Attention: There Is Already a Mosque Near the WTC Site

reply to post by centurion1211

No, not referring to the hijackers.

And I wanted clarification on the other point the person was making specifically before I attempted to address it is all.

Peace.

reply to post by misinformational

Correct...thank you.


[edit on 8/19/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by oozyism

 

You are still a terrorist when you bomb innocent civilians. I could hardly care what for.

Call me heartless. I've lost all faith in humanity for that region. If everything from the Northern tip of Syria to the Egyptian border was a smoking crater the world would be better off.

Yes but the thing is they only want to call Muslims terrorists.

I haven't ever seen the US being terrorist, nor the Mexican cartels, nor NATO for bombing innocent people in Afghanistan, nor Pakistani army, nor Russia.

It seems the only people who are terrorist are Muslims??

And what I said about Hamas is true, I already claimed their actions at times when they were desperate were terroristic, but that doesn't make their whole organization a terrorist organization.

That is what they want you to think

Reading the last few pages, it becomes clear to me that I have misunderstood. I thought that people's opposition to this cultural center's/mosque's presence was that they believed it would spread radicalism, and so I repeatedly asked what proof there was of this.

Then I thought that they were simply suspicious of this Imam because he holds a neutral opinion of the Hamas issue despite saying he condemns all violence in the name of religion, so I asked what proof there was that holding that opinion makes him a terrorist sympathizer, despite the fact that he has condemned terrorism.

But now I see that a lot of people aren't so concerned as they are simply offended at the idea of the center being build near ground zero.

People keep saying things like, "They" attacked us and killed 3,000 of "our" people, and now "they" want to build one of "their" mosques near the cite of that tragedy. (Who is "they?" Muslim Americans died in the attacks, too. So by that logic "they" attacked themselves?) Or things like, "It doesn't matter that there was already a mosque near ground zero, because that was before 9-11." (Paraphrasing. What is different now that justifies curtailing religious liberties that wasn't true before 9-11? That some people who happened to be Muslim or call themselves Muslim attacked and killed a lot of people, including other Muslims?) People are literally insulted by the suggestion of its existence. The reason for this seems to be that they are Muslims, and the people who attacked us on 9-11 called themselves Muslims.

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around this. What exactly is it that people are offended by (and they do have a right to feel and express that offense,) unless they truly believes that all Muslims are those who attacked us, or that all Muslims supported the attacks? I find it difficult to understand how one could reach that conclusion. (But, again, they have the right to hold that belief.)

Regardless though, disapproval and being offended are not grounds to deny anyone their constitutional rights. One can disagree with something or be offended by it all the want, but at the end of the day, if it is ruled that the constitution allows it, then there isn't a thing anyone can do about it. (Just like no one can take away the right to disapprove or express how offended they feel.)

Which brings me back to the question I've asked so many times in this thread but still has yet to be answered. The question is important because it eliminates the emotional factors such as disapproval and offense, and asks a fact-based question that can tell us whether or not the burden that needs to be met before we deny someone their religious freedom has been met or not. Rather than post it again, I'll simply link to the last post in which I asked it: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is a simple yes or no question, yet has not received an answer from anyone in this thread thus far.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by AceWombat04]

reply to post by oozyism


No. It desires the destruction of Israel. The Goal of Israel is to create those biblical borders. The goal of Hamas is to create an run a political state for Gaza.

These two things are contradictory and incompatible. So until one changes its opinion, they are both intent on the destruction of each other. Now yea maybe Hamas took the destruction of Israel off their to do list. But that does not change the fact that the reason it exists is to create a Gaza state. And the reason Israel exist is to create that Israeli state. because the borders of their maps overlap, the destruction of each other is the ultimate goal.

Ergo, both are now terrorist states. I would argue Israel was not up until a few years ago. But now they have decided to be like the people around them rather than be the civilized ideal they are suppose to be. According to the Bible, that means they are no longer following God's orders and therefore are indifferent to the terrorists around them.

I could hardly give a good damn about who says what. The truth is that Hamas and Israel were meant for each other. Both voted for war. Both got their war. And now for all I care, they can both die by that war they created. They can enjoy the fruits of democracy and all the horrors that come with it. They can lie about religion and twist it all they desire. At the end of the day they were meant for each other. They are exactly the same and damned by that bond.

reply to post by misinformational


Not really, considering the destruction of a nation is not the goal of the war. The change is. Because Both Hamas and Israel desire each other's destruction, they are terrorists states by their actions.

