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.

Haddi wrote: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?

There are people who don't think muslims should be allowed to build mosques anywhere at all.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why is it named Cordoba again?

It isn't, it is Cobra La

Ahtman understands, its all Cobra Commander's plan!

To me it just screams insult and a lack of understanding and consideration. You can ask all you want about why people don't want it there. As misguided and irrational as you may believe these protesters are, they are the people of New York city and they were there, I think their opinions should be respected and listened to.

Lets face it it is a tender spot, putting a Mosque there is going to cause problems and hurt feeling. To many people it is Tantamount to building a WW2 victory monument at Hiroshima. so why do it? Do you really need to put it in the shadow of 911? Is that really necessary? Is it even smart? Many people will see it as a slap in the face and I think the muslim religion as a whole needs to do some bonding a PR work with America. I think the thought alone to build the Mosque there was in bad taste. The fact that they continued to plan after there was a public outcry is pretty audacious. Now that they really have dug in their heel and are really fighting to build it their is beyond belief. Its callous, inconsiderate and does not speak of the peaceful and considerate islam that everyone tries to sell us in America.

Most people in America see islam like this. Walks like a duck. Talks like a Duck. Probably a Duck.

Some reasons people may be worried about Islam

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.

Taqiyya is a Koran supported deception technique used to trick your enemies into believing whatever you want them to. So even if you know good muslim people, can you really feel that they can be trusted?

Revolution Islam- A big one in new york city which John Stewart handles nicely http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/jon-stewart-stands-up-for_n_549178.html

I was going to make a list, but the amount of violence caused thought the world in the name of islam is ridiculous. Really most anywhere there is islam there is fighting. New York, London, Pakistan, Chechnya, Holland, France, Africa. This goes on and on forever.

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

So yeah there is apprehension. Maybe its just bad PR, but building the mosque so close to ground zero is not going to help alleviate the apprehension. Now people will say that it is not their job to alleviate these biased views. Maybe not. But maybe it would be smart of them if they would. Starting by backing away from ground Zero might be a a good start.

Sorry hit the submit button before i finished.

To me it just screams insult and a lack of understanding and consideration. You can ask all you want about why people don't want it there. As misguided and irrational as you may believe these protesters are, they are the people of New York city and they were there, I think their opinions should be respected and listened to.

I don't think irrationality should ever be listened to. Those people should toughen the feth up.

Lets face it it is a tender spot, putting a Mosque there is going to cause problems and hurt feeling, so why do it?

As an attempt to build bridges?

Do you really need to put it in the shadow of 911? Is that really necessary? Is it even smart? Many people will see it as a slap in the face and I think the muslim religion as a whole needs to do some bonding a PR work with America.

And here I thought thats what this was.

I think the thought alone to build the Mosque there was in bad taste. The fact that they continued to plan after there was a public outcry is pretty audacious. Now that they really have dug in their heel and are really fighting to build it their is beyond belief. Its callous, inconsiderate and does not speak of the peaceful and considerate islam that everyone tries to sell us in America.

And that public outcry makes america look like the land of religious freedom and opportunity it's talked up? Please, be more conflicting in the future, I can almost see the hot air balloon you're filling from space.

As for islam. Walks like a duck. Talks like a Duck. Quacks like a Duck.

You screwed up copy paste embed code.

Andrew1975 wrote:they are the people of New York city

No, they are some of the people from New York City. The people wanting to build the mosque are also people from New york City.

Andrew1975 wrote: Talks like a Duck. Quacks like a Duck.

Wouldn't talking like a duck and quaking like a duck be more or less the same thing?

Andrew1975 wrote:
Lets face it it is a tender spot, putting a Mosque there is going to cause problems and hurt feeling, so why do it? Do you really need to put it in the shadow of 911? Is that really necessary? Is it even smart? Many people will see it as a slap in the face and I think the muslim religion as a whole needs to do some bonding a PR work with America.

That is the announced purpose of the cultural center/mosque.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I think the thought alone to build the Mosque there was in bad taste. The fact that they continued to plan after there was a public outcry is pretty audacious. Now that they really have dug in their heel and are really fighting to build it their is beyond belief. Its callous, inconsiderate and does not speak of the peaceful and considerate islam that everyone tries to sell us in America.

Why not? It isn't as though the only people supporting this particular building are Muslim. Several Jewish organizations has come out in favor of it, as have several family members of 9/11 victims. To pretend that this is somehow a contest between Muslims and the rest of New York is disingenuous.

Andrew1975 wrote:
As for islam. Walks like a duck. Talks like a Duck. Quacks like a Duck.

So, its a religion?

