Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Muslim culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents.

I reiterate: In order to defend Western values, like freedom of religion, we should behave like those whom we criticize for failing to respect freedom of religion? Its one thing to punish a Muslims because he violates a specific law, it is another thing entirely to punish the same Muslim simply for being a Muslim.

speedfreak wrote:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.

With one exception, every single sura in the Koran begins with "In the name of God the merciful, and compassionate". The Koran encourages violence in certain situations, and compassion or peace in others. The inherent conflict between these two messages has been at the center of the Islamic theological debate for the majority of its history.

speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Muslim culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents. Most Muslims may not be terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. It is Muslim tradition that mosques be built where the infidels used to have cities or their places of worship and its the same thing here. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Well, I'll have to disagree. I have plenty of muslim friends and all of them are pretty tolerant. I doubt they actually obey those "rules" in the western world. In the middle east, maybe they do.

And your wrong. Most terrorists aren't muslim at all. In fact, a large percentage of what we consider "terrorism" occurs in south america and asia, which would make most terrorists Buddhist or Catholic

Numbers or it doesnt count. I think once you do some research you'll find you are quite mistaken. Just as an example let Take the Tamil Tigers from South East Asia. Probably the regions best known terrorist group.

Intelligence agencies are well aware that the LTTE was involved in the 1990s in training the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) both of which are closely linked to al-Qaeda. In 1995 and 1998, an LTTE combat tactician and an LTTE explosives expert accompanying groups of al-Qaeda Arabs was recorded training members of MILF. In 1999, an LTTE combat tactician accompanying a group of al-Qaeda Arabs was recorded training members of the ASG. At the apparent behest of al-Qaeda, the LTTE is recorded training members of Al Ummah (An Islamic terrorist group formed in India in 1992, believed to be responsible for bombings in southern India in 1998) in Tamil Nadu, India.[78]

Not all Muslims are terrorists...Correct
Not all terrorists are Muslims...Correct
Are most of the conflicts in the world right now centered around Muslims either terrorist activities or full out wars.....yes, yes they are. Lets name a few shall we Chechnya, Russia, USA, UK, France, Spain, Germany, India, Pakistan, Most of Africa,the list goes on and on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
in short should they be legally allowed to build it....Yes
Should they want to...NO
Should they fight so hard for it..NO
Should people be all up in arms...Probably not, but there is reason.
Could they find a more suitable place...Of course they could.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with outside influences and interests.

You're missing the part where those 'outside influences and interests' were generally defined according to principles which were biologically racist; notable with respect to Jews.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The Nazi that you are speaking of are Hitlers minions that Hijacked an already established political situation and turned it into a sick ideology, based on hatred of an outside group and global conquest.

No, that's absolutely false. Maurice Barres coined the term 'national socialism', and he founded his belief on an aggressive sort of xenophobia (and biological racism) with a bend towards antisemitism. However, Hitler was its most visible exponent and it is his ideological position which is the definitive component of Nazism. Central to that ideological position was biological racism, out of which grew antisemitism. Note that Strasser, Hitler's chief ideological opponent, was also a biological racist and antisemitic.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The Terrorists Al-quieda and such have taken an existing religion and actively pervert Islam (the religion of peace) and turn it into a religious Jihad against any non Islamic influence with the goal of islamifying the world. Same situation.

Not at all, you're confusing Hitler's ideological influences (Nietzsche and Fichte, primarily) with Nazism. They are not at all the same.

Andrew1975 wrote:
For these Terrorists that have Hijacked islam I think it can be easily assumed their goals may be predicated on the destruction of large buildings (buses, subways,cars, hotels etc...etc.. full of people, yes as we have seen and witnessed.

Terrorists, yes, Muslims no. You're making three very large mistakes here. The first is obviously your misreading of national socialism. The second is drawing a line between Islamists, who have corrupted Islam, and Nazis who accurately represented the sum of their position. The third is to equate Islamists with Islam, which is what is necessary for our analogy to hold given that you are operating under a false definition of national socialism.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Your average German citizens and soldiers had about as much to do with the Nazi atrocities as you average Muslim has to do with Al-Quieda.

Sure, but if they build a monument to Nazism next to Auschwitz they are clearly invoking the ideology which brought about the deaths of the people held there. The fact that they are German would be irrelevant to the matter.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.

Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.

Why do we particularly care if Muslims are emboldened? Shouldn't we only be concerned with the boldness of terrorists? It seems to me that you're envisioning this as a struggle against the Muslim world, and not against terrorism.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Could protesting the building create more tension polarizing people in the middle and forcing them to take sides...SURE COULD

That's probably the idea. By forcing people to take sides, the builders of the mosque hope to generate support for efforts designed to foster tolerance.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Does the situation make America look stupid and petty to the rest of the world and bad to moderate Muslims....YOU BET IT DOES

Again, that's the idea.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So its a terrible idea as an olive branch, but as part of a sinister plot. Well played islam. Mission accomplished weather it gets built or not.

And again it comes down to referring to the whole of religion, especially one lacking a central hierarchy as a monolith. Regardless, to the extent that this measure was designed to forced the issue of intolerance, and thereby foster support for tolerance, it seems to have worked quite nicely. The resultant conflict is an unfortunate, and necessary side-effect of such measures.

Andrew1975 wrote:
For these Terrorists that have Hijacked islam I think it can be easily assumed their goals may be predicated on the destruction of large buildings (buses, subways,cars, hotels etc...etc.. full of people, yes as we have seen and witnessed.

Dogma Wrote
Terrorists, yes, Muslims no. You're making three very large mistakes here. The first is obviously your misreading of national socialism. The second is drawing a line between Islamists, who have corrupted Islam, and Nazis who accurately represented the sum of their position. The third is to equate Islamists with Islam, which is what is necessary for our analogy to hold given that you are operating under a false definition of national socialism.

So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.

You are also wrong about National Socialism as a political Movement.
The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists. For instance the best known organization exposing this system, the German party led by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. Similarly, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement. According to Joseph Goebbels in an official exposition of the ideology, the logic behind the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism as represented in the name, was to "counter the Internationalism of Marxism with the nationalism of a German Socialism"

Two Words, National Socialism. Like Communism, there are all different kinds.

It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people. This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers. As we have no idea what the final goal of Radical Islam is we can only go by their current attitudes towards outsiders. This is not a pretty picture. In fact many people have made points about how countries run by muslims treat their non muslim countrymen...Pretty similar to Hitlers Nazis if you ask me.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.

Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.

Why do we particularly care if Muslims are emboldened? Shouldn't we only be concerned with the boldness of terrorists? It seems to me that you're envisioning this as a struggle against the Muslim world, and not against terrorism.

As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about. I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.

I still can not see one good reason why it must be built there and only there. Its just a bad move anyway you look at it. Which in turn may make it the best move of all.

speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Western culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant....

Weird how the above edit I made to your quote also totally fits...

Western culture is built upon slavery, oppression, genocide, war, suffering, greed, religous, zealotry and radical politics.

It's called "human nature" and Westerners are not immune to nor above it...

Andrew1975 wrote:
For these Terrorists that have Hijacked islam I think it can be easily assumed their goals may be predicated on the destruction of large buildings (buses, subways,cars, hotels etc...etc.. full of people, yes as we have seen and witnessed.

Dogma Wrote
Terrorists, yes, Muslims no. You're making three very large mistakes here. The first is obviously your misreading of national socialism. The second is drawing a line between Islamists, who have corrupted Islam, and Nazis who accurately represented the sum of their position. The third is to equate Islamists with Islam, which is what is necessary for our analogy to hold given that you are operating under a false definition of national socialism.

So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.

You are also wrong about National Socialism as a political Movement.
The self-identification term, used by exponents of the ideology past and present is National Socialism and adherents describe themselves as National Socialists. For instance the best known organization exposing this system, the German party led by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. Similarly, the second volume of Mein Kampf is entitled The National Socialist Movement. According to Joseph Goebbels in an official exposition of the ideology, the logic behind the synthesis of Nationalism and Socialism as represented in the name, was to "counter the Internationalism of Marxism with the nationalism of a German Socialism"

Two Words, National Socialism. Like Communism, there are all different kinds.

It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people. This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers. As we have no idea what the final goal of Radical Islam is we can only go by their current attitudes towards outsiders. This is not a pretty picture. In fact many people have made points about how countries run by muslims treat their non muslim countrymen...Pretty similar to Hitlers Nazis if you ask me.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.

