This thread is not about the new mosque, but the one already there

[Formaldehyde]

You have never, never, NEVER shown any real proof to validate this.

Once again, I think the Republican mayor of NYC is honest and reputable until "proven" to be otherwise. You certainly haven't done so, nor has anybody else.

 

[kill fire]

If you can, please link me someone actually quoting that all muslims are terrorists. Someone sane that is, and not a member of the KKK, WBC or something similar.

Then why are Muslims being blamed for what terrorists did? And if they aren't, then how come there's any controversy at all? A mosque is a place of worship for Muslims. A mosque is not a terrorist training camp, nor a shrine to terrorists everywhere, nor is it a terrorist building of any kind. If the argument isn't all Muslims are terrorists, then why is a building of worship for Muslims not okay near a place where terrorists attacked?

 

[Tee Kay]

Then why are Muslims being blamed for what terrorists did? And if they aren't, then how come theres's any controversy at all? A mosque is a place of worship for Muslims. A mosque is not a terrorist training camp, nor a shrine to terrorists everywhere, nor is it a terrorist building of any kind. If the argument isn't all Muslims are terrorists, then why is a building of worship for Muslims not okay near a place where terrorists attacked?

Perception trumps reality.

Get used to it.

 

[MobBoss]

Once again, I think the Republican mayor of NYC is honest and reputable until "proven" to be otherwise. You certainly haven't done so, nor has anybody else.

Again, Form, you could at least try checking sources. Bloomberg is an independent, not a republican.

Bloomberg is so reputable that he has been all over the political spectrum during his career. He has been a democrat/republican and now is an independent. In other words, he is a leopard that changes his spots as it suits him.

He is also one of the most rich people in the USA.

You want to trot him out as 'honest and reputable' go ahead. To me, he is just another politician.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not someone who adopts the best policy regardless of who suggests it? All politicans should be more like that in my view.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, Form, you could at least try checking sources. Bloomberg is an independent, not a republican.

He currently is after becoming disenchanted with the Republican Party. But he certainly ran for mayor and was elected as a Republican.

You want to trot him out as 'honest and reputable' go ahead. To me, he is just another politician.

I'm merely pointing out that you can't provide "proof" that his assertion that the vast majority of the family members of 9/11 victims are not opposed to the "victory mosque", as you have falsely claimed to have done numerous times alrady. Perhaps you should at least try to check sources yourself.

 

[storical]

I'm sure you are helping a bunch of people pack as we speak

I would need a lot of help that's for sure.

 

[MobBoss]

Not someone who adopts the best policy regardless of who suggests it? All politicans should be more like that in my view.

He does it for whats best for Bloomberg. Not whats best for the people.

He currently is after becoming disenchanted with the Republican Party. But he certainly ran for mayor and was elected as a Republican.

And he was a democrat before that. But he ran for Mayor as a republican, not because of ideals, but because he knew he would win as a republican.

But thats beside the point. You simply made an assumptive error by thinking he was still a republican. He just simply isnt.

I'm merely pointing out that you can't provide "proof" that his assertion that the vast majority of the family members of 9/11 victims are not opposed to the "victory mosque",

There is nothing to prove or disprove it....its anecdotal, and as such, not proof of anything.

I just think its funny that you seem to think that the word of a lifelong rich politician, known to jump party lines for the good of his political career, is somehow inviolate.

Now thats pure comedy gold right there.

as you have falsely claimed numerous times. Perhaps you should at least try to check sources yourself.

Actually, I provided actual evidence (i.e. non-anecdotal) earlier in the real opinion of family victims that are opposed to the mosque. I give you actual comments...you offer 'the Daily Show'. Ah well.

 

[Newbunkle]

I wish I could swear em'

I didn't get this part.

And what about the ones that are on our street corners stamping on American flags, should they be honored!?????

You're confusing me with this flag thing too. How is this relevant at all? And how are these people being honoured for it?

Letting innocent people carry on with ordinary behaviour and act within their rights and the law isn't honouring them. Honouring somebody usually requires special treatment or something. Maybe you can clarify this part for me.

Do you actually have any evidence that the people behind Park51 have been stamping on flags, or are you lumping all muslims together? The latter would look kinda Islamaphobic to be honest.

If any individuals have been stamping on flags, then all that would make them is as insensitive and stupid as the Park51 protesters, who have all sorts of untrue and offensive anti-Islamic slogans on their signs. Mind you, that still wouldn't be as serious as those non-muslim Americans who committed hate crimes after 9/11 and called for the middle east to be nuked.

So we should open a mosque so they can suffer our flag in private. I think not!

Who says they'll be doing anything to your flag? Besides, its not up to you whether they open a mosque or not - ignoring for a minute that the vast majority of the building would be a community centre open to the public and containing a 9/11 memorial. Again, do you have any evidence for the flag stomping thing?

You say 1) They're being falsely associated with the attack. There's no legitimate reason for offence.

The Japs were attributed to pearl harbor. Germans are attributed to the holocaust of Jews, along many other episodes where Jews were prayed upon.

Yes, and they shouldn't have been. It was just as immoral to blame all Japanese for Pearl Harbour as it is to blame all Muslims for 9/11.

One being the First Crusade. The Belgians are attributed to genocide in the Congo, were more than 3 million blacks perished, were murdered. Does this make all Belgians into bad people, are they all monsters, no!

Now you're getting it. Of course it would be wrong to blame all Belgians, but just because entire groups have been falsely blamed for things in the past doesn't mean we have to keep doing it. By repeating that behaviour, we condone it, which would be a tragic mistake.

