What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (1 Viewer)

This whole "how they do it in other countries" is a stupid argument. It's not like that's going to happen here. We have laws that are abided by. If Muslims wan't to go ahead and condemn gays while they're here in America then they'll fit right in with the rest of the Christian organizations that do the same, but there won't be any genocide. And aren't you one of those guys who gets up in arms when Ruaf or any other Muslim, or worse a liberal, talks about all the killing the US does in Muslim countries? Yet here you are trying to use the same argument from the other side to prove your point. The hyperbolic hypocrisy from the Right is outrageous, stupendous, pendulous and absolutely CANARDIC!!!!!
What's truly outrageous is OK-ing genocide just because it's happening in another country.
Who's ok with it? Jon is making a big hullabaloo (aka the very same canard he spouts on about) about gays in other countries because libs are not out protesting against their treatment abroad. Are we really supposed to protest every injustice in every other country? Not enough hours in the day to even get to all the problems here. Not one thing we do will affect how other countries treat gays. When they come here, they can't kill gays and if they do they'll go to jail. The rest is just him trying to deflect.
 
This whole "how they do it in other countries" is a stupid argument. It's not like that's going to happen here. We have laws that are abided by. If Muslims wan't to go ahead and condemn gays while they're here in America then they'll fit right in with the rest of the Christian organizations that do the same, but there won't be any genocide. And aren't you one of those guys who gets up in arms when Ruaf or any other Muslim, or worse a liberal, talks about all the killing the US does in Muslim countries? Yet here you are trying to use the same argument from the other side to prove your point. The hyperbolic hypocrisy from the Right is outrageous, stupendous, pendulous and absolutely CANARDIC!!!!!
What's truly outrageous is OK-ing genocide just because it's happening in another country.
And I was referring to the argument about how it is in other countries in general, not just this topic. We can't do anything about what other countries allow. We have to make sure we don't allow it.
 
This whole "how they do it in other countries" is a stupid argument. It's not like that's going to happen here. We have laws that are abided by. If Muslims wan't to go ahead and condemn gays while they're here in America then they'll fit right in with the rest of the Christian organizations that do the same, but there won't be any genocide. And aren't you one of those guys who gets up in arms when Ruaf or any other Muslim, or worse a liberal, talks about all the killing the US does in Muslim countries? Yet here you are trying to use the same argument from the other side to prove your point. The hyperbolic hypocrisy from the Right is outrageous, stupendous, pendulous and absolutely CANARDIC!!!!!
What's truly outrageous is OK-ing genocide just because it's happening in another country.
Who's ok with it? Jon is making a big hullabaloo (aka the very same canard he spouts on about) about gays in other countries because libs are not out protesting against their treatment abroad. Are we really supposed to protest every injustice in every other country? Not enough hours in the day to even get to all the problems here. Not one thing we do will affect how other countries treat gays. When they come here, they can't kill gays and if they do they'll go to jail. The rest is just him trying to deflect.
This really is an awesome amount of bull####. Well done.
 
CBusAlex said:
the moops said:
ver him/her for their antiquated views of homosexuality. But since there aren't any of those, we will have to settle for the oneohhs and the like.
Yeah, ask the gay-hatin' Christians around here if we're all afraid to attack people's religious beliefs. You don't see it as much with Muslims for the same reason you don't see it with Hindus or Scientologists: there just aren't any here, and it's pointless to argue something if there's no one around to defend the other side.
Why? We have pages and pages of debate over how horrible it is that the US does not recognize gay marriage. In the meantime, thousands of homosexuals are executed every year in one of the half-dozen or so Muslim countries which have the dealth penalty for homosexuals. So we have many Muslim countries effectively engaging in genocide against homosexuals and instead of discussing that we have our panties in a bind over a piece of paper. Get real, just because there aren't posters here.....that is a lame excuse. The last I checked Hindus or Scientologists are executing gays. We discuss Muslims all the time in this forum, why not discuss the very ugly and real side of it? We are talking genocide here and I never hear one Muslim condemn it. Lots of them defending it, but lots of silence from those who oppose.I could tell you the exact reason, but there would just be massive denial.
Please, go for it.This whole "how they do it in other countries" is a stupid argument. It's not like that's going to happen here. We have laws that are abided by. If Muslims wan't to go ahead and condemn gays while they're here in America then they'll fit right in with the rest of the Christian organizations that do the same, but there won't be any genocide. And aren't you one of those guys who gets up in arms when Ruaf or any other Muslim, or worse a liberal, talks about all the killing the US does in Muslim countries? Yet here you are trying to use the same argument from the other side to prove your point. The hyperbolic hypocrisy from the Right is outrageous, stupendous, pendulous and absolutely CANARDIC!!!!!
I guess you have to fill a paragraph with hyperbole before you call someone else out for it? Is that the new rule?
One sentence = a paragraph? Besides, it's your rule anyways with all your "poor Right attacked viciously by the Left" shtick as if only the left does it :thumbup:
 