Dogma wrote
Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.



Why do we particularly care if Muslims are emboldened? Shouldn't we only be concerned with the boldness of terrorists? It seems to me that you're envisioning this as a struggle against the Muslim world, and not against terrorism.

As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about. I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.

I still can not see one good reason why it must be built there and only there. Its just a bad move anyway you look at it. Which in turn may make it the best move of all

Andrew1975 wrote:
So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.

The basic premise on which your position is founded is that it is somehow inappropriate to construct a mosque near Ground Zero because some Muslims flew a plane into a building there. In doing this you are focusing of the fact that hijackers were Muslim, rather than the fact that the hijackers were terrorists. In then comparing the action to the construction of a Nazi monument new Auschwitz you are drawing a line between something that is intrinsically offensive to the victims of that place (Nazism), and something which is related only tangentially to the victims of 9/11 (Islam).

I'm not trolling anyone, I'm simply pointing out what you appear to be doing here. If you don't intend to convey the message that I'm taking from your words, then you need to revisit your position. Its not a matter of semantics, its a matter of literal meaning.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You are also wrong about National Socialism as a political Movement. It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people.

You really need to read Mein Kampf, or listen to Hitler's public speeches. I can understand the idea that Hitler's nationalist claims took precedence over his antisemitism in the eyes of many, but to pretend that the antisemitism wasn't an overt element of his rise to power is absurd. Moreover, its irrelevant to question at hand as your analogy had nothing to do with Germans in general, but Nazism in particular. The specific German character of any Nazi monument built near Auschwitz is not relevant to the fact that the monument glorifies Nazis in the presence of the cite of the atrocity they, as a whole, collectively advocated.

Andrew1975 wrote:
This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers. As we have no idea what the final goal of Radical Islam is we can only go by their current attitudes towards outsiders. This is not a pretty picture.

Again, the analogy you created has nothing to do with Germany, but only Nazis in particular. In order to express your point correctly one would have to suppose that the mosque in question were dedicated to radical Islam, but it is not. Another possible line of reasoning would be that the terrorists are analogous to the Nazis, with the Germans standing analogy to the whole of Islam. However, this second comparison does not really agree with your position, as I sincerely doubt that anyone is offended by the fact that Auschwitz is in the proximity of German buildings.

I'm not sure if you've forgotten what you wrote, or if you're simply struggling to separate the a series of related ideas, but you seem to be jumping around rather frantically for whatever reason.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Two Words, National Socialism. Like Communism, there are all different kinds.

Yes, and they all trade in some sort of biological racism. Its one of the fundamental tenets underpinning the ideology. It doesn't matter if its not what brought the Nazis to power in Germany, because it is necessarily connected to Nazism and has been since the concept of National Socialism arose.

Andrew1975 wrote:
As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about.

No, that's only part of what you said. You also referred to Muslims in general. I will ask you to be more careful in your wording if that isn't what you meant.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.

That's why we have no-fly lists, border security, and intelligence organizations.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I still can not see one good reason why it must be built there and only there. Its just a bad move anyway you look at it. Which in turn may make it the best move of all.

I presented an excellent reason for why someone might want to build the mosque there.

As an aside, please work to format your posts more clearly. They are difficult to parse with the mess of quotations.

So you are saying the Terrorists that flew planes into buildings or work of Al-quieda were not Muslims? I specifically said the Terrorists that have hijacked Islam. I never said all Muslims. You sir are a troll that likes to play semantics games.

And you're a troll that doesn't understand the simple mathematics that underpins a statement such that. The west has hijacked islam into the false belief that it has been hijacked by terrorists, this is a belief bred from xenophobia and ignorance that has been cultivated as a catchall scapegoat for modern western economic and philosophical insecurity. Terrorists exist, of course they do. There are plenty of them. They comprise less than one percent of one percent of the religions population however. Its a religion with over a billion practitioners, the thought that it can be hijacked by a few thousand is patently false and blatantly stupid.

It's public and popular goals were never the extinction of entire races of people. This was defiantly not what won the national socialists their elections in Germany. It's hidden goals and agenda on the other hand were not brought about until it was far too late for the people of Germany to do anything about it, except a few assassination attempts made by fed up officers.

