Machjo

The fact that there are actually many Democrats for ron Paul should say something. Ron Paul, for all his flaws, outshines Obama by far.

OK, correction, Auzzies died too, along with Muslims. I'm sad they killed anyone. As for killing some of their own, yes they did... other human beings. All the victims were of their own. Oh, you mean Muslims? Well, many Muslims do not consider those actions as being Muslim actions in the first place, so it's even debatable if they consider them as part of the same community. But it's "nice" to see you're happy people were killed off from a particular community. How magnanamous of you.

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul says, but he sure outshines the vast majority of US politicians in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&newsId=251886&link=251886 The cheerers though did not represent all Muslims any more than the defenders represent all Which Christian Europeans. Again, we can't blame one Muslim for the actions of another Muslim with whom he profoundly disagrees. Then there you're talking about a security concern, not the building of a religious centre by a community that opposes the fanatics. And the Muslim community has shown empathy. Considering that the NYC Muslim community lost some of their own too, should we not also show some empathy towards it? My bet is that many of thsoe who oppose the community centre are: 1. not even residents of NYC, and 2. have not lost any loved ones on that day. The builders of that Muslim centre are both predominantly New-Yorkers and people who've lost family members on 9/11. To even so much as suggest that they should worry about wht those who somehow associate them with the murderers of their friends and families might think is disturbing in the least.

Did they take a wrong turn on their way to the Israli embassy or what? An Israeli does not equal the Israeli government. If you have an issue with the Israli government, then protest it, not innocent Israeli civilians and private citizens.

And the mosque would have no say in it. If you want to spend the money to open a strip club, be my guest. Consider too that the members of that Muslim community did lose family and friends on 9/11, so I think they have more say in this than some Auzzie.

I'm sure some likely defended him in far-right political forums. Not exactly cheering, but still defense. Then there is the issue of numbers. So do we cut it off at 2 people, 10? 100? 1000? What's the official cut-off number? If we consider that the majority of Muslims rejected the attacks, why should they feel guilty for acts committed for an ideology they don't even believe in and even oppose?

Probably the reason for this false impression is that many men in Afghanistan do wear Turbans, as descendants of Muhammad in Iran and Iraq do too (in the case of descendents, or "siyyids", it's always a green turban, but even there it's optional and not a religious obligation). In most Muslim countries though, very few men wear turbans, so it really is a regional thing and not so linked to religion. If we're looking at religious obligation, or turbans being worn as a religious prescription as opposed to simply local cultural norms, then definitely we're looking at Sikhism, not Islam.

So all Saudis are terrorists now? Actually, Bin Ladin was somewhat of a paryah in Saudi Arabia, and not very welcome. Again, even Ahmanidejad and Saddam Hussain had expressed their condolences to the victims of 9/11. Get your facts straight. Those celebrating in the streets were merely those who got the attention of the media. No news is good news after all.

So I take it then that we should consider others' feelings about building a church on any site damaged by Breivik's attack since he did claim to be Christian and that he was trying to start a crusade?

The truth is already out there. Incompetence and nothing more led to the success of the attacks. The only reason it appears that there was some kind of conspiracy is because after 9/11, in spite of advice to the contrary from both the CIA and the military, the Bush administration insisted on going to war in Iraq in spite of any lack of connection with 9/11. This had nothing to do with any conspiracy prior to 9/11 though, but rather the US administration simply milking it for all it was worth after the fact.

You're absolutely right. There should be a nation-wide referendum on each request submitted to local government to build a place of worship anywhere, just to be on the safe side.

