"Ground Zero Mosque" Approved

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.

**Kilkrazy**

mattyrm wrote: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.

So many muslims disapprove of our western decadent lifestyles that our governments spend millions to keep them out of emigrating here, and their own governments at home spend millions trying to stop them from pursuing those lifestyles where they live at the moment.

**Emperors Faithful**

Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of ~~American~~ Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.

Almost, but not quite.

Goliath wrote:
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.

Yeah, that. He just said it betterer though.

**Ahtman**

Goliath wrote: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.

This is what is confusing: you are agreeing with me, yet keep doing so in such a fashion as to come across as disagreeing. I say "'X' is good" and then you say "no no no, 'X' is good". I can't tell if you are reiterating my exact point because you misinterpret what I am typing or just because you agree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of ~~American~~ Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.

Almost, but not quite.

I made the distinction because we are talking about American Muslims building a mosque within the United States. Somehow we have broadened it as if this is about all of Islam. Much like every religion, each region has a distinct flavor.

**Albatross**

mattyrm wrote: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.
...Oh and they kept asking us for cake?

Cake is pretty decadent. Just saying.

Of course it isn't the only reason they hate the West. There are also other reasons, not least among them the fact that the UK and USA have between them a pretty long history of imperial game-playing in the region, both formally (UK) and informally (USA).

Buddhists, Hindus and Orthodox Jews and Christians also believe we have a decadent lifestyle, but there are relatively few (if any) terrorist organisations affiliated with those religions that want to bomb British and American cities. The 'western decadence/jealousy' argument is the sort of thing Glenn Beck or Fateweaver (

) would use. It's a tiny part of what actually motivates people to blow themselves up and kill civilians.

**Frazzled**

Then why is the East hated as well?

Kashmir
Thailand
China
blah blah

**Laughing Man**

Frazzled wrote:Then why is the East hated as well?

Kashmir
Thailand
China
blah blah

Kashmir is primarily a territorial dispute, which, given the radically different cultures of Pakistan and India, has of course boiled over into a ethnic/religious conflict. China and Thailand both have horrendous human rights records, especially when dealing with religion. The Thai insurgency in particular is as much an ethnic conflict as anything, with the rebels identifying more strongly with Malaysia than Thailand.

**Frazzled**

India? Sudan?

**Ahtman**

Albatross wrote:Buddhists, Hindus and Orthodox Jews and Christians also believe we have a decadent lifestyle

Admittedly my Hindu and Sick isn't as extremely thorough as my Buddhist dealings I don't get that vibe from the majority of them. I absolutely don't get it from the Buddhists who I deal with with great frequency. Of course, like trying to sum up all of Christiandom under one blanket is really disengenious, so it is also true the Buddhism has a good deal of plurality in it's expression so you may be thinking of a specific group I am not considering, but generally I find fault with your statement.

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:Then why is the East hated as well?

Kashmir
Thailand
China
blah blah

..for any new members of the board ; by "blah blah" he actually means Lichtenstein.

We're wise to your cunning wiles !

**Frazzled**

Exactly. Against the power rising in the East (Leichtenstein), there can be No Victory!

**Laughing Man**

Frazzled wrote:India? Sudan?

The same India that's fighting over Kashmir? The Kashmir already mentioned above? I think you're starting to repeat yourself.

As for Sudan, it suffers from the same issues as much of the Middle East: A century of European colonialism, followed by decades of civil war due in part to the British policy of segregating the Muslim population. In general, the Arab world suffers from one hell of a persecution complex. The problem is, it's extremely well justified, and every time Western countries intervene we simply throw more fuel on the fire.

**Frazzled**

Laughing Man wrote:
Frazzled wrote:India? Sudan?

The same India that's fighting over Kashmir? The Kashmir already mentioned above? I think you're starting to repeat yourself.

As for Sudan, it suffers from the same issues as much of the Middle East: A century of European colonialism, followed by decades of civil war due in part to the British policy of segregating the Muslim population. In general, the Arab world suffers from one hell of a persecution complex. The problem is, it's extremely well justified, and every time Western countries intervene we simply throw more fuel on the fire.

No India. The internal conflicts there.

So the Sudanese are wiping out the indigineous populations in the South because of the British?

ok. I see now. If someone from the West ever set foot in the country then you can do whatever you want. Gotcha.

What about Somalia? We don't have squat to do with Somalia except making the mistake of trying to help feed a bunch of starving people for a while.

**Goliath**

Ahtman wrote:
Goliath wrote: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.

This is what is confusing: you are agreeing with me, yet keep doing so in such a fashion as to come across as disagreeing. I say "'X' is good" and then you say "no no no, 'X' is good". I can't tell if you are reiterating my exact point because you misinterpret what I am typing or just because you agree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of ~~American~~ Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.

Almost, but not quite.

I made the distinction because we are talking about American Muslims building a mosque within the United States. Somehow we have broadened it as if this is about all of Islam. Much like every religion, each region has a distinct flavor.

Sorry about the confusion, I think I misinterpreted your response to Emperor's Faithful

I think that we are in agreement, just that EF's addendum to your original comment was misinterpreted slightly, and that led to a mistinterpretation, and so on and so forth...

