A mosque at Ground Zero...

[JsJs24]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Indeed, the terrorists were pawns of a mastermind that are fighting us for different reasons than religion. My opinions are probably based on the inadequate and inaccurate info being fed to us anyway. Its easy to just look at the surface and say "Oh they hate us because of their religion", without stopping to look at the full picture, including the history behind the situation.

This is what my problem was for several years. I would take what I heard from the talking heads on Fox and CNN or whatever it was at the time and build my opinion from that. But most of the idiots on those news shows are merely talking heads with no real expertise in anything. The only books they ever read or support are books from more talking heads. The best thing any American can do is to get educated with as much history and economics as they can. People need to read real books by credible authors who are experts in their field of study, not books by Beck, Rove, Hannity, etc. Sure its okay to read some of their books, but at least read a real book first. The political talking heads are entertaining to listen to but none of them are experts in subjects that matter. Heck, the other day Sean Hannity (whom I do like) mispronounced Keynes and sounded as if he did not know who he was, which by the way if people are not aware of who Keynes is then they have a lot to learn.

An interesting fact is that the very countries we helped years ago, we find ourselves fighting today. Why is it always on land that is rich in oil and never in places like North Korea or parts of Africa. Heck, Somalia killed off our troops in a bloodshed and yet we did nothing to retaliate. The fact is they are all poor countries that have nothing to offer. I served in Korea back in 2002 and learned a great deal about the north while there. That madman Kim has got to be far worse than any of the middle eastern countries as far as dictators are concerned and he has nukes. Isn't it funny that the very reason we are in Iraq and contemplating going into Iran is over Nukes, yet Kim in N. Korea has nukes already and we never stopped him from building them nor are we trying to disarm him. Oil is the answer, and sadly U.S. troops are being killed along with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. But the larger American public seems to justify the death of innocent civilians because it is an unfortunate circumstance to ending a bigger problem. Okay, I get it, I was preached that crap while active duty. But when does it stop? How many more innocent people and children are going to lose their lives because of some greedy politicians and big business oil companies as well as the banking cartels? Why do Americans continue to fall for this bs year after year, that we are closer and closer to winning. That is nonsense. They have finally created the perfect war, one which can last potentially forever. And what happens during wars??? People give in to the government taking their liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. Examples are the warrant-less wire tapping, the Patriaot Act, and body scanners at airports; all of which are unconstitutional on all grounds, yet because we have been scared into believing the threat we have allowed them to take our liberties. War is the means of taking liberties via fear tactics and this one will take more.

[Dzone]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Ok, I hear what you guys are talking about now.

"The United States returned the exiled Shah to Iran, where he ruled with an iron fist for more than a quarter century. Tens of thousands of dissidents were tortured and murdered by his dreaded SAVAK secret police, organized and trained by the United States. The repression was largely successful in wiping out the democratic opposition. The SAVAK was less successful in infiltrating religious institutions, however, so when the revolution finally took place, toppling the Shah in 1979, the formerly secular Iran came under the leadership of virulently reactionary and anti-American Islamists."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/the_west/

[straydoglogic]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

This is what my problem was for several years. I would take what I heard from the talking heads on Fox and CNN or whatever it was at the time and build my opinion from that. But most of the idiots on those news shows are merely talking heads with no real expertise in anything. The only books they ever read or support are books from more talking heads. The best thing any American can do is to get educated with as much history and economics as they can. People need to read real books by credible authors who are experts in their field of study, not books by Beck, Rove, Hannity, etc. Sure its okay to read some of their books, but at least read a real book first. The political talking heads are entertaining to listen to but none of them are experts in subjects that matter. Heck, the other day Sean Hannity (whom I do like) mispronounced Keynes and sounded as if he did not know who he was, which by the way if people are not aware of who Keynes is then they have a lot to learn.

