PDA

View Full Version : Mosque and Islamic Cultural Center - Ground Zero, NYC


Pages : [1] 2

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 17:22
The go-ahead has been given for the building of a Mosque and Islamic cultural center in NYC at the site of "ground zero".

I find this an abomination and a slap in the face to all NY-ers and Americans in general.

Comments welcome.

Lonewolf_50
3rd Aug 2010, 17:28
The critical information on this project is the actual source of funding.

Whose money is behind this?

Beyond that, if folks have the land, and the funds to build, is there a reason that (zoning and codes permitting) a building cannot be built there?

11Fan
3rd Aug 2010, 17:30
Deep breaths rg, deep breaths

My comment in red.

The storyline was this.

A New York City panel voted unanimously to reject landmark status for a building in downtown Manhattan (insert 1000 other things that have to happen before they begin) paving the way for its demolition — and for the construction of a 13-story, $100 million mosque near the World Trade Center site.

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 17:34
The funding for the Mosque and cultural center is being undertaken by a group of investors collectively known as 'The Cordoba Initiative' whose spokesman is one
Oz Sultan.

Granted, the building permits will be issued BUT there is a thing called tact.

Perhaps we should also allow the building of a Mosque next to the Pentagon as well?

Or perhaps we can build a Mosque next to a certain field in Pennsylvania too.

NO.

con-pilot
3rd Aug 2010, 17:37
Under the Constitution there is no way that the building of the Mosque can be stopped legally.

However, that does not make right or even in good taste. Personally I feel that it is a abominable and insulting thing to do the survivors and family members of the victims of the attack on 9/11.

But, it is legal. Just as the march by the American Nazi Party and the KKK was in a predominately Jewish town in Illinois. Legal, but incredibly poor taste.

Dutch1911
3rd Aug 2010, 17:56
Legal - yes.
In bad taste, hell yes.

But let's have a church built in Mecca, next to the black rock, and see how that works out.

Gentleman Jim
3rd Aug 2010, 18:03
I wonder if they will turn of the speakers for the call to prayer that would come during the 9/11 memorial service each year?

I accept that laws are made, but often when a law is made, it is not possible to legislate for every possible situation, and when something extraordinary like this occurs, then the law should be reviewed and any caveats added, before potentially destructive decisions are made. it is almost a provocative action by the 'owners' to even want to build the Mosque there. Many in the Muslim world, danced and sang when 9/11 occurred, when this is built they will all be able to have a party, and say, look Allah was right, he has even built a Mosque there.:(

Lonewolf_50
3rd Aug 2010, 18:03
Now that would be funny (@Dutch 1911), but who'd go? Last I checked, religious freedom isn't a hallmark of the government of the country where Mecca and it's black rock are located.

Just had an epiphany.

Non-trivial similarity for the name of an Orc landmark/fortress in a silly wargame called Warcraft. (I and II)

Blackrock Spire.

Only took me about ten years ... DOH! :ugh:

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 18:10
One other tidbit I'd like to add to this. As you read earlier, the group of investors behind this "project" (more like a poke in the eye and a kick in the arse) is called the
'Cordoba Initiative'.

Know what the name Cordoba connotates, aside from a city in Spain?

It's the name of building which was originally built in AD 600 as a church named St. Vincent. It was then a Christian Visigothic church.

However, after the Islamic conquest of the Visigothic kingdom (which included 90% of all of Spain) the church was "converted" into a Islamic Mosque, which it stayed as for several centuries.

The possible parallelisms here smell. And it's not a nice smell either.

lexxity
3rd Aug 2010, 18:10
To play devils advocate;

How about seeing the construction of this mosque as a slap in the face for fanatical Muslims. "Look what you did, you carried out an appalling attack on a supposedly wicked country and what do we do, let your religion build a mosque here on one of the sites of said attack, thereby proving that we are the bigger people and indeed a truly free nation with real freedom of speech".

Just a thought.

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 18:15
lexxity:

That would be stretch. I'm thinking more in terms of:

Look what we did to you. We Islamic warriors not only used your jet aircraft as flying bombs and took out two of your buildings in NYC but we're also going to remind all NYers of this fact by building a Mosque right next door.

The symbolism of this should escape no one. And it won't.

Gentleman Jim
3rd Aug 2010, 18:19
lexxity

'A kill's a kill' and 'A cheap shot's worth two'. I see what you are saying playing Mr DA, but nah! They (The terrorists) will pi** themselves laughing.

Nigd3
3rd Aug 2010, 18:25
rg

I dont think any native NYer will ever need reminding of what happened on that fateful day.
Not sure how it would be legally stopped but wouldn't the prospect of violence/vandalism/hatred from the local population be enough to justify any planning permission being rejected......or is that just too much common sense for a governmental department to recognise?

Lon More
3rd Aug 2010, 18:25
Looks like a case of Damned if they do; damned if they don't. Can't they set so many restrictions on the (possible) new building that it becomes unusable?

chuks
3rd Aug 2010, 18:36
We have freedom of worship in the States. How should we keep that while preventing Muslims from building this mosque? Which matters more, preserving one of our freedoms or rising to the bait as a trout to a fly?

If we simply want to become more like Saudi Arabia then I suppose we should find a way to ban the mosque, same as there should be no chance of building a church next to the Black Rock.

I think the problem of the muezzin could be handled with a zoning restriction limiting the volume and timing of the calls; perhaps we tell them to do it as in the time of Mohammed with the human voice only? I think that is how it's done in Oman anyway.

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 18:42
As was written earlier: as long as the necessary permits are obtained and the proper "blessings" received there is nothing that can be legally done to prohibit the building of this mosque.

Here is an article, penned by an Arab-American, which was published in the Arabic-language online daily Elaph:

The project by Muslims to build a mosque in the United States, close to the place where the 9/11 attack took place, is causing quite a stir. It is worth noting that the name chosen for the mosque is confrontational and provocative. The first Cordoba mosque was built in that Spanish city in the aftermath of the Muslim conquest of Christian Spain. This Islamic “Conquista” was followed by the killings of men, and the enslavement of women, many of whom were carried away to the Arab lands to work as servants and concubines for their Muslim masters. For both Arabs and Muslims, the history of their conquests remains as a symbol of their past glory, and power. They have no thoughts of remorse or shame, when they recall those heinous crimes that accompanied the colonization of Spain!
Nowadays, some Muslims in America dream of repeating that ugly history of Islamic imperialism. In fact, I submit that the very choice of “Cordoba” as the name for the projected mosque was not an innocent one. On the contrary, it indicated a longing for the resumption of Islamic futuhat (conquests) throughout the world.
Actually, New York City has already several Sunni and Shi’ite mosques. It is a known fact that the Irhabi ideology has infiltrated many of the Sunni centers; while some Shi’ite mosques have allowed Iranian Intelligence services to operate freely within them.
The State of New York has no need for more mosques, since there are plenty of them. Furthermore, Muslims living in New York do not frequent their mosques on a daily basis; usually they go to them either on Saturdays or on Sundays, due to the nature of their work. Therefore, there is no real need for the building of the Cordoba Mosque; especially as the project has already provoked the sentiments of Americans, by reminding them of the attacks on 9 September, 2001, the Islamic conquest of Spain, as well as the tragic consequences of Islamic imperialism in general.
As an Arab Muslim, and a citizen of the United States, I would urge the United States Government to confiscate the funds that have been set aside for this Project, and to allocate them for the re-building of the World Trade Center in New York City. I would also suggest that the building of new mosques in the United States be curtailed, as they have become centers for the spread of radical Irhabi ideologies that instill in the minds of some American Muslims a powerful hatred of all non-Muslims.

I don't know about anyone else but, to me anyway, if an Arab-American sees a problem with this mosque, I as a non-Arab American certainly do.

GobonaStick
3rd Aug 2010, 18:42
Love the way the US trumpets itself as the land of the free. I wonder if they'll consult the Iraqis before shoving a McDonald's up in Baghdad. :rolleyes:

Neptunus Rex
3rd Aug 2010, 18:52
Dear lexxity,

"The meek shall inherit the earth"

- if that's alright with the rest of you!

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 18:53
Chuks, et al.:

Yes, we have a Constitution which supports freedom of religion. We also have many other freedoms in this country. But along with those freedoms comes responsibility.

I mean, I have the freedom to walk up to some black guy in Harlem and call him a ni**er, don't I? It is freedom of speech after all. I also have the freedom to walk up to whatever woman I want and call her a c**t. It is a freedom after all.

No, we don't do those things for many reasons. And one reason is the feeling of responsibility. Just as those who endeavor to build a friggin' mosque next to where the WTC used to stand should have a sense of responsibility in not doing so.

Legally we can not prevent the building of this mosque. Morally we have the responsibility to reject it. And it should be rejected because of the symbolism it connotates.

As I wrote earlier, would you then not have a problem with building a mosque next to the Pentagon? Or that field in Pennsylvania? Or how about a good ol' mosque next to Fort Hood in Texas? Or how about a Shinto shrine, built by the Japanese, next to Pearl Harbor?

You can build your mosques wherever you want, I don't care. Just don't build them next to sites which still bear the scars of the destruction wrought by those of you performing these hideous acts "in the name of Islam".

Period.

sitigeltfel
3rd Aug 2010, 18:56
IIRC the construction industry in NYC is heavily unionised. Who will volunteer to build the place, and will they receive an uninterrupted flow of materials?

Neptunus Rex
3rd Aug 2010, 19:02
Where is Prince Charles when the cousins need him?

max_cont
3rd Aug 2010, 19:15
It wouldn’t surprise me if that once built, the place mysteriously burned down one night.

Gentleman Jim
3rd Aug 2010, 19:21
I believe that there is a problem with the constitution, it was written a long time ago. 210 years ago, the world and the US nation was a very different place. The men who wrote the constitution did so with the best interests of the nation and it's peoples at heart. Had the founding fathers known all those years ago that events would unravel as have done so in the US this century, then the constitution would probably be a very different document. It needs updating. I believe it is the oldest written constitution still in use. In truth in the 21st century it is not the land of the free, just ask the IRS, so why afford that freedom to something or somebody that is going to cause untold hurt to the people of the Nation, just because an interpretation of a 200 year old document says you can. Freedom to practice religion does not surely mean you can build what you want, where you want, where does that principle stop? There are some very wealthy people sand side, who would love to build a mosque in front of the White House given an opportunity.

After 9/11 you gave away your freedoms, take the Patriot act for instance, don't give away more freedoms than you are able to enjoy yourselves. There will be trouble at the mill for sure. It will definitely, proactively incite racial unrest and hatred. Maybe that's why they are allowing it to be built. Keep your constitution as it is if you want, but don't let foreigners or foreign money strip the dignity of the people. Change the rules to protect your nation and its culture. If you want to know what happens when you trade your heritage away to please ungrateful immigrant cultures, then take a look at England! In 20 years time there will be demands for a Muslim Congress.

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 19:26
Gentleman Jim:

I concur. But, I might add, the U.S. Constitution can be modified. Via Amendment.
As has been done 27 times already. Granted, 27 times in so many years is not a lot.
But the process to do so was enacted by the founding fathers who obviously envisioned the need to modify in the future.

Gentleman Jim
3rd Aug 2010, 19:44
rgb1

Thanks. I did think of that whilst writing, honest. But thought sod it, just re-write it so all the pesky amendments are part of the new constitution. They will have to do it one day when you get over run by amendments, so what the hell, do it now.

I know where the US legal system is very good, and that is in trademarks and Trade names. Get on to this immediately. Register the trade name 'Cordoba', invent any business reason you want, maybe you want to start an export business to Spain in the future, I don't know..anything. But register the name (unless these folks have already done that). Although it's petty you could wipe the smile off their faces if they can't call it the Cordoba Mosque.:ok:

rgbrock1
3rd Aug 2010, 19:50
That's an idea Jim, registering the name Cordoba.

But perhaps the town of Cordoba, Spain can do so thus saving me a bunch of $$$$!!!!

cavortingcheetah
3rd Aug 2010, 20:07
Instead of campaigning against a religious structure, no matter how abhorrent to you, why don't you campaign for an eternal flame to be set in the public sidewalk at the front of this new mosque in memory of those of all faiths or no faith at all who died on that day?

vulcanised
3rd Aug 2010, 20:50
That's a neat idea, Jim.

At the very least, register all the Cordoba. internet names you can.

Keef
3rd Aug 2010, 21:36
I very much like cavortingcheetah's suggestion.

The difficult bit would be finding the appropriate inscription to go on the stone alongside it.

421dog
3rd Aug 2010, 21:40
Y'all are missing the point here, this is also supposed to be a "cultural center". I wish to operate the Kansas City Culinary Heritage Institute on the premises. There, we will share the fine art of wet-cooked spareribs and pulled pork with the world.
How much you wanna bet it makes a fortune?

Oh, it would be disrespectful to islam?.....????.....

421dog
3rd Aug 2010, 21:46
Next door, of course would be the Eberhardt Anheuser and Adolphus Bush Memorial Germanic-American center (with free libation samples)...

11Fan
3rd Aug 2010, 21:59
Keef,

The difficult bit would be finding the appropriate inscription to go on the stone alongside it.

"....that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day."

Paraphrased from 2 Timothy 1:3 KJV

DX Wombat
3rd Aug 2010, 22:07
I find this an abomination and a slap in the face to all NY-ers and Americans in general.
Whilst I think it is in many ways rather tactless to site a mosque there you need to remember that it wasn't just American Christians who were killed there were also Jews, Muslims, etc of many other nationalities. You also need to remember that the vast majority of Muslims are good people who were horrified at what was perpetrated in their name and who, as a result of such narrow-minded views, continue to suffer from the grossly mistaken view that all Muslims are evil. They are not.

con-pilot
3rd Aug 2010, 22:34
I've changed my mind. Let them build their Mosque.

Then put a Jewish Deli on one side, a pork barbecue smoke house style restaurant on the other side and a liquor store across the street.

After all, it's a free country.

421dog
3rd Aug 2010, 22:54
The point is, that in our country, it is an expectation among polite society, that you don't go out of your way to piss off people. We are eminently cognizant of this in our dealings with cultures who might be upset by behavior which we would regard as acceptable (eating pigs/drinking beer) (please ref. the recent issues with muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport patrons with wine, or muslim busdrivers asking blind patrons with guide dogs to get off busses in Britain, and the fact that this silly behavior has not just been condemned out of hand.)

We, on the other hand, expect no such consideration when in a predominantly muslim situation.

Keep it up, folks.

Oh, and look up the words "dhimmi" and "jizya",

You're gonna need to know what they mean sooner than you think...

Seldomfitforpurpose
3rd Aug 2010, 23:24
To put it in the most simplistic of terms if they try build this totally inappropriate complex at ground zero then Brick History and the like have the "green light" from me, who has previously questioned US gun laws, to "shoot em up" :ok:

GrumpyOldFart
3rd Aug 2010, 23:51
Max:

It wouldn’t surprise me if that once built, the place mysteriously burned down one night.



The FDNY have 343 reasons not to rush to put that one out.

7x7
4th Aug 2010, 00:26
From post # 16: The State of New York has no need for more mosques, since there are plenty of them.This message, that I received as a private email, with many photographs attached supporting its message, would seem to contradict that statement.

Don't worry about this, let's all not give a shit until it's too late.

Google "SHARIA LAW"... everything will be fine... won't it?

Why don't those famous NYC police arrest them for parading without a permit, OR obstructing traffic, OR some other offense?

If some do not believe this is happening, then maybe this will help. Once it starts, you will not be able to move away from it.

A Christian Nation cannot put up a Christmas scene of the baby Jesus in a public place, but the Muslims can stop normal traffic every Friday afternoon by worshiping in the streets. Something is happening in America that is reminiscent of what is happening in Europe .

This is Political Correctness gone crazy...

This is an accurate picture of every Friday afternoon in several locations throughout NYC where there are mosques with a large number of Muslims that cannot fit into the mosque - They fill the surrounding streets, facing east for a couple of hours between about 2 & 4 p.m. - Besides this one at 42nd St & Madison Ave, there is another, even larger group, at 94th St & 3rd Ave, etc., etc. - Also, I presume, you are aware of the dispute over building another "high rise" Mosque a few blocks from "ground zero" - With regard to that one, the "Imam" refuses to disclose where the $110 million dollars to build it is coming from and there is a lawsuit filed to force disclosure of that information - November can't come soon enough.

This is in New York City on Madison Avenue, not in France or the Middle East or Yemen or Kenya.

Is there a message here????

Yes, there is, and they are claiming America for Allah.

If we don't wake up soon, we are going to "politically correct" ourselves right out of our own country!

Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/)I deleted some of the more inflammatory closing comments, but even without them, he's not a happy chappie, is he?

parabellum
4th Aug 2010, 00:27
As a result of having lived and worked in the Middle East for a number of years I believe there is absolutely no doubt that the Cordoba crowd are deliberately trying to give the USA the big middle finger.

Maybe the Republicans should make it an election promise to stop the mosque? (Before the Democrats do).

All pig farms and bacon processing plants in the USA should be called 'Cordobas', forthwith!;)

7x7
4th Aug 2010, 00:35
parabellum, as someone who lived in the Middle East for many years as well, I concur with your comments 100%. I'd also take to task the person who said that the majority of Muslims were horrified when the 9/11 attacks occurred. I know some will not want to hear it, but from personal observation at the time, I would say that the reaction of the vast majority was one of approval, and in too many cases, one of glee.

con-pilot
4th Aug 2010, 00:38
Maybe the Republicans should make it an election promise to stop the mosque? (Before the Democrats do).


Nice idea, but.............

The Republicans and/or the Democrats really cannot stop the building of the Mosque, no matter how tempting. Muslims have the Constitutional right to build a Mosque in downtown New York City or any other place in the US as long as they own the land.

