Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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

how? if the community centre's, as well as the American muslim population's stated position is opposition to islamic fundementalism and terrorism how in god's name could it be seen as a victory for Al-Qaeda? if anything its more of a reason for them to be pissed off at American muslims...

The question is does Imam realize this, because I don't think he does or he doesn't take it seriously.

the man worked with the US government as an advisor regarding islamic fundamentalism; it appears the imam is in a very good position to judge what to take seriously.

At 8/24/10 10:12 PM, SolInvictus wrote: how? if the community centre's, as well as the American muslim population's stated position is opposition to islamic fundementalism and terrorism how in god's name could it be seen as a victory for Al-Qaeda? if anything its more of a reason for them to be pissed off at American muslims...

Jesus, where were you 5 pages ago? Not only did I make this point, but I think I showed links that NY mayor Bloomberg made this point, and Ron Paul made this point.

You'd think the idiot conservatives who came up with "they hate us for our freedom" would recognize that building a mosque would SPITE the terrorists, wouldn't you?

But let's go with the popular consensus, and rescind those freedoms. That'll teach those terrists, they hate our freedoms, so we'll just get rid of them!

Wait.....what? They don't want us to live free. So let's get rid of our freedoms so they can't take them from us.

They want us dead. Let's commit suicide, that way they can't murder us!

PERFECT LOGIC.

the man worked with the US government as an advisor regarding islamic fundamentalism; it appears the imam is in a very good position to judge what to take seriously.

Thanks be to Allah on that one.

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. 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.

Do you know how small a area lower Manhattan is? The group has existed around the twin towers for a long time, and the amount of land they need in the area isn't exactly easy to get, the land was bought for 4.85 million dollars. A price they would otherwise be unlikely to get, the previous owners wanted 18 million at one point. Also, the organization is Sufi, who have been victims of terrorism and harassment from militants. Extremists violently oppose the organization, it's not a far stretch to say the Taliban would love to see Feisal Abdul Rauf dead. Why would they suddenly try to pretend that they're aligned?

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.

Bwahaha! People complaining... I mean "criticizing" have no point, and don't have arguments much more intellectual than "NO VICTORY MOSQUE!"

This is prejudice and ignorance, plain and simple.

(Map of lower Manhattan, there's no avoiding the fact these people worship right next to ground zero. )

At 8/24/10 10:33 PM, Imperator wrote: Jesus, where were you 5 pages ago? Not only did I make this point, but I think I showed links that NY mayor Bloomberg made this point, and Ron Paul made this point.

maybe they're like kids; we have to keep reminding them the stove is hot and they will be burned if they touch it (since they won't get the analogy: the stove is a stupid argument and the burn is announcing to the world you are stupid).

also, forgot to follow up on this;

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

The crowd goes WILD!!!"

"wait! it would seem one of the outfielders has followed the ball out into the parking-lot; its rolling but he picks it up and is attempting to throw to first from outside the stadium walls! oh what a site to see!..."

At 8/24/10 10:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote: maybe they're like kids; we have to keep reminding them the stove is hot and they will be burned if they touch it (since they won't get the analogy: the stove is a stupid argument and the burn is announcing to the world you are stupid).

This is why I'm in favor of the species being culled a bit.....

The 5 second memories, the irrational, emotional drivel....I need a vacation. I have a new found respect for people like Dawkins and Hitchens, I have no idea how they put up with this shit so well. Refuting Pascal day after day....after day.....after day.

Seriously, you would think:
The law
The proven moderation of the Imam
The President
The law
The perfect opportunity to stick it to the terrorists who "hate our freedom" by expressing that freedom, and not curbing it
The irrationality behind the argument as an emotional, rather than reasoned, stance
The Law

And the fact that the law is not on the side of the protesters would be enough.

But apparently I'm ignoring "facts".
Facts like:
Muslims make me feel icky.
Icky Icky Muslims.
BOO MUSLIMS! YAY AMERICA!

Kill me.
Maybe this is god's punishment for me not believing in him: I have to deal with his idiot followers, and idiots in general.

"wait! it would seem one of the outfielders has followed the ball out into the parking-lot; its rolling but he picks it up and is attempting to throw to first from outside the stadium walls! oh what a site to see!..."

Why is that player wearing a shoe on his head, and using a spoon as a glove?

At 8/24/10 02:53 PM, RazorHawk wrote:

At 8/24/10 12:21 PM, Imperator wrote: 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.

