WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[civver_764]

As I have quoted (or rather paraphrased) before, an Egyptian muslim said "while its true that not all muslims are terrorists, its regretably true that most terrorists are muslim".

You do realize thats a true statement right? If you take the last decade and list all of the terrorist attacks from all over the world and broke them down, Islam stands ahead of all the rest by far in acts of terrorism. Do you deny this? I dont see how you can. Its like trying to deny that the Crusaders were a christian majority...

And all those terrorists are from areas of the world that suffer the worst of imperialism.

HMM...

 

[Formaldehyde]

So it is the fact that most terrorists are Muslims which is causing all this furor, even though they actually represent a miniscule percentage of Muslims?

This is the real reason why so many Americans are so bigoted and xenophobic that they wish to try to block this building being constructed in the most ethnically diverse place in the country, if not the entire world?

A city where the vast majority of those who are vehemently opposed to this redevelopment of a building already containing a mosque will never visit because they hate the notion of that liberalism and non-homogenous culture which NYC represents so well?

 

[civver_764]

I don't see why we're not allowed to empathize with terrorists either. That's silly.

 

[MobBoss]

And all those terrorists are from areas of the world that suffer the worst of imperialism.

HMM...

Really? The UK suffers from imperialism? The USA?

'Cause some of those islamic terrorists are indeed 'home-grown'.

Or didnt you know that?

So it is the fact that most terrorists are Muslims which is causing all this furor, even though they actually represent a miniscule percentage of Muslims?

There happen to be a lot of people who think that actually matters Form. Who are you to say they are wrong?
Moderator Action: Multiple posts merged. Please use the edit button.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

Realism rather. This isnt about morality.

If it isn't about morality, it's because those on the wrong side of the self-evident right will not allow it to be so.

Edit: In retrospect, the above comment was a rather empty bit of self-righteous postering. Consider it withdrawn.

 

[MobBoss]

If it isn't about morality, it's because those on the wrong side of the self-evident right will not allow it to be so.

Oh, I see....its only about morality when you say it is........got it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Realism rather. This isnt about morality.

So because life isn't fair, we shouldn't try to be either?

 

[JollyRoger]

What if someone wanted to construct a men's clothng store there. Would there be opposition because all of the terrorists were men?

 

[useless]

The holocaust happened but then... then again life isn't fair

 

[MobBoss]

The holocaust happened but then... then again life isn't fair

The implication being that the holocaust was fair?

Or are you actually comparing this situation with the holocaust?

Wow. Where the hell are you going with that one? You may want to explain it a bit more......because on its face its just beyond bizarre.

 

[Holycannoli]

What if someone wanted to construct a men's clothng store there. Would there be opposition because all of the terrorists were men?

If these men did it in the name of "men", had a history of committing terrorist acts in the name of men, planned to commit terrorist acts in the name of men in the future, and viewed the West and the US in particular as enemies who should be killed without prejudice, yes I can see opposition to the store.

Short answer: your analogy is as flawed as the "McVeigh is a christian terrorist" analogy a lot of idiots (not you, just in general) like to use.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The implication being that the holocaust was fair?

No, the implication was that it wasn't.

Having said so, the day people will stop comparing various stuff to Holocaust, the world will be a bit better.

 

[Holycannoli]

So by our conservative estimate, 0.01% of Muslims are terrorists. Does this mean that we should be offended at Muslims building a community centre near ground zero? Does this mean that we should attribute the 9/11 attacks to Islam?

I'm more offended now with the insistence of those in charge of the planned mosque to build it there even knowing that a majority of the country is against it, in the name "fostering understanding" or whatever bullplop they're spewing. They don't understand that they're making things worse. Not only do moderate muslims never speak out publicly in this country against al qaeda or terrorists, but now the only ones who supposedly are are insisting on building a mosque sensitively close to ground zero when most people don't want it there, when they can have the good sense to move it.

Yeah way to go, that'll foster understanding and peace between us.

No matter what some of you here might think, the majority of this country do not want muslims to have a monument built to their 9/11. That may not be what muslims in this country see the mosque as, but how do you think it will be seen in the middle east? To allow it to be built would be an embarassment.

