Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

As a New Yorker, I have supported the Islamic Center from the get-go. They have every right to build it and it's blocks away from Ground Zero. I genuinely believe that those opposing the construction of the center are terribly misinformed. I recall in a hearing that one lady says that her son's body may be in the center, when in actuality, it's two blocks away from Ground Zero making it impossible for her son's body to be there.

In short, they are letting their emotions get the best of them. Not that I blame them, 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. But they mustn't let such emotions impede the freedom of others.

---

Why the mosque shouldn't be built

Proof Imam Rauf is connected to terrorists

---

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

---

At 10/5/10 11:38 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

Implying I did that on accident.

---

At 10/5/10 11:42 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:38 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

Implying I did that on accident.

Implying you didn't do a terrible job at conveying sarcasm.

---

At 10/5/10 11:43 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:42 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:38 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

Implying I did that on accident.

Implying you didn't do a terrible job at conveying sarcasm.

Implying if you actually looked at the videos it wouldn't have been obvious

---

At 10/5/10 11:45 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:43 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:42 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:38 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

Implying I did that on accident.

Implying you didn't do a terrible job at conveying sarcasm.

Implying if you actually looked at the videos it wouldn't have been obvious

Implying that there isn't anyone on the BBS who is dense enough to post something that doesn't go with their post.

---

i love the pseudo-intellectualism going on in this thread.

the actual debates aren't about whether or not they have the RIGHT to build the mosque, everyone knows that they have the complete right to build the mosque and can't be prohibited from doing so by THE FIRST AMENDMENT. the question is whether or not they should move it out of respect to 9/11 victims. I personally believe that they shouldn't move it because then the terrorists win and we're sacrificing the very civil liberties that this country was founded on and blah blah blah you get the gist.

---

At 10/5/10 11:56 PM, GiantDouche wrote: i love the pseudo-intellectualism going on in this thread.

I LOVE cupcakes.

---

At 10/5/10 11:46 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:45 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:43 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:42 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:38 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

Implying I did that on accident.

Implying you didn't do a terrible job at conveying sarcasm.

Implying if you actually looked at the videos it wouldn't have been obvious

Implying that there isn't anyone on the BBS who is dense enough to post something that doesn't go with their post.

Implying that there isn't anyone on the BBS who is dense enough to not realize when someone posts something that doesn't go with their post in an obvious display of sarcasm.

Implying the 4 post limit is bollocks

---

At 10/6/10 12:01 AM, Shauna wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:56 PM, GiantDouche wrote: i love the pseudo-intellectualism going on in this thread.

I LOVE cupcakes.

fuck your cupcakes. pussy ass bitch midget cakes is what they should call them.

cookies>

---

At 10/6/10 12:06 AM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:46 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:45 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:43 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:42 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:38 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

Implying I did that on accident.

Implying you didn't do a terrible job at conveying sarcasm.

Implying if you actually looked at the videos it wouldn't have been obvious

Implying that there isn't anyone on the BBS who is dense enough to post something that doesn't go with their post.

Implying that there isn't anyone on the BBS who is dense enough to not realize when someone posts something that doesn't go with their post in an obvious display of sarcasm.

Implying that this entire chain of implications is going anywhere because of your failed attempt at sarcasm in an emotionally charged issue such as this one. Thus, leading to people thinking that you are actually serious.

---

At 10/6/10 12:11 AM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/6/10 12:06 AM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:46 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:45 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:43 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:42 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:38 PM, zen64 wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:35 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Why the mosque shouldn't be built

That's a video of a newscaster supporting the mosque.

Implying I did that on accident.

Implying you didn't do a terrible job at conveying sarcasm.

Implying if you actually looked at the videos it wouldn't have been obvious

Implying that there isn't anyone on the BBS who is dense enough to post something that doesn't go with their post.

Implying that there isn't anyone on the BBS who is dense enough to not realize when someone posts something that doesn't go with their post in an obvious display of sarcasm.

Implying that this entire chain of implications is going anywhere because of your failed attempt at sarcasm in an emotionally charged issue such as this one. Thus, leading to people thinking that you are actually serious.

