Ground Zero Mosque

Overheal

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can yawn all you want, but - whether or not you're prepared to admit it to yourself - you're guilty of tarring all Muslims with the terrorist brush, using the logical fallacy of "Al Qaeda are terrorists, Al Qaeda are Muslims, therefore Muslims are terrorists."

"Hitler had a mustache; Mother Theresa had a mustache; !!! MOTHER THERESA IS HITLER!!!"

Palmach wrote: »

I am an atheist. And if I said Catholic what terrorist group represents me?

I don't recall the Unabomber's exploits being tied to religion.

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've read the thread, and what I'm seeing over and over - and again here - is doublespeak that Orwell would be proud of. Doublespeak. You're trying to say in the same breath that not all Muslims are terrorists, but that Islam is associated with terrorism just because some terrorists were Muslims. So you'd object to a Methodist church being built in Oklahoma city because Tim McVeigh was a Catholic? It's divisive because of people conflating Islam with terrorism. The divisions are between the people who insist that anything to do with Islam is a symbol of terrorism, and the people who understand that that is not the case.

This is the type of twisting of words that annoys me. The terrorists that carried out 9//1 were Muslims and were inspired by Islam. Do you deny this? If you were a family member of a victim of 9/11 how would you feel seeing an Islamic Centre so close to Ground Zero?

Here's the head of Al Arabiya TV...a Muslim........
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=21980

Here are two more Muslims...........
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

And another Muslim.......
http://www.aina.org/news/20100806211608.htm

And most poignantly of all a Muslim whose mother was killed on 9/11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html
(it should be stated she opposes any religious symbolism near Ground Zero. As atheist I'd agree)

Are all the above bigots?

If you like, it's a division between irrational emotion and reason. You're suggesting that the division be healed by ignoring reason and pandering to uninformed emotion.

What healing division? The divisions are caused by Muslims. They get far more freedoms and opportunities in the West than they get in Muslim majority countries.

wes

Palmach wrote: »

Are all the above bigots?

No, of course not. They are misguided, as this isn't just about the Islamic center in New York, but rather similar projects all over the US being protested.

Palmach wrote: »

What healing division? The divisions are caused by Muslims. They get far more freedoms and opportunities in the West than they get in Muslim majority countries.

So Muslims are the only ones who are causing divisions? So once again all Muslims are being held together in collective guilt.

Also, what does it matter what other countries do or don't do. The US is about equality, and as such all its citizens should be treated the same.

oscarBravo

Palmach wrote: »

This is the type of twisting of words that annoys me. The terrorists that carried out 9//1 were Muslims and were inspired by Islam. Do you deny this?

That they were Muslims, no. That they claimed to be inspired by Islam, no.

But you're still doing it. You're saying that A is a subset of B, therefore all of B is necessarily a reflection of A. That's just broken logic.

If you were a family member of a victim of 9/11 how would you feel seeing an Islamic Centre so close to Ground Zero?

I don't know. I'm a pretty logical guy, so I'd like to think I'd be able to separate my feelings about terrorists from my feelings about Islam.

What healing division? The divisions are caused by Muslims.

All Muslims? Or just the ones who are terrorists?

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know. I'm a pretty logical guy, so I'd like to think I'd be able to separate my feelings about terrorists from my feelings about Islam.

Unfortunately most humans aren't blessed with such Vulcan like emotional control hence the outrage.

Palmach

wes wrote: »

No, of course not. They are misguided, as this isn't just about the Islamic center in New York, but rather similar projects all over the US being protested.

Stay on topic. We are talking about one specific centre. I have no information about the other centres. Suffice to say the majority of Americans oppose that centre in new york. Enlarging the debate is muddying the water. Also it is extremely to be pompously calling people bigoted or misguided when they hold different views to yourself. If this is all about equality then that holds for opinions as well as bricks and mortar.

Palmach

oscarBravo wrote: »

All Muslims? Or just the ones who are terrorists?

Those that support and excuse terrorism and extremism.

wes

Palmach wrote: »

Stay on topic. We are talking about one specific centre. I have no information about the other centres. Suffice to say the majority of Americans oppose that centre in new york. Enlarging the debate is muddying the water.

Sorry, but you are not moderator. Secondly, considering that a lot of the same people are protesting Mosques and Islamic centers all over the US, it sort of puts the whole sensitivitiy argument in a different light, because clearly people have issues with Mosques, and Islamic centers in general.

Palmach wrote: »

Also it is extremely to be pompously calling people bigoted or misguided when they hold different views to yourself. If this is all about equality then that holds for opinions as well as bricks and mortar.