Agreed. The answer though is not to kill more innocent people, but rather to beef up security in key areas such as airports and launch a planned campaign to first isolate the enemy and then kill or capture it when possible. Iraq for example had zilch to do with 9/11, and many more innocents died, making 9/11 even more tragic than it already was. So do I, regardless of whether they were Muslim, non-Muslim, American, Afghan, Iraqi or otherwise. No hyphenated humans here. OK. While I can accept the US war against Al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, at least in principle, even the CIA had expressed doubts about the "proof" of WMDs, and even the US military had advised against going into Iraq. To ignore the advice of specialists in their fields is unexcusable. Sure even experts can sometimes be wrong and amateurs right, but in that case Bush should have been open about the fact that he disagreed with the CIA and military here, rather than tryng to mislead us that somehow it was the CIA and military who supported the Iraq war. Iraqis and Afghans are still being blown up today, possibly by their own people, but at least there was relative stability prior. Saddam Hussain was no angel, but now you're blaming the Iraqi people for something Saddam Hussain did not do on 9/11! How delusional can we get? Unfortunately both anti-Americanism and Islamophobia exist. Al-Qaida can be partially blamed for the Islamophobia and the US government for the anti-American sentiment. But the biggest culprits are the anti-Americans and Islamophobes themselves. It really does not take much to distinguish between an American and the policies of his government, and between Islam and fanaticism in its name. Most anti-Americans were likely so even before 9/11, either cheered the terrists on, kept quiet, or possibly even empathised with the US immediately after 9/11, and then went on to hate all Americans after the war in Iraq. Most Islamophobes had already attacked mosques after the Oklahoma City bombings, but just became even more vehement after 9/11. I don't think 9/11 created many more anti-Americans and Islamophobes, but certainly gave Islamophobes a rallying cry after 9/11, and anti-Americans after the launch of the Iraq war. Possibly, but not necessarily. Immediately after 9/11, there was much worldwide empathy towards the US. Heck, even Saddam Hussaain and the Iranian governments had expressed their sympathies! Unfortunately, the US decided to sqander that good will with "you're either with us or you're against us" type of rhetoric, along with dissing the international community at the UN by presenting proof of WMDswhich even the CIA felt insufficient yet hiding tha fact, and then going into Iraq anyway in spite of Iraq having had zilch to do with 9/11 and not having WMDs. Defending our country is fine. Destrying another is a whole different ball game. The troops yes, they're not political decision-makers. I do make exception for those troops who worked at Abu-Ghraib though, as I'm sure you do. Likewise, and also for the many Iraqi and Afghan civilians who lost their lives too, who are far more numerous and do not get to just "come home" since they are at home. Thanks. And I hope we'd do it again.

Here's what I think would have been a far more cost-effective response to 9/11: 1. Increase security at airports, maybe even learning from the Israelis since they have a pretty impressive track record on airport security themselves. 2. Once having received UN consent to go into Afghanistan, focus the entire mission on destroying Al-Qaida and (to the extent that the Taliban stand in the way) the Taliban too. Once the Taliban realized Al-Qaida is all the we want, they'd likely step aside or even give Al-Qaida to us just to get us out of their hairs ASAP. And even if they do decide to dcontinue to defend Al-Qaida, at least the was would have been concentrated on Afghanistan rather than a two-front war with Iraq too (heck, even the US military advised against attacking Iraq for various reasons, mainly owing to Iraq's non-invovement in 9/11), and even the CIA had expressed doubts about the sufficiency of evidence to support WMDs in Iraq. So much for listening to the experts, eh. 3. Increases collaboration with Interpol to capture other terrorists worldwide. Just these three points alone would have saved the US economy at least billions of dollars, if not trillions, not to mention the likelyhood of greater success against Al-Qaida and in a shorter time too.