Implying I didn't win this argument of implications the second you failed to realize my obvious sarcasm, and that using such a technique can add to a debate

Implying my PS3 just fucking froze the second I'm about to start having fun online

:Implying I'm only adding this additional text so that Newgrounds will accept my response

---

At 10/5/10 11:02 PM, Knorpfdog wrote:

At 10/5/10 12:32 AM, EclecticEnnui wrote: How many people voted in that poll with the 70% rating? 900? Unless the majority of all Americans 18 and over voted, a sample poll doesn't prove anything. You should read the community centre's FAQ. It gives reasons for the construction. It also says there's gonna be a 9/11 memorial and that the centre "will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity or rhetoric."

the number of people surveyed is fairly meaningless in a
poll that indicates such consistent opposition, across all sorts of political groups that are usually at odds when it comes to issues such as this one.

just because "the majority" think a certain way, that does NOT mean they're correct.

regarding the FAQ: instead of providing legitimate reasons as to why they MUST build the center at its current site, all it says is that "there will not be any views of ground zero" from the building. a statement like that, intended to do nothing but pacify opposition, indicates that there truly are no legitimate reasons that mandate the center's construction at the current site.

you want more reasons than just that? well, a neighborhood adviosory board didn't seem to have a problem with it either, as it gave unanimous approval for construction when it came up for a vote.

and my main point still stands. regardless of any other variables or justifications, construction of the center at its current location is very disrespectful to a large group of americans.

as i've already said, the only way the disrespectful argument holds up is if ALL muslims were responsible for 9/11. do i really need to go over this again?

continuing construction in the face of such a public outcry shows that rauf is really just blowing steam out of his ass with all of his justifications and public "outreaches."

bleh, yet more appeals to emotion, and nothing grounded in reality.

as a final comment, some of you really need to drop the self-righteous, "i'm smarter than the average american" attitude.

waaaaah, how dare somebody suggest that i'm wrong! waaaaah! people who disagree with me are just bein mean!!!!

get over it.

many people are against this construction simply due to numerous examples of possible connections between rauf and the hamas terrorist group,

let's have a look at that connection, shall we?

here's what he had to say when he was asked if Hamas was a terrorist orginazation

"Well, I'm not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I am a bridge builder. My work is ... I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. ... Targeting of civilians is wrong. It's a sin in our religion, whoever does it. ... I am a supporter of the State of Israel."

and a statement from his Cordoba Initative website elaborates:
"Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism. Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic."

and they've also stated that they will not accept funding from Hamas or Iran or anyone of that nature.

and when Rauf was interviewed on Larry King Live (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) he also had this to say:

"I condemn everyone who has committed acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."

yeah, he's totally in bed with those scary terrorists.

including statements alluding to the fact that the USA deserved 9/11 to happen.

let's have a look at the exact quote he made.

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

that sure sounds horrible... if you're one of those people who think that America can do no wrong and completely ignore what the motives were for the 9/11 attacks(yes, it's wikipedia, but it's pretty well cited), motives which were explicitly stated by al-Qaida in proclamations prior to the attacks. these motives include the presence of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia, the support of Israel by the U.S and the sanctions against Iraq.

i guess stating what foreign policy advisers already know makes you a terrorist sympathizer.

and here's some more information regarding Imam Rauf.

rauf has also stated that america "...Has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.", during a 2005 speech he made in Adelaide

is he wrong about this? how does pointing that out make him an al-Qaeda sympathizer? please, show your work for the rest of the class.

it is quite clear that this man is not a terrorist sympathizer. hell, he even worked with the Bush administration, so this man already has a history of working with the U.S.

this whole debate is absolutely ridiculous. there are already mosques in that area and none of them have heightened the risk of another terror attack. we really should stop being afraid of people who aren't like us.

---

At 10/4/10 10:33 PM, Spackled wrote:

At m10/4/10 10:32 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Its not even a proper mosque.Its a community center with like one or two floors reserved for prayer space(not just for Muslims),

And your point?

lulz :P

That this whole issue about fear of Muslims taking over America and installing radical 6th century ways of life and governance its more about general ignorance.

---

At 10/6/10 12:30 AM, TechnoGoomba wrote: Implying I didn't win this argument of implications the second you failed to realize my obvious sarcasm, and that using such a technique can add to a debate

Implying that your sarcasm was obvious to anyone but yourself and that you actually "won" this waste of time of an argument. The main point of sarcasm is to have at least one part of your statement to be considered unbelievable or at least the format of it. You just wrote the opposite of what you meant without even so much giving a hint of sarcasm.

Yet, you expect people to detect sarcasm in a topic where a good deal of people believe that an Islamic center is considered to be a sign of victory. You expect to convey sarcasm by simply posting the opposite of what you mean without some sort of context. That's quite intelligent of you. <---That is sarcasm. The sentence before it served as the context of it.

