DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on August 25, 2011, 04:03:06 PM
-
...I'm reminded of a great quote, in a great movie, called Jurassic Park. It sums up the Mosque debacle quite well
" Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" ..... Dr. Ian Malcolm
The "scientists" in this case being the small minorty that support the notion of an Islamic mosque being built in such close proximity to the thousands murdered, in the name of that religion, and wrongly accuse those that disagree as some form of racist religious bigots
Just MHO
-
Part of the price of freedom is that sometimes you must allow others to exercise their rights under the law, even though you may not agree with them.
-
There is no way to prevent the mosque from being built without infringing on the rights of those who want to build it.
They SHOULD permit it being built. It is not a threat to anyone, anyway.
-
There is no way to prevent the mosque from being built without infringing on the rights of those who want to build it.
They SHOULD permit to being built. It is not a threat to anyone, anyway.
How insensitive you are to the sensitivities of those who don't want the mosque.
Tsk Tsk
-
The problem is those who are insensitive to the sensitivities of those who do want the mosque built - and have the law on their side. Maybe those are the ones you should be tsk'ing.
-
What makes you think i wasn't being sarcastic?
-
What makes you think I wasn't? ;)
-
very good
-
(http://www.thetick.ws/images/sarcastro.jpg)
Sarcastro is one of the students of Tick's superhero class, and he holds the distinction of being the only one to flunk. He fights crime with the razor sharp sting of sarcasm, but he needs to improve his aim as he usually uses sarcasm on the other superheroes as well. Some of his lines are absolutely hilarious, and it's too bad he doesn't show up until the last episode of the series; they could have really used him.
Appearances: Tick vs. Education
Sarcastro was voiced by Charlie Adler
http://www.thetick.ws/tvheroes.html (http://www.thetick.ws/tvheroes.html)
-
There is no way to prevent the mosque from being built without infringing on the rights of those who want to build it. They SHOULD permit it being built. It is not a threat to anyone, anyway.
Who ever said it was??
-
You, as I recall.
-
And since I know for a fact, I never did, you either recall wrong, or you'd be lying. I'll let you decide which
-
You like to lie and are pretty much wrong all the time.
I really pay no attention to the gas you emit at regular intervals.
-
Wrongly lying about me supposedly lying wasn't a 3rd option, unless it's a carry over of the lying option. Is that your choice, rather than simply "recalling" wrong?
And FYI, typing neither requires nor provides the reader any chance to pay attention to any form of gas.
-
You like to lie and are pretty much wrong all the time.
I really pay no attention to the gas you emit at regular intervals.
Speaking of lying -- Did you intentionally vote for a liar (Obama) or was it out of ignorance?
-
Who ever said it was??
Interesting question.
In your post on August 31, 2010, 16:15:44, you apparently pasted the following (the sections in bold are yours, the underlines are mine):
A Sowello Homer
The proposed mosque near where the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed, along with thousands of American lives, would be a 15-story middle finger to America.
It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious, so it is not surprising that the intelligentsia are out in force, decrying those who criticize this calculated insult.
What may surprise some people is that the American taxpayer is currently financing a trip to the Middle East by the imam who is pushing this project, so that he can raise the money to build it. The State Department is subsidizing his travel.
The big talking point is that this is an issue about "religious freedom" and that Muslims have a "right" to build a mosque where they choose. But those who oppose this project are not claiming that there is no legal right to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center.
If anybody did, it would be a matter for the courts to decide -- and they would undoubtedly say that it is not illegal to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack.
The intelligentsia and others who are wrapping themselves in the Constitution are fighting a phony war against a straw man. Why create a false issue, except to evade the real issue?
Our betters are telling us that we need to be more "tolerant" and more "sensitive" to the feelings of Muslims. But if we are supposed to be sensitive to Muslims, why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?
It would not be illegal for Japanese Americans to build a massive shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it.
When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it.
He didn't say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp.
There is no question that Muslims have a right to build a mosque where they chose to. The real question is why they chose that particular location, in a country that covers more than 3 million square miles.
If we all did everything that we have a legal right to do, we could not even survive as individuals, much less as a society. So the question is whether those who are planning a Ground Zero mosque want to be part of American society or just to see how much they can get away with in American society?
Can anyone in his right mind believe that this was intended to show solidarity with Americans, rather than solidarity with those who attacked America?
Does anyone imagine that the Middle East nations, including Iran, from whom financial contributions will be solicited, want to promote reconciliation between Americans and Muslims?
That the President of the United States has joined the chorus of those calling the Ground Zero mosque a religious freedom issue tells us a lot about the moral dry rot that is undermining this country from within.