However they are the people blamed. Along with the Germans, and Japanese, and countless other nationalities in our past. So yes people blame the race or the religion of the perpetrators of the crime. So welcome to America, welcome to History!

Two wrongs make a right?

If you don't like it here I can certainly help you pack. If your not here, stay away!

I haven't been to the US before, but I do have a friend in Texas and I might visit sometime. I don't see what's so threatening about it. Besides, with times changing you might find the rest of your country would rather send bigots packing.

If you are away grab a history book and read, when your done, Americans blaming Muslims for 9/11 will not be all that confusing to you.

I'm not confused. Its because they falsely blame all Muslims for the acts of a tiny minority.

Remember when a group of people do something to another group, those people are blamed, even though the guilty party may be only a small percentage of the overal group. No why? Because the human race loves hate, it loves conflict. Its not right or good, or true, but its the way we are, and the way we have proved ourselves to be.

We can change that if we try hard enough.

2) Innocent muslims from the same community were also killed during 9/11.

Perhaps terorism is new to you, but they do not care if they kill there own people. Besides there are breaks in Islam. Did you ever hear about the break between Shiite, and Sunni Muslims?

I know this (which is entirely irrelevant by the way).

The point is that you can't pit 9/11 victims against the Park51 builders (or muslims in general) because those groups overlap.

The 9/11 victims shouldn't even factor into things at all, because Park51 and the people building it have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

I am not going to answer the rest, because I have better things to do with my time.

You're not going to answer it because you can't.

 

[storical]

You're not going to answer it because you can't.

Wow, I really got your attention. Don't think too much. Things will work out the way they are going to work out. Even if both of us argue until we are blue in the face.

However, I do love how I stumped you on, I wish I could swear em' LOL! Too funny, that's better than a license to kill!

 

[Dumanios]

Why I think the hate against the 'Ground Zero Mosque' is a load of bollocks.

1: As has already been said, the 'Ground Zero Mosque', is a Community Center with a Mosque within.

2: There already is a Mosque 4 blocks away from Ground Zero. It hardly gets any attention.

3: Some of the people against the Ground Zero Mosque use stupid logic, as in "The terrorists who bombed the WTC were Muslim, the people building the mosque are muslim, therefore they must have some kind of tie to Al-Qaeda!" Which is like saying that All Germans are Nazis or All Christians have some kind of connection with the KKK.

4: There would be no controversy if it was a Synagogue or a Church or a Hindu or Shinto Temple.

5: As the Mayor of NYC has said, a person has a right to build a house of worship on property that he owns.

6: The owner of the property did not buy the land as a F*** you gesture to Americans after 9/11. It had been bought before hand and he, like the rest of the USA, had not expected 9/11 to happen.

 

[MobBoss]

Why I think the hate against the 'Ground Zero Mosque' is a load of bollocks.

Hate is too strong a word. Try 'objection'.

1: As has already been said, the 'Ground Zero Mosque', is a Community Center with a Mosque within.

Its still a mosque.

2: There already is a Mosque 4 blocks away from Ground Zero. It hardly gets any attention.

Thats because it wasnt built anytime after 9/11 and has been in that location for over 30 years.

3: Some of the people against the Ground Zero Mosque use stupid logic, as in "The terrorists who bombed the WTC were Muslim, the people building the mosque are muslim, therefore they must have some kind of tie to Al-Qaeda!" Which is like saying that All Germans are Nazis or All Christians have some kind of connection with the KKK.

The vast majority of people objecting to the mosque do not believe this or say it.

4: There would be no controversy if it was a Synagogue or a Church or a Hindu or Shinto Temple.

Thats because people of those faiths didnt cause 9/11.

5: As the Mayor of NYC has said, a person has a right to build a house of worship on property that he owns.

No one has said otherwise. No one is saying they cant build, they are being asked not to.

6: The owner of the property did not buy the land as a F*** you gesture to Americans after 9/11. It had been bought before hand and he, like the rest of the USA, had not expected 9/11 to happen.

There is no single property owner of the complex in question and in fact, there is some question as to who is really in charge, as different investors refer to the property differently.

This property also was a burlington coat factory prior to 9/11. The current investors didnt 'own' it prior to 9/11.

 

[kill fire]

Thats because it wasnt built anytime after 9/11 and has been in that location for over 30 years.

Why does that matter? A mosque is a mosque, no matter how old it is, so why is it that a new one is wrong, but an old one is okay?

The vast majority of people objecting to the mosque do not believe this or say it.

Read my previous argument:

Then why are Muslims being blamed for what terrorists did? And if they aren't, then how come there's any controversy at all? A mosque is a place of worship for Muslims. A mosque is not a terrorist training camp, nor a shrine to terrorists everywhere, nor is it a terrorist building of any kind. If the argument isn't all Muslims are terrorists, then why is a building of worship for Muslims not okay near a place where terrorists attacked?

Thats because people of those faiths didnt cause 9/11.

Okay, so because some people who were Muslims might have been behind 9/11, that means all Muslims everywhere are responsible?

 

[naterator]

Okay, so because some people who were Muslims might have been behind 9/11, that means all Muslims everywhere are responsible?

You gotta listen to both sides of the doublespeak:

They don't feel they're responsible for 9-11, they just want to hold them responsible.

They don't hate muslims, they just think muslims should walk with their heads low and their tails between their legs, so that hateful things don't happen to them.

They don's want to strip them of their freedom of religion, they just want to restrict only this one religion, They are still free to choose another religion to practice in the designated zone.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's for their on good really. If the area is attacked again, not as many Korans will burn. The Muslims, by not opposing the churches that are there are subversely putting Bibles at risk.