Because of drug dealers, not Christians.

And 100% of the population doesn't want to pay taxes, but you know that the majority doesn't always rule.

I'm not addressing this at you, but they have the LEGAL right to build this wherever they want. It's more hypocrosy from the right when they clutch the Constitution when it involves their precious guns but want to ignore it when they don't happen to agree.

I am using logic. Don't you think this mosque is going to be a hotspot for all kinds of protests and possible attacks? Is it right for the people in this neighborhood to be forced to have their own lives put more at risk? Especially when there are already hundreds of other places available? At some point aren't the rights of others that are negatively effected by the stubborness and insensitivty of these people protected as well? And please explain to me how you, me or anyone else can tell the difference between a mosque built by supporters of Al Queda or one built by non supporters? You have heard that the guys who originally bombed the WTC were locals (NJ) right?

As I have stated many times in this thread we aren't denying the right to build, nor are we saying that the intentions of the people of this mosque will be anything but peaceful, but that the location is a bad idea and people who don't understand why are simply not seeing the reality of the situation. Muslims terrorists have twice attacked this area, killing thousands of people. A Muslim terrorist attempted to bomb a car recently about 40 blocks away. Why anyone would be surprised that people are wary of a mosque being built there is amazing.

No one here and very few from the right are denying the muslms have a constitutional right to build. We're just not coming out in support of it and under the first ammendment that expression of non-support is also a right.

And BTW second ammendment rights in Chicago have been denied for over 20 years and it took a patient African American with the last name McDonald over 10years to 'right' that 'wrong'.

No one is ignoring the constitution rights, just trying to explain why the loaction is a poor choice and why those who agree that it is a poor location don't believe that "all muslims are terrorists".

Much the same as ElPrezBo embraces the constitution when it suits his needs - albeit infrequently?

It shouldn't be a right vs. left issue. It should be a right vs. wrong issue, and it's just flat out WRONG to build that building where they want to put it. And, is it really just a mosque? It's supposed to be a cultural center with lots of other things going on - even a swimming pool. How does religious freedom play into that?

The vast majority of Muslims live in Bay Ridge Brooklyn. I would think a cultural center in that location would be of more benefit.

I doubt the Muslims in charge of this project could give two hoots in hell over the sensitivity of Americans.

I don't think your points are bad at all, I just disagree entirely, but the point above IS bad, IS terrible logic, and shouldn't hold any weight at all.

You're saying that if they build a mosque, some people will protest it or possibly attack it, so they shouldn't build it? It's been approved....by the people in the neighborhood, so you probably don't need to worry about them too much.

If people attack it, they're criminals and should be treated as such -- and therefore, you've got a criminal problem that is not the fault of the people building the mosque. And mosques have been attacked and vandalized in other states as well, so that holds no water whatsoever.

"Some people might break the law in retaliation" is not an argument for not building the mosque there. It's like saying we shouldn't build highways because some people might speed on it and endanger those are not breaking the law. :zz:

You are ignoring that location isnt an ordinary location. While you are corrrect in that people who do such things are criminals and they are everywhere, the chances of an incident in this location are far greater than the same place just a short distance away.

The approval was a given. They cant discriminate on religious grounds, this has been established. That doesn't mean it is not going to be a source of issues.

Still, it doesn't matter. Whether the location is in the woods in Montana or four blocks from Ground Zero, if people can't control themselves and NOT be criminals, that's 100% on them, no matter what.

You may sympathize with people who would like to throw a bomb or a brick through a window there, but the location doesn't make them anything less than common criminal trash if they can't be bothered to control their fear and anger and not lash out. Hold a sign, write an op-ed, whatever, but whether the location is "ordinary" or not is completely irrelevant.

You know what makes the "chances" of an "incident" go up with something like this? People who can't be bothered to act like respectable citizens and commit crimes instead. Trying to put the onus to avoid crime on the potential victim of the crime is patently absurd. I wonder how you feel about women walking alone in short skirts at night.

Please cast more stones. You and Riot continue to be unable to discuss an issue without trying to color others as something they are not. Pot meet kettle.

Acting as though this site isn't far different than almost every other site in the country seems silly. Just as Riot can't seem to come to grips with stating that Muslims terrorists have twice attacked the area doesn't mean you think all Muslims are terrorists, pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

This idealism believing that somehow all things are equal and the world is a logical place runs contrary to real life.

I'm not pretending that the site is not more likely to be attacked because of where it is. It certainly is, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to freely exercise their religion wherever they see fit without fear of being attacked. Mosques are targets in other parts of the country -- and they're only attacked because people commit crimes against them.

It doesn't matter one ounce where it is. If people don't act like criminals, then it won't get attacked -- that's the end of the story. Potential victims of crimes are not the ones responsible for making sure that they don't become victims of crimes. Do you know why crimes happen? Because criminals commit them. Period. No amount of emotion based on location or past events absolves criminals of that responsibility, and the people building in this location are not, and should not, be responsible for those who may commit crimes against them.

Really though -- how far is the acceptable buffer zone where they won't be responsible for the attacks criminals commit against them? How far away until they're not asking for it?

