Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/25/10 01:27 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: 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.

Only make them hear propaganda all day, although no one is forcing them to.

At 8/25/10 03:50 PM, satanbrain wrote: Only make them hear propaganda all day, although no one is forcing them to.

i guess you can consider hearing "no running by the pool" all day propaganda ...

At 8/25/10 07:58 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i guess you can consider hearing "no running by the pool" all day propaganda ...

Allah commands you. NO MARCO POLO!

Playing "Horse" on the basketball court is OK though.

you line em up....I knock em down.

Maybe we should close the YMCA incase their religion + fun = community ethic turns all the Christians into American-Hating Terrorists.

Young man, strap yourself to a bomb. I said young man, then you run to the mall and you
Push
The
Button

At 8/25/10 08:43 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: don't worry have you seen the protests size that this has caused it won't be built.

I've heard no such thing, but I guess less freedoms for minorities would be an awesome step forward for America.

At 8/25/10 09:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/25/10 09:06 PM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 8/25/10 08:43 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: don't worry have you seen the protests size that this has caused it won't be built.

I've heard no such thing, but I guess less freedoms for minorities would be an awesome step forward for America.

well why would they build one if its not popular and there is another mosque already built 7 blocks away from it?

Does this other mosque have a pool and basketball court? I admit I don't know much about that faith so this is entirly possible.

At 8/25/10 09:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well why would they build one if its not popular and there is another mosque already built 7 blocks away from it?

it's more then a mosque, it is also a community center.

At 8/25/10 09:56 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 8/25/10 09:48 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well why would they build one if its not popular and there is another mosque already built 7 blocks away from it?

it's more then a mosque, it is also a community center.

Am I the only one wondering why the existing mosque wasen't hate crimed out of existince? It's almost as if the local population got that the attacks weren't representitive of the entire Muslim population.

At 8/25/10 10:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

it's more then a mosque, it is also a community center.

then why devote two floors to worship hell the last time I checked the local Y doesn't even have a chapel.

There isn't enough space for them to worship and pray, many Muslims have had to pray on the side walk outside of mosques. Oh and the majority of Manhattan supports the project, and 31% oppose it, so it's not like it's actually unwelcome there.

I think it's pretty pathetic how no one opposing the mosque hasn't actually done any of their own research.

At 8/25/10 10:30 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: and overall 53% oppose the bronx opposes by 53% and brooklyn by 61%

So...? They aren't a part of Manhattan, people have been saying that it isn't welcome in Manhattan, which is BULLSHIT. It is however, unwelcome in America because scum bag politicians are trying to look tough on terrorists, and we have the news to thank for feeding dishonest and misleading information to the public.

At 8/25/10 10:30 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: and overall 53% oppose the bronx opposes by 53% and brooklyn by 61%

Ah yes cause the Bronx, Brooklyn or anyone outside of Manhattan have ANY reason to care what happens in Manhattan. Seriously people, butt the fuck out.

At 8/25/10 07:58 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 8/25/10 03:50 PM, satanbrain wrote: Only make them hear propaganda all day, although no one is forcing them to.

i guess you can consider hearing "no running by the pool" all day propaganda ...

i guess you consider "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims", no running in the pool.

At 8/26/10 12:05 AM, satanbrain wrote: i guess you consider "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims", no running in the pool.

Strange, in my pretty common interactions with Muslims I know I have never once heard any of them say this...

Has anyone ever heard of the phrase 'Ad nauseum'?

...anyone?

At 8/26/10 12:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Strange, in my pretty common interactions with Muslims I know I have never once heard any of them say this...

you haven't met Fiesal Abdul Rauf.

At 8/26/10 12:05 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 8/25/10 07:58 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 8/25/10 03:50 PM, satanbrain wrote: Only make them hear propaganda all day, although no one is forcing them to.

i guess you can consider hearing "no running by the pool" all day propaganda ...

i guess you consider "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims", no running in the pool.

not to burst your bubble but America does have a copious amount of blood on its hands from past actions; acknowledging this is hardly comparable to praising the attackers or claiming that America deserved 9/11.

which has been clearly shown to not be a position held by either those undertaking the project or of American muslims

Well, Imp basically said what I was going to say. So maybe Cache will bother him now for the next 5 pages or so with the same old arguments and what not.

I wonder though Cache since you're such a fan of links and what not, have you bothered to click and read any of the links that were provided to you about what the project is? Somehow I think the guy bitching me out for not clicking links is doing the exact same thing himself.

Also I did not discredit CNN or any one else as news sources per se, I just was curious about their samplings for their polls as I mistrust ANY and ALL poles from ANYONE without a pretty detailed break down of the sample group. Because if say, CNN were to do a poll saying "how many Americans think black people should still be slaves?" and most of the people they poll are strongly racist, then the poll is going to show a majority of people think blacks should still be slaves. Then if the anchor comes on and says "we ran a poll and a whopping 80% say the darkies should be back in chains!" without revealing that most of what they polled were racists, it may give someone an incorrect idea about what the sentiment of the nation is. That was all I was saying there. But in the end, it's like Imperator said, it's an argumentum ad populum. Just because a bunch of people hold the same opinion doesn't make it right. By that logic all deities ever exist even with no supporting evidence because there such a large group believing it.

At 8/25/10 08:43 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: don't worry have you seen the protests size that this has caused it won't be built.

That's what they said at the Klan meeting, I know. Right after you boys bashed on how the gays won't be allowed to get married...it's going to get built. By the time they're ready to break ground and actually put it up, the country will have moved on to it's next flavor of the month issue (and that's all this really is) and it'll go up, it'll open, and it'll operate without anyone batting an eyelash. Just like when plain old mosques are put up anywhere else in the country.

