Mosque going up in NYC building

[lictor616]

It was sharia arbitration panels, not Sharia Law! They would apply in areas of civil law, and when the controversy erupted, most of us here in Ontario discovered for the first time that there were already Orthodox Jewish and Christian fundamentalist religious arbitration panels operating in the province for years! The McGuinty Government had to ban them also when they struck down the proposal for Sharia arbitration. And Muslim-haters who keep bringing up this story about how Ontario almost got Sharia Law five years ago, seem to forget the part of the story about the proposal being stopped by Muslim women's groups who opposed introducing Sharia arbitration here. Likely because it doesn't fit the narrative about a fascist religious movement seeking world domination that keeps their women oppressed.

Well the bias that allows Orthodox jewish courts is understandable when the very ethnicity is the most powerful enclave in the country.

But still there were no specific religious courts that allowed but the most trifling religious leniency in these cases. Sharia law involves stoning, wife beating the lynching of homosexuals and adulterers and the like and still does to this day in regions where such barbarous courts are permitted.

Fascist religious movement? There is nothing fascist about Islam, it is proletarian knavery and baseness. A primitive murder cult that may be better suited for the troglodytes of the dark ages and ancient times.

And if you don't believe in a slippery slope: eat this:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16477

[Peter F]

Ummm...

WIP, on 02 June 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

It was sharia arbitration panels, not Sharia Law! They would apply in areas of civil law, and when the controversy erupted, most of us here in Ontario discovered for the first time that there were already Orthodox Jewish and Christian fundamentalist religious arbitration panels operating in the province for years! The McGuinty Government had to ban them also when they struck down the proposal for Sharia arbitration. And Muslim-haters who keep bringing up this story about how Ontario almost got Sharia Law five years ago, seem to forget the part of the story about the proposal being stopped by Muslim women's groups who opposed introducing Sharia arbitration here. Likely because it doesn't fit the narrative about a fascist religious movement seeking world domination that keeps their women oppressed.

And WIP is right; that is exactly what was proposed and what was rejected.

'course, you know that because you quoted his post...Then you ignored it:

But still there were no specific religious courts that allowed but the most trifling religious leniency in these cases. Sharia law involves stoning, wife beating the lynching of homosexuals and adulterers and the like and still does to this day in regions where such barbarous courts are permitted.

cmon now. A demi-god can do much better than that

[Jack Weber]

I'm a little dubious about this term "Islamofascism." It's a little simplistic to concoct a hybrid of Islam and Fascism, since the Christian version is generally understood as a fascist state appealing to religious authority to reinforce their control over the people.

The Wahabis and the Saud family would have lost control without U.S. intervention. Who's to blame for the influence that Wahabis have now in the Muslim World, when the U.S. followed a policy for decades of backing them as enemies of Communism.

Bingo! All these problems with Islamism may have never happened if the U.S. had not supported the clerics and religious parties as allies against the left wing nationalists in many Arab countries. They built them up, and now they are trying to knock them down.

All this talk now from the Right about the need for secularism and moderates in the Muslim World, ignores the fact that there was a wave of secularism throughout the Muslim World for several decades, but the U.S. supported all of the Islamist groups to bring down these leftwing secular nationalists. Now they are trying to kill off the allies that they created in a number of cases.

Well, the Christian Fascist state went through a very bloody Reformation 500,or so,years ago.That had a moderating effect on Christianity,over a long period of time.It would seem that Islam really needs to go through that same process to moderate it.But that is up to the believers of that faith to stand up to the thug like element within Islam and put a stop to it.It cannot come from us.

Look...

You cannot blame the rise of Islamofascism completely on the US.

Could they have done something to keep the Wahabite's in check?

Probably,but the Saudi's could have,as well..And they are on the ground with these people.In fact,I think it's fair to say,the House of Saud encourages Wahabism to a certain extent.That's mainly because Saudi Arabia is home to two of the most impotant sites within Islam.This is a problem of Islma,the US is a player,but not the main player..

The biggest reason is the Pan-Arabists and Ba'Athists.And I've never felt they were leftists at all.The US would never have dealt with left leaning governments during the Cold War.In fact,the evidence is heavily weighted in the fact that they almost exclusively dealt with the biggest Fascist thugs they could find.But it's this thuglike behaviour and stark despotism that has warped the Islamofascist thinking.I believe it is Ba'Athism that gave these people the licence to act this way.The reason is that in many Ba'Athist regimes,apolitical Muslims were treated this way by the secular,Fascist governments.

