Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by pavlosmarcos, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    :shrug: It's possible, but Rauf smells fishy - and just what kind of a Sufi does he think he is? If Schwartz had proposed this, it would be an entirely differernt kettle of fish, mind.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    It wasn't the Muslims that brought down the 3 buildings (#1, #2 and #7) with thermite controlled demolition charges, let us not forget.
    They had little to do with it even if a few piloted the planes.
    So who cares about some abandoned building several blocks away? There is a greater issue at hand here.

    Since the Muslims weren't the masterminds behind 911, the real question should be "who was"?
    Review all the events leading up to Pearl Harbor and the similarities to 911 become glaringly obvious.
    Just like WWII, another Pearl Harbor was needed to get WWIII started with a similar body count.
    The "planners" of this event murdered 3,000 of their own innocent civilians. Again. For the second time.

    Standard operating procedures for American rules of engagement.
    -Always attempt to swing public opinion in favor of war before one is started.
    -Obtain the defensive appearance of the nation that is being attacked even if provocation of another nation is required to do so.
    This M.O. holds true all the way back the the Mexican/American war.

    Doesn't anyone study history anymore, or do we just know what is taught of it in our schools?
    A group that wasn't above killing president Kennedy wouldn't think twice about sealing the fate of a few ordinary civilians now would they?
    Especially since they know they can lie with impunity to the same bunch of dumbed down Americans that bought the "magic bullet" scenario.

    So unconcerned are they about being exposed they even allowed the plot to come out on a Hollywood movie five years before it happened.
    Perhaps that provides "plausible deniability" and some form of "limited hangout" for cover.
    Here is the clip from the 1996 movie "The Long Kiss Goodnight". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntpTuOpnt70&NR=1
    The pilot episode of "The Lone Gunman" aired Mar 4, 2001 hits even more details than the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfpFzAuZ3PE

    I feel somehow defiled by even mentioning these heinous acts that have been perpetrated against the American public.
    As though I'm somehow involved, being a conspiracy nut by stating the obvious. These guys are good at what they do, you have to give them that.
    Our news outlets are worthless, CNN, FOX, ABC, BBC....every single one was in on it. You might as well be watching Press TV from Iran.
    Your major newspapers are just birdcage liner. So please, lets stop all the worrying about mosques at ground zero.
    Let's use what little time we have left to get our own affairs in order. Appreciate the simple things in life while they are still here.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Ooh. Haven't had this sort of crazy on the thread yet. Welcome.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Wow, I didn't know that the Islam center where the mosque is going to be built was named Cordoba House (has been renamed Park 51, hell, I can't help but imagine rather negative things about those minds that came up with Cordoba house as a name) -- well, that sounds like a true reference to the conquering of Spain by the Muslims back in the days.. and now there's going to be a mosque there, too. I can't help but laugh.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So you find the symbolism of the site a delusion, in the minds of those building the thing.

    Is it therefore harmless?
  9. Maika Registered Member

    wow. this thread is 14 pages long. you guys need valium. there are mosques everywhere, why can't there be one near ground zero? it's not ON the spot anyhoot. and is it a muslim free zone? what about when "christian" extremists bomb abortion clinics, is it rude to pray for the victims or to build a church near it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    everyone is an individual first, and a member of a group second. can't blame a group for idiot individuals who formed a subgroup and did shit in the name of the bigger group unless the bigger group officially accepts these acts of the subgroup and claims the subgroup as their own. like catholics and their pedopriests whom were shipped off to other parishes instead of dealt with. this is an example of the bigger group accepting the smaller group as their own.
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    One could argue that it refers to the earlier period of semi-tolerance under the Ummayids, before occupation by the Abbasids; then again, exactly what kind of Sufi builds such a massively ostentatious complex? It's been commented on negatively by several Islamic organizations now also.

    (I guess that makes them bigots too!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Think of all the churches built on what was once home or holy grounds for Native Americans. Though a church might be preferable to a mall, I suppose, whatever the mistreatment of NAs either sanctioned or directly perpetrated by various churches.
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Precisely - and those are completely objectionable, and should be removed. I would happily swing the wrecking ball myself.

    Thus, it's not offensive to object to on the grounds of geography; some sites are simply not appropriate, for the obvious reasons. I note that no one would have any difficulty identifying a church built on Native American holy ground as objectionable; less-than-uniform standards, shall we say.
  13. Maika Registered Member

    so only scientology churches should be built on the holy ground of money worshippers at ground zero?

    that land was stolen from the native americans, that or respecting their faith is the only reason to not build on that land.

    there ARE american muslims, so why can't they build a mosque on american soil?
  14. Bells Staff Member

    I'm sorry, but claiming that this site is symbolic because part of the plane fell on it when it destroyed the buildings several blocks away is delusional. There is this dishonest perception that it is being built right smack bang on ground zero. It is not. It is blocks away.

