Mosque going up in NYC building

[Smallc]

Why is everything always about Israel, even when it's not?

[Guest American Woman]

Levity does add substance to a thread unlike some of the nonsense you have spewed here for the past few pages so cut the hypocritical lecturing.

My point of view isn't "nonsense" just because you disagree with it - and it isn't "spewing" to state my opinion. The accusation that people are "spewing" or "ranting" or "whining" when simply posting the same as the 'accuser' is asinine, childish, and ignorant - and adds nothing to the debate.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Of course that's the "lesson." Many people aren't even religious, so why would they care if this, that, or the other "religious leader" gave his/her blessing? Furthermore, people don't look to their "religious leader" to speak for them, any more than the local Muslims wanted the "Muslim leaders" in charge of this project to act without their input.

It's not about religion - it's about Americans, and how the majority feel.

[GostHacked]

My point of view isn't "nonsense" just because you disagree with it - and it isn't "spewing" to state my opinion. The accusation that people are "spewing" or "ranting" or "whining" when simply posting the same as the 'accuser' is asinine, childish, and ignorant - and adds nothing to the debate.

And yet here we are on page .. what .. 196??

[Guest American Woman]

And yet here we are on page .. what .. 196??

Why thank you for pointing that out. I can only assume that is your official position on this board - to make numerous posts stating how many pages threads are. Or is it just this thread that you choose to ruin grace with your presence? I would wager the thread would be a lot shorter without your 'no substance' responses. Ya think that might be a possibility??

Again. If you're not interested - try staying out of the thread! :angry:

[GostHacked]

Why thank you for pointing that out. I can only assume that is your official position on this board - to make numerous posts stating how many pages threads are. Or is it just this thread that you choose to ruin grace with your presence? I would wager the thread would be a lot shorter without your 'no substance' responses. Ya think that might be a possibility??

Again. If you're not interested - try staying out of the thread! :angry:

If you want to take out all my posts for this entire thread, that might push this back to page 190.

[msj]

My point of view isn't "nonsense" just because you disagree with it - and it isn't "spewing" to state my opinion. The accusation that people are "spewing" or "ranting" or "whining" when simply posting the same as the 'accuser' is asinine, childish, and ignorant - and adds nothing to the debate.

Note the word "some" in what you have quoted from me.

Yes, you have spewed some nonsense here that has added nothing to the debate - I have even pointed it out for you in the very same post you took that quote from. How convenient of you to ignore that...

And, yes, I agree that you have behaved in an asinine, childish and ignorant way at times.

Note the "at times" qualifier.

Oh, and please stop the hypocritical martyrdom - I'm feeling embarrassed for you.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop the personal attacks. If personal attacks continue offenders will have their posting privileges suspended.

Ch. A.

[Machjo]

Of course that's the "lesson." Many people aren't even religious, so why would they care if this, that, or the other "religious leader" gave his/her blessing? Furthermore, people don't look to their "religious leader" to speak for them, any more than the local Muslims wanted the "Muslim leaders" in charge of this project to act without their input.

It's not about religion - it's about Americans, and how the majority feel.

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.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Machjo

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Don't know how I could be "right" about the referendum crap when I never suggested such a thing. :angry: So try to stick to what I did say instead of putting words in my mouth, ok? Thanks in advance.

Regarding/recapping/repeating what I did say: If the site involved is available only because of terrorism/murders committed by members of the religion doing the building, I think others' feelings should definitely be a consideration. Regardless of the religion.

[Machjo]

Don't know how I could be "right" about the referendum crap when I never suggested such a thing. :angry: So try to stick to what I did say instead of putting words in my mouth, ok? Thanks in advance.

Regarding/recapping/repeating what I did say: If the site involved is available only because of terrorism/murders committed by members of the religion doing the building, I think others' feelings should definitely be a consideration. Regardless of the religion.

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?

[Guest American Woman]

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?

I think the key word there is "trying." By all accounts, he wasn't successful. He acted alone. No Christian organization funded him, supported him, trained him, or cheered in the streets after the deaths. Furthermore, he wasn't targeting non-Christian infidels. His motivation was political. So. If conservatives were to try to build a campaign headquarters on property damaged by Breikiv, I think people's feelings should definitely be a consideration. My beliefs aren't limited to religion.

But out of curiosity, what property was damaged by Breivik? I know of no structural damage.

Edited September 11, 2011 by American Woman

[Tilter]

The people putting up this monument to people's gullibility are preaching "tolerance" as a means of bridging the gap between Islam & sane people.

Here is a suggestion aired in Australia that will test the integrity & tolerance of the people building this insult to the relatives of people killed in the barbaric 9/11 idiocy.

From Australia:

Tolerance

I am truly perplexed that so many of my friends are against another mosque being built in New York .

I think it should be the goal of every North American to be tolerant.

Thus the Mosque should be allowed, in an effort to promote tolerance.

That is why I also propose that two nightclubs be opened next door to the mosque, thereby promoting tolerance from within the mosque.

We could call one of the clubs, which would be gay, "The Turban Cowboy ", and the other a topless bar called "You Mecca Me Hot."

Next door should be a butcher shop that specializes in pork, and adjacent to that an open-pit barbeque pork restaurant, called " Iraq o' Ribs."

Across the street there could be a lingerie store called " Victoria Keeps Nothing Secret ", with sexy mannequins in the window modeling the goods.

