[MP+4]

Just remember, when it comes to the Muslims, they do not have the same respect for your rights, and if they gain the ability to do so they will take them away.

Most likely. But so would most Christians, if they got the chance.

Did you know that in the past, in Muslim states, people were organized according to their millet, and lived according to the rules of that millet?

Extremism is ugly in any form.

[electmobile]

=helene;1752785]since when is ground zero sacred? Since 3,000 americans were murdered. In the US we have many sacred grounds, like peral harbor where you board a boat and lay a reef over the men and woman still buried in the suken ships. These sites are sacred in the eyes of the American people, you may have no emouniton in that regard but most americans do.

did people really die 2.5 blocks away from the twin towers? yes


i think quite a few muslims would deny that terrorists are in fact muslim. Quite a few but again not all and what does "quit a few" really mean? It sounds to me like a very small minority.


i don't think that it was bush's fault. I don't think that the terrorist attack on the twin towers was in any way justified. But that doesn't mean that the us never did anything bad, either. It was quite heavily involved in afghanistan back in the day, and did train quite a few of the people of the taliban and al-qaeda against the russians. I'm glad you clarified that point but just to clear up a comment, you said "we trained quite a few of the taliban and Al-qaeda against the Russians" How does that translate into Al-Qaeda and 9-11.

The international politics of the us has come to bite the us in the ass a couple of times, but the extent to which it happened on 9/11 wasn't in any way justified. Thank you for clarifying.

Btw, do you think that operation shock and awe, which killed more civilians of a country it was supposed to liberate (or was it to find those wmd?), was more justified? It's easy to play armchair quarterback after the play. But to answer the WMD question it was widely thought by many nations that Iraq had WMD, congress approved the war and so on. Had we thought there was no MMD in Iraq I doubt the war would have ever happened.

As to your comment shock and awe killing civilians, that was not good nor will it ever be. But gassing the Kurds and the brutality of the regime may in the end may very well be worth the shock and awe. Looking ahead a 100 years and if in fact peace and a form of a democratic government is in place I would say Yes it was and is worth it.

As we speak Obama is killing civilians with drones without justification in Afghanistan, it that worth it.

We on our own soil had the civil war killing 860,000 Americans, was it worth it.

[Peptobismol]

That is factually not true.

That statement, which generalizes about all Muslims and Islam in general, is not true.

That statement is true of some Muslims and some interpretation of Islam, but that's no more true for all Muslims and all Islam than saying that Christians believe in Creationism.

And even if it were true, that wouldn't change the fact that we can't take away their rights without destroying our own liberty far more quickly than the attempt of them to take it that you seem to think will happen.

One of the surest ways to destroy all liberty is to deny it to others in order to defend it.

Because once we start taking away the rights of certain groups, those who keep their rights won't really have them as rights but as privileges temporarily extended to them.

To quote The Internationale: "Let racist ignorance be ended, For respect makes the empires fall! Freedom is merely privilege extended, Unless enjoyed by one and all."

Or to put it another way: "Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene V. Debs

[MP+4]

Since 3,000 americans were murdered. In the US we have many sacred grounds, like peral harbor where you board a boat and lay a reef over the men and woman still buried in the suken ships. These sites are sacred in the eyes of the American people, you may have no emouniton in that regard but most americans do.

I have plenty of emotions on the matter. I was worried for several people I am close to at the time. Thankfully they were alright. But I don't think that murdering lots of people makes a location sacred. That sounds more like ritual sacrifice to a savage god.

Quite a few but again not all and what does "quit a few" really mean? It sounds to me like a very small minority. Considering the fact that there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, I think quite a few is quite a big more than the entire population of the US. Of course, if you keep on calling all muslims terrorists, you do end up alienating them more and more.

I'm glad you clarified that point but just to clear up a comment, you said "we trained quite a few of the taliban and Al-qaeda against the Russians" How does that translate into Al-Qaeda and 9-11. Well, you trained them, and then they took that training and attacked you? I'm not saying it's deserved.

It's easy to play armchair quarterback after the play. But to answer the WMD question it was widely thought by many nations that Iraq had WMD, congress approved the war and so on. Had we thought there was no MMD in Iraq I doubt the war would have ever happened. Do you know that the majority of the people in the world were against the war in Iraq? It was bizarre the way the US said: "You are violating a UN resolution. We'll attack you while going against the UN." I didn't think it was a good idea beforehand and I don't think it was a good idea now. Heck, you can probably even check the archives, I was around posting about it at the time.

As to your comment shock and awe killing civilians, that was not good nor will it ever be. But gassing the Kurds and the brutality of the regime may in the end may very well be worth the shock and awe. Looking ahead a 100 years and if in fact peace and a form of a democratic government is in place I would say Yes it was and is worth it. At this point in time, the situation in Iraq is worse than it was under Saddam before the attack. At no point since the war has begun, has it been better than under Saddam. If in 100 years time, there's a democracy there, it doesn't say anything about what there would have been if Saddam hadn't been deposed.

It's kind of like saying that if you come and beat me up and break my ribs, and in 10 years time I'm doing alright, it was a good thing that you broke my ribs?

As we speak Obama is killing civilians with drones without justification in Afghanistan, it that worth it. I'm not pro someone by default.