    You are asking me if building it there is somehow religiously symbolic for Muslims? I responded with no, I don't think it is, because being an atheist, I don't believe in such things.

    As you stated yourself. The land was abandoned and cheap. Now you can believe that this is somehow religiously symbolic to Muslims to build it there or you can believe that it was cheap to build it there. At the end of the day they own that little plot of land a few blocks away from ground zero and they are legally allowed to build their building there and do what they wish to do there.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's two blocks - maximum.

    But OK.

    The people building the thing are delusional. I don't think anyone objecting to the building would disagree.

    Are you actually telling us that because you don't believe in their symbols etc, they don't either?
    If you read the statements of the people who named, organized, and publicly celebrated this building, you'll discover that having that symbolic site available and affordable was a sign of a "divine hand" working in their favor.

    The question is not whether something called the "Cordoba House" built on the site of the wreckage from 9/11 is "symbolic" to the people building it. The question is whether the symbolism involved, the purpose and motive and fondest dreams of the builders, are objectionable to reasonable people.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    They're theists. What did you expect?

    But good go at trying to twist what I said around.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nope. I am saying that they should be free to believe in their symbols where they damn well please.

    As I said, they are legally allowed to build what they choose there. I have never seen a Mosque with a swimming pool and cinema before, but hey, to each their own. They are obviously trying to conquer the US with their swimming pools. I am saying that they should not be banned from building a house of worship, along with a swimming pool, cinema and whatever else, because of the inherent belief that their religion is offensive in that area. The argument used against the building of this 'House' is offensive in and of itself.

    Tell me, what is the Muslim exclusion zone there? Two blocks obviously isn't enough. How far should this exclusion zone extend to in your opinion? Would it not be a "site of the wreckage from 9/11" if a part of the plane had not landed on there? It would be more acceptable if it had somehow escaped damage from 9/11?

    There are so many excuses being branded around about why this building should not be built that it is looking like a desperate attempt to simply keep the Muslims out.
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    You know, this whole thread has been done to death. Build the f**kin' Mosque / "Cultural Center".

    For those of you who know New Yorkers, I have a friend who knows somebody that knows someone else who is taking bets on how long the Cordoba Center will stand. Personally, I have no clue. I watched the fall of the Berlin Wall - perhaps some people will decide to... Oh... I don't know... Tear the SOB down brick by brick?

    And, before you start in, this doesn't mean I support or condone in any way these actions. Simply an observation, based on (I hope) a rational guess...

    Have fun.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    Agreed, I also think there is also a stink of crypto-racism about. Again, as I have said before I have heard Americans use the 'Arab' and 'Muslim' synonymously. I have even heard Americans use the term 'Muslim' and 'Iraqi' synonymously. Think about this, when you use the term 'Muslim' is it a colorblind term or do you have a specific image in mind? Is it Arabs/Middle-Easterners or do you also think of white Muslims as well? I don't expect any answers here but I do think it's something some whom are rabidly against Islam and fight Muslims at every turn need to think about.
  19. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    I can't help but think that this is an utter provocation, though, and I'm not religious at all, and don't have anything against Muslims, or the Middle East, or whatever other connotations the word Islam brings with itself. I just find it very intriguing to see what kind of name they picked for said building, and what kind of location (two streets away). It reeks of 'Conquerors'. Saying that such things happened before isn't really an argument, it's like saying, because it happened in the past it's okay to do it today, too! But this seems to be a perfect example of how the freedom we enjoy so much in the West has become a double-edged sword (if it wasn't already before) and is now used against us.
  20. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Maybe when churches and temples are seen in Islamic lands and reciprocity rules, and when Muslims get themselves a real army of martyrs and apprehend Bin Laden. Till then the distinctions between minority and majority Islamic groups will remain blurred:

  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Churches...not sure about temples, mind...are permitted to be built in Islamic countries; it's just that the process is sometimes or often subject to legal, social and extra-legal interference.
  22. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    It's crazy alright, real crazy. But I'm not the one that thought it up.

    "Operation Northwoods" 1962. The CIA planned to hijack American civilian airliners and fly them remotely into skyscrapers or have them shot down by F-86's painted like MIG's and blame it on terrorists. In this case the Cubans. They could do this back then 40 years before Sept 11.


    The star of "The Lone Gunman" X-Files spin-off pilot episode that portrayed the 9-11 conspiracy 8 months before it happened tells Alex Jones in an interview that FOX was warned off by Homeland Security not to do any more anti-government episodes after 9-11 and portray a positive image not a negative one like the X-Files.
    The Lone Gunman was cancelled even though it was more popular than the X-Files. The CIA has been tracking Hollywood parties since the 80's.
    The newspapers are controlled on what they are allowed to release and what "light" it puts the government in.

    William Hearst himself was known to associate with Nazi fascists.
    His legacy is one of the largest media outlets in the world today.
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2010
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I scanned it: doesn't say anything about crashing planes deliberately into things.

Share This Page