You're the one who said that ground is hallowed, so if its surroundings matter, those places have everything to do with disrespecting it. If you read my response and browsed the Park51 website, which I'm not sure you did, how could it possibly be worse than the aforementioned places, except maybe Starbucks?

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.

This should help you. Just because debris from a place lands outside its perimeter doesn't mean everything with the debris becomes part of that place. If that were true, "Ground Zero" should be added at least as a nickname to the things the WTC and plane debris touched, regardless of replacement. Anyone fancy a trip to a Ground Zero bar?

Anything on which dust from the collapse landed is now part of ground zero.

... I wonder how much of Europe is now ground zero...

At 8/25/10 03:43 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Anything on which dust from the collapse landed is now part of ground zero.

... I wonder how much of Europe is now ground zero...

9/11 changed everything.

The whole world is Ground Zero.

At 8/24/10 10:09 PM, Imperator wrote: Again:
FUCK you, mosque protesters.

Oh dear, you're making me feel all tingly inside. Keep throwing the F bomb around, you're getting no where with it. Come on, say it louder, and in all caps this time. Slap it all over the page if you have to, with as many exclamation points as you can. Its the cheesiest, most inane part of your entire argument, and it only makes you look like a little boy trying to act all grown up. Thank you for making the Internet so comical.

Setting that aside...

So, according to your logic, as long as its legal, its okay? So if one day it was legal to murder someone, despite the basis of it being obviously unethical, that would be okay to you? I don't think you realize how many laws are fashioned by corrupted politicians, and that if these people can make the laws, they essentially make up the rules as they go along. These kinds of things have existed all throughout history, and all we're doing is repeating the trend. My final point there is that just because its legal doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned beyond all responsible doubt, especially when laws and regulations are constantly being changed, hence the reason for the Supreme Court. With that in mind, even if you insist on pursing the whole "Imam has the right to" argument, people have just as much right to question it and challenge it. Right now, he's not uniting communities, he's only breaking them further apart. His whole intention behind this project is having a reverse effect, which is why relocation should be strongly considered among other reasons.

Second, you're just repeating exactly what was said before, which doesn't change the message at all. Again, you fail to realize why people don't want it there. They're not necessarily against the Islamic religion, though I'm sure some are simply just outright bigots of it and this obviously won't convince them they're in the wrong. They're afraid of the message it sends across. Think about it. Is this really worth another possible 9/11-like attack? Is it really worth giving the terrorists more resolve and encouragement? I don't think it is. Not when it can be relocated and the benefits of this community center can easily be obtained in a different location. That is all it takes, so why is Imam being so stubborn about that, even if he has the right or the legal backing? Just because someone is within the constitution and has the legal backing doesn't make it right or smart for that matter.

Whether its on official "Ground Zero" territory (however you'd like to define that) or not, its still pretty close enough, and the part with the landing gear and fuselage only reinforces that its definitely close enough to the site. Sure, we know there are already other mosques in the area, but those were there before the attack and obviously wouldn't send the same message. We all know the extremists are essentially insane, but until they are fully disbanded and punished and show no capability of reuniting together, the location of this place really should be reconsidered. I honestly think anyone who doesn't realize this is really underestimating these extremists. We don't need to fuel the fire, the situation is bad enough as it is, and it would make me sick to see this thing get built and then watch these fanatics go wild about it. Again, I ask, is it worth it? If you potentially knew ahead of time that the building of this community center would in fact encourage another terrorist attack that would claim thousands of lives, would you really still say its worth it? If you think yes, then you're just as insane as they are.

Bottom line, its not worth the risk. 9/11 was not that long ago, and the failed attempt in Time Square was less than a year ago. Plenty of other terrorist attacks have happened throughout the world, and its been a hell of an effort trying to keep it suppressed. Let's not push our luck.

At 8/25/10 09:28 AM, RazorHawk wrote: We don't need to fuel the fire,

Not building this mosque might solidify the belief of extremists that the only way to spread Islam in America is through force, and to Muslims sitting on the fence that America is fundamentally at war with Islam, and by extension the whole nation of believers, the 'umma. What isn't helping here is that people who started complaining about this thing in the early days and who are the most adamant about attacking it and Imam Rauf right now are people like Pamela Geller who actually do believe that America is fundamentally at war with Islam and who leave no opportunity to express that view unused. What also isn't helping is that other mosques that are planned in the country are also being protested, like the ones in Staten Island and California, making this more than just one isolated case where the construction of a mosque is opposed.

