Ground Zero Mosque (or cultural gathering centre for the politcally correct)

[BigLutz]

mcdonalds in iraq

not that rednecks invaded the country, but you know what i'm getting at.

Did the Iraqi Government and Iraqi people give permission for it? Is 72% of Iraqis against having a Mc Donnalds there? Do they view it as insensitive or hurtful toward them? Did Christian Extreamists bomb out a building in Iraq, and now Mc Donnalds is not only building down the street but building a building that is geared toward worshiping Christianity?

 

[Empoleon Bonaparte]

Did the Iraqi Government and Iraqi people give permission for it? Is 72% of Iraqis against having a Mc Donnalds there? Do they view it as insensitive or hurtful toward them?

yes. yes. yes.

mcdonalds and similar things are just like the mosque (or whatever) for some americans; a big painful advertisement for the ones that attacked their country. you didn't forget that a whole lot of innocent people died over there too, right?

try looking at it from the other side.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Are Your Eyes Blind to Islam?

culturally insulting things like having military forces in Mecca.

LOL. What about, maybe, culturally insulting things like a big ostentatious mosque claiming to be improving interfaith relations built very close to Ground Zero and possibly opening on the tenth anniversary of the attacks?

Perhaps you saw that I used Westboro Baptist Church as an example? They protest military people's funerals. This is insensitive. In a similar way, it is insensitive for this mosque to be built this close to the 9/11 attacks while claiming to be a step towards understanding.

One should also ask why Osama's attack came out of the blue so suddenly, twenty years later, but all I know is, sources all over the world, all over the NYC area, even in international prisons, even in the stock market, knew it was coming, the fact that there was going to be an attack on 9/11 was not a carefully kept secret. And there's the irony that 9-11 is the number you call for an emergency, in America...and the fact that it happened on the supposed year of the new Millenium, 01...and they attacked at dawn...

That's odd because most of the time I just hear that the government knew about the attacks beforehand. And, as is typical of these claims, you provided no evidence. (I know that the date 9/11 is a play on 9-1-1. Doesn't mean I knew it was coming.) So prove it.

Then let me put it this way for you: they don't worship the same Allah as the terrorists do. Just like Hitler doesn't pray to the same Christ as you do. Does it make sense that every religion has good people and bad people, or does this escape you too?

Here's the problem. Hitler used Christianity as propaganda. Worse than that, he spoke of an Aryan Christ. But Jesus was Jewish, not Aryan, so Hitler made up his own Christ, a fictional Christ, a Christ as far removed from the real, historical Jesus of the Bible as anything can be.

By contrast, your logic would mean Muhammad worshiped two entirely separate Allahs, which is impossible for one who believes there is only one God.

As BigLutz has pointed out, the Qur'an is very bipolar. There are some passages against violence, and quite a few passages which promote violence--both from the mouth of the exact same man! There is no absolute split between radical Islam (of the terrorists) and peaceful Islam (of some more modern Muslims). It is not as though Muhammad didn't write the more violent parts. To practice a peaceful form of Islam, one must simply disregard some parts of the Qur'an. Note also that
nikohesus stated that these violent actions of Muhammad were sinful. Unless I'm mistaken, the Qur'an states (and thus most Muslims believe) that Muhammad never sinned because Allah never allows prophets to sin. Here's my point: What these modern Muslims believe is actually a dramatic departure from fundamental Islamic teachings.

SunnyC, just for a moment, I want you to stop focusing on active, organized protest. I'm not a part of any active protest; I'm just a dude on the internet. Ask yourself a different question: Why should we believe that this is an effort at improving interfaith relations?

 

[BigLutz]

yes. yes. yes.

mcdonalds and similar things are just like the mosque (or whatever) for some americans; a big painful advertisement for the ones that attacked their country. you didn't forget that a whole lot of innocent people died over there too, right?

try looking at it from the other side.

Do you have proof that 72% of their country are against Mc Donnalds? Or that they view it as insensitive? And of course my other question: Did Christian Extreamists bomb out a building in Iraq, and now Mc Donnalds is not only building down the street but building a building that is geared toward worshiping Christianity?

 

[Empoleon Bonaparte]

Do you have proof that 72% of their country are against Mc Donnalds? Or that they view it as insensitive? And of course my other question: Did Christian Extreamists bomb out a building in Iraq, and now Mc Donnalds is not only building down the street but building a building that is geared toward worshiping Christianity?

