|
0 members (),
13
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,547
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,853
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,853 |
' New York Muslims, surely, were just as shocked and traumatized when the Saudi Nationals attacked their city. Isn't that expressing an opinion favoring one 9/11 conspiracy theory more than other theories, and therefore forbidden by the forum guidelines?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I have seen different estimates, but it appears that somewhere between 230 and 300+ victims of the 9/11 attack were Muslim (about 10%). Where is their shrine? Where is the sympathy for their sensibilities - or the sensibilities of the 3.4 million other Muslims in America? Or the billion or so peaceful Muslims in the world? Or the families of the victims who actually want the interfaith center built? Some 9/11 Families Show Support for Mosque Near Ground Zero. I happen to agree that there is no legal basis to prevent this building from being built, even if it contains a mosque, but I think it does a disservice to the point to undercut it by making some kind of moral argument against it. American values (those that are enshrined in our Constitution, laws, and founding documents) clearly support it. What opposes it?
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
Does anyone here actually oppose it?
It seems to be that the consensus is in agreement with Issodhos's central point of it being a property issue.
unfortunately, however, the building has been manufactured into a political issue, hence all the shouting.
personally I dont care one way or another, in large part it is none of my bidness. My interest lies in this issue being used as yet another propaganda boost to those in the US who would wish to exercise military power, this time against the Iranians. (all muslims are islamofascists, therefore subhuman, therefore free to be murdered at will),
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
Does anyone here actually oppose it?
It seems to be that the consensus is in agreement with Issodhos's central point of it being a property issue.
unfortunately, however, the building has been manufactured into a political issue, hence all the shouting. You mean, like I wrote in my opening post: "...there are no restrictions against building regious buildings on it, so that should settle the matter. All the rest is politics." (emphasis added");-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
sectarianism, intolerance and betrayel of stated American principles is "just politics"?
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
Does anyone here actually oppose it?
It seems to be that the consensus is in agreement with Issodhos's central point of it being a property issue.
unfortunately, however, the building has been manufactured into a political issue, hence all the shouting. You mean, like I wrote in my opening post: "...there are no restrictions against building regious buildings on it, so that should settle the matter. All the rest is politics." (emphasis added");-) Yours, Issodhos Is not the issue laid to rest constitutionally based purely on property rights? the fact that it is not laid to rest there sould suggest that there is far more to the issue than the property issue, more indeed than just politics.
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
How Arabs view the anti-mosque movement Two recent arguments about the impact of the rising anti-Islam trend in the U.S. -- from the Stupid!Storm around the Manhattan mosque to the lunacy of "national burn a Quran day" -- on the Arab world strike me as not quite right. Last week, Bill Kristol cited the translation of a column by Saudi TV station al-Arabiya director Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed downplaying the relevance of the mosque as evidence that the argument should be over. Meanwhile, several recent articles claim that the mosque had become the #1 topic of discussion on jihadist forums. Both are wrong, in different ways. Most Arab columnists agree with the argument that the anti-mosque movement will badly harm Arab and Muslim views of the United States, contra Rashed, but there isn't as much active discussion of it in the forums as you'd expect. That isn't a reason to relax, though. The impact is likely to be felt not so much on extremists, whose views about America are rather fixed, but on the vast middle ground, the Arab and Muslim mainstream which both the Bush and Obama administrations have recognized as crucial both for defeating al-Qaeda and for achieving broad American national interests. And that mainstream, not the extremists themselves, is where our attention needs to be focused Pissing off potential allies against Islamic extremists is "just politics"?
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
sectarianism, intolerance and betrayel of stated American principles is "just politics"? The correct quote is, "All the rest is politics." Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
The correct quote is, "All the rest is politics." Might I also ask, why does the article you posted imply that all Arabs are Muslims?;-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
