|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted August 05, 2010 07:44 AM |
|
|
There are different degrees of privacy and different expectations to it. With any ownership of a building a lot of information is going to be made public. That's true of a person's home, and even more true of a public building. A public building will come under scrutiny and it must meet all kinds of regulations. The builder/owner could likely face all sorts of questions, including detailed questions regarding their motives and planned use. Building codes, zoning laws, use laws, rules on aesthetics and architectural style, and how it fits into the overall neighborhood are all legitimate questions.
If I know a person's name and general area where they live, I can hop on the county web site and find the properties they own, maybe a picture of their house, the date and price they paid for it, a dimensioned house outline along with any improvements, the number of bathrooms and the type of furnace they have. It will also show any co-owners such as spouse's name or the name of a trust. And if someone is interested and willing to pay a private investigator or do the work them self, there is a ton of other information available.
I'm not saying that I agree with all the information that's available. I'm just saying that anyone no matter who they are loses a lot of privacy when they own property. This is going to be even more true of public figures and public buildings.
Now the issue of motivation is a separate issue from privacy. So in the case of the mosque, why would someone want to investigate further? When I look at this it raises a lot of questions in my mind. And it obviously raises questions in other people's mind because it's being investigated. I don't see it as a "witch hunt". I see it as a case with legitimate questions that should be answered. If the answers to those questions are clean, then fine. But if the questions
are never asked then there will always be suspicion about motive.
People talk about reasons why the mosque should NOT be built there. But the other question is why WOULD it be built there. Dimis hinted at this, but the questions about "why there?" goes beyond "why Manhattan?" or "why near ground zero?".
This is some of the most expensive real estate in the world. It's in one of the most important financial districts in the world. The infrastructure and support is already in place for high finance and business. It would make sense for Goldman Sachs to build there, or for a large insurance company to headquarter there. So of all the hundreds of potential things that could be built there, why build a $100M mosque? That's a hell of a lot of money for a mosque, especially considering that they could build one, or several, a heck of a lot cheaper in another area yet still be within reasonable a distance.
It just raises questions. And if those questions aren't answered, then people will always wonder.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 08:36 AM |
|
|
Reading the last posts, after I went to bed, I'm with blizzard.
Dimis, you may not realize it - which IS a shame -, but you are not your discussing self in this thread, because you simply have no points other than vague feelings which is not the scientific way, which should make you think.
9/11 - 3000 casualties including the people in the planes - is overblown to catastrophical dimensions, but the only thing that actually happened was, that it was proven that the US are not invulnerable. Of course everyone with half a brain knew that anyway.
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.
I repeat, that it is a VITAL point of the US constitution that all religions are to be treated equal (!) - freedom of religion has an extremely high value. Which means IN PRACTISE, that in daily life you may be surrounded by members of very different religions, and every non-religious issue may have members of all religions on one side and members of all religions on the other.
In short - in the US there is no religious demarcation line.
It's the TERRORISTS who've brought Allah and muslimic religion in. Are the US a Christian nation? I don't think so. I don't think there IS a Christian nation.
Ask yourself, why didn't the terrorists attack Israel?
If they had instead babbled something about avenging the USSR and communism, would the US have attacked Cuba instead? NOrth Korea? Russia?
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 "free world" are making complete fools out of themselves in Afghanistan. Bin Laden? Isn't he a myyth already? I mean, he's probably long dead - may have been dead even before 9/11, but who cares? He'll never die, they will make sure of it.
I think, that he's long dead and burned to cinders, probably on his own wish, so there will never be any proof about his death.
In short - the terrorists have angered a bear, stinging him with a thorn, and now the bear is creating havoc going against the bees. It's a dumb bear, and it's a bear that makes a bad impression, especially when it comes to dealing with the muslims.
The US would do well to completely DOWNPLAY the religious aspect and cconcentrate exclusively on the political one.