In this, as in other things, Barack Obama is not so much the cause of our decline but the culmination of it. He had many predecessors and many contemporaries who represent the same mindset and the same malaise.
There are people for whom moral preening has become a way of life. They are out in force denouncing critics of the Ground Zero mosque.
There are others for whom a citizen of the world affectation puts them one-up on those of us who are grateful to be Americans, and to enjoy a freedom that is all too rare in other countries around the world, even at this late date in human history.
They think the United States is somehow on trial, and needs to prove itself to others by bending over backwards. But bending over backwards does not win friends. It loses respect, including self-respect.
Why create a false issue, except to evade the real issue (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/08/31/the_mosque_controversy)
It seems whoever wrote this does perceive a threat, a threat that people are going to have their feelings hurt.
So while you may not have directly, yourself said you see the mosque as a threat, it appears you do, otherwise why post this from someone who does?
-
Lemme get this straight, since you had to go to alot of trouble to even find this....you're equating my position of how offensive such a building is, so close to the where the WTC was taken down in the name of that religion...... as a "threat"??
Seriously??
Lemme bring you up to speed, xo as well. threat is...threat, i.e. a leading to a potential violent, if not worse repercussion. Trying to lay claim to a "threat of offending" someone is about as weak an arguement as one can make
When Xo is talking "threat", that's how I take it. If he said offending, that's different than a threat, and absolutely it's offensive. But that's not a threat.
I, as do most, post things from others that we absolutely agree with. 100% of the time? Probably not, but the gist, yes. So, has sirs ever said the buidling of an Islamic mosque next to ground zero was a "threat to anyone", that would be no. Does the article I post reference some imminent "threat" to anyone? Not really, it again is largely referring to the offensive angle, and not a threatening one. The "middle finger" being an offensive gesture, not a threatening one
So please, try to be honest when trying to cherry pick my comments, and postings
-
Moral preening, that is more like what sirs does.
-
Personally I don't give a crap what they build in NYC. Build a frigging monument to Osama, Obama, or Mohamed.
-
If we don't have the right to do dumb stuff we havn't the rights we need to do smart stuff that other people think dumb.
Meaning we would have the rights only to do what is in common agreement is smart.
I think that the Muslim congregation that plans to make a big splash building a Mosque in the WTCs ghostly shadow is being stupid.
And I am free to say so, am I not?
-
If we don't have the right to do dumb stuff we havn't the rights we need to do smart stuff that other people think dumb.
Meaning we would have the rights only to do what is in common agreement is smart.
I think that the Muslim congregation that plans to make a big splash building a Mosque in the WTCs ghostly shadow is being stupid.
And I am free to say so, am I not?
ABsolutely
-
If we don't have the right to do dumb stuff we havn't the rights we need to do smart stuff that other people think dumb.
Meaning we would have the rights only to do what is in common agreement is smart.
I think that the Muslim congregation that plans to make a big splash building a Mosque in the WTCs ghostly shadow is being stupid.
And I am free to say so, am I not?
those that would fault you for that thinking that way are the same people that accuse those that disagree with Obama of being racist. They are also the same people that shout down others that have a differing opinion. they are also the same people that tried to destroy Dan Quayle. Our problem is we are too open-minded.
-
If we don't have the right to do dumb stuff we havn't the rights we need to do smart stuff that other people think dumb.
Meaning we would have the rights only to do what is in common agreement is smart.
I think that the Muslim congregation that plans to make a big splash building a Mosque in the WTCs ghostly shadow is being stupid.
And I am free to say so, am I not?
ABsolutely
So ....I think it logical that this line of thought demonstrates that either I or that this Muslim Congregation must be stupid.
Ergo , right?
Of course Whether we might both be stupid has yet to be .....
Nevermind.
-
If we don't have the right to do dumb stuff we havn't the rights we need to do smart stuff that other people think dumb.
Meaning we would have the rights only to do what is in common agreement is smart.
I think that the Muslim congregation that plans to make a big splash building a Mosque in the WTCs ghostly shadow is being stupid.
And I am free to say so, am I not?
those that would fault you for that thinking that way are the same people that accuse those that disagree with Obama of being racist. They are also the same people that shout down others that have a differing opinion. they are also the same people that tried to destroy Dan Quayle. Our problem is we are too open-minded.
I think that this Imam and his congregation have been adequately warned , especially that this choice is not good for Islam.
Since I don't care that this might be bad for Islam , I can be sanguine about the whole thing.
-
Moral preening, that is more like what sirs does.
