Forum: pol
Page 3465
Subject: Burlington Coat Factory Mosque


  Posted by: Perm Dude - [5510572522] Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 10:38

Probably worth pulling this issue out of the larger threads they've been discussed in.

Rick Santorum, as usual, takes the low road, calling the Imam a "jihadist"
 
1Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 12:11
That's Santorum, alright.
 
2Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Aug 25, 2010, 12:54
what you really mean to link to, is Santorum.

God bless Dan Savage.
 
3Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 14:59
Wait, so this cleric is quoted as saying that America has blood on its hands. Santorum is actually referring to real live actual quotes from the cleric and you guys are bashing him for reminding Americans about that?
 
4Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 15:12
I'm sorry but that is not an position of an extremist.

The uproar is a classic case of selective outrage. The guy was sent on international muslim outreach trips by President Bush and no one took issue. Glenn Beck called him one of the good guys. His wife was a guest on The O'Reilly Factor last year and Laura Ingraham told her she loved the idea of building a muslim community center there.

But the issue picked up enough steam by the right wing fearmongers in the following months that much of the right has been all too happy to flop over on their integrity and suddenly demonize him over stuff they didn't care a whit about until it became politically exploitable.
 
5The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 15:21
Obama's comments about the matter are interesting. While he said that the Muslims have a legal right to build something there, he did not comment on the wisdom of such a decision. Like how I said.
 
6Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 15:25
I believe you said that they shouldn't build there, despite their right to do so. Obama said they have a right to do so, but declined to comment on whether they should or not.
 
7The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 15:42
Obama and I both said they have the legal right to build there. I commented about the "wisdom" of them building the mosque there in the context of manners and street smarts and Obama did not. Something tells me he and I agree. It is like what I said.
 
8Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 16:13
But the issue picked up enough steam by the right wing fearmongers in the following months that much of the right has been all too happy to flop over on their integrity and suddenly demonize him over stuff they didn't care a whit about until it became politically exploitable.

I didn't know about the comments until this. And yes, those comments by him DO make me think twice about Imams motives.

Proof that he's a jihadist? Not necessarily. Proof that there is more to his story than he has presented when pushing for the mosque to be built where so many don't want it? Probably.
 
9Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 16:34
Something tells me he and I agree.

and even if he did, what's the point you're trying to make? that just because we don't like something, we should have a tantrum until we get our way?
 
10Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 17:15
Something tells me he and I agree.

Possibly. My guess is that whatever his position on the wisdom of putting the community center there is, it's probably a bit more nuanced than something simple like calling it unwise.
 
12Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 17:39
And yes, those comments by him DO make me think twice about Imams motives.

Which comments, exactly, Khahan? Did you read or watch a speech or are you playing into the rightist fearmongering which presents a brief excerpt with little or no accompanying context? Are you really so sure you understand the point he was making?

I'm sorry but it's not wrong or questionable for people in developing countries to come to the conclusion that their lives would be better off if the USA had never got involved in their country's affairs. Very often these claims aren't valid, but sometimes they are and sometimes the situation is abhorrant for those who get the butt-end of it.


Proof that there is more to his story than he has presented when pushing for the mosque to be built where so many don't want it? Probably.

With all due respect I think you're much smarter and better than that. The location he's "pushing" for didn't have any opponents when the project received the go-ahead. In fact the little media attention it did get (including from FNC!) was positive. To accuse a businessman of possibly violent jihad-related ulterior motives for not giving in to pitchfork-weilding village idiots and uprootiing an approved project with whatever investments surely already sunk into the thing? Based on some comments you can't even be certain of the context of? This is an embarrassing concession to the politics of fear. I'm not telling you to close up your mind but please don't buy in to that crap so easily. At the very least poke around and try to find out what he actually said before you decide that sinister ulterior motives are likely the case.
 
13Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 17:42
(1) What he said was entirely uncontroversial at the time. And at virtually anytime since then. Until some on the Right decided to make this guy out to be someone he isn't in order to try to score cheap political points by dividing citizens.

(2) - (5) What motives? Is he a terrorist? Why are his "motives" suddenly being called into question? And why do they matter?
 
14Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 18:04
1) They don't 'have the legal right to build there' or anywhere else...until the planning commission signs off on it you technically can't build a porch let alone a 12 story building 'anywhere you want'.

Our religious assembly hall plans get nixed all the time vbecause it isn't zoned right or too many neighbors didn't approve or the chairman of the committee was a catholic, if the truth be told.

2) Plenty of conservatives think Bush allowed 9/11, has long-standing ties to the Bin Laden family and wildly disagreed from the beginning of the 9/11 response with the government's kowtowing to every al queda/muslim brotherhood/CAIR front group that wanted to give their spin to everything terrorist.

3) Rauf is intimately connected to the 'take-over-the-world' militant branch of Islam, not the moderates you all wish dominated the scene.
 
15Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 18:14
They have Planning approval, I understand.

Rauf is intimately connected to the 'take-over-the-world' militant branch of Islam, not the moderates you all wish dominated the scene

I'm going to come right out and say this: These tiresome Chicken Little statements are much more fun when you add "in bed" at the end of them.
 
16Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 18:24
Ok, I'll refer to him as in the 72 virgins camp.
 
17Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 18:31
BTW note PD's circular argument. Rauf isn't with the radicals because when I go and prove he's in bed with the radicals, it is guilt by association.

I wonder if he was actually associated with the 20% non-saudi funded, non militant mosques in the country would he be innocent by association? Or would that be McCartyite thinking?
 
18Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 18:46
1) They don't 'have the legal right to build there' or anywhere else...until the planning commission signs off on it you technically can't build a porch let alone a 12 story building 'anywhere you want'.

Our religious assembly hall plans get nixed all the time vbecause it isn't zoned right or too many neighbors didn't approve or the chairman of the committee was a catholic, if the truth be told.

2) Plenty of conservatives think Bush allowed 9/11, has long-standing ties to the Bin Laden family and wildly disagreed from the beginning of the 9/11 response with the government's kowtowing to every al queda/muslim brotherhood/CAIR front group that wanted to give their spin to everything terrorist.

3) Rauf is intimately connected to the 'take-over-the-world' militant branch of Islam, not the moderates you all wish dominated the scene.


1. They received final approval the first week of August. this has been in many of the articles about the Mosque and Cultural Center.

2. What does this have to do with the Mosque and Cultural Center being built?

3. An absolute and outrageous lie, something that you have become way too comfortable with in recent years. there is nothing to back up your statements at all, although i'm sure you'll make something up to fit your own view.
 
19Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 18:47
20% are non-militant? It's against my better judgement to as
but you believe you can show this?
 
20Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 18:48
BTW note PD's circular argument. Rauf isn't with the radicals because when I go and prove he's in bed with the radicals, it is guilt by association.


it's been a number of years since you proved anything of note on these boards.

also, your methods are faulty, because you come up with a conclusion then "discover" "facts" to fit your conclusion.
 
21Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 19:06
Baldwin: You haven't actually proven a thing. All you have is guilt by association (worse, guilt by implication).

The irony of talking about your religion's difficulties in building places of worship (often, because of declarations that your religion is "un-American) seems lost on you in your current crusade to paint this long-time downtown New York Imam as "un-American."
 
22Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 19:09
1. They received final approval the first week of August. this has been in many of the articles about the Mosque and Cultural Center.

1) Then they'll just have to reconsider.

2) They don't have a constitutional right to build exactly there or they wouldn't have needed to seek that approval. When does that point sink in with anyone here?
 
23Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 19:16
Do you really not understand the role of zoning? Seriously?

The fact that someone lives in a zoned community doesn't mean that they cease having constitutional rights. It means that subdivision and land development undergoes a certain process of oversight. That oversight has its own limitations, however. Because of land development rights, nearly all uses are assumed approved unless there are specific zoning restrictions to a planned use.

This particular plan, which has passed every development stage, has no zoning or SALDO deficiencies to halt its movement.
 
24Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 19:17
1. They received final approval the first week of August. this has been in many of the articles about the Mosque and Cultural Center.

1) Then they'll just have to reconsider.


that whole thing about you trying to make things fit into *your* point of view? yea, this is one of those times.

this was a non-issue until the rabid hate mongers on the right decided it would be a good thing to stir up the $hit with.


2) They don't have a constitutional right to build exactly there or they wouldn't have needed to seek that approval. When does that point sink in with anyone here?

planning board approval and historical preservation committee approvals have NOTHING to do with the Constitutional right to do anything.
 
25Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 19:33
PD

How much proof do you need and what pray tell would you be willing to consider as evidence?

If he explicitly sides with terrorist organizations and goals, will you still claim McCarthyism if I quote him?

I've seen the evidence but you've already ruled his associations out of bounds as evidence. There are two faces of Islam and he's always chosen to align himself with the militant side. Why that doesn't count as evidence and even makes me a bigot for pointing it out is beyond me.
 
27Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 19:36
planning board approval and historical preservation committee approvals have NOTHING to do with the Constitutional right to do anything. - Tree

Great work, Sherlock. If it was a constitutional right, their approval wouldn't have mattered.
 
28Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 19:51
Great work, Sherlock. If it was a constitutional right, their approval wouldn't have mattered.

They have a constitutional right to erect their religious and cultural center. period.

There are two faces of Islam and he's always chosen to align himself with the militant side.

always, eh?

Why that doesn't count as evidence and even makes me a bigot for pointing it out is beyond me.

plenty of other things you've said make you a bigot.
 
29Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 20:00
May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by a New York City community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of 9/11 victims (called by the reporter), who offer differing opinions. The [Rupert Murdoch owned] New York Post, meanwhile, runs a story under the inaccurate headline, "Panel Approves 'WTC' Mosque." Geller is less subtle, titling her post that day, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." She writes on her Atlas Shrugs blog, "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem." (To get an idea of where Geller is coming from, she once suggested that Malcolm X was Obama's real father. Seriously.)

•May 7, 2010: Geller's group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!" (SIOA 's associate director is Robert Spencer, who makes his living writing and speaking about the evils of Islam.) Geller posts the names and contact information for the mayor and members of the community board, encouraging people to write. The board chair later reports getting "hundreds and hundreds" of calls and e-mails from around the world.

•May 8, 2010: Geller announces SIOA's first protest against what she calls the "911 monster mosque" for May 29. She and Spencer and several other members of the professional anti-Islam industry will attend. (She also says that the protest will mark the dark day of "May 29, 1453, [when] the Ottoman forces led by the Sultan Mehmet II broke through the Byzantine defenses against the Muslim siege of Constantinople." The outrage-peddling New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser argues in a note at the end of her column a couple of days later that "there are better places to put a mosque."

•May 13, 2010: Peyser follows up with an entire column devoted to "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero." This is a significant moment in the development of the "ground zero mosque" narrative: It's the first newspaper article that frames the project as inherently wrong and suspect, in the way that Geller has been framing it for months. Peyser in fact quotes Geller at length and promotes the anti-mosque protest of Stop Islamization of America, which Peyser describes as a "human-rights group." Peyser also reports — falsely — that Cordoba House's opening date will be Sept. 11, 2011.
There was a small minority of people in vocal opposition, just as with every single other project in the city, especially in that part of town. Not even enough to prevent a unanimous vote in favor of the project.

Then some bigots rounded up a small like minded army of people who don't live anywhere near NYC and couldn't possibly be impactedby the thing in any way to make it aninternational issue.

And the bigot beat rolls on...
 
30Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 21:16
How much proof do you need and what pray tell would you be willing to consider as evidence?

A level of proof and technique which, if I applied it to you, wouldn't make you look like a terrorist.
 
31Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 23:27
MITH

The location close to ground zero and the finger in America's eye, is clearly the point of the project, or they would listen to all the moderate muslims who don't want to deliberately gin up hostility towards Islam the way this project does.
 
32Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 23:29
Before I do this, are MITH and PD really going to tell me that they have not run across any information that leads them to believe this guy Rauf is tied to the most aggressive and violent strains of Islam?

You really need better sources of information if that is true.
 
33Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 23:40
Have you ever been there? Do you think it's a part of the WTC? It's very close, but not part of it. It's a comparatively gritty street a long block down and short block over. It's a lot in a regular NYC neighborhood that can't even be seen from ground zero. There is even an already established Muslim presence in the neighborhood.

Over the years there has been an awful lot of violence spilled in this city over ethnic lines. I can only imagine how many people were hurt by Italian crime families over the years. But I can't imagine you getting so bent over a new Sons of Italy hall in Bensonhurst.
 
34Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 01:38
But I can't imagine you getting so bent over a new Sons of Italy hall in Bensonhurst.

nor Christian churches near the site of the Oklahoma City bombings...
 
35Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 03:40
In none of those counter-examples is there a real threat by a group intent on converting the world with a blade to the neck.
 
36Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 07:25
a real threat by a group intent on converting the world with a blade to the neck

It's funny, there is one group of people who say it has nothing to do with any broad indictment of Islam, that it's about the insensitivity of establishing a muslim center near the place where thousands of people died as a result of the distorted values of an extremist form of that religion.

I understand that proximity argument and 33 responds to it.

But then you have the bigots, in who's minds any establishment of Islam is (apparently) 80% likely to be given to violent jihad. For these people, the proximity argument is nothing more than convenient cover.

Really Boldwin, if you believe this place is more than 80% likely to have operational ties to violent jihadist establishments, then why would you care at all whether it is two blocks or two miles or two hundred miles from Ground Zero?
 
37The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 08:59
In none of those counter-examples is there a real threat by a group intent on converting the world with a blade to the neck.

The way a lot of them treat their women is terrifying. Besides the US-China relationship the westernization of Muslims will be the defining cultural event of this century. Bush was right in that we have to treat them equally but conversely they have to realize etiquette and be open to criticism.
 
38Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 09:03
Boldy #32
Personally I'm much more interested in how you come to 80% violent jihadist figure.
 
39The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 09:22
Personally I'm much more interested in how you come to 80% violent jihadist figure.

That number is too expensive and time consuming to figure out. I will just trust Boldwin's assertions instead. Like you with the stimulus jobs.
 
40Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 09:29
MITH Post 12 - which comments from Rauf:

"You may remember that the U.S.-led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over a half a million Iraqi children."

"the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."


You don't read that at least think, "Maybe there's more to this." You do not at least accept the possibility that Rauf's comments were more geared extremist sympathy than anything else? Or you just accept your sides version that it was a harmless comment taken out of context? Sorry but I thought you were more intelligent than that.

For the record I did not say I believe or disbelieve Santorum. I said I was glad for him bringing these comments to light because its making me think/question Rauf. I'm actually still trying to find the full transcript and description of the forum where Rauf was speaking so I can decide for myself.

It sounds like many people here are just making excuses for him and defending him because other people have said he's really a good person. And that is just as bad as people attacking him because other people have said he's a terrorist in sheeps clothing. In fact I flat out said its not proof he's a jihadist in post 8.
 
41Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 09:53

"You may remember that the U.S.-led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over a half a million Iraqi children."

"the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."


You don't read that at least think, "Maybe there's more to this."


i don't. i see them as fact-based statements. the former can likely be documented, the latter is a given, even just considering civilian deaths in Iraq vs. the number of dead in the WTC attacks.
 
42Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 10:35
Personally I'm much more interested in how you come to 80% violent jihadist figure.

That number is too expensive and time consuming to figure out. I will just trust Boldwin's assertions instead. Like you with the stimulus jobs.


Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. The ratio was stated by Dick Morris who either got it from think tank resources like Herritage or Hudson, or he got it from the current best seller on the subject.
 
43Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 10:39
You don't read that at least think, "Maybe there's more to this."

Nope.

You do not at least accept the possibility that Rauf's comments were more geared extremist sympathy than anything else?

Nope.

Or you just accept your sides version that it was a harmless comment taken out of context?

Of course not. I checked the context for myself. He was asked by a Christian at a conference in Australia why moderate muslims decline to address the extremist problem within Islam. In his defense of moderate muslims, he explains that there is a general distrust of the west within Islam which, (a) many westerners seem oblivious to [and other westerners exploit by exaggerating the sentiment into violent jihad] and (b) further complicates the emotional conundrum of trying to convince the families of bombing victims and parents starving or sick or dead children to turn the other cheek.

Rauf specifices more than once in his response that his position was not sympathetic to extremists. It might have been inartful (to say the least) but the people it sympathizes with are moderates, against the charge that they haven't done enough to nip terrorism at the point it begins to fester:
So I'm not - I'm just providing you with the arguments that are happening intra Islamically by those who feel the emotion of pain. Half a million Iraqi - there's a sense in the Arab and Muslim world that the European world and Western world is just - does not care about our lives or human lives.


How many of you have seen the documentary: The Fog of War? It is an important documentary in which Robert McNamara was interviewed and it's a documentary which is supported by 11 or 12 - I think 11 lessons, if I'm not mistaken - and the first lesson he points out is empathise with the other side. The number one thing that we need on the part of the West is to empathise. To see yourselves from the eyes of the other.

If it's a man who wants to have a wonderful relationship with a woman, you have to see how you look from the eyes of a woman. If you are a white man seeking to deal in Australia with the Aborigines, you have to learn to look at yourself from the eyes of the Aborigines, and you will see things that you cannot see otherwise. The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community.

I'm not saying this to condone. Acts like the London bombing are completely against Islamic law. Suicide bombing, completely against Islamic law, completely, 100 per cent. But the facts of the matter is that people, I have discovered, are more motivated by emotion than by logic. If their emotions are in one place and their logic is behind, their emotions will drive their decisions more often than not, and therefore we need to address the emotional state of people and the extent to which those emotions are shaped by things that we can control and we can shape, this is how we will shape a better future. Is that hand still up there?
I'm actually still trying to find the full transcript and description of the forum where Rauf was speaking so I can decide for myself.

I've seen the transcript before but to find it today I copied "You may remember that the U.S.-led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over a half a million Iraqi children" from your post and pasted it (including quotes) into google and the first link that came up was this CNSNews article which linked the transcript to the discussion the first time it mentioned it, at about the middle of the piece. Might have taken me 4 minutes.

In fact I flat out said its not proof he's a jihadist in post 8.

I have to admit I'm a little lost on what you mean by Proof that there is more to his story than he has presented when pushing for the mosque to be built where so many don't want it
 
44Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 10:42
either got it from think tank resources like Herritage or Hudson, or he got it from the current best seller

How long have you been of the belief that violent jihad is this pervasive in Islam?
 
45Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 10:45
A fine point worth noting is that Morris said, 80% Saudi funded. He didn't say they were all as bad as the mosque that produced the Fort Hood shooter and the 9/11 crew.

The Saudis are indeed pro-terrorist as long as it is pissing OUT their tent. And they have envelopes full of large stacks of large bills for any mosque willing to feature [prominantly or not] their materials in return.

It's like George Soros with his hands out to every stripe of politician. Most politician take the cash and more or less are corrupted. Most mosques take the buckets of money and display the pro-militant jihad materials.
 
46Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 10:52
and display the pro-militant jihad materials.

Is that the measure?
 
47Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 10:58
Teaching militant jihad according to wahabi interpretation is the measure.
 
48Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 11:17
That sounds sloppy. How do you seperate wahabi interpretation from other forms of militant jihad?

You recently accused me of changing, becoming more rabid and less open-minded in recent years. But this 80% figure you've latched yourself to with barely a citable supporting reference and surely no personal investigation is a stark contrast to your previous position on Islam. You wouldn't have so easily accepted a figure like that as truth 9 years ago.
 
49The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 12:01
How do you seperate wahabi interpretation from other forms of militant jihad?

What other forms of militant jihad have the same vast funding sources as the wahabis that the Saudis fund?
 
50Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 12:31
There is no parsing necessary. If they teach that each muslim has a personal obligation to conduct literal military warfare to bring about a world-wide califate, I don't care if it's Egyptian Brotherhood, or Al Qeada, or Iranian Shia hardcore...it's not moderate non-threatening Islam and it's not the religion of peace.
 
51The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 12:39
Can we all at least agree that Muslims are divided into two main groups? Peaceful and not peaceful. The peaceful types are largely silent and too silent to evade suspicion and collusion with the non peaceful ones. We can argue how many kids got killed in Iraq all day long and yes that is horrible and does not help us. It does not change the idea that the silence amongst the peaceful Muslims is suspicious, hinders assimilation with the rest of the world, and assists in causing apprehension about events such as the mosque in New York? The attitude of Democrats that all Muslims are innocent is equally ignorant to those who state all Muslims are guilty. If my neighbor killed someone I would call the police right away. What would you say of me if I did not? Would that not make you suspicious of me even though I am innocent? Muslims need to understand they live in a world with people who do not agree with them. This includes not causing riots when a cartoon featuring Muhammed is created.
 
52Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 12:51
I can't see how there is a problem in assimilation which isn't directly a result of people telling Muslims where they can and cannot put their places of worship, etc.

The attitude of Democrats that all Muslims are innocent

Actually, the attitude of Democrats is that innocent Muslims are innocent. They aren't guilty of something because they didn't do something that would never be required of other groups.
 
53The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 12:56
I can't see how there is a problem in assimilation which isn't directly a result of people telling Muslims where they can and cannot put their places of worship, etc.

Society has nuances to it. Unwritten rules. This is one of them. George Bush made an excellent point about being tolerant of Muslims in this country and we all should be. They should also be tolerant of us and have understanding about the sensitivity of that event. For this to work it must be a two way street.
 
54Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 14:40
Society has nuances to it. Unwritten rules. This is one of them.

Bullshit. Bigotry is not an unwritten rule. Live in NYC for a few years and then you can speak with some authority about the unwritten rules here. Until then you are clueless.
 
55DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 15:51
I'm curious as to precisely what radius from Ground Zero Boldwin and LB (and for that matter the right-wing media kookosphere) think a Catholic church or a synagogue should be forbidden from building, assuming they own the land and the proposed building meets the relevant zoning regulations.
 
56WiddleAvi
      ID: 352232517
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 15:56
Society has nuances to it. Unwritten rules. This is one of them. George Bush made an excellent point about being tolerant of Muslims in this country and we all should be. They should also be tolerant of us and have understanding about the sensitivity of that event. For this to work it must be a two way street.

Are there any unritten rules about having an NRA conference near columbine ?
 
58Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 15:59
I have to disagree with LB on this one.

The most 'islamophobic' people on the planet are moderate muslims and rightly so, [if we have to use that freighted term at all]. They are the first target of the militant muslims if they should become the least bit vocal in opposition to the militant agenda.

You have to envision what they can realistically do to impede the takeover of their mosques and their religion. Seeing that their families and friends staying moderate and non-violent, unmoved by the death dealers is the most important thing they can realistically do.
 
59The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 16:09
Live in NYC for a few years and then you can speak with some authority about the unwritten rules here. Until then you are clueless.

What is clueless is your arrogance and attitude that 9/11 only happened to New Yorkers. This is a national issue.

Are there any unritten rules about having an NRA conference near columbine ?

I would say that it is massively ignorant to do that yes.
 
60Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 16:10
Care to take a guess how close you can build a synagog to the Kaaba?

Truth be told, these extremists think it's crazy that we would let them build there. They think they are tearing us down with our own craziness.
 
61Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 16:13
9/11 is not a Burlington Coat Factory.
 
62DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 16:43
"Care to take a guess how close you can build a synagog to the Kaaba?"

I fail to see the analogy, here, and I suspect you do too

Are you going for the "let's pretend that said neighborhood is actually comparable, and see how humorous that is" effect, or the "I know this is a complete non sequitir, but I can't actually answer the question lest I be exposed, so I'm going to throw out something ridiculous and run the other way" effect, or are you jus sticking to "other people do stuff I don't like, so in order to prove I'm better than them I am going to do exactly the same things" effect?
 
63Boldwin
      ID: 317392611
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 16:58
In their eyes it is a vital part of the conquest

Right now you might say the area is a spiritual symbol of resistance to militant jihad. Give them an inch and they will make that area the symbolic center of sharia law in America as well as the training center for those religious dictators.
 
64DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 17:09
So, how close for that Catholic church, or for the synagogue? Don't think the attempt to deflect away from the question wasn't noticed.
 
65Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 17:49
What is clueless is your arrogance and attitude that 9/11 only happened to New Yorkers. This is a national issue.

that's horse$hit.

while you're correct that it didn't only happen to new yorkers, you're way off the base if you think people who weren't in new york at the time were affected in the same way as those who did live in NYC.

*MY* city was attacked. a few miles from my home. i thought my girlfriend died in the attacks. i didn't know what was going to happen next - was a nuclear bomb about to drop on my city, on my home, killing me, my family, and every one i love?

i didn't get to go home that night. i bet you did.

i wasn't able to get ahold of anyone i knew, except for the four people i was sitting in a car with as we were trying to get the hell out of dodge, not knowing if we were next, not knowing if people we loved were alive or dead.

i assure you there are plenty of people who went through it by living in NYC who have some sort of symptoms of PTSD. my best friend went to see a movie, and while it was never shown in the previews or any reviews, part of the plot hinged on 9/11. she burst into tears, and had to leave the theatre.

my first few months in Texas, i probably got asked 3 or 4 times a week what 9/11 was like living in NYC. 3 or 4 times a week i had to relive that day.

how often do you get asked about that day and what you were doing and what you were thinking?

not often i'd guess.

what's clueless and arrogant are a bunch of people who didn't live through 9/11 in NYC thinking that what they felt that day and what they went through was the same as what New Yorkers went through.
 
66Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 18:00
In their eyes it is a vital part of the conquest

you are using a BLOG as a source? a blog which is named "SIOE Stop Islamisation Of Europe" and has a sub-headline of "Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense"

i mean, if the name wasn't bad enough, the sub is the epitome of bigotry.
 
67WiddleAvi
      ID: 352232517
      Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 18:41
Care to take a guess how close you can build a synagog to the Kaaba?

Whats your point ? That America is the greatest country ? Thats what makes this country so great.
 
68DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 11:43
A downright sensible article from the UK

Interestingly, to me anyway, he asks the same question that proponents of bigotry in this thread refuse to answer:

New York being a densely populated city, there are lots of other buildings and businesses within two blocks of Ground Zero, including a McDonald's and a Burger King, neither of which has yet been accused of serving milkshakes and fries on hallowed ground. Regardless, for the opponents of Cordoba House, two blocks is too close, period. Frustratingly, they haven't produced a map pinpointing precisely how close is OK.

That's literally all I'd ask them in an interview. I'd stand there pointing at a map of the city. Would it be offensive here? What about here? Or how about way over there? And when they finally picked a suitable spot, I'd ask them to draw it on the map, sketching out roughly how big it should be, and how many windows it's allowed to have. Then I'd hand them a colour swatch and ask them to decide on a colour for the lobby carpet. And the conversation would continue in this vein until everyone in the room was in tears. Myself included.
 
69Boldwin
      ID: 527242812
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 13:25
The Japanese should probably not build their ambassador's residence 2 blocks from the USS Arizona memorial.

Not because I'm still bitter about WWII.

Not because I think less of yellow skin or slanty eyes.

Not because I don't think they deserve an ambassador's residence or because I want to micromanage them down to the color of their drapes

But because it would be insensitive and inappropriate for them to do so.
 
70Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 13:34
Regardless, for the opponents of Cordoba House, two blocks is too close, period. Frustratingly, they haven't produced a map pinpointing precisely how close is OK.

Thats a fair question: how far away is suitable?

Answer: I don't know and I can't say. But I *can* say that this particular location is too close.

Here's a question though: Why is it that the wants/feelings of the group who would like to put the mosque this close to ground zero is more important than the wants/needs of the group who do not want it there for very personal reasons?

Also, why is it that people like Dwetzel cannot make their point without first tearing down those who disagree with him by calling us bigots? Sorry Dwetzel, you made the claim. Show me one place in this thread where I've come across as a bigot?

I'm not against the mosque. I'm just against this particular location. For a little bit of irony, here is the definition of a bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Dwetzel, you throw out the term bigot as a proof positive that we are bad people and because we disagree with you must be wrong, wrongheaded and hateful. Yet you cannot discuss things with me without name calling and personal attacks?
 
71Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 14:00
yellow skin or slanty eyes.

i did read that correctly, right?

holy. moley.
 
72Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 14:12
Funny how "sensitivity" suddenly becomes important to many when it matches their political bias.
 
73bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 14:34
Khahan, Baldwin and Left Behind, you obviously do not feel a mosque should be built two blocks from ground zero. What do you believe should be done with the mosque located four blocks away?
 
74Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 14:40
Everyone here agrees that the right for these developers to build Project 51 is not at issue, yes?

That (putting aside the indctments of Rauf or Islam in general as sympathetic to terrorism) the issue is the insensitivity of building the thing there, yes?

Does anyone think for a moment that American developers are any more discerning? Does anyone believe there aren't McDonalds (monuments to American imperialist capitalism and decadent, wasteful culture in the eyes of the developing world) all over the world that are viewed in disgust by the people who live nearby? You think some of them aren't in the close viscinity of similarly sensitive sites?

You think the rest of the world doesn't see this sudden outburst of selective outrage for the height of hypocrisy that it is?
 
75Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 14:42
PD Ive been wondering weather Boxman would try to somehow reconcile opposition to the center with his aversion to any position based on"feeeelings."
 
76Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 14:51
Tree 51

Don't you know when you're being baited?
 
77DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 16:32
Khakan, sorry if that touched a nerve.

You are equally opposed to any other religious building in a similar location, correct?
 
78DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 16:47
PS: I love how seven people are saying the same thing and you feel the need to rip into me specifically about it. Speaking of making things personal...

PPS: Since you decided to ask, before you went off and decided to rip into me, here's an answer to your question "Why is it that the wants/feelings of the group who would like to put the mosque this close to ground zero is more important than the wants/needs of the group who do not want it there for very personal reasons?"

1. Because they are doing absolutely nothing illegal or immoral there, and are actively trying to integrate something positive into the neighborhood.

2. Because if a Catholic church or a Jewish synagogue owned the land and wanted to put a place of worship there, they'd have exactly the same right, and I'd feel exactly the same way--except that we wouldn't be having this discussion, because the bigots wouldn't even bat an eye at it. If you're not one of those people, or if you would also be objecting to any other place of worship, then you need take no offense.

3. Because their reasons for doing it are equally deeply personal. Do you believe that no Muslims living in the neighborhood were negatively affected by 9/11? Do you think they should be refused the right to have a place of worship in the neighborhood?

The "how close is too close" is a VERY valid question, and it demands an answer. How far shall the non-religious zone extend? Do you think it should be the same for all religions, or is it only a no-Muslim zone? If the presence of a Muslim mosque reminds you only of the terrorists and not of the innocent Muslims killed as well, then that's your failing, not anybody else's.

I leave you with this thought: If you think a Catholic church is OK, but a Muslim mosque isn't (and you and others have not made your position on this clear despite repeated invitations to do so), then the definition of bigot applies perfectly, does it not?
 
79DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 17:06
At the risk of triple posting, I'm going to make this perfectly clear, because I don't feel I was the least bit out of line, many other people have made basically the same arguments, and the fact that Khakan decided to take a personal swipe at me is really pissing me off.

"Dwetzel, you throw out the term bigot as a proof positive that we are bad people and because we disagree with you must be wrong, wrongheaded and hateful. Yet you cannot discuss things with me without name calling and personal attacks?"

Um, no. I've asked multiple times for clarification on many points, which you and others who happen to agree with you have repeatedly refused to answer. So, I'll spell them out one more time, if you want to try to have a debate.

I'll group them, but there's multiple questions within each section, so read carefully.

1. How close is too close? bibA raises a valid question as well. Should we tear down that other mosque as a reminder? Also, please identify a radius from Ground Zero beyond which you feel that the Muslim religion should be freely worshiped. Do you feel that all religions should be similarly excluded from worship within that region, or are you objections specific to that particular religion?

2. Do you agree that they have every legal right to erect the structure in question, and that you just don't want it there? If not, on what specific legal grounds do you object?

3. If your answer to (2) is yes, would you feel the same way if this were a structure dedicated to the worship of another religion? Which religious affiliations should be allowed to build at that site, if any? Which ones should not?

4. Do you think a similar no-worship status should be afforded to other sites of terrorist attacks? If a Catholic church were to be erected within a couple blocks of the Oklahoma City bombing site, or near the Atlanta Olympic Park, would you object to those just as strongly as you do to the New York structure?

 
80Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 17:20
Dwetzel I'm not so sure religion is the issue at the center of the oppositon. I have a feeling that the fact that Muslims will be praying there isn't necessarily the sticking point of most who oppose Project 51.

I think if it was exactly the same plan, sans a prayer room, the uproar would not be any different. I do think they'd likely still call it a mosque in that case to appeal to the Islamaphobes and gin up as much opposition as possible, in the same way that they refer to the thing as the "Ground Zero Mosque" rather than, for example, the Burlington Coat Factory Indoor Swimming Pool.
 
81sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 17:49
For my money, I think DW's points are square on target.

What specifically, *IS* the objection?

To a Mosque?
To any Muslim/Islamic structure?
To ANY religious structure?

Valid questions, which those in opposition to the project have repeatedly, pointedly and deliberately avoided answering.

I agree with DW, it is past time to DEMAND a direct response, to the direct question(s).
 
82Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 18:25
The Japanese should probably not build their ambassador's residence 2 blocks from the USS Arizona memorial.

This analogy is completely OT, but very telling.

The nation of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese Navy. Much as you're trying to make it out like the Nation of Islam attacked New York on 9/11/01, it just isn't true. No nation attacked New York(and the Pentagon)on 9/11/01. Much as you want to ignore it, those who want to build the center in question are not foreigners, AFAIK, they are Americans.

There's no question of sensitivity here. How in the world can anyone argue against political correctness, then turn around and say something should be prohibited because it offends their sensibilities?

 
83Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 18:42
Well said. It's the epitome of political corretness from the most ardent critics of PC speech.
 
84Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 19:07
Baldwin must not be aware that there are several Shinto shrines already near Pearl Harbor.

The closest is about ten minutes away--about the same it would take to walk from Ground Zero to the planned additional mosque downtown.
 
85Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 20:13
I just can't get over how dense you guys are.

For these radicals, there is no difference between religion, law and government. Religious sharia experts run the whole show, just a they do in post-ayatolla Iran.

Thus in their eyes, certainly not in mine, they just conquered America and set up their government on the site of the conquest.

They consider 9/11 a defeat of America and they consider the sharia experts who will be trained there to be the rightful government of America.

These are not nominal muslims who just want to live and let live.

 
86Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 20:48
bibA, the mosque 4 blocks away is irrelevant. Whats important to me is that a lot of the families of victims of the 9/11 attack find this particular location to be hurtful, inconsiderate and/or rude or any other number of negative feelings. In this case I think those people's voice should be heard and considered.

I also think if Imam truly, honestly was looking at this as a place of healing old wounds and inter-faith connectivity he would give credence to those people and find a new location.

But by him building where he wants he's basically saying, "My agenda is more important and I do not care about those people."

That's my beef with him. Any other argument you are raising is simply muddying the waters or trying to deflect from that.
 
87Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 20:59
Religious sharia experts run the whole show...

in their eyes, certainly not in mine, they just conquered America and set up their government on the site of the conquest...

they consider the sharia experts who will be trained there to be the rightful government of America


I'm not the least bit interested in the opinions of radicals and refuse to allow their perspectives to dictate mine.

These are not nominal muslims who just want to live and let live.

Then you feel the developers shouldn't build their project anyplace in America and that as a place built for the purpose of conspiring against the US government, the project has no 1st Amendment protection. Yes?

If so, the argument that it's too close to GZ is just an irrelevent canard. I can't think of a way in which the capacity of anti-government conspirists is impacted by their proximity to the WTC.
 
88Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 21:01
PC buzzwords of the day:

hurtful, inconsiderate, rude, negative feelings
 
89Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 21:04
Post 79: (I hadn't refreshed before posting).

Those questions have been answered and I'll answer them again:

1. see post 70

2. #2 Yes. I agree they have a legal right. But my objection is not a legal one and has never been framed as a legal one.

3. No, I would not feel the same if another religion was looking to build a place of worship there. Why? See my post 86. This is not about a religion. This is about the victims of an attack 9 years ago, almost to the day.

4. Completely different scenario and I appreciate your ability to try and muddy the waters. But the Oklahoma City bombing was done by somebody who happened to be a specific religion. It was not done in the name of that religion under the declaration of war from that religion. But if a militia group that McVeigh was part of wanted to build there and the local residents objected I would support the local residents.

And Dwetzel, if you are upset that I offended you, perhaps you should go back and re-read what I was responding to. It was your post 68 in which you laid the bigotry label down.

Right here in this post I outlined my objection to the location. There is no bias against Islam from me. If they want to build a mosque I fully support them pursuing their religion. But between this post and post 86 I've made it pretty clear what the issue with this location is (at least for me). Others may take issue with the location based on religious reasons but thats them.
 
90Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 21:08
There is symbolism at work both in their minds and in the USA.

Certain conditions in their minds obligate the initiation of warfare. The degree to which in their pretzel logic, they can claim to have put down their stake of ownership of the country being one of them. They go to great lengths to prove muslim presence in this lands in antiquity for example. For the purposes of ginning up a war with us and meeting conditions to apply certain commands in the koran.

They are also in a war of intimidation and wearing away at the spirit of non-muslim countries. Pissing on the 9/11 site and America's resistance to muslim intimidation being one of their gambits.

The one thing they are for sure not interested in is religious tolerance

 
91Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 21:44
Injecting personal opinions and conspirathy theories, even if there's a basis for some of these claims, denies the rights of these Americans as guaranteed by our Constitution.

Now, if, indeed, this 'cultural center' promotes Sharia Law in direct opposition to the laws of New York and the United States, then there's more than a basis for protest, there's a legal avenue with which to pursue actions that meet our standards.
Challenging the practise of Sharia Law should be the focus for combatting any perceived Muslim stake of ownership of the country.

But the protests are all over the place and most are completely irrelevant, including, but not limited to general inconsideration, Japanese ambassador residences near Pearl Harbor, and analysis of the Koran.
 
92Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 21:55
denies the rights of these Americans as guaranteed by our Constitution. - PV

There is no constitutional right to build wherever and whatever you want. Show it to me.
 
93Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:13
being one of their gambits

Off topic I know and I'm sorry if a little petty but shouldn't someone who claims to have attained a Class-A USCF rating know what a gambit is?
 
94DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:20
Khakan, what about the families of Muslim victims? By objecting to this, you're basically saying that YOUR feelings about it are more important than theirs, aren't you?

Also, I notice that you glossed over the Atlanta bombings. Eric Rudolph is most definitely someone who, as you put it, killed in the name of his religion. Borrowing from the Wiki, because it's readily available: "After Rudolph's arrest for the bombings, The Washington Post reported that the FBI considered Rudolph to have "had a long association with the radical Christian Identity movement, which asserts that North European whites are the direct descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, God's chosen people."[19] Christian Identity is a white nationalist sect that holds that those who are not white Christians will be condemned to Hell.[20] In the same article, the Post reported that some FBI investigators believed Rudolph may have written letters that claimed responsibility for the nightclub and abortion clinic bombings on behalf of the Army of God, a group that sanctions the use of force to combat abortions and is associated with Christian Identity." So I guess your arguments would apply there at least, and you'd be in favor of not letting Catholics build churches within a few blocks of the site in Atlanta or near the site of Rudolph's other bombings?

At any rate, it's not a particularly relevant argument, because the people actually visiting that mosque DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THOSE PEOPLE BELIEVED -- sort of like most Catholics don't think it's okay to blow up abortion clinics and bomb the Olympics. It's a really shallow, stupid argument to lump those people in (spare us the same rant for the 3288932374th time, Boldwin; you're wrong) with the 0.00001% of Muslims who actually enacted 9/11.
 
95Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:21
And I refuse to simplify my arguments to the exclusion of the entire panoply of factors involved. Oversimplification is the enemy of understanding especially in this case. This is not just a case of any-mosque in any-town, USA. Rauf already has a mega-mosque six blocks futher away which no one is trying to uproot, or prevent him from expanding for that matter. This is about a 'ground zero mosque' and what that means.
 
96Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:24
Again, Boldwin;

Then you must feel the developers shouldn't build their project anyplace in America.
 
97DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:26
It's not at freakin' Ground Zero. You can say it until you're blue in the face, but it isn't true. It can't even be seen from Ground Zero.

Again, not that that is particularly relevant, but it's just a not-so-subtle lie that makes the tale that much more repugnant.
 
98DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:29
"I just can't get over how dense you guys are."

The feeling's mutual. Liberty and justice for all, unless they worship God differently than me!
 
99DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:31
"Oversimplification is the enemy of understanding especially in this case."

Oh, if only you ever actually acted in a way to back up those words. I'm glad you have taken that first step and made that understanding though. I'll remind you of it the next time you oversimplify.
 
100DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:37
"3. No, I would not feel the same if another religion was looking to build a place of worship there. Why? See my post 86. This is not about a religion."

The first sentence and the last sentence are basically contradictory. The mere presence of a Muslim gathering center out of sight of Ground Zero is so offensive to these families? If so, that's their failing for associating that group of 0.000001% (give or take a zero) of the Muslim population with all Muslims. In any event, they're offended precisely because of the religion.

Being offended at other people's religions and running them out of the neighborhood, out of the city, out of the country is... well, it's the sort of thing we revile in our enemies, isn't it? If there's one thing we can't stand, it's intolerance of other religions, and we're going to be intolerant of other religions to prove our point? Don't you see how twisted that logic is?
 
101DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:40
"And Dwetzel, if you are upset that I offended you, perhaps you should go back and re-read what I was responding to."

In your case, I am willing to accept that you are not a bigot -- and I never actually said that you were, it should be noted, so your initial attacks were misguided.

You are, however, considering the feelings of people on the basis of their (understandable, but not justified) bigotry.
 
102Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:41
quintuple! nice.

:)
 
103DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:46
New league record!

Yeah, I could have probably condensed a couple of those.
 
104Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:51
There is no constitutional right to build wherever and whatever you want. Show it to me.

It's kind of hard to keep up with your arguements, because, as I said, you're all over the place.

Silly me, but when someone states:

Certain conditions in their minds obligate the initiation of warfare,

I get the sneaking suspicion that it isn't just this New York location that you feel is a problem. But I appreciate your stab at oversimplified group psychology.
 
105J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:09
This is almost ridiculous. If some man raped and killed someone's daughter and got out of jail 12 years later and his father decided to buy a house down the road from the family whom he wronged, knowing that there was a possibility that the man might visit, the neighborhood, city, and probably state would be in an uproar to keep it from happening. That IMO is all this is about.
 
106Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:10
I was trying to help you see things from Rauf's perspective.

In his mind even a single muslim living in America pre-Columbus has military implications and triggers religious military exhortations.

If symbolism is that important, how much more so is it true in this case? It was named Cordoba house to bring to mind the Islamic conquest of Spain and in particular the building of Islam's third largest mosque in Cordoba on top of a former Catholic church. An act which says to them, "We own you".
 
107Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:14
#105

That analogy is even more ridiculous than the Japanese ambassador at Pearl Harbor. But it very clearly exemplifies the school of thought that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11.
 
108J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:17
PV - not-- maybe you need to re read it, it was his family on the off chance maybe he might visit.
 
109DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:17
"This is almost ridiculous. If some man raped and killed someone's daughter and got out of jail 12 years later and his father decided to buy a house down the road from the family whom he wronged, knowing that there was a possibility that someone who wasn't actually the person that did it, but kind of reminded them in some ephemeral way because they shared one particular feature, even though they were completely different people in basically every way..."

There, all fixed. Glad I could help.
 
110Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:20
It's not at freakin' Ground Zero. You can say it until you're blue in the face, but it isn't true. It can't even be seen from Ground Zero.

1) It was actually hit by one of the planes.

2) It was originally called 'the ground zero mosque' by Rauf himself.

 
111DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:21
"It was named Cordoba house to bring to mind the Islamic conquest of Spain and in particular the building of Islam's third largest mosque in Cordoba on top of a former Catholic church. An act which says to them, "We own you". "

No, it wasn't.
 
112J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:23
So I guess in your opinion the Imam is able to guarantee that no one that espouses the same beliefs of the criminals (the perp in my example) of 9/11 will ever set foot in his mosque. So therefore the people are crazy to feel whatever it is they are feeling. Try that one with your wife and see how she likes it when you tell her she shouldn't FEEL that way and then duck.
 
113J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:25
and by the way it is legal for the family in my example to buy the house so why are you all having a problem.
 
114DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:26
To follow up on 111:

http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/748/the-cordoba-house-house-of-terrorism-or-peace

"The plan is being led by what is called the ‘Cordoba Initiative’ and the future centre and mosque - if the plan goes through - will be called Cordoba House, named after the Cordoba period and region in Spain once ruled by an Islamic Caliphate where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived and prospered in peace together. (emphasis mine)

THAT is what they are trying to remind you of. Of course, that living and prospering in peace thing doesn't seem to go over too well with you, but that's your failing.

 
115Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:26
It was originally called 'the ground zero mosque' by Rauf himself.

That's contrary to what I've heard. Show me.
 
116Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:29
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:24 Again, Boldwin;

Then you must feel the developers shouldn't build their project anyplace in America.


Again, MITH

That statement cannot be logically drawn from anything I have posted.
 
117Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:31
maybe you need to re read it

Maybe you need to re-write it?

In his mind even a single muslim living in America pre-Columbus has military implications and triggers religious military exhortations. If symbolism is that important, how much more so is it true in this case? It was named Cordoba house to bring to mind the Islamic conquest of Spain and in particular the building of Islam's third largest mosque in Cordoba on top of a former Catholic church. An act which says to them, "We own you".

Your paranoia has ceased to be amusing and is now simply annoying. If you want to fight symbolism based on historical events well over a thousand years ago, be my guest.

There's nothing in Rauf's rhetoric that indicates religious military exhortations that I've seen....or that you've shown.


 
118Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:34
J-Bar

in your opinion the Imam is able to guarantee that no one that espouses the same beliefs of the criminals (the perp in my example) of 9/11 will ever set foot in his mosque.

Why is that more important than the numerous falafel stands in the area who cannot make that guarantee? Should we expect a moratorium on falafel stands in lower Manhattan next?

Ban Halal all together to be on the safe side?

I'm quite certain NYC Taxi can't make that guarantee, either. Ban the injustice of taxicabs treating south of Canal Street?
 
119DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:35
"So I guess in your opinion the Imam is able to guarantee that no one that espouses the same beliefs of the criminals (the perp in my example) of 9/11 will ever set foot in his mosque."

Huh? No, of course not, nobody ever said that except you and that's a ridiculous standard to hold anyone to.

"So therefore the people are crazy to feel whatever it is they are feeling."

Not at all. The actual families of the victims, I actually do understand their frustrations. However, what they need to understand is that the people building this structure and the people that killed their families are DIFFERENT. They share one superficial feature.

If a man with glasses were to kill your wife, would you want all ophthalmologists to be barred from your neighborhood, on the basis that you shouldn't have to bear to see those horrible eyeglasses in the window every day?

If a black guy kills your child, does that give you the right to tell all the black people they have to stay out of your sight at all times, lest you feel angry about their presence?

On what basis do you get to tell other people "Sure, I know that all of YOU didn't do anything wrong whatsoever, but you share some features that remind me of something really terrible, so I'm going to tell you that you can't do something that is otherwise perfectly within your rights?" Because that is what your argument is boiling down to.
 
120DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:37
"If you want to fight symbolism based on historical events well over a thousand years ago, be my guest."

If he's going to do that, he could at least be remotely correct about the historical events.
 
121Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:42
Boldwin
That statement cannot be logically drawn from anything I have posted.

I'm pretty sure you say these people intend to use the place to commit acts of treason against the USA.

And please show me that Rauf coined the phrase, 'ground zero mosque'.
 
122Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:47
There's an ad in my paper selling Christian Tours of the Holy Land. Get the symbolism?

Charles Martel defeated the Arabs in 732 at the Battle of Tours, now travel agents are taking Christians there, an act which says, "We own you."
 
123Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:50
#115

It was originally called 'the ground zero mosque' by Rauf himself. - B

That's contrary to what I've heard. Show me. - MITH


In his own words...
Fort Cordoba, ground zero NYC Mosque, will be the main Taqiyya Center and outpost in the USA and along with the new London England mega Mosque, at the
Olympic site, will be the guiding lights for Dah’wa and “Aslim Tuslam”…..
The meaning of the word Taqiyya...
The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.
In his own words, they are building a ground zero center to tell you lies to further Islam.
 
124J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:07
Did you here about the guy that started his own church and religion that had some likeness to the beliefs of the KKK but not the RADICAL tenets and decided to build his church next to the Martin Luther King memorial. There was a big uprising. (Only used the reference of KKK and MLK because that seems to be the only example of sensitivity that is understood on this board.)
 
125DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:12
"Then you must feel the developers shouldn't build their project anyplace in America.

Again, MITH

That statement cannot be logically drawn from anything I have posted."

followed by post 123...

But, you're cool with them building this center to have Islam take over the world in, say, Queens, right?

Nah, didn't think so.
 
126J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:14
Damn, nobody answered on how it would go telling their wife that they shouldn't feel some way that they are passionate about and you can't logically see it.
 
127J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:19
Or did you hear about the State that made it a law to ask a suspect of a crime their legal standing in the U.S. and they were sued because they were not being sensitive enough to the FEELINGS of the illegal immigrants.
 
128DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:22
"Damn, nobody answered on how it would go telling their wife that they shouldn't feel some way that they are passionate about and you can't logically see it. "

That's because in American society we normally try to do pesky things like value people's normal land use rights and freedom of religion a little more highly than "what if someone might get offended for the wrong reasons" and it really wasn't otherwise a relevant point.
 
129J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:23
or did you hear how it was called racist for a talk show host to have a rally on the same day as a famous speech?
 
130Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:24
From the link in #123:

Little is known regarding the founder of the Ground Zero Mosque Faisal Abdul Rauf or his views on Islam...

First rule of thumb when peddling a new conspiracy theory: Reject everything and anything we already have seen and heard in order to offer a clean slate for the spin.

Also, make up some fake definitions for words in other languages to make it seem very insidious. Hope no one knows better, or that the next election occurs before the web of lies falls apart.
 
131Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:25
#129: Maybe this is why the Founding Fathers didn't give women the vote, eh? Basing our actions on over-emotional spouses instead of constitutional values and respect for fellow citizens probably isn't altogether conservative.
 
132DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:27
J-Bar, quit trolling.
 
133J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:28
As far as I can tell the freedom of religion mantra is only in your post, no argument here.
"what if someone might get offended for the wrong reasons" Wrong according to whom? But hopefully Boldwin keeps that statement of yours because it could come in handy during some of his rants with you all about the thought police.
 
134DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:35
You're the one who brought up comparing this to some guy raping your daughter, and then literally having THE SAME PERSON moving around near you, not me. That pretty clearly qualifies as "the wrong reasons".

As for the ridiculous (yes, it's a word, deal with it) "hey, did you hear about the talk show host"... go do it somewhere else. It doesn't belong in this thread, and nobody in here has even bothered to mention it anywhere on this board as far as I know.

(If it makes you feel better, I think that's a silly thing to say too. He can have his silly speech any time he wants. Unlike you, I value people's rights even when I happen to disagree with them.)
 
135J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:37
Kinda showed how ridiculous this is huh? Sensitivities are taken into account all of the time and to just discount these out of hat is in and of itself ridiculous. The group proposing to build should jump though an extra few hoops to show their true intentions and to show this group that their feelings are taken into account. This could have been a workable thing in my opinion but no. We are going to call you and your feelings bigoted and do what the hell we want. Therein lies the anger of some. and it's my party and I'll troll if I want to, troll if I want to.
 
136J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:40
Unlike you, I value people's rights even when I happen to disagree with them.)

and you based this on how well you know me, I have not stated anything like this. LMAO
 
137DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:44
Huh?

No, seriously. I have no idea what your point even was there.
 
138J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:49
if you are answering 136

the top line was yours from 134
 
139DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:50
"and you based this on how well you know me, I have not stated anything like this. LMAO "

Well, yeah, I based this on how well I know you--by your comments in this thread, I sort of assumed you were opposed to letting them build the mosque there, apparently on the basis that people that would see the mosque might be reminded of 9/11. Correct me if I'm wrong!
 
140DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:52
"if you are answering 136

the top line was yours from 134 "

No, 135.

If I've deciphered it correctly, it means that people were way too sensitive in all those other cases you mentioned and feelings are taken into account way too much ... but in this case the fact that people aren't using the feelings of others as the overriding factor in their decision is totally awful and obviously incorrect.

I hope I haven't deciphered it correctly, because that makes no sense whatsoever logically.
 
141J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 00:59
already been done
 
142J-Bar
      ID: 19782822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 01:08
when did i say feelings were taken into account way too much.
 
143DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 01:20
Did you post 124, 127, and 129 in the wrong thread and then forget about it, or did you just block them out afterward?
 
144Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 04:04
PD#130

Nice try, no cigar. Islam is also all about love and mercy except when sawing heads off, extorting ruinous dhimmi taxes, enslaving and raping for Allah, etc.

Real Islam needs Taqiyya because they are in a state of perpetual war until they reach a world-wide caliphate. Especially when they operate in the land of 'the great satan', they feel free to lie about what they are doing, such as describing their jihad as an inner struggle. Such as the entire range of lies swallowed whole by the liberal community here wrt the main center of lying to the great satan.

 
145Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 04:26
PV#122

There's an ad in my paper selling Christian Tours of the Holy Land. Get the symbolism?

Charles Martel defeated the Arabs in 732 at the Battle of Tours, now travel agents are taking Christians there, an act which says, "We own you."


You think this is funny. They don't. For them the sting of those defeats is as fresh as if they had just happened yesterday. They do not casually call us crusaders. For them the clash of cultures has not gone well. It is a chafing sore spot that will not go away.
 
146Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 04:39
named after the Cordoba period and region in Spain once ruled by an Islamic Caliphate where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived and prospered in peace together. - DWetz lulled into sucking up this taqiyya

...yeah, as double taxed slaves bending the knee to islam. You want that paradise, move to Saudi Arabia and pay the dhimmi tax. That is not paradise he is offering but slavery.
 
147Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 04:45
*thot bubble* wait these liberals just might find double taxation refreshing...nah, their weak knees towards islamo-fascism just couldn't be that easy to explain, could it? */thot bubble*
 
148Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 09:53
J-Bar - 135

I'm not sure what hoops could possibly be jumped thru to appease those against this location. But if they are found and done and those people truly offended by this because of their losses are appeased then I see no problems here.
 
149Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 10:29
Learn from former muslims, what is really going on.
 
150Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 10:37
Learn from former muslims, what is really going on.

i'm sure, than when someone links to a site where you can learn from former Jehovah's Witnesses "what is really going on", you lend it as much credence as you do to the former muslim site you just linked?
 
151DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 11:01
"named after the Cordoba period and region in Spain once ruled by an Islamic Caliphate where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived and prospered in peace together. - DWetz lulled into sucking up this taqiyya"

Boldwin sucking up hate speech and then spewing it like the giant vacuum in Spaceballs going from suck to blow.

I mean, sure, if you're going to just make stuff up to suit your argument, this is going to be really easy for you to convince yourself, but really hard to convince the rest of the world that you aren't just making stuff up.

I guess we'll just both have to agree that your reality is not my reality, and move on and not bother to talk about it any more then, because we seemed to have reached an impasse.
 
152Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 11:12
Boldwin 123

I hope you know I'll not usually dismiss a source outright without considering the content (in fact you're more guilty of that practice than a lot of people here) and that I'll typiically put in the work of fact-checking if it smells funny to me.

But it's a bit much to ask me to accept an unconfirmable Arabic-to-English translation from a site that clearly approaches the issue with bias and which PD has already exposed as applying dubious definitions to a term used in that excerpt. So, to say the least, I don't think my skepticism is unreasonable. Further, I'm always skeptical of translations in general. There are too many easy tricks to make the most inoccuous thing sound sinister and vice-versa.