Next door to the lingerie shop there would be room for an adult sex toy shop, "Koranal Knowledge ", its name in flashing neon lights, and on the other side a liquor store called "Morehammered."

All of this would encourage the Muslims to demonstrate the tolerance they demand of us, so the mosque problem would be solved.

If you agree with promoting tolerance, and you think this is a good plan, please comment

[Machjo]

I think the key word there is "trying." By all accounts, he wasn't successful. He acted alone. No Christian organization funded him, supported him, trained him, or cheered in the streets after the deaths. Furthermore, he wasn't targeting non-Christian infidels. His motivation was political. So. If conservatives were to try to build a campaign headquarters there, I think people's feeling should definitely be a consideration. My beliefs aren't limited to religion.

But out of curiosity, what property was damaged by Breivik? I know of no structural damage.

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?

[Machjo]

The people putting up this monument to people's gullibility are preaching "tolerance" as a means of bridging the gap between Islam & sane people.

Here is a suggestion aired in Australia that will test the integrity & tolerance of the people building this insult to the relatives of people killed in the barbaric 9/11 idiocy.

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.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sure some likely defended him in far-right political forums. Not exactly cheering, but still defense.

Defending what? His views? His killing people? If you're "sure" some "likely" did that, I would think it should be fairly easy to find proof. In the meantime, if I were to post that "I'm sure some Muslims" did this, that, or the other similar thing, I doubt you would stand for it. And you shouldn't.

For the record, defending his beliefs and defending his actions are two very different things. Throw in "cheering the deaths" and you've got what happened after 9-11.

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?

The "issue of numbers" is actually an issue of force; whether there is a force that is a threat carrying out a series of attacks. A force that has a training center. A force that is being funded. A force that is cheering on and calling for more deaths and threatening to do so and actually doing it. A force that remains a force even after those who carried out the murders are dead/incarcerated.

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?

They shouldn't feel guilty. I never so much as insinuated that they should. In fact, as I just now stated, again, I've been clearly saying all along that they shouldn't feel guilty. There is a big difference between feelings of "guilt" and feelings of "empathy."

[Machjo]

Defending what? His views? His killing people? If you're "sure" some "likely" did that, I would think it should be fairly easy to find proof. In the meantime, if I were to post that "I'm sure some Muslims" did this, that, or the other similar thing, I doubt you would stand for it. And you shouldn't.

http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&newsId=251886&link=251886

For the record, defending his beliefs and defending his actions are two very different things. Throw in "cheering the deaths" and you've got what happened after 9-11.

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.

The "issue of numbers" is actually an issue of force; whether there is a force that is a threat carrying out a series of attacks. A force that has a training center. A force that is being funded. A force that is cheering on and calling for more deaths and threatening to do so and actually doing it. A force that remains a force even after those who carried out the murders are dead/incarcerated.

Then there you're talking about a security concern, not the building of a religious centre by a community that opposes the fanatics.

They shouldn't feel guilty. I never so much as insinuated that they should. In fact, as I just now stated, again, I've been clearly saying all along that they shouldn't feel guilty. There is a big difference between feelings of "guilt" and feelings of "empathy."

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.

[Guest American Woman]

The cheerers though did not represent all Muslims any more than the defenders represent all Which Christian Europeans.

What "defenders?" Who defended the murders? Until you can show me that, there's no continuing this discussion. When you can show me that, I'll gladly address the rest of your points.

As a side note, I noticed your sig line - With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? - for the first time. I'm sure it's just an oversight that you haven't added:

With friends like Hamas, what Palestinian needs enemies?

With friends like the Taliban, what Afghan needs enemies?

With friends like al Qaeda, what Muslim needs enemies?

Because certainly Zionists aren't more of an "enemy" than the others are, right?

Edited September 11, 2011 by American Woman

[Tilter]

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.

Oh--=- you don't think that "Auzzies" died in 9/11?

I'm glad to hear that they killed some of their own .

[Guest American Woman]

Oh--=- you don't think that "Auzzies" died in 9/11?

I'm glad to hear that they killed some of their own .

I must be really out of it ........... what's an "Auzzie?"

Edited to add:

Just now read Tilter's post referring to Aussies - the reference to "their own" is what threw me off but I see the reference was to Australians, as I thought it would be. Don't know how I missed that first time around .......

Edited September 11, 2011 by American Woman

[Tilter]

I must be really out of it ........... what's an "Auzzie?"

Edited to add:

Just now read Tilter's post referring to Aussies - the reference to "their own" is what threw me off but I see the reference was to Australians, as I thought it would be. Don't know how I missed that first time around .......

You'll have to ask Machjo--- His word not mine

[Guest American Woman]

You'll have to ask Machjo--- His word not mine

It appears to be a combination of Aussie and Oz. I just had never heard the term before, and I was wondering why "Auzzies" would get no say in the matter. I imagine, being that people from all over the world were killed, there are other nationalities who have issues with this too.

[Machjo]

Oh--=- you don't think that "Auzzies" died in 9/11?

I'm glad to hear that they killed some of their own .

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.

[bloodyminded]

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.

You're right: "I'm glad to hear that they killed some of their own." Jeesh.

I missed this entirely; I guess I've got that fabled "outrage fatigue," in which even open bigotry barely even registers anymore.

Edited September 14, 2011 by bloodyminded