Is Memphis far enough away? Dayton? Jacksonville? Winston-Salem? Texas? Winnipeg? Maybe Sweden?

The reason mosques get attacked is because trash criminals can't control themselves.....not because where they're built. Trying to say that they have a responsibility to go somewhere else is just a backdoor way of essentially making it so that criminals aren't responsible for their own actions, I mean, if ONLY they hadn't shoved it in everyone's faces and built it there.

On one hand you say that the site IS more likely to be attacked then you say it won't get attacked unless people don't act like criminals? Well what if you were the business next store? How would you feel then knowing that the site next to you IS more likely to be attacked meaning that you are in greater danger through no fault of your own.

Once again we aren't advocating taking away any freedoms from these people but are showing concern for the other citizens of the area who are now at more risk because of the choice of location. Does that mean we should force them to move or stop them from building or sympathize with those that would do them harm? No. But assuming that anyone who believes that the people building the mosque have made a poor choice of a location doesn't mean we are racist or insensitive. Just trying to use common sense.

israel is a big part of it. and iran has hated us since we gave the deposed shah asylum back in the day

Ignoring the 2 WTC incidents and being 2 blocks away doesn't mean that the reasoning isn't valid. Each situation is different obviously.

It's more likely to be attacked because criminals will be criminals and there is an anti-Muslim fear/hatred that lots of people have - maybe not you, but the long list of mosques that get attacked all over the place prove over and over that location is not why these places get attacked, but because people hate Muslims. If people can't control themselves and their fear and emotions and desire to lash out uncontrollably against people who didn't commit 9/11 for what happened on 9/11, then that's their problem. If that increases the risk of attack, then that's still their fault, not the fault of the people building the mosque wherever they choose, with the support from the community council that voted 29-1 to approve it.

If I'm the business next door, then I would hope that hoodlum criminals don't commit crimes in my neighborhood, and I'd certainly blame the people committing crimes rather than the victims of the crime for somehow inviting that crime upon themselves. It's still not their fault, and still not their responsibility to ensure that criminals who hate Muslims don't attack them.

Iran doesn't hate us. Iran's leaders use us as a justification for their behavior. The clerics used our relations with the Shah as a justification to create the anarchy that allowed them to rise to power and hold it.

And is there a greater example of Islamic intolerence than what is regularly said about or done to Israel by Muslims?

Do you hate Venezuela because their leader claims he hates us and has befriended the Iranians? The Iranian people hate their govt far worse than they hate us.

If you choose to build in a location that will increase the likelyhood of the attack then you must share in the blame and responsibility if they occur. If I open up a store in a high crime area I cant just blame criminals for robbing me. I have to take some of the responsibility for being located in an area where there is a greater chance for a crime to be comitted, not because of the nature of my business but because of its location.

Apples and oranges there.

If you open up in a high-crime area, then you know you're running that risk.

If you open a mosque in an area without high crime, and that mosque becomes a target for crime simply because it's a mosque, and not because it's a dangerous area, that's not the same thing as opening it up in a high-crime area to begin with. That's people who can't control the fear/anger at Muslims and who hate Muslims committing crimes. There's a bit of a difference there, and then what that means is that Muslims are being coerced into not freely practicing their religion, which we all agree they have the right to do, with threat of harm, and you're basically continuing to say that that's kind of okay and that they should elect to not exercise that because some people who hate Muslims can't control themselves.

And the woman walking alone in a short skirt comment wasn't entirely rhetorical either, because that's basically what you're doing here -- is saying that the victims of a potential crime are going to share in the responsibility for what criminals do to them. Same idea. Whether a woman walking alone at night is wearing a short skirt or a parka and she gets raped, the only reason she got raped is because there was a rapist there who raped her. Period. If he doesn't commit the crime, then there is no crime, the responsibility is 100% on the criminal to NOT break the law, no matter how badly he wants to, no matter how badly he thinks that if she just used some "common sense" and didn't dress provocatively, it would've lessened her chances of being a victim, and NOT on the victim to somehow ensure that they don't become the victim of a crime.

So hypothetically lets say there is a neighborhood where children have been assulted sexualy by some sick freaks years ago. In this neighborhood NAMBLA wanted to build a building where people of like minds could meet and discuss their common intrests, does anyone think that it would be ok?
Its very akin to the subject at hand, the people who are offended by the thought of a Mosque being built in close proximity to where practishoners of a certain religion commited crimes against thousands of people are no diffirent than anyone else who have been a victim of a crime.
I just dont get why the Muslims feel a need to build a place so close to where their brothers killed Americans for no other reason than hatred.

It is not even CLOSE to "akin to the subject at hand." Child rapists are criminals to begin with by their very nature.

Muslims are not.

What would actually be "akin to the subject at hand" would be a child molester's brother who doesn't agree with that behavior, who has denounced his brother, and doesn't talk to him, moving into a neighborhood, and the neighbors telling him to move out or they'll vandalize his house.

That would be stupid. Just like this.

