Obama's support for Ground Zero Mosque

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it might start with the fact they own the property.

people look at this county and want to live here. we're supposed to stand for something here. people think they can come here for a better life, we're supposed to be almost a utopia. but because a fringe group of radical nutjobs did a horrific thing, no one who has a tie to the religion that group was supposedly practicing can live in peace? worship the way they wish? are you saying that a religion who has a criminal element should all be tarred with the same brush? should we tail all catholic priests, assuming they all have nefarious plans? if you say they have a right, i'm not quite sure why you're still arguing this point at all? because the majority is having a kneejerk, bigoted reaction, that makes it right? it's why you're supposed to use logic, not feelings. now, if osama bin laden wanted to build a place for his followers a couple blocks from ground zero, i can see having an issue. people not breaking the law and wanting to practice their religion peacably should be left alone. my god, we sound like hateful religions zealots on this issue-you know like the enemy...some righteous line being taken on this matter, it's embarrassing. are we not smart enough to know where a line is crossed? building a mosque is crossing a line?

I am using logic. Don't you think this mosque is going to be a hotspot for all kinds of protests and possible attacks? Is it right for the people in this neighborhood to be forced to have their own lives put more at risk? Especially when there are already hundreds of other places available? At some point aren't the rights of others that are negatively effected by the stubborness and insensitivty of these people protected as well? And please explain to me how you, me or anyone else can tell the difference between a mosque built by supporters of Al Queda or one built by non supporters? You have heard that the guys who originally bombed the WTC were locals (NJ) right?

As I have stated many times in this thread we aren't denying the right to build, nor are we saying that the intentions of the people of this mosque will be anything but peaceful, but that the location is a bad idea and people who don't understand why are simply not seeing the reality of the situation. Muslims terrorists have twice attacked this area, killing thousands of people. A Muslim terrorist attempted to bomb a car recently about 40 blocks away. Why anyone would be surprised that people are wary of a mosque being built there is amazing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am using logic. Don't you think this mosque is going to be a hotspot for all kinds of protests and possible attacks? Is it right for the people in this neighborhood to be forced to have their own lives put more at risk? Especially when there are already hundreds of other places available?

I don't think your points are bad at all, I just disagree entirely, but the point above IS bad, IS terrible logic, and shouldn't hold any weight at all.

You're saying that if they build a mosque, some people will protest it or possibly attack it, so they shouldn't build it? It's been approved....by the people in the neighborhood, so you probably don't need to worry about them too much.

If people attack it, they're criminals and should be treated as such -- and therefore, you've got a criminal problem that is not the fault of the people building the mosque. And mosques have been attacked and vandalized in other states as well, so that holds no water whatsoever.

"Some people might break the law in retaliation" is not an argument for not building the mosque there. It's like saying we shouldn't build highways because some people might speed on it and endanger those are not breaking the law.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I don't think your points are bad at all, I just disagree entirely, but the point above IS bad, IS terrible logic, and shouldn't hold any weight at all.

You're saying that if they build a mosque, some people will protest it or possibly attack it, so they shouldn't build it? It's been approved....by the people in the neighborhood, so you probably don't need to worry about them too much.

If people attack it, they're criminals and should be treated as such -- and therefore, you've got a criminal problem that is not the fault of the people building the mosque. And mosques have been attacked and vandalized in other states as well, so that holds no water whatsoever.

"Some people might break the law in retaliation" is not an argument for not building the mosque there. It's like saying we shouldn't build highways because some people might speed on it and endanger those are not breaking the law.

You are ignoring that location isnt an ordinary location. While you are corrrect in that people who do such things are criminals and they are everywhere, the chances of an incident in this location are far greater than the same place just a short distance away.

The approval was a given. They cant discriminate on religious grounds, this has been established. That doesn't mean it is not going to be a source of issues.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are ignoring that location isnt an ordinary location. While you are corrrect in that people who do such things are criminals and they are everywhere, the chances of an incident in this location are far greater than the same place just a short distance away.

The approval was a given. They cant discriminate on religious grounds, this has been established. That doesn't mean it is not going to be a source of issues.

Still, it doesn't matter. Whether the location is in the woods in Montana or four blocks from Ground Zero, if people can't control themselves and NOT be criminals, that's 100% on them, no matter what.

You may sympathize with people who would like to throw a bomb or a brick through a window there, but the location doesn't make them anything less than common criminal trash if they can't be bothered to control their fear and anger and not lash out. Hold a sign, write an op-ed, whatever, but whether the location is "ordinary" or not is completely irrelevant.

You know what makes the "chances" of an "incident" go up with something like this? People who can't be bothered to act like respectable citizens and commit crimes instead. Trying to put the onus to avoid crime on the potential victim of the crime is patently absurd. I wonder how you feel about women walking alone in short skirts at night.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Still, it doesn't matter. Whether the location is in the woods in Montana or four blocks from Ground Zero, if people can't control themselves and NOT be criminals, that's 100% on them, no matter what.

You may sympathize with people who would like to throw a bomb or a brick through a window there, but the location doesn't make them anything less than common criminal trash if they can't be bothered to control their fear and anger and not lash out. Hold a sign, write an op-ed, whatever, but whether the location is "ordinary" or not is completely irrelevant.

You know what makes the "chances" of an "incident" go up with something like this? People who can't be bothered to act like respectable citizens and commit crimes instead. Trying to put the onus to avoid crime on the potential victim of the crime is patently absurd. I wonder how you feel about women walking alone in short skirts at night.