An interesting fact is that the very countries we helped years ago, we find ourselves fighting today. Why is it always on land that is rich in oil and never in places like North Korea or parts of Africa. Heck, Somalia killed off our troops in a bloodshed and yet we did nothing to retaliate. The fact is they are all poor countries that have nothing to offer. I served in Korea back in 2002 and learned a great deal about the north while there. That madman Kim has got to be far worse than any of the middle eastern countries as far as dictators are concerned and he has nukes. Isn't it funny that the very reason we are in Iraq and contemplating going into Iran is over Nukes, yet Kim in N. Korea has nukes already and we never stopped him from building them nor are we trying to disarm him. Oil is the answer, and sadly U.S. troops are being killed along with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. But the larger American public seems to justify the death of innocent civilians because it is an unfortunate circumstance to ending a bigger problem. Okay, I get it, I was preached that crap while active duty. But when does it stop? How many more innocent people and children are going to lose their lives because of some greedy politicians and big business oil companies as well as the banking cartels? Why do Americans continue to fall for this bs year after year, that we are closer and closer to winning. That is nonsense. They have finally created the perfect war, one which can last potentially forever. And what happens during wars??? People give in to the government taking their liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. Examples are the warrant-less wire tapping, the Patriaot Act, and body scanners at airports; all of which are unconstitutional on all grounds, yet because we have been scared into believing the threat we have allowed them to take our liberties. War is the means of taking liberties via fear tactics and this one will take more.

Amen!

[FUZO]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

War is always going to happen and politicians are always going to be involved and soldiers will die thats just how its been,is it right,NO but its war.Do we fight to defend our country,YES when does it stop,probably never. Presidents have to do certian things whether its right or wrong. When will wars stop,NEVER unless we kill the entire planet

[JsJs24]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Ok, I hear what you guys are talking about now.

"The United States returned the exiled Shah to Iran, where he ruled with an iron fist for more than a quarter century. Tens of thousands of dissidents were tortured and murdered by his dreaded SAVAK secret police, organized and trained by the United States. The repression was largely successful in wiping out the democratic opposition. The SAVAK was less successful in infiltrating religious institutions, however, so when the revolution finally took place, toppling the Shah in 1979, the formerly secular Iran came under the leadership of virulently reactionary and anti-American Islamists."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/the_west/

Correct, and thank Jimmy Carter for that one.

[rc10j1]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Throughout history, whenever the Muslims conquered a country they tore down landmarks and built a mosque in it's place. This is what is happening in New York.

[FUZO]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Its disgusting and I know there good muslims but you cant have a president a usa president want something to be built by people who did this to us. And the guy trying to get this done this muslim is a peice of shit . Its so unamerican of this scum bag president to want this built. But did you see how he now has changed his tune and said something different now. This is all back firing in his face and he and the dems are finished.

[straydoglogic]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Really, the bottom line is this, no matter how much it offends people and how bad of taste it may be in. We live in a Constitutional Republic where the rule of law trumps all else. If it is built on private property and approved by the local authorities, the citizens building the center are perfectly free to do so. Obama or anybody else at the federal level has absolutely no say in the matter. I can't understand how people can want the Constitution followed in some instances and not in others.

