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.

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

5 tops.

I give it 6 pages, since the mods seem to have not killed it off yet.

In any case, I agree that this is Maximum Trolling. That's just how the American "Public" are.

I'm willing to bet on three. Frazzled hasn't been around lately to troll OT into submission and the other mods have been getting jumpy.

Plus KK likes posting 'correct' and then closing threads. A window opens...

..this is why you're never allowed nice things...

IBTL


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Huh, I thought that was a notice of closure.

Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.

It's under reported because it's complete bs sold by the worst elements of the right wing garbage press. Feisal Abdul Rauf is part of the sufi element of Islam, the most spiritual and peaceful element of Islam. He's an American born citizen who believes strongly in the commonality of US and Islamic beliefs - he wrote a book called "What's Right with Islam is What's Right the US". His entire political cause is to improve relations between Islam and the West.

The idea that he's a radical is under-reported because it's complete gak. Stop listening to media sources that lie to you.

I think I'll remain optimistic about this. Acceptance might take a long time, but better late than never, right?

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Huh, I thought that was a notice of closure.

reds8n wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Huh, I thought that was a notice of closure.

Okay? I did not understand that, But yes the tread will soon run out of steam I predict

Arctik_Firangi wrote:I'm willing to bet on three. Frazzled hasn't been around lately to troll OT into submission and the other mods have been getting jumpy.

Plus KK likes posting 'correct' and then closing threads. A window opens...

I'm going to keep a close eye on this one.

Stormrider wrote:Something missing here is the views of the Imam who is establishing this Mosque. He is a big supporter of Hamas and thinks that the US should be more Sharia compliant. I have no problem with Islam (in the words of Samuel Adams: "I am no bigot, I will pray with any man"), just a problem with the chronic under-reporting of this Cleric's views.

Very true.

Why is it named Cordoba?

I think the important question we have to ask ourselves is, how is Batman going to handle this situation?

Remember, be sure to account for the Batdrift angle!



EDIT: You're right though. This is a serious topic. So we should approach it seriously. A serious topic approached seriously needs serious WEINER DOG!

Phryxis wrote:

Islam is a religion. Like all religions, it's possible to make arguments that it says virtually anything.

Religions are more like languages for morality than actual dictates for morality. They provide the language, the anecdotes, the framework for the understanding of morality. They don't actually force any specific conclusion, or at least don't do so as strongly as people like to believe.

The "anecdotes" I have seen are quotes from the Quran.
The Quran is the Word of God for Muslims as you probably know.

If someone is a fundamentalist, they take what is written literally.
If they take what is written about not using violence literally then they won't commit acts of terroism.

Sadly this doesn't happen. Words are misappropriated for political ends.
The problem is not religion, but the cultural and political context of the religion.

Take the word Jihad. It is not about waging war on others.
It is a holy war that is effected within oneself.

I am not so niave as to suppose there is a single interpretation of holy texts.
On the other hand there are those that misinterperate the Word of God to fulfil their political ends.
In the West Islam get portrayed only from that distorted perspective.

My point is that there exist Muslims who interpret the Quran in a way that facilitates co-existence with non-believers in a peaceful way.

Frazzled wrote:

Hurrah! The cavalry have arrived!

I think an important question to ask is, if they are not allowed to build a Mosque 2 blocks from the site of the WTC disaster, what is the limit?

5 blocks? 10? All of New York?

Colossal Donkey wrote:I can't believe you would accept something that essentially contradicts western beliefs so readily at the site of one the greatest religious atrocities of our time

You may accept them at the moment, just wait until the boot is on the other foot. Bigotry will be the Wests salvation. We too readily accept incompatible countries/beliefs hoping to change them over time but nothing changes. The acceptance is nothing but negative reinforcement. Rewarding the act before it is complete is entirely futile.

Brother Donkey is correct, by the Emperor we must eliminate the foul Xenos before they have a chance to propagate and threaten our perfect Imperium!

Heh, and there I was thinking we enjoyed those sentiments in 40k because we considered it ironic.

If a Hooters went up next to the Mosque, I would be convinced we are headed in the right direction.

Stormrider wrote:

They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.

You mean like this?




In those day, they DREW pictures of what they wanted rather than snap photos and photoshop them.

WarOne wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

They have no interest in any real reporting anymore, it's all sensationalist, take everything out of context, who can get to the flaming wreckage first. Not real objective journalism.

You mean like this?




In those day, they DREW pictures of what they wanted rather than snap photos and photoshop them.

Good old Yellow Journalism.

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.

mattyrm wrote:
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%!

My partner's Arab Christian family was forced out of Bethlehem by Israelis, along with the majority of of non-Jews at the time. 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.

The thing is, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity.

The only thing is that the two "sides" have reversed since the Dark Ages.

In the Dark Ages, Western Europe was a Backwards, heavily Theocratic and intolerant of non-Christians and had the sole achievement of inventing a better kind of horse collar, while the Arab world were at the forefront of scientific, mathematic and technological achievement, had a largely secular way of governance and tolerated non-Muslims. A great example is the Ottoman Empire.

In Modern times, it sadly is the reverse.

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity.

The only thing is that the two "sides" have reversed since the Dark Ages.

In the Dark Ages, Western Europe was a Backwards, heavily Theocratic and intolerant of non-Christians, while the Arab world were at the forefront of scientific, mathematic and technological achievement, had a largely secular way of governance and tolerated non-Muslims. A great example is the Ottoman Empire.