• no, i do not.
  
• no, i do not.
  
• stop using CHRISTIANITY.
  those crazy *** extremists are fighting against AMERICA, and other religions, yes, but mainly AMERICA. and i don't know if you could call dubya and his government american extremists, but they did bomb a building, no, entire cities.
  and mcdonalds is a giant sign 'worshipping' america and it's capitalist ideas, things that the majority of people in the middle east don't really appreciate.

 

[BigLutz]

• no, i do not.
  
• no, i do not.

Then your argument is useless.

• stop using CHRISTIANITY.
  those crazy *** extremists are fighting against AMERICA, and other religions, yes, but mainly AMERICA. and i don't know if you could call dubya and his government american extremists, but they did bomb a building, no, entire cities.

Actually they are fighting against multiple countries, Spain and Britain are proof of that. Also I do not call President Bush and his Government extremists, but the US Government going to war, is in now way comparable to this. We are talking about the destruction of one building that costs thousands of innocent lives.

• and mcdonalds is a giant sign 'worshipping' america and it's capitalist ideas, things that the majority of people in the middle east don't really appreciate.

Last time I checked Iraq was a capitalist society. Not to mention we are talking about actual religions here.

 

[Empoleon Bonaparte]

never mind. it's pointless. you win, i lose.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

never mind. it's pointless. you win, i lose.

Do you really mean that Mr. Bonaparte? See, a number of people who said they were leaving this debate eventually came back.

Have you considered the possibility that this mosque might not be the sensitive, faith-relations-improving effort its supporters claim?

 

[Fused]

So a handful of ignorant red necks suddenly is a blanket statement for the entire country?

I don't think I ever implied that they did? Even so, it goes against your claim that this mosque would be fine anywhere but there, as anti-Muslim sentiment is getting some nice boosts right now.

So lets uphold our own sensitivities, and give the finger to al Qaeda?

Well, and the question is how do we give them the finger? Do we say "You are not welcome here" or do we say "You're wrong about the West, we are not at war with Muslims"?

Yeah... except the man was

A: Drunk

So the Fifth of Jack is a "Get-out-of-jail-free-card"? Good to know.

B: A Liberal

I'm not sure how political leanings pertain to this situation, so I'll just assume this was sucky guilt by association.

C: SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOSQUE

AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS SO INTERESTING CAPSLOCK! I haven't actually found any report where Enright voices his support for the mosque; he volunteers at a center that is supportive of the mosque, but his views are not always that of the center's. He was also recently in Afghanistan making a documentary, which would explain why he spoke a few Arabic greetings to the driver (before pulling the knife). But no matter how you look at it, this was an attack on a Muslim man, and that anti-Muslim sentiments are growing right now.

Funny thing is, the Ground Zero Mosque (conveniently located next to the Ground Zero Pizzaria and the Ground Zero Macy's) has been in the making since last July when the property was bought. Why is it that this isn't an issue until about a year later?

Wait, isn't election season coming up? No, politics wouldn't be that perverted. That's why they haven't mentioned that 45-47 Park Place was a mosque that was destroyed in 9/11.

Have you considered the possibility that this mosque might not be the sensitive, faith-relations-improving effort its supporters claim?

And have you ever considered that it's just a mosque?

 

[BigLutz]

I don't think I ever implied that they did? Even so, it goes against your claim that this mosque would be fine anywhere but there, as anti-Muslim sentiment is getting some nice boosts right now.

Yes a Mosque would not be welcome in the middle of no where in a Red neck area, nor would a NAACP office, a Jewish Center, or any number of things other than essentially a KKK recruiting station.

Well, and the question is how do we give them the finger? Do we say "You are not welcome here" or do we say "You're wrong about the West, we are not at war with Muslims"?

We have been saying that for years, it hasn't done any difference, we have every right to say "You are welcome here, as long as you do not offend our society" which is what we say to every nation.

So the Fifth of Jack is a "Get-out-of-jail-free-card"? Good to know.

No but it explains his violent actions.

AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS SO INTERESTING CAPSLOCK! I haven't actually found any report where Enright voices his support for the mosque; he volunteers at a center that is supportive of the mosque, but his views are not always that of the center's. He was also recently in Afghanistan making a documentary, which would explain why he spoke a few Arabic greetings to the driver (before pulling the knife). But no matter how you look at it, this was an attack on a Muslim man, and that anti-Muslim sentiments are growing right now.

Except that is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc statement. How many stabbings were there last night in New York? How many shootings? Probably more than just one. How many New York Cab Drivers are Muslim? A good percentage. Just because one of them got stabbed, does not mean that it was not motivated by anything but a drunken rage.

Also seeing how he worked at a center that supports the Mosque, it does more to suggest that, mosque opposition wasn't a factor as he would not go to work at a center so against his ideals that he would kill some one for it. I mean if he was really that insensed, why didn't he just go after his coworkers instead?

Funny thing is, the Ground Zero Mosque (conveniently located next to the Ground Zero Pizzaria and the Ground Zero Macy's) has been in the making since last July when the property was bought. Why is it that this isn't an issue until about a year later?

Wait, isn't election season coming up? No, politics wouldn't be that perverted.

Or it could be because the President commented on it and thus raised the publicity of it?

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Clarification Request

Funny thing is, the Ground Zero Mosque (conveniently located next to the Ground Zero Pizzaria and the Ground Zero Macy's) has been in the making since last July when the property was bought. Why is it that this isn't an issue until about a year later?

Wait, isn't election season coming up? No, politics wouldn't be that perverted. That's why they haven't mentioned that 45-47 Park Place was a mosque that was destroyed in 9/11.

You know what's odd? This thread started after Harry Reid spoke out against the mosque. I suppose what BigLutz said about the president makes sense (because that was before Harry Reid), but anyway, the Harry Reid statement is when some decided that it needed to be a campaign platform. (I don't particularly think that is a good idea.)

And have you ever considered that it's just a mosque?

I thought it had, like a basketball court and other things in it. Did you mean "not just a mosque"?

 

[Fused]

Yes a Mosque would not be welcome in the middle of no where in a Red neck area, nor would a NAACP office, a Jewish Center, or any number of things other than essentially a KKK recruiting station.

Yes, because everyone in Tennessee is a red neck who only supports the KKK and hates black people. You're dancing around the issue and being offensive at the same time. Again, you want the Muslims to be respectful, yet you only refer to Tennesseans as rednecks.

Except that is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc statement. How many stabbings were there last night in New York? How many shootings? Probably more than just one. How many New York Cab Drivers are Muslim? A good percentage. Just because one of them got stabbed, does not mean that it was not motivated by anything but a drunken rage.

Yes, but how many Muslims cab drivers got violently attacked last night in New York? Politics are perverted. If this was an issue about racial equality, the big news flash would be that a black family was burned to death or if it was a sex issue the news flash would be a woman who was brutally beaten by her husband.

Besides that, the link I gave reported other incidents besides the cabbie.

Also seeing how he worked at a center that supports the Mosque, it does more to suggest that, mosque opposition wasn't a factor as he would not go to work at a center so against his ideals that he would kill some one for it. I mean if he was really that insensed, why didn't he just go after his coworkers instead?

Again, he's been in Afghanistan while this issue has been going on, while the center gave its support to the mosque. Also, if you were going to make a point, would you go after people who you've befriended and who only have loose ties to the issue or go after a stranger who has a more obvious connection to the issue?

Or it could be because the President commented on it and thus raised the publicity of it?

It very well could. Aren't politics fun?

 

[CSolarstorm]

So a nation violates the UN and goes to war with a peaceful country, the UN goes in to defend that country, and we stay back? Not only would that cost more lives, but it would have a real possibility that Kuwait would be under the control of a mad man who is known to slaughter hundreds of thousands. So our ally, who is fearing and rightfully so, that Saddam would turn his attention toward them next, asks for our help and we say what "**** off?" How freaking cold man.

Psst the Gulf War or Operation Desert Storm was between August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991

World War I and II were both caused by a chain of countries who had to get tangled up in the fray because they were protecting their ally. If we had taken Hussein up on his negotiations to withdraw from Kuwait, we wouldn't have had to go in there guns blazing. As I read it, we ignored several of his offers to negotiate. With the U.S. and the U.N's history of imperialism, what were we doing suddenly criminalizing Hussein for his expansionist ideals?

