I would highly disagree. I would say there is still significantly strong emotions amongst people in relation to 9/11 and still a significant recognition of the day and the occurrence. For example, I know of three couples...myself included....that were nearly going to have their wedding on the second weekend of September and upon looking at the calender and seeing it was September 11th IMMEDIATELY reconsidered due to the emotions and feelings it stirred up instantly and the desire to not have that tied up with the emotions of their wedding. None of those couples lost someone in the attacks or knew someone that did. I can not fathom someone, let alone three sets of couples, 10 years after a drunk driving accident that killed say some person in school that they kind of knew of and had affected them in some way when it initially happened suddenly realizing the day they picked for their wedding coincided with the crash and thus changing it.
Deciding not to get maried on Sept. 11th isn't the same thing as being significantly affected. That's being
minimally affected. That's not wanting your anniversary darte to be 9/11.
Is the impact of 9/11 still as sharp on people as it was the day of? No, but I'd dare say its still very present and prevelant in many peoples minds still ten years later.
Let's be honest. It's pretty much a non-factor in most people's lives. We even done forgot to get the guy involved and nobody seems to give a ****. 9 years later and bin laden is not even talked about. Instead we're distracted with a buiunch of NONSENSe about a mosque being built a couple blocks away. It's all a load of horse****.
Where am I saying this Mosque represents terrorism or terrorist values?
When you said "No, its associating a religion with the actions of a group of violent extremists in the NAME OF THAT RELIGION"
No, I'm not suggesting mosques directly are related to 9/11. I'm saying ISLAM directly is related to 9/11. I've yet to still see anyone whose shown that it isn't. All I've ever seen is people going "They're mad that we're meddling in their land or that we attacked [random middle eastern country]", however those anger issues all lead back to their religion and their belief that we're invading the "Land of Islam".
Actually, I'd say the anger was about the meddling and that Islam has used as a means to control the "soldiers", much like religion hass been used by peopel to gain fanatical "soldiers" for centuries.
I'm saying Islam is directly involved in the acts of 9/11. I'm saying that rightly or wrongly when many people think of 9/11 and Islam together at once, even people who at other times have a neutral to somewhat positive view of Islam, that it stirs up extremely negative and angry emotions. I'm saying as such having a mosque whose purpose is to be an activist location around 9/11, using its vicinity to 9/11 for its activist purposes, no matter the benevolent intentions (and frankly I question those intentions), is going to cause unneeded additional emotional distress and problems to individuals traveling to what is essentially a historic national site that is unneeded. Additionally, I think such will do MORE harm to the cause of Moderate Islam and acceptance of it in this country than good and thus is detrimental to their supposed cause and to what's best for the nation.
And I disagree. I think that we have become very predjudicial against Islam in this country and that as of late this is becoming more and more acceptable to the point where open distaste is viewed as acceptable. I think we feed into the terrorists hands when we openly blame all of Islam for 9/11. Tehy point their fingers and say "We rtold you, they hate Islam, not terror".
And its all because a few peopel choose hyperbole over reason.
There will be no real damage done from the mosque existing 2 blocks from ground zero.
Islam didn't cause it. Islam was instrumental in recruiting for it, fabricating a reason for it, motivating it, allowing for the methods that were used, and justifying it after the fact. Again, last I checked McDonalds don't get built because of motivation on the part of the builder to spread democracy, aren't justified in being built because democracy says its okay, not built in a such a way that it's okay because dmeocracy says so, or finds its investors by suggesting that they are doing Democracy's bidding and will have Democracies favor if they assist in building that McDonalds.
Islam was the tool used by people who want power. It is no more to blame for the actions of those who invoke its name than Christianity is to blame for the Crusades. People will use whatever excuse they can for their bad behavior if they want to. If they can distort a bunch of religious beliefs, even better, because nothing gets someone to be more willing to die for your cause than if you convince them that they'll go to heaven by doing so.
Wonderful. IF a majority of people who were oppressed in Russia somehow felt great emotional distress due to such an advertising campaign and the McDonalds being built there then I'd have said it was tactless to build it there as well.
It wasn't an advertising campaign. It was what
people said. You said "I've never heard anyone go "Look! McDonalds, what a shining symbol of American Democracy, what wonderous and magnificant site showing the true pillars of democracy"." just becuase you haven't heard it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Nope, but I'm far more likely to find a tangible example of Islam fueling the purposes, methods, and justifications of a suicide bomber then you're going to be able to find a tangible example of McDonalds actively fueling the purposes, methods, and justifications of someone purposefully spreading democracy.
Of course you will. There are websites that are 100% dedicated to demonizing Islam as the cause of terrorism. Mcdonald's is a symbol of democracy. It was used in the cold war. Look up how McDonald's insinuated itself in the economy of the USSR and actively spread capitalistic seeds in that communist country.
But even if we accept your premise...
It doesn't really change my point. I would be against a McDonalds being opened as a sign of "Freedom" in an area where the majority of the people have been oppressed and feel that opening said McDonalds is hurtful and disrespectful and they don't want it there when they didn't ask for said "Freedom" nor wanted it.
To my understanding, that wasn't the case in Russia. They were welcoming to it, and indeed it was news reporters and comments by Russians in favor of it that I believe the "taste of freedom" line was dubbed
Russia was used as an example to show that mcdonald's is a symbol of democracy, much like an Islamic community center/mosque is a symbol of Islam.
But since you said that the requirement for your opposition would be if it was opened in a region where "the majority of the people have been oppressed and feel that opening said McDonalds is hurtful and disrespectful", please explain how the majority of people in the US have been "oppressed" by Islam and how this community center/mosque affects that oppresion.
