House Of Evil / Seed Of Peace

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Pearl:

I confess that I didn't read the article you posted: the first few sentences told me everything I needed to know:

When a writer throws around inflammatory phrases, you simply cannot take what they say seriously. This is not an unbiased, well-reasoned argument:

"the elite mainstream media and the radical 1960s left, who together have formed an arrogant, chauvinistic machine,

. . . the liberal/left media and academic bubble"

I'd much rather hear your opinions than that of this author because at least you're not insulting those who disagree with you. You're at least cognizant of different perspectives than your own.
 
So you're saying I should be against all mosques?

You should encourage the following of money trails for ALL mosque given your logic.

Be against the mosque not the location, if you truly find out that the mosque will preach terrorism then be against that, not where it's going to be placed.

Just be consistent, and don't let such shitty "articles" speak for you.
 
First of all it was not Muslims, Wahhabis, Sharia Law followers, Afghans or Saudis that participated on 911
it was al-Qa'ida adherents
It seems reasonable that Al Qaeda adherents are usually Muslims who support Sharia Law.
 
Is it not a community centre, with a number of different functions, one of which will be a mosque?

More to the point, if this facility were to be built in Queens, for example, would you be "uneasy" about it given the fact that it is "well known" that Saudi Arabia funds many Wahhabist mosques around the world? I haven't read any complaints from you about these mosques prior to this current debate.

In real estate it's location, location, location. But in this case, why should location matter?

Any mosque that is funded by Saudi Arabia makes me uneasy. Whether its downtown New York or downtown Appleton, Wisconsin.

Don't you feel that its not a good idea to build a mosque that might be radical not far from where radicalism Islam reached its pinnacle?
 
Don't you feel that its not a good idea to build a mosque that might be radical not far from where radicalism Islam reached its pinnacle?

Don't you feel that it's not a good idea to build a mosque that would be radical?

What makes me uneasy is the "might" and the fact that you are so obsessed with the location.
 
Pearl:

I confess that I didn't read the article you posted: the first few sentences told me everything I needed to know:

When a writer throws around inflammatory phrases, you simply cannot take what they say seriously. This is not an unbiased, well-reasoned argument:

"the elite mainstream media and the radical 1960s left, who together have formed an arrogant, chauvinistic machine,

. . . the liberal/left media and academic bubble"

I'd much rather hear your opinions than that of this author because at least you're not insulting those who disagree with you. You're at least cognizant of different perspectives than your own.

I found the article on my iGoogle webpage. It gives random links to the news of the day, regardless of right or left position. I never read or even heard of this author before. I just was curious about what the headline meant by "stealth jihad."

Maybe I overreacted when I read the article. I certainly let it get the worst of me in terms of my fears radical Islam. I have heard about Imam Rauf not being the moderate he claims to be, and I have to admit the name "Cordoba House" is suspicious.

I don't mean to insult anyone with my opinions of this issue, I just want to voice them because I feel I have a right to.
 
Don't you feel that its not a good idea to build a mosque that might be radical not far from where radicalism Islam reached its pinnacle?

Right now all we're using is hearsay and conjecture. Until I see concrete proof that the building of this centre is anything other than to build something for the community, then they should have a right to build it.

Furthermore, with the scrutiny this centre will be under, why would anyone use it to preach radicalism and recruit terrorists? There's no way they could get away with that at the proposed location.
 
Don't you feel that it's not a good idea to build a mosque that would be radical?

What makes me uneasy is the "might" and the fact that you are so obsessed with the location.

A lot of New Yorkers are. I don't think "obsessed" is a good term to use. People were murdered at that location. As I said in the beginning of this thread, I knew people who lost loved ones, my brother-in-law was part of the clean-up. So its not just any ordinary spot in the world.
 
Any mosque that is funded by Saudi Arabia makes me uneasy. Whether its downtown New York or downtown Appleton, Wisconsin.

Don't you feel that its not a good idea to build a mosque that might be radical not far from where radicalism Islam reached its pinnacle?

this sounds like an argument that's impossible to defeat though, don't you think?