How would it cost more lives even? It's always about what "costs more lives". We drop a nuclear bomb on civilians in Hiroshima and our excuse is "If we hadn't stopped the war more lives would have been lost". We drop bombs on Iraq killing civilians and devastating their infrastructure, and just say "If we hadn't stopped the war lives would have been lost". Whenever there's war is this going to be the policy, take civilian lives to save troops' lives? Cause that seems like a pretty evil policy right there, some sort of antivillian doctrine.

Okay first you are coming dangerously close to being labeled a ****ing nut as you are straying into the areas of 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Who's labeling me? You? I don't really mind then. You do have a history of labeling people, after all, you've already labeled Islam as responsible for 9/11.

Second, his attack did not come out of the blue, Osama Bin Laden had been at war with us since 1993. The Kobar Towers, the Saudi Arabia bombings, the Day of Destruction, the Embassy Bombings, the New Year Eve attempt, the USS Cole, all of these were Osama Bin Laden attacks or attempts.

And...the Gulf War ended in '91...and the first strike from Bin Laden started in '93...not the massive gap in time you formerly implied, isn't it? Indeed it didn't come out of the blue!

Proven Wrong Again

That is sad. I did say please correct me if I'm wrong and you did, so thank you. I read the one about the woman growing up in pre-revolution Iraq whose mom died in the attack. I feel very sorry for her and I'm not sure I could take my philosophy of "We need to move on emotionally and put the 9/11 attacks behind us" to her face. I don't know everything there is to know about the matter though. I empathize and respect the points of view of many people, but I still must control those respects in my heart so I may keep fighting for what I believe is right.

Yeah tell me when those issues reach 72% against across America, and THEN you can make the comparison.

You don't think gay rights is an issue that hasn't pervaded the four corners of America? Wait - stupid question - it's you I'm talking to. Different people use different polls to make their point.

Really? Did Allah justify and give permission to Mohammad's bloody and deadly attacks across the Middle East? Those same justifications used today by terrorists?

Different times, evolving religion, people take what they want and use it to do what they want, it's more hateful overseas where they're at war, more docile here in the U.S. where it has evolved. Already explained it to you.

Of course it matters, we are at war with them, they killed thousands, the last thing we need to give them is a morale boost and psychological victory that this provides.

Give me a break, morale and psychological motivation is not going to give them the ability to fly and suddenly overcome fighter drones. This is some vicarious battle you're talking about that's only for the satisfaction of the people fighting it. Obviously you'll never completely shatter their morale, you don't even get updates on what their morale is, and as long as people continue to hate and fear them, as is logical in wartime, they will never percieve their moral as shattered enough. It is a losing battle.

LOL. What about, maybe, culturally insulting things like a big ostentatious mosque claiming to be improving interfaith relations built very close to Ground Zero and possibly opening on the tenth anniversary of the attacks?

Um, the culturally insulting troops in Mecca came before the the "big ostentatious mosque" (c'mon, you see ostentatious churches all the time). And if you put the shoe on the other foot, a church being built on Ground Zero claiming to want to foster interfaith relations is a pretty passive cultural insult! I mean, we have troops in Mecca - imagine if Al Qaeda had repayed us with mobilizing troops in New York (which, it doesn't seem to me like a mini-mosque in a community center can hold, before you say that's a distinct possibility), that now would be retribution, not a church.

Perhaps you saw that I used Westboro Baptist Church as an example? They protest military people's funerals. This is insensitive. In a similar way, it is insensitive for this mosque to be built this close to the 9/11 attacks while claiming to be a step towards understanding.

That's totally insensitive. They should never be targeting the warrior. The correct saying is, "Love the warrior, hate the war."

That's odd because most of the time I just hear that the government knew about the attacks beforehand. And, as is typical of these claims, you provided no evidence. (I know that the date 9/11 is a play on 9-1-1. Doesn't mean I knew it was coming.) So prove it.

It's beside the subject, but I'll give you evidence.

