Landing gear found near mosque, NYC.from a 911 airplane

Not necessary, the Mosque could stay but would be maybe cut back a bit to accommodate the memorial (if needed). After all, this artifact was not known to exist at the inception of the mosque plan.

 

This whole idea is absurd. The purpose is clearly to prevent the construction of the mosque and schools, which is to say, to concede the battle to that domestic terroist Pam Geller and her thugs. There is no money for the memorial you propose. Eminent domain is irrelevant. It's called the First Amendment. Learn what it means.

 

nice conspiracy theory

 

No.... the 'idea' is to preserve an artifact in place that represents the most horrendous attack by a foreign element on American soil that killed 3,000 innocent souls. Eminent domain is perfectly legal, learn what it means.

Definition of 'Eminent Domain'

The power the government has to obtain the property of an individual even without the person's full consent. In most countries, including the U.S., the land owner will be compensated for the land at fair market value. This power allows the government to seize land to be used in public enterprises such as roads, schools, or utilities installations. Eminent domain is generally found in some form in most common law nations.

The owners of the land where the artifact is (or was) would be compensated for the land-taking by a state sanctioned appraisal then, the state would condemn the existing use to make way for the historical monument. The designated sq. ft. or acreage of the monument would have to be determined. It could encompass only part of the area which means the monument could co-exist with the mosque. Surely moderate Muslims would have no problem with this.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eminent-domain.asp

 

The whole monutment idea is absurd. There are still human remains on the roofs of most of the buildings there. How would using the location as a religious site be less appropriate than bars and stores in the other buildings? You idea makes no sense, unless the purpose is to bar a mosque, in which case, you are advocating an abuse of the rights of a religious group, which is a sick way to commemorate any event. If the way to fight back against the enemies of our freedom is more freedom, barring the construction of the mosque is a surrender to terrorism.

 

Feel free to provide some evidence for your claim that "taqiyya is a Shi'ite concept and doesn't exist in Sunni Islam".

 

I lied about nothing. You simply did a terrible job of researching the source before spouting off an opinion. How shocking.

Of course you'll pass. It has to be embarrassing to have someone call you out on calling a 50-60% majority a "vast majority".

I don't know, how many?

Why can't we worry about the ones who approve of, and support in many cases, these attacks?

I've substantiated my argument, which is something you haven't done. The only main objection you've offered has been soundly defeated, as shown above.

 

/facepalm

Did you read the question that was asked for that statistic? Read the entire section. The question matters a LOT when you are doing surveys.

What's a vast majority, then, Brewskier? What percentage?

I have no idea. That's the point.

Oh, we can, but they aren't the largest worry to our safety.

You haven't substantiated anything. In what way is a non-mosque a quarter mile away from Ground Zero a victory mosque?

 

That's possible. If Islam is evil, it's evil. If people think it is, they think it is. If they say so then they say so.

 

Feel free to point out anything in that section that refutes the statistical fact that 61% of Egyptians support groups who attack Americans. You can apologize for calling me a liar too, unless you're too arrogant to admit you were wrong.

You think it's reasonable to call a statistic that represents a slight majority a "vast majority"?

What's the point?

I never said they were.

I've substantiated my argument with the Pew research and World Opinion statistical data that you are incapable of refuting.

 

You don't think that there is a difference between supporting some of the groups (Who are these groups?) who attack Americans (obviously not civilians, since we had a question about that covered already) and supporting attacks against Americans? Obviously your source does since they distinguished the two in the excerpt that you quoted:

So, I'm questioning where that 61% actually came from.

Brewskier, this is what I originally said: "The vast majority of Muslims can't justify suicide bombings or attacks on civilians."

This is what you're trying to make me say: "Left-wingers like you like to talk about a "small minority of extremists", when the actual numbers are between 10-40% who support the extremist view of Islam."

YOU are the one being incredibly dishonest here. Why are knowingly trying to craft a strawman argument that I never made? I can't think of anything else than you being dishonest, so please, if I am wrong, explain what you're doing.

That we have no idea what level of commitment that these people have to violent causes.

Then why did you ask me to clarify what I said? It was pretty clear and you seem to agree with me.

WHAT?

What do these polls have to do with the so-called "victory mosque"? Were the people planning the building polled?

 

I fail to see how this is an excuse for the reasons I listed. The opinion of bigots is no more a justification for violence than are the other recruitment arguments of radicals. If what radicals do is wrong, then there can be no justification for it.

Yes, it is completely true. The recruitment of radicals requires polarization. Us vs them. Each of the items I listed is framed as an attack against all of Islam. Hell, the Boston attacks have already been portrayed in this way. They deny the attack took place, and claim that the two sons of Islam were framed. Don't you think radicals are using that to recruit more radicals?

And there are many westerners who don't think all of Islam is to blame. This isn't really the point though is it? The unbigoted westerners apparently deserve to die because there are bigoted ones? Do you see the flaw in your logic yet?

No. I guess you don't see. Radicalism breeds radicalism. The main crime of the west is the failure to be Islamic radicals. Each of the differences are exploited by Islamic radicals to achieve their goals.

If the radicals use bigots as recruitment tools then the bigots must be the targets of the violence, yes? Would they not be the intended victims? You're not making much sense in your attempt to justify Islamic extremists.

The question was rhetorical. Your defense of the boards of directors would be a lot more solid if you were table to say that they intend to combat Islamic radicalism, wouldn't it? Instead you are left with the weak argument that they don't intend to promote it. Yet, by your same logic above, Islamic radicals will surely use the presence of a Mosque on ground zero as a recruitment tool. So how is the board of directors any different from the bigots that impugn all of Islam?

Perhaps you should think about your own argument and the gaping holes in it.

 

aristocratic plantation lords with their statist and religious inequity created all these groups in the first, and they are fully functional to this very day.

 

It's simple. Blaming bigots for the creation of Islamic radicals is like blaming the Mosque for the creation of the Bigots AND the radicals, because both sides use the Mosque as justifications for their actions.

 

what is aristocratic heraldry for 100

 

I give up, you missed the point, argued against things I didn't say or even imply and now act superior.

 

And when Christians took over....they smashed Muslim babies' heads against walls.

Something the "pro-life" Right probably would support today.

 

babies heads against walls...<eyeroll>

 

Careful. This kind of bigotry breeds Christian radicals. (or something)

Nevermind, You'll probably miss the point and I'll give up.