WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[civver_764]

Well Saudi Arabia are like best friends with America so I don't think they'd have much trouble.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

America might get some of it's money back.

But again, there is no one mindset with regard to America, or terrorism in SA. It would depend who exactly is behind the financing, not just whether they're from SA.

an approval would be paradoxical as long as it is illegal to establish Christian communities in Saudi Arabia, says Støre to VG.

Regardless of rights or legality, I think this is a valid reason to disapprove of a mosque being build, funded by SA.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But not a mosque in general - I see no reason why Western countries that claim to represent human rights should make those rights conditional on what other countries do. I mean, you can't say in one breath that your society is superior to that of Saudi Arabia, and in the next breath that you won't allow freedom of worship unless Saudi Arabia does it first.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But not a mosque in general - I see no reason why Western countries that claim to represent human rights should make those rights conditional on what other countries do. I mean, you can't say in one breath that your society is superior to that of Saudi Arabia, and in the next breath that you won't allow freedom of worship unless Saudi Arabia does it first.

True, but it's a valid reason to say the Saudi Arabian government can't fund one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But not a mosque in general - I see no reason why Western countries that claim to represent human rights should make those rights conditional on what other countries do. I mean, you can't say in one breath that your society is superior to that of Saudi Arabia, and in the next breath that you won't allow freedom of worship unless Saudi Arabia does it first.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying I can see the reasoning to disapprove.

In case of the new york mosque I don't see any valid reasoning behind the opposition.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

True, but it's a valid reason to say the Saudi Arabian government can't fund one.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying I can see the reasoning to disapprove.

Err, yes, I agree; didn't mean to imply otherwise, but I was speaking generally (since it is a point I have seen park51 opponents make).

In case of the new york mosque I don't see any valid reasoning behind the opposition.

I don't either, despite constant assurances that it exists.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Err, yes, I agree; didn't mean to imply otherwise, but I was speaking generally (since it is a point I have seen park51 opponents make).

Ah, I see. I misread your post, sorry about that

 

[MobBoss]

A reason to support the mosque is that it would show non-muslims actually care about the muslim's sensitivity not to be grouped with the extremists, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better ...

edit: I do have a question for those who oppose the mosque due to offensiveness.

Are you yourself offended, or are you opposed to the mosque because other people are/might be offended?

Except it was muslims that perpetrated 9/11.

I really dont understand why people dont get why it would be sensitive.

I have mentioned how I feel several times in the 4 threads on this particular subject. I have said while I think they have the right to build it, I dont think it serves them very well in light of what 9/11 did to our nation, and the viewpoint of many that the muslim community hasnt done a whole lot to confront islamic fanaticism overall.

And Rosa Parks should've just moved to the back of the bus.

Or at least flown a jet into a highrise building, eh?

Seriously, earlier a comparison to the holocaust...now this?

Wow.

 

[Tee Kay]

Oh my, this thread is really circular, huh?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's a good thing some people actually care so much about completely false perceptions of Muslims in the US that they don't want them to make the horrible mistake of rebuilding a site which already has an operating mosque. If they would only appear daily on Fox News and denounce what they have already denounced so many times before. After all, if they aren't playing an active part in the ongoing fearmongering campaign to use terrorism as an excuse to oppress and vilify members of their own religion around the world, they must support those terrorists like all those anti-Americans do.

In somewhat related news, Ashcroft's teflon coating is still holding up:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101805551.html

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to examine once again the Bush administration's aggressive response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying it will consider whether former attorney general John D. Ashcroft can be sued by a U.S. citizen who claims he was illegally detained and treated as a terrorist.

Lower courts have said that Abdullah al-Kidd can press forward with his suit that attempts to hold Ashcroft personally liable for misusing federal laws to hold him without charging that he had broken any laws.

Al-Kidd, a onetime University of Idaho football star named Lavoni T. Kidd who converted to Islam in college, was arrested at Dulles International Airport in 2003 as he was boarding a plane for Saudi Arabia, where he planned to study.

He was held for 15 nights in three states under the federal material-witness statute, which allows prosecutors to take custody of key witnesses to ensure that they testify at trial. But al-Kidd alleges that was simply a pretext for a larger plan approved by Ashcroft to sweep up Muslim men the government could not prove had any ties to terrorism.

[His attorneys say it was a "gross abuse of the government's narrow power" and part of an acknowledged administration strategy of using the material witness statute to hold suspects that officials did not have evidence to charge.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told Congress at the time that al-Kidd's apprehension was one of the bureau's "success" stories, even though al-Kidd was never charged with a crime or called as a witness.

The FBI agent also told the judge - incorrectly - that al-Kidd was leaving the country on a $5,000, one-way, first-class ticket and that it might be impossible to get him back from Saudi Arabia. Actually, al-Kidd was using a $1,700 round-trip ticket.

Al-Kidd maintains that in his more than two weeks of detainment, he was strip-searched, shackled, interrogated without a lawyer present and treated as a terrorist. He was never charged with a crime and never called to testify against al-Hussayen, who was acquitted of the most serious charges against him.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyers, who are representing al-Kidd, said they have found more than 70 Muslim men with similar complaints.

The government contends that officials such as Ashcroft are protected from such suits. They say he is entitled to absolute immunity for his official work as the government's top prosecutor. And failing that, they say, he deserves qualified immunity, which shields government officials from damages suits unless they have violated a clearly established constitutional right.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Except it was muslims that perpetrated 9/11

it was a completely different kind of Muslims, though. (Thus this isn't a "better" argument at all). If the fact that both groups are Muslim is so important, why not the fact that the hijackers were religious, or male, or foreign?