Spoiler: Knowledge of the 9/11 Attacks Before They Happened

- Salmon Rushdie was prevented from boarding planes two weeks before 9/11 - there's a fatwa on his head, so obviously there was knowledge that there was going to be an Islamic faction targeting the airways that day. That's common knowledge though, besides from that:

The article I'm using, uses a bibliography itself and it comes from an anthology subtlely titled "Everything You Know Is Wrong". I'm not going to write excerpts from everything except the random people part, but the titles are:

- "Russia Warned of a Huge Destabilizing Attack on the U.S."
- "The Phillipines Warned the U.S."
- "Anonymous Person(s) in the Cayman Islands Warned of the Attack
- "Iranian Detainee Warned the U.S."
- "Isreal Warned the U.S."
- "People Knew Beforehand About Attacks" - On September 10th 2001, a fifth grader in a Dallas suburb made...a declaration to his teacher; "Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose." ...the boy is multiracial but...does not believe his ethnicity includes a Middle Eastern background.

Here's the problem. Hitler used Christianity as propaganda. Worse than that, he spoke of an Aryan Christ. But Jesus was Jewish, not Aryan, so Hitler made up his own Christ, a fictional Christ, a Christ as far removed from the real, historical Jesus of the Bible as anything can be.

So you're saying that Hitler made up lies about Jesus, but Al Qaeda uses documented truths about Mohammed? That's a good point. Nice. Except, you know God doesn't get involved in war, so why do we fault worship of Allah in general for a war carried out in his name? Jesus in the Bible told his disciples to spread and consume all, didn't he?

By contrast, your logic would mean Muhammad worshiped two entirely separate Allahs, which is impossible for one who believes there is only one God.

Jeez, once again a figure of speech, terrorists don't worship the same Allah Islamic Americans do; I'm not saying literally Mohammed worshipped two separate Allahs, I'm saying in the hearts and minds of Muslims Allah means something entirely different to them, something good, something that gives life, not promotes terrorism.

Even the Islamic Americans that don't support the mosque say that that Islam is part of their heritage and vehemently denounce anything in the Quran that fosters the extremism that they suffer under.

SunnyC, just for a moment, I want you to stop focusing on active, organized protest. I'm not a part of any active protest; I'm just a dude on the internet. Ask yourself a different question: Why should we believe that this is an effort at improving interfaith relations?

Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove that it isn't, seeing how the founder already said that it was?

 

[BigLutz]

Yes, because everyone in Tennessee is a red neck who only supports the KKK and hates black people. You're dancing around the issue and being offensive at the same time. Again, you want the Muslims to be respectful, yet you only refer to Tennesseans as rednecks.

Last time I checked, Murfreesboro Tennessee, a tiny town in the middle of no where, with only a population of 80,000 isn't representative of the entire state, but of a small town with small town mentality.

Yes, but how many Muslims cab drivers got violently attacked last night in New York? Politics are perverted. If this was an issue about racial equality, the big news flash would be that a black family was burned to death or if it was a sex issue the news flash would be a woman who was brutally beaten by her husband.

Besides that, the link I gave reported other incidents besides the cabbie.

Except this is a issue to paint the opposition as driving these violence when there is absolutely no proof that opposition to the Mosque played a part, infact there is more proof that it didn't play a part than it did.

Again, he's been in Afghanistan while this issue has been going on, while the center gave its support to the mosque. Also, if you were going to make a point, would you go after people who you've befriended and who only have loose ties to the issue or go after a stranger who has a more obvious connection to the issue?

If I was violent enough to kill some one, I would have gone after my friends as I felt betrayed. Not to mention if he had such anti Muslim hatred it would have manifested in Afghanistan.

Again the most logical explanation is a drunken rage, that happens to a great majority of people when they do get drunk.

World War I and II were both caused by a chain of countries who had to get tangled up in the fray because they were protecting their ally.

Correction World War 1 was, World War 2 was caused by three Psychotic nutjobs willing to expand their country and power in a bit for regional to world domination.

If we had taken Hussein up on his negotiations to withdraw from Kuwait, we wouldn't have had to go in there guns blazing. As I read it, we ignored several of his offers to negotiate. With the U.S. and the U.N's history of imperialism, what were we doing suddenly criminalizing Hussein for his expansionist ideals?

You mean other wise that the UN made it criminal to invade a peaceful country in such a matter? Also curious as to where you believe the U.N. has a history of imperialism.

By the way it is idiotic to say we should accept Saddam's negotiations to prevent the war. His very first one was for Israel to withdraw from Palestine, and for Syria to withdraw from Lebannon, his second negotiation came AFTER the war had started.