[Testify]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Frankly this disgusts me. But I would not support the government's intervention in any way or toward any outcome. I think the government should even refrain from comment. It is perfectly legal to build a muslim cultural center or whatever it is - containing a mosque - even if it is 2 blocks from ground zero. Originally I had heard this was on the site of the WTC towers, but I am relieved to find that is not the case here. Regardless, I would rather allow the free market to remain free, and also the people's freedom of speech to be heard in support and in opposition. I believe that as this gains more and more publicity, we will see more opposition and hopefully real social and political pressure on the parties responsible for this "mosque" so that their plans are forceably altered. I think that patriotic Americans across the nation should make their voices heard that we do not want this. Though real Muslims do not advocate violence, the erection of a mosque so close to the site of our nation's greatest terrorist tragedy - perpetrated by a dozen cowardly men hiding behind Islam's holy Qurran (sp?) - is simply a tasteless and antagonistic at best. I believe that a true and good follower of Islam would never dare to propose or support such a project. A true and good Muslim would recognize the sensitivity of the "ground zero" site, and easily forsee the hurt and bad blood that surely has followed the announcement of such a project in this area. I believe that it is clear that the organizers, financiers, and supporters of this building are anti-American Islamist sympathizers who wish to rub salt in the yet unhealed wound that is our rebuilding and memorializing of the former WTC site. They do it because they despise Americans and America - they endeavor to hurt us by manipulating the freedoms that have and do make this country the greatest in the world. Let us not react by curtailing our own freedoms. Let us counter with unrelenting popular protest. Let America test the resolve of these self-proclaimed reconcilationists - show them how we feel about this brazen disrespect for our fallen citizens; show them what kind of good will they can hope to foster in this neighborhood. Speak out, be seen, and greet these charlatans with the power that freedom allows us.

[straydoglogic]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

That's a great post there Testify. The only thing I would disagree with is the comment of the men who hijacked the planes being cowards. I guess it depends on the context in which you choose to use the word, but to basically commit suicide over religious ideaology which you only believe to be true, not know absolutely, is certainly not cowardly. Despicable and grotesque yes without a doubt. It's like the kamikaze, it takes a lot in a man to be able to sacrifice your life for a cause, whether it's agreeable or not. But again, your post was spot on. The federal government has no role and should remain quiet on the issue. And I give kudos to anybody who mentions the free market in a positive light! ;-)

[FUZO]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

what I beleive is if anyone tries to kill themselves by suicide are cowards

[horsepwr]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Do they have the right?..yes. Constitutionally, it's a right. Is it right?..hell no. Not if you're an American savvy to Islamic war tactics.
If our founding father's were alive today, I'd bet that because of the meaning behind these massive monumental mosques, which landmark a defeat and conquering for Islam. Well, from the way our founders went about the fight for their beliefs, this mosque wouldn't even be a debate with them. But, we have a president that is a scholar in law of The Constitution. And we have a country full of anti-Americans that use The Constitution, for which they hate, to gain strategy for their anti-American agendas. Fukin sickening. The founders are rolling in their graves.
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would've thought of someone exercising their freedom to disrespect the very flag that gives them that freedom. He probably wouldn't think nearly as hostile of the jackass American that does that, but the immigrant might've been seen as an enemy of the state. Both should be charged with treason.
Speaking of the founders. This mosque debate probably wouldn't even be happening, because the radical piece of shit that wants to build the thing so adamantly, would have already been dealt with for treason. But, evidently, there's no such thing as treason anymore.

[JsJs24]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Frankly this disgusts me. But I would not support the government's intervention in any way or toward any outcome. I think the government should even refrain from comment. It is perfectly legal to build a muslim cultural center or whatever it is - containing a mosque - even if it is 2 blocks from ground zero. Originally I had heard this was on the site of the WTC towers, but I am relieved to find that is not the case here. Regardless, I would rather allow the free market to remain free, and also the people's freedom of speech to be heard in support and in opposition. I believe that as this gains more and more publicity, we will see more opposition and hopefully real social and political pressure on the parties responsible for this "mosque" so that their plans are forceably altered. I think that patriotic Americans across the nation should make their voices heard that we do not want this. Though real Muslims do not advocate violence, the erection of a mosque so close to the site of our nation's greatest terrorist tragedy - perpetrated by a dozen cowardly men hiding behind Islam's holy Qurran (sp?) - is simply a tasteless and antagonistic at best. I believe that a true and good follower of Islam would never dare to propose or support such a project. A true and good Muslim would recognize the sensitivity of the "ground zero" site, and easily forsee the hurt and bad blood that surely has followed the announcement of such a project in this area. I believe that it is clear that the organizers, financiers, and supporters of this building are anti-American Islamist sympathizers who wish to rub salt in the yet unhealed wound that is our rebuilding and memorializing of the former WTC site. They do it because they despise Americans and America - they endeavor to hurt us by manipulating the freedoms that have and do make this country the greatest in the world. Let us not react by curtailing our own freedoms. Let us counter with unrelenting popular protest. Let America test the resolve of these self-proclaimed reconcilationists - show them how we feel about this brazen disrespect for our fallen citizens; show them what kind of good will they can hope to foster in this neighborhood. Speak out, be seen, and greet these charlatans with the power that freedom allows us.

