DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on September 17, 2010, 12:07:35 PM
-
Al Qaeda threat to murder Pope foiled in London
DEBKAfile Special Report
September 17, 2010, 2:56 PM (GMT+02:00)
(http://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2010/09/17/big/Pope_london_17.9.10.jpg)
Scotland Yard arrested five Algerian men at dawn Friday, Sept. 17 following intelligence of a potential terrorist threat to Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to London. The Counter-Terror Command ordered the arrests at business premises in central London and homes in Muslim areas of East and North London where searches continue. The five suspects aged from 26 to 50 are not British nationals and were employed by a private street cleaning service. They are suspected of "the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism Act 2000. A papal spokesman said the pontiff was calm and his UK schedule would remain unchanged.
No further information is available from official sources in London. The reports indicate that the five Algerians reached their London rendezvous overnight to prepare for their operation - apparently to assassinate the pope. There, they may have been given their weapons or explosives. The UK Counter-Terror Command appears to have acted in the nick of time to prevent the attack shortly after receiving intelligence.
After the arrests the security arrangements for his visit were reviewed, particularly with regard to crowd access and his continued use of the Popemobile which is bulletproof. English and Scottish police spent months planning the security arrangements for the pope's visit, including safe transport and crowd control.
The Pope spent the day visiting Catholic schools in London and is scheduled to address two houses of parliament later Friday. Security controls and heavily armed guards patrol the streets around Westminster, Buckingham Palace, 10 Downing Street and Whitehall. Earlier Friday, Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, the British domestic security service, warned that the UK faces a wave of terrorist attacks from a new generation of al Qaeda and Irish Republican militants.
In his first public speech in three years, he said it is only "a matter of time" before Britain is the victim of an attack from extremists based in Somalia. After briefing the British premier David Cameron, the MI5 chief said there remains "a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place."
He called for anti-terror controls and measures to be kept in place as he had "no reason to believe the position would significantly improve in the immediate future."
-
Now remember Cu4....AlQaeda has nothing to do with Islam or religion, or so we've been told. Their leader is not a cleric nor any official spokesperson. So, trying to apply anything Islam to anything AlQaeda, or even
Islamic, I mean Muslim, I mean ...ummm...radicals of an apparent middle eastern background, is completely inappropriate
-
All niggers love watermelon.
-
I'm sorry SIRS I guess we should not bring up the motivation of
people committing horrible crimes daily against innocent people all over
the world. It makes some people uncomfortable knowing why people
do horrible things. In other words......
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mXOJsfJyd74/STpYSO18DlI/AAAAAAAABFk/owyFgGpyItg/s320/LetsPretend.jpg)
-
Niggers loves em some fried chicken.
I like fried chicken.
Therefore i am a nigger.
-
All niggers love watermelon.
They do? Pretty blunt accusation, but if you're good with it, so be it
-
Meh.
Somebody's always trying to assassinate the Pope.
The Islamic angle just makes for good press.
-
Niggers loves em some fried chicken.
I like fried chicken.
Therefore i am a nigger.
Islamist motivated by Islam are killing lots of innocent people in the name of their religion.
Therefore Islam has a very big problem.
-
No more blunt than saying Al Queda speaks for Islam.
But if you are comfortable with it, so be it.
-
Good thing no one is saying that then. At least not I
-
Good thing no one is saying that then. At least not I
Glad we cleared that up.
-
*whew*
-
But Gosh SIRS...look at this headline today on the front-page
of one of the biggest newspapers in Great Britain...SHAME ON THEM! ::)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8008981/Pope-visit-Five-suspected-Islamist-terrorists-arrested-over-assassination-plot.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8008981/Pope-visit-Five-suspected-Islamist-terrorists-arrested-over-assassination-plot.html)
-
We need to send them a memo....indicating how obviously bigoted such headlines are
-
Ooooops SIRS.....here is another from today....
different incident....of course no surprise
headline after headline after headline
people who claim their motivation is the "Religion of Peace"
But hey...shame on them the Associated Press too!