But what am I talking, the damage has been done anyway.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 09:20 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 10:06, 05 Aug 2010.
|
It is not just feelings. You say that the only thing that actually happened was, that it was proven that the US are not invulnerable. Of course everyone with half a brain knew that anyway, with which I totally agree. Blizzardboy, says that it happened because of bases. 
Well, I say, let's see what Bin-Laden said.
Before the attack, to Peter Arnett (answer starts on that page after the question).
By the way, Israel there, is also mentioned, so I wouldn't be as sure as you on your conclusions ...
I believe that you don't dispute that Bin Laden took responsibility of 9/11, right ? We are on the same page here. Or at least that the criminals (as blizzardboy wants us to refer to them) were muslims.
So, the guys declared jihad; way before the attack. So, what is jihad ? Well, what about asking the same guys who use the word ? That's fair, right ? Until we have a better source, how about this ?
Essentially, the guys who are "taught" the same religion, have opinions about jihad as diverse as these:
- "sacrificing one's life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause",
- "fighting against the opponents of Islam",
- "duty toward God",
- a "divine duty",
- or a "worship of God", with no militaristic connotations.
Other responses referenced, in descending order of prevalence:
- "A commitment to hard work" and "achieving one's goals in life"
- "Struggling to achieve a noble cause"
- "Promoting peace, harmony or cooperation, and assisting others"
- "Living the principles of Islam"
How can you end up accepting as viable answers all the above to such a simple question ? Doesn't this make you wonder ? Isn't there something fishy ? What scientific method should I use ?
Moreover, don't judge by yourself. In poorer lands, people tend to be more religious, because pretty much this all that they have. Simple as that, and they have Islam, which may result in the aggressive statements found above (way too many agree/believe in an aggressive interpretation of the word whether it is "aggressive" or "defensive" jihad), which, when they are applied, can now actually hurt my rights, your rights, everyone else's rights who is not muslim. How about bringing the constitution now into play ? Is it going to protect your rights ? Why ? Is there a conflict now with the statement/request/hope that all religions should be treated equally ?
I wanted to write more, but somewhere in the details I got lost. It doesn't really help to have buckets in the entire apartment because the ceiling is leaking for that last few days.
Anyway, let's see what blizzardboy's original intention was when he started the thread. I haven't seen a real question yet by him; you know, the ones that end with a question mark like, this: ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:22 AM |
|
|
Dimis, wo cares what some folks declare for a religion? It's not like Bin Laden is something like the Pope for the Muslims of the world, is he?
Bin Laden has private family grudge with the US or ome higher-ups and decided to make use of his significant resources to hurt the US.
That's it. Of course he tries to do as much damage as he can - I still think, he's long gone. Anyway, it's not a clash of religion, but of course they try to mobilize every possible force for their side. I repeat, it's THEM who declare something. Everyone could do that. It's he reaction of the US that makes all the difference here.
Or, to phrase it differently - why would it matter that a guy calls for Jihad? He can call as much as he wants, who cares? It's just PROPAGANDA in a desperateb attempt to spread the unrest, get support and so on.
I mean, basically every other muslim in the region with money and influence owns big parts of the Western economic base - they have no interest in a "Jihad". They may not like Israel, they may be muslims, but they are businessmen as well.
Besides, I have trouble locating your point do you think the muslimic world will go on a mad rampage because a malcontent declared "Jihad"?
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 10:52 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 10:55, 05 Aug 2010.
|
What desperate propaganda ? Are you denying that 9/11 happened (because people followed that propaganda) ?
As of the businessmen, of course they are not interested in "jihad" or whatever non-sense.
My point is JJ, if they can not agree on a very simple question, and give so diverse answers to something they should agree (or fairly agree), because it is part of their religion, then, for me at least, it is kind of questionable as to if the guy who is participating in the "deal" represents the islamic world. Simple as that.
Just like I am against many "peace-keeping" actions the US has started, I would be against a "peace-keeping" action like the one you propose. In other words, I doubt if the timing is right for a mosque near ground zero, unless you can support it with something substantial. Moreover, new-yorkers are out on the streets and do not want it, because guess what ? It brings memories that hurt them. I always go with the right of the locals. These typically know better, or the feelings should be mature in order to change a situation and not some external "force" change something for their "own good". By the way, this is precisely the reason I am against most "peace-keeping" actions conducted by the US. Simply because things do not work like that.