Great post, and Koran is the correct spelling. This is indeed a local issue that never should have been commented on by the President. However, if he felt obliged to do so he should have appeased the good Muslims by saying it is in poor taste but they are free to build it.

I can see testify's point in the cowardice issue too. But it does depend on one's context of the term. I believe anyone willing to kill themselves is indeed serious about their cause, yet I consider them cowards for targeting innocent civilians. If they were targeting the military or politicians then their cause would make more since, not that I condone it at all, but it would be targeted at those who they believe they are at war with. By attacking civilians at random and buildings that have no war capabilities is a cowardliness act. They are attacking those who are not in the fight, and not prepared to deal with them.

[JsJs24]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Do they have the right?..yes. Constitutionally, it's a right. Is it right?..hell no. Not if you're an American savvy to Islamic war tactics.
If our founding father's were alive today, I'd bet that because of the meaning behind these massive monumental mosques, which landmark a defeat and conquering for Islam. Well, from the way our founders went about the fight for their beliefs, this mosque wouldn't even be a debate with them. But, we have a president that is a scholar in law of The Constitution. And we have a country full of anti-Americans that use The Constitution, for which they hate, to gain strategy for their anti-American agendas. Fukin sickening. The founders are rolling in their graves.
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would've thought of someone exercising their freedom to disrespect the very flag that gives them that freedom. He probably wouldn't think nearly as hostile of the jackass American that does that, but the immigrant might've been seen as an enemy of the state. Both should be charged with treason.
Speaking of the founders. This mosque debate probably wouldn't even be happening, because the radical piece of shit that wants to build the thing so adamantly, would have already been dealt with for treason. But, evidently, there's no such thing as treason anymore.

Horsepwr, you may be correct here, but only in part. Jefferson is my favorite president, and one whom I study immensely. He was a Libertarian in today's definition of the term, but a classical liberal in his own time. He did author the Declaration of Independence but did not author the Constitution. Unfortunately, James Madison was the main author of the Constitution, and Jefferson was away in France while it was being written. Jefferson was a staunch supporter of state's rights, and feared federal tyranny. Jefferson's biggest complaints with the Constitution were the lack of a bill of rights, and the lack of term limits. He believed that without term limits, politicians would stay in office for life, which would be a fatal flaw. However, Jefferson did abide by the Constitution regardless of his strong resentments. He considered amendments to be a just way of fixing some of the imperfections.

I don't believe Jefferson would have permitted the government to prevent someone from building a religious building on their private owned land because the Constitution permits it. Thus, I disagree with you respectfully here. However, we may not have the rapid influx of foreigners who hate our culture and laws had Jefferson had any say in the matter today. Jefferson was concerned with foreigners from old European cities coming to America in masses, bringing with them their distinct understanding of government. This was a difficult problem and one that required attention. Jefferson feared that our liberty could be jeopardized by the rapid influx of foreigners who did not share our beliefs in liberty, and would raise families and instill their beliefs in them. But at any rate, for an American citizen to build a mosque on his own land, Jefferson most likely would have accepted it as perfectly legal by the Constitution. Keep in mind, Jefferson was a classical liberal, an anti-federalist, and not at all a neoconservative like most of the Republicans today. Jefferson was a man of principles, and thus followed the Constitution strictly, but with one exception. When Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase, he had a very difficult time making the decision to do so without the required amendment to permit the federal government to make such a purchase. However, he went ahead with the purchase because he believed it was good for the country, which obviously it was. Yet, he should have done so with an amendment. Jefferson was the greatest president in our country's history in my humble opinion, regardless of the route he chose for the Louisiana Purchase.