Well, at least I'm not the one going on about telling what someone claimed, yet never did. Which brings us full circle on what was said, and agreed upon, by the likes of myself...... "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15718.0)
We'll leave the insulting & slurring, to the likes of Xo
-
Lemme get this straight, since you had to go to alot of trouble to even find this....
Not really, there's a search function. Took all of five minutes.
...you're equating my position of how offensive such a building is, so close to the where the WTC was taken down in the name of that religion...... as a "threat"??
Seriously??
Absolutely. If there were not the 'threat' that some well meaning people might be insulted or offended, it would be a non-issue.
So please, try to be honest when trying to cherry pick my comments, and postings
Certainly. Just as soon as you try some honesty yourself.
In just under two weeks it will have been ten years since 9-11. How long is the cooling off period to allow relations to begin to heal? Muslims did not fly the jets into the Trade Center towers - a small group of people who claimed to be Muslim did. Do you blame the entire Catholic church for the actions of a few pedophile priests?
-
http://www.redcounty.com/content/exposing-real-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf (http://www.redcounty.com/content/exposing-real-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf)
Feisal Abdul Rauf By Alyssa Lappen
An investigative report prepared for ACT! for America
Feisal Abdul Rauf, born in Kuwait in 1948, boasts of his issue from an “Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship.” 1 He presents himself as a Muslim moderate.2 Yet Feisal Rauf's Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.
Evidence of family, and direct Rauf Muslim Brotherhood connections
Rauf's father Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004), was an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) founder Hassan al-Banna.
Rauf's father studied and taught at Islam's closest equivalent to the Vatican --- Al-Azhar University --- beside Hassan al-Banna, perpetuating the pious family tradition of radicalism.
In 1948, Rauf's father fled Egypt, during its first MB crackdown; Feisal was born in Kuwait. 3
In 1965, Feisal's father left Malaysia for New York City to stealthily buy two thirds of an E. 96th Street block for an Islamic “personal trust,” revealing its $1.3 million Islamic money from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Libya only after construction of the MB mosque began in 1984. 4
Likewise, 46 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) nations funded the $17 million Islamic Cultural Center, only after its 1992 opening did Rauf's father reveal that funding source or admit his long-term plans for discriminatory Muslim-only housing for the Islamic complex. 5
Rauf's father named Feisal as a permanent trustee of the MB mosque.
Under Feisal's permanent trusteeship, ICC employed Al-Azhar imam Muhammad Gemeaha. A week after fleeing the U.S. on Sept. 28, 2001 he stated, “only the Jews” could have perpetrated 9/11; Allah says Jews “disseminate corruption in the land,” spread “heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs.” Americans would exterminate Jews like “Hitler did” if they knew.
ICC then hired Al-Azhar envoy Omar Saleem Abu-Namous. He too saw no “conclusive evidence” that Muslims committed the atrocities, but rather saw Muslims as innocent victims. 6
At Perdana Global Peace Organization, an MB, Hamas and al-Qaeda affiliate, Rauf is second in command to antisemitic former Malaysian P.M. and Islamic law advocate Mahathir Mohamad,7 who in Nov. 2002, incited global anti-West financial war as a “jihad worth fighting for.”8
On May 7, 2010, Rauf himself stated, “Some people say ... Muslims ... attacked on 9/11 … ”9
In 2001 on 60 Minutes, Rauf called U.S. policies “an accessory to the crime that happened,” and said, “In … the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.” 10
Rauf wants to impose Sharia in the U.S. His 2004 book, What's Right with Islam, is translated into Malay as the Call from the WTC Rubble. 11
In Dec. 2007 Rauf promoted the book at a Kuala Lumpur Hizb ut Tahrir (HT) meeting. 12 Banned in Germany since 2003 and outlawed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, among other places --- the organization is ideologically akin to the MB.