That's one problem about living in a free country, everybody has the same freedom. Even if we don't agree with what they are doing.

rh200
4th Aug 2010, 01:05
con-pilot


TThen put a Jewish Deli on one side, a pork barbecue smoke house style restaurant on the other side and a liquor store across the street.

You go to the top of the class, this whats needed lateral thinking. There no need for confrontational means and changing rules etc, just out think them:D

parabellum
4th Aug 2010, 05:27
Pat Condell on Ground Zero mosque: "Is it possible to be astonished, but not surprised?" - Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html)

Parapunter
4th Aug 2010, 07:23
Lexxity 1 - 0 everyone else.

prospector
4th Aug 2010, 08:13
Well, for what it's worth, no more than your version of the score, and no less.

Lexitty 0-most others go to the top of the class. When are people going to wake up.

The description of these activities as a Stealth Jihad is so accurate.

The lateral thinking idea is very good.

"That's one problem about living in a free country, everybody has the same freedom. Even if we don't agree with what they are doing."

And are there not a lot of people, joined by one thing in common, making full use of this freedom for all their nefarious deeds.

Bruce Wayne
4th Aug 2010, 08:55
Then put a Jewish Deli on one side, a pork barbecue smoke house style restaurant on the other side and a liquor store across the street.


with a Hustler superstore, next door to the liquor store (but not a 7-11).

likewise, I concur, the selection of the site does have the connotations of a extended middle finger to New Yorkers and the US.

The name of Cordoba Initiative is left and right hand extended middle finger..

however, here's a thought, it would require US construction firms to build the project, perhaps, they may skimp on the foundations and thing sinks in on itself in a year (the contractors would have been paid anyway) and foreign construction workers dont qualify for green card status.

or..

let it go ahead and the contractors allow free reign to the CIA and NSA to fill every wall with surveillance equipment.


Love the way the US trumpets itself as the land of the free. I wonder if they'll consult the Iraqis before shoving a McDonald's up in Baghdad.

Maccy d's is a franchise, though if you want to apply for a franchise in Iraq you can.

rh200
4th Aug 2010, 09:03
Lexxity 1 - 0 everyone else.Well as much as I agree in principle with Lexxity. It is a utopian view point, and the only people who would see it as a inclusive plus will be western left wing theorists. The idea to build the mosque there is pure symbolism, as was bringing down the towers. It will be seen in the islamic world practically as a victory, whether it is or not.

These people, and I mean the extremists, are in this to win, in this game your a winner or a loser. If they have to wait 10 years 100 years or 500 that is what they will do. At each turn the people will get their guidance from their local mullah, if he says its a victiory thats what it is.

sitigeltfel
4th Aug 2010, 09:36
How about seeing the construction of this mosque as a slap in the face for fanatical Muslims. "Look what you did, you carried out an appalling attack on a supposedly wicked country and what do we do, let your religion build a mosque here on one of the sites of said attack, thereby proving that we are the bigger people and indeed a truly free nation with real freedom of speech"

You have to look at this from their mindset. They do not view concessions as charity, only as weaknesses which they will continue to exploit.

Bruce Wayne
4th Aug 2010, 10:58
You have to look at this from their mindset. They do not view concessions as charity, only as weaknesses which they will continue to exploit.

indeed. the consideration of alternative cultures having equatable values to our own is overtly simplistic, to wit; naive.

lets look at geert hofsteed's cultural dimensions...


Iran, as with other Muslim countries, has Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) and Power Distance (PDI) as their highest Geert Hofstede Dimensions. It should be noted that both these Dimension rankings are lower than many other Muslim countries. This indicates (at the time of the survey in 1972) a more moderate application of these two Hofstede Dimensions within the society.

However, with the over-throw of the Shah in January of 1979, and the subsequent re-emergence into Islamic fundamentalism, the current Hofstede Dimensions for Iran may conform more closely with other Muslim countries that have higher Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance rankings.

Iran's highest Dimension ranking was Uncertainty Avoidance at 59, compared to the Arab (Muslim) World ranking of 68 (see Graph below).

Iran's highest ranking of Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) indicates the society’s low level of tolerance for uncertainty. In an effort to minimize or reduce this level of uncertainty, strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations are adopted and implemented. The ultimate goal of this population is to control everything in order to eliminate or avoid the unexpected. As a result of this high Uncertainty Avoidance characteristic, the society does not readily accept change and is very risk adverse.

Iran's second highest Hofstede ranking is Power Distance (PDI) at 58 (a virtual tie with their UAI rank of 59). The Power Distance rank of 58 compares to the Arab (Muslim) World ranking of 80.

The high Power Distance (PDI) is indicative of a high level of inequality of power and wealth within the society. This condition is not necessarily subverted upon the population, but rather accepted by the society as their cultural heritage.

Iran's lowest Hofstede ranking is Individuality (IDV) at 41, compared to the Muslim countries average of 38. The low ranking on this Dimension indicates the society is Collectivist as compared to Individualist. This is manifest in a close long-term commitment to the member 'group', is that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. Loyalty in a collectivist culture is paramount, and over-rides most other societal rules and regulations. The society fosters strong relationships where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group.

index scale here: Iran - Iranian Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Explained (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_iran.shtml)
* Iran selected due to availablitity of scale index.


And the USofA:


There are only seven (7) countries in the Geert Hofstede research that have Individualism (IDV) as their highest Dimension: USA (91), Australia (90), United Kingdom (89), Netherlands and Canada (80), and Italy (76).

The high Individualism (IDV) ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. The populace is more self-reliant and looks out for themselves and their close family members.

The next highest Hofstede Dimension is Masculinity (MAS) with a ranking of 62, compared with a world average of 50. This indicates the country experiences a higher degree of gender differentiation of roles. The male dominates a significant portion of the society and power structure. This situation generates a female population that becomes more assertive and competitive, with women shifting toward the male role model and away from their female role.

World averages shown above are: 55 - 43 - 50 - 64 - 45

The United States was included in the group of countries that had the Long Term Orientation (LTO) Dimension added. The LTO is the lowest Dimension for the US at 29, compared to the world average of 45. This low LTO ranking is indicative of the societies' belief in meeting its obligations and tends to reflect an appreciation for cultural traditions.

The next lowest ranking Dimension for the United States is Power Distance (PDI) at 40, compared to the world Average of 55. This is indicative of a greater equality between societal levels, including government, organizations, and even within families. This orientation reinforces a cooperative interaction across power levels and creates a more stable cultural environment.

The last Geert Hofstede Dimension for the US is Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), with a ranking of 46, compared to the world average of 64. A low ranking in the Uncertainty Avoidance Dimension is indicative of a society that has fewer rules and does not attempt to control all outcomes and results. It also has a greater level of tolerance for a variety of ideas, thoughts, and beliefs.

index scale here: United States - US or American Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Explained (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_united_states.shtml)

RJM
4th Aug 2010, 11:29
British preacher Anjem Choudary:

"I believe that one day Britain, and indeed every part of the world, will be governed by and under the authority of the Muslims implementing Islamic Law. And it will happen. It may come peacefully."

In the same way that western military defences were unable to defend the US from 9/11, western society with its freedoms has no defence against infiltration via, say, the planning system by an alien culture.

rgbrock1
4th Aug 2010, 13:43
Our very freedoms are what the lunatic fringe/fanatics will continue to use against us.

Just as they did on 9/11, and the planning beforehand.

I can see it now: the bleeding hearts in this country will not only give a go ahead to the building of the mosque but will bend over backwards (or forwards, grasping their ankles) to ensure the building, and subsequent occupancy, goes smoothly.

Only to realize sometime in the future, and oh too late, that the Cordoba mosque was being used for some rather nefarious deeds.

When, oh when, will we ever learn?

Mac the Knife
4th Aug 2010, 14:02
I find it remarkable that while we are continually asked to be sensitive to the cultural beliefs of Islam that many Moslems are so insensitive to the feelings of non-Moslems.

Since there seems to be no pressing practical reason to put this Centre on the site of the old WTC it seems deliberately rude and provocative to propose it.

And if planning permission is turned down, there will be no doubt be injured cries of discrimination.

Being polite and accommodating really only works if it is reciprocal.

Ho hum....

Bruce Wayne
4th Aug 2010, 14:04
RG,

Channel 4 here in the UK did a documentary called undercover mosque a couple of years back (2007).. link to g00gle vids is here... N-joy.. :hmm:
Dispatches - Undercover Mosque (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843)#

they did a follow up 18 months later the return, its available on veoh.

rgbrock1
4th Aug 2010, 14:28
Thanks for the link Bruce. I will indeed take a look.

Bill G Kerr
4th Aug 2010, 15:02
Yeah, let them build it.
A pity they didn't start ten years ago. The Twin Towers would still be there....

Bruce Wayne
4th Aug 2010, 15:49
sounds like a worthy cause bandaide.. need any help on the project ?

birrddog
4th Aug 2010, 17:04
Lexxity, respect is a two-way street. No one is saying don't build any mosques, you can't be Muslim, etc.

However, if they want our (New Yorkers) respect to operate in peace, then going about it by building a shrine to Islam at the site of a major disaster perpetrated under the banner that it was for the Islamic cause, is not a smart way to go about it, and no wonder people feel it is a slap in the face.

Respect is not a right, it is earned.

If they really felt so strong about showing what good citizens of the world they are, spending the money on foundations to help families and victims of 9/11 would be money better spent, and they would get the added benefit of showing up the US government.

Gentleman Jim
4th Aug 2010, 18:19
Bruce

Thanks. Two interesting documentaries I had not seen before. Scary!

Here is the first part of 5 of another by the same program maker.

YouTube - Dispatches: Britain's Islamic Republic (1 of 5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8vxc2yqyMs&feature=related)

Lonewolf_50
4th Aug 2010, 18:29
I find it remarkable that while we are continually asked to be sensitive to the cultural beliefs of Islam that many Moslems are so insensitive to the feelings of non-Moslems.

...
Being polite and accommodating really only works if it is reciprocal.

Repeated for emphasis.

From the Muslims, where is the quid pro quo?

Still waiting ...

rgbrock1
4th Aug 2010, 18:58
I think this just about says it all:

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2010/8/4/634165114263471170-NYCWTF.jpg

Bruce Wayne
4th Aug 2010, 19:02
GJ,

glad you appreciated.

Bruce Wayne
4th Aug 2010, 19:04
Being polite and accommodating really only works if it is reciprocal.


which doesnt work if the party you are being polite and accommodating to wants you off the face of the planet.

flying lid
4th Aug 2010, 19:54
A builder friend once told me that on most new build Mosques in Blackburn Bolton & Oldham (UK), a "ceremonial" packet of bacon was added to the concrete foundation when being poured. True or not I don't know, but knowing some of these guys, I'd say true.

I remember 9/11, a frightening time, as was the later London bombings. I agree this New York mosque thing is a 100% one fingered salute at all non-muslims. Should NOT be allowed on this site.

Lid

Gentleman Jim
4th Aug 2010, 19:59
It is so controversial it should be put to the vote of the people of NYC.

cavortingcheetah
4th Aug 2010, 20:09
There is a little more to the matter than just the construction of a mosque.

Home Page | Cordoba (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/)

tony draper
4th Aug 2010, 20:12
If enough protesters take to the streets they cease to be protesters in the eyes of the elected and become the electorate.
I would imagine such a protest would also have the sympathy of the forces of law and order in NYC.
:rolleyes:

bugg smasher
4th Aug 2010, 21:24
A short piece about the man who heads up the Cordoba initiative, some troubling questions as to motive;

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2462

wetbehindear
5th Aug 2010, 06:41
flying lid (http://www.pprune.org/members/307068-flying-lid)

A builder friend once told me that on most new build Mosques in Blackburn Bolton & Oldham (UK), a "ceremonial" packet of bacon was added to the concrete foundation when being poured. True or not I don't know, but knowing some of these guys, I'd say true.

It is in place of a sacrificial lamb.

wetbehindear
5th Aug 2010, 07:16
birrddog (http://www.pprune.org/members/228876-birrddog)

However, if they want our (New Yorkers) respect to operate in peace, then going about it by building a shrine to Islam at the site of a major disaster perpetrated under the banner that it was for the Islamic cause, is not a smart way to go about it, and no wonder people feel it is a slap in the face.


Ahh! I see! Mr. Bush withdrawed that word out of respect which he used in his speeches. Was it '' Crusade ''? A crusade can't be called a peaceful operation. Can it be?

With a such an aversion to 9/11 , the emergency number 911 should have been withdrawn.

Gentleman Jim
5th Aug 2010, 08:24
wetbehindear

I would don your armour plating, I sense incoming!

Jumbo744
5th Aug 2010, 08:56
I don't believe in god, and I don't care about religions, but if you people actually take the time to read a neutral article about Islam, or read a neutral translation of the Coran, you will quickly understand that Islam is not what the 9/11 guys want you to believe. Just take the time to read a little bit.

If you think that the "9/11 terrorists" represent Islam, then it is the same as saying that the KKK represent the US people.

Pugilistic Animus
5th Aug 2010, 08:58
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)
-------

KORAN promises of houris in heaven:
Single-minded slaves of Allah... will be honored in the Gardens of delight, on couches facing one another; A cup from a gushing spring is brought round for them, white, delicious to the drinkers, wherein there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby. And with them are those of modest gaze, with lovely eyes, pure as they were hidden eggs. - Surah 37:40-49
Lo, for those who ward off evil is a happy journey's end, Gardens of Eden, whereof the gates are opened for the, wherein, reclining, they call for plenteous fruit and cool drink therein. And with them are those of modest gaze, companions. This it is that ye are promised for the Day of Reckoning. - 38:50-54
Lo! Those who kept their duty will be in a place secure, amid gardens and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one another.... And we shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes. They call therein for every fruit in safety. They taste not death therein, save the first death. And He hath saved them from the doom of hell, a bounty from thy Lord. That is the supreme triumph. - 44:51-57
Lo! Those who kept their duty dwell in gardens and delight... reclining on ranged couches. And we wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes... and we provide them with fruit and meat such as they desire.... - 52:17-22
...Reclining upon couches lined with silk brocade, the fruit of both the gardens near to hand.... Therein are those of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them.... - 55:54-56
Those are they who will be brought nigh, in gardens of delight... reclining therein face to face. There wait on them immortal youths... and fair ones with wide, lovely eyes, like unto hidden pearls, reward for what they used to do.... Lo! We have created them a creation, and made them virgins, lovers, friends. - 56:11-37
(Different translation) Companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes... virgin-pure and undefiled.
--------
Koran "sharia" punishments:
As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah. - Surah 5:38


and Mayor Bloomberg is a :mad:

Gentleman Jim
5th Aug 2010, 09:11
Jumbo744

On the face of it you can read the Koran and it will preach peace, but later on it over writes the peaceful message with those written above. The mistake you make is believing that it is only the teachings of the Koran that are taken in to account. Many of the teachings and laws come from the Hadiths, a very large set of books that tell of the way Mohamed lived. If there is a more 'severe' case or lesson in the Hadiths, then that will be favoured over the Koran. You are correct that not all moderate muslims think like this, just as most moderate Christians are not fire and brimstone merchants, but there are many that just follow the 'book'. Watch the dispatches documentaries that Bruce has linked to.

wetbehindear
5th Aug 2010, 09:17
PA KORAN promises of houris in heaven:

The prophet had nothing much to offer in this world. If he had he would offer ''bonuses'' instead of heavenly ladies or should I say BMI 17-21 ones?

rh200
5th Aug 2010, 10:17
All the holy books can be interpreted in various parts, depending on what you want. Though some books are written as such that they may make it it much easier to lean a specific way. Though not having read the Islamic version I can't say for sure, but would suspect this is one of them, and there is a good reason for this.

Now a disclamier, the next passage is only valid if there is no god, and not meant to insult anyone who believes there is.
On the premise there is no god, what do the holy books represent, some smart cookie looking at society and thinking "There has to be a better way".

So along come one true god version 1, the Torah, not a bad first try. But hey the poor ol jews where getting shafted for various reasons.

Then comes along one true god version 2, this smart cookie looks at it and goes "Well that sort of works, but we need to tune things up a bit", hence Bible etc.

So a bit later on, some other smart cookie comes along, takes a look and goes, "well there could be something to this, but they keep getting shafted, and not really doing a good job of defending themsevles", hence version 3, the Quran.

It is logical that that book may have more smaterings of violent reactions to things, if kept in context of the times and what happended to the followers of V1 & V2.

chuks
5th Aug 2010, 10:56
"Cut off the member of he that pisseth against the wall!" Seems pretty straightforward, that, yet it is from the Christian Bible.

How about seeking to engage moderate Muslims (they do exist) instead of going all loopy over some extremist wind-up artists?

Failing that, as already noted, a hot dog stand, liquour store, a porn boutique or even a liberal bookstore might be enough to give these Cordoba clowns something to think about; freedom of belief works both ways in the States so let's use it intelligently instead of just foaming at the mouth. We can upset the intolerance far more with tolerance than with yet more intolerance. They just cannot handle reality very well, things such as homosexuals existing in Teheran so that a few New York nancy boys prancing around would be better than an arson attack any old time, plus it is legal to just be out and about in the Big Apple, even if you are carrying a purse.

How far from Ground Zero is this thing planned for anyway? Is it in line of sight?

SASless
5th Aug 2010, 12:35
Now if one wuz to co-opt that bit of information PA posted...and put it into the mouth of a White Bible Thumping White Supremacist Pentacostal Preacher in Idaho.....imagine the outcry that would make on the Television each night! The Leftists in our world would be besides themselves in agony over it!

Where are the Feminists on this....after all Women do not fare well under Shariah law now do they?