Racial xenophobia was a part of the parties platform from its earliest days, they didn't immediately formulate the plans for wars of conquest or genetic extermination in their early speeches but the subtext and ideals were there plain as day.

This is not a pretty picture. In fact many people have made points about how countries run by muslims treat their non muslim countrymen...Pretty similar to Hitlers Nazis if you ask me.

Name a theocracy that has treated it's people well by modern western values. It's a problem inherent to medieval forms of governance and socio economic stagnation in a region with very poor public education. The fact that Islam is the majority religion there is happenstance. The Christian portions of africa are rarely any better.

So people have a reason to be worried. Now if Western Muslims really want to separate themselves form the radical crazies, why insite the obvious problems by building a mosque so close to the site.

Do they have a right...Yes
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.

People have the right to be ignorant weak willed idiots, but that doesn't mean we should defend them or act in deference to their shrill prattle.

As I was speaking here about the possible terrorists in the proposed mosque...yes I think that is what people are worried about. I think its pretty much guaranteed that at some point a member of a terrorist organization will be in that building with a smirk on his face. Not saying hes there now or part of their group. But they will come in droves to see their handy work from that mosque. With or without the knowledge and or permission of the people that are building it.

As opposed to, y'know, just going to ground zero and attending a mosque ten blocks away. Do terrorists not know how to use taxis? Do you know how stupid this sounds? Ground zero isn't even visible from the building itself.

Post 2010/08/05 00:01:57 Subject: "Ground Zero Mosque" Approved

speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Western culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant....

CT GAMER wrote: Weird how the above edit I made to your quote also totally fits...

Western culture is built upon slavery, oppression, genocide, war, suffering, greed, religous, zealotry and radical politics.

It's called "human nature" and Westerners are not immune to nor above it...

Yes, throughout history Europeans have had slaves and killed Muslims, pagans, and animists for their religion, and killed millions of innocent people, but we don't anymore. We've grown out of it. We do not execute homosexuals and women who cheated on their husbands. We don't force women to wear veils in public. We live in a free and maybe too tolerant society and I am not afraid to say that our culture is better than theirs. If they they want to live like that in their own countries, go right ahead. If you come here, get in line with our culture. No, you don't have become a Christian, but don't bring sharia law here.

Ok Dogma Ill make it easy to understand

I dont think you can follow an argument

Germans=Muslims Generally good people

National Socialism=Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion

Hitler and his goons=Radical islamic terrorist sects

Germans got a bad rap because of Hitler and his goons

Muslims get a bad rap because Radical Islamic terrorists and their goons

Same thing

Therefor

Building a Islamic Mosque next to ground zero =

Building a National Socialist party headquarters next to Auschwitz.


It's stupid and insensitive.

Yes, throughout history Europeans have had slaves and killed Muslims, pagans, and animists for their religion, and killed millions of innocent people, but we don't anymore.

The Nazis did their thing a half century ago and this mosque is being built in America which had its economic foundation built with slaves and the extermination and removal of native peoples.

We've grown out of it. We do not execute homosexuals and women who cheated on their husbands. We don't force women to wear veils in public.

The west has also created and detonated over 1000 nuclear bombs in the last 50 years. America was segregated for much of the last century and europe is still recovering from some of the feelings that stemmed from world war two. The cold war very nearly started the largest and presumably the most deadly war in history over the clash of ideals between two forms of governance. The west is economically developed, the mideast and southasia are not. We only stopped killing when we started selling, the chinese picked that up and are running with it. The mideast may someday as well.

We live in a free and maybe too tolerant society and I am not afraid to say that our culture is better than theirs. If they they want to live like that in their own countries, go right ahead. If you come here, get in line with our culture. No, you don't have become a Christian, but don't bring sharia law here.

What about the mosque in question here is bringing in sharia law? Is it nothing? Because I'm pretty sure it's nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Germans=Muslims Generally good people

National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion

Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects

This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.

Andrew1975 wrote:Ok Dogma Ill make it easy to understand

I dont think you can follow an argument

I'm fully aware of the argument you're attempting to make, it simply isn't valid.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Germans=Muslims Generally good people

National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion

What? Why are you differentiating between Islam and Muslims? The group 'Muslims' is defined by the presence of the religious category 'Islam', there is no substantive distinction between the two. An analogous distinction would be the one between national socialists and National Socialism, there is a difference between the two, but it isn't significant to your argument.

