Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

[pjdude1219]

No.

you sure because it seems like most of your arguments are based on it

Is not getting into personal insults and temp bans for unsupported accusations yours?

yes actually it is. by the way check your grammar you sentence doesn't mean what you want it to.

Well, let's see: he's constructing a mosque in a place no Sufi would even consider, owing to it's insensitivity;

logical fallacy. just because he isn't a sufi(which you haven't shown he isn't) doesn't mean he is a Wahabbi.

he's linked to the Marmara incident;

So because he wants the palestinian to get there rights he is a terrorist?

he's almost certainly seeking financial backing from Saudi Arabia;

again something you have provided no proof of. all you have is allegations

he's published highly questionable books on the subject of 9/11.

by questionable you mean saying that maybe the US actions played a role

You're right. He must be a Mormon.

Don't get huffy because you got called out on trying to get away with passing unproven BS as a solid argument.

 

[phlogistician]

I disagree. I like to remain proactive. Simply put: if Rauf tries to disseminate hate from this mosque - and, let's be honest again: given that the funding is almost certainly coming from Saudi Arabia, the odds are that he will be ....

Bzzzzt! Due process, 'innocent until proven guilty' and habeas corpus apply.

You in my eyes are worse that what you fear from this place. You are a danger to freedom.

 

[GeoffP]

you sure because it seems like most of your arguments are based on it

Pj, I'm taking the unusual step of ignoring you here, because you're talking nonsense; or moreso than is usual for you.

Bzzzzt! Due process, 'innocent until proven guilty' and habeas corpus apply.

But of course. Can we investigate, even, or must we wait until 'trained professionals arrive'? (See above in my discussion with Bells.)

You in my eyes are worse that what you fear from this place. You are a danger to freedom.

Really? And here I haven't oppressed anyone - yet. Have your principles suddenly become elastic? (Habeas corpus, free speech and all that.)

 

[WillNever]

Guys. People complain about cultural insensitivity and how we as society are supposed to be aware of it or compensate for it... and in this case, it seems culturally insensitive to build a mosque in or around the site, don't you think?

I'm just using the argument used by ethnic minorities (including muslims) ALL THE TIME and spinning it around.

 

[phlogistician]

Really? And here I haven't oppressed anyone - yet.

'Yet', ... says it all.

 

[GeoffP]

But of course. Why do you think I'm seeking real power? A vote for Geoff is a vote for never having to vote again. Think of all the free time you'll gain!

 

[Emil]

But of course. Why do you think I'm seeking real power? A vote for Geoff is a vote for never having to vote again. Think of all the free time you'll gain!

Think instead of Communist Dictator better Emperor.
What beautiful sounds "Eastern Korea Empire".
If you promise the government of a region you can have my vote.

 

[GeoffP]

Done!

 

[matthew809]

This mosque story is just sparking hatred and forcing people to pick sides. Whether or not this story was intentionally created and planted in the media for this purpose... who knows. But the end result is the same. Do not degrade yourself by falling for such an obvious ploy.

And to those people out there who were personally affected by the 9/11 attack- you need to get over the misdirected hatred if you haven't already. Experiencing tragedy does not excuse you from civility. A patriotic hate monger with a story is still a hate monger.

So with all emotions aside, should the mosque be built at ground zero? Obviously not. It's way too dangerous(which is one of the reasons why I think this story was created only to spark this debate, and team choosing). Although in theory, I do think it would be an exercise in forgiveness and understanding.

 

[iceaura]

It seems to be, as nearly as anyone seems to know, Saudi Arabian citizens going about some business they refuse to discuss.
”
It's a Saudi Embassy now? No, it's a centre for US Citizens, who follow Islam.

Why would you think that? It's purpose is whatever the people who are building it have for it - whoever they are. Saudis, probably? Kuwaitis? Yemenis? It doesn't seem to be well named, sited, or designed to benefit American Muslims.

Now it's "Islam", not "Muslim culture"?
”
What do you see as being different between the two?