This whole "how they do it in other countries" is a stupid argument. It's not like that's going to happen here. We have laws that are abided by. If Muslims wan't to go ahead and condemn gays while they're here in America then they'll fit right in with the rest of the Christian organizations that do the same, but there won't be any genocide. And aren't you one of those guys who gets up in arms when Ruaf or any other Muslim, or worse a liberal, talks about all the killing the US does in Muslim countries? Yet here you are trying to use the same argument from the other side to prove your point. The hyperbolic hypocrisy from the Right is outrageous, stupendous, pendulous and absolutely CANARDIC!!!!!
What's truly outrageous is OK-ing genocide just because it's happening in another country.
Who's ok with it? Jon is making a big hullabaloo (aka the very same canard he spouts on about) about gays in other countries because libs are not out protesting against their treatment abroad. Are we really supposed to protest every injustice in every other country? Not enough hours in the day to even get to all the problems here. Not one thing we do will affect how other countries treat gays. When they come here, they can't kill gays and if they do they'll go to jail. The rest is just him trying to deflect.
This really is an awesome amount of bull####. Well done.
:thumbup: You...calling something bull####...too funny
 
Who's ok with it? Jon is making a big hullabaloo (aka the very same canard he spouts on about) about gays in other countries because libs are not out protesting against their treatment abroad. Are we really supposed to protest every injustice in every other country? Not enough hours in the day to even get to all the problems here. Not one thing we do will affect how other countries treat gays. When they come here, they can't kill gays and if they do they'll go to jail. The rest is just him trying to deflect.
Perhaps you are OK with it, which is why you belittle the issue. People talk about all the people dying because of Bush's two wars. Well let's talk about the people not dying. In Iraq alone, Saddam was killing some 50,000 people a year. These included political enemies, homosexuals, and many other innocent civilians. Considering all things, Bush's wars have probably saved about a half million lives, many of which were homosexuals who Saddam was targeting.
 
Who's ok with it? Jon is making a big hullabaloo (aka the very same canard he spouts on about) about gays in other countries because libs are not out protesting against their treatment abroad. Are we really supposed to protest every injustice in every other country? Not enough hours in the day to even get to all the problems here. Not one thing we do will affect how other countries treat gays. When they come here, they can't kill gays and if they do they'll go to jail. The rest is just him trying to deflect.
Perhaps you are OK with it, which is why you belittle the issue. People talk about all the people dying because of Bush's two wars. Well let's talk about the people not dying. In Iraq alone, Saddam was killing some 50,000 people a year. These included political enemies, homosexuals, and many other innocent civilians. Considering all things, Bush's wars have probably saved about a half million lives, many of which were homosexuals who Saddam was targeting.
Talk about MASSIVE bull####. My screen stinks from it it's so bad.How am I belittling it, it's just absolutely ridiculous reading comprehension on your part trying to continue this deflection away from the protesters? I won't stand for it in my country and I think it's atrocious that it's done anywhere. I don't support any of that.

 
We can't do anything about what other countries allow.
Loads of proud Word War II vets would respectfully disagree with that line.
Is that why the US jumped into the fray when Germany invaded Poland? Annexed Austria and Czechslovakia? France? We only entered because we were attacked and then it was the biggest war in history. Do you suggest we invade every country that mistreats it's citizens? Continuous worldwide warfare? I'm sorry, it's not possible.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?