In the fiscal year ended Jun. 30, 2009, Feisal's ASMA accepted at least $1.3 million, including $576,312 from Qatar,13 whose government stands accused of funding international terrorism, has long harbored terror financiers, and for decades hosted Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Rauf is quite friendly with Qaradawi, a large, founding shareholder in terror-funding al-Taqwa Bank who champions sharia law, wife beating and suicide bombing. 14
Rauf concluded in the Washington Post, shortly after President Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech, that he'd challenged Muslims to “Live up to the tenets of our religion, embrace Shariah law as conceived by the Prophet, and see what happens.” 15
Rauf seeks more U.S. legal “leeway” for sharia --- to put Muslims above the law --- by
“[Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities ... to judge ...according to their own laws.16 On Dec. 9, 2007, Rauf said in Arabic to Sa’da Abdul Maksoud of the Hadi-el-Islam website, that current, unjust governments, “do not follow Islamic laws.” He advocates establishing sharia
“in more [ways than one] ... through a kingdom or a democracy, [so long as the] fundamentals of Shariah [exist, with standards of Muslim scholars] required to
govern. ...to organize ... relationships between government ... and the governed.” 17 In March 2010, also in Arabic, Rauf stridently denounced interfaith discussions. “I don't believe in interfaith dialogue,” he said in an article that highlighted his statement in its headline. 18
Rauf's Manhattan ASMA offices at 475 Riverside Drive occupy the suite next door to Council of American-Islamic-Relations (CAIR) of NY; its national parent is the U.S. arm of the MB terrorist group, Hamas, and an unindicted coconspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror financing case in which the organization and five officers were convicted.19
At the Jul. 13, 2010 New York Landmarks hearing on the fate a 152-year-old wrought-iron era building where a piece of jet fuselage fell through its roof on 9/11 --- CAIR-NY executive director Zaed Ramadan supported destroying the structure opposite Ground Zero to build Rauf's 15 story mosque, a monument to Muslim victory to tower above the memorial site. 20
Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan in 2009 both refused to sign a Freedom Pledge to protect former Muslims from the death sentence sought by most sharia interpretations for Muslim apostates. On Oct. 20, 2009, Former Muslims United asked ASMA's executives to pledge to
“renounce, repudiate and oppose any physical intimidation, or worldly and corporal
punishment, of apostates ..., [however] that punishment may be determined or carried out by myself or any other Muslim including the [apostate's] family, community, Mosque leaders, Shariah court or judge, and Muslim government or regime.”21 Rauf's 2000 and 2004 books both laud sharia and envision implementing it in the U.S. – and “rejuvenating” the Islamic spirit of 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah and his 18th century heir Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab. Rauf also lauds purported “modernists” Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897) and Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) who revered Wahhabis, Ibn Taymiyyah and like Rauf pretended sharia – with perennial jihad and countless strictures on non-Muslims and women – complements Western ideas like those in the U.S. Bill of Rights. 22
Rauf also authorized two mainstay MB organizations, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to produce “a special non-commercial edition” of his 2004 book to promote “proper [Western] understanding of Islam...”23
Rauf's ASMA in 2004 established the purportedly liberal Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.24 Its liberal faces are largely overwhelmed by sharia devotees like al Qaeda supporter Yasir Qadhi,25 CAIR-NY community affairs director Faiza N. Ali --- who co-authored CAIR's fallacious “denunciation” of a superb 2008 NYPD report on homegrown jihadists --- and CAIR-NY community organizer Debbie Almontaser, who once ran the city's Khalil Gibran Academy.26
Since at least 2006, Rauf's U.S.-based Cordoba Initiative has partnered with Gallup Organization and “Sunni and Shi'a scholars from Morocco to Indonesia” to create “an Islamic legal benchmark for measuring 'Islamicity' of a state”---sharia index---for official, state, public and press use in the “Muslim and Western worlds.” He initiated the project, funded by Malaysia and many other nations in the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). 27
A key sharia index board member, Jasser Auda, doubles on the academic council at the U.K. the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) office and in summer 2010 taught with Muslim Brotherhood heavies---e.g. former ISNA leadership development head Louay Safi, IIIT v.p. and NAIT founding general manager Jamal Barzinji and Minaret of Freedom head Imad Ad Deen Ahmad, present at the Beirut terrorist convention in January 2001. No mistaking their intent.
Click here to continue reading this report.
-
Alyssa Lappen
hmmm
wonder who she works with?
-
Seriously H...you have quite a chip, if your best effort is a "threat of being offended", vs how I and most others would view a threat, as referenced by Xo. Here's a hint, my version ususally includes keep my sig P-228 near by. Your version merely requires thick skin & tolerance
-
I find your idea that threats from a nearby mosque could be somehow prevented by a "sig P-228" to be interesting. I assume that you would need to have it loaded and nearby to serve you better than a "thick skin and tolerance".
Is this the equation? (thin skin + intolerence) + sig P-228= thick skin + tolerance?
-
See what I mean H? Even though Xo manages to twist what I've said into something I've never said, he continues to reference threat as I have. Get the difference yet?
And to answer Xo, no that's not the "equation". The lesson here is "apples do not equal oranges"
-
Which is the apple? Which is the orange?
Go play with your sig P-228.
-
Apple is "threat to anyone"
Orange is being offended
You NEVER play with firearms