Moreover, why are you supposing that Germans were all National Socialists? Hitler and his goons were National Socialists, Germans were just German. It isn't as though Germany was a Nazi state prior to the arrival of Hitler. I know that you are stuck on the idea that National Socialism isn't intrinsically antisemitic, but that's outright false.

It appears you've already made a fatal error in your argument.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects

Germans got a bad rap because of Hitler and his goons

Muslims get a bad rap because Radical Islam and their goons

Same thing

No, you've brutally twisted both situations in order to contort yourself into some sort of reasonable position. The argument you want to offer is:

Muslims=Germans
Radical Muslims = Nazis

Muslims get a bad rap due to the actions of radical Muslims, and Germans get a bad rap due to the actions of National Socialists.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Therefor

Building a Islamic Mosque next to ground zero =

Building a National Socialist party headquarters next to Auschwitz.


It's stupid and insensitive.

No, that's a false conclusion. If Muslims are equivalent to Germans, then a mosque would be equivalent to any specifically German structure, like the museum at Auschwitz; which is not thought to be offensive . For your final point to hold, the Muslim structure would need to be dedicated specifically to the ideology which caused the suffering at Ground Zero; which is Salafism.

What you've done here is express the distinction between a general category and a specific one, only to completely eliminate that distinction in your conclusion; rendering it false per the proffered argument.

ShuahGorath wrote:The Nazis did their thing a half century ago and this mosque is being built in America which had its economic foundation built with slaves and the extermination and removal of native peoples.
The west has also created and detonated over 1000 nuclear bombs in the last 50 years. America was segregated for much of the last century and europe is still recovering from some of the feelings that stemmed from world war two. The cold war very nearly started the largest and presumably the most deadly war in history over the clash of ideals between two forms of governance. The west is economically developed, the mideast and southasia are not. We only stopped killing when we started selling, the chinese picked that up and are running with it. The mideast may someday as well.

I was actually referencing slavery and Nazis. With the Cold War, I don't really consider the Soviets part of Western culture. Also, if the the US and some Western European countries didn't have nukes, Europe would be part of the Soviet Union and the US would be a toxic hole in the planet. To many lives would have been lost trying to take Japan. Nuclear weopons are necessary with countries like North Korea and Iran around. As for America being segregated, it isn't segregated anymore and Barack Obama is president. Slavery and the extirmination of many natives are the worst things in the US's history, and I'm not trying to say we should forget them, but they are history. And the Chinese have not stopped killing. Christians and Muslims are badly persecuted there and are sometimes killed.

Andrew Wrote

Germans=Muslims Generally good people

National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion

Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects

This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.

How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.

Same can be said of Islam. Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism. In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non Islamic. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Andrew Wrote

Germans=Muslims Generally good people

National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion

Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects

This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.

How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.

Same can be said of INSERT RELIGON HERE. iNSERT RELIGON HERE by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism. In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non INSERT RELIGON HERE. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.

Fixed.
They actually were. Ever hear of secret police?

Andrew1975 wrote:

Andrew Wrote

Germans=Muslims Generally good people

National Socialism = Islam One was a genuine political party, the other a religion

Hitler and his goons = Radical islamic terrorist sects

This isn't how logic works, revise your arguments so that they aren't based on insanity or stop using them.

How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.

Same can be said of Islam. Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism. In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non Islamic. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.

Do you know much about Weimar Germany? Germany was highly fractured amongst a multitude of different parties. The Nazi party was established by a dejected WWI veteran and Clockmaker named Anton Drexler in 1919. Hitler did not start the party, but he had the charisma to bring it into some sort of relevance. The Nazi party got the majority of the German parliament by getting 32% of the seats in 1932. That's all they needed. As soon as the Reichstag went up in smoke the emergency powers were given to Herr Chancellor and it's history from there.

Andrew1975 wrote:
How is this not logical? Again National Socialism was a political party as I have explained above. To the average German citizen it was promising. Sure, It had Nationalistic tones and was fearful of outside influences. Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.

National Socialism is a political ideology which was at the heart of several political parties at the time of Hitler's rise.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Same can be said of Islam. Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism.

