Mosque proposal near Ground Zero

[obtuseobserver]

Clearly, you cannot read polls/posts very well.

you said

The amount of people who are actually offended by it's proximity to Ground Zero are few and far in between.

The polls reflect people who object to the mosque whether they are "actually offended" or not.

The quoted part of my post refers to the reason not the cause. Your polls do not reflect that.

The next time you might want to actually try reading the entire post before jumping the gun on a thesis statement. This forum is for educated debates after all .

That or you might want to actually check out the validity of your claims because here they were nonsense.

Nearly without fail, as this is one of those times, when some one starts bringing Hitler into a debate it is a clear admission that they have a big bag of nothing.

You missing a vary big point, it's true. If he had used any other group (preferably non-Muslim) you'd likely be saying that it's true and we need to improve. Since he used an extremist Muslim organization, however, you decide he's anti-American and pro-terrorism (I'm not saying it's on prepose but it's the blunt truth).

Just speaking to the brouhaha...

Who was Imam Rauf speaking to? Think he didn't choose his comments carefully? Cat's no dummy. Think he didn't intend the comments to be inflamatory? When you offer up comments like Rauf's you take what you get. He appealed to passions and got passionate responses... reasonable or not (on either side).

Now, here's the biggest problem for those defending Rauf. AQ targets civilians. We do our best to avoid them. AQ hides amongst civilians in order to use tragedy as a political tool. There is a big difference between intentionally killing civilians and unintentionally killing them. We have tried oursoldiers for murder for killing civilians. How many AQ soldiers do you think AQ tried for murderering civilians? These are not entities one can reasonably and directly compare. Intent matters.

 

[David]

Just speaking to the brouhaha...

Who was Imam Rauf speaking to? Think he didn't choose his comments carefully? Think he didn't intend them to be inflamatory? When you offer up comments like Rauf's you take what you get. He appealed to passions and got passionate responses... reasonable or not (on either side).

Now, here's the biggest problem for those defending Rauf. AQ targets civilians. We do our best to avoid them. AQ hides amongst civilians in order to use tragedy as a political tool.

Read the speech. He was only saying we needed to see thing from their pov if we wanted to truly understand the situation.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Read the speech. He was only saying we needed to see thing from their pov if we wanted to truly understand the situation.

I understand

read OBLs earliest complaints... his bitch list was continually revised - its a piece of well focused marketing on his part. He kept changing bits and pieces as he learned what was most effective at rallying support for him.

 

[AK_ID]

The point of view that America deserved 9/11 is reasonable?

For purposes of clarification, post 64 was not aimed at you, Obtuse. Just so ya know.


EDIT by omeythehomie: merged posts.

 

[David]

The point of view that America deserved 9/11 is reasonable?

Where did he make that claim? He did condemn terrorism, however.

 

[AK_ID]

He also insinuated that the U.S. is worse than terrorists. I've got to ask why anyone would defend this guy and his mosque? I asked either on this thread or another here if it would be appropriate to construct a shrine to Nazism at the gates of Auschwitz. No response to that question yet. Maybe this imam has yet to learn the fine art of PCness that we Americans are strangled with daily.

I'd like to ask, David, whether you believe America deserved 9/11. Whaddya think?



(Post self edited because I got scolded)

 

[omej]

you said



The polls reflect people who object to the mosque whether they are "actually offended" or not.

That or you might want to actually check out the validity of your claims because here they were nonsense.

Once again, read the sentence. The amount of people who are actually offended by it's proximity to Ground Zero are few and far in between.

Now read the rest of the post, particular the last bits after the pictures.
Your polls actually mean nothing. In fact, they support my view.


PS - While on the subject of polls, you might want to look up tyranny of the majority. Wikipedia it - isn't that what kids do these days?

Nearly without fail, as this is one of those times, when some one starts bringing Hitler into a debate it is a clear admission that they have a big bag of nothing.

Once again, you didn't read the post (how many times is that?). It was in response to a comment Newt Gingrich and AK_ID made about Nazi's.

Again, I ask by way of analogy, would you support building a shrine to Nazism outside the gates of Auschwitz? If so, how many feet from the gates would be a respectful distance?

Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington

Try again. And I know im beating a dead horse, but try to read it through fully.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Where did he make that claim? He did condemn terrorism, however.

you said

Read the speech. He was only saying we needed to see thing from their pov if we wanted to truly understand the situation.