In the end, I think this whole business will have very little effect on actual terrorist recruitment processes. But whether this effect will turn out to be positive or negative is very unclear beforehand.

So, according to your logic, as long as its legal, its okay? So if one day it was legal to murder someone, despite the basis of it being obviously unethical, that would be okay to you?

You are comparing the building of a religious building by what has been considered a moderate of that religion to the legalization of murder, something I certainly don't recall any society in the history of human civilization ever doing. You are relating the ethics of putting up a mosque at ground zero to the ethics of legalized murder.

And you want an answer for that comparison.

I'll try one more time to put it to you simply, then just let everyone else tear you a new asshole:
You should let them put up the mosque for the same reasons you should let the KKK march, congregate, and protest.

You start bending or breaking the laws saying it'll "just be this one time" or "extenuating circumstances" and you'll end up with what I've always been told is the goal of the terrorists:
An America without freedoms.

I would like to tell you a story, sit down folks.

So this neighbour of mine, a Jew, wants to build a synagogue where some of his crooked Jewish friends killed my dad. I know the Jewish community probably wouldn't have wanted my dad dead, but I haven't been assed to actually check so I have come to the conclusion that they indeed loved the idea.

I don't think they should build that synagogue there, it would be an insult to my fathers memory, and they would all have a laugh at my expense if they did. I don't like being laughed at. Especially not by Jews, the caricature nose makes it look scary. I also bet they're going to train other Jews how to kill other people's dads. I don't like this either, and the Jew nextdoor hasn't even denied this. Though I'm sure he hastily would if backed up into a corner.

And that's the story of how I became the Prince of Bel Air.

At 8/25/10 09:28 AM, RazorHawk wrote:

So, according to your logic, as long as its legal, its okay? So if one day it was legal to murder someone, despite the basis of it being obviously unethical, that would be okay to you? I don't think you realize how many laws are fashioned by corrupted politicians, and that if these people can make the laws, they essentially make up the rules as they go along.

Appealing to emotion is hardly the way to win this arguement. Murder IS illegal, so that makes non sense. And even if it wasn't, it's an entirely seperate issue. Legislation to do with property rights and the rights of the community who will be in proximity to the building is the issue, and until Mosques start spewing toxic goo out of the back of them I can't see a legal reason to have the building stopped.

These kinds of things have existed all throughout history, and all we're doing is repeating the trend. My final point there is that just because its legal doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned beyond all responsible doubt, especially when laws and regulations are constantly being changed, hence the reason for the Supreme Court.

This is just argueing a point no one will disagree with, but has nothing to do with the issue. We can both whole heartedly agree that laws can be unfair and changed and beleive that the law in question is fair in this situation, you know.

They're afraid of the message it sends across. Think about it. Is this really worth another possible 9/11-like attack?

You seem to forget that

a) Americans didn't attack America on 9/11. Impoverished, bitter people brainwashed by Al-Queda to beleive that Allah would grant them a glorious life for attacking America did.

b) There was in fact Muslims in the Twin Towers.

Is it really worth giving the terrorists more resolve and encouragement?

Apply for a position in Fox News.

Not when it can be relocated and the benefits of this community center can easily be obtained in a different location.

Blacks and whites are legal, it's just blacks cant sit on this part of the bus, or go to this school. They have to go to black people school. Sorry, you're just reminding me of the Jim Crow Law mindset with this talk of displacing people who want to practice their religion. Would you care to find them an alternative location?

Can someome please point out HOW this Mosque will encourage more terrorists? Because they'll have a sense of community in America and feel less marginalized within their own city?

At 8/25/10 10:15 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: a) Americans didn't attack America on 9/11. Impoverished, bitter people brainwashed by Al-Queda to beleive that Allah would grant them a glorious life for attacking America did.

bitterness doesn't justify murder.

Can someome please point out HOW this Mosque will encourage more terrorists? Because they'll have a sense of community in America and feel less marginalized within their own city?

Because they'll have another place to be brianwashed. Imams don't preach at streets.

so fear and assumptions are what are guiding our two last debators... why do i have a feeling we already addressed these as being poor argumentative tactics?

At 8/25/10 10:51 AM, satanbrain wrote:

Can someome please point out HOW this Mosque will encourage more terrorists? Because they'll have a sense of community in America and feel less marginalized within their own city?

Because they'll have another place to be brianwashed. Imams don't preach at streets.