You are talking some utter nonsense here. Calling people who are bigots, bigots, does not violate there rights of free speech, and to suggest there rights are some how being trampled on is utterly absurd. They have every right to be bigots, and nothing I say prevents them from doing so.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

For the 1000th time.Not all Muslims are the same.
.

Grand. But....

Palmach wrote: »

But what can not be denied is that the 9/11 terrorists were inspired by Islam so an Islamic cultural centre so close to Ground Zero can, and indeed is, construed as insensitive.
.

....back to 'They're all the same'. Thus its ok for a gay group to protest against Jimmy Carter because he and Fred Phelps are both baptists.

Palmach wrote: »

The Cordoba Institute may not share the same extreme beliefs as the 9/11 hijackers but they do share an overarching philosophy in the same way that Methodists and Catholics are different but they are both Christians.
.

'They're not all the same but they are, really'. Theres nothing inherently anti-American about Islam, you know. The US isn't mentioned in the Koran......

Palmach wrote: »

One final point what clearly gets on my wick is people tarring opponents of the Centre as bigots.
.

The only ones I tar as bigots are the bigots. Blaming an entire religion for a few yahoos of a minority sect falls under that heading.

Palmach wrote: »

They don't share the blame but their religion inspired the atrocity. It should give them at least pause for thought.
.

...but when I suggest that type of 'logic' be applied to Jews,Hindus and Christians, you don't agree.

Palmach wrote: »

The terrorists that carried out 9//1 were Muslims and were inspired by Islam.
.

And despite the fact its been explained to you that there are multiple sects within Islam its back to 'They're all the same'.

Palmach wrote: »

What healing division? The divisions are caused by Muslims..

And of course the "b" word is entirely inappropriate.

Palmach wrote: »

Those that support and excuse terrorism and extremism. ..

Yet here you are supporting opposition to a cultural centre, driven by a known moderate.

Overheal

Palmach wrote: »

This is the type of twisting of words that annoys me. The terrorists that carried out 9//1 were Muslims and were inspired by Islam. Do you deny this? If you were a family member of a victim of 9/11 how would you feel seeing an Islamic Centre so close to Ground Zero?

Palmach wrote: »

Unfortunately most humans aren't blessed with such Vulcan like emotional control hence the outrage.

So the entire basis of your argument is that the people in protest are misinformed and are tarring muslims with the terror brush, so therefore it's ok to protest the center, and the center should not be built to satisfy that ignorance?

What healing division? The divisions are caused by Muslims. They get far more freedoms and opportunities in the West than they get in Muslim majority countries.

If you don't see the bigotry in this statement, I'm done here.

Further to that, why does it matter what happens in Muslim Majority Countries? This is America, not Saudi Arabia. We, unlike the Saudi's, believe in the Freedom of Religion. Point me in the direction of the article in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or appropriate Amendment that says that because Muslims, Or Buddhists or Hindus, get special consideration in other countries, that we should discriminate against them here in the United States.

metrovelvet

oscarBravo wrote: »

That they were Muslims, no. That they claimed to be inspired by Islam, no.

But you're still doing it. You're saying that A is a subset of B, therefore all of B is necessarily a reflection of A. That's just broken logic. I don't know. I'm a pretty logical guy, so I'd like to think I'd be able to separate my feelings about terrorists from my feelings about Islam. All Muslims? Or just the ones who are terrorists?

But its Islamist terrorism. How do you separate it? Part of what defines this terrorism is Islam.

Maybe you are thinking too logically and not subtly enough.

wes

metrovelvet wrote: »

But its Islamist terrorism. How do you separate it? Part of what defines this terrorism is Islam.

Maybe you are thinking too logically and not subtly enough.

So all Muslims should be held responsible for the attacks, then? See we keep getting back to, this collective guilt, that doesn't apply to any other group.

The Imam behind this project has condemned the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general, so why should he be held responsible for something which he condemned?!?

Nodin

metrovelvet wrote: »

But its Islamist terrorism. How do you separate it? Part of what defines this terrorism is Islam. .

Did you ever bother to look into the differences between the sects? Saying "Islam" in this instance is as useful as saying 'christians' or - more pointedly - Americans. It was that notion that allowed the 9/11 attackers to kill a random 3,000 Americans.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe you are thinking too logically and not subtly enough.

.....that doesn't appear to scan. Please explain.

metrovelvet

wes wrote: »

So all Muslims should be held responsible for the attacks, then? See we keep getting back to, this collective guilt, that doesn't apply to any other group.

The Imam behind this project has condemned the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general, so why should he be held responsible for something which he condemned?!?

No. If they were all going to be held responsible they would all be on death row for mass murder.

If the Imam were being held responsible for 911 he would have also be on death row or a vigilante or some one, mafia, who knows would have gotten him by now. But there he is, still alive.

