Where should the new NYC mosque be built?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Can I understand the difference? Well, you tell me. What I understand is that a local Muslim community wants to build a Muslim community centre but some oppose its construction because other people flew aplanes into buildings near where the centre is to be built.

Nice sidestep...first you claim that many Americans are "incapable" of understanding the difference, then in the very next paragraph advocate for their education.

Am I missing something?

Yes...you are missing your objectivity.

[Bonam]

Damn rights I'd be disappointed and ashamed.

However, when our troops should violate any rules (overall I'd say they've done a odd job except for the odd infraction), then because I'm a Canadian, that affects me more. If I were an Afghan, I'd be much more critical of how the Taliban behaves, but since I'm a Canadian I'm more critical of how Canadians behave. I'm not the one who'll defend an injustice on our part because 'they're worse'.

And so the same applies here. As a non-Muslim, I'm therefore more critical of the behaviour of non-Muslims towards Muslims. If I were a Muslim, I'd likely be more critical of our lack of response to the opposition to the building of the mosque.

What is the advantage of being harder on one's self and one's "group"? Who exactly is your "group" by the way? You seem to lump all "non-Muslims" into the same category.

Personally I view this as a self-defeating attitude. If anything, you should be equally critical of people whether they are "like you" or "different than you".

[bush_cheney2004]

Wha'?? No Mushroom Cloud ride?

Great idea....I will have my engineers look at that...you will get full credit and naming rights.

[Machjo]

Great....I will put you down as having no opposition to a "tasteful" B-29 Museum in Nagasaki after appropriate consultations, and apply the same standard to your flip-flopping position on ths WTC mosque.

What flip-flopping position. If the intent was to showcase the B52 that had dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, there is no denying that it is a part of their history, and if it were presented in such a way as to promote nuclear non-proliferation, then maybe I could support it.

If on the other hand it was presented to glorify nuclear technology, that would be a whole different issue.

[Bonam]

What flip-flopping position. If the intent was to showcase the B52 that had dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, there is no denying that it is a part of their history, and if it were presented in such a way as to promote nuclear non-proliferation, then maybe I could support it.

The B-52 and the B-29 are two different planes. You seem to be getting them confused, in several posts now.

If on the other hand it was presented to glorify nuclear technology, that would be a whole different issue.

A mosque by its very nature and definition is there to "glorify" Allah and Islam.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

He was just making a statement, the superiority card is in your eyes only.

I was making a statement too....is that OK with you?

If his statement is anti-American, then you're reading between the lines - something like the way I am when I say that these posters don't trust Muslims.

His statement is anti-intelligent...as in IGNORANT.

[Machjo]

Then you are not part of either group in this case, so your expectations are irrelevant.

I am a Canadian and those troops are there on my tax dollars representing my country. So I am part of the group known as Canadians. Those troops are Canadian and so ought to live p to the highest Canadian standards or they reflect badly on me too.

[Machjo]

Sorry I meant B-29.

[bush_cheney2004]

What is the advantage of being harder on one's self and one's "group"? Who exactly is your "group" by the way? You seem to lump all "non-Muslims" into the same category.

Agreed....his stance is wobbly and nondescript.

Personally I view this as a self-defeating attitude. If anything, you should be equally critical of people whether they are "like you" or "different than you".

Yep.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry I meant B-29.

So I can say with certainty that at least one Canadian doesn't know the difference between a B-29 and B-52. Maybe the incapable Americans can help to educate him.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I am a Canadian and those troops are there on my tax dollars representing my country. So I am part of the group known as Canadians. Those troops are Canadian and so ought to live p to the highest Canadian standards or they reflect badly on me too.

What does your "Canadian" group have to do with support or objections to a WTC mosque in New York City, New York, USA?

[Machjo]

What is the advantage of being harder on one's self and one's "group"? Who exactly is your "group" by the way? You seem to lump all "non-Muslims" into the same category.

Personally I view this as a self-defeating attitude. If anything, you should be equally critical of people whether they are "like you" or "different than you".

