Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on August 14, 2010, 07:49:23 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14obama.html?_r=1&src=mv&ref=homepage
I saw this on the headlines on Drudge today. I guess I am not sure if they can legally stop this place from being built and I appreciate freedom of religion arguments, but why is Obama throwing his hat into the ring on this issue? Regardless of what side he takes, I almost think this is similar to the police altercation with that Harvard professor. It is a local matter in the news. Does our President really need to throw his two cents into this?
It just seems to me that he never misses an opportunity to throw his name in on issues that really just don't involve the FedGov or his office. With is approval level in the tank, you would think he would be a bit more cautious.
-
Interesting protest sign, but maybe not applicable to my comments.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2Fnews%2F100814_reax_ap_328.jpg&hash=151f9bc005019976dc0bd57ee3d864d27118dfe1)
By JAMES HOHMANN & MAGGIE HABERMAN & MIKE ALLEN | 8/14/10 12:52 PM EDT
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41069.html#ixzz0wcxh3imz
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41069.html
-
I just wanna see if Obama says anything about intolerance when Greg Gutfeld opens his new nightclub on the adjacent property.
-
Sometimes I wonder if he wakes up everyday and asks himself "What would a construction worker in Kansas want this country to look like?" And then he gets to work on the exact opposite.
-
I've heard people parallel the mosque two blocks from the Twin Towers with yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. So far as the religious freedom argument goes.
-
Good. We have religious freedom in this country, and I'm glad to see he's sticking up for it.
Muslims are just as free to spread their backwards religion as anyone else is.
I think he's doing it as a meaningless way to show liberals that he can stand up to the conservatives.
-
why is Obama throwing his hat into the ring on this issue? Regardless of what side he takes, I almost think this is similar to the police altercation with that Harvard professor. It is a local matter in the news. Does our President really need to throw his two cents into this?
It just seems to me that he never misses an opportunity to throw his name in on issues that really just don't involve the FedGov or his office. With is approval level in the tank, you would think he would be a bit more cautious.
Good question. This can't have much upside for him.
I hear some are saying that the mosque will never be built, because the union workers of New York City will simply not lift a finger to build it.
-
Last I heard, most people locally were not against it, but I really havnt been following the issue, because it's retarded.
-
I'm actually starting to wonder if he's trying to see just how low he can get his approval numbers...
-
I'm starting to think the R's and D's are playing everyone for suckers.
They just take turns every four or eight years screwing us in different positions.
On your knees or bent over, you get to vote!
-
I'm starting to think the R's and D's are playing everyone for suckers.
They just take turns every four or eight years screwing us in different positions.
On your knees or bent over, you get to vote!
This.
There really isn't much of a difference between either party.
I really wish Obama was half the socialist everyone thinks he was.
Hell, I wish GWB was half the conservative all the liberals thought he was.
-
Personally, I'm not sure this falls in the Religious Freedom category. There are plenty of mosques in New York already. Would the same mess arise if someone was denied the right to build a Church there, but was told to do it somewhere else? Either way, the outcome doesn't matter a great deal to me.
I do have to wonder if they organizers knew exactly what sort of mess this would create. It doesn't seem to be something someone would do who wanted to build bridges. I still am curious why they won't say who is funding the project.
I actually heard someone say those people might not yet actually own all the property necessary build what they want to build.
-
I really wish Obama was half the socialist everyone thinks he was.
Maybe he would be if he had the spine. It seems that the Socialists of today have just lost theirs....maybe it's all the tofu and bok choy they've been eating.
-
Religious and freedom are two words that can never be conjoined when you are talking about Islam. And Obama knows this full well.
-
Religious and freedom are two words that can never be conjoined when you are talking about Islam. And Obama knows this full well.
Why not?
-
In order to foster understanding "moderate Islamist" ( hey, they don't want genocide of the Jews-just the complete destruction of Israel, that's moderation for ya! ) & their liberal allies refuse to understand why people who were attacked by Islamist don't want a Mosque at Ground Zero.
The same people who had Arab Christians prohibited from handing out Bibles in Dearborn now stomp their feet for "tolerance" The same people who claim a moment of silence in school is a violation of some imaginary wall of separation of church and state they think is in the BoR, smile as the gov't pays for Mosque building in the middle east, and smile when we ( gov't) send this iman building the aforementioned monument to hatred @ Ground Zero to the middle east ( @ taxpayer xpense ) to raise funds from Hamas supporters.... ok I'm starting to get pretty irritated.
anyway, I'm totally opposed. Sure sure they have the "right" ... I had the right to throw a stone at a big hornets nest when I was a kid & I learned a valuable lesson.
The islamist nutjobs and their allies are not throwing a stone at a hornets nest. ... they're holding it with both hands and shaking it while putting their face in it.
as far as some stinking poll? I'm a native newyorker, I never got no phone call for my freaking opinion.
-
The islamist nutjobs and their allies are not throwing a stone at a hornets nest. ... they're holding it with both hands and shaking it while putting their face in it.
Are they really though? The "queen hornet" so to speak is welcoming them with open arms.
-
In order to foster understanding "moderate Islamist" ( hey, they don't want genocide of the Jews-just the complete destruction of Israel, that's moderation for ya! ) & their liberal allies refuse to understand why people who were attacked by Islamist don't want a Mosque at Ground Zero.
The same people who had Arab Christians prohibited from handing out Bibles in Dearborn now stomp their feet for "tolerance" The same people who claim a moment of silence in school is a violation of some imaginary wall of separation of church and state they think is in the BoR, smile as the gov't pays for Mosque building in the middle east, and smile when we ( gov't) send this iman building the aforementioned monument to hatred @ Ground Zero to the middle east ( @ taxpayer xpense ) to raise funds from Hamas supporters.... ok I'm starting to get pretty irritated.
anyway, I'm totally opposed. Sure sure they have the "right" ... I had the right to throw a stone at a big hornets nest when I was a kid & I learned a valuable lesson.
The islamist nutjobs and their allies are not throwing a stone at a hornets nest. ... they're holding it with both hands and shaking it while putting their face in it.
as far as some stinking poll? I'm a native newyorker, I never got no phone call for my freaking opinion.
heres vid of the kid in dearborn
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/breaking-muslims-nonmuslims-arrested-for-attending-an-arab-mulsim-festival-in-dearborn.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
-
Participant recording
Because Michigan’s definition of “eavesdrop” is to “overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others,” Michigan courts have held that participant recording (even without the consent of the other parties) is not prohibited. Therefore, a party to the conversation can record the conversation himself without obtaining the consent of the other parties. He cannot, however, employ a third party to record the conversation on his behalf without getting the consent of all the parties.
and thats where the evangelical arab christian kid stepped on his own pecker. and what part of no video taping was hard for him to understand?
-
That video doesn't mean anything, those gun-toting white Christian racists are just spreading hate about Islam... *cough-cough* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ot6EDFS998 Pay no attention to the merchandise in the stalls, the real story is about the Christian hate against Islam.
By the by, I find the choice of location for a new mega-mosque to be atrocious and the claims of peaceful coexistence and bridge building to be either willfully ignorant or purposely fabricated. I will grudgingly admit, however, that I can see no legal reason for them to not be allowed to build it. Constitutional republic, rule of law, insert generic spiel here.
-
I'm actually starting to wonder if he's trying to see just how low he can get his approval numbers...
Agreed...seems like every time he opens his mouth, his approval rating drops 5 points...like Bill Engvall said, he should have just shut up....
BTW, this entire matter could be settled if the NYC police and firefighters unions come out and state that their members will NOT respond to any 911 calls at that mosque's address or in a one block radius of it....
...then watch the fun begin... [popcorn]
-
now that would be illegal
-
BTW, this entire matter could be settled if the NYC police and firefighters unions come out and state that their members will NOT respond to any 911 calls at that mosque's address or in a one block radius of it....
...then watch the fun begin... [popcorn]
Ayep. It would raise the question, "If the cops and firefighters don't want to do their job, why are we paying them?"
Any government enforced discrimination needs to be beaten down, hard. That's a road to hell we never want to follow again.
-
Agreed...seems like every time he opens his mouth, his approval rating drops 5 points...like Bill Engvall said, he should have just shut up....
BTW, this entire matter could be settled if the NYC police and firefighters unions come out and state that their members will NOT respond to any 911 calls at that mosque's address or in a one block radius of it....
...then watch the fun begin... [popcorn]
Better to just use the unstated 28 minute response time.
-
Wow, it suddenly feels like I'm at DU! =D
"I don't like something that is Constitutionally protected because it feels wrong to me, so I think the government should step in and fix the situation to my liking. Because that totally works awesome and never backfires horribly."
Look, I think that the mosque next door to the 9/11 site is really screwed up and begging to start trouble. I don't think it'd be bad for anyone, government or not, to say "It's a free country, but you're being a total (insert favorite profanity) and trying to start something." This is not yelling 'fire' in a crowd, and it's blatantly obvious. What they want to do is entirely legal and entirely a bad, insulting idea. Much like Fred Phelps.
Next thing you're gonna hear in this thread is how someone should file an environmental lawsuit against them.
-
Somebody should file an environmental impact lawsuit against them to stop this!!!! [popcorn] [popcorn] ;)
Hey ... it was prophesized!!! [tinfoil]
-
Participant recording
Because Michigan’s definition of “eavesdrop” is to “overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others,” Michigan courts have held that participant recording (even without the consent of the other parties) is not prohibited. Therefore, a party to the conversation can record the conversation himself without obtaining the consent of the other parties. He cannot, however, employ a third party to record the conversation on his behalf without getting the consent of all the parties.
and thats where the evangelical arab christian kid stepped on his own pecker. and what part of no video taping was hard for him to understand?
why is it hard for you to understand the people who attacked "the evangelical arab christian kid" were totally breaking the law by putting their hands on private property?
-
why is it hard for you to understand the people who attacked "the evangelical arab christian kid" were totally breaking the law by putting their hands on private property and their persons'?
FTFY
One side violated eavesdropping law, and the other committed assault and (possibly, perhaps attempted?) vandalism. So which side is "right"?
-
I'll get worked up just as soon as the developers gain complete control over the land they claim to have. It appears they control only part of the lot.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/half_baked_mosque_8ItuaW0WIByZa5xZ0rCmpJ
-
The issue is not whether they're allowed to build mosques, the issue is whether they're allowed to build mosques right there.
If I want to build a Lutheran church, I can't just begin construction any ol' place I want. For that matter, if I want to build a house, store, factory, farm, or skyscraper, I can't just break ground any place I feel like. This is nothing new, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
For those who've forgotten, the 1A says that congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not say that religious people are allowed to go anywhere they want and do anything they want without regard to others, as these Imams seem to think.
-
now that would be illegal
And?.....legal ramifications have never stopped unions before....
Ayep. It would raise the question, "If the cops and firefighters don't want to do their job, why are we paying them?"
I doubt most of NYC would have a problem with it.....
Any government enforced discrimination needs to be beaten down, hard. That's a road to hell we never want to follow again.
Last I checked, the gov't didn't run the unions.....maybe the other way around...
-
For those who've forgotten, the 1A says that congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not say that religious people are allowed to go anywhere they want and do anything they want without regard to others, as these Imams seem to think.
This.
Oh, and why is it liberals want to appease Muslims so bad? They're willing to piss all over Christians....but the Muslims must be appeased at all costs?
-
This.
Oh, and why is it liberals want to appease Muslims so bad? They're willing to piss all over Christians....but the Muslims must be appeased at all costs?
Christians believe in turning the other cheek.
Muslims believe in beheading you.
Obviously liberals are making a courageous, moral choice here.
-
This.
Oh, and why is it liberals want to appease Muslims so bad? They're willing to piss all over Christians....but the Muslims must be appeased at all costs?
Because certain Muslim rooted factions have shown an ability and willingness to arbitrate their disagreements through mass acts of violence against seemingly unassociated groups of people who would by all accounts be deemed non-combatants?
-
Religious and freedom are two words that can never be conjoined when you are talking about Islam. And Obama knows this full well.
Why not?
Convert to Islam. See if you like it. If you do, then great! =)
If it's not what you'd hoped, and decide to revert or change to another belief, you cannot. Such one-way doors, backed by violence and murder, are proof enough that 'Religious and freedom are two words that can never be conjoined when you are talking about Islam.' Unless, of course, there's a negative placed somewhere between them.
-
Wow, it suddenly feels like I'm at DU! =D
"I don't like something that is Constitutionally protected because it feels wrong to me, so I think the government should step in and fix the situation to my liking. Because that totally works awesome and never backfires horribly."
Look, I think that the mosque next door to the 9/11 site is really screwed up and begging to start trouble. I don't think it'd be bad for anyone, government or not, to say "It's a free country, but you're being a total (insert favorite profanity) and trying to start something." This is not yelling 'fire' in a crowd, and it's blatantly obvious. What they want to do is entirely legal and entirely a bad, insulting idea. Much like Fred Phelps.
Next thing you're gonna hear in this thread is how someone should file an environmental lawsuit against them.
Sickening, but true.
I'm still slightly shocked it going to be built. Not overly surprised though. You'd have figured that the whole "Historical building" gambit would've been more than enough to deep six this marvel of stupidity. I'm completely ok with the .gov using an existing law on the books to block an evil, spiteful, private enterprise.
-
Convert to Islam. See if you like it. If you do, then great! =)
If it's not what you'd hoped, and decide to revert or change to another belief, you cannot. Such one-way doors, backed by violence and murder, are proof enough that 'Religious and freedom are two words that can never be conjoined when you are talking about Islam.' Unless, of course, there's a negative placed somewhere between them.
Gee, I notice how regularly it is enforced in America. I know a couple of folks that converted from Islam. Their relatives gave them a hard time about it, but I've known former Amish folks that got rougher treatment.
Your argument is entirely and completely valid in third world theocratic hell-holes. Not so much here. Granted, there are fairly rare incidents of mostly immigrants from said third world hell-holes doing completely screwed up things. Honor killings, female mutilation, etc. It's not entirely an Islamic thing, it's a third world hell-hole thing.
Christians believe in turning the other cheek.
