Community Center Near Ground Zero

[tyranim]

That list is innacurate.  The official list from the department of energy says otherwise.
< Link and stuff >

Oh, you surprised me, you know your stuff for the most part.  Most people don't even list a source.

Either way, my initial point stands.  Muslims DID NOT cause 9/11.  Blaming them for something they did not do is ignorance and intolerance, please refrain from doing it.

I don't blame Muslims, I never said I did.  What I am saying is that we cannot act as if the radicals were not associated with the religion.  Nobody is being punished by not allowing the building to be built, instead we just don't want another to be built so close to ground-zero.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/dodds.mosques.new.york/index.html) is a CNN article that supports your opinion, of course, but does bring up something interesting:

"Mosques have been part of New York's rich architectural and religious mix for over a century, and today hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many whose New York roots go back generations -- attend the city's more than 100 mosques in the five boroughs."

Does there really need to be a 101st?

http://www.flockfinder.com/churches_in_tennessee.jsp
(you can count, i dont want to count what appears to be well over one hundred
i just tried to count them, i got to the e's. of there were 55 lines of 3 churches, that makes at least 150 churches up to "e" that enough churches for you?

[Glitch]

I don't blame Muslims, I never said I did.  What I am saying is that we cannot act as if the radicals were not associated with the religion.  Nobody is being punished by not allowing the building to be built, instead we just don't want another to be built so close to ground-zero.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/dodds.mosques.new.york/index.html) is a CNN article that supports your opinion, of course, but does bring up something interesting:

"Mosques have been part of New York's rich architectural and religious mix for over a century, and today hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many whose New York roots go back generations -- attend the city's more than 100 mosques in the five boroughs."

Does there really need to be a 101st?

Ah, and here we reach a beautiful part of the argument.  When both sides understand each other and yet disagree.  No longer is the disagreement due to ignorance, but due to intelligence.  I would like you to imagine a scenario for me.

The KKK are tired of the current U.S. leadership due to his ethnicity.  As he is Hawaiian, they bomb Hawaii.  Would it be appropriate for a Habitat for Humanity building that was damaged in the bombing to move to a larger building, perhaps closer to where the bombs landed?

[Dragoon1140]

http://www.flockfinder.com/churches_in_tennessee.jsp
(you can count, i dont want to count what appears to be well over one hundred

Mostly unrelated.  Anyway, perhaps I phrased what I wanted to say incorrectly.  I should have said "Should there be another one built so close to a place so respected?"

[Dragoon1140]

Ah, and here we reach a beautiful part of the argument.  When both sides understand each other and yet disagree.  No longer is the disagreement due to ignorance, but due to intelligence.  I would like you to imagine a scenario for me.

The KKK are tired of the current U.S. leadership due to his ethnicity.  As he is Hawaiian, they bomb Hawaii.  Would it be appropriate for a Habitat for Humanity building that was damaged in the bombing to move to a larger building, perhaps closer to where the bombs landed?

In that event, yes, it is okay for the HaH to move to another location, which is close to the bombing area.  However, the bombing area was not one of the tallest, most populated buildings in the world.  Thus, nobody would think of it as "the KKK bombing <insert very important building>," instead they would think of it as "the bombing in Hawaii."

[Glitch]

Sure, but it's one of the most beautiful places in the world, an oasis of a quickly disintegrating culture?

Are you saying that if the KKK had bombed a more important location the Habitat for Humanity building would be less appropriate?

[Dragoon1140]

Sure, but it's one of the most beautiful places in the world, an oasis of a quickly disintegrating culture?

Are you saying that if the KKK had bombed a more important location the Habitat for Humanity building would be less appropriate?

No, not location, building.  If the KKK targeted and bombed, say, the biggest and most used airport in all of Hawaii, then I would disapprove of the HaH building something so close to such a memorable place, if the HaH directly relates to the KKK.

[tyranim]

I don't blame Muslims, I never said I did.  What I am saying is that we cannot act as if the radicals were not associated with the religion.  Nobody is being punished by not allowing the building to be built, instead we just don't want another to be built so close to ground-zero.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/dodds.mosques.new.york/index.html) is a CNN article that supports your opinion, of course, but does bring up something interesting:

"Mosques have been part of New York's rich architectural and religious mix for over a century, and today hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many whose New York roots go back generations -- attend the city's more than 100 mosques in the five boroughs."

Does there really need to be a 101st?

Ah, and here we reach a beautiful part of the argument.  When both sides understand each other and yet disagree.  No longer is the disagreement due to ignorance, but due to intelligence.  I would like you to imagine a scenario for me.

The KKK are tired of the current U.S. leadership due to his ethnicity.  As he is Hawaiian, they bomb Hawaii.  Would it be appropriate for a Habitat for Humanity building that was damaged in the bombing to move to a larger building, perhaps closer to where the bombs landed?

somewhat the samething he said, but replace habitat for humanity to church, and replace the moving thing to just building one.
(almost all kkk members are christian, if not all)

[Boingo]

Muslims DID NOT cause 9/11.

Now who's being naive?

The September 11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) is a militant Islamist group. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.

To deny al-Qaeda perpetrated the attacks is to buy into some conspiracy theory or another.  To deny al-Qaeda is an Islamist group is just silly. 

