Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/24/10 01:37 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/24/10 01:26 AM, satanbrain wrote: not destroyed, ignored. the police don't care much about minorities.

......what?

You're saying if the mosque goes up, sharia law will be enacted there, and US law will be ignored, and if something happens inside the mosque that violates US law, the police will ignore it?

yes. the police may try to do something at first but they'll give up very fast. the prayers will shout and claim it's private territory and the police won't come again.

At 8/24/10 03:45 AM, satanbrain wrote: yes. the police may try to do something at first but they'll give up very fast. the prayers will shout and claim it's private territory and the police won't come again.

That's positively the stupidest thing to be said in this topic yet. Why the fuck would the police not bust their ass for crimes? Has this sort of thing EVER happened ANYWHERE in America before, or do you think this mosque is where it will spring up?

At 8/24/10 03:45 AM, satanbrain wrote: yes. the police may try to do something at first but they'll give up very fast. the prayers will shout and claim it's private territory and the police won't come again.

Wow.....

Thanks for failing the first requirement. Error 404: Logic not found.

ah the NGs paradox; stupidity spawns not only hilarity but also severe brain damage. i come in wanting to post or have a good laugh but i usually leave with my pants around my head and i never understand why...

well maybe its not a paradox seeing as brain damage is usually pretty funny...

At 8/24/10 10:16 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/24/10 03:45 AM, satanbrain wrote: yes. the police may try to do something at first but they'll give up very fast. the prayers will shout and claim it's private territory and the police won't come again.

Wow.....

Thanks for failing the first requirement. Error 404: Logic not found.

Did no one ever tell you? If you're ever in trouble with the police just tell them to go away and you'll never hear from them again!

As was already said, he's into his Jingoism and is anti-Islam. He also feels the UN shouldn't bother getting out of bed in the morning. He'll make a fine president some day.

I pose the question to those against the building of the mosque : "What would be o.k to build at Ground Zero? What perfectly benign thing do you think you could build that no one would object to ?"

At 8/23/10 06:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: According to these surveys you didn't source.

Except I did... you know, with the big yellow links. Not my fault you're too stupid or lazy to figure out how to use those things. Either that, or you're just going to act like CNN and Time are no longer valid sources of news just because their findings don't agree with your opinion. Great job!

look this shit up already, how many topics do you have to make these mistakes in before you look them up and learn how to debate better?

I'm just showing you that my view isn't just my view. I share the majority view of the situation... so this isn't "the world according to cachehelper" its "the world according to most of the people living in this country". Face it, you where wrong in claiming otherwise. I thought you could admit that... but here we see that you very clearly can't. How does your own colon smell? Like roses?

Argumentative ad populum.

In response to the argument that this mosque was about compassion and understanding. Obviously not... or he'd be compassionte and understand the views of the nation and move his building further down the street.

Because the OWNERS of this PRIVATE PROPERTY think they do, they WANT it, on THEIR PROPERTY.

So wait... is this all about compassion and understanding or is it just some guy who doesn't give a fuck what other people think doing what he wants? You can't have it both ways.

How do you know they don't "understand"?

Because if they really understood and cared, this issue would be over. The people have spoken. To do this now, shows that this isn't an issue of 'understanding'... that was just a bullshit excuse the guy used to try to get people to be quiet. It didn't work.

Nah, I just know when you're wrong on an issue.

Can you see your house from up there?

No, it "obviously" isn't.

If two blocks was far enough away, 68% of the people wouldn't be upset about it. If you'd actually read and follow the links, you'll find that the location is major part of the issue. These articles state, that if the mosque was furter down the road, a lot of us would no longer have a problem with it.

In a question of "how close is too close" the majority of the people should get to decide. We do, after all, live in a democracy. Well, the people have spoken... and you, where wrong. Two blocks, is not far enough away. Once again, I thought you could admit when you where wrong? Obviously not...

The law determines what someone can and can't do with their property.

Nobody is trying to change the law. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

At 8/24/10 11:53 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: I pose the question to those against the building of the mosque : "What would be o.k to build at Ground Zero? What perfectly benign thing do you think you could build that no one would object to ?"

