WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[Holycannoli]

I think this is a bad idea. Yes I know that radical muslems destroyed the Trade Towers and not these guys. It doesn't make one iota of difference. I know that these guys are a different group of people and are not affiliated with al-qada or the Taliban and that the terrorists represent a small cult that is based on the muslem faith. Both groups call themselves muslems and so it is culturally insensitive to build a muslem mosque on or beside Ground Zero. I don't see how this is any different than if the US army tried to build a fort on the location were native Americans were once massacred. It doesn't matter that they are not responsible for 9/11, it is still inappropriate.

I would say a closer example could be drawn if it were radical christians who massacred native americans, not the army, and that later on modest christians who weren't part of the massacre wanted to build a church nearby in order to heal and help foster understanding.

There's a reason 70% of people don't want the mosque built there, and it's not because of bigotry. Most of those opposed are fine if it's built a little farther away.

Yes, muslims killed us on 9/11. I don't know why some people get so pissed at O'Reilly for saying that, except for the fact that some people just look for reasons to be pissed at those they don't like whether the reason makes sense or not. That's politics these days. Japanese killed us on 12/7, muslims killed us on 9/11, and it doesn't matter that one was an army and the other a fanatical group, it's just easier to say "japanese" and "muslims" and assume people have the good sense enough to know you don't mean the entire japanese people or muslim religion.

In this age of political hatred though, I guess you can't assume anything.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The obvious difference is that the nation of Japan attacked the US on 12/7/1941. The religion of Islam did not do so on 9/11/2001.

Stating that "Muslims killed us on 9/11" is blaming a religion with over 1 billion followers for the acts of less than 100 people.

 

[MobBoss]

Evasion.

Not at all. Perhaps you need to understand that others see the issue differently than you do.

You cannot answer a question of "how many Muslims are terrorists?" by answering "how many terrorists are Muslim?". It doesn't make any sense.

Except you changed the question. Thats not it. My question is 'why are people opposed to the mosque?' The reason is because most terrorists are muslim. Thats it.

It's like answering "how many Hondas are red?" by answering "how many red automobiles are Hondas?" (even if most red cards are Hondas - doesn't tell me anything about what I'll get from getting the odd Honda).

Fact: red hondas get more speeding tickets. Why? Is it bigoted against red hondas to bring up this fact? Not really

So yes, you answered it in a way I didn't like, because you didn't answer my question at all.

Again, of course I answered it. You only want to hear what you want to hear. /shrug.

Geography.

Lame. Especially in our world today, geograph means very little in this regard. You can still strongly oppose terrorism from a world away, and we both know it.

I'm sure here in the first world, where everything is safe and cozy, one could preach about doing things like this all the time.

I doubt it's the same for them, when they probably end up living a few blocks away from heinous and dangerous criminals like that.

Ah....so they are cowards afraid to speak out against terrorism because the terrorists are heinous and dangerous criminals?

Seriously....how lame is that? Evil goes on because people do nothing. Isnt that endorsement of said evil by default? Of course it is.

Most people are concerned about trying to live a normal live, and taking care of their family, MobBoss.

Dont you think the victims of terrorism do that too? Isnt that what the people who died on 9/11 were doing?

I haven't heard of any of this.

Seriously? Wow.

And even if any Muslims have this issue "resound" in them, then they are committing the same logical fallacies that you are (perhaps worse), and are simply wrong.

I am neither calling it right or wrong, just merely pointing out that its human do to so regardless of the reasoning. That, and its also hypocrisy to call one group out for it while ignoring it in others.

You can't just argue "but these people are thinking these wrong things, so it's alright to think wrong things back at them".

No, I am going to argue that people are simply being human.

And so you are to a point. Isnt it being human to cower in your own selfish fear while terrorists do their thing? Yet you seem to excuse it in your post above. Dont you?

Appeal to human indecency.

Just because something is perfectly human doesn't mean it's right. Come on. This is basic stuff they even teach in kindergarten.

I think its decently human to regard the feelings of a people who got attacked and obviously havent gotten past it yet. Dont you?