Why do we need to see the attacks from their POV? That implies that the POV that approved of the attacks was reasonable. If their POV is unreasonable then why do I need to know more than I already do?

Where did he make that claim? He did condemn terrorism, however.

But said, in essence, that we had it coming. Do you think 9/11 was warranted? Of course not. Do you think it is an act that is difficult to condemn? Of course not. “I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened; but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Calling the victim an accessory is in part a justification of the act.

He says different things to different audiences depending on whether they are Muslim and speak Arabic or not. He's got a problem with consistency, or perhaps he doesn't.

Once again,.

mweh

the polls asked whether people objected to the Mosque being built so close to GZ. That is... objecting to its proximity to GZ.

 

[David]

He also insinuated that the U.S. is worse than terrorists. I've got to ask, David, why you're defending this guy and his stupid mosque? I asked either on this thread or another here if it would be appropriate to construct a shrine to Nazism at the gates of Auschwitz. No response to that question yet. Maybe this imam has yet to learn the fine art of PCness that we Americans are strangled with daily.

1.No, he said the US killed more Muslims then AQ killed Americans. That is a fact. Blunt but a fact.
2. I don't know if it was this thread by I've stated my position on Islam already. Besides, the 1st Amendment should suffice.
3. We have a mosque at the Pentagon. We have a mosque 1 block away from the location at issue. Their is already an Islamic study center at the location. And if you want to bring up WW2, they're 2, count them 2, Buddhist temples at Pearl Harbor. None of the above have been challenged except for the Park Place mosque and the currently existing study center still isn't being challenged (likely because the opposition didn't bother to do any real fact checking). Your point fails.

Oh, and I was asking you, David, whether you believe America deserved 9/11. State your opinion.

I think (as every logical person does) that we caused many of the problems that fueled the anger and hatred that lead to 9/11. Imam Rauf was, as I've already stated (What 3 times?), simply pointing out this fact and asking that we consider our own reaction if in the same situation.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Imam Rauf was, as I've already stated (What 3 times?), simply pointing out this fact and asking that we consider our own reaction if in the same situation.

but we didn't hijack civilian aircraft and fly them into buildings in order to kill as many innocent civilians as possible

as I noted there's a chasmous difference between targetting civilians and making efforts to avoid them

there's a huge difference between punishing those who harm civilians and lauding them

there is no reason to consider the POV of the attackers unless it is a reasonable point of view. If it isn't reasonable then it benefits us little to consider the pov of the unreasonable.

 

[David]

but we didn't hijack civilian aircraft and fly them into buildings in order to kill as many innocent civilians as possible

as I noted there's a chasmous difference between targetting civilians and making efforts to avoid them

there's a huge difference between punishing those who harm civilians and lauding them

there is no reason to consider the POV of the attackers unless it is a reasonable point of view. If it isn't reasonable then it benefits us little to consider the pov of the unreasonable.

He was getting more to stuff like getting your family killed by an off target bomb, having your gov't overthrown, having your nation raped and occupied, ect. How would you react? What emotions would you feel? That is what must be considered. The idea isn't to see things the terrorists way, it's to see things the way people prone to become terrorist see them so that we may better counter them. As I said before, understand your enemy. But because he's Muslim, people are purposely misunderstanding him and claiming that he's justifying their actions.

 

[obtuseobserver]

He was getting more to stuff like getting your family killed by an off target bomb, having your gov't overthrown, having your nation raped and occupied, ect. How would you react? What emotions would you feel? That is what must be considered. The idea isn't to see things the terrorists way, it's to see things the way people prone to become terrorist see them so that we may better counter them. As I said before, understand your enemy. But because he's Muslim, people are purposely misunderstanding him and claiming that he's justifying their actions.

When he calls the victim an accomplice he is blaming the victim.

AQI (et al) targetted civilians

If I was an Iraqi I'd be a great deal more pissed at them

 

[David]

When he calls the victim an accomplice he is blaming the victim.

AQI (et al) targetted civilians

If I was an Iraqi I'd be a great deal more pissed at them

And if you were a Palestinian? Pakistani? If all you had ever known was the tribe, family and Islam? If you were raised to view the West as the enemy? What would you do when that 'enemy' blew away your family? Conquered your country? If you had all the information, you'd be mad and would shout the West down as brutal but you wouldn't attack understanding that you're not personally being targeted. But what if you didn't have anything but what your tribal leaders told you? What if they were extremists?