 
Rauf was blaming the US for starving to death 500,000 Iraqi children. I was up in arms about that ridculous statement because it is a total lie. I want an answer to this question, why don't liberals care about all the gay people being executed? We are not talking about people killed during acts of war, we are talking about intentionally killing people becuase they are gay.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/02/defe...ights-worldwide
Human Rights Watch protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people who are subject to discrimination and violence—and sometimes even torture or execution—because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We advocate for the principles outlined in the Yogyakarta Principles, the groundbreaking document adopted in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, that lays out governments’ duties to protect LGBT people’s rights. In recent months, our efforts have led to positive impact in several countries.
Being pro-freedon of religion in the USA does not mean you aren't against homosexual discrimination and violence worldwide.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
No, and we didn't get a consensus among the supporters that it be built in Buffalo either, because that was not the proposed site and it is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
No, and we didn't get a consensus among the supporters that it be built in Buffalo either, because that was not the proposed site and it is irrelevant to the discussion.
:lmao: Consider it an offshoot of the discussion. I didn't really want to start a poll. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
I must've missed it when it was asked. I would support their right to it and i don't think they should be forced to move because they're Muslim and other Muslims destroyed the WTC. I'd be infinitely more worried about violence against it and the return violence and on and on. But if a mosque were to go there it should be accompanied by a variety of other houses of worship since the actual site is designated as a memorial (iirc). And that's what makes this question a red herring. However, it would at least make the protesters correct when they claim the mosque was being built on/at GZ. So there's a bonus there.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
I must've missed it when it was asked. I would support their right to it and i don't think they should be forced to move because they're Muslim and other Muslims destroyed the WTC. I'd be infinitely more worried about violence against it and the return violence and on and on. But if a mosque were to go there it should be accompanied by a variety of other houses of worship since the actual site is designated as a memorial (iirc). And that's what makes this question a red herring. However, it would at least make the protesters correct when they claim the mosque was being built on/at GZ. So there's a bonus there.
I don't have a problem with the Cultural Center being built 2 blocks away.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
I must've missed it when it was asked. I would support their right to it and i don't think they should be forced to move because they're Muslim and other Muslims destroyed the WTC. I'd be infinitely more worried about violence against it and the return violence and on and on. But if a mosque were to go there it should be accompanied by a variety of other houses of worship since the actual site is designated as a memorial (iirc). And that's what makes this question a red herring. However, it would at least make the protesters correct when they claim the mosque was being built on/at GZ. So there's a bonus there.
I don't have a problem with the Cultural Center being built 2 blocks away.
Que?
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
I must've missed it when it was asked. I would support their right to it and i don't think they should be forced to move because they're Muslim and other Muslims destroyed the WTC. I'd be infinitely more worried about violence against it and the return violence and on and on. But if a mosque were to go there it should be accompanied by a variety of other houses of worship since the actual site is designated as a memorial (iirc). And that's what makes this question a red herring. However, it would at least make the protesters correct when they claim the mosque was being built on/at GZ. So there's a bonus there.
I don't have a problem with the Cultural Center being built 2 blocks away.
Que?
Cén?
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
Good question.Since you can't build on Ground Zero itself, do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
 
do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
:shrug:Type in Rauf and mosque into google, or Rauf and real estate all you get is conservative blogger links where the writer is screaming about the ground zero mosque, and the wolf in sheep's clothing, and the terrorist ties to money, etc.Good luck wading through all that crap to try and find any answers to legitimate questions.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
Good question.Since you can't build on Ground Zero itself, do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
Out of 10 million pieces of available real estate in the US, I am sure that is the closet piece of real estate to ground zero that could accomadate a $100 million building. But it is merely a coincidence.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
Good question.Since you can't build on Ground Zero itself, do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
Out of 10 million pieces of available real estate in the US, I am sure that is the closet piece of real estate to ground zero that could accomadate a $100 million building. But it is merely a coincidence.
A lot of Muslims live in NYC. A whole lot of them.
 
do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
:goodposting:Type in Rauf and mosque into google, or Rauf and real estate all you get is conservative blogger links where the writer is screaming about the ground zero mosque, and the wolf in sheep's clothing, and the terrorist ties to money, etc.Good luck wading through all that crap to try and find any answers to legitimate questions.
Did you try Rauf+mosque+canard ?
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
Good question.Since you can't build on Ground Zero itself, do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
Out of 10 million pieces of available real estate in the US, I am sure that is the closet piece of real estate to ground zero that could accomadate a $100 million building. But it is merely a coincidence.
I can't read people's minds so I don't know whether Rauf is the moderate we hope he is or the radical that some fear. Choosing the closest available spot to Ground Zero, not offering a compromise in the face of public outcry, and choosing 9-11 of all dates to open the facility don't weigh in his favor.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but in the same 2 block radius of Ground zero they are loaded with sex shops, liquor stores, and other ills in society. But holy crap if those damn Muslims putting a religious center nearby come in then it will destroy the legacy of the area.

The truth is that if they moved the Mosque 20 blocks from Ground Zero people would complain. It has everything to do with religion and ignorance which the majority of the time occurs the same time. Which is why they shouldn't have the mosque in the area? It is like putting a black church in downtown Birmingham Alabama in 1964. No matter how peaceful and good they would be for society, the vocal ignorants would ruin it.