Stop being an idiot. The people that runs this community center are liberal like fuck, they use their time to promote liberal soft Islam. Tons of radical extremist hate them for it. They aren't going to brainwash anybody into being a terrorist.

We both know what's up here really though. You hate Muslims of all stripes and this is a golden opportunity to blast the soft ones which are normally untouchable because they are fucking harmless. Stop it, it's pathetic.

At 8/25/10 11:18 AM, Drakim wrote: Stop being an idiot. The people that runs this community center are liberal like fuck, they use their time to promote liberal soft Islam. Tons of radical extremist hate them for it. They aren't going to brainwash anybody into being a terrorist.

Saudi arabian mysterious financing source. these 'liberals' are liberals only when it gets to their own good. Women, children and homosexuals rights are not something they consider 'liberal'.

At 8/25/10 11:18 AM, Drakim wrote: Stop being an idiot. The people that runs this community center are liberal like fuck, they use their time to promote liberal soft Islam. Tons of radical extremist hate them for it. They aren't going to brainwash anybody into being a terrorist.

To clarify, the Imam is Sufi, a branch of Islam regarded as a mediator and tolerant arm of Islam, a fact I'm sure has been pointed out and ignored.

And the fact that Sufi are often the victims of terror attacks. Also ignored.

9/11. Muslim.
That's all you fucknuts hear. And you've YET to show otherwise.

But yes. I'm sure just as soon as he gets planted, he'll start recruiting for the very people trying to kill him.
I don't know why people get criticized for saying many Americans are idiots....

I get tired of beating around the issue. I thought the last post, taking a page out of the conservative handbook, and saying not letting them build helps the terrorists, would have been pretty clear and perceptive.

So let me take another page out, and be explicitly clear:

If you oppose the mosque, you are aiding the terrorists, and are unamerican. Stop fucking America up the ass, you illiterate morons.

I have never used this word before, but the opposition I'm seeing to the mosque is nothing short of retardism.

Congrats, you've created a new religion, devoid of thought, fact, and reason....

oh wait...

At 8/25/10 11:35 AM, satanbrain wrote: Saudi arabian mysterious financing source. these 'liberals' are liberals only when it gets to their own good. Women, children and homosexuals rights are not something they consider 'liberal'.

They've had their shrines blown up by other Muslims because they allow women to pray there, they receive a lot of flak in the middle east for promoting women's rights. There's little information on how they view homosexuality, but even if I did find a source that probably wouldn't stop you from making up shit about "teh ebil muslims!"

At 8/25/10 11:35 AM, satanbrain wrote: Saudi arabian mysterious financing source. these 'liberals' are liberals only when it gets to their own good. Women, children and homosexuals rights are not something they consider 'liberal'.

Look, if you are gonna make a valid argument, make one and get done with it. Stop being a flip flopping shadow. OMG MYSTERIOUS MONEY. OMG I CLAIM THEY MIGHT NOT BE REAL LIBERALS.

You are nothing but a troll spreading fear because there is no real argument to be made, because this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous. There is already a Mosque in the area for Christ sake. If it was a "flag of victory" then it's already there.

At 8/24/10 06:09 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I honestly didn't see them, as I explained a little further down. So we BOTH have egg on our face

How did you not see them? They're big and yellow... one of the links was the size of an entire paragraph. And why is your blindness my fault? Why do I have egg on my face for you being too stupid to tell the diffrence between grey text, and yellow text?

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

I'm not saying it validates anything, other then the fact that you where 100% wrong when you claimed the my opinon was the minority one.

You mean capitulate to your will

No, I mean compassion and understanding. That's what this building is all about right? Or did you just make that up as well?

I'm talking about property rights, pure and simple.

Been through this. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. Lots of people have the rights to build something and then the community speaks out against it. Remember my example of WalMart? This is nothing new... nothing special.

will offer benefit to the surrounding community.

Except it won't, because the surrounding community doesn't want it.

I'm curious if they actually polled the whole country,

...there we go, CNN and Time are no longer valid news sources. I called this a day and half in advance and you still did it. Great Job!

I think the guy understands that some people might have been offended

68% is more then just "some". It's "most".

I wonder if these people were looking at a map of the city, if they were shown EXACTLY how far away it is.

I wonder if you've ever been to New York City and realize just how close 2 blocks is. People walk all the time in New York... 2 blocks is nothing to those people. Trust me, I go there all the time to visit friends. We have to walk more then 2 blocks just to catch the subway.