Example?

Haffez Al-Assad's activities at Hama would be a place to start...

Edited June 2, 2010 by Jack Weber

[WIP]

Well, the Christian Fascist state went through a very bloody Reformation 500,or so,years ago.That had a moderating effect on Christianity,over a long period of time.It would seem that Islam really needs to go through that same process to moderate it.But that is up to the believers of that faith to stand up to the thug like element within Islam and put a stop to it.It cannot come from us.

No, this line that Christendom used to be fascist, but has been democratic and secular since the Reformation is a simplistic ruse. There is no one "Christianity," there are thousands of different sects that rise and fall in numbers and influence over the years, and the attitudes about how to deal with non-adherents or whether or not Christians should control government and law, is also continually in flux. Right now it is ridiculous to point to Christianity in Canada or the United States as a model for Muslims to follow when the evidence indicates that our churches are trending towards fundamentalist attitudes and demanding more control of law and government again. How can conservatives in particular, get up on their soapboxes and demand reformation and secularization in Islam, while they are advocating theocracy out of the other sides of their mouths?

Look...

You cannot blame the rise of Islamofascism completely on the US.

Could they have done something to keep the Wahabite's in check?

Probably,but the Saudi's could have,as well..And they are on the ground with these people.In fact,I think it's fair to say,the House of Saud encourages Wahabism to a certain extent.That's mainly because Saudi Arabia is home to two of the most impotant sites within Islam.This is a problem of Islma,the US is a player,but not the main player..

The biggest reason is the Pan-Arabists and Ba'Athists.And I've never felt they were leftists at all.The US would never have dealt with left leaning governments during the Cold War.In fact,the evidence is heavily weighted in the fact that they almost exclusively dealt with the biggest Fascist thugs they could find.But it's this thuglike behaviour and stark despotism that has warped the Islamofascist thinking.I believe it is Ba'Athism that gave these people the licence to act this way.The reason is that in many Ba'Athist regimes,apolitical Muslims were treated this way by the secular,Fascist governments.

Example?

Haffez Al-Assad's activities at Hama would be a place to start...

I didn't say that the U.S. was completely responsible for the rise of Islamic theocratic movements, but rather than listen to what people in Muslim nations were telling them at the time, they made a simplistic judgment that anything that was anti-communist was an American ally, and that's why they are paying a price for that choice now. I heard one prominent Pakistani writer (I can't recall the name) comment on the problem, and note that when he was a young man growing up in Pakistan during the 1960's, being too religious was the equivalent of being too old fashioned. The secularists were mostly on the political left in most Muslim countries, and that made them suspect to the CIA and the State Dept.. So, even if they weren't outright Marxist-Leninists, the U.S. administrations did whatever they could to help the Islamists fight against them. So, why would any secularists in the Muslim World trust U.S. intentions now? Especially after the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and their continual blindspot for Israel.

[lictor616]

Pat Condell, right as usual.

[WIP]

Pat Condell, right as usual.

Pat Condell, trying to incite a riot....as usual!

[Machjo]

Here's what I currently have as a signature on another forum:

The year is 2021. A man takes out his prayer rug to pray at ground zero. Some people taunt him about how Muslims aren't welcome. And he rises to say:

"My mom died here when I was an infant. I came to pay my respects."

Who are we to deny the building of a mosque anywhere where a church can also be legally built, especially considering that the mosque in question itself lost members of its congregation on 9/11?

Are we to say that a congregation that has lost members to 9/11 may not build a mosque where a Mcdonald's could otherwise be legally built?

And besides, it's not just a mosque, but a 13-story Islamic centre based on a similar model to the YMCA, with the mosque comprising but one floor of the centre; and it will be open to all.

Since when does freedom of religion stop at our own church? IMO, once a person adopts the ideology of the enemy, he becomes the enemy. The congregation of that mosque has repeatedly denied any involvement in 9/11. And again, they themselves suffered the loss of loved ones on that fateful day. As such, they have more of a moral say than most of us here, including myself, in whether to build a mosque near ground zero.