(http://www.depauw.edu/photos/PhotoDB_Repository/2006/4/custom/Associated%20Press%20Logo-252x63.gif)
Islamists claim responsibility for Russian bombing
(AP) ? 1 day ago
MOSCOW ? A Chechen Islamist rebel group has claimed responsibility for last week's
suicide car bombing in Russia's volatile North Caucasus that left 18 dead and 140
wounded.
The Riyadus Salikhin Martyrs' Brigade says the attack was part of a "jihad" against
Russia in the North Caucaus, where most of the republics are predominantly Muslim.
Last Thursday's attack took place in Vladikavkaz, the capital of the North Ossetia republic,
which has a sizable Muslim minority.
The group has previously claimed responsibility for several terrorist attacks.
The statement was posted on a website sympathetic to Chechen rebels.
The region has been gripped by violence stemming from two separatist wars in
Chechnya and fueled by poverty and corruption.
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/media/ALeqM5gEj1uksQUNBLWJe0Gsy5YAzAgfhg?size=l)
Relatives and cemetery workers drop the coffin into the grave during the funerals of civillians
killed in a suicide car attack in a square outside a market in Vladikavkaz, North Caucasus,
Saturday, Sept., 11, 2010. The Thursday bombing on the edge of the central market of the
capital of the North Ossetia republic where a suicide car bombing killed 17 people and wounded
more than 140 was the most serious terrorist attack in Russia since the March subway bombings
in Moscow that killed 40. (AP Photo/Sergey Ponomarev)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h9OHz4nVWKKUjgrraAGSlhUXSaNQD9I94B900 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h9OHz4nVWKKUjgrraAGSlhUXSaNQD9I94B900)
-
SIRS here is an interesting balanced article
that is related to our disagreements with BT:
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Media%20Logos/b4a85e43.jpg)
Radical Islamism challenges notions of freedom
Michael Nazir-Ali From: The Australian
September 15, 2010 12:00AM
IT is often thought the main threat of radical Islamism to the West and, indeed, the world, is terrorism. It is also said to be the isolation of Muslim communities, which allows extremists to recruit people to their cause.
Such views are not mistaken but they confuse effects with causes. What the world has to recognise is that we are not simply dealing with faith, but with a political, social and economic ideology. Radical Islamism is a worldview. Its nearest parallel, despite many differences, is Marxism.
Radical Islamists claim their all-encompassing program for society is rooted in fundamental Islamic sources. They reject the interpretations of Koran and sharia law offered by reformist or moderate Muslims. We must, of course, respect the faith of ordinary Muslims, but the ideology has to be met in a different way.
It is basic to Western societies that there should be one law for all. This idea emerged from the Judaeo-Christian tradition that all humans are made in God's image. It has been mediated by the Enlightenment, which emphasised not only dignity but also liberty.
The radical Islamist vision is absolutist. It applies to every area of human life, including politics, business and, above all, law itself. Recent demands by British and some Australian Muslim leaders for the recognition of aspects of sharia law should be seen in this light. Western clergy and jurists who advocate such demands fail to recognise that acknowledging aspects of sharia in public law will lead to a greater involvement with Islamic law.
A few years ago some Canadian Muslim women campaigned against the proposal to introduce Islamic law to settle family issues in Ontario. Their instincts were right. Islamic law is not just an intellectual legal tradition; it exists in highly prescriptive codes of law called fiqh. These codes differ from one another but would all be incompatible with the assumption of equality in Western law.
Muslim scholars recognise the three great inequalities of their legal tradition: between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, slave and free. In the case of family law, for example, there is inequality between men and women in marriage, and in provisions for divorce, custody of children, laws of admissible evidence and inheritance.
In Britain two years ago, when the then lord chief justice was arguing for recognition of some aspects of Islamic family law, the British Law Lords were ruling that a woman should not be deported to her own country because under sharia law there she would be deprived of the custody of her child. The Law Lords saw this as a violation of her basic rights.
