# NY gov says Islamic group won't relocate mosque



## Tleilaxu (Aug 11, 2010)

> *ALBANY, N.Y. — Gov. David Paterson said Wednesday that developers of an Islamic cultural center that would include a mosque near ground zero have rejected his offer to help them find a different site.*
> 
> While in Manhattan, Paterson said the group apparently wants to remain with its current plans to build near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
> 
> ...





It would have been nice if they had accepted that offer.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 11, 2010)

Thats fine, how about we find you a different picture to draw other than mohammed? A nice Horse maybe, or Dragon. I am sure they will have the same effect.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 11, 2010)

Once again, the Muslims in the community aren't free to practice their religion in the community church, temple, and synagogue. Yes, you feel offended, but really?


----------



## N120 (Aug 11, 2010)

> "I always believed that government should not be involved in deciding who you pray to, what you say or where you say it," Bloomberg said.



 good, lets move on then.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Mist Beauty said:


> Once again, the Muslims in the community aren't free to practice their religion in the community church, temple, and synagogue. Yes, you feel offended, but really?


And once again you're sprouting BS. 

They offered to help them find another site, its not as if they're being put out of the city. 

Another example of Islam refusing to play ball and show tolerance for anyone else's sensitivity. People should plaster Mohammad drawings all over the place.


----------



## N120 (Aug 11, 2010)

^ they should and muslims should build more mosques closer to ground zero.

everyones happy.


----------



## Rick (Aug 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And once again you're sprouting BS.
> 
> They offered to help them find another site, its not as if they're being put out of the city.
> 
> Another example of Islam refusing to play ball and show tolerance for anyone else's sensitivity. People should plaster Mohammad drawings all over the place.



Seriously?


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 11, 2010)

N120 said:


> ^ they should and muslims should build more mosques closer to ground zero.
> 
> everyones happy.


No not really.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

N120 said:


> ^ they should and muslims should build more mosques closer to ground zero.
> 
> everyones happy.


Exactly the kind of tolerance to be expected. 

Draw pictures of our prophet and we kill you. But God forbid we're asked to observe anyone else's sensitivity and try and see things their way.


----------



## N120 (Aug 11, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> No not really.



No? 

but you get to draw pictures that insult us Toko and we get to invest in the local economy,hire local companies,employ people who are out of work in this current fincial climate, increase passing trade and build more walls for you to put your posters on.


----------



## Rick (Aug 11, 2010)

N120 said:


> ^ they should and muslims should build more mosques closer to ground zero.
> 
> everyones happy.



You have a point, every supported South Park and the drawings and didn't care but when it's about the Mosque near ground zero they get all upset. 
I don't see the point of people being upset. Where I live I have to drive 1 hour to go to a Mosque but there is a church 1 minute away from my house and everywhere I go.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 11, 2010)

i say someone just forces them to move, this shit is too disrespectful.


----------



## N120 (Aug 11, 2010)

^ thats the whole point, we exploit the loop hole in your constitution to attack you in your base.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Rick said:


> You have a point, every supported South Park and the drawings and didn't care but when it's about the Mosque near ground zero they get all upset.
> I don't see the point of people being upset. Where I live I have to drive 1 hour to go to a Mosque but there is a church 1 minute away from my house and everywhere I go.


Could that be because there's not enough Muslims to garner there being one closer? There's mosques all over NYC. 

It's an hour drive to a Synagogue in some area of Houston, its not cause we're running all the jews away, its because there aren't any in those areas to go to them.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 11, 2010)

N120 said:


> ^ thats the whole point, we exploit the loop hole in your constitution to attack you in your base.



this is wrong on so many levels


----------



## Rick (Aug 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Could that be because there's not enough Muslims to garner there being one closer? There's mosques all over NYC.
> 
> It's an hour drive to a Synagogue in some area of Houston, its not cause we're running all the jews away, its because there aren't any in those areas to go to them.



But what I've read it's a community center with a Mosque in it so what's the big deal? If the Mosque wasn't in the community center there won't have been a problem.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Nova said:


> this is wrong on so many levels


Oh its okay. But if someone white says something to a Muslim, someone wheel that podium in here, we have to have a Tiger Woods style press conference apology.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And once again you're sprouting BS.
> 
> They offered to help them find another site, its not as if they're being put out of the city.
> 
> Another example of Islam refusing to play ball and show tolerance for anyone else's sensitivity. People should plaster Mohammad drawings all over the place.



Play ball?  Why _should _they move?  To make people who'll hate Muslims anyway feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Should we ask Christians to move all Christian buildings away from the sites of any evil deeds committed by Christians?


----------



## hammer (Aug 11, 2010)

white people can be muslims ctk I also dont see why they need to move its not like they are ontop of it


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 11, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Play ball?  Why _should _they move?  To make people who'll hate Muslims anyway feel warm and fuzzy inside?
> 
> Should we ask Christians to move all Christian buildings away from the sites of any evil deeds committed by Christians?



what are these evil deeds by christians that are younger then a decade old? huh? and have they even built near them?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Play ball?  Why _should _they move?  To make people who'll hate Muslims anyway feel warm and fuzzy inside?
> 
> Should we ask Christians to move all Christian buildings away from the sites of any evil deeds committed by Christians?


Why would they even build it there in the first place? That's just stupid, they could have picked any other number of sites and the city is trying to tell them that before they even break ground. 

Show me a site where Christians killed thousands in the past ten years in the US and I'll tell them to go fucking move myself. 

Oh wait that place doesn't exist.


----------



## Rick (Aug 11, 2010)

These could be good to strength the connection with Muslims in the community in that area. What we say here won't matter in the end this agrument won't end so I won't continue.
I wouldn't kill, but you seen on the news countless killings doesn't matter their religion.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 11, 2010)

Nova said:


> what are these evil deeds by christians that are younger then a decade old? huh? and have they even built near them?



Not to divert from your question but 10 years is the magic number?  So if we wait just another year and half then its ok for islamic structures to pop up near ground zero?  Right now its an insensitive intolerable act but in a year and a half its all good?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why would they even build it there in the first place? That's just stupid, they could have picked any other number of sites and the city is trying to tell them that before they even break ground.



They can build wherever the hell they want.  Why NOT build it here?  Again so that people who will hate muslims no matter what can feel all warm and snuggly inside?

They're build a community center.  God forbid they make a place where their children can go to play and be safe, the shear audacity.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Show me a site where Christians killed thousands in the past ten years in the US and I'll tell them to go fucking move myself.
> 
> Oh wait that place doesn't exist.



Again 10 years is the magic number?  In a year and a half this would be perfectly ok?

There are plenty of atrocities committed by Christians, as I recall Tim McVeigh was raised Irish Catholic.  Did you want to stop anything Christian from being built near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing?.....before the 10 year magic grace period of course.


----------



## N120 (Aug 11, 2010)

Nova said:


> this is wrong on so many levels, your a prick



I know 



Tokoyami said:


> Your obviously a fucking moron.



that too 



> We drew those pictures to prove a damn point.  That we are not going to be intimidated by those asshole muslims who threaten to kill us over something so idiotically _trivial_ as drawing a picture.



I dont see how this is a counter to my post. I didn't say anything about threats, didnt say anything about you not making your point (what ever it is), for all i care you could draw pics for the lulz makes no difference.

 ctk wants to draw pics, go ahead draw what ever you want. I want to build mosques then i should be able to do that too.


----------



## Jin-E (Aug 11, 2010)

The problem is, if they had agreed to move it, they would in effect acknowledge the claim that Islam as a religion was behind 9/11 and that they somehow shared communal guilt and responsibility over it. That wouldnt square well with these people's firm belief that the extremists doesnt represent "true" Islam and that it perverts their religion.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Not to divert from your question but 10 years is the magic number?  So if we wait just another year and half then its ok for islamic structures to pop up near ground zero?  Right now its an insensitive intolerable act but in a year and a half its all good?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ten years ago is roughly when it happened. Christians haven't killed large groups of people in the US in over one hundred years. Pick a tragedy, none of them has surviving members or close family of them. 

And you're right they can build there, prove their insensitivity and ignorance and it can be pretty clear why people don't want to be tolerant back. 

People bend over backwards to try and show Muslims as not being evil all over the TV. It might be nice of them to try and at least understand someone else's side for a change.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 11, 2010)

Rick said:


> *Drawing pictures prove nothing but how ignorant you are. It's like adding fuel to a fire. You know it's going to cause problems.*


Problem here is that I find freedom of speech to be a shit ton more important than you being butthurt about something.  Hence the reason they were drawn, we are not going to shut up just because you threaten to kill us, because we happen to like freedom of speech.


> How you feel if someone purposely tried to get in a fight with something you believe or your family?


Depends, who are they, how powerful are they, can I get away from them and ignore them while doing my own thing?

If so, fuck'em I'll do my own thing elsewhere.  I'll only fight if absolutely have to, otherwise I'll just find somewhere else I can slink off to.



> You would try to protect right?


If I had to fight then yes.

However when I get mad about something my first reaction isn't, I'M GOING TO SLAUGHTER YOU AND EVERYONE YOU CARE ABOUT BECAUSE YOU'VE BADMOUTHED SOMETHING I BELIEVE IN. That is what I hear alot of whenever anything like this happens within the muslim community.

My first reaction depending on what they are doing, is to either ignore them, or find out what crawled up their ass and maybe mock them a little for being a prick.  Case in point:  Quite a few people on this site have badmouthed me for being a furry, I have yet to threaten them with death.  I have however threatened to violate thier anal cavities and make them enjoy it.



> Do you guys even know any Muslim people? I used to know a guy who was kind of like you guys but I educated him more on what he hears on the news.


Who is this person?  May I speak to them?


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 11, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Not to divert from your question but 10 years is the magic number?  So if we wait just another year and half then its ok for islamic structures to pop up near ground zero?  Right now its an insensitive intolerable act but in a year and a half its all good?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are dodging the question because you cant back it up, but besides that point, no it would not be alright, we are just talking about the timeframe in which 911 happened, be my guest if you want to find one in the past 100 years, i wouldnt support that either and if it is still up today i would want them to take it down as well.

and the problem with your example is that a christian blew up a building where the community was christian, our whole country is basically christian, show me an example identical to our situation, a christian, or christians, in the last 100 years, kill thousands of people in a different country with a different majority religion then christian, and show me where they built there churches near the site, and ill agree, they should move the fucking churches.

please tell me if you find that site, because that would be essentially fucked up imo, and the same can be said for this.


----------



## Raiden (Aug 11, 2010)

He seemed genuinely concerned about easing the situation. 

You know, I never thought of Patterson as a bad guy. His problem is that too often, he has a very bad instinct. 

As was the case here. The developer behind the mosque has already stressed that it must be build at the current location. Why inject yourself to start a conversation you know the developer won't even bother to begin? Gotta go with your gut sometimes.


----------



## Masaki (Aug 11, 2010)

Nova said:


> what are these evil deeds by christians that are younger then a decade old? huh? and have they even built near them?



Because the actions of a few reflect the opinions of the many.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why would they even build it there in the first place? That's just stupid, they could have picked any other number of sites and the city is trying to tell them that before they even break ground.



Okay, but they built it there.  It's done.  They could have picked any site and they picked there.  Why are you so butthurt over the building of a religious institution?



> Show me a site where Christians killed thousands in the past ten years in the US and I'll tell them to go fucking move myself.
> Oh wait that place doesn't exist.



The White House appears to have indirectly killed a number of innocent people in the past couple of years.  So go ahead.




> Anyone who would kill over a picture deserves to have their feelings shit on.



And anyone who would touch a little boy probably shouldn't be preaching the sanctity of marriage.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 11, 2010)

I for one am all for the Mosque because I believe in freedom of religion. 

My question is do muslims believe the same. 
Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca? Can I prosthelytize in Mecca? or in pakistan? I can I as a non-Muslim even enter mecca?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Masaki said:


> Okay, but they built it there.  It's done.  They could have picked any site and they picked there.  Why are you so butthurt over the building of a religious institution?



Because of the supposed ground breaking date? Because of their insensitivity to the issue? Take your pick. 



Masaki said:


> The White House appears to have indirectly killed a number of innocent people in the past couple of years.  So go ahead.


The white house is neither a religion, nor is it trying to kill them so try again.  



Masaki said:


> And anyone who would touch a little boy probably shouldn't be preaching the sanctity of marriage.


Bullshit , what does one have to do with the other? Are you going to strawman or actually attempt to stay on topic.

What we have here is a failure to produce anything valid. Please come back when you've got more to go on than "blame the Catholics" and other things that amount to nothing.


----------



## WT (Aug 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And once again you're sprouting BS.
> 
> They offered to help them find another site, its not as if they're being put out of the city.
> 
> Another example of Islam refusing to play ball and show tolerance for anyone else's sensitivity. People should plaster Mohammad drawings all over the place.



You know what, Ive been against this idea from the beginning. I believe the money should be invested in Muslim countries, their economies need this as well. Or, invest in creating centres in America in other places which caters for new muslims, after all, thats a large thing going on in the US. $100M will probably see the creation of quite a few of these centers. That will be far better.



> Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca?



You cannot enter Mecca unless you are a Muslim.


----------



## N120 (Aug 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I for one am all for the Mosque because I believe in freedom of religion.
> 
> My question is do muslims believe the same.
> Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca? Can I prosthelytize in Mecca? or in pakistan? I can I as a non-Muslim even enter mecca?



Not in mecca as the whole city is a designated worship area, anywhere else in saudi or pakistan or wherever, you should be able to do it and i'd support it too.


----------



## Masaki (Aug 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I for one am all for the Mosque because I believe in freedom of religion.
> 
> My question is do muslims believe the same.
> Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca? Can I prosthelytize in Mecca? or in pakistan? I can I as a non-Muslim even enter mecca?



Eye for an eye and the entire world is blind.  If we're going to be the forerunner of equality and tolerance, then let's show we are.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because of the supposed ground breaking date? Because of their insensitivity to the issue? Take your pick.
> 
> 
> Bullshit , what does one have to do with the other? Are you going to strawman or actually attempt to stay on topic.



And you're being any less insensitive?


In hindsight the comparison is a bit shaky, but my point is this:  Just because a few muslims commit felonies, even if it is over a drawing, doesn't mean we should suddenly shun the rights of all other muslims.


----------



## Koi (Aug 11, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Play ball?  Why _should _they move?  To make people who'll hate Muslims anyway feel warm and fuzzy inside?
> 
> Should we ask Christians to move all Christian buildings away from the sites of any evil deeds committed by Christians?



For serious.  They have no reason to move, and they shouldn't feel obligated to.  They have the same freedoms of religion and assembly that everyone else has.  Besides, it's not like it's right next to, or on top of, Ground Zero.  The place is a few blocks away!

If I could embed these videos, I would.  Relevant, from last night's Daily Show:

 (THERE IS ALREADY A MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO.)


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Masaki said:


> In hindsight the comparison is a bit shaky, but my point is this:  Just because a few muslims commit felonies, even if it is over a drawing, doesn't mean we should suddenly shun the rights of all other muslims.



I don't know, you seem to keep bringing up the infractions of a few priests, and still the whole church has suffered for it. 

I don't think that asking these people to move their mosque is any different or bad. If anything, its their own fault for trying to put it there. You wouldn't go plant flags at the Nagasaki bomb site do something else like cause its insensitive, all that's being asked of them is to show the same courtesy they seem to demand all of the time for their own belief system and what's being demonstrated why no one cares about offending them.


----------



## Munak (Aug 11, 2010)

My multi-religion recreational center suggestion still stands.


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 11, 2010)

Nova said:


> and the problem with your example is that a christian blew up a building where the community was christian, our whole country is basically christian, show me an example identical to our situation, a christian, or christians, in the last 100 years, kill thousands of people in a different country with a different majority religion then christian, and show me where they built there churches near the site, and ill agree, they should move the fucking churches.



How About Nazi Germany.  Hitler was an out and out Christian, Killed about 6 million jews and 6 million more for being Russian, Gay, Serbian, Gypsie.  Saying that by doing so he was doing the work of God.

And Churches were built during those times and more than likely some near places where some of those groups of people lived


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Nemesis said:


> How About Nazi Germany.  Hitler was an out and out Christian, Killed about 6 million jews and 6 million more for being Russian, Gay, Serbian, Gypsie.
> 
> And Churches were built during those times and more than likely some near places where some of those groups of people lived


This sounds like bullshit, plus this wasn't because of religion solely that these people were killed. It was more racism. 

You're grasping for straws because your terrible argument doesn't have any ground.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 11, 2010)

Hitler made his OWN religion and it was a different from Christianity as apples are from peas.


----------



## hammer (Aug 11, 2010)

I likehow you say its racisim since since jew is not a race


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

hammer said:


> I likehow you say its racisim since since jew is not a race


Actually its a religion and a race.


----------



## WT (Aug 11, 2010)

hammer said:


> jew is not a race



I've been told otherwise. Jew is the race whereas Judaism is the religion. 

So essentially its legitimate to say there exist Muslim Jews in Israel.


----------



## hammer (Aug 11, 2010)

^ ifyou say you follow Judaism then you are jewish



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually its a religion and a race.



its a relgion not a race blacks canbe jews aisans can be jews etc like asians can be muslims or christians it is not a race


----------



## oricon (Aug 11, 2010)

Im not a muslim, but i find it very ignorant that people are grouping muslims with terrorists groups and extremists,


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 11, 2010)

Nemesis said:


> How About Nazi Germany.  Hitler was an out and out Christian, Killed about 6 million jews and 6 million more for being Russian, Gay, Serbian, Gypsie.  Saying that by doing so he was doing the work of God.
> 
> And Churches were built during those times and more than likely some near places where some of those groups of people lived



where they lived? sure, but not where they were killed, and i in no way support hitler or nazi germany so i wouldnt ever have supported building churches in germany anyways because they were fucked up people.

basically, i dont even see hitler as a christian, and niether should anyone else because no christian can be called a christian if he kills people, he has forsaken god in terms of their religion.

and wtf thats a horrible example to use no one would ever support hitler you dumb or something?  i already said i wouldnt support it, and if i was muslim in this case, i wouldnt support building a mosque so close because its very offensive to many people and especially wouldnt support it after the government kindly asked them to move in a very nice way and these people decided to shun them off completely ignoring any feelings the other side has about the issue and just recklessly doing what they want, insensitive assholes


----------



## Z (Aug 11, 2010)

oricon said:


> Im not a muslim, but i find it very ignorant that people are grouping muslims with terrorists groups and extremists,



This.

Lots of retarded comments here. 

hurr durr its disrespectful


----------



## Nemesis (Aug 11, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Hitler made his OWN religion and it was a different from Christianity as apples are from peas.



Hitler was in his mind an outright Catholic.  Just like in the mind of the Terrorists they claim to be outright muslims.  Neither follow mainstream but in this instance comparing the 2 is legit.


----------



## Spirit (Aug 11, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I for one am all for the Mosque because I believe in freedom of religion.
> 
> My question is do muslims believe the same.
> Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca? Can I prosthelytize in Mecca? or in pakistan? I can I as a non-Muslim even enter mecca?



1. New York =/= Mecca.

2. But also, Mecca =/= Masjidil Haraam. So, you should be able to build a church or a synagogue in Mecca. Though you cannot build one in Masjidil Haraam. That's like, building a house of worship inside another religion's house of worship.

Proselytize? See the free speech status. If it was up to me, it shouldn't be a problem. In the truest sense of fairness and equality, if I cannot convert out, then you cannot convert in. And I am not happy to knowingly breed hypocrites in my community.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Aug 11, 2010)

they putting some people to work with that construction.

even though, we as Americans, may feel offended that the religion of those who crashed the plane into the world trade. Are now building a mosque near there.

What they are doing is perfectly legal and in turn we are encroaching on first amendment rights of these citizens.


its seems those who like the bash people heads with the constitution, like the other way from it when it doesnt suit their feelings.


----------



## Jin-E (Aug 11, 2010)

Nemesis said:


> Hitler was in his mind an outright Catholic.  Just like in the mind of the Terrorists they claim to be outright muslims.  Neither follow mainstream but in this instance comparing the 2 is legit.



Your comparision is way off. He grew up in a traditional Catholic home, but whatever bone he threw to the Church was purely political.

The fact that the Nazi state emphasized Germany's pre-Christian past and celebrated mythological rituals and festivals, the fact that his armies killed thousands of Polish Catholic priests, the fact that he approved the killing of dissident German priests(such as Boenhoffer), the fact that he did not spare Jewish converts, all provide strong evidence that Christianity wasn't even a tiniest factor in his decisions


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

hammer said:


> ^ ifyou say you follow Judaism then you are jewish
> 
> 
> 
> its a relgion not a race blacks canbe jews aisans can be jews etc like asians can be muslims or christians it is not a race


The Jewish people are also a race, Hitler wanted to kill anyone of Jewish descent.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't know, you seem to keep bringing up the infractions of a few priests, and still the whole church has suffered for it.


And the pope himself mind you.  You know the guy IN CHARGE of the church?

Meh.  Let them do as they wish.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> And the pope himself mind you.  You know the guy IN CHARGE of the church?
> 
> Meh.  Let them do as they wish.


What you're saying is unclear here. Regardless, you guys can't paint one religions as evil and deserving to be punished and turn around and coddle the other. 

It smells a lot like hypocrisy.

It's not blaming all Muslims to say something is insensitive when it so specifically steps on the feet of so many people. If they were worried about offending people they wouldn't have done it.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 12, 2010)

The pope himself is the one who tried to cover up the scandal in the first place.  Either way irrelevant to the mosque/community center.

They do have freedom of religion and thus it should be allowed.  Personally however I'm a bit wary of it as some things about it seem fishy to me.  Yes it would be nice for the muslim community to have a convenient mosque to go to.  That is something I wouldn't get into an argument about because freedom of religion kind of demands it.

However the goal is to "foster better relations between muslims and non muslims."    Putting it near ground zero even if it is two blocks away however is going to cause a fucking controversy and you know it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 12, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> The pope himself is the one who tried to cover up the scandal in the first place.  Either way irrelevant to the mosque/community center.
> 
> They do have freedom of religion and thus it should be allowed.  Personally however I'm not liking it as some things about it seem fishy about it.  Not to mention the goal is to "foster better relations between muslims and non muslims."  Putting it near ground zero even ifit is two blocks away is going to cause a controversy and you fucking know it.
> 
> Something about those two statements seems to clash if you ask me.


No one is saying the government should stop them though. Which is what I don't get, people are basically bitching that its not alright to bitch.


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

the first amendment allwos them to bitch but they shouldnt be froced to move because of hurt feelings.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 12, 2010)

hammer said:


> the first amendment allwos them to bitch but they shouldnt be froced to move because of hurt feelings.


No one is forcing them, someone offered to help them. It's not as if the government is strong-arming them off their land.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 12, 2010)

hammer said:


> the first amendment allwos them to bitch but they shouldnt be froced to move because of hurt feelings.


Indeed they shouldn't.

I do however expect quite a few idiots to cause them alooooot of problems.


----------



## dreams lie (Aug 12, 2010)

Is someone nervous about midterm elections?


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Aug 12, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> I've been told otherwise. Jew is the race whereas Judaism is the religion.
> 
> So essentially its legitimate to say there exist Muslim Jews in Israel.



to this day, i will never get how jew is a race.

Race in particular stems from region.
african
causian
asian
etc.

Theres no jew land, but a group of people who practice Judaism.

idk fuck this shit, i might be wrong but that shit dont feel right.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 12, 2010)

lol but you call the people with curly hair and big noses jews dont you? even if they arent jewish?

im being quite broad but i mean the ones who have the features most jews have


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Aug 12, 2010)

There is already a freaking mosque down there already? what's wrong with another?


----------



## Koi (Aug 12, 2010)

*THERE IS ALREADY A MOSQUE

FOUR BLOCKS AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO

AND IT WAS BUILT IN 1970*


----------



## Bungee Gum (Aug 12, 2010)

dude its 2 blocks closer, wtf, 2 BLOCKS CLOSER, cmon.


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

Nova said:


> lol but you call the people with curly hair and big noses jews dont you? even if they arent jewish?



its called a steryotype


----------



## Koi (Aug 12, 2010)

TWO BLOCKS NOOO

Seriously this is a ridiculous debate, Imo.  If someone was building an al-Qaeda rendezvous center or something then I'd be a little worried.  But it's a mosque/community center, where a Burlington Coat Factory used to be. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## dreams lie (Aug 12, 2010)

For Nova, if it is okay to say that Jews have big noses, then it is okay to say Muslims are terrorists.


----------



## very bored (Aug 12, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Indeed they shouldn't.
> 
> I do however expect quite a few idiots to cause them alooooot of problems.



I think the mosque will be finished before whatever's planned for ground zero, and then a *Christian *will bomb the mosque because "*Islam *is a religion of hate" or something.


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

dreams lie said:


> For Nova, if it is okay to say that Jews have big noses, then it is okay to say Muslims are terrorists.



only infamily guyand southpark


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 12, 2010)

Koi said:


> *THERE IS ALREADY A MOSQUE
> 
> FOUR BLOCKS AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO
> 
> AND IT WAS BUILT IN 1970*



And no one's complaining about it. 



Koi said:


> TWO BLOCKS NOOO
> 
> Seriously this is a ridiculous debate, Imo.  If someone was building an al-Qaeda rendezvous center or something then I'd be a little worried.  But it's a mosque/community center, where a Burlington Coat Factory used to be. There's nothing wrong with that.



This one is that close and rumored to break ground September 11th a year from now, on the ten year anniversary. Other things seem suspiciously insensitive about it, which is why the debate is valid.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 12, 2010)

Koi said:


> *THERE IS ALREADY A MOSQUE
> 
> FOUR BLOCKS AWAY FROM GROUND ZERO
> 
> AND IT WAS BUILT IN 1970*



LOL 100% confirmed fake outrage. 

Where is the request to move that mosque?

They have a right to build it where they want. End of.


----------



## Nae'blis (Aug 12, 2010)

those whiners should just stop being butthurt and allow the cultural centre to be built there.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 12, 2010)

Nae'blis said:


> those whiners should just stop being butthurt and allow the cultural centre to be built there.


They have as much right to complain as the Muslims have to build it? Or did you forget?


----------



## Nae'blis (Aug 12, 2010)

Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say that.

Hopefully there is enough preparation-H to go around.

and lol at bringing up hitler.


----------



## ximkoyra (Aug 12, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> It would have been nice if they had accepted that offer.



So you would like to see a state sponsored mosque?  I always knew that you were a secret Muslim


----------



## Buskuv (Aug 12, 2010)

Sure is Godwin's Law in here.


----------



## Rick (Aug 12, 2010)

Some people on this forum act like it's there mission to debate anything with Muslims. Seriously. Kind of annoying to read. Take a religion class. You will learn more than the 9/11 attacks and terrorist groups.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 12, 2010)

Rick said:


> Some people on this forum act like it's there mission to debate anything with muslims. Seriously. Kind of annoying to read. Take a religion class. You will learn more than the 9/11 attacks and terrorist groups.


Actually I do this with ANY religion.


----------



## Wolfarus (Aug 12, 2010)

Its simple, really.

The islamic's want to build a mosque / community center, in order to build more understanding between them and the west / americans. However, allot of people (if not the majority) in NYC feel that putting a mosque anywhere near ground-zero is an insult to those who died there and unsympathetic to the sensitivity of the site, in regards to islam.

However, the islamic backers of the idea are fast to cry for understanding and sensitivity when the west lumps them in with islamic extreamists / terrorists, yet they apparently cant give the same understanding / sensitivity to the people of NY.

And then there's the murky issue of extactly where the funding for this is coming from (aka it could very well be financed, in some part, by the very group of people who bomb'd the city in the first place) and the backers are choosing to not reveal their cash source(s).

And finally, they are not being forced out of the city, they are simply being asked to build elsewhere, further away from the site. But asking that is apparently another form of "insensitivity to islam".

So in conclusion.. this is pretty much the usual passive-aggresive islamic routine of trying to get their way, w/o looking like terrorists, and making it seem like the west is once again refusing to come to an understanding with them in a civilized, peacefull way.

That about sum it up?


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 12, 2010)

> It would have been nice if they had accepted that offer.



Why?

There's no good reason they should move.



> That about sum it up?



that's how Sarah Palin might sum it up, yeah.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

Wolfarus said:


> Its simple, really.
> 
> The islamic's want to build a mosque / community center, in order to build more understanding between them and the west / americans. However, allot of people (if not the majority) in NYC feel that putting a mosque anywhere near ground-zero is an insult to those who died there and unsympathetic to the sensitivity of the site, in regards to islam.
> 
> ...


