Merged Two Mosques to be built near Ground Zero

[Thunder]

How about we let them build the mosques and then just let the righties stand out front shouting obscenities 24/7 and repeatedly vandalize the places?

folks have the right to stand outside of building and yell obsenities. though, they could be charged with harrassment and loitering.

you know, if you build a new synagogue, Nazis may come and harrass them. i guess we shouldnt build any new synagogues.

Muslims believe that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges, so they force WOMEN to cover themselves. same logic.

 

[Thunder]

Manopolus- do you believe in Freedom of Religion and private-property rights?

do you believe that we should strive to be a tolerant society..where different faiths and cultures are respected?

 

[Cleon]

We also have every right not to increase a law enforcement presence in the area solely for their benefit.

Really? The police aren't obligated to protect citizens if there's a reasonable suspicion they may be attacked?

What a curious and frightening world you live in.

 

[Manopolus]

folks have the right to stand outside of building and yell obsenities. though, they could be charged with harrassment and loitering.

you know, if you build a new synagogue, Nazis may come and harrass them. i guess we shouldnt build any new synagogues.

Muslims believe that men are incapable of controlling their sexual urges, so they force WOMEN to cover themselves. same logic.

hmm... Please point to the place in my post that said they shouldn't be allowed to build the mosques... I wasn't being sarcastic, actually. I merely said that it's a stupid idea on the part of the guys that want to build them.

Manopolus- do you believe in Freedom of Religion and private-property rights?

do you believe that we should strive to be a tolerant society..where different faiths and cultures are respected?

Absolutely, on both counts.

Really? The police aren't obligated to protect citizens if there's a reasonable suspicion they may be attacked?

What a curious and frightening world you live in.

Given that police presence is a bit spotty in certain places in our inner cities as it is... why should we pull resources from elsewhere to protect property which was ill advised? If they want/need extra protection, I suggest they hire a security agency.

 

[Cleon]

Given that police presence is a bit spotty in certain places in our inner cities as it is... why should we pull resources from elsewhere to protect property which was ill advised?

Because it's their job. This is why we have a police force; to protect people. Even people you may not personally like. Suck it up and deal.

I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could see allowing people to attack innocents is somehow a "solution."

 

[Manopolus]

Because it's their job. This is why we have a police force; to protect people. Even people you may not personally like. Suck it up and deal.

I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone could see allowing people to attack innocents is somehow a "solution."

I hardly see the erection of these places an "innocent" act. It was intended to cause havoc from the beginning. Letting them suffer the consequences of their own actions is hardly "allowing people to attack innocents."

And don't get me wrong... if there is a clear and present threat, the police should do their job just like anywhere else. However, under everyday circumstances, I don't see why this place should be afforded any more protection than any business in the area... which means that most likely that they will often be vandalized, broken into, possibly firebombed, etc. Vandals don't tend to announce their presence before hand. I'm not on the side of such criminals, I am merely predicting the results. There's a whole lot more people within driving distance of New York that are upset about it then there are Muslims in the area.

 

[Cleon]

I hardly see the erection of these places an "innocent" act. It was intended to cause havoc from the beginning.

Evidence?


...No, I didn't think you had any.

Letting them suffer the consequences of their own actions

It's not their actions that they're suffering the consequences of; it's the lunatics attacking them, and the people egging them on (ie, you).

is hardly "allowing people to attack innocents."

Freedom of religion is still the law of the land. Ergo, people worshiping in a mosque are innocents. Preventing police from protecting them from bigoted lunatics, like you suggest, is most definitely "allowing people to attack innocents."

You are endorsing a Kristallnacht against the Muslims of New York City.

 

[Thunder]

I hardly see the erection of these places an "innocent" act. It was intended to cause havoc from the beginning. Letting them suffer the consequences of their own actions is hardly "allowing people to attack innocents."

ever heard of blaming the victim?

ever heard of tolerance and liberty?

you know, this is America, not Berlin during Kristalnacht. Just thought I'd point that out to you.

 

[Manopolus]

ever heard of blaming the victim?

ever heard of tolerance and liberty?

you know, this is America, not Berlin during Kristalnacht. Just thought I'd point that out to you.

A bit of a difference here... nowhere did I suggest that the government should destroy the place, after all... and please note that I have as little regard for those protesting against it as I do for those trying to erect the mosques.

