Mosque Being Built 2 Blocks Away From Ground Zero... What Do You Think?

[byteware]

That Church is less than 1mile from the centre of the blast; I don't know where you're getting your information.

Your facts regarding Hiroshima, and also what you imagine to be true, seem to be unsubstantiated; I haven't bother to research your claims regarding Nagasaki.

Actually, that misunderstanding comes from my inability read a map right. I was looking at the projected Kokura site, instead of the blast site of Hiroshima. My bad.

They HAVE expressed an openness to sit down and talk though, but if people take your view, that because they haven't expressed an openness to specifically compromise on the issue you're interested in what's the point of sitting down to talk; who really isn't being open?

"I WILL sit down and talk with you about why I'm not going to do what everyone wants me to."

"That doesn't change your mind?"

"Really?"

The issue of the right to build is all but answered; they have the legal right.

All but answered? It is absolutely answered, when and if they get the rest of the property secured, then they can build whatever they want to on that spot (within legal reason).

So the only remaining issue is should they, should they be allowed to try and foster education, understanding and community spirit for the good of all?

They should/will be allowed to build it.

As far as the stated goals? If they had responded to the issues with humility and agreed to move elsewhere, it WOULD have fostered education, understanding, and community spirit for the good of all. Currently, they are fostering hate. They have made it appear as if their goal is to build as close to the Twin Towers as they can. They have made it appear as if those stupid people claiming it is a "victory mosque" are right.

 

[Mayhem]

I'd be more pissed about this.

Talk about a slap in the face.

 

[byteware]

I'd be more pissed about this.

Talk about a slap in the face.

I would like independent verification that it was, in fact, true. But if true, yes, it would piss me off a great deal.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[Vihzel]

I'd be more pissed about this.

Talk about a slap in the face.

Wow umm... you're a bit late, aren't you? Talking about an article from 2007? Things have changed in 2009. Keep in mind... that design concept was made during the Bush administration. Do you really think that the best way to get unbiased news is from a conservative blogger? I'm assuming you prefer biased news.

Flight 93 National Memorial - New Image of Flight 93 National Memorial Unveiled (U.S. National Park Service)

 

[byteware]

Glad to see you're big enough to accept when you're wrong.

Seeing as you've accepted that this church is at the blast site, and was built just 4years after the blast, do you have anything to say about your earlier statement that it would have provoked a murderously violent reaction at the time? and seeing as that previous statement was wrong, are you prepared to entertain the notion that your opinion of reactions today over this community centre?

Yes, I admit my error.

However, I am left with a difference between the two.

Hiroshima was an act of war.

9/11 was an act of religion.

But yes, I was wrong about post a-bomb hiroshima.

This exchange relies on you already knowing how people will react; we've already established you wrong about reactions that you could've researched, should we perhaps give future reactions the benefit of the doubt, rather than rely on your gut feeling?

What you fail to understand is a couple of things.

Their stated goal is harmony between religions.

Much disharmony has been stirred up because of the location.

Much disharmony continues to be stirred up because of the location.

Much disharmony will continue to be caused by the location.

Changing locations would have been a gesture of good faith, and created a lot more harmony.

Doing it now will seem like the evil Muslims have been forced to move by the righteous anger.


Secondly,

It really doesn't matter how many religious leaders they sit down and talk to, unless they move the mosque, it will continue to cause disharmony (absolutely opposite of their stated goal).

That sounds to me like when you talk of people sitting down and talking through the issues, you already have in your head that they, the developers, are the only ones that need to change there position and compromise their plans;

If their actual goal is harmony between religions... yes, that's what they NEEDED to do, when angry protesters started showing up.

why not think about if the whole community can sit down together and reach a compromise where neither party is flatly refusing to change it's position?

You cannot sit down with the community as a whole. You can sit down with leaders, but it isn't a quiet anger expressed by leaders. It is a vocal anger expressed by individuals. Having leaders sit down with other leaders and make them happy, isn't going to make the public happy. The public will call them fools, and ignore their calls for peace with the Center.


Secondly:
The victims and survivors of 9/11 aren't going to change their feelings about the mosque (Neither are those that speak for them), whether they are right, or not. They feel the way they feel, and there are too many emotions tied up in that to effect rational change of thought.

The developer has stated that they aren't going to move...

 

[byteware]

Wow umm... you're a bit late, aren't you? Talking about an article from 2007? Things have changed in 2009. Keep in mind... that design concept was made during the Bush administration. Do you really think that the best way to get unbiased news is from a conservative blogger? I'm assuming you prefer biased news.

Flight 93 National Memorial - New Image of Flight 93 National Memorial Unveiled (U.S. National Park Service)

You do realize that the Bush administration didn't have anything to do with either memorial? So, I don't see how it being during the Bush administration has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You could even call it a war crime.

To be blunt, more civilians would have been killed if US invasion of Japan happened, than the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

And US military casualities would have been MASSIVE.

____________


Regarding 9-11 being an act of reliigion, I disagree.
99.9% of modern Muslims IME despise Al Queda and their acts of terrorism.