No if they agreed to playball they are pretty much admitting that Muslims=Terrorists, and that they were responsible for 9/11. 

Try again.


----------



## Surreal (Aug 12, 2010)

Godwin's law, religion hate, freedom of speech, cultural clash, hidden bigotry crouching ignorance, the Jews....

....makings of a standard Cafe thread when anything Islam related comes up in the news.

Never fails.

People building the center there should have (and probably did) know how it would be perceived (thus making their move sketchy at best) while the lulzy bigoted hypocrites are ignoring the very values they are supposed to represent against the evul Muslims. 

Hoho, keep up the good work.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Aug 12, 2010)

i find it ironic

few months ago

posters here told us (muslims and some non muslims) stfu when we said the drawings of the Prophet muhammed (PBUH) was insensitive. They said it was their freedom to do so.

and now when theres a islamic cultural centre which is not being built at the former WTC but two blocks away. Built to create understanding between the west and islam.

Well its the american muslims freedom to build a centre lawfully

off topic : i bet some posters here like ctk lmao ddnt know anything about islam before 9/11 (joke)


----------



## zuul (Aug 12, 2010)

Sadly people are assimilating the whole of the Muslims to those Al Qaida turds.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Aug 12, 2010)

There's one thing I didn't quite get. Do the muslims want to built a mosque there or has the mosque already been there before 9/11?

If it's the first, I don't see the problem in building that mosque elsewhere. I think one could expect the muslims to show a little bit of understanding there.

If it's the latter it's not so easy. I think you can't just chase them away for something some terrorists did.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> There's one thing I didn't quite get. Do the muslims want to built a mosque there or has the mosque already been there before 9/11?
> 
> If it's the first, I don't see the problem in building that mosque elsewhere.* I think one could expect the muslims to show a little bit of understanding there.
> *
> If it's the latter it's not so easy. *I think you can't just chase them away for something some terrorists did.*



... What ...


----------



## Mael (Aug 12, 2010)

I will gladly protest this community center if there is no ball bin.

I WANT MY FUCKING BALL BIN!


----------



## Dionysus (Aug 12, 2010)

They should insure this thing heavily. It's probably going to be burnt to the ground eventually.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 12, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> You cannot enter Mecca unless you are a Muslim.


Right so why are you complaining that people don't want to build a mosque?
If you support restrictions on all non-Muslims from even entering a city, you should have no problem with similar restrictions. 



N120 said:


> Not in mecca as the whole city is a designated worship area, anywhere else in saudi or pakistan or wherever, you should be able to do it and i'd support it too.


A worship area which also has shops, cafe's, hotels, taxi and limousine service, barber service, metal manufacturing, textiles, etc
All the other amenities that go along with servicing 4 million people. 

Do you know that right now it is illegal to build a church anywhere in SA. 
Do you know that right now it is illegal to be in Pakistan and convince others to leave the Muslim faith, and join another other faith or non-faith. 


Masaki said:


> Eye for an eye and the entire world is blind.  If we're going to be the forerunner of equality and tolerance, then let's show we are.


Read the first sentance of my post again, I have no problem with the mosque. 

My issue is with the hypocrisy of the Muslim position. 



Tokyo Jihen said:


> 1. New York =/= Mecca.


By the obvious that they are different cities, in different locations. 

But this doesn't mean that similar restriction can't be placed on both. 



Tokyo Jihen said:


> 2. But also, Mecca =/= Masjidil Haraam. So, you should be able to build a church or a synagogue in Mecca. Though you cannot build one in Masjidil Haraam. That's like, building a house of worship inside another religion's house of worship.


right now, as a non-Muslim I can't enter the city. 



Tokyo Jihen said:


> Proselytize? See the free speech status. If it was up to me, it shouldn't be a problem. In the truest sense of fairness and equality, if I cannot convert out, then you cannot convert in. And I am not happy to knowingly breed hypocrites in my community.


Excellent, I am glad to hear your position on the subject, please convince your fellow Muslims.


----------



## beasty (Aug 12, 2010)

zuul said:


> Sadly people are assimilating the whole of the Muslims to those Al Qaida turds.



If ground zero was already rebuilt,there wouldnt been much of a problem. Due to NYC being run by retards progress at ground zero is still at 0% and the city approving construction in another area so close is gonna cause a problem.

Wounds wont be fully healed until those new towers are built at ground zero. 

Sadly people connected to the Muslim group destroyed that area and now seeing a  connection with those killers built BEFORE that area is fully repaired will cause an outrage.  

No one that lives in New York cares about who and where you worship but its not the right time to build a mosque in that area.  They should of waited until that area is fully repaired.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Aug 12, 2010)

@ Peon^^

Mecca is a holy city

New York isnt its a cultural hub


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Aug 12, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> ... What ...



I know it's a bit contradictory.
But I think there's only so much you can ask of somebody. Just building the mosque elsewhere is no big deal in my eyes. But having to build a new mosque, because they're not wanted there anymore is something different, imo.

Which one is it, does the mosque already stand there?

Also, I don't want to impute bad intentions on anyone, but if they're really *planning* to build a mosque in that place of all places, it feels a bit like mockery.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> I know it's a bit contradictory.
> But I think there's only so much you can ask of somebody. Just building the mosque elsewhere is no big deal in my eyes. But having to build a new mosque, because they're not wanted there anymore is something different, imo.
> 
> Which one is it, does the mosque already stand there?
> ...



They are planning to build the Mosque. 

Why is it a mockery if you don't consider muslims to be terrorists?


----------



## WT (Aug 12, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Right so why are you complaining that people don't want to build a mosque?
> If you support restrictions on all non-Muslims from even entering a city, you should have no problem with similar restrictions.



I'd understand if NewYork was supposed to be a complete secularist city with complete restrictions on religious buildings and even the practice of religion. Anyone trying to build a religious temple/mosque/church would obviously be out of their mind. Similariliy if Christians have an exclusive holy place which is unrelated to Islam or any other religion, I wouldn't consider it a problem if they only allowed Christians into that place. 

You can't single out the muslim community. For example you cant say "you have no right to build a mosque here" without saying "you also do not have a right to build a church, temple, synygoge etc". 

Mecca is like that as well. We don't discriminate with any specific religion. All other religions except Islam are not permitted there. 

And finally, on this whole ground zero issue, I actually believe that its unwise to build a mosque there. It'l build a lot of hatred in the non muslim community (as its shown). Muslims need to be more sensitive. Its a $100M project. This money should be invested into Mecca or any other area. There is construction happeneing there. That would be far better.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Aug 12, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> They are planning to build the Mosque.
> 
> Why is it a mockery if you don't consider muslims to be terrorists?




Because the terrorists destroyed the WTC in the name of Islam and a mosque is a symbol of Islam. I know probably most Muslims are defenitly not symphatizing with these terrorists, quite the contrary. But having a mosque there with the WTC gone feels like a victory for the terrorists.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> Because the terrorists destroyed the WTC in the name of Islam and a mosque is a symbol of Islam. I know probably most Muslims are defenitly not symphatizing with these terrorists, quite the contrary. But having a mosque there with the WTC gone feels like a victory for the terrorists.


Again by making this remark you are comparing all muslims to al-qaeda which is an extremist organisation that has been denounced by all muslims throughout the Islamic world. 

Also you do know that there were Muslims that died in 9/11 as well, how do you think they feel for being compared to the same people that killed their family members.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 12, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> @ Peon^^
> 
> Mecca is a holy city
> 
> New York isnt its a cultural hub


I'm pretty sure the site of 9/11 has as much if not more importance then Mecca to some people.

I assume that some people feel strongly about it because some of their loved ones died there.


----------



## Mael (Aug 12, 2010)

Excuse me.  I have yet to hear about the plans for a ball bin and fun slide.


----------



## Vicious-chan (Aug 12, 2010)

You know what'd be nice? If people would stop getting up in arms over this silly issue. Let them build the mosque, not all Muslims are bad (very few are, only the extremists like ANY religion). Do people even realize Muslims were killed in the Twin Towers too?


----------



## HolyHands (Aug 12, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:


> i find it ironic
> 
> few months ago
> 
> ...



There's a big difference between a bunch of simple drawings and a major terrorist attack that killed thousands and sparked a war. Drawings, whether offensive or not, are perfectly legal and within your rights to make. Everybody has to put up with smear talk from others who may not like them, but nobody should have to put up with thousands of lives being lost due to religious fanatics.

Muslims have the right to build a mosque, but it's also blatantly disrespectful and shines a bad light on muslims in general. Muslims constantly make a huge deal over respecting others, yet here they are acting even worse and becoming shocked when they are called out on it. If they really want to build it, then let them, but don't be surprised when everyone else becomes less sympathetic to them.


----------



## mystictrunks (Aug 12, 2010)

Community center with prayer room two-blocks away =/= gound zero mosque.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Hmm, let's have a recap, did Christian-motivated terrorist decide to fly planes into those buildings in the name of their Religion? No. It was an Islamic-based-nutjob of a group that killed thousands in the name of "Allaahadshada" Therefore, they lose all rights to have their mosque there. When Christian/jewish/hindi/etc religious groups decide to commit MASS murder by blowing buildings up with planes--then of course their house of holy shouldn't be built near it.
> 
> 
> Any Muslim okay with building this mosque so close to Ground Zero is an inconsiderate, childish idiot that has NO respect for anyone but people in their religion and they need to get over themselves.



Lovely generalisation that muslims are terrorists, wouldn't expect less from you, where are the other dupe sisters?


----------



## Mael (Aug 12, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Community center with prayer room two-blocks away =/= gound zero mosque.



This pretty much.

But I don't care about the prayer room.  Where can I get my Mohammed-sized milkshakes?

It's Prophantastic!


----------



## Black Wraith (Aug 12, 2010)

How far is two blocks away?


----------



## mystictrunks (Aug 12, 2010)

Black Wraith said:


> How far is two blocks away?



About 1/4th of a mile away, I think.

That's based off of theaverage though, it varies from place to place. No idea how big they are in New York.


----------



## Adonis (Aug 12, 2010)

Black Wraith said:


> How far is two blocks away?



It's apparently synonymous with "right on top of."


----------



## Mael (Aug 12, 2010)

Be sure to also check out the Mecca Rec Room, where daily worship and life's leisures are conveniently combined for the modern Muslim, complete with mud spa, rental carpets, back massagers for when you bow, and so much moar!


----------



## mystictrunks (Aug 12, 2010)

Mael said:


> This pretty much.
> 
> But I don't care about the prayer room.  Where can I get my Mohammed-sized milkshakes?
> 
> It's Prophantastic!



I heard those are totally unhealthy, but they don't let you see the nutritional info so who knows.


----------



## Eru Lawliet (Aug 12, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Again by making this remark you are comparing all muslims to al-qaeda which is an extremist organisation that has been denounced by all muslims throughout the Islamic world.
> 
> Also you do know that there were Muslims that died in 9/11 as well, how do you think they feel for being compared to the same people that killed their family members.



I think I see where you're coming from. I don't mean to compare all muslims to al-qaeda. Every religion or whatever group has their extremists.

I think no one will get out of this argument unharmed. Many people will feel offended for the reasons I stated before. Muslims will feel offended by that reaction for the reasons you stated. I think they should have known better and scratched that idea from the start. They should have expected that it will only cause trouble and be more considerate. Why is it important to them to have a mosque there of all places anyway?


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

Mael said:


> Excuse me.  I have yet to hear about the plans for a ball bin and fun slide.



how about a game room where you play warhammer with the people next to you


----------



## Watchman (Aug 12, 2010)

I see no problems with a mosque going up so close to Ground Zero. Hell, even if it was just a mosque and nothing else, rather than this community-centre-with-a-mosque-inside-it.

Why would it offend people? Do people believe all Muslims are responsible for 9/11? Because that's just patently ridiculous, and as has been said, the vast majority of NF'ers, and a sizeable majority of the West in general, supported the drawings of the Prophet Muhammed, something deeply offensive to Muslims. *As a matter of fact, I still do support those drawings and will never stop* - but just as Freedom of Expression, regardless of offence, is a fundamental right, so too is Freedom of Religion, regardless of offence - and the offence taken in this case is misguided, to say the least.

EDIT:

A community centre shared between the prophet Muhammed and THE IMMORTAL GOD-EMPEROR OF MANKIND would be lulzy, to say the least.


----------



## mystictrunks (Aug 12, 2010)

Eru Lawliet said:


> I think I see where you're coming from. I don't mean to compare all muslims to al-qaeda. Every religion or whatever group has their extremists.
> 
> I think no one will get out of this argument unharmed. Many people will feel offended for the reasons I stated before. Muslims will feel offended by that reaction for the reasons you stated. I think they should have known better and scratched that idea from the start. They should have expected that it will only cause trouble and be more considerate. Why is it important to them to have a mosque there of all places anyway?



It's a community center to improve relations between Islam and the West, it is to have a prayer room among other features such as a museum and some room about women's rights.


----------



## Gooba (Aug 12, 2010)

> Hmm, let's have a recap, did Christian-motivated terrorist decide to fly planes into those buildings in the name of their Religion? No. It was an Islamic-based-nutjob of a group that killed thousands in the name of "Allaahadshada" Therefore, they lose all rights to have their mosque there. When Christian/jewish/hindi/etc religious groups decide to commit MASS murder by blowing buildings up with planes--then of course their house of holy shouldn't be built near it.


So pretty much all of Europe should be banned from having Christian Churches since they have done a ton of mass murder over there.  Their death toll makes 9/11 look like a picnic.  Or does it specifically have to be blowing up building with planes? Impaling people on spears, cutting them apart with swords, or torturing them to death doesn't count?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and no religion is even in the fucking ballpark.


----------



## Mael (Aug 12, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> I heard those are totally unhealthy, but they don't let you see the nutritional info so who knows.



I've heard the flavors were awesome:

Rassabrberry - You'd wait in line forever for one!
Chocaliph and Oreo - Fit for a sultan!
Ciratrus al-Mustaqim - The Straight Path to a Happy Stomach!
Mustahabb Mango - Highly recommended by Muftis worldwide.

Other drinks include:
Iced Taqdir Tea - It was destined to be good!



Watchman said:


> EDIT:
> 
> A community centre shared between the prophet Muhammed and THE IMMORTAL GOD-EMPEROR OF MANKIND would be lulzy, to say the least.



The God-Emperor shares seats with NO ONE.


----------



## Outlandish (Aug 12, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> I for one am all for the Mosque because I believe in freedom of religion.
> 
> My question is do muslims believe the same.
> Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca? Can I prosthelytize in Mecca? or in pakistan? I can I as a non-Muslim even enter mecca?



You can under special circumstances but that's becaue of the current goverment which is a puppet of America & England. Probably why it gets away with so much human rights abuses et al. 

There are plenty of non muslims buildings in countries like Pakistan, Syria etc. I've seen churces and Christian communities in Syria that have been there aslong as the muslims them selfs 

I find it funny that you support churches but not mosques CTK, i bet if you trace your own ancestors back to Africa (assuming your from Africa and your family has been here since the transatlantic slave trade which was deemed okay because of the bible) they were probably muslim 

anyway Americans finding someone new to hate instead of focusing on their own issues, whats new ?


----------



## Al-Yasa (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Wanna know why they're not going to move it? Because they're assholes.
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.
> ...


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 12, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:
			
		

> @ Peon^^
> 
> Mecca is a holy city
> 
> New York isnt its a cultural hub


The distinction that you make that it is holy is based on a personal belief. 
These people are expressing their personal beliefs in the same way. 

Your hypocritical stance is that your personal beliefs should be respect, while theirs should be ignored. 



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> I'd understand if NewYork was supposed to be a complete secularist city with complete restrictions on religious buildings and even the practice of religion. Anyone trying to build a religious temple/mosque/church would obviously be out of their mind. Similariliy if Christians have an exclusive holy place which is unrelated to Islam or any other religion, I wouldn't consider it a problem if they only allowed Christians into that place.
> 
> You can't single out the muslim community. For example you cant say "you have no right to build a mosque here" without saying "you also do not have a right to build a church, temple, synygoge etc".
> 
> Mecca is like that as well. We don't discriminate with any specific religion. All other religions except Islam are not permitted there.


Wait, your argument is that.
?We discriminate against all people, instead of just one type of people, therefore it?s ok?

Sorry, but that makes it worse. The more you increase discrimination, the worse the position is. 

But I can reply in kind, they are discriminated against ALL religions that had member crash planes into two buildings can?t build religious centers. 
See it?s a general rule now, did that make it any better? No?

You take the position that you can discriminate when you want to, and deny the people even the right to enter that city. But when another does that against you, you complain. 



			
				Seshomaru said:
			
		

> And finally, on this whole ground zero issue, I actually believe that its unwise to build a mosque there. It'l build a lot of hatred in the non muslim community (as its shown). Muslims need to be more sensitive. Its a $100M project. This money should be invested into Mecca or any other area. There is construction happeneing there. That would be far better.


The people who are against it already hate muslims, this isn?t going to build hatred that wasn?t already there. 
You want more money funneled to SA?
I want it built because Muslims should not feel like outsiders in this country, they should be treated as Americans first.



			
				Outlandish said:
			
		

> You can under special circumstances but that's becaue of the current goverment which is a puppet of America & England. Probably why it gets away with so much human rights abuses et al.


No you can?t, as a non-Muslim I cannot even enter mecca. 
But that you are against it, is enough to point out the bigotry. 



			
				Outlandish said:
			
		

> There are plenty of non muslims buildings in countries like Pakistan, Syria etc. I've seen churces and Christian communities in Syria that have been there aslong as the muslims them selfs


True, there are chrisian building and chrisitan communities, but you cannot prosthelytize. Such action will get you arrested.


----------



## Seisokumaru (Aug 12, 2010)

Gooba said:


> So pretty much all of Europe should be banned from having Christian Churches since they have done a ton of mass murder over there.  Their death toll makes 9/11 look like a picnic.  Or does it specifically have to be blowing up building with planes? Impaling people on spears, cutting them apart with swords, or torturing them to death doesn't count?
> 
> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and no religion is even in the fucking ballpark.



So you believe people should be punished for shit done in their name a thousand years ago.  By your logic, we should still hate, fear and ban Islam in 3001 A.D. for 9/11, even if they do nothing bad from now until then.  An eye for an eye leaves the world blind, but you seem to want to take 1,000 eyes for an eye.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Ten years ago is roughly when it happened. Christians haven't killed large groups of people in the US in over one hundred years. Pick a tragedy, none of them has surviving members or close family of them.



Again Tim McVeigh was irish catholic and he killed a bunch of people with surviving members.  Should we stop irish catholics from building anywhere near the Oklahoma City bombing.

And since ten years seems to be your cut off point can you tell me the specific number of deaths that are required before you need to wait ten years (for some reason) before building anything near it?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And you're right they can build there, prove their insensitivity and ignorance and it can be pretty clear why people don't want to be tolerant back.




Where is the "intolerance" in building a community center?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People bend over backwards to try and show Muslims as not being evil all over the TV. It might be nice of them to try and at least understand someone else's side for a change.



What other side?  The "we don't want your kind round here" other side?

And how does building a community center near ground zero go against the "not all muslims are evil" argument?  Where is the EVIL here?



Nova said:


> You are dodging the question because you cant back it up, but besides that point, no it would not be alright, we are just talking about the timeframe in which 911 happened, be my guest if you want to find one in the past 100 years, i wouldnt support that either and if it is still up today i would want them to take it down as well.



Again Tim McVeigh was an irish catholic but no one ever talked about  preventing anything catholic from being built near the site of his  killing.



Nova said:


> and the problem with your example is that a christian blew up a building where the community was christian, our whole country is basically christian, *show me an example identical to our situation, a christian, or christians, in the last 100 years, kill thousands of people in a different country with a different majority religion then christian, and show me where they built there churches near the site, and ill agree, they should move the fucking churches.*
> 
> please tell me if you find that site, because that would be essentially fucked up imo, and the same can be said for this.



LOL I love how you make the the example so specific to 9/11 that nothing like that can be found.  So you're saying in order for me to draw comparisons to anything else it has to be EXACTLY like this in EVERY detail?  Why?

As for "our whole country is basically christian" what the hell does that have to do with anything?

No one has presented ONE reason why they should move other than "well they might make someone feel bad ".  God forbid we make anyone feel bad.

Isn't part of the "greatness" of New York the diverse cultures scattered throughout?


----------



## Hothien (Aug 12, 2010)

Alrighty then, if they're not allowed to build a Mosque there, then no Catholic churches in Manchester or anywhere near Canary Wharf.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Aug 12, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> The distinction that you make that it is holy is based on a personal belief.
> These people are expressing their personal beliefs in the same way.
> 
> Your hypocritical stance is that your personal beliefs should be respect, while theirs should be ignored.



the purpose of mecca is thats its a islamic holy site, used for pilgrimage

nyc isnt a holy site where pilgrims go. Its a city which contains diffrent faiths and cultures

if the American law allows american citizen the right to build a building for worship. Then ppl should accept it. if they have a problem they should go to the whitehouse


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 12, 2010)

> Excellent, I am glad to hear your position on the subject, please convince your fellow Muslims.



DUDE ! You want them to shoot TJ ?!! 

On topic : Well, it seems the developpers of the project don't want to TRY to negotiate and be diplomatic... People do stupid things because of "proving points" and honour, and when a sensible person comes with a decent solution, there's always a side that has to refuse, because they fear they'd "lose face".

The voice of reason doesn't interest conflicting debaters...

C'mon, the developpers could give up on the date of the beginning of construction, just wait a month or two, and it'll be less of a problem ! 

About the Mecca : how do you identify a non-muslim from a muslim there ? There're passwords ? Nothing prevents a christian from entering the Mecca if he tells people around he's a muslim and fools everyone by knowing prayers and stuff for camouflage. The thought of gatekeepers asking people to "prove their islamity" is amusing, and archaic.

And what happens to a non-muslim that successfully enters Mecca, gets a megaphone out, and says "Hello, I'm a christian/Jew/Hindu/Atheist/Whatever, and I'm standing right in the middle of the Mecca. Oh, and before I forget : el Oh el !"


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> DUDE ! You want them to shoot TJ ?!!
> 
> On topic : Well, it seems the developpers of the project don't want to TRY to negotiate and be diplomatic... People do stupid things because of "proving points" and honour, and when a sensible person comes with a decent solution, there's always a side that has to refuse, because they fear they'd "lose face".
> 
> ...



It has nothing to do with stubborness. If the developers agreed to move the location they're pretty much saying "oh we're sorry us muslims are responsible for 9/11".


----------



## Watchman (Aug 12, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> It has nothing to do with stubborness. If the developers agreed to move the location they're pretty much saying "oh we're sorry us muslims are responsible for 9/11".



Not necessarily. They could easily say "We're disappointed that people still associate all Muslims with the 9/11 bombers, but we can understand that putting the Community Centre here could provoke undue tensions. Therefore, we'll show you the respect we wish you'd shown us with the drawings of the Prophet Muhammed, and move the Community Centre elsewhere to avoid giving offence."

Not saying they _should_ move, but it's easy enough to do so without taking on the guilt of the 9/11 bombers, and at the same time deliver a well-deserved verbal pwning to the bigots opposed to them.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Not necessarily. They could easily say "We're disappointed that people still associate all Muslims with the 9/11 bombers, but we can understand that putting the Community Centre here could provoke undue tensions. Therefore, we'll show you the respect we wish you'd shown us with the drawings of the Prophet Muhammed, and move the Community Centre elsewhere to avoid giving offence."
> 
> Not saying they _should_ move, but it's easy enough to do so without taking on the guilt of the 9/11 bombers, and at the same time deliver a well-deserved verbal pwning to the bigots opposed to them.


Fair enough. That would be quite epic.


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 12, 2010)

> If the developers agreed to move the location they're pretty much saying "oh we're sorry us muslims are responsible for 9/11



That's what THEY and YOU would think. For peace sake, can't people accept to at least find concessions about this ? They behave like kids that refuse to leave the park after being proposed to use an other, equally appropriate and equipped as the first one. 

Look, people are already pissed and upset about the communauty center. Don't building it would be admitting to be the same as the terrorists ? Well, building it already makes people think it is like planting the victory flag on the ruins of a battlefield ! The situation will be a mess WHATSOEVER !

No matter what happens, no matter the decision, no matter the feelings, IT'S LOSE-LOSE anyway you look at it !

They have to think of the least damageable situation, and that needs DIALOGUE. A real one.

Off-topic : I agree with everything Mael mentionned about the drinks. And the fun slide.



> "We're disappointed that people still associate all Muslims with the 9/11 bombers, but we can understand that putting the Community Centre here could provoke undue tensions. Therefore, we'll show you the respect we wish you'd shown us with the drawings of the Prophet Muhammed, and move the Community Centre elsewhere to avoid giving offence."



That would be a wonderful and mature response.


----------



## Deimos (Aug 12, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> About the Mecca : how do you identify a non-muslim from a muslim there ? There're passwords ? Nothing prevents a christian from entering the Mecca if he tells people around he's a muslim and fools everyone by knowing prayers and stuff for camouflage. The thought of gatekeepers asking people to "prove their islamity" is amusing, and archaic.
> 
> And what happens to a non-muslim that successfully enters Mecca, gets a megaphone out, and says "Hello, I'm a christian/Jew/Hindu/Atheist/Whatever, and I'm standing right in the middle of the Mecca. Oh, and before I forget : el Oh el !"



Religion is specified on your iqama. They check that on your way in. It doesn't really matter what your true religion is, but it may be a bit difficult acquiring an iqama with a "Muslim" value in the religion field when your name is Jennifer or something like that.

I'm assuming there are laws to enforce non-Muslims out of there if they somehow manage to get in. I don't quite get the issues people have with those restrictions. KSA is a country and has its own set of rules. If you don't like them, what are you even doing there?


----------



## Psycho (Aug 12, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> No not really.



yeah, not really

one mosque that huge is fine


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 12, 2010)

Don't degrade New York by making comparisons with Mecca.

Also it's pretty illogical

"Muslims won't let us into Mecca. This means they suck. We should do the same. This means we suck."

You're doing what you're criticising them for.

And I can't believe how many fucking posts this topic keeps on getting.

IT'S A GOD-DAMN COMMUNITY CENTRE, ONE OF THOUSANDS, WHO CARES


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> That's what THEY and YOU would think. For peace sake, can't people accept to at least find concessions about this ? They behave like kids that refuse to leave the park after being proposed to use an other, equally appropriate and equipped as the first one.
> 
> Look, people are already pissed and upset about the communauty center. Don't building it would be admitting to be the same as the terrorists ? Well, building it already makes people think it is like planting the victory flag on the ruins of a battlefield ! The situation will be a mess WHATSOEVER !
> 
> ...


So you're pretty much saying we should turn the other cheek for Islamphobes that assume that Muslims = Terrorists.


----------



## Red (Aug 12, 2010)

This is the NY Islamic group trolling. A nice way to help disassociate your religion from terrorism is to build a mosque next to a terrorist site your radical faction did!

BRILLIANT!

Fucking bullshit, anybody would two brain cells can see the down side of doing this. This isn't about freedom of religion, this is about sensitivity to ones society. This is bad publicity in every single way ever for Muslims who should be separating themselves from the negative.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

Well all this story bring more cons for Islam in the US. If this mosque wasn't located near WTC, nobody would care but with this controversal choice, the people will think muslim try to build a victory monument. It's definitly don't help Islam. It would be so easier for them to remove the project in an other place in Manhahan. You can't blame the americans, they were attacked by extremist muslim in 2001 and there is also the murder in by an american muslim soldier in an US base. 



> Critics are suspicious of who will fund the project, and developers haven't released their sources of capital.



Who is behind the project ?


----------



## WT (Aug 12, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Wait, your argument is that.
> ?We discriminate against all people, instead of just one type of people, therefore it?s ok?
> 
> Sorry, but that makes it worse. The more you increase discrimination, the worse the position is.
> ...



We are not discriminating against anyone. There are only two places in the world where non muslims are not allowed: Mecca and Madina. The main purpose of these two places is for worship. The centre of Mecca is the Kaaba whereas the centre of Madina is the Prophets Mosque. These places are usually filled with Muslim 24/7 and heck even this gets really crowded. Its Ramadan now, I won't want to imagine how crowded it is. 

First of all, Non Muslims won't even want to visit these places simply because it has nothing that appeals to them. Secondly, the places are already very very crowded. Even Muslims who wish to go on pilgirmage often get rejected. Thirdly, you could consider these places of worship as entire mosques. These are sacred places and thus we do not allow anyone but Muslims. Each country has these areas where not everyone can visit. 

You tell me, am I allowed to build a mosque in cantonment areas or heck, even as a civilian allowed to go there?

If you want to see discrimination, I suggest you go to Saudi, visit Riyad and go to exclusive western compounds. You will then see how the average Saudi is discriminated against in comparison to western people. 



> The people who are against it already hate muslims, this isn?t going to build hatred that wasn?t already there.
> You want more money funneled to SA?



That was just one example. Money could be given for the floods in Pakistan.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 12, 2010)

Mecca being closed to non-Muslims would be a big deal if Muslims were driving out people of other faiths or if it was a holy site of other faiths or in fact any non-Muslims lived within hundreds of miles but they don't, so who cares.

Saying "We there is no where else like that in the world" is just proof of the superiority of the rest of the world.

Why be like the thing you're criticising?

Come to think of it, why blame Muslims in the New York of 2010 with the decisions of the Muslims in the Arabia of 800 AD.



Le Mâle Dominant said:


> > Critics are suspicious of who will fund the project, and developers haven't released their sources of capital.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is behind the project ?



Someone controversial no doubt, almost always are with Muslims groups.

And that's not a diss to Muslims. The "controversy" maybe as simple as being pro-Palestine, anti-Israel or being particularly devout. Follow the chain of associations on a few steps and they're bound to have some terrorist connection, alleged or not, that will get the media in a spin.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Someone controversial no doubt, almost always are with Muslims groups.
> 
> And that's not a diss to Muslims. The "controversy" maybe as simple as being pro-Palestine, anti-Israel or being particularly devout. Follow the chain of associations on a few steps and they're bound to have some terrorist connection, alleged or not, that will get the media in a spin.



I wonder if it's a american project or a foreign project. If it's a foreign project, it shouldn't be done.


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 12, 2010)

> Religion is specified on your *iqama*.



What's that...? My parents are muslims and they don't have one. Is that like a visa ? 



> So you're pretty much saying we should turn the other cheek for Islamphobes that assume that Muslims = Terrorists.



Thank you for putting stuff in my mouth and imaging stuff that you "read" in my mind using psychic powers.


----------



## mortsleam (Aug 12, 2010)

Nova said:


> what are these evil deeds by christians that are younger then a decade old? huh? and have they even built near them?



Christians are perfect....hahahaha


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 12, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> I wonder if it's a american project or a foreign project. If it's a foreign project, it shouldn't be done.



What's a foreign project? You mean is some of the money coming from, say, Saudi Arabia or some other oil state? Yes, almost certainly. This thing is being built in a central part of New York. That requires real money.

So what? They're not building a fortress or an armament factory. It'll be used by local Muslims, most of whom will have American citizenship and have the right and freedom to build a Mosque where they like. The international money flow in and out of America isn't limited for anyone else. It doesn't stop important things like factories being bought by the Chinese and it doesn't stop American Christfags funding murderers in Uganda. It doesn't stop Fundamentalist Orthodox Jews from Israel proselytizing in the US.

Why should Muslims be singled out?


----------



## Psycho (Aug 12, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> That's what THEY and YOU would think. For peace sake, can't people accept to at least find concessions about this ? They behave like kids that refuse to leave the park after being proposed to use an other, equally appropriate and equipped as the first one.



why can't we use THIS park? why can't we sit on THIS bench? etc...

your example left you open for apartheid comparisons


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 12, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> Thank you for putting stuff in my mouth and imaging stuff that you "read" in my mind using psychic powers.



No, that's what you said.

You said Muslims should negotiate over the legal rights guaranteed them by their US citizenship in a situation that wouldn't happen to any other religious group. If it was Christians building a Church or Jews building a Synagogue or even Hindus building a Temple no fuss would have been raised.

Why should they make concessions over their rights?


----------



## T4R0K (Aug 12, 2010)

Psycho said:


> why can't we use THIS park? why can't we sit on THIS bench? etc...
> 
> your example left you open for apartheid comparisons



Jeez, this debate is so full of landmines that I'm gonna leave to sit on the side and leave both sides to their intellectual masturbations.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

The Pink Ninja said:


> What's a foreign project? You mean is some of the money coming from, say, Saudi Arabia or some other oil state? Yes, almost certainly. This thing is being built in a central part of New York. That requires real money.
> 
> So what? They're not building a fortress or an armament factory. It'll be used by local Muslims, most of whom will have American citizenship and have the right and freedom to build a Mosque where they like. The international money flow in and out of America isn't limited for anyone else. It doesn't stop important things like factories being bought by the Chinese and it doesn't stop American Christfags funding murderers in Uganda. It doesn't stop Fundamentalist Orthodox Jews from Israel proselytizing in the US.
> 
> Why should Muslims be singled out?



The americans shouldn't allow project of mosque lead by foreigner. Where come from the Iman and what kind of speech he'll had ? I have no trust in the Islam praticed in countries like Saudi Arabia. Their Islam is not compatible with our society. The Islam in our countries must be moderate and i don't think Saudi Arabia can help.


----------



## ammarz (Aug 12, 2010)

Sorry, this might be obvious, but why are people objecting to the mosque?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 12, 2010)

ammarz said:


> Sorry, this might be obvious, but why are people objecting to the mosque?



Same reason people objected to blacks going to school with whites. Bigotry and fear.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 12, 2010)

getting rid of freedom of worship? lol martin luther was instrumental in the founding of America.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And once again you're sprouting BS.
> 
> They offered to help them find another site, its not as if they're being put out of the city.
> 
> Another example of Islam refusing to play ball and show tolerance for anyone else's sensitivity. People should plaster Mohammad drawings all over the place.


Have you been trolling me since day 1?

That's like saying. Alright Abdulwahab, you can build your sand mosque closer to the water over there next to Ranjeet Karamchand Yousefi-Ali. Leave Mary's church and Gepetto's synagogue alone, _you're_ offending *us*. *We're *being nice. It's just _you_. _You_ are the uncooperative Other, different from *us*.

The other site is very likely far away from Ground Zero. Everyone knows deep down what the *real* issue is here. The arguments against the mosque are like arguing against gay marriage because it costs more 


Shinigami Perv said:


> Same reason people objected to blacks going to school with whites. Bigotry and fear.


This.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

ammarz said:


> Sorry, this might be obvious, but why are people objecting to the mosque?



Because the location of the mosque is close to the WTC. In 2001, mulsim terrorists hijacked three plane and crashed two of these planes on the Twin towers. The project of a mosque in a place people were killed by muslim extremists is not approved by exveryone. This is why people want the mosque to be relocated


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Because the location of the mosque is close to the WTC. In 2001, mulsim terrorists hijacked three plane and crashed two of these planes on the Twin towers. The project of a mosque in a place people were killed by muslim extremists is not approved by exveryone.This is why people want the mosque to be relocated



So because 19 people who belong to a group of over 1,500,000,000 people killed people none of the remaining 1,499,999,981 people can build anything anywhere near that site?


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 12, 2010)

Al-Yasa said:
			
		

> the purpose of mecca is thats its a islamic holy site, used for pilgrimage
> 
> nyc isnt a holy site where pilgrims go. Its a city which contains diffrent faiths and cultures
> 
> if the American law allows american citizen the right to build a building for worship. Then ppl should accept it. if they have a problem they should go to the whitehouse


Mecca is a city which Muslims have restricted access to other peoples. Not only does mecca have pilgrimages it also has texile factories, metal works, shopping malls, etc. 
It has a population of around 2 million people which live and work there. 

The only reason why it doesn?t contain other faiths is because they have been restricted from entering for 1400 years. 

If nyc made it a policy that no muslims could enter the city, then it wouldn?t contain different faiths and cultures. 

You are basically using the discriminatory practice of denying entry to the city, as justification for the discriminatory practice. 

I don?t have a problem with the building a mosque, I have a problem with you Muslims who demand religious freedom yet deny it to others. 



			
				T4R0k said:
			
		

> DUDE ! You want them to shoot TJ ?!!


Lol, 



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> We are not discriminating against anyone. There are only two places in the world where non muslims are not allowed: Mecca and Madina. The main purpose of these two places is for worship. The centre of Mecca is the Kaaba whereas the centre of Madina is the Prophets Mosque. These places are usually filled with Muslim 24/7 and heck even this gets really crowded. Its Ramadan now, I won't want to imagine how crowded it is.
> 
> First of all, Non Muslims won't even want to visit these places simply because it has nothing that appeals to them. Secondly, the places are already very very crowded. Even Muslims who wish to go on pilgirmage often get rejected. Thirdly, you could consider these places of worship as entire mosques. These are sacred places and thus we do not allow anyone but Muslims. Each country has these areas where not everyone can visit.


The mosque itself is a place of worship, the Hilton hotel built down the road in 1994, complete with gift shop, satellite television, and high speed internet access is not. 

This is a hotel like every other hotel in the world. 

I am not a Christian, but I have been to Vatican city, I have walked under the roof of the Sistine Chapel (where new popes are decided) I have been in the Basilica and seen the altar (on top of the grave of peter.)
And any Muslim can do the same. 

We are not talking about demanding to see private property that is closed to the public. You are restricting public access based on religion, this is not something ?every country does?

This is discrimination plain and simple, you are not allow non-muslims to enter these places, that is discrimination. That you don?t think non-muslims will want to go there isn?t a reason, it is trying to justify a prejudicial belief. 



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> That was just one example. Money could be given for the floods in Pakistan.


Now that is a good idea, last I hear 1/3 of the country was flooded, that?s insane. 



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> You tell me, am I allowed to build a mosque in cantonment areas or heck, even as a civilian allowed to go there?


No, as a civilian you not allow to go there. Because it is not open to the public. 
But you as muslim can join the military and get stationed. It doesn?t matter what religion you are, you can go through the process to get access like everyone else. 

Do you really think these compare? The restriction based solely on your religion on the public vs private property?

There is direct different between an entire city which is open to the public as long as that public is Muslim, and restricted areas which are not open to the public. Conflating the two just shows the weakness of your argument and the complete a total strawman you must make of mine. 



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> If you want to see discrimination, I suggest you go to Saudi, visit Riyad and go to exclusive western compounds. You will then see how the average Saudi is discriminated against in comparison to western people.


Muslims are allowed to enter these compounds, the guards to the compounds are all Saudi military, and they go freely through the compound. 
I am pretty sure that muslims can live in them if they choose to, but many don?t because they are expensive and they don?t need the security. 

How is the ANYTHING akin to restricting an entire public from entering a city based on their religion?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So because 19 people who belong to a group of over 1,500,000,000 people killed people none of the remaining 1,499,999,981 people can build anything anywhere near that site?



If it was only 19 people, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan now. But if the location of the mosque is not approved by everbody because of these event, why not try to find an other place. It's not like they ban the right to build a mosque but why not build a mosque in a peaceful terms with the New Yorkers and prevent the controversy ?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> If it was only 19 people, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan now. But if the location of the mosque is not approved by everbody because of these event, why not try to find an other place. It's not like they ban the right to build a mosque but why not build a mosque in a peaceful terms with the New Yorkers and prevent the controversy ?



Why should it need to be approved by everyone?  I'm sure you could find plenty of people in New York who don't want muslim structures _anywhere_ in the United States.


----------



## Aristides (Aug 12, 2010)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> If it was only 19 people, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan now. But if the location of the mosque is not approved by everbody because of these event, why not try to find an other place. It's not like they ban the right to build a mosque but why not build a mosque in a peaceful terms with the New Yorkers and prevent the controversy ?



Because that's not really how the law works. Not everything is decided on popular opinion. This sure as hell shouldn't be. They are fully within their rights to build it there. Besides, this tihng sounds more like a glorified YMCA than an actual prayer center. Why the hell is there a pool there? (ignorance on my behalf)


----------



## ammarz (Aug 12, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Because the location of the mosque is close to the WTC. In 2001, mulsim terrorists hijacked three plane and crashed two of these planes on the Twin towers. The project of a mosque in a place people were killed by muslim extremists is not approved by exveryone. This is why people want the mosque to be relocated



Is there any relation btw those terrorists and this mosque? OR are you saying that the Islam as a religion and nation attacked you collectively, not just a group of extremists.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> *Why should it need to be improved by everyone?*  I'm sure you could find plenty of people in New York who don't want muslim structures _anywhere_ in the United States.



I think it's better for this religion if the mosque is build without people feel it's a "victory monument". I think the best option is to not build it near WTC. The location near WTC help Islamophobia and those who say islamists invade the US. 
If the location of the mosque wasn't near WTC, nobody would care and this is Islam need.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> I think it's better for this religion if the mosque is build without people feel it's a "victory monument". I think the best option is to not build it near WTC. The location near WTC help Islamophobia and those who say islamists invade the US.
> If the location of the mosque wasn't near WTC, nobody would care and this is Islam need.



How is it a "victory monument"?  Are they putting up statues of the hijackers?

Would it be better to make them move it so terrorists can look to everyone and say "LOOK! LOOK! THEY'RE PERSECUTING ISLAM! THEY WON'T EVEN LET US BUILD A COMMUNITY CENTER!!!!"?

I'm still not seeing a reason why they should need everyones approval.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

ammarz said:


> *Is there any relation btw those terrorists and this mosque?* OR are you saying that the Islam as a religion and nation attacked you collectively, not just a group of extremists.



No i didn't said Islam attacked the US. I said "mulsim terrorists" and "muslim extremists". 

If i'm not enough clear

Islam =/= Terrorism
Mosque =/= Terrorism

However, a mosque could be used by extremist. The german closed a mosque where the 9/11 attacks were organized. But it's not a reason to relocate the mosque. The reason is just the fact that people don't accept to see this mosque close to GZ. And i think it's better if the mosque is build somewhere else in peace than close to GZ with the hate of those who see this as a "victory monument".


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> No i didn't said Islam attacked the US. I said "mulsim terrorists" and "muslim extremists".
> 
> If i'm not enough clear
> 
> ...



Starbucks could be used by extremists. The Russians closed down a Starbucks while suppressing many individuals. But it's not a reason to relocate Starbucks.

There is no reason for there to be hate. The real reason there is hatred is definitely not your reason. Politicians, Oprah, Lindsay Lohan, anyone people respect should show the sheep that hatred is bad. Accept it. Yes, you may harbor dull resentment, but time will pass, and no one will care. You'll have kids, and there will be no resentment at all.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

I'm not offended at all. Sorry if I came across as over confrontational.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> *The terrorist would always blame you whatever you do* just because you're an ally of Israel.



Ok so if they're going to say that stuff no matter what then why does it matter that they have this community center here?



Le M?le Dominant said:


> Why it could be seen as a "victory monument" ? *The poeple against this  mosques often say the muslim build mosque to mark their conquests*. This  idea was used by the anti minarets in Switzerland.



The people against the mosque say that, do the muslims say that?

And even if they do is this being built by terrorists?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Aug 12, 2010)

What's weird is that there are two churches next to the old Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, where Timothy McVeigh struck with a truck bomb. McVeigh being a Christian terrorist. 

St. Joseph's Old Cathedral and First United Methodist Church are both across the street. Any plans to relocate them?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

Mist Beauty said:


> I'm not offended at all. Sorry if I came across as over confrontational.



It's difficult to have a calm discussion on NF caf?. This is why i never post in Islraeli Palestinian thread. 

I don't say i have the best answer, i just give my opinion. I'm not muslim, i'm not american, i don't live in New York so i don't care much. 
I don't want to be seen as an islamophobe because i think it's better if the mosque is localized somewhere else. I think it's better for the muslim religion if they prevent this kind of situation that can be used by the Islamophobe.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> It's difficult to have a calm discussion on NF caf?. This is why i never post in Islraeli Palestinian thread.
> 
> I don't say i have the best answer, i just give my opinion. I'm not muslim, i'm not american, i don't live in New York so i don't care much.
> I don't want to be seen as an islamophobe because i think it's better if the mosque is localized somewhere else. I think it's better for the muslim religion if they prevent this kind of situation that can be used by the Islamophobe.



I always found that being blunt gets the point through faster than being nice. 

The problem now is that it's become a huge issue. If the mosque is relocated, the sheep will shout "Hurrah!" And continue their activities nationwide. 

It also goes against the founding fathers' principles. But if it is built, many people will ragequit. Islamophobes will always manipulate and continue to manipulate. 9/11 and the fearmongering and the wars made this extremely easy.

It's a sticky situation now, because it also looks bad if they back down.

No one sees you as an islamophobe. Just a random guy over the internetz with an opinion.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Ok so if they're going to say that stuff no matter what then *why does it matter that they have this community center here?*



The problem is not the terrorists, they would be your enemy whatever the situation. The problem is that there are people who still disagree with the idea of a mosque close to GZ.



> The people against the mosque say that, do the muslims say that?
> 
> And even if they do is this being built by terrorists?



Mmmh i think the leader of Turkey said the minarets was like muslim bayonet or something. I'm not sure. And like i said, the problem is not the terrorists.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> The problem is not the terrorists, they would be your enemy whatever the situation. The problem is that there are people who still disagree with the idea of a mosque close to GZ.



And there are people who disagree with the idea of mosques at all, whats your point?



Le M?le Dominant said:


> Mmmh i think the leader of Turkey said the minarets was like muslim bayonet or something. I'm not sure. And like i said, the problem is not the terrorists.



I'd be curious to see who actually said that and in what context.


----------



## beasty (Aug 12, 2010)

Im almost 99% sure there is a mosque in that area already. 

The problem has to do with "You guys could of atleast waitied till the new towers were built to make 13 story mosque"

People who dont have a clue what is going on are gonna instantly say "Freedom of religion" or make a irrational comparison.

They are far too many reasons why this mosque is shouldnt be built in that area.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 12, 2010)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> This is not Europe, Le Male (and thank goodness)!



I know, this is why i respect the opinions of the others and don't force people to believe my opinion unlike the anglo saxons who don't respect our opinion in threads about Burqa 	 .

This is not the United States of America (et dieu merci)!


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Aug 12, 2010)

they have the "right" to build a mosque there.

the people who are against this, say words and give off the implication as if we are at a holy war against islam.

_if_ christian fundamentalist flew a plan into a federal building, would we say that a church could not be built two blocks from the incident?

ya'll some crazy muthafuckas.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> What about the people and citizens born and raised for generation in New York? What a silly dip-shit you are Bloomberg.



I'm not following your logic.  So New Yorkers should be able to tell you who you pray to, what you say or where you say it?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> The Majority doesn't want that Mosque there. Therefor, yes, the New Yorkers do get to decide where this is put. I suggest you look at my screencaps.
> 
> Also, New York isn't telling them not to have the mosque, they just want it moved.



The fact that the majority _want_ something doesn't give them the _right_ to tell someone else where they can worship or who.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> This isn't about people telling them to not worship Mohamdadadada it's about the majority of New Yorkers not wanting this mosque built so close to ground zero--a place that was destroyed by an Islamic group.



You're telling them WHERE they can worship which you don't have the right to do.  What the majority wants is completely irrelevant, you can't tell someone where they can worship.



Ishinoue said:


> They can just as easily build their mosque elsewhere. There's absolutely no reason why it has to be just 2 blocks from ground zero.



Again why should they?  So people can feel all warm and fuzzy inside?



Ishinoue said:


> Again;
> 
> 
> This close;
> ...



Your point being what exactly?  Unless its actually ON ground zero I fail to see the problem.


----------



## ximkoyra (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> They can just as easily build their mosque elsewhere. There's absolutely no reason why it has to be just 2 blocks from ground zero.





There is absolutely no reason it can't be.  Watch out, your bigotry is showing


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> This isn't about people telling them to not worship Mohamdadadada it's about the majority of New Yorkers not wanting this mosque built so close to ground zero--a place that was destroyed by an Islamic group.
> 
> They can just as easily build their mosque elsewhere. There's absolutely no reason why it has to be just 2 blocks from ground zero.



Yes, its a principle. Your suggesting that Muslims can have their churches just as long as they have it away from 'special' places. It reminds me of the civil rights days and people allowed blacks to have their own water fountains and bus seats as long as they weren't near any white people. 

You can just as easily get over it. Its been 9 years, people died from terrorists. The terrorists also had black hair, lets also ban any black haired people from entering the vicinity of ground zero. The only reason people dislike this is because they are Muslim. Even if there were these Indian terrorists who honestly did it in the name of Shiva or whatever, no one would be up in arms if a Hindu place of worship showed up. It is solely Americans bias against everyone who looks, speaks, acts, and is a Muslim (Whatever that is.) 

Furthermore, I don't personally think building a mosque near a place like that is very smart. The same goes with drawing pictures of Mohammed. Neither of us have a relationship in society where either is acceptable. However, the fact of the matter is you can't just change the rules when it works against your favor. The mosque should stay.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> This isn't about people telling them to not worship Mohamdadadada it's about the majority of New Yorkers not wanting this mosque built so close to ground zero--a place that was destroyed by an Islamic group.
> 
> They can just as easily build their mosque elsewhere. There's absolutely no reason why it has to be just 2 blocks from ground zero.
> 
> ...



I feel like I must step in. My school is literally a block away from ground zero-A block! everyday I walk by I see that craters along with the awesomely tasting halala food carts all over the place;LOS  For those who aren't from New York. I would suggest you keep your opinions as to what New yorkers want there and what we don't, to your self. My teachers who were there during 9/11 saw the horrors unfold, they told stories and ever time they choke up and the class becomes depressed etc..(I'm always like get over it-tho I really dont mean it-when you see the site everyday and walk around it ). When the whole mosque matter came up the teachers where debating it in the teachers lounge(of which I have privileges) and the onces who were THERE that day, thought the whole matter was ridiculous that a mosque couldn't be build there,they cited the constitution and also the fact that if exception were to be made then it goes for all Christin, Jews..etc..then of course no one will object to them making say a church where U.S Christian terrorist have attack(even though there are !) The funny thing is the people who were arguing to the contrary weren't at ground zero when it happens-they in my opinion are like the people who read sensationalized news and get fired up with a false sense of pride/nationalism!( where were you when they build that ladder to heaven?) So for many to incite the fact that the terrorist were Muslims then I must do the same for all the other atrocities committed in the name of the Christian god...and we know there is a lot! ...

Ps...I must say and I will say again there is a mosque already down there-This  a mosque it is a center a freaking Muslim center.So for those that invoke special privilege rights and other faux arguments ,do you suggest we tear down the one already there?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> If you're thinking that way. Then why should we give them any right to build their mosque there? To feel all warm and fuzz inside? It's called respect. And Muslims need  to start giving people it.



Why let them build there?  Because they bought the land and want to use it to build on.  There is no legitimate legal reason to deny them that right.



Ishinoue said:


> Then you obviously lack respect for others and think the world revolves around  you.



No I don't think the world revolves around me, I just don't think the majority has the right to force their will on a minority when the minority isn't doing anything unlawful or hurting anyone.

Building a community center hurts no one and choosing to worship there falls under their freedom of religion.  So I don't think the majority has any right to step in here.



Ishinoue said:


> Right, so build the mosque down the street from the World Trade center. Brilliant. Watch out, your jackass is showing.



Wow what a brilliant argument, your logic astounds me.  How about you head back to the kiddy table and come back when you can debate like an adult.



ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> No, that's _not_ what I am saying.
> 
> I am saying _this_; Would it really be trouble for the Muslim community to gap this bridge between Muslims and Non-Muslims and build _elsewhere_? I mean, _Damn_, these New Yorkers have suffered enough already haven't they? Why go and build a Mosque on a sensitive area and when asked or suggested to build it somewhere else -- refuse?
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware the people who crashed the planes into the building were building this.

Do you have any PROOF of ANY connection between the 9/11 terrorists and the people building this community center?  If so I would LOVE to see it.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Then someone can just as easily buy the land from them. That guy who owns that land knows very well what he was doing. And I can bet he decided to build it there just so this kind of crap can happen.



Again...WHY?  Why should they have to sell that property?  If they bought it its theirs do with whatever they want as long as its legal and last time I checked building a community center is legal.

So what LEGAL basis do you have for stopping them?



Ishinoue said:


> Dude, what the fuck  That's YOUR logic. You're the one that says to keep the mosque just up the street. I was MOCKING  YOU.



My logic is let them do whatever they want with their property as long as its legal and not hurting anyone.  Can you point out any flaws in my logic?

No?  Didn't think so, again come back when you can debate like a grown up.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> I didn't mean _literally_.  But thanks for showing me how we're going to act here.
> You cheeky monkey you, you sneakily evaded the rest of my post.



That's because the rest of your post is an appeal to emotion.


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Oh, right  So because they have "RIGHTS" they get to do whatever the hell they want even if it's distasteful. In that case, I have freedom of speech  to *call  you an asshole*. Freedom of Speech rules! Yeah! Oh, wait, OR, I can think about what's right and go against the WRONG thing to do.



that_ is _how it works


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> I didn't mean _literally_.  But thanks for showing me how we're going to act here.
> You cheeky monkey you, you sneakily evaded the rest of my post.



I didn't evade it, I've addressed all those points _multiple_ times in this thread.

The point isn't "why can't they move it?" the question is "why should they be stopped from building here if they want?".

The question "why can't them move it?" can be applied to ANYTHING, yet its only being screamed at this particular case.  If they want to build their community center in that spot there is absolutely no _legal_ reason they should be stopped from doing so.


----------



## Kain Highwind (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Oh, right  So because they have "RIGHTS" they get to do whatever the hell they want even if it's distasteful. In that case, I have freedom of speech  to *call  you an asshole*. Freedom of Speech rules! Yeah! Oh, wait, OR, I can think about what's right and go against the WRONG thing to do.



You do have the right to call the guy an asshole.  It's freedom of speech.  In turn he can do you same to you.

Also, sure is Appeal to Emotion in here.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Building the Mosque elsewhere and respecting the New Yorkers -- in turn would *BRIDGE THE GAP* between *Non-Muslims and Muslims* -- which is what these Muslims in New York are _saying_ they _want_ to go for -- are you on glue?
> 
> If we ever _hope_ to be at peace with Islam -- it is going to be done through emotional/ideological respect -- for and from BOTH sides.



Your post was full of appeal to emotion that's all no need for insults. 

Also by clumping muslims with terrorists, you surely are doing a great job in the ideological respect.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They say they want to gap the bridge between Non-Muslims and Muslims don't they? Don't they want to be at peace?
> 
> It all starts with _respect_.



I'd say in the long term this is better for bridging that gap.  It puts something there in the long term which can give people exposure to islam.  Being exposed to something and becoming familiar with it is the first step towards bridging gaps and starting tolerance.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> At this particular case? _At this *particular* case_? Of course at this particular case. Not two blocks from this coincidental location and site pick for their Mosque was the occurrence of one of -- if not THE most tragic thing to ever happen on American Soil -- dealt by Muslims.
> 
> *You make it sound as though Americans have ever done something discriminatory to Muslims.*
> 
> What more does it say about Muslims and their respect for others if they continue to build it there? What does it say about how they want to "create" peace? What does it say they feel for those _New Yorkers_?



I'd say singling out a specific religion and saying "you can't build here....anyone else but not you" is discriminatory, wouldn't you?


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 12, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> That's not even the same thing.
> 
> Wanna know why? Because 9/11 wasn't just an attack on white people. It was an attack against ALL Americans--whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanic, latinto, ALL. And ALL races that live in New York ARE AGAINST THIS.What this is about is how a Muslim lead extremist group drove two planes into huge buildings filled with innocent people doing their jobs. And NOW, a mosque for said religion is planning on being built just up the road from where 3,000 people died.



I didn't say it was the same, I said it was eerily similar. No, the terrorists weren't attacking us. They were attacking our idea of freedom. That is why this war is so goddamn stupid. Both of us are fighting an idea. Us, an Ideal of propaganda and terrorism and them an Ideal of freedom and expression. You can't kill ideas. So, if a Christian led this attack you are honestly telling me you would refuse any Christian church built any where near it? Even if thats true, I can tell you for most people it is a double standard, at least from what I have seen. It is completely because people hate Muslims, and most of them have never met or talked to one.



> Oh, yeah. I forgot the part where after 9 years people get to come back to life.



Yes, they do. If you want to hold a grudge against people who have done nothing to you then thats your problem, but you still have to follow the law. The mosque stays. If you dislike the religion then protest it, but the people who follow it can worship it. Not all Muslims were apart of this attack, and thus you can't hold all of them responsible. It seems to me you want to blame the religion and all Muslims which is completely blind and hypocritical. 



