www.ditl.org

I'm sorry but: "put in a mosque as a way to gloat over a tragedy as if it were a victory" what deep and dark depth of your own rectum did you pull that from? You don't build a religious centre of worship AS WELL AS A COMMUNITY CENTRE as a way of sticking your middle finger to America.

Vic wrote:I have a question, was a mosque destroyed in the collapse of the buildings? If so then they are simply replacing it and all of the complainers need to unclench their collective anus. What prompts the question is a comment by the Imam (or what ever the heck he is) that they have been worshiping in that area for decades.

Who cares? They group which is putting up the Islamic community center has owned that building for years. If the area is zoned and varianced for the use to which they ascribe it, they could put up a Jamba Juice, shake-shake,^* or halal butcher. It simply doesn't matter.

(* - yes, I don't know what a strict Islamic shake-shake would look like either, but it's just to make a point.)

Tsukiyumi wrote:But, there will be falafel, and they have a pool.

IDK about pools... but in most of Manhattan, you can't walk three feet without running into five falafel restaurants.

Vic wrote:Did it sting a little Tyyr? I find it ironic that a group that seems so intent on gutting one religion is so vehement in defending another.

WTF? Your comment mentioned the far left - Tyyr is as far from that as Florida is from Andromeda.

Vic wrote:The reasons for putting in a mosque are very much relevant, to replace a run down mosque with a new one is a reason many can accept. To put in a mosque as a way to gloat over a tragedy as if it were a victory is what has everybody up in arms.

No, he said that the question of whether a mosque had been there previously was irrelevant. The reason for putting up a mosque is single and clear - to have a mosque. I.e., the only reason a mosque gets built is to house a congregation of Islamic worship.

And where the hell did you get the idea that a mosque was being built to gloat over the tragedy? To gloat over the tragedy, wouldn't it have to be built by the perpetrators? This isn't, so your comment is both specious and moronic.

Mikey wrote:IDK about pools... but in most of Manhattan, you can't walk three feet without running into five falafel restaurants.

Wow, so now I have a second reason to visit New York, besides going to fetish clubs with Uzume.

Falafel rules.

Indeed it does. A few words of caution:

Just because a place has "king" in its name doesn't mean it's the best (Falafel King, e.g.)

You don't get papaya at Papaya King.

You don't get shakes at the Shake Shack, nor is it a shake-shake.

Mikey wrote:You don't get shakes at the Shake Shack, nor is it a shake-shake.

Yes you do, and they are quite good.

Nickswitz wrote:

Mikey wrote:You don't get shakes at the Shake Shack, nor is it a shake-shake.

Yes you do, and they are quite good.

Really? I know they sell shakes, but I've never had anything but their burgers (for which they are famous, for the non-New-Yorkers... just check the webcam to see how many hours long the line is.)

Well that's the best thing, there is a c-line for drinks and such, and their shakes are really great, their burgers too are great though.

Okay, here's the deal; It is not that they have the right, this is clear. It is in how they choose to exercise the right, anyone with half a braincell working can see this. Is that coherent enough? The depth of thought needed to understand is not that great. The reason why the Imam chooses to put in a mosque at this time in that place means everything.

I can walk up to anyone on the street and start talking s**t to them, it is free speach after all. Now if that person reacts badly to my free speach who is in the wrong? Me for being an ass or them for not bowing and proclaiming "it is your right to speak freely!" Now if it is known why I am ranting at this person I will have more support in what I am doing.

It behooves me to be prudent while exercising my rights. This extends to putting a Mosque in an area that just might be emotionally sensitive to thousands of people. It all depends on the reason why.

For those who need it in a sound byte; It is not more important that you have the right, than in how you choose to exercise that right.

Vic wrote:For those who need it in a sound byte; It is not more important that you have the right, than in how you choose to exercise that right.

The constitution disagrees.

In the end all this boils down to is that you don't like it. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. It's nothing beyond that which means they can build their mosque and you can sit and stew in your own juices.

If someone starts talking shit to you on the street and you cold-cock him for it, you are the one in the wrong. Here's a clue: not all Muslims had a hand in the WTC attack. It isn't this group's fault that the bigoted, hysterical, brain-dead public-at-large can't understand that.

Vic wrote:The reason why the Imam chooses to put in a mosque at this time in that place means everything.

Indeed: it means a) they want a new mosque, for what reason I neither know nor care, and b) it makes sense to put it in a building they already own rather than wasting money on another one.

I can walk up to anyone on the street and start talking s**t to them, it is free speach after all. Now if that person reacts badly to my free speach who is in the wrong? Me for being an ass or them for not bowing and proclaiming "it is your right to speak freely!" Now if it is known why I am ranting at this person I will have more support in what I am doing.

What does you being a fuckwit have anything to do with where they put their place of worship?

It behooves me to be prudent while exercising my rights. This extends to putting a Mosque in an area that just might be emotionally sensitive to thousands of people. It all depends on the reason why.

It's no more emotionally sensitive to put a mosque in New York than it is to put an Irish pub near the Arndale Centre - no-one but gobby fuckwits care.

Its their right to be there, I don't agree with them being there but its still their right. Could they have picked a better spot, of course they could but they didn't. I don't like my neighbor who can't cut his grass though such is life.

As to talking shit, do it to me and you'll get hit. It may be your right yell in my face but its my right to say you shoved me first and I hit you... several times in self defense.

Deepcrush wrote:Could they have picked a better spot, of course they could

No they couldn't - the reason it's in that building is because they already own it. I very much doubt they'd be able to afford to buy a new one, even if they wanted to (why scatter the services provided all over Manhattan when you can keep them all together?)

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Could they have picked a better spot, of course they could

No they couldn't - the reason it's in that building is because they already own it. I very much doubt they'd be able to afford to buy a new one, even if they wanted to (why scatter the services provided all over Manhattan when you can keep them all together?)

They bought the property after 9/11, but since it was in that region of town, near ground zero, it was really cheap property, so they could afford it.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:Could they have picked a better spot, of course they could

No they couldn't - the reason it's in that building is because they already own it. I very much doubt they'd be able to afford to buy a new one, even if they wanted to (why scatter the services provided all over Manhattan when you can keep them all together?)

Don't twist my words by being a dumbass, you know exactly what I meant.