 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
Good question.Since you can't build on Ground Zero itself, do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
Out of 10 million pieces of available real estate in the US, I am sure that is the closet piece of real estate to ground zero that could accomadate a $100 million building. But it is merely a coincidence.
I can't read people's minds so I don't know whether Rauf is the moderate we hope he is or the radical that some fear. Choosing the closest available spot to Ground Zero, not offering a compromise in the face of public outcry, and choosing 9-11 of all dates to open the facility don't weigh in his favor.
We don't know if it's the closest spot available. From everything I've read, though it's physically two blocks from GZ it's in a vortex of semi-inaccessability. It's also a spot where Muslims have held services due to overcrowding at the other mosques.Offering a compromise validates the public outcry about Islam being comparable to the hijackers' vicious version of Islam. Terrible, terrible concession to make. The 9/11 opening date has never been more than a rumor started by a definitively anti-Muslim Right wing blogger who's whipping up the frenzy that has led, in large part, to a completely ludicrous stabbing of a Muslim and a variety of other anti-Islamic (not just mosque oriented) confrontations. Until I see something that confirms that date (that isn't traced back to the blogger) then I'll consider outrage.Jewell, though we probably don't agree on a lot and started off seemingly worlds apart I've been illuminated by some of your posting and have come to respect your opinion on things as a way for me to see things that I may be missing. However, your post about me being OK with killing gays in Muslim countries and this one about the opening date being 9/11 are really messing up that new opinion I had of you. You're moving down the scale towards oneohh and jo(h)n_mx(555).
 
I can't read people's minds so I don't know whether Rauf is the moderate we hope he is or the radical that some fear. Choosing the closest available spot to Ground Zero, not offering a compromise in the face of public outcry, and choosing 9-11 of all dates to open the facility don't weigh in his favor.
The bolded is a lie, one of the many lies made up by Pam Geller, the architect of the protest. Please stop spreading it.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
No, but I wouldn't support anything being built on that site except for a memorial - sadly we can't even seem to get moving on that either. IMO there should be an agreed upon area where the memorial will be and anything outside of that area is fair game to anybody who buys the buildings.
 
I can't read people's minds so I don't know whether Rauf is the moderate we hope he is or the radical that some fear. Choosing the closest available spot to Ground Zero, not offering a compromise in the face of public outcry, and choosing 9-11 of all dates to open the facility don't weigh in his favor.
Where did you hear this? I don't buy that at all. If something sounds too ridiculous to be true, it usually is. I did find that there will be an anti-mosque rally on 9/11.
 
Did we ever get a consensus among the supporters of the mosque in this thread if they would support and actual mosque being built directly on Ground Zero?
Good question.Since you can't build on Ground Zero itself, do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
Out of 10 million pieces of available real estate in the US, I am sure that is the closet piece of real estate to ground zero that could accomadate a $100 million building. But it is merely a coincidence.
I can't read people's minds so I don't know whether Rauf is the moderate we hope he is or the radical that some fear. Choosing the closest available spot to Ground Zero, not offering a compromise in the face of public outcry, and choosing 9-11 of all dates to open the facility don't weigh in his favor.
We don't know if it's the closest spot available. From everything I've read, though it's physically two blocks from GZ it's in a vortex of semi-inaccessability. It's also a spot where Muslims have held services due to overcrowding at the other mosques.Offering a compromise validates the public outcry about Islam being comparable to the hijackers' vicious version of Islam. Terrible, terrible concession to make. The 9/11 opening date has never been more than a rumor started by a definitively anti-Muslim Right wing blogger who's whipping up the frenzy that has led, in large part, to a completely ludicrous stabbing of a Muslim and a variety of other anti-Islamic (not just mosque oriented) confrontations. Until I see something that confirms that date (that isn't traced back to the blogger) then I'll consider outrage.Jewell, though we probably don't agree on a lot and started off seemingly worlds apart I've been illuminated by some of your posting and have come to respect your opinion on things as a way for me to see things that I may be missing. However, your post about me being OK with killing gays in Muslim countries and this one about the opening date being 9/11 are really messing up that new opinion I had of you. You're moving down the scale towards oneohh and jo(h)n_mx(555).
The problem is you expect respect but yet give none. You want to slam people by framing their views as bigoted, but then turn around and not expect harsh rhetoric to be thrown your way?
 
I can't read people's minds so I don't know whether Rauf is the moderate we hope he is or the radical that some fear. Choosing the closest available spot to Ground Zero, not offering a compromise in the face of public outcry, and choosing 9-11 of all dates to open the facility don't weigh in his favor.
Where did you hear this? I don't buy that at all. If something sounds too ridiculous to be true, it usually is. I did find that there will be an anti-mosque rally on 9/11.
That was just a rumor reported in several papers, but I have not seen a direct quote. First it was to open on 9-11, then it was to break ground on 9-11. But there is no original sourcing to back it up.
 
Continuous worldwide warfare? I'm sorry, it's not possible.
I fear that Radical Islam is going to prove you wrong.
Possibly, but it's a circular argument that comes back to the need to promote moderate Islam and not castigate all of Islam for the actions of the radicals.
But will moderate Islam stand up to militant Islam?In the history of mankind...