> No shit. *It's not because we hate Muslims*. It's because it's the religion that lead terrorist to scar that part of New York.



Maybe not to you, but I assure you that most of the people I meet seem to have a deep hate of all Muslims because they don't know anything about moderate ones. Also, you have no idea why these people blew the building up. You don't know them, you have never met them, you have no idea what they were thinking. You read the news, heard they were Muslim, and extrapolated reasons why they did it based on your experience from radical Muslims which you also only hear about from the news. Go figure.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They say they want to gap the bridge between Non-Muslims and Muslims don't they? Don't they want to be at peace?
> 
> It all starts with _respect_.
> 
> At this particular case? _At this *particular* case_? Of course at this particular case. Not two blocks from this coincidental location and site pick for their Mosque was the occurrence of one of -- if not THE most tragic thing to ever happen on American Soil --





ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> dealt by Muslims.



*TERRORISTS!* This branding is exactly why people like you in NY express their false righteous indignation. It was done by terrorists. OH SHI- They were MALE! 9/11 was dealt my MALES! Destroy all males. No male urinals near Ground zero, that's offensive !!!111!!


ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> You make it sound as though Americans have ever done something discriminatory to Muslims.



Holy shit... You need to lurk moar in your history class. Are you serious?


ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> What more does it say about Muslims and their respect for others if they continue to build it there? What does it say about how they want to "create" peace? What does it say they feel for those _New Yorkers_?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:amazed


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> I insulted you?
> 
> Source and Location? All I did was say that Muslims are the ones who acted 9/11. I never said ALL Muslims did it -- But I did however mention that they partied in the streets _of New York_ after it happened -- however, never did I say ALL Muslims did this.
> 
> ALTHOUGH -- I have no obligation for Ideological respect, I am not a peace group nor am I proposing to have been or to be one.



Are you on glue, doesn't sound like a nice thing. 

They partied in the streets of new york after it 9/11 ? what? 

You're saying muslims should respect new yorkers because of 9/11, thus you're labeling muslims as terrorists if you know that it isn't all muslims then why are you arguing in the first place?


----------



## WT (Aug 12, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> The mosque itself is a place of worship, the Hilton hotel built down the road in 1994, complete with gift shop, satellite television, and high speed internet access is not.



That is true. However, in the Quran, it is mentioned that idolaters should not be allowed in the sacred mosque (referring to Haram i.e. Kaaba). The rule which stated that non muslims were forbiddon from entering the whole city of Mecca and Medina were implemented under the Saud kingdom. There are many hotels and there is a shopping mall as well. These are facilities created for those who come for pilgrimage which runs throughout the year. Outside Mecca and Madina, non muslims are very welcome. If you want to see Muslim architecture, there are _many_ places which you can visit. Mecca is the house of God and Medina has the grave of our Prophet as well as the graves of other very pious people. I believe its very unfortunate that you see this as discrimination. No matter how many times I tell you otherwise, your opinon will not change.   




> Now that is a good idea, last I hear 1/3 of the country was flooded, that?s insane.


Yeah, it sucks. Many people have been displaced or have died as a result of this. These guys need help quick.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> We can _tolerate and familiarize_ ourselves with them a little bit _further_ from Ground Zero can't we? I mean seriously, that won't help anything, you still didn't say or explain anything about it _having_ to be so close the site of 9/11 -- just in New York in general -- Why does it _have_ to be near so close to Ground Zero?



I'm not sure I see why proximity is a factor.  I didn't realize the effects of 9/11 were so localized, I was under the impression ALL of New York was shocked and traumatized by those events.  Should we stop muslims for building anything _anywhere_ in New York?

Again unless they're trying to build it actually ON ground zero I see no issue.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Did anyone else by other religions fly planes into the Towers (And NO I am not saying ALL Muslims did it.)? Lets put 2 and 2 together here, and mix a little sincerity. Its as simple as just building it further from Ground Zero.



You're not saying all muslims did it but you're saying all muslims should be penalized for it?

Unless the people building this community center were involved with 9/11 then it shouldn't matter.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Empathy.



Empathy?  I'm not familiar with that legal argument, care to elaborate?

People are totally within their rights to _feel_ however they want about it but they don't have the right to step in like they tried to do and stop the muslims from building there without some kind of legal basis.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

Does anyone get the impression that they're talking to a wall?


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> We can _tolerate and familiarize_ ourselves with them a little bit _further_ from Ground Zero can't we? I mean seriously, that won't help anything, you still didn't say or explain anything about it _having_ to be so close the site of 9/11 -- just in New York in general -- Why does it _have_ to be near so close to Ground Zero?
> 
> IF tolerance/familiarizing is the Key shouldn't the Islamic TOLERATE/familiarize themselves with the New Yorkers sensitivity and pain to this?
> 
> ...



America has absolutely no empathy for Muslims, I find it funny you ask them for that as if it is deserved. Muslims did not have anything to do with 9/11. Terrorists did. Get your facts straight. Its a false association which is causing this 'pain' in the first place.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 12, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> America has absolutely no empathy for Muslims, I find it funny you ask them for that as if it is deserved. -SNIP-.



Considering most of our most dangerous enemies profess to follow islam and the fact that most of the attacks against us are carried out by followers of Islam is that surprising?

And considering the 9/11 attacks killed more people than Pearl Harbor and were _unprovoked_ to boot is it too much to ask for some?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Its not an insult either.
> 
> Yes, muslims -- in New York -- partied whilst 9/11 happened.
> 
> I am not labeling all Muslims terrorists, I said Muslims are the ones who drove the planes into the Towers -- not ALL Muslims. Because building a Mosque there is PROVOCATIVE AND INSENSITIVE FOR AN ISLAMIC "PEACE" GROUP TO DO. Understand, _George_?



Care to link a source please. 


Why is it provacative if muslims aren't terrorist? unless people are viewing them as such.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 12, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Considering most of our most dangerous enemies profess to follow islam and the fact that most of the attacks against us are carried out by followers of Islam is that surprising?
> 
> And considering the 9/11 attacks killed more people than Pearl Harbor and were _unprovoked_ to boot is it too much to ask for some?



White people have more car crashes, they shouldn't be allowed to drive right?  Yes, it is surprising that after years of trying to get equality for our people we try to do the opposite to other cultures.

Yes, it is too much to ask to bend the constitution to fit peoples will for imperialism and bigotry.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Aug 12, 2010)

the muslims who are building the centre were not even related to the terrorist and yet you are associating the terrorist with them. 

should 1.4 billion muslims be blamed for sept attacks ? Should the american muslims be blamed for the terrorist attacks ?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> I am not sure if News channels keep videos but I could try and find it.
> 
> Where did I say "Muslims NOT being terrorists is provocative"? *Building a Mosque on Ground Zero* is the topic here bud, get on track



It isn't on ground zero it's 2 blocks away.


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

it isnt even a Mosque it si a public comunity center WITH a Mosque


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

why shouldtheymove it is THEIRl and


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

hammer said:


> why shouldtheymove it is THEIRl and



Because Islamphobes will be hurt. We don't want that now do we.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They should be respectful of others too.
> 
> *"Cordoba Initiative, an advocacy group that promotes improved relations between Islam and the West."*
> 
> But here you all are saying "Fuck how the Americans feel." and they might as well also. That's why they should _just_ move.



Americans feel the way they do unjustly. If the entire majority of Muslims attacked the Towers, I would 100% agree with your cause.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> No they shouldn't and I am not saying they should -- but because it was MUSLIMS who acted out 9/11 -- there is a sensitivity toward them, and building their Mosque on Ground Zero is rather insensitive. Its CERTAINLY NOT the step to take toward building a bridge between us.



It was MEN who initiated the attack. I don't see you shedding any righteous tears of indignation that several MALE-ONLY(the nerve) urinals are built several YARDS from there. This offends me much more. 
*
Serious Business:*
It's definitely the step to making a bridge between them and us. You making this point only bites further into the criticism. People like you exist all over America. The fact that we're on page 10 over this is enough.

There is no reason to be offended over something like this. Bigots nationwide are opposing future mosques with picket signs and dogs. After 9/11, Bush roused the sheep to bleat against Al-KAY-duh and Hussein and the War or terror. There was a clear but subtle scapegoat. If this mosque isn't built, we will have spurned the beliefs of the founding fathers, and the world once again will denounce America (the more important point being that it's wrong)


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They should be respectful of others too.
> 
> *"Cordoba Initiative, an advocacy group that promotes improved relations between Islam and the West."*
> 
> But here you all are saying "Fuck how the Americans feel." and they might as well also. That's why they should _just_ move.



then whatdo you think should be their? legally it istheirs


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Okay then that makes it worse, if all were. Its none the less too close to Ground Zero you could look over and see the site. That's too close.
> 
> No not everywhere -- just not where the Towers fell.



The towers were visible from all over the city, are you saying muslims can't build anything anywhere that you can see ground zero from?

Again why?  Why is distance a factor?  As long as its not ON ground zero then I don't see any issue.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> No, I didn't say that either. I am saying ALL Muslims should reach out at trying to bridge the gap and say I don't know -- build elsewhere? What do they lose?



What do they lose?  Why do people keep asking this question?  Its meaningless.

Again the point isn't "why can't they build elsewhere?" or "what do they have to lose from not building here?" the question is "why CAN'T they build here?" since they've already chosen this site.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Legal? We're talking about people _saying_ they want peace and that they are peaceful and then building their Mosque where *SOME Muslims flew planes into two buildings and killed New Yorkers. *



Again unless these people are tied to the terrorists then I fail to see how that is a factor at all.  Why should all muslims have to atone for the actions of those 19 men?

Unless these people are praising the events of 9/11 then it doesn't matter.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> *Yes they are in their rights, but if we continue with this the way it is the bridge will  never be met*, it has to start somewhere and building their provocative Mosque elsewhere would be a great start for them.



I disagree.  I think more places where people can meet normal non-violent muslims the quicker the gap will be bridged.  The more non-violent muslims people meet the more their predjudices and stereotypes will be shattered.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> I can admit this makes sense, but this is an Islamic "peace" Group and these are the hurt citizens of New York -- it has to start somewhere



I agree, but regardless about my personal feelings about the mosque and how it will affect relationships, the mosque is a legal and just right to the people who want it. 

Do I think it is smart to build a mosque where it is? Probably not. But my feelings in this matter are irrelevant. To most it seems it is a feeling matter, when it should be a thinking matter.


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They just should build it a bit further from the site -- so that the New Yorkers don't have to look over  and go "There's Ground Zero where the Towers Fell on 9/11....oh and there's the Mosque 2 blocks away".
> 
> I mean this is a supposed "peaceful" group and they chose to build it there? That's not very peaceful.



your missingthe point they choose their because they bought the land it belongs to them


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

This is what you get when Glenn Beck and the Bible procreate.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Brilliant deduction Watson, what do you do for encores?



So you admit that you are the result of Glenn Beck procreating with the Bible?

Speaking of encores, here's a post that was ignored.



ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> No they shouldn't and I am not saying they should -- but because it was MUSLIMS who acted out 9/11 -- there is a sensitivity toward them, and building their Mosque on Ground Zero is rather insensitive. Its CERTAINLY NOT the step to take toward building a bridge between us.



It was MEN who initiated the attack. I don't see you shedding any righteous tears of indignation that several MALE-ONLY(the nerve) urinals are built several YARDS from there. This offends me much more. 
*
Serious Business:*
It's definitely the step to making a bridge between them and us. You making this point only bites further into the criticism. People like you exist all over America. The fact that we're on page 10 over this is enough.

There is no reason to be offended over something like this. Bigots nationwide are opposing future mosques with picket signs and dogs. After 9/11, Bush roused the sheep to bleat against Al-KAY-duh and Hussein and the War or terror. There was a clear but subtle scapegoat. If this mosque isn't built, we will have spurned the beliefs of the founding fathers, and the world once again will denounce America (the more important point being that it's wrong)

This thread... Before there was actual discussion..

Here's a cool C program so that robots can continue this thread for the next year or so... (compile it with your own libraries)
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <ctype.h>
#include <crtdbg.h>


int main(void)
{
while (1)
{
printf ("VALID ARGUMENT 1, VALID ARGUMENT 2... VALID ARGUMENT 50");

printf ("but its offensive, the muslims bombed our shit, its just offensive.");
}
}


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Okay, think of it like this -- *Why* would a peace group do this? Its not that they literally/legally aren't ALLOWED -- they should show some respect and empathy -- you know cause the whole promoting peace group thing?



the same can be said about the reverse shows ome respect tothem its their land.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Seriously? Are you going to take everything I say too literally? Lets put it like this -- you can see the Ground of the towers hence you are that close?
> 
> Its two blocks away?



Again explain to me why distance is a factor, you haven't explained that you just keep repeating "its too close.  its too close.  its too close" like it means more if you keep repeating the same point.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> What do you mean what do they lose?* They are victims of the Attack who will have to look over and see the Mosque every-time they look. *Because the New Yorkers are SENSITIVE to this -- and the group who wants to promote peace should have known that.



Your point being what exactly?

What is the difference between looking at that community center and looking at the gap where the twin towers stood for decades?  Or looking at the new tower that is going to be built?  None of these are reminders?



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They aren't atoning what the hell? They are giving empathy to the New Yorkers who suffered an attack on their own soil.



What is giving empathy?

And how would moving their multi-million dollar project to spare the peoples feelings not be a form of atonement?  You're doing something to try to make people feel better for something that happened.  That's atonement.....well _technically_ to atone for something you have to have done something wrong.  These people haven't done anything wrong but you're asking them to atone for the sins of 19 different people.



??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Opinion. The more they are spat in the face the more that people will _take it_ most likely -- yes.



Yes it is my opinion just like its your opinion that it would make things more tense.  Your opinion is somehow more valid than mine?  How so?

Are you really saying the best way to foster tolerance is to hide them away from anywhere people don't want them?


----------



## WT (Aug 12, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe, I can understand that its a little insenitive towards the family of nonmuslim victims of 9/11. However, there is another thread in the cafe which gives evidence that there are many nonmuslims who are against the construction of mosques in the whole of USA. You will never be able to please the family of victims even if the mosque is relocated. They will find other excuses.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 12, 2010)

Tsukiyomi used LOGIC!

It missed!

<<Opposing Pokemon>>(no name, no flame bait right?)

Used BIGOTRAGE!

No effectTsukiyomi used LOGIC!

It missed!

<<Opposing Pokemon>>(no name, no flame bait right?)

Used BIGOTRAGE!

No effectTsukiyomi used LOGIC!

It missed!

<<Opposing Pokemon>>(no name, no flame bait right?)

Used BIGOTRAGE!

No effect

 why hasn't the battery on my game boy died yet


----------



## uchia2000 (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They come to the country and expect the country people to show them respect? And on top of that purposely build it on/near Ground Zero and call them selves a peace promoting group? Its provocative.


Many of them are citizens now. What different does it make? They are just as part of this countries people as you or me.


----------



## hammer (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They come to the country and expect the country people to show them respect? And on top of that purposely build it on/near Ground Zero and call them selves a peace promoting group? Its provocative.



not all muslims are imigrents someare 2nd/3rd generation hell I know people who convertedbecause they traced there ancestry to islam, many people who have ancestery from slaves have islamic backrounds. they have BEEN here.


----------



## WT (Aug 12, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They come to the country and expect the country people to show them respect?



The first Muslims to come to USA came with Colombus himself (heck, perhaps even before that). Irish/Italiens arrived in America roughly 200 years after Muslims came. Whats your point?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> *My Opinion? Its my opinion that this group building the Mosque is a Peace Promoting Group -- or so they say.*
> 
> No just don't shit on their graves. Have some sympathy -- As a peace Group they should understand. They won't be *hidden* they just won't be SO CLOSE to ground Zero. You are blowing everything I say way out of proportion.


Talk about reading comprehension... or lack of thereof.

It is your opinion that they should hide away, however their opinion is that they should interact more with new yorkers as a way to reach for peace.


----------



## Bleach (Aug 12, 2010)

And why would people think that they would move.....


What a useless article


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They won't be "hidden", _George_, what is all this talk about being hidden? XD Yupp they can interact with them -- but they can do that away from Ground Zero.


Again how is your opinion more valid than theirs... you're pretty much claiming yourself to be true on a subjective topic aka how to reach for peace.


----------



## Bleach (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> --yeah its not like they are a Peace Promoting Group


I love when groups that want to build a large community complex with one religious sector in the complex itself are labeled terrorists


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

Bleach said:


> I love when groups that want to build a large community complex with one religious sector in the complex itself are labeled terrorists



Can't expect less from Fox news viewers.



ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> They are a "Peace Group" for Islam -- The New Yorkers have voiced that they *don't want* the Mosque there -- Simple enough?


Not all new yorkers voiced that, it's a controversial topic between new yorkers themselves. Try again.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 12, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> Your opinion really hurts -- and it really does ACTUALLY effect my everyday life in a physical kind of way. /SARCASM
> 
> I am done here -- I'd hate for this to become another Islam Debate XD



I don't see how this has the potential to develop into an Islam debate, but sure you can retreat if you would like.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 12, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> That is true. However, in the Quran, it is mentioned that idolaters should not be allowed in the sacred mosque (referring to Haram i.e. Kaaba). The rule which stated that non muslims were forbiddon from entering the whole city of Mecca and Medina were implemented under the Saud kingdom. There are many hotels and there is a shopping mall as well. These are facilities created for those who come for pilgrimage which runs throughout the year. Outside Mecca and Madina, non muslims are very welcome. If you want to see Muslim architecture, there are _many_ places which you can visit. Mecca is the house of God and Medina has the grave of our Prophet as well as the graves of other very pious people. I believe its very unfortunate that you see this as discrimination. No matter how many times I tell you otherwise, your opinon will not change.



Amazing you don't get it.

Giving preference to muslims as opposed to non-muslims is discrimination, saying 'ill treat all non-muslims worse then Muslims and this is not discrimination because i am treating all non-muslims equally bad' is the stupidest argument i have ever heard.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> The first Muslims to come to USA came with Colombus himself (heck, perhaps even before that). Irish/Italiens arrived in America roughly 200 years after Muslims came. Whats your point?


And non-muslims existed in Mecca before Islam ever came about, why do you defend Mecca's discriminatory practice?




			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Your point being what exactly?
> 
> What is the difference between looking at that community center and looking at the gap where the twin towers stood for decades? Or looking at the new tower that is going to be built? None of these are reminders?


Good question, the defining thing that must be asked, is what the mosque stands for.

What does a church stand for, for instance?

Many people have a problem with the mosque because it stands for an idealogy which they feel is responsible, in part, for 9/11.

I can understand and agree with that.

However those who defend the mosque, seem to want to portray it as simply 'a building' which is an incredibly flawed argument.

It is also interesting to note that those who say people objecting to the building are labelling the muslim supporters as terrorists, seem to employ the same logic they try and argue against, associating a building with all the followers as terrorists.

I personally don't mind the mosque being built, why? because its going to piss people off even more on Islam.

The idea that you are telling people they should accomodate a symbol of what killed their loved ones, is the same as saying you don't care that their loved ones were killed.

It is disregarding their pain


----------



## Rick (Aug 12, 2010)

Wow, why are you guys still debating? It's always the same people using the same tired excuse/reasoning. It's being built, lets see see the outcome. People do terrible things no matter race or religion yet they always use it define that way. I doubt they even know a single Muslim person.


----------



## WT (Aug 12, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Amazing you don't get it.
> 
> Giving preference to muslims as opposed to non-muslims is discrimination, saying 'ill treat all non-muslims worse then Muslims and this is not discrimination because i am treating all non-muslims equally bad' is the stupidest argument i have ever heard.



I believe the definition of discrimination isn't as simple as that. The situation also comes into play as well. If there was an ordinary place where muslims were given priority over non muslims, yes perhaps that is discrimination. However, if you are in a place which is specially designed for one party, the other must accept that and to even consider it a discrimination could be seen as an attempt to create discomfort.  

At University, there was a large common room next to many shops. Our prayer room was around the corner as well. Me and my friends use to go there to have lunch. However, on certain occasions, we were asked to leave because there was a meeting for Homosexuals. Would you consider this as discrimination as well?



> And non-muslims existed in Mecca before Islam ever came about, why do you defend Mecca's discriminatory practice?



Prophet Ismael, the father of the Arab people was a Muslim. Islam didn't begin with Muhammad, it simply finished with him. Islam is obtaining salvation/peace through submission to God (the definition of Islam). Every prophet who came before Muhammad fits into that category.


----------



## Badass SnoCone (Aug 13, 2010)

"HEY GAIZ!!!!! I CAN SEE GROUND ZERO FROM MY MOSK!!!!!"


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> I believe the definition of discrimination isn't as simple as that. The situation also comes into play as well. If there was an ordinary place where muslims were given priority over non muslims, yes perhaps that is discrimination. However, if you are in a place which is specially designed for one party, the other must accept that and to even consider it a discrimination could be seen as an attempt to create discomfort.


Are you suggesting that when whites discriminated against blacks and created places by and specifically for, whites, this is ok? becaues that is your logic.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> At University, there was a large common room next to many shops. Our prayer room was around the corner as well. Me and my friends use to go there to have lunch. However, on certain occasions, we were asked to leave because there was a meeting for Homosexuals. Would you consider this as discrimination as well?


Did you have equal opportunity to book?
If so, no.

Can non-muslims book Mecca in any fashion?



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Prophet Ismael, the father of the Arab people was a Muslim. Islam didn't begin with Muhammad, it simply finished with him. Islam is obtaining salvation/peace through submission to God (the definition of Islam). Every prophet who came before Muhammad fits into that category.


Usually you dont rely on fiction to talk about reality.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

Bleach said:


> And why would people think that they would move.....
> 
> What a useless article



they are building the center for ""peace and understanding""...but refusing to be understanding and forthcoming towards the fact that a majority of New Yorkers are sensitive about the issue and oppose the moscque being built there. 

In other words..they shit on the sensitivities and opinions of a majority of New Yorkers. In the name of ""understanding""???

Just another showing of the double standard in where we are supposed to bend over backwards (since when do muslim rules apply to non-muslims such as showing muhammed?) for muslim sensitivities, yet opposite hardly ever happens....



We should create a ""jerusalem initiative"" that builds Churches close to villages where hundreds died by bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In order to ""build understanding and tolerance"". 

Just see the difference in response then. Hell if a few christians aid workers get murdered in Afghanistan it is already ""they should know better then preach christianity to these people"".


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> they are building the center for ""peace and understanding""...but refusing to be understanding and forthcoming towards the fact that a majority of New Yorkers are sensitive about the issue and oppose the moscque being built there.
> 
> In other words..they shit on the sensitivities and opinions of a majority of New Yorkers. In the name of ""understanding""???
> 
> ...


I'm from Iraq and I see no issue with that, the US army is the one that is responsible for the destruction there, not the christian religion.  

Since when was it the majority of the New Yorkers? I really can't see that in the article in fact isn't the mayor of new york supporting this project. :S

So you're comparing the USA/Civilised world to the Taliban...


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I'm from Iraq and I see no issue with that, the US army is the one that is responsible for the destruction there, not the christian religion.
> 
> Since when was it the majority of the New Yorkers? I really can't see that in the article in fact isn't the mayor of new york supporting this project. :S
> 
> So you're comparing the USA/Civilised world to the Taliban...


The very fact it is controversial pretty much proves this initiative, if its aim is for peace and understanding, should not be done.

If were to evaluate whether it will bring 'peace and understanding' then were seeing the results right now, which is not really good.

I have family in Iraq, and no they wouldn't be pleased if the US built Christian churches in Iraq.

From what i read, polls show a majority of New Yorkers oppose this.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

Majin, Your bringing too much of your personal feelings to this debate. This isn't an argument about how people feel about the mosque, its about its legal right to be there. I FEEL that the KKK demonstrations are wrong. But I KNOW that if I want to keep my right to assemble and demonstrate peacefully I will have to respect thier right.

You don't have to like or support the mosque, but you do have to allow it. That is if you don't to undermine your ability to, say for example, build your house on a plot you bought.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Majin, Your bringing too much of your personal feelings to this debate. This isn't an argument about how people feel about the mosque, its about its legal right to be there. I FEEL that the KKK demonstrations are wrong. But I KNOW that if I want to keep my right to assemble and demonstrate peacefully I will have to respect thier right.
> 
> You don't have to like or support the mosque, but you do have to allow it. That is if you don't to undermine your ability to, say for example, build your house on a plot you bought.


Actually it is about how people feel, the common discussion (therefore issue) is muslims, Islam,the west and 9/11.

Basically the treatment and perception between them.

This has not, nor ever was, about the legality of the mosque, any discussion around that is just a smokescreen for what people feel.

The fact that any discussion of this issue always revolves around Islam, Muslims, West and 9/11 is proof of that.

I fully endorse their right to build at the site, i don't endorse such a right in the sense i think it will be a beneficial outcome to Islam/muslims and non-muslims, i fully expect it to create more hatred and more anger.

The same reason why i fully endorse the right of freedom of speech for those who hate blacks, not because i support or think what they say is right, because i expect and hope they get their face smashed when they spout their racism.

Rights and equality, in the short term, produces an astounding amount of conflict, that is the real secret behind equality.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> That is true. However, in the Quran, it is mentioned that idolaters should not be allowed in the sacred mosque (referring to Haram i.e. Kaaba). The rule which stated that non muslims were forbiddon from entering the whole city of Mecca and Medina were implemented under the Saud kingdom. There are many hotels and there is a shopping mall as well. These are facilities created for those who come for pilgrimage which runs throughout the year. Outside Mecca and Madina, non muslims are very welcome. If you want to see Muslim architecture, there are many places which you can visit. Mecca is the house of God and Medina has the grave of our Prophet as well as the graves of other very pious people. I believe its very unfortunate that you see this as discrimination. No matter how many times I tell you otherwise, your opinon will not change.


First are you saying you agree with the blanket restriction on a whole city put in place by SA, or just entering the mosque ban?

Let me ask you another question, if the Israelis declared that Jerusalem was their holy city and did not allow anyone but Jews to enter the city. Would you consider this discrimination? 



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> The first Muslims to come to USA came with Colombus himself (heck, perhaps even before that). Irish/Italiens arrived in America roughly 200 years after Muslims came. Whats your point?


As a student of history I ask, please primary source this.


----------



## ammarz (Aug 13, 2010)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> No i didn't said Islam attacked the US. I said "mulsim terrorists" and "muslim extremists".
> 
> If i'm not enough clear
> 
> ...



Then if this mosque has no relation to those terrorists and, as you say, muslim extremists carried out 9/11 then there should be no problem with building this mosque.

If this mosque if at any time is used by extremists such as who purported 9/11 it can be closed then. I think one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Concerning the bolded part. This is a statement. In my first post I ask the reason for this objection? I don't think I have heard a reasonable one yet.

Why people see it as a victory monument. If this mosque has no relation to the people responsible for 9/11 and as you said only a handful of extremists were responsible for 9/11 not Islam as a whole; how can you say that it is a victory monument. Aren't these two views conflicting. The only way this is a victory monument is that if terrorists responsible for 9/11 had a part in the mosque or Islam as a whole religion attacked the US.
In my opinion this mosque is a victory monument, not for the terrorists but for American Values.


----------



## Chibibaki (Aug 13, 2010)

I am ok with it now that they are raising funds to put a muslim oriented gay bar right next to the mosque. 

Tolerance is a two way street.

And yes. The Mosque planners are ticked off that anyone would dare put a gay bar next to their mosque.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> I am ok with it now that they are raising funds to put a muslim oriented gay bar right next to the mosque.
> 
> Tolerance is a two way street.
> 
> And yes. The Mosque planners are ticked off that anyone would dare put a gay bar next to their mosque.



yes, a gay bar sponsored by a fox news commentator, it really does not look like just a butthurt reaction


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> yes, a *gay bar sponsored by a fox news *commentator, it really does not look like just a butthurt reaction



dose not compute


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> dose not compute





> The so-called 9/11 Victory mosque will have a fierce competition next door: a friendly muslim gay bar sponsored by *Fox News Greg Gutfeld*.





> "[...]It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world,?.





yeah, TOTALLY not butthurt


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

I lold      .


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

*I see no reason for them to move, it's not even technically on Ground Zero. *



sadated_peon said:


> I for one am all for the Mosque because I believe in freedom of religion.
> 
> My question is do muslims believe the same.
> Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca? Can I prosthelytize in Mecca? or in pakistan? I can I as a non-Muslim even enter mecca?