Muslims believe in beheading you.
Obviously liberals are making a courageous, moral choice here.
;/
True, I will admit, no Christian has ever tried to behead me. Kill me, sure. But not behead. Then again, I did see some of the corpses yanked out of a few mass graves that would beheading look positively humane and quite civil. Nothing like wiring someone up with steel cable, throwing them in a ditch, and burying them alive. Sometimes with a bit of mutilation, rape, castration, etc first, just to spice things up, sometimes not. Hey, Christians get bored too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Muslims don't do evil things. Believe me, I know they are capable of some impressive feats of evilness. But trying to pretend that all Christians follow their religion's words on "peace" and "turning the other cheek" is entertaining, but not accurate.
This.
Oh, and why is it liberals want to appease Muslims so bad? They're willing to piss all over Christians....but the Muslims must be appeased at all costs?
Not saying you're wrong, you're not. But Christians aren't exactly being oppressed in this country. I can't drive an hour in any direction and not see a dozen churches. All tax exempt, and more or less free to say whatever the hell they want. I see Bibles for sale in virtually all bookshops and most book sections of big box stores. Hell, virtually ANY hotel room I visit has a bible in it, provided by Gideon. Where's the hardcore oppression? Sure, I'd never contest that they're more than happy to piss off Christians at any possible moment.
Though I've had more than a few rant and rave to the point of near foaming at the mouth about how stores saying "Happy Holidays" is on par with Roman pagans feeding Christians to the lions. They tend to get pretty upset when you sigh and lament "Good times, good times".
=D
(Just to clarify and a disclaimer, I do not want to force all Christians to fight wildlife with their bare hands for entertainment purposes. Just some specific ones for reasons mainly having nothing to do with their religion.)
Again, respectfully speaking, as a non-Christian and non-Muslim, I laugh whenever I see both sides making the SAME EXACT arguments. It's absolutely hysterical. It's almost as funny as watching liberal and conservative statists making the SAME EXACT arguments, just about different subjects. Some of you guys have no idea how much you sound like my fellow Democrats. It's awesome, it really is.
-
Gee, I notice how regularly it is enforced in America. I know a couple of folks that converted from Islam. Their relatives gave them a hard time about it, but I've known former Amish folks that got rougher treatment.
Your argument is entirely and completely valid in third world theocratic hell-holes. Not so much here. Granted, there are fairly rare incidents of mostly immigrants from said third world hell-holes doing completely screwed up things. Honor killings, female mutilation, etc. It's not entirely an Islamic thing, it's a third world hell-hole thing.
Yeah, those people from West Virginia do often have a tough time integrating.... >:D
-
god! jamis said what i was thinking.... one of us should be upset >:D
-
Personally, I'm more offended by the strip clubs at ground zero.
-
Personally, I'm more offended by the strip clubs at ground zero.
Unless you were going for tongue-in-cheek on that, however offensive a strip club might be to you, it never advocated blowing up civilians. (or at least, none of them that I've ever seen)
-
Unless you were going for tongue-in-cheek on that, however offensive a strip club might be to you, it never advocated blowing up civilians. (or at least, none of them that I've ever seen)
Tongue in cheek.
Christians advocate killing and blowing up of civilians, too. It doesn't mean all Christians are evil, does it?
Do you think Muslim Americans want to blow up this country and kill civilians?
-
Do you think Muslim Americans want to blow up this country and kill civilians?
Some? Absolutely.
-
it never advocated blowing up civilians. (or at least, none of them that I've ever seen)
Depends on what you mean by "blowing".... ;)
-
Some? Absolutely.
Not all of them?
How many Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) do you think are terrorists (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1902189,00.html) in the United States, too?
Extremists scare me more than any one religion. I don't think Muslims are scary (though I think Islam is a particularly restrictive and disgusting religion) nor do I think Christians are scary. I think Extremists are scary.
-
Killing one person is terrorism?
-
Killing one person is terrorism?
the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
So yes, it applies.
Besides, as I'm sure you know, this was not the only episode of terrorism against abortion doctors.
-
I don't think killing abortion doctors is terrorism. Vigilantism, yes. Terrorism, no.
-
I don't think killing abortion doctors is terrorism. Vigilantism, yes. Terrorism, no.
Why not? It fits the definition. You don't think violence against abortion doctors is premeditated, politically motivated violence?
Are they not terrorists to you because you agree with them?
-
Why not? It fits the definition. You don't think violence against abortion doctors is premeditated, politically motivated violence?
Are they not terrorists to you because you agree with them?
You can stretch "politically motivated" to mean anything you want. And the root word of "terrorism" is "terror". Abortion doctor killings are not meant to terrorize other people. They are meant to eliminate what the killer sees as a murderer. As with any form of vigilantism, it is an act where a private citizen takes it upon himself to fill in for the justice system that he sees as failing to prosecute criminals. In the mind of someone who kills abortion doctors, it is not meant to make some wide poltical message or instill fear in the masses. It is an attempt to inflict capital punishment, albeit in an illegal manner, upon someone they see as a murderer. Vigilantism yes, terrorism no.
-
FTFY
One side violated unconstitutional eavesdropping law, and the other committed assault and (possibly, perhaps attempted?) vandalism. So which side is "right"?
FTFY =D
intentional infliction of infectious insidiousness inducing insanity.
"if you build it they will come"
-
I wonder what other stores/churches/temples are already in the area?
-
You can stretch "politically motivated" to mean anything you want. And the root word of "terrorism" is "terror". Abortion doctor killings are not meant to terrorize other people. They are meant to eliminate what the killer sees as a murderer. As with any form of vigilantism, it is an act where a private citizen takes it upon himself to fill in for the justice system that he sees as failing to prosecute criminals. In the mind of someone who kills abortion doctors, it is not meant to make some wide poltical message or instill fear in the masses. It is an attempt to inflict capital punishment, albeit in an illegal manner, upon someone they see as a murderer. Vigilantism yes, terrorism no.
I disagree. If anti-abortion violence was limited to practitioners of abortions, you might have a point. Problem is, Receptionists at clinics, as well as escorts, security guards (one of whom was a police officer) and nurses have also been targets of violence.
Do you think that killing a nurse or a receptionist or a security guard is vigilantism?
I still hold it counts as terrorism.
-
So a guy fired from his job who goes into his former workplace and shoots people who work there is a terrorist rather than a murderer?
-
I wonder what other stores/churches/temples are already in the area?
There's a few strip clubs/sex stores in the area, as well as St. Peter's Catholic Church, Battery Park Synagogue, PJ Clarke's bar and grill, St. Paul's Chapel and the NY Department of Health within a block or two of the area.
-
So a guy fired from his job who goes into his former workplace and shoots people who work there is a terrorist rather than a murderer?
What is someone like this doing that's politically motivated?
-
BTW There's already a muslim meeting place, Masjid Manhattan, about a mile away from Ground Zero right now.
Should they move?
EDIT: Apparently they already were forced to move in 2008, dunno why.
-
I disagree. If anti-abortion violence was limited to practitioners of abortions, you might have a point. Problem is, Receptionists at clinics, as well as escorts, security guards (one of whom was a police officer) and nurses have also been targets of violence.
Do you think that killing a nurse or a receptionist or a security guard is vigilantism?
I still hold it counts as terrorism.
Given that a get-away driver can be charged with murder if one of his associates is killed by police, and that, in a sane, progressive, humane nation, the nurses and security workers would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder...
One could probably go either way with the terrorism or vigilante charges. In any case, if you want to point out some real "Christian" terrorists, there are probably much better examples out there, than the fringe Christian Identity nuts and a one-off abortion-doctor-killer. Just sayin'.
-
BTW There's already a muslim meeting place, Masjid Manhattan, about a mile away from Ground Zero right now.
Should they move?
No, no. A mile sounds sufficient.
-
What is someone like this doing that's politically motivated?
Well, many marxists would ague that line every day of hte week and twice on Sundays. Not that I buy it.
I think Ragnar does have the better point. The more extreme anti-abortion verbiage talks about these docs as murderers and and the most far-out ones have implied that they ought to be killed. Pretty specific. Vigilantism suits their rhetoric.
If they wanted to engage in terrorism, hte better target is almost-mothers who have aborted their babies. THAT would cause some serious mayhem & terror, especially if they targeted soem who had abortions some years ago, implying no woman who had an abortion--ever in the past--is safe.
OTOH, in support of Nitro's position are the bombing of abortion clinics. But, as fistful wrote, they could very well be considered complicit.
Yep, it could be argued either way, but I think that Ragnar/fistful have hte more persuasive points. Plus, I get tired of everything being declared terrorism.
-
There is a big difference from having a Muslim center already only a mile away from ground zero, and building one right next to it after the fact.
-The people building the Islamic center next to Ground Zero claim that they support mutual positive coexistence and understanding and mean absolutely no offense with this construction.
-Governor of New York David Patterson offered state support in selecting, acquiring, and building the center in a new less offensive location.
-The builders completely refused.
Why? And before you say "well they don't have to. They bought the land and that's just way it is", keep in mind that they still maintain that they mean this in a totally unoffensive and respectful way. Yet when their actions are offensive, and they are actually offered help to move the site, they refuse. Why?
Claiming to be attempting to build mutual respect, yet refusing to do anything but the most offensive thing they can do. Something doesn't compute. And of course add in the fact that Muslims have historically built mosques on sites important to their enemies to show supremacy, and you start to have an idea that this is not quite as innocent as they claim.
I'll put myself in their shoes. If I wanted to do something, and a lot of people found it offensive, would I take someone up on their offer to come to a compromise and allow me to do what I want, but in a manner or place deemed less offensive?
If I actually gave a crap about how offensive I was, than yeah I would take them up on the offer. If I really didn't care how offended others were, than no I would not. The Muslims in this case are not taking Patterson up on his offer. That tells me that they don't care how offensive they are. Ok, whatever. BUT, they claim that they do care. This means they are lying. Which tells me something else beyond a simple Islamic Center is going on here, and they are not being forthcoming about it.
-
FTFY =D
intentional infliction of infectious insidiousness inducing insanity.
"if you build it they will come"
Yes, thank you, I should have made mention of that. So, was this event held on a public thoroughfare (as it looks) or was this stretch of street rented from the city for the duration making it quasi-private property for the duration of the event?
-
Free societies that invite authoritarian, collectivist elements are worse than naive, they are self-destroying. Notice I said invite. This is a problem that was created by liberals generally and by the State Dept. specifically. I think we need to understand why; in fact we need to demand why.
-
Gee, I notice how regularly it is enforced in America. I know a couple of folks that converted from Islam. Their relatives gave them a hard time about it, but I've known former Amish folks that got rougher treatment.
Your argument is entirely and completely valid in third world theocratic hell-holes. Not so much here. Granted, there are fairly rare incidents of mostly immigrants from said third world hell-holes doing completely screwed up things. Honor killings, female mutilation, etc. It's not entirely an Islamic thing, it's a third world hell-hole thing.
Point conceded. =)
-
Your argument is entirely and completely valid in third world theocratic hell-holes. Not so much here. Granted, there are fairly rare incidents of mostly immigrants from said third world hell-holes doing completely screwed up things. Honor killings, female mutilation, etc. It's not entirely an Islamic thing, it's a third world hell-hole thing.
True, I will admit, no Christian has ever tried to behead me. Kill me, sure. But not behead. Then again, I did see some of the corpses yanked out of a few mass graves that would beheading look positively humane and quite civil. Nothing like wiring someone up with steel cable, throwing them in a ditch, and burying them alive. Sometimes with a bit of mutilation, rape, castration, etc first, just to spice things up, sometimes not. Hey, Christians get bored too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Muslims don't do evil things. Believe me, I know they are capable of some impressive feats of evilness. But trying to pretend that all Christians follow their religion's words on "peace" and "turning the other cheek" is entertaining, but not accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18behead.html?_r=1
Yes, that third world hell-hole of Orchard Park, NY.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/US/arizona-police-hunt-muslim-father-ran-westernized-daughter/story?id=8890844
Gah! That third world hell-hole of Peoria, AZ.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3975211.stm
And of course, that hell-hole Holland.
There's more, of course.
-
There's a few strip clubs/sex stores in the area, as well as St. Peter's Catholic Church, Battery Park Synagogue, PJ Clarke's bar and grill, St. Paul's Chapel and the NY Department of Health within a block or two of the area.
Just wondering if they can pick up the land on both sides and put in a strip club.
-
First they tell the Mosques where they can and cannot be. Next, they tell you where you can and cannot worship.
-
First they tell the Mosques where they can and cannot be. Next, they tell you where you can and cannot worship.
You mean, like, with zoning laws where they will make churches pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just for a plan before allowing them to expand?
That's already the case. The government is already telling people what they can do with their land. How is this any different?
-
You mean, like, with zoning laws where they will make churches pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just for a plan before allowing them to expand?
That's already the case. The government is already telling people what they can do with their land. How is this any different?
Well, there is the rub. Is there a zoning law in affect that should effect the mosque?
-
How is this any different?
well how about because its directed at them specifically because of their faith....
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18behead.html?_r=1
Yes, that third world hell-hole of Orchard Park, NY.
From the article (can't quote), she was more religious than he was, he had a history of domestic abuse and his counselor told her she wasn't in danger. You're welcome to count this as proof of Islamic terrorism if every Christian dude who beats and kills his wife also counts as Christian terrorism.
;)
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/US/arizona-police-hunt-muslim-father-ran-westernized-daughter/story?id=8890844
Gah! That third world hell-hole of Peoria, AZ.
Respectfully... Did you read what I wrote and what the article said? Dude was from a standard third world theocratic hell-hole, specifically Iraq. I do hope he rots in jail for quite a few decades. What the hell kind of father does that to his own daughter? But yea, this would illustrate perfectly "Granted, there are fairly rare incidents of mostly immigrants from said third world hell-holes doing completely screwed up things. Honor killings, female mutilation, etc. It's not entirely an Islamic thing, it's a third world hell-hole thing."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3975211.stm
And of course, that hell-hole Holland.
There's more, of course.