Every monarchy has been a militant minority ruling over a majority, and every dictatorship today is a militant minority ruling over a majority.

The Roman Empire was a militant minority ruling over a majority, and the Mongol Empire was a militant minority ruling over a majority.

Sadly, disgustingly, a militant minority eradicated a Native American majority, and also in areas of the South enslaved an African majority with a militant minority.

The Bolsheviks fought to power as militant minority and then held together an enormous Soviet Empire, the Nazis came to power as a militant minority and then tried to create an empire.

Most importantly....

The Ottoman Empire was a regime where a militant minority ruled over a moderate majority that lasted from 1299 to 1923. At the height of its power, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the empire spanned three continents controlling much of Southeastern Europe, Western Asia and North Africa.

As you can see the militant minority always* wins over the moderate majority.

I'm of the firm belief that the rebirth of the Radical movement was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Ever since then the Radicals have perpetrated the Iranian Hostage Situation, the Achille Lauro Attack, the Lockerbie Bombing, the first attempt on the UN building, the USS Cole, 9-11, and a bunch of pot-shots in between.

I won't even get into all the attacks since 9-11. They're well known since the world opened their eyes on 9-11, but much lesser attacks have been the constant pattern since 1979 all in the name of the same Radical movement.

You'll notice that the Otttoman Empire ended in 1923 and the Radical Movement burst back onto the scene in 1979. And, let's be honest, that in between period was becuase many Arab areas were controlled by European powers. Once again, a militant minority ruling over a majority.

A militant minority always wins. Once again, a militant Muslim minority ruled over a moderate majority for 700 years and the rebirth of the Movement was only 56 years thereafter. Or as the Radicals prefer to call it -- Halftime.

Seriously, we need to wake up. Practice whatever religion you want, marry whoever you want, be whatever race you want(?), but wake up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But will moderate Islam stand up to militant Islam?

In the history of mankind...

Every monarchy has been a militant minority ruling over a majority, and every dictatorship today is a militant minority ruling over a majority.

Not true. Several monarchies and at least a few dictatorships have enjoyed great popular support.

The Roman Empire was a militant minority ruling over a majority, and the Mongol Empire was a militant minority ruling over a majority.

Generally true.

Sadly, disgustingly, a militant minority eradicated a Native American majority, and also in areas of the South enslaved an African majority with a militant minority.

Not true. Prior to Europeans landing in North America, plague that they carried with them killed something like 99 out of every 100 Native Americans. From that point forward Europeans were always a majority in their conflicts against native Americans. In the Plains Wars, white Americans greatly outnumbered Indians. As far as slaves, at no time did their numbers in the American South exceed those of whites- Southerners were careful not to imitate the French in Haiti.

The Bolsheviks fought to power as militant minority and then held together an enormous Soviet Empire, the Nazis came to power as a militant minority and then tried to create an empire.

The Bolsheviks were certainly a minority, and came to power as part of a coalition with the Mensheviks whom they quickly eradicated. But the Nazis only came to power after an election in 1930 made them the majority party in Germany. They had great popular support among the public.

As you can see the militant minority always* wins over the moderate majority.
Simply untrue. You ignore all of the democracies that have ever existed, including this one. In every free nation's history, including this one, there have been attempts by militants at one time or another to seize power, and those attempts have failed. I prefer to look with hope at the Muslim world, that more and more people have exposure to the west, including the young people in Iran, and they are not going to put up with the Islamist fundamentalist rule that a few wish to impose on the rest. We need to help encourage this resistance.
 
Good question.Since you can't build on Ground Zero itself, do we know if there was any open real estate closer to Ground Zero than where the community center is being built or did Rauf grab the closest available real estate?
Out of 10 million pieces of available real estate in the US, I am sure that is the closet piece of real estate to ground zero that could accomadate a $100 million building. But it is merely a coincidence.
I can't read people's minds so I don't know whether Rauf is the moderate we hope he is or the radical that some fear. Choosing the closest available spot to Ground Zero, not offering a compromise in the face of public outcry, and choosing 9-11 of all dates to open the facility don't weigh in his favor.
We don't know if it's the closest spot available. From everything I've read, though it's physically two blocks from GZ it's in a vortex of semi-inaccessability. It's also a spot where Muslims have held services due to overcrowding at the other mosques.Offering a compromise validates the public outcry about Islam being comparable to the hijackers' vicious version of Islam. Terrible, terrible concession to make. The 9/11 opening date has never been more than a rumor started by a definitively anti-Muslim Right wing blogger who's whipping up the frenzy that has led, in large part, to a completely ludicrous stabbing of a Muslim and a variety of other anti-Islamic (not just mosque oriented) confrontations. Until I see something that confirms that date (that isn't traced back to the blogger) then I'll consider outrage.Jewell, though we probably don't agree on a lot and started off seemingly worlds apart I've been illuminated by some of your posting and have come to respect your opinion on things as a way for me to see things that I may be missing. However, your post about me being OK with killing gays in Muslim countries and this one about the opening date being 9/11 are really messing up that new opinion I had of you. You're moving down the scale towards oneohh and jo(h)n_mx(555).
The problem is you expect respect but yet give none. You want to slam people by framing their views as bigoted, but then turn around and not expect harsh rhetoric to be thrown your way?
Wow, major fail (no surprise) I just did give respect to Jewell in the freakin paragraph you quoted :excited: Where did I not expect harsh rhetoric? I know I'm going to get it from one trick ponies like you and oneohh. As for Jewell, I pointed out that nothing in what I posted supported his statement that I thought killing gays in Muslim countries was OK and that I was disappointed in the way he went out of the way to make an untrue statement.You're really, really bad at reading.
 