Colossal Donkey wrote:
Bigotry will be the Wests salvation.

You also forgot an apostrophe there.

Andrew1975 wrote:
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.

There are several ways to separate the good Muslims from the bad ones, and they tend to be the same ways one would separate the good Christians from the bad ones; personal judgment and considered examination of evidence and experience. Sure, there is no central authority of the sort found in the Catholic Church, but that certainly hasn't helped them to avoid the boy touching priests referred to in the omitted section, or even terrorism. Not too many members of the IRA were excommunicated.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Taqiyya is a Koran supported deception technique used to trick your enemies into believing whatever you want them to. So even if you know good muslim people, can you really feel that they can be trusted?

The same is true of all people; even those without religious permission to conceal their beliefs when in danger.

Do we distrust all people because some of them are sociopaths, and good at concealing that fact? Yes, of course we do, which makes one wonder why we regard Muslims as especially distrustful when trust is itself irrational outside compelling circumstances.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Islam does not adjust to where it goes, but expects all others to adjust to it and accept it laws.

Islam doesn't do anything, as it is not a thing which can take actions. That would require it to be a contiguous group with some form of central authority, which you point out to be absent.

OH NOES!!!! THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING!!! LET ME cALL MY GRAND WIZARD AND START THE CROSS BURNING!!
*Sarcasm off.

Freedom of religon. Freedom to practice religon wherever they so please, as long as it doesn't violate another idviduals rights.
Last time I checked, having a mosque in NYC didn't violate anybodies rights. Neither does having a Church, or a Temple, or a Synagogue(sp?).

mattyrm wrote: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.

This. If you go to a predominantly Muslim country and place demands on their culture you'll end up in a jail or get your head handed to you... literally.

Traditionally it is forbidden for non-Miuslims to build new places of worship in Muslim lands. If your church burns down or gets destroyed by an earthquake... sorry. God must not like you.

It was a stupid idea in the first place. Nothing should go there except more buildings. It's the fething lower west side, The Fething business District!

Just throw up another building and call it a day. Did the japanese just leave nagasaki after it got nuked? NO, they picked things back up and now it's a thriving city.

The victim's families have my sympathies and it was a terrible thing. Still, there's no Fething reason to leave a prime piece of property in the lower west side vacant. It would be a waste of time to build anything that isn't related to business there, like a mosque. A museum isn't a good idea either, nor is a giant memorial in the middle of manhattan.

A City park would be a good idea, but you could really just walk up a couple blocks if you like that sort of thing.

Just my 2/100ths of a dollar.

The Green Git wrote:

mattyrm wrote: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.

This. If you go to a predominantly Muslim country and place demands on their culture you'll end up in a jail or get your head handed to you... literally.

Traditionally it is forbidden for non-Miuslims to build new places of worship in Muslim lands. If your church burns down or gets destroyed by an earthquake... sorry. God must not like you.

I think it's cute that you think that it matters what third world hellholes do and that you think we should match their conduct out of some sort of fairness I can only assume you picked up from a six year old. Your grasp of wacky revisionist history is neat also. Do you think that heavy things fall faster too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:It was a stupid idea in the first place. Nothing should go there except more buildings. It's the fething lower west side, The Fething business District!

Just throw up another building and call it a day. Did the japanese just leave nagasaki after it got nuked? NO, they picked things back up and now it's a thriving city.

The victim's families have my sympathies and it was a terrible thing. Still, there's no Fething reason to leave a prime piece of property in the lower west side vacant. It would be a waste of time to build anything that isn't related to business there, like a mosque. A museum isn't a good idea either, nor is a giant memorial in the middle of manhattan.

A City park would be a good idea, but you could really just walk up a couple blocks if you like that sort of thing.

Just my 2/100ths of a dollar.

I don't know if you knew this, but a mosque IS A BUILDING.

I mean a large, multi-story building. Mosques are about the size of a church, which would be dwarfed in NYC.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I mean a large, multi-story building. Mosques are about the size of a church, which would be dwarfed in NYC.

Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0, saying the 152-year-old building blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks wasn't special or distinctive enough to meet criteria to qualify as a landmark. Commissioners also said that other buildings from the era were better examples of the building's style.

Just because it's clear half of you don't actually know whats going on, they want to put a mosque into a building that is already standing and is blocks away from the WTC sites. It's ALREADY A BUILDING they're just putting a mosque in it. It's also unlikely that it will be the only operation within the structure itself and the structure was not destroyed in the attack. It's just kinda close. If you consider a few blocks kinda close.