I've already asked that, they have no answer.

They have no answer because they don't actually care about the issue. They just read "muslims" and "9/11" and object on instinct.

If anyone who objected actually bothered to think for a minute, and answer that question, they'd see what a ridiculous issue it was, because they'd see on that same "hallowed ground" there's a strip club, Starbucks, and several bars.

And the politicians do it too, despite all knowing they have a legal RIGHT to build there. That sends a strong message: Despite the constitutional right, let's use political pressure to force them to not build there; let's use politics to coerce people out of practicing their 1st amendment rights.

Bottom line:
Fuck you, mosque protesters.

At 8/24/10 10:16 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/24/10 03:45 AM, satanbrain wrote: yes. the police may try to do something at first but they'll give up very fast. the prayers will shout and claim it's private territory and the police won't come again.

Wow.....

Thanks for failing the first requirement. Error 404: Logic not found.

Error 404's canceller: Past proves.

At 8/24/10 11:53 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: As was already said, he's into his Jingoism and is anti-Islam. He also feels the UN shouldn't bother getting out of bed in the morning. He'll make a fine president some day.

not if the only country they're blaming (you can check this) is israel.

I pose the question to those against the building of the mosque : "What would be o.k to build at Ground Zero? What perfectly benign thing do you think you could build that no one would object to ?"

what would be ok? World Trade Center rebuilt! that would be the righteous thing to do.

At 8/24/10 12:12 PM, CacheHelper wrote: In response to the argument that this mosque was about compassion and understanding. Obviously not... or he'd be compassionte and understand the views of the nation and move his building further down the street.

Why the hell should they have to move? This group has been in the area right around the twin towers since the 1980s, when a few of the towers where still under construction. and the second they try to build another building because they need to expand racist asshats jump down there throat for actions a group took about a decade ago that they have absolutely no relationship to, and have even condemned the actions of.

Before you post another link on how all the stupid assholes in this country agree with you, screw you, the tyranny of the majority is not right or acceptable simply because they hold most of the power.

At 8/24/10 01:09 PM, satanbrain wrote: not if the only country they're blaming (you can check this) is israel.

Source please? Oh wait... there's no instance of this group despising Israel!

what would be ok? World Trade Center rebuilt! that would be the righteous thing to do.

Not only is the mosque being built from a spot you can't see from ground zero, there are towers being rebuilt

Do some freaking research, they're building more towers to replace the old world trade center, alongside a monument and a museum.

Why do I feel only in America are the people so braindead.

At 8/24/10 01:09 PM, satanbrain wrote: Error 404's canceller: Past proves.

.....Ok....

Can someone else translate for me? I can't make heads or tails of what this dude is trying to say. Might as well be in Norwegian....

At 8/24/10 12:21 PM, Imperator wrote: I've already asked that, they have no answer.

They have no answer because they don't actually care about the issue. They just read "muslims" and "9/11" and object on instinct.

Exactly how certain can you be from that assumption?

If anyone who objected actually bothered to think for a minute, and answer that question, they'd see what a ridiculous issue it was, because they'd see on that same "hallowed ground" there's a strip club, Starbucks, and several bars.

None of those have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Its because the Islamic extremists were connected with the Islamic religion. When the terrorists flew those planes into the World Trade Center, they didn't do it in the name of strip clubs, Starbucks, or bars, they did it in the name of Islam. In the meantime, Imam doesn't speak out against the extremists who caused 9/11, but instead blames the US for it. His disrespect for America is really simply disgusting, and the only reason he does it is because he can get away with it here. Yes, if people get liberal enough, people can get away with anything.

And the politicians do it too, despite all knowing they have a legal RIGHT to build there. That sends a strong message: Despite the constitutional right, let's use political pressure to force them to not build there; let's use politics to coerce people out of practicing their 1st amendment rights.

You can cause a lot of social upheaval but still be within constitutional boundaries, but you can be sure its going to upset a lot of people. Yes, you can still be incredibly disrespectful but still be within constitutional rights. This isn't a question of whether its constitutionally right, its a matter of it being ethical, which its not. Imam isn't trying to resolve the issue, he's simply just out to get his way regardless of who feels offended by the project he's endorsing. This is where it becomes unethical, even if his actions are within the US constitution.