On the other hand, from the other side of the table, and those who wantdemand a mosque at ground zero I see stubbornness on the implementation of the mosque and no further arguments apart from some sort of "freedom". Binabik's post above is explaining this very well. Why would you want to build a mosque there ? Why do you insist when locals do not want it ? Why no explanations, but just claiming "freedom" ? There are reasonable questions. If they come up with reasonable answers, then, mosque all the way.
As I said in the beginning I am neutral for two reasons. One, I do not really care; I am not an American to decide. Two, if they have reasons for a mosque there (and here it depends on how you are going to sell the reasons), then I fully support it. But when I see plain stubbornness, I become stubborn too and pull the rope on the other side. Because in the end, all the terrorists on 9/11 were muslims and did what they did in the name of some sort of "jihad". This is a historical fact. What's so difficult ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:01 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:07, 05 Aug 2010.
|
It's perception vs realism, plain and simple. People tend to see a few in a religion (or claim to be in a religion), and associate that religion with those people. I won't debate the 'no christian can murder' simply because it would fall on deaf ears, and be pointless. However, people MUST put aside the PEOPLE that are in a religion (or at least claim to be) and the religion itself.
I could claim to be part of the Chicken Sect that worships Lord Fowl. Doesn't mean that is true. Has nothing to do with why building a mosque is a BAD idea, at least at this proposed place. I know, lets erect a swastika in a Jewish community. No? How about putting up three large KKK letters in a black community? Bad idea? Oh I know, how about a Star of David on the grand dragon of the KKK's front lawn?
Bad ideas right? It has nothing to do with disliking the religion, or even the average person IN that religion. It has to do with TACT. There are many places, some even more choice, to put up a Mosque. Heck, I'd volunteer my neighborhood first, then right there. I have nothing against Muslims as a whole, nor against any religion, race, sex, country of origin, or ancestry (I just wish the same could be said about them when it comes to me). There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way. This sends the WRONG message.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Because in the end, all the terrorists on 9/11 were muslims and did what they did in the name of some sort of "jihad". This is a historical fact. What's so difficult ?
That is EXACTLY the propaganda of the terrorists you and the US fell for. EVERYONE can do EVERYTHING in the name of EVERYTHING, that doesn't have any meaning. I mean, Germans were declared Aryans as well, and atrocious things have been done in the name of the German aryan or the aryan Germans, but, heck, you dn't think the Germans in general had the "Herrenmenschen"-idea, right? They were just wrong-footed, historically.
Historical FACT is, that the AMRICAN muslims were hit as hard as all the other Americans no matter their religion. Historical FACT is they did noting. Historical FACT is, that muslims were genrally more frowned upon after 9/11, ad historical FAC is, that it has been the US side, that linked 9/11 with the American muslims. An AMERICAN mosque in the vicinity of GZ would simply be a signal, that the America muslims simly have nothing to do with 9/11.
As it is, they are implicitely treated as (potential) sympathisants who have to duck their heads now - for what exactly?
I can't understand that intelligent people are so willingly playing the game of couple of terrorists, because that's what it is. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:09 AM |
|
|
If the rhetoric on both sides does not slow down, action might have to be taken. Remember to argue on POINTS, not personal. Please.
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:18 AM |
|
|
I think one of the main points are that they're private buyers who own the property they buy. That means it's none of peoples business, which is why the question "why do they do it?" have no merit, i.e. it does not need any justification why they decide to build where they own land.
Had it on the other hand been a project with the government involved, then people would have every right to require information, since they'd be paying for it.
So it may be because they think it's a great gesture, it may be because they want to provoce/offend, it may be because they want to show that US is a better place for muslims than the muslim world, it's probably something completely else.