Continuous worldwide warfare? I'm sorry, it's not possible.
I fear that Radical Islam is going to prove you wrong.
Possibly, but it's a circular argument that comes back to the need to promote moderate Islam and not castigate all of Islam for the actions of the radicals.
But will moderate Islam stand up to militant Islam?In the history of mankind...

Every monarchy has been a militant minority ruling over a majority, and every dictatorship today is a militant minority ruling over a majority.

The Roman Empire was a militant minority ruling over a majority, and the Mongol Empire was a militant minority ruling over a majority.

Sadly, disgustingly, a militant minority eradicated a Native American majority, and also in areas of the South enslaved an African majority with a militant minority.

The Bolsheviks fought to power as militant minority and then held together an enormous Soviet Empire, the Nazis came to power as a militant minority and then tried to create an empire.

Most importantly....

The Ottoman Empire was a regime where a militant minority ruled over a moderate majority that lasted from 1299 to 1923. At the height of its power, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the empire spanned three continents controlling much of Southeastern Europe, Western Asia and North Africa.

As you can see the militant minority always* wins over the moderate majority.

I'm of the firm belief that the rebirth of the Radical movement was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Ever since then the Radicals have perpetrated the Iranian Hostage Situation, the Achille Lauro Attack, the Lockerbie Bombing, the first attempt on the UN building, the USS Cole, 9-11, and a bunch of pot-shots in between.

I won't even get into all the attacks since 9-11. They're well known since the world opened their eyes on 9-11, but much lesser attacks have been the constant pattern since 1979 all in the name of the same Radical movement.

You'll notice that the Otttoman Empire ended in 1923 and the Radical Movement burst back onto the scene in 1979. And, let's be honest, that in between period was becuase many Arab areas were controlled by European powers. Once again, a militant minority ruling over a majority.

A militant minority always wins. Once again, a militant Muslim minority ruled over a moderate majority for 700 years and the rebirth of the Movement was only 56 years thereafter. Or as the Radicals prefer to call it -- Halftime.

Seriously, we need to wake up. Practice whatever religion you want, marry whoever you want, be whatever race you want(?), but wake up.
I am very awake to the threat of radical Islam. I, and I would imagine even the stoutest left wing nutjob, peace freaks would agree that radical Islam is a serious menace. But radical Islam is not the issue here in NY and we keep taking the absolute worst steps to stop it when we can. We arm and teach the Afghanis to fight the Soviets, they keep that knowledge to fight us later on. We invade a country that, while Muslim (ruled by the minority no less), was not a theistic state whatsoever. It was a basic dictatorship that happened to be in a Muslim country. Now it's a hotbed for AQ and other radical Islam sects. We had the chance to pummel the Taliban into dust and didn't take it. Now we're shaming all American Muslims by these out of control Right Wing demagogues whipping up an anti-Muslim frenzy. And sure, there are democrats and other non-Right Wingers that oppose the mosque for many of the same reason as the Righties, but it's Fox News and Far Right public officials feeding the fire, and it will explode. We've already seen it start in NY. It will spread. But your post is part of the main problem. You're seeing radical Islam where it isn't and are poo-pooing moderate attempts to modernize Islam and gain allies in the larger struggle. So the Imam tells awful truths about the US and it's treatment of Muslims in the ME. There's no doubt that there is serious blood on our hands through politics, meddling and invasion. I'm seeing people on the Right as the ones that need to wake up. Seeing or recognizing the ills of our country is the absolute most basic tenet of patriotism. That's what spurred the Founding Fathers to revolt. You can't make a serious attempt to fix a country without a serious look at it's flaws. We have to work together to fix our flaws and assimilate a Muslim culture that is NOT going away to our way of life. We are not Britain, we are not Malaysia or Indonesia, we are not Iran. We stand above all because our laws make people equal (theoretically and subject to massive debate, but still...) and our laws will not be corrupted by new cultures. There will be rocky points where the teachings of their culture (as it is also with the Hmong for example) clash with laws and there will be victims and it may take more than a generation or two. But that's how the US works. And if you're worried about the inevitable worldwide crisis, then it makes sense to have as many allies on our side instead of turning 1.5 billion worldwide against us because we can't see past the differences in radicals and every day people that just want to live their life.Sorry for the run-on paragraph but I don't want to go back and edit it, I'm playing with the settings on my new TV for the football season!