Have the people planning the mosque indicated that will be preaching radical Islam? Is all this talk about it being a place for learning and dialogue and all that stuff lies, in your estimation? Is the idea that the mosque builders will pretend to be all peaceful and then once the mosque is built start spewing taunts and hatred? Does that really seem like a plausible scenario in your opinion?

Generally the radical groups are pretty upfront about and in your face about their views (unless of course they are hiding their affiliation in order to launch a terrorist attack, but I don't think you are suggesting that the mosque is in fact a cover for a massive terrorist strike are you?).
 
Furthermore, with the scrutiny this centre will be under, why would anyone use it to preach radicalism and recruit terrorists? There's no way they could get away with that at the proposed location.

Perhaps not.
 
Generally the radical groups are pretty upfront about and in your face about their views (unless of course they are hiding their affiliation in order to launch a terrorist attack, but I don't think you are suggesting that the mosque is in fact a cover for a massive terrorist strike are you?).

No, I'm not.
 
I don't mean to insult anyone with my opinions of this issue, I just want to voice them because I feel I have a right to.

:hug: You're not insulting anyone.

I appreciate your tone in this discussion.
 
I don't know. . .the whole argument that he's only "pretending to moderate" just doesn't fit with my impressions of the radicals I've heard about. What would be the purpose in pretending to be moderate? How does that further the goals of jihad?
 
:hug: You're not insulting anyone.

I appreciate your tone in this discussion.

Thank you :)

And thanks to everyone else for putting everything in perspective. Perhaps I let my emotions and the memories of that terrible day get the worst of me. Maybe I should have an "I'm Sorry" thread like Aeon did.
 
A lot of New Yorkers are. I don't think "obsessed" is a good term to use. People were murdered at that location. As I said in the beginning of this thread, I knew people who lost loved ones, my brother-in-law was part of the clean-up. So its not just any ordinary spot in the world.

Many of us lost someone, I did too.

But were they murdered by all that worship in a Mosque or Musilm community center?

Because that's what you're implying.
 
in an odd way, i'm kinda happy that at least new yorkers are getting upset rather than the rest of the country getting upset on their behalf...especially given how much conservatives loved to dump on the place during the last presidential campaign.
 
Many of us lost someone, I did too.

But were they murdered by all that worship in a Mosque or Musilm community center?

Because that's what you're implying.

The 9/11 hijackers were radical Muslims. Are you saying those hijackers never set foot in a mosque or Muslim community center? Chances are, they did since they believed in their brand of Islam so firmly.
 
The 9/11 hijackers were radical Muslims. Are you saying those hijackers never set foot in a mosque or Muslim community center? Chances are, they did since they believed in their brand of Islam so firmly.

Seriously? Do you realize how this will work if you apply this backwards logic to everything?

The man that beat a homosexual to death set foot in a church and Christian community centers, what should we do with those?
 
Wait a minute, I think I'm getting confused.

What are you trying to say here? That I think because radical Muslims committed the 9/11 attacks, the mosque should not be built?

Didn't you also read where I realized my argument was weak? Or did you skip those? ETA: Or are they not enough for you?
 
What are you trying to say here? That I think because radical Muslims committed the 9/11 attacks, the mosque should not be built?

Pearl, that's what I've been trying to ask you.

You keep going back and forth, is it the location or the funding?

If it's the funding then why not be against building it at all?

I'm trying to find out where you really stand...
 
I'm trying to find out where you really stand...

You didn't read my earlier posts where I thanked everyone for showing me other perspectives.

If the mosque intends to preach hate and intolerance, how could that be possible if the mosque would be under so much scrutiny? As for funding, there really isn't solid proof.

Happy?
 
This article sums up everything I feel about this mosque. As I mentioned earlier, I am concerned about who is funding it. After all, it is well known Saudi Arabia - which is run by Wahhabism - is building mosques all over the world to promote their radical brand of Islam. (Notice, I said radical) There quite a lot of evidence that the Ground Zero mosque may be funded by the Saudis and therefore will preach radical Islam.