*Lol, what makes you think you can't build a church or temple in Pakistan? For your information, there are churches in Pakistan. Just not very many due to there not being very many Christians there. *


----------



## Chibibaki (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I see no reason for them to move, it's not even technically on Ground Zero. *
> 
> 
> 
> *Lol, what makes you think you can't build a church or temple in Pakistan? For your information, there are churches in Pakistan. Just not very many due to there not being very many Christians there. *



And the fact that they are routinely killed for their beliefs. Pakistani law mandates that "blasphemies" of the Qur'an are to be met with punishment. That pretext has been used to persecute Christians for decades. I think the most recent high profile "persecution was 4 women and a child being burned to death in 2009.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> And the fact that they are routinely killed for their beliefs. Pakistani law mandates that "blasphemies" of the Qur'an are to be met with punishment. That pretext has been used to persecute Christians for decades. I think the most recent high profile "persecution was 4 women and a child being burned to death in 2009.



*Don't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. Christians are killed for their beliefs the same way so many people in America are killed for their beliefs by wandering idiots. Also, while Pakistan blasphemy laws are ridiculous they are very rarely carried out.  I don't even recall someone legally being put to death for breaking a blasphemy law. And if they have, hey, the government has been in shit hands for a while now. Most, if not all, of these persecutions were carried out because the victim defiled the Quran or did something similar. Not saying it's right but they were not killed/beat simply for being Christian. 

The point is that there a good number of churches and such in Pakistan. That's all there is to it. 
*


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> And the fact that they are routinely killed for their beliefs. Pakistani law mandates that "blasphemies" of the Qur'an are to be met with punishment. That pretext has been used to persecute Christians for decades. I think the most recent high profile "persecution was 4 women and a child being burned to death in 2009.



it's really good to compare a developed country, 1st world country with religious freedom and democracy to a retrograde under-developed death-ridden theocratic country

call it double standards if you will, but you can't expect to be an actual respected country if you justify your actions using a country like pakistan as an example


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Lol, what makes you think you can't build a church or temple in Pakistan? For your information, there are churches in Pakistan. Just not very many due to there not being very many Christians there. *



Reading, it is a fundamental skill that you lack. 

Lets try this again
"Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca?"
Where in this statement does it say pakistan?

"Can I prosthelytize in Mecca? or in pakistan?"
Where in this statement does is say church or temple?

Do you want try your response again?
Do you want to comment on the fact that proselytizing for anything but Islam is illegal in pakistan?


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Reading, it is a fundamental skill that you lack.
> 
> Lets try this again
> "Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca?"
> ...



excuse me, i was not aware that the united states was a theocracy such as mecca or pakistan


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> excuse me, i was not aware that the united states was a theocracy such as mecca or pakistan


No, it's not. 
But Muslims support the theocratic restriction in Mecca and the regulation in pakistan are based on the Quran. 

Therefore Muslims who support and practice discrimination are hypocrites for demanding better treatment than which they force on others.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> No, it's not.
> But *Muslims *support the theocratic restriction in Mecca and the regulation in pakistan are based on the Quran.
> 
> Therefore Muslims who support and practice discrimination are hypocrites for demanding better treatment than which they force on others.



i don't, i can assure you many other muslims don't, hell, most muslims in the world don't even live in theocratic countries


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

muslims dothis theysupport that HOWW HYPICRTICAL

oh wait your muslim?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Reading, it is a fundamental skill that you lack.
> 
> Lets try this again
> "Can I build a church/Temple/atheist community center in Mecca?"
> ...



*It's not my fault the post was worded in such a horrible way. The "or in Pakistan" part can easily be clumped together with the entirety of the post. 

Also, while proselytizing anything but Islam is obviously going to be frowned upon in Pakistan seeing as how 98% of the country is Muslim and there are a lot of idiots (such as terrorists) there, I don't recall it being regarded as flat-out illegal, could easily be wrong about that though. 
*


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i don't, i can assure you many other muslims don't, hell, most muslims in the world don't even live in theocratic countries



Yet I have spent the last few pages arguing with those who do, are you trying to claim that your belief is in the majority?


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Yet I have spent the last few pages arguing with those who do, are you trying to claim that your belief is in the majority?



i'm trying to claim that you're talking about how muslims support theocracy with no evidence to back it up

as i said, most muslims don't even live in theocratic states, why would they support theocracy? islamism is not a core part of islam


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

*What does non-Muslims not being allowed in Mecca have to do with anything anyway? Completely different situation then the topic at hand. Looks like another attempt by you to try and make Muslims seems evil so that you seem right. *


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm not understanding all the comparisons between the US and the middle eastern countries in terms of religious tolerance.  Is that the standard that we hold ourselves to?

"Well in that theocracy they do it so why shouldn't we do it here?" or "Well they don't let Christians build stuff there so why should we let them build stuff here?".

I was under the impression that we strive to be _better_ than those countries.  Freedom of religion was one of the cornerstones of the founding of this country.  You can worship anyone you want anywhere you want.

And even though we have a large number of christians in this country we are _not_ a christian nation so what happens to christians in other countries shouldn't have any bearing on how we treat other religions here.


----------



## Badass SnoCone (Aug 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I'm from Iraq and I see no issue with that, the US army is the one that is responsible for the destruction there, not the christian religion.


I'm from New York and I see an issue with  this Mosque. Hey, now we both know something about each  other!  



> Since when was it the majority of the New Yorkers? I really can't see that in the article in fact isn't the mayor of new york supporting this project. :S


Ahahahahahahaaha! You think our mayor represents what we as a whole believe. That's funny. 




			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> yeah, TOTALLY not butthurt


How is it butthurt? They're doing the exact same thing that the mosque is doing. If the people in the mosque don't like it, then that's too bad for them.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *It's not my fault the post was worded in such a horrible way. The "or in Pakistan" part can easily be clumped together with the entirety of the post.*


No, it can't. "or in pakistan" refers to the direct previous sentence. removing the question mark joins the "or in pakistan" with the previous sentence, not both. 



Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Also, while proselytizing anything but Islam is obviously going to be frowned upon in Pakistan seeing as how 98% of the country is Muslim and there are a lot of idiots (such as terrorists) there, I don't recall it being regarded as flat-out illegal, could easily be wrong about that though.
> *


It is prohibited to proselytize muslims in pakistan.


----------



## Ceria (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I see no reason for them to move, it's not even technically on Ground Zero. *



It's right across the street though, is there nowhere else in new york that the only place to build a temple in observance of allah is less than a block away from the place where three thousand americans were killed in the name of allah? 

get the fuck out of here,


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Badass SnoCone said:


> How is it butthurt? They're doing the exact same thing that the mosque is doing. If the people in the mosque don't like it, then that's too bad for them.



is the mosque trying to bother people so they'd leave?


----------



## Badass SnoCone (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> is the mosque trying to bother people so they'd leave?



It's not stated that the mosque is trying to drive people away, nor is it stated that the gay bar is trying to drive people away.

However, you can say that each_* implies*_ that they're there to drive people away. But in neither case is it outright stated.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> No, it can't. "or in pakistan" refers to the direct previous sentence. removing the question mark joins the "or in pakistan" with the previous sentence, not both.
> 
> 
> It is prohibited to proselytize muslims in pakistan.



*Yes it can. Like I said, the "or in Pakistan" can easily be referring to your paragraph as a whole. That isn't a biggy though, since I now know what you meant. 

Do you have a source? I tried Google and found nothing. *



CeriaHalcyon said:


> It's right across the street though, is there nowhere else in new york that the only place to build a temple in observance of allah is less than a block away from the place where three thousand americans were killed in the name of allah?
> 
> get the fuck out of here,



*And so what if it's right across the street? It's still not on Ground Zero so there shouldn't be any problems. Furthermore, anyone with even half a brain knows that the people who were responsible for 9/11 were extremists and are not, in anyway whatsoever, indicative of how 99% of Muslims around the world feel. Including the people building and going to this Mosque. Many people don't even consider the extremists real Muslims. Both the people who build/go to the Mosque and the people protesting against the Mosque have lost people in 9/11, I guarantee it. Where is the problem? *


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Badass SnoCone said:


> It's not stated that the mosque is trying to drive people away, nor is it stated that the gay bar is trying to drive people away.
> 
> However, you can say that each_* implies*_ that they're there to drive people away. But in neither case is it outright stated.



how does a mosque built by non-radical muslims for a community drive people away the same way as a muslim-friendly gay bar sponsored by people known for their anti-gay and anti-muslim views? (just to add insult to injury, built right next to the mosque the sponsors are also known to protest against)

yeah, you can build a gay bar there, sure it can be muslim-friendly, but have the decency to admit you just want to scare people away


----------



## Badass SnoCone (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> how does a mosque built by non-radical muslims for a community


Near the site where 3,000 people died from an attack in the name of Islam.

Nope. Definitely just a coincidence. That must be it.

OHwait.



> have the decency to admit you just want to scare people away


The people who proposed the mosque can have the decency to admit that it's there just to create controversy.


In other news, though, Has anyone seen this? I found it interesting.

[YOUTUBE]vjS0Novt3X4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Aristides (Aug 13, 2010)

This is sounding so childish:

"They don't allow other religious buildings in Mecca so why should we allow a mosque in our city?"

For fuck's sake people, as many things you could criticize this country for, the US shouldn't have to stoop to that level. It's a nation which predicates itself on freedom and constitutional law. NYC doesn't have the same rules as Mecca, so quit being so butthurt. Furthermore, stop making blanket statements about Muslims. Most American Muslims are practically a different breed than most of their Middle East members.

I have yet to hear one argument against this mosque that isn't reliant on emotion or two childish logic. Those Muslims in NYC have every legal right in this country to build there and even if most New Yorkers don't like it, then it sucks for them because if these people bring up a case to the courts, the courts will rule in the Muslim's favor. you know why? Because the Musliims aren't violating any laws or even the Constitution itself. 

I've said this before and but sadly I'll say this again: 





> Josh Lyman: I don’t know Toby it’s election night, what do you say about a country that goes out of it’s way to protect people who try to destroy it?
> Toby Ziegler: “God Bless America”
> 
> Whenever I feel like saying "fuck you" to a certain group of people (whichever I'm pissed at), I always remember those lines from the West Wing.
> ...



Some here are actually demanding that if people want to build this mosque near ground zero, than Mecca should allow other faiths to be spread in the city, that tolerance is a two way street. Hmm, with that in mind, can I visit the Pope's personal quarters and say hi? Both sides, no matter how hypocritical or flawed, will use that as the reasoning that the other side has to make the step forward first, saying that they won't don't do this until the other side does. First and foremost, grow up. This isn't elementary school.

You wanna know how tolerance spreads to both sides? One side actually makes a move first, and then hopefully, either quickly or slowly, the other side follows suit. If you're the one who made the first move, then guess who was being more reasoned and mature in this situation? That's right, you.

So now the ball is in your court. What's your move? Will you shoot to keep yourself in the game? Or will you dribble the ball and get a shot clock violation? Your call. And don't bawwwww when you decided that the same old rules are not like-able to you anymore.

I'm done before this thread  goes into debating Islam. I have no interest in growing gray hair at an early age.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Badass SnoCone said:


> Near the site where 3,000 people died from an attack in the name of Islam.
> 
> Nope. Definitely just a coincidence. That must be it.
> 
> OHwait.







Badass SnoCone said:


> The people who proposed the mosque can have the decency to admit that it's there just to create controversy.



create controversy? a place for muslims to pray which anyone is welcome into to use their installations (that include pool, gym and other stuff) made by muslims looks just as suspicious as a gay bar sponsored by known bigots?


----------



## Badass SnoCone (Aug 13, 2010)

Yeah. Islam. I know what it is and what it teaches.



> create controversy?



Yes. You have to be stupid to believe that the mosque is near ground zero for any reason other than to create controversy. 

Another thing that show they're there to create controversy? They refused to move when asked/suggested that they do. No one told them the mosque/cultural center couldn't be built, just that it may be a good idea to have it built elsewhere.

"We will be understanding by not giving a shit what you people think"
-People who propose this mosque.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Go back through the thread and you can see me arguing against muslims who support the practices that I mentioned.
> 
> Next the idea of a theocratic state is based on the idea of having an Islamic caliphate, which is supported by the Quran. The principle of Ummah.



ok, i'm going to be really nice to you an assume there were 40 muslims in here arguing in favor of theocracy and in favor of mecca being closed to kuffars, we're still 1,5 billion, 40 is not even close to a meaningful number in this case

the bible says you shouldn't cut your hair or trim your beard, but how many christians out there actually obey that? the thing about a religion is that there are the hardcore nuts (hezbollah, christians who bomb abortion clinics, jews) and there is everyone else (me, most muslims and christians out there, jews)


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 13, 2010)

Freedom Of Religion is the entire reason the British relocated to the New World in the first place wasn't it  

This is not a christian nation, Thomas Jefferson you can thank for your freedom to practice whatever you want, so get used to it religious Xenophobes 

Radicalism can happen in any religion, any sect, for any reason. Just because Islam was and has been hijacked for evil is no reason to go all Japanese concentration camp on all the Muslims.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 13, 2010)

This is still going on ?


----------



## uchia2000 (Aug 13, 2010)

Chibibaki said:


> I am ok with it now that they are raising funds to put a muslim oriented gay bar right next to the mosque.
> 
> Tolerance is a two way street.
> 
> And yes. The Mosque planners are ticked off that anyone would dare put a gay bar next to their mosque.


You know I half expected 9/11 victims to come out and say "They can't build a muslim gay bar here! They are gonna be partying and drinking on near the site where thousands of American citizens died."

I mean come on a community center insults 9/11 victims but somehow a muslim gay bar doesn't?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 13, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> ^Pretty much summed up everything I wanted to say. There's other places in New York. The people should move if they really want to "build a bridge" between us and them.



Fuck that shit.
Fuck 9/11
Fuck the victims
and fuck their families


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm pretty sure every Muslim as an American worth their salt, feels saddened by what happened on 9/11, just like we all were. Taking away their own rights because the whites don't feel safe in their own city or think its an insult that the constitution is being upheld is even more of an insult to this country, i think.


----------



## Badass SnoCone (Aug 13, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Fuck that shit.
> Fuck 9/11
> Fuck the victims
> and fuck their families



Fuck you.

The people building this mosque definitely have the same mindset that you do.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 13, 2010)

Badass SnoCone said:


> In other news, though, Has anyone seen this? I found it interesting.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]vjS0Novt3X4[/YOUTUBE]



Wow, this guy would be dead if he lived in the Netherland. I wonder if he was already threaten of death.


----------



## uchia2000 (Aug 13, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Then, my friend, you're going to find yourself very confused when that doesn't happen.


Yeah I know and I don't follow the logic of 9/11 victims who feel that a community center insults their loved ones but not a muslim gay bar.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Some do some don't. Some Christians believe the same and some don't. I still fail to see what the point of that argument is.


The point is that support of religious freedom is not a one way street. 



			
				Psycho said:
			
		

> ok, i'm going to be really nice to you an assume there were 40 muslims in here arguing in favor of theocracy and in favor of mecca being closed to kuffars, we're still 1,5 billion, 40 is not even close to a meaningful number in this case
> 
> the bible says you shouldn't cut your hair or trim your beard, but how many christians out there actually obey that? the thing about a religion is that there are the hardcore nuts (hezbollah, christians who bomb abortion clinics, jews) and there is everyone else (me, most muslims and christians out there, jews)


No, I am taking a small sample of this muslims in this thread which represent modern (internet access, young, like popular culture from Japan) the progressive end of the spectrum. Out of those on the threat I have seen much more support Mecca ban(not just in this thread but also in the discussion thread). 

I don’t disagree that there are differences in beliefs within a religion, but I was very much responding to the muslim in this thread and of the majority of mulism who support this aspect. 

If I said Muslim don’t drink alcohol, are you going to jump on me because some do. If I say muslims don’t eat pork are you going to jump on me because some muslims do.

-also, any answer to my question about you being an atheist?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 13, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Fuck that shit.
> Fuck Muslims.
> and fuck their wants and needs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Then, I should be able to say to you;
> 
> Fuck that shit.
> Fuck Muslims.
> ...



really, you're on his side? idiot

it's diceman, he hates everyone that does anything

hates muslims saying they are violent, hates 9/11 families saying they bitch too much, hates people who post in the BH for having no life, hates people that have flesh tunnels because he this they do it to be "cool and edgy", hates drinkers and junkies for being inhumane bastards

and you just fell for his troll


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> really, you're on his side? idiot
> 
> it's diceman, he hates everyone that does anything
> 
> ...



- I don't hate muslims for being violent
- I don't hate drinkers, mainly because I am one.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 13, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> If that's true then they should agree that this Mosque being built here is a bad thing.



How does that make any sense in conjunction with what i said? It is those people's opinions that it is an insult to the victims of 9/11. You'll find just as many survivors of 9/11 that vouch for the center being built based on their tolerance as you would a vocal minority who do not want Muslims anywhere near the place.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> No, I am taking a small sample of this muslims in this thread which represent modern (internet access, young, like popular culture from Japan) the progressive end of the spectrum. Out of those on the threat I have seen much more support Mecca ban(not just in this thread but also in the discussion thread).
> 
> I don’t disagree that there are differences in beliefs within a religion, but I was very much responding to the muslim in this thread and of the majority of mulism who support this aspect.
> 
> ...



i'm a muslim, but i drink alcohol in moderation and avoid pork (but i'm willing to eat it if there's no other options)

and the most vocal muslims in this forum are utter psychos, don't let them ruin your opinion of us



Elim Rawne said:


> - I don't hate muslims for being violent
> - I don't hate drinkers, mainly because I am one.



i mistook you with pilaf for a second there, sorry


----------



## vivEnergy (Aug 13, 2010)

And here we go ...

Huntington seems like you were right after all.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i mistook you with pilaf for a second there, sorry



I should track you down and beat you over the head with a baseball bat for that comment.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> I should track you down and beat you over the head with a baseball bat for that comment.



you've compared me to pilaf before, we're to say the least, even


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:
			
		

> i'm a muslim, but i drink alcohol in moderation and avoid pork (but i'm willing to eat it if there's no other options)
> 
> and the most vocal muslims in this forum are utter psychos, don't let them ruin your opinion of us


You call them psychos(irony with your name made me lol), they will say you?re not Muslim. 
I don?t see you being a small minority as a reason to justify which is clear just a semantic argument.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> you've compared me to pilaf before, we're to say the least, even



No, we're not.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> You call them psychos(irony with your name made me lol), they will say you?re not Muslim.
> I don?t see you being a small minority as a reason to justify which is clear just a semantic argument.



i'm a muslim, but following the religion by the letter is out of the question where i live, i cannot stop in the middle of my class and pray, i cannot avoid eating pork from time to time; but i can say radicals aren't muslims either for not practicing the sheltering of the infidels (the qu'ran orders a muslim to shelter an infidel in need for 3 days if he requests help) and that kind of stuff

no true scotsman sucks but it's sometimes true


----------



## Mael (Aug 13, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Fuck that shit.
> Fuck 9/11
> Fuck the victims
> and fuck their families



Troll attempt.



Ishinoue said:


> Then, I should be able to say to you;
> 
> Fuck that shit.
> Fuck Muslims.
> ...





Badass SnoCone said:


> Fuck you.
> 
> The people building this mosque definitely have the same mindset that you do.



Troll attempt victim count: 2



Psycho said:


> really, you're on his side? idiot
> 
> it's diceman, he hates everyone that does anything
> 
> ...



And this to reinforce.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Aug 13, 2010)

this is xenophobia at its best right here.



colonel stinkmeaner would be pleased.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> It has everything to do with it. If you support a ban on people of certain religions even entering a city, then you are a hypocrite to criticize another cities which wants to ban people of certain religions from building places of worship.
> 
> Because you support something WORSE than you demand for yourself.



*That makes absolutely no sense. Like I've already said, Mecca and New York (or America as a whole) are entirely incomparable. There is a clear difference between not allowing people not of a certain religion into a holy city and not letting people build a place of worship in a country that supposedly emphasizes freedom of religion when they have every legal right to do so. And what city exactly wants to ban people of certain religions from building places of worship? You do realize you just said New York doesn't want Muslims to build any Mosques at all with in New York, don't you? *



> No, it can’t.
> It can’t apply to the paragraph as a whole, the starting of the sentence with or, applies directly to the sentence previous to it as if you remove the punctuation between them this is the direct meaning. The sentence preceding that has its own subject that is change in this sentence.
> 
> You fucked up and misrepresented my position.
> ...


*
Did you not read my last post or something? Let it go already, we both know I know what you meant now. 

That link of yours clearly says that there are Christian missionaries in Pakistan. Also, there is a difference between preaching a religion that isn't Islam and preaching against Islam. The "they" in that sentence can refer to either the missionaries themselves or the people they try to convert. Either way, if you are right it doesn't seem like a heavily enforced law at all. *


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i'm a muslim, but following the religion by the letter is out of the question where i live, i cannot stop in the middle of my class and pray,* i cannot avoid eating pork from time to time*; but i can say radicals aren't muslims either for not practicing the sheltering of the infidels (the qu'ran orders a muslim to shelter an infidel in need for 3 days if he requests help) and that kind of stuff
> 
> no true scotsman sucks but it's sometimes true



*Do people force-feed you pork or something? There's no excuse for drinking alcohol or eating pork unless your life is in danger. But to each his own I suppose.
*


----------



## Mael (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Do people force-feed you pork or something? There's no excuse for drinking alcohol or eating pork unless your life is in danger. But to each his own I suppose.
> *



Culture has a significant role.  Ask the Bosnian/Albanian Muslims.  Psycho here is Brazilian and likely has the following a lot more stapled in his culture than let's say...Qatar.


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Do people force-feed you pork or something? There's no excuse for drinking alcohol or eating pork unless your life is in danger. But to each his own I suppose.
> *



no, if there's no other option of food or someone serves me pork, extremely rude to refuse food people serve you for ANY reason

and alcohol is just something i find hard to avoid (not that i'm an acoholic or anything), but it's just such a strong part of the brazilian society, that "weekend drink" and stuff like that


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

Mael said:


> Culture has a significant role.  Ask the Bosnian/Albanian Muslims.  Psycho here is Brazilian and likely has the following a lot more stapled in his culture than let's say...Qatar.



*It does not matter where you are from or where you live. Ir you are a Muslim you do not consume alcohol or pork unless it becomes absolutely necessary. But, like I said, to each his own. He can do what he wants, I was just curious because he said that he cannot avoid eating pork from time to time and I can't imagine a country like that. *


----------



## Mael (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *It does not matter where you are from or where you live. Ir you are a Muslim you do not consume alcohol or pork unless it becomes absolutely necessary. But, like I said, to each his own. He can do what he wants, I was just curious because he said that he cannot avoid eating pork from time to time and I can't imagine a country like that. *



Then you need to lighten up.  No one's going to hell for sipping a beer especially when it's ingrained in your native culture for so long.  

Pork is huge in Brazil btw.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 13, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Ishinoue said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck that shit.
> ...





Mael said:


> Troll attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 









*Spoiler*: __ 








*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

Mael said:


> Then you need to lighten up.  No one's going to hell for sipping a beer especially when it's ingrained in your native culture for so long.
> 
> Pork is huge in Brazil btw.


*
I need to lighten up? I don't recall insulting him or anything. It's not like I'm cursing him for eating pork and occasionally drinking. I was just curious, that's all. I even said he can do what he wants, I'm not bothered by him doing what he does. It's not like I hate the guy. 

And yes, if do drink or if you die with alcohol in your stomach (unless you had to consume it to stay alive etc or if it was an accident) you are going straight to hell, according to Islam at least. But this isn't the thread for that. 
*


----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> I need to lighten up? I don't recall insulting him or anything. It's not like I'm cursing him for eating pork and occasionally drinking. I was just curious, that's all. I even said he can do what he wants, I'm not bothered by him doing what he does. It's not like I hate the guy.
> 
> And yes, if do drink or if you die with alcohol in your stomach (unless you had to consume it to stay alive etc or if it was an accident) you are going straight to hell, according to Islam at least. But this isn't the thread for that.
> *



the dogma means nothing if you forget the message; but the message alone means a lot, even if you forget the dogma


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 13, 2010)

I feel sorry for the muslims because they can't eat pork. Pork is so great.


PS: Happy Ramadan


----------



## Mael (Aug 13, 2010)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> I feel sorry for the muslims because they can't eat pork. Pork is so great.
> 
> 
> PS: Happy Ramadan



Seriously, pork is fucking awesome...as is beer.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 13, 2010)

Mael said:


> Seriously, pork is fucking awesome...as is beer.



Oh yes, i forget, they can't drink alcohol.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

*I used to drink alchemical from time to time when I was 18 or so, or at least I tried to. I spat it out every time it was so nasty. Not really too fond of being intoxicated either. 

As for pork had it by mistake in elementary school, didn't like it. Although that's probably not going to be anywhere near as good as pork served in restaurants and whatnot. Still, I work at a deli and I can't stand the smell of any of the hams and whatnot there. *


----------



## vivEnergy (Aug 13, 2010)

canadian beer and bacon


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 13, 2010)




----------



## Psycho (Aug 13, 2010)

i'm not a big bacon fan, i actually find it disgusting; as for drinking, i keep myself leveled


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm not a fan of bacon too. It's not as popular in my country as in the US. However there are so many other things with pork.


----------



## Mist Beauty (Aug 13, 2010)

*Spoiler*: _Be careful, are you sure you want to click me?_


----------



## Mael (Aug 13, 2010)

Mist Beauty said:


> *Spoiler*: _Be careful, are you sure you want to click me?_



He went from zero to emo just like that.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:
			
		

> That makes absolutely no sense. Like I've already said, Mecca and New York (or America as a whole) are entirely incomparable. There is a clear difference between not allowing people not of a certain religion into a holy city and not letting people build a place of worship in a country that supposedly emphasizes freedom of religion when they have every legal right to do so. And what city exactly wants to ban people of certain religions from building places of worship? You do realize you just said New York doesn't want Muslims to build any Mosques at all with in New York, don't you?


That Mecca has restriction in place already that discriminate people does not make this different. 

If new York decides not to allow any muslism from building something, then it is displaying the SAME DISCRIMINATION that you promote for Mecca. 

Your argument is akin to saying, 
It?s wrong for p1(new York) to kill someone, but it?s ok for p2(Mecca) to kill people because he?s a murderer. 



			
				Pimp of Pimps said:
			
		

> Did you not read my last post or something? Let it go already, we both know I know what you meant now.
> 
> That link of yours clearly says that there are Christian missionaries in Pakistan. Also, there is a difference between preaching a religion that isn't Islam and preaching against Islam. The "they" in that sentence can refer to either the missionaries themselves or the people they try to convert. Either way, if you are right it doesn't seem like a heavily enforced law at all.


Yea, I read it and responded to it. You messed up and completely bastardized my argument based on your own poor reading comprehension. 

It said chrisitan missionaries that don?t try to covert muslims, which is what I said. 
?preaching against Islam?, is proselytizing to muslims. 
They also need to get government approval, would you recommend the same restriction on muslims in new York?


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

mmmmmmm pork


----------



## Shade (Aug 13, 2010)

I LOL at the people actually trying to argue with the dupe sisters. I think the Glen Beck set alone should pretty much clarify how open-minded they are.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I'm from Iraq and I see no issue with that,



many will take issue. 

and no one will buy the BS that its about ""understanding and peace"" 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Since when was it the majority of the New Yorkers? I really can't see that in the article in fact isn't the mayor of new york supporting this project. :S



since they conducted several surveys in New York which were also in the news. google it. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> So you're comparing the USA/Civilised world to the Taliban...



nope. 

I am pointing out the bias in response. 

Christian aid workers get gunned down and for some posters on NF it is something they should have seen coming. 

Now imagine their response if US christians would build mega churches right next to leveled villages?? 

Yet these same people come here and laugh about very logical sensitivities and claim were just islamaphobes and bigots and that the Mosque is about ""peace and understanding"" 


tell me Ziggy...is shitting all over others sensitivities and opinions a good first step towards ""peace and understanding""???? 

Talking about a minor relocation would have been a great gesture.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuza, the Muslims can't keep pushing themselves aside until the American public decides to accept them. Imagine if the Blacks did that during the Civil War and the Civil rights days, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

This is a give and take issue. Muslim Americans and Muslims in America need to understand that many American people are wary of Muslims, and the American people need to try harder to accept moderate Muslims and help create a gap between them. Muslims can't do their part unless Americans allow them. Telling them to move this Mosque is suggesting that the Muslims in America aren't American and it is segregating them from the whole of society. "Its okay to have your mosque, you just have to move it somewhere else because a lot of people think all Muslims attacked the WTC."