I am repeatedly informed by local experts that most of the objectionable features of Muslim cultures like Saudi Arabia's, Nigeria's, Yemen's, Malaysia's, etc, are not true Islam. Argue with them.

I'm sure there'll be a brochure available to tell you once the place is built.

I would imagine there are plenty of brochures, mission statements, and so forth, available right now. Being printed on high gloss paper, they aren't much use to me.

They do have a laudable mission. It's about understanding.

Great start at that, this isn't.

considering you haven't even attempted to prove these petty and ridiculus asserations it not even the begining of the story let alone the end. do you care to try and prove he is a Wahhabi/Salafi or are you just assuming he is because you dislike him?

If it turns out that the major support for this thing is in fact from Wahabi Saudis, they do have the agenda it appears they have, and its purpose is their purpose, will you re-evaluate your currently completely uninformed stance?

Aren't you making a lot of assumptions here? Based on what?

Based on what evidence we are allowed to have. They could all be cleared up, and benign facts made more clear, with more information. The financiers and supporters of this thing are really quite shy; an admirable modesty, no doubt, but the suspicions they breed thereby damage their laudable purposes - if any.

 

[TheVisitor]

This mosque story is just sparking hatred and forcing people to pick sides. Whether or not this story was intentionally created and planted in the media for this purpose... who knows. But the end result is the same. Do not degrade yourself by falling for such an obvious ploy......

It's all an obvious ploy, from the so-called "attacks" to the mosque at ground zero story.
They are on record before 9-11 saying they "needed another pearl harbor" event to get American citizens motivated to go to war.
It's amazing the success this "Shock and Awe" campaign has had. Especially when used against their own citizens.
Most just can't believe their trusted news sources and government officials would perpetrate such a crime against humanity.

I think this story was created only to spark this debate...

The situation was possibly created to spark debate and renew hatred. They can't allowed us to forget.
Remember the flags on every car? It was spooky thing when you consider the level of deception involved.
There is probably going to be massive American casualties when they move into Iran.
New weapons like Iran's Russian built supersonic torpedoes will see to that.
Then at some point it will just become self perpetuating. That will create public sentiment for war on it's own.
Just like the stranglehold Hitler and the Nazis had on Germany, were are nearly back there again.
The days of martial law, internment camps, and red arm bands are just around the corner. You say it can't happen in America?
Just ask "normal" people to question what they've been told about September 11, 2001.
There is something that will not let them do it. That's as spooky as the little flags on the cars.

 

[Dywyddyr]

New weapons like Iran's Russian built supersonic torpedoes will see to that.

Iranian-built (and designed according to them). Not Russian-built.
But then again the claims made by the Iranians with regard to its capabilities aren't entirely believable either.

 

[TheVisitor]

Iranian-built (and designed according to them). Not Russian-built.
But then again the claims made by the Iranians with regard to its capabilities aren't entirely believable either.

Yeah, I've never seen one either. Just heard about them.
Rocket powered traveling inside a generated gas bubble.
They are supposed to be nearly unstoppable at that speed.

I would find it hard to believe the Iranians designed something so advanced NATO doesn't even have it yet.
They more than likely took a Russian supplied Shkval and copied it changing a few things to create the Hoot.
That still leaves them with a very dangerous weapon. It could take out an aircraft carrier with 5,000 men aboard.

Here's what Wiki says about it...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yeah, I've never seen one either. Just heard about them.
Not sure how that works, supersonic underwater. Rocket powered traveling inside a generated gas bubble.
They are supposed to be nearly unstoppable at that speed.

They're old news (the Russian - actually Soviet - original dates back to before the end of the Cold War).

And as for "unstoppable", sure. But they're short-range and mostly unguided. They were developed as a last ditch defensive weapon - effectively a last, dying (or desperate) response - for Soviet missile subs. If something is within 10 km or so and moving slowly it's a viable target (moving slowly since the Shkval/ Hoot only goes in a straight line so the target needs to be predictable and unable to manoeuvre sufficiently well to turn aside). But 10 km is a ridiculously short range for a torpedo - the 1970s Mk 48 anti-sub torpedo has a range of ~40 km and homes in on its victim.