One of the fundamental tenets of national socialism is ethnic nationalism, which necessarily trades in an expansionist foreign policy given its lean of the notion that all present nations were fragmented and impure.

Andrew1975 wrote:
In the hands of fanatics it is by far worse than anything the Nazis ever dreamed of. Complete extinction of everything non Islamic. I don't think the Nazis were stabbing people that drew cartoons of Hitler.

Yeah, that Aryan master race sure was tolerant of difference, and not at all interested in exterminating 'lesser' people.

Hmm..Muslim terrorists are "extremists" but Christians who beat up homosexuals are just "Christians".

Love how in a roundabout way Muslim religion is being defended because not all Muslims are "extreme" and yet any and all Christians who act extremely are just acting the norm of Christian values.

Classic.

Fateweaver wrote:Hmm..Muslim terrorists are "extremists" but Christians who beat up homosexuals are just "Christians".

Love how in a roundabout way Muslim religion is being defended because not all Muslims are "extreme" and yet any and all Christians who act extremely are just acting the norm of Christian values.

Classic.

Obvious dig at Christian values is obvious.

IMO, Muslims of any fanaticism are terrorists.

Does my opinion step on anyones toes? Oh well.

Is our country too soft on terrorists? Hell yeah.

Got to love the massive, millions strong brainwashing going on in this country in the past few years or so. Hell, read the "official" 9/11 report. It's been edited to make sure no one mention of "terrorist" or "islam" or "jihad" or "muslim" is mentioned.

If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.

Obvious dig at Christian values is obvious.

No, you're just trolling. What you said didn't even make sense and it wasn't a response to anything anyone had posted in this thread.

Just stop doing that.

Andrew1975 wrote:As much as I am not a giant fan of the man in the pointy white hat. He at least he keeps things twisted in one way and is accountable for his flock. He as thier leader keeps most of the Catholics in line (please no history lessons here and yes I know there are boy touching priests and such) He does not endorse any violence towards anyone and when Catholics do step out of bounds, hes pretty good as letting them know its unapproved.

Islam has no such character, people believe act and twist the faith anyway they chose. If a Catholic priest built a school that trained you to perform terrorist acts and kill innocent civilians he would be excommunicated. This is a major issue. There is no way to separate the the good muslims from the bad. Hell there is no way to even regulate how or what is being preached or taught.

Do you similarly oppose Protestantism? Because they don't have a leader.

Islam does not adjust to where it goes, but expects all others to adjust to it and accept it laws.

Do you believe this describes the full billion muslims? Because they don't all believe that. Many not only believe in fitting in to their new country, many believe that the values of their adopted countries are closer to the values of true Islam than in the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East.

Some of them put this into words, by writing books called things like "What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America". Then they try to build Islamic cultural centres based around tolerance and mutual acceptance, and they put them near the site of a terrible religiously motivated terror attack to remind people what happens when bigotry triumphs over reason and compassion. Then members of the US right wing wig out and call the guy trying to build the centre a terrorist sympathiser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Germans got a bad rap because of Hitler and his goons

Muslims get a bad rap because Radical Islamic terrorists and their goons

This fails because the Nazis actually had control of Germany. No-one has control of Islam. There are bad groups within Islam (AQ), there are bad governments (the Saudis, Iran), and there's a whole lot of people just going about their lives like the rest of us.

When a group of Muslims not affiliated with the bad guys builds a mosque, it is exactly as insulting as Americans of Japanese descent building a buddhist temple a few kms from Pearl Harbour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:Only once it was Hijacked by Hitler and his goons did it turn into the Nazi that we all love to hate.

That's nonsense. National socialism was overtly racist and nationalistic from it's origins, before Hitler joined. This isn't a thing that can be debated, it's a matter of plain fact. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Islam by nature is even more aggressive than any of the original ideas behind National socialism.

That's just absurd. Stop saying really silly things.

Because there are problems with Islam, it has moved towards intolerance and fundamentalism in many places. But the religion of a billion people isn't worse than the Nazis, and when you carry on making stupid claims like that it only makes it harder for people to properly address the issues within Islam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:Um... because it's not REALLY about an olive branch, but rather about sticking a thumb in the eye of the Great Satan? Just a guess.

Except it isn't. As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread the guy behind this has a single motive in his political life, and that's improving relations between Islam and the West. But you'll ignore that, you will go on believing he is part of some radical Islamic sect despite all evidence to the contrary, because you want to hate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.