No matter what their intentions are, they can't prove it, so it'll always be in the back of the head of the people who've already drawn their conclusions if these people are 'good' or 'bad'. However as long as they don't break any laws, any kind of feeling offended/provoced is at the responsibility of the guy who've those emotions and not of those who're his 'excuse/trigger'. If opposite, it'd be like americans blaming US directly for the 9/11 attacks.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:21 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 12:32, 05 Aug 2010.
|
New propaganda this time. Is the statement that you quoted not true ? Simple question, yes or no ?
Do you believe that this discussion would exist and to the same extent if the terrorists were mixed ? Yes, or no ?
And no, JJ, I am not playing anyone's game. I told you I am with the locals' decision, because this is my stance. I am consistent on my beliefs. Are you, when you criticize Americans when they invade and establish "freedom" and "democracy" just because the whatever-locals do not know what is good for them ? Are you ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
New propaganda this time. Is the statement that you quoted not true ? Simple question, yes or no ?
Do you believe that this discussion would exist and to the same extent if the terrorists were mixed ? Yes, or no ?
And no, JJ, I am not playing anyone's game. I told you I am with the locals' decision, because this is my stance. I am consistent on my beliefs. Are you, when you criticize Americans when they invade and establish "freedom" and "democracy" just because the whatever-locals do not know what is good for them ? Are you ?
I mean the government of the US, when I say, they have been playing the terrorist's game and stupid, stupid, stupid, so relax, dimis and Mytical.
Now, dimis, what statement do you mean?
I believe that the muslim aspect has been seized upon by the US governmnt they should have downplayed it. Since they hav blown it up themselves, it's no wonder that the Americans now have fears and a grudge against "muslims".
Meaning, the reaction of the public is the fault of the government. It's the same thing as with the Jews in Germany. Economic crisis; lots of Western Allied Banks (after WW I) Jewish, Rothschild, etc, etc., the JEWS are economically choking us - blam.
It's easy for a government to point to a general scapegoat, for the public to have a CONCRETE target for tgheir anger and fears.
But that's the stuff that arocities are made from.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 11:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
I mean, there ARE radical "Christians" who make assassination attempts on abortion hospitals and docs, quoting the Bible. Now what? Would people be pissed, if Christian institutions were build near the asassination places?
False statements.
<cut>
Second, for, your false statments, no, there are no Christians who bomb abortion clinics or who murder abortion doctors. The Bible quite clearly states that no person who hates or murders knows God. The fact that I have quoted many verses that prove you wrong many times in the past and yet you continue to make such claims is sad indeed.
We know your kind of reasoning; the moment a "christian" turns fanatical, you don't consider him a "true christian" anymore, so regardless if his idiotic believes come from the bible, you don't consider him a christian and thus your perfect little religion is safewarded from "fanatical" elements; because they're not christians.
Ironicly one can argue the same about Muslims, how a Muslim once he turns fanatical based on passages from the Koran is no longer a "real Muslim". Which would inevitably lead you to have no problems with a muslim church being built near Ground Zero, since the terrorist attackers were obviously not Muslims!
Quote:
Quote:
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
So we see that no one who does such things is a Christian. Furthur, when someone commits such an action and falsely makdes the claim he is a Christian all Christain denominations disavow the action because such actinos go against the teachings of the New Testament.
And you think the Muslims in general approve of such actions? That would be pretty shortsighted.
And don't think about going to argue the Koran actually preaches hate and the Bible preaches love. If you wanna play bible quotes:
Quote:
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. -- Exodus 21:28
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 22:19
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. -- Leviticus 20:15
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:16
He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. -- Leviticus 24:16
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 31:15
He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:13
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. -- Exodus 22:18
He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. -- Exodus 22:20
Sounds pretty intollerant to me to be honest. Or are you going to argue the old testament isn't truely a part of -your- envisionment of "true" Christianity?
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:03 PM |
|
|
The latest debates really belong elsewhere. This is spiraling in to a religious debate, and we all know that that ends up nowhere with a lot of bad feelings all around.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:06 PM |
|
|
Well technically the argument IS about wether or not a certain religion can be allowed to build a holy site somewhere.