I don't know about y'all but I find it hard to trust a religion that promises me death rather than love....and that comes from a guy that is not very religious but claims to be merely spiritual in nature. By spiritual....I embrace the concept of there being a somewhat stronger power somewhere in this wonderful universe of ours and that I feel the need to try to live my life to the betterment of those around me whenever possible.

Does that make me an enemy of Islam and thus a candidate for ambush, enslavement, and getting the chop at the hand of a True Believer of Mohammed?


What say we hire some strippers to walk about naked....drive by in taxi's while topless....perhaps pedal along on bicycles sans clothing....maybe if these folks bang their heads on enough hard objects while covering their eyes and walking....perhaps there might be a bit of reformation found?

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 12:55
Does that make me an enemy of Islam and thus a candidate for ambush, enslavement, and getting the chop at the hand of a True Believer of Mohammed?

probably an infidel, but then there's a lot of that about .... :hmm:


Infidel Wahhabis Martyr Two Innocent Shia Muslims (http://www.abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=194185)

Juud
5th Aug 2010, 13:13
rHaVUjjH3EI&feature=player_embedded#!


Taking ancient scripture literally is generally a bad idea isn´t it PA?
Doing that appears to be one of the main causes of Islam´s lack of / halting evolution into a faith that is compatible with today´s western way of life.

At the same time, millions of people are able to live in the West and be good Muslims in their own eyes, so it´s doable.

New York is an amazingly cosmopolitan yet thoroughly American place and no doubt they will find a uniquely American New York solution to this situation.

SASless
5th Aug 2010, 13:57
The West Wing video was entertaining and shows the Politically Correct view of those who find critics of Islam troublesome. As to PA quoting ancient religion being a mistake....how about those who actually live it?

I was going to post a video as well to prove my point but decided not to do so as my choice of rebuttal is absolutely gruesome and not for the weak of stomach but is much more dramatic than the West Wing segment as it is real and unrehearsed.

A bit of googling can find the videos if you wish to see what reality is re the results of those who hold to those ancient writings and see them as the "Truth". The reality is no where as pretty as a Hollywood Set as used in the West Wing video.

That video was anyone of the Beheadings filmed by Al Qaeda and its leader Zarqawi as they hacked off the heads of kidnap victims who were dressed in Orange coveralls and bound hand and foot while being murdered by those who "live" the ancient way yet today.


This is not a theological debate where scoring points verbally is the way to deal with the situation.

The argument is not with Muslims who have accepted their form of Reformation but the millions of them who have not and more particularly with those who are fundamentalists or who support the fundamentalists and who use murder, terror, and violence to achieve their desire to inflict their ways upon the rest of the peace loving world.

They are killing innocents....cutting off heads...stoning women....hanging homosexuals...abusing women and all those things PA noted in his post because they firmly believe those writings.

Captain Stable
5th Aug 2010, 14:08
How about seeking to engage moderate Muslims (they do exist) instead of going all loopy over some extremist wind-up artists?Excellent post, chuks - not just the part I've quoted above. Humane, sensible, reasonable and well thought out.

Thank you. :ok:

Shame it was followed by one or two (including by SASless) that seeks to equate Islam with Islamist Fundamentalism and to equate Al Qaida with all Muslims. Cheap shots, emotive, poor in reasoning and intellectually bankrupt.This is not a theological debate where scoring points verbally is the way to deal with the situation. I rather think I already know what SASless thinks is the way to deal with the situation. But I don't want confirmation.

onetrack
5th Aug 2010, 14:10
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Mayor Bloomberg is caught up in the "right to practise freedom of religion", and is loudly defending this right, and the right of the Muslims to build their Mosque in NYC, adjoining the former WTC site.

The trouble is, Mayor Bloomberg doesn't seem to recognise that the Islamic religion and its representation in the form of Mosques, is all about religious OPPRESSION... not religious freedom.

Therefore, on that basis alone, the Muslims have no right to claim that they are merely another religion who wish to practise their faith freely, in line with American rights.

The true story is... that in every area where the Islamic faith is established, it represses women... represses other faiths as being "infidels"... and in the most devout versions of the faith, the ability of people to democratically impose their own laws, is repressed, and Sharia Law is substituted... with law-making and decisions on matters of law, handed out by unelected Mullahs.

Thus we have the totalitarian state develop, with democracy repressed, and power given to the unelected few.
If this is what Mayor Bloomberg wants to see in NYC, he should go right ahead - because in the Islamic faith, there is only one law - Allah - and any man-made laws can be ignored.
The eventual aim of the establishment of a serious-sized branch of Islam in NYC would be for Sharia Law to be imposed there.

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 14:12
Spot on, SASless, spot on.

Taking it further. One of the main issues with these same fundamentalists is that they are attempting to, and obviously succeeding in, instilling these violent ideas on their youth.
Yes, Catholics, Protestants and Jews do so as well. But the difference being: violence is not preached from the pulpit in the latter three religions. At least not to my knowledge.

What goes on in some mosques, and far too many Mandrassa, is disturbing.

I am sure many moderates do not share these violent ideals. But we aren't dealing with the moderates (who mysteriously remain silent without speaking out against extremism) but with the extremists. Unfortunately, there are far too many of these extremists with many more waiting in the wings.

The solution? Who the heck knows. I used to think that the problem with Islamic extremism couldn't be solved militarily. I have since rethunk that position.
The way I see it now: if one really believes that martyrdom is a noble cause then why not allow us to help you along in your path? :ok:

Bandoleer
5th Aug 2010, 14:12
For those throwing stones (pun intended), are you comfortable or happy with the rapid spread of Islam occuring in Europe? And not a slow rate of knots either.

birrddog
5th Aug 2010, 14:20
Juud, the difference is:

Back 'in the old days' ... and I'm talking bible days, religion was government. The health code was in scripture, as many other items to stay alive; not all of it theology. All these texts have been combined into books that a lot of folk of varying religions use to guide their lives.

In the Christian religion and its respective denominations, interpretations of these parts of the text evolved, part of which is how I get to enjoy a nice bacon fry-up every so now and then.

In other religions, for either cultural or theological reasons, there is still a great desire to stick to the letter, and not the spirit, of the text.

The sooner people realize these books were written by man, and understanding the spirit (and context) of the text rather than the written word the sooner we will all be able to co-exist with less of this religious animosity (all religions can be guilty of this)

That being said, my objection to the location of this intended venue, is a symbolic objection, and not a legal objection.

With free speech one could stand on Hyde Park Speakers Corner and shout obscenities to all who pass; you may legally get away with it, though it does not stop one being an idiot, just because it's legal.

It's clear to all that this is a sensitive point, and by forcing their hand, these folks are showing they are being insensitive.

This is a big city, with lots of available property; forcing the issue on that location? Really?

chuks
5th Aug 2010, 14:24
There is more than one, just as every other religion has its variants too. Even Buddhism has its extremist killers.

If you think all Islam is just knife-between-the-teeth, death-to-infidels fanaticism then perhaps you need to read up on Sufism, just for starters. Music, poetry and dance, pretty threatening stuff... They have it very hard from some of their fellow Muslims for their peaceable beliefs and practices.

SASless likes to come up with this stuff in print but in real life I happen to know that he is an enthusiastic collector of the entire range of "Hello Kitty!" merchandise so that you shouldn't jump to conclusions by only reading some of his posts here. Once you get to know him he will let you drink for free on his bar card, even, and that probably goes for Mr Amedhinejad too.

Come to think of it, let's ask Barack Hussein O. to host another "beer summit" with this "Cordoba" chappie and a few of our top religious leaders, the Revs Pat Robertson and Jeremiah Wright and perhaps some Lubavitcher Rabbi from Crown Heights. I am sure they would part the best of friends, all misunderstandings laid aside.

birrddog
5th Aug 2010, 14:34
There is more than one, just as every other religion has its variants too.
One religion, multiple denominations, well, in the case of Islam, two main denominations, Shia and Sunni.

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 14:35
birrddog:

They are forcing the issue on that location, as you wrote, for a specific reason.
They could just as well have built the mosque elsewhere as there is plenty of suitable space in the City for such an endeavor. (You know that as well as I)

Building this Cordoba mosque next to where the WTC stood is symbolic and sends a message. And the message need not fool anyone.

Bloomberg can rant on and on all he wants about freedom to practice religion. I don't have a problem with that. But many forms of Islam are about anything but freedom.

For a real eye opener do some reading about Wahhabi Islam as well as
Salafi. The former, the main form of Islam in Saudi Arabia for example, teaches its followers that they are answerable to no laws, none at all, except for those contained in the Quoran.

A study by the non-governmental agency Freedom House discovered numerous Wahhabi publications in mosques located all over the U.S. These publications state that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way", but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake", that Democracy is responsible for all the "horrible wars of the 20th century" and that all non-followers of the Wahhabi faith should be considered infidels.

These are some pretty strong statements.

Now guess which branch of Islam wants to build that Cordoba mosque in the city?

Blacksheep
5th Aug 2010, 14:46
Of those who died in the WTC outrage, about a third were non-US citizens and virtually all faiths were represented in the casualty list. Including a significant number of the Islamic faith. Why not a mosque as well as chapels, temples and a synagogue? Most of our differences are superficial and there's plenty of room for all. The world is one if you look at it long and hard enough.

birrddog
5th Aug 2010, 14:52
The one thing in this I can't figure out is Bloomberg's position on this.

He is no stranger to forcing his will on others (smoking, Soda Tax, Foie gras, trans fats, etc.), so his position here surprises me on multiple levels, and it's not like he is up for another election and needs the votes.

He is right to remind everyone about freedom of religion, and NY being a multi-cultural city, though this issue is not about freedom of religion.

This is about the perception that it is a slap in the face and an insult to the victims and families that died on or as a result of that terrible day, and guess what, if enough people feel are offended by it, then it's offensive.

This group knows it, and if they continue, they are knowingly going forward with the affect that it is hurting a lot of New Yorkers, a breed that don't hurt easily.

Lon More
5th Aug 2010, 14:53
Illegal alien?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/Badyin/funnies/AlienMoslimaTypeani.gif

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 15:01
One other point I'd like to add to this discussion about the Cordoba mosque.

The Cordoba Initiative which would supply the funds for the building of this mosque
and which would also effectively administer the place is headed by one Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Who has been rather vocal in expressing his ideas on the West. (He is an Arab-American)

"I would not say the United States deserved what happened on 9/11 but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

"Until the West and the United States issue a mea culpa to the Islamic world, terrorism will continue"

"I do not believe in religious dialogue"

"Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic law"

"I understand why the Palestinians celebrated after the 9/11 crime"

At last count there are 107 mosques in all 5 boroughs of New York City alone.

Gentleman Jim
5th Aug 2010, 15:05
Well, time is going to tell, but all other mosques of this nature around the world are funded by the Royals in Saudi Arabia. Now SA have a far more 'special relationship' with the US than the UK could ever hope to have and I guess the strings that are being pulled are far bigger than those attached to the Mayor NYC.

The problem with the three major religions is that a status quo is not permitted, there is always the desire by the extremist element to conquer the world. All three religions seem to have certain objectives to complete so that all the raptures and end times can come along.

The more I live in these parts, the more I am attracted to the peace and harmony of Buddhism. Sure, as Chuks said, I have heard there are some extremists, but have never seen or met any. In general, pray for your loved ones, seek inner truth and peace and appreciate nature around you. Continue to do good for others and it will come back to you, as well as making you feel nice of course. I have never ever seen the active promotion of Buddhism to anyone, I have never seen people encouraged to convert or believe. You either get it or you don't, if you don't then there is no point anybody trying to convince you, because .....well, you don't get it, so the locals are happy that you can try again in the next life. No hard feelings, no ill words, just crack on. If anyone can find me a clip of a radical Buddhist preacher, I would love to see it.

I have no doubt that the writings in the 'books' were metaphorical and meant to inspire deep thought about what they actually mean. A nice line in them is 'Man was made in God's image'.


Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

There is a huge clue there folks. Everything you thought was out there that is God like is actually within you, just go find it. Maybe this Buddah guy was pretty clever after all.

Captain Stable
5th Aug 2010, 15:12
BandAid - it is equally clear to me that the opposite is true.

Do you have any idea how many Muslims work for MI5? I thought not. For obvious reasons I have no idea how many Muslims there are among MI5's sources, but I do know that the number is considerable. I also know there are significant numbers among the analysts, linguists etc. at what one might call "management level".

There is an appalling level of uneducated, ignorant spouting off of urban myths, "a guy told me over a drink the other night", misquotes of the Qu'ran, misunderstandings of Islam and sheer bigoted ignorance on this thread.

Most of these follow the predictable line, echoing the sort of ignorance displayed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11#Hate_crimes)Hate crimes

Numerous incidents of harassment and hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern-looking" people in the days following the 9/11 attacks. Sikhs were also targeted because Sikh males usually wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims. There were reports of verbal abuse, attacks on mosques and other religious buildings (including the firebombing of a Hindu temple and assaults on people, including one murder: Balbir Singh Sodhi was fatally shot on September 15, 2001. He, like others, was a Sikh who was mistaken for a Muslim.

According to a study by Ball State University, people perceived to be Middle Eastern were as likely to be victims of hate crimes as followers of Islam during this time. The study also found a similar increase in hate crimes against people who may have been perceived as members of Islam, Arabs and others thought to be of Middle Eastern origin.

A report by South Asian American advocacy group SAALT documented media coverage of 645 bias incidents against Americans of South Asian or Middle Eastern descent between September 11 and September 17, including vandalism, arson, assault, shootings, harassment, and threats.And if you want to examine Muslim response, check out the paragraph immediately following.

Have a look also at Scholars of Islam & the Tragedy of Sept. 11th (http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm)

bugg smasher
5th Aug 2010, 15:24
Of those who died in the WTC outrage, about a third were non-US citizens and virtually all faiths were represented in the casualty list. Including a significant number of the Islamic faith. Why not a mosque as well as chapels, temples and a synagogue? Most of our differences are superficial and there's plenty of room for all. The world is one if you look at it long and hard enough. Excellent plan. A Mosque, with an adjoining Synagogue, Buddhist temple, Roman Catholic church, throw in a Scientology temple and a Mormon choir for good luck. Wonder how the Cordoba [email protected] disturbers would react to that plan.

A broad circular foyer with doors leading to each, a boxing ring in the middle, Travolta could cut the ribbon at the opening ceremonies, what a media circus, the possibilities are endless...

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 15:32
And if you want to examine Muslim response, check out the paragraph immediately following.

Have a look also at Scholars of Islam & the Tragedy of Sept. 11th (http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm)


true, however, the converse, also true, is this ....

mV_eN4YEEI0

Captain Stable
5th Aug 2010, 15:36
Bruce, I don't know if that clip is the one that was in contention at the time, but has been proven that at least one of the news videos of Muslims "celebrating" 9/11 was nothing of the sort.

I won't call you a liar, but some journos out there had a point to make and didn't care much about factual accuracy in how they did so. So please forgive me if I remain sceptical.

Captain Stable
5th Aug 2010, 15:42
You first paragraph is not worth while responding to.

As for your hypothesis, do you attempt to justify such crimes? Do you think it reasonalbe, or even the act of a sane person, to kill a Hindu because of 9/11?

BTW, did you bother looking at that site I linked to? I mean the Scholars of Islam?

Gentleman Jim
5th Aug 2010, 15:55
CS

Do you have any idea how many Muslims work for MI5? I thought not.

A bit of an assumption isn't it? Maybe Bandaid works for them.

but I do know that the number is considerable. I also know there are significant numbers among the analysts, linguists etc. at what one might call "management level".

How do you know? What is considerable. If what you say is correct then one of the stated objectives of the Muslim extremists to have Muslims 'infiltrate' every level of Government has been achieved then.

There is an appalling level of uneducated, ignorant spouting off of urban myths, "a guy told me over a drink the other night", misquotes of the Qu'ran, misunderstandings of Islam and sheer bigoted ignorance on this thread.

What is your authority CS. What makes you sure that for example the quotes given by PA are not correct? I have read the complete latest edition of the English translated version of the Koran, straight from the University of Medina. Along with all the foot notes in that 'Holy Book' I would say PA is pretty much bang on the mark. I read it to see what all the fuss is about


Most of these follow the predictable line, echoing the sort of ignorance displayed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11#Hate_crimes)

Great, another reliable wiki thread has been quoted. Material written by anyone that wants to. Get on there and change it CS.

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 16:04
Ah CS,

Hilarious! so, anything that reflects badly on the Islamic faith is deemed 'lie' but whatever spin can be put on is 'truth'.


i contend that that attitude is what is detrimental to intra-cultural acceptance. The complete denial of anything untoward.

The FACT is, and you can choose to deny or cite as lies, but there is are extremist sections citing adherence to the Islamic faith as their cause. These factions are growing, no matter what fragmented form of Islam they adhere to.

without the freedom to openly discuss Islam, INCLUDING the violent extreme factions within exacerbates any intercultural acceptance on any side of the equation.

to wit, your attitude is an inherent part of the problem. until you accept the extremist element existence and allow fair and frank discussion of that without crying foul or claiming lies or right wing allegiances you engender the extremist element yourself and prevent intra faith cohesion.

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 16:12
Green lane mosque - Birmingham, UK...


Birmingham MP calls for investigation into claims mosque was used by extremists

2 August 2010

By Jonathan Walker




A BIRMINGHAM MP has asked the Home Secretary to investigate claims that extremists were allowed to use a mosque where he was a trustee.

Khalid Mahmood wants Theresa May to examine events at North London Central Mosque in Finsbury Park, where jailed hate preacher Abu Hamza once held court.

But mosque’s leaders claim the MP is making "false claims” which could lead to "Islamophobic attacks”.

Mr Mahmood became a trustee in 2003 at the request of local Muslims, who were furious that Hamza had hijacked the mosque.

But the MP for Perry Barr has now resigned, after claiming that his signature was forged on legal documents.

