WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[MobBoss]

Hamas in many ways is the de facto government of Gaza. Since he has condemned the terrorist activities, asking him to condemn it would be like asking someone to condemn an allied government.

So he is allied with terrorists?

Is there a single view he doesn't have to share with you for you to accept him? He has freedom of speach and has condemned Islamic terrorism.

Anyone can make generic statements. I think working against islamic terrorism is going to take a bit more than 'generic' comments.

O'Reilly has certainly "preached" hatred, as the clip of him frequently ranting about Tiller prior to his murder "proves". Yet you do nothing to condemn him, or any of the other fanatics, who share your own opinions.

I dont watch Bill O'Reilly and I certainly dont share all his opinions. But I wouldnt call him a fanatic, nor a 'preacher'. The guy simply isnt a 'terrorist' no matter how much you happen to dislike him though. Give it up.

Even so, you try to condemn Imam Rauf for merely not speaking up loudly enough about a single "terrorist" entity, even when he has made it quite clear that he does not support terrorism in any form.

Then why wont he call terrorists 'terrorists' then?

It most certainly is.

No, its not. Your opinion simply isnt correct on that, Form. Sorry.

Why do you continue to condemn one side for supposedly spreading hatred and violence, while not condemning the other which is clearly doing so?

Form, it takes more than 'your' opinion to prove 'clarity' here, especially given that your extremely biased. I mean seriously, your calling Bill O'Reilly a terrorist simply because you dont like the guy. Your the one coming off as over the edge and unreasonable here simply based upon your own emotion.

You don't remember the "bake sale for terrorists" thread, or any of the others where Bill O'Reilly's opinions regarding Tiller were discussed at length?

Not really, no. Its a single thread, out of thousands.

As to my own quotes, a bit of clarification.

I do find late term abortions and those that perform them without reason simply disgusting. Cutting up a baby that is indeed viable or on the edge thereof is terrible.

But me having that opinion simply is not and is in no way a justifcation for murder or support for such an act.

I also had other comments in that thread that you so conviently left out. Like this one in regards to the muder itself:

No one sane supports this

Why didnt you include that opinion, Form?

Or this one from that thread:

My stance is if you shoot and kill a guy in cold blood its murder. You?

Where is your honesty in pointing out my comments in that thread Form? You could have been fair about it, but no, you actually tried to mischaracterize my own stance there. Shame on you. It seems you will indeed try to stoop to such levels in order to malign someone you disagree with.

AFAIK you have yet to criticize Bill O'Relly, or anybody else, for fomenting so much hatred towards a fellow Christian who had a very honorable job as a medical doctor and was highly respected by his church members.

I dont view performing late term abortions as 'honorable'. No one should. I dont think the guy deserved to be shot over it, but you saying what he did was honorable just isnt supportable. Not by me at least.

Now, I did criticize the murderer, and I have criticized people that have actually bombed abortion clinics and those that openly support such acts. If that isnt enough for you, then you can just take your mischaracterizations of me and take a hike.

Instead, you keep trying to rationalize the opinions which spark these religious nutjobs into committing these despicable acts while trying to defend it through propaganda you apparently heard somewhere instead of the facts.

Blatent mischaracterization, and if you continue to openly lie about me on this, a mod is going to be involved. In fact, I showed you how pathetic your attempts here are by quoting some of my own comments from that thread you linked. Your openly lieing about me, and its high time you stop it.

Yet you still apparently won't condemn those who deliberately incite that violence through propaganda and even deliberate lies.

I have, plenty of times. However, it takes someone honest enough to actually point out the quotes.

Exactly. And I bet neither does Imam Rauf agree with you and Israel in this matter, or most of the rest of the world for that matter. Yet you apparently want him to become a pawn of Israeli/reactionary propaganda while ignoring the basic facts.

So, Hamas being a terrorist organization is merely Israeli propaganda?

Are you serious?

Indeed. That is exactly my point. You are selectively condemning what you personally think is terrorism.

No, what Hamas has done and has a historical record of doing is indeed terrorism. Its not my 'personal' opinion there, but one many governments actually agree with as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

I demand to know who that black guy is!!!

BECAUSE HE IS: AWESOME!!!

Some black freedmen served in loyalist regiments, so it's not inaccurate. This was before the Southern plantation economy took off in earnest, so there wasn't quite the same institutionalised stigma against blacks.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I dont watch Bill O'Reilly and I certainly dont share all his opinions. But I wouldnt call him a fanatic, nor a 'preacher'. The guy simply isnt a 'terrorist' no matter how much you happen to dislike him though. Give it up.

Good thing I never claimed or insinuated he was a "terrorist". Why are you again trying to attack the person instead of actually address the issues by deliberately distorting my actual views?

Most of these "facts" that Bill O'Reilly conjured up about Dr. Tiller that you seem to believe are clearly false. There is nothing "disgusting" about his great work to save women's lives whatsoever. In most cases, he was the only doctor who was willing to perform these abortions because the other doctors who could perform them were too intimitated by all the death threats by the nuts. If you think otherwise, "prove" it instead of perpetuating these clearly false statements about a truly great man who was brutally murdered by a fanatic, and who was quite likely inspired to do so by other fanatics like Bill O'Reilly.

