Obama's support for Ground Zero Mosque

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

pretending that this site won't be a target BECAUSE of the location is myopic at best.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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.

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

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

See, again, it's obviously not a meaningful site to them. They aren't that bent about it. Just another damn tourist attraction to these people. This is the main reason they don't have a problem with the zoning choice. if you don't care why something happened, then why would you care about the zoning in the aftermath? They don't particularly care about the specifics involved with the disaster (at all.) That might mean having to place guilt on someone, and then actually doing something about it. Just ignore the root cause, because it'd be hell for someone's feelings to get hurt.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

again, why is the site incendiary? recognizing the religion of the perpetrators, while failing to consider that islamic people were also victims in this attack is ignoring fact. if a church wants to honor it's dead, that's ok...but a mosque wants to reach out in that area, it's wrong. that ignores the fact that muslims were victims that day, not just christians.


i'm really just surprised that this thread is so long, considering everyone concedes they have a right to build there. i heard today that the idiots who protest at funerals have been shown to have the right, due to free speech laws. it's unpalatable, shows insensitivity, but can't be blocked without being unconstitutional.

the rule of law must prevail. you can't disallow this building, i don't understand why so many are so vocal about this, when there's really nowhere to stand against it.
all nyc can do about this is to change the zoning, and i don't see that happening.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, why is the site incendiary? recognizing the religion of the perpetrators, while failing to consider that islamic people were also victims in this attack is ignoring fact. if a church wants to honor it's dead, that's ok...but a mosque wants to reach out in that area, it's wrong. that ignores the fact that muslims were victims that day, not just christians.


i'm really just surprised that this thread is so long, considering everyone concedes they have a right to build there. i heard today that the idiots who protest at funerals have been shown to have the right, due to free speech laws. it's unpalatable, shows insensitivity, but can't be blocked without being unconstitutional.

the rule of law must prevail. you can't disallow this building, i don't understand why so many are so vocal about this, when there's really nowhere to stand against it.
all nyc can do about this is to change the zoning, and i don't see that happening.

The muslims that did this act of terroris did it in the name of the religion, not because they were looking to get on CNN. Why you can't understand that people would be upset that a site 2 blocks from ground zero would be a place celebrating the same religion that was used as a justification for the attack seems incredible to me.

This isn't a legal debate, havent we conceded that enought times???

[dellinger63]

these guys explain why it's a religious thing to them. Did he say at about the 3min point 'we stole their racehorses'? LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5BtQgTGOI4