|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted August 17, 2010 11:49 AM |
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100816/pl_yblog_upshot/news-outlets-split-in-describing-mosque
Well, hmm. Seems all the hubbub is for nothing. They are NOT building at Ground Zero. Two blocks away. All this ruckus for absolutely nothing. Not that it matters, because I have to side with JJ here.
While I think it is a bad idea, and asking for trouble, it is not like they are building something against the law. It is not obscene, or anything like that. So yes, I think they SHOULD be able to build one where they want. Even IF it is a bad idea.
____________
Message received.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted August 17, 2010 12:57 PM |
|
|
As shown in the image I (found on digg) dug up, it is 2 blocks away. And the exterior of it will be largely unchanged from the shut down coat shop that's there now.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted August 17, 2010 02:10 PM |
|
|
Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100816/pl_yblog_upshot/news-outlets-split-in-describing-mosque
Well, hmm. Seems all the hubbub is for nothing. They are NOT building at Ground Zero.
You could have also tried reading the first two sentences of the original post.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted August 17, 2010 06:54 PM |
|
|
What do you guys associate on, when someone uses the word investigate? As I see it, there are two different aspects. There are the investigation done by the police and then the investigation done by a private person like a detective.
The big difference is that the police can uphold basic rights if they've a sufficient good reason, which an investigation is usually thought to be. These can be stuff like, you're not allowed to leave the country, you have to talk with the police on their time (so you might have to leave in the middle of a job), etc.
On the other hand the detective cannot demand anything from you.
So if by investigation it's meant as a sufficient justification for opportunities to basically harash said person (or in a more general way, to say limit the rights usually associated with being a citizen in the given country), then I would say that by no means it's okay to make an investigation upon someone simply due to them building something unpopular and have said something unpopular and maybe should be included, having an unpopular religion.
However if an investigation does not limit basic rights, if it doesn't open for files otherwise closet, i.e. all there can be done is what the private detective usually can do (assuming he/she doesn't break the law), then I see no problem in it. It'd be like looking peoples phone number up in a phonebook, etc.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted August 17, 2010 10:26 PM |
|
|
If they're pushing for a federal investigation, then it would have to involve procuring information that's not on the public record (i.e. private information).
Of course, it's not remotely as big of a deal as sticking them in an intern camp or something, but either way, conducting such an investigation on an innocent man without any empirical data pointing towards criminal activity is wrong and should remain strictly illegal. Unfortunately there are ways to wiggle around this process and that's what this coalition of genetic defectives are trying to do. They're trying to justify it on the grounds that this guy has made some controversial statements (and therefore there is reasonable suspicion), which is an absurd justification.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted August 17, 2010 10:56 PM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 23:01, 17 Aug 2010.
|
I guess we're all to be investigated if that's the case.
There's a reason Conservative Libertarians like the ones who write for Forbes and the Reason foundation support the cultural centre.
Also if the blocks near Ground Zero are hallowed ground, and the strip bars populating the area are constantly being accepted on it, that means it's not too long until we start introducing lapdances in church, right? Or is one less hallowed than the other?
(Or just build a gay bar across from the cultural centre. Seriously, it's a free country. I can see a lot of stupid people vandalizing the building though.)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted August 22, 2010 08:20 PM |
|
|
Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100816/pl_yblog_upshot/news-outlets-split-in-describing-mosque
Well, hmm. Seems all the hubbub is for nothing. They are NOT building at Ground Zero. Two blocks away. All this ruckus for absolutely nothing.
Actually, the landing gear of one pland crashed through the building in question.
Most Americans and moderate Muslims oppose the mosque, so there is no "bridge building" gonig on, and the cleric of course seems to be a radical, not the moderate he spins himself to be.
It is interesting that the liberal loon Pelosi has called for those who oppose the building of the mosque to be investigated.
