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.

sebster wrote: the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers,

And being fair, I think if zombie Islamic terrorists were the ones doing the construction work there would be good grounds for worry and complaint.

They do very slapdash work and their H & S record is abysmal.

Khornholio wrote:I give this thread until about page 4.

5 tops.

Ha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

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

So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

It wasn't. Thats just stupid.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

It wasn't. Thats just stupid.

As is saying that building a mosque 2 blocks away from ground zero is insensitive. I just don't get it. (But I didn't follow the Nazi/Terrorist comparison either so I'm lagging behind here)

What's hard to follow? Nazis are terrorists and Germans are Muslim. So since all Nazis are German by the transitive property all Muslim are terrorists as well as being German and Nazis.

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.



CT GAMER wrote: 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...

In the Western world there are small, insignificant group of radicals with no support from the public. In the Muslim world there are large, powerful, dangerous radicals, who are intent on destroying Israel and Western culture. If these groups didn't receive support from their governments and the local populace, and weren't considered heroes by the people, there would be no need to worry about them. The problem is, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban have support of governments, and an endless line of recruits, eager to martyr themselves to get to heaven.
The civilian deaths in the War on Terror are unfortunate but it is difficult to avoid when the terrorists hide among the people. Civilian deaths are the very sad and difficult to deal with, but they can't be avoided in a war like this.

What if they built the mosque but dedicated a small section to something along the lines of "Inter-Faith Relations Center". Wouldn't that both promote the ideas of healing and peace and silence some naysayers that claim this is about something else?

This has gone kinda far OT and has basically fell back into the "is Islam bad?" debate with the left leaning lot quoting the gak out of the right and vice versa that has gone on many many times before. So ill stay clear of that.

All i will say is, peoples holier than thou attitude is annoying to me. People like Fraz and FW and me are allowed our more right leaning opinions, but when rebutting us, people love to try and gain some sort of, smug, percieved moral superiority. Sure i might be a better person if i wasnt slightly intolerant towards Islam, but we all have our own issues and biases, its a natural thing in a human brain, everyone dislikes something, and I just admit mine.

To be fair i have a hearty dislike for all the big three mono-theism, so at least im an equal opportunities employer.

And Albatross, how on earth do you get that i LOVE the Israelis? Dont you remember? We argued about this in person last time i saw you! Im well aware of the right wing Israelis celebration of the hotel bombing, and i absolutely do not love Israel. Why would i? Im an Englishman from Middlesbrough with no religious interest at all, and as a result i dislike them for the very same reasons i dislike Muslims, their dogmas and their lack of willingness to integrate, move forwards etc..

However, im a soldier at heart, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am absolutely convinced that the next major conflict is going to be us and the Yanks against an Islamic state, so i suggest you get used to cosying up to the Israelis mate.

Oh and i will add that every single British and American serviceman that has died in Iraq and Afghanistan has done do due to assistance from other Islamic states, and as a result, id be very happy with malleting the Iranians for openers.

We dont have the strength...

But the Israelis might help us out...

"Shalom!"

mattyrm wrote:

However, im a soldier at heart,

Just clarify since you brought it up:

I have zero issue with soldiers doing soldier's work. Orders are orders and soldiers are professionals who are doing their job. You can't fault soldiers for doing what they are tasked to do.

My issue is with Governments and big business/contractors being in bed with each other and with politicians personally profiting off of wars they initiated.

Initiating a war that grows the stock portfolios of your friends/associates and yourself seems a very distasteful conflict of interest and makes one wonder what the real motivation was to begin with.

How much money has gone into the pockets of political and contractor fat cats since Bush claimed "Mission Accomplished" on that carrier?

Profitting from death and destruction that you initiated is FUBAR.

As for the Mosque in NY, I don't think we can really complain about this and still claim we ar ea nation that believes in freedom of religion.

Disgusting...