Finally found one, cool! Not in America, but we'll still count it. Dude held Moroccan citizenship, but he was born in Holland. Second generation immigrant, which is close! But no cigar for me. But let's also look back at the original statement.
"Granted, there are fairly rare incidents of mostly immigrants from said third world hell-holes doing completely screwed up things. Honor killings, female mutilation, etc. It's not entirely an Islamic thing, it's a third world hell-hole thing."
Congrads, you found one example of a mostly "home grown" Islamic guy who did honor killings, etc. Which I do not think disproves my original verbiage or intent. I never said it doesn't happen. Of course it friggin bloody does. It's a pretty good example of why we really need to overhaul our immigration process to get less third world theocratic hell-hole types, and more folks like Viking and MB who want to become bloody Americans. I also don't think that kind of screening should only be applied to Islamic third world hell-holes.
-
are we gonna legislate away the flds and tony alamo and all the others? how about the mainstream churches where clergy abuse children? heck we can eliminate a ton of pesky religions which ones are on "our " list?
-
Respectfully... Did you read what I wrote and what the article said? Dude was from a standard third world theocratic hell-hole, specifically Iraq. I do hope he rots in jail for quite a few decades. What the hell kind of father does that to his own daughter? But yea, this would illustrate perfectly "Granted, there are fairly rare incidents of mostly immigrants from said third world hell-holes doing completely screwed up things. Honor killings, female mutilation, etc. It's not entirely an Islamic thing, it's a third world hell-hole thing."
Respectfully, it IS an Islamic thing. Third world hell-holes are terrible places, yes. Those that escape them generally come here enjoy their lives and integrate happily into our first world country unless they are also islamists.
You may be able to argue that it is a third world hell hole AND Islamist thing. I find little correlation between other religions and mutilating/murdering their wives/children after they've come to the United States even from said third world hell-holes.
But maybe I'm wrong and you could find me a Sikh honor killing in the US or a Buddhist murdering someone for insulting Buddha.
-
But maybe I'm wrong and you could find me a Sikh honor killing in the US or a Buddhist murdering someone for insulting Buddha.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj5BL-tVIpM
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html
-
Further-
If this is just religious bigotry, do you think anyone would care if this were a Buddhist temple, a Pagan grove, a Sikh gurdwara, or a Hindu Temple?
This is not about bigotry. This is about Muslims celebrating their attack on the United States. I think Ragnar illustrated it perfectly, summarized:
If they claim it's about peace and brotherhood and refuse to accept help to foster acceptance when strife rather than brotherhood results, I tend to discount their stated purpose.
But that's just me. (And ragnar and millions of others)
-
One side violated unconstitutional eavesdropping law, and the other committed assault and (possibly, perhaps attempted?) vandalism. So which side is "right"?
what do you imagine is unconstitutional?
-
It is not just a "Muslim thing;" it is about invidious cultural practices within what is a tribal, collectivist, and authoritarian matrix. Islam happens to be a particulary obvious and dramatic example, that's all, as well as one growing in political and economic sway.
"Fairly rare incidents" of cultural malfeasance? Now that is absurd. There is nothing "fairly rare" about the pervasive acts of brutality, terrorism, and prejudice we see in more than one alien culture.
Because we have a Constitution we are not required to be stupid and blind. This is not about religious freedom, it is about what constitutes viable religious practice and what kind of impact a "religion" can have on the body politic.
-
There are emerging reports of an Orthodox Christian church, originally built a century ago, that was destroyed on 9/11. The city has blocked them from rebuilding their church.
I don't have any cites, but if this is true it blows a gaping whole into the notion that we're singling out Muslims, discriminating based on their religion, or violating anyone's religious freedom.
-
There are emerging reports of an Orthodox Christian church, originally built a century ago, that was destroyed on 9/11. The city has blocked them from rebuilding their church.
I don't have any cites, but if this is true it blows a gaping whole into the notion that we're singling out Muslims, discriminating based on their religion, or violating anyone's religious freedom.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/nyregion/03trade.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Bagli,%20Charles%20V
Hmmmm
-
There is nothing "fairly rare" about the pervasive acts of brutality, terrorism, and prejudice we see in more than one alien culture.
ironic post of the day
Because we have a Constitution we are not required to be stupid and blind. This is not about religious freedom, it is about what constitutes viable religious practice and what kind of impact a "religion" can have on the body politic.
with this for icing? priceless
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/nyregion/03trade.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Bagli,%20Charles%20V
Hmmmm
The church wants the authority to provide roughly $55 million toward the estimated $75 million cost of rebuilding St. Nicholas. The Port Authority in turn wants the church to scale back its plans, move the location slightly and raise more money privately.
“The church’s role in the rebuilding effort is complementary, not adversarial,” Mr. Koutsomitis said. “We need a resolution on the land so we can move on with the design. We’re talking about a modest facility, larger than what was there before, but modest by any standard.”
yea 7 times the size of the old church is modest
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html
Look at that, they want to build a "a nondenominational center for visitors to ground zero" as well.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html
Look at that, they want to build a "a nondenominational center for visitors to ground zero" as well.
and they only want 20 mill of our cash to do it
-
and they only want 20 mill of our cash to do it
It's a lot of money, yes. Someone wants to build a "bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area" under the church, though.
-
I'll be for this as soon as I can open a Wal-Mart next door to Kabba.
-
It's a lot of money, yes. Someone wants to build a "bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area" under the church, though.
that money is not for that and in the latest location the screening center is no longer an issue the bill for that iteration was 35 mill
-
I'd love, Cassandra, for you to explain your view of irony to all of us. I'd also like you to define for us what constitutes a "religion" as opposed to a form of pathology. As for the anything but "fairly rare" incidents you seem to take exception to I point you toward the rampant criminal abuses occurring in illegal immigrant culture in America. No one with facts would describe what's going on crime-wise as "fairly rare."
I realize you are an unctuous fellow, by the way, but that can be rather oily, you know.
-
that money is not for that and in the latest location the screening center is no longer an issue the bill for that iteration was 35 mill
The money is to entice the church into giving up their land at ground zero moving farther away. The city doesn't want a private church right there.
This is all fairly routine for developments in heavy urban areas, and has nothing to do with religious discrimination.
-
One side violated unconstitutional eavesdropping law, and the other committed assault and (possibly, perhaps attempted?) vandalism. So which side is "right"?
what do you imagine is unconstitutional?
Do we really need to rehash for the Nth time the right of the citizen to film, photograph or in any way record what is observable from a public thoroughfare and the corresponding SCOTUS decisions? Less intentionally obtuse comments would be beneficial to the discussion.
-
Do we really need to rehash for the Nth time the right of the citizen to film, photograph or in any way record what is observable from a public thoroughfare and the corresponding SCOTUS decisions? Less intentionally obtuse comments would be beneficial to the discussion.
absent a ruling striking down michigan law? and bear in mind this was an event where it was made clear repeatedly that their taping was unwelcome. . wasn't this festival run by a private group? don't they have a right to exclude who they want and similarly set rules for conduct at their event?!LIBERTY! Or is jackbooted thuggery permissible so long as you attach "in jesus's name"? i was raised catholic and consider myself a christian the biggest downside to that is other "christians" god save me from them. the druids muslims et al i get along with just fine .why do i only run into christians with a stick up em?
-
The money is to entice the church into giving up their land at ground zero moving farther away. The city doesn't want a private church right there.
This is all fairly routine for developments in heavy urban areas, and has nothing to do with religious discrimination.
except this latest cash bailout involves them on their original plot of land
-
I'd love, Cassandra, for you to explain your view of irony to all of us. I'd also like you to define for us what constitutes a "religion" as opposed to a form of pathology. As for the anything but "fairly rare" incidents you seem to take exception to I point you toward the rampant criminal abuses occurring in illegal immigrant culture in America.
too easy
a did you really speak out against predjudice? i almost choked had to read it twice
b neither you or i get to define a religion, at least not for anyone else , well maybe i can for my kids till they tell me to get stuffed. if at some time a religion breaks the law we have a mechanism for that.
c and did you see your very own sheriff deevers statement on crime in his county? vis a vis the illegal involvement? since my sites are tainted look it up yourself may of this year i think it was the 6th maybe the 10th its out there with video and everything. hint its not on wnd
-
I'm not defining a religion, friend, I'm looking at actions taken in the name of religion and identifying praxis rather than theory. "Religions" that become plenary social and political systems are no longer a set of spiritual practices but something else and must be considered in a wider context.
Speak out against prejudice? No, I'm identifying it. Tolerance for the intolerant is not anti-prejudice, it's rank stupidity, subversive of one's own best principles (on which we probably agree).
Sheriff Deevers doesn't say the last word on that problem. The statistics are out there. Try the LAPD.
-
i showed ya mine what lapd stats? real stats not some email from cair
-
This is all fairly routine for developments in heavy urban areas, and has nothing to do with religious discrimination.
My thought; also 'close to ground zero' is relatively imprecise in a big city - there's limited properties available for construction, costs are high, etc...
Sadly, due to buildings damaged during the event, a fairly large portion of 'available properties' are indeed 'close' to ground zero.
-
i haven't been able to go there i'm still messed up by going near the pentagon was there a couple days after and i am disturbed still
-
Quick question: how do ya'll feel about the mosque inside the pentagon, which opened there in october, 2001?
-
Quick question: how do ya'll feel about the mosque inside the pentagon, which opened there in october, 2001?
oh now you did it [popcorn] >:D
-
"This Islamic prayer center, the first of its kind in the Marine Corps, is really an extension of our ethos, (the) ethos that we take care of one another." - Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee at Quantico.
So when is a mosque not a prayer center and vice-versa?
-
Quick question: how do ya'll feel about the mosque inside the pentagon, which opened there in october, 2001?
Put in by the Marines and under the control of the US Military? Not a problem.
Funded by terrorist backers and dedicated to celebrating Islam's victory over the Great Satan? Quite the problem.
-
dude they opened it a month after 9/11 how did wnd and prison planet miss this?
-
Nitrogen, why did they reject Governor Patterson's offer to use state funds to help them find another site?
-
Oh, and why is it liberals want to appease Muslims so bad? They're willing to piss all over Christians....but the Muslims must be appeased at all costs?
For the same reason that animal-rights fanatics are more willing to throw red paint on elderly women wearing fur coats than they are on Hell's Angels wearing leather.
Look, some people are claiming that this mosque is being built by moderate Moslems as some sort of "outreach." Yet they want to name it "Cordoba House" after a huge mosque complex converted from a former church in Spain after the Moslems conquered it. It's a symbol of Moslem conquest.
There's nothing "moderate" about any of this - especially when you consider that Osama Bin Laden, in one of his post-9/11 rants - cited Islam's loss of Cordoba House as one of the reasons for 9/11. It's a deliberate, calculated affront to all infidels in America.
To put it another way . . . Japan and the USA fought a very nasty war in the 20th century. Today, Japan and the USA are allies . . . there's a Japanese embassy, Japanese consulates and cultural centers . . . we generally get along OK. Like Americans and many Moslems.
Now imagine if a group of wealthy Japanese businessmen proposed building a Japanese Naval Aviation Memorial on Ford Island near the USS Arizona.
-
Now imagine if a group of wealthy Japanese businessmen proposed building a Japanese Naval Aviation Memorial on Ford Island near the USS Arizona.
didn't the japanese buy most of hawaii?
-
except this latest cash bailout involves them on their original plot of land
Not exactly. The current deal allows the church going up on the same ground if the church is willing to allow the city to build a bomb-sniffing center underground below the church.
If the church doesn't agree, the city says they'll simply take the property they need through eminent domain and build the bomb center anyway, and the church can go pound sand.
The whole charade is part of an ongoing effort by the port authority to get the church to leave, to move away from ground zero. It's standard land development BS, make staying so unpalatable that people simply agree to leave.
-
Now imagine if a group of wealthy Japanese businessmen proposed building a Japanese Naval Aviation Memorial on Ford Island near the USS Arizona.
didn't the japanese buy most of hawaii?
So? His question remains. Now imagine if a group of wealthy Japanese businessmen proposed building a Japanese Naval Aviation Memorial on Ford Island near the USS Arizona.
-
if they owned the land how would you stop em?
-
if they owned the land how would you stop em?
His statement was not about how to stop them. It was about how inappropriate the contruction would be.
-
So? His question remains. Now imagine if a group of wealthy Japanese businessmen proposed building a Japanese Naval Aviation Memorial on Ford Island near the USS Arizona.
=D So I best not mention how many Shinto shrines are within a five mile radius?
-
or that its joked that hawaii is a japanese territory
-
=D So I best not mention how many Shinto shrines are within a five mile radius?
Already been addressed in this thread. There are mosques within a few miles from ground zero already. There is a big difference between a few miles away, and almost directly on the site.
-
I've never read or heard it argued that Shinto motivated the attack on Pearl Harbor. I have little doubt that this will happen. The pertinent question seems to center on the appropriateness of building the Cordoba Center at the proposed location relative to the motivation for doing so.
-
if they owned the land how would you stop em?
Ya mean if I was the city and I wanted to stop the Orthodox church from going back up?
First I'd try to get the land re-zoned. A phone call from the mayor's office to the zoning board usually does the trick. In this case of the Orthodox church being rebuilt, that may not work. That land has been used as a church for decades, so it'd look bad to suddenly claim that location isn't suitable for a church.
Second, I'd try the ol' carrot and stick. I'd offer a big cash payoff if they move (hey, it isn't my money I'm spending, so I'd be generous) coupled with threats of legal action, condemnation, eminent domain, etc.
Third, probably public pressure, bad PR, maybe also try to yank their business license if they need one. If I was a liberal city, I could probably come up with goons to picket the place, boycotts, that sort of thing. Threaten tax audits, inspections, regulators, or whatever is applicable. For a church, yanking their non-profit status would work nicely.
Fourth, I'd grudgingly give up and let 'em build their stupid church. But being a petty city government, I'd engage in all sorts of petty BS to stick it too 'em. My citizens deserve a new sewer treatment plant, let's build one right next door (or a bomb screening center underground right below).