As far as I can see every nation on this Earth is a terrorist state. Every nation on this Earth is illegitimate and illegal. Every nation on this earth kills civilians and is inherently evil, I inherently hate all governments for that reason.

But who are the barbarians? The ones who do that irregardless. Who are the civilized? The ones who do not do that all the time and actually talk before they act. The US has made it perfectly clear that for the most part they talk before they strike. Israel and Palestine have made it perfectly clear that they would rather kill than talk. And for that reason, both are the real terrorist states.

Again, call me heartless, but I will not say a word to God if he lets the whole region sink into the sea and with it the land lost forever. A fitting end for two monsters.

reply to post by AceWombat04


What a question; you know perfectly well who I mean by 'they' and I still mean it.
Of course I have no proof of what they teach,
non muslies aren't allowed in as we contaminate lol;
guess we need to cut off more heads or blow up more people/ Naa; Most people find stuff like that extremely offensive.
I do see the results of such teachings though, such as
No World Trade Centers and THREE THOUSAND MURDERED in the name of allah
I am suggesting that it is an Insult for 'them' on All sides to even Consider that Amricans would tolerate such , such, idk, it is so amazingly amazing that it's stunning!
Funny that you shoud want proof of how muslies seek to controll the world, they talk about it all the time; you live in a cave? Hmmm, maybe you do.

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


As I have said, you have every right to your feelings and beliefs, and I will defend your right to them just as much as Muslim Americans' religious liberties.

But I will ask: So you have proof that these particular Muslims want to "take over the world" as you put it? Or that they celebrate and agree with the 9-11 attacks? Or that they are or will plan, support, commit, or threaten violence? If you do, you should take this proof to the authorities, so that legal action can be taken. You can then, at your discretion, provide that proof here so that this debate can be resolved factually. If you don't, then what you have is an opinion. And I respect that opinion, and your right to it. It doesn't mean they don't get to build their mosque, though.

I'm not sure what you mean by not being allowed in. I'm not Muslim and I've visited mosques several times in my quest to understand the world's various faiths better. I was greeted cordially and invited to watch and learn as much as I wanted. Or are you suggesting that everyone there, including all of the everyday people present there, were conspiring to trick the "infidel" who wandered in unexpectedly?

And despite your statement to the contrary, no, I do not know who you mean by "they." Because it sounds like you're suggesting that all Muslims, everywhere, are a threat and seek to "take over the world." Since I have known Muslims who espouse nothing of the sort and are just human beings like me trying to make their way through life, I am hoping that isn't really what you meant. (Although, again, if that's really how you feel you have the right to say so.)

[edit on 8/20/2010 by AceWombat04]

Originally posted by TheAssociate

-First Amendment

Like it or not, they have a right to be there.

The 1st amendment does not give Muslims the right to build on ground zero. The 1st amendment is a declaration that congress will not interfere with the establishment or exercise of religion.

Its gives Muslims no positive rights at all.

The 1st amendment certainly doesn't remove secular citizens rights to try to prevent the establishment of a mosque at ground zero.

Originally posted by AceWombat04

But I will ask: So you have proof that these particular Muslims want to "take over the world" as you put it?

Will the teachings of their holy book do?

Allah gave Muhammad the one true religion and sent him to conquer all other (false) religions. 61:9

The "Religion of Truth" (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions. 9:33

Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you. 9:41

Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low." 9:29

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123

Treat converts to Islam well. (Kill those who refuse to convert. See 9:5) 9:11
Allah hates disbelievers. 35:26

Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway. 9:73

Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.) 9:6

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5

Disbelievers are perverted. They are the enemy, confounded by Allah. 63:4

Don't obey disbelievers. But rather fight against them. 25:52

Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers. 9:85

Exhort the believers to fight. They will win easily, because disbelievers are without intelligence. 8:65

Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell. 9:81-83

Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls. 9:42

Those who deny the revelations of Allah are perverted. 40:63

Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. 9:111

A prophet may not take captives until he has made a slaughter in the land. 8:67


Don't let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah. 8:59-60

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

Christians are disbelievers for believing in the divinity of Christ. 5:17

If you die fighting for Allah, you'll be rewarded in heaven. 3:157

"Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

"Fight in the way of Allah." 2:190, 2:244

Those with Muhammad are ruthless toward disbelievers and merciful toward themselves. 48:29