Is it so much to ask not to put a mosque there? I'm sure the victims of all the attacks London has had to put with from the IRA would sure appreciate it if you didn't stick up an Irish Centre too close to the gravesite.

Have you seen ground zero? Do you have any sense of the scale? Of what they destroyed?

wes

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. If they were all going to be held responsible they would all be on death row for mass murder.

Collective guilt doesn't work that way.

metrovelvet wrote: »

If the Imam were being held responsible for 911 he would have also be on death row or a vigilante or some one, mafia, who knows would have gotten him by now. But there he is, still alive.

Yeah, and a bunch of bigots are villifying him and opposing his center, as due to him being Muslim, and the 9/11 attackers being Muslim. So yeah back to collective guilt I am afraid.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is it so much to ask not to put a mosque there? I'm sure the victims of all the attacks London has had to put with from the IRA would sure appreciate it if you didn't stick up an Irish Centre too close to the gravesite.

So Irish pubs are banned in the UK :P. BTW, how close is too close? Care to give me a figure that will be universally accepted then?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Have you seen ground zero? Do you have any sense of the scale? Of what they destroyed?

Have you been to Iraq? Do you have any sense of the scale? Of what they destroyed? See I can do that too.

Overheal

metrovelvet wrote: »

But its Islamist [sic] terrorism. How do you separate it? Part of what defines this terrorism is Islam.

It's easy:

Islamic Terrorism

---

> Islam; Terrorism

Maybe you are thinking too logically and not subtly enough.

....... lol?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is it so much to ask not to put a mosque there?

If this were really, genuinely, truly about what the Right wants me to think it's about: I would tell you No.

However, I see Islam being protested in Staten Island, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California, and I'm left to ask "This isn't really about Ground Zero at all, is it?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPJ9GqwJH34

I'm sure the victims of all the attacks London has had to put with from the IRA would sure appreciate it if you didn't stick up an Irish Centre too close to the gravesite.

Why? The IRA is not representative of Ireland, as much as they claim otherwise. Do Londoners object to the sale of Guinness?

Have you seen ground zero? Do you have any sense of the scale? Of what they destroyed?

Who's they? Terrorists. Islamic Terrorists. Islamic Terrorists that most of Islam denounces. Islamic Terrorism that the Muslims that are building this center denounce.

Palmach

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. If they were all going to be held responsible they would all be on death row for mass murder.

If the Imam were being held responsible for 911 he would have also be on death row or a vigilante or some one, mafia, who knows would have gotten him by now. But there he is, still alive.

Is it so much to ask not to put a mosque there? I'm sure the victims of all the attacks London has had to put with from the IRA would sure appreciate it if you didn't stick up an Irish Centre too close to the gravesite.

Have you seen ground zero? Do you have any sense of the scale? Of what they destroyed?

Wasting your time mate. Some people here are just too naive and /or pc to see the wood from the trees. You are either a bigot, misguided or "far right" anything or than facing up to the role Islam played in 9/11 and numerous atrocities. But not for some. No siree. Nothing to see here. Move along. Of course it means always being right on which is the most important thing. Anyway we are going round in circles.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

Wasting your time mate. Some people here are just too naive and /or pc to see the wood from the trees. You are either a bigot, misguided or "far right" anything or than facing up to the role Islam played in 9/11 and numerous atrocities. But not for some. No siree. Nothing to see here. Move along. Of course it means always being right on which is the most important thing. Anyway we are going round in circles.

I fail to see how using a reply to soap box will help end the circling.

Maybe if you looked at the logical inconsistencies in your argument....

demonspawn

I wonder what would happen if most Americans knew that under Sharia law banks and lending institutions are not allowed to collect interest on loans.

How many Americans would be queuing up to convert? =P

Overheal

Palmach wrote: »

Wasting your time mate. Some people here are just too naive and /or pc to see the wood from the trees. You are either a bigot, misguided or "far right" anything or than facing up to the role Islam played in 9/11 and numerous atrocities. But not for some. No siree. Nothing to see here. Move along. Of course it means always being right on which is the most important thing. Anyway we are going round in circles.

Ironic: Your entire problem here is you can't see the trees from the wood.

demonspawn

Palmach wrote: »

Wasting your time mate. Some people here are just too naive and /or pc to see the wood from the trees. You are either a bigot, misguided or "far right" anything or than facing up to the role Islam played in 9/11 and numerous atrocities. But not for some. No siree. Nothing to see here. Move along. Of course it means always being right on which is the most important thing. Anyway we are going round in circles.

Or maybe people realize that the Constitution was written for a very good reason and no matter how offended you may be you have no right whatsoever to demand that a mosque or church or whatever else should not be built.

