Mosque at Ground Zero is a "Slap in the Face"

[HERBIE1]

In turkey there is a place called Gallipolli. For people who don't know, the WW1 action there is regarded as one of the defining moments of Australian History, some consider federation as the conception of austrralia, and the birth took place on that battlefield as it was the first time this country acted on a world stage as a country rather than seperate colonies. To us it could possibly be the most sacred piece of ground for our country (aside from my BBQ area and fire pit) We didn't send the Victorian mounted rifles, the New South Wales Lancers, Queensland Light Infantry, we sent the Australian Imperial Force, a corp of soldiers along with our New Zealand buddies under the name ANZAC, there, we lost nearly 10,000 aussies and kiwi's for what amounted to a stuff up - the battlefields have been preserved, with a great deal of aussie bucks going to it every year.

A few years ago, the turkish government started building a road through there. Oh, can you imagine the shenanigans that caused and the lines trotted out, about it being a slap in the face to the diggers, disrespect, robbing war graves etc etc. I say, build the damn road and get on with life.

Should we dislike turks 90 years on because we lost 10 thousand men to their guns? In another 90 years for building that road where so many died?

Okay, something else....

If someone wanted to build a mosque in Bondi near the memorial to the 88 people killed in Bali should we refuse?

Where does it stop?

You are talking about establishing a shrine, memorial, remembrance, etc in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Unless the host country also sees that as a pivotal point in their history, I don't see how they could be as willing or responsible for setting up such shrine for another country. With the WTC, this is OUR SOIL, and this location has a lot of meaning for US citizens.

It would be akin to the US allowing the Japanese to set up a shrine to WW2 Kamikazi pilots at the site of the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii. Do those suicidal pilots speak for all of Japanese culture, or their feelings about the USA? Remember, many Japanese Americans fought for the US during that time, so a subset of that culture certainly does not speak for every single Japanese citizen. Of course not, and do you think that we would be foolish enough to let it happen, or the Japanese would even bother to ask us for permission to do such a thing?

[Just Plain Ruff]

Ruff, I wouldn't call the formation of the TSA as an indicator that we've lost the war, the knee jerk reactions that have caused the TSA to be better described as "security theater" would be however. Take the liquid restriction. You can get as much liquid through the security checkpoint that you want, provided you want to make multiple trips through security. If the terrorists really want to play the liquid explosives card again, I imagine that they can scrape up an extra plain ticket or two and go through security two or three times ("opps, forgot something at my car..."). The no fly list. Personally, I think that the federal government should be held liable for your friends loss of wages and expenses. Similarly, it demonstrates the failure of the list, as well as the enforcement component, every time some 5 year old is denied a boarding pass or required to go through secondary screening because his name somehow made it on the list. It's one thing to endure some discomfort for real security. It's completely another thing, which includes a lot of the TSA changes, to endure discomfort for the illusion of security.

Actually you are right partially on the liquid amount.

You can go back out of security but you ahve to take your bags with you. You cannot leave your bags so you are going to have the original liquid and then put more in. The max you can take is what will fit in a 1 quart ziplock bag. I can't see getting lots of liquids through.

What I can see is that you can pool the liquids if you have more than one person travelling. Put all the liquids together from all your group and you have a lot of liquid.

You cannot take any liquid larger than 3.7 ounces per container.

I didn't say that we've lost the war, I meant and maybe didn't relay it right, I meant that the particular battle with the TSA being the end result has been lost. Not the war.

Either which way, I still think flying is pretty safe relative to other threats.

Let me put an example out there.

We own a lake house. Our water supply is directly supplied by an underground well. That well house is protected by only a padlock to keep the door secure.

We have 25 houses that are serviced by that single well. On a given holiday weekend we can have as many as 25 of those houses full of people. Put 4 people in each house and you have 100 people.

One person breaking into the well house and putting poison in the water supply would take out many of those 100 people.

The majority of the people on this particular lake are serviced by wells just like ours.

A coordinated effort of 100 people could feasibly wipe out thousands of people in one swoop.

ONe example.

Take another, the Kansas City water treatment plant. Serves about a million people. put some sort of poison in that plant and you get the picture.

Our infrastructure is more vulnerable than I believe planes are.

[Just Plain Ruff]

No point to liquid .. the new and improved are "Binary" explosive and then body packing, their is always a way to get around security, but sorry off topic.

Bushy makes a good point ... so this news release (Not Reuters)

Catholic Church to be built in Riyadh.

Jewish synagogue construction goes ahead in Jabalia.