What you really ought to be arguing is that the Muslims who are trying to build the mosque are not the radical splinter group of Muslims that flew planes into buildings, and therefore should not be held accountable for the crazy actions of crazy people.  Just don't deny simple facts like the religious affiliation of the terrorists involved.

[BluePriest]

(almost all kkk members are christian, if not all)

Id like a source. Im a little disappointed. This seems to be the exact type of statement you usually seem to speak out against. Unless of course it was sarcasm, then excuse this post.

[Glitch]

I don't blame Muslims, I never said I did.  What I am saying is that we cannot act as if the radicals were not associated with the religion.  Nobody is being punished by not allowing the building to be built, instead we just don't want another to be built so close to ground-zero.

Here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/dodds.mosques.new.york/index.html) is a CNN article that supports your opinion, of course, but does bring up something interesting:

"Mosques have been part of New York's rich architectural and religious mix for over a century, and today hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many whose New York roots go back generations -- attend the city's more than 100 mosques in the five boroughs."

Does there really need to be a 101st?

Ah, and here we reach a beautiful part of the argument.  When both sides understand each other and yet disagree.  No longer is the disagreement due to ignorance, but due to intelligence.  I would like you to imagine a scenario for me.

Muslims DID NOT cause 9/11.

Now who's being naive?

The September 11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) is a militant Islamist group. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.

To deny al-Qaeda perpetrated the attacks is to buy into some conspiracy theory or another.  To deny al-Qaeda is an Islamist group is just silly. 

What you really ought to be arguing is that the Muslims who are trying to build the mosque are not the radical splinter group of Muslims that flew planes into buildings, and therefore should not be held accountable for the crazy actions of crazy people.  Just don't deny simple facts like the religious affiliation of the terrorists involved.

Saying that Al-queda are Muslims is like saying the KKK are Christians.  In my opinion, neither are the case.

The KKK are tired of the current U.S. leadership due to his ethnicity.  As he is Hawaiian, they bomb Hawaii.  Would it be appropriate for a Habitat for Humanity building that was damaged in the bombing to move to a larger building, perhaps closer to where the bombs landed?

somewhat the samething he said, but replace habitat for humanity to church, and replace the moving thing to just building one.
(almost all kkk members are christian, if not all)

Habitat for Humanity is a church based building that assists the community.  The building they wish to MOVE TO is a church based building that assists the community.  They aren't building one, they're moving from one that's already there to a vacant one.

(almost all kkk members are christian, if not all)

Id like a source. Im a little disappointed. This seems to be the exact type of statement you usually seem to speak out against. Unless of course it was sarcasm, then excuse this post.

The KKK considers themselves Christian, but as I stated above, I do not consider them to be so.
Ugh, quotes got all screwed up.

[tyranim]

lol, just as i dont consider people who believe in reincarnation to be truely buddhist. (not a joke)
p.s. i didnt know anything about the HoH, so i didnt use that in my example.
and as for the rest, i detect a bit of hpocracy, in both glitch and dragoon

The KKK are tired of the current U.S. leadership due to his ethnicity.  As he is Hawaiian, they bomb Hawaii.  Would it be appropriate for a Habitat for Humanity building that was damaged in the bombing to move to a larger building, perhaps closer to where the bombs landed?

Saying that Al-queda are Muslims is like saying the KKK are Christians.  In my opinion, neither are the case.

and

Ah, and here we reach a beautiful part of the argument.  When both sides understand each other and yet disagree.  No longer is the disagreement due to ignorance, but due to intelligence.  I would like you to imagine a scenario for me.

The KKK are tired of the current U.S. leadership due to his ethnicity.  As he is Hawaiian, they bomb Hawaii.  Would it be appropriate for a Habitat for Humanity building that was damaged in the bombing to move to a larger building, perhaps closer to where the bombs landed?

In that event, yes, it is okay for the HaH to move to another location, which is close to the bombing area.  However, the bombing area was not one of the tallest, most populated buildings in the world.  Thus, nobody would think of it as "the KKK bombing <insert very important building>," instead they would think of it as "the bombing in Hawaii."

Besides that, I would say the same thing if Christian radicals bombed a building in another country, I wouldn't want a church built so close to where radicals of that religion killed so many people.  I don't care about the color of their skin.

(the following is not included in the hypocracy, just a reply)

Muslims DID NOT cause 9/11.

Now who's being naive?

The September 11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) is a militant Islamist group. It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.

To deny al-Qaeda perpetrated the attacks is to buy into some conspiracy theory or another.  To deny al-Qaeda is an Islamist group is just silly. 

What you really ought to be arguing is that the Muslims who are trying to build the mosque are not the radical splinter group of Muslims that flew planes into buildings, and therefore should not be held accountable for the crazy actions of crazy people.  Just don't deny simple facts like the religious affiliation of the terrorists involved.

ive spoken to quite a bit of people about this, some who lived in new york at the time, some who are involved with the news, and some who are heavily into politics. and all of them said IT WAS NOT AL QAEDA who bombed the twin towers

[BluePriest]

This is the part I enjoy. We all are on one thing, debating whos facts are right. This is the ultimate point, and theres no way to know for certain. For whether the people were al queda or not, doesnt matter who you talk to. If they were in new york they have no more knowledge than someone in ohio.

btw, it wasnt al queda, we attacked ourselves, didnt you know that ? http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911_a_hoax.htm