1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Empoleon Bonaparte, Aug 14, 2010.

  1. Deku_Link

    Deku_Link ,,|,,

    I haven't read the entire thread, do we know for sure that they're building the mosque because of the attacks?

    The point about fortune tellers just seems like backpedalling, so I'm not going to address it.

    Nobody's saying it'd be a legally viable move to tear down mosques that already exist over sensitivity any more than anyone's saying it'd be a legally viable move to prevent them from creating a new one. I believe Shepard was asking him if they think they should remove the ones that already exist.

    Furthermore, could it not be argued that it's insensitive (and therefore, morally wrong according to your personal scale) to continue practicing their religion close to Ground Zero?
  2. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    Those responsible for finding the site for Park 51 were told to find something as close to Ground Zero as possible. The Park 51 group apparently was ecstatic to find out the building had actually been damaged by the attacks.

    You know the greatest amount of PR that the mosque that is already there could bring would be just after 9/11 they say. "You know it was members of our religion that attacked those buildings, and they justified those attacks with lines from our Qoran, so to be respectful, we are going to practice our faith away from the site."

    That right there would have done so much for the Muslim Community as a whole and its relations with the rest of New York and the rest of America.
  3. Iron-Man1

    Iron-Man1 Shiny breeder

    Tell those muslims to get the **** out of america and go start killing somewhere else.

    Fact: Muslims bombed the twin towers
  4. MisterM

    MisterM That's what she said

    Wow, that was really racist of you.

    Anyway, I didn't read the whole thread but here's my opinion :
    Since it's not reaaally on Ground Zero, just a few blocks away, I don't see why this should be a problem to build a mosque or any other religious building. A mosque is not necesarily a hideout for terrorists. I can see why this can be shocking because of terrorists attacking it almost 10 years ago, and I understand the protest against it, but one thing I don't understand is why chose especially this place to build a mosque? Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against it (I am muslim myself so...) but those who launched this project can't act as if they were surprised by the protest. People were killed here, by other people who claimed to doing it in the name of God and the muslim religion (which is just BS, but this is another debate).

    And just to answer to Iron Man again, I'm muslim but I didn't bomb the twin towers. So, surprised?
  5. Ethan

    Ethan Banned

    Religion =/= race.
  6. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    It involved bigotry. "Tell those muslims to get out of America and kill someone else" was a prejudicial statement, considering the content of it rests on the snap judgement that the Cordoba Initiative is comprised of all Muslims and those Muslims are only in America to kill.
  7. Ethan

    Ethan Banned

    No shit, I'm not retarded. I'm aware it's still a dick statement, I simply made a correction.
  8. AzukanAsimbu

    AzukanAsimbu Petal Paladin

    Ground Zero IS located within the US, so noone could stop Muslims from practicing Islam near there.

    First Amendment.
  9. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    That is true, but they can protest the site to the point that they decide to move it.

    First Amendment.

    If the creators of Park 51 truly wish to reach out to the rest of America and bridge the divide between Muslims and the rest of us, then they have to move the site. If not then they are doing the exact opposite of what they claim and only spitting in the face of the rest of this country.
  10. Byzantine

    Byzantine Well-Known Member

    I find it amazing that people get so worked up over something this... meaningless when far more important issues are at hand every day, and continue to be ignored.

    Thats what this is, its meaningless, yes, they are trying to build a Mosque near ground zero. Yes, they are probably doing it intentionally to rile people up. And why does it matter? People do things to incite other people to anger every day for countless things, I don't see how one more act of it is truely important. Ignore them and they really will just go away, a Mosque, even if it was put in the center of Ground Zero itself would still just be a Mosque. If you can have churches they can have a Mosque.

    And yes, a group of radicals murdered thousands of people there that day, but using the Quoran to justify their actions doesn't make them true Muslims, i suspect true Muslims were just as horrified as everyone else about what happened. Radicals exists in every religion, at my school we occasionally have a preacher who comes by the largest courtyard, and he spends hour preaching hate and violence against some groups such as gays. All in all, yes it was justified using Islam, and they were Arabs. But then it could have easily been justified using Christianity and been done by anyone. Truth is we created that terrorist group decades ago trying to stop the soviet union, we succeeded. Its not really surprising they turned on us.
  11. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    Out of all the opinions you have, this one is the most factually incorrect. Operation Cyclone is in no way connected to al Qaeda.
  12. Byzantine

    Byzantine Well-Known Member

    Not directly, but it is, the group we trained and armed became the Taliban, which al Qaeda was born from.
  13. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    No al Qaeda was born from Bin Laden's own group of Arab fighters who entered the Afghan war on Bin Laden's side. Their group was seen as ineffective by the Afghan Freedom Fighters we were helping, and their Anti Western beliefs kept us clear from them.

    Bin Laden only met with the Taliban for help after President Clinton stupidly decided to have him shipped off to Afghanistan instead of having him brought into custody.
  14. Byzantine

    Byzantine Well-Known Member

    I see, so you believe that story. You do realize that it is highly unlikely they ever actually had him in custody, right, and no one is sure if they really offered to hand him over at all, or if it was simply one man trying to make it seem like it was Clinton's fault? It seems i was mistaken in this part, so I erased it.