How would it cost more lives even? It's always about what "costs more lives". We drop a nuclear bomb on civilians in Hiroshima and our excuse is "If we hadn't stopped the war more lives would have been lost".

Because it would have, anyone with a iota of knowledge on X Day knew that those in Washington were saying that the Japanese Civilian Death Count alone would have been between 1 - 8 million people, based on how fiercely loyal the civilians were during other battles leading up to the proposed invasion of Japan. The civilians essentially were willing to kill themselves before being taken in by Americans, if we did not drop the bomb a large part of Japan's populous would have died.

We drop bombs on Iraq killing civilians and devastating their infrastructure, and just say "If we hadn't stopped the war lives would have been lost".

Yes, because when you are end the war as quickly as possible the last thing you want is to give the enemy power and phone lines so that they can make calls to their troops and talk tactics. Not taking out the infrastructure would have only strung out battles and possibly cost more civilian lives as you would have more and longer fire fights.

Who's labeling me? You? I don't really mind then. You do have a history of labeling people, after all, you've already labeled Islam as responsible for 9/11.

So you deny having any 9/11 Truther beliefs?

Whoops spoke too soon, you are a ****ing idiot

Salmon Rushdie was prevented from boarding planes two weeks before 9/11 - there's a fatwa on his head, so obviously there was knowledge that there was going to be an Islamic faction targeting the airways that day. That's common knowledge though, besides from that:

Or it could be because there was a Fatwa on his head, and they did not want to possibly have a plane attacked by having him travel to America?

- "Russia Warned of a Huge Destabilizing Attack on the U.S."
- "The Phillipines Warned the U.S."
- "Anonymous Person(s) in the Cayman Islands Warned of the Attack
- "Iranian Detainee Warned the U.S."
- "Isreal Warned the U.S."

Links and proof from reputable sources

"People Knew Beforehand About Attacks" - On September 10th 2001, a fifth grader in a Dallas suburb made...a declaration to his teacher; "Tomorrow, World War III will begin. It will begin in the United States, and the United States will lose." ...the boy is multiracial but...does not believe his ethnicity includes a Middle Eastern background.

So let me get this straight, a child says something crazy, and some how he had foreknowledge of attacks that NO ONE else had? Not the media? Not the Government? No one but this child? Just a question but ARE YOU ****ING INSANE?

And...the Gulf War ended in '91...and the first strike from Bin Laden started in '93...not the massive gap in time you formerly implied, isn't it? Indeed it didn't come out of the blue!

We were talking about 9/11, which as I proved didn't come out of the Blue. If you want to be disproven even more, then I will point out that Bin Laden had to form his organization, gather terrorist minds who knew how to make bombs, hire suicide bombers, plan the attack, and then carry it out.

Even having a up and going operation terror attacks are planned in years, not months or days. 9/11 took 4 years to plan, prepare, and execute, starting in 1997.

You don't think gay rights is an issue that hasn't pervaded the four corners of America? Wait - stupid question - it's you I'm talking to. Different people use different polls to make their point.

I don't think you will find that 72% of America agree with a certain view of Gay Rights. It is a stupid belief to think other wise, there are very few things that unite such large swaths of this country.

Different times, evolving religion, people take what they want and use it to do what they want, it's more hateful overseas where they're at war, more docile here in the U.S. where it has evolved. Already explained it to you.

Muslims pride themselves in saying that the Qu'ran is untouched, unchaged, so it is ignorant to say it is a evolving religion when the basis of their religion has remained untouched since the beginning. Now that doesn't mean that there are Muslims that ignore the violent half of their religion, but even in the docile U.S. we still have a problem with Wahhabism in mosques in America, and we even have FBI checking out mosques to make sure there is nothing squirly going on there.

Give me a break, morale and psychological motivation is not going to give them the ability to fly and suddenly overcome fighter drones. This is some vicarious battle you're talking about that's only for the satisfaction of the people fighting it. Obviously you'll never completely shatter their morale, you don't even get updates on what their morale is, and as long as people continue to hate and fear them, as is logical in wartime, they will never percieve their moral as shattered enough. It is a losing battle.