But more to the point, what you said was that Rauf was the first to use the term, which was the part that struck me. Your link claims that interview took place on 5/26. The Newscorp-owned NY Post's front page called it the "WTC Mosque" on May 6th and SOIA was using the term by no later than May 12th.
 
153Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 12:49
It is the way Rauf thinks of it. Adjust and stop telling me it isn't the GZM.
 
155Boldwin
      ID: 77502818
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 13:00
You really put yourself in the deliberately ignorant box. Taqiyya means they won't tell you the truth, but they probably will tell their own people the truth, and you won't accept the translation of anyone disloyal enuff to the 'Worldwide Caliphate' cause to translate it for us.

And Rauf is so confident in a compliant western useful idiot MSM that he isn't even afraid to call it the taqiyya center in public in muslim lands.
 
156DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 13:30
"You really put yourself in the deliberately ignorant box."

Just wanted to make sure you had enough water, pillows, and toiletries in there, since you are clearly hunkered down in it for the long haul.
 
157Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 18:12
hooray for tolerance.

Arson suspected in fire at proposed mosque in Tennessee, federal agents investigating incident

i'm sure some posters here are cheering.
 
158Boldwin
      ID: 87252916
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 19:14
As someone whose 'church' in Chicago actually was burned down by neighbors, no.
 
159Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 19:42
Islam is also all about love and mercy except when sawing heads off, extorting ruinous dhimmi taxes, enslaving and raping for Allah, etc.

Real Islam needs Taqiyya because they are in a state of perpetual war until they reach a world-wide caliphate. Especially when they operate in the land of 'the great satan', they feel free to lie about what they are doing, such as describing their jihad as an inner struggle. Such as the entire range of lies swallowed whole by the liberal community here wrt the main center of lying to the great satan.


Some people might read this and feel it their duty to torch a mosque.

 
160bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 19:54
If burning a mosque will help prevent they from operating in a state of perpetual war until they reach a world-wide caliphate, maybe it is just one small step closer to making the rest of us all a bit safer.
 
161Boldwin
      ID: 87252916
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 20:14
The safety would be improved if you all weren't so taqiyya gullible.
 
162Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 21:10
Still I'm willing to give the average muslim the benefit of the doubt and it hasn't even crossed my mind to find targets of hatred here in the USA

-Baldwin 9/16/01.
 
163Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 22:45
What is your point, MITH? I still agree with that. This isn't about hatred. It's about being realistic and listening to the leaders of mosques and actually taking them at their word when they are talking to their own people, as opposed to their disembling to the kufr.

I still believe the average muslim in America isn't ready to saw heads off. I also believe the leaders of the majority of mosques in America say things to their own that if taken literally would lead them to do so.

I'll give you a for instance. The average muslim in america isn't killing apostates with their own hands. However virtually no muslim clerics in america have renounced that as the proper penalty for apostasy from islam.
 
164Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 23:46
Perhaps we define benefit of doubt differently.
 
165Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 23:55
Why do you have trouble understanding the difference between imams and the average muslim? I'm still giving the average muslim the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure they can resist being radicalized and there will be a very concerted effort to do so but they probably aren't there yet.
 
166Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 23:58
Judging by the soft-headedness I've seen here, I'm not sure you guys are up to the challenge Rauf and company represents. He's really done a number on you already.
 
167Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 00:22
I'm assuming LB and B7 aren't in the 'you guys' category. Anyone else admit to seeing thru Rauf?
 
168Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 00:25
This thread is fertilizer.
 
169Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 02:21
Yeah, it didn't interest you at all to read what Rauf says overseas to muslim audiences about the GZM.

 
170Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 02:35
Judging by the soft-headedness I've seen here,

the only soft-headedness here is from those who are so dim and so feeble they're willing to let a non-issue that is whipped into a frenzy from the right wing media control their lives.

i'm reminded of that scene in Gone With the Wind where the whole lot of Southerners are whipping themselves into a gung ho frenzy about how terrible the Yankees are, and Rhett Butler walks in and explains reality to them.

i have never seen a group of people so clueless, so misquided, so wrong headed and blinded with hate than i see from some on the Right at this current point.

the ignorance is almost astonishing.
 
171Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 09:38
When it finally dawns on you what Saudi Arabia is spending their oil fortune on, it will no longer be a non-issue.
 
172Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 09:40
When it finally dawns on you what Saudi Arabia is spending their oil fortune on, it will no longer be a non-issue.

it can't be pointed out enough times that your track record on fear-based predictions is very poor.
 
173The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 10:03
I was encouraged by your 163 and 165 Boldwin. Now that I have further clarity on your tolerance and opinion to regular Muslims it seems that we agree on most things in this thread.

I'm assuming LB and B7 aren't in the 'you guys' category. Anyone else admit to seeing thru Rauf?

Thank you for not putting me in the appeasement at all costs camp. My comments in this thread have solely been related to the rights of Muslims to express their religion no different than everybody else. This particular Imam concerns me but my conversations here have not focused on that.

What I am waiting for is the union worker revolt against doing this project. Then whose side do the Democrats take, union workers or this Imam?
 
174Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 10:24
This particular Imam concerns me

Based on what?
 
175Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 10:27
What I am waiting for is the union worker revolt against doing this project.

I coldnt care less about any sense of union/Democratic Party but there will be no revolt.

Also, Rauf's comments have been discussed here. As far as I can tell, whether you believe the guy supports violent jihad depends on whether you choose to assume the worst, which includes accepting translations from a source openly determined to demonize the man, as an honest reflection of what he means.

Rauf might be ten times worse than all the terrible things you think of him. I honestly have no idea. But I'm not going to let a "translation" at some openly bigoted website concern me, especially not after the mainstream rightist media spent weeks taking excerpts from his English speaches out of context.

In my experience, people who are given to that sort of dubious "proof" made up their minds before they read the first word.
 
176Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 10:44
I heard you already, MITH. You won't believe any translation of what Rauf says to the home team in their language and you prefer to be surprised instead.
 
177Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 10:55
I won't take that translation at it's word. Let's not mince here. You certainly wouldn't take a leftist fisking of that translation at it's word, since you don't regard the American political left as part of the home team.

TLB
It's only appeasement on the left's part if you have already reached the conclusion that he is a violent jihadist. And if you have, you got there without even questioning the context.

Don't be a sheep.
 
178Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 11:17
You won't believe any translation of what Rauf says to the home team in their language

About the most diplomatic way to express your chracterization of Rauf is completely irresponsible, starting with #14:

Rauf is intimately connected to the take over the world militant branch of Islam

This accusation is taken a step further in #32:

this guy Rauf is tied to the most aggressive and violent strains of Islam

While you're too busy congratulating yourself on 'discovering' the real Rauf, based on regurgitation of anti-Muslim blogs, you utterly failed to provide any support for your accusations.

Let's clarify a few things;

When you speak of 'average Muslims,' I submit that you have no standing to make such a determination. The only one who really can make that determination on this board(that I'm aware of) is nerveclinic, since he actually lives among average Muslims. Not that there's anything wrong with speculation on average Muslims, as long as the context is understood. And in this context, your speculation is obviously based on negative and biased sources.

You do not speak Arabic and are unqualified to make determinations based on translations unless you've researched multiple sources.

You may be an arm chair shrink, but any determinations you present as to how or what Rauf feels or thinks should be taken as amateur ramblings of speculation.

Finally, in order to make an honest characterization of the man, it would necessary to study the entire body of work in his career, which is as readily available as the hatchet jobs you've limited your efforts to.

 
179Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 11:44
The guy has intmate ongoing relations with the worst players on the scene. Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, etc, but according to PD, and you I guess, as you didn't step in and chide PD, you cannot make any inference from his being part of the rat pack. We must assume innocence despite any conceivable evidence. We must assume all ex-muslims are poison wells and their every translation is twisted beyond recognizing the truth.

For my part I believe birds of a feather flock together, and I tend to believe those who in heroic fashion risk their lives to deliver us the truth about what Rauf is really saying when he thinks we aren't listening.
 
180DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 12:02
He's also in tight with the people at Fox News -- so by association, they're terrorists too, right?
 
181The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 13:08
Based on what?

Based on his willingness to rub into a sensitive subject like this. There is no need for a mosque there other than controversy. Like the NRA / Columbine example in this thread. Reasonable people agree that Muslims can have mosques in this country but do not be rude about it. Tolerance and understanding is a two way street. Americans have a duty to integrate law abiding Muslims into our society. Muslims then must reciprocate by living in our norms. If this Imam is so concerned about American-Muslim relations then I am sure he will not want to give the radicals propaganda fodder by having a mosque there.
 
182Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 13:46
to give the radicals propaganda fodder

The dilema facing him is whether to endure the character assassination at the hands of these radicals or to set the precedent of succumbing to that political tactic. And you are absoluely correct to call them radicals, even if you intended it sarcastically. Opposition to other mosques around the country (possibly including arson) display that there is more at work here than opposition to this particular location and this particular developer.

PV
I lived in Brooklyn's Little Pakistan for 4 years, until January of this year. Certainly nothing compared with Neve's immersion in Dubai society, but I also have spent some time living among average Muslims.
 
183chode
      ID: 4744089
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 13:57
Re: 181

Your continued differentiation of "those Muslims" versus "us Americans" or "our society" and "our norms" underlies your fundamental shortcomings on this subject. WE are the melting pot, and Muslims comprise part of that melting pot. Failure to recognize this fact means we'll never actually achieve the ideals we insist to the rest of the world that we as a nation uphold.

You probably don't even realize it, but you denigrate the word and the spirit of what it is to be an "American" every time you try to make the distinctions you set out in #181: "Muslims can have mosques in this country"; " ... integrate law abiding Muslims into our society"; " ... living in our norms."

This may (or may not) be representative of your actual beliefs on this subject (and personally I *think* I understand your perspective on this subject, and #181 isn't exactly it). But taken on their face, the type of mentality to be drawn from these words is disgraceful.

 
184Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 14:07
Based on his willingness to rub into a sensitive subject like this. There is no need for a mosque there other than controversy. Like the NRA / Columbine example in this thread. Reasonable people agree that Muslims can have mosques in this country but do not be rude about it. Tolerance and understanding is a two way street. Americans have a duty to integrate law abiding Muslims into our society. Muslims then must reciprocate by living in our norms. If this Imam is so concerned about American-Muslim relations then I am sure he will not want to give the radicals propaganda fodder by having a mosque there.

The fact that you see Muslims and Americans as mutually exclusive groups says a lot.

It's funny how the guys who always complain about the "PC Police" are out in full force crying about sensitivity.
 
185Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 14:08
. Americans have a duty to integrate law abiding Muslims into our society. Muslims then must reciprocate by living in our norms.

these two lines make it seem like you feel Muslims are aliens from another planet that we need to integrate into society.

what was that movie? District 9?
 
186DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 14:42
Argument summary: "I don't believe that Muslims are any worse than us -- but 'our' needs and desires should supersede 'their' needs and desires, even though they aren't doing anything illegal, because we're better than they are."

Khakan, now you see that to which I was referring.
 
187The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 15:49
183 and 184 are the stop beating your wife method of arguing and I will not cop to it. Reread my posts.
 
188Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 16:21
183 and 184 are the stop beating your wife method of arguing and I will not cop to it. Reread my posts.

people did - your words EXACTLY were "Americans have a duty to integrate law abiding Muslims into our society. Muslims then must reciprocate by living in our norms."

if you can't see what is wrong with that statement, you, like Baldwin, will never understand relationships between races, religions, and the like.
 
189boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 16:31
i can not believe there are 180+ posts on this topic, i wish they would either just build it or not and just stop talking about it, this topic feels like Lindsey Lohan of politics.


"I don't believe that Muslims are any worse than us -- but 'our' needs and desires should supersede 'their' needs and desires, even though they aren't doing anything illegal, because we're better than they are."

well unless they want to sell beer in which case it has to be more than 1000 ft from a school or if they want to build a strip club, etc... because you know we all live by social norms we just pick and choose the ones we want to in force.
 
190DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 16:38
"well unless they want to sell beer in which case it has to be more than 1000 ft from a school or if they want to build a strip club, etc... because you know we all live by social norms"

Sure. We can all live by the same social norms -- except here, where the social norms (it's OK to have a place of worship there) apply to everyone except the Muslims.
 
191boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 17:09
Sure. We can all live by the same social norms -- except here, where the social norms (it's OK to have a place of worship there) apply to everyone except the Muslims.

clearly you do not know what definition of social norms are then because they are are always biased against one group or another. you just choose which ones you agree with.
 
192DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 17:17
Huh?

No, seriously... huh? Expound on that, please.
 
193boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 17:44
Think about what social norms they are merely written and unwritten rules that limit ones ablity to do something. for example why am i not allowed to marry more than one woman?
 
194DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 18:42
"Think about what social norms they are merely written and unwritten rules that limit ones ablity to do something. for example why am i not allowed to marry more than one woman? "

Um, yes. But the social norm applies to you the same as it does to me, as it does to everyone else that wants to try to marry more than one woman.

The social norm of "you can't sell beer have a strip joint within 1000 feet of a school" applies equally to everyone, regardless of who they are.

The social norm of "sorry, you can't stone a woman because she was raped and complained about it" applies the same way to everyone in America.

In this case, the people saying "you can't have a place of worship within two blocks of Ground Zero" don't think that's really the same rule for everyone, because (as they've said in this thread) they have no problem if the Catholics want a church there, or the Jews want a synagogue there. It's only a social 'norm' of "we don't want YOUR kind to do that here, but it's OK if someone else does".

Do you not see the difference?
 
195Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 19:51
Actually, there is going to be a new church in the GZ vicinity, in fact even closer than Project 51. Pastor Bill Keller, organizer of the planned Koran burning this Sept. 11th, will open the "9-11 Christian Center at Ground Zero" in the nearby Marriot hotel, where services will be held until he can find a permanent location.

Despite there being no question that this pulpit will be used for the purpose of preaching hate, I have yet to hear about any outrage.
 
197Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 20:50
Outrage isn't the correct term to use. It is sad and unfortunate because he is playing into Rauf's hand. Rauf would love as many incidents as possible that will cause rioting and innocent deaths in muslim lands and be used as incitements for a more militant islam.
 
198Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 20:56
Of course he does. I couldn't agree more.
 
199Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 21:36
It looks increasingly like a mosque building site was torched in TN. In NYC a passenger asked his cabbie if he was Muslim and stabbed him in the neck when he answered yes. How long til a successful muder is justified by the religious worldview espoused by Keller just a block from where 3000 people were killed in the name of a twisted religious worldview?

Isn't that all of the necessary ingredients for a hearty loaf of outrage? So how come that baby doesn't rise?
 
200Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 21:50
Amazingly you can't be worried about religion that actually tells it's members to go out and rape, pillage and murder...but I'm supposed to be outraged at one that doesn't.
 
201Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:00
I'm supposed to be outraged at one that doesn't.

You seem to be specializing in bearing false witness, at least in this thread. More preferable than rape, pillage and murder, but still.
 
202Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:04
Yeah I somehow manage to get through the day not terrified of suffering the fate of the Caananites, either. Go figure.
 
203Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:09
PV

I have no idea what false witness you think you've seen. Really tired of phony liberal charges.
 
204Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:15

If you have no idea what false witness you've espoused here, it's only because you ignore requests to confirm your slanderous accusations. It has nothing to do with phony or liberal. It has everything to do with you being aghast that some people don't simply accept your BS and calling you on it. Sorry for not being politically correct, but I was under the impression you were revulsed by it.
 
205Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:37
Let me add that I don't believe your indiscretions are intentional. I'm sure you fully believe the things you post. The problem is that in your steadfast refusal to provide facts to support your theories, you continue to dig a deeper hole which further erodes your position and illuminates a tunnel vision which is impervious to expansion of thought.

I could list a litany of things from Rauf's career that illustrate a person dedicated to breaching the divide between the west and the Muslim world. I could cite numerous quotes where he condemns Muslim violence and encourages debate about how religions can peacefully co-exist.

But you'd probably just say he's lying based on one recent interview in a language you don't speak, translated and interpreted by someone who agrees with you that Islam is a religion that actually tells it's members to go out and rape, pillage and murder.
 
206Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:44
I'll start the thread detailing Rauf's record eventually, but what's the use? Anyone willing to translate his stuff gets discounted as a hater by the head-in-sand crowd here. I've read his stuff and seen the strain of Islam he advocates. I've seen who he runs with in Islam. I understand the lies he tells and the way he spins. I've read the verses of the koran [and associated 'holy' verses] that move him. There isn't anything false about my witness.
 
207Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:51
Really let me ask the people discounting the translation some questions.

1) Do you really believe they are lying or mistranslating when they say he called it a Taqiyya center?

2) Do you really believe taqiyya does not mean deceiving the kufr about their islam?

3) So why do suspect me of lying intead of him, when Rauf is the one openly admitting to his home crowd he is lying to you?
 
208Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 22:54
You'll excuse me then because this is how it normally works. You accuse someone of being

intimately connected to the take over the world militant branch of Islam

tied to the most aggressive and violent strains of Islam

intmate ongoing relations with the worst players on the scene. Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas


then provide support for these accusations. Your response is that you'll provide the details eventually?

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
If you can prove these statements, let's see it. I've been asking for several days.





 
209Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 06:23
I am determining if there is any point, when it wouldn't matter if I placed him in a cave with OBL, the entire leadership of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami, while providing you with his speech laying out the entire salafist plan of world conquest...

...if you will then call it all lies and McCarthyism. You can't trust any translation and it doesn't matter if I were to find that he personally spent years convincing OBL to commit 9/11, associations and translations don't prove anything.

So now really, admit that associations are relevant and translations from those willing to expose salafism are not automatically invalidated by their disloyalty to that project and I will show them to you.
 
210Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 07:58
Where's the outrage?
You'd think that opponents of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero who want to avoid accusations of Islamophobia might want to further their credibility by speaking out against the disturbing number of recent anti-Muslim incidents elsewhere in the country.

On Saturday, there was an attempted arson at the construction site of an Islamic center in Tennessee. There have been acts of anti-Islamic vandalism in California and Queens and protests against proposed mosques and community centers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Kentucky and California. Last week, a Muslim cabbie in New York was stabbed by a passenger who asked if he was Muslim. Meanwhile, a church in Florida is organizing a "Burn The Koran" day.

Yet Park51 opponents have been remarkably quiet about these incidents. Consider that Washington Post editorial writer Charles Krauthammer has written three columns on the New York mosque without mentioning any of the protests against mosques far from Ground Zero.

Why the silence?
 
211Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 09:28
I am determining if there is any point,

most of us feel that way about your posts.

you constantly ignore facts and evidence on any point opposite of yours, repeatedly using excuses like "i am trying to determine if there is any point", "i don't respond to trolls", "when are you numbskulls going to understand this, even if i refuse to provide facts from reputable sources to back up my points", and so on and so forth.

all anyone here every asks for is evidence to support your point. providing a link to a site called "MuslimsAreMurderers.com" on how a muslim clerlic is a murderer, really doesn't further your cause.
 
212Boldwin
      ID: 117422921
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 09:58
who want to avoid accusations of Islamophobia - MITH

1) Liberal slander is inevitable.

2) Unlike homosexuality, I actually am afraid of Islam. There is a critical mass among them that actually are out to get me.
 
213Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 10:14
Does your family know you're a potential sniper target?
 
214Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 10:22
There is a critical mass among them that actually are out to get me.

well, i'll be damned. there you are. #103 on that list.

sandwiched between "David Caruso" at 102 and "that annoying little brat who played opposite ET in that old movie of the same name" at 104, there you are, "Baldwin, that guy who posts on rotoguru.com..."
 
215Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 10:26
it wouldn't matter if I placed him in a cave with OBL, the entire leadership of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami, while providing you with his speech laying out the entire salafist plan of world conquest...

Obviously it would matter. But you've made no connection between Rauf and OBL, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami, and you claim he's intimately involved with these groups. You claim he's always chosen to align himself with the militant side of Islam.

This is simply a false statement. You're saying he's pulled the wool over the eyes of the Bush and Obama administrations, the State Department, Homeland Security, Mayor Bloomberg as well as the most virulently anti-Muslim blogs like WND, which doesn't make that claim.

As for your conditions to provide support for your claims,

admit that associations are relevant and translations from those willing to expose salafism are not automatically invalidated by their disloyalty to that project and I will show them to you

all I have to say is,

"Are you kidding?
 
216biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:01
PV - I've gotten a couple of sketchy emails from you facebook account recently. You may have have virus.
 
217DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:04
"Liberal slander is inevitable."

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that truth is an absolute defense, easily invoked here, and I'll thank you to not make blanket accusations of civil offenses again.
 
218boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:17

The social norm of "you can't sell beer have a strip joint within 1000 feet of a school" applies equally to everyone, regardless of who they are.

no you are wrong since most people do not want to marry two wives or build a mosque the rule is not applied to them at all. by your logic if I decided that I wanted to build a mosque at ground zero I would be allowed too. to show that a rule is not being applied equally then you would have show a counter example and exception to the rule.
 
219DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:24
That's pretty illogical, boikin.

I don't want to drive 140 miles an hour down the freeway, does that mean that speeding laws don't apply equally to everyone? Of course they do.

Yeah, I DO think you should be allowed to also. Or, more specifically, your place of worship -- so, a church instead of a mosque (I'm assuming; if I'm wrong, insert your place of worship of choice here).

Or, alternatively, if we want to say "nope, no places of worship within X blocks of Ground Zero", then make that decision (I think that'd be rather silly, but at least it would be logically consistent).

But "churches can build and open up that close, but mosques can't" isn't a social norm, any more than "blacks have to sit in the back of the bus and use different water fountains" is a social norm.

They ARE opening up a church right at Ground Zero (see Mith post 195). People do not object to this. Yet they object to a Muslim place of worship being built farther away on the basis that it's too close. There is your counterexample.
 
220Frick
      ID: 97321912
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:26
Re: 212

I actually am afraid of Islam. There is a critical mass among them that actually are out to get me.

And they feel the same way. There is a growing mass that wants to get them. Extremists from both sides are wrong. And sadly by spreading the fear and hatemongoring both sides are making the problem worse.
 
221Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:58
PV - I've gotten a couple of sketchy emails from you facebook account recently. You may have have virus.

i got them as well - twice this week. i blame the Muslims.
 
222The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 14:22
And they feel the same way. There is a growing mass that wants to get them. Extremists from both sides are wrong. And sadly by spreading the fear and hatemongoring both sides are making the problem worse.

And who in the Muslim world, that are as powerful as the Muslim advocates in this country, tell them to be tolerant of others?
 
223boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 14:29
I don't want to drive 140 miles an hour down the freeway, does that mean that speeding laws don't apply equally to everyone? Of course they do.

i just said they apply equally to everyone, you are the one that says they do not.

a mosque and church are not same just as bar with liquor license is not the same as one that does even if I could drunk at either.

But "churches can build and open up that close, but mosques can't" isn't a social norm, any more than "blacks have to sit in the back of the bus and use different water fountains" is a social norm.

these are not comparable one is a choice one is not.
 
224DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 14:57
A mosque isn't comparable to a church? Is that what you are saying?

If so, could you elaborate on what you believe the differences to be?
 
225bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 15:22
a mosque and church are not same

So where does a synagogue, Mormon temple, or a Kingdom Hall fit in?
 
226boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 15:25
there is no difference in my mind they are both places were people gather to do who knows what, just like a shriners temple, anarchist book club, a fetish club, a KKK Klubhouse,sewing bee, homeless shelter...I mean i can go on forever. The point is that that there must be a difference or then everyone would not be opposed to any similar congregation of people.
 
227DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 15:53
a mosque and church are not same

there is no difference in my mind they are both places were people gather to do who knows what

These are pretty much directly contradictory. It makes it hard to understand what you are saying here.

If you don't think there's a difference, then why don't you ask the people who DO think there's a difference why instead of just saying "I thought the sky was blue, but they say it's red, so it must be red?"
 
228boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 15:56
because it does not matter what i think, I don't know what the difference is but clearly there is one. just become some one is color blind and can not tell green from red does not mean the red and green are the same.
 
229DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 16:13
If the only difference is "because they're dirty stinkin' Muslims and I think they should be treated like crap and kicked out of the country, if not burned at the stake", are you comfortable agreeing with them and thinking that is a good enough reason?

I'd think that before blindly agreeing with them you'd want to know what they think the difference is.
 
230boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 16:39
If the only difference is "because they're dirty stinkin' Muslims and I think they should be treated like crap and kicked out of the country, if not burned at the stake", are you comfortable agreeing with them and thinking that is a good enough reason?

seems like a good enough reason to me, i mean i think the same of christians and atheists.
 
231DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 16:52
Well, I guess that's your right to try to process information that way then, but it seems like a really crappy way to try to have a society where you can just say "nope, you're less human than I am" with no guiding principles at all.
 
232Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 18:07
I don't know what the difference is but clearly there is one.

How many people took exactly that stance in support of Jim Crow laws?
 
233Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 18:45
231-Unless your a cable news personality of course. They are fair game. Which side of the mouth is your next argument going to come from?



"The immediate execution of all cable news personalities would be a great start!"
 
234Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 19:04
By the way game, set, match.
 
235Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 19:08
A group of teenagers in western New York have been accused of harassing members of a mosque by yelling obscenities and insults during evening prayers for Ramadan, sideswiping a worshiper with a vehicle and firing a shotgun outside.

 
236Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 19:55
The DW quote in post 233 is obviously sarcasm intended to be funny. Your quote in 234 is also hilarious, though certainly not in the way you intended.

Did the teenagers in western NY also yell, "game, set, match" after their trolling, MITH?
 
237Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:02
SZ
Pretty sure it was implied with the shotgun blast.

Anyone
How many similar isolated incidents in a short period of time does it take for people to begin to realize they aren't islolated incidents?
 
238DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:06
Meh, it's clearly my bad for expecting someone to try to see a little humor in it and not decide to take it to a personal attack level (in multiple threads) and break out the Hitler references.

I should have taken the humor down to a level that the audience could understand. Unfortunately, I don't have a shovel big enough for that.
 
239sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:14
237...the only people who DONT see it MITH, are those opposed to Islam to begin with. They see it with fear in their eyes, and that then 'justifies' the acts of violence against those who practice that faith.

Right wing version of 1st Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion and the press. (Provided you say only what I agree with, practice the faith I dictate, and print only what I authorize.)
 
240Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:24
Here's a more detailed report from local media:
Five teenagers in two pickup trucks began honking horns and yelling obscenities at the mosque patrons. When the people from the mosque went out to investigate, one man was allegedly struck by one of the trucks in a hit and run. The man was hospitalized, but his injuries were not serious.

Then a shot was fired from one of the trucks towards the mosque. Bilal Huzair was at the Mosque that night. "Harassment is one thing. Pointing a gun and shooting it is another thing."

This is not the first time this mosque has been victimized. "Things have stepped up now. We've been shot at on two different occasions in the past three nights. We just had a hit and run happen on one of our members and obviously that's concerning," said Jacob Zimmerman, another mosque member.

Bystanders followed the suspects to a nearby boat launch, where they were arrested by Orleans County Sheriff's Deputies. All five individuals were arrested and charged with disrupting a religious service. One was charged with criminal possession of a weapon.

The case is not being viewed as a hate crime as of right now, but the Orleans County Sheriff says the investigation is continuing, and that he expects more charges to come.
 
241Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:35
Seattle PI
Writing the court, a Seattle detective said Stainbrook entered the 7-11 store in at 362 Denny Way. The clerk was standing near a coffee machine when Stainbrook accosted him.

"For unknown reasons a person threw change on the floor near the victim's feet then punched the victim on the left side of the head," the detective said.

"After the suspect struck (the clerk) with his fist he said, 'You're not even American, you're Al-Qaeda. Go back to your country.'"

Another employee then stepped in, forcing Stainbrook to leave the store. As he did so, police allege the man tried to kick the second employee and damaged a barcode scanner.

Police arrested Stainbrook walking nearby minutes later. Confronted by police, he allegedly admitted that he "struck a person on his turban" because he disliked him. While the alleged victim's ethnic background is not noted in court documents, his surname is common within the Sikh community.