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:12 PM |
|
|
the thing is, Myghty Myt, is that Elodin, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to turn this into a religious debate. I have a feeling he's pathologically afraid of having his view questioned.
I suppose it's one of the great hypocrisies of noughties conservative america, wanting overwhelming free speach for christians, conservatives and those in power, but demand that everyone else shut up, muslims, atheists, progressives, etc.
Bill O'reily recently criticized a school for teaching about homosexual marriages as well as hetero ones. and We all know Glenn becks feelings about atheists and muslims.
Anyone who claims to be for freedom of speech must be just that, For freedom of speech. no exceptions, no favouritism, the racist down the street has as much right to express his oppinion as the mild mannered old granny.
besides, the Imam bought the land with his own money, and intends to renovate it into an islamic religious centre. surely impeaching on private property rights was something conservatives were against? surely, you don't want to take away his property, do you?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:12 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:13, 05 Aug 2010.
|
It is also about Tact. Personally I don't mind about who builds what where. It is their right..as long as they own the land, more power too them. It is not about should they be ALLOWED, but if it is RIGHT. I mean I buy land, so I should be able to build a giant scene depicting sex acts (with no censorship) right next to a playground? (Just in example, not referencing any type of religion as anything else..IT IS JUST AN EXAMPLE) Wanted to stress that.
Bixie, I agree 100%. If you stand for freedom of speech, it is 100% freedom for EVERYBODY.
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:19 PM |
|
|
As a reply to your example. We percieve the world through our senses and let's call the interaction link 'the signal'.
As the one who are sending the signal, you're the one responsible for said signal, no matter if it's sound, sight, smell, etc.
Therefore, if you keep your signal within your private property, it's up to you what signals you let be in the air, but when you send them outside, then it's your responsibiliy and no different than if you send signal to someone across the street.
That's where laws comes in, there are certain sound limits, certain smell restrictions, etc. or at least there should be.
To make it ideal, you'd "simply" install both an extra sender and an extra reciever, that could both filther out stuff you don't want to send out and filther out stuff you don't want to send it (because you dislike it), automatic yet defined through your wants/will. This applies for everyone and no such dilemma could arise, I believe.
Edit: So if they send out a lot of noise (like in the switzerland case?), they'd go against the law and I think we all agree that what limits them at least are how the law is (though the law can very well [and probably is] discriminating, as it's quite hard to make a 'perfect' law and in priniple an optimal world would not need laws at all (nor people who could behave properly))
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:52 PM |
|
|
Why should you bow your head each time when a dickhead does something stupid and CLAIMS to do it in your name or in the name of something you stand for? Don't you see the disastrous route there?
Just hire someone doing something gruesome "in the name of [something you want to discredit]" and, voila. Mission accomplished.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 06:37 PM |
|
|
well, like someone said, if you take it by the emotionnal side, then it possibly feels wrong, but if you think rationally about it there's really nothing wrong. and well, it might have nothing to do, but people like Hitler came to power because people only followed their emotions and didn't think.
Quote:
It's easy for a government to point to a general scapegoat, for the public to have a CONCRETE target for tgheir anger and fears.
it even seems like one of the favourite activities of governments these days. since they are just unable to solve the problems, they put all the blames on someone else. you could link that to Hitler and people not wanting to think. they have someone to blame and it's all that matters to them, they don't care whether it's true as long as they have a reason to discharge all their anger and fear.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 09:54 PM |
|
|
dimis:
Quote:
Why would you want to build a mosque there ? Why do you insist when locals do not want it ? Why no explanations, but just claiming "freedom" ?
I don't "want" them building a mosque there. In fact, I'd rather they didn't build any more religious buildings of any kind at all. But that's a different subject. They have the right to build on their land. We cannot allow tyranny of the majority. Building a mosque does not harm the locals in any objective way. Therefore, they can whine about it as much as they want, but they have no right to stop it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