Look this isn't about how Christians are treated in other countries. This is the USA. No not all muslims are evil, as a majority they are fine people. But the mosque is a bad move. If the idea is understanding and an olive branch, ,then why push it down peoples throats in a location that is unacceptable to many. Its just stupid. As much as they may resent any sense of culpability (rightly so). This is not the way to do it. Bridges need to, must be built. But not on such volatile ground. It should be a sign of respect not to build it there. Its an opportunity to win hearts an minds. Legally they have every right to build it, as they should. But morally it's not the brightest idea.

Lets try to improve relations with Hiroshima and Baghdad by flying the worlds largest U.S. Flag over them. See how that flys

Andrew1975 wrote:Lets try to improve relations with Hiroshima and Baghdad by flying the worlds largest U.S. Flag over them. See how that flys

Ever heard of the Occupation of Japan? You might want to give it a look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan

ShumaGorath wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I mean a large, multi-story building. Mosques are about the size of a church, which would be dwarfed in NYC.

Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0, saying the 152-year-old building blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks wasn't special or distinctive enough to meet criteria to qualify as a landmark. Commissioners also said that other buildings from the era were better examples of the building's style.

Just because it's clear half of you don't actually know whats going on, they want to put a mosque into a building that is already standing and is blocks away from the WTC sites. It's ALREADY A BUILDING they're just putting a mosque in it. It's also unlikely that it will be the only operation within the structure itself and the structure was not destroyed in the attack. It's just kinda close. If you consider a few blocks kinda close.

Ah. Okay. Actually, most of the people I've been talking to about this thought it was going to be on the site of the buildings. A couple blocks is pretty close. Thanks.

Andrew1975 wrote:If the idea is understanding and an olive branch, ,then why push it down peoples throats in a location that is unacceptable to many?

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.

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.

I don't think it is about that. But look at it logically. They are not wanted there by many people because of what happened in a close proximity. There has to be more that one vacant building in Manhattan. So build (remodel really) one somewhere else...unless of course thumb in the eye is your goal. That is going to be the perception. Why Must they build it there? Just move it. Be kind, rewind, relax, preach the good word of allah down the street. If the goal is to build bridges, why start by burning them?


Look this isn't about how Christians are treated in other countries. This is the USA. No not all muslims are evil, as a majority they are fine people. But the mosque is a bad move. If the idea is understanding and an olive branch, ,then why push it down peoples throats in a location that is unacceptable to many. Its just stupid. As much as they may resent any sense of culpability (rightly so). This is not the way to do it. Bridges need to, must be built. But not on such volatile ground. It should be a sign of respect not to build it there. Its an opportunity to win hearts an minds. Legally they have every right to build it, as they should. But morally it's not the brightest idea.

Lets try to improve relations with Hiroshima and Baghdad by flying the worlds largest U.S. Flag over them. See how that flys

The German people or better yet some current Nazi group should build a Nazi Party Headquarters that extols the virtues of Nazism and how it was a great political and social movement, its just too bad that some fanatics high jacked it, but we are really great people, join the party. Place that about 3 blocks from Auschwitz. I mean hey Neo Nazis didn't have the death camps, they weren't responsible, its a legitimate form of government. So what's the problem?

Albatross wrote: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.

Mate ive known you ten years and you disagree with everything i say! Since you moved to Manchester you have started reading the Guardian and eating wheat free cake haven't you!

HAVEN'T YOU!!!

The Green Git wrote:
This. If you go to a predominantly Muslim country and place demands on their culture you'll end up in a jail or get your head handed to you... literally.

So, in order to defend Western values like freedom of religion, we must act like those people whom we criticize for not allowing freedom of religion.

The Green Git wrote:
Traditionally it is forbidden for non-Miuslims to build new places of worship in Muslim lands. If your church burns down or gets destroyed by an earthquake... sorry. God must not like you.

That depends on the geographic location, and period of history. The Ottomans, notably, had few such provisions.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't think it is about that. But look at it logically. They are not wanted there by many people because of what happened in a close proximity. There has to be more that one vacant building in Manhattan. So build (remodel really) one somewhere else...unless of course thumb in the eye is your goal. That is going to be the perception. Why Must they build it there? Just move it. Be kind, rewind, relax, preach the good word of allah down the street. If the goal is to build bridges, why start by burning them?

I believe that, to some extent, it has been assumed that anyone who would object to the presence of this mosque is already too far on the other side of the debate to be reached; ie. if you blame Muslims in general for 9/11 there really is no reason to consider anything you have to say regarding the presence of a mosque near Ground Zero, as you would probably have some negative reaction to the presence of a mosque anywhere. The bridges to be built will not be constructed by those people who actively protest this type of thing, but by those who are either indifferent or yet to be born. In that sense, the choice of location was likely intended to be provocative in order to supply media attention; both good and bad. However, given the people involved in supporting the construction, I very much doubt that it has anything to with biting thumbs at the Great Satan.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If the idea is understanding and an olive branch, ,then why push it down peoples throats in a location that is unacceptable to many. Its just stupid.

