Mosque at Ground Zero? Plan angers NY

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
USA has great democratic tradition so do one of two things...
1.Hold a placrad at ground zero and protest ..every democracy allows it.
2.Pay bigger amount and buy ground zero site and erect whatever you want to.But make sure not to make it so attractive that some looney get attracted to bring it down.



P.s.--change your avatar its too offensive.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
Wow. If I had lost someone to 9/11, I would be feeling backstabbed right about now.

America is a big country. There are so many other places you can build Mosques. This seems more like Nobama's middle-east appeasement strategy.

And for those thinking it's anti-secular of me to oppose a Mosque on Ground Zero, it's equally anti-secular of anyone to build a Mosque (or any religious place for that matter) on Ground zero.
 
Last edited:

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
USA has great democratic tradition so do one of two things...
1.Hold a placrad at ground zero and protest ..every democracy allows it.
2.Pay bigger amount and buy ground zero site and erect whatever you want to.But make sure not to make it so attractive that some looney get attracted to bring it down.

And how about the responsibility of the 2.5million muslim US citizens towards the rest of the population??

Also Ajtr, can you please provide your opinion if you have any, rather than telling me what to do or what our govt. does?
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
@dulce bellum inexpertis

Why are you looking at just Saudi Arabia? Apart from that country every other arab and muslim country int he world have Churches and even Synagogues. Egypt, Syria and Jordan have historical churches. Infact, UAE, Bahrain even have hindu temples and Gurudwaras. The ambassador to the US for Bahrain is a Bahraini jewish female. Similarly Indonesia the largest muslim country in the world also has a large number of Churches.

Now about the Islamic centre that is actually around 2 blocks away from ground zero, it is not just a mosque but a community centre were a dialouge and understanding between American muslims can be spread. The organisations (American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)) led by Daisy Khan (interestingly she is of Indian origin) are spending their own money to buy and develop the property. They went through the legal process of getting permission from the NY authorities and got an almost unanimous favorable vote alongwith he support of Mayor Bloomberg. People want muslims to standup and speak against extremism, well here are a group of american muslims who want to do just that. What could be better? It will not be a secretive society but a place where even non-Muslims like yourself can go and see what Muslims are all about.

The only reason why some people are feeling apprehensive or angry about this is because of the wrong impression that all muslims support the 9/11 attacks or that all muslims are to be blamed for the 9/11 attacks. Lets not forget that there were many muslims who also died that day. And that is why the Islamic centre is even more important, to dispel his false notion and to let everyone muslim or non-muslim to know that the culprits behind 9/11 have no support from the American muslim community and infact the muslim community in general
 
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Alrite guys keep the discussion professional and dont get personal or point fingers. If anyone has any problem with any post, use the report post button and the staff will take care of it.

 

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
Wow. If I had lost someone to 9/11, I would be feeling backstabbed right about now.

America is a big country. There are so many other places you can build Mosques. This seems more like Nobama's middle-east appeasement strategy.

And for those thinking it's anti-secular of me to oppose a Mosque on Ground Zero, it's equally anti-secular of anyone to build a Mosque (or any religious place for that matter) on Ground zero.

Mr. Tarun, you would have this opinion only if you had lost someone in the incident, or is it fair enough to assume that such an attack, for you would have meant any attack on your country, and you would fought for your nation and you would have reservations on letting this structure be erected on the site of incident?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Ejaz, its again a question of wanting to believe what you want to believe. Thats the reason why even the Sikhs wearing turbans were targeted. Not only that, Indians in general too faced some racial attacks as it happened just 2 or three days ago.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
Mr. Tarun, you would have this opinion only if you had lost someone in the incident, or is it fair enough to assume that such an attack, for you would have meant any attack on your country, and you would fought for your nation and you would have reservations on letting this structure be erected on the site of incident?
No, even without having lost someone to 9/11, I am opposed to this construction, but I would have felt backstabbed if I did. The idea of a Mosque on Ground Zero is anti-secular. The only secular thing to do is not build any religious structure at all.
 

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
@dulce bellum inexpertis

Why are you looking at just Saudi Arabia? Apart from that country every other arab and muslim country int he world have Churches and even Synagogues. Egypt, Syria and Jordan have historical churches. Infact, UAE, Bahrain even have hindu temples and Gurudwaras. The ambassador to the US for Bahrain is a Bahraini jewish female. Similarly Indonesia the largest muslim country in the world also has a large number of Churches.

