This Is Why America Has A Problem With The GZ Mosque...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

How exactly does one stop someone from claiming their actions are in the name of whatever they want to say it is in the name of? Many's the killer who claims they must kill because 'god' tells them to. Should christians feel responsible for these deaths because the killer claims them in the name of god? Or can they not rightly claim that no matter what the killer says, his actions are simply totally against christian doctrine and therefore christianity has nothing to do with it?

If God or Allah speak to you you don't have to kill someone to prove to me you are a nutjob. Although mainstream Christians including emphatically Pro-Life Catholics are appalled by the actions of zealots who commit murder, arson, or make threats of violence against abortion clinics and doctors, these folks are committing these acts in the name of Christianity and it reflects poorly on all Christians to a degree. However these acts are soundly renounced by mainstream Christians without the mental jujitsu associated with Muslim claims, counter-indicated by actual action, that nut-job Islamic Terrorists are not Muslim.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

To nab I can't quote your entire post but wow! You really need to read what I wrote without that hijab on so tight.

[Peikko 1,575]

If God or Allah speak to you you don't have to kill someone to prove to me you are a nutjob. Although mainstream Christians including emphatically Pro-Life Catholics are appalled by the actions of zealots who commit murder, arson, or make threats of violence against abortion clinics and doctors, these folks are committing these acts in the name of Christianity and it reflects poorly on all Christians to a degree. However these acts are soundly renounced by mainstream Christians without the mental jujitsu associated with Muslim claims, counter-indicated by actual action, that nut-job Islamic Terrorists are not Muslim.

Individual christians are not required, nor do they denounce each and every immoral or dastardly act that is performed by people who purport to be christians, or those who do evil deeds supposedly at the behest of god, and yet for some bizarre reason that is what you demand of muslims? No wonder you get to hear what you want to. You seem so confident that no muslims are appalled by the actions of zealots and fanatics, but yet you don't seem to have any grounds for your outrageous convictions. Sorry but you are seeing demons where none exist. Not only does that suck for you, but it sucks for all those muslims who fall foul of your irrationality.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Individual christians are not required, nor do they denounce each and every immoral or dastardly act that is performed by people who purport to be christians, or those who do evil deeds supposedly at the behest of god, and yet for some bizarre reason that is what you demand of muslims? No wonder you get to hear what you want to. You seem so confident that no muslims are appalled by the actions of zealots and fanatics, but yet you don't seem to have any grounds for your outrageous convictions. Sorry but you are seeing demons where none exist. Not only does that suck for you, but it sucks for all those muslims who fall foul of your irrationality.

Demons do exist within Islam. Your reaction to my comments are irrational.

[Peikko 1,575]

Demons do exist within Islam. Your reaction to my comments are irrational.

Demons exist? No they do not. Humans are capable of dastardly acts, some who commit dastardly acts claim to be muslim, but to suggest that all mulims are tainted by those dastardly acts because they do not take the time to condemn each and every dastardly act to you personally makes you the one who is irrational.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Demons exist? No they do not. Humans are capable of dastardly acts, some who commit dastardly acts claim to be muslim, but to suggest that all mulims are tainted by those dastardly acts because they do not take the time to condemn each and every dastardly act to you personally makes you the one who is irrational.

You appear to be arguing a point wholly unrelated to the OP. How can Muslims condemn acts and plots you allege do not exist?

[Peikko 1,575]

You appear to be arguing a point wholly unrelated to the OP. How can Muslims condemn acts and plots you allege do not exist?

It's very simple, American muslims are not responsible for the actions of extremists and terrorists, they have no responsibility for the actions of extremists and terrorists and they have no ability to influence extremists and terrorists, particulary those who reside in other countries. American muslims should be allowed to carry out their normal day to day business without being accused of tacit support of extremists and terrorists if the only link that can be found between American muslims and groups of extremists and terrorists is that the extremists and terrorists claim to be muslims. You may just as well blame the muslims in America for the actions of the Tamil Tigers or the Irish dissidents - it makes the same amount of sense.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Because I never said all Muslims in America are terrorists, all support terrorists, or are responsible as a whole for the terrorists never gets in the way of a classic MC rant...

But a classic MC rant does not quite erase the fact there are, in fact, terrorists within the US Muslim community and to some degree and in some concrete instances examples of sympathy for their cause. Thus there is a rational cause for some level of concern.

I don't lose sleep over it. I don't advocate for locking all Muslims up in internment camps. And nothing I have ever said indicates any desire to harm or see Muslims harmed.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Although both seek the same aim of a world ruled by Islamic law brought about violently if needed, the two take quite different approaches. While bin Laden keeps a low profile, al-Awlaki has hundreds of sermons on the Internet. Bin Laden's past statements issue threats and orders to Muslims to kill; al-Awlaki's sermons explain to potential followers why the West is evil and are pocked with references to pop culture given in disarming American English.