This is just pure Islamophobia.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... So, even if they weren't outright Marxist-Leninists, the U.S. administrations did whatever they could to help the Islamists fight against them. So, why would any secularists in the Muslim World trust U.S. intentions now? Especially after the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and their continual blindspot for Israel.

Non sequitur...the US had/has interests (and intentions) that transcend such a simple conclusion or assumptions to be made by any group, secular or not. To do so would only continue the false premise.

[Machjo]

And I'll add to my last post that I find it highly offensive that Canadians not even living in the US are dictating to a congregation that had lost members to 9/11. As such, that mosque has more right to be built there than most churches, seeing that some of the money donated to the building of that mosque likely came from family members of Muslim victims of 9/11. Who are we to tell them what to do with their money? Some of them might even view this as an appropriate memorial to their loved ones to show how Islam stands victorious against terrorism committed in its name. And yet we who have been comparatively unaffected by 9/11 are now going to dictate to them?

[lictor616]

Pat Condell, trying to incite a riot....as usual!

a riot of reason and rationality in the befuddle kuffar in the West... I wish him success.

[Machjo]

Pat Condell, right as usual.

Did he lose any family members to 9/11? Some of the members of the congregation of that mosque did. So it would seem that they have more say in this than he does. He's incapable of making a distinction between Islam and terrorism.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Machjo great posts I agree.

[Guest American Woman]

And I'll add to my last post that I find it highly offensive that Canadians not even living in the US are dictating to a congregation that had lost members to 9/11.

Canadians were killed on 9-11, too. Canadians have a right to an opinion, too; even if it's an opinion that you don't agree with. So if you take offense with it, that's your problem.

As such, that mosque has more right to be built there than most churches,

Really? Because "most churches" didn't have members of their faith die on 9-11? Evidently the vast majority of those killed were atheists/agnostics?

Talk about bending over backwards to justify Muslims building a Mosque on property available only because of the murderous/destructive action of other Muslims. Can't expect empathy from them. Oh, no. To hold Muslims to the same standard as I and others on the board have held the U.S. to regarding the embassy in Iraq, since no one who approves of this mosque approves of the embassy, would be "bigoted."

Some of them might even view this as an appropriate memorial to their loved ones to show how Islam stands victorious against terrorism committed in its name.

But how Muslims would see building a Mosque as victorious over Muslims who would love to have a mosque at Ground Zero is beyond me. But even if they would, I sure don't expect all non-Muslims to see it that way. Any more than I expect Iraqis to embrace the embassy because Americans died in Iraq too.

Edited June 6, 2010 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

But how Muslims would see building a Mosque as victorious over Muslims who would love to have a mosque at Ground Zero is beyond me.

That sentence is beyond me.

[Machjo]

Canadians were killed on 9-11, too. Canadians have a right to an opinion, too; even if it's an opinion that you don't agree with. So if you take offense with it, that's your problem.

Of course. Yet somehow I doubt those Canadians who'd lost loved ones on 9/11 would be offended at other victims of 9/11 wanting to build a mosque near where their loved ones had died too.

Why would any family member of the victims of 9/11 want to pit themselves against other family members of the victims of 9/11 out of prejudice. I'm sure they have more respect and sensitivity than that. My guess is the ones opposing this are just Islamophobes choosing to ignore the Muslim victims of 9/11, including fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends, for their own political ends.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course. Yet somehow I doubt those Canadians who'd lost loved ones on 9/11 would be offended at other victims of 9/11 wanting to build a mosque near where their loved ones had died too.

So you're speaking for all the Canadians who lost loved ones on 9-11 now? That takes a lot of gall.

Why would any family member of the victims of 9/11 want to pit themselves against other family members of the victims of 9/11 out of prejudice.

"Out of prejudice" is your take on it. And only your take. So I'll answer your question with another one: why would any family member of the Muslim victims of 9-11 want to pit themselves against other family members of the victims of 9-11 out of lack of empathy/understanding? Why should the non-Muslims care more about the feelings of the Muslims than vice versa?

I'm sure they have more respect and sensitivity than that.

I'm sure you are sure of that, because you expect "respect and sensitivity" from non-Muslims, while you think it's prejudiced to expect empathy from Muslims.

