As I've said elsewhere, its tactless. It'd be tactless to build a bar immedietely on top of a location that just had 5 people die due to a drunk driving accident, to build a church on the land that 2 years before had an abortion clinic on it but was destroyed by a christian fanatics bomb, or to have built a museum glorifying the history of Japan right outside of Pearl Harbor's naval base 10 years after that attack.
All of these comparisons are invalid and involve moving the goal posts. You go after jamesrage for the innacuracy of his analogies, yet you
continually resort to inv alid analogies yourself on this issue, Zyph. IMO, you should hold yourself to the same standards you hold your opponents on this, Zyph.
To explain: the bar in your example is being placed on the exact location of the accident immediately after the incident. Thus it is invalid becuse we are not talking about the exact same location (that's a
gross distortion made by opponents of this mosque, unless of course a Burlington coat factory was the intended target of the attacks) nor are we talking abotu immeiately after the attacks.
In the church example, you have the same issue. Exact same location, and the time-frame after the incident is dramartically smaller. As pointed out above, this is invalid.
The pearl harbor example is the best of them all, but again, you cut the distance down arbitrarily. It's not 2 long blocks away, but instead it's "right outside". Also, the building being built is not iof the same nature as the one being built here. If your analogy involved a Shinto community center built a few blocks from Pearl Harbor instead of a Japanese museum glorifying Japanese history being built just outside of Pearl harbor, it would be a valid analogy. Teh time frame is valid, but the thing being built and the distance is not.
In every single anaolgy you present, you move the goal posts just a bit. I'm sure you will use the scale of the attacks as the justification for this moving of the goalposts, but I reject that as a weak justification. It is not supported by logic.
As far as your true and false commentary:
True or false: Americans have been killing muslims in the name of democracy for over ten years.
True or false: Those who pull the strings on the americans who do the killing are part of a democratic regime that demonizes non-democratic countries, exspecially many of them found in th eMuslim world.
True or false: These puppet master have vowed to bring democracy to the Middle East, and have shown that they are willing to kill in order to do so.
True ro false: McDonalds is an American company and often is used to represent american captialist and democratic ideals.
Thus, it is tactless to open up a McDonalds anywhere near the middle east.