jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (13 posts)

There Were Two Mosque's Inside WTC II

  1. Garrett Mickley profile image79
    Garrett Mickleyposted 6 years ago

    I hate to use Fox as a source...but check this out:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=32c_1284432662

    It says there were two Mosques in the second World Trade Center tower, that had been there at least since 1999. 

    What does this mean?

    Well, I don't really know.

    Discuss!

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't know that...., how interesting.

      Not that it makes a difference to me, I could careless as my earlier posts have noted.  But I think it is interesting, because #1. It's kinda cool.  I didn't know that they rented office space for that kind of services, being "churchy" that is.  And,
      #2.Because for the obvious reason, which everybody is arguing about these days.

      Very, very, very interesting.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I saw that report the other night.  One more piece of evidence that American Muslims lost a lot on that day too and have as much right as other Americans to build in the area.

    3. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If the mosque inside the WTC has to be built, it is necessary to build the twin towers first.  Arguing in this way to justify the mosque will not be in interest of  USA.   There were around 3000 people inside the towers,  Who will bring them back ?  Their souls wont forgive the perpetrators, supporters and sympathisers of that carnage.

      Being afraid of the terrorism,  people tend to take it everything in this way of justifying negative things.  Total  neglect of terrorism will only help to see a happy, prosperous and free world.

    4. profile image60
      blowedbackposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't care if somebody said it already... You're an idiot, that was Keith Olbermann from msnbc's, Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    I mean, what's more to say?

    The federal government can't ACTUALLY ban a mosque from being built - The Constitution's Article 1, Amendment 1, and amendment 10 in conjunction with one another make this very clear.

    Then, New York's constitution makes it illegal for the State of New York to ban the building of it.

    So, it's really a "New York City" issue.

    If the people of NYC value property rights, religious freedom, and freedom in general, they'll allow it. If they don't, they won't.

    I think it IS stunning that this information was not reported earlier, but all that this means is that Major Media companies are worthless entirely, and that we should rely on our own knowledge of the Constitution and our own values.

    1. Garrett Mickley profile image79
      Garrett Mickleyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

    2. learner.brown profile image60
      learner.brownposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't know that there were two mosques in the WTC. I would have thought that would have been significant in 2001, not just now that religious freedom is being attacked with this mosque issue. This SHOULD be common knowledge so that Americans can have a more well rounded view of Islam, not just of the mosque issue, but thanks for the info!

      1. Garrett Mickley profile image79
        Garrett Mickleyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Definitely, but it seems to me like the Media hides that to help promote their agenda of getting ratings.

        Suddenly, a lot of the "DON'T BUILD THE MOSQUE" arguments are invalid.

    3. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Constitutional provisions apply to normal things only.  In sensitive cases like the destruction of twin towers and the continuing dispute on the mosque which have international ramifications, wont apply to them.   No constitutional provision allows to disrupt public peace.

    4. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      To do what?  Form over 300,000,000 governments?  Each person gets to decide his/her own laws?

      Interesting concept.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm all for each individual being their own government, and then engaging in foreign policy with one another: "I agree that I will come to this company every day for 7 hours, and you will agree to pay me 1 ounce of gold"... or whatever.

        At least THEN it would be voluntary.

        And, it's weird that you'd be against the idea of it being a "NYC issue"... cuz... that's what it is. I'm not familiar with the laws, but every statement i said in my post is accurate : Congress can't makea  religious law, New York State can't.... so at the very MOST it's a NYC issue: people getting together and voting on it.

        At the very least, interpreting the constitution needs to be a state issue: If we let the federal government define the restrictions on the federal government, then... why... we'd have what we have today: "Hey, even though the term 'general welfare' is actually a RESTRICTION on the federal government, let's make it mean 'anything that affects more than one person'!!"

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm against it being an NYC issue?  Thanks for letting me know.  One of the many reasons I support having the mosque built is that NYC government is all for it.

     
    working