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

I'd be fine with this argument if you hadn't snuck in, "especially when laws and regulations are constantly being changed," because that's very clearly implying the potential for legal precedent to be made. It is no reasonable to ask that the 'mosque' not be built with such an intent in mind. Rather, it is reasonable to ask that the 'mosque' not be built with the intent that the property owners might exercise their own discretion. Legality is a separate issue.

Right now, he's not uniting communities, he's only breaking them further apart.

Yeah not really. It's more the media and politicians making sure everyone is good and polarized, while reporting on how good and polarized everyone is. Obviously its not completely contrived, but you didn't hear much stink about the 'mosque' before it occurred to the political machine that it could be exploited for gain - like, back when Fox actually 'liked what they [Daisy Khan] was trying to do.'

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.

While referencing analogies that, by analogy, conflate terrorist with Muslim. While arguing that the mosque is offensive and disrespectful.

Quit being so intentionally myopic. Suddenly everything boils down to personal safety? No. I don't think so.

See. If people hold a position on shit premises. And some those premises are called out for being shit. It's shit for you to drop half of them as false accusations and then try to re-brand the issue under some other reason that you personally think works.

Your attempt at persuasion is dishonest and patronizing.

Think about it. Is this really worth another possible 9/11-like attack?

That's a mightily presumptuous appeal to fear.

Whether its on official "Ground Zero" territory (however you'd like to define that) or not, its still pretty close enough

Whether that building counts as ground zero on account of the damage doesn't change the fact that your argument was disingenuously broadening the given definition of ground zero to weasel in some argument points.

Ground zero is defined and understood as the area that's more or less a big hole in the ground. Redefining ground zero so that you can say, "looks its on ground zero," effectively nets you an argument regarding ground other than ground zero. You're just calling it ground zero, when really its more like... near ground zero.

and the part with the landing gear and fuselage only reinforces that its definitely close enough to the site.

That it's close enough to the site to...

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.

I want to see this message written out, explicitly.

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.

We should live by the arbitrary standards of the insane? Really?

And if you point is a matter of extremist potency what the hell is 'punished' doing in there?

I honestly think anyone who doesn't realize this is really underestimating these extremists.

No. Rather, it's not the near-perfect science you're treating it as, and rather, you're overestimating what exactly this 'mosque' means.

What was it that incited 9/11 again? I'm having trouble remembering. Oh right. There was no catalytic gesture on our part.

And no matter what the fuck we do, terrorist propaganda is going to paint us as evil, and them as slowly but surely making progress in destroying us. Toss the progressive sufi community center on the list - that is - if it even makes the list of victories. And hell, if the terrorists are so eager to find victories that they'd suddenly support a Muslim sect that they otherwise want to see destroyed, well then, I'd imagine there's already a good steady flow of similar bullshit going around.

At 8/26/10 12:40 AM, SolInvictus wrote: not to burst your bubble but America does have a copious amount of blood on its hands from past actions; acknowledging this is hardly comparable to praising the attackers or claiming that America deserved 9/11.

it isn't? if america killed innocent muslims why not kill innocent americans back?

At 8/26/10 03:28 AM, satanbrain wrote: it isn't? if america killed innocent muslims why not kill innocent americans back?

To say that America motivated aggression is not to say it deserved retribution. Two conclusions share the one premise. That does not mean the premise is always employed to make the statement that suits your prejudice.

At 8/26/10 03:36 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: To say that America motivated aggression is not to say it deserved retribution.

but bitter, poor people may think so, don't they?

why don't you look at this first?

At 8/26/10 04:29 AM, satanbrain wrote: why don't you look at this first?

That's pretty funny; while it's an anti-left blog that obviously has the single intent to smear Imam Rauf as a radical, what they end up doing is painting a relatively positive image of him. From his quotes you can see him condemning authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world, condemning Osama bin Laden and condemning killing civilians -- his only 'vice' is that he accuses the US of having supported groups like the Taliban and those not-so-fresh regimes in the past, which has some pretty solid basis. He also claims that the current constitution of the US is already in line with his version of sharia (why the Hell is this negative?). The guys who wrote the blog entry then try to attack him for using the word da`wa (proselytizing), associating it with "extortion" (like we haven't heard that one before about Christian missionaries who provide aid only in combination with the gospel of Jesus Christ) along with "exploitation" and "infiltration".

Also, their paraphrasing of his "support" for the 1979 revolution in Iran is completely out of whack, no wonder they don't give the quote. He was advising the US government to remind the Iranian government of the intent stated in 1979 "to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government". Then you have the guilt by association charges that you could also use to turn George W. Bush into an Islamic radical.

In the end, all you might accuse Imam Rauf of is that he's a naive liberal. But a radical? Get real.

At 8/26/10 06:09 AM, lapis wrote:

At 8/26/10 04:29 AM, satanbrain wrote: why don't you look at this first?

In the end, all you might accuse Imam Rauf of is that he's a naive liberal. But a radical? Get real.

Liberal turned out to be another word for radical. Not accusing terrorists is just like support them.

At 8/26/10 06:27 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 8/26/10 06:09 AM, lapis wrote:

At 8/26/10 04:29 AM, satanbrain wrote: why don't you look at this first?

In the end, all you might accuse Imam Rauf of is that he's a naive liberal. But a radical? Get real.

Liberal turned out to be another word for radical. Not accusing terrorists is just like support them.

Do you mean you go out every day and physicaly find and incarcirate terrorists? Because not locking Muslims in your basement is supporting terrorism and is anti-American.