 

[Familyguy1]

9/11 was technically an act of war. He declared war on the US. War these days is not going to be x country telling x country that they are declaring war...

Shadow is right though, if that Operation went through, the war could have lasted until '46, '47 even. Though Stalin offered to invade from the north if we needed help.

We could not have imagined what it would have been like if we had invaded Japan, we probably would have backed out after a while.

 

[byteware]

You could even call it a war crime.

No, you really couldn't. I mean, you could, but you would be completely inaccurate.

For a couple of reasons. However, the biggest reason is this: At that time, war wasn't something that was fought between one military and another. War was fought between two countries, that includes their citizens.

That being said, calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime would mean that EVERY participant of EVERY war prior to the Geneva Conventions is guilty of war crimes.


The second biggest reason is this: The Geneva Conventions that define war crimes were created AFTER WWII.

You're probably right; even though it isn't a mosque, even though the developers are part of the community that was attacked.

Only one side want to heal, and build a better community.

Let's heal and build a better community by causing the OTHER side pain. It doesn't really matter if you agree they SHOULD feel pain about something. The fact that they do precludes healing.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[smacky]

You would think with all the backlash and the sentimental value some Americans put into the site of Ground Zero, the people building this thing would reconsider. Just sounds like they wanna be douche bags, that's all. And they're notorious for being douche bags.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[ElasticNinja]

MPW as I said before the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be done
They were also major military production centers.
Would you rather 200,000 Japanese civilians dead
OR
1,000,000 US troops, 500,000 Soviet troops, 1,000,000 Japanese troops, 500,000 Japanese civilians drafted into army and about 1,000,000 Japanese civilians dead.

Also, afaicr, a hundred thousand people were killed by Allied bombing in Dresden in one week.

Anyway this is waay Off-Topic

 

[mpw]

.

 

[smacky]

MPW as I said before the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be done
They were also major military production centers.
Would you rather 200,000 Japanese civilians dead
OR
1,000,000 US troops, 500,000 Soviet troops, 1,000,000 Japanese troops, 500,000 Japanese civilians drafted into army and about 1,000,000 Japanese civilians dead.

Also, afaicr, a hundred thousand people were killed by Allied bombing in Dresden in one week.

Anyway this is waay Off-Topic

He's not American. Of course he'll choose the last option.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[smacky]

Of course?? My reasoning isn't based on nationality; perhaps unlike you I can reason in an unbiased fashion. It's this kind of 'patriotism' and prejudice that causes the kind of problems we're talking about.

Jumping to conclusions are we? Pretty sure that's exactly what your essays in this thread are all about not doing. Hypocritical much?

 

[mpw]

.

 

[smacky]

No. In part. And No.

If he mentioned British troop casualties, you still wouldn't care? It's easy to say now, but once it happened, you wouldn't even know what to think, I guarantee it.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[byteware]

H Truman POTUS, on the use of the atomic bomb, 1945:
"...we pray that He[God] may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes..."

And? The President prayed to God? And that makes WWII a religious war?

Seriously?

Lets not dwell on all the various international treaties that pre-date the Geneva treaty you're referencing, including the previous treaties of Geneva, and take a look at just a couple of examples related to International Law:
PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR - Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938:
"...I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence..."

FDR, 1939:
"...armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents..."

You may notice the "that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents....

Since that wasn't the case in WWII... the treaty wouldn't apply.
FDR described indiscriminate bombing of civilians as ruthless, inhumane and barbaric in the same address.

Utter rubbish.

I see, so every OTHER war up until then when Civilians were killed indiscriminately wouldn't be a war crime for some reason, but that one would be... I see your logic. Wait, no I don't.

Again you make out that causing pain is the aim, it isn't;

What you fail to understand, is that you CANNOT have harmony while causing the other side pain. It doesn't matter if causing the pain is your goal or not. If you are aware of it, and continue to do it, then you cannot promote harmony.

if it's painful to enter into dialogue because you're prejudice,

Is it prejudice to feel pain because Muslims flew planes into the twin towers on 9/11 and killed the father of your child in the name of Islam? And then Muslims build a mosque near the twin towers?

Is that prejudice?

Do these people not have a RIGHT to feel pain in this situation? Is that not allowed?

maybe the pain is worthwhile for the enlightenment that might come from a better understanding and education of what you're prejudice over.

You don't seem to understand people very well. Or at least, you don't seem to care about them.

Intentionally causing the survivors of 9/11 pain (at this point they are aware of it... so it is now intentional) will prevent enlightenment and harmony.

If enlightenment and harmony truly WERE their goals, they missed their chance to prove that. The only thing that they've proven is that they want to build that mosque RIGHT there, regardless of how much pain it causes.

 

[byteware]

I'd prefer the 2nd option.

You would prefer 500,000 civilian deaths to 200,000 civilian deaths?

Wow... you are humanitarian of the year.

I don't think there is really any justification for wanting 3 million people to die instead of 200,000, but if you feel that makes you a better person... be my guest.

 

[mpw]

.