Here's what you wrote:

Why the mosque shouldn't be built

Proof Imam Rauf is connected to terrorists

Note how these sentences are written in a serious manner and that people actually believe both of these things. Now you're telling me that in an internet forum with people who believe in conspiracy theories and have arguments about circumcision that span for pages, that this is considered so out there that it cannot be believed? Riiiiiiiiight.

In short, your sarcasm is far from obvious, this whole implication shit was stupid and I wasted my time participating in this e-slapfight. I'm out.

---

At 10/5/10 11:02 PM, Knorpfdog wrote:

At 10/5/10 12:32 AM, EclecticEnnui wrote: How many people voted in that poll with the 70% rating? 900? Unless the majority of all Americans 18 and over voted, a sample poll doesn't prove anything. You should read the community centre's FAQ. It gives reasons for the construction. It also says there's gonna be a 9/11 memorial and that the centre "will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity or rhetoric."

the number of people surveyed is fairly meaningless in a
poll that indicates such consistent opposition, across all sorts of political groups that are usually at odds when it comes to issues such as this one.

Perhaps, but using a poll is argumentum ad populum, anyway.

regarding the FAQ: instead of providing legitimate reasons as to why they MUST build the center at its current site, all it says is that "there will not be any views of ground zero" from the building. a statement like that, intended to do nothing but pacify opposition, indicates that there truly are no legitimate reasons that mandate the center's construction at the current site.

I guess I have to point out the key parts from the FAQ because you seem to have only read the top:

"For 7 years, we have been searching for a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We, as Americans, are also eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan. As New Yorkers, we want to give back to our city and help make it a better place for all.

There are two existing mosques in lower Manhattan. Park51 is not affiliated with either. One, Masjid Al-Farah, only accommodates a maximum of 65 people, and has had to hold multiple prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds. In addition, Masjid Al-Farah is only open for the Friday prayers.

Two, Masjid Manhattan, lost its original space which previously accommodated 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers. Even then, additional worshippers had to pray on sidewalks because the mosque could not accommodate them all. Today, Masjid Manhattan is located in a basement on Warren Street serving less than 300 people.

Our space at 51 Park Place accommodates around 600 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration."

"In Lower Manhattan, the biggest community center is located in a basement at Bowery and Houston. In addition, other planned projects include a college that will service 10,000+ students within a block of Park51, a new high school in Lower Manhattan and several residential developments.

The Census Bureau projections have estimated that by the year 2020, Manhattan's residential population will increase to over one million.

Today, over 50,000 residents live in Lower Manhattan, specifically within the Community Board 1 district. These residents need services and will benefit from our investment in the neighborhood. Community Board 1, which represents the residents of Lower Manhattan, acknowledged these needs when they gave us their support by voting unanimously in favor of the site and project."

---

At 10/6/10 12:39 AM, Powerage wrote: just because "the majority" think a certain way, that does NOT mean they're correct.

just because "the pseudo-intellectual self-righteous minority" thinks in a certain way, does NOT mean it's correct. LOLOLOL SEE WHAT I DIDIDI LOLOL. seriously though. this isn't about who's "correct," it's about respect. something that rauf is not acknowledging in the slightest.

you want more reasons than just that? well, a neighborhood adviosory board didn't seem to have a problem with it either, as it gave unanimous approval for construction when it came up for a vote.

just because "the neighborhood advisory board" thinks in a certain way, does NOT mean it's correct.

oh sorry, i thought we were still using stupid arguments that don't make sense. my b bro.
i'd be very interested in a list of the advisory board's members. saying "a neighborhood advisory board" could mean anything. a group of pro-islam radicals that are overwhelmingly in favor of the center being built, a group of drugged out homeless people that call themselves a "neighborhood advisory board"...etc.

as i've already said, the only way the disrespectful argument holds up is if ALL muslims were responsible for 9/11. do i really need to go over this again?

the short and simple of it is that it doesn't matter. building the center at its current location WILL offend many americans, regardless of how asinine their reasoning is. given rauf's history, though, i choose to believe that the outcry is completely justified.

yet another reason why the center should not be built at the current site: rauf has stated that if the construction is moved, islamic radicals all over will feel that islam is under attack in the west. this would result in increased amounts of anti-american violence, which is part of his justification for keeping the center where it is. really, though, that statement is tantamount to admitting that his actions are being heavily influenced by the radical groups of islam. simply moving the mosque to a different location would make a much more warranted statement, asserting that islamic radicals have no say in what goes on over here.

bleh, yet more appeals to emotion, and nothing grounded in reality.

this entire conflict is based on emotions. or have you not realized that yet?

waaaaah, how dare somebody suggest that i'm wrong! waaaaah! people who disagree with me are just bein mean!!!!

get over it.

i have no problem admitting when i am wrong. that is not the case here, seeing as i'm not wrong. i'm simply sick of everyone claiming to know "better" than the majority of american citizens. i fully understand that this conflict involves two groups of people with very different mindsets, and in reality, no one is going to change anyone else's mind by arguing. i guess that's really the nature of most conflicts though. but i digress.

let's have a look at that connection, shall we?