Actually we can get updates on their morale from inside sources as well as other updates. Also morale and psychological motivation is a important part of war, as it allows for the enemy to make more devastating attacks, to overcome set backs and hurtles, and to allow them to be more brazen in battle.

 

[Dattebayo]

People should shut up about 9/11 as it destroys the meaning of "forget the past, look forward to the future", so let it go.

Now back to the main issue: I can imagine that if it were another religion building a church next to Ground Zero, no one will give a darn about it thus showing how islamophobic they are.

 

[BigLutz]

Now back to the main issue: I can imagine that if it were another religion building a church next to Ground Zero, no one will give a darn about it thus showing how islamophobic they are.

Except it wasn't Christian extremists that committed 9/11 and resulted in Ground Zero. Example Failed.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I don't personally think it's a wise decision to cave into public pressure, and neither do I think the people wanting Ground Zero to be mosque-free will psychologically benefit from their mission, but if it is moved, and Harry Reid's actions seem to indicate this, I won't be too dissapointed. After all, we're only human.

 

[Madame Helga]

I'm probablysaying what others have said but its what i feel that everyone and everybody has the right to express their faiths and beliefs as long as it doesnt hurt anyone and i dont see how a mosque and community center that is 2 blocks away from it can (near is not the same thing as at). Theres alot of generalizing that all muslims are terrorists you need to remember that alot of innocent people died that day those years ago including muslims. should everyone now suffer? no.

"It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally" too bad its just showing peoples intolerance

 

[ShinySandshrew]

I'm probablysaying what others have said but its what i feel that everyone and everybody has the right to express their faiths and beliefs as long.

No one here that is against the mosque is saying that it is illegal for them to build there. Just that it is very insensitive.

as it doesnt hurt anyone and i dont see how a mosque and community center that is 2 blocks away from it can (near is not the same thing as at).

Yet the building that was on the property they bought had been damaged by the attacks. I think that makes it near enough, don't you?

Theres alot of generalizing that all muslims are terrorists

No one here that is against the mosque is saying that all muslims are terrorists.

"It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America, and globally" too bad its just showing peoples intolerance

Yet the builders/funders of this place don't want to move when the people who were directly effected by 9/11 show their dislike of this mosque? Now who's the ones that are being intolerant?

after all, you've already labeled Islam as responsible for 9/11.

Why don't you read this section of an article (particularly the second half) and then throw that logic in the garbage? One thing that you seem to be forgetting is that no one (least of all BigLutz) is saying that all the Muslims in the world are responsible for this.

 

[Fused]

I don't think you will find that 72% of America agree with a certain view of Gay Rights. It is a stupid belief to think other wise, there are very few things that unite such large swaths of this country.

Can I ask where you're getting this number from? You keep tossing it around, but polls I've found show very different numbers.

Rasmussen Reports, July 19-20
54% oppose
20% favor

The scary part about that poll is the preceeding question, which is "How closely have you followed the story?" in which the majority opinions are
31% Not very closely
29% Somewhat closely

So we oppose an issue we admit we know little about?

Then there's a FOX News poll, Aug 10-11 that reports
64% find mosque wrong
30% find mosque appropriate

But that is then followed up by
61% they have the right to build mosque there
34% they do not have the right to build a mosque there

So we admit they have the right, we just don't want them to excercise that right.

Now here's where I think things get rather interesting.

According to this article, New York voters said
52% oppose
31% favor

In Manhattan
31% oppose
46% favor

No, wait, now the Manhattan poll is up to
31% oppose
56% favor

So now let's just throw things into perspective:

Nationwide
59%~ oppose
25%~ favor

New York
52% oppose
31% favor

Manhattan
31% oppose
56% favor

Why is it that the clsoer you get to the issue, the higher the support is?

All this changes is the number you have. But now you're principle argument with that number is that the majority's opinion should be followed. Let's seee:

Interracial Marriage
[IMG139]http://www.marriageequality.org/images/poll1.gif[/IMG139]

Gay Couples should get same Rights as Married Couples
[IMG139]http://www.marriageequality.org/images/poll4.gif[/IMG139]

If these Muslims should cave to majority opinion, why didn't the government cave to majority opinion?

At the heart of this is the tyranny of the majority, the belief that quantity > quality. And when other countries start to see America as anti-Islam, is the majority opinion really worth it?