----------



## Inuhanyou (Aug 13, 2010)

^ Maybe the american people should remind themselves of what they're founding principles are  

The Japanese Americans got turned into prisoners of war overnight because of what Japan did. Why should they have been "mindful of the american people's anger"? Everybody should know that religion or ethnicity doesn't always equal groupthink.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> many will take issue.
> 
> and no one will buy the BS that its about ""understanding and peace""



Why is it BS? if Christians built churches in Iraq to promote understanding and peace, I really don't see how this translates into victory monuments that show that we destroyed your country. 

Many will take issue based on *wrong beliefs*, i.e Christians = US army, or in this case 19 muslim extremists = 1.5 billion muslims, US army= a terrorist organisation because they comitted a few freak accidents in Iraq... etc etc.

I really don't see how being understanding towards such people and pretty much admitting that you are responsible for what they are accusing you of is somehow going to help peace and understanding, I believe that if they built this community center people will see that muslims are quite reasonable when they mix with them. 

Also didn't a few muslims die in 9/11? 



Zabuzalives said:


> nope.
> 
> I am pointing out the bias in response.
> 
> ...


If I remember correctly the ones that were going to speak of it like that were the atheists and thats why Mael was speaking of it. 

It is for peace and understanding, unless you relate Islam with terrorism I really can't see why they should bend over so that Islamophobes can feel better inside?

I  don't see why this is that big of an issue, just learn not to generalise and use logic life, will be so much easier.

Also what strikes me as quite ironic and  rather odd is that the majority of the people that are so against this claim that; they do not believe muslims are terrorists yet at the same time they think that they should atone for what terrorists did by relocating the mosque.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Zabuza, the Muslims can't keep pushing themselves aside until the American public decides to accept them. Imagine if the Blacks did that during the Civil War and the Civil rights days, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.



horrible comparison. 

how do  they ""keep"" pushing themselves aside?? 



-=  =- said:


> This is a give and take issue.



and they give awfully little. 

in my country they have removed art, closed plays, removed christmas trees, all to cater to muslim sensitivities. 


we hardly HAVE any sensitivities, and when any does arise (ground zero) we have this initiative which just shits on it. 




-= =- said:


> Muslims can't do their part unless Americans allow them. Telling them to move this Mosque is suggesting that the Muslims in America aren't American and it is segregating them from the whole of society.



no its not telling them that. your to busy coddling muslims to see. 

its like asking christians to reconsider building a huge church next to the rubble of a bombed abortion facility that killed scores.

you are asking them to consider the sensitivities of the survivors and family members. To make a gesture for good will. 

thats it. 

how you conclude above=telling them they are not ""american"" really eludes me.....




-= =- said:


> "Its okay to have your mosque, you just have to move it somewhere else because a lot of people think all Muslims attacked the WTC."



Muslims commited the acts with Islam as their guiding inspiration. To have then a huge promotion of Islam on the doorstep on whats basically a graveyard. Can be a bit unsettling for some. 

It is courteous...a gesture of good will..to take these cocnerns and sensitivities into consideration. 

if they truly care about bettering relations, understanding and peace that is.....


I cant believe you. So strongly opposed the mohammed caricatures. ""We should avoid pushing to many buttons..should be aware of sensitivities. avoid conflict""  But when the shoes on the other foot that all goes straight out the window with you huh?? 

hypocrite....


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Why is it BS? if Christians built churches in Iraq to promote understanding and peace, I really don't see how this translates into victory monuments that show that we destroyed your country.



churches and moscques are there to practice and spread the belief first and foremost. 

all this ""peace and understanding"" is just propaganda covering the obvious. 
The fact that they have no problem shitting on all sensitivities and majority opinion says enough on how much they care for ""understanding"" 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Many will take issue based on *wrong beliefs*, i.e Christians = US army. or in this case 19 muslim extremists = 1.5 billion muslims, US army= a terrorist organisation because they comitted a few freak accidents in Iraq... etc etc.



and what is a better way to handle the situation and come to an understanding. 

""we are not those that bombed your village, if you feel that strongly though..we will move it away a block as a sign of good will and out of respect for the trauma of the surviving families, lets hope this can be a step towards a better relation"" 

""we are not those that bombed your village..fuck your sensitivities, the mega church is here to stay so we can promote christianity..eehhh i mean for better understanding and...peace"" 





-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I really don't see how being understanding towards such people and pretty much admitting that you are responsible for what they are accusing you of is somehow going to help peace and understanding,



you guys are so dramatic. 

see above. ""we are not those that bombed the village"" = admitting guilt?? 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I believe that if they built this community center people will see that muslims are quite reasonable.



quite reasonable as in taking into consideration the huge sensitivities surrounding ground zero??? 

them pushing this through just gives them more bad rep. 






-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> If I remember correctly the ones that were going to speak of it like that were the atheists and thats why Mael was speaking of it.



Sesshomaru is a muslim. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> It is for peace and understanding, unless you relate Islam with terrorism I really can't see why they should bend over so that Islamophobes can feel better inside?



islamophobes love this. our Geert Wilders is going to New York so he can make a speech about how Islam wants to dominate and rule the west.

please. muslims inspired by their interpretation of Islam murdered your family. Then right next to whats basically a huge graveyard you see a huge mosque promoting Islam. You do not have to be a islamaphobe to rather not be faced with that. 

Nice to see your generalizing and demonizing though.....the islamaphobes can learn from you. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I really don't see why this is that big of an issue, just learn not to generalise and use logic life will be so much easier.



and your doing just that. generalizing. your oversimplifying this. 

Not all those opposing the mosque that close or in that size are islamophobes who think every muslim is a terrorrist.....

hence the ""big issue"". Its not just the batch of bigots 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Also what strikes me as quite ironic and odd is that the majority of the people that are so against this, claim that they do not believe muslims are terrorists yet at the same time they think that they should atone for what terrorists did by relocating the mosque.



you know what i or others think now?? 

I do not think they should ""atone"", cause i do not view them as responsible. I am asking them to have some fucking respect and understanding concerning peoples sensitivities surrounding this huge graveyard of a terrible islamic terrorist attack. 


considering this initiative is ABOUT * better understanding *that is not too much to ask is it???


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> horrible comparison.
> 
> how do  they ""keep"" pushing themselves aside??



Well, if they moved this mosque then that is what they would be doing.



> and they give awfully little.
> 
> in my country they have removed art, closed plays, removed christmas trees, all to cater to muslim sensitivities.
> 
> ...



What do you expect them do to when they are treated like monsters here?  If your in a different country, I don't even know why your in this debate anyways then. This is about how Muslims are treated here, not there. We certainly keep our Christmas trees and art up.





> no its not telling them that. your to busy coddling muslims to see.
> 
> its like asking christians to reconsider building a huge church next to the rubble of a bombed abortion facility that killed scores.
> 
> ...



Coddling? HA! You mean fighting for their equal rights as people? I would just as soon do the same if it were any other group or faction in this exact situation. 

No it isn't like that, because we have a huge Christian base in america. Muslims are disliked here, Christians are not. I guarantee no one would care if a Christian church tried to do this.



> how you conclude above=telling them they are not ""american"" really eludes me.....



Because, this was an attack on america right? That means Muslims here have every right to be just as sensitive about the attack. Telling Muslims that they can't build a a mosque their is making a distinct separation between Muslims and Americans.





> Muslims commited the acts with Islam as their guiding inspiration. To have then a huge promotion of Islam on the doorstep on whats basically a graveyard. Can be a bit unsettling for some.
> 
> It is courteous...a gesture of good will..to take these cocnerns and sensitivities into consideration.
> 
> ...



So what? That is the fault of the Americans for wrongly associating the attack that way. Terrorists blew the WTC towers up, that is the issue. I don't see any terrorist buildings going up, and that is why there is no issue.

I never said I am a proponent of this mosque because I believe it will better relations. Its legal, its that simple. I said in the picture thread many times over that I thought that drawing the picture was stupid, but it was legal and thus should be allowed.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> churches and moscques are there to practice and spread the belief first and foremost.
> 
> all this ""peace and understanding"" is just propaganda covering the obvious.
> The fact that they have no problem shitting on all sensitivities and majority opinion says enough on how much they care for ""understanding""


 I thought this one's case was because the muslims in there needed a place for prayer but anyway this is of no importance to the topic.



Zabuzalives said:


> and what is a better way to handle the situation and come to an understanding.
> 
> ""we are not those that bombed your village, if you feel that strongly though..we will move it away a block as a sign of good will and out of respect for the trauma of the surviving families, lets hope this can be a step towards a better relation""
> 
> ""we are not those that bombed your village..fuck your sensitivities, the mega church is here to stay so we can promote christianity..eehhh i mean for better understanding and...peace""



Or it can be 

"we are not those that bombed your village, thus your sensitivies are quite unreasonable, as you can not expect us to be understand of something we did not commit" 

Also you did not answer me there are 9/11 victims that are muslims, should we ban them a place of worship or are their sensitivites not that important. 






Zabuzalives said:


> quite reasonable as in taking into consideration the huge sensitivities surrounding ground zero???
> 
> them pushing this through just gives them more bad rep.



I edited the post to make it clearer, I was meaning as in people will mix with muslims rather than have them hidden away.



Zabuzalives said:


> Sesshomaru is a muslim.


Fair enough you proved your point that he is biased. 




Zabuzalives said:


> islamophobes love this. our Geert Wilders is going to New York so he can make a speech about how Islam wants to dominate and rule the west.
> 
> please. muslims inspired by their interpretation of Islam murdered your family. Then right next to whats basically a huge graveyard you see a huge mosque promoting Islam. *You do not have to be a islamaphobe* to rather not be faced with that.
> 
> Nice to see your generalizing and demonizing though.....the islamaphobes can learn from you.



You do try again though lovely appeal to emotion. 

Why am I generalising? the reason why people don't want this is because they consider muslims as terrorists, don't see how this isn't a way to show that they are Islamphobes. 



Zabuzalives said:


> and your doing just that. generalizing. your oversimplifying this.
> 
> Not all those opposing the mosque that close or in that size are islamophobes who think every muslim is a terrorrist.....
> 
> hence the ""big issue"". Its not just the batch of bigots



So they don't think muslims are terrorists, thus they shouldn't view their place of worship as a terrorists spawning point or relating to Al-KAY-duh, but at the same time they want the former to have some decency and respect for the people for something they did not commit and are not guilty of comitting. 

explain to me how this isn't Islamphobia please.




Zabuzalives said:


> you know what i or others think now??
> 
> I do not think they should ""atone"", cause i do not view them as responsible. I am asking them to have some fucking respect and understanding concerning peoples sensitivities surrounding this huge graveyard of a terrible islamic terrorist attack.
> 
> ...


I don't see how they are being disrespectful here, if they are not responsible for 9/11 nor are they building a monument to celebrate 9/11.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Well, if they moved this mosque then that is what they would be doing.



Can you list me all the other times they have stepped aside??? 



Petenshi said:


> What do you expect them do to when they are treated like monsters here?  If your in a different country, I don't even know why your in this debate anyways then. This is about how Muslims are treated here, not there. We certainly keep our Christmas trees and art up.



""treated like monsters"" 

please travel to pakistan or saudi arabia or iraq and see how christians struggle there so you have a better referance. 

fucking drama-queen. 



Petenshi said:


> No it isn't like that, because we have a huge Christian base in america. Muslims are disliked here, Christians are not. I guarantee no one would care if a Christian church tried to do this.



way to miss the point. 

if 1 atheist would ask the church to move a block further out of piety with the deceased and surviving family. 

is that

""telling them they are not american"" 

no its not. 

same applies to here. Uey your coddling clouds your judgment




Petenshi said:


> Because, this was an attack on america right? That means Muslims here have every right to be just as sensitive about the attack. Telling Muslims that they can't build a a mosque their is making a distinct separation between Muslims and Americans.



yes they can be just as sensitive. 

they are not seperating muslims from americans. they are asking a little understanding for the sensitivities stemming from building a huge mosque to promote islam so close to a huge graveyard of victims from islamic terrorism. 

see above. Am i saying that christians arent american there?? nope.  



Petenshi said:


> So what? That is the fault of the Americans for wrongly associating the attack that way. Terrorists blew the WTC towers up, that is the issue. I don't see any terrorist buildings going up, and that is why there is no issue.



yet during the mohammed caricatures you were all for avoiding conflict and tolerance and understanding. funny....

now its ""so what"" ""screw their sensitivities"" 


Islam inspired the attackers. Islam then gets promoted by a huge mosque very close to ground zero. Not suprising people have some concerns. 


Should I put up huge promo posters of the catholic church facing the houses of those being abused by priest half their life?? class right?   

Should I build that mega church in fallujah now that the bombing opened up some space?? 

Should i build a huge church right on top of bombed abortion clinics?? 

Do you think people having issue with that are christian haters and bigots??? 
Do you think their problems are a non-issue? ""Suck it up, so you've been abused by a priest..boohoo you christian hater"" 


answer these questions and realize how biased you are. 





Petenshi said:


> I never said I am a proponent of this mosque because I believe it will better relations. Its legal, its that simple. I said in the picture thread many times over that I thought that drawing the picture was stupid, but it was legal and thus should be allowed.



excuses. You find all opposition a ""non-issue"". Think that ANY step by muslims to cater to the sensitivities are keeping them back from equality.

And where you first always argued for conflict avoidance and understanding..you now basically argue that those having problems with the mosque in this form should be ignored. 

well fyi that creates conflict and does not aid in mutual understanding and respect at all.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Or it can be
> 
> "we are not those that bombed your village, thus your sensitivies are quite unreasonable, as you can not expect us to be understand of something we did not commit"



you can not expect us to be understand of something??? 

that does not make much sense, i much prefer my one. 

If you meant ""responsible"" then that too is missing the point cause as i said before..Me and others included do not view them as responsible. 


But answer the question...it would be a nice gesture that would lead to understanding and better relations no? It does in no way causes them to admit responsibility no? 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Also you did not answer me there are 9/11 victims that are muslims, should we ban them a place of worship or are their sensitivites not that important.



this whole thread is about relocating a mosque. 

having to walk 1 block further=/= being BANNED from a place of worship. 

please dont throw BS arguments at me. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I edited the post to make it clearer, I was meaning as in people will mix with muslims rather than have them hidden away.



Showing grace and respect helps a lot more for understanding and wanting to check out the centre.

But if you want to get a lot of converts its better to have it stand out a lot yeah. . This will also piss off more people and reinforce the negative view of muslims. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> You do try again though lovely appeal to emotion.



Lol your side is making claims how ""muslims are treated like monsters in america"" and ""they all generalize muslims as terrorist""  

I am getting annoyed cause you basically accuse me of being a bigot, , hell you accuse the majority of New York 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Why am I generalising? the reason why people don't want this is because they consider muslims as terrorists,



I do not consider muslims as terrorist and i do not want that huge mosque there so close. 

there...your ""sole reason"" just is proven to be simplistic and FLAWED. 

you are generalizing. ""all muslims=terrorist"" ""all moscue opposers are islamaphobes"". Same coin...different side.. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> So they don't think muslims are terrorists, thus they shouldn't view their place of worship as a terrorists spawning point or relating to Al-KAY-duh, but at the same time they want the former to have some decency and respect for the people for something they did not commit and are not guilty of comitting.
> 
> explain to me how this isn't Islamphobia please.



promoting Islam on a site where Islam inspired a terrible terrorist attack so little time ago is in poor taste. 

Should I put up huge promo posters of the catholic church facing the houses of those being abused by priest half their life?? class right? 

Should I build that mega church in fallujah now that the bombing opened up some space?? 

Should i build a huge church right on top of bombed abortion clinics?? 

Do you think people having issue with that are christian haters and bigots??? 
Do you think their problems are a non-issue? ""Suck it up, so you've been abused by a priest..boohoo you christian hater"" 


answer these questions and realize how biased you are. 

Even though their concerns might stem from part ignorance about the religion. They are through a trauma. A little fucking consideration would be nice. 



For ""building bridges/understanding and peace"" its best not to shit on peoples sesnitivities and opinion. Relocating would have been a great gesture of good will. 

Heh...poor Geert Wilders then...Muslims acting respectfull and giving? there goes his spotlight opportunity. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I don't see how they are being disrespectful here, if they are not responsible for 9/11 nor are they building a monument to celebrate 9/11.



yes, ever considered it maybe you?? your bias or elephant skin? 

Cause i already showed how it is possible to oppose the mosque without being an islamophobe/bigot or thinking all muslims are terrorists.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

ziggy stardust said:
			
		

> So they don't think muslims are terrorists, thus they shouldn't view their place of worship as a terrorists spawning point or relating to Al-KAY-duh, but at the same time they want the former to have some decency and respect for the people for something they did not commit and are not guilty of comitting.
> 
> explain to me how this isn't Islamphobia please.


A muslim who doesn't kill people, but teaches an idealogy that says non-muslims go to hell.

Is promoting a hateful belief that creates conflict.

If i went to the site of a memorial for Jew holocaust, and dress up as Hitler to talk about the good stuff he has done in his life, nothing about the bad stuff, that's still insensitive and if i was asked to not do that, i would stop.

That's irrespective of whether i am a good person, or whether the thing's i aim to say are good.

If you for a moment you argue that muslims are not necessarily bad even if their religion has some bad stuff, your immediately saying that the religion can be different then its followers.

Once you argue that (which is the correct viewpoint) then a mosque, or any advocacy/symbolism of a religion, can be judged differently then those who advocate it.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

> Zabuzalives said:
> 
> 
> > Can you list me all the other times they have stepped aside???
> ...


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

you just compared muslims to hitler...


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> you just compared muslims to hitler...


WEL TEY BOF HAZ TEH MOSTCHE ND R VILENT LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!


Yeah seriously, that was pretty fucking retarded.


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> WEL TEY BOF HAZ TEH MOSTCHE ND R VILENT LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
> 
> 
> Yeah seriously, that was pretty fucking retarded.



I see it as that a step to far.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> A muslim who doesn't kill people, but teaches an idealogy that says non-muslims go to hell.
> 
> Is promoting a hateful belief that creates conflict.
> 
> ...



Yes, that is EXACTLY what people are saying because it is 100% true. I can say I am a Christian and believe Mohammed is the prophet. You are just using labels incorrectly to extrapolate beliefs to fill in what you are to lazy to ask a person.


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 13, 2010)

I see it as laughably pathetic.

If an entire group of hitler were out there we'd have far bigger problems than a mosque and some hurt feelings.


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> I see it as laughably pathetic.
> 
> If an entire group of hitler were out there we'd have far bigger problems than a mosque and some hurt feelings.



pretty much at this point majin cant be taken seriusly for making such a comparision.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> you can not expect us to be understand of something???
> 
> that does not make much sense, i much prefer my one.
> 
> ...


It would be a lovely gesture jesus level type of shit right there ,  but they are not obliged to do it and are no being disrespectful by sticking up to their original place.


Zabuzalives said:


> this whole thread is about relocating a mosque.
> 
> having to walk 1 block further=/= being BANNED from a place of worship.
> 
> please dont throw BS arguments at me.


They are being banned a place of worship in that area. Try again.


Zabuzalives said:


> Showing grace and respect helps a lot more for understanding and wanting to check out the centre.
> 
> But if you want to get a lot of converts its better to have it stand out a lot yeah. . This will also piss off more people and reinforce the negative view of muslims.


 They are not doing it for the converts they are doing it for the muslims in that area that are in need for a place of worship as for the understanding and the peace thing, that is concerning the community centre with the pool and all that bullcrap.




Zabuzalives said:


> Lol your side is making claims how ""muslims are treated like monsters in america"" and ""they all generalize muslims as terrorist""


Better than a side that thinks its okay to discriminate against people, because they compare themselves to 3rd world dictatorships.



Zabuzalives said:


> I am getting annoyed cause you basically accuse me of being a bigot, , hell you accuse the majority of New York


Sorry to hear that  do you want a hug for calling you out on what you are? 





Zabuzalives said:


> I do not consider muslims as terrorist and i do not want that huge mosque there so close.
> 
> there...your ""sole reason"" just is proven to be simplistic and FLAWED.


So you enjoy contradicting yourself, that's lovely.




Zabuzalives said:


> you are generalizing. ""all muslims=terrorist"" ""all moscue opposers are islamaphobes"". Same coin...different side..


 You haven't proven me wrong so far. all you're doing is saying am generalising am generalising as if repeating it will make it any more valid. 

As I said before you do not view muslims as terrorists thus you should not have a problem with their place of worship. 

You sound like those homophobes that go I have no problems with Homosexuals and their rights but I just don't want to meet one of them. 



Zabuzalives said:


> promoting Islam on a site where Islam inspired a terrible terrorist attack so little time ago is in poor taste.


The terrorist organsation took its own skewed view of Islam, so no it is not in poor taste unless they are promoting the same Islam that al-qaeda followers believe in. 


Zabuzalives said:


> Should I put up huge promo posters of the catholic church facing the houses of those being abused by priest half their life?? class right?


Invalid analogy as the pope and the catholic church were okay with it but even then you're being a bigot by judging all priests or catholics as child molesters.



Zabuzalives said:


> Should I build that mega church in fallujah now that the bombing opened up some space??


Don't build it on the graves of people, but sure go crazy the us army is not a religious organisation and is by no way related to christianity.



Zabuzalives said:


> Should i build a huge church right on top of bombed abortion clinics??


No one is arguing for on top. It's 2 blocks away.


Zabuzalives said:


> Do you think people having issue with that are christian haters and bigots???
> Do you think their problems are a non-issue? ""Suck it up, so you've been abused by a priest..boohoo you christian hater""


I never said anything about them sucking it up, you're putting words in my mouth I feel bad for people who had lost family members in 9/11 I lost 2 of my uncles in the beginning of the Baghdad invasion, it still doesn't give me or them the right to generalise and discriminate against people who have nothing to do with it.

All they're doing is an appeal to emotion.


Zabuzalives said:


> Even though their concerns might stem from part ignorance about the religion. They are through a trauma. A little fucking consideration would be nice.


A little consideration would be lovely, but its not neccassry and if not given the muslims are not being disrespectful here. 



Zabuzalives said:


> For ""building bridges/understanding and peace"" its best not to shit on peoples sesnitivities and opinion. Relocating would have been a great gesture of good will.
> 
> Heh...poor Geert Wilders then...Muslims acting respectfull and giving? there goes his spotlight opportunity.


So moving a multi-millonare project to please the feelings of people for something they did not do is shitting on peoples sensitivites... wow.



Zabuzalives said:


> yes, ever considered it maybe you?? your bias or elephant skin?
> 
> Cause i already showed how it is possible to oppose the mosque without being an islamophobe/bigot or thinking all muslims are terrorists.


No all you did was just state 2 contradicting statements without backing them up with a logical explanation. you want muslims to atone for something they did not and are not related to in one bit, but instead of learning your english and calling it atonment you put it under the pretense of empathy that muslims should give otherwise they're shitting on people's traumas.


EDIT: Godwins law is strong in this thread.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> That is irrelevant. I have not said Muslims have stepped aside, I am saying that the American people seem to want them to, and the Muslims here are just fighting back as any people would.




""the Muslims can't *keep* pushing themselves aside""

they ask them to be considerate of peoples sensitivities. Something you have advocated before on different subjects....




Petenshi said:


> IRRELEVANT. We are talking about America. Period.



read up on position of blacks during the Jin Crow laws and slavery, and the fate of the native indians then before acting like a DRAMA QUEEN. 

""muslims treated like monsters"" 

the fucking city board approved of a huge mosque 2 blocks away ground zero...my oh my the horror....



Petenshi said:


> That is a bad example, because someone can't be a Christian and an atheist at the same time.



has NOTHING to do with the point. 

is the atheist claiming the christian is NOT AMERICAN?? 

ofcourse not. 

Or lets say a moderate christian thinks its in poor taste....does he say christians are not american?? OFCOURSE not. 


your conclusion makes no sense at all.. adapt and move on please...




Petenshi said:


> Someone CAN be a Muslim and an American at the same time. If you replace Muslim with Christian in this debate, the fact remains that if people told the Christians they couldn't build a church their that they are suggesting Christians can't be offended



no they are not suggesting they ""cannot be offended"". ridiculous. 



Petenshi said:


> and suggesting a separation from the american people.



moving the church 2 blocks is still right in the middle of new york..in the middle of the american people. 



Petenshi said:


> Yes, you are certainly suggesting it. It is an evolution of the false idea that Muslims and Islam created the attack. The victims were victims of terrorism, not Islamic terrorism.



sigh....believers shape a religion. religion can have influence through scripture and interpretation/preaching. 

so its islamic terrorism. They shouted ALLAH AKHBAR. the attackers were muslim. how in denial are you?? 

I am not saying Islam=terrorism..but that islam (their interpretation of islam) had a negative influence on this event, and was used as an inspiration/justification for the attackers action.  



Petenshi said:


> I am saying the sensitivity is misplaced, and that is why it is different with the caricature. The picture was created directly to offend people, for one. Secondly, the Muslims had a right to be offended for that reason. I mean, if you know I don't like something and you do it anyways it can be seen as an act of aggression. This instance with the mosque only has the latter, which is only relevant if the first is true. They aren't building this to enrage Americans, even though they know it might.



the caricature was not created to offend. It was to prove a point/critisize. 

but hey your too busy coddling muslims to notice. 



Petenshi said:


> First of all, you don't know why they did what they did. You never met the people in the attack, me and you only have secondary information from biased sources. Secondly, even if those people



denial. black box helps. As well as checking up on the attackers background and the organisation. 

Islamic terrorism has hundreds of cases worldwide so its the logical conclusion.  



Petenshi said:


> Your asking the wrong question. It isn't 'should people', its 'should people be able to'. And the answer is yes.



did I say I wanted the mosque to be voted illegal?? 

nope. 



Petenshi said:


> Yes, if they judge all priests by one priests actions then they are as much bigots as anyone else. Is their bigotry understandable? Sure. But, the fact that is is unearned is the important part.



so the one having a childhood trauma from being raped by priests is a bigot for preferring me to move my catholic promo sign out of his direct everyday view??? 

ok then 



Petenshi said:


> No, I just think Non- Muslim Americans need to take the first step. Wow, look it is a culture different then mine. Let me research, I'll go to their church and talk to one. Then I'll see if they are similar to these horrible radicals I keep hearing on the news.



pissed off people get defensive...they do not open up and are less likely to objective regard islam and muslim. 

so shitting on sensitivities is not a good idea to build ""understanding and bridges"" 



Petenshi said:


> Neither does moving their mosque somewhere else as if they had actually had any part in the attack.



BULLSHIT conclusion 

They can agree to relocate out of good will and consideration for the feelings of those traumatised by 9/11. *this does not mean taking responsibility for the attack. *

here ill use it in a sentence

""we had nothing to do with the attack...remember that american muslims also died on 9/11. We strongly oppose all terrorist acts, but out of consideration of the sensitivities of certain families of the deceased, we will relocate our mosque. We will hope that this sign of good will brings us together in understanding and harmony. for we are all americans""   

tadaa. After that, would anyone conclude they are ""relocating because they are terrorists""? ofcourse not. In fact it would be a very humble and considerate gesture.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> ""we had nothing to do with the attack...remember that american muslims also died on 9/11. We strongly oppose all terrorist acts, but out of consideration of the sensitivities of certain families of the deceased, we will relocate our mosque. We will hope that this sign of good will brings us together in understanding and harmony. for we are all americans""
> 
> tadaa. After that, would anyone conclude they are ""relocating because they are terrorists""? ofcourse not. In fact it would be a very humble and considerate gesture.



Neither of us seem to be listening to the other person, because it seems that most of your statements made little to no sense or were irrelevant so I'll just focus on this one because I think it was good to bring up. Really though, I just don't have the time at work to get into such huge arguments as me and you tend to, so I apologize.

What do the Muslims get out of doing that? Nothing. And if the Muslims continued to do acts like that, all that would happen is that they would continue to be the bigger man while no changes were made in our system to treat them as equals. 

That would be like if two kids were fighting over a cookie, and one kid(America) kept crying because he wanted the bigger half. If the second kid(Muslim community) just gave him the cookie every time, the first kid would never stop taking the bigger half.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 13, 2010)

> What do the Muslims get out of doing that? Nothing. And if the Muslims continued to do acts like that, all that would happen is that they would continue to be the bigger man while no changes were made in our system to treat them as equals.