...

Evidence is mounting that al-Awlaki is perhaps the most dangerous enemy of the U.S. because of his ability to recruit followers and inspire attacks through e-mails and websites, the CIA says. The Arabic satellite network Al Arabiya has dubbed him the "bin Laden of the Internet."

Al-Awlaki's life began not in a Muslim enclave but in Las Cruces, N.M., a desert town not far from the Mexico border and the White Sands Missile Range. His father had gone there in 1971 from Yemen with his wife to earn a master's degree in agricultural economics at New Mexico State University. The family lived and worked in the United States until returning to Yemen in 1978, when al-Awlaki was 7. Al-Awlaki lived in Yemen for the next 11 years, during which time his father served as agriculture minister and as president of Sana University, and returned to the United States in 1991.

....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What does it matter if you didn't say it explicitly but are clearly implying it.

A straight question: do you believe concerns about terrorism are a legitimate objection to Park 51?

[Ban Hammer 13,318]

It's very simple, American muslims are not responsible for the actions of extremists and terrorists, they have no responsibility for the actions of extremists and terrorists and they have no ability to influence extremists and terrorists, particulary those who reside in other countries.

just like irish americans have no responsibility for the actions of the ira.

[Peikko 1,575]

just like irish americans have no responsibility for the actions of the ira.

Except the ones that actually supported them with funding. But no, just being an Irish American is certainly not enough in itself.

[Peikko 1,575]

Because I never said all Muslims in America are terrorists, all support terrorists, or are responsible as a whole for the terrorists never gets in the way of a classic MC rant...

But a classic MC rant does not quite erase the fact there are, in fact, terrorists within the US Muslim community and to some degree and in some concrete instances examples of sympathy for their cause. Thus there is a rational cause for some level of concern.

I don't lose sleep over it. I don't advocate for locking all Muslims up in internment camps. And nothing I have ever said indicates any desire to harm or see Muslims harmed.

You keep using the word rant which implies that you have no idea what it means. Needless to say, great you do not want to completely remove human rights from muslims by interring them, but you still wish to treat all muslims as suspect simply because you are unable to distinguish between muslims and terrorists and you still see a mosque as suspicious and insensitive if it is to be built somewhere in the vicinity of GZ which is only possible because you view all muslims as potential terrorists simply because you associate the muslim religion with terrorism as apposed to seeing terrorists as fanatics who use the muslim religion to further a very human agenda.

Viewing all muslims with suspicion necessarily means they will come to harm, whether or not that harm manifests itself in a reduction of their ability to go about their day to day lives without interference (ie building a mosque and community center to service an area where they live and work) or physical harm because a climate of suspicion inevitably leads to acts of violence, as with the taxi driver who was picked on simply because he looked muslim.

Specifically it seems to me that you see the muslim religion itself as suspicious despite the fact that murder and suicide are totally anathema to the muslim religion. I can only suppose that this is a result of a belief that no matter how 'western' an American muslim seems, his religion is anti-western and he must be constantly agitating to change his surroundings to suit his beliefs. Do you view the Amish with equal suspicion? It would make about as much sense. Of course the Amish have never bombed anyone in order to change the lives of the non Amish - but muslims would argue that neither have muslims, and I would have to support that view. Terrorists use terror to bring about the changes that they wish to see, religious people bring about change by example.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

If what you mean by viewing all Muslims with some level of suspicion simply by virtue of being Muslim, no since you can't tell just by looking. I don't see a lot of value, on the other hand, of body cavity searching 95 year old Caucasian grannies when there is a fairly reasonable profile for actual Islamic Terrists. Horrors! I advocated profiling!

And yes I know a rant when I see one. See your post above as it fits the rant profile MC.

Edited September 6, 2010 by ready4ONE

[Peikko 1,575]

If what you mean by viewing all Muslims with some level of suspicion simply by virtue of being Muslim, no since you can't tell just by looking. I don't see a lot of value, on the other hand, of body cavity searching 95 year old Caucasian grannies when there is a fairly reasonable profile for actual Islamic Terrists. Horrors! I advocated profiling!

And yes I know a rant when I see one. See your post above as it fits the rant profile MC.

Don't be facetious, you know perfectly well that viewing with suspicion has nothing to do with physically looking at people and your obfuscated reply does not fool me one whit.

As to your profiling, profiling works best when it is conducted by those who can distinguish suspicious actions regardless of who is undertaking those actions. I don't have any problem with behavioural profiling. I do however see through your disingenuous attempt to suggest that 'being pc' leads to targeting nonsensical people all the while allowing a suspiciously acting young male with olive skin and a Quran in his jacket to nonchalantly walk through. Get a grip.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Madame Cleo