____________
Revelation
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
posted August 22, 2010 09:43 PM |
|
|
they first came for the muslims, and I didn't speak up, because the muslims were terrorists.
then they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up, because the communists were the enemies of the state.
then they came for the intellectuals, and I didn't speak up, because the intellectuals were all liberal loony lefties who deserved it.
then they came for the poor, and I didn't speak up, because the poor are too lazy to get of their arses and start working for even less than what they were getting.
then they came for the immigrants, and I didn't speak up, because the immigrants came here and took our jobs that we need, and whatever happens to them is justified.
and then they came for me, because I wasn't being christian enough, buying enough to help the monopolies, hating foriegners enough, or daring to speak out against the government, and there was no-one to help me.
as I say, Elodin, the mosque will go ahead as you are living in america, not with some state run religion however much you may want it to be. the Imam who purchased the land has the right to build it, and you object to it, as the title says, believing in private property rights only when you, or those who you listen to, are invovled.
because you're living in america, for goodness sake, and you need to accept that fact beyond saluting the flag every time you see one. you need to accept that you're country was built on freedom, and that freedom to buy and build is not restricted against people who you don't like, it's available to everyone.
and if you are so concerned with religious extremism, help the poor people suffering in pakistan. the Pakistani floods and the ineptness of it's governments aid programs is a far more powerful recruitment call for terrorists cells than anything america does. Independent charities have already sent over $900 million to pakistan to help, but the speed at which Taliban aid workers are going is far greater than anything the west is capable of is that region.
and now the victims of the flood are being helped by terrorists, many pundits in america will call to stop any aid over there, otherwise be connected with muslim extremists, thus condemning millions to suffer starvation and disease. I hope that you are of a kinder heart than they.
the mosque 2/5 (if we are going by the actual memorial) blocks away from ground zero is a non-issue. It is hardly a mosque anyway. A mosque is defined as a place solely for islamic worship, whilst the institution will have a basketball court and a cookery school as well. how terrifying, extremist chefs.
and just because some moderate muslims oppose him does not make this cleric radical. to say that he is radical just because you don't like where he is putting it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
posted August 25, 2010 04:27 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 25, 2010 04:46 PM |
|
|
Why not be on the safe side and go for both?
They may just think most of the people are even more stupid than they are.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
posted August 25, 2010 07:39 PM |
|
|
So, we're talking about "moderate" and "radical" muslims now? Seems a bit like something that's just setting itself up for strawmen and awkward silence when it comes to actually needing to know something about islam.
And bixie, how can we tell that the arabic word for cookery does not have a double meaning such as "making bombs?"
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
posted August 25, 2010 08:14 PM |
|
|
Keksi, by that respect, how can we trust the french?, how can we trust the russians? or the chinese? how do we know that the indian for "make yourself at home," doesn't also mean, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries?"
as for what you are actually implying (after a paragraph of waffle on my part), I seriously doubt that people have any intention of making bombs in lower manhattan. Mainly because peoples prejudice will force the police to do checks on the property to make sure that this doesn't happen. It would take an extremely bold terrorist with half a car sticking out of his brain to teach how to make bombs in lower manhattan.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted August 25, 2010 09:33 PM |
|
|
I don't see how anyone can claim the ground zero cleric is a moderate. He stated the US is worse than Al Quieda, the US is at fault for 9/11 and refuses to sas HAMAS is a terrorist organization. He was also a major funder of the terrorist flotilla that attacked Israeli soldiers. Of coures he also has a Muslim Brotherhood background.
Of course I posted an excellent article that quoted jihad verses of the Qu'ran and other Islamic writings/teachers but Angelito deleted that.
Clicky
Quote:
"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims," said Imam Fiesal Abdul Rauf, speaking at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Center during a question and answer session dedicated to what sponsors say was a dialogue to improve relations between America and the Muslim world."
Quote: During his Australian visit, the imam also said the Arab and Muslim world senses that the West does not care about Muslim lives and their pain and anguish is not heard.
He explained that frustration and emotions can lead to terrorism, actions he condemned
Justifies terrorism and says it is the fault of the US.
Sorry, I could not believe that the man is a moderate even if I had my brain removed. The man is not a bridge builder he is a terrorist apologist.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
posted August 25, 2010 09:39 PM |
|
|
Doesn't that quote from the article, the very quote you posted, say that he condemns terrorism?
Edit: As in the opposite of "justify" I might add.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
posted August 25, 2010 10:10 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 23:43, 25 Aug 2010.
|
pompous, much?
and as I have said, America's previous involvement in various countries, most of which have been propping up or creating oppressive, brutal and quite undemocratic regimes, would generate alot of hatred. if America didn't act like the bloody world police all the time, swaggering around with it's nuclear weapons and it's apple pie, and it's annoying tourists wanting everyone to have exactly the same as they have, there wouldn't be a terrorist attack.
oh wait, this is all elodin trolololololing his way into the Heroes history books as the most persistant, pig-headed and pea-brained member of his family under the bridge.
obvious, and successful troll, is successful, if as subtle as a rhino taking a dump on the vicars head.
naturally, you will not take action in pakistan, which is likely to do far more to Al-queda's cause than whatever this imam does, even if he builds an emormous mosque over ground zero with the names of those who died engraved on the inside of his toilet.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted August 25, 2010 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote: he is a terrorist apologist.