[horsepwr]

Re: A mosque at Ground Zero...

Horsepwr, you may be correct here, but only in part. Jefferson is my favorite president, and one whom I study immensely. He was a Libertarian in today's definition of the term, but a classical liberal in his own time. He did author the Declaration of Independence but did not author the Constitution. Unfortunately, James Madison was the main author of the Constitution, and Jefferson was away in France while it was being written. Jefferson was a staunch supporter of state's rights, and feared federal tyranny. Jefferson's biggest complaints with the Constitution were the lack of a bill of rights, and the lack of term limits. He believed that without term limits, politicians would stay in office for life, which would be a fatal flaw. However, Jefferson did abide by the Constitution regardless of his strong resentments. He considered amendments to be a just way of fixing some of the imperfections.

I don't believe Jefferson would have permitted the government to prevent someone from building a religious building on their private owned land because the Constitution permits it. Thus, I disagree with you respectfully here. However, we may not have the rapid influx of foreigners who hate our culture and laws had Jefferson had any say in the matter today. Jefferson was concerned with foreigners from old European cities coming to America in masses, bringing with them their distinct understanding of government. This was a difficult problem and one that required attention. Jefferson feared that our liberty could be jeopardized by the rapid influx of foreigners who did not share our beliefs in liberty, and would raise families and instill their beliefs in them. But at any rate, for an American citizen to build a mosque on his own land, Jefferson most likely would have accepted it as perfectly legal by the Constitution. Keep in mind, Jefferson was a classical liberal, an anti-federalist, and not at all a neoconservative like most of the Republicans today. Jefferson was a man of principles, and thus followed the Constitution strictly, but with one exception. When Jefferson completed the Louisiana Purchase, he had a very difficult time making the decision to do so without the required amendment to permit the federal government to make such a purchase. However, he went ahead with the purchase because he believed it was good for the country, which obviously it was. Yet, he should have done so with an amendment. Jefferson was the greatest president in our country's history in my humble opinion, regardless of the route he chose for the Louisiana Purchase.

My post must not read out the main point for what it was written.
yeah...after reading it again, the point I meant to make is not really there.

I realize where Jefferson's position on a mosque being built would be, as with any of our founders. It would be a non-issue. 'your land, do what you want with it...' of course.
What I meant to get across is that if it were our founding fathers in office over the last 10yrs. With the knowledge of this radical imam, the "gun-free" zones, the whole 9...etc, etc... I feel the news would be of a completely different context rather than a debate concerning the construction of a monumental mosque on, or near, the grave site of thousands of Americans that were murdered in the name of Islamic jihad. These radicals declared war on our freedom for which they despise. freedom. Which brings me to Jefferson and why I chose to name him by name.

You wrote:

However, we may not have the rapid influx of foreigners who hate our culture and laws had Jefferson had any say in the matter today. Jefferson was concerned with foreigners from old European cities coming to America in masses, bringing with them their distinct understanding of government. This was a difficult problem and one that required attention. Jefferson feared that our liberty could be jeopardized by the rapid influx of foreigners who did not share our beliefs in liberty, and would raise families and instill their beliefs in them.

That^ is one reason I spoke of Jefferson directly. I don't believe that Jefferson would play host to people of such blatant opposing beliefs. As Jefferson has wrote, without reserve, on government, liberty, and maintenance of freedom...on-and-on...the news would be completely different right now. History, in the making, would be of a new founding freedom for the people, guided by wisdom of those men that created The Republic. If only they were in office during this time of reckless tyrant wannabes.
This thread would never even be. That's just what I believe.