If you refuse to fight for Allah, he will punish you with a painful doom. 48:16

Be stern with disbelievers. They are going to Hell anyway. 66:9

Smite the necks of the disbelievers whenever you fight against them. Those who die fighting for Allah will be rewarded. 47:4

Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. 8:17

Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. 9:111

Those who die fighting for Allah will go to heaven. 3:195

Disbelief is the greatest evil. 7:37

"If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message."
(The message for those who won't surrender is "you're going to hell.") 3:20

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Helping the poor is not as important as believing in Islam and fighting in holy wars. 9:19

Allah loves those who fight for him. 61:4

Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil. So fight the minions of the devil. 4:76

When you fight with disbelievers, do not retreat. Those who do will go to hell. 8:15-16

Don't let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah. 8:59-60

reply to post by ollncasino


No, in my opinion the "teachings of their holy book" do not suffice as proof that these particular Muslims wish to "take over the world" or spread radicalism and violence, anymore than violence or teachings which condone violence in the Old Testament or Torah prove that any particular, individual Christians or Jews espouse or condone violence. So I ask again: Do you have such proof?

The 1st amendment certainly doesn't remove secular citizens rights to try to prevent the establishment of a mosque at ground zero.

If they receive a permit to build the structure there and any petition to have it revoked fails, then how exactly are they going to "try to prevent the establishment of a mosque" (two blocks away from) "...ground zero," might I ask?

If they receive a permit and are the property owners, or the property owners allow the mosque to exist there, then there is nothing anyone can legally do to eliminate it.

People can likewise get permits to protest or picket the mosque so long as they do not break any laws. Doing anything to physically bar it from existence once they have been issued a permit though is not possible.

So then the next step is to appeal to a higher authority. And then it becomes a constitutional matter.

reply to post by oozyism


After an exhausting search by Google(sarcasm), this should get you started:

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by AceWombat04
No, in my opinion the "teachings of their holy book" do not suffice as proof that these particular Muslims wish to "take over the world" or spread radicalism and violence, anymore than violence or teachings which condone violence in the Old Testament or Torah prove that any particular, individual Christians or Jews espouse or condone violence. So I ask again: Do you have such proof?

If the teachings of the Koran commanding war against non Muslims until they are brought within the peace (submission) of islam are not enough, how about we judge the religion of peace on its actions?

Currently, Muslim extremists have carried out violent Jihad in the following countries in 2010:

Pakistan:
Afghanistan;
Iraq;
Thailand;
China;
Yemen;
Algeria;
India;
Palestine;
Somalia;
Russia;
Egypt;
Ingushetia;
Philippines;
Dagestan;
Jordan;
Mali;
Nigeria;
Uganda;
USA;
Kosovo;
Liberia
Chechnya;
Saudi Arabia;
Germany;
France;
Israel;
Bangladesh;
Lebanon;
Ethiopia;
DRC (Congo);
Ukraine.

For a religion of peace, it sure does a lot of fighting.

reply to post by ollncasino


Again, I respect your right to do so if you wish, but you are judging the entirety - as in every single member, everywhere - of the religion of Islam on the basis of what some Muslims have done. You have the right to that opinion.

My opinion to the contrary is that the issue here is whether these particular Muslims share the same aims, goals, or plans with the Muslims to which you refer.

So I ask again, for the I'velostcounth time in this thread: do you, and does anyone, have any proof that these particular Muslims and this particular Imam are planning, condoning, committing, or threatening unlawful acts including but not limited to violence? If you do, then it seems likely that you can provide that proof to the proper authorities, have their freedom to use their property as they see fit revoked, and possibly have charges pressed against them.

Originally posted by Soldier of God

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
by no means the tallest building in its block of blocks.

Is it tall enough to fly an airplane into???

Obvious bigot is obvious.

reply to post by ollncasino


Gee, reminds me of Christianity.

Need we list all the countries where, for the glory of God and His Son, blood was spilled by Christian hands?

None of that stops us from letting them build churches, because we understand that a single group of Christians does not necessarily reflect on all Christians. Why we can't extend that understanding to Muslims is bizarre to me.

Where's all the fury over our continued friendship with the Saudis, since, you know, they're the ones who flew planes into our towers. Where's all the anger that we continue to do business with and therefore potentially fund terrorist components in Saudi Arabia? Hmm? Seems like that's where the rage should be focused if anywhere. We can buy their gas and give them money to blow our buildings up but we can't let some other group of people build a community center?

Blah.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by bikeshedding]