Anglican church lays foundation in Pyongyang.

Baptist College puts cross up in downtown Baghdad.

Are you picking up what I am laying down ?

You left out these

Underground churches in North Korea, China, Myanmar and many other countries that are incredibly less religiosly tolerant than the US.

Those churches suffer majorly in those countries to the point of death to the organizers.

We don't hear much about those types of churches.

I've been doing some thinking and I am no longer in total disagreement with the building of this mosque. To be tolerant of other religions we have to take a first step and maybe this will be one of those watershed moments in US and world history that will begin to change the opinions of both sides and build a better world.

Not convinced but hopeful.

[JPINFV]

You can go back out of security but you ahve to take your bags with you. You cannot leave your bags so you are going to have the original liquid and then put more in. The max you can take is what will fit in a 1 quart ziplock bag. I can't see getting lots of liquids through.

What I can see is that you can pool the liquids if you have more than one person traveling. Put all the liquids together from all your group and you have a lot of liquid.

That's assuming that I don't have a partner(s) who is willing to hold my bags for me or I can't find someplace to stash the liquid components.

Either which way, I still think flying is pretty safe relative to other threats.

However, is it safer because of a change in the attitude of the passengers or safe because of the TSA restrictions? The TSA didn't stop the underwear bomber.

Let me put an example out there.

We own a lake house. Our water supply is directly supplied by an underground well. That well house is protected by only a padlock to keep the door secure.

We have 25 houses that are serviced by that single well. On a given holiday weekend we can have as many as 25 of those houses full of people. Put 4 people in each house and you have 100 people.

One person breaking into the well house and putting poison in the water supply would take out many of those 100 people.

The majority of the people on this particular lake are serviced by wells just like ours.

A coordinated effort of 100 people could feasibly wipe out thousands of people in one swoop.

ONe example.

Take another, the Kansas City water treatment plant. Serves about a million people. put some sort of poison in that plant and you get the picture.

Our infrastructure is more vulnerable than I believe planes are.

Oh, I completely agree that there are vulnerabilities. However in anything even remotely resembling a free society there will vulnerabilities and we, as a society, have to accept that. The problem is when we sell freedom for the illusion of safety, which is what a lot of the restrictions are. For example, it's my understanding that the millimeter wave body scanners wouldn't have caught the underwear bomber. Thank God that idiot didn't realize that the bathroom would have offered a little bit of defense and concealment. With a few accomplices, there is essentially no liquid restrictions. Additionally, plant some sort of liquid in with the food deliveries (which aren't always x-rayed or scanned) and you can get it past security.

Security is good. Security theater is bad. A lot of the current "security" is more theater than actual protection.

[Just Plain Ruff]

I watched in mock surprise a situation that played out in the Orlando Security line last Friday.

A TSA agent was wanding a little 5 or 6 year old boy. Not sure why. Mom and Dad were pissed.

The guy in leather's that one could say was a biker type of guy was let through.

The guy with the I'm flying firstclass attitude was also let through

The 35 year old woman was wanded

I was wanded next

The elderly gentleman since he was in a wheelchair he was wanded

The man wearing the turbin and the Islamic outfit(forgive me I'm not up on the names of the clothes) was let through.

The teen age girl with short shorts and skimpy t-shirt was wanded

There is no rhyme or reason who gets wanded. Does that guarantee that security is random, sure it does, does it make sense? Not really, at least not to me.

I've been through the cameras or x-ray machines that show it all and I don't see the big deal other than the comfort factor that someone in a room off to the side is looking at you basically naked but with no facial features.

I like travelling for work but when the lines begin to take longer than my flight to my destination then that's when I'll start to re-evaluate my travelling for work.

I choose to travel for work so I choose to abide by the rules set in place. If I choose to no longer travel then I won't have these inconveniences.

[ambodriver]

Here's the deal. No, all Muslims do not believe the extreme lunacy of radical Islam, just as all Christians do not agree with white supremacist's bastardization of Christianity. Does that mean we should allow the KKK to set up a few burning crosses in the middle of an area of a city that is predominantly black?

I'm sick and tired of all this PC bull. Sorry folks, but all over the planet, terrorists are predominantly Muslim in nature. Shall we list all the recent attacks perpetrated by radical Muslims?

They want to build a new mosque? Fine, but NYC is a big area- pick another spot. WHY does it need to be in such close proximity to the WTC site? It's a slap in the face to those who died and the families they left behind. Every single one of those 9/11 hijackers were Muslim, what they did was because of their "religion". Fact.

I don't give a crap if those who want to build that mosque are the best people on the planet. It's wrong and completely insensitive, and if these Muslims cannot understand that, then maybe they aren't the best examples of people who follow Islam.

Not to be devils advocate...

But the terrorists attacks were not because of religion, but because of political reasons. I don't see how so many people here think this is a religious attack. It really shows an immaturity to the topic. The 9/11 atacks were political in nature.

And of course, I have to add this in...b/c people will start calling me an american hating terrorist if I don't. I don't condone any of their actions, they were sick POS's. But it makes this situation a lot easier to understand if you know why were were attacked.

Not because they hate our "freedom" or because of our religion. It was strictly political and if you can't grasp why then there is no use really talking about the subject anymore is there?

That being said I don't care if they build a mosque. Not all muslims are terrorists. But the fact the terrorists were muslim will make it a hard sell, especially those ignorant enough to this this was a religious and not a political attack

[Just Plain Ruff]

Not to be devils advocate...

But the terrorists attacks were not because of religion, but because of political reasons. I don't see how so many people here think this is a religious attack. It really shows an immaturity to the topic. The 9/11 atacks were political in nature.

And of course, I have to add this in...b/c people will start calling me an american hating terrorist if I don't. I don't condone any of their actions, they were sick POS's. But it makes this situation a lot easier to understand if you know why were were attacked.

Not because they hate our "freedom" or because of our religion. It was strictly political and if you can't grasp why then there is no use really talking about the subject anymore is there?

That being said I don't care if they build a mosque. Not all muslims are terrorists. But the fact the terrorists were muslim will make it a hard sell, especially those ignorant enough to this this was a religious and not a political attack

Please delineate what political reasons they had for attacking us.

Not arguing the point nor am I disagreeing withyou but I want to know what your evidence or rationale behind saying that this was political versus religious.

[Lone Star]

No point to liquid .. the new and improved are "Binary" explosive and then body packing, their is always a way to get around security, but sorry off topic.

Bushy makes a good point ... so this news release (Not Reuters)

Catholic Church to be built in Riyadh.

Jewish synagogue construction goes ahead in Jabalia.

Anglican church lays foundation in Pyongyang.

Baptist College puts cross up in downtown Baghdad.

Are you picking up what I am laying down ?

While these churches are building new places of worship in other countries,how many of their innocent people were killed by Judeo-Christian terrorists? How many innocent people were killed in the name of God, Jesus Christ or any other god/prophet? How many innocents were slaughtered in the name of a self proclaimed 'holy war'?

[Just Plain Ruff]

While these churches are building new places of worship in other countries,how many of their innocent people were killed by Judeo-Christian terrorists? How many innocent people were killed in the name of God, Jesus Christ or any other god/prophet? How many innocents were slaughtered in the name of a self proclaimed 'holy war'?

Hey Lone, where did you get your avatar? That beating heart is pretty cool.

I just put a new avatar on my site.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Ruffems

[tniuqs]

Not to be devils advocate...

But the terrorists attacks were not because of religion, but because of political reasons. I don't see how so many people here think this is a religious attack. It really shows an immaturity to the topic. The 9/11 atacks were political in nature.

And of course, I have to add this in...b/c people will start calling me an american hating terrorist if I don't. I don't condone any of their actions, they were sick POS's. But it makes this situation a lot easier to understand if you know why were were attacked.

Not because they hate our "freedom" or because of our religion. It was strictly political and if you can't grasp why then there is no use really talking about the subject anymore is there?

That being said I don't care if they build a mosque. Not all muslims are terrorists. But the fact the terrorists were muslim will make it a hard sell, especially those ignorant enough to this this was a religious and not a political attack

Really ... thanks for playing world peace / political sciences 101( and new Dr. Seuss board game, fun for all ages) sure there is no point in continue to discuss the Muslumization of western cultures and that the doctrine of "tolerance" based on Christian values could actually in the end ... be the end. <late edit>

Just in passing that no wars are a result of religious differences or cultural values its "all political" and Dr. Gwynne Dyer is an idiot.

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/

Just for my information could you please explain the term Jihad and to me again ? Because I am considering running in the Miss America Pageant as all I want is World Peace .... thank you ... and for my next talent act watch me pull a wabbit outta my hat !

ps ambodriver ... read the Koran and then tell me that attacks by Muslims, world wide are not religiously motived in the slightest .... sheesh.

إن شاء الله

Edited June 15, 2010 by tniuqs