Machjo

I don't know. Islam or terrorism? Personally I'd rather protest for friendlier relations rather than against a religious community claiming that it's nothing personal but they share the same religion.

A what a brave soul the woman in that video is, standing up for the safety of the neighbors. :lol:

Oh but you don't get it. If they can offend all Muslims enough via their book burning campaign, maybe those Muslims will suddenly see the light that this is not about hating Muslims and so suddenly start a petition to move the Mosque elsewhere. There is nothing a Muslim would want more than to stand shoulder to shoulder with a protester who holds him, well, not responsible for those acts on 9/11 but, ya know, they share the same religion. It kind of reminds me of this kind welcome mat: I love her comment about how she liked the neighbors until she found out they were Muslim. But hey, nothing personal.

I fully agree. Now we have Egyptians of the same ilk as the protesters in NYC calling Germany racist, etc. In fact, I'm sure they're having a parallel debate right now, with some Egyptians standing up and insisting that they must not paint all Germans with the same brush, and others insisting some kind of punitive action against not just the one murderer, but Germany itself, be it via some kind of economic or diplomatic response from Egypt. The mind set in each camp would of course parallel the exact same mindset here.

By the way, here's another way of looking at the 9/11 incident: Those Msulims who were beaten or even killed in various cities around the world as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks could also be legitimately viewed as victims of 9/11, and that their attackers were perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11. If we look at it that way, then not all the terrorists are Muslim anymore. You might argue that's a stretch, but it's not entirely so. If the perpetrators of these attacks on Muslims and firebombings were directly motivated by the 9/11 attacks, then their victims are by extension 9/11 victims. Yet it would be foolhardy to put 100% of the blame for these attacks on the terrorists who flew the planes. Therefore, we must conclude that the attackers in these cases are unwitting accomplices to the 9/11 attacks, even if the attacks occurred days or years later if they were in fact motivated by the 9/11 attacks.

I could add that the protests have a worldwide symbolic effect too: that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11. No, I realize you don't blame them, but they're somehow linked in your mind by a shared religion. What are/were US servicemen fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan again?

Obviously, or it would not have led to so many firebombings and beatings across the Western world since 9/11. Maybe it's time to redefine the symbol, not as one of Muslim aggression, but one of terrorist aggression, a site reminding us of how hate, regardless of the source, must be countered. As long as it erroneously remains a symbol of Muslim aggression, then these attacks will continue. free speech is fine, but not when it can encourage weak minds to act on that speech with potentially lethal results.

I see. So they all have to be doctors and be killed all at once or it doesn't count. Well, I guess the KKK is OK then, since they'd never killed 3,000 doctors at once. They killed off regular folk over time, kind of like the anti-Muslim attacks today. So, should we not be sensitive towards Muslims in return? Were are the anti-Mosque burning and anti-murder protesters? Oh yes, Molotov and baseball bat experts are likely among the protesters' main funders. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Not many mosques firebombed: I've already posted the firebombings in Hamilton ad Jacksonville. Now: Luton http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=4064 Sydney http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/09/13/attack.australia.muslims/index.html Columbia: http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2010/3/26/white-supremacist-who-firebombed-mosque-is-sentenced.html Edinburgh: http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/evening-news-edinburgh-scotland/mi_7832/is_2001_Oct_3/firebomb-city-mosque/ai_n32944125/ And I especially like the symbolism of this one in Bosnia: http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/evening-news-edinburgh-scotland/mi_7832/is_2001_Oct_3/firebomb-city-mosque/ai_n32944125/ Tit for tat I see. And so back and forth it goes. And another attempted attack in Arlington: http://thesop.org/story/religion/2009/06/12/possible-fire-bomb-found-at-mosque-site.php Need I go on? Now for attacks: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=3323 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tribute-to-modern-muslim-murdered-at-home-442557.html And in the US: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/muslim-attacked-and-beaten-to-a-pulpin-brooklyn-is-it-a-hate-crime/ I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Now I understand that you're not saying to prohibit building the mosque there, but you are saying it shouldn't be built there owing to 'sensitivities'. Well, firebombing mosques ain't sensitive either, anymore than killing and beating Muslims. Looking at it that way, at least Muslims have been responsible enough not to tarnish all Westerners with the same brush and aren't harassing Westerners for showing a Western presence in area where mosques have been firebombed and Muslims beaten or killed. So why stoop so low as to do it to them? Why the double standard?

Or maybe we could propose that German community centres not be allowed to be built near moques because a German murdered a Muslim woman. Or maybe we could say that because Americans have firebombed mosques and murdered Muslims and Sikhs post 9/11 that American heritage buildings no longer be allowed to be built near mosques? Again, why the double standard?

"Burn-a-Koran" day? This guy's a lightweight. Why not "Burn-a-Mosque" Day: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-05-12/story/pipe-bomb-used-jacksonville-mosque-blast or "Down-a-Muzzie" Day: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/german-trial-hijab-murder-egypt How about we call for a ban on the construction of anything of Western origin near areas where Muslims are murdered and mosques burned? Why the double-standard? When Muslims kill, all Muslims should be sensitive. When Muslims are killed, the world is silent.

So with all the mosque burnings, murders after 9/11, and still today, could we just not call it even and let the local NYC community build their mosque near Ground Zero? After all, they're not calling for a ban on the building of Christian churches near where their mosques have been firebombed or their members murdered now are they? Likewise with abortion doctors. I'm not aware of any call for a ban on Christian churches near where abortion doctors are killed (then again, one was killed in a church). So why the double standard? As Churchill once said, though I may be paraphrasing here: When one person dies, it's a tragedy. When a million die, it's statistics.