Bottom line:
Fuck you, mosque protesters.

Barking obscenities at your opposition doesn't make you any more convincing. In fact, it makes you look angry, immature, and diminishes the integrity of your argument.

No, the bottom line is that Imam could have chosen other places to build if he respected the wishes of the people that lost family and friends in the 9/11 attacks. Instead, the sensitivity of the situation means nothing to him, getting that mosque up ASAP is all he cares about. He claims he wants to build relations of respect, but he's not doing his part, he's just expecting it out of everyone else. He doesn't care about "building bridges" or whatever propaganda he's proclaming. He's a hypocrite for that, because if he really wanted to do that and focus on the remediation of religions, he would respect the area and respect the people who feel offended by the insensitivity of the nature of the building and the nature of the attacks. In truth, most people aren't bothered by the fact he's putting up a mosque, its a matter of where. If he were to put it up in Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, or anywhere else far away from Ground Zero, this never would have been an issue. Its that fact he's putting up this flamboyant, $100 million dollar Islamic structure on a location that was directly affected by terrorists who performed this horrific act against humanity in the name of Islam. It makes people think the religion of Islam is a Trojan horse trying to take over America.

And yes, that very location where the mosque is going (45-47 Park Place) was in fact directly affected by the 9/11 attacks, as the landing gear and fuselage of one of the planes fell through the roof, back when it was still a Burlington Coat Factory back on September 11th. With that in mind, it logically makes it a part of Ground Zero. Therefore, the point of the location not being a part of Ground Zero is completely false, because it is.

At 8/24/10 02:53 PM, RazorHawk wrote: And yes, that very location where the mosque is going (45-47 Park Place) was in fact directly affected by the 9/11 attacks, as the landing gear and fuselage of one of the planes fell through the roof, back when it was still a Burlington Coat Factory back on September 11th. With that in mind, it logically makes it a part of Ground Zero. Therefore, the point of the location not being a part of Ground Zero is completely false, because it is.

Ground zero has been used to ONLY describe the ground the towers where on, but by your logic their old mosque, which was four blocks away can also be considered part of ground zero. Furthermore the group has no relationship to the extremists behind the attack. What is your point again?

At 8/24/10 02:25 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/24/10 01:09 PM, satanbrain wrote: Error 404's canceller: Past proves.

.....Ok....

Can someone else translate for me? I can't make heads or tails of what this dude is trying to say. Might as well be in Norwegian....

past proves wrong. they obeyed sharia law and commited it in the past, in israel, and they're always driving away the police.

At 8/24/10 02:53 PM, RazorHawk wrote: Exactly how certain can you be from that assumption?

Followed immediately by.....

Its because the Islamic extremists were connected with the Islamic religion.

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

Barking obscenities at your opposition doesn't make you any more convincing. In fact, it makes you look angry, immature, and diminishes the integrity of your argument.

Which is fine by me, because it can afford the hit.
Protesters have neither the logical, rational, unemotional, nor legal side.
They have no argument.

So it's quite easy for me to debate my own argument, because I'm fighting nothing more than an emotion.

And yes, that very location where the mosque is going (45-47 Park Place) was in fact directly affected by the 9/11 attacks, as the landing gear and fuselage of one of the planes fell through the roof, back when it was still a Burlington Coat Factory back on September 11th. With that in mind, it logically makes it a part of Ground Zero. Therefore, the point of the location not being a part of Ground Zero is completely false, because it is.

If not a mosque, what do you put on that "hallowed ground"?
What do you stick in that building stuck between two bars, that properly shows respect for the events of 9/11? What do you stick there that won't offend people?

So it's quite easy for me to debate my own argument, because I'm fighting nothing more than an emotion.

*debase

At 8/24/10 03:22 PM, satanbrain wrote: past proves wrong. they obeyed sharia law and commited it in the past, in israel, and they're always driving away the police.