I also wonder if they were shown all the bars, strip clubs, and other things that are much much closer to Ground Zero

Nobody cares about bars or strip clubs because 9/11 was commited in the name of booze and tits.

Did the article and yourself state what "further down the road" is? How much is that?

Personally, I like 4 blocks. I've said that before, but you keep ignoring it.

you want us now to change the laws

nobody is trying to change the laws.

Are you even reading what I write?

I'm not wrong

Except you are in just about everything you claimed as a fact. Your opinion isn't wrong, but you have been wrong about everything else.

You are absolutely trying to change the law

Nobody is trying to change the laws.

Are you even reading what I write?

At 8/25/10 12:23 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I'm not saying it validates anything, other then the fact that you where 100% wrong when you claimed the my opinon was the minority one.

Being part of a big pool of idiots is not precisely what I'd consider an accomplishment.
But if you are so devoid of argument that it is important for you to win this point, then I will (hopefully not out of place) speak for avie on this one:

We concede the point. You share the majority opinion.

No, I mean compassion and understanding. That's what this building is all about right? Or did you just make that up as well?

Emotional drivel.

Been through this. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should. Lots of people have the rights to build something and then the community speaks out against it. Remember my example of WalMart? This is nothing new... nothing special.

Emotional drivel.

Except it won't, because the surrounding community doesn't want it.

Emotional drivel.

68% is more then just "some". It's "most".

Again, congrats. Being part of a large group isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I wonder if you've ever been to New York City and realize just how close 2 blocks is. People walk all the time in New York... 2 blocks is nothing to those people. Trust me, I go there all the time to visit friends. We have to walk more then 2 blocks just to catch the subway.

More emotional drivel.

Nobody cares about bars or strip clubs because 9/11 was commited in the name of booze and tits.

Nor was it committed in the name of Sufism.

Personally, I like 4 blocks. I've said that before, but you keep ignoring it.

Fuck you, that's disrespectful, and way too close. 100 blocks minimum.
In fact, no new mosques in NYC at all. Just being in the city is creepy.

nobody is trying to change the laws.

You're just trying to bypass them with popular support and emotional drivel.

Are you even reading what I write?

Emotional drivel. That's both the answer, and the response.
Get out of my country.

At 8/25/10 12:23 PM, CacheHelper wrote: 68% is more then just "some". It's "most".

There was a time when "most" people where offended where offended by black people, I guess trying to give the vicious animals equal rights was wrong several decades ago.

O wait, that's ad populous, FAIL.

I wonder if you've ever been to New York City and realize just how close 2 blocks is. People walk all the time in New York... 2 blocks is nothing to those people. Trust me, I go there all the time to visit friends. We have to walk more then 2 blocks just to catch the subway.

I think you don't realize how small lower Manhattan is, gain some spatial comprehension, the group has been in lower Manhattan for decades, everything in lower Manhattan is close to ground zero.

Nobody cares about bars or strip clubs because 9/11 was commited in the name of booze and tits.

9/11 wasn't committed in the name of Sufism either, moron.

At 7/20/10 02:21 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I think the Mosque is in bad taste.

I don't neccessarly oppose the idea of a mosque there, but of all the places in New York City, why does it have to be near Ground Zero?

Everybody wants to say "be tolerant" to those who oppose the mosque but isn't it a bit rude of the Mosques owner to choose that site as the place for his religious temple?

True, it's not fair to blaim every muslem on the planet for the act of a few, but at the same time the muslem population needs to understand what their people did and show some respect to the non-muslems of the world who lost their entires lives that day.

I don't think it should be allowed... not there anyway. Build it a mile down the road.

To me, this is like going to Hiroshima and building a museum that honors the greatness of nuclear fission.

look just because some of the attackers were muslim, it does not mean that anyone has a right to be against the muslim community in general expressing their right to religious freedom. Building a mosque near ground zero has about as much bad taste as building a christian community center near ground 0 given that the vast majority of muslims that will be using the center are not at all affilitated with the extremists that flew planes into the WTC buildings

You know, I've been hearing that the building there is already a mosque, all they want to do is tear it down so they can add a community center with a mosque.

At 7/22/10 07:45 AM, Proteas wrote: If a group of non-militant neo-nazi's decided they were going to make a youth center not far from where Dr. Martin Luther King JR. was assassinated in Memphis, you bunch would be having heart attacks left and right. Just sayin'.

while i agree it would be in horrible taste to do that an i oppose neo-nazi's very strongly, i would like to point out that I believe that they would have a right to do that. To give the civil rights stance on something like that, i woul like to point out that at one point the ACLU gave legal protection to the KKK when they wanted to do a march for white supremact, not because they supported the KKK's views, but because they belived that the KKK had a right to do it.
(I am not at all comparing the religion of Islam with the KKK, just giving an example)

My country (the Netherlands) are donating a lot of money to fund this project. I realy don't understand why they would do that. It's not even in the same country!