What about the non-extremist catholics who worship there? Would you be happy to let them burn as well? Because one extremist catholic doesn't make them all bad, you know.

mattyrm wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote: Their property and agricultural assets were seized, burned or destroyed, and despite support from the PLO getting a long way towards reaching a peaceful resolution, foreign interference guaranteed that they were utterly deprived of justice by empowering the Israeli regime and their completely racist policies.

Irony isn't always funny, but like ignorance, it's always there to slap you in the face.

I find it funny that people are allowed to be aggresively anti-jew but as soon as i throw anything in the Muslims direction i get the ban hammer.

Anyway, theres always going to be exceptions to the rule, whats your point? You cant hide the statistics.

Israel has a better record with regards to womens equality and gay rights than almost all of their neighbours, im not saying the Israelis arent needlessly harsh sometimes, but you might think you need to be in their shoes.

I also seriously doubt your partner is fair minded and impartial with regards to the Israeli regime if she lived in that neck of the woods.

I suppose the fact that I came into this thread saying the mosque seemed like a pretty bad idea has nothing to do with Muslims. I'm talking about Israel as a matter of policy thirty years ago, not people who identify themselves as Jews in whatever context. If someone would like to show me a ban-hammer I'd be interested in seeing what it looks like... I don't tend to attract threats myself, but I can see how you do.

Israel's record over the past quarter century means little to those whose lives were destroyed, and as for the record, it's not that good. Women's equality and gay rights are a skewed example in that social context, and if you insist on comparing chalk and cheese your 'records' will reflect the discrepancy. If Hitler decided one day that he was going to start being a pretty cool dude, that doesn't take back what he was held responsible for, now or then.

I don't expect my partner's family to ever really accept what was done to them. The thing is, though, they can forgive, and they don't hold 'Jews' as a people responsible. As a Palestinian Christian family living in Australia, provoking no-one, they are still subjected to abuse from some groups of Australian jews in what can only be considered as spite and ignorance. The majority of jews don't hold Germans responsible - a significant number of them are German, just as everyone in Palestine was Palestinian until a policy of Jewish nationality was created, and backed by foreign powers settling their own petty differences during the Cold War. Those in the American public who blame 'Muslims' as a whole for the 9/11 tragedy are guilty of exactly what you are accusing 'my' people of. Never mind the 1800+ American and other Muslims killed in the event. There will always be people who need help understanding, and your presumption that they cannot possibly be fair-minded and impartial says a lot. Why even bother trying, then?

Palestine's negotiations over Eastern Jerusalem back then are comparable to the topic in this thread. A public sentiment was synthesized, made into policy, and used as a catalyst to a situation of complete and utter inequality. Now all I said before was that building a mosque in the middle of ground zero would be a bad idea for all involved, and that isn't what's being proposed at all. It is perfectly understandable why some people are upset by the proposal as it is. It doesn't make them right just because most of them aren't Muslim.

Fateweaver wrote:
IMO, Muslims of any fanaticism are terrorists.

Does my opinion step on anyones toes? Oh well.

Wait, what? Are you really claiming that any fanatical Muslim, even one who has never engaged in terrorism, must be a terrorist?

Way to cheapen the concept.

Fateweaver wrote:
Got to love the massive, millions strong brainwashing going on in this country in the past few years or so. Hell, read the "official" 9/11 report. It's been edited to make sure no one mention of "terrorist" or "islam" or "jihad" or "muslim" is mentioned.

Having read the report several times, I can assure you that claim is false. Hell, the table of contents contains the words 'Islamic' and 'terrorism'.

Fateweaver wrote:
If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.

But in the case of the mosque, the extremists aren't asking to build it.

Fateweaver wrote:Obvious dig at Christian values is obvious.

IMO, Muslims of any fanaticism are terrorists.

Does my opinion step on anyones toes? Oh well.

Is our country too soft on terrorists? Hell yeah.

Got to love the massive, millions strong brainwashing going on in this country in the past few years or so. Hell, read the "official" 9/11 report. It's been edited to make sure no one mention of "terrorist" or "islam" or "jihad" or "muslim" is mentioned.