I'm not even going to bother wasting my time pointing out the ways in which this is conflated, incoherent garbage, and just tell you "no".

If someone else wants to tackle this one, by all means, he's all yours.

At 8/24/10 03:02 PM, Gorgonof wrote: Ground zero has been used to ONLY describe the ground the towers where on, but by your logic their old mosque, which was four blocks away can also be considered part of ground zero. Furthermore the group has no relationship to the extremists behind the attack. What is your point again?

No, Ground Zero describes any area that was physically affected by the attack, not just the twin towers. Many other surrounding buildings were also heavily damaged in the attack that day, which includes the one on 45-47 Park Place, thus, making it a part of Ground Zero.

And how do you know the group has no relationship to the extremists? Where are they getting that $100 million from, and why are they trying to cover it up? Those are questions that have yet to be answered, and until they are, your argument could be potentially flawed.

At 8/24/10 02:53 PM, RazorHawk wrote: In the meantime, Imam doesn't speak out against the extremists who caused 9/11, but instead blames the US for it. His disrespect for America is really simply disgusting, and the only reason he does it is because he can get away with it here. Yes, if people get liberal enough, people can get away with anything.

except if you guys would do your own research you would see that none of that is true, this interview transcript involving the wife of the man behind the project (and summing up the situation), as well as proof that if anyone had bothered to do research as opposed to go on hear-say, they would have known that he and those supporting the community centre vehemently oppose terrorism and the use of violence in the name of islam.

actually i should be thanking those who do research and from whom i jack links.

At 8/24/10 04:52 PM, RazorHawk wrote: No, Ground Zero describes any area that was physically affected by the attack, not just the twin towers. Many other surrounding buildings were also heavily damaged in the attack that day, which includes the one on 45-47 Park Place, thus, making it a part of Ground Zero.

You're only arguing schematics, most people would not consider it part of ground zero.

At 8/24/10 05:00 PM, SolInvictus wrote: except if you guys would do your own research you would see that none of that is true, this interview transcript involving the wife of the man behind the project (and summing up the situation), as well as proof that if anyone had bothered to do research as opposed to go on hear-say, they would have known that he and those supporting the community centre vehemently oppose terrorism and the use of violence in the name of islam.

I'd just like to add that they haven't started the funding yet, their goal seems to be to get as much of the funding as the can from Arab-Americans. They have financial advisers and plan on setting up a board to handle fund raising, obviously, with the stink people are raising they are going to be as transparent as possible, so that people don't have any reason to assume they are being funded by militant extremists, although it seems like with the blatant Islamaphobia they might never get a chance to appeal to reason.

I Forgot the link, another interview with the developer of the site.

At 8/24/10 05:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote: actually i should be thanking those who do research and from whom i jack links.

From left field, and the Unconquerable Sun hits a home run!

The crowd goes WILD!!!

At 8/24/10 12:12 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Except I did... you know, with the big yellow links. Not my fault you're too stupid or lazy to figure out how to use those things. Either that, or you're just going to act like CNN and Time are no longer valid sources of news just because their findings don't agree with your opinion. Great job!

I honestly didn't see them, as I explained a little further down. So we BOTH have egg on our face now for reading the other guy's post as we're responding.

I'm just showing you that my view isn't just my view. I share the majority view of the situation... so this isn't "the world according to cachehelper" its "the world according to most of the people living in this country". Face it, you where wrong in claiming otherwise. I thought you could admit that... but here we see that you very clearly can't. How does your own colon smell? Like roses?

Ok, so you're not the only stupid person that doesn't understand the situation. Congrats?

If you're trying to say this somehow validates your view though, it IS the logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum"

In response to the argument that this mosque was about compassion and understanding. Obviously not... or he'd be compassionte and understand the views of the nation and move his building further down the street.

You mean capitulate to your will. I think he's being very consistent in his views as someone who wants to promote peace and is trying to build something that benefits the neighborhood and still give out. Stop using words like "compassion" and "understanding" when the word you want is "capitulate" and "submit" and "bow to me and my views". That's what this is in the end.