Pardon me for expecting the greatest and most developed power on Earth to field a population that is informed and logical about issues, while uneducated people on the other side of the planet on a not-so-rosy country may have some wrong opinions.

Why do you assume they are uneducated?

Does O'Reilly's original comments represent your view? That "Muslims killed us on 9/11"? That the religion is really to blame instead of a handful of extremists?

No, I dont blame all muslims for 9/11. Nor for the other terrorist acts perpetrated by islamic radicals.

But I do blame muslims for the apathy shown by the followers if Islam in fighting islamic fundamentalism and radicalism. Its propagated this long because of a decided lack of moderate muslims taking action here. "Clean up your own house" is an adage they need to apply very badly, and yet are loath to do so...probably for the very reason Defiant mentioned.....their radical brethren need to be dealt with violently and its not something they really look foward to.

Quite simply terrorism done by radical muslims continues because of lack of opposition to it by those that can truly faciliate that change: muslims themselves.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The vast majority of Muslims are obviously quite opposed to any terrorist act and have claimed so on numerous occasions, especially since 9/11.

What many, if not most, of them don't buy though is claiming that entire groups are guilty for the acts of a few, such as trying to blame all Gazans for the terrorist acts of a handful of Hamas merely because they elected them into power after decades of brutal oppression and apartheid.

They might as well personally blame you for the atrocities of the US government since you have done little or nothing to publicly state your opposition to them.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, muslims killed us on 9/11. I don't know why some people get so pissed at O'Reilly for saying that...

Well, personally, I put any such comments through a mental filter where I switch out "Muslim" for "Catholic" and "9/11" for "17th December, 1983" (or something similar), and if the resultant remark makes me want to punch the guy in the face, I put a little mental red cross next to it. O'Reilly consistently achieves that, as he did here (and all the obnoxiously for being Irish Catholic himself!) so... Yeah.

 

[MobBoss]

That is complete hogwash. The vast majority of Muslims are quite opposed to any terrorist act and have claimed so on numerous occasions, especially since 9/11.

First of all, I dont agree. Secondly, its going to take a bit more than just simple language to do something about terrorism dont you think?

I mean seriously, even this Imam Rauf guy trying to build this mosque wont even use the word 'terrorist' in talking about known terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Do you seriously think using such kid gloves is going to stop terrorism? Seriously?

Its only going to end if people recognize it for the evil that it is and actually do something about it.

What many, if not most, of them don't buy though is claiming that entire groups are guilty for the acts of a few,

I think the world has experienced more than just 'a few' acts of terrorism over the last couple of decades dont you think?

such as trying to blame all Gazans for the terrorist acts of a handful of Hamas merely because they elected them into power after decades of brutal oppression and apartheid.

You see? How do you expect anything to get done about terrorist groups like Hamas when you excuse their actions like you do here? Thats part of what I am talking about.

They might as well personally blame you for the atrocities of the US government since you have done little or nothing to publicly state your opposition to them.

They do. I mean really Form, how many times have you yourself simply said such attacks are blowback for things done by the government? You have even said there is little wonder they hate us (all of us...i.e. americans) for the supposedly heinous acts of our government...

Dont argue against points you have advocated for in your post history. It makes you inconsistent.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Well, personally, I put any such comments through a mental filter where I switch out "Muslim" for "Catholic" and "9/11" for "17th December, 1983" (or something similar), and if the resultant remark makes me want to punch the guy in the face, I put a little mental red cross next to it. O'Reilly consistently achieves that, as he did here (and all the obnoxiously for being Irish Catholic himself!) so... Yeah.

And look where that kind of thinking lead to back in the '80's the Birmingham Six, Guilford Four, Maguire Seven. Frankly the security forces have not learnt any lessons from the major messes they caused back then as the same kind of mentality and tactics are being used (e.g. target everyone in the same ethnic grouping as the ones we're after, they must be guilty, they're filthy Muslims! They hate us! They're the racists not us! et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum).

 

[JollyRoger]

First of all, I dont agree. Secondly, its going to take a bit more than just simple language to do something about terrorism dont you think?.

Yeah - not building a community center is key to doing something about terrorism.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Secondly, its going to take a bit more than just simple language to do something about terrorism dont you think?