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly. Just as Riot can't seem to come to grips with stating that Muslims terrorists have twice attacked the area doesn't mean you think all Muslims are terrorists, pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

This idealism believing that somehow all things are equal and the world is a logical place runs contrary to real life.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly. Just as Riot can't seem to come to grips with stating that Muslims terrorists have twice attacked the area doesn't mean you think all Muslims are terrorists, pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

This idealism believing that somehow all things are equal and the world is a logical place runs contrary to real life.

I'm not pretending that the site is not more likely to be attacked because of where it is. It certainly is, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to freely exercise their religion wherever they see fit without fear of being attacked. Mosques are targets in other parts of the country -- and they're only attacked because people commit crimes against them.

It doesn't matter one ounce where it is. If people don't act like criminals, then it won't get attacked -- that's the end of the story. Potential victims of crimes are not the ones responsible for making sure that they don't become victims of crimes. Do you know why crimes happen? Because criminals commit them. Period. No amount of emotion based on location or past events absolves criminals of that responsibility, and the people building in this location are not, and should not, be responsible for those who may commit crimes against them.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm not pretending that the site is not more likely to be attacked because of where it is. It certainly is, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to freely exercise their religion wherever they see fit without fear of being attacked. Mosques are targets in other parts of the country -- and they're only attacked because people commit crimes against them.

It doesn't matter one ounce where it is. If people don't act like criminals, then it won't get attacked -- that's the end of the story. Potential victims of crimes are not the ones responsible for making sure that they don't become victims of crimes. Do you know why crimes happen? Because criminals commit them. Period. No amount of emotion based on location or past events absolves criminals of that responsibility, and the people building in this location are not, and should not, be responsible for those who may commit crimes against them.

On one hand you say that the site IS more likely to be attacked then you say it won't get attacked unless people don't act like criminals? Well what if you were the business next store? How would you feel then knowing that the site next to you IS more likely to be attacked meaning that you are in greater danger through no fault of your own.

Once again we aren't advocating taking away any freedoms from these people but are showing concern for the other citizens of the area who are now at more risk because of the choice of location. Does that mean we should force them to move or stop them from building or sympathize with those that would do them harm? No. But assuming that anyone who believes that the people building the mosque have made a poor choice of a location doesn't mean we are racist or insensitive. Just trying to use common sense.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

Really though -- how far is the acceptable buffer zone where they won't be responsible for the attacks criminals commit against them? How far away until they're not asking for it?

Is Memphis far enough away? Dayton? Jacksonville? Winston-Salem? Texas? Winnipeg? Maybe Sweden?

The reason mosques get attacked is because trash criminals can't control themselves.....not because where they're built. Trying to say that they have a responsibility to go somewhere else is just a backdoor way of essentially making it so that criminals aren't responsible for their own actions, I mean, if ONLY they hadn't shoved it in everyone's faces and built it there.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Really though -- how far is the acceptable buffer zone where they won't be responsible for the attacks criminals commit against them? How far away until they're not asking for it?

Is Memphis far enough away? Dayton? Jacksonville? Winston-Salem? Texas? Winnipeg? Maybe Sweden?

The reason mosques get attacked is because trash criminals can't control themselves.....not because where they're built. Trying to say that they have a responsibility to go somewhere else is just a backdoor way of essentially making it so that criminals aren't responsible for their own actions, I mean, if ONLY they hadn't shoved it in everyone's faces and built it there.

Ignoring the 2 WTC incidents and being 2 blocks away doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't valid. Each situation is different obviously.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly.

See, again, it's obviously not a meaningful site to them. They aren't that bent about it. Just another damn tourist attraction to these people. This is the main reason they don't have a problem with the zoning choice. if you don't care why something happened, then why would you care about the zoning in the aftermath? They don't particularly care about the specifics involved with the disaster (at all.) That might mean having to place guilt on someone, and then actually doing something about it. Just ignore the root cause, because it'd be hell for someone's feelings to get hurt.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly. Just as Riot can't seem to come to grips with stating that Muslims terrorists have twice attacked the area doesn't mean you think all Muslims are terrorists, pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

This idealism believing that somehow all things are equal and the world is a logical place runs contrary to real life.

again, why is the site incendiary? recognizing the religion of the perpetrators, while failing to consider that islamic people were also victims in this attack is ignoring fact. if a church wants to honor it's dead, that's ok...but a mosque wants to reach out in that area, it's wrong. that ignores the fact that muslims were victims that day, not just christians.


i'm really just surprised that this thread is so long, considering everyone concedes they have a right to build there. i heard today that the idiots who protest at funerals have been shown to have the right, due to free speech laws. it's unpalatable, shows insensitivity, but can't be blocked without being unconstitutional.

the rule of law must prevail. you can't disallow this building, i don't understand why so many are so vocal about this, when there's really nowhere to stand against it.
all nyc can do about this is to change the zoning, and i don't see that happening.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, why is the site incendiary? recognizing the religion of the perpetrators, while failing to consider that islamic people were also victims in this attack is ignoring fact. if a church wants to honor it's dead, that's ok...but a mosque wants to reach out in that area, it's wrong. that ignores the fact that muslims were victims that day, not just christians.


i'm really just surprised that this thread is so long, considering everyone concedes they have a right to build there. i heard today that the idiots who protest at funerals have been shown to have the right, due to free speech laws. it's unpalatable, shows insensitivity, but can't be blocked without being unconstitutional.

the rule of law must prevail. you can't disallow this building, i don't understand why so many are so vocal about this, when there's really nowhere to stand against it.
all nyc can do about this is to change the zoning, and i don't see that happening.

The muslims that did this act of terroris did it in the name of the religion, not because they were looking to get on CNN. Why you can't understand that people would be upset that a site 2 blocks from ground zero would be a place celebrating the same religion that was used as a justification for the attack seems incredible to me.

This isn't a legal debate, havent we conceded that enought times???