Mr Mahmood has also urged Theresa May to reveal any information she has received from US authorities regarding claims – strongly denied by the mosque’s trustees – that it hosted sermons by Anwar al-Awlaki, an Islamic lecturer accused by the US of recruiting and training terrorists for Al Qaeda (...)




my bold and italics

SASless
5th Aug 2010, 16:16
Shame it was followed by one or two (including by SASless) that seeks to equate Islam with Islamist Fundamentalism and to equate Al Qaida with all Muslims. Cheap shots, emotive, poor in reasoning and intellectually bankrupt.

Still making it personal and insulting are we Captain Stable?

Perhaps you skipped over this sentence while you were reading my post you find so objectionable that it prompted your response.




The argument is not with Muslims who have accepted their form of Reformation but the millions of them who have not and more particularly with those who are fundamentalists or who support the fundamentalists and who use murder, terror, and violence to achieve their desire to inflict their ways upon the rest of the peace loving world.

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 16:23
more of green lane mosque, birmingham..

Press Release: Saudi extremism continues to influence British Muslims


On 17th December 2009, Quilliam issued the following press release:

In recent years, several leading UK Muslim organizations have moved away from hosting extremist foreign clerics and have instead begun promoting UK-born and -educated speakers who can facilitate the growth of a native, harmonious Western Islam.

Next week, however, a major Birmingham institution, the Green Lane Mosque (headquarters of the national Markaz Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith organization) will host two extreme Wahhabi clerics who bolster al-Qaeda narratives by advocating:

• Taking up arms against the ‘enemies of Islam’ in order to spread Wahhabi Islam
• ‘Preparing all the weapons we can’ and raising the ‘banner of jihad’
• Forcibly implementing their understanding of Shari’ah as state law

They have also said that:

• Islam is under attack from enemies, among the worst of whom are Jews
• Non-Muslim nations want to destroy Islam
• The Jews have ‘smeared creation and defaced mankind’
• The Jews were responsible for initiating both world wars and ending the Ottoman Empire (or Caliphate)

For instance one speaker, Sheikh Faisal al-Jassim – a Wahhabi of Kuwaiti nationality – said in a sermon on ‘the Jews and this religion’:

“Oh Muslims, oh ummah [people] of Muhammad, oh ummah of the religion of Islam that has combined the good of this life and the afterlife, your religion has enemies that stalk it waiting for an opportunity to attack it, and they attack it through every angle. They attack it from the direction of belief and thought, they attack it from the direction of morals and they attack it militarily to weaken its followers, displace them and tear them apart and the Jews are among the most potent of those enemies who do not spare any effort in fighting this religion and corrupting its people … they are among the arch enemies of this great religion.”

He also said:

“We have to be prepared for those enemies and for every enemy of Islam and Muslims and we have to prepare the means of victory and be sincere in our intention to Allah, and we have to return to the religion of Allah and call towards the Sunnah and Tawhid, and if people returned to that the banner of jihad would be lifted to raise the word of Allah and to implement his shariah … and we have to also prepare all the weapons we can and prepare the material and moral means, so when these things are achieved Allah will help us to victory.”

In another lecture, ‘The history of the jihad of the Rafidas [derogatory term for Shia Muslims]’, al-Jassim said:

“So jihad for the sake of Allah is fighting to raise the word of Allah meaning to raise the religion of Allah and to raise tawhid [monotheism] and crush polytheism and its people as Allah has said and ordered to fight all kafirs [non-Muslims] and polytheists and he said “and fight them so there is no fitna” and he has made the end of fighting, the fighting does not stop until fitna is stopped and fitna as it is known denotes polytheism, meaning that jihad is fighting to crush polytheism and raise the word of Allah and make governance in the earth according to the sharia of Allah, that people are governed by their religions and religious decrees, so it is fighting to spread tawhid, fighting to raise the word of Allah and crush polytheism.”

This reference to polytheism includes most non-Wahhabi Muslims, due to theological differences, and therefore legitimizes violence against other Muslims.

Another speaker, Abdul Aziz As-Sadhan has previously dedicated three Friday sermons to attacking Jews. In one of these sermon he says:

“History testifies that the band of Jews were responsible for every disorder and fierce war whether directly or by preparing it by night or by encouraging it like the Qaramita movement [9th/10th century Islamic movement] and the revolt of the Zanj [9th century slave revolt] … the Jews were the flag bearers for them in secret and in public … and among them are the first and second world wars which the Jews were responsible for igniting their flames, as is mentioned by more than one Western historian and others, then they tirelessly worked until they abolished the Khilafah [Caliphate] after they had created someone to take over and prepared the scene.”

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 16:27
yet more ...

from the lefty 'grauniad'...

... undercover investigation has revealed disturbing evidence of Islamic extremism at a number of Britain's leading mosques and Muslim institutions, including an organisation praised by the Prime Minister [then Tony Blair].

Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a 'state within a state'. Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading Islamic institutions....

Jumbo744
5th Aug 2010, 16:33
For a real eye opener do some reading about Wahhabi Islam as well as
Salafi. The former, the main form of Islam in Saudi Arabia for example, teaches its followers that they are answerable to no laws, none at all, except for those contained in the Quoran.


that is not really an eye opener, Wahhabism and Salafism are sects! probably from where the coran extract posted ealier was pulled from!

"Wahhabi-Saudi policy has always been two-faced: that is, at the same time as the Wahhabis preach hostility and violence against non-Wahhabi Muslims, they maintain a policy of alliance with Western military powers — first Britain, then the U.S. and France — to assure their control over the Arabian Peninsula."

If this mosque is to be funded by Saudis, then americans should categorically protest and refuse it to be built because as you know, Wahhabism is the official sect of saudi arabia. Notice sect, not religion!

Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi control. This does not mean 80 percent of American Muslims support Wahhabism.

"There is clearly a problem of Wahhabi/Saudi extremist influence in American Islam. The time is now to face the problem squarely and find ways to enable and support traditional, mainstream American Muslims in taking their community back from these extremists, while employing law enforcement to interdict the growth of Wahhabism and its financial support by the Saudis. If we fail to do this, Wahhabi extremism continues to endanger the whole world — Muslims and non-Muslims alike."

Stephen Schwartz, defenddemocracy.org

birrddog
5th Aug 2010, 16:47
If this mosque is to be funded by Saudis, then americans should categorically protest and refuse it to be built because as you know, Wahhabism is the official sect of saudi arabia. Notice sect, not religion!

You're missing the point. The objection by New Yorkers, like myself, is not that they build a Mosque, it is where they are planning to build it, and what that symbolizes to us.

I can not see any reason for the US Government to ask the Saudi's to stop this.

This is not a New Yorkers against Islam issue, or an Islam is evil thread, please go somewhere else for that.

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 16:51
The objection by New Yorkers, like myself, is not that they build a Mosque, it is where they are planning to build it, and what that symbolizes to us.

talking of symblogy, the twin towers were targeted as they were symbolic of 'western culture'..

. .. to place a mosque there is symbolic.

chuks
5th Aug 2010, 16:59
45 Park Place is two blocks north of Ground Zero with a large office building blocking the direct view. I assume that the Zoning Board can tell its builders just how big a building they can put there, assuming they want something that looks very like a mosque and not simply a large complex also serving the function of one.

That isn't a residential area, so where are the worshippers to come from? Certainly not from the neighbourhood...

This could become only a problem to those who need it to be one, as with the large mosque on Mile End Road in London, when you have to look closely to see that it's not just another exotic building in a city full of them.

I am sure a quiet word about the plans for the strip joint, the liquor store, and the baked ham specialty gift shop at 44, 46 and 47 Park Place might get someone's attention if that is necessary.

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 17:09
I am sure a quiet word about the plans for the strip joint, the liquor store, and the baked ham specialty gift shop at 44, 46 and 47 Park Place might get someone's attention if that is necessary.


they could always apply for a building permit in Crown Heights !

Bruce Wayne
5th Aug 2010, 17:13
today's news...


Parents have expressed fury at plans to serve pupils halal-only menus for school dinners.

In a move which has also enraged animal welfare groups, only meat from animals killed and prepared using Islamic teaching may be allowed at 52 primaries in Harrow.

Critics say the plan puts the needs of Muslim children before those of other faiths, while parents say they have not been consulted over the scheme

According to the 2001 Census, Harrow is one of the most religiously diverse areas in Britain with fewer than 50 per cent of the population Christian, a fifth Hindu and 7 per cent Muslim and six per cent Jewish.

Jumbo744
5th Aug 2010, 17:15
I can not see any reason for the US Government to ask the Saudi's to stop this.


Have you read my post? you have to make a difference between Islam and Wahhabism: Wahhabism is a radical sect, and is the official sect of Saudi Arabia. When Saudi Arabia builds a mosque, they teach and preach wahhabism islam, which pushes people to commit violent acts agains muslims and non-muslims. This is what americans should be against, more than the location of the mosque I think!

This is not a New Yorkers against Islam issue, or an Islam is evil thread, please go somewhere else for that.

Not what I intend to drive this thread to, I have muslims in my very close family. Most people on this thread are associating Moderate Islam and Wahhabism, which is shocking.

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 17:19
chuks:

According to Mr Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, there are very few Muslims in the downtown area of Manhattan aside from a smattering of workers. He claims that those who visit the Cordoba Mosque will be coming from the "tri-state area". Which makes no sense as I'm sure there are hundreds of other mosques in the tri-state area to attend.
There are already 8 mosques - Wahhabi funded - on Manhattan already. Surely those are enough?

crisso
5th Aug 2010, 17:20
I don't know if that clip is the one that was in contention at the time, but has been proven that at least one of the news videos of Muslims "celebrating" 9/11 was nothing of the sort.

Remember as well the 'hostile' Question Time aired the following evening 12th September, on BBC1 with numerous 'British' Moslems attacking the U.S. Ambassador, etc.

This didn't go down well that, our close Allies and 'Cousins' were being opposed by recent immigrants from the third world to British shores - yet another biting of the generous hand that feeds them. And, it didn't stop there of course - 7/7/05 RIP!

Personally, I think the request to build a Mosque at or close to Ground Zero in NY is just another taking of the infidel's p*ss!

wetbehindear
5th Aug 2010, 17:23
Jumbo744 (http://www.pprune.org/members/134892-jumbo744)

If this mosque is to be funded by Saudis, then americans should categorically protest and refuse it to be built because as you know, Wahhabism is the official sect of saudi arabia. Notice sect, not religion!


Wahhabis learned from the masters of the game.They are buying the land. Irony is , money they are paying with obtained for that cursed black stuff from the westerners.

cavortingcheetah
5th Aug 2010, 17:34
No doubt the oil helps as perhaps, if only vicariously, does the £380,000 of British tax payers' money which the Department for International Development (DFID) gave to Saudi Arabia last year.

Mac the Knife
5th Aug 2010, 17:51
Lets cut out all the raving and bollocks.

That they have the right to and that this should be defended goes without saying.

But no matter who funds it, no matter what the local need (or not) and no matter how benign the motives, it still seems extraordinarily insensitive to propose building anything that promotes Islam anywhere near the Twin Towers site.

Mac

Gentleman Jim
5th Aug 2010, 18:05
Lets cut out all the raving and bollocks.

That they have the right to and that this should be defended goes without saying.

But no matter who funds it, no matter what the local need (or not) and no matter how benign the motives, it still seems extraordinarily insensitive to propose building anything that promotes Islam anywhere near the Twin Towers site.

MacThank you Mac,

Next thread everybody!

con-pilot
5th Aug 2010, 18:10
Lets cut out all the raving and bollocks.


While raving and waving one's bollocks around does help relieve frustration, the fact is that this thing is going to be built. Legally there is no way to stop it, not that just being legal is necessarily right or the correct thing to do.

There is nothing good, noble or graceful about where this Mosque is being built. In my opinion this construction of a Mosque so near where over 3,000 people were murdered by radical Muslims is another attempt to drive the wedge between the Muslim religion, the United States and other western countries. They, the people financing the building of this Mosque, know exactly what they are doing.

There are more than enough Mosques in the greater New York City area to handle the Muslim population, the people wanting to build this Mosque have admitted such. Even if there was a need for more Mosques in the New York City area, there any many more places available to build a Mosque or Mosques that are not so controversial.

So one has to ask one's self, just why is this Mosque being built where it is?

I for one, believe that the answer is obvious.

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 18:19
Yup, con-pilot, the answer is obvious.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROSdpoFHiZ4sqq_CqEXvl01vAP782XKl0sgbdEN0s lU2kVFqk&t=1&usg=__8J3SEU_kVtcAO6F_b0N6UX12cj0=

So I wonder when the planning stage begins for the construction of another Cordoba Initiative mosque located next to the Pentagon?

And then another one in Shanksvill, PA.

Done so we can bridge that gap between the Muslim and Western worlds.

Gentleman Jim
5th Aug 2010, 18:31
New Yorkers. Go on strike. The lot of you, just arrange a start day in a couple of months, and with the exception of the emergency services, all those who object, just stop! What would be the uptake birddog? would it be a handful take the day of work, or would the city stop? How is feeling there amongst the masses?

Mac the Knife
5th Aug 2010, 18:39
OK, let us assume that the folk involved are not so insensitive as to realise that a lot of people will be offended/upset.

In that case it is an act of provocation (which has certainly succeeded).

So why the provocation? Cui bono?

Presumably, those who would like foment trouble and ill-feeling towards Moslems in America.

So first of all - why this engineered act? Lots of answers available.

Most importantly, how best to ensure that they do not succeed in their nasty aim?

And then, not that it matters that much - who?

Mac

Rollingthunder
5th Aug 2010, 18:41
Social, peaceful protest at the site could stop this absurdity in it's tracks. There is no way this project should be allowed to happen

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 18:46
Gentleman Jim:

How is the feeling among the great unwashed masses of infidel New Yorkers?
Not benign, for sure. Most people I've spoken to about this mosque have used words like: disgusting, abomination, irresponsible, exploitative, insensitive with a smattering
of unmentionables.

New Yorkers (city folk) are an accepting people in general. The diversity in this city is amazing. But this has gone beyond the norm. This is merely a general kick in the arse of all New Yorkers. And we are not amused.

The more concrete the plans for this mosque become I think we are all going to see a backlash. And it ain't gonna be purty.

hellsbrink
5th Aug 2010, 20:28
I've been having a look at reports about this mosque and I have a little point to raise. Now, there is a lawsuit being filed to try and prevent the demolition of the buildings that are on the site where the new mosque will be built, but this is actually raising a small question which I hope some of those waving various body parts around can answer. Now, it is true that the idea of having a mosque near Ground Zero is distasteful to some and the building in question maybe should have some sort of heritage status, but since the building has been used as a "muslim prayer centre" (aka MOSQUE) for a while, why is there so much of a bruhaha over a new "mosque" to replace the current one? Or is it more of "Ummmm, we didn't know they were doing that but they shouldn't be doing that in our country anyway"? New York Mosque plans face lawsuit - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7927489/New-York-Mosque-plans-face-lawsuit.html)

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 20:40
Hellsbrink:

No, it is not common knowledge that PART of the current building is used for Muslim prayer services or as a Mosque. There is no discerning features of the current building which suggest such.

The problem comes about because they want to demolish this hundred plus year old building and replace it was a mosque 3 times the size, including Minarets, and which will be very obviously a mosque. Which is not a problem in and of itself.

The problem comes about in building an obvious Mosque next to the site of the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Is this respect, the Minaret of this new mosque may as well be an extended middle finger.

And I guess by your remark you do not consider building a Mosque next to where the WTC used to stand distasteful? If not, that's your prerogative.

tony draper
5th Aug 2010, 20:42
This building has one advantage,when the time comes,,, you will know where to find them all.:E

hellsbrink
5th Aug 2010, 21:04
And I guess by your remark you do not consider building a Mosque next to where the WTC used to stand distasteful?

Well, rgb, this is my take on things.

Muslims have been practicing their religion on that very spot with no issues whatsoever but when they want a proper building to do so in it makes certain people go monkeypoop and that is an issue I cannot figure out. After all, it wasn't the religion itself that caused 9/11, but some nutters with a twisted view which did it who were Muslim. So I wouldn't have a real issue with said mosque as such as I know the difference between a religion and the nutters who did things for reasons which had nothing to do with the actual religion.

What I am seeing here is people who are reacting as if Islam itself was to blame for the tragedies, when we all know the religion was not to blame. I see people getting hysterical over Islam, and it is coming close to people effectively saying that every Muslim is a terrorist when we all know that is not true, but the hysteria is going in that direction. Surely you can see that because, if you can't, then Osama and his buddies have truly beaten you after all.

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 21:12
The "nutters" who perpetrated 9/11 did so, and very vocally so, in the name of Islam.

Not many New Yorkers are probably aware that a very small part of the current building is used as a Mosque. Replacing an old building such as the one currently standing with a "real" mosque, and advertising itself as such, is an affront to all New Yorkers. And not appreciated.

Then you would have no problem with a German WWII Bomber museum in London? Or in Coventry?

Or I guess the Japanese wouldn't mind if the U.S. had built a big fat Christian cathedral in downtown Hiroshima, eh?

Lonewolf_50
5th Aug 2010, 21:21
After all, it wasn't the religion itself that caused 9/11, but some nutters with a twisted view which did it who were Muslim. So I wouldn't have a real issue with said mosque as such as I know the difference between a religion and the nutters who did things for reasons which had nothing to do with the actual religion.
Your last clause is inaccurate. The religion is complex, and nuanced, like most religion is. Said complexity and nuance includes its utility to said nutters, which is part and parcel of, but not the whole of, said religion. Why that matters is that these nutters go out of their way to do things. If you attempt to arbitrarily isolate religion from culture, I think you make an error of reductionism. Religion and culture tend to feed on and transform one another in a continuum. Thus, Islam was a necessary if not sufficient motivating and unifying factor for Osama and his crowd. There were other factors, obviously.

