地狱的花 said, June 10, 2010, 05:36:52 pmnavetsea said, June 10, 2010, 02:45:49 pm地狱的花 said, June 10, 2010, 10:48:49 amthose who bombed the twin towers ain't muslims those people are just manipulators. if you can't build a moque in ground zero then please remove the jews from israel and all christian church in jerusalem or all catholic churches in taiwan and macao.I don't see any connection that make sense here?many muslims died because of this so called crusade to take back the holy land. why is it holy anyway it's just dirt.it was a war both parties fight for their ideal totally different than terrorist act, as if arabs don't have wars among each other and what about macao and taiwan?
yes it is war but who is the one invading.and how about in the south east asia where catholic priest forced people to convert or they exile you from your own land.
地狱的花 said, June 11, 2010, 03:53:53 amyes it is war but who is the one invading.and how about in the south east asia where catholic priest forced people to convert or they exile you from your own land.the land is the hotspot of all abrahamic religions, it was pretty valid reason to have war there when all parties want to own it for themself and kick each other out.I live in south east asia, and christian is a minority everywhere in south east asia except philipines, but it's all the same with areas with muslim majority populated in my country where restaurant forced to close during their fasting month or else getting vandalized by a pickup truck full of muslims, they say it proudly on tv while breaking chairs and tables saying "praise allah, mohammed is the the prophet!!" so if they're fasting everybody else should starve along with them so they don't be a temptation for the fasting muslims,how about that?it's not the religion that is wrong, but the retarded extremists are, and if those extremists have been given license to teach their own point of view of their religion to others then it will make everything worse.
TSUKASA (´･ω･`) said, June 10, 2010, 02:44:06 pmi don't get it? why would it be an insult? it's not the muslims wanted it to be bombed... and isn't some of the workers there are muslims?地狱的花 said, June 10, 2010, 10:48:49 amthose who bombed the twin towers ain't muslims those people are just manipulators. if you can't build a moque in ground zero then please remove the jews from israel and all christian church in jerusalem or all catholic churches in taiwan and macao.hey i thought you're a catholic?You are not allowed to quote yourself.
Ok so Muslim "Islamic's" insurgence supposedly blew up the world trade centers and now they cant have a mosque in the vicinity. But the "In GOD WE TRUST" American Army annihilates Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all over and around the boming site there catholic churches lol. Come on Americans we can surely stand to look a little bit more dignified... or can we?New York (AsiaNews) – Archbishop Joseph Mitsuaki Takami of Nagasaki and Bishop Joseph Atsumi Misue of Hiroshima appealed to world leader to realise the madness of atomic weapons. They did so by bringing the story of the one nation that experienced an atomic attack. Both clergymen travelled to New York for the 2010 review conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which opened on Monday with a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and which will close on 28 May.
I have respect for all People of the Book (Muslims/Jews/Christians), and love them equally. At a cursory glance, I felt that building a mosque near Ground Zero would be indelicate and in bad taste at the very worst, but freedom of religion is an important tenet in our U.S. Constitution.That said, life experience has taught me to research not only the stated action, but the motivations of the actor. After reading about the background and beliefs of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (religious leader and owner of the real estate upon which the mosque will potentially be posited), I found that despite his current calls for moderation, he actually supports da’wah and the implementation of Sharia in the U.S. Those of you who have read the Quran (as I have) will recall that da'wah is basically Islamic proselytizing, though in an aggressive manner. In current (and historic) Islamic law, da’wah precedes jihad. It is meant as a beacon to call the nonbelievers to Islam. If they refuse to accept, then jihad is initiated against them. In Islam, the purpose of both da’wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one.I don't necessarily believe Imam Feisal wants blood in the streets on a massive scale, but I certainly don't fault anyone who finds his motivations suspect and are consequently offended by his actions and beliefs...
QuoteThose of you who have read the Quran (as I have) will recall that da'wah is basically Islamic proselytizing, though in an aggressive manner. In current (and historic) Islamic law, da’wah precedes jihad. It is meant as a beacon to call the nonbelievers to Islam. If they refuse to accept, then jihad is initiated against them. In Islam, the purpose of both da’wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one.where did this come from
I'm still waiting for the papers to go through for my floating Jujutsu dojo in Pearl Harbor.I agree with the other guy on page 1.They have all the legal standings to open this thing, but c'mon. Have some fucking sense.
Hahaha! I love that mosque idea more and more every time I hear about it! I hope it gets built just for the laughs.QuoteThey have all the legal standings to open this thing, but c'mon. Have some fucking sense.I agree with that too, I'm sure they knew some nut bags would go ape shit over it. But I think misinformation about is the biggest problem. It tends to be reported and then misunderstood that the mosque is being built directly on top of or looming directly over ground zero as opposed to being built a block or two away. I just googled the location/distance and found a google page listing full of "within spitting distance" of ground zero. Pretty shitty stories on it, but it doesn't excuse the strong and mostly idiotic outcry over the mosque.Oh and off-topic,Nero D. said, June 09, 2010, 08:17:40 pmForum posting is an imaginary boxing match!LOL! Just noticed that post. I hope round 3 is more intense and memorable for me than the first two were! I am 100% totally sorry I don't care enough to check back or remember all of my post history, I hope you will forgive me for this late response.