Now about the Islamic centre that is actually around 2 blocks away from ground zero, it is not just a mosque but a community centre were a dialouge and understanding between American muslims can be spread. The organisations (American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA)) led by Daisy Khan (interestingly she is of Indian origin) are spending their own money to buy and develop the property. They went through the legal process of getting permission from the NY authorities and got an almost unanimous favorable vote alongwith he support of Mayor Bloomberg. People want muslims to standup and speak against extremism, well here are a group of american muslims who want to do just that. What could be better? It will not be a secretive society but a place where even non-Muslims like yourself can go and see what Muslims are all about.

The only reason why some people are feeling apprehensive or angry about this is because of the wrong impression that all muslims support the 9/11 attacks or that all muslims are to be blamed for the 9/11 attacks. Lets not forget that there were many muslims who also died that day. And that is why the Islamic centre is even more important, to dispel his false notion and to let everyone muslim or non-muslim to know that the culprits behind 9/11 have no support from the American muslim community and infact the muslim community in general
I brought KSA into contention because, majority of the hijackers involved were from KSA, but mainly, because these guys attacked my nation in the name of a religion, that has most prominence in KSA.
Also I would like to correct you, there are no hindu temples or church in UAE.
Yes, Indonesia is the country with maximum muslim population, just as India has many muslims, but as I said our fight is not against Muslims, and I think you have not gotten a hold of this yet.

ASMA is not spending its own money, they are raising money, where this money will come from we do not know, and that is something not in contention. Please stick to the post.
The NY authorities, gave the go ahead, because US is a free society, and under our constitution we can not reject them from doing this. My contention is not based on legal or political grounds, rather moral & ethical grounds. There's a big difference if you can see it.

This center, can very much ke erected further away, rather than in the vicinity of ground zero. Non Muslims can still go there to understand Islam better, the moderate voice of Islam can still be spread. Why does it have to be on the graveyard of 3000 people killed by extremists in the name of this very religion?
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Yes, US created and used Al-Qaeda in the past, to fight the soviets, to fight communism.
But when you say that " when the same mujahedeen attack them they claim ti wage war on terror on terrorists."
In this case, are you suggesting we should not fight back against the terrorists? And it is these terrorists who are using their religion, it is them who started the events leading to this war. We are fighting these terrorists only, not the religion.

Good Taliban & Bad Taliban.

I can tell you this, when we are given a mission, we are ordered to neutralize the enemy. As a soldier, we try to take them prisoners, we do not differentiate. If we are unable to capture them, we shoot to kill, unless necessary to take them prisoners for intel. Whether we give favorable treatment to certain prisoners in return for valuable intel, that may or may not be happening.

Again I have expressed my opinion on the Mosque near ground zero issue, Im not here to give slack to anyone or on any religion. And I'm only looking for genuine opinions of people here on how they feel.
There you go. Double standards. You decide who the good guys and bad guys are. For the soviets, the mujahadeen were terrorists. For you merceneries to fight your war against the Soviets. To give them your NAM. All cold war stuff. otherwise the US had no business in Astan back then.

When the same guys turn against you they became terrorists.

For years before 9/11, for the US, the terrorists killing innocents in Kashmir were "freedom fighters" as your ally put it. You chose to agree with that.

By the way the good taliban and bad taliban was also a term coined by the US to get an exit. Again a short sighted policy. There just cant be a good or bad terrorist. Period. And yes, powerful countries make the laws and the definitions and then go about preaching.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
And how about the responsibility of the 2.5million muslim US citizens towards the rest of the population??

Also Ajtr, can you please provide your opinion if you have any, rather than telling me what to do or what our govt. does?
Whats the responsibility of muslim us citizen has to do with the mosque at ground zero?If you mean that they should protest it along with you??Why they should?Did you ever care about your responsibilities towards them when you go on blasting muslim countries killing millions?
 

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
Ejaz, its again a question of wanting to believe what you want to believe. Thats the reason why even the Sikhs wearing turbans were targeted. Not only that, Indians in general too faced some racial attacks as it happened just 2 or three days ago.
Mr. Yusuf, yes, there were attacks on the sikhs in US in the aftermath on 9/11. And we condone them strongly. But our fight is not against any religion, not Islam, not Sikh, not Hindus, not Jews.
The people in US who committed those acts, you can check, have been brought to justice.
And by no means neglecting the severity of such actions, we must also look at incidents that have occurred to christians, jews, outside of US. The attacks on christians in Indonesia, a christian professor in India who got his arm cut off by radicals. You can easily verify that such acts of violence are large in number in other countries, while in US most occurred in the aftermath of 9/11, and offenders have been brought to justice and steps taken to curtain such incidents. But Im afraid, the same can not be said about other countries.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Mr. Tarun, you would have this opinion only if you had lost someone in the incident, or is it fair enough to assume that such an attack, for you would have meant any attack on your country, and you would fought for your nation and you would have reservations on letting this structure be erected on the site of incident?
Now that cat is among pigeons letme vent out my frustration . Till twin tower attack took place USA was supporting pakistans adventure in Afganistan as well as In kashmir. for you guys it was freedom struggle . America had full knowledge of all the training camps operating in pakistan. you will find many in Kashmir who lost their loved ones and had to flee. what did America do for them ? and all of this changed overnight and those freedom fighters became terrosrist . Once a freedom fighter should always be freedom fighter . But you guys keep on changing the label from freedom fighter to terrorists. Who knows Talibans will again become freedom fighters for you.