Stainbrook has been charged with fourth-degree assault and malicious harassment, Washington state's hate crime statute.
 
242DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:46
Well, shoot, everyone sure is doing a great job "integrating law-abiding Muslims into the society" -- they now are right in there knowing how the other minorities feel.
 
243Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:48
A real conservative weighs in

Ground zero mosque opponents are pounding a “drumbeat of hatred” and ignoring the conservative principles of private property and religious freedom, Texas Rep. Ron Paul says.

In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, the 2008 GOP presidential hopeful alleged that conservative opponents of the mosque and cultural center two blocks from the World Trade Center site in New York City are blaming all Muslims for the Sept. 11 attacks instead of focusing their ire on al-Qaida, the actual perpetrator.

 
244sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 20:59
I'll give kudos where they are due, and Mr Paul gets them for that one!
 
245DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 21:21
He says some stuff I'm not fond of rather sometimes, but he's got sharp observational skills.
 
246Boldwin
      ID: 267353120
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 21:39
If Paul says the majority of Americans who happen to disagree with permitting this project, blame all muslims for 9/11, then he is just plain wrong.

 
247DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 21:47
So, if only 49% of those who oppose the mosque want to hang all Muslims from trees because they're all terrorists, he's just plain wrong. Cool story bro.
 
248Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:07
Hear the one about the angry mob who happens to disagree with building a mosque in Bridgeport, CT?

Or in Temecula, CA, where protestors brought dogs to intimidate worshipers during prayer services?

How about Mayfield, KY?

Those places also too close to Ground Zero?
 
249Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:07
ignoring the conservative principles of private property and religious freedom

I noticed this passage wasn't addressed.
 
250DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:11
Because faux-conservatives like Boldwin don't believe in those things, PV, and they never have.
 
251Boldwin
      ID: 267353120
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:27
I notice no one here has even attempted to prove that there is a constitutional right for a religion to build anything anywhere. That they have a right to build somewhere is indisputable.
 
252DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:29
Is it required that the right be constitutional? Do cases where the relevant laws are, you know, local in nature (such as zoning and the like) not matter to you at all?

I'll answer your challenge with one of my own: Show me where there's a constitutional right to tell them they can't.
 
253Boldwin
      ID: 267353120
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:29
See what happens when the left builds an anti-Glenn Beck hysteria?
 
254Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:32
All of the legal hurdles were cleared, including a unanimous community board vote. They have a constitutional right to not be prevented from building based on their religion or opinions.
 
255Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:34
253: Weak, even for sarcasm.
 
256Boldwin
      ID: 267353120
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:43
Then those boards need to reconsider.
 
257J-Bar
      ID: 187463121
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:46
Just making sure that I am not misunderstanding.

It is wrong of a group of people to be demonized by the actions of a few. (which it is)

Unless the posters here find a few instances of violence that meet their criteria to demagogue a group of people.
 
258Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:50
J-Bar 257

If that comment is in response to #247, I'm with you.
 
259Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:51
Boldy #256

On what grounds?
 
260DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:56
Psst, I think he was talking to you.
 
261Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 23:06
260

Yeah, I think so too. That you insist on personally lending credibility to their characatures of the left doesn't help, so I make sure to establish the distance between myself and you and tree from time to time.
 
262J-Bar
      ID: 187463121
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 23:10
I don't have any caricatures of the left but feel free to post if you have some.
 
263DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 23:17
261: And this was a pretty uncalled for out of the blue time to do it, so I'd appreciate it if you'd not do it every single chance you get. It's far more personal and out of line than anything I have done in this thread in quite a while.
 
264DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 23:23
Further, the irony of it is that J-Bar is actually partly right, in that I'm (sarcasm on) sure you're giving these stories precisely the level of care they need and aren't just cherry picking headlines to make a cheap tawdry point (sarcasm off).
 
265Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 23:24
liberal and leftist characature are all over Boldwin's body of work at this forum and align with the image of the left extended by the popular rightist pundits he worships, including Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin and others.
 
266Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 23:32
DWrtz

if you'd not do it every single chance you get.

Trust me, I don't. Not by a long shot.

If you're offended, I'll just note that I'm also offended, by #247. Especially since I know that I'll be associated with comments like that.

sure you're giving these stories precisely the level of care they need and aren't just cherry picking headlines to make a cheap tawdry point

For the reord, I plucked them from two liberal blogs which listed recent cases of that nature. Most of the links there were to stories on their own sites or to other biased sources. So rather than link the blog posts and recreate part of them here, I looked for actual news stories to make sure they weren't exaggerations. Some of them were, and I didn't include them.
 
267Boldwin
      ID: 07303123
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 00:31
On what grounds? - MITH

On the grounds that it is inappropriate for a group which has attacked America, to build a self-congratulatory monument to that attack, on the site of that attack.

Way more provocative than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
 
268Boldwin
      ID: 07303123
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 00:42
Sure don't mind seeing Dems take the wrong side of a 68% polling issue tho.
 
269Boldwin
      ID: 07303123
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 00:44
Just ahead of a midterm election.

Touch meter reads 'completely out of'.
 
270Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 00:56
On the grounds that it is inappropriate for a group which has attacked America, to build a self-congratulatory monument to that attack, on the site of that attack.

Really, really off the reservation now.
 
271Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 01:02
Then those boards need to reconsider.

a classic example of you changing the argument. you harped on that "constitutional right" thing for so long, that when it was shown to you (again and again), that suddenly they made a bad decision.

wondering if you'll answer MITH's question - glad he asked it, not me.

meanwhile, Senator Orrin Hatch weighs in...

Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said mosque proponents ‘‘have every right’’ to carry out their plans in New York, just as Mormons had a right to build their temple, despite neighborhood opposition.

‘‘I have a tendency, when it comes to religious liberty issues, to always uphold the rights of legitimate churches and legitimate religious groups to be able to meet and to build their mosques or their chapels or their cathedrals on property they own, and I will fight for their right to do that,’’ Hatch said, speaking to a FOX News reporter in Utah.
 
272Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 01:05
On the grounds that it is inappropriate for a group which has attacked America, to build a self-congratulatory monument to that attack, on the site of that attack.

i actually agree with you 100 percent, and if a group that did that tried to do so, i'd be opposed to it as well.

so, unless you're lumping all Muslims into the "attacked America" camp, you're not talking about the Mosque and community center in question, being built near Ground Zero, since the people building it didn't attack america.
 
273DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 10:07
They'll be having Bin Laden at their next ice cream social, obviously.

On a somewhat serious note, it pretty much belies the "I don't have a problem with ordinary Muslims" comment from earlier. It's hard to believe that he thinks there are any.

Boldwin, name some Muslim leaders with whom you would be comfortable leading this project, since you seem to believe it's only the leader that's the problem.

Do you also believe that the ordinary Muslims that would attend services there regularly are "part of he same group that attacked America"?


Also, I can't wait for Nuclear Gophers to pick up on that line and run with it across multiple threads about it.
 
274boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 10:39
rights of legitimate churches and legitimate religious groups

interesting choice of words, i guess this would imply there is such thing as illegitimate churches and religious groups.

I think i am confused by what you guys are arguing about here you say the mosque should be built then you have tree saying:

On the grounds that it is inappropriate for a group which has attacked America, to build a self-congratulatory monument to that attack, on the site of that attack.

i actually agree with you 100 percent, and if a group that did that tried to do so, i'd be opposed to it as well.


so is it ok to be biased against one group or not?
 
275Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 10:48
i guess this would imply there is such thing as illegitimate churches and religious groups.

The Church of Battlestar Galactica does not qualify for tax exemptions as a religious organizations.
 
276Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 11:14
This guy might very well be any one of the doofuses posting in this thread.

Man already knows everything he needs to know about Islam.

"I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11, what more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?"
 
277boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 16:29
The Church of Battlestar Galactica does not qualify for tax exemptions as a religious organizations.

And why not?
 
278Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 16:33
I'm not sure how qualifying as a viable religion in the eyes of the government works. If you're curious why don't you do some research and let me know what you find?
 
279Frick
      ID: 97321912
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 16:38
RE: 276

I don't see anything wrong with his approach. After all, I learned everything that really matters about the Christian faith from the Crusades.
 
280Razor
      ID: 265539
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 18:17
Sure don't mind seeing Dems take the wrong side of a 68% polling issue tho.

Does that suggest you care who wins the next election?
 
281Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 18:39
Boldwin, name some Muslim leaders with whom you would be comfortable leading this project, since you seem to believe it's only the leader that's the problem. - T

Find me a muslim leader willing to sign this and we'll just hope he doesn't have his taqiyya fingers crossed behind his back.

No need to worry about the crossed fingers yet, as no American imams have signed the pledge afaik.
 
282Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 18:48
I guess that the answer is "no one," then. Boldwin would be comfortable with no Muslim leaders.
 
283Razor
      ID: 265539
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 18:50
Have a long list of former Muslims executed in this country?
 
284Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 18:51
"I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11, what more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?"

I disagree with this statement...with one proviso. It certainly is true that there are nominal muslims completely unwilling to obey the koran's exhortations to rape, pillage, murder and intimidate their way to world-wide sharia. I am sure those non-radicals are in the majority in fact...at least here.

...but what happens if they should get that old time religion? Events and symbols like 9/11 and the Cordoba project are meant to do just that. The unceasing muslim hysteria over Isreal tends to produce that result. American soldiers in muslim lands tend to produce that result. The unfortunate list of reactionary violence MITH is gathering also play into that sort of scenario.

That nominal muslims will stay nominal is not the sort of guarantee I feel good about.
 
285Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 18:52
Razor

How many examples do you want?
 
286Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 19:23
Find me a muslim leader willing to sign this...

the unintentional humor of your posting of this, combined with your absolute refusal to discuss Christians who have murdered or attempted to murder in the name of Christ, is tremendous.

thanks for the laughs.
 
287DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 19:48
"American soldiers in muslim lands tend to produce that result." (hysteria)

It seems to be pretty mutual, since you're in hysteria over their presence in our lands, and they aren't even soldiers -- so it seems to be a fairly hypocritical thing for you to complain about, doesn't it?
 
288Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:40
Tree

If it weren't for the fact that you want to generate anti-christian hysteria and send us to Guantanamo, it would be funny that you find christian and muslim leaders comparable.

Think we can find some christian leaders, even the phony ones who would condemn killing apostates?

But try and find a muslim imam.
 
289Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 00:19
If it weren't for the fact that you want to generate anti-christian hysteria and send us to Guantanamo, it would be funny that you find christian and muslim leaders comparable.

of course, if i ever said anything like that, i'd deserve ridicule and scorn, because bias toward an entire group of people like that is completely asinine and bigoted.

i've got no desire for any anti-Christian hysteria, although your normal level of paranoia makes it easy to see why you would think that way.

i merely pointed out some examples of Christians who killed, or attempted to cause violence, in the name of Christ. you wanted no part of it.

and then to say that I'd want to put Christians in Guantanamo is so patently silly, it's hard to think you're even remotely serious. But, because your perspective on reality is so skewed, you actually probably believe that i'd be thrilled to put my closest friends in a prison camp.

the ironic part about it all that you're probably the worst example of a Christian I've ever encountered - so much so, that i hesitate to even actually call you a Christian.

speaking of religion, when's the last time you've been in a synagogue. or a mosque. heck, for that matter, do you even go to church? i usually go to church with friends or my girlfriend's family about once a month, because i enjoy their company, and it's no skin off my teeth to hang out for an hour and see a bunch of people i care about enjoying themselves.

your entire attitude about Christ, Christianity, and religion in general reminds me of a post my friend Nick made on Facebook the other day.

Nick, btw, is married to my best friend Cat. They are raising two beautiful daughters. Nick is the assistant choir director at their church, and Cat teaches Sunday school. Cat and i dated about 15 years ago - when i met her, she was working as the secretary for her church.

Nick and I were discussing why some Atheists feel threatened by Christians. I suggested that they feel threatened because the only "Christians" you ever hear about are those that are anti-gay, anti-immigrant, often discriminated toward others based on race, religion, orientation, or anything they feel threatened by.

this was his response:

Perhaps Atheists feel that most or all christians are represented by the loud talking Conservative Political quasi-Christians.

I got news for you all, Jesus was a liberal. Jesus gave everything he had to others. He demonstrated universal health care. He told us to be charitable and when struck to offer the other cheek.

There was nothing conservative or right wing about Christ. He told us to care for one another, to love one another; not hate, deny, and cast out. He told us to trust in him and we would be provided for. The politics of fear could not be further from Christs message. "If the Lord is with us, who can stand against us."


truer words have never been spoken, although you'd likely call Nick a CINO, but quite frankly, he's more Christian than you could ever hope to be.
 
290Boldwin
      ID: 2885123
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 01:55
AC weighs in on the subject.
All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.

Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers. That's why Democrats babble incoherently whenever the subject of religion comes up. Liberals acting devout always looks like the love scenes between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis in "Top Gun": awkward and unconvincing.

Former divinity student Al Gore famously botched a biblical verse, switching God's instruction that we put heaven before earthly things ("For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also," Matthew 6:21) by saying we should make the Earth our treasure. (In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.)

Howard Dean told a reporter his favorite book of the New Testament was Job.

It took the Democrats' born-again Christian Jimmy Carter three decades to announce, in 2005, that he didn't think Jesus would approve of abortion ("unless the mother's life or health was in danger or perhaps the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest," etc. etc.).

There's only one true Christian liberal in the country, and that's Mike Huckabee.
 
291Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 02:13
All liberals are atheists.

that's where you could stop reading right there, since you know it's going to be more nonsense if that's the thesis.

the real issue, btw, is your own inability to understand religion.

you cannot accept that there is no broad brush, that while some Muslims may be murderers, most are not; similarly, some Christians may be murderers, but most are not.

 
292Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 02:21
AC seems to have forgotten about blacks and Jews. Again.
 
293Boldwin
      ID: 2885123
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 06:17
Tree

The expert of religion, belonging to the religion that dare not speak it's name. What religion was that again?
 
295Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 08:39
The expert of religion, belonging to the religion that dare not speak it's name. What religion was that again?

1. i'm not speaking about myself. i'm speaking about you. for someone who claims to be learned about religion, you don't seem to know much. for someone who claims to be a Christian, you're pretty far from it.

2. i've mentioned my religion on this board many, many, many times. not sure what obsession with my religion as of late is - it's kinda weird.
 
296Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 08:46
Then you shouldn't have any problem mentioning it again.
 
297Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 10:30
not only is it irrelevant to the topic, it's awfully creepy how important it is to you that i stand up on a podium and shout my religion to the world.

what's next? do you want to put a yellow star on me too?
 
298Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 10:46
You are the one fitting me for the concentration camp, dude.

It's not creepy, it's just simple fair play that if you are going to turn this forum into 'snipe at Baldwin's religion from the sidelines all day long', that you at least tell everyone where you are coming from.
 
299Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 10:50
'snipe at Baldwin's religion from the sidelines all day long',

i'm not sniping at your religion - i've pointed out that *some* people in your particular religion have been accused of child sexual abuse, and that *some* people who claim to be Christians have killed in the name of Christ.

similarly, i've discussed Muslims who kill, and Jews who kill, all in the name of a warped sense of religion.

you, on the other hand, have pretty much made the majority of Muslims out to be blood thirsty killers, mere moments away from wiping Judeo-Christians off the face of the earth.
 
300Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 10:54
Boldwin, its a bit creepy that you need to know Tree's religion. If I didn't know better I'd think you had some kind of creepy man-crush on him.
 
301Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 11:34
I think his ceaseless attacks on my religion would make more sense in the context of what his religion was.
 
302Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 12:07
I think his ceaseless attacks on my religion would make more sense in the context of what his religion was.

lol. i have not ceaseless attacked your religion. i've pointed out inconsistencies in your accusations against Islam vs. some of the atrocities people have committed in the name of Christ.
 
303Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 14:40
I have no speculation as to how far off this development is here in the U.S., but here is how some of the playbook looks.

 
304Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 14:48
Good video Boldwin.

When I am looking for unbiased media discussing Islam I always hurry to the CBN website.
 
305Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 14:51
Fearmongering claptrap.

You're demonizing public prayer as an overt demonstration of cultural imperialism?

If they were Christians you'd be praising them for standing up to France's secularims laws.
 
306Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:00
It is really difficult and unrewarding work giving an ostrich a heads-up.
 
307Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:01
CBN fails to note that the street displays are actually overflow from packed Mosques in Muslim neighborhoods, while rejecting the explanation that there isn't enough space for them in existing houses of worship.

In the maps below, the streets in red are completely closed off by the Muslims and the residents cannot enter or leave for about two hours. Streets in orange are blocked for vehicles, while streets in green are open for traffic but the sidewalks are taken over for prayer.



 
308Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:02
How difficult and unrewarding it must be for you when people bother to take a moment of time to look into your propaganda.
 
309Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:06
Yossi Klein Halevi's open letter to Rauf:
Dear Imam Feisal,

Ramadan Kareem. I pray that you are bearing up under the strain of recent months. I write as a well-wisher and friend. Though we met only briefly, our encounter turned out to be at a fateful moment, and, for me at least, was of lasting significance. We met, you will recall, on September 5, 2001, at a symposium on a book I was about to publish recounting my journey into Islam and Christianity in the Holy Land. (The book was actually released six days later, on September 11.) You appeared on the panel offering a Muslim response to my journey. I was deeply moved by your presence—it wasn’t easy finding a Muslim cleric willing to appear publicly with an Israeli—and by the warm words you had for the book itself, which was written from a position of deep Jewish attachment to the land of Israel. I felt grateful for the courage you showed then, supporting my call for the Muslim world to come to terms with the Jewish return home. And I recall you beaming with gratitude when I spoke of my experience in joining the Muslim prayer line and the reverence—the love—I felt for its choreography of surrender to God.

In recent weeks, in discussions with friends in the American Jewish community about your initiative to build a mosque and Muslim community center near Ground Zero, I’ve found myself repeatedly defending your integrity as an interfaith partner. If you are not a worthy dialogue partner for the Jewish community, then there is almost no one in Islam with whom we can speak.

When our mutual friend and veteran of Muslim-Jewish dialogue, Yehezkel Landau, spoke on your behalf at the Community Board public hearing recently held over your proposed project, I felt it was a gesture of what Jews call kiddush Hashem, sanctifying God’s name. Yehezkel told the hostile audience that, as a former Israeli soldier whose son is now serving in the Israeli army, he affirms that you are “a spiritual ally, not an enemy.” Though other speakers on your behalf were heckled, Yehezkel was greeted with respectful silence.

That small moment of grace revealed how Muslims and Jews can help each other. As Judea Pearl—father of Daniel Pearl, The Wall Street Journal reporter beheaded by jihadists—has put it, Muslims can provide legitimacy for the Jewish people in the East and Jews can provide legitimacy for Islam in the West. I know that same sentiment inspires your longtime outreach to the American Jewish community. You told me that the model for Islamic modernization you sought was exemplified by modern Orthodox Judaism. That you would find inspiration in one aspect of the Jewish response to modernity says much about your openness toward Judaism and friendship toward the Jewish people.

I don’t deny being troubled by some of your statements on the Middle East. You have publicly called yourself a supporter of Israel—and how many Muslim clerics have dared speak those words?—yet you’ve also endorsed a “one-state solution,” code for the destruction of the Jewish state. You have rejected the subterfuge of some Muslim clerics who condemn terror against “innocent civilians” but exclude Israelis, yet you’ve refused to condemn Hamas.

Sometimes it seems that you want to be all things to all people—a liberal to non-Muslim Americans, upholder of Muslim grievances to traditionalists—and that you simply deny the resulting dissonance, as if every contradiction can be healed by your goodwill. Some of your statements about America and the Muslim world—partly blaming U.S. foreign policy for September 11, or saying that America has killed more Muslims than Al Qaeda has killed innocent non-Muslims, as if the terrorists and their targets were morally equivalent—pander to the most simplistic sentiments within your community. But where some see hypocrisy, or even a hidden agenda, I prefer to see the struggles of a good man who wants to help his community enter the American mainstream, while reassuring the faithful of his loyalty.

I believe that you intend to create a center of Islamic moderation near Ground Zero. And it is precisely for that reason that I am turning to you with a plea to reconsider your plans to build the center in its current form. Instead, I urge you to consider turning the site into a center for interfaith encounter. Build the mosque—but do so together with a church and a synagogue and a center for common reflection for all three faiths and for those with no faith. Do this, Imam Feisal, not to surrender to your critics but to honor their pain, and, in the process, to honor Islam.
What at terrific idea. How could the bigots among the opposition continue to tear down the project without exposing the nature of their Islamaphobia?
 
310Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:19
What part of #110 don't you understand?

ID: 77502818
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 23:20 Its not at freakin Ground Zero. You can say it until youre blue in the face, but it isnt true. It cant even be seen from Ground Zero.

1) It was actually hit by one of the planes.

2) It was originally called the ground zero mosque by Rauf himself.
Part of the plane landed on it.It is ground zero.





This landing gear right here.
 
311Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:33
It actually wasn't called ground zero mosque by him first. Repeating it doesn't make it true.
 
312Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:40
?

Which recent post is it you say ignores this point?
 
313Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:54
And changing the meaning of a term like Ground Zero might convince some people, but it cheapens the term, as well.

Ground zero is traditionally a term used to describe where the area immediately below where an atomic exposion occurred and is not intended to encompass every part of the surrounding area which suffered damage. In NYC Ground Zero most typically refers to the WTC.

The notion that this property is a part of GZ, but wouldn't be if the property next door was hit by the landing gear instead, is just ridiculous. A massive swath of downtown Manhattan incurred structural damage in the attack. That a piece of landing gear landed there instead of having the momentum to travel another block changes absolutely nothing about this debate. And it carries even less weight from someone who opposes the mosque from a standpoint based on an unsourced and bigoted fearmongering narrative that it compromises national security.
 
314Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:57
#110, and whether or not anyone else ever called it the ground zero mosque, Rauf called it that. I didn't invent the term. Fox news didn't invent the term when the story blew up. Rauf was calling it that all along.
 
315Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 19:07
From wiki -
The plane penetrated through the tower, and part of the plane's landing gear and fuselage came out the north side of the tower and crashed through the roof of 45–47 Park Place, and through two of its floors. The plane parts destroyed three floor beams, and severely compromised the building's internal structure.[22][19][49][55][56]

At the time, the building was leased to the Burlington Coat Factory.[8][49] Stephen Pomerantz owned the building, and his wife Kukiko Mitani subsequently attempted to sell it for years, at one point asking for $18 million. Until its 2009 purchase the building lay abandoned.
Rendered unusable by the attack, the only thing missing is that it wasn't the specific target, but it is ground zero. This is part of the site of the attack, the crater as it were. The part of NYC destroyed.

And that is why it is so valuable a propaganda tool for 'Islam victorious' in their minds. And when they are closing down NYC in prayer demonstrations of ownership, it will add to the effect.
 
316Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 19:15
If you believe that Imam Rauf is simply trying to propose a terrorist foothold onto Ground Zero, then there is virtually nothing anyone can say to dissuade you. This is like hearing a guy is sexual predator: Everything else is filtered through this assumption, even the fact that he isn't. You simply have given up the idea of there being any other way to look at it.

I would have hoped that your religion would have acted as a brake on this bearing of false witness. But oddly, it never played any part in anything you've posted on the Imam or his stated intentions. Not once.
 
317Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 19:26
I'll chalk up 310 & 311 to a diversionary tactic, unless the point is that whether Project51 is part of GZ is somehow relevent to the dishonest CBN propaganda video.

But what the hell. I really don't think its important but since you feel its so crucial that it must be forcefully brought up out of the blue; no, I actually dont know that Rauf has used the term at all. I've seen a translation from a bigoted website that I wouldn't trust on it's own merit any faster than the next CBN video I see.

I've poked around a little but can't find him quoted using it. You say he's been calling it that all along? Care to show me some more examples, preferably spoken or written in English?
 
318Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 19:28
You are wrong. That building was not within 'the crater.'
 
319Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 19:45
Taqiyya...look it up.

If it wasn't 9/11 that destroyed that building what was it?

 
320Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 20:01
Yes much of lower Manhattan was damaged by 9/11. It's not all Ground Zero.
 
321DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:06
Hey, Bolderino, still waiting on the constitutional cite for you having the right to tell them they can't build it!
 
322Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:22
MITH

Was much of lower Manhattan rendered uninhabited?
 
323DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:24
I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world?
 
324Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:41
Clearly more than you know, Boldy. A lot of businesses had to close down, subway stations were closed for months and residents had to move out of tenement buildings. That doesn't make them all Ground Zero locations.

Still looking for examples of Rauf calling it the Ground Zero mosque?
 
326Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:46
Sorry if it offends some of the Project51 opposition from around he country but there are some things that New Yorkers understand better about 9/11 than people from elsewhere.

Boldwin does not get to redefine Ground Zero to suit his cheap political argument of the day. What a patriot.
 
327Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:50
Really grasping now boy! That RLUIPA only applies if there is a zoning conflict with a place of worship. There is no zoning conflict with that property and any other local legal hurdles were cleared when the board voted unanimously to go ahead with the project.
 
328Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:50
Still looking for examples of Rauf calling it the Ground Zero mosque? - MITH

You have already ruled out the translations of Rauf.

MEMRI charges for their translations so I cannot deliver theirs [assuming you would accept Jewish translators] and any muslim who were to translate Rauf for us would be dealing with a death sentence fatwa on his head as well as your inappropriate and ungrateful derision.

You have defined your way into lasting ignorance. Enjoy.
 
331Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:55
Rauf references to "Ground Zero Mosque" please. It sure seemed important to you a few posts back when you changed the subject to reiterate that point. It's your claim that he's been "saying it all along" yes? So you must have heard him say it numerous times right?
 
332Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 22:56
328 - so you've been heAring him say it all along - in Arabic. Which you don't speak or understand.
 
334Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 23:05
Im not interested in your red herring from 251. No one here needs to claim a house of worship can go anywhere it wants to make their case.
 
336Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 23:08
I will not repeat Rauf's taqiyya lies in english, and you will not read the translations of his truth from arabic so we are at an impass.
 
337DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 23:09
You keep saying they need to reconsider. Why?

Do you believe that the process was incorrectly followed?

Do you believe they miscounted the (unanimous) votes?

Or are you just saying that because you don't like the result?


I mean, I know the answer is that it's the last one, but that doesn't seem like a very good reason for not following the law you so proudly quoted.
 
338Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 23:20
I will not repeat Rauf's taqiyya lies in english, and you will not read the translations of his truth from arabic so we are at an impass.

I read the translations, and to say they are open to interpretation is an understatement, especially considering the source.

But even if one were to interpret Rauf's taqiyya statement as a source of deception as to the center's intentions, you've used it as a basis for accusations well beyond anything actually related to the translation. It's an irresponsible extrapolation, especially given that there is a constant shreik for condemnation of Islamic violence from moderate Muslim leaders, yet when one is forefront, all you can do is call him a liar.

But then, it's hard to take someone who thinks "All liberals are atheists" is a cohesive conservative message very seriously.
 
339Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 00:02
*Reluctantly responding*

Both the purpose of the center/mosque was misrepresented and the effect on the neighborhood miscalculated.
 
340Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 01:35
Deliberately misreading what they propose is not the same as the proposition being misrepresented.
 
341Boldwin
      ID: 1183027
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 05:27
even if one were to interpret Rauf's taqiyya statement as a source of deception as to the center's intentions - PV

You still don't get it. It's not just taqiyya, a lie told to non-muslims, about the purpose. The purpose of the place, is to be the center from which lies are spread about islam. Lies which will lull you into accepting islam.

'Lie central'.
 
342Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 07:15
And that's ok by you as long as it doesn't go anyplace where we know airplane parts crshed through?
 
343Mith
      ID: 1585036
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 08:35
I will not repeat Rauf's taqiyya lies in english

That's not what I'm asking for. I want examples of him using the term, "Ground Zero Mosque." By your own account that term is not any lie and it certainly isn't intended to dupe unsuspecting libeal jihad appeasers.

Are you now saying he's only been calling it that all along it in Arabic?
 
344Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 09:10
You still don't get it.

I get that you have branded Rauf as a militant jihadist, allied with the most violent factions of Islam whose goal is world domination.

Any response documenting facts that Rauf has condemned Islamic violence, condemned suicide bombings and has been praised by Jewish leaders for his efforts in that arena, is met with the juvenile and lazy reply that "He's liar, He's a liar."

I don't really have a problem with chracterizations of Islamists as "extremists," since the entire basis of the religion seems extreme to me. But you fail to acknowledge your own extremism as it relates to Muslims, and those of us who point it out are softheaded, dense and just don't get it.

I will reiterate something I said in an earlier post, which is the basis for my protestations against Rauf. Rauf has consistently held the position that Sharia Law is compatible with American system of values and justice. He promotes the idea that the Muslim community in this country embrace Sharia despite it being the antithesis to the freedoms guaranteed citizens in this country.

That's where the debate should be centered. Falsely putting Rauf in league with Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Hezbollah and any other violent jihadist group serves only to enflame anti-Muslim sentiment in hopes of generating a Holy War with global consequences.

That's your agenda, and I get it.
 
345DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 10:16
Re: 339 -- I am fairly certain that the professionals whose job it is to evaluate such matters have a better handle on the effect on the neighborhood than you, who I'd wager has never set foot in the neighborhood, do.

However, in the interest of thoroughly debunking this, please be specific about the way or ways in which you feel it was misrepresented. This should include evidence as to how it was actually presented to the relevant governmental bodies. If you don't have this, then you're making stuff up, because you can't possibly say it was misrepresented if you don't know how it was presented in the first place.
 
346Mith
      ID: 1585036
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 10:27
I just went back to the first link in #123, which Boldy inserted just before the heading, "in his own words", referring to Rauf, and the following excerpt, copied from the linked page:
Fort Cordoba, ground zero NYC Mosque, will be the main Taqiyya Center and outpost in the USA and along with the new London England mega Mosque, at the
Olympic site, will be the guiding lights for Dah’wa
Here's the thing, that quote isn't actually attributed to Rauf. Look for yourself. I watched the embedded PJTV interview of Walid Shoebat but didn't hear him or the sharply dressed interviewer say those words, much less attribute them to Rauf.

I went back to the PJTV page which originally embedded the interview and it's not there.

I googled the quote. Every place that comes up seems to have pulled it from the site you linked, where it's just an unattributed quote at the top of a blog entry.

Anyway, unless you can show I'm mistaken here, to this point you have not provided even one example of Rauf using the term "Ground Zero Mosque," which you say he has been using all along in any language.

Aren't you glad you insisted on belaboring this point (which I didn't even care about one way or the other) to the point of prompting me to take a closer look?
 
347Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:06
I will not repeat Rauf's taqiyya lies in english,...

lol. why the heck not? it's not as if you haven't lied in English before.

Rendered unusable by the attack, the only thing missing is that it wasn't the specific target, but it is ground zero. This is part of the site of the attack, the crater as it were. The part of NYC destroyed.

there are fewer things more annoying than some midwestern bigot trying to use 9/11, and redefine parts of what happened that day, to fit his or her political points.

watching Baldwin flail around in this thread, has been entertaining.
 
348Boldwin
      ID: 34838318
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 19:38
Well It is very poorly presented as a quote without an attribution. They are not Walid Shoebat's words in the video and Walid Shoebat is all about the arabic so...

I'll keep researching it, but in the meantime, if I were you, MITH, I wouldn't go claiming on your blog that they re not Rauf's words.

Either way, they are true words, the video should open your eyes.
 
349Mith
      ID: 1585036
      Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 20:03
he's been calling it that all along...

You're giving me lessons in credibility?
 
350Boldwin
      ID: 57850411
      Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 12:50
Obviously you can't be too careful.
 
351Boldwin
      ID: 57850411
      Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 12:52
BTW you try and find Rauf's actual words translated from the Arabic. Discouragingly difficult without cash.
 
352Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 00:05
On Walid Shoebat, the "former PLO terrorist" in the video linked in #123 (and the first link in #346).

Jerusalem Post 3.30.08:
The paper described Shoebat as a self-proclaimed "former Islamic terrorist" who said that Islam was a "satanic cult" and who told the crowd how he eventually accepted Jesus into his heart. However, Shoebat's claim to have bombed Bank Leumi in Bethlehem is rejected by members of his family who still live in the area, and Bank Leumi says it has no record of such an attack ever taking place. His relatives, members of the Shoebat family, are mystified by the notion of "Walid Shoebat" being an assumed name. And the Walid Shoebat Foundation's working process is less than transparent, with Shoebat's claim that it is registered as a charity in the state of Pennsylvania being denied by the Pennsylvania State Attorney's Office. Shoebat's claim to have been a terrorist rests on his account of the purported bombing of Bank Leumi. But after checking its files, the bank said it had no record of an attack on its Bethlehem branch anywhere in the relevant 1977-79 period. Shoebat told The Jerusalem Post that this could be because the bank building was robustly protected with steel and that the attack may have caused little damage. Asked whether word of the bombing made the news at the time, he said, "I don't know. I didn't read the papers because I was in hiding for the next three days." (In 2004, he had told Britain's Sunday Telegraph: "I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb.") Shoebat could not immediately recall the year, or even the time of year, of the purported bombing when talking to the Post by phone from the US. After wavering, he finally settled for the summer of 1977.


...he described how he and his peers were indoctrinated as children "to believe that the fires of hell were an ever-present reality. We were all terrified of burning in hell when we died... The teachers told us that the only way we could certainly avoid that fate was to die in a martyrdom operation - to die for Islam." But an uncle and a cousin of Shoebat, who still live in Beit Sahur in the Bethlehem area, where Shoebat grew up, said that Shoebat's education was rather mild ideologically, and that religion did not play a dominant role. The uncle, interviewed at his home, said he remembered little about his nephew, because Walid left for America at the age of 16, and because his American mother always kept a distance from the rest of the family. The uncle and his wife both said firmly that there was no attack on Bank Leumi. When questioned on this discrepancy, Shoebat was adamant that he did carry out such a bombing, and that his relatives deny it to cover up for another cousin who was with him during the attack and still lives in Bethlehem. Shoebat evinced no particular surprise that his family could be tracked down simply by asking Beit Sahur locals where they lived, even though his Internet site claims that his is an assumed name.


Visitors to Shoebat's Internet site are encouraged to make a donation to his foundation to enable him to disseminate his message. However, a notice on the page states that for "security reasons," the money will not be debited to his foundation, but rather to a company called Top Executive Media. The name Top Executive Media is used by a greetings card firm from Pennsylvania called Top Executive Greetings, a company with an annual turnover of $500,000. When one makes a donation through the Shoebat Internet site, the Web address changes to topexecutivegreetings.com/shoebat. This seems to be the only active page for the company; its homepage is blank. Asked by the Post whether the Walid Shoebat Foundation is a registered charity, Shoebat replied that it is registered in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State Attorney's office said it had no record of a charity registered under this name. Questioned further, Shoebat said it was registered under a different name, but that he was not aware of the details, which are handled by his manager. "I remain separate to the running of the charity so that I am not constrained by church rules," he explained, adding that the organization's connection to certain churches meant it would be difficult for him to speak to secular audiences if he became too involved in running it. Dr. Joel Fishman, of the Allegany County Law Library in Pennsylvania, expressed doubts about this donation process. If the money were being given to a registered charity, the charity would have to make annual reports to the state and federal government on how it was being spent, he noted. Shoebat insisted donations were not being misused, however. "I survive by being an author," he said. "I only get paid for being an author. All the money that is donated gets put back into events."
 
353Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 00:15
NYT 2.07.08:
The Air Force Academy was criticized by Muslim and religious freedom organizations for playing host on Wednesday to three speakers who critics say are evangelical Christians falsely claiming to be former Muslim terrorists.

The three men were invited as part of a weeklong conference on terrorism organized by cadets at the academy’s Colorado Springs campus under the auspices of the political science department.

The three will be paid a total of $13,000 for their appearance, some of it from private donors, said Maj. Brett Ashworth, a spokesman for the academy.

The three were invited because “they offered a unique perspective from inside terrorism,” Major Ashworth said. The conference is to result in a report on methods to combat terrorism that will be sent to the Pentagon, members of Congress and other influential officials, he added.


Muslim organizations objected to the fact that no other perspective about Islam was offered, saying that the three speakers — Mr. Anani, Kamal Saleem and Walid Shoebat — habitually paint Muslims as inherently violent.


Academic professors and others who have heard the three men speak in the United States and Canada said some of their stories border on the fantastic, like Mr. Saleem’s account of how, as a child, he infiltrated Israel to plant bombs via a network of tunnels underneath the Golan Heights. No such incidents have been reported, the academic experts said. They also question how three middle-aged men who claim they were recruited as teenagers or younger could have been steeped in the violent religious ideology that only became prevalent in the late 1980s.

Prof. Douglas Howard, who teaches the history of the modern Middle East at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., heard Mr. Saleem speak last November at the college and said he thought the three were connected to several major Christian evangelical organizations.

“It was just an old time gospel hour — ‘Jesus can change your life, he changed mine,’ ” Mr. Howard said. “That is mixed in with ‘Watch out America, wake up America, the danger of Islam is here.’ ”

Mr. Howard said his doubts about their authenticity grew after stories like the Golan Heights saga as well as something on Mr. Saleem’s Web site along the lines that he was descended from the grand wazir of Islam. “The grand wazir of Islam is a nonsensical term,” Mr. Howard said.

Debbie Schlussel 9/16/08:
Enough, Walid Shoebat: Why is Sean Hannity’s Fake Terrorist Harassing Me?

By Debbie Schlussel
[TO MY READERS: I originally wrote the column below in February. But I sat on it and didn't publish it because I feel bad about exposing even this fraud and creep, Walid Shoebat, despite the fact that he's plagiarized from me and harassed me under a fake name using his own e-mail address, and despite the fact that his equally shady manager, Keith Davies, fits a similar bill and has--along with Shoebat--taken to trashing me.
But now that The Jerusalem Post has also exposed the fraudulence and fakery of Mr. Shoebat, I've decided I cannot remain silent on who he really is and his behavior, any longer. After harassing me, he tried to appear with me at a 9/11 event in Dearborn, and I realized I can no longer hold back. I've thought long and hard about it, but it must be done. The record must be set straight.]
 
354Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 00:16
The above pulled from Media Matters.
 
355Boldwin
      ID: 56845513
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 14:46
Notice that media matters doesn't check the content of what he is saying because all those elements are in Islam. Especially the point about them raising a mosque that Islam will never allow to be torn down without rioting and incitement to violence all around the world. The dichotomy between peaceful muslims and violence preaching imams rings true from everything else I have read about the state of Islam.

I am amazed that liberals who managed to use protests to impose the will of the minority on the majority, are not more concerned by the organized muslim protests in Europe. It is obvious you cling to your world view of a non-threatening Islam despite ample evidence to the contrary. Shoot the messenger if you should ever feel a chill.
 
356Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 15:05
Notice that media matters doesn't check the content of what he is saying because all those elements are in Islam.

Nope, I don't notice that at all. And neither do you, fool.

Media Matters
Islamic studies experts are disputing inflammatory claims made on Fox News by a self-proclaimed "former terrorist," who has repeatedly appeared on the network to paint Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Sufi leader spearheading the Islamic community center set to be built near Ground Zero, as a stealth radical Muslim.
But why would you believe any Islamic studies experts over some guy who everone this side of Debbie Schlussel knows is a phony?

I am amazed that liberals who managed blah blab blah

You've had your ass handed to you over and over again lately at this forum. At what point will a shred of humility be in order?
 
357Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 15:12
Not only did he not bother to see what MM had on Shoebat's claims before declaring that they don't fact-check him, Boldy couldn't even be bothered to run his mouse over the links I took the time to provide, since he obviously didn't even know that I never actually linked the Media Matters page I pulled that stuff from.

Some unsolicited advice for him: it's a good idea to stop bluffing when you keep getting called on it.
 
358Boldwin
      ID: 56845513
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 22:46
I was already aware of the charges. I think I read them in Huffpo.
 
359Boldwin
      ID: 56845513
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 22:51
At what point will a shred of humility be in order?

I know what radical Islam is up to. I have had it verified for years from countless sources. I am wondering when they finally reach 'a bridge too far' with you and you realize they cannot be allowed further advances.
 
360Boldwin
      ID: 56845513
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 23:03
Islamic studies experts are disputing inflammatory claims

And that does not constitute fact checking. Islamic study experts are exactly the kinds of people who take the 'world-wide Sharia' project as their own. They are hardly going to admit it to you.
 
361DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 23:22
We cannot trust the "islamic study experts". Clearly, therefore, we can only trust the people who don't study it to know about it.

Brilliant. We should apply this to other walks of life: don't let the rocket scientists work for NASA, don't let the accountants anywhere near my tax returns, and only let people drive who don't have a driver's license. By Boldwinian logic, this is the way to make the world a better place.
 
362Boldwin
      ID: 56845513
      Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 23:53
1) Read the actual koran and see that it actually encourages world conquest and violence and deceit in pursuit of that goal.

2) That taqiyya is even the mechanism for dealing with unbelievers [when unbelievers are in the majority] should really be just about all the evidence you would need that they [radical islam] are hiding ill intent.

3) On this issue I would trust a non-muslim translator over a muslim believer/scholar every time.
 
363Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 00:36
I know what radical Islam is up to.

as do we all. the difference is that most of us know the difference between Islam, and radical Islam. for you, there is no difference.

1) Read the actual koran and see that it actually encourages world conquest and violence and deceit in pursuit of that goal.

or, you could read it, and see the parts that dissuade from forced conversion. but, why would you actually read it? you get all you need to know from McNews Nuggests.
 
364Boldwin
      ID: 56845513
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 04:58
or, you could read it, and see the parts that dissuade from forced conversion

There is no part that condemns forced conversion but there are plenty that talk about mercy. Read all the ones about mercy to Daniel Pearl's widow and explain why we should trust their mercy.

How would you know a muslim who was a muslim expert who did not believe in lying to the infidel about the true aims of Islam? And if he didn't believe in taqiyya how would he be a sincere muslim? By definition a sincere muslim who is a muslim expert, will lie about the true aims of islam to a non-muslim.

Only listen to a non-muslim translation expert translating muslim scholars from their native tongue if you want to know what they are up to.
 
365Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 10:22
There is no part that condemns forced conversion but there are plenty that talk about mercy. Read all the ones about mercy to Daniel Pearl's widow and explain why we should trust their mercy.

there are absolutely parts that talk about not compelling one to be a believer. those parts do go on to say that those who are non-believers will not go to a happy afterlife, but that's no different than many Judeo-Christian religions.

How would you know a muslim who was a muslim expert who did not believe in lying to the infidel about the true aims of Islam? And if he didn't believe in taqiyya how would he be a sincere muslim? By definition a sincere muslim who is a muslim expert, will lie about the true aims of islam to a non-muslim.

Only listen to a non-muslim translation expert translating muslim scholars from their native tongue if you want to know what they are up to.


because to a rational person, Islam is to Christianity is to Judaism is to any other religion.

yes, there are extremists in every case. but there are also very good people in every case.

if you choose to live your life that evil lurks in every corner and every shadow, than you're going to miserable and learn to dis-trust everything.

personally, i'll put some faith in reality, and not worry about what might be in the shadows. it's a happier life, and it's a life based on reality.

i trust Jewish and Christian scholars who translate bibles. I'm going to trust Muslims too, because I have no reason to NOT trust them.
 
366DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 11:45
If they say something radical, it's because they're radical. If they say something non-radical, it's because they're radical and they're lying. If they don't say anything, it's because they're radical and silently agree with the people that are talking. (But, of course, he's fine with all the non-radical ones!)

It's right out of a Monty Python sketch.
 
367WiddleAvi
      ID: 32559
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 12:14
Don't forget that if they come out and denounce terrorism they are lying as well
 
368Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 12:38
Pastor Bill Keller - not too dissimilar from some posters here...

“I want to talk about two of today’s prophets of Baal: Glenn Beck and Imam Feisal Rauf,” Keller said, directing his fire and brimstone at two of the most talked-about media figures of the past month.

On Beck (who is Mormon): “It was great that he got 3 or 400,000 Tea Party people to come to Washington. That was great. But his whole message of a nation that needs to turn back to God was so empty… The problem is, he doesn’t believe in the Jesus of the Bible. When Beck gathers millions of people from his radio and TV programs and starts talking about Biblical theology, he is leading people into a lie from hell.”

On Rauf: “He teaches the doctrines of Islam… a religion of hate, violence, and death.” Later, he said Rauf was building a “victory mosque” to celebrate “a great Muslim military accomplishment.”
 
369Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 13:25
Patraeus: Koran burning could endanger US troops.

Too bad some on the Religious Right need such simple reminders as this.
 
370DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 14:25
Re: 368 -- but it'd be totally cool if he built a church there instead of that mosque, amirite?

(For the record. lest people misconstrue, deliberately or otherwise -- if he wanted to build his church there, he'd have every right to do it. I wouldn't even consider it rude! I'd also look forward to later pointing out what a hate filled scum he is, which is a totally separate issue.)
 
373Boldwin
      ID: 42830618
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 20:56
I'm going to trust Muslims too, because I have no reason to NOT trust them.

I've witnessed to muslims from time to time, but that doesn't mean it is without risk.

And we are forewarned it would be risky.
 
374Boldwin
      ID: 42830618
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 21:02
Think those Muslims shutting down Paris streets in prayer demonstrations won't come here?
Monday, 09 August 2010 06:26

Something disturbing is happening in New York between 2 and 4 PM every Friday on 42nd Street and Madison Avenue. It seems there is an overabundance of Islamic worshipers from a nearby mosque who want to pray. Once the mosque is filled to capacity, the excess worshipers take to the streets, fall to their knees, and close down the NYC thoroughfare while they praise Allah.

Oh, this isn’t just happening on one street; there are multiple mosques which apparently are overflowing onto the streets of New York on Friday afternoons.

No one seems to mind. The police stand idly by, watching as the Muslims block the streets for 2 hours during the busiest time of day.
This clash of civilizations is a setup. This is exactly what the globalists who filled europe with muslim immigrants were counting on.

And this GZM is not much ado about nothing. It is part and parcel of this sharia takeover attempt.
 
375DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 21:14
Duh, the optimal solution to the problem of overflowing mosques would be to allow them to build other ones so they can spread out. Are the moderate Muslims you proclaim to have no problem with among those causing *gasp* traffic problems, or are these all terrorist sympathizers?
 
376Boldwin
      ID: 42830618
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 21:15
Do you think those are nominal muslims or activists?
 
377Boldwin
      ID: 42830618
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 21:16
And that is not remotely an overflow issue. Those are street theater. How do liberals not recognize their own tactics?
 
378DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 21:26
Because only in your mind, and totally separated from reality, are they "liberal tactics".

Since you asked, I believe that probably the vast majority (probably not all) of them are people who would like to get to their available place of worship on the day and time that they usually worship. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it.

In the meanwhile, this (admittedly taken somewhat out of context) snippet really says it all:

"Something disturbing is happening in New York between 2 and 4 PM every Friday on 42nd Street and Madison Avenue. It seems there is an overabundance of Islamic worshipers from a nearby mosque who want to pray." Disturbing, indeed.
 
379Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 21:42
I'm gonna have to check that out for myself. If I have time maybe I'll head over there on Friday and take some pick.

In Ditmas Park (Little Pakistan) Newkirk Ave would be filled with Muslim worshipers every Friday afternoon, too. The mosque would pack out and they'd fill up the sidewalk for one block. They were courteous enough to leave enough room for people to pass by and get into stores and buiildings. You could also easily enough just walk in the streetalong the parked cars or simply cross the street to get by.

Never once heard anyone complain about. In fact, I always regarded it as a neighborhood feature.
 
380Boldwin
      ID: 42830618
      Mon, Sep 06, 2010, 22:31
Lambs to the slaughter.
 
381Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 00:32
4 years my wife and I lived there and somehow never slaughtered. Not even once. Freakishly lucky I guess?
 
382DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 01:03
It's all part of their fiendishly clever plan to blend into society by acting completely normal for their entire lives and not blowing anything up. Don't fall for it.
 
383Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 01:15
Exactly. And don't forget: Those clerks speaking Spanish? Yes, they are talking about you, but in their code language.
 
384Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 01:21
Remind me to ask Nerveclinic if he thinks the city of Dubai might be putting on an elaborate Truman Show style production to keep the wool over the eyes of all the westerners living there.
 
385Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 02:19
i'm really worried about the Greek Orthodox. man, those dudes have parades and stuff. overflowing from the churches and everything. beards and robes...they're just a couple skin tones away from being radicalz.

and those Christians with their Easter Egg hunts, and even worse, those bonnets.

clearly, they are up to something.
 
386Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 09:20
This is pretty much how every thread on this board goes. A legitimate concern gets turned into "They are out to destroy you and this country, and you are too stupid to realize it" whether its Muslims, Mexicans, socialists, or globalists. We don't need to debate whether all Muslims are out to get us because we know better. If someone wants to believe otherwise, let them.
 
387Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 09:36
Well there is the matter of countering dishonest propaganda to set the record straight.
 
388The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 10:08
Is anyone aware of any Muslim built monuments or significant cultural changes denouncing terrorism and extremism similar to what the Germans have done post World War II?
 
389DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 10:31
Kind of a bad comparison, for a bunch of pretty obvious reasons.
 
390Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 11:17
A legitimate concern gets turned into "They are out to destroy you and this country, and you are too stupid to realize it" whether its Muslims, Mexicans, socialists, or globalists.

that pretty sums it up.
 
391Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 13:59
Well there is the matter of countering dishonest propaganda to set the record straight.

I think that's a worthy cause as long as the people you are talking to have any intention of consuming that information.
 
392Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 22:19
Prominent Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders held an extraordinary “emergency summit” meeting in the capital on Tuesday to denounce what they called “the derision, misinformation and outright bigotry” aimed at American Muslims...

The Rev. Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, said: “To those who would exercise derision, bigotry, open rejection of our fellow Americans of a different faith, I say, shame on you. As an evangelical, I say to those who do this, you bring dishonor to those who love Jesus Christ.”
 
393Boldwin
      ID: 087719
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 22:54
What a blessing to the forum you are, Tree. All rational discussion disagreeing with you is bigotry and racism. Just find a new way to say the same blanket charge and shut down discussion if possible.
 
394Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 23:02
Dude anyone disagreeing with you is ignorant or nave.

You guys are the same.
 
395DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 23:07
"What a blessing to the forum you are, Tree. All rational discussion disagreeing with you is bigotry and racism. Just find a new way to say the same blanket charge and shut down discussion if possible."

Have you looked in the mirror lately?

If you promise not to do this any more, I'm sure Tree would do the same. I'll throw myself in there!

(It's an easy promise, since it means you won't be posting anything any more.)
 
396Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Sep 07, 2010, 23:28
What a blessing to the forum you are, Tree. All rational discussion disagreeing with you is bigotry and racism. Just find a new way to say the same blanket charge and shut down discussion if possible.

actually, that was a Christian and a Reverend who said that. i was just posting a link to the article. Just because you have nothing in common with Christians doesn't mean you need to insult me.
 
397Boldwin
      ID: 5985810
      Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 11:09
If you promise not to do this any more, I'm sure Tree would do the same. I'll throw myself in there!

As I have been stating all along, the only reason you two post here is to shut down debate. Thank you for admitting as much.
 
398DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 11:11
I think you misconstrue the point. No, I take it back-- I know it. But thanks for trolling.
 
399Mith
      ID: 1585036
      Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 12:02
It appears that Rauf may have taken some of the advice offered to him in the open letter in #309. From his NYT Op-Ed today:
At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children. There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cordoba House will be built on the two fundamental commandments common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam: to love the Lord our creator with all of our hearts, minds, souls and strength; and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions.
 
403DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 17:20
Someone please tell this woman why her 9/11 mourning isn't important (NY Times)
 
404Boldwin
      ID: 1981396
      Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 17:34
MITH

You planning on being a regular there?
 
405Mith
      ID: 1585036
      Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 18:02
404
I moved a few miles outside of the city limits last year so I'll probably be looking for a more conveniently located community center/Madrassa front to unwittingly fund an IED engineering class in some cave in Waziristan.
 
406DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 18:03
Admit it, you just don't like ice cream.
 
407Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 19:11
minister cancels Koran burning...

...kind of shows off that he's a crack pot too..

The leader of a tiny church on Thursday backed off his threat to burn the Quran, saying he gave up the plan in exchange for a deal to move a planned Islamic center and mosque away from New York's ground zero.

The imam planning the center, however, quickly denied any such deal.
 
408The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 09:00
Why do you Democrats harass people for painting Muslims as evil based on the behavior of a minority of them when that is precisely what you do in regard to firearms?
 
409bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 09:13
408 - Do you believe it is wrong for anyone to look unfavorably at those who would paint someone as evil based on the behavior of a small minority from their group?
 
410Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 09:14
1. Who here says firearms are evil?

2. What in the world is wrong with you that makes you think peoples' opinions of certain inanimate objects are in any way analagous to their opinions of and behavior toward human beings of a certain faith or culture?

3. Who is it you're talking about when you refer to "Democrats"?
 
411The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 09:51
Do you believe it is wrong for anyone to look unfavorably at those who would paint someone as evil based on the behavior of a small minority from their group?

I believe that Democrats are guilty of hypocrisy based on their criticism of those who paint Muslims with a brush when that is exactly what they do with gun rights. Take all guns or types of guns away from everybody because of the actions of a few.
 
412Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 09:54
You might be right. The last few years it seems many on the Far Right are taking their civics cues from those same small number of Democrats, however.
 
413Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 10:15
Are Republicans like Ron Paul also guilty of hypocrisy for their criticism of painting Islam as evil? General Petraeus? Secretary of Defense Robert Gates?

A really lame analogy.

If you're committed to demonizing Islam and dehumanizing Muslims, you'll have to find better justification than introducing a subject that has no relevance.
 
414Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 10:17
I was raised in a pretty conservative household. Baptized Christian. I share a very similar background and belief system with many people who are considered far right wing extremists. But I take the time to publicly distance myself from them. Even when I sometimes agree with them. I make sure it is known that there are fundamental differences between the extremists of my social, ethnic and religious background and myself. In fact many moderates likes myself do this (no matter if their extremists they are similar to are on the right or left). For instance, I think the preacher who is threatening to burn the Qoran is a whack-job.

How often do the moderate and middle of the road Muslims take the time to do this? Thats probably the biggest reason there are such broad brush strokes regarding Muslims. They do not take the time to separate themselves. Perhaps if they would, the broad brush would not be applied as often (or at least not in such a broad fashion).
 
415DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 10:31
They probably could do a little more, but on the other hand:

1. The vast majority of people (of all religions, and of no religions) are basically sheep who really are just trying to live their lives;

2. My sense is that individual Muslims DO do this, on their own local level (to friends and people they interact with on a normal basis) -- but that's not exactly something that gets picked up on the news, any more than your comments to your friends and colleagues make the news so that everyone knows that most people of your religion aren't like you.

Have you talked to your Muslim friends and neighbors about their feelings about 9/11? If so, what did they say about it?

(My guess, based solely on statistics, is that you don't have any and that if you do, you know exactly how they feel about it and that they think it sucked and wasn't representative of their religion.)

On a local level, it's really not fair to expect random Muslim person to have to go door to door to explain why you shouldn't think they're a terrorist, any more than Catholics should have to go door to door to explain that you shouldn't think they're an abortion clinic bomber;

3. On those occasions when they do make the news, or someone with a little more news marketability than your average person DOES come out and say things like you want them to say, they'll just be called liars by the extremists on the other side for "trying to conceal their terroristic ambitions" or something like that (see this thread).
 
416Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 10:32
Khahan: I believe the Muslims near the WTC site are doing *exactly* that.
 
417Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 10:44
Why do you Democrats harass people for painting Muslims as evil based on the behavior of a minority of them when that is precisely what you do in regard to firearms?

there are so many things wrong with your statement, it's baffling.

for starters, i don't even understand the analogy.

you're comparing the criticism of people who demonize Muslims and what to destroy their holy book with the criticism of people who are against unnecessary gun deaths?

you're lumping "you democrats" into one broad brush stroke? keep in mind, there are probably several of "you democrats" here - myself including - who do not..well.. i actually don't even know what you're saying about firearms...but for me, i think they should be legal, just not easier to get than beer.
 
418Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 10:51
How often do the moderate and middle of the road Muslims take the time to do this? Thats probably the biggest reason there are such broad brush strokes regarding Muslims. They do not take the time to separate themselves

Let's take a real life example. Imam Rauf, who in this thread has been accused of being a take over the world radical Muslim who supports the most violent factions of Islam and is building the Cordoba House only in celebration of a Muslim terrorist victory, has taken the time and effort, over decades, to denounce Muslim violence, to build bridges of peaceful relations between faiths, and to foster better communication between the west and the Muslim world.

I suggest reading his NYT op/ed in #399.

President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg both spoke out in support of our project. As I traveled overseas, I saw firsthand how their words and actions made a tremendous impact on the Muslim street and on Muslim leaders. It was striking: a Christian president and a Jewish mayor of New York supporting the rights of Muslims. Their statements sent a powerful message about what America stands for, and will be remembered as a milestone in improving American-Muslim relations.

Maybe the question that should be asked is,

"Why should moderate and middle of the road Muslims like Rauf put themselves into the public arena as supporters of peace and communication between Muslims and non-Muslims when all they get for their efforts is being painted as liars, terrorist enablers and jihadists?"

 
419Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 11:53
418 - Rauf is a very good example. But, until recently he has been very quiet about this publicly. Its only recently he's begun speaking on national media about the topic and his reasonings. Most of the quotes came from his seminars, lectures and small events which the media at large picked up on.

But Rauf going on LKL and directly going to other national media outlets is what many people need to see more of. And others like Rauf in a position of power or influence need to take his lead.

I applaud Rauf. Did I question his motives? Yes. Did I demonize him? No.
 
420Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 12:04
I applaud Rauf. Did I question his motives? Yes. Did I demonize him? No.

the problem is that many do demonize him. look at this board - he's been basically called a terrorist out to destroy america.
 
421bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 12:23
419 asserts Rauf has been very quiet until recently about militant Muslims and terrorism.

A quick check reveals some quotes from him:

"We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." (May 21)

"condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion." (June 23, 2004)

"categorically condemned suicide bombers." (June 8, 2004)

"I can confidently assert that I am closer to my Jewish and Christian brothers here ... than the Muslim militants carrying a narrow view." (Sept 8, 2002)
 
422DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 12:27
"418 - Rauf is a very good example. But, until recently he has been very quiet about this publicly. Its only recently he's begun speaking on national media about the topic and his reasonings."

Rauf himself addresses this in the third paragraph of the op-ed in 399.

Question: before he was thrust into the public eye, how would you have expected him to have a large enough platform to do the things that you seem to expect him to do on the scale that you seem to expect him to do it? It sounds like you want him to make a national address broadcast by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and ESPN: The Ocho -- but the simple fact is that until this controversy was thrust upon him, none of those organizations would have given him the time of day on something like this, because most people really wouldn't give a crap what he had to say about the issue.

Until very recently, he was a local figure, acting locally, and working to improve relations on a local scale. Now that he's a national figure, he actually has a platform to do exactly what you suggest he do -- and he's doing it.

I really don't know what else you think he could have done.
 
423The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 13:01
How often do the moderate and middle of the road Muslims take the time to do this? Thats probably the biggest reason there are such broad brush strokes regarding Muslims. They do not take the time to separate themselves. Perhaps if they would, the broad brush would not be applied as often (or at least not in such a broad fashion).

This is exactly correct Khahan. Look at Germany post World War II and see all the Nazi condemnation everywhere. Where are those visible signs in the arab world?

for starters, i don't even understand the analogy.

I believe you when you say that.
 
424Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 13:21
421/422. You guys are really zeroing in on on trees rather than the forest. Yes, Rauf himself may not have been the best public figure. But he is far FAR from the only Muslim leader in the world. Any muslim in a position of leadership and influence can do what I'm asking and that is the whole point. They aren't. And by staying quiet, in many people's eyes, they are the same as the extremists.

You guys want to zero in specific parts of my post and defend a guy I'm not even attacking. Why don't you zero in on this part:

And others like Rauf in a position of power or influence need to take his lead.


Whether its right or wrong (to paint all Muslims as supporting extremists) is actually irrelevant. What is relevant for many Muslims is that this simply is what is happening. You can complain or attack how its wrong all day long. But that does not change the fact that there is a large portion of the public who views Muslims with a broad brush. It just is that way. And personally I'd rather see people deal with the reality of how things are rather than how they think things should be. It doesn't make people who are broadbrushing them right. But ignoring broadbrushing and believing its wrong doesn't change the fact that it happens.

If Muslims want to be viewed separately from extremists, the onus is on them to make sure that happens. Rauf is starting to do a better job of it. Others need to take his lead.
 
425The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 13:34
The founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy weighs in.
 
426DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 13:56
It would be very good for public relations purposes, and if that's all your saying, I'll go along with that.


But the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of them aren't extremists. And the vast majority of non-Muslims either don't think that most Muslims or extremists, or most probably fall into the "couldn't possibly care less until I have it pounded into my head 32497823 times a day by a news media trying to sell a story of the week" category.

And for the people who REALLY think that Muslims basically ARE all extremists, the people who are whipping up 99.9% of this frenzy, why would you ever expect them to be convinced by the Muslims they already hate? If they think all the Muslims are all Al-Qaeda terrorists trying to infiltrate America just to later blow us up and rape our daughters, no amount of Muslims saying "no, we're not, really" is going to change their minds -- it's very easy to 'explain' things by saying "they're terrorists, they're just lying so they can blow us up and rape our daughters". You've seen that in this thread. You can have a hundred Rauf's standing on the every street corner in every major city in America handing out leaflets and making speeches and running ice cream socials and whatever else you'd want them to do, and it'd all be dismissed as a massive hoax by a few very loud people.

The real change for those people who are driving the hatred needs to come from people that they WILL listen to. Whether those be level headed religious leaders, political leaders, whoever they'll listen to, it's THOSE leaders who know better and are in a position to effect change who need to stand up and say "no, they're not all terrorists. The hate you have towards the 9/11 bombers and people like Bin Laden needs to stay focused and not get spread out over millions and millions of people who have done nothing wrong."

So I turn your question around: why aren't enough prominent Catholic and Protestant and Jewish leaders and senators and congresspeople standing up to their congregations and voters and saying "Hating all Muslims because a couple dozen of them caused 9/11 is wrong, it's hateful, it's against our religion, God doesn't think that way and neither should you, America was not founded on those principles, and the hate needs to stop?"



All of this is really a sidetrack to the main discussion, of course, which is "is it wrong for them to build a place of worship where they are, given that we know we'd allow pretty much any other religion to do it without a hitch"? And the day we start deciding stuff like that by popular vote... well, I don't know, but it's not any place I'd want to live in.
 
427DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 14:04
425-- it's a subscriber only feature, apparently, so I can only read the first two paragraphs or so. However, to summarize what I can read:

First paragraph -- alludes to the "long absence while controversy smoldered" -- which the man himself explained quite easily in the op-ed linked in 399. So, pretty much LOL.

Second paragraph -- They're "clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque's potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11."

Which of course ignores the multitude of Muslim families who lost loved ones on 9/11 (see 403 for one of many examples). As for the political statement -- what political statement are they trying to make? (This may be covered later in the article, but it's not accessible from the posted link.) That they have the right not be discriminated against and hated by people who misunderstand them? That trying to build an interfaith center to reach out and educate and hopefully stamp out some of the hatred is more important than just acceding to other people's misplaced hatred? Is this the political statement that's supposed to be offensive?

I sure hope the rest of the article is better than the first two paragraphs.
 
428Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 14:21
why aren't enough prominent Catholic and Protestant and Jewish leaders and senators and congresspeople standing up to their congregations and voters and saying "Hating all Muslims because a couple dozen of them caused 9/11 is wrong, it's hateful, it's against our religion, God doesn't think that way and neither should you, America was not founded on those principles, and the hate needs to stop?"


Sorry, but I don't think its my responsibility or the responsibility of my congressman, pastor, boss or anybody else to take it upon themselves to defend others in this kind of a case. If a Muslim does not want to be identified with extremists, the onus is on him to separate himself from extremists.

Just like for me, as a conservative white male with a Christian background - the onus is on me to separate myself from the Timothy McVeighs of the world. And I'll proudly stand up and call the guy a whack-job terrorist and condemn what he did.

I just feel a sense of personal responsibility and individualism rather than that of an apologist for somebody elese.
 
429DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 14:38
"If a Muslim does not want to be identified with extremists, the onus is on him to separate himself from extremists."

How??? If you think all Muslims are extremists, are you going to listen to one? Of course not. And if you don't think they're all extremists, then they don't need to convince you.


I don't associate you with the Timothy McVeighs of the world -- but if I did, do you think the conversation would go:

"You're a terrorist."
"No, I'm not."
"Yes you are."
"No, I'm not."
"Oh, okay. Never mind." ????


I'd also wager a very large sum of money that most random Muslims in Saudi Arabia, or New York for that matter, have no knowledge whatsoever of your opinion of Timothy McVeigh, just as you have no knowledge whatsoever of the opinion of pretty much every individual Muslim about the terrorists. Why haven't you done more to reach out to them?


I just really, truly, don't get what you're asking "the Muslims" to do. Be specific. Saying "they need to reach out more" isn't enough here. Who should reach out -- just spiritual leaders, or each and every individual? How should they reach out? Isn't living their lives peacefully among us every single day a pretty good indicator for you?
 
430Boldwin
      ID: 48311016
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 17:31
"If a Muslim does not want to be identified with extremists, the onus is on him to separate himself from extremists."

How???

For the record, Rauf cannot bring himself to condemn Hamas. [a muslim brotherhood spinoff]
 
431DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 18:04
Logically speaking, do you believe that if a person has not explicitly condemned something, that they must therefore support it?
 
432Boldwin
      ID: 48311016
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 18:36
Logically speaking, we may infer that the son of a Muslim Brotherhood radical who had to move out of Egypt when Egypt cracked down on the MB, and who refuses to renounce Hamas which advocates terrorism and the annihilation of Isreal, refuses to renounce Hamas which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, Rauf who blames the USA for 9/11, who refuses to even confirm that 9/11 was purpetrated by Muslims...[On May 7, 2010, Rauf himself stated, “Some people say ... Muslims ... attacked on 9/11]...

...supports Hamas and the aims of Hamas among many other logical inferences.
 
433DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 19:30
You might, though I believe (since we're linking to wiki) you're Begging the Question more than a little. After all, your own second link explicitly states that the Muslim Brotherhood was non-violent: "Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence." (emphasis mine). His father also left the area before the formation of Hamas, right? His father's affiliation with Muslim Brotherhood, but not Hamas, would seem to support the likelihood of a non-violent approach, not reduce it. Now, if you'd like to present other evidence to refute your first evidence, you're welcome to do so.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant, because you're Denying the Antecedent anyway, yet again, by saying that because Rauf hasn't explicitly condemned Hamas, that he must therefore support them. That simply isn't true. It simply means that, for whatever reason, he hasn't explicitly condemned Hamas.

As to you last quotation, why all those ellipses? Can you provide the full quote, preferably with attribution? Even leaving out a single word there ("Some people believe THE Muslims attacked on 9/11" would dramatically change the sentence itself). Not to suggest that you would ever deliberately be Poisoning the Well, but, yeah, you're poisoning the well.
 
434Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 20:05
i like how post 432 is mostly fiction, complete with quotes with no source.
 
435Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 20:26
...supports Hamas and the aims of Hamas among many other logical inferences

That's not a logical inference. It's an opinion of someone who has shown a total disregard for accepting facts that don't coincide with the character assassination that was predetermined.

 
436Boldwin
      ID: 48311016
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 20:33
On that point I would certainly dispute with the Council on Foreign Relations. They were not kicked out of Egypt because of their non-violence and their re-emergence in Egypt has been quite bloody.
 
437Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:02
Here's what can be logically inferred.

Rauf has never condemned Hamas. He has never condemned Israel. He has never condemned Turkey or the PKK.

The inference, in Rauf's own words when asked about Hamas,

“Look, I’m not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”

And he’s exactly right. The State Dept. list of “terrorist groups” is a highly politicized grouping. “Terrorism,” in mainstream parlance, has no real meaning besides armed struggle against the West and Israel. If you support the U.S. or Israel, you’re not a terrorist.

The PKK is on the State Dept. list of terrorist groups, even though the nation of Turkey, a US ally, has for decades terrorized its Kurdish population.

But Rauf has condemned suicide bombing and killing of civilians. What good would it do for someone who is trying to build bridges between groups by condemning them? He condemns the radical tactics employed by Hamas, but that's not enough for those intent on character assassination. The logic here is clear. One can only conclude that the level of Islamophobia is so acute as to throw all logic out the window.
 
438Boldwin
      ID: 48311016
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:23
The Muslim Brotherhood is definitely the wellspring of modern terrorism.
Nevertheless, the Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan Al Muslimun in Arabic, is frequently mentioned in relation to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. And, although today they may be best known as the largest independent bloc in the Egyptian parliament, they are nearly always invoked as the origins for extremist visions of Islam that root today's jihadist movements.

Founded In: 1928 by Hassan Al Banna
Bin Laden himself was created ideologically by the MB.
Osama Bin Laden's belief that violent attack on both Middle Eastern and Western targets is a legitimate political route stems from both his early influences and his own experience.

Bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood: Bin Laden grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, a period of great turmoil throughout the Middle East. Raised in a strict Islamic environment (like most of his peers), bin Laden was exposed at school to the ideas of his Muslim Brotherhood teachers. The Muslim Brotherhood, often considered the forerunner to contemporary Islamist terrorist groups, was founded in Egypt in the late 1920s, when Egypt was under British occupation. The group saw Islamic rule as necessary to counter Western influence. They advocated violence to achieve Egyptian independence.

Bin Laden paid attention to Muslim Brotherhood members in after-school sessions. In these sessions, they taught Islam both as a religion and as a political system that could be achieved through violence. By most accounts, bin Laden was a serious, studious youth who increasingly turned to religious ideas and texts in his teens, but there are no satisfactory explanations for his turn to unwavering extremism.
Osama Bin Laden is in fact more accurately described as Muslim Brotherhood, than Wahabi
...Osama Bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda is not considered to be a true follower of Wahhabi Islam. However, he was nurtured in the Wahhabi tradition and in fact developed a somewhat independent theology that is not totally inconsistent apparently, with its tenets, based on the ideas of Hassan Al-Banna [founder of the MB - B]
As Sinn Fein is to the IRA, so they are to world-wide Islamism. A pretense of an arm's length relationship to terrorism in order to advance politically, the goals of their many military arms.
 
439Mith
      ID: 1585036
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:26
Look at the obvious desperation of this Bible thumper to see the name of his fellow human being destroyed. He fundamentally rejects any possibility that Rauf's outreach might be earnest. So he'll pass on every unsavory tidbit he finds on the internet, every last unsourced claim or dubious accusation with no regard for factuality, whatsoever.

Imagine what a nightmare it must be to wind up a target of the right's character assassination apparatus.

From the same people who were outraged that the liberal media did not treat an anonymous vice presidential candidate dumped on them 9 weeks shy of the election as if she were a crystal sculpture of a pitbull with lipstick.

If you're on the left, you're demonized as a terrorism supporter/appeaser or a Marxist for every sentence they bother take out of context and for every bugaboo that you don't happen to explicitly condemn. That's what you get more hours than not on FNC, whether you're Rauf, the president or almost any Democrat.

If you're on the right, and they really pick on you, those liberal bastards will ask you what magazines you read and maybe tell a tasteless joke about your daughter.
 
440Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:28
What a waste of time. The only connection you've made between Rauf and the Muslim Brotherhood is his father.

You've dug a hole so deep in this thread with your accusations, innuendo and slander that, instead of withdrawing into any sort of logical debate, you just continue to throw out shit to see if it sticks.

It's an ego problem.
 
441Boldwin
      ID: 48311016
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:47
What good would it do for someone who is trying to build bridges between groups - PV

So here you have, you know, a center that was going to be interfaith, that was going to have Jews and Christians on the board, that was going to have Jewish prayer room, Christian prayer room, interfaith dialogue. - Rauf in infidel company

This phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied. - For Arabic audience

Note the 'one way' sign on the bridge and don't buy it.
 
442Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:56
don't buy it.

How shocking! An admitted Islamophobe ignores all evidence for a disputed Arab translation by a fellow Islamophobe.

So where's the Rauf/Muslim Brotherhood connection?

 
443DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 22:41
Duh, they're both Muslims, which means they're all the same, dude, it's right there IN THE NAME, don't you get it?
 
444Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Sat, Sep 11, 2010, 19:47
Just so nobody forgets.

A few photos of that fateful day 9 years ago. The date lives vividly in my mind. Where I was, what I was doing, what was going thru my mind. When I first heard I was at work and immediately did a search for the live feed of the video mounted high up on the towers. Nothing. Nothing came through.

Word spread quickly. Our office manager called a meeting and everybody was told what happened (though most of us had heard). She set up a tv in a meeting room and turned on the news and gave peple free leave to sit and watch. I did for about 15 mins then was told I had a phone call. It was my brother. My dad was in Manhatten that day and nobody could get hold of him.


I went home. Later that night after worrying my heart out over my dad, he finally got thru to my mom that he was ok. He had been in a hospital at the other end of the island when the planes hit. He said the air was so thick with dust people couldn't breathe and even a mile away he was picking up letterhead with the trade towers address stamped on it from various companies housed there.

It took him 3 days to get out of NYC.
 
445Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 03:02
NYT
Opponents of the Park51 project say the presence of a Muslim center dishonors the victims of the Islamic extremists who flew two jets into the towers. Yet not only were Muslims peacefully worshiping in the twin towers long before the attacks, but even after the 1993 bombing of one tower by a Muslim radical, Ramzi Yousef, their religious observance generated no opposition.

 
446Boldwin
      ID: 4289140
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 03:52
Neither of which constituted building a victory monument over a muslim attack on America.
 
447DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 10:01
And neither does this, so if that was your objection, thanks for changing your mind.
 
448Boldwin
      ID: 4289140
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 10:38
In case you are counting, LB, that's about 3 or 4 ignores.
 
449Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 11:06
building a victory monument over a muslim attack on America.

Congratulations for this contribution in dumbing down America. It ranks right up there with 'killing granny'. Actually it's much worse, since it's only goal is to promote hatred against a segment of humanity.

You want a real example of a victory monument? How about the billion dollar US embassy in Baghdad, the largest, most expensive spy center in the world, right in the heart of the Muslim world?

And if you and your handlers are so worried about Muslims and their goals for world domination, where is the protest over record 60 billion dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia?

I realize being useful idiots for the military industrial complex trumps manufactured outrage on what is really a non-issue in New York, so it's not suprising there's not one peep of protest to this deal.
 
450Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 11:14
Some Islamist monument, allowing for the worship of infidel gods right within the structure, female employees and even an indoor swimming pool open to women.

It's going to be the most disappointing and pathetic monument to Islam that the hardline Sharia enforcers (which is how you characterize every Muslim cleric) ever saw.

I thought the goal was to force hardline Sharia on the west. Diluting Islam with tolerance of western culture would seem like the opposite of of the goals of Islamism.

Clearly there are people on both sides who have no interest in the spread of mutual tolerance and push the idea of a cultural war because they prefer that conflict to harmony. Boldwin looks more and more like he fits that description every day.

It's one thing to simply not trust someone. It's a whole other entirely unChristian thing to publicly espouse and exagerate every last baseless rumor with no concern for factual accuracy.
 
451Boldwin
      ID: 4289140
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 11:43
I repeat my question to you, MITH. Were you planning on worshipping there? I cannot imagine a sincere christian doing so.
 
452Boldwin
      ID: 4289140
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 12:00
And the namesake Cordoba House wasn't about interfaith sweetness and light either. Get a clue.
 
453Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 12:11
Boldy

I thought it was just a very a weak rhetorical point. Its probably been a long time since it's come up but I've never been shy about noting that I'm agnostic. So I don't "worship".

But if I did and the facilities there suited the requirements of whatever my faith would be in that case, there isn't any reason why I wouldn't.

Side note, I have an interview in a few hours just 7 or 8 blocks north of the project. So I could conceivably find myself using some of their facilities, depending on what they have to offer.
 
454DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 12:11
You know, just because you keep repeating "the sky is not blue" over and over doesn't mean it isn't.

I guess you can now go for the passive aggressive "hey, I'm going to ignore you again, because I don't have anything witty to say" response now.
 
455The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 12:31
And if you and your handlers are so worried about Muslims and their goals for world domination, where is the protest over record 60 billion dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia?

And WHEN the Iranians have the bomb and march across the Middle East just how and who would you like to oppose them? Another endless war for the United States as world police again I suppose. These countries should be fending for themselves and kudos to the Saudis for not wanting to be doormats for Iran.
 
456Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 12:48
Saudi Arabia, being mostly Wahabbi, would never be "doormats" for Iran, which is mosly Shi'ite.
 
457The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 12:51
Not willingly.
 
458Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 13:18
Neither would Iran, by all observations, be attacking other middle eastern countries. They've never had expansionist or empire-building tendencies for many generations now.

That's not to say they should get the bomb. But US fearmongering has been demonstrated as being counterproductive (at best) within the last ten years. Do we lack the ability to learn from our mistakes?
 
459The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 13:27
Where the conversation originated Perm Dude is that biliruben tried to pursue an issue about the lack of opposition to the Saudi arms deal Obama announced. Saudi Arabia should be able to defend itself so that we do not have to be all over the world. Iran is building the bomb to solve the Israel "problem" as Boldwin has pointed out many times here. This naturally makes everyone nervous.
 
460biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 13:43
Pancho, not me.

I can't take credit for that devastating post.
 
461Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 13:51


So, to review:

We oppose a Muslim cultural center in New York which opens its doors to all faiths because it's a front for Muslim plans for world domination.

We favor selling weapons of mass destruction to Muslims because it helps Israel defend itself against other Muslims.

We do this even though Israel has its own weapons of mass destruction which dwarf all other states in the region put together.
 
463Boldwin
      ID: 4289140
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 16:53
PV#449

Weren't you the one who took it on faith that if Bush appointed Rauf, then he must be a moderate we can trust?

But Bush/Obama working with the Saudis royalty has you all worked up?

I'm not saying I can wrap my mind around pretending the Saudis are in any way trustworthy either but I'm just looking at your logic...
 
464Boldwin
      ID: 4289140
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 17:02
Just a curious fact...if politics is the art of the possible, how much credit do you have to give a family that can stay in power for decades while keeping both the world's most consistently radical imams reasonably happy, and maintaining high profile good relations with 'the great satan' at the same time?

Truly mind-boggling, in fact they are in some cases the Bush family financial backers and in all cases the financiers of radical Wahabi militant Islamism.
 
465Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 18:55
I cannot imagine a sincere christian doing so.

there is a nearly endless list of things you have said on these boards that a sincere Christian couldn't imagine another sincere Christian saying.

btw, nice avoidance on the meat of post 450.
 
466Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 21:36
But Bush/Obama working with the Saudis royalty has you all worked up?

I'm not worked up. I used that as an example of how inconsistent you and your heroes are when it comes to the issue of Islam. I don't expect you or Left Behind to be outraged by this arms deal because you haven't been told by your handlers to be outraged yet, and probably won't be.

As for Bush and the Saudis, or Obama, the Saudis and this arms deal, it's called economics. Saudi royalty are far more interested in continuing to fill their pockets with western cash than they are in praising Allah, and those of us in the west are far more interested in keeping a cheap supply of oil flowing globally than concentrating on Arab transgressions(unless they threaten not to sell us oil).





 
467Boldwin
      ID: 57852158
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 10:17
A very nuanced and well argued discussion between Jews who know Rauf better than we do, one hoping for the best, one expecting the worst.

That Rauf is clever. There is no getting around that.
 
468Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 10:22
clever

Funny, given some of his PR-killing public statements recently, I've come to think the opposite, at least with regard to communicating with the public.
 
469Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 10:25
Jews who know Rauf better than we do

what does their religion have to do with anything? because they're jewish, some how they have more insight?
 
470Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 10:55
#467

So you've gone from claiming Rauf is a militant take over the world Muslim intimately connected with the most violent factions of Islam to a nuanced and well argued discussion?

I suppose that's the closest we'll ever get to you admitting how completely dishonest you've been in this thread.
 
471Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 11:24
37 posts on the anthrax attacks, 470 posts on this meaningless nonsense.
 
472boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 11:30
lets make 472 posts...agreed.
 
473Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 12:01
There have been far more than 37 posts. Go to the deleted threads page and run a search for page text containing anthrax. Two pages of results.
 
474Boldwin
      ID: 57852158
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 13:02
PV

No, he's just a very very slick Islamist. He can fool people far more clever than the average poliboard regular. He will alternate between intimidation and promises to behave and protestations of good intent without blinking, or acknowleging the contradiction. He will play on your fears and hopes until you start lying for him. The man is a front man for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood who will tell you what you want to hear as long as you don't look at the fine print, like asking him to act on his peaceful words and renounce Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, murdering apostates, the goal of world-wide sharia for Muslims and slavery or death for everyone else.

As well he is a leader in building momentum for that world-wide takeover. This guy is to mobilizing muslims as the early sixties radicals were to building momentum for a 'progressive' takeover of America. He doesn't need every last muslim to be slitting throats to achieve his aim.
 
475Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 13:07
Thank you, Boldwin, for enlightening me as to Rauf's true aims. I still don't care what he builds on that property in Manhattan.
 
476Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 13:30
Those are random posts that happen to contain the word anthrax somewhere in the entire thread. In fact, this thread showed up. You guys knock yourselves out, though.
 
477Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 13:32
I'd bet 75% of those threads contain some discussion about the mailings.

 
478Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 18:35
speaking of someone who's religion apparently allows for deeper insight and a more thorough understanding into Rauf's actions and what he is actually thinking at any given moment, post 474 is completely off base.

my people have decreed it to be nothing more than some fairly off kilter ramblings.
 
479Boldwin
      ID: 288321621
      Thu, Sep 16, 2010, 22:45
'My people' meaning the religion which dares not speak it's name?
 
480tree on the evo
      ID: 4251457
      Thu, Sep 16, 2010, 23:07
Just because you're an anti semite doesn't erase the fact ive mentioned my religion numerous times..
 
481Boldwin
      ID: 288321621
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 01:17
Yet strangely you can't mention it now.
 
482sarge33rd
      ID: 47847175
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 06:47
maybe, because it is not relevant to the discussion? And btw, I'm STILL not a Mason.
 
483Boldwin
      ID: 288321621
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 08:34
Have I not always called you a 33'rd degree NON-mason?
 
485The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 09:31
How is 484 within the civility policy?
 
487Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 09:49
Their whole discussion isn't.

Why do you only call out the trnsgressions of people you disagree politically with?

Or do you think repeated demands that Tree publicly divulge his religion is civil discourse?

Of course, 485 is also a violation of the civility policy since it requires that you email a moderator about the issue rather than exploit the policy to single out people you politically disagree with.
 
488The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 11:38
Why do you only come to Tree's defense? I am ceasing responding to any of your "stop beating your wife" type comments. I will not permit you to distract from the factual point that 484 does not belong here.

 
491DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 12:29
Nor do any of 479-481 and 483-485, for that matter. Unless we're completely comfortable turning this into "yeah, well, what religion are YOU, fool" kindergarten crap, especially when it's completely irrelevant to anything.

The fact that I of all people have to try to be the voice of reason on this should really scare the crap out of everyone and make it obvious how silly this is.
 
492Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 12:29
I'll just note that nothing in post 487 is stated in defense of Tree.
 
