I believe the applicable phrase here is “whoosh”.
It seems awfully easy for the Muslim-obsessed to conveniently forget that the non-Muslim Tamil Tigers were gold medallists in the Suicide Bombing Olympics.
Not really because it wasn’t exactly clear what point you were trying to make.
I still can’t quite see how a sarcastic (which made the sentence appear to say the opposite of the truth) comment about two sets of non-Muslims being violent is a sequitur to the claim that non-Muslim violence is ignored.
i.e. you seem to actually be providing evidence to support Tom’s assertion but the way you phrased it make it look as if you’re pointing out some contradictory information.
Which was my intent. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but text-based deadpan sarcasm apparently does not work out quite so well in execution.
You are right and I apologize. (In fact, I just logged back in to re-examine your post that I read too hastily earlier.)
Indeed.
I read it quite a few times. It seemed obvious that you intended to agree with the quoted point but I couldn’t quite get it to ‘gel’.
I’ll bet if it had been a spoken response audible nuances would have done the job.
You didn’t think I was opposed to the mosque, did you?
A few? There is an unending parade of suicide attacks linked to Islamic terrorists.
If you want to talk about state sponsored terrorism then start with Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbola. From there you can look at terrorist training camps in places like Pakistan and Yemen (pick your sponsor).
If you want to talk about state sponsored terrorism, let’s talk about the terror inflicted on the people of Iraq by ‘shock and awe’.
Let’s look at the number of civilians killed in GWB’s little adventure.
Let’s look at all violence that occurs at the behest of some government rather than just selectively picking on those acts perpetrated by the members of some particular religion.
Or if you like, I had some lovely cites in this post about Christians in positions of power doing horrible things to youth. There is definitely an “unending parade” of sex-with-minors scandals in Catholic and Protestant churches and church groups.
And yet, in the United States of America, we continue to let them practice their vile molestation of our children. We even let them run schools! Why aren’t we banning this horrible religion, after centuries of terrible acts of violence and abuse? Why do we allow them to build their churches in our communities? Where are the people burning Bibles in the streets? I mean, look how many cites I found in a quick Google search alone! Is that not enough to condemn all Christianity?
Cite where the United States lets child molestor’s go. Cite where any molestation was done in the name of a religion.
Now contrast that with the children in Afghanistan who were poisoned, had acid thrown on them, or gunned down in Pakistan, or burned alive in Saudi Arabia because they didn’t have head coverings on.
And do you believe any of that will be happening at Park51?
It probably doesn’t matter: to people like Magiver, that fact that any Muslim has done such things, anywhere, at any time, taints the entire religion. The fact that female circumcision (to use one example) tends to be more prevalent in areas where it’s a tribal custom that predates Islam cuts no ice; nor does the fact that it’s denounced by many Muslim scholars, who point out that the Prophet never specifically endorsed it.
MHO — and to digress — what Islam needs to do is mature in the same way that Christianity did. Consider where Christianity was 600 or so years ago and where it is today; then apply the same idea to Islam. I don’t know whether such a maturation is possible and/or likely — but it sure as hell isn’t going to be helped by treating the entire religion like a theological leper.
I believe it’s a sensitive area poorly chosen to be a cultural bridge.
The director of a Dubai-based, **Arab television network writes that most of the world’s Muslims couldn’t care less about building a mosque near Ground Zero and that plans to do so would only create a “monument” to terrorists.
Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, director-general of Al-Arabiya TV, wrote a column in the Aug. 16 London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat arguing that President Obama was wasting his time championing construction of the proposed mosque, which Al-Rashed says the majority of world’s Muslims don’t want anyway.
“I can’t imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime,” writes Al-Rashed in the column, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?”
He adds, “I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a monument or a place of worship that tomorrow may become a source of pride for the terrorists and their Muslim followers, nor do they want a mosque that will become a shrine for the haters of Islam.”
**
Well you are proving he is correct. It certainly has focused your hatred and bias.
The community center is not a threat at all. It is just a damn building. Like Al Franken said" it will develop point guards" People are protesting mosques all over the country now. Any place is wrong .
I guess you are happy if America no longer promotes religious freedom any more. Some of us see it as a step backwards. The promise of America will be gone. Congratulations.
Isn’t it much more important what Muslim American’s think? Isn’t it more important that we as a nation live up to the principles of our constitution and not succumb to the manipulation of the fear mongers. The backlash of suspicion , fear, and resentment against Muslim Americans is not something we should be proud of.
What, and treating all Muslims by the actions of a few is an entirely non-sensitive idea? I mean, doesn’t this also send the message that all Muslims will be treated as complicit with the 9/11 terrorists? It’s a sensitive area both ways; it’s not a matter of deciding the way that avoids offense or people’s feelings being hurt. The choice either way will offend some people. The choice you have is to offend Muslims in general by saying that they are, in some part, all to blame for the actions of those few, or to offend those who believe that Muslims in general are in some way to blame. And if we have to pick between the two, which we do, I think i’d rather offend the latter and not the former, especially given the difference in severity.
It’s not a case of “We must be careful not to offend, therefore we’ll choose not to do it”. You’re offending whatever the decision. Hell, you’re offending by this being a debate at all.
If there is any hatred and bias it resides in people who project other people’s thoughts. As a psychic you have no skills.
Per the multiple cites by Muslims, it will be seen by terrorists as a victory monument.
I’m not treating Muslim in any way. The action here is the construction of a mosque. The debate (not action) is an expression of the sensitivity of the area for which I’ve given multiple sites by Muslims acknowledging the sensitivity and the likelihood it will be viewed as a terrorist monument and thus harmful all around.
If there is an attack against the US that is directly tied to this community center (which is incredibly unlikely) would any of the pro-center Dopers change their viewpoint?
My apology. I assumed that you were bringing up those points in defence of the idea, rather than as simply bringing information into a debate. What* is* your position on the matter?