You mean like trying to blame 1 billion people for the acts of a few thousand individuals?

They do.

So you actually think that most Muslims blame all Americans for the reprehensible acts of the US government? That most of them are actually as bigoted as many Americans are by blaming Muslims in general for 9/11?

Christian Science Monitor: Iranians' love affair with America

'What do Americans think about us?" asked an old lady on the bus. That was the question most often asked of me during my three-month stay in Iran last year. Messages to the American people were also common. "Tell the Americans that we're not crazy, scary people," she continued. Her comment came after she and others had been dancing in the aisle (with curtains drawn so the police wouldn't see) while the rest of us – along with the driver – clapped as we raced down the highway. So maybe they are crazy. But in a good way.

Many Westerners are afraid to come to the Middle East nowadays, and understandably so. But it's at times like these when face-to-face contact is most crucial. As I traveled alone through the Iranian countryside conducting anthropological research, I took note of local opinions about US-Iran relations. I was heartened by what I heard.

While I'd often visited Iran as a child, the current political situation in the region made me apprehensive about taking the trip. Tensions were rising – as they still are today – over Iran's pursuit of nuclear enrichment, and there were reports in the American media of possible military action against Iranian targets.

Beyond mere hospitality, authentic affection for America

However, I was soon put at ease. After speaking with numerous Iranians from all walks of life – lower and upper class, religious and secular, Westernized and traditional, government- affiliated and civilian – I became convinced that this vilified member of the "Axis of Evil" is actually one of the most welcoming places for Americans to travel in the Middle East. Indeed, all Iranians with whom I spoke shared a positive opinion of Ameri- cans.

Iranians don't hate America. On the contrary, many of them envy Americans to an unrealistic degree and think of the US as a paradise, a land where no problems exist.

One encounters this sentiment in even the most unexpected places. For instance, when I ran into problems renewing my visa, an austere senior official at the immigration ministry offered to help. "Because you're American, I'll do this for you," he said. This was not unusual. Generally friendly to foreigners, Iranians were especially friendly to me once they discovered I was American. It was as if they were trying to prove a point. "Go home and tell the Americans we like them," the official continued. "You know, I have family in Chicago. Can you help me go see them?" On the way out, a soldier in the lobby was excited to see my passport, handling it as one would a priceless object. "How can I come study in America?" he wanted to know.

Paralleling Iranians' favorable opinions of Americans as a people, however, is their unified opposition to any US government intervention in their country. This directly contradicts what Vice President Cheney and others believe – that if the US were to attack, the population would rise up to help the Americans fight the Iranian regime. Judging from my experience, this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, US intervention seems to be the only issue that will unite most Iranians with the Islamic regime.

We can blame the Bush administration's poor grasp of daily realities in Iran on an almost three-decade-long freeze of contact between the American and Iranian governments. As a result of this isolation, so-called experts who have never been to Iran (or at least not since the Islamic Revolution of 1979) advise US government officials on the opinions of the Iranian populace. The comment by one influential US scholar comparing Iran to a concentration camp in which people would rather be bombed than live another day under such conditions, is a glaring example of misinformation.

At a private party in a trendy suburb of Tehran, I sat down with a group of young professionals as they relaxed after a busy workweek. Iran is not like a concentration camp, they assured me. Yes, they're repressed by government restrictions, but they find ways to get around them. And the situation is certainly not to the point of rising up against the regime.

In fact, politics was the last thing on their minds – that is, until I brought up the possibility of US intervention. "As much as I despise this regime, I love my country more," said Reza, a 20-something. "If America were to attack Iran, I would be the first to lay down my life. Ask anyone and you'll hear the same."

Moderates today, insurgents tomorrow?

And indeed I did. Whether they were the village teenagers in southern Iran who took me to eat chicken kabob and drink smuggled Turkish beer in the forest, or Hamid, the opium smuggler in Bam who moonlighted as a taxi driver, the reactions were the same: Though unhappy with the Iranian regime, they would join forces with the mullahs to deter an outside attack. Listening to them speak, I couldn't help but think that these young moderates could well become the future insurgents in an expanded regional conflict.

