "sides" have been involved in conflict since history began, just about. I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I think it does. I think it's truly important. What I am saying is that when a noted enemy wants a weapon to more easily kill me then I think it's best to keep them from having it.

You're saying they want nuclear weapons so that they can be more seriously considered and all that. I understand. Believe it or not, I know. I read things outside of your posts. I just came to a different conclusion. See, I think that as long as they still run their country backwards like they do they don't get a say. Is it my place to talk? Not really, no. Is it the US's also no. But since the US has more clout in international debate then they happen to get that say. Change in that manner wont really come in an instant and therefore isn't a productive area of discussion in a topic based on whether or not a country still ruled by a dictator, that treats women like crap should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

[Etzell]

Binary, your response begs the question: Should you be allowed to carry your knife to school with you? Why? Especially if you're the only kid in the school who's stabbed someone.

[BinaryLife]

Binary, your response begs the question: Should you be allowed to carry your knife to school with you? Why? Especially if you're the only kid in the school who's stabbed someone.

My answer is why I haven't gotten into that section of the discussion. Because, honestly, no I shouldn't be.

Extrapolating that; I don't believe the US should have any nuclear weapons. Or any country for that matter. I think we need to learn to feel safe from threats without needing an equal or greater threat on our side. I don't think we will as a society any time soon.

[Iggy]

It's called Mutually AssuredDestruction.

[stray kitten]

Login to change my sig... still see that haters gonna hate.