This whole thing is a fascinating example of how yellow journalism and picking your phrases right can get people to side with you, and how they will then cling to that position regardless.
The number of people who have pointed out that the Mosque isn't at Ground Zero, that's it's not a new building, that muslims are already worshipping there, and then the amount of time it's taken other people to actually realise this...
Really interesting.

reds8n wrote:

sebster wrote: the Muslims building the mosque are not the Muslims who flew planes to the towers,

And being fair, I think if zombie Islamic terrorists were the ones doing the construction work there would be good grounds for worry and complaint.

They do very slapdash work and their H & S record is abysmal.

How can you complain about the H&S standards of zombies? They're zombies, it doesn't matter if you lop a finger off here or there. The zombies don't miss the fingers, why should we care for them?

Once again we see living people trying to enforce their standards on the dead, just to maintain an monopoly on inner city New York mosque construction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DutchKillsRambo wrote:What if they built the mosque but dedicated a small section to something along the lines of "Inter-Faith Relations Center". Wouldn't that both promote the ideas of healing and peace and silence some naysayers that claim this is about something else?

That's the intention of the planned building.

mattyrm wrote:However, im a soldier at heart, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I am absolutely convinced that the next major conflict is going to be us and the Yanks against an Islamic state, so i suggest you get used to cosying up to the Israelis mate.

Oh and i will add that every single British and American serviceman that has died in Iraq and Afghanistan has done do due to assistance from other Islamic states, and as a result, id be very happy with malleting the Iranians for openers.

We dont have the strength...

But the Israelis might help us out...

"Shalom!"

Hamas came to power as an undesirable alternative because the PLO were prevented, by us, from doing what they wanted to achieve peacefully. As far as we are concerned, Jews have always lived in Palestine. Before we interfered, there was peace. Get rid of Israel in terms of nationalist policy and the Middle East is solved. If not, it is the fault of our leaders for taking too long. Make them listen, if words alone will not stand. Iran's government won't have a foot to stand on, and if they cannot be easily dealt with then, then they are the second last step. It isn't going to happen, so go on being a soldier and do it the hard way. Your sacrifice is appreciated for what it's worth, and I only pity those who must serve the economic interests of arms manufacturerers.

Modern Zionism has nothing to do with religion, it is policy. Jews are not evil people, nor are Muslims. People still seem to think that middle eastern sentiment towards the west is completely without foundation, and/or utterly based on religion. For the most part, their leaders oppose what our leaders have done in the past, and continue to uphold without good reason but tit-for-tat. Religion is being used to incite people against others, and it is utterly wrong. I can happily admit that this incitement occurs much more in the middle east than here, but it does not mean that we are not misled simply because religion is not involved. I am not attacking religion, only how it is abused. As in the west, the people of those countries are not to blame for atrocities committed by those who irresponsibly wield power. There are no innocents in leadership. If you expect them to forgive and forget whilst under constant siege... well, I'd be breaking Dakka policy to comment further.

Look I never said all muslims were bad, if fact I said very much the opposite, that's kind of the point. Not all members of the National Socialist movement were evil, everyone that voted them in power and waived flags or attended the parades was not a world conqueror bent on the extinction of the Jews.

Also NOT ALL NATIONAL SOCIALISM HAS TO BE GERMANY"S WW2 NAZI"S. I've already given the definition of the National Socialist political party as a movement. You can have a National socialist party in America, that would not be after killing all the Jews and conquering the world. By Definition its Socialism with a Nationalistic slant ie no imports, localized labor etc.

Every time you Label all national socialists as NAZI, you are just being ignorant, and jumping to the same conclusion that all muslims are terrorists.

By your arguments all Communists are are Russian WW2 Stalinists.......Its just not the case.

So if someone built a National Socialist Headquarters in Auschwitz it would be pretty Disrespectful. And you would have to wonder why they were doing it. They might be fine.....but the average person would still have to wonder.