These are the standard real estate development hurdles that everyone has to deal with in urban environments. Churches (whether Greek Orthodox or Muslim) are no different. They are not immune, 1A or not.
As relates to the mosque, the issue should have ended at the zoning board (i.e. zoning for the mosque should have been denied), but when it came time for the mayor to make that phone call, he sided in favor of the mosque instead of in favor of his city. Sadly, Bloomy doesn't have the same fortitude of his predecessor.
-
=D So I best not mention how many Shinto shrines are within a five mile radius?
Doesn't a 5 mile radius include most of the island?
-
In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States.
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: August 13, 2010
Regarding this quote from the article in the OP, there is a bit more to the story.
I was listening to Medved this afternoon and he mentioned some facts on this. First, Obama said the guy was from Tunisia, but Tunisia wasn't a country then. Also, the "ambassador" was not really an ambassador, but was an representative of the Barbary Pirates come over to negotiate the release of US citizens and ships held by the pirates. Jefferson apparently delayed his normal afternoon dinner until sunset to accommodate the man. To call it an iftar is a stretch.
It might be a small error, but IMO it is up there with the 57 states comment from the campaign. =D
-
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: August 13, 2010
Regarding this quote from the article in the OP, there is a bit more to the story.
I was listening to Medved this afternoon and he mentioned some facts on this. First, Obama said the guy was from Tunisia, but Tunisia wasn't a country then. Also, the "ambassador" was not really an ambassador, but was an representative of the Barbary Pirates come over to negotiate the release of US citizens and ships held by the pirates. Jefferson apparently delayed his normal afternoon dinner until sunset to accommodate the man. To call it an iftar is a stretch.
It might be a small error, but IMO it is up there with the 57 states comment from the campaign. =D
A couple of years ago, much was made of the fact that among Jefferson's books was a Koran - showing that " . . . Jefferson learned about and respected Islam."
Right . . . he learned so much about Islam that his reaction was to make war on the Islamic states of the Barbary Coast.
-
A couple of years ago, much was made of the fact that among Jefferson's books was a Koran - showing that " . . . Jefferson learned about and respected Islam."
My bookshelves have a whole slew of false scriptures, pinko-lit, gun control propaganda, etc. A few months ago, I couldn't resist buying some yard-sale book about the global ice-age apocalypse that will destroy us all in the year 2000. :laugh:
-
Right . . . he learned so much about Islam that his reaction was to make war on the Islamic states of the Barbary Coast.
He made war on them because they were pirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War), not because they were Muslim.
-
From HankB:
For the same reason that animal-rights fanatics are more willing to throw red paint on elderly women wearing fur coats than they are on Hell's Angels wearing leather.
And for the same reason the feminist movement is oddly silent on the abuses of Islam.
Some says liberals are affected by a variant of "The Stockholm Syndrome." That is too kind. Cowardice is cowardice.
-
My bookshelves have a whole slew of false scriptures, pinko-lit, gun control propaganda, etc. A few months ago, I couldn't resist buying some yard-sale book about the global ice-age apocalypse that will destroy us all in the year 2000. :laugh:
Indeed, I love that crap! For example, Goodwill has blessed me with a couple of shirts - which I wear too rarely - which warn of the disaster to come when 1999 rolls over to 2000 :D
-
Indeed, I love that crap! For example, Goodwill has blessed me with a couple of shirts - which I wear too rarely - which warn of the disaster to come when 1999 rolls over to 2000 :D
So jealous!
-
Indeed, I love that crap! For example, Goodwill has blessed me with a couple of shirts - which I wear too rarely - which warn of the disaster to come when 1999 rolls over to 2000 :D
And December 21, 2012 will be almost as bad as Y2K was!
-
A couple of years ago, much was made of the fact that among Jefferson's books was a Koran - showing that " . . . Jefferson learned about and respected Islam."
Right . . . he learned so much about Islam that his reaction was to make war on the Islamic states of the Barbary Coast.
Actually, the comment on the show was that Jefferson didn't like Islam at all. They mentioned that the envoy requested housing be provided and actually asked for concubines while in the US. That was declined. You can imagine that Jefferson and others didn't like him very much.
However, the concept of "millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute" is all about anti-piracy and standing up for yourself, not about Islam at all. The amazing thing that we managed to do it with just a handful of ships and marines.
-
Actually, the comment on the show was that Jefferson didn't like Islam at all. They mentioned that the envoy requested housing be provided and actually asked for concubines while in the US. That was declined. You can imagine that Jefferson and others didn't like him very much.
However, the concept of "millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute" is all about anti-piracy and standing up for yourself, not about Islam at all. The amazing thing that we managed to do it with just a handful of ships and marines.
Nothing amazing about that at all! :P
-
Nothing amazing about that at all! :P
i saw that coming! was figuring you to say you were surprised they sent so many marines
-
i saw that coming! was figuring you to say you were surprised they sent so many marines
One of those Barbary Wars only required one marine. He sort of made up an army as he went along. Resourceful sort of fellow.
-
One of those Barbary Wars only required one marine. He sort of made up an army as he went along. Resourceful sort of fellow.
And weren't they? Kinda like that Captain Porter who took his frigate into the pacific and captured something on the order of 15 British ships, placing them under his combined command. Given one ship he went and made his own fleet along the way.
-
from IMAO.us
With the left fighting this hard for a mosque, you’d think they do abortions there or something.
-
And weren't they? Kinda like that Captain Porter who took his frigate into the pacific and captured something on the order of 15 British ships, placing them under his combined command. Given one ship he went and made his own fleet along the way.
I remember hearing that was one of the big reasons we won the War of 1812. The British whaling fleet was nearly wiped out and much of its merchant fleet was suffering from commerce raiders. Good thing we also had some success on the ground in the end.
-
One of those Barbary Wars only required one marine. He sort of made up an army as he went along. Resourceful sort of fellow.
Actually, First Lieutennant Presley O'Bannon led eight Marines and a force of 500 native mercenaries from Alexandria Egypt to Derna, where they slaughtered the enemy and raised the United States flag for the first time over foriegn soil.
-
Please don't forget Captain Decatur who commanded the sloop USS Enterprise and fired the captured USS Philadelphia. That too was with a handful of men.
-
They should be allowed to build their accursed monument.
I come to this conclusion painfully. I was in the Pentagon that Tuesday morning, and I would feel the same way about a Muslim monument next to Arlington National Cemetery.
Why?
We're better than those intolerant, insensitive bastards are. We live and operate our country by the rules laid down by great men. At times, it's hard to live up to principles, but the First Amendment wasn't intended to protect popular speech, nor was the Fifth intended to protect popular religions. We gunnies generally defend the Second Amendment as clear protection for an individual right to arm ourselves for protection from criminals and tyrants. We should not selectively back the Bill of Rights.
Besides, I can only smile as I envision the trouble they're going to encounter with blue-collar New York labor. Not to mention the hazards they'll face in their project, and the demonstrations they'll face if it ever gets completed.
Tell them "go ahead." And smile an evil smile.
TC
-
And who will be called in by Obama to protect them if there's trouble at Ground Zero?
***
The underlying issue here is how far does a society that values individual liberty go to protect those who do NOT value individual liberty? The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It is not just about Muslims; we have allowed the American Left, with its autocratic, anti-individualist ambitions, to grow in all sectors of American life for at least half a century now. Do we like what we are seeing around us?
-
Very well said, Leatherneck.
-
And is the USMC going to force the unions to build the mosque even if the workers don't want to?
-
And is the USMC going to force the unions to build the mosque even if the workers don't want to?
There are plenty of construction workers that will build stuff, construction jobs are down.
And leatherneck, well put. The true test of a patriot is someone who values freedoms for people who don't value their own.
-
well said leatherneck, the only problem I can see is by not resisting their monument to hatred they will perceive it as a victory. Good for jihadist morale bad for the resistance.
-
The true test of a patriot is someone who values freedoms for people who don't value their own.
The true test of a patriot is someone who understands his own values and defends them. Keep embracing those who wish to extinguish our freedoms, citing some kind of pseudo-idealistic nonsense, and see where we end up.
-
The true test of a patriot is someone who understands his own values and defends them. Keep embracing those who wish to extinguish our freedoms, citing some kind of pseudo-idealistic nonsense, and see where we end up.
True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.
Clarence Darrow
-
The true test of a patriot is someone who understands his own values and defends them. Keep embracing those who wish to extinguish our freedoms, citing some kind of pseudo-idealistic nonsense, and see where we end up.
so your kinda an ends justify the means guy? been a recurrent theme in world politics one particularly almost successful leader comes to mind
-
The true test of a patriot is someone who values freedoms for people who don't value their own.
What was your position on the war in Iraq/Afghanistan again?
-
Patriotism, by itself, means nothing but loyalty to one's own; that doesn't mean that one's own endorse enlightened values.
My position on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars is that we should be there only to defend our national interests and security, not to "spread democracy."
-
so your kinda an ends justify the means guy? been a recurrent theme in world politics one particularly almost successful leader comes to mind
You know, Cassandra, the "Nazi" accusations really don't fly. Every nation is "patriotic," and, as I said, that BY ITSELF is not a guarantee of anything. I happen to believe that our core republican values ARE enlightened, but I doubt that we will be very successful in inculcating those virtues in historically alien cultures unless those societies are vanquished in war and forcibly re-educated. That does not mean I advise this course, incidentally; what I advise is doing what's necessary and only what's necessary to protect ourselves both externally and internally.
-
What was your position on the war in Iraq/Afghanistan again?
I was against both wars unless we raised taxes to pay for them.
-
How to win the clash of civilizations http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338471355710184.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
-
I don't see this victory mosque as a house of worship so much as a furtherance of the ongoing effort to undermine the US constitution in favor of Sharia law. I don't think that the people behind the mosque give a flying fig about religious tolerance or freedom in general. Rather, I think those people are smart enough to (mis)use our reverence for freedom in their bid to take freedom away from us.
I'm in no mood to let them succeed at that.
This mosque isn't about being free to worship as you please. Blocking this particular land development in no way impedes anyone's ability to practice Islam in NYC. The location is highly suspect, not only for the connection to sacred land at ground zero, but also for the general neighborhood. Recall that ground zero and the WTC is/was located in the heart of the financial district, a business and commercial district, not in a community neighborhood where people live, play, and go to church. There is no sensible reason to put a "Muslim community center" there, other than the obvious appeal as a victory shrine, and no compelling city planning reason the city to support it.
And now I hear folks like Nancy Pelosi want to investigate the opposition to the mosque. No mention of investigating the men and intentions behind the mosque, no sirree. And no regard for the 1A rights of the 3/4's of the country opposed to the mosque to voice their opinions. Those evil people (us) need to be investigated and silenced.
The appeals to the 1A in favor of this mosque are borked up fifteen ways from Sunday. This ain't about religious freedom, it's all about politics and the culture war. And it stinks to high heaven.
-
a furtherance of the ongoing effort to undermine the US constitution in favor of Sharia law.
got it! so if enough folks crap on the constitution to oppose this it undermines the constitution and advances shari..... thats fiendishly clever! once they trick us into forgetting about our own constitution the camels nose is in the tent and they win.
Recall that ground zero and the WTC is/was located in the heart of the financial district, a business and commercial district, not in a community neighborhood where people live, play, and go to church. There is no sensible reason to put a "Muslim community center" there,
recall that muslims pray 5 times a day and devout ones like to join others for that when they can. then there is this.....
http://factcheck.org/2010/08/no-pentagon-mosque/
http://northernvirginiastan.blogspot.com/2006/06/mosque-at-quantico.html
-
Patriotism, by itself, means nothing but loyalty to one's own...
Thank you.
-
got it! so if enough folks crap on the constitution to oppose this it undermines the constitution and advances shari..... thats fiendishly clever! once they trick us into forgetting about our own constitution the camels nose is in the tent and they win.
Apparently I need to say it again: opposing this particular development isn't a 1A religious freedom issue.
Recall that ground zero and the WTC is/was located in the heart of the financial district, a business and commercial district, not in a community neighborhood where people live, play, and go to church. There is no sensible reason to put a "Muslim community center" there,
recall that muslims pray 5 times a day and devout ones like to join others for that when they can. then there is this.....
http://factcheck.org/2010/08/no-pentagon-mosque/
http://northernvirginiastan.blogspot.com/2006/06/mosque-at-quantico.html
So lemme get this straight. There is not a mosuqe inside the pentagon. There is a mosque at Quantico. Therefore... umm, what's your point, exactly? ???
-
The true test of a patriot is someone who values freedoms for people who don't value their own.
:lol:
That's not a test for patriotism, it is a test for soft-headedness an inability to understand human nature.
This might help:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patriotism
How to win the clash of civilizations http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338471355710184.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Yes, indeed, looking at the world as it is, not as what we would like it to be.
a furtherance of the ongoing effort to undermine the US constitution in favor of Sharia law.
got it! so if enough folks crap on the constitution to oppose this it undermines the constitution and advances shari..... thats fiendishly clever! once they trick us into forgetting about our own constitution the camels nose is in the tent and they win.
CSD, you're going to have to separate delusion & propaganda from reality. For instance, it is not unConstitutional to oppose the GZM. Well, maybe to a "Living Constitution" type to whom the COTUS is nothing but a tool to further their own ends and is re-interpreted depending on their political ends, but the plain text does not support your assertion.
recall that muslims pray 5 times a day and devout ones like to join others for that when they can.
Well, they can join their co-religionists at the 100+/- other mosques in NYC that have managed to brave the horrific unConstitutional gauntlet of criticism. ;/ BTW, that works out to one mosque every 4 square miles.
Besides, I thought the GZM wasn't a mosque, but a muslim community center focusing on interfaith dialog, Jim Wallis lectures, and fluffy unicorns?
-
actually right across the street from the towers is St Pauls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be4q6X9B3nA
there was a Greek Orthodox Christian Chapel on the site
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2FSt-Nicholas-Church-GroundZero.png&hash=3e98c89e2e7f27e284df3b6ff1972824e943e849)
-
Have any radical Greek Orthodox Christians killed 3,000 people in the US recently?