Freedom comes at a price, and if that price is a few people having to sit in their homes huffing and puffing about what they don't agree with then so be it.

Lucky for you nobody is asking you to die for what you believe. Unlucky for the millions that have died to uphold the Constitution which you seem to use as a doormat.

Edit: Jim Jones was a Christian. I think all Christian churches should be demolished because of the atrocities he committed. Christianity was obviously at fault here, it drives people insane!

Overheal

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: Jim Jones was a Christian. I think all Christian churches should be demolished because of the atrocities he committed. Christianity was obviously at fault here, it drives people insane!

I loved that in the AC360 interview above:

Reverend: All Terrorists are Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all Terrorists are Muslims.

Cooper: What about the Oklahoma City bombing?

Reverend: Oh yeah. Tim McVeigh. YOUR ONE EXAMPLE that you people keep clinging to.


:rolleyes:

Palmach

This argument is going round and round and never the twain shall meet. I'm off.

demonspawn

Palmach wrote: »

This argument is going round and round and never the twain shall meet. I'm off.

FLAWLESS VICTORY!

Just kidding man. I hope you can at least understand why people feel the way they do, even if you don't agree with them personally. That's the whole point of these forums in my opinion, better understanding through intelligent debate. I've been proven wrong more times than I care to admit and I love it!!

I dropped out of school at 15 so this is all part of my ongoing education.

Palmach

demonspawn wrote: »

FLAWLESS VICTORY!

Just kidding man. I hope you can at least understand why people feel the way they do, even if you don't agree with them personally. That's the whole point of these forums in my opinion, better understanding through intelligent debate. I've been proven wrong more times than I care to admit and I love it!!

I dropped out of school at 15 so this is all part of my ongoing education.

I do see their point and from a purely legalistic point of view they are right. Sometimes there are things that provoke a gut reaction that transcend words and this is one of those times. I wish others could see my point of view beside indulging in sneering at people who don't hold their self styled lofty superior views.

BTW did you take your from the role playing game of the same name involving a character called fire wolf? Wasn't it that guy Brennan who lived in a cottage in the country somewhere?

metrovelvet

Palmach wrote: »

I do see their point and from a purely legalistic point of view they are right. Sometimes there are things that provoke a gut reaction that transcend words and this is one of those times. I wish others could see my point of view beside indulging in sneering at people who don't hold their self styled lofty superior views.

BTW did you take your from the role playing game of the same name involving a character called fire wolf? Wasn't it that guy Brennan who lived in a cottage in the country somewhere?

I have certainly acknowledged that technically, legally they are right. But being purely logical around such a contentious issue is only half appropriate. Its a bit like sending in an aspergers diplomat to conduct marriage counselling.

demonspawn

Palmach wrote: »

I do see their point and from a purely legalistic point of view they are right. Sometimes there are things that provoke a gut reaction that transcend words and this is one of those times. I wish others could see my point of view beside indulging in sneering at people who don't hold their self styled lofty superior views.

I hear ya and agree to a point. If I was still living in North Carolina and the KKK wanted to set up a regional office near my house I'd want to burn the damn place down (and would probably try), but they do have a right to build what they like where they like. Freedom sucks sometimes.

BTW did you take your from the role playing game of the same name involving a character called fire wolf? Wasn't it that guy Brennan who lived in a cottage in the country somewhere?

Nope, I'm literally the spawn of Satan himself. hehe I just like metal and demons and all that stuff. Sounds like an awesome game, I'm gonna have to try and hunt it down!

demonspawn

Palmach wrote: »

BTW did you take your from the role playing game of the same name involving a character called fire wolf? Wasn't it that guy Brennan who lived in a cottage in the country somewhere?

Oh snap! It's old school RPG!!

http://rpggeek.com/rpg/3451/sagas-of-the-demonspawn?

Edit: Yup, the author J.H. Brennan is indeed Irish. Sounds like an awesome dude.

Anonymous1987

To be fair I acknowledge 9/11 is a sensitive issue but that doesn't give anyone the excuse to irrationally associate all Islam with a minority breakaway sect. Islamist terrorists don't even acknowledge regular Muslims as Muslims. I'm sure many Muslims find Pastor Terry Jones incredibly offensive and insensitive.

Overheal

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have certainly acknowledged that technically, legally they are right. But being purely logical around such a contentious issue is only half appropriate. Its a bit like sending in an aspergers diplomat to conduct marriage counselling.

Interesting analogy but the thing is it's not all Purely logic. When you're passionate about your rights, and those rights are enshrined in Law, it's very easy to sound callous and logical. In actuality, I feel as strongly about the freedom of religion (or the right to Atheism as much as you have the right to both Silence and Free Speech) as others do about the existence of God.