I agree. If I look at myself and just plain human, then all sides are part of my group, and I should be equally critical of all sides. That's how I usually like to look at the situation. But then I'd risk being accused of being some kind of Globalist or something of the sort.

I do believe in holding all to the same standards, but then those standards must be neutral standards, like international law for instance. What I tend to find though is that many will defend injustice on our part on the grounds that 'their side' is worse. Or insist that while 'their side' must live up to international laws, 'our side' is subject to no laws but our own.

Too many double standards there. But yes, in the end, I do tend to be more outspoken about injustices on our side since it's pretty hard for us to legitimize force against others when we are not following the rules ourselves.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come to mind.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come to mind.

Sorry....not "your side" at all.

[Machjo]

What does your "Canadian" group have to do with support or objections to a WTC mosque in New York City, New York, USA?

Seeing that in these Canadian forums it's mostly a debate over how we non-Muslims should deal with it, it puts me squarely in the non-Muslim category. After all, Mapleleafweb is a Canadian forum. Looking at it that way, then I guess as a Canadian I should say that what goes on in the US is the business of Amercians alone, in which case these two threads ought to discontinue.

[Machjo]

Sorry....not "your side" at all.

Closer to my side seeing that the US and Canada are NATO allies, whereas Iraq isn't.

[Bonam]

What I tend to find though is that many will defend injustice on our part on the grounds that 'their side' is worse.

Rules must sometimes be bent or broken to defeat a greater danger.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seeing that in these Canadian forums it's mostly a debate over how we non-Muslims should deal with it, it puts me squarely in the non-Muslim category. After all, Mapleleafweb is a Canadian forum. Looking at it that way, then I guess as a Canadian I should say that what goes on in the US is the business of Amercians alone, in which case these two threads ought to discontinue.

Not at all....Canadians are free to post whatever they want....same as Americans. But that doesn't mean you are part of either group. Squirrels are also part of the "non-Muslim" group....that is how silly your definitions appear in writing.

[Machjo]

Rules must sometimes be bent or broken to defeat a greater danger.

Then we become the enemy we so despise.

[bush_cheney2004]

Closer to my side seeing that the US and Canada are NATO allies, whereas Iraq isn't.

Your "side" is currently being held prisoner at "Gitmo. You make many false assumptions and associations just for the sake of having standing.

[Machjo]

Not at all....Canadians are free to post whatever they want....same as Americans. But that doesn't mean you are part of either group. Squirrels are also part of the "non-Muslim" group....that is how silly your definitions appear in writing.

My meaning was simply that I do have a tendency to be more critical of my group or the group I most identify with. That's not to say I'm not critical of others' actions, but merely that I tend to be even more critical of the groups I more closely identify with since their actions are more likely to reflect on myself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Then we become the enemy we so despise.

Do you also think you are "superior" to the "enemy". We have a trend here.

[Bonam]

Then we become the enemy we so despise.

No, bending the rules doesn't mean descending all the way to the level of the enemy. Nor does it mean fighting for the same goals as the enemy. There are levels of degree.

For example, I believe the allied bombings of German civilians in WWII were justified. They did what they had to to win a war, which, if they had lost, would have had far worse consequences.

[Machjo]

Do you also think you are "superior" to the "enemy". We have a trend here.

I should hope so. If not, then what difference does it make which side I'm on?

[bush_cheney2004]

My meaning was simply that I do have a tendency to be more critical of my group or the group I most identify with. That's not to say I'm not critical of others' actions, but merely that I tend to be even more critical of the groups I more closely identify with since their actions are more likely to reflect on myself.

Oh...OK...so this is really all about you? And what you indentify with? And you are concerned about how the actions of your adopted "group" might reflect on you? So it's back to you.

Edited August 8, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Oh...OK...so this is really all about you? And what you indentify with? And you are concerned about how the actions of your adopted "group" might reflect on you? So it's back to you.

Heh, I'd be less worried about how something reflects on me and more worried about which group would be more likely to shoot me if they won ;p