This isn't about religion. It's about respect. The people who are behind building the mosque say that they are sensitive to the feelings of the families of the 9/11 victims, as well as the feelings of many people in the US. If they were sensitive to these feelings, they wouldn't be pushing against 70% of the American public to build a block away. Being "sensitive" to the feelings would mean picking another location. So, they're lying.
What is so special about that spot that they're willing to anger so many Americans?
-
http://www.projo.com/news/content/GROUND_ZERO_SIDEBAR_08-19-10_C3JJLLL_v6.8e4a58.html
Plan to rebuild Greek Orthodox church at Ground Zero remains puzzle
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_ot/us_mosque_fact_check
Interesting article.
-
In another forum I frequent I posted this over a month ago.
My initial reaction was "what a horrible idea".
After some thought on the subject I can see no legitimate reason to stop the construction of a mosque in the area of the WTC crater.
The fact that the Muslim community thinks this is a good idea, pursues and defends it, tells me all I need to know about moderate Muslims. This is such a tone deaf stupid move that they are either truly ignorant of the PR backlash this will engender or they really don't care what "infidels" think. Even if the intentions and motives are as pure as the driven snow, that is not how it will look to flyover country. Not the best move for winning hearts and minds IMHO.
Nonetheless, they should be allowed to build their mosque wherever they want. That is a better outcome than allowing the micro managing of zoning bureaucrats to dictate where religious buildings are built, any day.
Sometimes the best we can hope for is the opposition to overplay their hand.
-
Is this whole thing a Fred Phelps-ian attempt to get people to torch the site/shoot at people/etc so as to sue them/the city/whoever for big money? I see the opening date listed as 9.11.2011, and that is clearly intentional.
-
you folks realize the site is already used as an overflow site for muslim worshipers in manhattan?
-
The Mosque is about the American people waking up to the realization that they don't run their own country. There is so much the American people didn't know. They didn't know that the Mexican invasion was as big as it is, so impactful on their nation, that sections of Arizona are no longer "America." In the same way, until The Mosque made them focus the way the Arizona bill did, they didn't know that there were already over two thousand mosques in America, that there are over two hundred in New York. They didn't know there were so many Muslims in America, and now they're wondering how they got here, who invited them, and, most important, why, even after 9/11.
We have a long, long way to go on both subjects.
-
The Mosque is about the American people waking up to the realization that they don't run their own country. There is so much the American people didn't know. They didn't know that the Mexican invasion was as big as it is, so impactful on their nation, that sections of Arizona are no longer "America." In the same way, until The Mosque made them focus the way the Arizona bill did, they didn't know that there were already over two thousand mosques in America, that there are over two hundred in New York. They didn't know there were so many Muslims in America, and now they're wondering how they got here, who invited them, and, most important, why, even after 9/11.
We have a long, long way to go on both subjects.
Which all really doesn't do jack to explain why, if the builders are as committed to understanding and peaceful coexistence as they claim, they refused offers to help them move to another spot on the state's dime.
-
The Mosque is about the American people waking up to the realization that they don't run their own country.
I didn't know the millions of Muslims holding US citizenship aren't Americans.
-
Which all really doesn't do jack to explain why, if the builders are as committed to understanding and peaceful coexistence as they claim, they refused offers to help them move to another spot on the state's dime.
i missed the states offer to move them gratis.... and since they already use the coat factory for worship what happened to make that a problem..... i mean besides rush and beck finding out
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/changingface.asp
a picture worth a thousand words
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_ot/us_mosque_fact_check
Worship already taking place at the site, its just not an "official" mosque.
-
I'm sure everyone remembers the NRA paring back to only essential meetings at its 1999 convention in Denver following Columbine. The NRA wasn't responsible for the Columbine shootings (although many anti's tried to say we were), nor did the NRA represent in any way the Columbine shooters. Yet the NRA, aware of public opinion, all but cancelled the convention.
What if the NRA had planned to build something like the Whitfield Center in Littleton? Would there have been a public outcry? Would the NRA have picked another location? I think everyone here knows the answer.
The mosque and cultural center will stand day after day for decades, and every day be a thumb in the eye of millions of Americans. Surely the people behind building the mosque must know this. They can't be that tone deaf. That begs the question, why are they doing this despite overwhelming and sometimes fierce opposition?
-
The mosque and cultural center will stand day after day for decades, and every day be a thumb in the eye of millions of Americans. Surely the people behind building the mosque must know this. They can't be that tone deaf. That begs the question, why are they doing this despite overwhelming and sometimes fierce opposition?
Oh, I agree with you there. But sometimes, we just have to suffer with unpopular speech. But we should never allow our unpopular speech to be stifiled by the left.
-
Oh, I agree with you there. But sometimes, we just have to suffer with unpopular speech. But we should never allow our unpopular speech to be stifiled by the left.
Correct. And, if they go ahead and build the structure, they're going to have to suffer unpopular speech for a long, long time. Or are we going to be "re-educated" to accept it? Or is Nancy Pelosi going to follow through on her promise to investigate the funding of the people (meaning the people) opposed to the mosque, which is a pretty chilling statement.
-
I didn't know the millions of Muslims holding US citizenship aren't Americans.
I have a surprise for you--no, not really: millions of people in this nation with legal residency and citizenship both "aren't Americans." They are people who happen to live here but do not subscribe to the basic values that founded America and have sustained it. I'm not talking just about immigrants, by the way.
My point was and is that Americans have been used, abused, and conned, treated as children by people in power, both inside and outside politics, who have their own agendas and who certainly don't have the best interests of this country at heart. There's been a lack of transparency on issues of national "identity" for decades, since the immigration act of 1965 at least. Now we're seeing all of that play out and people are asking WTF.
-
Which all really doesn't do jack to explain why, if the builders are as committed to understanding and peaceful coexistence as they claim, they refused offers to help them move to another spot on the state's dime.
No, but it explains why this absurdity is happening in the first place.
-
t what point were you granted the power of arbiter? i missed the memo or we must move in different circles and missed that meeting.
I have a surprise for you--no, not really: millions of people in this nation with legal residency and citizenship both "aren't Americans." They are people who happen to live here but do not subscribe to the basic values that founded America and have sustained it. I'm not talking just about immigrants, by the way.
My point was and is that Americans have been used, abused, and conned, treated as children by people in power, both inside and outside politics, who have their own agendas and who certainly don't have the best interests of this country at heart. There's been a lack of transparency on issues of national "identity" for decades, since the immigration act of 1965 at least. Now we're seeing all of that play out and people are asking WTF.
-
Too bad that "unpopular speech," aided and abetted by other forces, has a way of growing into major political division. This is not just about tolerating minority opinion, it is about something far greater, the usurpation of control over a nation by manipulating the slice of America that pulls the strings.
-
A little something from Karl Popper wrote after WWII might be enlightening. A mental astringent, if you will.
Link to full text (in several formats) of The Open Society And Its Enemies
http://www.archive.org/details/opensocietyandit033120mbp
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead
to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to
those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society
against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed,
and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance,
that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as
long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check
by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we
should claim the right even to suppress them, for it may easily turn out that
they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin
by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to
anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer
arguments by the use of their fists. We should therefore claim, in the name
of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that
any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we
should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, exactly
as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping ; or as we
should consider incitement to the revival of the slave trade.
-
http://beta.dnainfo.com/20100818/downtown/63-percent-of-new-yorkers-oppose-ground-zero-mosque-poll-says
majority support constitutional right to build
-
majority support constitutional right to build
Is anyone here actually arguing against their constitutional right to build there? I think most are agreeing that they have the right to do so, but that doing so simply makes them jackasses.
Monkeyleg made an excellent reference with the NRA and Columbine. The NRA had every right (in fact a legal obligation) to hold the annual meeting. They chose to scale it back to the minimum legal obligation required in light of Columbine, even though the one had nothing to do with the other.
As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, Greg Gutfeld and his investors are moving forward with opening of the gay bar that will be Muslim gay friendly next to the Mosque. The Mosque builders are already upset about this. Why?
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lucianne.com%2Fimages%2Flucianne%2FDailyPhoto%2F2010-08-18-GAPVA.jpg&hash=b26d0d53c1e08f31e363f5d052ba9629e30c5c7a)
This was posted on the front page of http://www.lucianne.com/.
:lol: :lol:
I guess it might change by tomorrow.
-
Is anyone here actually arguing against their constitutional right to build there? I think most are agreeing that they have the right to do so, but that doing so simply makes them jackasses.
Pretty much. I don't know if it can be legally stopped or not. I just disagree with it being there.
I do think there is precedent for zoning areas near monuments (not sure what sort of monument this is or not).
I also think this is not at all a religious freedom issue. I think it is primarily a property rights/zoning issue. If it were just religious freedom, the location itself wouldn't be very critical to the builders.
-
As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, Greg Gutfeld and his investors are moving forward with opening of the gay bar that will be Muslim gay friendly next to the Mosque. The Mosque builders are already upset about this. Why?
Heck, I'll donate some money to that bar and its security folks.
-
As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, Greg Gutfeld and his investors are moving forward with opening of the gay bar that will be Muslim gay friendly next to the Mosque. The Mosque builders are already upset about this. Why?
Heck, I'll donate some money to that bar and its security folks.
Outstanding! Didn't take long for someone to start serving them a bit of their own medicine.
"We don't care what the locals think, we're gonna build it here 'for peace and understanding' whether they like it or not, but nobody else better build something nearby that we disagree with!"
I'm with Rev, who do I donate to? :lol:
-
At what point were you granted the power of arbiter? i missed the memo or we must move in different circles and missed that meeting.
I have opinions. Like you. Difference is mine are backed by something, Cassandra. Yeah, you missed the memo; in fact you've missed a lot of memos. If you don't like what I have to say, well, tough.
-
I'm sure everyone remembers the NRA paring back to only essential meetings at its 1999 convention in Denver following Columbine. The NRA wasn't responsible for the Columbine shootings (although many anti's tried to say we were), nor did the NRA represent in any way the Columbine shooters. Yet the NRA, aware of public opinion, all but cancelled the convention.
What if the NRA had planned to build something like the Whitfield Center in Littleton? Would there have been a public outcry? Would the NRA have picked another location? I think everyone here knows the answer.
And maybe that would be the wrong away to go. But that is a completely different debate, no?
-
Heck, I'll donate some money to that bar and its security folks.
Current working bar name:
Dialog
-
Rush was suggesting names of the bar earlier this week I think Al Gay-da was one of the suggestions. =D
-
wanna take bets on which opens first?or at all?
-
Westboro Baptists vs GZM:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244183/westboro-baptist-s-church-s-religious-freedom-amy-holmes
"Will we hear from left-wing commentators that, out of an abundance of tolerance, we must stand in solidarity with the Westboro Baptist Church (whose position on homosexuality is actually not all that different from fundamentalist Islam’s) in defense of religious freedom? I suspect not."
Hi-larious reading and commentary on the WBC case that that WBC won in feddle court. I suspect the answer to her questions will be "Nope."
-
In the same way, until The Mosque made them focus the way the Arizona bill did, they didn't know that there were already over two thousand mosques in America, that there are over two hundred in New York. They didn't know there were so many Muslims in America, and now they're wondering how they got here, who invited them, and, most important, why, even after 9/11.
We have a long, long way to go on both subjects.
I'm surprised we let Muslims live here. We should put them in camps since they are so dangerous.
-
yea camps have a tradition in america
-
In the same way, until The Mosque made them focus the way the Arizona bill did, they didn't know that there were already over two thousand mosques in America, that there are over two hundred in New York. They didn't know there were so many Muslims in America, and now they're wondering how they got here, who invited them, and, most important, why, even after 9/11.
Let's try this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The presence of people who happen to be Muslim, in and of itself, is not a problem to be 'solved' by policymakers, Federal, state, or local.
-
I'm surprised we let Muslims live here. We should put them in camps since they are so dangerous.
It is always those more liberal people who want camps.
=D
-
I'm sure everyone remembers the NRA paring back to only essential meetings at its 1999 convention in Denver following Columbine. The NRA wasn't responsible for the Columbine shootings (although many anti's tried to say we were), nor did the NRA represent in any way the Columbine shooters. Yet the NRA, aware of public opinion, all but cancelled the convention.
What if the NRA had planned to build something like the Whitfield Center in Littleton? Would there have been a public outcry? Would the NRA have picked another location? I think everyone here knows the answer.
The mosque and cultural center will stand day after day for decades, and every day be a thumb in the eye of millions of Americans. Surely the people behind building the mosque must know this. They can't be that tone deaf. That begs the question, why are they doing this despite overwhelming and sometimes fierce opposition?
The NRA had already booked the site and spent a great deal of money on the convention long before the shootings took place, and yet they still canceled almost all of the extraneous events and only held the business-related member meetings as a show of understanding to the town. That situation is nothing like this one, where the mosque builders selected this site after 9/11 and deliberately because of it importance as a site of jihad.
-
The NRA had already booked the site and spent a great deal of money on the convention long before the shootings took place, and yet they still canceled almost all of the extraneous events and only held the business-related member meetings as a show of understanding to the town. That situation is nothing like this one, where the mosque builders selected this site after 9/11 and deliberately because of it importance as a site of jihad.
I believe the NRA is legally required to hold a meeting as terms of its incorporation. I can't remember where I read that, I think it was in one of those "Michael Moore's 'bowling for columbine' is stupid" refutations. (is refutation a word?)
-
Let's try this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The presence of people who happen to be Muslim, in and of itself, is not a problem to be 'solved' by policymakers, Federal, state, or local.
Once again, this has nothing at all to do with the 1st amendment. The 1A is silent on issues of real estate development.
-
OK, let's try this:
Nearly 70% of the American public is opposed to building the mosque on the designated site. The percentage is even higher in New York City.
Given such a strong reaction against the proposal, why are those involved with the mosque determined to build it on that spot? Why won't they consider a spot across town or even ten blocks away, but instead insist on that spot?
I'd like to hear an answer from anyone supporting the building of the mosque.
-
Given such a strong reaction against the proposal, why are those involved with the mosque determined to build it on that spot? Why won't they consider a spot across town or even ten blocks away, but instead insist on that spot?