So wait... is this all about compassion and understanding or is it just some guy who doesn't give a fuck what other people think doing what he wants? You can't have it both ways.

I'm talking about property rights, pure and simple. This guy bought the property, he had an idea of what he wants there. He has all the proper permits, he has the law on his side. He wants to build something that is legally permissible on his property that hey, bonus, will offer benefit to the surrounding community. I'm not talking about compassion and understanding. I'm talking about the rights of this property owner that you have no problem seeing violated. You think because a bunch of people don't like his idea, he should have to capitulate to them and abandon his plan. Because "the mob" doesn't want to see it, then he should abandon it.

Because if they really understood and cared, this issue would be over.

Really? I think it's only an "issue" because as Ron Paul said mid term elections are coming up so it's an excuse for both sides to prove how tough they are on islam, which is obviously the same as terrorism.

The people have spoken.

I'm curious if they actually polled the whole country, and even if they did, IT DOESN'T MATTER! The law is the law. He's doing nothing illegal, he's doing nothing wrong. If you don't like it, don't go there. We can't just discard the first amendment or the rights of private property because some people can't seperate al qaeda and their beliefs from the main body of Islam. Also, "argumentive ad populem" once more.

To do this now, shows that this isn't an issue of 'understanding'... that was just a bullshit excuse the guy used to try to get people to be quiet. It didn't work.

Oh, of course it does...please. I think the guy understands that some people might have been offended, but in the end he probably weighed the positives against the negatives and decided perhaps BECAUSE there's so islamaphobia and what not going around that made the project more vital and necessary then ever. Again, you keep saying he doesn't "understand" because he won't capitulate to you and the rest of the ignorant people who are saying Park51 is bad.

Can you see your house from up there?

I can, it's a nice house. I also can read The Constitution very well from up here too.

If two blocks was far enough away, 68% of the people wouldn't be upset about it.

That's opinion masquerading as fact again. You assume this 68% perfectly understand the issue, they understand what Park51 is, they understand how far away it is, and how far 2 city blocks are. I'm not as convinced and in the end? Doesn't matter, the law is the law and to set a precedent like this opens the door to all sorts of nasty.

If you'd actually read and follow the links, you'll find that the location is major part of the issue.

I wonder if these people were looking at a map of the city, if they were shown EXACTLY how far away it is. I also wonder if they were shown all the bars, strip clubs, and other things that are much much closer to Ground Zero and decided that all that was ok, but a community centre was objectionable.

These articles state, that if the mosque was furter down the road, a lot of us would no longer have a problem with it.

Did the article and yourself state what "further down the road" is? How much is that? You keep using this very arbitrary measurement. But again, who cares what "the mob" wants when as I said, the law and the Constitution back this guy.

In a question of "how close is too close" the majority of the people should get to decide.

Right...cause THAT'S never led to anything bad or immoral.

We do, after all, live in a democracy.

Representative Republic actually. We're also a society of laws, you want us now to change the laws and the Constitution which is the supreme document in the land for governance and you want to chuck it all because you don't like something.

Well, the people have spoken... and you, where wrong.

Logical fallacy "argumentive ad populem" just because a majority says something is wrong doesn't make it wrong. We'd still be British and own black people if we played by your rules.

Two blocks, is not far enough away. Once again, I thought you could admit when you where wrong? Obviously not...

I'm not wrong just because you argumentive ad populem, when you use that argument you just prove how wrong YOU are, and you're just too willfully ignorant and lazy to find out why.

Nobody is trying to change the law. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

You are absolutely trying to change the law, or at least say "because I and a bunch of other people don't like it, you should capitulate and do it". You think this man shouldn't exercise his legal rights because it upsets you. You're trying to wiggle right in between coming out with a truly offensive position because you want to seem "reasonable". But you just look worse because you're being unreasonable and arguing from a crap position and wanting to take someones legal rights away and then say "no I'm not...I'm the saintly man just trying to say 'do what's right'". It's sick, at least other groups with similar bad positions have the guts to not hide it.

At 8/24/10 05:27 PM, Gorgonof wrote: You're only arguing schematics, most people would not consider it part of ground zero.