This scenario is what he was talking about. The West's usual failure to consider it before going in, guns blazing is what he's warning against.

 

[obtuseobserver]

You're getting further and further afield.

Back to Rauf... his commens certainly blamed the victim. I find that troubling. Regarding civilian deaths - I was clear where I stand on that.

The greatest enemy and killer in the region is their co-religionists. The war within Islam is the greater problem. We responded to it when it lashed out in the US (UK and Spain too). But that war for the soul of Islam is the larger issue. When it spills over into the west they now know they can expect retaliation. I don't think they believed that before 9/11. Now they do.

 

[David]

You're getting further and further afield.

Far from it, I keep telling you what he meant (I have his speech to back me up) and you keep acting like the out of context quote is the be all and end all. You ignore that the remark, even taken alone, is true and that with context, he meant nothing like what you're claiming he meant (blaming the US for 9/11).

I'm trying to get this point across to you but frankly you're argument amounts to, "Evil Muslim! He out to get us!" You're being careful to not be obvious but you're constant strawman arguments and disregard for facts is showing your true colors. Maybe your used to arguing with people that agree with you on this subject, I don't know but this entire issue is totally off the mark.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Far from it, I keep telling you what he meant (I have his speech to back me up) and you keep acting like the out of context quote is the be all and end all. You ignore that the remark, even taken alone, is true and that with context, he meant nothing like what you're claiming he meant (blaming the US for 9/11).

He did a pretty good job of saying something he didn't mean then

I'm trying to get this point across to you but frankly you're argument amounts to, "Evil Muslim! He out to get us!" You're being careful to not be obvious but you're constant strawman arguments and disregard for facts is showing your true colors. Maybe your used to arguing with people that agree with you on this subject, I don't know but this entire issue is totally off the mark.

I'm not making any argument at all. I said his comment blamed the victim. You disagree. OK.

For you use that comment to assert racism is just straight fucked up. You are employing a common technique of the left. When some one disagrees call him a homophobic bigot, a muslim hater etc etc. Congrats you stooped to that level.

As for your efforts... good lord man. You are telling me people don't like having their families, cities etc destroyed by war. Does that need explaining? No. I don't need speeches to acknowledge that water is wet. So, then we are left with acts. Does that fact that war is hell justify terrorism? If not then there is no point in this discussion. If yes, I disagree.

 

[AK_ID]

Don't muddy the waters with facts, Obtuse.

 

[AK_ID]

He was getting more to stuff like getting your family killed by an off target bomb, having your gov't overthrown, having your nation raped and occupied, ect. How would you react? What emotions would you feel? That is what must be considered. The idea isn't to see things the terrorists way, it's to see things the way people prone to become terrorist see them so that we may better counter them. As I said before, understand your enemy. But because he's Muslim, people are purposely misunderstanding him and claiming that he's justifying their actions.

I purposefully misunderstand Charlie Manson, too. Guess that makes me a bigot.

 

[AK_ID]

I think (as every logical person does) that we caused many of the problems that fueled the anger and hatred that lead to 9/11.

That is unsubstantiated opinion, and suggests that anyone who thinks differently is not a logical thinker. Try again.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I think (as every logical person does) that we caused many of the problems that fueled the anger and hatred that lead to 9/11.

As is your right. I don't share in that opinion. I find most people when asked to give specific examples resort to vagueries and then bow out of the conversation because every example they offer sucks at best.

Assuming that you are correct for sake of argument does that anger justify 9/11? Of course not.

As that anger cannot justify 9/11 you must certainly be able to understand that when a man says the US was an accomplice to 9/11 that such a statement will draw fierce objection because it blames the victim - accomplice means partner in crime. By definition Rauf was giving some blame to the US which means that he was justifying 9/11.

Now, back to that other bunch of bullshit you came up with. I made no comment about "Muslims" in this thread. My criticism was directed at one man and one comment. For you to extrapolate upward and outward and determnine that I am an islamaphobe is not only logically bankrupt based on what I said it is patently offensive for attributing to me thoughts, comments etc I did not make in order to issue your snide remarks. They are baseless, rash and very upsetting. If you don't want to engage in discission with me then don't. But that shit was weak.