At 8/25/10 10:51 AM, satanbrain wrote: bitterness doesn't justify murder.

You never comprehensively answer a question, do you? It's always a one word answer that only vaugely hits upon one of, in this case, 2 points.

Because they'll have another place to be brianwashed. Imams don't preach at streets.

I hate when those softcore muslims brianwash me. Oh wait, they don't. It's a rhetoric (abit like your constant Muslim bashing) and you can take it or leave it. No one is strapping New Yorkers to chairs in basements and blasting propoganda through their retinas Clockwork Orange style.

The government prefer armchairs in living rooms.

At 8/25/10 12:45 PM, LordJaric wrote: You know, I've been hearing that the building there is already a mosque, all they want to do is tear it down so they can add a community center with a mosque.

I think you might have some information mixed up.

There is a mosque already present in the area. It had been there since before 9/11 (and I believe it's the same Imam).

The building causing the controversy used to be a Burlington Coat Factory.

If you check out their website and what they're planning on putting there, it's actually quite a lot of crap. It's gonna have a mosque, cultural center, swimming pool, fitness center, basketball court....
The list goes on.

I don't know what you call it. It's like a multi-cultural, Muslim sponsored YMCA or something.

Oh yeah, they're sticking in a 9/11 memorial to pay respects. If it turns out to be a memorial highlighting more than others the Muslims who died in the attacks......more power to em.

So I did a little research using Wikipedia as a guide to check out actual statistics on how Americans actually feel about the site from other links...

While it is true a majority of Americans oppose the mosque being built so close to Ground Zero, it was also a fact that a majority did not oppose the Muslim Group's right to build one there based upon Fox News polls, CNN also had similar numbers.

If you want to dissect this further, people really do not like the mosque being built, but they will not go against the rights of those building it.

I would also mention that on the Wiki-page that while the opposition comes from mostly Americans, NY residents, NYC residents, that more Manhattanites support the Community Center Construction!

It is funny that the Community who was most hurt by the 9/11 attacks is not as "offended" or "ignorant" as ones who claimed they were affected...some hundreds of miles away...

In case some of you have not figured it out, this is directed towards CacheHelper. It is funny how much you can miss when you have a biased opinion against a Community Center that has multiple facilities which include "500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes." What an atrocious building to place in Manhatten, wheres the Starbucks?!

Here, let me tell you what is so wrong about claiming the argument that "just because they can, does not mean they should", despite the obvious notion that the argument is a very weak counter to the law. What makes you believe that they should not build a community center which, if you want to be biased, I count far more benefits than negatives about it. What I mean is that by a numerical view, the Community Center has 11 positives (facilities other than the mosque), and one negative (the mosque). So lets weigh in both sides, oh look, the center helps the community more than hurts it, they SHOULD build it!

Alright I should make a confession about one of the arguments I made earlier, about the whole more Americans overall oppose the mosque yet Manhatten likes it more? Wikipedia does not have the actual citation for that line, so if you want to get technical, I cannot prove that Manhatten did not oppose the idea.

However let me propose to you this, if Manhatten wanted the mosque, or rather, the case was true that more of Manhatten, the community most affected, was in support of the mosque, then why should the rest of us get so worked up? If the community the community center is going into is for the center, than it is pretty much a hole in one. There are no strings attached, that center is going in without any opposition.

If vice-versa, than despite the notion that it may be offensive to folks living nearby, the Mosque only covers a small area of the center's space, easily overlooked. If you look up the definition of a Community Center, it is "A meeting place used by members of a community for religious, cultural, or recreational" (answers.com). People are condemning the center for being a symbol of victory or comparing it to an Extremist Terrorist organization recruitment area. They are being blind to the merits the center could do to an area which had suffered less than a decade ago. To have the group forced to buy out a different location (if there is even one suitable and located 4+ blocks away) and sell the old one because of discrimination and intolerance, not only hurts the group attempting to help themselves, but the community who can learn a lot about the moderate Islamic faith which is attempting to keep itself away from the extremists.

It is acceptable to be upset, it is not acceptable to take your emotions out on an innocent bystander.