Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Ummm hi, yeah, they are. Private property and all that.
a proposed building worth protesting
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
You just attempted to rebut a liberal on the matter of private property. Good luck with that, you selfish bastard!!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Not until now... but the point still stands... IF a small radical group of Native Americans had flown a plane into Gettysburg and destroyed a large part of it (obviously the death toll would not be the same) I would expect that people would also not be happy with Native Americans building a casino near the ruins. This would likely happen even though the vast majority of Native Americans would be innocent of any involvement and would be lined up denouncing the actions of the few.
Again, it is not bigotry to express one's preferences as to what actions are or are not taken. It is simply a bogus attempt to paint everyone in opposition with the same brush as used on the nuts.
If someone says "you don't have the right to build it" they would be wrong.
If someone says "I prefer you build the site elsewhere"... they have every right to express that opinion without being called bigots simply because their opposition is of another race/gender/religion.
Or would you prefer we lump all of you on the left with idiots like Cypress who wish to display their complete intolerance for the expression of opposing views?
SF - what are the reasons they prefer the site elsewhere?
You keep saying "they have a right to express that opinion." A white guy also has a right to say "I don't want blacks moving into my neighborhood." Can we dodge the implications of that by simply saying "he has a right to that opinion?"
According to your logic, if a member of his family or a friend or someone he knew was harmed by an African American, that would be a defensible position.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
They were also radical Saudi Arabians, radical men, radical individuals between the ages of 20-40, radical black-haired people and radical people from the Southern Hemisphere.
Couldn't handle having to defend "Straw Man," eh?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
They did this because of something other than their religion. Is that your position? :lol:
It was bigger than "1" person being harmed. It was 3000 people murdered because they were Americans!
The mosques erection at GZ lacks propriety under the circumstances period!
not at ground zero. but near ground zero - how far is far enough
and of course there is tim mcvey should we ban churches near government buildings
You have to put the "period!" in dramatic fashion, because there really isn't a rational reason it "lacks propriety." If there is, I'd like to hear you describe it.
nice of you to notice that the people of all religions, including islam, were killed by nut jobs - oh, and some of them were not americans, they just were in the wrong spot at the wrong time
Nice of you to notice that the murderers were only of ONE religion...you know the religion that wants to erect a mosque at GZ.
Again - you're branding the entire religion by the actions of a handful of extremists (who, btw, have been denounced by leaders of that religion throughout the globe).
It's the same as saying that the KKK is a Christian organization, so no Christians should build anything near the sites of any one of their thousands of crimes throughout history, because it wouldn't be appropriate.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
ID has been curb stomped.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
There's a mosque that's closer to ground zero than the proposed one. Should it be removed? Why, if it should not, can this one not be built? Can you define the precise radius from ground zero in which mosques are not to be built? Let's also take the names of the Muslims who died at 9/11 off the official lists, just to get back at the attackers, and pretend that there was no mosque actually in the world trade center.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. Two floors of the building in question were destroyed by a wheel carriage from one of the planes. That puts in exactly on ground zero.
2. McVeigh's actions did not represent Christianity.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Yes.
It was "in objection to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War."
They did it for their religion~~~
Bin Laden used Islamic texts to exhort violent action against American military and citizenry until the stated grievances are reversed, noting "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."
Christianity has been used by zealots to justify everything from slavery to murder. That doesn't mean Christians are slavers & murderers.
Period! End of story!
We are talking about the here and now. The here and now has Bin Laden as a leader of muslim jihad...