While many predominantly Muslim countries have signed international covenants on fundamental rights, some have entered codicils declaring their adherence to these covenants must be in conformity with sharia law. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, representing the world's Muslim countries, has issued the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. This differs from the international declarations in a number of respects, not least in the absence of a provision corresponding to Article 18 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, providing for freedom of expression, belief and change of belief.
In a number of Muslim countries apostasy from Islam is punishable. In some, the punishment is death. In Pakistan, the so-called blasphemy law prescribes a death sentence for insulting the prophet of Islam. Muslim commentators admit that internationally recognised commitments to personal freedoms are difficult to reconcile with sharia law.
Although punishments for apostasy and blasphemy cannot be implemented in non-Muslim countries, they do contribute to attitudes that have consequences in these contexts as well. Such attitudes have resulted in harassment and persecution of those who have given up their belief or changed their faith, even in the West. They have led to demands for laws against defamation of religion, which would effectively restrict freedom of expression.
While we should all be committed to civility in public discussion, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights already provides protection from incitement to religious hatred, which leads to discrimination, hostility or violence. To go beyond this has implications for free speech.
Muslims, like anyone else, should be free to practise and propagate their faith. They are free also to contribute to public debate. The principle of one law for all, however, cannot be compromised. Freedom of expression and the right to change one's belief must be maintained. So must easy access to the courts and police.
Michael Nazir-Ali was bishop of Rochester in Britain, a member of the House of Lords and bishop of Raiwind in Pakistan.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/radical-islamism-challenges-notions-of-freedom/story-e6frg6zo-1225922976756 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/radical-islamism-challenges-notions-of-freedom/story-e6frg6zo-1225922976756)
-
Why do these news agencies insist on applying such a bigoted title, with applying Islam to these radically militant middle easterners?? :-\
-
Perhaps you need to take a look at the ownership of these papers and see if they bring bias or an agenda to the table.
Is there a legitimate reason to try to cast aspersions on a larger group because of the actions of a smaller group?
Most Middle Easterners are Caucasian.
So maybe white people are the problem.
Damn white people.
-
Yea, that's what it is, damn white people. And you know, white people are bipedal. Using Bt's theory, I think we can squarely lay the blame on anyone with 2 legs
-
That seems to be the logical extension of the larger group is responsible and shares blame for the actions of the sub group.
So yeah
damn bipedals
-
"Perhaps you need to take a look at the ownership of these
papers and see if they bring bias or an agenda to the table"
Yes the Associated Press has an anti-Muslim agenda! ::)
"Most Middle Easterners are Caucasian.
So maybe white people are the problem"
You are comparing apples to oranges...it's clever...but it's illogical
You can't match the fact that radical Muslims state their
motivation for killing all these people is because of Islam,
so you attach things that are not relevant pretending
that say "eye color" is as relevant as the motivation for
the murder. But eye color can't be shown to have anything
to do with the murders, where Islam can be shown to be
related to the murders because practically all of the terrorist
state emphatically that Islam is the reason they are doing it.
You are trying to pretend radical Islam is not related to Islam,
but that is to live in fantasy land.
-
That seems to be the logical extension of the larger group is responsible and shares blame for the actions of the sub group.
So yeah
damn bipedals
Fit your mandate, so I suppose so
-
FEATHERLESS Bipeds. Let's not get out winged friends involved by mistake.
No Muslim has feather. Nor does the pope. All Popes are featherless, and bipeds as well, I think.
Or was Infecundius III a one-legged, or monopodal, pope?
-
Yes the Associated Press has an anti-Muslim agenda!
The AP has been caught reporting with bias. Numerous times during the Bush Administration. And who owns the AP?
You can't match the fact that radical Muslims state their motivation for killing all these people is because of Islam, so you attach things that are not relevant pretending that say "eye color" is as relevant as the motivation for the murder. But eye color can't be shown to have anything to do with the murders, where Islam can be shown to be related to the murders because practically all of the terrorist
state emphatically that Islam is the reason they are doing it. You are trying to pretend radical Islam is not related to Islam, but that is to live in fantasy land.