Even if it was true, so what? He's entitled to his opinion/belief and that should have absolutely no relevance to what he can build, what his intentions may be, nor if he sould be investigated.
Actions, not thoughts, should be the fundation of evidence required for any investigation to take place in the first place.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
KaDa
Tavern Dweller
|
posted August 26, 2010 04:50 PM |
|
Edited by KaDa at 11:16, 27 Aug 2010.
|
Ooh, I joined for throwing in my two cents here.
At least now I can vote in the "worst mistake in heroes" poll, wanted to vote, not badly enough to register.
So why join a flame instead? No idea.
Oh and please bear with my errorous english, wasnt the first or second language I learned.
Starting from page one (zomg, dude is nuts)
"anti-intellectualism" shall google that, hope I wont fail like the blonde in the linked vid on page 10ishwhatnot
Quote: "So, if they want to do something as a step of good will, why not let Christians build a church in Mecca, and then ask for a mosque at ground zero."
You are right that there should be churches allowed around mecca if they want mosques around. But that's a somewhat oppressive nation while america is free. So it shouldnt factor in (possibly sadly).
Quote: "Vendetta" is an Italian word
Or we could pick something more US related, friend of mine from the US told me about how another family in the US (both natives for generations) called blood feud on them. Now, no human has been killed in a way that may be enough to sentence folk, but killing the cattle and destroying the crops of the others, sure. Also there were non-fatal shootings, and quite a few strange deaths. But this is unrelated, just saying that nations are as they are, as is basic human nature, even in "englightened" (as in advanced, not religion-driven) countries.
Was the 9/11 attack religious? Political? A personal war of a prince?
Who knows, could be all three at the same time.
But it doesnt make that much of a difference in this case.
Even if it was religious, it was the interpretation of a religion made by a prince who already had a thing against the US. Making it into a religious conflict may be just a convinient way to get support at home, and possibly worse:
Quote: The US are behaving like a bunch of complete fools, because they are letting themselves being provoked into doing a lot more damage themselves than was done do them - damage that is exclusively directed against muslimic states.
[...]
So actually, the terrorists habe reached their goal. They have provoked the US into violent reaction, into alienating members of a world religion and part of their own citizens. The US have attacked their owwn ex-puppet, the guy who was supposed to keep Iran in check.
The foreing relations and the PR of the US suffered massively due to what happened after the WTC terrorist attacks, that's undeniable. And quite possibly that was their aim. If so, over 90% success... Sadly.
Quote: Also, the imam simply said "america was at fault for 9/11", if he said that (and considering you're past history of sources, it's more than suspect). and to be brutally honest, America was, somewhat, at fault.
considering the history of it's actions during the cold war, of propping up vile regimes in order to prevent the spread of communism, as well as the general sticking in it's nose in everywhere, including in Iran, afghanistan, egypt, pakistan, and saudi arabia, America is not completely innocent. it was not an attack due to the fact that the muslim world hates the west, it was simply down to the fact that the US's foriegn policy during this period was completely mental.
Afghan dudes the US (coallition forces?) fights since a few years are the dudes the US (CIA?) funded and trained against the soviets. Or
something like that. Bash me for no wikiquotes. Why I bring it up? Just to make a point that indeed, foreign policy during that period was quite mental, and the end of the cold war didnt suddenly errase all that.
Mosque-funding dude didnt denounce the Hamas.
Hamas is a problematic organisation due to it having school/hospital fundings apart from it's hobby of terrorism. No, I jest. They are a terrorist organisation. With good PR, and they in fact help poor folk aside of the murder they do. Ofc it's their folk, who support their murderous rampage.
But if your infant daughter's life gets saved in a hospital funded by them, thinking of them as "bad guys" is suddenly kinda harder slightly.
Oh, and the dude funded terrorists. That attack of the terrorists with the blocade is quite a fuzzy incident.