Was the building affected by the attacks of 9/11? Yes, it was. Whether people actually consider it to be part of "Ground Zero" or not doesn't matter, the building suffered direct damage that day due to the attacks, thus the "two blocks away from the twin towers" argument doesn't mean anything.

Also, these "most people" you speak of probably don't even know that one of the plane's landing gear and fuselage crashed into that building.

I'd just like to add that they haven't started the funding yet, their goal seems to be to get as much of the funding as the can from Arab-Americans. They have financial advisers and plan on setting up a board to handle fund raising, obviously, with the stink people are raising they are going to be as transparent as possible, so that people don't have any reason to assume they are being funded by militant extremists, although it seems like with the blatant Islamaphobia they might never get a chance to appeal to reason.

I Forgot the link, another interview with the developer of the site.

If he's really sincere about what he's saying there, then that's good, but unfortunately, that's not the issue here.

The real underlying issue here is that if the Islamic community center is built, the Islamic extremists will consider it to be a victory over the United States and that 9/11 was even more of a success, even if this is not what Imam intends to happen. The question is does Imam realize this, because I don't think he does or he doesn't take it seriously. Even if he isn't associated with the extremists, the extremists believe they are associated with him, and they will see this as a victory. With that, it will help them encourage other people to become extremists seeing as how they are successful in their terrorist campaigns, they are spreading, their morale will be boosted, and it could lead to future terrorist attacks. They consider 9/11 to be one of, if not their greatest, victory, hence why the situation is fragile. This is why people are against it. The war on terror has already cost enough people their lives, and this has the potential to make an already dire situation even worse. In truth, its not worth the risk, especially if avoiding that risk is as easy as Imam choosing a different location.

This is why people don't want the Islamic community center, or "mosque" built at this location. It sends the wrong message to the extremists, and I don't think Imam is being mindful of this consequence. In truth, this whole undertaking is not about Imam's rights to build on that property. The issue of him having clearance or the rights is already known. You don't need to argue that again, we already know. People who oppose it want him to reconsider it because of the kind of message that is being sent here.

At 8/24/10 09:35 PM, RazorHawk wrote:
The real underlying issue here is that if the Islamic community center is built, the Islamic extremists will consider it to be a victory over the United States and that 9/11 was even more of a success, even if this is not what Imam intends to happen.

Posted by me, above:
"They have no answer because they don't actually care about the issue. They just read "muslims" and "9/11" and object on instinct."

Called it!

The real issue is:
You people cannot seem to get past your emotions and allow these people what they are CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED to do.

Anything else, is just fluff on this unequivocal truth. "It's about not giving the terrist victry". "It's about respekt". "it's about war on terr!"

None of these fantastic arguments deny the fact:
They have the right to build a mosque, an islamic cultural center, a titty bar, or whatever else they want, in that location.

Since that's pretty much irrefutable at this point (even Obama agrees they have the right), allow me to reiterate:

Fuck you, mosque protesters.

(witty little shit, ain't I?)

At 8/24/10 09:35 PM, RazorHawk wrote:

At 8/24/10 05:27 PM, Gorgonof wrote: You're only arguing schematics, most people would not consider it part of ground zero.

Was the building affected by the attacks of 9/11? Yes, it was. Whether people actually consider it to be part of "Ground Zero" or not doesn't matter, the building suffered direct damage that day due to the attacks, thus the "two blocks away from the twin towers" argument doesn't mean anything.

Technically, the whole "The Mosque is being built next to Ground Zero!" argument doesn't mean anything, but people chose to ignore that fact to start with, so people have been reduced to arguing the definition of 'Ground Zero'. So, now that geographical area is defined by anything that the destruction of the towers have affected (rather than being the area that was destroyed in the attack)?

Also, these "most people" you speak of probably don't even know that one of the plane's landing gear and fuselage crashed into that building.

Whoopty do. What does that have to do with building the Mosque there?