And I certainly didn't "mischaracterize" your opinions in this matter. I quoted you. I'm not claiming that you support the killer as you falsely insinuated with these additional quotes you posted. I am claiming that you do not condemn people like O'Reilly who likely inspired this murderer, and your statements in this forum seem to reflect that.

There is really no big difference between reactionary propagandists like Bill O'Reilly and the fanatical Muslims you apparently hate so much. It is just a matter of their different POVs. They both promote hatred and intolerance by inspiring others to commit atrocities from their supposed outrage. One is just as "disgusting" as the other.

And getting back to Imam Rauf, he is clearly a moderate who hates terrorism as even GWB characterized him. To suggest otherwise is basically absurd. He is clearly not one of those who deliberately foments hate. If you can tolerate fanatics like Bill O'Reilly, you certainly should be able to tolerate much more reasonable and rational men like Imam Rauf.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Not all Americans are idiots.

But most idiots are American.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not all Americans are idiots.

But most idiots are American.

Oh, that's not true. It just seems that way because they're the loudest.

 

[Ajidica]

So he is allied with terrorists?

He has condemned the violent part. I'm no expert on the Ireland issues with the IRA, but correct me if I am wrong, there were plenty of supporters of the intent of the IRA, but disagreed vehemently with its methods.

Anyone can make generic statements. I think working against islamic terrorism is going to take a bit more than 'generic' comments.

Explicitly condemning terroristic activities and serving as Bush's Middle East peace envoy is a generic comment? Bush liked him, and this was the 'Axis of Evil' dude.

Not all Americans are idiots.

But most idiots are American.

But BBC does its hardest to prove that we are. I was watching a segment they did on Park51, and they showed one completly awsome speach. (Pronunciation maintained from original)"Thar will be Ay-rabs thar."
BBC, making Americans look like hicks since its inception.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: MobBoss, Formaldehyde:

At present, you are engaged in a You said / I said about anything and everything only vaguely related to this topic, and largely about all your previous debates.

That is not relevant. It is debating the person and not the issues. Stick to the issues.

We'll draw a bright-line under that here:
_________________________________________________________________

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MobBoss]

There is really no big difference between reactionary propagandists like Bill O'Reilly and the fanatical Muslims you apparently hate so much.

I disagee very much. Its ridiculous to even compare the two.

And getting back to Imam Rauf, he is clearly a moderate who hates terrorism as even GWB characterized him. To suggest otherwise is basically absurd. He is clearly not one of those who deliberately foments hate. If you can tolerate fanatics like Bill O'Reilly, you certainly should be able to tolerate much more reasonable and rational men like Imam Rauf.

I would find him a lot more tolerable if he would simply call groups like Hamas 'terrorists'.

 

[Newbunkle]

I would find him a lot more tolerable if he would simply call groups like Hamas 'terrorists'.

He didn't say they weren't either.

 

[MobBoss]

He didn't say they weren't either.

Was ambiguity ever effective in taking a stand?

 

[Ajidica]

Does it matter? He has already denouced terrorism quite vehemently and was Bush's Middle East peace envoy.

Using my IRA example from above, I'm sure there were people that disagreed vehemently with the methods of the IRA, yet to some degree agreed with their cause.

 

[Xanikk999]

Ive been gone for many years but im finally back, dont know if anyone remembers me.. anyway.

The construction of this new mosque has been in the news alot recently. I only hear the news on my way to work and my way home from the radio. It seems to me that people dont have anything against muslims in general from what im hearing. Its just that the construction of a mosque on the grounds of the world trade center is insensitive, considering the terrorists who destroyed the previous building were muslims (Though of an extremist sect out of the norm).

The fact they could build there mosque anywhere else in the city but chose to build it there just shows they dont give a rats-ass about peoples feelings, they just want to antagonize them.

If they want to come out as sensitive then they should simply relocate the construction elsewhere in accordance with the majority of peoples feelings in the region.

 

[Ajidica]

There are already Muslims praying at the location of Park51 in an old Burlington Coat Factory store because the mosque nearby is overflowing. Relocating it wouldn't solve the overflow issue. Besides, Park51 is two blocks away from Ground Zero and on an oblique line of sight. You can't see it from Ground Zero unless you are really trying.
Lastly, shouldn't get more offended about the strip clubs nearby ground zero? I think a building promoting interfaith tolerance, peace, and understanding it less offensive than a building where you go to see a dancing skank undress.

 

[Haseri]

You do know it isn't at Ground Zero? It's like, 2 blocks away. At the old Burlington Coat Factory. A space that is already being used as a place for worship because the mosque four blocks away isn't big enough.

And why should all muslim suddenly be held accountable for the actions of a splinter group? This is brining the discussion around in circles, but should all Christians be held accountable for the IRA? Or Abortion Clinic Bombers?

And sensitivity? Grow up. Seriously. You really aren't impressing anyone anymore. Stop crying as a nation and man up. It's completely legal for them to build whatever the hell they want on their private property, as enshrined by your oh-so-wonderful-and-holy constitution.