"Nothing to do with religion?" Not correct. Something to do with religion, but not only to do with religion.

I think some folks who live in largely secular societies have serious blind spots about the cultural weave of more religious centered societies.
I see people getting hysterical over Islam, and it is coming close to people effectively saying that every Muslim is a terrorist when we all know that is not true, but the hysteria is going in that direction.
Some of the non-hysterical reactions are due to the fact that persons of ill intent frequently use the protestation of innocence, and the generally benign behavior of Muslims as a fig leaf for their own ends ... which is a sub set of cultural friction and conflict. I'd recommend a grain of salt when listening to protestations of innocence.

Now, if you wish to likewise protest the innocence, you risk playing the role of what Marx (or was it Lenin?) once referred to as "useful idiots" among the bourgoise.

It doesn't matter that many Muslims may not be, or are not, nutters.

What matters is that Islam is used as both battle banner and fig leaf at the same time by your aforementioned nutters. Putting up with that only encourages said nutters.

This is why I think it matters, finding out who is behind this. As asked above: cui bono?

IMO, rg is more correct than you are, and the intent is the flipping of the cultural bird.

While I often find New Yorkers a right pain in the butt, I completely understand their reaction, hysterical and otherwise, and will not criticize them if they demand to draw the line there, and to choose NOT to play the roles of useful idiots.

DR

rgbrock1
5th Aug 2010, 21:26
Lonewolf:

You naughty man. You consider NYers a "right pain in the butt"???

The next time you venture to NYC I hope you get a burnt pretzel and a soggy
knish. (And a tasteless and melting Eye-talian ice.) :}:}:ok::ok:

<just kidding>

Captain Stable
5th Aug 2010, 21:45
What I am seeing here is people who are reacting as if Islam itself was to blame for the tragedies, when we all know the religion was not to blame. I see people getting hysterical over Islam, and it is coming close to people effectively saying that every Muslim is a terrorist when we all know that is not true, but the hysteria is going in that direction. Surely you can see that because, if you can't, then Osama and his buddies have truly beaten you after all.Spot on. :ok:

And then BandAide suggests that there are certain parts of the USA where freedom of religion doesn't apply.

Remind me - what was the name of the operation to invade Iraq? Something about "freedom"? Or is that freedom only on your terms?

If this suggestion of building a mosque close to the site of the former WTC was intended to gauge the extent of anti-Muslim hysteria in the USA and elsewhere it's succeeded really quite well, hasn't it?

Lonewolf_50
5th Aug 2010, 21:45
Actually, rg, I have had some great experiences in NYC in my day with New Yorkers.

I found the shrill crybaby act that carried on long after the twin towers went down, and the brave firefighters and cops died doing their damnedest, to be distasteful and completely against NewYorkersAsIUsedToKnowThem: tough, rough and loveable in their own way.

Maybe the fact that a lot of the whining came out of the media that is based in NYC has something to do with how I perceived that.

hellsbrink
5th Aug 2010, 21:54
To even suggest a mosque there is a gross, egregious insult to every American.


Even those who are Muslim? I find that hard to believe..

The "nutters" who perpetrated 9/11 did so, and very vocally so, in the name of Islam.

Ahh, so using their twisted ideals means the whole religion is to blame, despite Osama's own words stating the reasons for his dislike of America? Nice to see that rationale.

Not many New Yorkers are probably aware that a very small part of the current building is used as a Mosque. Replacing an old building such as the one currently standing with a "real" mosque, and advertising itself as such, is an affront to all New Yorkers. And not appreciated.

So it's ok for them to have a mosque there as long as it's not seen? Says a lot, believe me.

Then you would have no problem with some Neo-Nazis undertaking to build one of their "cultural centers" in London? Or in Coventry?

They do, same as they do in your country

Or I guess the Japanese wouldn't mind if the U.S. had built a big fat Christian cathedral in downtown Hiroshima, eh?

By that logic there shouldn't be a church in Oklahoma City or Atlanta since the nutters who did these bombings were Christians. But you wouldn't say that Churches should be banned because some nutters who target abortion clinics and carry out other attacks on Mosques, Synagogues, etc use their own form of extreme Christianty (Aryan Nations, KKK and others which come under the Christian Identity movement) as a reason to do these things, would you...............

parabellum
5th Aug 2010, 23:42
That isn't a residential area, so where are the worshippers to come from? Certainly not from the neighbourhood...

Your are correct Chucks, it is intended as a shrine, but not to the near three thousand people that died in the twin towers.

SoulManBand
5th Aug 2010, 23:55
Indeed a shrine and a show of conquest. Just like the Blue Mosque in Istanbul once was a Byzantine church, and the Serbian monasteries in southern Serbia will soon become Albanian mosques.

con-pilot
6th Aug 2010, 00:08
Your logic is flawed hellsbrink.

By that logic there shouldn't be a church in Oklahoma City or Atlanta since the nutters who did these bombings were Christians.

Leaving the Atlanta bombing aside as you did not specify which one, I'll address the Oklahoma City bombing and McVeigh, which I promise you I know one hell of a lot more than you do, guaranteed.

First of all, McVeigh did not bomb the Federal Building because some whacked out religious leader told him to do in the name of any religion or in the name of God. As did the Muslim murderers on 9/11.

Secondly, no Christian Church provide the training and the funding of said training to McVeigh, as did some Muslim leaders and sects of the Muslim Religion as were provided to the Muslim murders of 9/11.

Thirdly, no Christian leaders or churches paid for the years of living expenses for McVeigh and Nichols, as did some Muslim leaders and sects of the Muslim Religion as were provided to the Muslim murders of 9/11.

You show me one, just one instance, where a leader of a Christian Church in the United States calls for the violent death of other any peoples, including those of the same religion, as there were Muslims murdered on 9/11 by the Muslim murders, and I'll be happy to relay the information to the FBI.

The FBI will take the appropriate action, trust me on this. I know, I used to take them to prison.

(Additional comments deleted by self to remain civil.)

birrddog
6th Aug 2010, 00:43
You show me one, just one instance, where a leader of a Christian Church in the United States calls for the violent death of other any peoples, including those of the same religion, as there were Muslims murdered on 9/11 by the Muslim murders, and I'll be happy to relay the information to the FBI.
I thought Barry's friends are off limits to the FBI connie?

con-pilot
6th Aug 2010, 00:59
I thought Barry's friends are off limits to the FBI connie?

Well to tell the truth I was thinking an about Barry's preacher when I wrote that, but I guess there are always exceptions, after all, Barry is the President. :p

I don't think he actually said to overthrow the government, he just damned it. :ooh:

Cacophonix
6th Aug 2010, 01:05
I think chuks summed this thread up some time ago!

Rollingthunder
6th Aug 2010, 01:06
effectively saying that every Muslim is a terrorist when we all know that is not true

Since the nutters in Oklahoma, have you known of any terrorist who is not Muslim?

Bandoleer
6th Aug 2010, 01:09
Originally posed at post #86:

For those throwing stones (pun intended), are you comfortable or happy with the rapid spread of Islam occuring in Europe? And not a slow rate of knots either.


Odd that this hasn't drawn discussion.

rh200
6th Aug 2010, 01:22
Odd that this hasn't drawn discussion.Should be another thread, though its all inevitably linked, and would of course be labeled anti Islam.

Extremism can take many forms, what we see in the west here is a form of extremism by the left. Stick to these value no matter what, this freedom that right etc etc. This is no different to the the Taliban. We are here with our values and live together because all of us are prepared to sacrifice a small amount of our values so we can enjoy the life we do.

At times we have made sacrifices and changed laws to adjust to the circumstances, I think WW2 was an example of that, we did do some nasty things in that period, but we won.

As a society you need to look at yourselves and change when needed, if you can't do that, then you are an extremist. Now most people closely involved with the proposed mosque will know what its really about. If its a genuine attempt at a place of worship, then maybe let it go ahead. If on the other hand its a clandestine attempt at a single finger salute, then some creative way to stop it should be done. Symbolism to these people is very important, as it is with the left. No matter what it is, if you stop it, it will be portrayed negatively in the Islamic world.

rh200
6th Aug 2010, 02:24
My apologies, failure to express myself properly again!:(. I meant why should they be thought of as fools? with respect to people of faith.

Pugilistic Animus
6th Aug 2010, 03:37
Me, I'm a hardcore scientist/engineer I can keep faith and the aforementioned separate and together:cool:

we can't judge either who I am I to judge an atheists,...I'm not God:)

Bandoleer
6th Aug 2010, 04:01
Cartoonist murder plot: two charged in Ireland | Radio Netherlands Worldwide (http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/irish-ppo-charges-two-cartoonist-plotters)


Ireland's Public Prosecution Office has formally charged an Algerian and a Libyan held in the country in connection with an alleged a plot to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks.
...

In 2007, Mr Vilks drew three cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed with the body of a dog. The drawings drew an angry response from much of the Islamic world. A group linked to al-Qaeda offered a 100,000 US dollar reward for anyone who killed the cartoonist.



You were saying?

rh200
6th Aug 2010, 04:03
Pugilistic Animus

we can't judge either who I am I to judge an atheists,...I'm not god

Me, I'm a poor excuse for a scientist, but as such and as an Atheist I have to make judgments on evidence. This also means I have to accept my judgment can be wrong, so who am I to judge people of faith:O.

Matari
6th Aug 2010, 04:03
So anyway, Bandoleer, I haven't heard much about torching of cars this summer, or no go areas, or demonstrations against returning soldiers so I suppose the immigrants are finally starting to assimilate.

No chance BandAide. The natives continue to be very, very restless. Old Sarkozy would make a good deputy for Sheriff Joe (not sure if they make boots in size 6 1/2).

Early last week, Mr. Sarkozy announced a crackdown on Gypsies who come to France from Romania and Bulgaria, and to begin investigating French Gypsy camps.

But by Friday, the president’s new law and order program went further by an order of magnitude: In Grenoble, site of a recent riot after police clashes with Arab youths, Sarkozy stated citizens from immigrant backgrounds who endanger the lives of police officers can be stripped of their passports – a striking pronouncement in a country where it is illegal for the state to label people based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

Nicolas Sarkozy to foreign-born French: Target police and lose your citizenship - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0802/Nicolas-Sarkozy-to-foreign-born-French-Target-police-and-lose-your-citizenship)

chuks
6th Aug 2010, 06:52
Have a look at where 45 Park Place really is, please, as in, "a few city blocks from Ground Zero." Too close for comfort perhaps but not right in eyesight either. You would have a bit of hike to get there from Ground Zero; New York city blocks are an eighth of a mile, I think.

As any fule kno, a "mosque" can be as simple as a little patch of sand denoted by a rim of stones. There is nothing to stop someone from unrolling a prayer mat and knocking off a prayer or two right there on the sidewalk at Ground Zero if he feels like it, assuming he isn't blocking traffic. Or do you see the NYPD frisking people for prayer rugs and such within a certain radius of this pseudo-sacred 9/11 site? It is basically just another New York City building site, otherwise it would have been left the smoking ruin it was on 9/12, I think.

As pointed out, hate speech is something we just have to live with when it comes to preaching, as with Reverend Wright and his insane blatherings about HIV and "God DAMN America!" We are perfectly free to counter hate speech with tolerant speech and then leave it to "the marketplace of ideas" to buy in to one or the other; that is the way the best of our American system is meant to work, according to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree to hope that somehow we are going to see this mosque banned. Do you remember Elijah Muhammed and his brand of racist Islam from when that was a feature of New York City life? We seem to have survived that one and I think we can manage to live with this one too without anyone banning anything out of hand. Otherwise we should reset the clock to the early Fifties and Joe McCarthy defining for us who is an American and who isn't.

Captain Stable
6th Aug 2010, 07:46
Well said again, chuks. :ok:

I am REALLY going to have to take a reality check here - too much agreeing with chuks' elegantly-put posts. ;)

As far as I can see from Google Earth, Park Place is about 2.7 miles from Ground Zero. Not exactly next door down.

Nemrytter
6th Aug 2010, 08:04
Since the nutters in Oklahoma, have you known of any terrorist who is not Muslim?

Not been out much, have you?

What about the various terrorist attacks by FARC? ETA? IRA? LTTE? KLA? Army of God? ELN? ARB?

cavortingcheetah
6th Aug 2010, 09:11
It's a little off track perhaps but there's what I consider to be a very good article by Andrew Gilligan in today's Telegraph. It deals with Islam and Islamism in England but there is significant relevance to events in the USA and elsewhere. Perhaps it might help to crystallise some of the distinctions and definitions connected with the principle arguments?

Gilligan was involved with the Hutton Inquiry and resigned from the BBC after its publication. He has also been active in the criminal investigation connecting Lee Jasper, Ken Livingstone and corruption. His bias might be said to be anti-establishment.

Our dangerous dalliance with radical Islam - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/7929660/Our-dangerous-dalliance-with-radical-Islam.html)

eastern wiseguy
6th Aug 2010, 09:17
With regard to terrorists only being Muslim........[/QUOTE]BBC News - Bomb policeman acted on instinct (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10889700) or if you prefer [QUOTE]BBC News - NI Army major was car bomb target (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10870038)

Not 1 mile from where I am writing this a chap had a bomb placed under his car two days ago.........there ain't one whole hell of a lot of al qaeda in County Down. Terrorists? ..."they haven't gone away you know"......Adams G

Cacophonix
6th Aug 2010, 09:18
Well said again, chuks.

The rational voice of American reason. I agree wholeheartedly with chuks on this.

billa
6th Aug 2010, 09:35
I don't understand. What is the problem with community centre being built around 3 miles from ground zero?

Islam or Muslims as an entity did not bring the 911 attackers to US shores - those attacks were committed by Al Qaeda and OBL - neither of those two entities is behind the organizations building the proposed Islamic Centre, nor are they representative or spokespersons for Muslims. The 911 attacks were not carried out in my name nor did any Muslim country authorize AQ or OBL in anyway to take actions on their behalf.

Were this Islamic Centre being demanded by Al Qaeda or its representatives/affiliates (present or future), then definitely we have a point and it shouldn’t be allowed to built.

FGS it’s not a mosque but a community centre. Out of the thirteen floors only one floor is for prayer. It will have a swimming pool open to all faiths; restaurants and food court area open to all faiths. A 500 seat auditorium and performing arts centre open to all faiths and a memorial on 9/11.

This project is not conceived by AQ but it’s American Muslims who are coming forward to raise their voice against the fringe fanatics.

Simonta
6th Aug 2010, 11:48
For years, NYers have provided much of the funding for the IRA via Noraid and others. St Patricks day parades saw people with buckets openly collecting money (I was there, disgusted).

By the the same logic as many are applying here, there should be no Catholic churces within site of ground zero and all Catholics are murdering terrrorists. Actually, the loyalist terrorists killed more people so all Christians are murdering terrorists, n'cest pas?

Or is it OK if it happens on someone else's soil?

Keef
6th Aug 2010, 11:56
Actually, Simonta, I understand the previous generous giving to terrorist causes in New York stopped abruptly around 9/11.

Captain Stable
6th Aug 2010, 14:42
BandAide - the question was "Since the nutters in Oklahoma, have you known of any terrorist who is not Muslim?"

You claimed you couldn't think of any. When it was pointed out to you that you might need to get out a little more and read a bit more about what goes on in the world, you then claim "productivity" as a measuring criterion. :rolleyes: :ugh:

Weak - very weak.

I've not google mapped it - I've google earthed it, and measured it. It came out as more than 2.7 miles in a straight line. Claims that it is "close to" Ground Zero are only valid if you count "close to" as compared to the distance between Canada and Mexico. I think you can find those on the map for yourself.

Whatever, the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief and worship, freedom of speech.

If you don't like it I suggest you campaign for a change in the Constitution.

Cacophonix
6th Aug 2010, 14:55
Whatever, the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief and worship, freedom of speech.

And that of course is the nub of this, as has already been so clearly identified.

I am confident that American fairness and adherence to constitutional principle will triumph over bigotry in this case.

rgbrock1
6th Aug 2010, 15:03
Yes, American adherence to the "rule of law" as well as to the principles as set forth by our Constitution will ensure this mosque will indeed be built. However, tasteless that may be to some. Myself included.

However, and as I wrote in an earlier thread: our very freedoms and liberties will continue to be used against us until we wake up to this fact. These freedoms are what allowed the 9/11 terrorists to perform their dastardly deeds. And those freedoms are what will allow future terrorists acts to take place on American soil.

Islamic fundamentalism/extremism is a scourge and a virus. And must be wiped out.
Wherever it is.

MagnusP
6th Aug 2010, 15:08
Islamic fundamentalism/extremism is a scourge and a virus

As is all fundamentalism and extremism. If we can include the rest in your wipeout plan, then count me in.

Lonewolf_50
6th Aug 2010, 15:13
By that logic there shouldn't be a church in Oklahoma City or Atlanta since the nutters who did these bombings were Christians.

Profoundly wrong.
First off, American Christianity (specifically the myriad of sects that make up Protestantism) is a religion in form, due to its dispersal and frequency of dilution, that cannot be compared to Islam as a religion. The very habit of decentralization is foreign to Islamic practice regardless of Islamic form. (If you want to argue Sufi is more decentralized, I'll buy that though ... an outlier).

Secondly, McVeigh (as you I think you noted, else you'd not have dropped CI into your later points) leaned toward the marginalized CI ideology.

He was as much anarchist and confused libertarian as he was urban terrorist. Rather than being a leader, which Osama is, and having a track record of sustained successes (to include two embassies in Africa and the assassination of a major leader in Northern Afghanistan, Massoud) he and Nichols were quite disorganized ... rather than members of a coherent network unified by an ideology. (Qtub's disciples and the Muslim Brotherhood come to mind as fellow travellers with Osama ... but let's not pretend they are all in the same network, as it ain't so).