My guess is the ones opposing this are just Islamophobes choosing to ignore the Muslim victims of 9/11, including fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends, for their own political ends.

"Guess" is the key word there, and in response, I'll just say guess again, as you make it all about the poor mourning Muslim victims versus the evil prejudiced politically driven non-Muslim victims.

[lictor616]

So you're speaking for all the Canadians who lost loved ones on 9-11 now? That takes a lot of gall.

"Out of prejudice" is your take on it. And only your take. So I'll answer your question with another one: why would any family member of the Muslim victims of 9-11 want to pit themselves against other family members of the victims of 9-11 out of lack of empathy/understanding? Why should the non-Muslims care more about the feelings of the Muslims than vice versa?

I'm sure you are sure of that, because you expect "respect and sensitivity" from non-Muslims, while you think it's prejudiced to expect empathy from Muslims.

"Guess" is the key word there, and in response, I'll just say guess again, as you make it all about the poor mourning Muslim victims versus the evil prejudiced politically driven non-Muslim victims.

you really are defending this lunacy AA?

now that takes gall... I can't suppress the sickness in my stomach when I read your tripe...

why? just Why!? why take this indefensible position... why do you hate western civilization so much?%

[Machjo]

Really? Because "most churches" didn't have members of their faith die on 9-11? Evidently the vast majority of those killed were atheists/agnostics?

That's why I'd said 'most'. The vast majority of churches, mosques, etc. across North America were less affected by 9/11 than that congregation, and so that congregation, along of course with those Christian congregations that have lost loved ones on 9/11, have much more of a legitimate claim to build near ground zero than many of the the 'offended' who were much less affected.

And I doubt very much that many of the families of the victims of 9/11 are part of this crusade. In fact the families of the 9/11 victims have organized a group called Peaceful Tormorrows to counter the war in Iraq and also worked together with an Iraqi organization (which I would guess mostly comprises Muslims) representing the families of victims of the Iraq War, called La Onf.

If they were so opposed to Is;am, why would they be working with Muslims in Iraq? Just something to think about. People hurt by this have gone beyond petty bigotry, in honour of their families.

Talk about bending over backwards to justify Muslims building a Mosque on property available only because of the murderous/destructive action of other Muslims. Can't expect empathy from them. Oh, no. To hold Muslims to the same standard as I and others on the board have held the U.S. to regarding the embassy in Iraq, since no one who approves of this mosque approves of the embassy, would be "bigoted."

So, do you oppose the freedom of this congregation to build a mosque where a church could just as easily be legally built? Are you offended at the fact that that congregation wants to build a mosque there to show that Islam has come out victorious against terrorism done in its name, claiming the lives of some of tis adherents? Are you offended at the fact that some family members of the victims of 9/11 are likely among the financial contributors to the building of that mosque? Are you offended at the acknowledgement that some innocent Muslims died on 9/11 too?

Sorry, I don't expect you to answer these questions, so feel free to skate around them with some rhetorical diatribe.

But how Muslims would see building a Mosque as victorious over Muslims who would love to have a mosque at Ground Zero is beyond me. But even if they would, I sure don't expect all non-Muslims to see it that way. Any more than I expect Iraqis to embrace the embassy because Americans died in Iraq too.

That's not the kind of mosque they wanted built. This mosque welcomes Americans; that's not what they wanted.

[Machjo]

So you're speaking for all the Canadians who lost loved ones on 9-11 now? That takes a lot of gall.

No, I'm not. Let them families speak for themselves:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/11/september_11th_families_for_peaceful_tomorrows

"Out of prejudice" is your take on it. And only your take. So I'll answer your question with another one: why would any family member of the Muslim victims of 9-11 want to pit themselves against other family members of the victims of 9-11 out of lack of empathy/understanding? Why should the non-Muslims care more about the feelings of the Muslims than vice versa?

Have they said that non-Muslims cannot build a church or synagogue or even secular monument to the victims of 9/11? I must have missed that. can you provide a link?

I'm sure you are sure of that, because you expect "respect and sensitivity" from non-Muslims, while you think it's prejudiced to expect empathy from Muslims.

And how exactly did these Muslims show a lack of empathy? They chose to build a mosque near Ground Zero to show their solidarity against terrorism. And that's somehow offensive? Again, when did they ever oppose the building of any kind of non-Muslim monument near the 9/11 site. It sounds to me like you're intent on muffling them.

