Obama defends ground zero mosque plans

It's two blocks away.

Anyway he's only supporting the idea in front of all the media so he looks good to all the ethnicities and religions.

I bet as soon as he got out that press conference he made a call to the city surveyors and told them to write it off, sneeky sneeky :D.


/Johnathan
 
hehe i already started a post on this ;)

they have the legal right to do so but it is innapropriate, since it ground zero (actually a block away - but ground zero is larger area than the 2 towers since other buildings in a couple blocks radius were damaged as well - some crumbled on their own others had to be taken down due to unsafe structures - so it is ground zero. just to clarify for those that haven't been to NY and just google a map ;) - the proposed site is where some debris fell down on that building)

I think the muslim community, eventhough they all can't be called terrorist, should at least be more understanding and oppose this. when some nuns wanted to put a convent next to Auschwitz, Pope JP II steppped in told them that eventhough they had the right to do so, it is innapropriate in that place. I would hope that some muslims would heed this advice especially since it is a big issue in the US.
 
Last edited:
Stringy said:
Thread rated 1 for sensationalist reporting.

It's 2 blocks away from Ground Zero - where should the limit be? No Mosques allowed on Manhattan? None in NYC? The whole state? The entirety of the USA?

Utter codswallop.
Click to expand...

this tbh...

The headlines make it seem as though someone has come up with the idea of building a mosque at ground zero...

The reality is more like an organsiation that promotes links between Islam and the west has decided to build as mosque/cultural centre etc.. in Manhattan - the centre of one of the biggest cities in the west so perhaps ideal for their needs. The site chosen happens to be a whole 2 blocks away from ground zero...

Americans get over-emotional about this sort of stuff mostly thanks to the way their news media hypes up these things - though this is fortunately when the constitution comes in as a sort of common sense reality check. If a bunch of people want to privately purchase a building and then comply with the various planning regulations in order to change its use etc.. then they're allowed to do so - stopping people from doing something perfectly legal on the basis that they're from a particular religion isn't compatible with having a constitution that protects freedom of religion.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
Your naivety is quite disturbing actually.

Islam and terrorism are inextricably linked. When your average Joe can watch a video of a rag head chanting quotes from the Koran just before cutting a captured soldiers head off, what are people supposed to think?

Pure religion has been perverted to suit ulterior motives for thousands of years - of course it still happens today.
Click to expand...

Some say Catholicism and paedophilia are intrinsically linked, doesn't mean it is true.
 
Tefal said:
a)Christianity is middle eastern


b) not prevalent? it pretty much runs several countries.

c) those countries happen to be very very wealthy.
Click to expand...

Not disputing that.


Christianity started in the middle east, but has been European/American primarily ever since, the evangelisation of the west was a VERY long time ago now. (hence why the Vatican is in Rome ;) ). For the sake of argument we'll say Catholism, which has had a groundworks in Europe/America for a long time and hence will have land to sell, accumulated wealth etc. (Though the child abuse has reportedly nearly bankrupted the church :eek:)

Point b, I know its extremely prevelant, from the first country to adopt islam (Somalia) to the iron grip it now has on a block of countries, not to mention its rapid inroads in western societies through immigration and high birth rates.

However the point stands that it was not until recently that islam was practically unheard of in western societies, certainly not to the point of position and power in influencing votes as they do now.

Which ties in with my last point, your suggestion that other countries are financing such ventures. Surely there has to be a degree of suspicion attached? Saudi Arabia is notorious for pouring billions into western countries, a clear attempt to islamify them. Just look at Saudi Arabia to see what their vision is. ;)
 
You know it's quite funny people implying that Obama's pandering to Islam, but in the grand scheme of things wouldn't it benefit the US to do so now? This wasn't the case in Bush's tenure. I think Obama's doing exactly what Bush was doing, and that's ruthlessly looking after his own country's interests.

deuse said:
If you have ever been there you would know the New Yorkers are very tolerant people.
But 60% do not want this built so it's not(as you say) a few people.
Click to expand...

Where's the 60% figure from?
 