 

[warpus]

Evolution given rights?

Huh?

And again, I dont know how many times I have to repeat this for it to sink in...the protestors havent taken away anyones rights. Sigh.

It was play on "God-given rights" which I think is a humorous phrase... obviously.

They are picketing for someone to give up their rights.

 

[Masada]

it was a completely different kind of Muslims, though. (Thus this isn't a "better" argument at all). If the fact that both groups are Muslim is so important, why not the fact that the hijackers were religious, or male, or foreign?

Or had lived in America? There's an obvious link! Or drove...

 

[warpus]

Except it was muslims that perpetrated 9/11.

I really dont understand why people dont get why it would be sensitive.

It was men who perpetrated 9/11

Why are there gentlemen's clubs near ground zero? And where is the outrage?

 

[civver_764]

Or at least flown a jet into a highrise building, eh?

Imam Rauf didn't fly a jet into any building.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If only the GWB administration had known Imam Rauf was a terrorist sympathizer, I'm sure they wouldn't have used him as an official American spokeman on that very subject to Muslims in the Middle East.

 

[MobBoss]

it was a completely different kind of Muslims, though. (Thus this isn't a "better" argument at all). If the fact that both groups are Muslim is so important, why not the fact that the hijackers were religious, or male, or foreign?

I guess you missed the part where I metioned a decided lack of opposition to said different kinds of muslims by those less fanatical. Ah well.

And those that attacked us on 9/11 did so in the name of their religion, thus its pertinence. Again, why people utterly fail to recognize that, and instead try to refer to 'male, foreign, etc. etc.' reasons is just a cognizant choice to not admit that fact.

Imam Rauf didn't fly a jet into any building.

Imam Rauf wont even use the word 'terrorist' in describing world recognized terrorist groups/organizations. Not exactly what I would call 'hard' let alone confrontational on such groups.

If only the GWB administration had known Imam Rauf was a terrorist sympathizer, I'm sure they wouldn't have used him as an official American spokeman on that very subject to Muslims in the Middle East.

One doesnt need to be a terrorist sympathizer to be weak on terrorism.

Nice use of the catchwords though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Except it was muslims that perpetrated 9/11.

Except? Your statement does not except mine.

A reason to support the mosque is that it would show non-muslims actually care about the muslim's sensitivity not to be grouped with the extremists, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better ...

This is a reason to support the mosque. You might feel there are other reasons not to support the mosque, fact remains, this is a reason to support the mosque. The fact the people who committed the terrorist act were Muslims does not invalidate that.

I really dont understand why people dont get why it would be sensitive.

Sensitive. Oh people understand why it's sensitive all right. Lots of things are sensitive. In fact, I could mimic this as well by countering: I really don't understand why people don't get why it's a sensitive issue when you use radical Muslims as a yardstick towards all Muslims.

But I'm guessing that, taken out of the argument, you do understand.

I have mentioned how I feel several times in the 4 threads on this particular subject. I have said while I think they have the right to build it, I don't think it serves them very well in light of what 9/11 did to our nation, and the viewpoint of many that the Muslim community hasn't done a whole lot to confront Islamic fanaticism overall.

It sounds as if you're not offended by this mosque. So question wasn't directed at you

edit: "the viewpoint of many" ... yours as well?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I guess you missed the part where I metioned a decided lack of opposition to said different kinds of muslims by those less fanatical. Ah well.

Wait, so are you saying that the reason this shouldn't be built is because moderate Muslims aren't loud enough in their opposition to extremist Muslims? How on earth does that make sense? How much more do they need to do to satisfy some arbitrary requirement to be opposed enough to terrorism?

[qupte]And those that attacked us on 9/11 did so in the name of their religion, thus its pertinence. Again, why people utterly fail to recognize that, and instead try to refer to 'male, foreign, etc. etc.' reasons is just a cognizant choice to not admit that fact.[/quote]

It is not pertinent, as the religion the 9/11 hijackers followed is not identical to that of the builders of this community center, any more than your religion is identical to that of the LRA. I repeat, the Islam of Rauf is not the Islam of bin Laden. But I suppose I will see more "cognizant choices to not admit that fact".

 

[MobBoss]

Except? Your statement does not except mine.

A reason to support the mosque is that it would show non-muslims actually care about the muslim's sensitivity not to be grouped with the extremists, and actually make muslim/non-muslim relations a bit better ...

There are already over 100 mosques in the New York area.

How much more support do they need?

Again, if they were so sensitive about not being grouped with extrememists, I would expect them to be a bit more sensitive about how the rest of us feel about 9/11.

Remember, the mosque planners billed themselves as 'peacemaker's'....ergo, those that make peace? To me, that means being aware of your neighbors thoughts and feelings in regards to issues like this....not bulldogging ahead despite your neighbors requests otherwise...

I really don't understand why people don't get why it's a sensitive issue when you use radical Muslims as a yardstick towards all Muslims.

Except I havent. At all.

However, I have said, as a Christian, I have to deal with and be cognizent of situations when Christians are put in a bad light...i.e. the Rev. Ted issue. And there are plenty who view such hypocrisy as not being attributed to said individual, but to all christians in general, regardless of denomination or sect.

If I have to deal with it, why shouldnt muslims? Answer: they should.

But I'm guessing that, taken out of the argument, you do understand.
It sounds as if you're not offended by this mosque. So question wasn't directed at you

I am less offended by the Mosque per se and moreso that its being built under the guise of 'peacemaking'. True peacemakers wouldnt do that. Its about as genuine as all that 'there is a mosque in the Pentagon' nonsense that was debunked in these threads earlier...