"Guess" is the key word there, and in response, I'll just say guess again, as you make it all about the poor mourning Muslim victims versus the evil prejudiced politically driven non-Muslim victims.

Why do you make it an either/or scenario? Just look at the map of the area around Ground Zero. It's not like that mosque is monopolizing the area. In fact, seeing that's it's two blocks away from Ground Zero, instead of complaining about it, why couldn't some Christian group build a church and YMCA right between the mosque and Ground Zero? And I bet the Muslim group would not make a peep about that.

[Machjo]

AA has a black and white view of the world. Since the terrorists of 9/11 called themselves Muslim, therefore all Muslims are terrorists and deserve to be silenced. That's her take, simple as that.

[dre]

That's why I'd said 'most'. The vast majority of churches, mosques, etc. across North America were less affected by 9/11 than that congregation, and so that congregation, along of course with those Christian congregations that have lost loved ones on 9/11, have much more of a legitimate claim to build near ground zero than many of the the 'offended' who were much less affected.

And I doubt very much that many of the families of the victims of 9/11 are part of this crusade. In fact the families of the 9/11 victims have organized a group called Peaceful Tormorrows to counter the war in Iraq and also worked together with an Iraqi organization (which I would guess mostly comprises Muslims) representing the families of victims of the Iraq War, called La Onf.

If they were so opposed to Is;am, why would they be working with Muslims in Iraq? Just something to think about. People hurt by this have gone beyond petty bigotry, in honour of their families.

So, do you oppose the freedom of this congregation to build a mosque where a church could just as easily be legally built? Are you offended at the fact that that congregation wants to build a mosque there to show that Islam has come out victorious against terrorism done in its name, claiming the lives of some of tis adherents? Are you offended at the fact that some family members of the victims of 9/11 are likely among the financial contributors to the building of that mosque? Are you offended at the acknowledgement that some innocent Muslims died on 9/11 too?

Sorry, I don't expect you to answer these questions, so feel free to skate around them with some rhetorical diatribe.

That's not the kind of mosque they wanted built. This mosque welcomes Americans; that's not what they wanted.

I dont think the legitimacy of any project to build any building should be decided based on how many people died in any kind of disaster.

Presumably the city has criteria for how to make these kinds of decisions... theres likely zoning bylaws, a permitting process, etc. I see no reason to deviate from this process because the property in question is close to place where a terrorist attack took place 10 years ago.

If its legal to build a facility like this, and the prospective builders filled out the right paperwork and got the right permits and were qualified applicants under whatever municiple laws that apply I see no reason to reject them. In fact... I doubt that rejecting the application based on the fact this is muslim project would even be legal or constitutional.

[Guest American Woman]

That's why I'd said 'most'. The vast majority of churches, mosques, etc. across North America were less affected by 9/11 than that congregation, and so that congregation, along of course with those Christian congregations that have lost loved ones on 9/11, have much more of a legitimate claim to build near ground zero than many of the the 'offended' who were much less affected.

Less affected than what congregation? Are you saying Christians and Jews were less affected than Muslims by 9-11? And again, we aren't talking about "building near" Ground Zero, we are talking about building on property that is only available because of 9-11. But for the actions of the Muslims on 9-11, the Muslims building there would have to build elsewhere. So it's not just a matter of "building near;" the fact is, that Mosque would not be able to exist there but for 9-11.

And I doubt very much that many of the families of the victims of 9/11 are part of this crusade. In fact the families of the 9/11 victims have organized a group called Peaceful Tormorrows to counter the war in Iraq and also worked together with an Iraqi organization (which I would guess mostly comprises Muslims) representing the families of victims of the Iraq War, called La Onf.

I wouldn't begin to expect everyone to be of one mind about this. But the fact is, everyone's feelings are just as important as the next. You can't say, 'well this person's feelings don't carry as much weight because I don't agree with him, and even though I didn't lose anyone on 9-11, I've decided that he is prejudiced for feeling the way he does about not wanting the mosque built there.'

If they were so opposed to Is;am, why would they be working with Muslims in Iraq? Just something to think about. People hurt by this have gone beyond petty bigotry, in honour of their families.