Americans are too shelfish to help others . They help someone only in case they are about to get something in return.
 

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
Whats the responsibility of muslim us citizen has to do with the mosque at ground zero?If you mean that they should protest it along with you??Why they should?Did you ever care about your responsibilities towards them when you go on blasting muslim countries killing millions?
Did we start blasting muslim countries killing millions? We are only fighting terrorists, if they happen to be muslims, should be lower our weapons?

The responsibility our fellow American citizens have being muslims, is to respect others, We are not asking them to protest, we only ask of them to build their structure not so close to ground zero.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Did we start blasting muslim countries killing millions? We are only fighting terrorists, if they happen to be muslims, should be lower our weapons?

The responsibility our fellow American citizens have being muslims, is to respect others, We are not asking them to protest, we only ask of them to build their structure not so close to ground zero.
Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan.Even your country is morally responsible for the millions killed in bangaladesh genocide.COz your nixon admin try to sweep it under the carpet.Why should they oblige you ---just coz u feel bad????did you obliged neutralized iraqi -american,afghani-american and pakistani- american when you went on to killing speer in their countries?
 
Last edited:

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan.Even your country is morally responsible for the millions killed in bangaladesh genocide.COz your nixon admin try to sweep it under the carpet.
donot forget India . we also lost a lot in Kashmir due to American support to Pakistan .
 

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
There you go. Double standards. You decide who the good guys and bad guys are. For the soviets, the mujahadeen were terrorists. For you merceneries to fight your war against the Soviets. To give them your NAM. All cold war stuff. otherwise the US had no business in Astan back then.

Maybe you dont understand completely what allies are. We had allies in this region. Soviets were promoting communism, it was our responsibility towards our allies to fight against it. We used mercenaries, whereas the other option would have been for the US armed forces to get involved directly. And you can surely comprehend, that at the height of tensions how that could have led to nuclear war had US been directly involved.

When the same guys turn against you they became terrorists.

For years before 9/11, for the US, the terrorists killing innocents in Kashmir were "freedom fighters" as your ally put it. You chose to agree with that.

We never agreed with Pakistan, but we also did not disagree with them. Perhaps if we had agreed with them fighting the commies could have led to our direct inclusion. The paki jihad began in 1989, and from then we have not provided any major military support to them, until now. You must understand we were trying the situation to go nuclear, for which we did need pakistan's support at that time.

By the way the good taliban and bad taliban was also a term coined by the US to get an exit. Again a short sighted policy. There just cant be a good or bad terrorist. Period. And yes, powerful countries make the laws and the definitions and then go about preaching.
Make a slight correction here, Good & Bad taliban has been coined by the current Obama administration, and people on the ground in Afghanistan, know what the situation is, and an early exit is not in the best interest of the US and nor is it a viable option. We know that.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,756
Country flag
Very conveniently you replied to only one part of my post dulce. Waiting for you to reply to the rest.
 

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
donot forget India . we also lost a lot in Kashmir due to American support to Pakistan .
The terrorist operations in Kashmir began in 1989, correct? Can you provide me with verifiable intel, that US supported these terrorists by supplying weapons or intel?
Also at that time, India was inclined towards the USSR, India was a socialist country till 1992 when it opened up. And in 1995, India & US signed MoU on defense.

The only incidence you should rightly blame US is in 1965, when US provided support to Pakistan.


Also please make a note, that when US supported Al-Qaeda for its operations in Afghanistan, it did so to use them as mercenary soldiers against our enemy and neither did they preach Jihad during that war. When Al-Qaeda used jihad to gain power or influence, US has from that moment opposed & worked to bring it down. US itself suffered in the immediate aftermath in 1993 WTC bombing by al-qaeda, but we had not armed them to fight for a religion, they were a mercenaries who felt their use diminished after the Afghan war and used jihad to regain influence.
 
Last edited:

dulce bellum inexpertis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
69
Likes
0
Very conveniently you replied to only one part of my post dulce. Waiting for you to reply to the rest.
are you talking about this? "And yes, powerful countries make the laws and the definitions and then go about preaching"

It was a statement, I didnt know you had asked me a question here.

It is correct that US preaches its principles, just like India does or for that matter many stronger nation does to others.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top