It would seem anti-Muslim murders are still occurring in the Western World:

What just happened there? I agree with you! It's been awhile that I've agreed with your posts, but I have to agree with this link without a doubt.

Then here's one from many moons ago in 2010: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2010-05-12/story/pipe-bomb-used-jacksonville-mosque-blast And from Canada, again many moons ago in 2010: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/01/04/hamilton-mosque-firebomb.html Freedom of expression? Right. Anyways, I was just reading that under Islam, converting to another religion is a sin worse than murder. Moderates FTW!!! Reading it from where? Let's get it from the horse's mouth, shall we: Let there be no compulsion in Religion. (The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura 2 - The Cow) But hey, how ridiculous it must be to judge a religion by its sacred texts, from the horse's mouth. It makes much more sense to judge it by how others, including many Muslims, have chosen to corrupt it of course.

There is a difference between regular free speech and hate speech. I realize hate speech is legal in the US. I'm saying it shouldn't be. The guy in that video is not just expressing his opinion, but inciting hate towards non-Muslims, thus also putting Muslims at risk owing to the backlash it can cause. The same, by the way, applies the other way around: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/world/21muslim.html?_r=1 Essentially, those two groups feed on one another, and are really of the same mind, just mirror images of one another. Just look at the following videos and tell me the difference between them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7hILnHsNKE Except for the chosen self-identification of the two groups in this video, they look the same to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7hILnHsNKE Now this is hate speech and a legitimate target for protest.

And Sikhs had better run for their lives too if that mosque is built: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.hate.crimes/

Or this: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_WHbJaoFjYrsEoH2jzSmveP;jsessionid=3BB099701CC8EBF9E6CB3C2B8FB84929

At the end of the day, the builders of the Mosque should accept that if they do build that mosque, they're likely to encourage more acts like this: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_WHbJaoFjYrsEoH2jzSmveP;jsessionid=3BB099701CC8EBF9E6CB3C2B8FB84929

OK, American Woman, let me try to understand you point of view here, and correct me if I'm wrong. 1. You do not associate the local Muslim community with those who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11. 2. The local Muslim community should be more sensitive to the victims of 9/11 because the terrorists claimed the same religion. Now to me, that would seem like a contradiction since if you do not associate them, then the actions and claims of the perpetrators of the attacks have absolutely no bearing on the local Muslim community. But again, correct me if I missed something here. And why would anyone oppose the building of the centre of feel offended by it if they see no relationship whatsoever between the terrorists and the local Muslim community. 3. Some Muslims also oppose the building of that centre for various reasons. 4. Some Muslims themselves lost loved ones on 9/11, including the members of the local community. Now I'll assume you agree with both points 3 and 4 above, but then the question is, seeing that the local Muslim community was more impacted than any other Muslim community overall, does it not have more of a say than Muslims from elsewhere? And even if some local Muslims oppose the centre, would this not be a decision to be made within the local Muslim community itself? After all, who am I to stick my nose in the affairs of another religious community I don't belong to? On that front, I must therefore defend their right to build the mosque unless they themselves decide against doing so. Again, correct me if I missed anything here. I would also assume that if that local community supports building that mosque, and since it too had lost members to 9/11, that family and friends of victims of 9/11 also support building that mosque. That being the case, should we not be sensitive to them too? Certainly it's offensive to them to suggest that their loved ones who died on 9/11 were somehow related to their murderers, no? So it would seem that in the end, if that lcoal community has no relationship with the perpetrators of 9/11, then they should be free to build the mosque. And yes, you have said that too. However, on the topic of sensitivity, is it not insensitive to oppose the centre on the grounds that the terrorists were Muslim, in that it then implies a relationship between the Muslim victims of 9/11 and their captors? How do we make sense of all of these contradictions?

So if there is no commonality, then why do you oppose the building of the mosque on that location? Can you not be sensitive to the members of that congregation who'd lost loved ones on 9/11? Do you asociate them with the terrorists? If not, then what relationship is there between 9/11 and the building of that mosque? Now, if the protesters were proposing making a museum out of that building or making it a heritage site, I could see that. But right now they are targeting Islam specifically even though there are Churches even closer to Ground Zero than the Mosque is. You keep saying that there is no relationship between the Islamic centre and the terrorists, yet then turn around and say they shouldn't build there because of the terrorists. You're sending two contradictory messages. If that community has nothing to do with 9/11 then they should be sensitive to whom exactly?

OK, 'Americanize' can have various meanings of course, but that's another matter. I'm guessing that he means 'integrate Muslims into American society'. If that's what he means, then I could see the point of building the mosque there, to send the message that Muslims are just as American as any other. In this article though: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/zero_imam_mover_sheik_er_Saqw4jTP8glUr79BDxahqM The idea that the Imam if funded by taxpayers does bother me mind you. I'm not an American myself, but I can say that I would not appreciate my tax dollars funding religious initiatives. Should the protesters be protesting in favour of a clearer separation of Church and state here with an end to public funding of religion?

Now that's libido.

I must be ignorant if I can't see the commonality between the men who flew the planes into the buildings and the Muslim victims and especially the Muslim first responders. But I'll trust your wisdom that we must keep all positive signs of Is;am away from Ground Zero.