Here is an interesting bit

http://usa.greekreporter.com/2010/07/23/st-nicholas-of-manhattan-in-ruins-while-mosque-rises/

George Demos, the Conservative Republican Candidate for Congress in New York’s First Congressional District issued the following statement on the proposed mosque amid the sacred ruins of Ground Zero and expressed outrage at our own government’s refusal to rebuild the only house of worship that was actually destroyed on September 11th- the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.

George Demos said:

“On September 11, 2001, over 3,000 Americans, including 168 residents of our community in Suffolk County, were taken from us by the evil acts of Islamic extremists bent on destroying our freedoms. Amid the thick smoke and choking ashes of that fateful day, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was reduced to dust.

Since 1922, St. Nicholas Church had stood as a quiet sanctuary of prayer and reflection amidst the tumultuous and bustling crossroads of commerce. For nine years the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey has used bureaucratic obstacles and false promises to hinder the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church. This must end and it must end now.

What an outrage that our government has put roadblocks in the path of its own citizens trying rebuild their beloved Church destroyed by Islamic extremists, while Saudi Arabia, a nation that prohibits people from even wearing a Cross or the Star of David, now provokes the families of those who lost loved ones by apparently funneling money to build a mosque at the same location.

As our Congressman, I will always remember that our Constitutional freedom of religion starts with respecting our own sacred Judeo-Christian heritage. Now is the time for the Port Authority to stop hiding behind its bureaucracy and to facilitate the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church that was taken from us on that quiet September morning nearly a decade ago.”

So the city stands in the way of a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in the 911 attacks, but allows a Mosque to be built.

Andrew1975 wrote:Not all members of the National Socialist movement were evil, everyone that voted them in power and waived flags or attended the parades was not a world conqueror bent on the extinction of the Jews.

The people that voted the National Socialists into power were not necessarily National Socialists themselves. Neither partisan, nor ideological affiliation are determined entirely by vote. However, all people that can be properly called National Socialists were National Socialists who believed in National Socialism, which is antisemitic.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So the city stands in the way of a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in the 911 attacks, but allows a Mosque to be built.

St. Nicholas has three problems at this point:

1) Its southern foundation is above the vehicle security complex for the proposed memorial tower; meaning that any delay regarding the memorial tower is likely to impact the church.

2) The proposed alternate location for the church is on Port Authority land, which invites obvious complications regarding ownership.

3) The organization supporting St. Nicholas church now wants to build a marble domed structure that would be 6 times the size of the original church.

Because a Church hasn't been able to rebuild itself we shouldn't allow other organizations to exist? The city isn't paying for either, though I would be willing to bet St. Nicholas would be able to get some government funds because of it's age, so it isn't really a fair comparison. One is about people putting an inter-faith center in a building and the other is about repairing a building. One needed a building permit and the other needs a contractor.

"I say we build a long, skinny mosque all along our southern border with Mexico."

Dennis Miller

And Albatross, how on earth do you get that i LOVE the Israelis? Dont you remember? We argued about this in person last time i saw you! Im well aware of the right wing Israelis celebration of the hotel bombing, and i absolutely do not love Israel.

I know. I was just teasing.

I am absolutely convinced that the next major conflict is going to be us and the Yanks against an Islamic state, so i suggest you get used to cosying up to the Israelis mate.

Like in the First Gulf W... Oh. Ah, the Second Gulf Wa... Nope, they weren't involved THERE either. Or in Afghanistan.

Mate, you are aware that a considerable amount of the west's problems in the middle-east stem from our association with Israel, aren't you? They don't hate us for no reason.

Also, the classification of "major conflict" is dubious. We wiped out Iraqs military in a matter of days and that was one of the best in the region.

In addition, any Israeli involvement in a US/UK-led coalition against another middle-east country would probably ignite the whole region.

speedfreak wrote:

In the Muslim world there are large, powerful, dangerous radicals, who are intent on destroying Israel and Western culture. .

Yes and The U.S . armed and trained many of them.