While I find a lot of that article to be extremely biased and sensationalized, I can genuinely understand being concerned about where the funding is coming from. However, (and I'm not saying you're a part of this, Pearl), I find it highly hypocritical that people get all up in arms about funding for a Muslim community center but don't even bat an eye at funding for other organizations, like Citibank and even the right's beloved Fox News, whose second largest shareholder is Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal (a family friend of the Bush family, btw), the very same man who Fox is trying to paint as the leader of a nefarious organization with ties to terrorism, all while conveniently omitting his name or picture.
 
Bingo, Diemen.

Right now all we're using is hearsay and conjecture. Until I see concrete proof that the building of this centre is anything other than to build something for the community, then they should have a right to build it.

Thank you. Can somebody, anybody, I don't care who it is, out there in this world please find an unbiased statement or article or whatever surrounding who the people are who are building this center and what exactly their intentions are? It'd be so nice to have some concrete answers so the speculation on both sides can stop.

And not only should they have the right, the bottom line is, they DO have the right. Even if this center was created to preach radical Islamic ideals, well, there's tons of buildings around the country for all faiths that preach radical versions of their beliefs. No matter how offensive their message, they still have the right to express it, privately or publicly. The KKK gets to. Anti-gay groups get to, and at military funerals, no less (or if not actually at them, then close by). The politicians and media that are exploiting this in sickeningly cruel, cold-hearted ways get to. And therefore these guys get to as well.

And since they have the right, and so long as they go ahead with their plan to create the center, this whole debate is really pointless and futile. If the center is going to be used to plot and carry out violent acts and we can prove that to be the case, that's a whole other story. But until then, "It's offensive!" isn't a very strong reason to stop this.

Furthermore, with the scrutiny this centre will be under, why would anyone use it to preach radicalism and recruit terrorists? There's no way they could get away with that at the proposed location.

Excellent point.

Angela
 
It seems reasonable that Al Qaeda adherents are usually Muslims who support Sharia Law.


The 911 terrorists were all of the below

A. Muslims
B. Supporters of Sharia Law
C. members of Al Qaeda
D. Men
E. People that boarded a plane on Sept 11, 2001
F. strip club patrons
G. people born between 1950 and 1985


of the 7 different classifications,
which one group was at war with the West, America
and would be most likely to launch an attack on America
 
Islam was a necessary but not sufficient component for their suicidal attacks. The religion is relevant to its extremists, but this is irrelevant to this moderate community centre.
 
NYC Mayor Meets With Cab Stab Victim

Lawyer Says Michael Enright Was Not Motivated By Anti-Muslim Hate
By AARON KATERSKY, MARK CRUDELE and RICHARD ESPOSITO

Aug. 26, 2010 —

The attorney for Michael Enright, the New York City college student charged with attempted murder as a hate crime for allegedly stabbing a Muslim cab driver Tuesday, denied that his client had acted out of hatred for Muslims.

"I don't believe that he has any underlying hatred or animosity towards Islam or Muslims in general," said attorney Jason Martin. Enright, a 21-year-old filmmaker and School of Visual Arts senior from upstate New York, has had past run-ins with the law involving alcohol and New York City police described the Tuesday attack as an isolated incident caused by drinking.

However, police told ABC News that Enright, who had returned from a filmmaking trip to Afghanistan in May, was in possession of a journal chronicling his trip at the time of his arrest, and that the journal contained allegedly "biased sentiments" recorded while he was in Afghanistan. Without providing details, police sources said the comments described encounters with Afghans he viewed as ungrateful for the American military presence in their country.

New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg met with victim Ahmed Sharif and his family at New York's City Hall for more than an hour Thursday, and gave the cab driver's four children gift bags with "I Love New York" and "I'm a New Yorker" t-shirts and New York City pencils. Bloomberg said it was "very sad" he and Sharif had met under these circumstances.

Asked if he thought the attack was related to controversy over plans to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque near Ground Zero, Bloomberg said he didn't know. "I wasn't in the cab," said Bloomberg, "I don't know what was going through anybody's mind. Whether it was related to anything or not it was disgraceful."

The Tuesday attack allegedly began when victim Ahmed Sharif answered "yes" to Enright's question, "Are you a Muslim?", and observers have wondered whether it was spurred by heated rhetoric over plans to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 World Trade Center terror attack in lower Manhattan.