Also, this whole impending saga of strife is just another reason to find this God of Abraham and kick his ### for the mess he's created/allowed. Utter lunacy from a supposedly loving and supreme being. Lunacy.

 
excuse me, but i could have sworn we were a nation of law - not religion -- law. - poorly applied often, but still based on law. does the law allow the mosque? what is the issue - according to law?

none? ####!!! feelings don't matter, LOUDNESS doesn't matter, religion doesn't matter and majority doesn't matter (thank the fraking deity of your choice for that + congress and the supreme court! congress and the court deserve the credit - deities not so much).

rabid/vocal ignorance does not make good government or policy. should they be allowed to voice their angst? yes - according to law. should we pay heed? not so much... if they want to riot let them - it won't last long. if they want to elect the angles/scotts/insert your tea-bagger here, let them. it won't last long. we survived mccarthy - it is just the same BS, different year. sad to see we have to do it again (teaching history needs to be a higher priority).

i really think we missed the boat when nixon was pardoned - he should have spent time in jail - a long time. add anyone involved in iran-contra (regan, bush I), lying under oath(ollie, clinton) or calling the constitution 'just a ### #### piece of paper' (bush II). throw in any number of republican/democrat congress critters who broke the law. they should be held to the highest standards - and pay the highest price. evnenually the rest would get the mesaage - and we've been sending the wrong message.

/i see stupid/ignorant people all the time/

if i gored your ox, too bad....

 
i am pretty sure there is no need for a public investigation. if anyone debating this back and forth does not think the government is looking into ANYTHING and EVERYTHING these people are doing are kidding themselves. i have friends who work for both ICE and Homeland Security and was recently given a lecture how buying "fake name brand purses" helps fund terror and illegal activities. so they snoop and monitor about transactions involving buying a fake coach purse, but they are not spending countless hours looking into muslims and a hundred million dollar mosque two blocks from ground zero? really? you hear how they catch a potential terror plot by bugging some no-name mosque but they have no clue about these people and the funding?

granted, i am not for this mosque at all (even though i think legally they have a right to build). but when you are talking about $100 million dollars, the U.S. government i am pretty sure is checking into it even if they were the whitest of the white. ####, you hit a score on a scratch off, the IRS or someone else in the gestapo is aware of it.

 
i am pretty sure there is no need for a public investigation. if anyone debating this back and forth does not think the government is looking into ANYTHING and EVERYTHING these people are doing are kidding themselves.
That's a nice thought and all, but you're talking about two groups in ICE and Homeland Security that not only ignore an open sieve of illegal immigrants gushing into this country, but judging by the actions of the DOJ against the people of Arizona are probably under explicit instructions to do so.It is more important to this administration to appear diverse and tolerant than to address the security of this nation. How can that even be questioned? Have you listened to Obama's speeches, where he takes every opportunity to express his shame at American greatness? How sorry he is for what America has done? How one nation should not rise above the rest?Wake up people. The destruction of America as we know it is your presidents explicit goal, in both words and actions. He feels that we need to destroy it in order to rebuild it in his image of what America should be. We've had some setbacks since the Democratic lawmakers took control of the country in 2006, but there's some hope that we can take the country back in 2012.
 
i am pretty sure there is no need for a public investigation. if anyone debating this back and forth does not think the government is looking into ANYTHING and EVERYTHING these people are doing are kidding themselves.
That's a nice thought and all, but you're talking about two groups in ICE and Homeland Security that not only ignore an open sieve of illegal immigrants gushing into this country, but judging by the actions of the DOJ against the people of Arizona are probably under explicit instructions to do so.It is more important to this administration to appear diverse and tolerant than to address the security of this nation. How can that even be questioned? Have you listened to Obama's speeches, where he takes every opportunity to express his shame at American greatness? How sorry he is for what America has done? How one nation should not rise above the rest?