Now you're confusing Islam with Sikhism. Only a small percentage of Muslims wear turbans, and even then not our of religious obligation but rather for cultural reasons. All Sikh men of a certain age must wear turbans. Get your religions straight.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. Was this retaliation? In the mind of Bin Ladin it might have been. In my mind though it is not at all, since I don't retaliate against A for what B might have done to me. The people on those planes and in those buildings did not necessarily have anything to do with any perceived offense someone may have committed against Bin Ladin's "us", and therefore Bin Ladin's attacks on the WTC and Pentagon with civilian airliners was plain murder and ought to be treated as such. Agreed. I've been busy in the last few days and so did start that thread fast without really thinking about it. Looking back on it, "won" was incorrect a word. It might have been more accurate to ask if we had lost rather than had Al-Qaide won, since Al-Qaida has clearly not won. Al-Qaida has lost too in many ways, with even many Muslims rejecting Al-Qaida's actions as being anti-Muslim. However, it is fair to say that while Al-Qaida has lost or at least is losing, so are we when we look at the growth of Islamophobia in the West, the money spent on an illegal war abroad (though Afthanistan was a legal war, Iraq clearly wasn't and had nothing to do with 9/11 other than 9/11 as a pretext, along with false facts), the tarring of our human rights reputation at Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, the Park 57 protests, prejudice against those who look Muslim, etc. That question would have been as inaccurate as my own original one, since the purpose of the thread was not so generally about how 9/11 has impacted us, but rather on whether we have failed to win against Al-Qaida's original intentions by our actions since 9/11. And the fact that Al-Qaida has failed to accomplish its objectives does not mean we have succeeded in ours. It would seem that owing to actions of both sides, neither side has won. On our side though, the fact that we've sometimes violated our own long-established and long-held principles, that is a particular symbolic blow to us. It was "our" society that was attacked. Yet your OP is all about the U.S. And all negative. So if I took your intent the wrong way, perhaps there's a reason. Fair enough. I hope my correction above clarifies that.

Then you took my intent the wrong way (and I won't respond on behalf of posters after me). I was not saying this to gloat, but rather to present it as something to think about. Nothing to celebrate; it's sad, really. One thing I will say though is that it would seem that in the US, and in Caanda to a degree too, people seem fearful of even raising the question and questoning it, how much it costs, etc. And no better time than at its anniversary to look back at it and its impact on our society.

Considering how 9/11 has changed the US, in terms of raising prejudices against Muslims, polarizing US politics, sending the US off to war, raising the US debt, imposing restrictions on air travel that have hurt the US tourism industry, the erosion of certain basic rights such as Habeas Corpus for certain detainees, etc., is it fair to say that in some respects, Al-Qaida has essentially won against the US in terms of its primary objective to weaken the country?

Even if that Muslim goes above and beyond the call of duty and consults with the various local religious communities and gets their blessing. The lesson here is that just because the local Jewish and Christian leadership support the move, unless that Muslim has also consulted with the Freemen and others across the country, expect to be picketed.

I thought our obligations towards the aboriginals stemmed more from international obligations involving our right to the land in exchange for certain guarantees towards aboriginals, and nothing to do with the Constitution. this would mean that a breach of contract would involve giving the land back. And since this contract is with the crown, the Monarch would unquestioningly havde to agree to it. And then there's the issue of the Monarch preserving its integrity in respect to treaties.

Fair enough. But if Muslims are the main group he did not consult, then that is more of an internal matter for the Muslims, but I agree none the less that they should have been consulted. That would still be an internal matter though.

The consultation part is not so new. Even before the public announcement, before this thread was even started, they had already consulted with the Jewish, Chritisn and possibly other communities. The initial announcement had gotten the blessing of NYC's Jewish and Chritian leadership, plus the local government. None of this was even required by law. So if anything, they'd already gone way beyondthe call of duty here. Heck, even Fox News was supportive until Geller spewed her hate.

I still don't get it. If a black man killed a white woman's white husband, why should another black man then be "sensitive" about marrying her because some members of the white community might be offended by such a "victory marraige"? I see the example above as being totally parallel. In the eyes of the Muslim community, it may have been viewed as a victory against fanaticism in the name of Islam. Would that not be a positive thing? And as for those offended by a "victory marriage", why care about them?

i.e. Some Muslims are responsible for 9/11, therefore other Muslims need to be sensitive.

So you have no issue with the Islamic Center then?