Mosque going up in NYC building

[Sir Bandelot]

There you go again. I've CLEARLY stated why I believe it to be insensitive, and you may not agree with my reasons, but that doesn't mean you have the right to then accuse me of what I "must believe."

Sorry but I don't buy your doublespeak politically correct garbage on this one. I and others here simply don't buy it. It does not hold up to intellectual scrutiny. The underlying reason is a bias toward muslims, that their prescence near the WTC is somehow symbolic of the attack and would produce feelings of anger and fear in those who lost their loved ones. That feeling is misguided. And responding to it, agreeing with it is a terrible mistake.

Insults? ME?

I think not.

Yes you! I imagine it must be hard for you to believe. Perhaps you use the word moron in your house on a regular basis, but it is an insult, and it's pretty much the first thing you come up with consistently in your replies. You use this to evade the argument and beat down others who try to challenge your views. It only proves you have no legs to stand on.

[sharkman]

I am not interested in appeasement. I believe the only way to deal with extremists or bullies for that matter is to fight them. We must identify who the real enemy is, fight them and at the same time marginalize them so that their own support mechanisms, funding and recruitment fail them. Fight the radicals, embrace the moderates. In order to do that we need to discriminate between the two using intelligence, not emotions.

Some people who are unable to differentiate between the two, will be upset by this.

You are an appeaser of the Chamberlain mold. Don't feel bad about it, many others think this mind set will solve the Muslim puzzle.

[Sir Bandelot]

You are an appeaser of the Chamberlain mold. Don't feel bad about it, many others think this mind set will solve the Muslim puzzle.

Appeasement means making some concessions to your enemy's demands. Which part of post #199 do you consider appeasement?

[naomiglover]

Being an atheist, I'm pretty much convinced everyone praying to sky-gods is nutzo to a degree. The ones that trample on human rights in the name of their sky-god I have a particular disdain for. That you think this a flaw in my character is not my problem.

Is it okay for you to support the trampling of human rights because you claim to be an atheist? What about your support for those who break human rights laws in the name of sky gods, but they happen to be on a team you support?

Can you explain your selective and contradictory vision and approach to life?

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry but I don't buy your doublespeak politically correct garbage on this one.

And I wouldn't expect anything less from a terrorist apologist like you.

I and others here simply don't buy it.

You're speaking for others now? Seems to me you have enough difficulty speaking for yourself.

It does not hold up to intellectual scrutiny.

"Intellectual scrutiny?" How would you know?

The underlying reason is a bias toward muslims,

Your underlying problem is sympathy for terrorists.

Perhaps you use the word moron in your house on a regular basis, but it is an insult, and it's pretty much the first thing you come up with consistently in your replies.

Only when I'm replying to you. Fortunately I don't know a lot of morons. And if you think it's not moronic to provoke American posters, then that's your problem. If you think it's not moronic to tell other people what they think, that's your problem. But when you accuse me of moronic beliefs, I will call you on it.

You use this to evade the argument and beat down others who try to challenge your views. It only proves you have no legs to stand on.

Evade the argument that YOU created. It's not MY argument at all. Nothing "moronic" about that, eh?

Carry on with your apologies for terrorists. I'm sure you feel a pang of regret that the Mosque isn't going up on the memorial site. Just as you feel a pang of regret whenever a terrorist attempt fails. You see, I don't buy your doublespeak garbage at all. I and others here know you for the terrorist supporter that you are.

[naomiglover]

Terrorism is not synonymous to Islam. Just like Pedophilia is not synonymous to Christianity.

Those who are showing sensitivity because of their ignorance should not be given support.

[Guest American Woman]

Terrorism is not synonymous to Islam.

It's not?? Guess that must be why I've said the same thing myself. Over and over. But thanks for your input just the same.

[naomiglover]

It's not?? Guess that must be why I've said the same thing myself. Over and over. But thanks for your input just the same.

But you support those who believe it is by saying a mosque should not go up. Why?

