Sir Bandelot

The real question is, and the point of this thread, who's gonna pay for the cleanup.

Survival trumps economics.

Not at all. If a person is polite I am polite in kind. If a person makes provocative statements, I respond in kind. But only a little. I try to make a point, not just come here for silly arguments. Now back to your comment, maybe not you but the implication is that these things are not considered acceptable at the wtc. That is the attitude of some people here, that's what's implied in this thread. And while it's a far stretch from being "like them", it's still a step towards it. And my view is, this attitude is prejudiced. Even when we know innocent muslims died there too, that some could still hold this view, demonstrates a thinly veiled contempt for anyone who would dare go near the wtc sight and say, "Allahu Akbhar..." No, only a muslim shrine should be allowed there. No christian shrines should be allowed. In truth I think this is the best possible choice they could make, a place for all religions to come and worship, not just muslims. Maybe that's too smart for these city planners or whoever to figure out. Oh come now. I think you're just feeling a little agitated today for some reason. You've made some good points, please continue. It's not a contest.

Because America represents the idea of freedom, for the whole world. The idea of America needs to be defended. If the idea of America fails it threatens freedom everywhere.

As stated in the previous post, Muslims, and Muslim American familes lost their loved ones in the attack on the WTC. By your reasoning you are advocating that USA should become like them. Show me how your logic is any different.

Or blaming all the Jews for the miserable situation in Germany in 1938, and responding with the Kristallnacht that followed. In the situation they have built up to now in the US, all it takes is for one more major event, like the assassination of some prominent public individual in US society, for this latent hatred and anger to explode into real physical violence. The event would be the trigger, and media propaganda will be the fuse. That's the danger of this "free speech" rhetorical garbage being espoused by the Limbaughs and Coulters, that portrays all these people as sharing some responsibility or guilt for 9/11. And being defended here by the OP. As though no muslims also died there, on that day! Among those killed in the Twin Towers were an estimated 70 Muslims.

There are always recommendations for people to be vigilant, like your neighbourhood watch. It's a step up when the government provides training programs to specific groups across the nation, essentially making them government agents charged with the task of spying on the citizenry. And although it may seem reasonable given the present circumstances, isn't the real risk of terrorism very low? Homeland security does a lot of surveillance for organized groups where they may detect communications, but this is more like an effort to find the lone rogues. In doing so, unusual people will be targeted. That may not seem bad in itself, but when put in the context of other proposed changes such as removing Miranda rights for those SUSPECTED of terrorism, there could be a risk of having people locked up for nothing.

A new government program aims to train thousands of parking industry employees nationwide to watch for and report anything suspicious. Funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and administered by TSA, the program teaches parking lot operators to watch for odd activities: strange odors, cars parked where they shouldn't be, people who seem to be taking photos or drawing sketches. The program is part of a larger effort by the government to enlist ordinary people airline passengers, subway riders, bus drivers, truckers, doormen, building superintendents to serve as the eyes and ears of security enforcement. "A lot of this is just developing a sense of personal responsibility about things that just don't seem right." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37154988/ns/us_news-security/ This sounds a little disturbing to me. A nation where people watch each other, and report to the authorities anything that seems suspicious... that's how it was in the Soviet Union and in other communist countries like Cuba. A chivato on every corner. In terms of adding real security I think it could backfire- there might be so many false alarms by the nature of what ordinary people do. There's lots of harmless but eccentric people who might seem "odd" to anybody. Now there will be a database for anybody who gets reported on, right or wrong. Don't like your neighbors? Report them. Eventually there will be so many reports it will become routine, there won't be any way to determine who the real threat is.

That makes a lot of sense, we have to realize that the only useful solution for long-term peace is to nurture the moderate aspects of islamic culture, not drive them further underground. In a sense the moderates in islam are being attacked from all sides, by extremists in their own religion and by westerners who would paint them all with one brush. We need to marginalize the extremists. Wars are a short term solution that actually does the opposite. The war on terror is a different kind of war, as there is no enemy nation. Yet our military is still using a traditional approach to fighting the enemy. We need to re-invent the methods of war to be more effective in dealing with an embedded, distributed enemy, while safeguarding those who are not the enemy. We need to realize that protecting and nurturing those who are not the enemy is just as important to victory as attacking the terrorists. Maybe even more so!

It's unfortunately true. What I said was, instead of denying or making excuses lets realize it for what it is. That may help us to understand it better. But in retrospect we must remember these are extreme circumstances. Wars and terror attacks, murders etc. take away from our human dignity, reduce people to emotionally reactive animals. In a sense the terrorists want to bring us down to their level, and by methods of violence it's not difficult to do that.

Sweeeet

You said exactly what I just said Bob. Her position is understandable given the circumstances, but let's not sugar-coat what it is. Lets at least face what it is. Look it right in the face. Human nature- bigotry. Kinda ugly, aint it

All bullshit. These are extremely difficult issues to address. I wouldn't expect anyone to have a simple solution to this sort of problem, so don't expect you to. Yes, some muslims attacked the WTC, and they did it in the name of their God, misguided though it was. And yes, many people whose family members were killed will be very upset that muslims are now planning to build a mosque there. I do not doubt that some a-hole type muslims will go to that mosque and use it to celebrate the attack on America. Maybe not publicly or openly, but they still might. There are such types. Political correctness breaks down here. The only solution is to BE BIASED, to make a distinction between one or the other, and in this case to identify the whole group of muslims as persona non-grata, in terms of building a mosque at the WTC. Let's cut with the doublespeak and soft excuses. I'm not saying that I like this, but thats the way it simply is, as far as I see. Human nature. You made a choice. And I understand that choice. If it were my family died, I'd probably do the same thing. The only thing is, you can't come to terms with the reality of what your choice is.

Yeah I know. Just wishful thinking. In my view none of these knobs deserve to be in government, so I guess an election would be pointless.

LOL

Pissing wars are for children.

You can do that.

Except perhaps the Canadian public.

Why don't you let her answer for herself. If I had you defending me, I know I'd be embarrased.

That's a very reasonable and considerate point of view. I agree with it. In certain cases, a brief round of counselling should be necessary before the final decision is made.

And you did not explain how your views are not biased towards muslims. I suggest your position on this is bigotted, but you won't admit it or explain it in any clear way otherwise. Please try. If not for my benefit, then for the other members here who have asked you the same question, and are waiting for your explanation.

There is a lot of fun and provocation going on around here. But generally it's taken in stride without too much concern from most of the members. Are you saying we should take care not do this to Americans? I do get the impression they are rather sensitive. Maybe we should not say anything too provocative to them, lest we offend...

Wrong wrong and wrong. Revisit "Prohibition, 1920's, and the friends of Al Capone" for further information. While enjoying a nice glass of brandy tonight, after a hard (and booze free) days work...

I try to keep my replies as civil as possible. You meanwhile keep going for the "stupidity" inuendos. Take my advice, it only makes you look bad.

Explain how it could be otherwise then. And note, I'm not the only one pointing out your seemingly contradictory views on this.