X-Post.

 

[Xanikk999]

You do know it isn't at Ground Zero? It's like, 2 blocks away. At the old Burlington Coat Factory. A space that is already being used as a place for worship because the mosque four blocks away isn't big enough.

And why should all muslim suddenly be held accountable for the actions of a splinter group? This is brining the discussion around in circles, but should all Christians be held accountable for the IRA? Or Abortion Clinic Bombers?

And sensitivity? Grow up. Seriously. You really aren't impressing anyone anymore. Stop crying as a nation and man up. It's completely legal for them to build whatever the hell they want on their private property, as enshrined by your oh-so-wonderful-and-holy constitution.

X-Post.

Im not crying and i dont even care about the issue since i dont live there.

I'm just saying the majority of people in the area dont want it, so by them going forward with it they are just doing it to piss off a majority of people.

Im not arguing about the legality of it. Consider this:

How would you feel if someone built a cathedral or a big ugly church right next to your house in your neighborhood? Sure they owned the land and if zoning laws permit they can do it. But if the neighbors dont want it then whoeever is funding the building obviously doesnt care about what the surrounding people think and open themselves up to vandalism and abuse.

By doing this in New York near the world trade center site, they are opening themselves up to vandalism and abuse. Not smart in my opinion,

 

[Bill3000]

check your visitor messages in your profile, Xanikk

 

[Ajidica]

Im not crying and i dont even care about the issue since i dont live there.

I'm just saying the majority of people in the area dont want it, so by them going forward with it they are just doing it to piss off a majority of people.

The KKK pisses off a number of people, yet I believe they can still march.

Im not arguing about the legality of it. Consider this:

How would you feel if someone built a cathedral or a big ugly church right next to your house in your neighborhood? Sure they owned the land and if zoning laws permit they can do it.

They can build it. When I bought the house I would have known full well I lived next to an area that wasn't zones residential. Architecture wise, I believe it has to pass the local planning committes. The Best Buy near my house was unable to build its usual 'big blue and yellow box' because it was considered to be a public nuisance.
I would also like to point out that only a small part of Park51 is going to be a mosque and it will be run separatly from the community center itself. Park51 is no more a mosque than a Hospital with a Christian church inside of it is a church.

But if the neighbors dont want it then whoeever is funding the building obviously doesnt care about what the surrounding people think and open themselves up to vandalism and abuse.

Not yet stipulated. I don't believe the area they are building it is zoned residential so the 'neighbors' are companies who don't want to get embroiled in this. Furthermore, you have yet to prove they don't care about the neighbors.
Lastly, vandalism is vandalism. It isn't justified even though the building is offensive.

By doing this in New York near the world trade center site, they are opening themselves up to vandalism and abuse. Not smart in my opinion,

I agree, not the worlds brightest idea to build it there. But they still have the right to and I support their decision.

 

[Newbunkle]

Was ambiguity ever effective in taking a stand?

Ever heard of being diplomatic? When your line of work is building peace it doesn't help to insult one of the parties. He may very well feel that they're terrorists, but saying so to appease an angry mob short term could mean sacrificing peace efforts in the long term. While people were upset that he didn't clarify his position, you'll notice that they were the less extreme side and can probably take it. Shooting them all and letting god sort them out isn't the only way to deal with extremists. The progress made in Northern Ireland is a good example of that.

 

[Tee Kay]

The KKK pisses off a number of people, yet I believe they can still march.

Bad comparison. The people building this mosques are not violent extremists.

 

[bernie14]

Okay, I think you must clearly fail at math, because I said that 50% of those who are opposed to the mosque do so for intolerant reasons. Your poll confirms what I said, as it said that 39% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Islam, and 88% of those are against the mosque. With 71% of Americans being against the mosque that means .88*39/71 = ~48% of those who are against the mosque due to their intolerance, just off by 2 percentage points from my rough estimate. I didn't say that you could have a favorable view of Islam and against the mosque, just that half of those who are against the mosque do so because they are intolerant of Islam. This isn't counting the people who are against the mosque because it is insensitive to those who are ultimately intolerant of Islam. (probably within those who are indifferent of Islam) With 48% of those against the Mosque due to their Islamophobia, you cannot in any sense say that it has nothing to do with the "ground zero" argument just because only 14% (.42*42/71) of those who are against the mosque are favorable of Islam.

i see where we disagree.... u seem to be equating "unfavorable view" with "intolerance".... i dont think those r the same thing......

and as far as the imam is concerned....his quote.....

... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

so, he is a peace builder when in comes to relations with hamas but not with 60-70% of americans?

previously posted by myself.......

actually, i'm beginning to think he is either an extremely naive idealist, who actually believes that if we bargain with the "political" side of terrorist organizations, we could just convince "Muslim countries... to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter" or as mentioned previously, a dirty hypocrite, personally, i dont know which is more dangerous, i tend to still believe the latter, given that he is talking about building brides, bla bla, pretending to be friends with rabbis, while calling for negotiations with an organization whose charter calls for the destruction of israel.