Last edited:
ac1d1ty said:
If it was the church I would agree, but a middle eastern religion which hasn't been prevelant til recently? It would be interesting to see the money trail, not that I think its terrorist related, just curious.
Click to expand...

What do you call recent?

Islam is 1500 years old, as for money, how many Muslim countries are members of OPEC for example.
 
ac1d1ty said:
Not disputing that.


Christianity started in the middle east, but has been European/American primarily ever since, the evangelisation of the west was a VERY long time ago now. (hence why the Vatican is in Rome ;) ). For the sake of argument we'll say Catholism, which has had a groundworks in Europe/America for a long time and hence will have land to sell, accumulated wealth etc. (Though the child abuse has reportedly nearly bankrupted the church :eek:)

Point b, I know its extremely prevelant, from the first country to adopt islam (Somalia) to the iron grip it now has on a block of countries, not to mention its rapid inroads in western societies through immigration and high birth rates.

However the point stands that it was not until recently that islam was practically unheard of in western societies, certainly not to the point of position and power in influencing votes as they do now.

Which ties in with my last point, your suggestion that other countries are financing such ventures. Surely there has to be a degree of suspicion attached? Saudi Arabia is notorious for pouring billions into western countries, a clear attempt to islamify them. Just look at Saudi Arabia to see what their vision is. ;)
Click to expand...

But a religion isn't a country, nor does being "heard of" in the western world relate to it's ability to gain money.


The money comes from the churches investments not from countries governments.


Just look at Saudi Arabia to see what their vision is.
Click to expand...

To be hated by the Muslim world and only kept safe from invasion by western/American backing and the fact that any attack on them would be seen as an attack on Mecca?

Saudi Arabia is not well liked by the rest of the Muslim world, because they are perceived to have sold out the holy land to the Americans.
 
dowie said:
this tbh...

The headlines make it seem as though someone has come up with the idea of building a mosque at ground zero...

The reality is more like an organsiation that promotes links between Islam and the west has decided to build as mosque/cultural centre etc.. in Manhattan - the centre of one of the biggest cities in the west so perhaps ideal for their needs. The site chosen happens to be a whole 2 blocks away from ground zero...

Americans get over-emotional about this sort of stuff mostly thanks to the way their news media hypes up these things - though this is fortunately when the constitution comes in as a sort of common sense reality check. If a bunch of people want to privately purchase a building and then comply with the various planning regulations in order to change its use etc.. then they're allowed to do so - stopping people from doing something perfectly legal on the basis that they're from a particular religion isn't compatible with having a constitution that protects freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

not true. the site is the ex burlington coat factory which was damaged by 9/11 attacks. this is why it is now a buildable area
 
Nothing wrong with this at all.

It is a centre of worship for Muslims. Why politicise the issue?

Apparently the blokie who will be the imman (head of the mosque yeah? think thats the right term) is a proud american as well as a proud muslim and is strongly against the whole terrorist campaign being carried out by the likes of Al Queada (spl?) He spoken openly about how it is against the principles of Islam etc etc.

Ultimately denying them and going about denying them how those Americans who are against the issue have (Newt Grinch and Sarah Palin being the most vocal) is ultimately going to push moderate American Muslims to the fringes and make them feel like outcasts in their own society.

Not at all insensitive and I cannot understand the massive fuss that has been kicked up by a bunch of bigots who are tarring all muslims with the terrorist brush.
 
ok maybe if it was in the uk people would have different views.
say a terrorist group attaked a big football game, say liverpool v milan at liverpool. loads of popel die english and italian, 5 years later pm gives go ahead to build a mosque half a mile from anfield.
im sure it would be very different then

its like someone mentioned before in this thread, muslim group attack usa, usa go to 2 wars against muslim countries, then the usa build a place of worship not far from were a muslim group attacked and killed us people.
all im saying is IF THE BALL WAS IN THE OTHER COURT WOULD SAUDI ARABIA, JORDAN, ISREAL let us build a church 2 bloks from were the US killed a few thousand muslims ?

NO !!

again, this doesnt really effect me, i live in the uk, i just think its a slap in the face for all the us families who lost people on 911
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom