Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

[Grandeza]

After hours of emotional public comment, a New York City community board voted overwhelmingly to support a plan to build a mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero.
"It's a seed of peace," board member Rob Townley said. "We believe that this is significant step in the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism in the minority of the community."

The vote late Tuesday by the Manhattan Community Board was 29-1 in favor of the plan, with 10 abstentions, the Associated Press reports.

Some in the crowd held pictures of victims of the attack, others carried signs reading, "Show respect for 9/11. No mosque!"

The board did not have the power to block the project, but its actions are an important barometer of community sentiment, The New York Times says.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, director of one sponsor of the project, said he understood the anguish but noted that his group condemned the 9/11 attacks, which killed members of his community and congregation as well.

"We have worked to ensure that our mosques are not recruiting grounds for terrorists," he said.

C. Lee Hanson, whose son, Peter, died in the Trade Center, said he opposed the project, not because he was intolerant but because it would be insensitive to build a tribute to Islam so close to Ground Zero.

"When I look over there and I see a mosque, it's going to hurt," Hanson said, according to The Times. "Build it someplace else."

source


So I live in New York, in fact i go to Stuyvesant High School which is just a few blocks from ground zero. To be honest I can't believe people are actually against this. People actually want to be restricting where a religious center can be built! It's 2 blocks away too! These people against it are just using the logic muslim=terrorist and mosque=terrorist planning site. It's absolutely ludicrous.

Some quotes from geniuses on facebook:

All muslims are extremists, no exception. If they are not doing the killing themselves, they are not condemning it. And that is terrorism too. I've never seen muslims marching or protesting against terrorist activities. Never. They are all terrorists in one way or another.

Hopefully if the mosque does go up someone will blow it up.

It's really awful D;

 

[Mr.Freeman]

I think its alright.

Can't we all just get along?

(sarcasm)

 

[El Nino]

To be honest I can't believe people are actually against this. People actually want to be restricting where a religious center can be built! It's 2 blocks away too! These people against it are just using the logic muslim=terrorist and mosque=terrorist planning site. It's absolutely ludicrous.

Agreed. I guess people forget (or don't know) that terrorist attacks by fundamentalist groups also kill Muslims. If I'm not mistaken, they are more likely to kill Muslims than non-Muslims because of the regions where those groups are most active.

Building a mosque at ground zero isn't just about forming ties with the West; it's probably also about sending a message to those fringe groups, as well, from the same community that they claim to defend.

 

[Greenstreet]

Those quotes are disgusting.

 

[Grandeza]

Sadly there are so many more where those came from.

 

[~N9NE~]

A mosque being built at Ground Zero is undoubtedly a touchy subject and it boils down to religious and cultural tension. Religious tolerance and respect is a must. To be honest, I don't know how to feel about it.

As far as this Muslim = terrorist thing. I don't agree with Islam at all, but I won't criticise someone for following it. Followers of all religions do deplorable acts. Undefendable acts that they seem to base on the teachings of their religion, Muslim and Christian alike. This has occurred throughout history and continues today. It's undeniable. At the same time both religions hold peaceful, law abiding citizens.

However, there is a stark contrast between Christianity and Islam. Christianity is built on the life of Jesus whilst Islam is built on the life of Muhammad. Each religion advocates that it's followers should emulate the lifestyles of their respective figures. If we look at Jesus, we saw an example of a person that was concerned with forgiveness and love. If we look at Muhammad, we look at a man who after his divine revelations became a political leader concerned with warfare against the indigenous Jewish tribes and pagan Arabs of his area, the capture of treasure of warfare and spreading Islam through the use of violence. People cite that Muhammad had to do so because of the political climate at the time. I disagree. Political climates are not an excuse for violence. When Muslims today commit Jihad, they are merely emulating Muhammad. No more, no less. The historical facts about Muhammad detail his participation in battles against non Muslims. Muslims who follow Muhammad's example today, are using violence just as he did.

When people say all Muslims are terrorists, they are undoubtedly wrong. Muslims aren't a homogenous group you can just label like that. However, when you look at Islam you can see that violence is intrinsic to its core principles as is the view of non Muslims in a derogatory manner.

While it is vital to acknowledge that not all Muslims are terrorists, it has to be understood that these extremists aren't plucking their ideals from nowhere either.

 

[SuperBowser]

Ooo that's pretty controversial of you N9ne.


But anyways. While I believe it is absolutely their right to build the mosque where they like and that the reactions of these people are terrible, I don't think building a mosque near Ground Zero is a wise choice. It (unintentionally) provokes these sorts of reactions and probably isn't doing much to help anybody.

I guess there's nowhere else they can find to build a mosque?

 

[Greenstreet]

As far as this Muslim = terrorist thing. I don't agree with Islam at all, but I won't criticise someone for following it. Followers of all religions do deplorable acts. Undefendable acts that they seem to base on the teachings of their religion, Muslim and Christian alike. This has occurred throughout history and continues today. It's undeniable. At the same time both religions hold peaceful, law abiding citizens.

Let's not forget that deplorable acts are committed by those without religion as well..

 

[~N9NE~]

Ooo that's pretty controversial of you N9ne.

Controversial? Maybe.

Wrong?

But anyways. While I believe it is absolutely their right to build the mosque where they like and that the reactions of these people are terrible, I don't think building a mosque near Ground Zero is a wise choice. It (unintentionally) provokes these sorts of reactions and probably isn't doing much to help anybody.

I agree.

It's like the group that was made to draw Muhammed. I believe in the freedom of speech, but that was clearly inflammatory.

People need to acknowledge the likely repercussionsof their reactions and sometimes understand it's not worth it.

Let's not forget that deplorable acts are committed by those without religion as well..

Undoubtedly.

 

[El Nino]

Wrong?

Yes.

To believe that the global jihad is an ideological battle would be like saying the Cold War posturing between the U.S. and the USSR was an ideological battle between freedom and authoritarianism, or a class war between the haves and the have-nots.

In reality, it was about two superpowers trying to compete against each other for political control of the world. The USSR was willing to abuse the working class to reach their goals (allegedly the liberation of the proletariat); the U.S. was willing to wire-tap, deport and strip civil liberties in the name of the war for freedom. Both governments also used their own intelligence agencies to fight wars via proxy in numerous independent countries around the world.

Talking about religion as if it were the motivation and the soul and the driving force of the global jihad, it would be to accept, at face value, the political "spin" given out by the frontmen of these movements as the truth. But with politicians, it is never the truth that is offered so freely to the public.

In politics and in war, you can never be so open about your motives. It would be your undoing.

Religious fanatics are people who stand on street corners with signs, screaming about the end of the world. It matters not what religion. It could be Christianity or Scientology.

To secure the means of waging war, it takes someone with a military and a political mind. Such people, while realizing the worth of ideology as a means of unifying their fighters, are not fed by ideals. Idealists are dreamers; they can't fend for themselves without support from more pragmatic people. And pragmatic people are more like business people--they expect tangible returns on their investments.

Wars are not about ideals. They are about resources, territory, and the political power necessary to control both.

Edit:

People cite that Muhammad had to do so because of the political climate at the time. I disagree. Political climates are not an excuse for violence. When Muslims today commit Jihad, they are merely emulating Muhammad. No more, no less. The historical facts about Muhammad detail his participation in battles against non Muslims. Muslims who follow Muhammad's example today, are using violence just as he did.

There are times when pacifism will work to your advantage, but from a practical standpoint, there are times when it will not. In other words, sometimes pacifism will get the bad guy to stop stepping on your neck; other times, it will not.

I have found very few religions as pacifist as Buddhism (Jainism being one exception), and few religious figures as pacifist as Buddha, a figure who was born a prince but who gave up that political office to pursue spirituality. Yet when the Tibetan government was ruled by the Dalai Lamas, an institution founded on Buddhism, there was a lot of political maneuvering that happened due to the nature of the politics in the region, one of which involved the military expulsion of the Chinese occupation when the Qing Dynasty fell. That was one example in which violence was used by a non-secular political institution to throw off what was, in their mind, an oppressive force in their nation. Buddha stepped away from politics; the Dalai Lamas stepped back into it. Right or wrong, I won't argue, but my point is simply that it happens. Politics is not religion's *****. More than anything, it tends to be the other way around.

Ultimately, like Sun Tzu wrote, military means are to be a last resort when all other resorts have been exhausted. However, I often find that people who make generalizations that violence is never to be used similar to those who say that money is of no importance. Those who already have money are more likely to say that it is not important; likewise, those who have never had to deal with life in politically unstable regions, or who have never dealt with oppressive violence at the hands of their own government, or who have never dealt with an invasion of their homelands, are most likely to find it unacceptable take up arms for any reason.

I don't openly condone violence and the use of force in a blanket statement of acceptance, but I find it hard to write off the use of violence as "unacceptable" without first understanding the situation in which it was used.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I'm tempted to close this because this shouldn't be news.

It's absolutely shameful that people are actually making a to-do about this.

 

[El Nino]

But...I was just getting warmed up.

*sad*

 

[SuperBowser]

Well El Nino answered better than I could have done.

I think this topic is totally news-worthy. It's a problem that religious minorities face around the world and it's good to talk about it, because I think the issue isn't particularly publicised or understood.


In my hometown (99% white), the Hindu community came up against a similar problem. After around 7 years of waiting they finally built enough resources and suppoty, found a site, got planning permission and made preliminary designs for their temple. After all this had been done, somebody pointed out that the location - it was right next to a school.

I don't know the details, but after a long debate it was decided the temple shouldn't be built in such a location for fear of inciting racism and vandalism from the kids at that school. It's been 4 years since then and the community still don't have a temple. Most of us don't realise how difficult it is to find a suitable site. We don't know all the details, but I can imagine the Muslim community in this story have been waiting and looking for a long period too and they probably had similar discussions before going ahead.

In an ideal world, building a religious place of worship should not be a problem. It's important to avoid conflict. But I think it's sad that the religious minority should even have to consider sacrificing their place of worship to cater to the needs and prejudices of the majority.

 

[~N9NE~]

I'm tempted to close this because this shouldn't be news.

It's absolutely shameful that people are actually making a to-do about this.

I think this is news worthy and not just because it's a mosque. Irrespective of whether it was a mosque, a church, a synagogue or whatever it would be news worthy because it's being built near Ground Zero as a planned part of the rebuilding process within the community.

Yes.

To believe that the global jihad is an ideological battle would be like saying the Cold War posturing between the U.S. and the USSR was an ideological battle between freedom and authoritarianism, or a class war between the haves and the have-nots.

In reality, it was about two superpowers trying to compete against each other for political control of the world. The USSR was willing to abuse the working class to reach their goals (allegedly the liberation of the proletariat); the U.S. was willing to wire-tap, deport and strip civil liberties in the name of the war for freedom. Both governments also used their own intelligence agencies to fight wars via proxy in numerous independent countries around the world.

Talking about religion as if it were the motivation and the soul and the driving force of the global jihad, it would be to accept, at face value, the political "spin" given out by the frontmen of these movements as the truth. But with politicians, it is never the truth that is offered so freely to the public.

In politics and in war, you can never be so open about your motives. It would be your undoing.

Nothing can be looked at in complete isolation. Jihad is undoubtedly fuelled by other factors apart from religious doctrine, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US continually flirting with conflict with Iran, the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the perception of the ethnocentric nature Western society being at odds with Islamic states. The intrinsic relationship between Islam and politics, namely Sharia Law, cannot be underestimated either as it plays a large role in imposing these religious ideologies within Islamic states.

All these play a part, there's no denying that, but the religious background provides the foundations for the uprising of these extremist movements that come to the forefront during times of political conflict. Jihad cannot be viewed as distinct from it's religious roots, after all it is one of the five pillars of Islam. It's basis is completely founded on the actions of Muhammad and his battles against the indigenous Jewish tribes and Arab pagans and is viewed as the permitted use of violence against non Muslims. Jihad extends beyond the clash of civilizations we are supposedly seeing today between the West and Islamic states.

The political aspect you mention has nothing to do with the the continued persecution non Muslims face within the Islamic world. Another defining aspect of Islam is the derogatory view of non Muslims, from when they had to pay jizya and were deemed as second class citizens to today in the Middle East where non Muslims are continually persecuted, such as the Coptics in Egypt or the Assyrians in Iraq. This is typical of the treatment of non Muslims within Islamic states. Sharia law deems non Muslims second class citizens, and they have little rights. Indeed the Qu'ran itself refers to Christians and Jews as monkeys and pigs. Where is the political spin here? Where is the politics behind the continued killing of non Muslim minorities in Islamic states? This is an ideology rooted global conflict and the ideology is that you submit to Islam or you reap the repercussions. Attach the notion that those who commit Jihad gain eternal salvation and it becomes apparent that this goes beyond politics and wordly issues and that is deeply rooted in religious doctrine.

And comparing the current conflict with the Cold War is flawed imo. This is not a battle of two superpowers. The Middle East, whilst holding some wealth in natural resources, should not be viewed as one unified entity. Divisions exist and power is too isolated for it to be considered a superpower that aims to compete with the US. The recent rapid development that is being experienced in places like Dubai is occurring at an unsustainable rate and if they aim to compete with Western socities they run the risk of alienating the population at the expense of commercial and international success whilst only succeeding in damaging their natural environment.

Religious fanatics are people who stand on street corners with signs, screaming about the end of the world. It matters not what religion. It could be Christianity or Scientology.

You're right in stating that fanatics emerge within every religion, indeed fanatics emerge within any ideology and within religion you always have a spectrum of followers. But the fanatics you describe on the street corners aren't killing anyone.

To secure the means of waging war, it takes someone with a military and a political mind. Such people, while realizing the worth of ideology as a means of unifying their fighters, are not fed by ideals. Idealists are dreamers; they can't fend for themselves without support from more pragmatic people. And pragmatic people are more like business people--they expect tangible returns on their investments.

Wars are not about ideals. They are about resources, territory, and the political power necessary to control both.

Exploitation will occur among those with political interests but this cannot occur without an ideological framework. These people that are utilising Islam to incite violence aren't obsessed with wealth and profit. Their main concern is just the spread of Islam. Increase in resources helps with this but this isn't the main goal. I was at a lecture recently at my university by the university's Islamic society. The speaker stated that Islam doesn't set out to conquer lands, but to conquer hearts. These people don't want your money, your land or whatever, their sole purpose if the Islamification of the world, be it through violence or not.

There are times when pacifism will work to your advantage, but from a practical standpoint, there are times when it will not. In other words, sometimes pacifism will get the bad guy to stop stepping on your neck; other times, it will not.

I have found very few religions as pacifist as Buddhism (Jainism being one exception), and few religious figures as pacifist as Buddha, a figure who was born a prince but who gave up that political office to pursue spirituality. Yet when the Tibetan government was ruled by the Dalai Lamas, an institution founded on Buddhism, there was a lot of political maneuvering that happened due to the nature of the politics in the region, one of which involved the military expulsion of the Chinese occupation when the Qing Dynasty fell. That was one example in which violence was used by a non-secular political institution to throw off what was, in their mind, an oppressive force in their nation. Buddha stepped away from politics; the Dalai Lamas stepped back into it. Right or wrong, I won't argue, but my point is simply that it happens. Politics is not religion's *****. More than anything, it tends to be the other way around.

Ultimately, like Sun Tzu wrote, military means are to be a last resort when all other resorts have been exhausted. However, I often find that people who make generalizations that violence is never to be used similar to those who say that money is of no importance. Those who already have money are more likely to say that it is not important; likewise, those who have never had to deal with life in politically unstable regions, or who have never dealt with oppressive violence at the hands of their own government, or who have never dealt with an invasion of their homelands, are most likely to find it unacceptable take up arms for any reason.

I don't openly condone violence and the use of force in a blanket statement of acceptance, but I find it hard to write off the use of violence as "unacceptable" without first understanding the situation in which it was used.

It is vital to understand the context within which violence is employed, rarely is violence employed just for the sake of it. But I'm looking at the religious doctrine here that violence is a justified means of spreading Islam. People will exhibit violence when they want and due to external factors such as political climate but my criticism here is the perception that violence is justified if it serves to spread Islam.

But...I was just getting warmed up.

*sad*

If the thread does get closed don't hesitate to PM me.

In my hometown (99% white), the Hindu community came up against a similar problem. After around 7 years of waiting they finally built enough resources and suppoty, found a site, got planning permission and made preliminary designs for their temple. After all this had been done, somebody pointed out that the location - it was right next to a school.

I don't know the details, but after a long debate it was decided the temple shouldn't be built in such a location for fear of inciting racism and vandalism from the kids at that school. It's been 4 years since then and the community still don't have a temple. Most of us don't realise how difficult it is to find a suitable site. We don't know all the details, but I can imagine the Muslim community in this story have been waiting and looking for a long period too and they probably had similar discussions before going ahead.

In an ideal world, building a religious place of worship should not be a problem. It's important to avoid conflict. But I think it's sad that the religious minority should even have to consider sacrificing their place of worship to cater to the needs and prejudices of the majority.

In an ideal world you're absolutely correct and I agree with you, people should have the right to practice their religion within their communities, no matter whether they constitute the minority or majority of the population.

In mentioning the right of the minority religious groups, again I'm drawn to the example of non Muslim communities in Islamic states. In Saudi Arabia and other countries that impose Sharia Law, other religions apart from Islam are forbidden from the public forum and even in private practice, persecution occurs. People found practising other religions or posessing other religious items can be imprisoned, where they are often beaten and sometimes killed. Apostasy is punishable by death. In Iran, Egypt, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries non Muslim minority groups hold little rights and planning for the building of churches and the such is highly restricted by the governmental bodies. Rarely is such action highlighted on an international scale, but when people oppose the building of a mosque at Ground Zero it is regularly highlighted as Islamophobia within Western societies. A balanced picture needs to be acknowledged.

Even here in the UK, institutional discrimination is occurring against certain individuals. The recent case of the airport check in attendant who was asked to take off her crucifix highlights the hypocrisy of our societies. Whilst she was asked to hide her display of her religious orientation, colleagues that wore hijabs or turbans were not restricted in their actions. Hypocrisy is rife within our communities and it should stop.

I believe in the just treatment of all and allowing people to practice what they believe in, as long as it is peaceful. These people have every right to build a mosque, and I hope it can occur without issue.

 

[SuperBowser]

In mentioning the right of the minority religious groups, again I'm drawn to the example of non Muslim communities in Islamic states.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I know you know this already so I guess the point's moot. The less we are similar to a place like Saudi Arabia, the better (imo).


I think if someone was so inclined, they could derive as much anger, hate and intolerance out of the Bible as one supposedly can from the Qu'ran. It's just misinterpretation. I mean, it's not like the Spanish Crusades were actually justified biblically.

 

[~N9NE~]

I agree with you completely. Saudi Arabia is the complete opposite of what we should strive to attain and The Crusades were deplorable and no one in their right mind can defend them.

But in saying someone could derive as much anger, hate and intolerance out of the Bible as one supposedly can from the Qu'ran is where I disagree with you. Misinterpretation is likely within any religion and people can manipulate religion for their own means, but ultimately it boils down to the distinction I made in my original post between the lives of Jesus and Muhammed, which ultimately hold the most weight in the way followers of each religion live their lives.

 

[Inui]

Why haven't we just...rebuilt the twin towers? That's what our country would have done in the old days. America has become so disappointing.

I guess a mosque is cool to make Muslims hate us less, but it's not Muslims that hate us, it's the extremists, and they're going to want us all to die regardless of what we do.

 

[UberMario]

Honestly I think it should have been built somewhere else in NYC, too much tension and anyone coming to GZ will end up seeing it. Many people aren't going to like this at all. I'm not a hater, I just think it's kind of wrong for them to put a religious symbol near a place with so many bad memories, especially since they have a [indirect per sae] relationship with the building in question.

Why haven't we just...rebuilt the twin towers?

Easy, that would be like sweeping it under the rug and pretending nothing happened, which would be a blow to anyone that lost members in the catastrophe.

I do wonder what did happen to that 1776ft tall building that they said they were going to build there, I haven't heard much about that in years.

 

[Grandeza]

The Freedom tower, a 1776 ft tower, made of glass was supposed to be built. I read about that many years ago. I'm not sure what the current plan is.

 

[Inui]

We should have just rebuilt in order to say "f*** you" to our enemies.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

You do realize that a big "**** you" to our enemies would make them even more angry and potentially even cause them to make further attacks on our country, don't you?

 

[GoldShadow]

I don't know, I think our enemies are already angry at us and will continue to be angry at us, regardless of what we do.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I don't know, I think our enemies are already angry at us and will continue to be angry at us, regardless of what we do.

Oh I'm sure they are. But there's no point in setting them off.

 

[Inui]

You do realize that a big "**** you" to our enemies would make them even more angry and potentially even cause them to make further attacks on our country, don't you?

We are infidels and the devil to them, lol. It doesn't matter what we do. They want us to die.

I don't know, I think our enemies are already angry at us and will continue to be angry at us, regardless of what we do.

Also this ^^^

 

[Luigitoilet]

Easy, that would be like sweeping it under the rug and pretending nothing happened, which would be a blow to anyone that lost members in the catastrophe.

I do wonder what did happen to that 1776ft tall building that they said they were going to build there, I haven't heard much about that in years.

No it wouldn't, it would be a message to the perpetrators that they cannot keep the US down with barbarism. It's more of an insult that they've done nothing.

 

[El Nino]

Jihad is undoubtedly fuelled by other factors apart from religious doctrine, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US continually flirting with conflict with Iran, the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the perception of the ethnocentric nature Western society being at odds with Islamic states. The intrinsic relationship between Islam and politics, namely Sharia Law, cannot be underestimated either as it plays a large role in imposing these religious ideologies within Islamic states.

And oil.

Jihad cannot be viewed as distinct from it's religious roots, after all it is one of the five pillars of Islam. It's basis is completely founded on the actions of Muhammad and his battles against the indigenous Jewish tribes and Arab pagans and is viewed as the permitted use of violence against non Muslims.

When the Taliban fought over control of Afghanistan, they fought against other factions, all of which were Muslim. Alliances were made and broken. Currently, some ex-Taliban fighters have joined the military backing the new Afghan leadership.

Politics makes strange bedfellows? I guess. It has nothing to do with Muhammad.

The political aspect you mention has nothing to do with the the continued persecution non Muslims face within the Islamic world. Another defining aspect of Islam is the derogatory view of non Muslims, from when they had to pay jizya and were deemed as second class citizens to today in the Middle East where non Muslims are continually persecuted, such as the Coptics in Egypt or the Assyrians in Iraq. This is typical of the treatment of non Muslims within Islamic states. Sharia law deems non Muslims second class citizens, and they have little rights. Indeed the Qu'ran itself refers to Christians and Jews as monkeys and pigs. Where is the political spin here? Where is the politics behind the continued killing of non Muslim minorities in Islamic states? This is an ideology rooted global conflict and the ideology is that you submit to Islam or you reap the repercussions. Attach the notion that those who commit Jihad gain eternal salvation and it becomes apparent that this goes beyond politics and wordly issues and that is deeply rooted in religious doctrine.

The spin is the same spin Mao Zedong gave for the Cultural Revolution. Mao, who targeted intellectuals for persecution, was himself a graduate from a university. Pol Pot was also born to a somewhat wealthy family and had access to a foreign education. Yet they both targeted intellectuals during their times in power in their respective countries, and they gave some very eloquent reasons for why the educated class needed to be re-educated and how that class was responsible for the oppression of the proletariat.

What they were actually doing was killing off potential political rivals. But you can't tell your followers that. You can't expect people to help you knock off other people for your political career. So you sell them an ideology that they can believe in. That way they will do the dirty work for you.

You can't tell them to fight for a commodity either, even if it's a valuable commodity that fuels all your nation's technology and industry. But you can tell them to fight for their freedom.

And comparing the current conflict with the Cold War is flawed imo. This is not a battle of two superpowers. The Middle East, whilst holding some wealth in natural resources, should not be viewed as one unified entity.

I never identified the entire Middle East as the jihadist movement.

I am comparing the use of ideology in the Cold War with the use of ideology in the new war. The Cold War was not about ideology, and the new one isn't either.

You're right in stating that fanatics emerge within every religion, indeed fanatics emerge within any ideology and within religion you always have a spectrum of followers. But the fanatics you describe on the street corners aren't killing anyone.

My point is that the reason why they're standing on the street corner, shouting at pedestrians, is because they can't do much else. They can't start movements, they can't arm themselves, and they can't wage war--even if they would like to. It takes money to buy guns, and it takes money to wage war. Money comes from someone who knows how to make it, and someone who knows how to make it has to be a very pragmatic person on some level. And that person is not going to just throw down a load of cash in front of a zealot just because.

Exploitation will occur among those with political interests but this cannot occur without an ideological framework. These people that are utilising Islam to incite violence aren't obsessed with wealth and profit. Their main concern is just the spread of Islam. Increase in resources helps with this but this isn't the main goal.

The Taliban did not take over Afghanistan using the power of faith. They had help. There were a lot of countries that had invested interest in that region, and the governments of those countries provided assistance. Those governments were not interested in "spreading Islam," especially not in a country where the majority was already Muslim.

I was at a lecture recently at my university by the university's Islamic society. The speaker stated that Islam doesn't set out to conquer lands, but to conquer hearts. These people don't want your money, your land or whatever, their sole purpose if the Islamification of the world, be it through violence or not.

Are you saying that the jihadists are, in fact, true followers of Islam? What then separates them from other Muslims? I think I get you finally. Are you saying that all Muslims are out to "conquer hearts," but a jihadist is different only in that he/she does it at gunpoint?

Jihad is a political movement. Fringe groups cannot supply their own arms without support from someone. Usually, that someone is the intelligence agency of a government, and governments don't supply arms to fringe groups expecting spiritual returns.

The ideology, the religion, is useful as a tool to unify the fighting force. Beyond that, it drives nothing; religion alone cannot sustain the costs of a military operation. You still need guns, trucks, planes, supplies. Those things don't just rain down from the heavens.

If the thread does get closed don't hesitate to PM me.

Oh you're gonna set sick of me real quick. I guarantee it.

 

[UberMario]

No it wouldn't, it would be a message to the perpetrators that they cannot keep the US down with barbarism. It's more of an insult that they've done nothing.

I don't quite agree with the first sentence, but the second is very true.

 

[Inui]

No it wouldn't, it would be a message to the perpetrators that they cannot keep the US down with barbarism. It's more of an insult that they've done nothing.

That's how I feel. That's how America used to be.

Ah, how I miss Reagan...

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

I'm not sure if I support this or not. I do, however, feel that any sort of petty attempt to get القاعدة‎ and other extremist networks to find "peace" with America is pointless.

There is only one thing that can be done to have that happen, and a capitalist country like America will never succeed in doing it.

 

[Grandeza]

There was a rally yesterday against the mosque. Turnout of a few hundred. Just thought I'd share.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Equating all members of the religion Islam to radical Jihadists = false and extremely dangerous politically.


Even in the US there's enough to run a powerful insurgency, not to mention it hurts many of our foreign political alliances and increases the power of actual radical Jihadists.


Stupid, knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Uncle Meat]

Why don't we just build a giant Jihad rail gun in the middle of New York and let turrists gun down fine fair skinned Americans as they pursue happiness with liberty and honor in the face of tyrants like that *** from Iran and Al Gore? Why don't we just convert the White House in to a turrist training camp where they can train up all those Jihadistan taxi drivers to **** and pillage the freedom that we hold so dear god bless America strike down the A-rab with a vengeful fist oh dear lord amen.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Why don't we just build a giant Jihad rail gun in the middle of New York and let turrists gun down fine fair skinned Americans as they pursue happiness with liberty and honor in the face of tyrants like that *** from Iran and Al Gore? Why don't we just convert the White House in to a turrist training camp where they can train up all those Jihadistan taxi drivers to **** and pillage the freedom that we hold so dear god bless America strike down the A-rab with a vengeful fist oh dear lord amen.

 

[Uncle Meat]

It appears you have called my bluff on that blatant sarcasm. I'll have to return later wearing a fake mustache.