So it becomes then which came first the chicken or the egg? The fanatics draw from the groups of people that we alienate. We alienate people by lumping them in with the fanatics. By treating good people like terrorists we do the job of the recruiters for them. Those crowed you see of people chanting death to America are told horrific things lies about the west. Taliban soldiers are told that they will die horrible deaths at the hands of NATO soldiers. That they will be tortured and sodomized. This is definitely not true. We're being told that the world of Islam hates the West and want's to stone our women to death. BS if I've ever heard it. I'm not some liberal, love everyone person. I believe that the war in Afghanistan is just and that the Burka should be banned. But I also believe that we do no good by dividing ourselves. There's strength in numbers.
You would think they would be free to build anywhere that is not prohibited I disagree that ground zero is "sacred": it is simply a place where a lot of people died Is the Pentagon "sacred" because it was also a place where many died- what about the hole in the ground made by Flight 93? The only thing the people who died did there was to die- they weren't performing any sacrificial function- except for those who died committing the crime because for them it was an act they saw as having divine implications The others would gladly prefer to have their lives back The hijackers were undoubtedly not the only Muslims who died in those buildings: some of those innocent people might wish to be honored- remembered at a mosque nearby if it were possible: if some Christian church decided to build nearby there would be no issue- because in the end it's all about people's sensibilities and the risk of civil disturbance if the project goes ahead If people behave themselves there need be no issue with this
V, with all respect, you need to watch how you word things when discussing sensitive subjects like this.. the people didn't just "die", they were murdered, in cold blood, by extremists, in that attack. While not everything is sacred in the sense that it should never be used for anything else again, there should be great restraint when building anew. We wouldn't allow a KKK headquarters at the site of Martin Luther King Jr's death.. not because it violates any law, but because it would disrupt the public peace and increase hatred. The question is WHY would this Muslim group want to build there? Common sense would tell you that it's going to upset a lot of people and be insensitive to most of the families and victims of that terrible attack. So why would they want to build there? The only answer I can arrive at is... it's a provocation... I can't think of any valid reason why they can't build down the road except that they want to inflame the situation. There wasn't a Mosque there before that I'm aware of so I can't think of why there should be one now, especially given the nature of what happened and the ongoing growth of extremist Islam in the world. I saw on the news the other day there was a woman protesting with a sign that said "no victory mosque".. and no doubt those who embrace the ideals of the terrorist of 9/11 will in fact see it as a tribute to their cause and vindication that their efforts to kill all non-Muslims is indeed the correct path. So I am against it.. they can build a few blocks down if they want, but not right there... as for what should go there.. I'm with Penn&Teller.. the towers should be rebuilt to look exactly as they did before to show the terrorists that we can and will rebuild anything they knock down. The Muslims who really are peaceful won't have any problem building their mosques where they won't offend...
Of course you're right, Life, and it's not very diplomatic to say the site is not "sacred", but those dead were just victims, nothing more. (OK, I'll quit commenting, because I know that sounds callous, too.) The map that went with the article Franco provided made it look like to me that it wasn't being proposed to be built "right across the street", but a few blocks away and not in a line of sight from the site; but, even if it were, surely it would only potentially offend non-Muslims. You hit the nail on the head and appear to agree with me that the issue for the city is "...would [it] disrupt the public peace...?" This depends entirely on the response of the non-Muslim population. I think Bloomberg is right to say it can go ahead, though I didn't think so at first blush. Osama Bin Ladin sees this struggle as a "holy war", but we don't have to buy into that: we can see it as nothing more than resisting and striking back against a group that attacked us, and continues to attack us- however they conceive of themselves. We play into Osama's hands when we define the struggle in religious terms, as he would like us to, because this allows him to mobilize more support.
Regrettably this situation has turned one step closer to becoming reality. The proper board who was to approve or deny this building has approved the first of many steps to have this place built. There is already a court challange planned for this. So this is a long way from over, but deep down I worry that the muslims may win this one and have this place built.
I'd just like to hear where the 100 million is coming from. It was reported they dont have nearly that much in their account.
That one's easy, Gonzo! It's going to be coming from that family that's got a whole, oil filled country in the middle east named for them. More hints necessary? OK- George Bush was famously photographed walking hand in hand with the senior member of this family at his ranch at Crawford, Tx. Still not enough? That same family had relatives in the U.S. at the time of 9-11: all were allowed to fly from the U.S.- by special permission of the U.S. Government- at a time when all other flights and passengers were grounded by general order of the same U.S. Government. (Slippery as it is, oil still binds!) That same family has also financed the building of the largest mosques in the world- one of which is in Islamabad, Pakistan (and is even named for a member of this family)- a country in which they continue to fund religious training in the Wahabi tradition of Islam and from which many Jihadi's draw their inspiration. Undoubtedly, if this mosque in NYC gets built, it will be under close scrutiny. __________________
Life, with respect to you, I would suggest that you reconsider your analogy. The KKK were ALL about racism and oppression . All of Islam is not out to get the US. It's a small minority of extremists that are warping peoples view of this religion. Why can't we take people at their word? This group says they want to help bring Islam and the West together. What better way to do that than to put a Mosque out in the open where everyone can see, instead of hidden near residences. Also there are not many places in NYC that you could build something this big. What better way for Westerners to show how unbiased we are by allowing this to be built? As for the "Victory Mosque"... who cares what the extremists think. Why should that stop anything? Should the monument to Martin Luther King not have been built if the Black Panthers loved the idea? Again I'll say that by dividing ourselves we're doing the work of the enemy for them.
I think if you really read the statement by Dan Senoir, you'd learn a thing or two about the real USA. Your statement was, and has been, acknowledged time & time again...
Zackman: Good. Personally I dont use what others write, as I prefer to create my own perspective on various matters. Quotes, articles etc. by others dont interest me at all, kind of like movie reviews etc. I base my own opinion from what I know, learn and experience first hand.