Thirdly, the restoration of the Caliphate is a palpable cultural Icon among the Ummah, which McVeigh has and had no analogue for. Sorry, hellsbrink, the avenging of the death of the Branch Davidians isn't a comparable parallel, neither in scale nor in quality.

If you are going to make comparisons on how the religious angle compares, you ought to take a bit more care in where the similarities and dissimilarities are.

If, McVeigh had been a member of, say, Opus Dei, and if Opus Dei was, in its manifesto, working to restore "Christendom" as a form of Western cultural unity (see Europe in about 800-1200, all disputes with the Greeks considered ... ) we could begin to draw some parallels that have meaning regarding the Al Qaeda, and other Salfist and Islamist in terms of motivation, symbolism, and ideology and a Christian analogue.

On a last poinot: McVeigh and his arse clown friends didn't have the backing of major money, including wealthy persons sympathetic to his cause within the larger culture.

Al Qaeda does. So do other Ilamist movements. THAT factor is a major difference.

And given the kind of financing it takes to put up 13 story buildings in NYC (bloody expensive, no matter who you are) THAT factor is least likely to be innocent.

Follow the money ... if you can find the strands of the web.

EDIT: chuks makes a lot of sense.

rgbrock1
6th Aug 2010, 15:13
You are correct MagnusP: All extremism/fundamentalism should be included.

Pugilistic Animus
6th Aug 2010, 18:52
Let's burn'em at the stake:}

con-pilot
6th Aug 2010, 20:42
Let's burn'em at the stake

Jeez, what do you have against stakes? :p

rgbrock1
6th Aug 2010, 20:44
con-pilot:

I think he meant Steak, and not stake. :}:}:}

OFSO
6th Aug 2010, 20:47
"Since the nutters in Oklahoma, have you known of any terrorist who is not Muslim?"

Yes. Three terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland in the past four days, including a 200lb carbombing of a police station, attempted murder of a policeman with IED under his car, and an IED planted under a road where patrols pass.

I do believe that nominally these terrorists might be members of the Roman Catholic church. One thing they ain't is Muslim.

A UK Government assessment of terrorist threats to the mainland in April 2010 stated that the biggest threat was from members of the Real IRA.

Edit: Oh and I forgot our own home-grown terrorists from ETA. There's currently a warning out to all tourist areas of Spain (i.e., coastal resorts) to be on alert for terrorist attacks. That's CONTINUING terrorist attacks. Again, I have a slight suspicion that these guys are Catholic rather than Muslim.....

sitigeltfel
6th Aug 2010, 20:52
Actually, the loyalist terrorists killed more people so all Christians are murdering terrorists, n'cest pas?

Utter garbage....

The Troubles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties)

Pugilistic Animus
6th Aug 2010, 21:15
Of course the opposite can be taken to the extreme too...;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww7WlSPi9gc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiwKb-x7wXQ)
Con-pilot I've slaughtered so many steaks in my various campaigns...although I can't beat Tex...I I mean Oklahoma:}:}:}

Pugilistic Animus
6th Aug 2010, 22:54
YouTube - &#x202a;American Muslims Hate America&#x202c;&lrm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG1DYuzVgSk&feature=related)

Pugilistic Animus
6th Aug 2010, 23:03
I'd like to see them try that Sh**t with Saddam:E

:*

glad rag
6th Aug 2010, 23:09
OFSO. what a moment of clarity from the subtle, but continuing anti muslim bias in the UK media.
As for NI, I fear it is starting to all unravell, unlless the current HMG grasp the bull by the horns and unleash the dogs of war for a FINAL and conclusive OPERATION.

SASless
7th Aug 2010, 00:23
By the the same logic as many are applying here, there should be no Catholic churces within site of ground zero and all Catholics are murdering terrrorists. Actually, the loyalist terrorists killed more people so all Christians are murdering terrorists, n'cest pas?



Errrrrrr....the Catholics did not fly the two airplanes full of people into the WTC buidlings, the Pentagon, or into the field in Pennsylvania as I recall.

If you care to object to a new Catholic Church next door to the Queens house in London....I might agree with your comment but not about a Mosque in NYC.

rh200
7th Aug 2010, 04:06
Its all about tactics, and what you perceive that you need to do to obtain the objective. In NI I have no Idea, If they wait a while they'll probally out breed the other side and can vote for what they want. I don't know, maybe their just in a hurry.

The same is for Islamic fundamentalism, they will just end up over breeding and winning by default. The question is, are the so called leftys we have now happy to have our great grand daughters being forced to wear a Burqua?

On the great master plan to get rid of extremists, we don't need to worry about christian ones as we have gone past the crtical mass and there slowely but surely dying out, though there is a new left wing breed of extremisim rising though?

Cacophonix
7th Aug 2010, 05:46
The same is for Islamic fundamentalism, they will just end up over breeding and winning by default.Are you suggesting that fecundity is a specific weapon, knowingly being used by fundamentalists to undermine the status quo (whatever that is) or are you talking about all Muslims? Are you suggesting that all Muslims are fundamentalists and that it is their aim to undermine society by dint of numbers?

How many Muslims are too many? I suppose you could extend this logic (or is it prejudice?) to other religions or groups that you don't agree with? I mean how many Jews, Christians etc. are too many?

What with suggestions by posters of Final Big Operations (sounds a little like Die Endlösung) it seems that fundamentalism is alive and kicking with or without Muslims!

rh200
7th Aug 2010, 06:00
NamibFox

Are you suggesting that fecundity is a specific weapon, knowingly being used by fundamentalists to undermine the status quo (whatever that is) or are you talking about all Muslims? Are you suggesting that all Muslims are fundamentalists and that it is their aim to undermine society by dint of numbers?I have no doubt there are some extreme wack jobs who think that way! But its just nature in effect, the question is, as a society do we just let the natural order of things carry on, or do engineer or societys. As I have mentioned before, one of the Asian PM's said, "Australia will be Asian when it has %50.1 Asians in it. There was no malice in it, just a fact.

We are the sum of our parts, too much of one thing and we swing that way, its not rocket science. So do we poke our head in the ground as extremists and quote constitutions as if it where the bible, or do we adapt as we go?

Cacophonix
7th Aug 2010, 06:12
We are the sum of our parts, too much of one thing and we swing that wayI partly agree rh200. I guess the trick is to develop an underlying culture combined with political and legal systems (vide the American constitution) that moderates these swings and dilutes extremism from wherever it comes.

As an Australian (pardon my assumption) I wonder whether you would consider Australia a better or a worse place if it was to be considered Asian by dint of the fact that more people of Asian extraction lived there? Surely such people become Australians, absorb the value system as did all the immigrants in the USA (for example) and become part of the culture and society that is Australian?

rh200
7th Aug 2010, 06:34
NamibFox

As an Australian (pardon my assumption) I wonder whether you would consider Australia a better or a worse place if it was to be considered Asian by dint of the fact that more people of Asian extraction lived there? Surely such people become Australians, absorb the value system as did all the immigrants in the USA (for example) and become part of the culture and society this is Australia?
In short I don't give a s^%t about their skin color religion etc. Unfortunitly its a bit more complicated than that. I think having other cultures mix in a bit is a good thing to a degree.

The facts are if you took multicultralisim to its extreme, then how much of that other culture would you accept, we know there are some pretty horrid things in other cultures, as was in ours once (still is for some people). The point is, if they come and intergrate thats a good thing, thats the problem. Intergrating takes time, the larger the difference in culture, the longer it takes.

If the percentage of growth of that culture in your population is growing quicker than they can assimilate, then sooner or later the laws will have to change to reflect there beliefs. In a way its like backing a cake (not that I can), your cake is made up of its ingrediants, but how you add those ingrediants, and at what speed can matter.

I was sitting on the lawn at uni one day a while ago, it was a great sunny day, and in the back ground you could hear some young lass's having a good ol yack, good o'l aussie accents. Being a typical guy had a bit of a look around, and one of the girls with the oka accent was an asian lass, a slight smile adorned my face, she was an aussie. I don't care if we have majority what ever in the future, in fact its inevitable, but what I do care about is if they have the same laid back attitude.

The same goes for muslims, when an muslim guy can throw his halal banger on the barby next to his mate's pork sausage, then he'll be a real aussie with no going back (proverbially). If an muslim family comes here, you don't expect the woman who may have been wearing a burqa her whole life to suddenly run around with out it, that would make her feel uncomfortable. But you do expect the daughters to change a bit, and then hers. The big question is, are the majority of the muslim population changing quick enough?

Cacophonix
7th Aug 2010, 06:54
With respect to your answer rh200 I am heartened to know that Aussie culture is what I thought it is, i.e. reasonable and generally tolerant!

I agree with your comments about cultural shocks and the inability of societies to absorb large influxes of people with very different cultures very quickly.

Coming back to the UK and some Muslims, I would suggest that when we have a second generation of 'Brits' who have not integrated and who, in some cases, don't even speak the English language, then we have a problem.

I think that the key to America's previous dynaminism it that it integrated people very quickly even within one generation. This process and success was fostered by the essential freedom of the country and its norms etc. I believe that this 'freedom' is undermined by the drift towards a mindset that says one group of people is an enemy within. Such an illiberal (in the true sense of the word) mindset is likely to be a self fulfilling prophecy and runs counter to what I (from my far admiring standpoint) believe America is all about!

Simonta
7th Aug 2010, 08:15
Sitigeltfel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simonta http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/423008-mosque-islamic-cultural-center-ground-zero-nyc-post5852400.html#post5852400)
Actually, the loyalist terrorists killed more people so all Christians are murdering terrorists, n'cest pas?

Utter garbage....

Not really, just an omission. I meant to say civilians.

Errrrrrr....the Catholics did not fly the two airplanes full of people into the WTC buidlings, the Pentagon, or into the field in Pennsylvania as I recall.

No, they put bombs in pubs, clubs and shopping malls. What the hell is the difference? Ah, WTC, Pentagon and Pennsylvania. The key words methinks.

prospector
7th Aug 2010, 10:40
Tom Scott - cartoons - opinion - blogs | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/cartoons/1251886/Tom-Scott)


And we have our version to, takes a long time for some to accept assimilation.

OFSO
7th Aug 2010, 11:58
I have been standing here like a man holding a lit match over a spreading pool of petrol (sorry, gasoline), wondering whether to toss it in...oh well, here goes...

Dare one ask where the Irish terrorists got the funding which has resulted in death and injury to thousands of innocents since The Troubles began ?

Dutch1911
7th Aug 2010, 15:44
I have been standing here like a man holding a lit match over a spreading pool of petrol (sorry, gasoline), wondering whether to toss it in...oh well, here goes...

Dare one ask where the Irish terrorists got the funding which has resulted in death and injury to thousands of innocents since The Troubles began ?

Ted Kennedy?

Pugilistic Animus
7th Aug 2010, 17:16
YouTube - &#x202a;American Muslims Hate America&#x202c;&lrm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG1DYuzVgSk&feature=related)
:rolleyes:

bearfoil
7th Aug 2010, 17:24
To now, Islam apologists strived to distance the "radicals" from mainstream Islam. The move to site this Islamic monstrosity so close to the slaughter of 2001 begs the lie.

The "mainstream" evidently is not the dog, it is the tail.

bear

Pugilistic Animus
7th Aug 2010, 17:28
Bearfoil you are intolerant and racist, everyone can see the peacefulness and love of the Muslims, they are all mainstream, just look at that video:rolleyes:....also NY'er have become sissies, if that were in the 80s:E

:)

Pugilistic Animus
7th Aug 2010, 18:01
Bearfoil you are intolerant and racist

Just kidding of course I agree 1000% with you...I actually walk a fine line line on this thread --:*

galaxy flyer
7th Aug 2010, 18:35
Captain Stable

Whatever, the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief and worship, freedom of speech.

If you don't like it I suggest you campaign for a change in the Constitution.

The US Constitution says no such thing. It says the Congress shall not establish a religion, very different. It restricted CONGRESS, not the states; two states had established religions--Connecticut was one. And it says, (lovely words), "Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech". It doesn't say the people have freedom of speech--that is an "inalienable right".

GF

Captain Stable
7th Aug 2010, 19:03
Once again you're talking total bollox, gf.

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Incidentally, for all those complaining that Islam doesn't do enough to coounter the extremists in their midst, you might like to read this:-

BBC News - Muslim group Minhaj ul-Quran runs 'anti-terrorism' camp (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10900478)

ul-Qadri has a very interesting take on the subject - he is proposing a jihad against terrorism. In effect he is declaring terrorist extremists as enemies of Islam. This is, IMHO, a very cunning plan. It deserves all the support people can give it, as it will alienate the extremists from the moderate majority, as it will therefore be seen that the fundies are damaging Islam and the Ummah.

Ogre
8th Aug 2010, 00:36
I admit I haven't read all of the thread, but the bits I have read have been, well "interesting".

So who was it that wrote "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"?

galaxy flyer
8th Aug 2010, 01:16
Captain Stable

Right, it says Congress cannot restrict, by law, the citizen's practicing their religion. For about 150 years, the First Amendment only applied to Congress, states could pass all kinds of laws with respect to religion. It clearly doesn't say citizens have a freedom of religion, bestowed upon them by the government, which is what you proposed.

GF

SoulManBand
8th Aug 2010, 02:22
And 10 more by the peace loving Taliban

BBC News - Foreign medical workers among 10 killed in Afghanistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10900338)

The foreigners were six Americans, one Briton and a German, who worked for an international charity providing eye care and medical help.

Edit: This actually looks like the same report off centre posted, but this one says Afghanistan by BBC so it must be right.

Gentleman Jim
8th Aug 2010, 03:18
The moderates must oppose the terrorists, for the extremist has woken the sleeping Giant to the plan that is afoot. With no birth control and the backing of the huge wealth of the oil reserves, Islam has never been in such a position in it's history. It is possible to see the end game of a world that is islamic. The insidious spread went un-noticed in the UK for so long and now it is too late.

The more the extremist 'terrorises' us, the more likely we are to open our eyes to the 'threat' that surrounds us. This religion can 'afford' to spread, no others can.

The poster who mentioned the 'majority' concept was quite astute. As religious and cultural density's change within an area, then sure enough the electorate will vote in one of 'their own' at the appropriate opportunity. This will continue town by town, county by county in the UK until parliament has a majority of muslim MPs, and then any laws can be introduced that are required to support the implementation of an Islamic state under Sharia law, and nobody will be able to do a thing about it. It could take 30 or 40 years, but it will happen for sure, unless the extremists continue to throw a spanner in the works and make us all realise that something must be done. The extremist in Islam is the biggest threat to the successful implementation of an Islamic state in any nation, so of course the moderates must condemn them, perhaps even actively stop them, and in doing so their aims move closer to completion, and they even start getting 'converts' long the way like CS.

jcbmack
8th Aug 2010, 05:49
The alternative to building the Mosque is feeding the Islamic extremist with the very right winged propaganda supposedly focused on stopping the terrorists, but instead they want to label all Muslims in the world as extremists so they end up behaving more that way as they are lumped together and the result is: self fulfilling prophecy.

jcbmack
8th Aug 2010, 05:52
these historical cultural and religious cycles. It was true that in the first crusade the Christians were the true killers and pillagers and the Muslims did not as a rule oppress non-believers as the Christians did. That Pope was quite the ambitious one letting all of those criminals out of prison to go on a "holy crusade" hmmm...

rh200
8th Aug 2010, 07:37
The question, what is an extremist, by what metric do we judge? In a lot of eyes on the left, the current leader of the Liberals in our country is an extremist. Hence by those judgments, the very same "moderate" Muslims must be extremists!

An extremist is generally some one who's views are very wide of the mainstream. Does that not mean even the most moderate Muslims are? Or is it a judgment of the high and mighty left that it should be based on the mean of the particular belief system you are discussing? Or maybe the particular system of the country you are in?

jcbmack
8th Aug 2010, 07:42
I think in this context extremist means: anyone who weare explosives in their underwear or crashes a Boeing 767 into the side of a building, (or any aircraft for that matter) trains in militant camps to carry out jihad, wants to kill all of the infidels and then proceeds to find a way to carry that thought process out into action. Believing in Allah counts for the second largest religion in the world, so I hardly see how all or most Muslims could be considered of the extreme view.

rh200
8th Aug 2010, 07:48
jcbmack

these historical cultural and religious cycles. It was true that in the first crusade the Christians were the true killers and pillagers and the Muslims did not as a rule oppress non-believers as the Christians did. That Pope was quite the ambitious one letting all of those criminals out of prison to go on a "holy crusade" hmmm...It hard to know for sure what happened so long ago, a mixture of myth and fact. As the old saying goes, history is written by the victors.

I would say they where probally more brutal, the big question is why, in essence it comes down to basic tactics. If you look at some Islamic societys today you see Chritsians and Jews living, as a rule in peace in those countrys. Why, simple they know what would happen to them if they got out of line. It makes more sense over time to convert slowly and out breed, than it does to commit genocide. So if they follow the rules, live and let be.

But if you go back to the times of the crusades, then when the Islamic armys took over, the general population behaved, if they didn't we all know what would happen. Though when the crusaders had the upper hand, you had the problem of the Islamic populace having in their holy book the directive to resist etc, hence they needed to be more brutal. The old fashion, "Put the fear of god into them".

Its not pretty but its all fairly logical.

alwayzinit
8th Aug 2010, 10:43
The Mosque at the WTC site is insensitivity at its highest level.

Would the Saudis allow a Christian Church in Mecca?

On another tack, its not primarily a religious problem, its cultural. We simply think and evaluate things differently.