Wake up people. The destruction of America as we know it is your presidents explicit goal, in both words and actions. He feels that we need to destroy it in order to rebuild it in his image of what America should be. We've had some setbacks since the Democratic Republican lawmakers took control of the country in 2006 2000, but there's some hope that we can take the country back in 2012.
:moneybag: Hopefully we can start plotting which other country to invade and be dead, plat out wrong about every reason to do so in 2013 and give those poor, rich 2% their massive tax breaks back so they can keep the jobs in America (even though they sent them overseas anyways when they were getting the cuts). And this onslaught of illegal immigration and terrorism, which clearly started after '08 (or since before Reagan's amnesty if you want to get technical) (weird how it's so bad during Republican admins), will once again come to a complete halt!

:lmao:

 
i am pretty sure there is no need for a public investigation. if anyone debating this back and forth does not think the government is looking into ANYTHING and EVERYTHING these people are doing are kidding themselves.
That's a nice thought and all, but you're talking about two groups in ICE and Homeland Security that not only ignore an open sieve of illegal immigrants gushing into this country, but judging by the actions of the DOJ against the people of Arizona are probably under explicit instructions to do so.It is more important to this administration to appear diverse and tolerant than to address the security of this nation. How can that even be questioned? Have you listened to Obama's speeches, where he takes every opportunity to express his shame at American greatness? How sorry he is for what America has done? How one nation should not rise above the rest?Wake up people. The destruction of America as we know it is your presidents explicit goal, in both words and actions. He feels that we need to destroy it in order to rebuild it in his image of what America should be. We've had some setbacks since the Democratic lawmakers took control of the country in 2006, but there's some hope that we can take the country back in 2012.
This crap is awful, you really need a better hobby.
 
i am pretty sure there is no need for a public investigation. if anyone debating this back and forth does not think the government is looking into ANYTHING and EVERYTHING these people are doing are kidding themselves.
That's a nice thought and all, but you're talking about two groups in ICE and Homeland Security that not only ignore an open sieve of illegal immigrants gushing into this country, but judging by the actions of the DOJ against the people of Arizona are probably under explicit instructions to do so.It is more important to this administration to appear diverse and tolerant than to address the security of this nation. How can that even be questioned? Have you listened to Obama's speeches, where he takes every opportunity to express his shame at American greatness? How sorry he is for what America has done? How one nation should not rise above the rest?

Wake up people. The destruction of America as we know it is your presidents explicit goal, in both words and actions. He feels that we need to destroy it in order to rebuild it in his image of what America should be. We've had some setbacks since the Democratic lawmakers took control of the country in 2006, but there's some hope that we can take the country back in 2012.
This crap is awful, you really need a better hobby.
But it's just shtick. :moneybag:

 
We got to the point where jon_mx couldn't pull crap out of thin air and had to jump to an alias to keep up the fight, looks like Stat has run out of gas, too.

 
Democratic lawmakers had control in 2006, and berated regulators as racist when they said we had a growing problem in the housing market.

That's a fact.

In a weird way it oddly mirrors this situation. Democrats have all the power in all branches of federal government. When people comment on the tastelessness of putting a mosque this close to ground zero they're labeled as racists. Same old card played by the Democrats that they always play. Back in 2006-2008 they were proping up the shaky Freddie/Fannie groups and heralding their ability to give poor people the dream of owning a house. Now they're proping up a shaky cult that expressly justifies murder in their own "holy book", simply to score some points by looking tolerant.

Qu'ran9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH So if I join your cult I can live? Got it. I did a lot of research on the Qu'ran as I readied for this battle, and there are plenty of websites out there that seek to justify this passage or "put it in context". Murder is still murder in the end. Those that know the Qu'ran, that study it with an unbiased eye are horrified by what they read.

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Much different than....oh say

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 
Democratic lawmakers had control in 2006, and berated regulators as racist when they said we had a growing problem in the housing market.That's a fact.In a weird way it oddly mirrors this situation. Democrats have all the power in all branches of federal government. When people comment on the tastelessness of putting a mosque this close to ground zero they're labeled as racists. Same old card played by the Democrats that they always play. Back in 2006-2008 they were proping up the shaky Freddie/Fannie groups and heralding their ability to give poor people the dream of owning a house. Now they're proping up a shaky cult that expressly justifies murder in their own "holy book", simply to score some points by looking tolerant.Qu'ran9:5-6 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH So if I join your cult I can live? Got it. I did a lot of research on the Qu'ran as I readied for this battle, and there are plenty of websites out there that seek to justify this passage or "put it in context". Murder is still murder in the end. Those that know the Qu'ran, that study it with an unbiased eye are horrified by what they read.Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”Much different than....oh sayBut I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Doesn't Islam have a similar get-out-of-crazy-scripture-free card like Christianity does with the whole Jesus fulfilling all the OT prophesies?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top