[Guest American Woman]

But you support those who believe it is by saying a mosque should not go up. Why?

I'm done arguing points that other make up.

Have a nice day.

[naomiglover]

I'm done arguing points that other make up.

Have a nice day.

Just to re-cap, you have said the following, which is not made up:

I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere.

You agree that the mosque should not be built based on ignorant views on Islam and Muslims.

Have a nice day.

[Guest American Woman]

Just to re-cap, you have said the following, which is not made up: I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere.

Nope. That's not made up.

But this is:

You agree that the mosque should not be built based on ignorant views on Islam and Muslims.

[naomiglover]

Nope. That's not made up.

But this is:

I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere.

Were you speaking in codes, because it's pretty clear what the above statement is.

You want the mosque not to be built where it is proposed because of ignorant views of terrorism and Islam by relatives of victims from 9/11.

Edited May 20, 2010 by naomiglover

[Guest American Woman]

I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere.

Were you speaking in codes, because it's pretty clear what the above statement is.

You want the mosque not to be built where it is proposed because of ignorant views of terrorism and Islam by relatives of victims from 9/11.

What's pretty clear is that you support terrorists. Why?

[Sir Bandelot]

And I wouldn't expect anything less from a terrorist apologist like you.

I know you're just trying to goad me with these accusations, but it won't work. On the other hand I can go back and show where you have said those things that I questioned you about, and you continue to have no answer. other than silly ad-hominems, which mean absolutely nothing to me...

"Intellectual scrutiny?" How would you know?

Your underlying problem is sympathy for terrorists.

Fortunately I don't know a lot of morons. And if you think it's not moronic to provoke American posters, then that's your problem. If you think it's not moronic to tell other people what they think, that's your problem. But when you accuse me of moronic beliefs, I will call you on it.

Evade the argument that YOU created. It's not MY argument at all. Nothing "moronic" about that, eh?

Carry on with your apologies for terrorists. I'm sure you feel a pang of regret that the Mosque isn't going up on the memorial site. Just as you feel a pang of regret whenever a terrorist attempt fails. You see, I don't buy your doublespeak garbage at all. I and others here know you for the terrorist supporter that you are.

It's amazing how vindictive and spiteful you become once someone disagrees with you. You're doing a nice job proving my point. Your use of emoticons also proves my point. Your emotionalism is what defeated you, not me. Maybe you just need a vacation

[naomiglover]

What's pretty clear is that you support terrorists. Why?

Thank you DogOnPorch.

[Guest American Woman]

Thank you DogOnPorch.

You're very welcome.

Guess you don't like it so much when your words to me are turned around back at you.

[WIP]

Thank you DogOnPorch.

What's apparent here in this thread is that there are too many people who can be stampeded out of fear and resentment to support odious characters for protection. That's why America is stuck in two quagmires (Canada is now stuck in one of them)and freely abandoning civil rights. There has been no coherent argument for trying to block the building of a mosque two blocks away from the WTC; just outrage and indignation. Yet these people would toss every freedom overboard to protect us against Muslim encroachment. I believe Benjamin Franklin said something like 'those that trade freedom for security deserve neither.' That's why this mentality leads to fascism if it isn't stopped.

[naomiglover]

You're very welcome.

Guess you don't like it so much when your words to me are turned around back at you.

All you did was try to avoid responding to clarification on a comment you made. You want to discuss a comment I've made, bring it up. Stop trying to deflect criticism.

How else should your comment be interpreted besides that you support not building the mosque where it is proposed, because it might offend those who have an ignorant view of Islam and Terrorism?

Here is your comment:

I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere.

[Guest American Woman]

There has been no coherent argument for trying to block the building of a mosque two blocks away from the WTC; just outrage and indignation.

Again, I have to wonder if people even read what's posted or if they just automatically reply to preconceived ideas.

