Mosque on Ground Zero; Requested Split Topic

[Jimbean]

Mmm, I always thought the economic relationship between the Middle East and the western world to be the source of conflict renewal between them. As long as the economic relationship exists, it's difficult for either side to disengage.

It's like a bad marriage, but you still have to live in the same house.

In this particular case, there is no cold-war policy that can be adopted to isolate the Middle East, rather there is only a conflicted engagement over resources.

The kind of war being fought in the middle east is prohibitively expensive and it is also no longer morally supported in the US. I think as long as our dependency on oil is reduced in the coming generations, the problem will solve themselves. It's likely civil conflict will occur in the middle east without western money and funding simply because of the atrocious management of the governments. However, these corrupt reigmes are being funded by the western world's demand for oil.

As far as the Mosque, if it's legal, I don't think there is anything should be done about it. It certainly is contentious and I think it's a sensitive issue, I think the people building the Mosque probably aren't that fond of America and the people who don't want to the Mosque have no real reason to like Muslims, but it's a conflict both sides seem willing to engage in.

As far as Jimbean's comment, it's meaningless, America operate under the rule of law and as long as they stay within the rule of law, they have the freedom to build the mosque. It's pointless to speculate on the reasons, you can protest, picket, try to keep people from entering the mosque.

See segregation for example.






Look at all the nice people. Don't they seem so friendly in the sunday best.

America isn't a utilitarian society, because it views the protection of some freedom and diversity as being a higher priority then more measurable utility, and this is why we get to own guns, have religious freedom, thump our noses at authority, piss people off with words/mosques/varying level of offensive behavior, and many others protections to non-utilitarian principles.

No offense hkkmr, but you are the last person that I want to get into an argument with. I just don't want to go there.

[Creepy-male]

lol, I know...at least you don't seem to want to kill me.

Of course not, and even if I disagreed with you, killing you wouldn't solve anything, I wouldn't have anyone to discuss things with.... which is why I see ideologically motivated violence as senseless and civil debate/deliberation as being far superior.

[Creepy-male]

Seriously think about this. On one end of it, why would someone build some Islamic center on or near Ground Zero? The only reason why this is considered being built and the news media is reporting on it is so that 1.) they get a news story and 2.) is to p!ss people off.

Nah I think its the message people see in it.... it shows tolerance.... it could be considered a bit of a flamboyant show of self-righteous tolerance though. Lol I actually prefer people just being sensible and not over-dramatic about it..... lol sell the land and let people decide what to do with it.... that way it doesn't become a symbolic battleground for conflicting ideologies. If someone really wants to memorialize the land, they will accumulate enough money to move forward with the project.

[Creepy-male]

I'll repost what I had originally said (w/ a few minor tweaks), which got lost in the other thread:

There's a reason imagery like this is so evocative:



Victorious U.S. Marines on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima. Victorious Red Army soldiers on the ruins of the Reichstag, Berlin. Nothing else strikes such a clear and decisive message through the heart of history, "We came. We saw. We conquered."

So it is with a mosque (or whatever petty word games a person wants to call it) constructed on ground zero. One can say "it's just a building." Well, yeah. It's 'just a building' to me too. But that's not what gets communicated to a radical-Islamic jihad mentality which has a nasty habit of interpreting every landmark and historical site within a warped context of epic religious symbolism. In all lands they've put to the sword, they build mosques over important cultural and religious grounds of the previous owners. Naturally, they'll see this as nothing less than an act of the most humiliating and disgraceful submission on part of the United States. A glorious day the tide finally turned against the infidels. What sworn enemy wouldn't see it that way?

Being dedicated to tolerance only works when both sides buy into the ideal. It's suicidal to treat others with the same values who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat, and laugh as you gurgle on your own blood with all your naive gestures of mutual peace and respect.

OK that makes complete sense.... but to me I think its possible to let them build their mosque but deny them of any feelings of having been victorious.... its like giving a person a gold star then when they start to get arrogant tell them its nothing special you just give gold stars to everyone.... then the symbol becomes nothing more than a symbol of mediocrity.

Something like the medal of honor..... is a great award.... but how would you feel if someone threw you in a prison, interrogated you, then gave you the medal of honor (they aqquired from a dead soldier) and told everyone it was for breaking sooner than any other prisoner (whether it was true or not). Easily the person could twist the symbol into a different meaning.

Basically I'm saying symbolism is mallable.

[Gilly]

I'll repost what I had originally said (w/ a few minor tweaks), which got lost in the other thread:

There's a reason imagery like this is so evocative:



Victorious U.S. Marines on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima. Victorious Red Army soldiers on the ruins of the Reichstag, Berlin. Nothing else strikes such a clear and decisive message through the heart of history, "We came. We saw. We conquered."

So it is with a mosque (or whatever petty word games a person wants to call it) constructed on ground zero. One can say "it's just a building." Well, yeah. It's 'just a building' to me too. But that's not what gets communicated to a radical-Islamic jihad mentality which has a nasty habit of interpreting every landmark and historical site within a warped context of epic religious symbolism. In all lands they've put to the sword, they build mosques over important cultural and religious grounds of the previous owners. Naturally, they'll see this as nothing less than an act of the most humiliating and disgraceful submission on part of the United States. A glorious day the tide finally turned against the infidels. What sworn enemy wouldn't see it that way?

Being dedicated to tolerance only works when both sides buy into the ideal. It's suicidal to treat others with the same values who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat, and laugh as you gurgle on your own blood with all your naive gestures of mutual peace and respect.

This is some hilariously paranoid and insecure bullshit.

First off, they haven't conquered SHIT. We're the ones slaughtering them by the thousands, in their homelands; therefore any symbolic gesture signifying that they have conquered us is both laughably uncalled for and entirely inaffective. If a football player does a touchdown dance in the endzone, it's humiliating to the other team; if he does one after dropping the ball, or while his team is losing 42-7, he just looks like a comedic spectacle.

You think it's going to bring down troop moral, to know that there's a mosque in New York City? Do they have any kind of strategic advantage? Are they going to stash rocket launchers there? Where does this actually have an effect on people, or do ANYTHING AT ALL? Mind games only work, if they work.

[olduser]

we came, we saw, we conquered.