Really try to grasp this concept, because I've repeated it several times now. So please try really hard.

People aren't in opposition of the Mosque being built there, in that particular spot, in the shadow of Ground Zero because the building is available only because of 9-11, because they are opposed to Islam. I know you've assigned them with anti-Islamic feelings, but that doesn't make it so.

I am totally aware that not all Muslims are terrorists. I am totally supportive of Muslims wanting to build their Mosque anywhere else in NYC.

And while I'm repeating things for the bajillionth time, I don't think they should be prohibited from building there; I think they should have enough empathy to choose not to build there. I'm critical of them for not being empathetic to those who lost loved ones and don't want to see a Mosque in the shadow of the memorial.

So, do you oppose the freedom of this congregation to build a mosque where a church could just as easily be legally built?

See above: I don't oppose the freedom. And if a church were to go there, it wouldn't be going there because the property was available due to the murderous/destructive actions of other members of their faith. Do you really not see that?

Are you offended at the fact that that congregation wants to build a mosque there to show that Islam has come out victorious against terrorism done in its name,

How does building a mosque there show that Islam is victorious against terrorism when it was Islamic terrorism? Way to be victorious over Muslims' actions; build a Mosque. I'm sure they would have hated that! I'm sure other extremists of like mind are cringing at the prospect of a Mosque going up in the shadow of Ground Zero. And in case you really don't get it, that's sarcasm.

claiming the lives of some of tis adherents? Are you offended at the fact that some family members of the victims of 9/11 are likely among the financial contributors to the building of that mosque? Are you offended at the acknowledgement that some innocent Muslims died on 9/11 too?

Could you get off the "poor Muslim" victims at least long enough to recognize that there were many, many, many, many more victims that weren't Muslim? Or aren't I supposed to care about their feelings?

Sorry, I don't expect you to answer these questions, so feel free to skate around them with some rhetorical diatribe.

I've answered the questions in this very thread over and over again. If you would get outside your one-focus mindset and preconceived ideas, you might be able to see that.

But since you brought up your expectations, I didn't expect you to comment on the fact that it's wrong for Americans to build a huge embassy in Iraq but it's not wrong for Muslims to build a huge Mosque/Islamic center on Ground Zero. And you didn't.

That's not the kind of mosque they wanted built. This mosque welcomes Americans; that's not what they wanted.

Are you serious? You think they don't want a Mosque in America that welcomes Americans? You do realize the Muslims are Americans, right?

Edited June 6, 2010 by American Woman

[Machjo]

Heck, let's let the victims' families speak for themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJVD-A2wOM

And how New York Muslims are berated for trying to help:

Yet clearly some victims' relatives have been able to look so far past the prejudice that they themselves have adopted Islam:

[Machjo]

Less affected than what congregation? Are you saying Christians and Jews were less affected than Muslims by 9-11? And again, we aren't talking about "building near" Ground Zero, we are talking about building on property that is only available because of 9-11. But for the actions of the Muslims on 9-11, the Muslims building there would have to build elsewhere. So it's not just a matter of "building near;" the fact is, that Mosque would not be able to exist there but for 9-11.

No, I'm saying Muslims in New York were just as affected by this as Christians and Jews, and that they were more affected on the whole that those living in other cities. So they should have the same right to mourn, no?

As for that ground being made available, it was not made available just to that Muslim community but to anyone who wants to buy there. You make it sound like a conspiracy. You could build a restaurant there if you wanted to. If I built a restaurant there, would you then complain that it was made possible only because of 9/11? Are you saying that the best way to honour the victims of 9/11 is not to rebuild but to just leave a hole in the ground? Would you be saying the same if a church and YMCA were being built there instead? I doubt it.

[Machjo]

I wouldn't begin to expect everyone to be of one mind about this. But the fact is, everyone's feelings are just as important as the next. You can't say, 'well this person's feelings don't carry as much weight because I don't agree with him, and even though I didn't lose anyone on 9-11, I've decided that he is prejudiced for feeling the way he does about not wanting the mosque built there.'

Yes, people will have different feelings about it, but what other reason would there be to oppose that mosque other than that you blame all Muslims for 9/11? If you are offended, then clearly you blame them all. And if you don't blame them all, and see them as victims like the rest, then why would you be offended. It's pretty obvious.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Machjo