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
Laughing Man wrote:
Frazzled wrote:India? Sudan?

The same India that's fighting over Kashmir? The Kashmir already mentioned above? I think you're starting to repeat yourself.

As for Sudan, it suffers from the same issues as much of the Middle East: A century of European colonialism, followed by decades of civil war due in part to the British policy of segregating the Muslim population. In general, the Arab world suffers from one hell of a persecution complex. The problem is, it's extremely well justified, and every time Western countries intervene we simply throw more fuel on the fire.

No India. The internal conflicts there.

So the Sudanese are wiping out the indigineous populations in the South because of the British?

ok. I see now. If someone from the West ever set foot in the country then you can do whatever you want. Gotcha.

What about Somalia? We don't have squat to do with Somalia except making the mistake of trying to help feed a bunch of starving people for a while.

So are we just listing gakky places now or what? What is the aim of this conversation?

**Orlanth**

Ok guys this new mosque is to be build within two blocks of ground zero. In manty places in Manhattan two blocks is the difference between well to do apartments and hell holes filled with muggers.

This story has been blown out of all proportion.

**Ahtman**

Orlanth wrote:This story has been blown out of all proportion.

That was pointed out on page one and multiple times thereafter but it hasn't been able to slow this train down.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
No India. The internal conflicts there.

Which have as much to do with Maoist terrorism, and Hindutva organizations as Islam.

India is a deeply divided state with a large wealth gap, and weak central government. Its the sort of place that is bound to be riddled with conflict.

Frazzled wrote:
So the Sudanese are wiping out the indigineous populations in the South because of the British?

In part. The British helped to set up the current political situation in the state, which should really be two independent nations. However, there are other factors at work as well; namely the foreign support of non-Arab, agricultural terrorist organizations.

Frazzled wrote:
What about Somalia? We don't have squat to do with Somalia except making the mistake of trying to help feed a bunch of starving people for a while.

Somalia is a matter of ethnic, and factional conflict. The nation is almost 100% Sunni Muslim.

The hatred of the West really is fairly unique, and directly tied to colonialism. You won't find jihadists talking about the evils of the decadent East; possibly because the Islam encountered in the East is very different, and for more factional, than that encountered in the Middle East.

**CT GAMER**

ShumaGorath wrote: What is the aim of this conversation?

I think the idea is to drag it out until someone becomes conveniently "offended" at something posted and convinces a mod they feel violated.

That seems to be standard operating procedure...

**Albatross**

Ahtman wrote:
Albatross wrote:Buddhists, Hindus and Orthodox Jews and Christians also believe we have a decadent lifestyle

Admittedly my Hindu and Sick isn't as extremely thorough as my Buddhist dealings I don't get that vibe from the majority of them. I absolutely don't get it from the Buddhists who I deal with with great frequency. Of course, like trying to sum up all of Christiandom under one blanket is really disengenious, so it is also true the Buddhism has a good deal of plurality in it's expression so you may be thinking of a specific group I am not considering, but generally I find fault with your statement.

So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.

As far as the judeo-christian side of things: sex/co-habiting before marriage, homosexuality, adultery, abortion... Orthodox Jewish women aren't even allowed to touch or show their hair to any man who isn't their husband or a memeber of their immediate family.

All of these things are fairly common in western society.

**ShumaGorath**

So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.

I don't think you should be talking about hinduism as a hegemonic entity. It's the single most diverse and sectionalized religion in the history of mankind. There are literally thousands of different belief structures within the framework of "hinduism" and over one million different worshipped spirits/gods/entities.

As far as the judeo-christian side of things: sex/co-habiting before marriage, homosexuality, adultery, abortion... Orthodox Jewish women aren't even allowed to touch or show their hair to any man who isn't their husband or a memeber of their immediate family.

All of these things are fairly common in western society.

One can follow a religion without following it zealously or adhering to every principle.

**Ahtman**

Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.

**sebster**

Orlanth wrote:Ok guys this new mosque is to be build within two blocks of ground zero. In manty places in Manhattan two blocks is the difference between well to do apartments and hell holes filled with muggers.

This story has been blown out of all proportion.

There's people trying to get all outraged over the Muslim occupation of America. Who are you to ruin their fun?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.

I think if the Hindus were to get militant about rampant materialism they'd probably worry about India before worrying about the rest of us. But given that India is embracing materialism in ways that we'd think garish, I'm not sure they're that big an issue. That said, there are some hard line Hindu groups, and sometimes they even wield power in Indian government. But then they basically just try and provoke Pakistan and complain about women being sluts, and leave us in the West alone. Except Richard Gere, but he had it coming.

**Kilkrazy**

Someone was asking to be violated by a moderator.

**efarrer**

Frazzled wrote:India? Sudan?

Dude, I'll give you the Sudan.

But India's another kettle of tea. The government of India seems happy to allow Hindu terrorists to attack both Muslims and Christians.

**Kilkrazy**

There's a lot of money to be made by selling terrorism licences. India is a poor country. They have to compromise for the moment, but once they have got their own economy up to scratch, they'll make terrorism illegal again.