Bloomberg, who has backed the Islamic center's construction, said Wednesday he had "assured [Sharif] that ethnic or religious bias has no place in our city."

"This attack runs counter to everything that New Yorkers believe, no matter what God we may pray to," said Bloomberg.

Salam al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, says the Ground Zero debate has inflamed anti-Islamic passions. "The level of anti-Muslim sentiment is at an all time high," said al-Marayati.

"This is what the terrorists want," said New York Gov. David Paterson Thursday. "This is the terrorists getting a yield on their investment when they attacked this country and blew up the World Trade Center, that we're now fighting each other. This is making their day."

Sharif, who said he has been living in the US for 25 years and driving a cab for 15 years, on Wednesday seemed to blame the attack on the war of words over the Islamic center.

"Right now, the public sentiment is very serious," said Sharif, 43. "All drivers should be more careful." Javaid Tariq, cofounder of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which represents drivers, said the group believes the incident occurred because rhetoric about the proposed Islamic center has become "too hot," and asked politicians to cool it down.

"This incident happened because the Islamic center has become so big an issue," said Tariq. "Being a Muslim and having a beard is making us more vulnerable."

The blond and babyfaced Enright was arraigned Wednesday and formally charged with attempted murder in the second degree as a hate crime, assault in the first degree as a hate crime and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Enright was ordered held without bond. His next court date is Aug. 30.

According to police, Enright hailed Sharif's taxi at 24th Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan just after 6 p.m. Tuesday.

As the cab headed north on Third Avenue, Enright allegedly asked Sharif, who is of South Asian origin, "Are you Muslim?" Sharif says that after he confirmed he was Muslim, Enright attacked him. "He started yelling, 'This is a checkpoint, this is a checkpoint mother______, I have to put you down."

Enright allegedly slashed Sharif across the face, neck and shoulders with a folding Leatherman knife.

"I said, 'Please do not kill me,'" recounted Sharif. Sharif sustained five cuts in all, including defensive wounds to the arm and hand.

Police said Sharif was able to pull the car over and temporarily lock Enright, who had been drinking, in the back seat before summoning help. Enright was lying in the street blocking traffic when apprehended by an off-duty police officer.

Both Sharif and Enright were taken to Bellevue Hospital, Enright for psychiatric evaluation. Enright was classified as an EDP, an emotionally-disturbed person, at the hospital.

Enright had traveled to Afghanistan with an organization called Intersections International, a New York-based group that promotes itself as promoting justice and peace across lines of faith (and has come out in support of the Islamic cultural center's construction.)

In a statement, Intersections International said that the description of the alleged perpetrator of the attack matched someone who had worked with the group as a volunteer.

"Our hearts go out to the cab driver, his family and any person who has dealt with such unacceptable violence," said the statement.
 
That was a hate crime. Would it even be questioned if it was done to any other minority?

I was planing a trip to NYC. I have since, changed my mind. The Big Apple, the city that has always boasted to the rest of us. We are so metropolitian and melting pot of the world. Has given me, a bad taste in my mouth.

Folks had no problem, boycotting Arizona. How would New York, like the same?
 
There's an interesting question. I don't agree with boycotting a city or state, though. Just because some people in New York City, or in Arizona, may be discriminatory or hateful or come up with laws that many find objectionable or whatever, doesn't mean everyone in those places thinks that way. It's not fair to punish everybody for the questionable viewpoints or horrific actions of some.

However, police told ABC News that Enright, who had returned from a filmmaking trip to Afghanistan in May, was in possession of a journal chronicling his trip at the time of his arrest, and that the journal contained allegedly "biased sentiments" recorded while he was in Afghanistan. Without providing details, police sources said the comments described encounters with Afghans he viewed as ungrateful for the American military presence in their country.

Yeah, crazy idea, that, the fact that some people get a bit bothered at others invading their homeland and never leaving and only adding to the chaos. And surprise, surprise, somebody else comes back from a trip to Afghanistan mentally messed up and we're still shocked when they commit a violent act.

I'm sorry, who is it we're supposed to be scared of again? So far all the violence and hateful speech seems to be coming from the anti-center side, not the other way around. Strange, that.

Angela
 
Back
Top Bottom