Because they're trying to promote understanding and harmony.
-
Once again, this has nothing at all to do with the 1st amendment. The 1A is silent on issues of real estate development.
So what is the proper role of government here? Is it proper for the government to control private property?
-
OK, let's try this:
Nearly 70% of the American public is opposed to building the mosque shooting range on the designated site. The percentage is even higher in New York City.
Given such a strong reaction against the proposal, why are those involved with the mosque shooting range determined to build it on that spot? Why won't they consider a spot across town or even ten blocks away, but instead insist on that spot?
I'd like to hear an answer from anyone supporting the building of the mosque. shooting range.
Because it's their right. Isn't that enough? I don't like being bullied.
It's my property, I'm not violating any laws, and i'm going to do what i want with it.
-
Because it's their right. Isn't that enough? I don't like being bullied.
It's my property, I'm not violating any laws, and i'm going to do what i want with it.
It's not a questions of whether they are allowed to.
I'll ask my question yet again. If the builders of this mosque care as much about harmony and mutual respect and understanding as they claim, why do they refuse to do something that would calm the situation such as move the mosque site? It's about motivations Nitrogen.
-
It's not a questions of whether they are allowed to.
I'll ask my question yet again. If the builders of this mosque care as much about harmony and mutual respect and understanding as they claim, why do they refuse to do something that would calm the situation such as move the mosque site? It's about motivations Nitrogen.
Maybe it;s just close to where they all work, and they'd like a nearby place to pray 7983598324 times a day?
Maybe the fire escapes look good to them?
Christians often place missions in areas hostile to Christianity, in order to spread the word of God. I know there are Christian missionaries in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for instance. I they get caught, they can be executed. Since the Saudis obviously don't want Christians there, why do the missionaries go?
They go because they can have the most impact where they are hated. They can hopefully show people that hate them that they aren't all bad; it's great bang for their buck.
If I was a Muslim wanting to make a difference, I'd want to place my mosque/mission/whatever in that area PRECISELY because people hate me so much. I'd hope, through my deeds, I could show that my religion and my people are nowhere near as bad as others think they are. I'm betting there's an equivalent to Matthew 28:19 ("Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") in the Koran.
Does your church do missionary work? Would you go to Saudi Arabia to spread the word, if called to?
-
Because it's their right. Isn't that enough? I don't like being bullied.
It's my property, I'm not violating any laws, and i'm going to do what i want with it.
Sure it's your right. But if you state that your intent is to create harmony and understanding by pissing off 70% of the American people, are you telling the truth?
-
Sure it's your right. But if you state that your intent is to create harmony and understanding by pissing off 70% of the American people, are you telling the truth?
Absolutely. See my above post.
-
So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?
-
So what is the proper role of government here? Is it proper for the government to control private property?
Reasonable city planning is a proper role of local government, especially in dense urban areas.
-
So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?
Sure. If the authorities find out they'll kill you, but other than that, you're good to go.
-
So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?
No. You don't have freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia like you do here in America. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy. Proselytizing is illegal, and apostasy is punishable by death there.
-
So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?
Tsk tsk, Ragnar. That's not a fair description at all..... You would need a Christian Fundamentalist group to bomb or otherwise destroy the house of Abraham in Mecca first, and then try to set up a Baptist ministry next door.
-
So can I set up a church in Mecca or Medina?
Clearly, since you cannot set up a church in a city almost completely administered by the Waqf, the same model should be administered in free countries.
On the same argument, you cannot set up a mosque in the Vatican.
-
Clearly, since you cannot set up a church in a city almost completely administered by the Waqf, the same model should be administered in free countries.
On the same argument, you cannot set up a mosque in the Vatican.
That's not the same model and you know it.
-
PS I'm really glad this thread hasn't been locked yet. I'm really enjoying this discussion with ya'll.
-
That's not the same model and you know it.
Why is this not the same model? You are saying that Americans should act in the same manner as the most restrictive cities in any Islamic country, those effectively run by religious authorities (like the Waqf), towards Muslims as Muslims act towards Christians.
There are - as I pointed out - some areas in 'Christendom' where mosques are also not allowed. But this isn't how America is supposed to work.
-
Nearly 70% of the American public is opposed to building the mosque on the designated site. The percentage is even higher in New York City.
Uhoh. I am part of that 70%. But I think we, what? Patriots? Conservatives? How about we members of the Armed Polite Society?
Anyhoo--We should be aware enough that the facts are:
1. It's their legal right to build on their property. We should actively defend this.
2. It's a terrible idea to do so because it is fundamentally offensive to very many Americans. It will alienate many more people than they claim to be "reaching out to."
3. If it's built, they will come. And there will be violence. Because this touches nerves rubbed raw by our endurance of so much mindless violence perpetrated by people who happen to be Muslim, justifying their actions by their personal version of their religion.
TC
-
Leatherneck nailed it.
-
You are saying that...
No, I am not.
I am saying we (by 'we' I mean the local NYC authorities) should act the exact same way towards the proposed Cordoba development that they would act towards any other proposed development. Being Muslim (or members of a politically correct class, or having the favor of powerful politicians, or...) does not grant you super special land development rights. You're no different than anyone else, and you should be treated no differently.
-
Would a church be banned from operating in the same area? No? Then neither should be the mosque.
-
I am saying we (by 'we' I mean the local NYC authorities) should act the exact same way towards the proposed Cordoba development that they would act towards any other proposed development.
Respectfully, NO. We should not act as "they" would. We should act as we must, according to our Constitution and law.
Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying, HTG?
TC
-
I'm surprised we let Muslims live here. We should put them in camps since they are so dangerous.
Tongue in cheek or tongue somewhere else?
No one's talking about "camps"--as you well know--but someone, me, is asking who exactly directs our immigration policies. In a Constitutional Republic such as we allegedly have we might want to know; we might also want some input in these decisions.
My view on all this is that tolerance toward the intolerant is radically foolish, and we have nothing to prove by destroying the country in the name of open-mindedness that is really just soft-headedness.
-
Would a church be banned from operating in the same area? No? Then neither should be the mosque.
There's at least one church there that's getting the runaround, yes. My own local Lutheran church in IN had some issues expanding a few years ago. This is normal and common and expected when it comes to land development. Makes no difference whether the development is owned by religious folks vs seculars.
Being in the press makes no difference either, for that matter. Try putting up a broadcast tower in your backyard. When you run in to trouble, loudly proclaim your free press rights are being violated. See how far it gets you.
This ain't about the 1st amendment. No how, no way. Appeals to the 1A completely miss the point.
The fundamental issue is whether the development is suitable for the location. If a given church is unsuitable, then I'd fully expect it to be blocked/moved/altered/whatever. Same for a mosque. Or a newspaper publisher. Or a farm, nightclub, skyscraper, anything.
Being Muslim doesn't give you special dispensation to build in grossly inappropriate locations.
-
Respectfully, NO. We should not act as "they" would. We should act as we must, according to our Constitution and law.
Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying, HTG?
TC
Misunderstanding. Sorry, probably my fault.
What I mean is that NYC should act towards the Cordoba mosque in exactly the same way NYC would act towards any other proposed development.
-
What I mean is that NYC should act towards the Cordoba mosque in exactly the same way NYC would act towards any other proposed development.
Got it. Agree.
TC
-
What I mean is that NYC should act towards the Cordoba mosque in exactly the same way NYC would act towards any other proposed development.
Which raises the question of why the orthodox church that is trying to rebuild their church that was destroyed on 9/11 is encountering problems and delays. Do you know what's up with that?
TC
-
I get the impression the port authority wants their land. I don't know this for fact, but I'd wager that the port authority really wanted that land back in the 60's when they built the WTC the first time. A church really isn't appropriate right on top of a major financial office development. But since the church was there first, by a good half century, there probably wasn't much they could do about it at the time.
Now that there isn't a church there any more, it becomes a lot easier for the city to realize their city planning ideas.
-
I wonder if this would even be an issue if they would have simply rebuilt the towers 10 feet taller than the old ones.
-
OK, let's try this:
Nearly 70% of the American public is opposed to building the mosque on the designated site. The percentage is even higher in New York City.
Given such a strong reaction against the proposal, why are those involved with the mosque determined to build it on that spot? Why won't they consider a spot across town or even ten blocks away, but instead insist on that spot?
I'd like to hear an answer from anyone supporting the building of the mosque.
strangely enough i saw a survey where folks actually in manhattan are less bothered than folks elsewhere
-
strangely enough i saw a survey where folks actually in manhattan are less bothered than folks elsewhere
Hmm, every poll I've seen says a majority of New Yorkers think the GZM is a bad idea.
-
this poll said that too just that the majority was barely one in manhattan. might be cause those folks know that they already worship at the coat factory and in the street outside
-
local folks say
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081906580.html?hpid=topnews
and it puts to rest the bogus claim that gov patterson offered em land elsewhere
-
heres the manhattan poll
http://dnainfo.com/20100701/manhattan/manhattanites-support-mosque-near-ground-zero-poll-finds
-
Put in by the Marines and under the control of the US Military? Not a problem.
Funded by terrorist backers and dedicated to celebrating Islam's victory over the Great Satan? Quite the problem.
Have you any evidence that this mosque is:
a) funded by terrorist backers?
b) dedicated to celebrating Islam's victory over the Great Satan?
-
Have you any evidence that this mosque is:
a) funded by terrorist backers?
b) dedicated to celebrating Islam's victory over the Great Satan?
They are basing that on the title of his book, as titled in the Muslim world:
Seruan Azan Dari Puing WTC: Dakwah Islam di Jantung Amerika Pasca 9/11
Dakwah is being interpreted to Dawah, which is then being explained as Conquest. (Take wiki for what it's worth, but thats not the wiki translation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawah)
Also, the whole "cordoba" project thing is being interpreted as some code for conquest, as it is a muslim word for an old empire that used to encompass the west.
-
Have you any evidence that this mosque is:
a) funded by terrorist backers?
b) dedicated to celebrating Islam's victory over the Great Satan?
a) He won't say who is funding him. Odds are (given past funding patterns) is that he is Saudi-backed.
Also, he is unwilling to go on the record against Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Typical "moderate*" Muslim mealy-mouthed dissembling
b) Cordoba was the capital of the Islamic caliphate (Al-Andalus) in the Iberian peninsula.
An analog would be to drop a church in Riyadh or Istanbul and name it "New Constantinople." Nah, that wouldn't be provocative, not a bit.
* As opposed to actual moderates.
-
FTR, the great mosque of Cordoba built by the Umayyads was built on the site of the Visigothic church of St Vincent afte rthey were pushed out of hte middle east...where they had bult the great mosque of Damascus on the site of a Christian of John the Baptist.
And of course, who can forget the Hagia Sophia, a Chritian church dedicated to the second person of the Trinity, which was turned int oa mosque by the Turks.
-
And of course, who can forget the Hagia Sophia, a Chritian church dedicated to the second person of the Trinity, which was turned int oa mosque by the Turks.
And the Al Aqsa mosque on top of the Temple Mount.
Islam has quite a tradition of building mosques at the sites of their conquests.
-
And the Al Aqsa mosque on top of the Temple Mount.
Islam has quite a tradition of building mosques at the sites of their conquests.
al asqua? the one that the israelis control access to?
-
al asqua? the one that the israelis control access to?
The one that the Pali's control. The one that they do "archaeological" digs with CAT wheel loaders on, destroying archaeological finds, and haul off the dirt and archaeological artifacts in dump trucks.
Savages.
-
al asqua? the one that the israelis control access to?
The mosque was built prior to the year 675, back when there was a Palestine, and well before there was an Israel. I don't think Netenyahu had a lot of say about zoning back then.
-
Temple Mount relics saved from garbage
http://www.echad.info/sifting/media/jpost14-4-05.html
Temple Mount Sifting Project
http://templemount.wordpress.com/
The mosque was built prior to the year 675, back when there was a Palestine, and well before there was an Israel. I don't think Netenyahu had a lot of say about zoning back then.
Just blame it on Bush.
-
Bill Whittle Godwin's Islam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_iDPRud_c)
...well, sort of, to a point. He fleshes out the position counter the GZM quite well, and it would almost seem as if he has been reading this thread based on the Shinto shrine comment. Rather than expend the energy to create a long body of writing regarding my personal stance that will simply be ignored by the target audience in favor of tolerance-lemming-ism conveyed through perfidious and improvident obiter dictum, I will leave it to Mister Whittle to elucidate this matter.
-
same place?
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_507965.html
http://www.france24.com/en/20100329-israel-restricts-access-al-aqsa-mosque-0
-
Rather than expend the energy to create a long body of writing regarding my personal stance that will simply be ignored by the target audience in favor of
tolerance-lemming-ism conveyed through perfidious and improvident obiter dictum the constitution, I will leave it to Mister Whittle to elucidate this matter.
ftfy
-
Rather than expend the energy to create a long body of writing regarding my personal stance that will simply be ignored by the target audience in favor of tolerance-lemming-ism conveyed through perfidious and improvident obiter dictum the constitution, I will leave it to Mister Whittle to elucidate this matter.
ftfy
Remember, you got that part wrong earlier.
Repetition does not fix a broken argument.
-
An analog would be to drop a church in Riyadh or Istanbul and name it "New Constantinople." Nah, that wouldn't be provocative, not a bit.
I personally think "The Cathedral of the New Crusade" would be a closer analog . . .
-
The mosque was built prior to the year 675, back when there was a Palestine, and well before there was an Israel.
I know what you're trying to say, but you have to admit that sounds a little funny. :laugh:
-
Some of the more recent posts are starting to take a personal bent. Knock it off, or I'm getting out the fork.
-
We've got that pesky 1st Amendment thing out there to deal with though don't we.
My personal stand is that I don't care about the mosque or where they build it but there are a few issues related to this mess that do lean toward twisting my knickers just a bit.
On the one hand the .gov is dragging it's heels with the Greek Orthodox Church REbuild and at the same time seemingly fast tracking a NEW mosque in the same area.
On the other hand our state department is at least in part footing the bill for a (radical?)Imam to take a rah rah tour the mideast to suppor the new mosque.