This may be avoided if we actually listen to the voices coming out of Iran. Iranians are overwhelmingly in favor of normalizing relations with the US, but oppose any intervention in their nation's internal affairs. Forces seem to be aligning in favor of direct dialogue between the two estranged governments.

Pragmatic voices are wresting control from both neoconservatives in the US and their fundamentalist counterparts in Iran. Let's hope they win out. Opening up relations with Iran is not appeasement; it's necessary because it allows home-grown demo cratic forces to work on their own terms.

Counterintuitive as it may seem, overt US calls for regime change and direct support of dissidents and NGOs have a negative effect on Iranian civil society because they result in government crackdowns and increase popular anger aimed at the American government.

Build relations upon shared ideals

In the dispute over nuclear enrichment, the stakes are growing higher each day. If Iraq is the beginning of the end for security and goodwill toward America, then an attack on Iran would be the nail in the coffin. The tragic cost of American misjudgment regarding the Middle East was made painfully clear in Iraq, when US soldiers were greeted with roadside bombs instead of flowers. Let's not repeat that mistake.

We should take Iranian nationalism seriously when even Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, vows, "We will defend our country to the last drop of our blood. We will not let an alien soldier set foot on the land of Iran."

We cannot afford to squander the vast majority of Iranian hearts and minds that we have already won. We must instead convince the Iranian people – through displaying the courage to open dialogue with the ruling regime – that we are committed to furthering our shared ideals of universal life, liberty, and justice.

Dont argue against points you have advocated for in your post history. It makes you inconsistent.

It only becomes so if you actually agree with that obviously twisted "logic". But you have consistently shown that you don't really understand most of my actual positions. Why should this time be any different?

 

[NYHunter]

Oh god, there is still a national debate over this? Most New Yorkers don't even talk about this anymore. Whatever, here is my opinion.

The United States is a free society whose economy operates under a free market capitalist system. I value freedom over personal sensitivities. If you don't like it no one is forcing you to go there. I don't like Disney World because they don't cooperate with the police well when their employees are accused of sex offenses, as a result I will never freaking go to Disney World. It isn't hard to boycott what you don't like people.

 

[Defiant47]

Not at all. Perhaps you need to understand that others see the issue differently than you do.

I understand that others may see the issue in a wrong perspective. I am outlining the issue in the correct perspective.

Except you changed the question. Thats not it. My question is 'why are people opposed to the mosque?' The reason is because most terrorists are muslim. Thats it.

FYI this is the question (and it was mine):

Odd how so many followers of that peaceful religion engage in terrorism......

I'd like to see a source for that. How "so many"? 10%? 40%?

Fact: red hondas get more speeding tickets. Why? Is it bigoted against red hondas to bring up this fact? Not really

That's not the point.

Again, of course I answered it. You only want to hear what you want to hear. /shrug.

Pardon me for trying to transfer your answer to the wrong question as an answer to my question.

So you gave me a list of terrorist acts. Through shoddy estimation, we can say that these terrorist acts have been performed by a couple of thousands of people (supported by a network possibly tens or hundreds of times that). In the meantime, we've had 1 billion Muslims on the planet, though much more during this time frame given deaths and births. So we could say roughly (100 000/1 000 000 000), and that's being very conservative with the numbers.

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 sure you could find a similar number, for say, military personnel who act without any honor and commit various crimes (later court martial and such) - I know there are certainly plenty of heinous tales from the Iraq war at least. Should we treat all military personnel differently if it turns out that 0.01% are the type that rape families or commit war crimes?

Lame. Especially in our world today, geograph means very little in this regard. You can still strongly oppose terrorism from a world away, and we both know it.

It means a lot and you know it. When you're living in nigh-poverty, trying to get by on a simple life, with criminals like these living just a few blocks away from you if not closer, you're not going to be stupid and start shouting from the rooftops that what they're doing is wrong.

Ah....so they are cowards afraid to speak out against terrorism because the terrorists are heinous and dangerous criminals?

Exactly. I'll put you in a room with another person and a criminal, all 3 alone, and I'll see how much you start loudly proclaiming how that criminal is a bad person and how you denounce their actions.