SOUNDS GOOD BRO.

lots of counterexamples.

show me a politician with an opinion that doesn't oscillate based upon who he's speaking to, and i'll show you how you're wrong. just because rauf reworded and "changed" his opinion of these issues doesn't mean that he's suddenly a pro-american super hero. in my experience, one's preliminary response to a question is most indicative of his true opinions.

the question that was posed to rauf was "are you in any way suggesting that we in the united states deserved what happened?" if he truly is who he claims to be, his answer to that question should have been "no." anything other than an outright "no" insinuates comeuppance on the USA's part. he was asked nothing about whether or not our policies were an accessory to what happened, and the fact that he brought that phrase into the conversation in place of the "no" that any other pro-american would have provided speaks for itself.

rauf has also stated that america "...Has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.", during a 2005 speech he made in Adelaide

is he wrong about this? how does pointing that out make him an al-Qaeda sympathizer? please, show your work for the rest of the class.

yet again, the phrasing of this statement speaks volumes. comparing the USA to Al Qaeda in terms of blood spilled does nothing but open the door for Al Qaeda to justify its actions even further than it already has. sure, it may well be true, but there is no need to shift attention from a terrorist group onto an anti-terrorist country unless one bears some form of sympathy towards the terrorists.

it is quite clear that this man is not a terrorist sympathizer. hell, he even worked with the Bush administration, so this man already has a history of working with the U.S.

you're right. anyone who has ever been associated with the US in any way that could be construed as even remotely positive should be trusted to a fault.

this whole debate is absolutely ridiculous. there are already mosques in that area and none of them have heightened the risk of another terror attack. we really should stop being afraid of people who aren't like us.

you should hesitate to dismiss a debate as "absolutely ridiculous" when there are legitimate concerns being voiced from both sides.

on a side note, i may have painted myself as an uber-conservative, anti-foreign american in these responses, but i'm really not. i'm just voicing my own basic opinions as well as playing devil's advocate.

---

At 10/6/10 05:59 PM, Knorpfdog wrote: the question that was posed to rauf was "are you in any way suggesting that we in the united states deserved what happened?" if he truly is who he claims to be, his answer to that question should have been "no." anything other than an outright "no" insinuates comeuppance on the USA's part. he was asked nothing about whether or not our policies were an accessory to what happened, and the fact that he brought that phrase into the conversation in place of the "no" that any other pro-american would have provided speaks for itself.

Before Powerage likely responds back, that 60 Minutes interview clip was taken out of context. Here's the transcript cited at the top of Rauf's Wikipedia page. At the beginning of the interview, Rauf says, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam." If that doesn't condemn 9/11 and such, I don't know what does. Actually, here's the dialogue before, during, and after the clip:

"Bradley: And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America's foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

Faisal: it is a reaction against the US government politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?

Faisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

Bradley: Bin Laden and his supporters were, in fact, recruited and paid nearly $4 billion by the CIA and the government of Saudi Arabia in the 1980s to fight with the mujahadeen rebels against the former Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. After the Soviets pulled out, the Saudis, our best friends in the Arab world, our staunchest ally during the Gulf War, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the newly-formed Taleban regime, and then felt that bin Laden and the Taliban were out of control. Bin Laden's faith is a strict, puritanical form of Islam called Washbasin, which was founded in the 18th century in Saudi Arabia, and is now that country's predominant ideology."

---

9 years ago Muslim terrorists killed 3,000 people and continue to do so and have done so for decades. In case you haven't noticed, we're in the middle east in a war on terror. LET'S JUST BUILD A MOSQUE RIGHT NEXT TO THE SITE OF THE MOST DEADLY TERRORIST ATTACK IN HISTORY

EQUAL RIGHTS LOL

---

At 10/5/10 11:20 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: The man who did the Oklahoma city bombings was Christian.

"Science is my religion." - McVeigh

---

At 10/6/10 11:18 PM, Sekhem wrote:

At 10/5/10 11:20 PM, TechnoGoomba wrote: The man who did the Oklahoma city bombings was Christian.

"Science is my religion." - McVeigh

That's a quote of his but he was also a very devout Christian for much of his life so I think the jury's still out on that one.