Saying I think Muslims should be sensitive to those who lost loved ones does not mean I think the building of the mosque should be blocked. It means I think Muslims are doing the wrong thing in not showing sensitivity to the victims of other Muslims. It means I think Muslims should not be building there, not that I think they should be blocked. I think they shouldn't build there not out of being prohibited, but out of sensitivity. I think it's going to do more to cause hard feelings than to foster good feelings. And if that's not coherent to you, you have a problem.

Pointing out that but for the act of the terrorists this property wouldn't be available and they'd have to build elsewhere is a fact. A coherent fact, at that. Try as you might to make it about "a mosque two blocks away from the WTC," it's about a Mosque going up in the ruins of 9-11. Another very coherent fact.

Pointing out that one of the main players in this project thinks the U.S. should understand terrorists and apologize to ALL Muslims, not making a distinction between moderates and extremists himself, is a fact. And a coherent one at that.

Pointing out that it's true that not all Muslims are terrorists but it's just as true that not all Muslims are moderates is a fact. It's also a fact that these 'not moderate' Muslims will be able to attend a Mosque built in the ruins of 9-11. Again, that's very coherent.

Pointing out that I have apologized for actions of my country, actions I've had no part of, out of sensitivity to others very coherently backs my claim that I am asking no more of Muslims than I ask of myself. I hold myself to the same standards, and that's a fact.

Odd, though, that not one person accusing me of being a bigot for holding Muslims to the same standards I hold myself to has said, 'oh no, American Woman ... you don't have to have sensitivity for actions you've had nothing to do with.'

At any rate, it appears as if 'I don't agree with your views' translates to 'your thoughts and feelings aren't coherent.'

************

What great arguments/rebuttals I've read in this thread! The rebuttals to what's actually been said have been practically non-existent. Guess when some people can't discuss what's been said, making stuff up and attributing it to the other person, claiming that it's their view when it's not, and then arguing that ascribed view, is all some can do.

[naomiglover]

Again, I have to wonder if people even read what's posted

You posted:

I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere.

Instead of fighting the ignorance that Islam/Muslim are at fault for 9/11, you want to feed it.

[sharkman]

Naomi sees the words of AW's quote and yet chooses to misinterpret them. It's sad, really, and yet another example of the appeaser mind set that led Chamberlain down the road to ruin.

[BubberMiley]

It's sad, really, and yet another example of the appeaser mind set that led Chamberlain down the road to ruin.

You really don't know what Chamberlain did at all, do you?

[WIP]

Again, I have to wonder if people even read what's posted or if they just automatically reply to preconceived ideas.

Saying I think Muslims should be sensitive to those who lost loved ones does not mean I think the building of the mosque should be blocked. It means I think Muslims are doing the wrong thing in not showing sensitivity to the victims of other Muslims. It means I think Muslims should not be building there, not that I think they should be blocked. I think they shouldn't build there not out of being prohibited, but out of sensitivity. I think it's going to do more to cause hard feelings than to foster good feelings. And if that's not coherent to you, you have a problem.

I'm afraid I don't see any space between blocking the construction of the mosque and asking the Muslims there to voluntarily refrain from building it. To me it is just hair-splitting because you are asking all Muslims to assume collective guilt for 9/11 when you make this sort of request. It's one thing to ask Muslims to condemn terrorism or to work for peace, but to expect all Muslims who have no connection to supporters of violent jihad, to agree to accepting blame is not a reasonable request to make in the first place.

Should all Americans assume collective guilt for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deaths of as many as one million Iraqi citizens and the mass exodus of refugees? I would be willing to bet that a lot of Iraqis see the Green Zone as an abomination!

We have an obligation to discern the truth as best we can from the information available. Many of us who were enthusiastic supporters of War On Terror and the Bush Administration at first, started re-thinking our support when fraud was discovered, predictions fell flat, and five different reasons were advanced for starting the war in the first place. It also hasn't been lost on some of us that Christian fundamentalists have seized upon Islamophobia to advance their own agenda...attempting to build a case that secularism will be overrun by Muslim encroachment...so we all have to support Christian Nationalism rather than oppose all attempts to create theocracy.