Seriously....how lame is that? Evil goes on because people do nothing. Isnt that endorsement of said evil by default? Of course it is.

Then everyone in the world is evil. Your metric is rubbish. Simply because you do nothing, especially considering that doing something would accomplish nothing, does not mean that you endorse the evil.

I feel this is too much the "either you're with us or against us" mentality creeping in. You're either fighting with the terrorists or you're fighting against them at every turn you can. There's no "duck down, keep a low profile, try to live your life with your family" option.

Dont you think the victims of terrorism do that too? Isnt that what the people who died on 9/11 were doing?

Yeah, so?

I am neither calling it right or wrong, just merely pointing out that its human do to so regardless of the reasoning. That, and its also hypocrisy to call one group out for it while ignoring it in others.

Well the issue at hand right now is the ground-zero "mosque" controversy. You make a thread where Muslims are persecuting Christians for the crusades, and I'll be just as against it.

No, I am going to argue that people are simply being human.

And so you are to a point. Isnt it being human to cower in your own selfish fear while terrorists do their thing? Yet you seem to excuse it in your post above. Dont you?

Selfish? These people have families. These people try to keep their livelihoods. It is not the same thing.

You cannot draw a parallel between "not speaking out against terrorism is wrong, even though your family's life could be in danger if you do" and "being against the NYC community centre is wrong". It's just not the same thing, even though both are the results of humans being human.

I think its decently human to regard the feelings of a people who got attacked and obviously havent gotten past it yet. Dont you?

That's a good point, until you realize you missed the entire other part of the equation.

I think it's decently human not to generalize against the followers of a religion over the acts of at most 0.01% of them. Don't you think we should consider their feelings as well?

Why do you assume they are uneducated?

Less educated. As in, plenty more people are uneducated, and those who aren't, are less educated. Simple fact of not living in the first world (on average).

No, I dont blame all muslims for 9/11. Nor for the other terrorist acts perpetrated by islamic radicals.

But I do blame muslims for the apathy shown by the followers if Islam in fighting islamic fundamentalism and radicalism. Its propagated this long because of a decided lack of moderate muslims taking action here. "Clean up your own house" is an adage they need to apply very badly, and yet are loath to do so...probably for the very reason Defiant mentioned.....their radical brethren need to be dealt with violently and its not something they really look foward to.

I think if you take a close look, you'll notice that most Western (read: American) Muslims do speak out against these acts. Because they're nice and safe here in America, and they can speak their minds, or do the right thing.

Quite simply terrorism done by radical muslims continues because of lack of opposition to it by those that can truly faciliate that change: muslims themselves.

That's just not fair. Not everyone can do something about terrorism. And while I do denounce the apathy shown by too many Muslims who have the power to change something (like some of the ones in power), I do not attribute these terrorists acts to them or any other unrelated Muslim.

 

[holy king]

Yes, muslims killed us on 9/11

hi, poster from beyond the grave.
i, for one, am a velociraptor, btw.

 

[JollyRoger]

If I grant the terrorized people the point that the community center should not be built because religious fanatics attacked so close to the location 9 years ago, then should I advocate that all religious structures be removed from the 4 block radius or is that paintiong with too broad of a brush? After all, the terrorized people claim not to be bigoted, so just to be sensitive to as many of the 9/11 victims as possible, we should remove all aspects of religion from the vicinity since some 9/11 victims and their families might harbor some ill feelings towards religion in general, given the atrocious acts of the religious here. Why narrow the class of 9/11 victims you are shielding from pain when you can, in a non-bigoted manner, remove as much pain as possible with some simple demolition. After all, it is in a financial area and we should best fight the terrorists anti-capitalism views by having have private businesses there rather than tax-exempt naval gazing operations.

 

[MobBoss]

I understand that others may see the issue in a wrong perspective. I am outlining the issue in the correct perspective.

Thanks for the laugh.

Should we treat all military personnel differently if it turns out that 0.01% are the type that rape families or commit war crimes?

There are those that absolutely do. A few of them here in OT even...

Exactly. I'll put you in a room with another person and a criminal, all 3 alone, and I'll see how much you start loudly proclaiming how that criminal is a bad person and how you denounce their actions.