It begins to sound like someone is playing favorites.
-
Nobody's putting roadblocks up in the church's rebuilding.
Question is wether or not they'll get public money to do so or not, at least that's my understanding.
They had a deal with the port authority that they couldn't work out terms with.
-
yea the greeks wanted 45 mill of gov money to build a place 7 times the size of what they had
-
Bill Whittle Godwin's Islam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_iDPRud_c)
...well, sort of, to a point. He fleshes out the position counter the GZM quite well, and it would almost seem as if he has been reading this thread based on the Shinto shrine comment. Rather than expend the energy to create a long body of writing regarding my personal stance that will simply be ignored by the target audience in favor of tolerance-lemming-ism conveyed through perfidious and improvident obiter dictum, I will leave it to Mister Whittle to elucidate this matter.
1. And yet, the Nazis were wrong. The Japanese were wrong. Their bet on British and American 'weakness' broke them only a complete destruction of everything they stood for. The Americans not only won WW2, but killed four Japanese soldiers for every American lost on both fronts, then destroyed Japanese industry and merchant fleet, and then nuked Japan. Twice. The people who were actually comitting civilizational suicide were not the 'appeasers', but the Nazis and Japanese.
2. To equate the Uyghur-Chinese conflict [does he realize the PRC are engaged in a genocide of the Uyghurs? That the PRC are monsters who steal the kidneys of political dissidents for re-sale?] with the struggle of the Islamic fascists with the West is [another] moral failure of Whittle's.
3. Whittle equates ALL Chechen fighters with Radical Islam. General Dudaev would have probably disagreed.
-
1. And yet, the Nazis were wrong. The Japanese were wrong. Their bet on British and American 'weakness' broke them only a complete destruction of everything they stood for. The Americans not only won WW2, but killed four Japanese soldiers for every American lost on both fronts, then destroyed Japanese industry and merchant fleet, and then nuked Japan. Twice. The people who were actually comitting civilizational suicide were not the 'appeasers', but the Nazis and Japanese.
That the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were ultimately wrong in their wager on British and American weakness is beside the point. Mr. Whittle's analysis is that the appearance of weakness and ambivalence to the plight of others, demonstrated openly as unmoderated "tolerance," which he posits as actually a facade for cowardice and self-loathing, was to invite increasing predations and atrocities from those who would hold the accumulation of power and wealth above a basic sense of right and wrong combined with a total lack of empathy for their fellow humans. The Nazi's and Imperial Japanese failed not because this appearance didn't genuinely exist amongst some of the more prominent and public figures of each nation, but because such a state of mind had not fully permeated the societies and governments of Britain and the United States.
I'll address your second and third points later tonight when I get to work and have more time to review them.
-
I often post links to articles by Victor Davis Hanson on this forum. As a historian, he puts matters into perspectives that other conservative writers do not. Today's column does a good job of distilling the points made in this thread by opponents of the mosque, and makes some that I haven't yet seen. His theory about Imam Rauf's strategy is not provable, but is certainly interesting.
It's a short column, which you can read here (http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson082010.html).
-
1. And yet, the Nazis were wrong. The Japanese were wrong. Their bet on British and American 'weakness' broke them only a complete destruction of everything they stood for. The Americans not only won WW2, but killed four Japanese soldiers for every American lost on both fronts, then destroyed Japanese industry and merchant fleet, and then nuked Japan. Twice. The people who were actually comitting civilizational suicide were
As kgbs wrote, interesting, but beside the point. But...what is APS for, if not for such digressions? :P
Yep, we gave much better than we got Loss Exchange Ratio-wise (LER = num_enemy_killed / num_friendly_killed) vs the Japanese.
Not so much vis a vis the Germans, who had LERs greater than 1.0 vs every other opponent they fought. Luckily, we could equip LOT of Americans to die in numerous Sherman tanks for every Kraut tank and we were able to do the same "favor" for allies to ensure a target-rich environment for the Germans...until they ran out of fuel, ammo, or were just overrun. We were also able to make sure the Russians could fight the war and feed themselves.
Oh, and hte Germans were able to kill more of us than theirs that got killed, even though we had cracked a goodly portion of their encrypted commo. Who knows how many more Americans would have died in Europe without such intel?
And, why don't we toss in the not-so-well known fact that most of the German army was horse-drawn. Ours (American) was unique in that our logistics were entirely mechanized.
I think America was fortunate (Divine Intervention magnitude fortune) that Germany was run by a partially-mad man with a terrible sense of timing for taking on the Russians who foolishly declared war on America when he didn't have to. If Germany had to deal with only one front at a time, I think it would have taken atom bombs to beat them...if they didn't wind up developing them, too, under reduced pressure they'd have with just one front.
-
The issue is not that of LERs.
The point is that Germany was never capable of winning the war it declared. There were too many Russians (whose tactics were NOT as deficient as commonly believed), America was too powerful and Britain was too much of an island.
And yet Germany was far more menacing and effective of an enemy than anything the modern Islamic Fascists can even begin to pose.
-
And yet Germany was far more menacing and effective of an enemy than anything the modern Islamic Fascists can even begin to pose.
Except now you are comparing two forces with entirely different battle doctrines. The Nazi Wehrmacht was designed to fight a combination attrition/maneuver warfare, where as any likely assembly of Islam-oriented fighting groups are largely oriented to guerrilla or asymmetrical warfare, except, and this is what differentiates them from others practitioners of asymmetrical warfare, such as Vietnam or Finland, is that these groups act independent of national alliance or official sponsorship limiting retributive counter attacks aimed at depriving them of war material, sanctuary or recruitment base. If it was still 1950 would you have declared that Vietnam was no Germany and thus could offer no credible resistance to the United States? Even with the hinderance of having a declared nation and it's associated infrastructure that could be attacked that tiny nation met the U.S.'s newly developing doctrine of maneuver warfare with one of asymmetrical warfare and despite disproportionately heavy losses managed to stymie our political objectives there for eight years until we simply got tired of throwing blood and wealth into the grinder. It is the foolish man who underestimates his enemies.
-
The problem is - again - that I am not advocating appeasement of the Radical Muslims, surrender to the Radical Muslims, or anything like it.
-
The problem is - again - that I am not advocating appeasement of the Radical Muslims, surrender to the Radical Muslims, or anything like it.
Oh I get that, no worries on that part. I just wished to illustrate that you can't really compare one to the other and use that as a yard stick for threat credibility is all.
Since I promised earlier that I would get to these once I was at work...
2. To equate the Uyghur-Chinese conflict [does he realize the PRC are engaged in a genocide of the Uyghurs? That the PRC are monsters who steal the kidneys of political dissidents for re-sale?] with the struggle of the Islamic fascists with the West is [another] moral failure of Whittle's.
3. Whittle equates ALL Chechen fighters with Radical Islam. General Dudaev would have probably disagreed.
The first one, honestly, I'm not gonna touch with a ten foot pole. I just don't know enough about that situation to form what I would consider an educated and credible opinion as an intel weenie. (Damn, how often do you hear someone admit to ignorance of a subject on the intertoobs? :lol:)
The second one however... Well General Dudeyev may have disagreed... during the First Chechen War. However he has been dead for the past 14 years and subsequently has had zero involvement in the Second and ongoing Chechen War which has notably included foreign Islamist Wahhabism element as a fourth and distinct involved belligerant, with it's own political and social end goals, in addition to the Russian Federation, Republic of Ichkeria and a loose group of local militants lead by Umarov and Yevloyev.
-
Nobody's putting roadblocks up in the church's rebuilding.
Question is wether or not they'll get public money to do so or not, at least that's my understanding.
They had a deal with the port authority that they couldn't work out terms with.
Your understanding is incorrect. The Greek Orthodox church has never been free to rebuild, not without first having to satisfy crazy preconditions like allowing a bomb screening center underground below the church.
-
The Nazi Wehrmacht was designed to fight a combination attrition/maneuver warfare, where as any likely assembly of Islam-oriented fighting groups are largely oriented to guerrilla or asymmetrical warfare, except, and this is what differentiates them from others practitioners of asymmetrical warfare, such as Vietnam or Finland, is that these groups act independent of national alliance or official sponsorship limiting retributive counter attacks aimed at depriving them of war material, sanctuary or recruitment base.
Militant Islamist factions operate without "official sponsorship?" I guess the operative word here is official because clearly Al-Qaeda et alia require support from terrorist-inclined states, something we seem to have trouble recognizing for reasons one has to wonder about. And no matter how "asymmetric" these groups are in their strategies once they obtain WMDs, which I believe they will, there will be some fearful symmetries at work indeed.
-
Your understanding is incorrect. The Greek Orthodox church has never been free to rebuild, not without first having to satisfy crazy preconditions like allowing a bomb screening center underground below the church.
fail the bomb screening center was under their new improved tax payer subsidized 7 times bigger extravaganza they are now free to build on original site still trying for tax dollars
The archdiocese and Port Authority offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has previously claimed the church was making additional demands – like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.
"The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building," a spokesperson with the Port Authority told Fox New
-
Yeah, no. The church isn't free now, and never has been free, to rebuild on their property as they wish. They've been permitted to rebuild subject to the PA's demands for the property.
-
like everyone else that builds there?
-
The PA doesn't put bomb centers under everyone's property, no.
-
the bomb center is pretty big
heres a diagram
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/07/03/nyregion/03trademap.ready.html
-
I suggest that they move the bomb screening center to under the mosque. =D
-
I suggest that they move the bomb screening center to under the mosque. =D
I wholeheartedly endorse this solution.
-
mosque is too far away outa sight of the center
-
I suggest that they move the bomb screening testing center to under the mosque. =D
FIFY.... >:D
-
I suggest that they move the bomb screening center to under the mosque. =D
Heh!
It could never happen, though. It would be deemed too insensitive.
-
it would also be too far away from the wtc site. big bocks in nyc you're not in kansas anymore
-
it would also be too far away from the wtc site. big bocks in nyc you're not in kansas anymore
Not THAT big.
The building was hit by plane debris on 9-11. Landing gear, IIRC.
-
how far does landing gear go from that high up at 300 plus mph?
-
After punching through a building...?
Probably not that far.
EDIT:
According to wiki, the proposed mosque is 600 feet from GZ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg/220px-World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg.png
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg/220px-World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg.png
A little bigger picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg/1000px-World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg.png
-
it would also be too far away from the wtc site. big bocks in nyc you're not in kansas anymore
Ok, after consulting google maps, I have determined that NYC city blocks around WTC are not all that big.
"Smallish" is closer to reality. Diminutive. Petite, even.
Quantitatively, a block in that part of Manhattan means ~200 feet.
Take a gander for yourself:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=New+York,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.576045,102.832031&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=40.71285,-74.010467&spn=0.003041,0.006276&z=18
And as a comparison, here is some downtown Witchita, Kansas:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=downtown&mrt=all&sll=37.684682,-97.335756&sspn=0.003176,0.006276&ie=UTF8&split=1&rq=1&ev=p&radius=0.21&hq=downtown&hnear=&ll=37.685327,-97.336614&spn=0.003175,0.006276&z=18
Same scale map as the NYC map.
If anything, the downtown Witchita blocks look larger than those in NYC. Maybe 225'-250'.
Well, CSD was right, the GZM is not in Kansas.
If it were, it would be farther away from Ground Zero(1).
(1) Assuming Ground Zero itself were also in downtown Witchita. If the mosque in question were to actually build in downtown Witchita, I doubt there would be much furor over its proximity to WTC Ground Zero. Google says it is a 1300mi trip from Witchita, Kansas; to NYC, NY.
-
some pics of what will be visible from the mosque. or more importantly what won't be visible
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-view-from-park51-more-popularly-known-as-the-ground-zero-mosque-slideshow/?pid=71#image
-
i hate stewart generally
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap
-
I heard some explanations that have made it much more understandable.
Islam is the new victims, and we in the West are the Oppressors. Obama sees this as his solem duty to save them from our oppression and imperialisim. Fits right into his family view and progressivisim.
-
I believe Newsweek's next cover is "We Are All Muslims Now."
-
I believe Newsweek's next cover is "We Are All Muslims Now."
All 5 of their remaining readers will nod in agreement.
-
THis may be interesting to all contributors to this thread:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/23/americas_first_muslim_president
-
THis may be interesting to all contributors to this thread:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/23/americas_first_muslim_president
Allow me to summarize for everyone else.
OH NOES!!! TEH EVIL REPUBLICANS WILL DRIVE THE MUSLIM VOTE AWAY!!111!!
(Except for the fact that Obama got 90% of the muslim vote before this controversy where no one said anything bad about Muslims.)
BUSH GOT 70% IN 2000 and Republicans have blown it all!!!!
/end summary
Of course, the article ignores the fact that Muslims had already defected in 2004 because "I think there has been a sense of betrayal, if you will, almost because of the way the Muslim community was treated since 9/11," Mukit Hossain, president of the Muslim American Political Action Committee, told FOXNews.com. "The government has effectively, contrary to what it says, targeted the whole community for the acts of a few criminals."
and:
The survey found that 53 percent of American Muslim voters think Muslims should vote as a bloc for a president; 81 percent also indicated that they support the agenda of the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections — a national coalition of the 10 largest Muslim organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslim Alliance of North America and Muslim American Society.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135970,00.html
Republicans aren't getting the "Muslim vote" back so long as most Muslims support organizations that support terror. (i.e. CAIR)
-
The Republicans can embrace their principles or votes at any cost; if they're willing to sacrifice the former for the latter they are as good as useless.
-
The Republicans can embrace their principles or votes at any cost; if they're willing to sacrifice the former for the latter they are as good as useless.
Of course they're willing to sacrifice principles for votes. When's the last time that wasn't the case? 1994?
-
Of course they're willing to sacrifice principles for votes. When's the last time that wasn't the case? 1994?
Considering they won big in 1994, I would say that wasn't what happened.
I think it is not a matter of buying votes, but buying influence and making all their monetary sources happy. Money talks in elections. I imagine the pressure to buddy up with those power brokers and political organizations of one type or another is pretty big in D.C. When someone like that provides campaign workers and funding to help reelection, it is hard to say no when all those principled people out there provide no money and no help.