Anyone associated with the plans to build them that thought it wouldn't be a problem would have to be incredibly stupid. I don't believe it. On the contrary, I think the plan was to illicit exactly the type of response that it got.

These two hate groups deserve each other. The rational thing to do is just stand back and watch them go at it... and prevent both from influencing the law to any extent.

 

[Cleon]

A bit of a difference here... nowhere did I suggest that the government should destroy the place, after all

Right. You're suggesting that the government should allow an angry mob to destroy the place, which is much better.

On the contrary, I think the plan was to illicit exactly the type of response that it got.

I'll ask again: Evidence?

These two hate groups deserve each other.

Evidence that the people building the mosque are a "hate group?"

 

[Manopolus]

Right. You're suggesting that the government should allow an angry mob to destroy the place, which is much better.

I'll ask again: Evidence?

Evidence that the people building the mosque are a "hate group?"

Location is enough evidence for me. Or do you think that it was somehow random? I'm rather skeptical of the second notion. Also, from the article in the OP:

In fact, the website appealing for donations boldly states that it plans to “build the 'House of Allah' next to the World Trade Center. Help us raise the flag of 'LA ILLAH ILLA ALLAH' in downtown Manhattan."

It is quite clearly meant to cause a controversy, at the very least. I hardly consider provocateurs innocent.

 

[Cleon]

Location is enough evidence for me.

So you're choosing to believe this "just cuz." OK.

Or do you think that it was somehow random?

Lower Manhattan, at the site of an existing mosque? No, I don't think it was random.

It is quite clearly meant to cause a controversy, at the very least.

No, you're assuming it's meant to start a controversy. I fail to see how putting the shahada on a flag makes it "clearly meant" to be controversial. It ranks up there with putting a cross on a church, or a mogen david on a synagogue. BFD.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Given that police presence is a bit spotty in certain places in our inner cities as it is... why should we pull resources from elsewhere to protect property which was ill advised?

So, we should allow these crimes to be committed, because if we don't, then crimes will be committed. what

Location is enough evidence for me. Or do you think that it was somehow random?

I'm hoping you will agree that, in general, when a mosque is built, the location is not decided at random. There are a multitude of factors that play into the decision, just like there are factors for the construction of any building anywhere. If you disagree with this part, let me know.

But if you don't disagree, then the burden still lies upon you to demonstrate that the intent to start controversy played any role whatsoever in the decision of this site. Please do so.

 

[Polaris]

All evidence points to the 9/11/11 date as being an unsubstantiated rumor. The fact that you keep repeating it as fact, despite having been informed of its dubious nature, speaks volumes about your honesty.

I don't appreciate being called a liar, friend. I've seen this claim several times on this and other threads without a debunking - not saying it wasn't there, just that I haven't seen it.

 

[DC]

I don't appreciate being called a liar, friend. I've seen this claim several times on this and other threads without a debunking - not saying it wasn't there, just that I haven't seen it.

now now, do we now claim without evidence and it is true until debunked?

 

[Manopolus]

Oh, do we need more evidence of intent? My bad:

The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.

From:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zerQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL

I didn't honestly think that this was a debatable part of it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I don't appreciate being called a liar, friend. I've seen this claim several times on this and other threads without a debunking - not saying it wasn't there, just that I haven't seen it.

But what is the source of this information? Widely-held misconceptions do exist.

 

[Cleon]

I don't appreciate being called a liar, friend. I've seen this claim several times on this and other threads without a debunking - not saying it wasn't there, just that I haven't seen it.

I owe you an apology. I confused you with Pardalis, who is making similar arguments and has also repeated the 9/11/11 rumor.

However, the organizers have stated point-blank that the rumor is false and no opening date has been set. It's purely a fabrication from the rumor mill.

 

[Cleon]

Oh, do we need more evidence of intent? My bad:



From:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL

A debunked rumor. Sorry.

 

[Pardalis]

I owe you an apology. I confused you with Pardalis, who is making similar arguments and has also repeated the 9/11/11 rumor.

Could you tell me where specifically I've done that? The exact quote would be nice. Thanks.

The only thing I can see that got you confused is that I once said I found it ironic that the center will be built before the Freedom tower. I never mentioned the date.