493tree on the evo
      ID: 4251457
      Fri, Sep 17, 2010, 13:19
488 - you really should pay more attention....Mith is probably my biggest critic on these boards...

His point was not only questioning how my personal religious beliefs are relative, but also the peristent badgering of me on those beliefs....
 
494Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 00:36
Mosque plans released. In the description of what will be in the building there is no mention of a prayer or worship center for any other religion.

Now that they are approved and moving forward prayer rooms for other religions are out. I think a review of my posting history shows I'm not that usually reads into things or jumps to conclusions. But its tough not to read into that.

Of course the article could be slanted against this project...but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
 
495Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 00:37
I didn't realize that there was a belief that there would be worship space for other religions.
 
496Frick
      ID: 42825248
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 08:35
If you call it a worship center, I can see that being interpreted as open to all religions.
 
497Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 08:49
There was a proposal to include prayer space for other faiths. I don't know whether it was in the original proposal or if it was made to appease detractors. But any opponents that I saw comment on it didn't seem to care in the least, tho I'm sure it's omission would be another terrific opportunity for their selective outrage to lash out again.

But Khahan, the linked Yahoo article is not about any set of complete building "plans". Those are simply renderings - all of three of them - of what some of the space will look like. One exterior rendering and two interior. The "design plans" that the article reports professional bigot Pam Geller and others reacting too are simply what they are calling these three images.

Not including mention of that room in an article like that doesn't make the piece 'slanted'. It's just an article to show the interesting-looking photos and how some people involved in the controversy have reacted to them.

I have no idea whether a complete floor-by-floor blueprint has been released, but that isn't close to what this article was about. Further, if you go to the Park51 website (the home page of which was linked at the Yahoo article) and check the "Facilities" page, here's what it says:
Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities:

•outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
•a 500-seat auditorium
•a restaurant and culinary school
•cultural amenities including exhibitions
•education programs
•a library, reading room and art studios
•childcare services
•a prayer space, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
•a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all
 
498Mith
      ID: 4982142
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 09:03
Khahan
I think a review of my posting history shows I'm not that usually reads into things or jumps to conclusions.

I'm sorry to put you on the spot here, but with all due respect, a quick read through your contributions in the first 100 posts of this thread suggests that you do sometimes have that tendency, as does #494 in my opinion.
 
499Boldwin
      ID: 329169
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 10:02
When they aren't in the 'conversion-by-the-sword' mode, sometimes they are happy to allow non-muslim 'people of the book' to worship as long as they recognize an inferior position to Islam. And why else would a non-muslim worship there?

Why 'non-muslim worship space' there impresses liberals can only be explained as coming from people who cannot imagine worshipping anyway.
 
500Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 10:08
...in case anyone wondered about the validity of the 3rd sntence in #497.
 
501Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 11:26
Why 'non-muslim worship space' there impresses liberals can only be explained as coming from people who cannot imagine worshipping anyway.

the fact that you seem to think all liberals are non-worshippers speak volumes to your problems. not surprisingly, your posts on here - if they reflect your real life beliefs and attutides - are about the least pious of any poster on this forum.
 
502The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 12:10
When they aren't in the 'conversion-by-the-sword' mode, sometimes they are happy to allow non-muslim 'people of the book' to worship as long as they recognize an inferior position to Islam. And why else would a non-muslim worship there?

They of course would not Boldwin. It is like being surprised that a black person would not eat at a diner with a confederate flag and a picture of Nathan Bedford Forest up on the door. But the Democrats believe this imam has adequately checked the box of multiculturalism.
 
503Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 12:33
Let's say it's not multicultural. Why do you care?
 
504The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 12:54
The scarier question is why do you not care that islam is building a monument within distance of Ground Zero?
 
505Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 13:15
Because I'm American. And because it's not a "monument". And everything is "within distance of Ground Zero." Two blocks is an arbitrary distance made up by those who the bigoted morons who blame all 1.5 billion Muslims for the actions of two dozen people.
 
506Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 13:24
TLB - are you really scared that there are Americans who believe in letting land owners build a religious community center that is appropriate for the neighborhood it is located? Perhaps you might tone down the "scared" rhetoric.
 
507Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 13:29
The scarier question is why do you not care that islam is building a monument within distance of Ground Zero?

well, it's not a monument, and what in NYC isn't within distance of Ground Zero. if this was four blocks away instead of two, would it matter to you? six? eight? 10?

ya know what is significantly more disconcerting?

the fact that nearly a decade later, things like money and who's gonna make it are holding up any sort of building on the actual ground zero site, be it for business, culture, or some combination there of.
 
508DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 14:32
"The scarier question is why do you not care that islam is building a monument within distance of Ground Zero?"

Did they change the plans again? I'm not sure it's zoned properly for a giant gold statue.

Also, as if it's not obvious, "Islam" isn't doing this, any more than "Islam" sent a plane into the World Trade Center, or "Catholicism" blew up a bunch of abortion clinics, or "the conservatives" killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
 
509Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 14:55
the fact that nearly a decade later, things like money and who's gonna make it are holding up any sort of building on the actual ground zero site, be it for business, culture, or some combination there of.

I totally agree with this statement. I think it is more of a shame that nothing has been done on this site. Plus it is also a shame that there isnt a memorial already built in the PA. crash site. Though I am against the mosque, t'he above mention are more disturbing. Nice post Tree.
 
510Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 15:34
It's not the actual GZ site. It was a discount clothing franchise store.
 
511Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 15:35
My bad, I misunderstood the post.
 
512Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 16:02
It was a discount clothing franchise store

Century 21?? damnit, they're not rebuilding?? WTF.
 
513Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 16:25
FTR, there is actual construction taking place at the site now.
 
514Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 17:05
memorial already built in the PA

There is a memorial being built as we speak to commemorate the 10th anniversary.

Of course its my understanding that emminent domain played a role in the land acquisition, but thats a whole different thread.

And even that memorial is not without critism as some against it say the design is one that puts symbols of Islam at the forefront.
 
515Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 10:54
Hate toward Muslims in the US??? NEVER!


A Muslim boy says four bullies made his life a living hell in the halls of a Staten Island public school, calling him a "terrorist" and beating him every chance they got...

..."[They] punched me in my groin, and I fell to the floor. They started kicking me, and calling me 'You f---in' terrorist,' 'You f---in' Muslim,'" the victim, Kristian, told the Daily News.
 
516sarge33rd
      ID: 47847175
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 11:10
"Freedom of Religion"...


my ass.

Only provided the religion you wish the freedom to practice, is the one we tell you to practice.

Can anyone TRULY deny that this is the predominant truthful view held by the vocal right wing-nuts?
 
517DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 11:29
No, but they figure that if they scream loud enough and call everyone else terrorists everyone will just sort of listen to them.
 
518Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 12:12
I find judging each person on the content of their own individual character is the way to go.
 
519Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 12:14
You guys are the ones who believe in class warfare.
 
520DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 12:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgAA-sGG_pk
 
521Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:39
Oh, lots of irony to go around. Liberals being 180 degrees from the truth guarantees that.
 
522Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:43
"True Christians are careful to maintain neutrality by avoiding political debates."

From The Watchtower (April 8, 2005).

With all due respect, when will you start following this precept of your church, Baldwin? I get it--you hate "liberals." But which master will you be choosing: Your God, or ongoing political debate? Since you know not the hour of the first Master's return, you should probably choose soonish...
 
523Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:45
For example nothing like being lectured about separation of church and state from liberals who would steal a kid from a religious family in order to force feed him John Dewey's religion.
 
524Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:46
Hey, it isn't my church that tells me to refrain from the things you do here. Its your soul, not mine.
 
525biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:48
I am calling a low-blow.

Baldwin has never claimed he is without sin. Hypocracy isn't the worst sin either.
 
526Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:49
I can quit anytime I want...it just doesn't take.
 
527Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:52
True, true. I suppose a best-case scenario would be to reduce the "I know what God wants" attitude that undergirds most of his posts on the topic. I do think it needs to point out that merely posting as he does is both hypocritical and ironic.
 
528DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:56
Meh, when you approve of spousal abuse and sling generalized insults and go directly against your church's teachings while pretending that religion is more important than the Constitution in running America, you pretty much have it all coming.
 
529Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 13:56
I did manage to quit Salon Table Talk once, but then Dave had to go and start this one.

Tracking current events with Bible prophecy way too closely. I should apply my philosophy of following the weather forcast to politics. It's going to happen exactly the same whether you know the forcast or not.
 
530Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:04
In my defense:

I've been very clear that they are all part of satan's government.

I've been more concerned with helping people retain and regain faith and godly principles in the face of a secular humanist huricane than in whether the trotskyite neocons or the stalinist liberals take their turn selling us out to the devil.
 
531DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:13
If you were doing that, instead of what you've been actually doing, you'd still be wrong, but you'd be a more sympathetic sort of wrong.

How are you helping people retain and regain faith and godly principles when you yourself decide to pick and choose which ones to follow when it's convenient to do so?
 
532Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:26
Well I'll just say that people who actually listen to what I say, disconnect from the political system, stop voting, don't go to war, extend themselves to help people of all sorts.

I can show you people in my everyday life to prove that is true. Guys who used to be very worked up politically, now taking sides with none of them and no longer voting. I am thinking of one in particular I work with who hasn't yet become a Witness, but he has dropped out of the political system. He used to get red in the face about it and spitting mad.
 
533Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:31
I've been more concerned with helping people retain and regain faith and godly principles..

no, no you haven't, unless name calling, trolling, and being generally nasty toward those who believe differently than you is part of your technique.
 
534DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:45
So, basically, the people you have helped have become nothing like what you currently are?

The words "physician, heal thyself" spring to mind.
 
535Boldwin
      ID: 519331116
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:49
I'm just curious how you two decided to devote your lives to hounding one man?

There was nothing more pressing in your to-do list over the last half decade?
 
536DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 14:58
In fighting evil, you have to start somewhere, am I right? I'm just trying to put misguided souls like you back onto godly principles in the face of zealots who pervert God's teachings into hatred for their own twisted purposes.
 
537sarge33rd
      ID: 47847175
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 15:53
I find judging each person on the content of their own individual character is the way to go.

from 518 above:


Unless that "person" is a self proclaimed;

a) liberal
b) homosexual
c) atheist
d) Democrat
e) etc etc etc
 
538Boldwin
      ID: 79481219
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 20:58
You are being intellectually dishonest. You cannot post on a political forum without generalization. You think MLK never made a generalization about Americans? Which doesn't take away from a person's ability to assign each individual the potential to rise above whatever trait you are discussing.

 
539Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 21:16
You cannot post on a political forum without generalization.

Speak for yourself, please.
 
540Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 21:32
You are being intellectually dishonest

Wow, were you looking in the mirror when you said that? You have no respect for individuals, which is why you called me a raving socialist the other day. Not because you have any evidence that I am, only because you typecast anyone who dares challenge your steady stream of BS into a category which you feel you can villify.

Lacking respect for the individual is the main reason you're such a piss poor representative for conservatism.
 
541Boldwin
      ID: 79481219
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 22:19
Let's see, where can I count on you for your putative independent streak?

Will you be helping me expose the euthanasia agenda of the Hastings center?

Will you be for stopping my tax dollars from aborting babies?

Will you provide any resistance to state run kidnapping?

Will you insist kids no longer receive secular humanism indoctrination in public schools and be allowed to homeschool in order to avoid it?

Will you help make sure felons from Acorn no longer show up at my door with a 20 page census proctology exam [even asking what time my house is unoccupied] complete with $5000 fine if I refuse?

If you, PV, provide the slightest speedbump to the growing Orwellian assault on the individual, I would love to know what category I will should keep an eye on to glimpse that rare beast.
 
542bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 22:37
You should also ask him if he is willing to stop beating his wife.

Or, is this something that is just not important to you?
 
543Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:03
#541
What do your pet causes have to do with me being a "raving socialist?"

And how many people here were victims of felons from Acorn showing up at their door with a 20 page census proctology exam [even asking what time their house is unoccupied] complete with $5000 fine if they refuse?

Another piss poor example of conservative representation - obsessive victimology.

And for the record, when the entire community of kids was taken from the Texas Mormons, based on a a hoax, I was quite demonstrative in my protests. Further, I have personally been in court and instructed that I could no longer have my daughter's mother babysit her while I worked because of her meth addiction if I wanted to keep custody. I discussed this at length several years ago. The only reason you can't find a putative independent streak is because you're too consumed with your abyss of negativity.

 
544Boldwin
      ID: 79481219
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:12
What do your pet causes have to do with me being a "raving socialist?"

Because they are all parts of the globalist/socialist agenda.

And how many people here were victims of felons from Acorn showing up at their door with a 20 page census proctology exam [even asking what time their house is unoccupied] complete with $5000 fine if they refuse?

A significant fraction got the enhanced version.

Another piss poor example of conservative representation - obsessive victimology.

Which part should I take silently? Being killed by the state? Losing my privacy? Losing my kids?

And for the record, when the entire community of kids was taken from the Texas Mormons, based on a a hoax, I was quite demonstrative in my protests.

I just don't remember much in the way of your support. No joy at all. I'll read the threads again in hopes of feeling the love.
 
545Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:20
Don't bother.

 
546Boldwin
      ID: 79481219
      Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 23:35
Lol. And that was your one counter-example.
 
547Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 01:05
expose the euthanasia agenda of the Hastings center...

stopping my tax dollars from aborting babies...

resistance to state run kidnapping...

insist kids no longer receive secular humanism indoctrination in public schools...

make sure felons from Acorn no longer show up at my door with a 20 page census proctology exam complete with $5000 fine if I refuse?

provide the slightest speedbump to the growing Orwellian assault on the individual...

Because they are all parts of the globalist/socialist agenda.


quite frankly, they seem part of the stark-raving mad loon agenda. nothing personal, but reading all those things together would make me legitimately feel like the person believing all that has more in common with someone like ted kaczynski than most of humanity...

it just doesn't even seem like rational thought.
 
548Boldwin
      ID: 79481219
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 01:16
Strange days. In these times.
 
549Boldwin
      ID: 79481219
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 01:19
But which doesn't exist? Planned parenthood government subsidies? The DCFS? Acorn? Secular bias in schools?
 
550Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 10:08
But which doesn't exist? Planned parenthood government subsidies? The DCFS? Acorn? Secular bias in schools?

Where, on these pages, is it established that I'm a raving supporter of this list?

Honest people usually gather their facts prior to making accusations, but you're so comfortable with your dishonesty that you actual LOL about it.(#546)
 
551Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 10:26
Still waiting for your first counter-example. I remember seeing a few, but so long ago they are not in living memory.
 
552Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 10:30
PV, c'mon. You have become almost more Johnny-on-the-spot reflexively against anything I say than the troll twins and twice as prolix.

Show me the independent streak because I miss the old PV.
 
553Tree, not at home
      ID: 18342816
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 10:31
Still waiting for your first counter-example.

prove your innocence!

in Baldwin's world, you are guilty until you prove you're innocent.
 
554Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 10:34
He obviously is more able to remember the last time he agreed with my position than I am. Because I can't remember one time in two years.
 
555DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 10:57
"in Baldwin's world, you are guilty until you prove you're innocent."

Unless you're a member of the right religion, in which case you're innocent after proven guilty.
 
556Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 11:14
Still waiting for your first counter-example

I gave you a counter example regarding your list(Texas Mormons and personal dealings with child services), which you chose to ignore and has little to do with being a socialist anyway.

In the past week or so, I posted a protest to an Indiana union closing down a car factory rather than accept concessions. I protested continued unemployment benefits beyond the original time frame. I protested food stamps and other welfare provisions in the stimulus bill. I protested social security benefits given willy nilly to spouses and children of deceased way prior to retirement age. I have consistently pointed out that the war on poverty has contributed to a decrease in the work ethic among the poor in this country, one of the main elements in illegal workers being desired by employers.
I am a private business owner and capitalist who actually provides jobs, invests in the stock market, pays taxes on dividends, and property taxes for public schools my kids attend which are heavily religious biased.

It is you who haven't provided one iota of evidence to support your claim that I'm a raving socialist. You ought to man up and just admit that your knee jerk characterization has no basis.

There are no "you guys" on this board. There are a collection of individuals with varying opinions and positions. I would be personally more apt to respond in less caustic terms if we used that as a starting point.



 
557Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 11:32
I gave you a counter example regarding your list(Texas Mormons and personal dealings with child services), which you chose to ignore - PV

When I said I would have to go check that out because that was not the way I remembered it you said, "Forget it". Thus retracting the claim.
 
558Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 11:39
PV

There are two issues I have put the bell on the cat over.

The war against God and the war against the individual.

Again I am looking for any sign that anyone recognizes the imminent danger that they are in of living in the world George Orwell warned us was coming.

The reason that these are socialist issues is that the coming global dictatorship is the socialist unfettered war against God and the individual's right to even think his own thots, let alone hold onto his faith.
 
559biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 11:44
Those wars only exist in your overactive imagination. Saying that the only way you will be happy is for others to join you in your delusion is not the way to successful discourse.

The analogy would be for a Marxist to come on the board and insist we all agree that capitalism is slavery.
 
560Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 12:28
bili

Right now on the drawing boards of GOALS2000 documents and in administrative offices, children are being set up to monitor in great detail the views of their parents and report them to social workers in the school.

What will a world like that mean for the privacy of your own home, fearful self-censorship, and how is that not a war against the individual who dares think and develop a non-PC thot?

Just another typical example of sneering. It doesn't help you see the iceberg coming and it doesn't make the sinking ship any drier.
 
561Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 12:46
It also doesn't help if you are in Saudia Arabia, for instance, yet keep popping up with iceburg warnings.

GOALS2000 had a stated end date of 2000. The organization which put it together was dissolved some years before. I don't know what "drawing board" you are referring to, but it doesn't actually exist anymore, if ever.
 
562Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 12:56
It's been snowballing since the 70's and no, they had no intention of reaching the goal of collecting massive social monitoring and then dropping the practice in the year 2000. It just keeps snowballing.

 
563The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:03
Does anybody here think a one world government is a good idea?
 
564Boldwin
      ID: 40945137
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:13
Sarge sure does.
 
565The Left Behind
      ID: 66232012
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:23
Liberals indirectly support that very concept whether they realize it or not. The evolution and tenants of their ideology almost demands it.
 
566Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:29
Depends upon your definition of "liberals," I suppose.

The problem isn't identifying what small subsets of the fringes want. The problem is that the goals of those subsets keep getting applied incorrectly to those far outside those groups.
 
567Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 21:21
The Great Islamophobic Campaign
 
568Boldwin
      ID: 3403436
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 07:37
That from the son of Sid Vicious Bloomenthal. A guy hysterical about 'violent Israeli settlers living on Palestinian lands' is gonna lecture us about mischaracterizing of religions.

This guy's guiding light is psychologists Erich Fromm, whose explanation of conservatives is that the fear of freedom propels anxiety-ridden people into authoritarian settings. So basically everything this guy says is an exercize in calling white black and black white.

Altho he is a pefect case study for a@@backwards liberalism and how they get their perceptions exactly wrong...he isn't going to educate anyone.
 
569Tree, not at home
      ID: 4704337
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 08:43
That from the son of Sid Vicious Bloomenthal. A guy hysterical about 'violent Israeli settlers living on Palestinian lands' is gonna lecture us about mischaracterizing of religions.

you posting this is unintentional hilarity.

while i'm not fond of his anti-Israel stance, it doesn't render all his work irrelevant. i suppose you'd find him more palatable if he committed felonies while doing his job.
 
570Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 10:19
Altho he is a pefect case study for a@@backwards liberalism and how they get their perceptions exactly wrong...he isn't going to educate anyone.

He isn't going to educate someone who is virulently Islamophobic, as well as someone so arrogant as to think they speak for anyone besides themself.
But if basically everything this guy says is an exercize in calling white black and black white, then explain how that analysis fits this passage:

Claiming that non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature", Shapira cited rabbinical texts to declare that gentiles could be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations". "There is justification," the rabbi proclaimed, "for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

In 2006, the rabbi was briefly held by Israeli police for urging his supporters to murder all Palestinians over the age of 13. Two years later, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, he signed a rabbinical letter in support of Israeli Jews who had brutally assaulted two Arab youths on the country's Holocaust Remembrance Day. That same year, Shapira was arrested as a suspect in helping orchestrate a rocket attack against a Palestinian village near Nablus.

Though he was not charged, his name came up again in connection with another act of terror when, in January 2010, the Israeli police raided his settlement seeking vandals who had set fire to a nearby mosque. One of Shapira's followers, an American immigrant, Jack Teitel, has confessed to murdering two innocent Palestinians and attempting to the kill the liberal Israeli historian Ze'ev Sternhell with a mail bomb.


Denying that there are radical and evil elements on both sides of this issue is an exercize in calling white black and black white. Supporting a philosophy that "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults" is an exercize in calling white black and black white. Failure to acknowledge that there is a large and influential network pouring billions of dollars into the promotion of Islamophobia is an exercize in calling white black and black white.















 
571Tree
      ID: 2010312116
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 13:41
great post, PV.
 
572Boldwin
      ID: 27049317
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 19:10
1) If there was a legitimate equivalence that rabbi would be actually in the power structure of Isreal, as people of that mindset are among the Palestinian.

2) Then you would still need to explain why Bloomenthal was more excited about that Rabbi than a dozen muslim countries with leaders every bit as murderous as those two Jews.

3) Making cover excuses and diversions for the covert half of Islamism, the stealth cultural jihad half, is an exercise in getting the real hate and threat entirely backwards.

4) It isn't hate, religious intolerance or racial bigotry, to see and call out the kind of Islamist collective actions in Europe as they surely make their arrogant triumphalist way right here to ground zero, from which to spread intimidation. It is just plain clear-sightedness.

5) Forty people from Westbourough church who don't represent anybody can get you excited but you run interference for these guys who actually do represent the culturally dominant tho not [we can only hope] population majority segment of the Islamic world...







And the really sad and ironic thing is that as you pave the way for those guys what signs will you and Tree be holding in marches later on after you have facilitated and emboldened those guys to intolerable actions?
 
573Tree
      ID: 2010312116
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 19:35
2) Then you would still need to explain why Bloomenthal was more excited about that Rabbi than a dozen muslim countries with leaders every bit as murderous as those two Jews.

and i think this is where you miss the point.

two murderous jewish extremists are much worse than a dozen murderous muslim extremists.

it's about perception. We Jews are supposed to be the good guys. so when one of ours goes off the rail and starts acting like a terrorist, it cuts our own legs from under it, and makes it hard to point the terrorist finger at someone else.

4) It isn't hate, religious intolerance or racial bigotry, to see and call out the kind of Islamist collective actions in Europe as they surely make their arrogant triumphalist way right here to ground zero, from which to spread intimidation. It is just plain clear-sightedness.

oops, sorry, guess you missed the point here too. there's zero fact in referring to the Mosque a few blocks away from Ground Zero as some sort of intimidating ode to terrorism.

to claim that it is - and to refer to the mosque as a Ground Zero mosque is no less hate, religious intolerance or racial bigotry than anything you refer to as such.

And the really sad and ironic thing is that as you pave the way for those guys what signs will you and Tree be holding in marches later on after you have facilitated and emboldened those guys to intolerable actions?

oops, there's another point missed. it's your hatred and intolerance that drives and emboldens them.
 
574Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 19:57
And the really sad and ironic thing is that as you pave the way for those guys what signs will you and Tree be holding in marches later on after you have facilitated and emboldened those guys to intolerable actions?

I have no idea what that means, except it's complete nonsense.

As I said in #570, there are radical elements on both sides. There are going to be a lot more radical Muslims than Jews, since the worldwide Muslim population is 1.5 billion, and the worldwide Jewish population is 14 million.

The key should be to marginalize the radicals on both sides. How are you contributing to that goal with an obsessive commitment to Islamophobia, which contributes to the facilitation of radical Muslims?

 
576Boldwin
      ID: 27049317
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 20:06
Who exactly facilitated Hitler the first time? The tolerant to a fault Neville Chamberlain, or the well known Naziphobe, Winston Churchill?

Having eyes wide open and not head-in-sand is a virtue.
 
577sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 21:17
So now Islam is the moral equivalent to Nazism B? A centuries old religion, you find comparable to a radical political view?

Me thinks, you were born several centuries too late. The Crusades, have been long over with.
 
578Boldwin
      ID: 27049317
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 23:29
No, Islamism is. Look at the signs. I didn't put them there. Do a little research.
 
579Boldwin
      ID: 27049317
      Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 23:33
And that would have been you, 33rd degree non-templar going off to war to capture Jerusalem from the infidel back in the day. And burning the temple when you accomplished it.
 
580sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 00:06
I see the pics. They show what? 1% of 1% of 1% of the Islamic population? At most?
 
581sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 00:07
lol and precisely what B, makes you so absolutely certain I'm a Mason? I'm not, and have never met a Mason who denied being one.
 
582Boldwin
      ID: 27049317
      Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 01:44
Why I distinctly labeled you in the 'non' category.
 
583sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 19:50
oh really? I'm not a red head either. You didnt mention that. Nor am I 7' tall, you said about that. Millions of things I am not, none of which you mention. The only one you do make any reference to, is the one you have long accused me of, and has long been denied.

Liken it to my asking you if "you're non-wife-beating self has....."


See what I mean?
 
584Boldwin
      ID: 4903754
      Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 05:48
Sarge, you hew so closely to their party line that it can't go without comment. I am not one for credulous faith in coincidence so I draw the the conclusion you are consciously a devoted believer in those mystery religions. Who knows, maybe your former wife converted you [or some other mason in your past] and you just didn't realize it, but I'll go with Occam's Razor and assume you know whereof you speak.
I'm not, and have never met a Mason who denied being one.
They don't call 'em secret societies for nothin'.
 
585sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 20:09
secret societies??? lmao I'll wager you know PRECISELY where the nearest Masonic Temple is located. Some "secret".
 
586Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 13:12
In Egypt, calls by Muslims to act as human shields in Christian services.

Any chance the Christianists in the United States would likewise shield their Muslim brothers from attacks? I thought not.

Funny how often Muslims act more Christ-like than US conservative "Christians."
 
587Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 15:06
I've been one stating that if the 'average' middle of the road Muslim does not want to be associated with the extremists then its up to them to show that to the world.

Well guess what this does - shows a distinct separation between militant extremists and other sects of the Muslim community.

Yet this is the first we hear about it. More acts such as this need to be spotlighted. More non-Muslims need to see that there are Muslims out there who view the world in terms of humans rather than in terms of 'Muslims vs the infidel swine.'

And yes PD, I do believe that if the roles were reversed in this country you would see Christians doing the same thing. To me these kinds of acts transcend religions.
 
588Boldwin
      ID: 2701173
      Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 04:11
Funny how often Muslims act more Christ-like than US conservative "Christians." - PD

Funny how muslims are more likely to agree with Christ's opinion of homosexuality than you are.
 
589Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 06:39
And what "opinion" would that be? The crazy one about loving your neighbor? I'm not aware that Christ's teachings were "opinions," let alone that he gave one specific to homosexuality. Enlighten me: Where, specifically, did Christ mention his "opinion" regarding homosexuality in the Bible?

Nice dodge. Exposed as another cafeteria Christian.
 
590Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 09:39
if the 'average' middle of the road Muslim does not want to be associated with the extremists then its up to them to show that to the world.

What happened when Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the world leaders in promoting interfaith communication and dialogue, announced he was spearheading an effort to build Cordoba House in New York? Initially, he enjoyed wide support including Mayor Bloomberg. Then, he and his project became the target of radical Islamophobists which is the subject of this thread. As early as post #14, it was claimed:

Rauf is intimately connected to the take-over-the-world militant brand of Islam, not the moderates you all wish dominated the scene.

This claim, as well as succeeding ones that grew more and more slanderous

he explicitly sides with terrorist organizations and goals

were never substantiated. Anyone who followed this thread with an open mind understood that this rhetoric was generated with one goal in mind - to fan the flames of fear through an obsessive crusade of Islamophobia, facts be damned.

As we move forward, and Khahan desires that evidence shows a distinct separation between militant extremists and other sects of the Muslim community, it's important to marginalize the Muslim militants and the Islamophobes from the conversation as much as possible.