This has got to be the silliest thing I have ever heard. The only asses in this situation are those who support the building of a mosque so close to a site well-known for its cnnection to passionate feelings. It's as if they're saying, 'let's completely disregard America's (much less New York's) reputation for unreasonable action and put ourselves directly into the line of fire of their impassioned emotions.' They know exactly what they're are doing; they're tempting idiots. Funny thing is, I think a grave little lesson will come of it; "Temp a fool, and the fool will make an ass out of you (aka you are the damn fool)."Jeraude Reuisu said, June 11, 2010, 02:15:08 pmOk so Muslim "Islamic's" insurgence supposedly blew up the world trade centers and now they cant have a mosque in the vicinity. But the "In GOD WE TRUST" American Army annihilates Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all over and around the boming site there catholic churches lol. Come on Americans we can surely stand to look a little bit more dignified... or can we?Who in their right mind makes a logical argument, giving commentary on people who are clearly not logical. I could wipe my ass with a post like this. Life lesson: the world isn't logical. Post something "realistic" not idealistic.Atomic said, June 13, 2010, 07:43:34 pm...In current (and historic) Islamic law, da’wah precedes jihad. It is meant as a beacon to call the nonbelievers to Islam. If they refuse to accept, then jihad is initiated against them. In Islam, the purpose of both da’wah and jihad is to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the nonbelievers as a political system, not as a religious one.So tell us oh wise one: "What exactly does Jihad mean?" because to me, your post makes you sound familiarly misinformed.Iced said, June 09, 2010, 11:09:45 amSeveral people are protesting it, claiming it to be symbolic of the dominance of islam in a place where many died for that religionThis was bothering me. I believe you mean, "because of."
This is ridiculous why would anyone consider building one there. Its practically insulting the dead and America!
TheChosenOne said, July 16, 2010, 04:56:14 amThis is ridiculous why would anyone consider building one there. Its practically insulting the dead and America! But 911 wasn't Islam attacking america. They were Islamic radicals, a few bad fucks who shouldn't be bringing down the rest of the religion. Not to say that it's perfectly okay for the mosque to be built. I think that the Islamic leaders (I guess it'd be the Islamic version of a priest who'd be in charge) probably know better than to be stepping on people's toes like this, regardless if it's right or wrong for them to build so close to ground zero, but It'd look worse on the rest of the country to flat out say "no you can't build here". How can we say that we're a just country while we judge a whole culture based on one particular group from that culture?Shundhi said, July 16, 2010, 04:47:57 amThis has got to be the silliest thing I have ever heard.ironic seeing as how your username sounds like it should Islamic.
I see your point, but doesn't it send an odd message if we build a mosque where many people died in the name of that religion.
technically, only the terrorist died in the name of that religion, but I know what you're saying.I think the message that we would be sending would seem odd, but only towards those who suffered from the attack, whether they had loved ones who died or were survivors of the attack, but if they're anger is towards the entire religion, I think they're anger is misguided. Wouldn't it sound silly to kill all bears on the planet because a bear mauled your brother? Americans are granted the right to practice whatever religion they want, where ever they want, and if we're allowed to have crazy radical Christians protest for the flat out murder of people they deem "evil" where ever they want we should let normal, presumably peaceful Muslims practice where they want.but, as much as I hate to admit it, I don't think a Mosque anywhere near ground zero would be safe for the Muslims who worship there. We had skinheads plotting to assassinate Obama before he was even elected. It'd be stupid not to think that some Numb-nutt wouldn't at least try to burn down the mosque.
I named myself after a friend.Righteously Egor said, July 16, 2010, 05:41:37 amIt'd look worse on the rest of the country to flat out say "no you can't build here". How can we say that we're a just country while we judge a whole culture based on one particular group from that culture?That is not necessarily correct and I'm sure that you know that it is not. It would "look bad." There are so many things that we as a nation do that should (do) "look bad" and nothing comes of it. With what is either knowledge of that, or purposeful eschewing of that reality, we still call our country good, just, free, etc. amidst our violations although it "looks bad." Your post does not reflect reality. Again, people at large do not operate logically and hypocrisy (much less recognition of one's own hypocrisy) is meaningless to most people. Evidently that would apply to the protestors in question, no?Righteously Egor said, July 16, 2010, 06:10:27 ambut, as much as I hate to admit it, I don't think a Mosque anywhere near ground zero would be safe for the Muslims who worship there. We had skinheads plotting to assassinate Obama before he was even elected. It'd be stupid not to think that some Numb-nutt wouldn't at least try to burn down the mosque.That is exactly why the biggest fools here are the proponents of building a mosque near ground zero. Any silly person could and more than likely would, do something to the mosque, its attendants, or people believed to be its attendants. The idea itself is just foolish, and I can't say that I would be opposed to prohibition of its creation on the grounds that allowing it would simply cause ill-will and greatly increase the likelihood of domestically-bred violence.
Shundhi said, July 16, 2010, 06:29:26 amI named myself after a friend.Righteously Egor said, July 16, 2010, 05:41:37 amIt'd look worse on the rest of the country to flat out say "no you can't build here". How can we say that we're a just country while we judge a whole culture based on one particular group from that culture?That is not necessarily correct and I'm sure that you know that it is not. It would "look bad." There are so many things that we as a nation do that should (do) "look bad" and nothing comes of it. With what is either knowledge of that, or purposeful eschewing of that reality, we still call our country good, just, free, etc. amidst our violations although it "looks bad." Your post does not reflect reality. Again, people at large do not operate logically and hypocrisy (much less recognition of one's own hypocrisy) is meaningless to most people. Evidently that would apply to the protestors in question, no?and it sucks that that's generally how things work, but I don't think that making our country the way that we claim it to be is unrealistic though. I'd just say that it's highly unprobable in our lifetime. Saying that it isn't realistic for people to realize their hypocrisy isn't necessarily right either. One needn't look further than woman's rights or civil rights movements. but like I said, a complete 180 on an issue such as this probably won't happen anytime soon.
