Thread: Islam Ctr Planned Next to Ground Zero

^ Your posts are so pathetic, fred. You want to go thru each episode where Marines were charged with something? Haditha...IED took out a vehicle, head Marine saw shots coming from one house, they went to the house to clear it, chucked in grenade which is procedure, not knowing women & kids were there. Where was the muslim shooter? Yep, just took off leaving civilians for cover. The libbie press cries foul and the mozzies get another PR point.
Ain't seen Marines using civilians for cover like the muslims do. Life is cheap for them.

Still not answering the question.
How come all Muslims are guilty of 9/11 while only bad apple marines are guilty of rape and murder

CNN.com - Five soldiers charged in Iraq rape-murder case - Jul 9, 2006

CNN) -- Four U.S. soldiers in Iraq are charged with participation in the "rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and three members of her family," the U.S. military said Sunday.

GI gets 100 years for raping Iraqi girl - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com
100 years in the joint for that but he can get out in 1o'

Americans let rapist off light?

Back on topic:

APPALLED: “A CNN opinion poll shows that 68% of Americans (including 54% of Democrats and 45% of liberals) are anti-Constitutional bigots opposing the Ground Zero mosque.

Imagine that...the progressive liberals and their so-called multiculturalism / religious freedom arguments are met with reality, eh?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Back on topic:
:

That is on topic. The point is that many, including jet, are blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks. That is the basis for opposition to the community centre.

What I'm asking is simple. Why are these people attacking the freedoms of all Muslims for the actions of a few but not wanting to disband the US military?
After all, 3,000 sexual bad apples including raping a 3 year old girl and gang rape of a 14 year old after murdering her family is a lot of bad apples.

If all Muslims are responsible for the actions of a few, why is the whole of the US military not responsible for the actions of their 'bad apples'?
Why do we not see mass street demos against the rapist, murdering US forces from the so called moderate Americans. I think it's because they secretly support rape and murder by their troops who go into battle shouting for their God and country.



That's a few of the few 'moderate Americans' telling the truth.

I'm still awaiting Jet's answer but I don't really expect one.

It is for sure a delicate issue, although it is also difficult to believe that the freedom of religion or any other freedom for that matter could be imposed 'not withstanding the consequences of such action'. E.g. the freedom of speech (to protest outside the building for an indefinite period). Is that what citizens of NY really want? Less tolerance? After all, the majority of citizens are not saying that another mosque cannot be built in NY, it is merely the location which causes concern.

There of course, may be many Muslims within the NY community who also acknowledge the sensitively of the location of a mosque but remain silent on the issue.


No doubt, 9/11 wll remain in the memories of american citizens for decades to come and as such it appears that it is too early to ease the hurt of that infamous day in american history.

Simple, Insensitive but legal.
The rest is conjecture.

Originally Posted by mr Fred

That's a few of the few 'moderate Americans' telling the truth.

Just like how John Kerry was telling the truth.

This thread is about the planned Mosque near WTC, I realize that threads evolve, but Muslim men allegedly raping, or US marines rape in Japan is way of the mark here, so is the increasing focus on posters rather than the Issue.

Everyone are equally entitled to their views no matter what persuasion or religion you belong to, respect for other posters personally is the keywords here.

So Nam war videos are relevant?

I am reposting relevant anti-mosque views. It's more about sensitivity than 1st Amendment issues, Picks.

Yes jettie, but where does supporting somebody blowing it up fall into it?

Originally Posted by pickel

Yes jettie, but where does supporting somebody blowing it up fall into it?

Did he say blowing up the new mosque? Easier ways to sabotage. Just get some raw pig heads, slap 'em in the walls before the drywall is finished.

If the Mosque gets built as planned, I hope it will be left alone, people are using their democratic right to protest the idea of a mosque in that place, and the builders their equal right to built a mosque where they get permission to do so according to planning laws ect.

Personally I hope the people behind the mosque come to their senses and see that insisting might be quite counterproductive to their declared aims of community coherence and all that jazz, and understand that the mosque could become a point of tension for many years to come rather than a point of peace and tranquility for the muslims in the area, I hope it wont come to that but I would not lay a bet on it.

^ Meh, Gov Patterson has finally realised the anger of the people and offered some govt land in a different location for the mosque. The turned it down.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

We don't oppose mosques, it's the location of this one so close to Ground Zero. Totally insensitive and not the way to make peace among the many religions.

But you do oppose the building of this one because of sensitivity of it's location.

Exactly how far does a mosque have be from ground zero to satisfy those who oppose this one. 1, 10, 100 or 1,000 miles?

I'm sure the 10,000,000 or so Muslims in US and Canada would have a keen interest in clarifying the "rules" related to the extent they have freedom to practice their religion.

Perhaps a small addition to the constitution is in order.

"Free practice of religion is guaranteed unless practiced in a sensitive area."

The "sensitivity" argument is but a ruse to mask the anti Muslim fervor perpetrated by hate blogs and sensationalist media. If indeed "they" are intent upon the destruction of the US, then with 10,000,000 "theys" living in the country, it would have been entirely blown to rubble by now.

You are undoubtedly right Norton in principle, but the reality is that there is a problem and you have to deal with it, I guess building something, be it a prison, addict centre, Blackwater training camp ect. even if you have the constitutional rights, still would have to be where it is generally accepted and wanted, distances measured in meters don't come into the equation, but feelings in a community do, no matter how well founded and realistic they are, lot's of examples of that.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by pickel

Yes jettie, but where does supporting somebody blowing it up fall into it?

Did he say blowing up the new mosque? Easier ways to sabotage. Just get some raw pig heads, slap 'em in the walls before the drywall is finished.

How far from ground zero would this community centre have to be before you deemed it acceptable?

^^ Whiskey ??

Originally Posted by larvidchr

I guess building something, be it a prison, addict centre, Blackwater training camp ect. even if you have the constitutional rights

None of these are rights under the constitution. All subject to local approval. If folks in a given community don't want a prison or the like then it's up to the local authority to approve or disapprove building permits.

The establishment of a place of religion is a constitutional issue. A mosque or any other structure must however comply with local safety and construction standards. To deny permit to build the mosque in question because it's location is "insensitive" or "angers" the locals is unconstitutional and will surely be deemed so if ever brought to the Supreme Court.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial discrimination in schools, angered a lot of people as well. Should the practice of unequal voter registration and racial discrimination also be changed so it is allowed if a majority prefers it be practiced within their communities.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

You are undoubtedly right Norton in principle, but the reality is that there is a problem and you have to deal with it, I guess building something, be it a prison, addict centre, Blackwater training camp ect. even if you have the constitutional rights, still would have to be where it is generally accepted and wanted, distances measured in meters don't come into the equation, but feelings in a community do, no matter how well founded and realistic they are, lot's of examples of that.

Generally accepted and wanted is the operative phrase here. The majority of Americans are against this mega mosque at Ground Zero and rightfully so. This is w/out a doubt a clear provocaton on the part of Muslims to provoke more anomosty...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The majority of Americans are against this mega mosque at Ground Zero

Doesn't reflect too well on Americans in general if they think the actions of a few represent all Muslims.