In Modern times, it sadly is the reverse.

And the worst part is, as to my knowledge, much of the "barbaricism" that we associate with the Middle East, happened relatively recently. The militant, rigid, murderous, cultish groups that have essentially taken over in many parts, are IMHO, the root of the problem, not the religion it self.

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.

mattyrm wrote:
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.

Anti-policies of Israel != Anti-Jew. Don't do that.

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

You can't hide the statistics but you can interpret them correctly.

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.

Obviously it's much easier to be fair minded and impartial when your information comes from various biased news sources instead of experience. After all, the news is never misleading about ANYTHING.

Good point raised about the "acceptable radius" a mosque would be allowed in. If someone wanted to build an anti-american monument near Ground Zero, I'd be really angry. As it is, accepting religious views seems to be one of the things America is GOOD at, so why not let it go?

As i said Boss, i think you can make a case for both sides of the argument, we (both the US/UK specificially seeing as they are the main combatants in the "war on terror") like to harp on about our fairness and our freedoms and such, so its a plus point to take the moral high ground.

But at the same time, we allow muslims and all religions 100% freedom anyway, there is no such thing as Dhimmi status in America or Britain for example, certain faiths dont have to pay more taxes and people are free to worship whatever the hell they like, so why oh why MUST they have a mosque at ground zero?

I see both sides of the debate, and i admit no easy answers, all it boils down to is individual tastes, and knowing people like i do, im willing to bet that a majority of New Yorkers would oppose it. I listend to them discuss this for an hour on "the frosty heidi and frank show" yesterday and out of maybe 20 callers i think one guy was happy with it. (although that show goes out in California and not NYC)

Who are we to tell them otherwise?

Religious freedom was one is the reasons the Pilgrims left for the New World in the first place. That said...

I can see why some people would be upset, and I think mattyrm made a few good points there. Having actually read some of the Quran, I'd say that calling Islam a "Religion of Peace" is a bit misguided.

Haddi wrote: The militant, rigid, murderous, cultish groups that have essentially taken over in many parts, are IMHO, the root of the problem, not the religion it self.

This sums up my thoughts quite succinctly really. I don't really anything that special or different between any of the worlds religions as such, it's which..hmm.. denomination ? Philosophy ? Bunch of old guys with beards anyway normally, happens to be the dominant faction at the time that causes the problems.

Da Boss wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
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.

Anti-policies of Israel != Anti-Jew. Don't do that.

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

You can't hide the statistics but you can interpret them correctly.

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.

Obviously it's much easier to be fair minded and impartial when your information comes from various biased news sources instead of experience. After all, the news is never misleading about ANYTHING.

Good point raised about the "acceptable radius" a mosque would be allowed in. If someone wanted to build an anti-american monument near Ground Zero, I'd be really angry. As it is, accepting religious views seems to be one of the things America is GOOD at, so why not let it go?

Why is it named Cordoba again?

This whole thing reminds me of those stories you see in the tabloids that are along the lines of 'RELEASED PAEDO GIVEN FLAT 5 MINS WALK FROM KIDDIES PLAYGROUND!!!'

It's not like they're building it from WTC debris in the middle of 'Ground Zero' - it's down the road. As someone pointed out, it's a non-story.

Frazzled wrote:Why is it named Cordoba again?

It isn't, it is Cobra La

Frazzled wrote:Very true.

No, it wasn't true. It was bs, as I pointed out above. But you ignored that. Because it's more fun to rant than to be right.

Stormrider wrote:Good old Yellow Journalism.

Yeah, that was yellow journalism. The rubbish about the creator of the mosque being an extremist is also yellow journalism. When it was pointed out to you above that the accusations were bs you didn't reconsider your answer or address the issue in any way.

The basic method of yellow journalism, that you apparently dislike, is to throw baseless accusations out there, and ignore or talk around any rebuttal that points out how crap those accusations are. You're doing what you were claiming the media were so bad at.

Yellow journalism works because most people are not that honest with themselves. If they hear something they like they'll accept it an repeat it, and ignore any subsequent reports that it wasn't true. If you don't like yellow journalism, man up and be honest enough to recognise that accusations against the creator of the mosque were yellow journalism.

mattyrm wrote:Ergo, i know it is wrong to penalise all Muslims for the behaviour of terrorists, but do Muslims not penalise Christians?

Yes, they do. The treatment of religious minorities of all stripes in many countries around the world is poor.

It smacks of double standards to me that we seem so eager to bloody please when they dont give us the same treatment back.

Only if you consider the 'sides' to be Christians and Muslims. Which is the kind of thinking that leads to all the religious conflict and persecution you and most of the rest of us are opposed to. The actual sides that really matter are 'people who don't target someone because of their religion' and 'people who do'.

Im pretty sure it passes on the actual fact-o-meter however, and that is the one that should concern people.

Nah, it was just more of the same old clash of cultures drivel.

Frazzled wrote:Why is it named Cordoba again?

Because it was a prosperous and advanced Islamic region, a time of peace between Islam and Christianity, and with a strong history of Sufism - the particular form of Islam followed by the people wanting to build the mosque.

Again, this guy is all about peaceful relations between Islam and the West. He opposes extremism. He wrote a book called "What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America". He is moderate. Stop the bs.