How people dress, how people speak, common words and phrases when translated from one language to another take on a meaning and implication that in their mother tongue simply isn't there.

Oil and water when shaken together form and emulsion but never truly mix. If not continually stirred or shaken the oil and water will separate out again. The same is true regarding the Western outlook vs the Eastern outlook.

Fact is we are different and regardless of how much the Luvvies want us all to be the same we will always be different.

Just like the problems in N.I. As long as the distant past keeps being dragged up to inflame the present peace will never break out.

Oh [email protected] my brain hurts:ugh:

jcbmack
8th Aug 2010, 10:54
rh200 some very good points. I wish to reply tomorrow when I get some sleep:zzz:

chuks
8th Aug 2010, 12:11
I think that one could argue that Islam had a more enlightened approach to non-believers "back when." This enabled them to hold a position ahead of the Christian world for many centuries in fields such as mathematics, medicine and astronomy. Non-believers were often used, imprisoned and oppressed but not simply slaughtered out of hand as was often done by the so-called Christians of that period.

Anyone who has read Don Quixote will have noticed how Cervantes was quite sympathetic to Muslim characters in his novel despite having been held prisoner in North Africa for a while and having also been badly wounded in a great sea battle against Islam; I take this for a mark of his greatness.

My book, Moby Dick, does have non-Christian characters who are also presented with nuanced understanding but with not so very much attention given to their religious beliefs and practices aside from those of the pagan harpooneer J. C. B. Mack. In the opening of both books (mine and Melville's) we have the strong contrast between Father Mapple's powerful preaching and a pagan harpooneer's humble burning of biscuit to his little idol when it is fairly clear that the Christian is the less tolerant of the two.

Then we have the fundamentally pious yet opportunistic Christianity of Captain Bildad contrasted with the good-hearted, simplistic paganism of the harpooneer, the thinly-veiled, threatening fanaticism of Captain Ahab, whose very name is a powerful Bible reference, and the shadowy, unexplained presence in the background of a group of "Parsees," themselves refugees from a losing encounter with Islam.

I think we can take this latest event in New York for simply another cause for engagement between our basic Christian belief system, hopefully in its tolerant aspect, and various forms of Islam. This is nothing new even though some seem to think it so.

rh200
8th Aug 2010, 12:29
chuks

I think that one could argue that Islam had a more enlightened approach to non-believers "back when." This enabled them to hold a position ahead of the Christian world for many centuries in fields such as mathematics, medicine and astronomy. Non-believers were often used, imprisoned and oppressed but not simply slaughtered out of hand as was often done by the so-called Christians of that period

This is very true, but why, was it really enlightend, or the fact that they could be handled, in a crude analogy some animals can be domesticated and others can't.

Western societys have had many cultures in them for centurys, its only when there is a percieved threat that it becomes an issue. And a threat can be many things, even social.

Gentleman Jim
8th Aug 2010, 13:39
Well actually it could be argued that since the spread of Islam the Arabic world has contributed little more to science and mathematics than they already knew as a result of their amazing predecessors who were not chained by the restraints of the religion.

Matari
8th Aug 2010, 16:14
These Islamic centers, regardless of where they are located, are not always the benign, peaceful places they pretend to be.

In fact, as far back as 1990 (before the first WTC bombing), American leaders of the global "Muslim Brotherhood" organization were advocating Islamic centers be built to spread jihadist ideology and practices. Follow the attached link for a translated Muslim Brotherhood memo. Paragraph 17 is most relevant. (scroll to page 24 in the English language version).

Before someone says this document could be the blueprint for any old Baptist church, just notice that in the opening paragraphs the authors state explicity that their goal is to "support a global Islamic State.."

Why these organizations are viewed as mere benign curiosities, especially by Europeans who should know a thing or two about fascism, is beyond me.

http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/hlf2/09-25-08/Elbarasse%20Search%203

Captain Stable
8th Aug 2010, 18:40
The conundrum is, though, that Sharia Law is unconsitutional. It suppresses just about every right in the Bill of Rights.And which particular version of Shariah law is that? Can you quote a specific fatwah or author? Do you know anything about Shariah law except "Well, it tells people to cut hands off and stone women, dunnit?"

SoulManBand
8th Aug 2010, 18:44
And legislating from a pulpit.

chuks
8th Aug 2010, 18:57
I don't think people ever did view these things as benign curiosities but we have always had to balance freedom of speech with protection against those who would do us harm.

You get some pretty strange stuff, such as Bill Ayres posed standing on an American flag yet calling the cops for protection, what I would have thought of as his terrorism afforded the protection due free speech. With this new thing in New York I suppose it will get built and be put into operation and only then will we be able to assess it as a threat or as something "benign." (That word doesn't mean that something is good, just that it shouldn't harm you! Think of Daniel Moynihan's phrase, "benign neglect.")

I think that if the mayor of New York City is as smart as he seems to be, he should be able to wrong-foot the Cordoba people by simply citing the tolerant side of Islam as if that is what we expect from them. Let them be the ones to pick a fight if that is what they want, to gloat over 9/11 as if it were some great victory over the Great Satan if they really want to do that.

We have an old saying, "Don't fight City Hall." If you really make yourself unpleasant to most New Yorkers then you may find out the true meaning of that one when the building inspectors come around. After all, Al Capone finally went down to a humble tax inspector, didn't he?

Nigeria has three different sorts of courts; there is one that applies the English-derived law we are used to, one that applies customary law according to ancient traditions and one that applies Sharia law, when this can vary widely. There have been a few eye-catching things done under the latter, floggings, amputations, stonings and the like. Anyway, I don't think we would ever see that applied in the USA, not in my worst nightmare.

jcbmack
9th Aug 2010, 03:38
I think that one could argue that Islam had a more enlightened approach to non-believers "back when." This enabled them to hold a position ahead of the Christian world for many centuries in fields such as mathematics, medicine and astronomy. Non-believers were often used, imprisoned and oppressed but not simply slaughtered out of hand as was often done by the so-called Christians of that period.

Anyone who has read Don Quixote will have noticed how Cervantes was quite sympathetic to Muslim characters in his novel despite having been held prisoner in North Africa for a while and having also been badly wounded in a great sea battle against Islam; I take this for a mark of his greatness.

My book, Moby Dick, does have non-Christian characters who are also presented with nuanced understanding but with not so very much attention given to their religious beliefs and practices aside from those of the pagan harpooneer J. C. B. Mack. In the opening of both books (mine and Melville's) we have the strong contrast between Father Mapple's powerful preaching and a pagan harpooneer's humble burning of biscuit to his little idol when it is fairly clear that the Christian is the less tolerant of the two.

Then we have the fundamentally pious yet opportunistic Christianity of Captain Bildad contrasted with the good-hearted, simplistic paganism of the harpooneer, the thinly-veiled, threatening fanaticism of Captain Ahab, whose very name is a powerful Bible reference, and the shadowy, unexplained presence in the background of a group of "Parsees," themselves refugees from a losing encounter with Islam.

I think we can take this latest event in New York for simply another cause for engagement between our basic Christian belief system, hopefully in its tolerant aspect, and various forms of Islam. This is nothing new even though some seem to think it so

I enjoyed reading this post.

And this one as well:

I don't think people ever did view these things as benign curiosities but we have always had to balance freedom of speech with protection against those who would do us harm.

You get some pretty strange stuff, such as Bill Ayres posed standing on an American flag yet calling the cops for protection, what I would have thought of as his terrorism afforded the protection due free speech. With this new thing in New York I suppose it will get built and be put into operation and only then will we be able to assess it as a threat or as something "benign." (That word doesn't mean that something is good, just that it shouldn't harm you! Think of Daniel Moynihan's phrase, "benign neglect.")

I think that if the mayor of New York City is as smart as he seems to be, he should be able to wrong-foot the Cordoba people by simply citing the tolerant side of Islam as if that is what we expect from them. Let them be the ones to pick a fight if that is what they want, to gloat over 9/11 as if it were some great victory over the Great Satan if they really want to do that.

We have an old saying, "Don't fight City Hall." If you really make yourself unpleasant to most New Yorkers then you may find out the true meaning of that one when the building inspectors come around. After all, Al Capone finally went down to a humble tax inspector, didn't he?

Nigeria has three different sorts of courts; there is one that applies the English-derived law we are used to, one that applies customary law according to ancient traditions and one that applies Sharia law, when this can vary widely. There have been a few eye-catching things done under the latter, floggings, amputations, stonings and the like. Anyway, I don't think we would ever see that applied in the USA, not in my worst nightmare

Good contribution to the thread:ok:

chuks
9th Aug 2010, 14:06
The German cops raided a mosque in Hamburg at 0620 Local time today and shut it down, seizing a certain amount of cash as they went. This was the mosque from which some of the 9/11 people issued so that it has been the subject of some concern for a while now. I guess the BND finally got the go-ahead to raid the place after years of arguing about whether it was primarily a place of worship or a recruiting center for young terrorists and wanna-be terrorists.

They had a narrow escape here when a couple of muppets fumbled an attempt to do a London-style bombing of the trains, their improvised explosives failing to go off. Otherwise it would have been mass slaughter in the name of Islam. As it was they caught the guys red-handed, when all they got was the chance to boast about their willingness to kill for their cause before going off to get striped suntans.

German law is different to US law in many respects but I am not a lawyer so don't ask me exactly how. I do know that they have been on the case of the Scientologists to a greater degree than seems possible in the States and I wonder if such a mosque raid would get the green light there either.

I expect we can read all about this in the German papers and in Stern too. Bild, the paper of choice for semi-literates, should have some screaming headlines about this tomorrow morning, up there above Margret who hopes to beat the heat by leaving her bikini top off.

I hope it also makes the news in the States, particularly in New York. Otherwise you read about it here first.

chuks
13th Aug 2010, 20:08
As you may know, many mosques have been the target of attack by other Muslims so that living next to a mosque is no guarantee of safety. Its own faction might not attack it but there might be some other faction that would want to do that.

It might be that this property at 45 Park Place was chosen for its proximity to Ground Zero so that if anything that would argue that the idea of another 9/11 was discarded.

In any case, let's hope this place fulfils its primary function as a house of worship with questions about terrorism pushed back a ways.

By the way, "jihad" can be interpreted to mean other things than simply something involving violence, such as the struggle to become a better person in some ways involving one's religion.

chuks
13th Aug 2010, 20:19
So you will just go with your preferred interpretation of what "jihad" means then? What, you go with black and white, no shades of grey? I guess there wouldn't be much point in arguing about anything nuanced then.

Matari
14th Aug 2010, 02:07
I guess there wouldn't be much point in arguing about anything nuanced then.

I'd bet a beer on Chuks' bar tab that these enlightened debates about nuance never, ever occur in Peshawar, London's Bethnal Green, or La Coureneuve.

Somehow the debates--which make us feel much better about people trying to kill us--seem to occur exclusively in the province of the western mind.

pigboat
14th Aug 2010, 02:29
George Jonas: A strange way to promote understanding. (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/07/george-jonas-a-strange-way-to-promote-%E2%80%98understanding%E2%80%99/)

Gentleman Jim
14th Aug 2010, 05:26
Well Barry Hussain, now says he supports the idea, so I can only assume, he has found being POTUS much tougher than he thought and thinks political suicide is better than resigning. Maybe he has actually been a secret Republican plant and is there to ensure that the democrats will have zero seats come the next election. If so then it looks like he will make 'mission complete'.

chuks
14th Aug 2010, 08:42
What the suicide bomber thinks is not terribly important. You might as well worry about the unhappy childhood of the mugger after your wallet and watch. When it gets to that point it's too late.

What his co-religionists think, that matters! And defining "jihad" properly is part of that thought process, I think. "Is terror a legitimate part of this "struggle" or not?" That sort of thing. Perhaps it is the same as asking what place Guantánamo has in our American justice system, for example.

I am sceptical about this whole thing. For just one thing, have a look at 245 West Broadway, New York City on Street View. It is a shabby, little, two-story premises, the present home of the imam's mosque. To go from that to a $100 million complex is quite a leap and very strange.

I really do hope that plans for that gay bar move ahead in lockstep with this mosque. As a New Yorker might say, "I got your reconciliation, hanging!"

Gee, "Barry Hussein" and raising more heifer dust about the Bible Belt's denizens? This reads like more fear-mongering about the brutal and primitive Septics to me. Most Bible Belters probably think of New York City in general as simply Sodom and Gomorrah West; one mosque or gay bar more or less isn't going to get them too stirred up, while I doubt they think of the President as either POTUS or Barry Hussein; this is clearly an outsider commenting on something he knows very little about, unless Bangkok is twinned with Olathe or something. (Tell us how to pronounce that without looking it up, Jim. I rest my case.)

Also, "the feeling on the streets of New York..." Well, all the streets everywhere, across all five boroughs? You know this how, exactly? We want this we can tune to CNN, I think. I imagine I could find some people who are tearing their hair out but just a few blocks away those who are ululating with joy, over the exact same thing. New York is a large, cosmopolitan city, is it not?

flash8
14th Aug 2010, 12:09
The absolute insensitivity of those that wish to build such a monstrosity is breathtaking. If they were decent people they would appreciate the amount of distress this would cause... but they don´t give a sh*t.

That really says it all.

chuks
14th Aug 2010, 12:20
Well, you could just as well argue that the whole site should have been left as it was in remembrance of the 3 thousand or so who died there, yet it is being built upon with a bit of argument about how much space for commemoration and how much for plain old commercial use, since it is one very valuable chunk of real estate.

"Breathtaking" is New York City, basically, a very, very rude place! You need a pair of elbows to live there, I think. I am sure the citizens of New York City shall find ways to cope with this thing, as nothing compared to the original crime.

That this imam is supposedly a Sufi I find very odd, since they are usually pretty laid-back. He does seem like a very "New York" sort of fellow, doesn't he?

bugg smasher
14th Aug 2010, 13:28
Hard to pinpoint that ‘feeling’ on a street by street basis, although many of NYFD’s finest live in Queens. The off-track betting establishment, complete with Irish bar and Italian kitchen, just round the corner from my place is always full of them, minus the 343 who used to go there of course.

And three thousand dead, where are all of those extended multiples of surviving husbands, wives, children, mothers/fathers/friends/relatives now, not all of them in the boroughs of NY to be sure, but I’ll wager, on Chuks tab as well, enough of them to generate some pretty strong feelings about this whole thing.

The gay bar idea has some merit, might not have the desired result though. My first officers at a certain airline ‘over there’, once cut loose in Bangkok, enthusiastically sampled the locally available delights with only passing regard to gender, orientation and/or species. Or so I was told on the outbound legs.

But that was a while ago, things could have changed since, I suppose.

Matari
14th Aug 2010, 13:42
What would have been breathtaking, truly, would have been for New Yorkers to have rebuilt the twin towers exactly as they were, except one floor taller than the previous ones.

And to have rebuilt the taller towers in a couple of years after the attack. Now that would have been a massive Bronx cheer, with very little nuance.

Instead, we are nearly 10 years later, with little progress at the site. And to top it off, we have a bunch of handwringing by academics and good hearted people who should know better, about allowing a conquering edifice to rise even faster nearby.

Good rule of thumb would be, when in doubt, it's always better to listen to the folks from Olathe, and not the tenured profs from Lawrence.

HKPAX
14th Aug 2010, 13:53
Al Qaida is to Islam, as the Ku Kuk Klan is to Christianity.

Learnt that from watching West Wing and makes sense to me.

The US president does not see a problem (re location of mosque) nor do I.

birrddog
14th Aug 2010, 14:34
Well, you could just as well argue that the whole site should have been left as it was in remembrance of the 3 thousand or so who died there, yet it is being built upon with a bit of argument about how much space for commemoration and how much for plain old commercial use, since it is one very valuable chunk of real estate.
Rebuilding the commercial real estate is symbolic - it is far beyond commercial interests - it sends a message we will rebuild - and stronger.

Load Toad
14th Aug 2010, 14:43
And a mosque two blocks away says 'You will not destroy what we stand for; justice, freedom, the right practice which religion you want, the right to pursue happiness etc.'

The terrorists were no more Muslim than an IRA terrorist the planted a bomb that blew off the legs of a child or killed a civilian - was a Catholic.

flash8
14th Aug 2010, 15:00
And a mosque two blocks away says 'You will not destroy what we stand for; justice, freedom, the right practice which religion you want, the right to pursue happiness etc.'

And how far backwards do we exactly have to bend over? Not far enough according to our white liberal friends in their ivory towers.

Tolerance is a two way street. Something they seem totally oblivious of.

hellsbrink
14th Aug 2010, 15:19
Flash

You wouldn't know what tolerance was, even if it jumped up and bit your ass, kicked you in the balls and slapped you in the face with a wet kipper.

After all, you, like so many others in this thread, are blaming the whole of Islam for what happened and are, effectively, saying that every Muslim is to blame for 9/11 and that they should not be seen to worship except in areas YOU deem to be suitable irrespective of how long they have had a place of worship in the area with absolutely no issues whatsoever.

To be honest, I'm surprised at some here. They like to preach about the good things about the US and then proceed to show they are nothing but hypocrites when it comes to something that has absolutely no effect on them whatsoever, then try to claim that their narrow-minded opinions are somehow the "voice" that speaks for the whole country.

Congratulations, you have, yet again, shown yourself as being the true, BIGOTED, face of the US and thank God we have people like Chuks who live in the real world and know what the values that made your country really are.

chuks
14th Aug 2010, 15:30
They could have named it after Mohammed... Attah. Now that would have been insensitive!

No, really, I think a Muslim gay bar is just perfect to enhance the area. Here are some ideas for free to help with the marketing:

Get some Iranian exile flamer to run the bar and name it after Mr (No gays in my country, no Sir and the ones who are there we know how to sort out chop-chop next question please.) Amedhinejad with perhaps happy hour featuring nuclear-themed cocktails. Mahmud's Place, "The straightest gay bar in town."