 

[JollyRoger]

If these men did it in the name of "men", had a history of committing terrorist acts in the name of men, planned to commit terrorist acts in the name of men in the future, and viewed the West and the US in particular as enemies who should be killed without prejudice, yes I can see opposition to the store.

Short answer: your analogy is as flawed as the "McVeigh is a christian terrorist" analogy a lot of idiots (not you, just in general) like to use.

I'll admit it is flawed to a somewaht similar degree as the flawed way of the thinking of a lot of idiots (not you, just in general) who oppose a community center being built 4 blocks away from where at least two Muslim groups used to gather in prayer before the buildings they prayed in were destroyed.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There happen to be a lot of people who think that actually matters Form. Who are you to say they are wrong?

Someone who understands how the Constitution works, and also the difference between individual members of a group, and other individual members of that group?

 

[Traitorfish]

If these men did it in the name of "men", had a history of committing terrorist acts in the name of men, planned to commit terrorist acts in the name of men in the future, and viewed the West and the US in particular as enemies who should be killed without prejudice, yes I can see opposition to the store.

Well, given that Islamists are inevitably grossly misogynistic- Male Supremacists, if you like- that wouldn't be an inaccurate description. Just because that particular point of their program isn't at the very top of the list doesn't mean it isn't on there.

(And before anyone says "But they killed men!", they killed Muslims, too. They're clearly not picky, these guys.)

 

[BuckyRea]

Well, given that Islamists are inevitably grossly misogynistic- Male Supremacists, if you like- that wouldn't be an inaccurate description. Just because that particular point of their program isn't at the very top of the list doesn't mean it isn't on there.

(And before anyone says "But they killed men!", they killed Muslims, too. They're clearly not picky, these guys.)

You're missing the point. No one votes in a panic based on the irrational fear of men. The whole rigamarole is about cynically inducing artificial social divides for the purpose of scaring up a votes in November and negatively smearing the longstanding American tradition of tolerance and diversity.

Or, as you kids today say, "they're a bunch of haters."

 

[Traitorfish]

You're missing the point. No one votes in a panic based on the irrational fear of men. The whole rigamarole is about cynically inducing artificial social divides for the purpose of scaring up a votes in November and negatively smearing the longstanding American tradition of tolerance and diversity.

Oh, I know that- if anything, it would the obvious conclusion of my post!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Short answer: your analogy is as flawed as the "McVeigh is a christian terrorist" analogy a lot of idiots (not you, just in general) like to use.

If McVeigh wasn't actually a Christian (which is highly debatable), he was certainly a terrorist for the Christians who died at Waco.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532

An Accurate Look at Timothy McVeigh's Beliefs

By: Bruce Prescott

Several right-wing bloggers have contended inaccurately that Timothy McVeigh, convicted of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, distanced himself from Christianity, Prescott says.

Since Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily maligned me for saying there are "extremists" within the Christian faith, a number of right-wing bloggers have echoed his statements over the internet.

In addition to denying Christian extremism, Farah and his blogging buddies are distorting the record regarding the beliefs of Timothy McVeigh. They contend that McVeigh distanced himself from Christianity in an interview he gave to Time magazine in 2001.

Did he? Here's what he said:

Time: Are you religious?

McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.

Time: Do you believe in God?

McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.

All this text discloses is that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity. It also reveals that he did not want to discuss his faith further because he knew most people would find it repulsive. What was repulsive about his faith? Was he an atheist? No. Was he a secular humanist? No. What do we know about his beliefs at the time he was bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City?

There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity is a profoundly racist and theocratic form of faith that developed in the late 1970s and spread like wildfire through rural communities throughout the U.S. in the 1980s.