There is a local radio talk show guy in Houston called Michael Berry who used to be on the Houston City Council. That was basically his opinion about elections and "special interests". When you have special interests providing money and support and those "normal" principled people out there provide no help and no money, which do you think is the more tempting choice?
-
Another point of view. He strikes a chord.
TC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4&feature=player_embedded)
-
Another point of view. He strikes a chord.
TC
Meh. The guy obviously has an ideological axe to grind. He lost me when he started that Islam is a hate group that "should be banned" on the grounds of hate speech or whatnot. Sorry, I don't buy the argument that we need to gut the First Amendment for people's sensitive feelings. His argument that we should become Nazis so people don't see us as being "soft"... Yea, no thanks.
He's obviously entitled to his opinion. I value his right to free speech just as equal to the people he's ranting about. I'd be just as quick to argue for his death if he actually tried to implement his ideas as I would for any loonies that tried to impose sharia law in the US. Both are equally hostile to the Constitution and should be watched with a degree of suspicion.
-
So what happened to "there's no right not to be offended"?
-
depends whose ox is being gored
-
So what happened to "there's no right not to be offended"?
How dare you. :mad: I demand that you edit such an incensing post.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.tinypic.com%2Ft9xoud.jpg&hash=4163e15a045e560ac473a57e8a8057b3ab22d0c5)
;)
-
I agree with Rev; Mr Condell is a little too quick to lean toward the big-brother, Government-imposed solution to an offensive Islamic Jihad in NYC. But his forthright speech about how offensive the GZM is to most Americans and his willingness to call a spade a spade is refreshing.
TC
-
he doesn't discriminate hes anti all religions
-
'septing the ones what will suicide bomb his worthless, umm donky. [popcorn]
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPT4KI.png&hash=cb8413a3d945534d51a428345762fa80db29dff9)
-
I heard a pundit floating the idea that this guy bought the building for 5mil, and has tried to sell it for 20, and that now there are rumors going around NYC that he's just trying to turn a profit on the building.
Lots weridness on this and it just keeps on going.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPT4KI.png&hash=cb8413a3d945534d51a428345762fa80db29dff9)
You wouldn't like to see the size of the circle of those who have materially contributed to jihadis. And the non-contributing sympathizer circle might cause anxiety.
Then think: material contributors and mere sympathizers are a greater portion of American muslims than muslims worldwide.
-
You wouldn't like to see the size of the circle of those who have materially contributed to jihadis. And the non-contributing sympathizer circle might cause anxiety.
Would you like to see the number of Muslims living in, and supporting, nations that are friendly or allied to the US?
What about the number of Muslims directly serving in allied forces?
What about the number of Muslims sympathetic to the above?
-
Would you like to see the number of Muslims living in, and supporting, nations that are friendly or allied to the US?
What about the number of Muslims directly serving in allied forces?
What about the number of Muslims sympathetic to the above?
What I would like to see is the group you mention standing up and denouncing those who would kill in their name.
-
What I would like to see is the group you mention standing up and denouncing those who would kill in their name.
You mean, the fact that the world's leading centers of Islamic scholarship denounced terrorism is not enough?
"Cleric condemns suicide attacks"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm
"Scholars Call Attacks a Distortion of Islam"
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-distortion.html
It is not enough that a Fatwa has been issued condemning the acts of terrorism?
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/Qaradawi_et_al.htm
The fact that thousands of these people are bleeding and dying in the ranks of allied militaries fighting against Hamas, against Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, etc. - that is not enough? It is not enough condemnation for you?
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPT4KI.png&hash=cb8413a3d945534d51a428345762fa80db29dff9)
Where's Barack Obama on that circle? :P
-
Where's Barack Obama on that circle? :P
Null set. :)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiblackedout.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2FObama_Beer1.jpg&hash=dea7947cda4e76c426173cb3441292738caa3366)
-
Where's Barack Obama on that circle? :P
Right in the center. Who do you think they're worshiping, filthy unbeliever? :mad:
It was a joke. =|
-
The fact that thousands of these people are bleeding and dying in the ranks of allied militaries fighting against Hamas, against Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, etc. - that is not enough? It is not enough condemnation for you?
Not enough for me, personally. I want to see rank and file Muslims denouncing Bin Laden in the same volumes and proportions as I see average Christians denouncing the Westboro Baptists and abortion doc killers.
There are isolated instances of Muslims denouncing 9/11 and violence, true. But if I'm to believe that the isolated instances of terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam are not representative of the whole of Islam, then I cannot also believe the isolated instances of Muslims denouncing terrorism as representative of the whole of Islam, either.
-
Not enough for me, personally. I want to see rank and file Muslims denouncing Bin Laden in the same volumes and proportions as I see average Christians denouncing the Westboro Baptists and abortion doc killers.
I know Christians that agree with the Westboro Baptists' beliefs, just not their methods.
In fact, a higher percentage of the Muslims I know (100%) denounce Al Qeda than Christians I know that denounce abortion terrorists(about 70%)
What does this mean? Absolutely nothing.
-
The fact that thousands of these people are bleeding and dying in the ranks of allied militaries fighting against Hamas, against Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, etc. - that is not enough? It is not enough condemnation for you?
Guess Maj. Hasan didn't get that memo.
-
I know Christians that agree with the Westboro Baptists' beliefs, just not their methods.
You know Christians that have told you that God has a special hatred for homosexuals, over and above other types of sinners? That "deep-dyed faggots" can't be forgiven? (To quote Fred Phelps.) You know Christians who openly say that only their tiny congregation has any hope of salvation?
I've never met anyone like that.
In fact, a higher percentage of the Muslims I know (100%) denounce Al Qeda than Christians I know that denounce abortion terrorists(about 70%)
What does this mean? Absolutely nothing.
True, because Al Qeda is killing the innocent, rather than abortion providers. Not much of a comparison there.
-
>Not enough for me, personally. I want to see rank and file Muslims denouncing Bin Laden in the same volumes and proportions as I see average Christians denouncing the Westboro Baptists and abortion doc killers.<
Just a thought, but I wonder how much a role media plays in this one.
Honestly, every Muslim I've ever met has been rabidly anti-terrorism...
>You know Christians that have told you that God has a special hatred for homosexuals, over and above other types of sinners? That "deep-dyed faggots" can't be forgiven? (To quote Fred Phelps.) You know Christians who openly say that only their tiny congregation has any hope of salvation?
I've never met anyone like that.<
Then count yourself very lucky, Fistful. There aren't THAT many of them in the world, but they ARE out there (in both senses)...
They REALLY make you rethink things, like that whole "opiate of the masses" thing...
-
i have met well one Muslim, that had gotten out of Pakistan into the US and became citizen. according to him, there wasn't a Mosque he could find that wasn't preaching that the US needed to fall. =| take it for what it's worth, i've never stepped into one. :angel:
edit: oh, this was more then ten years ago.
-
i have met well one Muslim, that had gotten out of Pakistan into the US and became citizen. according to him, there wasn't a Mosque he could find that wasn't preaching that the US needed to fall. =| take it for what it's worth, i've never stepped into one. :angel:
edit: oh, this was more then ten years ago.
The two largest mosques in my metro area are not ashamed to let their tango-symp flag fly.
-
You know Christians that have told you that God has a special hatred for homosexuals, over and above other types of sinners? That "deep-dyed faggots" can't be forgiven? (To quote Fred Phelps.) You know Christians who openly say that only their tiny congregation has any hope of salvation?
I've never met anyone like that.
I don't think I have met anyone who takes it that far either, but I think many forget that homosexual conduct is just another sin. Of course, I think many Christians fall into the trap of thinking there are "bad" sins and "good" (or not so bad) sins and that the little lies or adultery they commit are not any different from homosexual adultery.
They also forget that sin doesn't matter one bit when it comes to salvation and going to heaven.
-
I don't think I have met anyone who takes it that far either, but I think many forget that homosexual conduct is just another sin. Of course, I think many Christians fall into the trap of thinking there are "bad" sins and "good" (or not so bad) sins and that the little lies or adultery they commit are not any different from homosexual adultery.
Sure, but Phelps & Co very explicitly believe that. There's a big difference between a declared belief and an unexamined belief. And of course, you'll find very few Christians who believe that homosexuals can't be forgiven, even as an unexamined prejudice.
-
Null set. :)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiblackedout.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2FObama_Beer1.jpg&hash=dea7947cda4e76c426173cb3441292738caa3366)
If he was drinking that in a strip club, he'd have 9-11 Terrorist status.....
....that was sarcasm, folks.....move along..... ;/
-
>Sure, but Phelps & Co very explicitly believe that. There's a big difference between a declared belief and an unexamined belief. And of course, you'll find very few Christians who believe that homosexuals can't be forgiven, even as an unexamined prejudice.<
True: every religion has it's fringe elements. And the larger the religion, the larger the fringe is. And the larger the fringe, the more likely it is that you'll have folks willing to ACT on those fringe beliefs.
Which explains why you're more likely to encounter a christian who feels that all non believers should be burned at the stake, than say pagans who believe in blowing up churches. There's roughly the same percentage, but that works out to a bigger number of christian fringe than pagan fringe... ;)
-
True: every religion has it's fringe elements. And the larger the religion, the larger the fringe is. And the larger the fringe, the more likely it is that you'll have folks willing to ACT on those fringe beliefs.
Which explains why you're more likely to encounter a christian who feels that all non believers should be burned at the stake, than say pagans who believe in blowing up churches. There's roughly the same percentage, but that works out to a bigger number of christian fringe than pagan fringe... ;)
Uh. The Christians in India would disagree with you. =(
But I don't think that's what this argument is about, anyway.
-
Even as nutty as Phelps is, they haven't blown anybody up (yet).
-
Equivalence between the Islamists and anyone else is absurd, by an order of magnitude.
-
Senator Orrin Hatch also strongly backs the Islam Center near 9/11 site:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/republican-orrin-hatch-stands-up-for-cordoba-house-video.php
-
>Uh. The Christians in India would disagree with you.<
Wait, what?
I'm strictly talking about the west here...
-
Equivalence between the Islamists and anyone else is absurd, by an order of magnitude.
What exactly is an islamist?
-
>Uh. The Christians in India would disagree with you.<
Wait, what?
I'm strictly talking about the west here...
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it doesn't seem very connected to this thread.
If it helps you at all, I was responding to Nitrogen, who claimed to know Christians who shared Phelps' beliefs. I was pointing out how doubtful that seemed, given the peculiarity of Phelps' doctrine.
-
What exactly is an islamist?
you didn't get the email memo? if you subscribed to prison planet and wnd you'd be up to date on all the new cool terms :facepalm:
-
you didn't get the email memo? if you subscribed to prison planet and wnd you'd be up to date on all the new cool terms :facepalm:
Ok, would you prefer Muslim terrorists and Muslim supporters of terror?
It's a good term and less clunky than the above.
-
Or maybe would could bring back "Mohammedan."
(Seems like a good, descriptive word as well.)
-
Senator Orrin Hatch also strongly backs the Islam Center near 9/11 site:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/republican-orrin-hatch-stands-up-for-cordoba-house-video.php
Not surprising for a RINO....next example plz... ;/
-
Or maybe would could bring back "Mohammedan."
(Seems like a good, descriptive word as well.)
yet the one fool who used it publicly fell over himself apologizing and was shunned
-
I am told the Moha-ah-er, the Muslims do not like it because it implies they worship Mohamed. Of course, a lot of people seem to think they do. ;/
-
What, Moor doesn't work any more?
-
What, Moor doesn't work any more?
Only WND readers use terms like that.
Didn't you get the memo?
;)
-
Not surprising for a RINO....next example plz... ;/
Orrin Hatch is a RINO?
-
Orrin Hatch is a RINO?
He feels rather personally about the issue, RINO or not. Mormons have had similar problems.
-
Orrin Hatch is a RINO?
At least in a few things. He's soft on illegal aliens and embryonic stem cell research.
He feels rather personally about the issue, RINO or not. Mormons have had similar problems.
Then he should realize what a bone-head move this is for Muslims?
-
Only WND readers use terms like that.
Didn't you get the memo?
Brush up your Shakespeare, start quoting him now...
-
Then he should realize what a bone-head move this is for Muslims?
That's my opinion. I don't think they should be legally prohibited from building there, but I think it's an incredibly stupid move on their part. Hatch is indeed a RINO on some issues, though not all. I wouldn't mind seeing him lose his next GOP nomination a la Sen. Bennett.
-
That's my opinion. I don't think they should be legally prohibited from building there, but I think it's an incredibly stupid move on their part.
And Marnoot ends the thread. :D
-
Ok, after consulting google maps, I have determined that NYC city blocks around WTC are not all that big.
"Smallish" is closer to reality. Diminutive. Petite, even.
Quantitatively, a block in that part of Manhattan means ~200 feet.
Take a gander for yourself:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=New+York,+NY&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.576045,102.832031&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=40.71285,-74.010467&spn=0.003041,0.006276&z=18
And as a comparison, here is some downtown Witchita, Kansas:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=downtown&mrt=all&sll=37.684682,-97.335756&sspn=0.003176,0.006276&ie=UTF8&split=1&rq=1&ev=p&radius=0.21&hq=downtown&hnear=&ll=37.685327,-97.336614&spn=0.003175,0.006276&z=18
Same scale map as the NYC map.
If anything, the downtown Witchita blocks look larger than those in NYC. Maybe 225'-250'.
Well, CSD was right, the GZM is not in Kansas.
If it were, it would be farther away from Ground Zero(1).
(1) Assuming Ground Zero itself were also in downtown Witchita. If the mosque in question were to actually build in downtown Witchita, I doubt there would be much furor over its proximity to WTC Ground Zero. Google says it is a 1300mi trip from Witchita, Kansas; to NYC, NY.
Another helpful map:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Frw%2Fnypost%2F2010%2F09%2F10%2Fnews%2Fphotos_stories%2Fground_zero_map090251.jpg&hash=9c66339df64a61f2b7df081b53dbd73c3a452a51)