Call it the Al Quds, "Here to liberate you from your inhibitions."

Cross-dressing night, when all the boys get burkas but all the lezzies have to unveil.

On karaoke night make sure to have that old Arab love song, "Across the river there is a boy with an *** like a peach but alas, I cannot swim," playing. Nothing else, just that. Okay, maybe "YMCA."

On poetry night make it all Cavafy. (He was a famous Greek poet who lived and worked in Alexandria, Egypt, many of whose poems are on homosexual themes.) Well, maybe a few verses of Sappho, just for balance, too.

A must is a really big reproduction of the famous painting showing Boabdil el Chico weeping as he has to leave Andalusia for the last time, in 1492. "You weep like a woman for that which you could not defend like a man," famously scolded his mom, Mrs el Chico (?). Nibble on that cocktail weeny, "Cordoba."

Let the good times roll.

hellsbrink
14th Aug 2010, 16:28
Then if you do not blame Islam as a whole, why all the screaming about the Mosque near the site of 9/11?

After all, there shouldn't be an issue if you accept Islam is NOT to blame for what a few nutters did, but you, and those others who are making so much noise, are screaming about it being an insult to those who died, an insult to America, etc, you are, effectively, blaming Islam itself since you are proposing that any other religion can have a purpose-built place of worship there but there cannot be anything to do with Islam on or near such a sacred site..

hellsbrink
14th Aug 2010, 17:01
And common decency does mean you do not try to say that they should build a Christian church in a land where that would be against the law or against the religion of that land. The USA is NOT a land such as that.

Common decency means you do not blame everyone of one faith for the acts of a few who claim to act in the name of said faith, or penalise those who are innocent of such acts because a small minority decide to claim they acted "in the name" of the same beliefs as the innocents.

Common decency means you don't try to insult the intelligence of others by claiming that everyone in your country feels the same as you do, as some have tried to say here, when it is clear that is nothing but a lie.

Come back when you realise what "decency", in any form means.

bugg smasher
14th Aug 2010, 17:41
Obama's stance runs counter to the opinions of the majority of Americans, according to polls. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan while just 29 percent approved.

Obama slammed, praised for backing NYC mosque - Politics - White House - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38702141/ns/politics-white_house)

chuks
14th Aug 2010, 18:13
Fairly soon, I bet. Well, never mind.

I think we should not get so wound up over this thing in New York. Just look at the map to see where 245 West Broadway is relative to 45 Park Place relative to Ground Zero. Lower Manhattan (Tribeca) is the oldest part of the city and it is a real jumble.

Part of the history of the city is this constant tearing down and building anew and the constant change in various neighborhoods as new groups of immigrants arrive to supplant old ones; this is part of what makes New York City what it is. New groups arrive, gain a foothold, make their way up in the world and move on, making way for the next group.

Now, if a group of Muslims really must build a $100 million edifice right there (when what is there now looks like a wreck), well, then they are pumping money into a part of the town that is somewhat run-down even as they may well also be trying to provoke us.

I really do think the idea of a Muslim gay bar is a pretty good joke, when jokes, humour can be the best weapon against intolerance. You think we should perhaps try to out-do the Muslim world in intolerance instead? I wouldn't mind engaging that beady-eyed, little freak Amedhinejad with jokes but when it comes to lunatic, intolerant raving I think he would be sure to win, who is going to turn whose territory into a howling desert, yaddda-yadda. Better, start a rumour about just who is behind Mahmud's Place and then innocently ask him to deny that he has any interest in that, if that gay Iranian running it isn't his cousin or something. As you Brits say, "Light blue touch paper and stand well back."

If that played itself out in the way it might, with our little "Cordoba" friends whining about how the gay bar is ruining the area, just invite them to another "Beer Summit." Okay, "Tea Summit." On one side of the table, some bearded imam looking like an angry piece of furniture, on the other a group of Islamic fairies in all their gay apparel, at the head of the table, Barack Hussein Obama trying to keep a straight face and ringed around, the press catching this one for the evening news! Hell, you could put that on pay-per-view and make a fortune off it!

One of our strengths is tolerance so let's use that, even assuming this new thing is going to be a problem. The Mayor of New York City and the President of the USA are okay with this and I guess they must have thought it through a bit but if they got that wrong then bring it on.

There is a bit of everything in New York, much of it calculated to drive an intolerant person right around the bend and much of that not very far away at all from 45 Park Place. Check out Greenwich Village, how far away that is, and then have a listen to Lou Reed's "(Take a) Walk on the Wild Side" to guess which scene that song is about anyway. It ain't Kansas!

Matari
14th Aug 2010, 18:32
Hellsbrink:

The puzzling thing about the US for many Europeans is that we try to preserve what's best in our common tradition of Western values, yet when it comes to some basic principles we apply a solid dose of common sense. You know, things the previous European generation would have understood without much explanation at all, yet the current generation just can't quite get.

Take Belgium, for example. There you have two European tribes who can't seem to get along, content to let their family feud break apart their tiny country. All while a radical Muslim minority grows in strength, multiplying demographically, converting empty churches to mosques, such that in 30 years' time those same squabbling tribes won't be able to find Trappist beer or moules au vin.

So don't be too hard on us backwards rednecks who, while believing that the majority of Muslims are good and decent people, choose to follow a different path than our European friends.

unstable load
14th Aug 2010, 18:39
All Islam did not perpetrate 911 as stated, but a HUGE part of it did not condemn it either which implies tacit support.
That same huge percentage will no doubt offer up thanks and praises when the Mosque is approved and will be chortling up their sleeves at the naivete of a nation that allows something like that monument to victory to be built by way of an apology to having a backbone.

Earl
14th Aug 2010, 18:51
Polls show the majority of Americans are against this including Muslims in the USA.
Yes its good we live in a country where this is the law, but wrong because its in bad taste to both sides.
I operated a flight out of SHJ (sharjah) as the towers were coming down.
There were many locals gathered around the TV's in the terminal as we walked through, cheering what was going on.
To build this thing near ground zero is a slap in the face the same as what I witnessed in SHJ that same day, and the same for those that lost their lives in this tragedy motivated by religious beliefs.
Sorry if the truth hurts here for some, its something I will never forget!

Checkboard
14th Aug 2010, 19:02
Second, I perceive demands from Islamic factions for tolerance, yet in lands where Islam holds sway, such tolerance is not accorded in turn. There is no Church of the Ka'bah is there?

And do you want to live in an Islamic state, or are you proud to live in a state where such things are permitted? :confused:

This argument seems to be: "I want to live in a country just as intolerant as those countries which would not permit a "foreign" religious house to open."

Matari
14th Aug 2010, 19:07
This argument seems to be: "I want to live in a country just as intolerant as those countries which would not permit a "foreign" religious house to open."

Oh for Pete's sake.

Nobody is saying such a thing. We are proud of our freedom of religion and speech, and protect it with vigor. There are thousands of Mosques in the US. Millions of happy and successful Muslims. Queues of Muslims lined up to come in, and hundreds processed as good American citizens in naturalization ceremonies every month.

We're talking about one mosque, in close enough proximity to a landmark of national remembrance, which provokes very decent people to say "no." For that we are called bigots? Sheesh.

Matari
14th Aug 2010, 19:19
Hellsbrink,

So much of what you have written about my "country" supporting IRA terrorism is factually so wrong. But your thesis is one of those oft-repeated, rigid orthodox beliefs so prevalent on British-dominated *******, that my trying to argue otherwise would result in thread closure and my banning (if it hasn't been done already).

You strongly believe that we are hypocrites and bigots, so there is not much I can do to persuade you otherwise. That, at least, is loud and clear.

Earl
14th Aug 2010, 19:20
hellsbrink
The ones in SHJ that night were surely supporting it, was a large group also, cant say about the rest of the world but what I seen really was a shock since I have worked in the Middle East for many years.
Why would they want to build it there anyway since even the American Muslims say its not a good idea.
Is this just motivated from abroad?
This is the USA, we have a constitution.
And if you are not an American we really don't care that you want this thing built there, leave it to us to settle this problem.

Earl
14th Aug 2010, 20:08
Well Hellsbrink I am not as blind as Stevie Wonder.
But at 52 years old I just bought my first pair of glasses, but not blind.
Still ride my scoot everyday and see everything clearly.
I don't think any land in NYC is cheap.
Wouldn't it be better to build this away from Hollow ground?
Kind of like a slap in the face now.
B/O is a flaming idiot anyway, elections with congress will show this in November.

Captain Stable
14th Aug 2010, 20:17
Why do people insist in referring to this proposed mosque as being "close to" or "two blocks from" the site of the WTC?

It's nearly three miles away FFS!

That's like saying "Earl's Court is just round the corner from the Palace of Westminster".

And I agree fully with Checkboard's post about tolerance and the sort of country we want to live in. And if those who object to this mosque aren't blaming the whole of Islam for 9/11, who exactly are they blaming if they object to a place of worship? Why say "We support freedom of religious belief and freedom of worship, but not HERE and not for THEM"?

hellsbrink
14th Aug 2010, 20:36
One question that might as well come up here, while the thread remains open, is at what point does Islam, the whole thing, come up against our laws and submit to them or rise above them?

Issues that are important and run directly counter to our long-standing civil and criminal codes are honor killings; subjugation of women; hatred and persecution of Jews and to a lesser extent, all non-Muslims; forced marriages and polygamy; female genital mutilation; funding of terrorism; suicide bombings - you get the idea.

Well, you'll see "hono(u)r killings" in more societies and religions than just Islam, one perfect example is India where honour killings are also common. Subjugation of women? Just look around you and look at the Jews, the Amish, other branches of Christianity, etc. Persecution of Jews? Again, look at some of the white supremacist groups in the US. Polygamy? Mormons (although banned, the practice is still carried out). Fundingof terrorism? Gimme a break, it ain't just Muslims who do that!!

So, where do you draw the line? Personally, if you live in a country you live to it's laws and norms. But, as you can see, some of the very things you say are carried out and allowed by the US as it would "infringe someone's belief" so it's difficult to condemn one group over their practices whilst allowing others to carry on as "normal". And, of course, not every branch of Islam thinks the same way over women, honour killings, etc, it's more of a cultural thing in countries, castes, tribes, etc.

Now, of course FGM is abhorrent and should rightfully be banned, but, again, that is a cultural thing and not something that cam be said to be "Islamic" as some branches of Christianity in Africa practice it and it is even a non-religious ritual in a minority of Jewish people in Ethiopia despite there being nothing in their scriptures that say it should bne done. Hell, there ain't anything in the Koran either, the whole thing is, again, based on local, tribal, customs and practices. So you can't stick that on Islam.

Suicide bombers? The most successful ones were the Tamil Tigers, and half the suicide bombings in Lebanon were carried out by groups with POLITICAL ideals and not Islamic ones. So why say that suicide attacks are something unique to Islam, when you just have to go back a bit further in time to the Japanese and their Kamikaze, or the Viet Minh? The concept is being used by the Islamic extremists now, but it is not something they "invented".

So, to your original point, where the line is drawn is simple. You obey the laws of the country you live in, period, but some customs carried out by many religions are legal and, no matter how "wrong" they are to us, are legal and cannot be stopped. Also, you have to accept that some of the things you list are nothing to do with Islam and/or are practiced freely by other religions/cultures in your own country. Of course, terrorism or the promoting of it is wrong and should be stamped on hard, same as FGM, but you cannot condemn one group for practicing similar things others do without any interference or restriction.

hellsbrink
14th Aug 2010, 20:38
B/O is a flaming idiot anyway, elections with congress will show this in November.

At least we agree on something, in previous years he would be trying to sell snake oil potions and then leaving before he was run out of town.

bnt
14th Aug 2010, 20:44
Why do people insist in referring to this proposed mosque as being "close to" or "two blocks from" the site of the WTC?

It's nearly three miles away FFS!
No, the proposed mosque that's causing the concern is literally two blocks from the WTC site. Here's a map:
http://educlaytion.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/wtc-mosque-map.jpg

Oh, and in case anyone's falling for the "Islamic Cultural Centre" label - that's just a fancy way of saying "mosque". I have no strong opinion on this particular mosque.

Earl
14th Aug 2010, 20:44
Thanks hellbrink, yes that one is true no matter what we believe in.!!!!

con-pilot
14th Aug 2010, 21:02
Thank you for posting an accurate fact BNT. As one who has been in New York City many, many times I can assure all here that it is a very short walk between the two sites. A big city block is no where as far as a county mile.

Still too close in my opinion, but the Muslims have all the legal right to build where they want to. That is what happens when you live in a free country.


And I wouldn't have any other way.

mocoman
14th Aug 2010, 21:06
Firstly, I hold no solid opinion over this matter.

However, I would ask Earl and others: In your mind, how many blocks distance is acceptable for an Islamic Centre from 'Hollow<sic> ground' (Your words...)

Should it be 5 blocks? 10? 100? Not in Manhattan? Where do you draw the line?

I would hope that you accept that not all persons of the Islamic faith condoned or welcomed the events of 9/11; in the same way that not all Irish-Americans condoned or supported the actions of the IRA. Both are the results of extremism.

I realise that the wound inflicted upon the United States on that day still bleeds but would suggest that you do not allow the actions of a perverted few to colour your vision and therefore affect your judgement of the rest of that portion of society.

Here's an idea though; let's see if the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would welcome a "Robert Oppenheimer Centre" being built a few blocks away from their REAL Ground Zero...

bugg smasher
14th Aug 2010, 21:20
A similar event has already occurred. The Enola Gay, the aircraft that bombed Hiroshima, was to be brought out of storage and displayed at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum some years ago. Due agitation of the Japanese public in general, and efforts by Japanese diplomats in Washington, the plan was abandoned. She is now on display at the much smaller and less well known Dulles Airport museum instead. And that flap from an event 50 years in the past.

Needless to say, we were free to display her anywhere we damn well pleased, it's a free country. But we listened, and chose not to.

Perhaps our Cordoba friends might take note.

Matari
14th Aug 2010, 21:42
And yet, when anti-Islamist Geert Wilders wins a stunning 15 seats in the last Dutch elections, nary a word is said on the European hamsterwheel about Dutch bigots.

When Sarkozy bans the burka in France, and threatens to revoke the citizenship of criminals, there's near silence from the usual suspects about French hypocrisy in the land of fraternité.

When the peaceful Swiss ban minarets on Mosques, where's the outrage?

Nah, let's talk about how bigoted Americans are. It's much more fun.

mocoman
14th Aug 2010, 21:55
Ah no Matari, we Europeans have bigotry and nationalism down to a fine art.:}

After all, we've had centuries of practice in killing and maiming each other...

I feel that bugg smasher has hit the proverbial nail although, as usual, the media is happy to whip up a storm if it sells papers and gains viewers.

hellsbrink
14th Aug 2010, 21:57
A similar event has already occurred. The Enola Gay, the aircraft that bombed Hiroshima, was to be brought out of storage and displayed at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum some years ago. Due agitation of the Japanese public in general, and efforts by Japanese diplomats in Washington, the plan was abandoned. She is now on display at the much smaller and less well known Dulles Airport museum instead. And that flap from an event 50 years in the past.

Needless to say, we were free to display her anywhere we damn well pleased, it's a free country. But we listened, and chose not to.

Not true

Apart from the fact that only the forward fuselage section was on display at the Smithsonian, the problem arose because of various protest groups arguing about what the dis^play avtually said. True, there was a protest from the "ban the bomb" crowd, with two survivors of Hiroshima and 50 activists which led to 2 AMERICANS being arrested, but that was after bigger protests from the American Legion and the Air Force Association who complained about there being too much emphasis on the Japanese deaths instead of the reasons why the bomb was dropped or how dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki effectively helped end the War in the Pacific. That kicked off a huge national debate, with all sorts of groups coming out of the woodwork, and the display was scrapped because they could get no common ground on how the display should be, erm, displayed to the satisfaction of everyone. The part of Enola Gay that was to go on display was put on display, and that led to the protest and arrests I mentioned above. After the display ended, that part of the plane went away to join the rest so the full restoration of the aircraft could be completed. As far as why she is still there, well that's because it is where she was restored and you'll find the intention was always to put her in the new building there, beside so many other exhibits they do not have space for at the main museum.

Sorry, it wasn't because of some sop to the Japs, no matter what you believe

hellsbrink
14th Aug 2010, 22:06
And yet, when anti-Islamist Geert Wilders wins a stunning 15 seats in the last Dutch elections, nary a word is said on the European hamsterwheel about Dutch bigots.

When Sarkozy bans the burka in France, and threatens to revoke the citizenship of criminals, there's near silence from the usual suspects about French hypocrisy in the land of fraternité.

When the peaceful Swiss ban minarets on Mosques, where's the outrage?

Nah, let's talk about how bigoted Americans are. It's much more fun.

Like the outcry and pressure against Austria when they dared to have a coalition government in 1999 with Jörg Haider and his far-right "Freedom Party"?

Try again

mocoman
14th Aug 2010, 22:39
Regardless of the veracity surrounding the Enola Gay issue; I would still support matari in the assumption that sanity should prevail....

However, I would also argue that an event that resulted in the death of almost 3000 innocent persons should be put into context against the 33000 that died on US roads in 2009 alone...

A sense of perspective needs to be maintained.

con-pilot
14th Aug 2010, 22:49
One thing that all you can take to the bank is that the surveillance around this Mosque will be very intense. The FBI and I imagine some other three letter agencies of the US Government will have every possible entrance and exit under twenty four hour video surveillance.

As this building will be build using US labor unions I'd not be a bit surprised to find out that this building will have a bug problem.

Maybe that ain't all that free in a free country, but ya got to do what ya got to do.

This I would not have any other way either.