They get respect and positive media coverage in showing how sensitive they are towards Americans. And thats a big thing.



> That would be like if two kids were fighting over a cookie, and one kid(America) kept crying because he wanted the bigger half. If the second kid(Muslim community) just gave him the cookie every time, the first kid would never stop taking the bigger half.



bad analogy, since there are few issues with Muslims building mosques elsewhere.


----------



## Z (Aug 13, 2010)

This thread is full of retards


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> It would be a lovely gesture jesus level type of shit right there ,  but they are not obliged to do it and are no being disrespectful by sticking up to their original place.



they are being inconsiderate planning a huge mosque there..and are inconsiderate for not even listening to pleas of relocation or a smaller centre. 

no wonder people are getting riled up in such numbers. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> They are being banned a place of worship in that area. Try again.



ah the city council voted the whole area a no-mosque zone now??

oh wait they approved the build? 

try again....




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> They are not doing it for the converts they are doing it for the muslims in that area that are in need for a place of worship as for the understanding and the peace thing, that is concerning the community centre with the pool and all that bullcrap.



understanding and peace? you still buy that after all the inconsideration they pull? 

pissing off 60% of new york for understanding and peace..ok buddy. 

and your naive to think huge places of worship are not intended to see more sheep flock to the shepherd. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Better than a side that thinks its okay to discriminate against people, because they compare themselves to 3rd world dictatorships.



so you concede that as far as appeal to emotion goes...I have got nothing on you and your friends? 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Sorry to hear that  do you want a hug for calling you out on what you are?



I dont care what ignorant people call me using only flawed arguments.  


i have had muslims agreeing with me on this subject.
i guess they must be the rare breed of ""self-hating muslims""  

laughable. your quite amusing



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> So you enjoy contradicting yourself, that's lovely.



uh oh...I have several terrorist friends then. Nevermind me saying dozens of times that i do not view all muslims as terrorists. 

keep up with your delusions buddy. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> You haven't proven me wrong so far. all you're doing is saying am generalising am generalising as if repeating it will make it any more valid.



""all ground zero mosque critisizers are bigots"" is generalizing by the book. 

so clear for all to see. 

as i said before..your the other side of the same coin. sad 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> As I said before you do not view muslims as terrorists thus you should not have a problem with their place of worship.



those traumatised by islamic terrorism prefer to see something other then huge blatant promotions of Islam when visiting the grave-site, especially when the wounds are still fresh. 

out of piety with those people i prefer the moscque to relocate a little further. Would be considerate... 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> You sound like those homophobes that go I have no problems with Homosexuals and their rights but I just don't want to meet one of them.



thats because your being defensive on this subject. 

dont worry the big bad islamaphobe is not going to bite you 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> The terrorist organsation took its own skewed view of Islam,
> so no it is not in poor taste unless they are promoting the same Islam that al-qaeda followers believe in.


 
do i promote child abuse or abortion clinic bombing or fallujah leveling when building churches/promoting christianity?? no i do not. 

yet it can still be inconsiderate. Reminding of the event..opening up fresh wounds. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Invalid analogy as the pope and the catholic church were okay with it but even then you're being a bigot by judging all priests or catholics as child molesters.



so the abused kid is a bigot for not wanting to be constantly reminded to his ordeal?? 

ok then. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Don't build it on the graves of people, but sure go crazy the us army is not a religious organisation and is by no way related to christianity.
> 
> No one is arguing for on top. It's 2 blocks away.



right next to the graves then. a 20 story Church. Or on top of bombed Mosques nice....

Also not everyone has elephant skin about such issues. I told you this before, it lies with you. try seeing it through the eyes of those traumatised and generally less informed.

I find the mosque inconsiderate towards them.  



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I never said anything about them sucking it up, you're putting words in my mouth I feel bad for people who had lost family members in 9/11 I lost 2 of my uncles in the beginning of the Baghdad invasion, it still doesn't give me or them the right to generalise and discriminate against people who have nothing to do with it.



They should build a huge american flag next to the graves of your uncles and all those fallen during the invasion.  

for the military under bush=/=america...and it will bring ""understanding and peace"". 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> All they're doing is an appeal to emotion.



having a little empathy is a terrible thing yeah sure....



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> A little consideration would be lovely, but its not neccassry and if not given the muslims are not being disrespectful here.



its not that they are outright disrespectfull. They are inconsiderate. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> So moving a multi-millonare project to please the feelings of people for something they did not do is shitting on peoples sensitivites... wow.



learn to read please...

REFUSING to even listen and continuing with a 13 story ""mosque"" so close to ground zero is shitting on sensitivities. 

just listen to yourself. They are all islamophobes anyway right 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> No all you did was just state 2 contradicting statements without backing them up with a logical explanation. you want muslims to atone for something



being considerate=/=atonement look in the fucking dictionary ok?  



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> but instead of learning your english and calling it atonment you put it under the pretense of empathy that muslims should give otherwise they're shitting on people's traumas.



there is no pretense. 

nice that your paranoid about my intentions though..you really go into a discussion with an objective mindset huh?


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> They get respect and positive media coverage in showing how sensitive they are towards *Americans*. And thats a big thing.



Look, you did exactly what I am talking about in your post. Muslims can be american, your bias shows though right there clear as day.

Positive media coverage doesn't change anything about how people are treated. There is plenty of news coverage of positive things homosexuals do and yet they still are not treated as equal.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Aug 13, 2010)

Do I think these people are even remotely related to the attacks and are trying to sully the names of those people who died that day? No. Do I think it lacks a great amount of tact and awareness of their cultural surroundings? Yes.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

Tleilaxu already answered it really  



Petenshi said:


> What do the Muslims get out of doing that? Nothing.



respect. gratitude. a better image. sticking it to the islamophobes. 


Dont you get it?? Such a move would undermine the efforts of people like geert wilders. trying to demonize Islam..yet they would show such a kind gesture??? He would be at loss for words at his speech.... 

But nooo..just keep on pushing it. ignore the sensitivities. Come across as a jackass and further the already negative view of muslims in New York (majority dissaproves). Now Geert can give his speech on how Islam tries to dominate the world..and build mosques at their greatest conquests/victories. 

It is not only inconsiderate..not relocating is a dumb decision. How can you support it??




Petenshi said:


> And if the Muslims continued to do acts like that, all that would happen is that they would continue to be the bigger man while no changes were made in our system to treat them as equals.



proof for this widespread systemic discrimination of muslims?? 

no it would not. The sensitivities are revolving around ground zero...how many ground zeros are there in america??? 







Ergo Proxy said:


> Do I think these people are even remotely related to the attacks and are trying to sully the names of those people who died that day? No. Do I think it lacks a great amount of tact and awareness of their cultural surroundings? Yes.



along the lines of my view. 


Ziggy will accuse you of lying to yourself though. deep down you hate muslims and think all of them are terrorists...else you would embrace the mosque.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> pretty much at this point majin cant be taken seriusly for making such a comparision.


WHere did i compare Muslims to Hitler? Muslims want to build a symbol of Islam, and that symbolism holds negativity towards 9/11.

In much the same way, if i dressed up as Hitler in or near a holocaust memorial is exactly identical, and would not be tolerated.

What if someone wanted to build a memorial for Hitler commemorating his good actions? near a site of a holocaust massacre? no different then this mosque.



			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Yes, that is EXACTLY what people are saying because it is 100% true. I can say I am a Christian and believe Mohammed is the prophet. You are just using labels incorrectly to extrapolate beliefs to fill in what you are to lazy to ask a person.


People don't have a problem with Muslims, they have a problem with the mosque as a symbol of something that was responsible for 9/11.


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> *WHere did i compare Muslims to Hitler?* Muslims want to build a symbol of Islam, and that symbolism holds negativity towards 9/11.
> 
> *In much the same way, if i dressed up as Hitler in or near a holocaust memorial is exactly identical, and would not be tolerated.*
> What if someone wanted to build a memorial for Hitler commemorating his good actions? no different then this mosque.



that is comparing them to hitler


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> that is comparing them to hitler


No it isn't, it is comparing the symbolism of Islam to Hitler.

It is comparing the action of creating a symbolism of something that is painful to others due to an event, near them.

Some people dislike Islam because they feel it is responsible for 9/11, just as some people dislike Hitler or any symbolism of Hitler, for Holocaust.

The fact you can't realise this shows me your level of intelligence.

The same reason why i think this move is insensitive is the same as me putting up a historical memorial of Hitler near a holocaust site.


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> No it isn't, it is comparing the symbolism of Islam to Hitler.
> 
> It is comparing the action of creating a symbolism of something that is painful to others due to an event, near them.
> 
> ...



ifyour nto comparing them to hitlir your comparing building a house of prayer to a consintariton camp equally bad and distasteful.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> ifyour nto comparing them to hitlir your comparing building a house of prayer to a consintariton camp equally bad and distasteful.


Where am i comparing a concentration camp?

I said, what if i erected a memorial for Hitler commemorating his good acts in his life? (such as advocacy for the arts iirc) near a holocaust site?

Holocaust site = 9/11 site, very comparable.

Mosque = historical monument of Hitler, also comparable.

Lets say that historical monument does not glorify Hitler at all, thats still insensitive.

The fact you find problems with my example, and no problem with the mosque, actually shows your double standard.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

> Zabuzalives said:
> 
> 
> > respect. gratitude. a better image. sticking it to the islamophobes.
> ...


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Which is FALSE. Muslims should not have to step on glass because Non-Muslim Americans have false view of who's behind 9/11.


What false view? it is true Islam is partly responsible for 9/11, the fact that virtually every Muslim terrorist cites Islam as much of the basis for their actions is proof of that.

Muslims dont have to step on glass, but to even say that the site of the death of so many Americans because of this religion in part, should not be met by Muslims with some sensitivity and care, is such a stupidly rude and baffling attitude it is amazing.

If your son died and i shit on his grave, if people are upset, is this 'stepping on glass' for me that is wrong?


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Where am i comparing a concentration camp?
> 
> I said, what if i erected a memorial for Hitler commemorating his good acts in his life? (such as advocacy for the arts iirc) near a holocaust site?
> 
> ...



once again our comparing hitlir with th muslim population with this there is no reason to support hitler even without his camps he was a bad leader.

not as many blacks gays jewish etc people died in 9/11 then killed by hitler not even compareable

if its a HITLIR monument it glorifies him

I find problems because a COMUNITY CENTER OPEN TO THE PUBLIC for CHILDREN TO GO TO should not be compared to that.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> once again our comparing hitlir with th muslim population with this there is no reason to support hitler even without his camps he was a bad leader.
> 
> not as many blacks gays jewish etc people died in 9/11 then killed by hitler not even compareable
> 
> ...


Where am i comparing Hitler with the Muslim population?

I am comparing the erection of a mosque near 9/11, as say, erecting a historical monument of Hitler near a holocaust site.

Nowhere did i equate Muslims to Hitler.

That's just your attempt at saying i'm prejudiced, which doesn't work on me and is the most childish of arguments.

What if a Musuem wanted to erect a historical record of Hitler near a holocaust site? no glorification, no justification of Hitler.

Thats still insensitive.

The fact you have GREAT problems with my example, and no problem with the mosque, is absolute proof of your double standard.


----------



## Outlandish (Aug 13, 2010)

Lmao maj1n since when did Islam or a Mosque do 9/11 ? so how would even having a mosque on ground zero be a dig at Americans ?

using the hitler anaolgy just shows how low you will go to prove our point (and lmao the holocuast card really ? are you a jew now)

Funny where you stand on this issue mr.devil


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> What false view? it is true Islam is partly responsible for 9/11, the fact that virtually every Muslim terrorist cites Islam as much of the basis for their actions is proof of that.



No it isn't, lol. If I attacked the WTC and said it was for the Glory of Walmart, I would hope that you would not blame Walmart for the attack. If there are Muslims who aren't terrorists, then you have to agree that the the Religion of Islam is one of perception and you cannot just blanket statement it as you are doing. 



> Muslims dont have to step on glass, but to even say that the site of the death of so many Americans because of this religion in part, should not be met by Muslims with some sensitivity and care, is such a stupidly rude and baffling attitude it is amazing.



See, this post is irrelevant once again because the Religion did not cause 9/11. People with an incorrect world view called terrorists caused 9/11.



> If your son died and i shit on his grave, if people are upset, is this 'stepping on glass' for me that is wrong?



Your getting way to emotional Maj1n. Either that or you just like making false comparisons of a Mosque and Shitting on peoples graves.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 13, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> they are being inconsiderate planning a huge mosque there..and are inconsiderate for not even listening to pleas of relocation or a smaller centre.
> 
> no wonder people are getting riled up in such numbers.



Is it not a huge community center that has a prayer of a mosque inside, do correct me if am mistaken.




Zabuzalives said:


> ah the city council voted the whole area a no-mosque zone now??
> 
> oh wait they approved the build?
> 
> try again....


We are arguing from the people's side, what would be the point of arguing it  rights wise since the opposition has no argument at all the people can baww all the want but the muslims have all the legality to build that mosque...








Zabuzalives said:


> so you concede that as far as appeal to emotion goes...I have got nothing on you and your friends?


Sure if you consider people's rights to be something that people with traumas decide.






Zabuzalives said:


> i have had muslims agreeing with me on this subject.
> i guess they must be the rare breed of ""self-hating muslims""
> 
> laughable. your quite amusing


  Is that a no for the hug? 




Zabuzalives said:


> uh oh...I have several terrorist friends then. Nevermind me saying dozens of times that i do not view all muslims as terrorists.
> 
> keep up with your delusions buddy.


Again you're not explaining to me how someone who views muslims as not terrorists and not responsible for 9/11 yet want them to move the location because they are insensitive is not being contradictory. 



Zabuzalives said:


> ""all ground zero mosque critisizers are bigots"" is generalizing by the book.
> 
> so clear for all to see.
> 
> as i said before..your the other side of the same coin. sad



See above.





Zabuzalives said:


> those traumatised by islamic terrorism prefer to see something other then huge blatant promotions of Islam when visiting the grave-site, especially when the wounds are still fresh.


 Finally an explanation thank you jesus. There is already a mosque in that area should we ask it to relocate itself as well? also what distance is far enough for you ? 




Zabuzalives said:


> out of piety with those people i prefer the moscque to relocate a little further. Would be considerate...


I agree that it would be considerate here for them to do so, and it will be them acting as the grown up, but even if they didn't do it they are still not being inconsiderate as what you are portraying them to be.





Zabuzalives said:


> do i promote child abuse or abortion clinic bombing or fallujah leveling when building churches/promoting christianity?? no i do not.
> 
> yet it can still be inconsiderate. Reminding of the event..opening up fresh wounds.


How the fuck is building a community center with a  prayer is a reminder of Al-fucking qaeda which is a goddamn terrorist organisation that has no qualms with killing muslims or non muslims and has been denouced by many if not all Islamic countries. 





Zabuzalives said:


> so the abused kid is a bigot for not wanting to be constantly reminded to his ordeal??
> 
> ok then.


Jimmy was mugged and stabbed by a group of black people, black people want to move into the neighourhood, Jimmy tells them he has no problems with black people but it would be nice of them if they could move into another neighbourhood because of his trauma. 

Jimmy here is a bigot and a racist.




Zabuzalives said:


> right next to the graves then. a 20 story Church. Or on top of bombed Mosques nice....
> 
> Also not everyone has elephant skin about such issues. I told you this before, it lies with you. *try seeing it through the eyes of those traumatised and generally less informed.
> *
> I find the mosque inconsiderate towards them.


Again this is an appeal to emotion. It is inconsiderate in their eyes and opinion I understand that completely, its very hard to objective on a matter that has hit you on a personal level. But Objectively speaking the muslims here are no being disrespectful.




Zabuzalives said:


> They should build a huge american flag next to the graves of your uncles and all those fallen during the invasion.
> 
> for the military under bush=/=america...and it will bring ""understanding and peace"".



Sure why not, you're stupid if you think that what the US military does in Iraq and Afghanistan is a reflection on the american people.



Zabuzalives said:


> having a little empathy is a terrible thing yeah sure....


lol justifying appeals to emotion. You're the type of person who probably was responsible for the shitty paedophilia laws in the US because we should think of teh children. 




Zabuzalives said:


> learn to read please...
> 
> REFUSING to even listen and continuing with a 13 story ""mosque"" so close to ground zero is shitting on sensitivities.
> 
> just listen to yourself. They are all islamophobes anyway right


It's not on ground zero don't see why its shitting on sensitivties, apparently 2 blocks away is synonyms with on top of. 


Zabuzalives said:


> being considerate=/=atonement look in the fucking dictionary ok?


Moving the multi-millonare project is atonment its not something that counts as considerate or empathy, and usually atonment requires you doing something wrong...



Ergo Proxy said:


> Do I think these people are even remotely related to the attacks and are trying to sully the names of those people who died that day? No. Do I think it lacks a great amount of tact and awareness of *their cultural surroundings*? Yes.


That the culture has a faulty unjust view on Islam... that's not being contradictory to the first statement at all. /sarcasm


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> No it isn't, lol. If I attacked the WTC and said it was for the Glory of Walmart, I would hope that you would not blame Walmart for the attack. If there are Muslims who aren't terrorists, then you have to agree that the the Religion of Islam is one of perception and you cannot just blanket statement it as you are doing.
> 
> See, this post is irrelevant once again because the Religion did not cause 9/11. People with an incorrect world view called terrorists caused 9/11.
> 
> Your getting way to emotional Maj1n. Either that or you just like making false comparisons of a Mosque and Shitting on peoples graves.


No, if you said it was for the 'glory of Walmart' and there is an idealogy in Walmart to attack WTC.

it is responsible.

What must be examined, is whether Islam *does* in fact encourage terrorism.

Lets swing your stupid argument around.

If i attack blacks, and say 'i did this because of the KKK idealogy' does this mean, with your exact stupid argument, that the KKK was *not* partly responsible for influencing me to attack blacks?

Want to examine Islamic doctrines? i can easily post them, like so.
_
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, _
-http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294

Want to examine Al-qaeda? i actually have Bin Laden's fatwa against America right here on my screen now.


y the Americans are a *clear declaration of war on God*, his *messenger, and Muslims.* And ulema have throughout *Islamic history *unanimously agreed that the* jihad* is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by *Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam *in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, *we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: *
*
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it,*
-2nd Fatwa 1998 Osama Bin Laden


----------



## xpeed (Aug 13, 2010)

Well, if the Muslims want to form a better relationship with the west, especially if the US is majority Christian......they'd be smart not to cause trivial scene by building a mosque so close to ground zero.  Maybe further away it'll be fine, but so damn close?   They're basically holding lit matches and the gasoline is not far away.


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

if it really mattered the state shouldnt have sold them the land


----------



## Outlandish (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n you amuse me to no end, even after what is it ? 3 years ? you still post the stuff without and historical references (reason why certain hadith was mentioned etc) 

so are you from some EDL website ? Aryan nation ? Jihad Watch ?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 13, 2010)

hammer said:


> if it really mattered the state shouldnt have sold them the land


Can't do that, the government can't prevent someone from building on land for that reason.

Why don't people understand that just because people don't want something to happen, doesn't mean it infringes on someone's right. I can protest outside of McDonalds all day, its not honestly infringing on their right to do business. 

It's a completely different thing to want someone to stop something and to want their right to do something to be stopped and none of you seem to fucking get it.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

Outlandish said:


> maj1n you amuse me to no end, even after what is it ? 3 years ? you still post the stuff without and historical references (reason why certain hadith was mentioned etc)
> 
> so are you from some EDL website ? Aryan nation ? Jihad Watch ?


Are you asking me where i got Bin Ladens fatwa of America? News websites that analyzed the motivation of Al Qaeda.

And what is in-es capable, is that Islam is partly responsible for 9/11, that its doctrines and beliefs did influence these terrorist Muslims to act in the way they did, as well as other factors such as America's actions in the middle-east.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> You said it in your own post, they have a disfavorable view without the Muslims doing anything.



please. there have been american muslim terrorists. Even if they just travel abroad to fight jihad through AQ, taliban, or Al Shabab. 

dozens die each month by islamic terrorism, this reflects in the news and affects general view. 



			
				34394909 said:
			
		

> That is the Non-Muslim Americans problem, not the Moderate Muslims.



if someone thinks bad of you..why not strife to prove him wrong?? 

by being considerate and relocate this mosque for instance. 

also your generalizing. ""non muslims americans have disfavourable view"" 




Petenshi said:


> The point is that the Non-American Muslims think that the Mosque represents Radical Islam and offensive.



if they would think that they would not allow it to be built...they would not suggest a move. 
(moving a radical mosque does not make it any less radical)

this is strongly tied to ground zero sensitivities simple. 



Petenshi said:


> Well, we have already established that the Mosque is not there to do that and the Mosque should not have to move simply because of someone elses(and in my opinion) incorrect perception of the mosque.



when your logic is flawed...that impacts your conclusions as well. 

it should move because it is the considerate and smart thing to do. 



Petenshi said:


> Ha Ha, you want proof that people discriminate against Muslims and people of color? Perhaps maybe you should do you own research on america before commenting.



not ""some people"". You claim that muslims in america are systemically discriminated and treated as monsters. 

I ask for proof/basis of claim.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> No, if you said it was for the 'glory of Walmart' and there is an idealogy in Walmart to attack WTC.
> 
> it is responsible.
> 
> ...



The terrorists chose to follow the religion. The religion itself cannot cause any harm to anyone. That is what you aren't getting. The terrorists are the ones who caused 9/11 not Islam or Muslims. Furthermore, you can't tell someone what an Islamic doctrine is. I don't know how many times I have to say that Islam and Muslim are just words and they only mean as much as the person using them. You for example, are completely biased against religion so instead of actually examining what people believe you assume they believe whatever is in the quran and then attack it. They don't have to believe everything in it, and they can still be Muslim. Your huge post about the ideals of some Muslims is irrelevant. 

Yes, the KKK didn't cause you to attack the blacks. You chose to follow their ideal. They didn't force you to believe the stuff they said did they?


----------



## Wesker (Aug 13, 2010)

Is it true that they are going to start construction on September 11th?


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm just going to quote parts of what you say and show how amazingly wrong you are.



Petenshi said:


> The terrorists chose to follow the religion. The religion itself cannot cause any harm to anyone. That is what you aren't getting. The terrorists are the ones who caused 9/11 not Islam or Muslims. Furthermore, you can't tell someone what an Islamic doctrine is. I don't know how many times I have to say that Islam and Muslim are just words and they only mean as much as the person using them.


It is reality that Muslims are indoctrinated into their religion (much like other religions) and because of a desire to follow it, as they grow up they follow more and more of that religions rules and beliefs.

Religious people *rarely* choose to follow their religion knowing all that it contains.

Terrorists caused 9/11, their actions stem from their beliefs, and much of those belief stem from the Islamic religion.

I'll ask you a question, if you say a belief system is not 'responsible' should we criticize say, racism, if a racist hurts someone because of his racist beliefs, should we not criticize or condemn or object to racism because it was not 'responsible' technically for the act?

Your argument is devoid of any substance.



			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> You for example, are completely biased against religion so instead of actually examining what people believe you assume they believe whatever is in the quran and then attack it. They don't have to believe everything in it, and they can still be Muslim. Your huge post about the ideals of some Muslims is irrelevant.


You know, i quoted Al-Qaeda, finding their material and looking at what they say in regards to the motivation to their action.

Don't even fucking state, for a moment, i don't look at what people believe, because you, not once in this entire thread, posted any material to back up any of your claims.




			
				Petenshi said:
			
		

> Yes, the KKK didn't cause you to attack the blacks. You chose to follow their ideal. They didn't force you to believe the stuff they said did they?


The KKK can be, and has been, influential in promoting racism.

That is why i support blacks who opposed the KKK as well as Whites.

Are you against this opposition? probably not.

Why then do you have a problem with those who oppose parts of the Islamic religion that were influential in 9/11?



I seriously hope your not attempting this kind of argument
'Religion is a belief and beliefs cant act therefore it is not responsible for terrorist actions *therefore we should never oppose nor criticize beliefs that are bad because they technically, do not commit any action by themselves* '

When people say a religion is responsible for the actions of its adherents, they are saying its adherents believing in that idealogy, leads to said action.

Is this colloquial common-sense language hard to understand?


----------



## hammer (Aug 13, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Can't do that, the government can't prevent someone from building on land for that reason.
> 
> Why don't people understand that just because people don't want something to happen, doesn't mean it infringes on someone's right. I can protest outside of McDonalds all day, its not honestly infringing on their right to do business.
> 
> It's a completely different thing to want someone to stop something and to want their right to do something to be stopped and none of you seem to fucking get it.



oh no I agree they can protest its within their rights I still find it silly


----------



## Outlandish (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Are you asking me where i got Bin Ladens fatwa of America? News websites that analyzed the motivation of Al Qaeda.
> 
> And what is in-es capable, is that Islam is partly responsible for 9/11, that its doctrines and beliefs did influence these terrorist Muslims to act in the way they did, as well as other factors such as America's actions in the middle-east.



so Jihad watch ?


----------



## maj1n (Aug 13, 2010)

Outlandish said:


> so Jihad watch ?


BBC for one, what is jihad watch?


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 13, 2010)

maj1n said:


> It is reality that Muslims are indoctrinated into their religion (much like other religions) and because of a desire to follow it, as they grow up they follow more and more of that religions rules and beliefs.



I, nor anyone or thing, can ever force anyone else to do anything. Can I persuade? Yes. But the choice always lies with the person. This is all you need to know and your entire basis of everything you talk about falls apart. If I tell you to go rob a bank, and you do, I am not at fault for you robbing a bank maj1n. Pure and simple.



> Terrorists caused 9/11, their actions stem from their beliefs, and much of those belief stem from the Islamic religion.



And yes, you are extrapolating beliefs. You never have met the terrorists that were involved in the WTC and yet you seem to know why they did it.



> I'll ask you a question, if you say a belief system is not 'responsible' should we criticize say, racism, if a racist hurts someone because of his racist beliefs, should we not criticize or condemn or object to racism because it was not 'responsible' technically for the act?



Yes, racism is an idea. It does no harm unless people follow through with it. There are plenty of racists in our society who have never once acted in violence against another race. That is because they chose not to, just like people can choose to follow the ideal. Your argument is actually the one with no substance because you haven't thought it through. If Islam truly causes people to commit terrorism, then everyone who knows of the Islamic belief system and chooses not to commit terrorism have also been influenced by Islam. It would work for both ways, which doesn't make sense at all. 



> You know, i quoted Al-Qaeda, finding their material and looking at what they say in regards to the motivation to their action.



Which has nothing to do with anything because you seem to have not met people who follow the quran and aren't terrorists nor have you ever met the people who were apart of the attack.



> Don't even fucking state, for a moment, i don't look at what people believe, because you, not once in this entire thread, posted any material to back up any of your claims.



You want evidence that a book nor religion can never cause people to do things? Fine. Maj1n, please respond to this post. (See what I did there? If you choose to respond, I obviously influenced and caused you to respond right? There is no way unless I put that there you would have done it anyways. And if you don't respond, I obviously forced you to do that so that my argument would be rendered false.)



> The KKK can be, and has been, infleuntial in promoting racism.
> 
> That is why i support blacks who opposed the KKK as well as Whites.
> 
> Are you against this opposition?


I am against the KKK and Racism, even though it is irrelevant to this conversation. I can admit that when someone kills a black person because of their hatred for black people it was their choice to commit the act, not the KKK.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Is it not a huge community center that has a prayer of a mosque inside, do correct me if am mistaken.



if the mosque part is not too conspicious its fine as well..as they would have taken into account sensitivities. 

so far we dont know just how large and conspicious the islamic part will be. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> We are arguing from the people's side, what would be the point of arguing it  rights wise since the opposition has no argument at all the people can baww all the want but the muslims have all the legality to build that mosque...



And some people want to have the cordoba initiative to take a considerate approach. 

I am not in favor of illegalizing mosques in a circle around ground zero. 


try again. 

also if there is already a mosque as you say below..that would make all your talk about banning from prayer moot. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Sure if you consider people's rights to be something that people with traumas decide.



oh now you try to make it a rights issue. 

I was asking for consideration for people with traumas simple. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Is that a no for the hug?