If you think this then you dont know me very well...at all. I dont hesitate to call a turd, a turd....neither am I a coward afraid of confrontation. Sorry to disappoint you.

Then everyone in the world is evil. Your metric is rubbish. Simply because you do nothing, especially considering that doing something would accomplish nothing, does not mean that you endorse the evil.

If you stand by and do nothing when you should, even if its a small as recognizing evil, then yeah, you are endorsing it by your inaction. In other words, you allow it to continue because you could do something about it...and dont.

I feel this is too much the "either you're with us or against us" mentality creeping in. You're either fighting with the terrorists or you're fighting against them at every turn you can. There's no "duck down, keep a low profile, try to live your life with your family" option.

'duck down, keep a low profile' is what has gotten us to this point.

That's just not fair.

Life isnt fair. Deal with it.

Not everyone can do something about terrorism.

Actually, they could. You saying this is just a cop out.

 

[Defiant47]

There are those that absolutely do. A few of them here in OT even...

And are they correct in doing so?

I don't mean having disdain for the military because of what the job entails or what the organization represents. I mean, purely for the fact that 0.01% of the military engage in heinous and immoral acts.

If you think this then you dont know me very well...at all. I dont hesitate to call a turd, a turd....neither am I a coward afraid of confrontation. Sorry to disappoint you.

Perhaps you didn't get the point of the analogy. This criminal you're with is a terrorist-level criminal.

Just try to picture yourself in the common middle-eastern's shoes.

If you stand by and do nothing when you should, even if its a small as recognizing evil, then yeah, you are endorsing it by your inaction. In other words, you allow it to continue because you could do something about it...and dont.

Again, there's the issue of living just a stone's throw away from these terrorists, and having a family.

It would only be endorsement by inaction, if action were easily achieved with little personal/familial risk. There's such a thing as an action that is (very) moral if you do it, and neutral (you're not a bad person) if you don't. Not everything is polarized.

'duck down, keep a low profile' is what has gotten us to this point.

Actually, it's radical extremists engaging in terrorism that's what has gotten us to this point. You can blame the Muslim families all you want for not doing much of anything to stand up to criminals with guns in a poverty-like situation, but in the end it's the terrorists who are committing the terrorist acts.

Life isnt fair. Deal with it.

Not the point.

Actually, they could. You saying this is just a cop out.

When I said that, I meant "not everyone can do something about terrorism, and actually achieve something remotely or marginally significant by their actions (other than getting themselves and potentially their families murdered)". I figured the rest was implied.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes, muslims killed us on 9/11. I don't know why some people get so pissed at O'Reilly for saying that, except for the fact that some people just look for reasons to be pissed at those they don't like whether the reason makes sense or not.
.

Pity that O'Reilly didnt mention that the Hijackers were almost all from Saudi Arabia. Perhapes after the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq it would become poltically viable to actually say allowed what we all know to be true.

I would attribute such as saying as a means to push "FOX NEWS" narrative forward not to mention the recent idotic stupidty (or evil) of the whole terror funding issue. So yes were being skeptical and cynical of hes motives.

Muslim's killed us on 9/11 = factually true
Muslim's from Saudi Arabia killed us on 9/11 = also factually true.

Both can be used to push a certain agenda.

my 2 cents

 

[Traitorfish]

Life isnt fair.

The rallying cry of the moral coward.

 

[JollyRoger]

Life isnt fair. Deal with it.

Sounds like good advice for those terrified of the community center to embrace.

 

[useless]

Why don't you just "deal with it" in regards to the community centre, Mobby?

 

[MobBoss]

Perhaps you didn't get the point of the analogy. This criminal you're with is a terrorist-level criminal.

Just try to picture yourself in the common middle-eastern's shoes.[

Again, there's the issue of living just a stone's throw away from these terrorists, and having a family.

Not all 1 billion live next to terrorists surely. Your're just making excuses. I hope you see that.

The rallying cry of the moral coward.

Realism rather. This isnt about morality.

Sounds like good advice for those terrified of the community center to embrace.

Why don't you just "deal with it" in regards to the community centre, Mobby?

And the opposition would if the mosque were indeed built...guess you fail to realize that...