The Civil Rights movement was largely about pushing acceptance down the throats of others.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The German people or better yet some current Nazi group should build a Nazi Party Headquarters that extols the virtues of Nazism and how it was a great political and social movement, its just too bad that some fanatics high jacked it, but we are really great people, join the party. Place that about 3 blocks from Auschwitz. I mean hey Neo Nazis didn't have the death camps, they weren't responsible, its a legitimate form of government. So what's the problem?

That's a false analogy, as the relationship between Nazism and Judaism is not the same as the relationship between Islam and terrorism. Nazi ideology is directly predicated on the inferiority of Jews, among others, whereas Islam is not directly predicated on the destruction of large buildings full of people.

Traditionally, foreign sects were allowed to build temples, synagogues and mosques in secular western democracies, because we practice tolerance, respect and equality before the law.

(Except for Greece.)

As we now resile from that position, perhaps we can hope that muslim countries will move towards it.

I can get why the people are upset, but at the same time I think they're kind of crying over spilled milk. It's not like the mosque is actually on the 9/11 site. It's 2 blocks away. Can you even see the location from ground zero? They have to build it somewhere if they're going to build it. If it's not actually on ground zero why should I care

I like how everyone assumes the people opposed to the mosque are racists. There are certainly racists there, lets be realistic, but there's probably an equal number of people who are just upset and don't like the idea of an Islamic place of worship being built on the site of an Islamic terrorist attack. Doesn't make them right, but it doesn't make them racists or bigots. Just upset.

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.

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

mattyrm wrote:

Albatross wrote: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.

Mate ive known you ten years and you disagree with everything i say! Since you moved to Manchester you have started reading the Guardian and eating wheat free cake haven't you!

HAVEN'T YOU!!!

I hate the Guardian. I don't often buy newspapers, but when I do I like the Times or the Daily Telegraph. I haven't got the foggiest idea what a 'wheat-free cake' is, either. I find it weird that you consider me a hippy when I'm basically a liberal nationalist with a fetish for the British Empire!

I'm no fan of the Islamic religion (or ANY religion, for that matter), or Islamic culture (apart from qawwali music maybe) - but I know crap when I smell it, and this story is crap. That's all.

Since you love Israel so much Matt, why not google the plaque the Israelis placed outside the King David hotel to commemorate the bombing. That's insulting. This? It's something and nothing, and I see no reason for my feelings about Islam to cloud the issue.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The German people or better yet some current Nazi group should build a Nazi Party Headquarters that extols the virtues of Nazism and how it was a great political and social movement, its just too bad that some fanatics high jacked it, but we are really great people, join the party. Place that about 3 blocks from Auschwitz. I mean hey Neo Nazis didn't have the death camps, they weren't responsible, its a legitimate form of government. So what's the problem?

Dogma wrote
That's a false analogy, as the relationship between Nazism and Judaism is not the same as the relationship between Islam and terrorism. Nazi ideology is directly predicated on the inferiority of Jews, among others, whereas Islam is not directly predicated on the destruction of large buildings full of people.

Your critic of my analogy is false and narrow.

National Socialism is a form of government that promotes an economic third position; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist. The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with outside influences and interests. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honor for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.

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.

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. 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.

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.

It's interesting though once the allies got to Germany they couldn't find any Nazis or Nazi sympathizers, every German they spoke to hated the Nazis. Just like so many Muslims hate the terrorists.

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
Is it Legal...Yes
Is it smart...No
Are they terrorists..Probably not, certainly not all or most or many.
Could there be a terrorist sympathizer in the midst..sure
Could this sign of weakness embolden them or the rest of the terrorists...SURE COULD.
Could protesting the building create more tension polarizing people in the middle and forcing them to take sides...SURE COULD
Does the situation makes Muslims look bad to many Americans...SURE DOES
Does the situation make America look stupid and petty to the rest of the world and bad to moderate Muslims....YOU BET IT DOES

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.

speedfreak wrote:I'd don't get all of this crap about accepting Christian culture and respecting their religion. It is inherently violent, oppressive, and intolerant and is the opposite of what western culture represents. Most Christians may not be terrorists, but most terrorists are christians. It is Christian tradition that churches 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 Christians to war with nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Christians who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that god will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

There its fixed

This statement could be applied to any religion at some point in time

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.