I think all those self-hating muslims should get a hug from you. Im sure they like your views of them. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Again you're not explaining to me how someone who views muslims as not terrorists and not responsible for 9/11 yet want them to move the location because they are insensitive is not being contradictory.



quoting my 2nd or 3rd post i think: 

""Even though their concerns might stem from part ignorance about the religion. They are through a trauma. A little fucking consideration would be nice.""

i have explained it. your just slow to catch up....



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Finally an explanation thank you jesus. There is already a mosque in that area should we ask it to relocate itself as well? also what distance is far enough for you ?



it went through the attacks as well. which grants it a lot of lee-way compared to this alien 13 story high ""cordoba initiative"" centre. 

it should either be not too conspicious. Or not in line of sight from the ground zero site. But simply making some compromizes/changes will show goodwill and make it (seem) so that you listened and took sensitivities seriously.  



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I agree that it would be considerate here for them to do so, and it will be them acting as the grown up, but even if they didn't do it they are still not being inconsiderate as what you are portraying them to be.



that is your opinion. Maybe I judge people by higher moral standard. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> How the fuck is building a community center with a  prayer is a reminder of Al-fucking qaeda which is a goddamn terrorist organisation that has no qualms with killing muslims or non muslims and has been denouced by many if not all Islamic countries.



When they see Islam being promoted so heavily and its symbols, it is a small step to be reminded of the Islamic terrorist attack. Hell its in the word. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Jimmy was mugged and stabbed by a group of black people, black people want to move into the neighourhood, Jimmy tells them he has no problems with black people but it would be nice of them if they could move into another neighbourhood because of his trauma. Jimmy here is a bigot and a racist.



What if the whole neighbourhood was full of Jimmy's and they offered the black family a house in the direct next neighbourhood of equal stature so they wont have to relive their trauma every day? 

Jimmy could be a racist and a bigot thinking all blacks are out for him...OR he could be suffering from severe trauma and allthough he does not generalizes blacks, just seeing them would make him relive his trauma.

both are at play here. The first deserves no sympathy and consideration. the second one does....your just choosing to be blind to this latter situation.  


Also why were you ignoring my initial comparison? 
""so the abused kid is a bigot for not wanting to be constantly reminded to his ordeal??"" 

this is the core. showing how there can be sensitivities without bigotry. 



-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Again this is an appeal to emotion.



sigh...my main reason for wanting a relocation is out of consideration for who lost loved ones during 9/11. 

So ofcourse im gonna bring them up when trying to get through to your thick skull, how their sensitivities are being ignored...and how you generalize them as bigots (gj on that).

as such it is not an appeal on emotion fallacy. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> It is inconsiderate in their eyes and opinion I understand that completely, its very hard to objective on a matter that has hit you on a personal level. But Objectively speaking the muslims here are no being disrespectful.



i am talking about being inconsiderate. 


1. Thoughtless of others; displaying a lack of consideration.
2. lacking in care or thought for others; heedless; thoughtless

They are lacking in their care of thought for those who lost loved ones. 

you are even worse..you were thoughtless of them. ""all sensitivities was because of bigotry!!""




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Sure why not, you're stupid if you think that what the US military does in Iraq and Afghanistan is a reflection on the american people.



start planting those flags and see the response. Ask them if they know the military is not the american country/people. They will say the symbol has broad meaning and includes the military. It reminds of traumatic events and as such opens fresh wounds. It would be unwanted/deemed in poor taste so close to a site of mourning. 

that is..the level-headed ones will state that. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> lol justifying appeals to emotion.



my argument is about consideration for emotion you imbecile. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Moving the multi-millonare project is atonment its not something that counts as considerate or empathy, and usually atonment requires you doing something wrong...



awww your still confused about the english words buddy??




1. Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.

hmm nothing about ""atonement=moving multi-millionare project"" 


the more you learn!! 

relocating willingly out of consideration of those losing lost ones during the attack=/=atonement. get it???


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Yes, the KKK didn't cause you to attack the blacks. You chose to follow their ideal. They didn't force you to believe the stuff they said did they?



what about children being subjected to these ideologies from young age?? 
or people indoctrinated? propaganda and deceit in film and books? 

""they chose to follow their ideal"" right? 

the ideology itself has ABSOLUTELY NO negative impact on someones morals and thoughts? 

I mean we are born with our own unique set of morals and understanding of ethics and what is considered normal right? This never changed until we decide to right?


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 13, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Look, you did exactly what I am talking about in your post. Muslims can be american, your bias shows though right there clear as day.
> 
> Positive media coverage doesn't change anything about how people are treated. There is plenty of news coverage of positive things homosexuals do and yet they still are not treated as equal.



Nice try there but it seems to me that Muslims are "Muslim first, American second" A true "American muslim would be sensitive to the issue of 9/11 and thus relocate the mosque, especially if they are trying to promote "peace and understanding" and help to try and reduce the tension between Muslims and non Muslims.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 13, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Nice try there but it seems to me that Muslims are "Muslim first, American second" A true "American muslim would be sensitive to the issue of 9/11 and thus relocate the mosque, especially if they are trying to promote "peace and understanding" and help to try and reduce the tension between Muslims and non Muslims.



And exactly how the fuck would you know how an American Muslim feels ?


----------



## Ceria (Aug 13, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *And so what if it's right across the street? It's still not on Ground Zero so there shouldn't be any problems. Furthermore, anyone with even half a brain knows that the people who were responsible for 9/11 were extremists and are not, in anyway whatsoever, indicative of how 99% of Muslims around the world feel. Including the people building and going to this Mosque. Many people don't even consider the extremists real Muslims. Both the people who build/go to the Mosque and the people protesting against the Mosque have lost people in 9/11, I guarantee it. Where is the problem? *



You must be the most insensitive person i've ever seen. Do you not even see in the slightest degree how offensive the building of a mosque so close to ground zero can be to the people of new york?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 13, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> You must be the most insensitive person i've ever seen. Do you not even see in the slightest degree how offensive the building of a mosque so close to ground zero can be to the people of new york?



*It's not insensitive, it's called using your brain. It doesn't matter how close it is, it's not on Ground Zero. I was against the building of the mosque when I thought it was being built on Ground Zero, but since it's not there shouldn't be a problem at all. And like I said before, anyone with even half a brain should know that Islam is the not enemy here. There is no reason building a mosque near Ground Zero should be considered offensive. Plenty of Muslims died on 9/11 and plenty of Muslims lost loved ones on 9/11. *


----------



## Z (Aug 14, 2010)

When will some of you learn that the people who bombed the WTC are not the same as the people who want to build a mosque near ground zero?


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 14, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> And exactly how the fuck would you know how an American Muslim feels ?



One would assume that they would want to heal the wounds caused by 9/11 and not shove their religion in everyone's faces, but thats just me.



> When will some of you learn that the people who bombed the WTC are not the same as the people who want to build a mosque near ground zero?



They follow the same religion, that is enough. And you cannot deny that Islam is currently the MOST VIOLENT religion in the world or as some of you would rather say has the most VIOLENT and intolerant followers in the world, until this changes there will always be contention between the secular west and Islamic followers.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 14, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> One would assume that they would want to heal the wounds caused by 9/11 and not shove their religion in everyone's faces, but thats just me.



Doesn't stop evangelicals from preaching in the ME




> They follow the same religion, that is enough. And you cannot deny that Islam is currently the MOST VIOLENT religion in the world or as some of you would rather say has the most VIOLENT and intolerant followers in the world, until this changes there will always be contention between the secular west and Islamic followers.



Islam the most violent ?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 14, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> One would assume that they would want to heal the wounds caused by 9/11 and not shove their religion in everyone's faces, but thats just me.
> 
> 
> 
> *They follow the same religion, that is enough.* And you cannot deny that Islam is currently the MOST VIOLENT religion in the world or as some of you would rather say has the most VIOLENT and intolerant followers in the world, until this changes there will always be contention between the secular west and Islamic followers.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 14, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Doesn't stop evangelicals from preaching in the ME



Evangelicals didn't do anything to them, it was the Catholics. We are old school fucking with Muslisms.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 14, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Doesn't stop evangelicals from preaching in the ME
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Last I checked George W Bush was not a religion, but thanks for trying! Also preaching vs building a large place of worship are two completely different things.


----------



## dream (Aug 14, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> They follow the same religion, that is enough. And you cannot deny that Islam is currently the MOST VIOLENT religion in the world or as some of you would rather say has the most VIOLENT and intolerant followers in the world, until this changes there will always be contention between the secular west and Islamic followers.



Christians and Muslims worship the same God.  Clearly we should hate Christians as well.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Aug 14, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Last I checked George W Bush was not a religion, but thanks for trying! Also preaching vs building a large place of worship are two completely different things.



*So preaching a religion and building a place where you can practice said religion are completely different things? lol. *


----------



## Elim Rawne (Aug 14, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Last I checked George W Bush was not a religion, but thanks for trying! Also preaching vs building a large place of worship are two completely different things.



True, invading sovereign countries under the guise of God's work is a lot worse than being completely harmless . If you don't actually get the comparison, you really are too dumb to live


----------



## WT (Aug 14, 2010)

maj1n said:


> Are you suggesting that when whites discriminated against blacks and created places by and specifically for, whites, this is ok? becaues that is your logic.



My logic is nowhere near that. Are you trying to say that the difference in nonmuslims to muslims is the same level as the difference in whites and blacks?

You cannot create a place which only appeals to white people without creating a place which may perhaps appeal to black people as well. For example, you may create a "white only" resteraunt. However, black people also go to these places. 

You can create a place for Muslims which only appeals to muslims such as Mecca where the only entertainment is to worship God. These places do not appeal to non muslims at all.




> Can non-muslims book Mecca in any fashion?



If you book it, what will you do there?


----------



## WT (Aug 14, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> First are you saying you agree with the blanket restriction on a whole city put in place by SA, or just entering the mosque ban?



I'm not an expert on this issue. However, I do know that Umar ibn Khattab (the 2nd Caliph) was murdered in Mecca by a non muslim. The Quran also states that idolaters should be forbiddon from the holy mosque (only). 



> Let me ask you another question, if the Israelis declared that Jerusalem was their holy city and did not allow anyone but Jews to enter the city. Would you consider this discrimination?



Mecca is an exclusive holy city to the Muslims with no real tie to Jews or Christians. The same cannot be said about Jerusalem. 

In the Islamic civilisation, Jerusalem was open to all faiths. 




> As a student of history I ask, please primary source this.



I'll do some research and try to find a primary source. I can state many others sources though.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Aug 14, 2010)

I say we should level both of these Mosques in the dead of fucking night fuck em and fuck Barak Obama


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 14, 2010)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> I say we should level both of these Mosques in the dead of fucking night fuck em and fuck Barak Obama


----------



## Robot-Overlord (Aug 14, 2010)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> I say we should level both of these Mosques in the dead of fucking night fuck em and fuck Barak Obama



You should personally suicide bomb the Mosque to give them a taste of their own medicine. 
That will show them.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Aug 14, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> -snip-


Can't be bothered to argue anymore as the whole thing is a subjective matter pretty much this guy portrays my opinion, I had a good argument but it's too time-consuming.




Pimp of Pimps said:


> *It's not insensitive, it's called using your brain. It doesn't matter how close it is, it's not on Ground Zero. I was against the building of the mosque when I thought it was being built on Ground Zero, but since it's not there shouldn't be a problem at all. And like I said before, anyone with even half a brain should know that Islam is the not enemy here. There is no reason building a mosque near Ground Zero should be considered offensive. Plenty of Muslims died on 9/11 and plenty of Muslims lost loved ones on 9/11. *


----------



## maj1n (Aug 14, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> My logic is nowhere near that. Are you trying to say that the difference in nonmuslims to muslims is the same level as the difference in whites and blacks?
> 
> You cannot create a place which only appeals to white people without creating a place which may perhaps appeal to black people as well. For example, you may create a "white only" resteraunt. However, black people also go to these places.


These happened, during the era when blacks were systematically discriminated, there used to be 'white only' and 'black only' toilets and even where you sit on busses.

Nice to see you support segregation.

The treatment of whites to blacks in terms is the same as how Muslims treat non-muslims in regards to Mecca.

For example, this is the official ruling  both Islamic law, and Saudi law in regards to why non-muslims may not enter Mecca.

O you who believ*e! the idolaters are nothing but unclean*, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
—Qur'an, Sura 9 At-Tawba, ayah 28

Sad to see you support such a hateful practice.


			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> You can create a place for Muslims which only appeals to muslims such as Mecca where the only entertainment is to worship God. These places do not appeal to non muslims at all.
> 
> If you book it, what will you do there?


Who are you to say what a non-muslim want to see or do in mecca?


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 14, 2010)

Z said:


> When will some of you learn that the people who bombed the WTC are not the same as the people who want to build a mosque near ground zero?



who is argumenting this?? I read most of the thread but so far i havent noticed anyone saying:

""We cannot let the terrorists win! Dont let those Al KAYDAS build their vile Mosque on ground zero!!"" 



wish i was a minority so i could play the victim card all day and just accuse all those critisizing me or my views as bigoted. Lovely...no need for any proper argumentation or rebuttal anymore.





Hellrasinbrasin said:


> I say we should level both of these Mosques in the dead of fucking night fuck em and fuck Barak Obama



and then he responded in the thread. 

other side of the same coin dude. Your acting just like the extremists you loathe. 




-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> Can't be bothered to argue anymore as the whole thing is a subjective matter pretty much this guy portrays my opinion, I had a good argument but it's too time-consuming.



sounds like your conceding. 
As I said before, not everyone is as sensitive or level-headed about the thing. 

You moved from your initial ""all critisizers are bigoted islamophobes"" to ""its a subjective matter"". 

I myself would not be offended. I can see the logic in Pimp of Pimps view and your view. I would find it low class if it is heavily promoted/conspicious. 

It was your branding of all opposers as bigots I had most issues with. For the Mosque, I just felt they should be more considerate for those who lost loved ones so soon ago. 

they are within their rights to build a mosque...but as i said, this is about consideration and building bridges. If they really do this for UNDERSTANDING....then why refuse to understand the legitimate sensitivities surrounding ground zero with the surviving families??


----------



## Zabuzalives (Aug 14, 2010)

Elim Rawne said:


> Doesn't stop evangelicals from preaching in the ME



unless they are murdered ofcourse......


Im confused though....do you feel we should see preaching on those losing lost ones so recently by an event linked to that religion as sometimes low class/inconsiderate behaviour? 

If that is so...you also must agree the Mosque initiative can be seen as such? 




or are you just applying a double standard?


----------



## WT (Aug 14, 2010)

maj1n said:


> These happened, during the era when blacks were systematically discriminated, there used to be 'white only' and 'black only' toilets and even where you sit on busses.



Yes I know when these things happened. I think its silly that you are comparing black people being refused to go to the toilets (whereas whites are allowed) to nonmuslims not being allowed to go to only 2 muslim worship areas (whereas muslims are allowed).  



> Nice to see you support segregation.



Not at all. Believe it or not, I saw and shook hands with Mike Tyson in Mecca. He's black, I'm not.

Non Muslims not being allowed in a Muslim place of worship is not segregation. Had I supported segretation, I would have done it universally, i.e. non muslims not allowed in muslim countries or muslims not allowed in non muslim countries.  



> The treatment of whites to blacks in terms is the same as how Muslims treat non-muslims in regards to Mecca.



Completel rubbish. One is based on physical traits whereas the other is based on beliefs as well as the additional point of purpose. Mecca is a place to worship for Muslims. White only resteraunts are created out of bigotry and hatred - there is no purpose. Had we supported these ideals, every mosque in the world would have forbiddon non muslims from entering.     



> Who are you to say what a non-muslim want to see or do in mecca?



What will they do? The main attractions are muslim orientated. Heck, even if allowed, they wouldn't be able to enter or sit in the great mosque since priority would be given to muslims who would need to pray and when praying (24/7) the place would be compeltely full.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 14, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Yes I know when these things happened. I think its silly that you are comparing black people being refused to go to the toilets (whereas whites are allowed) to nonmuslims not being allowed to go to only 2 muslim worship areas (whereas muslims are allowed).


What difference is there? both are clearly designed for one group of people against the other.

The fact you support one and not the other shows your double standard.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Non Muslims not being allowed in a Muslim place of worship is not segregation. Had I supported segretation, I would have done it universally, i.e. non muslims not allowed in muslim countries or muslims not allowed in non muslim countries.


But you do support it in this instance.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Completel rubbish. One is based on physical traits whereas the other is based on beliefs as well as the additional point of purpose. Mecca is a place to worship for Muslims. White only resteraunts are created out of bigotry and hatred - there is no purpose. Had we supported these ideals, every mosque in the world would have forbiddon non muslims from entering.


Well lets turn to your Quran that you conveniently ignored from my previous post.

O you who believe! *the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque* after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
?Qur'an, Sura 9 At-Tawba, ayah 28

This is the official reason for banning non-muslims both by Islam and by Saudi Arabia.

Now you speak of 'bigotry and hatred' as the reason for whites segregating blacks, its plainly obvious from your holy book, the banning of non-muslims from Mecca is *exactly* the same, the consider non-muslims lesser then Muslims.

So i take it you are now against the ban of non-muslims from Mecca because it is based on hatred and bigotry?
get back to me when you are.



			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> What will they do? The main attractions are muslim orientated. Heck, even if allowed, they wouldn't be able to enter or sit in the great mosque since priority would be given to muslims who would need to pray and when praying (24/7) the place would be compeltely full.


I could open a cultural church centre that will improve relations between muslims and non-muslims.


----------



## Wesker (Aug 14, 2010)

Can anyone answer my question? Are they going to start breaking ground on 9/11?


----------



## uchia2000 (Aug 14, 2010)

Wesker said:


> Can anyone answer my question? Are they going to start breaking ground on 9/11?


No the date has not been set yet.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 14, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> I'm not an expert on this issue. However, I do know that Umar ibn Khattab (the 2nd Caliph) was murdered in Mecca by a non muslim. The Quran also states that idolaters should be forbiddon from the holy mosque (only).


So which is it? do you support restriction on all of Mecca or just the mosque?
Your opinion, thinking for yourself.




Sesshomaru said:


> Mecca is an exclusive holy city to the Muslims with no real tie to Jews or Christians. The same cannot be said about Jerusalem.
> 
> In the Islamic civilisation, Jerusalem was open to all faiths.


That wasn't your argument, let me quote you. 
"Mecca is like that as well. We don't discriminate with any specific religion. All other religions except Islam are not permitted there. "
You said it wasn't discrminiation if it was a restriction on all other religions. 
This is the same exsact principle I encated with Mecca replace with Jerusalem and Islam replace with Jewdism. 

Now you are shifting it from not being discrminitory, to being ok to discriminate because you declare that no other religion/faith/etc has the right to hold it with any imporance. 

It is clear that you are against such a pracitice of restriction when it is applied to you! Yet support it when it is against others. 

It is a double standard and it makes you a hypocrite. 



Finally if the Israeli expanded and took over SA. 
They made Mecca open to everyone, and Jerusalm closed to all but the Jews would you consider this fair?
Then why would you consider it fair that when Muslims had the same control they did the reverse?




Sesshomaru said:


> I'll do some research and try to find a primary source. I can state many others sources though.


Those sources should site their primary source, if they don't then they are not sources.


----------



## Z (Aug 14, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> who is argumenting this?? I read most of the thread but so far i havent noticed anyone saying:
> 
> ""We cannot let the terrorists win! Dont let those Al KAYDAS build their vile Mosque on ground zero!!""
> 
> ...



Yeah you need to read more of this thread


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 14, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> No but it opens on 9, 11, 2011 -- another coincidence I guess


Who's building this thing? Bob? How do you get some shit up that fast? It took them over a year to build a school here.


----------



## uchia2000 (Aug 14, 2010)

ƒíᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> No but it opens on 9, 11, 2011 -- another coincidence I guess



Could you post a legitimate source for that info?

Because on their official site they say there isn't a set day for the opening yet.


----------



## Z (Aug 14, 2010)

??ᴑɼe.neʋe said:


> No but it opens on 9, 11, 2011 -- another coincidence I guess



Don't pull stuff out of your ass


----------



## uchia2000 (Aug 14, 2010)

Z said:


> Don't pull stuff out of your ass



Yeah the amount of misinformation that is being spread from the opposition is getting ridiculous. But hey whatever serves their agenda.


----------



## Z (Aug 14, 2010)

Hehehe let's spread lies


----------



## vivEnergy (Aug 14, 2010)

Could we please merge the two threads ? That would certainly save some time, money and co2 to refresh one rather than two.


----------



## Petenshi (Aug 14, 2010)

Z said:


> Hehehe let's spread lies



Thats not all we will spread...... .



This toast won't be good unless its buttered.


And I agree with Viv.


----------



## WT (Aug 14, 2010)

maj1n said:


> What difference is there? both are clearly designed for one group of people against the other.
> 
> The fact you support one and not the other shows your double standard.



When there are a group of people who believe the same thing and carry out the same rituals, its not discrimination when they ask to be left alone in one place where they can do this in peace. 

Secondly, I do support this in Mecca and Madina only. Secondly, if you want my opinon, I would fully understand and accept if the Vatican made a rule stating that only Christians/Catholics be allowed there. I would also understand if they disallowed Muslims from building a mosque there. If non muslims were forbiddon from say Saudi entirely, I would oppose that. I would also oppose a rule which disallowed a church being built in a Christian area in Muslim countries. I am a supporter of Religious freedom.  



> Well lets turn to your Quran that you conveniently ignored from my previous post.
> 
> O you who believe! *the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque* after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
> —Qur'an, Sura 9 At-Tawba, ayah 28
> ...



Yes, this is where the rule is derived from. 



> Now you speak of 'bigotry and hatred' as the reason for whites segregating blacks, its plainly obvious from your holy book, the banning of non-muslims from Mecca is *exactly* the same, the consider non-muslims lesser then Muslims.



That's right. We don't hate you at all. We do however believe that our beliefs are superior to yours. 



> So i take it you are now against the ban of non-muslims from Mecca because it is based on hatred and bigotry?


Nope. I don't believe its based on bigotry or hatred. What seperates us Maj1n is not our skin color, hair color, eye color or the place we were born. The only thing that seperates us is our thought pattern and set of beliefs. I believe that my belief is superior to yours and its obvious that you believe your belief is superior to mine. If you adopt my belief, I'll personally buy you a ticket to Mecca. I promise that. 



> I could open a cultural church centre that will improve relations between muslims and non-muslims.


If you want to do it outside Mecca or Madina, I'm fine with that. I just have one question left for you. If Muslims are denied to build a mosque in the vatican, would you oppose that?



sadated_peon said:


> So which is it? do you support restriction on all of Mecca or just the mosque?
> Your opinion, thinking for yourself.



Personally, to make it easier, I would say the whole city. Its just a matter of convience because its actually quite difficult to derive where the holy place starts. Secondly, Mecca/Medina are crowded throughout the year so thats another thing.



> That wasn't your argument, let me quote you.
> "Mecca is like that as well. We don't discriminate with any specific religion. All other religions except Islam are not permitted there. "
> You said it wasn't discrminiation if it was a restriction on all other religions.
> This is the same exsact principle I encated with Mecca replace with Jerusalem and Islam replace with Jewdism.



Theres a difference between Jerusalem and Mecca. Jerusalem is a common holy place to all 3 faiths. However, Mecca is exclusive. You can compare Mecca to the Vatican if you want. I have no problem with the restriction of Muslims from the Vatican if you wanted to know that. 



> Now you are shifting it from not being discrminitory, to being ok to discriminate because you declare that no other religion/faith/etc has the right to hold it with any imporance.
> 
> It is clear that you are against such a pracitice of restriction when it is applied to you! Yet support it when it is against others.
> 
> It is a double standard and it makes you a hypocrite.



I just voiced an opinion stating that I wouldn't be against the idea if Muslims were banned from the Vatican. This discards the whole hypocrite/double standard thing. 



> Finally if the Israeli expanded and took over SA.
> They made Mecca open to everyone, and Jerusalm closed to all but the Jews would you consider this fair?



I'll say it again. Mecca is only important to Muslims whereas Jerusalem is dear to all 3 faiths. The only reason why Jerusalem is important to us is because of the Prophets that have come there. 

If Israel were to take over Mecca/Madina, I think you can hazard a guess on how the Muslim world would respond to that.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 14, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Personally, to make it easier, I would say the whole city. Its just a matter of convience because its actually quite difficult to derive where the holy place starts. Secondly, Mecca/Medina are crowded throughout the year so thats another thing.


So discrimination is ok because it is easier than not discriminating?
I going to join this to my other one, when the Israeli declare that it is "easier" to keep the population safe when they don't let anyone but Jews into the city of Jerusalem does that now make it ok. 
I would say terrorist bombings is much more of a concern then crowding. 


			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> Theres a difference between Jerusalem and Mecca. Jerusalem is a common holy place to all 3 faiths. However, Mecca is exclusive. You can compare Mecca to the Vatican if you want. I have no problem with the restriction of Muslims from the Vatican if you wanted to know that.


It is no difference, and the restricting it to only the people of a single faith has been done before. (so the president is very much there)
Jerusalem or Mecca the restricting on people is the same, the holy nature of the controller is the same. That other hold it in significance MEANS NOTHING to the restriction, because you don't get to declare what other hold significant. 

It wouldn't be vatican city, it would be Rome, no Muslim would be allow to enter Rome. Vatican city is 2 miles with a population of around 800. Mecca has a population of around 2 million. 


			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> I just voiced an opinion stating that I wouldn't be against the idea if Muslims were banned from the Vatican. This discards the whole hypocrite/double standard thing.


Once again you are avoiding the point, you said it wasn't discrimination because it was placed against and all other faiths, instead of singling out just one. 

I gave you a direct example of the same and you rejected it. 


			
				Sesshomaru said:
			
		

> I'll say it again. Mecca is only important to Muslims whereas Jerusalem is dear to all 3 faiths. The only reason why Jerusalem is important to us is because of the Prophets that have come there.
> 
> If Israel were to take over Mecca/Madina, I think you can hazard a guess on how the Muslim world would respond to that.


This argument is inane, that you declare it important to you doesn't change the status of what is going on to the city. Your declaration does not change the policy that is being enacted, it only changes your level of anger at being restricted. 
This is why it is such a good example, but it puts front and center the nature of the discrimination. 
If I was to say to you that Muslims have no claim to call Jerusalem holy because Muhammad never went there, the "furthest mosque" was never identified as Jerusalem and it was only a dream he never actually went there. 
Does this change anything? Does me declaring muslims have no rights to it, have any more weight than you declaring Mecca has no importance to me?


I am guessing their actions would dwarf the accusations of Israeli's crimes by Israel's worst critics.


----------



## maj1n (Aug 14, 2010)

Sesshomaru said:


> Yes, this is where the rule is derived from.
> 
> That's right. We don't hate you at all. We do however believe that our beliefs are superior to yours.


The rule is derived from a hateful belief in your religion.


O you who believe! *the idolaters are nothing but unclean,* so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
—Qur'an, Sura 9 At-Tawba, ayah 28

Thanks for showing you support yet another discriminatory practice based on hatred of non-muslims.


----------



## WT (Aug 14, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> So discrimination is ok because it is easier than not discriminating?
> I going to join this to my other one, when the Israeli declare that it is "easier" to keep the population safe when they don't let anyone but Jews into the city of Jerusalem does that now make it ok.
> I would say terrorist bombings is much more of a concern then crowding.


You know what, I don't think its discriminating at all. Its just about a group of people who have the same set of beliefs wanting to be left alone to worship God. That's it. 



> It wouldn't be vatican city, it would be Rome, no Muslim would be allow to enter Rome. Vatican city is 2 miles with a population of around 800. Mecca has a population of around 2 million.



Vatican City is still a city. If worse comes to worse, we can always put a 2 mile radius around the Kaaba and call that our limit. 

If you believe its discrimination so be it. I think thats very unfortunate. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because by doing so, itl ignite further responses which will not finish unless someone gives up. Instead of debating, I prefer to do some worship, its Ramadan you see.


----------



## Vanity (Aug 14, 2010)

They should be allowed to have it there. They are not all terrorists or something.

People need to stop stereotyping everyone.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Aug 14, 2010)

my God there are like 1 billion muslims in the world. Why should 99% suffer from what 1% did.


----------



## Black Wraith (Aug 14, 2010)

> Question
> 
> 
> Why non-muslims are not allowed in MECCA and MADINA?
> ...


 


> Answer
> 
> 
> Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan, ‘O who who believe! Verily, the Mushrikeen (idolaters) are impure, so let them not come near Musjidul Haraam after this year.’ (Surah Tawbah Aayat28)
> ...


----------