On the one side we have a nation A embargoed by nation B, denying those who suffer in nation A from lots of normal stuff (the embargo's definiton changes around, sometimes it doesnt prohibit trade of weapons but at other times it only allows trade of certain items and the list is quite short)
On the other hand ofc we have conflicting reports stating that kidnapping nation B's marines might have been an uterior motive in the boat incident.
Thing is: there may have been some unlawfull conduct, but that was not the point of the whole blocade breakthrough (I hope as a faithfull, untill show direct proof again, in which case this funding dude will be convicted as well most likely).
Unless I misunderstood the topic there.
Now I dont want to call names as a newbie.
JJ! The dude said some stuff that came across weird for me in_other_topics.
In this one, he went off to tangents (among other) about some unrelated religious stuff.
Think his point was something like:
Let's say I'm gay (No! I'm not!)
I want to terrorise countries into allowing gay couple marriage and then them adopting children. I blow up stuff. I say it's the all gay
liberation front. You have a gay neighbour pair. Will they be evuhl because they are the same as the every gay person's front?
Now I'll scrape together all good faith I have as a christian.
Let's assume the gay couple living next door wants to do an exibition on how there are "good gay folk" who contribute to society because they dont want gay folk to be singled out as terrorists.
They do it near a site of a terror attack of the AGLF, saying that misinformation about them is the worst there, building it on the attack's 10th anneversary.
- Some say it's offensive towards all who died there.
Their answer: it's the best place to start clearing up the misinformations, at a core where it spreads (and spreads naturally, for human nature is like that).
- Some say it's too soon.
Their answer: How long should they wait? 50 years? 100? 500? 1000? Gay folk are victimized due to mistrust and misunderstanding, should they wait and endure for a century just because one person who they have a shared "abberation" (as seen by the masses) they have no right to say here and now that they are different from those who would do such attrocities?
So we have a minority who wants to show their goodwill and that they are different but not in a bad way.
And a majority who doesnt want to hear about it near a site where the minority committed a serious crime.
*some people of the minority*, big difference, also: the majority wants something, ok. But the words of the minority should be heeded as well. Their choice of telling their words may not be the best...
Now.
We are NOT talking about gay people. We are talking about muslims.
How much difference does it make?
Their culture is more alien (they have a different culture in the first place).
Their culture is kinda scary. And conflicting ours. A Lot.
Should they be allowed to build on ground zero? Hell no.
Should they be allowed to build in NYC to tell people there are different muslims who arent terrorists? Yes.
Should they build it that close THAT close to GZ? Possibly not.
But how far away should they build it hoping that those who make a pilgrimage to GZ also go to their place and thear their version which goes: "Those who did it were terrorists, not the peace-loving muslims that WE are."?
Keep in mind, I said I'll gather all good faith I have as christian.
Do I belive they would be totally liberal and enlightened about everything as are the best of westerners?
No. But I dont convict them guilty before a court does the same.
Oh and:
Quote: So wouldn't Jesus allow to build a mosque near ground zero then?
Imho he would allow it.
And possibly (if feeling cheeky enough to make a point) when no "muslim session" takes place in the biggest room of the building, he would go in and talk about peace, tolerance, and possibly even about his Father.
Because he can.
And ty for hearing my thoughts, I realise it was a LONG one.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 26, 2010 05:37 PM |
|
|
But an interesting read nonetheless.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
posted August 27, 2010 09:19 AM |
|
|
Agreed, the cold war didn't end the moralic indifference of the USA or Russia (Alexander Lipvinyenco springs to mind) but the paper thin excuse for both of them to act like the bloody world police (russia not so much, it has to be said, but Goergia's invasion shouldn't be ignored by any means) is gone. America is no long at war with equals, it is essentially now moving into a more, dare I say, expansive tactic.
America now needs to reign in it's military arm so that it isn't percieved as the big bully of the playground by... well, the rest of the world. Just an oppinion, mind, as my government is happy being inside america's colon all the time.
anyway, nice post.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted August 28, 2010 04:52 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:56, 28 Aug 2010.
|
@Bixie
Wow, it is amazing you would call anyone a troll, mr "pain in the arse!" No, you need to learn the difference between a troll and someone who argues positions from other than a Marxist anti-American anti-theist viewpoint. Being a theist, an American, or a capitalist does not make a person a troll, Bixie.
It is sad that some people are Americaphobic. I have located an article that discusses both Americaphobia and the ground zero mosque.
