The Mosque

[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]

Originally Posted by Bridget

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.

Originally Posted by Bridget

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.

Originally Posted by Bridget

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.

Originally Posted by Bridget

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.)

Originally Posted by Bridget

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...

Originally Posted by Bridget

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.

Originally Posted by Bridget

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]

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

"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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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!

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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...062202335.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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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]

Originally Posted by Iggy

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*

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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]

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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]

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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]

Originally Posted by Bridget

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.

Originally Posted by Etzell

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.

Originally Posted by Etzell

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]

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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.

Originally Posted by WiFiDi

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]

Originally Posted by Etzell

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/mo...xrs=share_copy
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...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-sh...#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.