 

[TheVisitor]

They're old news (the Russian - actually Soviet - original dates back to before the end of the Cold War).
And as for "unstoppable", sure. But they're short-range and mostly unguided.
the Shkval/ Hoot only goes in a straight line so the target needs to be predictable and unable to manoeuvre sufficiently well to turn aside.

Early designs may have been sluggish because the initial design was intended for nuclear warhead delivery.
But later designs fitted for conventional warheads change controls in direction using four fins that skim the inner surface of the supercavitation envelope.
Also to make faster turns, the push plate on the nose can be used to control the shape of the bubble the missile is traveling in.
This is like the thrust vectoring used on F-22's.
It sounds like the maneuverability of the Russian weapons were upgraded when they fitted them for conventional warheads later with a smaller yield.
Not sure about the Iranian "Hoot" version. We'll know soon enough I think.

 

[joepistole]

This is just a tempest in a tea pot. You cannot even see "ground zero" from the mosque. And we are a nation that respects private ownership and religion. It is time to suck it up and walk the talk..

 

[spidergoat]

You guys do know there is a mosque in the Pentagon, right? At least a hundred Muslim Pentagon employees pray there every day.

 

[iceaura]

You guys do know there is a mosque in the Pentagon, right?

Yes. There are other mosques in New York, as well. No complaints.

So can we drop the repeated attempts to brand this as nothing but anti-Islam bigotry, hatred of mosques, etc, and consider what is actually going on here?

You cannot even see "ground zero" from the mosque.

The site appears to have been chosen for its symbolic value to its organizers financiers - it's the site of one of the buildings hit by the planes on 9/11 (wheel assembly through the roof), and this event with its consequences was described as the working of a "divine hand" by one of its public spokesmen.

 

[GeoffP]

You guys do know there is a mosque in the Pentagon, right? At least a hundred Muslim Pentagon employees pray there every day.

Actually, I think services are on Fridays; and it's a multifaith chapel.

Apart from a Roman Catholic font for holy water beside the entrance and Bibles tucked under seats, the spartan room offers a neutral spiritual space, resembling "multi-faith" chapels at US bases around the world.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iqvSi9taAHCsJwHTtrYovIB4al5g

This is a contrast to the proposed 13-story Islamic centre at "Park 51", funded almost certainly by Saudi Arabia and equally likely to be involved in spreading a Salafist, not Sufi, version of Islam.

 

[Bells]

Yes. There are other mosques in New York, as well. No complaints.

So can we drop the repeated attempts to brand this as nothing but anti-Islam bigotry, hatred of mosques, etc, and consider what is actually going on here?

Quite the contrary. I think it points to the hypocrisy of those against it who are citing the 'hallowed ground of "Ground Zero"'.. Muslims also flew planes into the Pentagon. Why is that less sacred ground?

This is a contrast to the proposed 13-story Islamic centre at "Park 51", funded almost certainly by Saudi Arabia and equally likely to be involved in spreading a Salafist, not Sufi, version of Islam.

How about they build a Catholic Church there? Which would be funded by the Catholic Church which has consistently and repeatedly supported and hidden child molesters within its confines, to the utter detriment of their previous, present and future victims. Kiddy fiddlers unite!

But apparently, they would be more acceptable.

Again, the abject hypocrisy of this whole debate is astounding, but not unexpected.

The law in the US, backed by the Constitution, allows them to preach wherever they so choose.

It is not for you to determine what brand of Islam should be spread and what should not. You seem to assume that Muslims in New York would not be able to determine what is best for themselves and you are also assuming that they would automatically all become Islamists..

You can try and rant and rave about who is funding this Mosque, but at the end of the day, the clear message coming out of your side is that you don't want Muslims there, full stop. Therefore, you would support denying them their Constitutional rights to have a house of worship where they so choose, because of your own personal bias.