**Albatross**

ShumaGorath wrote:
So our rampant materialism isn't contrary to Buddist/Hindu philosophy? Cool, I learnt something new. Also alcohol, drugs, meat-eating and violence.

I don't think you should be talking about hinduism as a hegemonic entity. It's the single most diverse and sectionalized religion in the history of mankind. There are literally thousands of different belief structures within the framework of "hinduism" and over one million different worshipped spirits/gods/entities.

Yeah, thanks for the lesson. You're missing my point. You're also using the word 'hegemonic' incorrectly, unless you're referring to Hinduism's position as the dominant force in Indian religious life, in which case it would be correct to refer to Hinduism as the religious 'hegemon'. 'Homogeneous' maybe?

As far as the judeo-christian side of things: sex/co-habiting before marriage, homosexuality, adultery, abortion... Orthodox Jewish women aren't even allowed to touch or show their hair to any man who isn't their husband or a memeber of their immediate family.

All of these things are fairly common in western society.

One can follow a religion without following it zealously or adhering to every principle.

**Emperors Faithful**

Goliath wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Goliath wrote: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.

This is what is confusing: you are agreeing with me, yet keep doing so in such a fashion as to come across as disagreeing. I say "'X' is good" and then you say "no no no, 'X' is good". I can't tell if you are reiterating my exact point because you misinterpret what I am typing or just because you agree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
The vast majority of ~~American~~ Muslims are not to be confused or compared to the Taliban.

Almost, but not quite.

I made the distinction because we are talking about American Muslims building a mosque within the United States. Somehow we have broadened it as if this is about all of Islam. Much like every religion, each region has a distinct flavor.

So we just mininterpereted a previous minterperation? Sweet. We good now?

Sorry about the confusion, I think I misinterpreted your response to Emperor's Faithful

I think that we are in agreement, just that EF's addendum to your original comment was misinterpreted slightly, and that led to a mistinterpretation, and so on and so forth...

**Kilkrazy**

Albatross wrote:

Shuma already pointed out the problem with bringing up Hinduism so I shall just go with the Buddhist issue. Having things isn't against Buddhism; Buddhism isn't equal to asceticism. It generally isn't concerned with having things, it is concerned with our relationship to said things. A guy with practically nothing that is enamored and hoards things is more of an issue than a man that has a ton of material goods but understands his relationship to them.

Sounds like a peculiarly American equivocation to me. I could be wrong of course. Also, see above.

You're wrong. There are similar things in Christianity.

For example, "Money is the root of all kinds of Evil" -- the correct quotation is, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of Evil".

Similarly, there is a commandment against coveting your neighbour's ass, but not against having your own ass.

Also see the traditional interpretation of the seven deadly sins.

**Henners91**

mattyrm wrote:Its a tough one to be sure, you cant punish all muslims for the acts of a few, and yet... i cant help but be annoyed about it.

Islam has always been an aggressive religion, and people that claim otherwise are not aware of the facts, indeed, people who arent even muslim themselves are the ones that seem to take great offence to any and all miniscule criticisms of Islam.

Christian difficulties with the Arab world did not commence with the crusades but with the birth of Islam itself, Muhammads faith has always rejected other faiths. The prophets followers preached that "people of the book" (Jews and Christians) could be tolerated as second class Dhimmis, but they have never been granted total equality as we seem so constantly eager to do here in the west.

While Christian communities in the arab world continue to disapear (The Christian population of Bethlehem has gone from 90% to less than 25%, and Lebanon 60% to 27%) the only place in the middle east where Christian communities have expanded is Israel, where since 1949 the number of Arab Christians has gone up by 345%!

Ergo, i know it is wrong to penalise all Muslims for the behaviour of terrorists, but do Muslims not penalise Christians? Look into it a tad (i got the figures above from a cop of National Geographic) and you will find that they absolutely do. It smacks of double standards to me that we seem so eager to bloody please when they dont give us the same treatment back.

I really dont have a logical answer to this conundrum as i think you can make a convincing argument both for and against.

I also now await KK to delete all of my text due to this post possibly registering above 10% of the not-politically correct-o-meter. Im pretty sure it passes on the actual fact-o-meter however, and that is the one that should concern people.

Despite being an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that considers Jesus Christ a prophet? Surely to a moderate Muslim our only disagreement is over the divinity of Jesus Christ? Surely on that basis we should show blind intolerance to the Jews as well, oh wait...

As for spread by conquest? What about the Teutonic crusades against Lithuania? Or the conquest and subjugation of the Americas? The propagation of Christianity as a means for control in Africa? You can't say that Christianity can't hold a flame to one era of rapid expansion in Arab history, especially when that expansion (of the religion) was hand-in-hand with the expansion of the racial group.

As for declining populations in Bethlehem and Lebanon... I suppose considering Israel a culprit never entered your head? For starters, in Lebanon there was a little war nobody noticed and in Israel, there are numerous cases of violence against Christians.

**JEB_Stuart**

Ah the off-topic boards. Work! What have you been denying me these past months?!