Pointing out that but for the act of the terrorists this property wouldn't be available and they'd have to build elsewhere is a fact. A coherent fact, at that. Try as you might to make it about "a mosque two blocks away from the WTC," it's about a Mosque going up in the ruins of 9-11. Another very coherent fact.

We can't turn back the clock to the way things were before, what happened, happened, and a building that was damaged because it was grazed on approach by one of the planes that targeted WTC still does not make it part of the WTC complex.

Pointing out that one of the main players in this project thinks the U.S. should understand terrorists and apologize to ALL Muslims, not making a distinction between moderates and extremists himself, is a fact. And a coherent one at that.

If you're referring to this Imam Rauf, maybe you linked the wrong article previously, because I didn't find anything extremist about him on that page.

Pointing out that it's true that not all Muslims are terrorists but it's just as true that not all Muslims are moderates is a fact. It's also a fact that these 'not moderate' Muslims will be able to attend a Mosque built in the ruins of 9-11. Again, that's very coherent.

Who's going to do a means test of worshipers attending a mosque to see if they are moderate or not...and who defines what a moderate is anyway? The catch 22 is that taking a hard line does not encourage moderation. Some times it's necessary to take a firm stand, but we have to do it when needed, not for phony outrage ginned up by Worldnetdaily.

Pointing out that I have apologized for actions of my country, actions I've had no part of, out of sensitivity to others very coherently backs my claim that I am asking no more of Muslims than I ask of myself. I hold myself to the same standards, and that's a fact.

I don't think you need to apologize for things you have no control over. If you supported a bad government policy and had a change of heart, maybe an apology is in order; but you have no control over leaders you do not support, and the most you can offer is to speak out and advocate against them and their policies.

Odd, though, that not one person accusing me of being a bigot for holding Muslims to the same standards I hold myself to has said, 'oh no, American Woman ... you don't have to have sensitivity for actions you've had nothing to do with.'

I think I just did that as a matter of fact, and I haven't called you any names, and it's something I try to refrain from doing anyway, since we all have our own vantage point to see the world, and good people can draw the wrong conclusions.

At any rate, it appears as if 'I don't agree with your views' translates to 'your thoughts and feelings aren't coherent.'

What I mean is that I am not seeing a fire behind all of this smoke. I've noticed scanning the search terms that there are a lot of groups using this story to create controversy. I can understand a desire for a memorial on the WTC site, but I think we have to be careful how far we go when attaching sacred value to ground zero. Our feelings that objects have sacred or even sentimental value is not based on objective reasoning, but on our intuitive, subjective sense, which can lead us to making the wrong conclusions. If WTC becomes defiled because people who practice the same religion as the terrorists have established a house of worship nearby, then it's possible that the sacred attachment to this place needs to be reigned in a little.

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't think you need to apologize for things you have no control over. If you supported a bad government policy and had a change of heart, maybe an apology is in order; but you have no control over leaders you do not support, and the most you can offer is to speak out and advocate against them and their policies.

My thoughts exactly. It's not her fault, what is she apologizing for. Most people would not agree with this, and would not see the need to apologize for someone elses actions when they could not have done anything about it anyway. To expect other people to likewise apologize for someone else, is unrealistic.

Its more important to apologize for what you yourself do to others. I already apologized to AW in this thread some time ago, but she never acknowledged it. She continues with her vindictive attacks regardless of what I say. Meanwhile telling us how nice she is, for apologizing for others.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps we as Christians should be vocal over churches that have been or are being built in israel.... I think MuslimsChristians should be sensitive to those who lost loved ones . I think MuslimsChristians are doing the wrong thing in not showing sensitivity to the victims of other MuslimsChristians. It means I think MuslimsChristians should not be building there. I think they shouldn't build there not out of being prohibited, but out of sensitivity. I think it's going to do more to cause hard feelings than to foster good feelings. And if that's not coherent to you, you have a problem.

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/kathryn77/9/1268648741/the-new-church-was-built-over-the-house-site.jpg/tpod.html