And lets be honest The 2nd Iraq war wasn't initially about the war on terror, it started by convincing us of WMDS and a supposed imminent threat ( as an excuse to topple Saddam), then it was about securing oil reserves (again gotta keep those stock portfolios healthy), then as we occupied and things bogged down (tends to happen when you topple a government and decimate all infrastructure with no plan for how to reinstate them) Radicals flocked to Iraq as it presented an opportunity (literally and symbolically) to fight America. OF course this then allowed Bush and his Warmongers to say "Iraq is an Al-Queda stronghold". Self-fufillig prophecy.

And let's not forget the main reason Jr. wanted to get into Iraq before his presidency ended: He wanted to bloody the nose of the guy that had tried to hurt his daddy.

So all those civilian deaths of women, children, elderly and other non-combatives are akin to premeditated murder on the part of the Bush regime as far as I'm concerned...

CT GAMER wrote:

And lets be honest The 2nd Iraq war wasn't initially about the war on terror, it started by convincing us of WMDS...

What's worse is that it was recently revealed that Hans Blix had -repeatedly- investigated Iraq for WMDs and -repeatedly- told both Bush and the US Congress that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Iraq had WMDs. And this was long before the invasion.

Hans Brix! Hans Brix!

"...there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Iraq had WMDs. And this was long before the invasion." I dunno, dude. I think the US congress thought the Iraqis had WMD because they had sold them WMD in the 80s.

They were there for the oil and the Babylonian Stargate. The last thing they needed was Saddam getting in tight with the Annunaki.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.

I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.

Goliath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.

I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.

Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.

Ahtman wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.

I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.

Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.

But...doesn't that mean you can then say the same of a mainstream islamic area having to deal with a (distinct in it's dogma) radical mosque?

Yes alb i am aware, its pretty much the only reason they all hate us isnt it? I mean, sure they disaprove of our "decadent" lifestyles but nothing worth a bombing.

And Shuma, thats true enough, i was one of the first into Iraq ( 42 commando were tasked to secure the GOSPs with a night raid prior to shock and awe!) and was told to expect "heavy resistance from the elite republican guard"

When we arrived with enough ammo to kill a Chinese Battalion, 90% of them had gone home to bed and the rest had their hands up.

Oh and they kept asking us for cake?

What,as in "Kendall Mint" ?

... hmm... I wonder if simply providing cakes, pastries and gateaux might be a devastatingly effective new weapon in our ongoing struggles.

Are you all sure this story hasnt been embellished a lot.

Where exactly is this mosque to be in relation to Ground Zero?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.

I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.

Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.

But...doesn't that mean you can then say the same of a mainstream islamic area having to deal with a (distinct in it's dogma) radical mosque?

Your sentence structure is confusing and vague. It seems like your trying to say that because mainstream forms of Christianity are different than white power groups then all forms of Islam are radical. Which obliviously makes no sense unless you misunderstood my point that mainstream forms Islam shouldn't be confused for radical. The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So...building a Church in a black part of town (if you have those ) is insensitive because the Klu Klux Klan was an extreme sect of Christianity?

EDIT: Hey, someone has used this example already.

I've noticed a slight hole in my argument here,
It's more like building a church in a black part of town in which the Black community worships hinduism, because otherwise the church would be among people of the same religion.

Eh, KKK followers form of Christian thinking is radically different enough to be considered distinct from (what would most likely be) a Baptist Church.

But...doesn't that mean you can then say the same of a mainstream islamic area having to deal with a (distinct in it's dogma) radical mosque?

Your sentence structure is confusing and vague. It seems like your trying to say that because mainstream forms of Christianity are different than white power groups then all forms of Islam are radical. Which obliviously makes no sense unless you misunderstood my point that mainstream forms Islam shouldn't be confused for radical. The vast majority of American Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.

What he's saying is that you are arguing that the KKK should be viewed as entirely separate from "normal" christianity, due to their radical ideas.
This is exactly the same distinction that should be made between most muslims and terrorist radicals.