We on our own soil had the civil war killing 860,000 Americans, was it worth it. I figure it'd have been better if the war hadn't happened. It's kind of like this huge bet, in which you bet the lives of other people, the destruction of houses, infrastructure, factories, etc., on the off chance that you may win. I'm sure there are better ways to achieve a better victory. Of course, people are pretty stupid.

[CHEAPCIALISFORYOU]

That is factually not true.

That statement, which generalizes about all Muslims and Islam in general, is not true.

That statement is true of some Muslims and some interpretation of Islam, but that's no more true for all Muslims and all Islam than saying that Christians believe in Creationism.

And even if it were true, that wouldn't change the fact that we can't take away their rights without destroying our own liberty far more quickly than the attempt of them to take it that you seem to think will happen.

One of the surest ways to destroy all liberty is to deny it to others in order to defend it.

Because once we start taking away the rights of certain groups, those who keep their rights won't really have them as rights but as privileges temporarily extended to them.

To quote The Internationale: "Let racist ignorance be ended, For respect makes the empires fall! Freedom is merely privilege extended, Unless enjoyed by one and all."

Or to put it another way: "Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene V. Debs

It is true of Imam Rauf who wants to build the GZ mosque which is what this thread is about.

[Peptobismol]

And I can counter your argument just by saying that such is not true, until you provide me with evidence.

The burden of proof lies on the prosecution for a reason.

You are making an assertion, back it up.

[newwebstar]

I bet you're super charming IRL.

BTW, you know this is a public forum, and the statements you make still count, even though you're hiding behind a computer screen?

Yep. I'm a nice guy to people who don't try and use their religion as justification to kill those who do not believe as they do.

You see unlike you my family has done business in the middle east for almost 30 years, I know my enemy.

[fruttomma]

It is true of Imam Rauf who wants to build the GZ mosque which is what this thread is about.

No, it's not.

It's not a Mosque, and it's not being built at Ground Zero.

False on both accounts.

[fruttomma]

Yep. I'm a nice guy to people who don't try and use their religion as justification to kill those who do not believe as they do.

You see unlike you my family has done business in the middle east for almost 30 years, I know my enemy.

Didn't you just call for innocent people to be blown up? What does that make you?

My enemy.

[fruttomma]

Keith Olbermann said exceptionally well:

Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann

[Sxscdergh]

It being disputed actually would make it seem like a bad place, with enemies around. It's officially part of India, anyway.

There is a Pakistani controlled part of Kashmir, which is where he would be.

Andrew

[MP+4]

It is true of Imam Rauf who wants to build the GZ mosque which is what this thread is about.

Apparently not:

He has condemned the 9/11 attacks as un-Islamic and called on the U.S. government to reduce the threat of terrorism by altering its Middle Eastern foreign policy.[4][5] Author Karen Armstrong, among others, has praised him for his attempts to build bridges between the West and the Muslim world. Link

[MP+4]

There is a Pakistani controlled part of Kashmir, which is where he would be.

Andrew

Fair enough. So I guess that's Pakistan then, but no floods there?

[Sxscdergh]

Fair enough. So I guess that's Pakistan then, but no floods there?

Yes there has been flooding there as well, but not near as bad as in Pakistan.

Andrew

[nanyaHgoc]

So, you would rather talk about Christians. I get that. Its pc to voice concerns about Christians, but its "bigotry" to be concerned about Muslims.

I'm pointing out that what you seem to be complaining about cab also be said of some christians. You also don't see me starting threads about some mosque or church being built in America and how it's in bad taste because it might offend bigots.

[CHEAPCIALISFORYOU]

Apparently not:


Link

Rauf's material is full of all sorts of euphemisms like bridge building etc, but it is clear that he believes it is the west, and in particular the US that has to do the changing and not the Muslim world.
He believes Sharia law should rule everywhere.
Why should anybody welcome that message?
Where are all the feminists on this?

[MP+4]

Rauf's material is full of all sorts of euphemisms like bridge building etc, but it is clear that he believes it is the west, and in particular the US that has to do the changing and not the Muslim world.
He believes Sharia law should rule everywhere.
Why should anybody welcome that message?
Where are all the feminists on this?

So because I'm against the contents of someone's message, I should be against their rights to deliver the message?

I figure the US does need to do some changing, but so does the Muslim world. So does the Netherlands. In fact, almost every country in the world could do with some changing.

[Zysyewgg]

Nah, I'm against all religion trying to impose their mores on me. Equally, I'm against taking away their rights.

So, the first amendment should have absolutely no limit, but it's OK to limit the second amendment.
Fine. Muslims can build a mosque were ever and whenever they please without regard for the feelings of others when and only when I can carry a firearm when and where I please without some liberal being horrified by the sight of it.
Can't have it both ways.

[Niobaralegra]

So because I'm against the contents of someone's message, I should be against their rights to deliver the message?

I figure the US does need to do some changing, but so does the Muslim world. So does the Netherlands. In fact, almost every country in the world could do with some changing.

Your priorities are out of whack if you believe the US needs to change more or before the Muslim world.

[CHEAPCIALISFORYOU]

So because I'm against the contents of someone's message, I should be against their rights to deliver the message?

I figure the US does need to do some changing, but so does the Muslim world. So does the Netherlands. In fact, almost every country in the world could do with some changing.

I did not suggest you should be against free speech, but if you don't like a message that is being pushed you should not hesitate to exercise your own right to free speech.

People seem to be very willing and eager to say that the US needs to change, but those who suggest the Muslim world could use some change are labelled as "bigots".