Oh for crying out loud! The point Im making is that even if a person is a member of NMABLA and has never touched a child do you still think you would want their meeting hall in your neighborhood? Prolly not! Just like the people who had relatives and loved one's die at the hand of terrorist Muslims dont want a Mosque so close to what they consider a killing field.
I just dont get how anyone who has a bit of feeling in their person for the people killed at the trade center can see this as not offensive and disrespectfull to the people who lost their lives that day and the hundreds of rescue people who so bravely tried to save them and who are still dying today from all the **** they breathed in during rescue operations.

I'm a huge fan of Venezuelan women. Hugo Chavez? eh, maybe not so much. Though he does seem like a big character, he could be interesting to have a few beers with.

Though Venzuelan women make up for the bad things Hugo Chavez does.

And our military is 1000 x bigger & better than Venezuela, so they dont worry me much.

I feel bad for the Iranian citizens. They have no choice in the matter & everything over there is fixed. There is no way that Amedidijan or however u spell it actually won the last election. They called him the winner before half the votes were cast.

The point I'm making is that if you're a member of NAMBLA, you're part of a group whose entire purpose is to promote child rape. People who don't support the goals of NAMBLA, aka legalized child rape, don't regularly attend NAMBLA meetings as far as I know, unless there's a secret cabal of them out there that nobody knows about.

So the only way your point makes any sense at all is if you believe all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters, and their connection to the religion by default makes them incapable of not supporting terrorism (which is why the NAMBLA comparison was crap, because their group supports exactly one thing, child rape. Muslims do not support exactly one thing, terrorism) -- and people on this board go out of their way to make sure we know they don't think that. If you believe that, then that's your prerogative, but that's the only way your comparison comes close to working, and I doubt you believe that, so then the comparison doesn't work.

So if these Muslims don't support killing of Americans, don't support terrorism, then your point is a complete toss-out because it makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not that I don't understand the emotional reaction some people have, and I actually somewhat sympathize with it, but the idea that emotion or the threat of attack against this group should somehow make it so that they set up shop elsewhere (which also doesn't avoid vandalism/attack, as my post earlier clearly points out) basically takes away their right to freely practice religion by threat of force, which is rather un-American, which is why the "increased threat of attack against the mosque" line of argument is pisspoor too.

I'm not sure how anyone doesnt recognize this Ground Zero mosque building area as being very insensitive and disrespectful.

Its not illegal.. they are welcome to build it. But anyone in there right mind knows its insensitive and not neccessary.

I see a drone missile in its future.

My friend how will you know they dont support some things terroristic? Just so we are clear, you find Nambla offensive even if the members dont touch lil kids, right? But its ok to support a Mosque near ground zero even if the members dont support blowing shyte up?

::::Clapping:::::::

...kiss-kiss,Dahling...

You better stop it or Ima slip ya the tongue :{>:

I can't believe you just said all muslims are terrorists!

Oh sorry, forgot to turn my Riot post decoder off.

!!!!











In a grocery store......produce section......power failure.......cucumbers are dangerous in power failure situations


Olive oil couldn't be too far off.

I do believe that all posters named Riot are internet terrorists.


its a proven fact.

I'm quite glad that Obama took the right side of this issue, was really worried that he would stay neutral just because the majority of idiots out there want to $hit on the constitution.

As for the Muslims wanting to build there, I don't think it sounds like a very good idea. There is a lot of talk about it being a cultural center that helps bridge the gap between religions, were that to happen it could turn out to be a great thing but I will believe that when I see it. I guess I will give them the chance to prove that is really what they are trying to do before piling on them with everyone else.

or







a seedy bar....under a table not seen from afar.....would that be enough ---danger?

















or














a crowded doctors office in the winter,close up seating....would a disembodied hand deliver ....a greeting?





















or

















at the finish line...when they are just ready to finish......and all eyes are on horseys making winning faces.....what would your dupa feel?



















or





















right here/right now-----on hour stage?

Girl, they don't care who did it. Long as 1% or so of the fatalities were Moslems, they're gunna be o.k. with what happened. They really seem tore up at all about 9/11?

The 2 year old keeps slapping the microphone in the reporter's hand.

Do you not understand the difference between a religion with many tenets, and a single-issue group whose single issue is child rape?

Of course NAMBLA is offensive, they are concerned with one thing, and that's legalizing the ability to rape children.

This conversation becomes relevant if, and ONLY if, you believe that the Muslim religion is a single-issue group with that one single issue being blowing things up and killing people, thereby making every Muslim a terrorist supporter, and thereby allowing you to paint every Muslim as exactly the same as those who flew planes in the Twin Towers.

If you believe that, then this discussion has a point, and we can talk about that. If you don't believe that, then this is a pointless discussion because you're talking about two wildly different things and pretending they're the same. I can't actually believe that you can even think they're the same thing -- that comparison is absolutely insane for the point you're trying to make, poorly.

This 2 year old seems to make a lot of people jealous.




I welcome your slurs..they add to the legend.

Well, they do all go by what the same butcher had to say. I'd like to hear them make an effort to separate themselves from the terrorists, rather than you doing it. This Imam has said that America was partially to blame for 9/11. Right there, you should have a problem with this, but you don't. See, he won't come out and say the scum in his religion were wrong, and they are to blame.