The chief guidebook for Christian Identity eschatology is "The Turner Diaries" written by William Pierce under the pseudonym Andrew MacDonald. The book is a fictional account of the "day of judgment" for which Identity adherents are preparing. Here's a summary of the book by Joel Dyer, author of "Harvest of Rage: Why Oklahoma City is Only the Beginning" (1997) – by far the best explanation in print for what led to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City:

In his book "The Turner Diaries," Pierce describes a race war that ends with the government being overthrown. Pierce's book is more than fiction. The most radical elements of the movement view it as a vision or blueprint for action. In the book, the Aryan forces used armored car robberies to finance their revolution. In real life, the radical white supremacist group called "the Order" used Pierce's book as a guide to their armored car robberies in the Northwest. In the book, the revolutionaries blow up a federal building as part of their antigovernment war. In real life, the bombing of Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Building was almost a carbon copy of the incident in Pierce's book. As I mentioned earlier, Timothy McVeigh had photocopies of a portion of "The Turner Diaries" with him when he was arrested. McVeigh also sold copies of the book at gun shows around the country.

Later in Dyer's book he describes the obsession McVeigh had with "The Turner Diaries":

And then there was "The Turner Diaries." Friends have said that it was McVeigh's favorite book. Some accounts have described McVeigh's appreciation for William Pierce's violent book of racist fiction as something more than literary zeal. McVeigh is said to have slept with the book under his pillow. After leaving the [military] service, McVeigh sold the book at gun shows, sometimes for less than his own cost. Fellow gun-show merchants said it was as if the contents of the book were his religion and he was looking for recruits. "The Turner Diaries" apparently changed McVeigh's life.

Some researchers deny that William Pierce is an adherent of Christian Identity faith and contend that he merely uses God-talk to appeal to his more religious readers. Pierce's personal religious beliefs are not at issue here. In my opinion, McVeigh was one of those who responded to the traces of Christian Identity beliefs that are woven into Pierce's book. This opinion is supported by Dyer's belief that McVeigh felt the need to receive advanced authorization from a secret common-law or military court:

By holding a military court, hard-core radicals can keep their violent plans a secret, while still using the idea of a court to cleanse their conscience. Based upon the movement's almost sacred need to justify its actions, we can assume that for many pipe-bomb incidents, assassinations, church burnings and acts of paper terrorism, there is a cell of at least five people involved and that there was a common-law or military court trial that took place beforehand, …

Did the cell of radicals who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City hold a military-style trial beforehand? I suspect the answer is yes. Many of my contacts within the movement have told me it's likely such a trial took place. But they deny having any firsthand knowledge of such an event.

Dyer does not mention all the evidence that exists that ties McVeigh to the Christian Identity movement. More than anyone else, Dyer provides the deepest insight into the traumatic psychological experiences that have created a void in the lives of people who find Christian Identity appealing.

In a nutshell, orthodox Christianity ignored the pain and neglected the injustices that were being inflicted on rural America by our government. Christian Identity offered those in the absolute depths of despair convenient scapegoats to blame. Then they offered them a revolutionary purpose that gives meaning to their lives and hope for the future. Unfortunately, the future they hope for has little room for people of other races or of other faiths.

Dyer's worry about the possibility of upheaval at the turn of the century is now dated, but the subtitle of his book still holds true. Oklahoma City was only the beginning of the harvest of rage. Our current "Great Recession" has recreated and compounded conditions almost identical to those that led to rage in the heartland in the mid 1990s. This time the entire country is being affected.

It's time for Dyer to do an update and revision of his outstanding book.

Or perhaps you would prefer the "idiots" at WorldNewsDaily's take on the facts despite its obvious biased agenda?

 

[MobBoss]

Someone who understands how the Constitution works, and also the difference between individual members of a group, and other individual members of that group?

I think you give someone way too much credit.

People have been merely exercising their right to free speech. How has the constitution been violated?

Answer: it hasnt.

If McVeigh wasn't actually a Christian (which is highly debatable), he was certainly a terrorist for the Christians who died at Waco.

What makes you think they were christians? Do you also believe that their leader was the reincarnation of Christ? How do you resolve that biblically?

And McVeigh didnt perform his act of terrorism because they were 'christian' as you allege, but because of his distorted (and insane) view of the government.

And fwiw, I think McVeigh, although raised a Christian, obviously gave up those beliefs during adulthood, prior to his act of terrorism.