If a Catholic "extremist" burned down Walmart in my town, killing everyone in it and then wanted to build a house of worship on the site of the old walmart I'd burn it down with him in it.

Bad troll is bad.

Twice I have gotten to say that in this thread! Lock has to be coming soon!

Wow, all the way to page 5 without being locked... I'm proud of y'all.

Now, onto the topic.

While the Middle East and Islamic countries DO tend have a horrible human rights record. Guess what? This isn't the middle east. We accept everyone here, even if we don't want to.
Do I think they should be allowed to build the mosque? YES
Do I think they should? NO

Not because of being insensitive, because I don't give a feth about anyone's feelings (I lost an uncle in 9/11, and a friend in Afghanistan)
But because this is NYC we are talking about. I give the place a month before some crazy dude crawls out of a subway station and burns it to the ground, making the whole situation even worse.

Grow up people. Move on to more important issues.

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Wow, all the way to page 5 without being locked...

Barely, and it is teetering on the brink of oblivion and yet, despite the lessons of previous experience, maybe there is hope still...

... oh good, we've been reduced at using Nazis as an example, this bodes well.

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:While the Middle East and Islamic countries DO tend have a horrible human rights record. Guess what? This isn't the middle east. We accept everyone here, even if we don't want to.
Do I think they should be allowed to build the mosque? YES
Do I think they should? NO

It's worth point out that a number of prominent Muslims also advised against building the mosque. While you might not care about the sensitivity issue, it was an issue of debate in the Islamic community, and I think it's a reasonable argument as well. I mean, while the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers, that kind of detail can get lost on the people who suffered in the attacks, and you have to be respectful of that.

Still the guy building this thing thinks hope and good intentions of the project is greater than that, and he managed to the building council on board.

sebster wrote: I mean, while the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers, that kind of detail can get lost on the people who suffered in the attacks, and you have to be respectful of that.

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Not because of being insensitive, because I don't give a feth about anyone's feelings (I lost an uncle in 9/11, and a friend in Afghanistan)

After taking care of my aunt and her 2 kids, I'd like to think I know a bit about people that have suffered in the attacks.

Yes, it's insensitive to New Yorkers, but saying no is just as bad. Its a bad situation either way

speedfreak wrote:

Post 2010/08/05 00:01:57 Subject: "Ground Zero Mosque" Approved

speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Western culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant....

CT GAMER wrote: Weird how the above edit I made to your quote also totally fits...

Western culture is built upon slavery, oppression, genocide, war, suffering, greed, religous, zealotry and radical politics.

It's called "human nature" and Westerners are not immune to nor above it...

Yes, throughout history Europeans have had slaves and killed Muslims, pagans, and animists for their religion, and killed millions of innocent people, but we don't anymore.

Could I have some of what your smoking?

Last time I checked there are still a fair number of recognized hate groups/militias/etc. in just the United states alone that espouse Christianity as the justification for their actions: harassment and violence against minority groups(racial, sexual and political): that is they kill "fags", lynch "[see forum posting rules]", burn crosses, burn churches and blow up clinics, and all varieties of hate crimes, etc. all in the in the name of the baby Jesus. A perusal of newspaper archives and police reports on crime statistics can easily confirm this.

Now these groups/individuals do not represent Christianity as a whole, but neither do the small percentage of Islamic terrorists ( Check the numbers on practicing Muslims word wide) represent Islam, though claiming they do certainly makes it easier to be xenophobic and a hate mongering...

Also just out of curiosity are you aware of the numbers of civilian casualties (mostly incidental, but which doesn't make them any less dead) killed by Western armed forces in the two gulf "wars", the ongoing situation in Iraq and Afghanistan to date?

Have you ever considered the numbers of innocents killed worldwide with arms that Western governments and arms dealers have sold to various armies, regimes and fanatical groups throughout the years? We Love terrorists and radicals when they are doing our dirty work for us, and we love to arm them with the best tools money can buy. After all we gotta fatten those stock portfolios...

I don't know about you but I consider non-combatives ( especially elderly, woman and children) "innocent people".

Yes Non-Western cultures have their share of "bad men" and governments, and yes as Westerners we enjoy unparalleled levels of freedom and prosperity but let's not pretend that the West doesn't continue to have blood on it's hands. As I said human nature (and sadly profit driven aggression) is universal...

[edited for grammar]