Clicky
Quote: To most Americans, the battle over the Ground Zero mosque is about honoring the victims of 9/11. To those in the news media, the numbers tell a different story.
For weeks on end, news outlets have parroted the most left-wing talking points – crying “racism” or “Islamophobia” in an attempt to paint mosque opponents as bigots. The media’s attack on Americans who still remember what happened on Sept. 11 2001, could be called a crusade. But that word that makes you a pro-Western bigot in their eyes.
So let’s call it what it is – jihad. An out-and-out pro-Islamist assault on American values. In a term they might understand, it’s Americaphobia.
And it’s failing miserably. The numbers tell the tale better than most network journalists. A Time magazine poll from Aug. 16-17 showed 61 percent of Americans nationwide still oppose this mosque despite the best efforts of the Washington elites of all three major political parties – Democrats, Republicans and Journalists.
And even that poll question has more spin than the top in the movie “Inception.” Here it is: “Overall, do you favor or oppose the building of the Muslim community center and mosque near where the World Trade Center stood?" That certainly embraces the media viewpoint – however inaccurate – that it’s more “community center” than mosque.
Every church I’ve ever attended has had numerous facilities – schools and gyms and cafeterias and more. Yet every one of them was called one thing – a church. Sure, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might try to model his mosque on the Jewish Community Center, but that isn’t the issue. The mosque is.
It’s an issue that resonates with a huge chunk of Americans from all walks of life – right wing, left wing, Christian and Muslim. The only group that doesn’t believe it’s an issue is journalists. So they twist and manipulate the story in dozens of ways so it turns out their way.
Only it hasn’t. The unseen hand of journalism manipulating American democracy is no longer unseen, nor is it as effective as it once was. But that hasn’t stopped the media from trying its best.
The Associated Press “Standards Center” issued a “staff advisory on covering New York City mosque” on Aug. 19 as just one piece of that spin. “We should continue to avoid the phrase ‘ground zero mosque’ or ‘mosque at ground zero’ on all platforms.”
Since that spin memo, finding the term “Ground Zero Mosque” on network news is all but impossible. Before the memo came out, journalists like ABC’s David Kerley were allowed to use it. On Aug. 15, there was Kerley talking about Obama “trying to steer through the treacherous waters of the Ground Zero Mosque” debate. “Early Today” host Lynn Berry talked about the “Ground Zero Mosque controversy.” Other reporters echoed the term.
But AP had to choose sides. To the great spinmeisters in that organization, a building near the World Trade Center that was actually damaged in the attack isn’t at Ground Zero. Had AP headquarters been in that building, you can bet they would have covered their own damage like it had been Ground Zero. It’s the terminology game reporters and editors play. Lefty terms like “pro-choice” are OK, but don’t dare say “pro-life.” Conservatives can be “far right” but try finding liberals who are “far left.”
That’s just one of the games journalists play. They can’t claim the mosque opposition is “bigoted” if Muslims oppose it as well, so those voices are almost never heard on network broadcasts. In the past month, ABC, CBS and NBC evening news shows intereviewed Muslims 10 times for their mosque stories. Nine of those interviewed supported the mosque. Only one Muslim opponent was quoted. Other critics, such as the first Muslim Miss USA and the director of Al-Arabiya, a popular Arab-language news station, were ignored. They would have interfered with the prearranged news agenda. So would showing the hateful person who cursed out an anti-mosque protester who had survived the Holocaust.
That’s a consistent theme. The controversial imam who is pushing the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a “moderate” who wants only peace and even “eulogized Daniel Pearl.” His questionable funding, a refusal to call Hamas a terror group and his many controversial statements largely get a pass in the “news media.” Remember, this is the man who said: “the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.”
If Rauf were a tea party supporter and blasting Obama, his views would lead the evening news.
Thankfully, fewer and fewer people care about the spin. While journalists go one way with their coverage, Americans are going another – to the exits. Just last week, the Big Three broadcast networks recorded less than 19 million viewers. CBS “Evening News” was watched by less than 5 million people. Yes, some have turned to those shows on the Internet. More often, they have simply been turned off by them.
That is the state of American journalism. No matter what issue is seizing the news – racism, the stimulus, health care reform, tea parties, the Ground Zero Mosque and more – journalists pick the most liberal side. It’s a sad reality that at the upper levels of journalism, they simply don’t like the America that many others love. Finally, America is returning the sentiment.
|
|
|
|