Boldwin says,
Having eyes wide open and not head-in-sand is a virtue.

Recklessly and irresponsibly branding Muslim community leaders as terrorists is not having eyes wide open, nor is it a virtue. Nor is it a recipe for cultivating better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.




 
591Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 13:34
Funny how muslims are more likely to agree with Christ's opinion of homosexuality than you are.

that's cute and non relevant. but, we've come to expect that from you.
 
592Boldwin
      ID: 34016715
      Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 16:27
Recklessly and irresponsibly branding Muslim community leaders as terrorists is not having eyes wide open - PV

Recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood representatives [in all their guises] as every bit as dangerous as the explosive carrying brand of jihadist, is having eyes wide open.

You don't have a clue about their other bag of tricks. The cultural jihadists.

By the time we are deep in WWIII with them you'll be trading in your 'we must be tolerant of every other religion' for the one Tree hands you, reading 'all religions = terrorism'.

And you won't even blink at your own internal contradictions. Your tolerance will melt away like the dew an hour after sunrise.
 
593Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 16:46
I don't think I often agree with PV, but I do here, Baldwin. You, as usual, want to take an extreme stance. I agree with you that there are Muslim leaders who are no better than the suicide bomber. But that (and this is PV's message I believe) does not mean every single one falls into this category. Labeling them all that way is irresponsible.

 
594Boldwin
      ID: 34016715
      Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 02:54
One does not need to turn a blind eye to stealth cultural jihad in order to treat moderate muslim leaders fairly.

On the otherhand at some point we are going to have to test just how genuine this moderation is. How do they actually react within their own community to the arguments made by muslim brotherhood types. Because the MB are arguing straight from textual passages, moderates are actually loathe to disagree to the extent I have been able to get a reading on them. Even if they aren't in the forefront arguing violence. It is not always fear of the violent extremists that holds them back from speaking out. It is also fear the violent are reading the koran correctly and thus must not be opposed.

I'd like to believe there is a moderate muslim majority but I am not so persuaded that there is a moderate majority of muslim clerics. When they are put to the test they fail. Ask them to denounce killing muslims who change away from the muslim faith and almost to a man they refuse to denounce violence. Where is the moderation? Why doesn't this well established fact count for something?
 
595Boldwin
      ID: 34016715
      Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 02:58
And yes we can absolutely call every muslim with close ties to the muslim brotherhood, part of the cultural stealth jihad of intimidation thru other means. There should be no doubt about that, no gray area, no dithering to call it for what it is.
 
596Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 04:11
Ask them to denounce killing muslims who change away from the muslim faith and almost to a man they refuse to denounce violence.

Sigh...

Yusef Estes
Islam does not permit taking the life of any innocent peron - ever. Changing one's mind about beliefs is not, by itself, incurring any form of physical punishment according to Islamic Law.
Also, Islam always deals with everyone in Justice and Equity. Oppression of any person, regardless of their religious belief is totally forbidded in the Islamic State on all levels.
Islam means "willing submission to the Will of God in peaceful obedience", and as such, cannot be forced upon anyone, nor can anyone be converted to Islam against their will. When the laws of Islam are set in place they exist as a trust to protect God-given rights of everyone, under God's Laws. Islamic State provides advantages and benefits for all who live within its domain, as well as admonision and punishment for those who violate this trust and oppress others.

Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
In our consideration, this opinion of our jurists is not correct. The verdict pronounced in this tradition does not have a general application but is only confined to the people towards whom the Prophet (sws) was directly assigned. The Qur’an uses the words mushrikin and ummiyyin for these people.


Our jurists have committed the cardinal mistake of not relating the relative pronoun ‘who’ with its basis in the Qur’an as has been done in the case of ‘the people’ (Al-Nas). Instead of interpreting the tradition in the light of the relationship between the Qur’an and Sunnah they have interpreted it in the absolute sense, totally against the context of the Qur’an. Consequently, in their opinion the verdict pronounced in the tradition has a general and an unconditional application. They have thereby incorporated in the Islamic Penal Code a punishment that has no basis in the Shari‘ah.

Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa
“The essential question before us is : Can a person who is a Muslim choose a religion other than Islam ? The answer is yes, they can, because the Quran says, ‘Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion,’ (Quran 109:6) and, ‘Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosever will, let him disbelieve,’ (Quran18:29) and, ‘There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error’ (Quran 2:256).” He added, “These verses from the Quran discuss a freedom that God affords all people. But from a religious prospective, the act of abandoning one’s religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgment. If the case in Question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment.” He went on to state, “If, however, the crime of undermining the foundations of the society is added to the sin of apostasy, then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society…..According to Islam, it is not permitted for Muslims to reject their faith, so if a Muslim were to leave Islam and adopt another religion, they would thereby be committing a sin in the eyes of Islam. Religious belief and practice is a personal matter, and society only intervenes when that personal matter becomes public and threatens the well-being of its members.”

BBC March 2006:
Professor Abdelmouti Bayoumi of the Islamic Research Academy in Cairo told the BBC that the generality of the aforementioned hadith has been restricted by another hadith from the prophet.

Dr Bayoumi says that according to that hadith changing one's religion alone is not enough for applying capital punishment.

He says the apostate has also to be found working against the interests of the Muslim society or nation - only then should he be executed.


Gamal al-Banna - an Islamic thinker and brother of the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood - says the reason for [the belief that that if someone goes public with his apostasy "amounts to fitna (sedition, or civil strife), he is thus like someone fighting Islam, and should therefore be killed] is political and has nothing to do with the Koran itself.

Mr al-Banna says the classical interpretations are more than 1,000 years old, and were formulated at a time of state building where conformity and social cohesion were deemed more important than personal freedom.

He adds that "each and every individual has the right to change his religion without any conditions whatsoever.

"That person has also the right to campaign for his views, provided he does so peacefully," he told the BBC.

Al-Ahram Weekly
By contrast, Sheikh Irfan Ahmed Khan, a scholar and Quranic exegete, argues that "freedom of faith and religion is meaningless without the freedom to change one's faith."

According to Sheikh Gamal Qotb, former head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar, "being an apostate is a sin, but the preponderance of evidence from both the Quran and Sunna indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy in itself deserves a mandatory fixed punishment [ hadd ], namely capital punishment."


Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, imam of Al-Azhar since 1996, has also ruled that a Muslim who renounces his faith or turns apostate should be left alone as long as he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam.

Shah Abdul Halim
In fact there is not a single instance that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did treat apostasy as a prescribed offence under hudud (capital punishment) only for leaving Islam. The Prophet (pbuh) never put anyone to death for apostasy alone rather he let such person go unharmed. No one was sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. As a matter of fact the Quran is completely silent on the question of death as a punishment for apostasy. Apostasy does not qualify for temporal punishment. In fact the Supreme Court of Malaysia ruled that conversion to Christianity by a Muslim is not a punishable offence1.

 
597Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 04:40
Some more:

The False Penalty of Apostasy - Ahmed Mansour

Afghan Convert Controversy: A Counter-Perspective on Apostasy in Islam - Yoginder Sikand

Even Muslims debate the justice of executing apostates - N. Russell Sandifer

 
598Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 13:29
Even though those were two great posts, MITH, I'm going to have to T you up for sighing. One more and you'll watch the rest of this thread from the bench.
 
599Tree on the Evo
      ID: 28045819
      Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 20:45
for the one Tree hands you, reading 'all religions = terrorism

No. Just because I live in reality where there isn't the simple black and white world you prefer to fantasize about doesn't mean I believe anything you think I do.

Jew. Christian. Muslim. Others. It doesn't matter. Terrorists come in all religions. You may condone those that kill in the name of Christ, but murder in the name of religion is wrong no matter what religion it may be.
 
600DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 12:40
Yay, now even Sarah Palin gets it:

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own," Palin said in the statement. "They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election."


Yeah, sure, technically she was talking about the Giffords thing and I'm posting this in the wrong thread. I'm sure she feels exactly the same way about this though, right? RIGHT?
 
601Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 14:40
We went over this in the other thread Dwetzel - palin is speaking to the murders committed by Loughner. That is a completely 100% different scenario than an extremist on a Jihad listening to his religious clerics.

Put her comments in where they belong and quit trying to put words in her mouth to prove a point. It makes you look silly.

That statement she made I happen to agree with 100%. Its the same message I've been espousing in the Giffords thread. But its a different scenario. There is no parallel to try and draw these conclusions that the scenarios can be treated the same.
 
602Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 16:38
I think it has greater meaning than you think, Khahan. The people who want to build the Cordoba House are pretty far from "extremists on Jihad", yet here you are in this thread apparently drawing a connection to the two when there is none.
 
603DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 17:51
Pretty much precisely. More specifically, what DIRECT connection (because you seem to believe that an indirect connection isn't good enough) do you make between the Muslims trying to build the mosque in New York and the criminals who flew planes into the WTC? That they're both Muslims isn't good enough.

Which specific "extremists on jihad" did that particular Muslim cleric preach to? Unless you think all the Muslims are "extremists on jihad" (in which case, welcome to Boldwinville, enjoy your stay), then in order for it to be different, you must think there's a specific connection.
 
604DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Jan 12, 2011, 18:10
Also, this is pretty LOL ridiculous if you believe in like logic and stuff: and not just "our principles of only apply criminal acts to criminals don't apply to Muslims".

"Put her comments in where they belong and quit trying to put words in her mouth to prove a point."

So her words are principled only when it's about stuff she wants to be principled about, and when it's about stuff she doesn't want to be principled about it's "putting words in her mouth". Got it -- so, in other words, it's just empty BS designed to score cheap political points -- but of course she's criticized people for using this to score cheap political points too, so I'm sure she'd never do that. (ha ha)

No, sorry, that's not how it works. They're her words, from her mouth, I didn't put them there. She has speechwriters for that, I'm sure.
 
605Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 11:45
what do Americans *really* think about having a Mosque in their community?

Would you be "okay" with a mosque in your community?

According to a new national poll, most Americans say yes.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday found 69 percent of Americans would be "okay" with a mosque in their area while 28 percent would not.


this is good to know, but the numbers of those opposed is still striking and startling, especially in the American South.
 
606Boldwin
      ID: 193292818
      Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 13:37
 
607Boldwin
      ID: 29453117
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 18:48
Dark Electronic/Dubstep by Devinarne
 
608bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 12:37
I have to wonder if those who have such serious objections to mosques being erected in the U.S. will feel that Norwegians should now want to raise similar arguments against Christian churches in their neighborhoods.
 
609sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 12:39
Only against right-wing ultra conservative ones bibA.
 
610DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 14:12
bibA, that's also clearly the Muslim's fault for existing and thus creating such justified rage.

(I was going to stay away from the topic, but as long as we're there...)
 
611bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 14:16
I don't think people like Laura Ingram centered their objections regarding mosques such as the proposed one at Ground Zero to Muslim extremism, and wasn't it . Alan West who came out against the Ground Zero mosque being built.

In Tennessee the pastor of a Christian church stated "We have a duty to investigate anyone under the banner of Islam," when plans arose to build an Islamic community center in his community. I don't recall reading anything about it being ultra conservative or radical.
 
612Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 14:54
Are you saying you don't recall Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf being called an extremist America-hating terrorism supporter by almost every talking opinion head on FOX, including Laura Ingram, not to mention every tea party-associated pol who weighed in on it?
 
613sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 19:10
Its a double standard bibA. NONE, of the so-called "Christians" opposing the construction of ANY Mosque, ANYPLACE; are going to apply the same logic to a proposal for a Christian Church.

Despite "The Church" having started more wars through history than any other singular entity, they will proclaim themselvesa "peaceful" while all the while engaging in violence inducing rhetoric against a faith different from their own.

I dunno, but "hypocrits" seems to be the word that leaps to the forefront of my mind.
 
615Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:06
Christians Freemasons having started more wars through history than any other singular entity.

There, fixed it for you, and hypocrit does indeed leap to mind.
 
616sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:09
roflmfao

allow me to clarify B...I AM NOT A MASON.

The Crusades? Christian. Salem Witch Trials? Christian. Spainish Inquisition? Christian.

Your thinly veiled allusion, is factually incorrect. Though I understand why, because the facts are terribly inconvenient for you.
 
617Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:23
Teutonic knights and Jesuits have a secret agenda outside and beyond Christ's footsteps.
 
618Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:28
You're now blaming the Jesuits?

Deep end, meet your new best friend.

You want us to believe that we should afford Christianity a nuance of blame shift you would *never* give to Islam.
 
619Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:38
a nuance of blame shift you would *never* give to Islam.

Why sure I would.
 
620sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:42
OMG...how many times do people have to profess to KNOW when those times are coming, when the Bible itself says even Christ isnt privy to the knowledge?

And you B, put faith in some self declared "rebel" of a group KNOWN to be the target of conspiracy theorists throughout time.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Where's a pic of a dude sitting behind a keyboard and jumping a shark, at the same time? Need one of those to make into Bs new avatar.
 
621Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:50
I am merely pointing out that illuminati/freemason encouragement towards bloody violence even extends to the muslim sphere.

And that is from their own mouth.
 
622Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:50
as I've said before, people like Baldwin scare me. there's a fine line between posting Islamophobia on a message board, and shooting nearly 100 children in Norway.

on some message board somewhere, Anders Behring Breivik was probably just another guy like Baldwin, posting his words of intolerance.
 
623Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Jul 24, 2011, 23:52
How civil.
 
624Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 00:17
from the link:

(Sergey Romanov, a blogger at Little Green Footballs,) describes how Breivik harbours "resentment against the mainstream media for pushing a culturally Marxist agenda and covering up Muslim wrong-doing and the negative effects of mass immigration and multiculturalism in Europe generally … he felt that the politically correct agenda was completely unchallenged by the mainstream press".

that's pretty much the same buzzword bingo from one of our regular posters here....just sayin'.
 
625Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 03:12
Things go around in circles. I can remember years ago posting on Salon Table-Talk and whenever I would bring up the Founding Fathers they would delight in reminding me that they weren't really christians...they were actually Freemasons and deists only.

Turns out this shooter in Norway is a Freemason but now he's hung around every christian's neck.

Precious little evidence he's christian. It's not a big issue in his facebook page.

Very suspicious facebook page. It looks very faked. Mass murderer with professional headshots. Norwegian nationalist with an all american culture, all english facebook page. Something very staged about this guy.
 
626Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 03:14
Oh, and anyone who dared to focus on the muslim character of the 9/11 attackers or the Fort Hood shooter was characterized as a bigot but the PC aren't gonna be worried about anti-religious bigotry in this case, eh?
 
627Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 06:18
Didn't pray, mainly influenced by the secular culture, explicitly not interested in theocracy, a 'social darwinian' [sounds nazi to me] and an evolutionist...
More specifically, he calls himself a Justiciar Knight and explains what that means insofar as belief in Christianity:

"As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus," he writes. "Being a Christian can mean many things; That you believe in and want to protect Europe's Christian cultural heritage. The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority). It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a 'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)). The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation [sic] but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order."

WND
Of course they called McVeigh a christian too even tho he said he wasn't religious, wasn't interested in a personal god, sorta believed in a higher power/natural law thing, that 'science is my religion', engaged in many things besides mass murder which were also unchristian . Which didn't stop enemies of the militia movement from almost universally calling him a christian.

So basically it's open season on christians, any excuse will do, truthfulness doesn't count just as long as it will damage christians.

Every other religion has to be treated with kit gloves and multi-cultural diversity loving reverence even when their mainline religious leaders and scholars praise terrorism.
 
628Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 09:15
it's open season on christians

Every other religion....their mainline religious leaders and scholars praise terrorism.


Probably not the most reliable source for this discussion.

 
629Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 09:23
Your mashing up two different phrases is gonna be confusing. I hope you didn't intend that. I'm just speaking of one religion with the second phrase. Just quote any religious leader in Iran or the Gaza Strip. Why wouldn't they be an appropriate source?
 
630Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 09:39
Turns out this shooter in Norway is a Freemason but now he's hung around every christian's neck.

Precious little evidence he's christian. It's not a big issue in his facebook page.

Very suspicious facebook page. It looks very faked.


your one bit of "proof" he's a Mason is a photo-shopped looking photograph from a Facebook page you are already saying looks faked?!!?

meanwhile, words from Breivik to police interviewers:

The suspect told investigators during interviews that he belonged to an international order, The Knights Templar, according to Norwegian newspaper VG, which cited unnamed sources.

He described the organization as an armed Christian order, fighting to rid the West of Islamic suppression, the newspaper said. He also told investigators he had been in contact with like-minded individuals and said he counts himself as a representative of this order, it said.


oh, and then there's this:

In the manifesto, there are photographs of Breivik wearing what appears to be a military uniform that features an altered U.S. Marine Corps dress jacket with Knights Templar medals.

Historically, the Knights Templar were Christian Crusaders who helped fight against Muslim rule of the Holy Land in the Middle Ages.



-----------------------
Oh, and anyone who dared to focus on the muslim character of the 9/11 attackers or the Fort Hood shooter was characterized as a bigot but the PC aren't gonna be worried about anti-religious bigotry in this case, eh?

please see post 624. mmmmkay? thanks.
 
631DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 10:33
Oh, and anyone who dared to focus on the muslim character of the 9/11 attackers or the Fort Hood shooter was characterized as a bigot but the PC aren't gonna be worried about anti-religious bigotry in this case, eh?

I believe the exact words are "a taste of your own medicine".

Equally, you were all gung-ho to put the actions of a very small number of individuals on the backs of a billion or so -- why aren't you going to not be a massive hypocrite here, since hypocrisy seems to concern you so much.
 
632Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 11:18
Jennifer Rubin kinda backs away from her earlier knee jerk claim that "Jihadists" were responsible for the Norway events. From her latest: Early suspicion that the attacks might have been linked to a jihadist bombing plot in Oslo last year or the recent Norwegian prosecution of an Iraqi terrorist did not bear up

Neglecting to mention that, just just the day before she said ""There is a specific jihadist connection here."

There are lone-wolf domestic terrorists, and there are organized jihadists.

But apparently there cannot be Christian terrorists.

 
633Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:18
your one bit of "proof" he's a Mason is a photo-shopped looking photograph from a Facebook page you are already saying looks faked?!!? - Tree

The suspect told investigators during interviews that he belonged to an international order, The Knights Templar - Tree's own post

Knights Templar

*roll*
 
634Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:26
You can be an Islamist terrorist, oh because the Koran says go slay the infidel wherever you may find him.

You cannot be a christian terrorist because the Bible says to lay down the sword, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, our weapons are not fleshly but spiritual. Any terrorist who claimed christianity would already by his actions have disowned Christ.

 
635DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:27
lol
 
636Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:34
That's right tree: The Right Wing will go to great lengths to demonstrate that a Christianist which acted on hateful blogs by their own wasn't, in fact, one of them.

Meanwhile, all Muslims want to force Christians to covert. No exceptions.
 
637Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:39
PD

Show me the Bible verse that condones terrorism. I've already paraphrased three which prohibit it.
 
638Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:52
PD

The funny thing is that you are adamant that muslims aren't Islamists...

...but you want to hang christianists on christians.

...and you want to hang the actions of a freemason on christians.

...and you the putative civility police want to hang the tag christianist terrorist on innocent bystanders.
 
639Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:53
Show me where Jesus said to withhold marriage from gays.

I know you are desperate to get the spotlight off a guy who shared your views on Muslims and went on a killing spree. But this isn't about your cafeteria Christianism.
 
640sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:58
Before you categorically place him as a Freemason, show me a non-photoshopped pic, of him wearing his Masonic Ring.
 
641DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:58
I think someone's feeling awfully emboldened today now that someone else in the world agrees with him, even if said someone is a child-killing terrorist (and no matter how anyone may want to squirm out of the word, it applies here).
 
642Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 14:39
PD

Show me where Jesus said to withhold marriage from gays.

Everywhere he discussed obeying God.

I know you are desperate to get the spotlight off a guy...

No, no, keep the spotlight on freemasons. Please.
 
643Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 14:47
As they should be, right?

The funny thing is that you are adamant that muslims aren't Islamists

Your basic misunderstanding of my position, stated and explained by me in literally scores of posts, boils down to this mis-statement by you.

Your god is clearly "Confrontational Politics." Is isn't Jesus.
 
644Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 15:25
It is not for nothing that 'Cafeteria Catholics' is how the term cafeteria came to be associated or applied to religion.

The young men in my religion all go into prison in many countries because they refuse to become soldiers. In Greece and South Korea [and other countries] those are nearly lifetime sentences because they are asked to join the military at the end of each prison term and they go right back to prison when they refuse again.

I take great umbrage to the mendacious and dishonest people here trying to connect these peaceful people with terrorism.
 
645DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 15:37
Well, a lot of other people took umbrage when the shoe was on the other foot and you were trying to paint about a billion people as terrorists, and that didn't stop you from continuing to blather on about it. Don't like it? Tell it to the man in the mirror first. We're all just taking a cue from you.

In short, tough titties.
 
646DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 15:45
Also, I take great umbrage at being called mendacious and dishonest by someone who allegedly gives a flying **** about civility, but only when it suits him.
 
647Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:36
I never tried to paint all muslims as islamists. That's just another of your lies and slander.

Hopefully well short of 50% of muslims...

...but greater than 80% of imams in non-muslim countries even more in muslim lands, the eventual leaders of the muslim spring movements, who knows what percentage of muslims once the muslim brotherhood achieves control of the entire muslim world...

But not even 50% now. Never said that. You lie.
 
648Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:58
Extra credit quiz: Who introduced the 'Just War' doctrine into christendom?
 
649DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 17:11
I'll take a crazy guess off the top of my head and say Augustine. What do I win?

Tell me which of these you disagree with:

Some Muslims are terrorists.
Most Muslims aren't.
Some Christians are terrorists.
Most Christians aren't.
It's stupid to impute the actions of the few upon the many.

"...but greater than 80% of imams in non-muslim countries even more in muslim lands, the eventual leaders of the muslim spring movements, who knows what percentage of muslims once the muslim brotherhood achieves control of the entire muslim world..."

Liar.
 
650Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 17:19
Catholic
 
651DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 18:04
Wrong, cultist, but nice try, and it's funny that you think that's an insult anyway.
 
652Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 18:28
You're the one in a secret religion.
 
654Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 23:31
Knights Templar

ah yes. you're correct. they are affiliated with free masons - the difference being that the Knights Templar are CHRISTIANS.

so, i guess by your own link, that makes this guy a Christian Terrorist. thanks for that - hook, line, and sinker.

You're the one in a secret religion.

rich, coming from a guy who's religion is pretty secretive, and has been investigated for some church-approved sex scandals.

on a related note, i love how you toss around other people's religions as weapons - that's not bigoted of you much, is it?

it's also not terribly Christian of you, is it?
 
655DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 23:39
It's OK, I kind of like the cultist exposing himself for what he is. I figure it's a useful glimpse into someone who's goofy enough to put the rat poison in the Kool-Aid but isn't brave enough to actually do it.
 
656DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Jul 26, 2011, 00:29
Also, to clarify (since apparently nothing Boldwin ever says is deletion worthy, lol), it's not a secret religion. I'm just not telling someone whose sole purpose in wanting to know it is using it to spew further insults.

As long as other people's religions are fair game though, shall we start posting from silentlambs.org again? Seems fair.
 
657Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 21:33
'Christian terrorist'? Norway case strikes debate

As westerners wrestle with such characterizations of the Oslo mass murder suspect, the question arises: Nearly a decade after 9/11 created a widespread suspicion of Muslims based on the actions of a fanatical few, is this what it's like to walk a mile in the shoes of stereotype?

"Absolutely," said Mark Kelly Tyler, pastor of Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. "It clearly puts us in a position where we can't simply say that extreme and violent behavior associated with a religious belief is somehow restricted to Muslim extremists."
 
658DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 22:39
"It clearly puts us in a position where we can't simply say that extreme and violent behavior associated with a religious belief is somehow restricted to Muslim extremists."

If only that were true. Lots of cultists will still say it though.
 
660DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 23:00
*yawn* Well, if every true Christian will be in a concentration camp, then you, at least, would have nothing to fear.
 
661Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 23:07
The ability of far right Christians to play the martyr card continually amazes me. I think many of them actually feel that persecution is a sign of righteousness. And if reality doesn't offer actual persecution--well, persecution is in the eye of the person who feels persecuted, yes?

This is like self-medicating on self-righteousness.
 
662Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 23:10
PD

The funny thing is that you believe a handful of Palin's comments are genuinely dangerous but decades of concerted liberal conflation of christians with the taliban isn't.
 
664Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 23:20
B: I don't believe her statements are dangerous. I think the mindset that continues to deliver those statements are. I would never trust her, as Commander-in-Chief, to keep us safe. Or out of a pointless war, for that matter.
 
671Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 10:57
Norway as a personal breakthrough.

Good letter.
 
672sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 11:29
great find, and post PD. Sincere BOL to those two friends, as they contend now with their "changed" reality.
 
673Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 15:09
Good post Pd. Thanks. I want to highlight this part:

"Maybe the 9/11 guys were insane too and didn't represent Muslims?"

This is what I personally struggle with. I see this guy in Norway, Timothy McVeigh and his ilk as lone wolf wackos, acting on their own and trying to cling to a group (Christianity) to be legitimized.

Then I see the 9/11 attackers, taliban, al'queda, as groups representing their religion. To me it has always logically followed that their religion must have large factions of support for these guys because they are organized religious groups. But that is a leap of faith to make that assumption.

It could be a reality that the muslim wackos are simply better organized than the christian wackos. There may even be more Christian wackos in the world than Muslim ones. Who knows. The muslim ones are definitely better organized and come across as more deadly. But that doesn't mean everybody in their religion is that way.
 
674DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 15:39
It's easier to see the people of one's own religion as lone wolf wackos, because otherwise you'd find yourself associated with them. (That sentence probably reads rather dickish -- I sincerely don't mean it that way!) It's a natural reaction -- you know that the behavior is abberant, and you know based on personal experience that it's presumably not the religion causing the behavior, because you know hundreds of people in whom it doesn't cause the behavior. And besides, who wants to be associated with terrorists who shoot up a youth camp? On the other hand, your primary exposure to Muslims probably consists of whatever the media delivers (which pretty much consists of stuff getting blown up), and it's easy to perceive that aberrant behavior as somehow representative of the religion as a whole.
 
675Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 16:35
This isn't complicated.

One religion's book says, 'For tho we walk in the flesh we do not wage warfare according to flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly but powerful by God for overturning powerfully entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.'

That would be the Christian operating manual.
-----------------

One religion's book says, 'Kill the infidel wherever you may find him'.

That would be the Muslim instruction manual.

So when one claims christianity as the justification for warfare he has disowned the faith.

When one kills in the name of Allah he is following the instruction manual.

On that simple fact lies all the difference.
 
676Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 16:48
Baldwin doubles down on an out-of-context quote from a bad translation from another religion's holy book to justify his own un-christian behavior toward them.

Anyone surprised? No?

If you want to go the textual close reading approach, B, you aren't likely to win.

Take some advice from your own holy book, in which intentions matter and grace and love should flow from your own actions and thoughts.
 
677DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 17:16
Shouldn't Boldwin be off stoning adulterers or something?

No, I'm not surprised. Wish someone would put a stop to it.
 
678Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 18:04
PD
(5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "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."
As if I wasn't aware they think conversion by the sword is merciful.

And arguing that because most muslims haven't historically slain infidels wherever they have found them, or to be more precise haven't offered them then convert or die 'mercy'...just means that thankfully most people follow their innate human conscience rather than the Koran. Even muslims.
 
679sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 21:07
Had this whole long logical counter all typed out for B, when I decided "why fkn bother? He'll gloss over, ignore or accuse me of being a troll".

Enjoy your solitude B.
 
680Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 12:38
Missouri mosque burns after second fire in 5 weeks.
 
681Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Thu, Mar 14, 2013, 19:43
Thank goodness I didn't go to the CPAC this year, it's nothing more than a 'Sharia-Compliant Conference' Where Islamic Law Has Been Implemented.

Hat tip, maybe even a courtesy, to Robert Spencer!