The real underlying issue here is that if the Islamic community center is built, the Islamic extremists will consider it to be a victory over the United States and that 9/11 was even more of a success, even if this is not what Imam intends to happen. The question is does Imam realize this, because I don't think he does or he doesn't take it seriously. Even if he isn't associated with the extremists, the extremists believe they are associated with him, and they will see this as a victory. With that, it will help them encourage other people to become extremists seeing as how they are successful in their terrorist campaigns, they are spreading, their morale will be boosted, and it could lead to future terrorist attacks. They consider 9/11 to be one of, if not their greatest, victory, hence why the situation is fragile. This is why people are against it. The war on terror has already cost enough people their lives, and this has the potential to make an already dire situation even worse. In truth, its not worth the risk, especially if avoiding that risk is as easy as Imam choosing a different location.

This is why people don't want the Islamic community center, or "mosque" built at this location. It sends the wrong message to the extremists, and I don't think Imam is being mindful of this consequence. In truth, this whole undertaking is not about Imam's rights to build on that property. The issue of him having clearance or the rights is already known. You don't need to argue that again, we already know. People who oppose it want him to reconsider it because of the kind of message that is being sent here.

Alright, then... um, wouldn't the fear of Extremist reaction to the Mosque also generate support from the terrorists? If they influence our decisions in one way or another then by definition they've succeeded in their campaign, since the whole point of a TERRORIST organisation is to create TERROR in a country. If we're not doing something because we're afraid of how they'll respond to it...

The best thing we could do in response to them is simply ignore their opinion and views on the matter and just follow what our constitution dictates we should do (which, by the way, is to build the Mosque, if they want to build it). Stop letting the terrorists influence your opinion on what our country should or shouldn't do.

At 8/24/10 09:46 PM, Imperator wrote: Fuck you, mosque protesters.

Is that the best you can do?

Great job on missing pretty much every point I was bringing up. You fail to see why people are against this and instead try to bury the facts under the cover of your own ignorance.

At 8/24/10 09:57 PM, RazorHawk wrote: Is that the best you can do?

Way to cherry pick!!!

Great job on missing pretty much every point I was bringing up. You fail to see why people are against this and instead try to bury the facts under the cover of your own ignorance.

Except for the part where he gave you the facts and the rationale where he arrived at that conclusion. Since he's actually bothered to research the issue and look at it logically instead of going to the usual clap trap you have.

It's a lot of wasted effort and air anyway, because even if they delay building it, all it does is take all the nit wit debate off it and they'll just quietly build it when no one cares anymore, nothing will happen, the pits of hell won't open. People won't be dicks. They'll just live with it and it'll show what a lot of sound and fury and nonsense this whole debate really was.

At 8/24/10 09:57 PM, RazorHawk wrote: Is that the best you can do?

For you? Don't need to do any more. Law's already on my side. I've got the 1st Amendment, Obama, and property rights laws on my side. What more do I need?

The emotional appeal of the people? Don't need it to win this argument. KKK certainly see no use for it.

Great job on missing pretty much every point I was bringing up. You fail to see why people are against this and instead try to bury the facts under the cover of your own ignorance.

I see why people are against this. They associate Islam to 9/11 (quite naturally and appropriately), and don't want a mosque there because the terrorists might see it as a victory sign. They feel uncomfortable about having Islam associated so close to Ground Zero, and see it as disrespectful and offensive.

I see absolutely no way this is any different from what I've already said:
An emotional, irrational, visceral response, NOT BACKED BY THE LAW.

They cannot separate the extremists from the religion as a whole, they cannot see pas the emotional impact of the area to see a wider perspective: Namely that a wonderful opportunity is being presented to pull into the fold a marginalized American group (Muslim-Americans) and showcase our freedom, tolerance, and acceptance of the Islamic faith, as well as being great PR for the Muslim world to see us bring a widely revered Imam (until recently, he's been PRAISED as a moderate by the very people who now condemn him as an extremist).

And they cannot escape the one fact in all this that actually matters:
THE LAW IS ON THEIR SIDE.

You don't have to counter anything else than the one fact that matters:
The law.

You have failed, ON A MASSIVE FUCKIN LEVEL, to do so.

You lose, jackass.

Again:
FUCK you, mosque protesters.