    Bin Laden wasn't even the one who apparently founded the group, and they received at least some of the money/ training that was being given to the freedom fighters.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  15. BigLutz

    BigLutz Banned

    I believe the story because it has been backed up by fact. Sudan had sent letters showing unconditional support to help with terrorism. They were desperate to get back into our good graces. As for their ability to do it, Sudan had been keeping close watch on Bin Laden, they knew where he was, where he held prayer, etc etc. That was why they were able to kick him out of the country. And why at the time they also offered to either assassinate him, or hand him over.

    al Qaeda was formed by Abdullah Azzam, "several senior leaders" of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and bin Laden, on August 11, 1988. Also there is no reason why money and or training would go to their group. They already had a outside cash flow, Bin Laden. Also they were not trusted in Afghanistan, were distrusted by the locals and true freedom fighters, and incredibly Anti Western. They would not have accepted our help even if we offered it, nor would it have been a good use of our time or money.
  16. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    What Is this Wold Coming to?

    That's a false dichotomy. Just because I don't know who's funding it, that doesn't mean it is valid to infer that the government is funding it. As a matter of fact, you would need proof that the government is funding it.

    I, like BigLutz, see a big difference between a new mosque and a mosque that was there before 9/11. As such, I find a difference between continuing to practice their religion, and building a new mosque, bigger and with other stuff, and claiming it is an effort to be sensitive, all the while refusing good offers to find another location. (Donald Trump offered to pay big money for the site! Donald Trump!)

    So, you say it is meaningless and that we shouldn't spend time and effort disagreeing about whether it is right to build this, yet here you are spending time and energy disagreeing with our meaningless posts. Which is more ridiculous?

    You know, unlike the examples you gave suggested, public opinion would be hugely different if this were Westboro Baptist wanting to build a Church-N-More near some site where gays were hurt or murdered by Christians.

    This debate is showing more and more that "tolerance" is only "supposed to" go to certain groups. It is considered bigoted to mention that it was Muslims who bombed the WTC despite the fact that...they were. It is considered insensitive to question whether certain Muslims are actually being sensitive, even when their actions are highly questionable! What is this world coming to?
  17. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    Is that because the Westboro Baptist Church is a single like-minded association defined (and differentiated from its cousin religous observers) by its specifically extremist policies, tendencies, and social activities?

    Perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be drawn between building a specifically Westboro Baptist place of worship and a... bah, I can't even remember the names of the "bad guys" anymore... a specifically Taliban or Al Qaeda place of worship (business? *shrug*).

    All Islamic followers are not the extreme idealogues who did us harm, just like all Christians are not the Westboro Baptist idealogues.
  18. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    But, Profesco, such an action by Westboro would be deliberately inflammatory. If it were a different group, such a possibility would easily be mentioned (and it wouldn't be unjust to question the sensitivity of a group calling itself Christian). If they said things that sounded even remotely like disapproval of homosexuality, they would be opposed as insensitive.

    The comparison I made is especially useful because Westboro has not committed any violent acts against gays (of which I am aware). It is the same with the Imam--I am not accusing him of violence but of being insensitive. Note carefully the difference.
  19. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    What? I'm sorry, I don't think I understand you. =x

    Are we discussing the insensitivity of building an Islamic mosque"-N-More" (I like that, haha) as though it is the same as building a Westboro church-N-More? Any general mosque is not the same thing, ideologically, as one built by and filled with the extremist muslims who caused harm to americans. In that same vein, any general Christian church is not the same thing, ideologically, as one built by and filled with the Westboro folk. This goes for insensitive principle as much as it does for violent practice.

    The Westboro ideology, not being a representation of the general Christian system, cannot form a comparison to the general Islam system - only with a single, separate faction of extremism. Is the Imam a part of the collection of muslims who make up the extremists who attacked New York City in 2001, and will this mosque-thing be operated by those selfsame ideologues? If so, then the comparison to Westboro might be valid.

    There is no doubt that, were the intended building going to be a location for and run by the same specific folks who flew into the twin towers, it would not be allowed. If it is just a generic Islam mosque-N-More - in addition, open to all faiths and communities as it is claimed to be - then the discussion does not stop with the cry of "Muslim! Run!"

    There are hateful things said and done in the apparent name of God/Jesus to gay youths and their families, but that does not make any other followers of the Christian faith insensitive for praying for those gay youths and their families out of compassion. Prayer vigils are rather common religious observations held after hate crimes, if I recall rightly. I'm not entirely sure why it would be considered insensitive if other muslims performed similar religious observance after an Islam-based hate crime by wrong-headed extremists.
  20. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!


    The whole point of my comparison was that neither group has committed any violent actions (of which I am aware). I'm talking about the insensitivity (not violent extremism) of these groups. Westboro can claim to be sensitive while saying insensitive things, but--Surprise!--they aren't. In this debate, some have even gone so far as to claim that we shouldn't question the Imam's statements and that his simple declaration that he is trying to improve faith relations should be heeded. But it is perfectly legitimate to question some of his insensitive/careless statements instead of waving them away with implausible interpretations.

    (Contrast that with the way some have accused me of being "hateful" because I view homosexual actions as wrong--even if I say I don't hate anyone.)

    Thanks for the compliment about Mosque-N-More BTW. I invented the term because some people wanted to use the phrase "just a mosque" while others pointed out the other facilities in the building. I have to wonder about the yoga thing though. Will it be taught with or without Hindu religious elements?

Share This Page