I have no problem with slamming Islamic terrorists or more precisely terrorists who practice Islam.
I do have an issue with the sins of the few being applied to the larger group, because i doubt they have the ability to control the actions of these terrorists than you do of controlling the actions of a pedophile priest.
Throughout history horrible things have been done in the name of religion. Perhaps all the religions of the book need to be held in contempt.
-
Perhaps all the religions of the book need to be held in contempt.
=========================================
One rarely sees reports of violence by T'aoists, Buddhists and Jains.
-
Buddhists seemed to have a bad habit of catching themselves on fire, but yeah, that is why i made the distiction between western and eastern religions. I'm not up on what the hindu's have done.
-
"The AP has been caught reporting with bias.
Numerous times during the Bush Administration. And who owns the AP?"
Ok since you make the implication...can you provide any sources, studies,
or findings that the Associated Press or the British newpaper are biased
against Muslims?
And by the way what is "biased" about reporting the truth?
Most of the terror attackers are Islamists!....Or do you deny that too?
I have no problem with slamming Islamic terrorists or more precisely terrorists who practice Islam.
Your first term (Islamic Terrorist) is correct because they are committing the act in the name of Islam,
they are not just happenstance terrorist that happen to practice Islam as your second term implies.
I do have an issue with the sins of the few being applied to the larger group,
because i doubt they have the ability to control the actions of these terrorists
than you do of controlling the actions of a pedophile priest.
Oh I have posted many times in this very forum that the Catholic Church has acted
disgracefully by their actions and inactions concerning the criminal homo priests and
that I fully support the death penalty for these reckless criminal homo priests. The
inaction by the Catholic Church is indeed criminal and reflects poorly on the entire
Catholic Church.
Throughout history horrible things have been done in the name of religion.
Perhaps all the religions of the book need to be held in contempt.
We don't live "throughout history"...we live now in the year 2010.
Sure lots of things have happened throughout human history.
But most people are much more concerned with mass killings
happening everyday by a segment of the Muslim religion.
-
Re AP:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=ap+bias&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS307US307&ie=UTF-8 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=ap+bias&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS307US307&ie=UTF-8)
Your first term (Islamic Terrorist) is correct because they are committing the act in the name of Islam,
they are not just happenstance terrorist that happen to practice Islam as your second term implies.
And i guess the Black Panthers spoke for the Negro Race
-
Did they? Did they publically declare, much like Islamic radicals do in justifying their acts in the name of Islam, justify their acts in the name of......negro? Now race equals religion? Really?
-
I'm guessing Black Power applied to race, wouldn't you think?
-
Yea, I would. Now getting back to my question...you're trying to compare race with religion??
-
Yea, I would. Now getting back to my question...you're trying to compare race with religion??
Groups and subgroups. Please try to keep up.
Certainly you aren't saying that discriminating against religion is more palatable than discriminating against race.
There is no apples and oranges here.
There are groups and sub groups of that group.
Islamists who practice terror is a subgroup of the larger group of people who practice Islam.
This really isn't a difficult concept to understand.
-
People who practice a religion, practice such by choice. People who are of a certain race, have no choice. They are what they are.
When comparing apples, try to keep it to just apples
-
People who practice a religion, practice such by choice.
Most people who practice a religion were born into that religion.
And certainly you aren't saying that people should abandon their faith (Islam) because some (Al Queda) of that faith practice it badly?
Because you just denied saying that Al Queda speaks for Islam in this very thread. So why should a Muslim give up their belief in their God because of Al Queda.
-
People who practice a religion, practice such by choice.
Most people who practice a religion were born into that religion.
Irelevent. It's a choice. It's a choice to practice a religion. It's also a choice to murder in the name of a religion. One is just peachy, the other, not so much. So trying to compare it to race, where a person is born a certain race, with no choice in the matter is kinda.........well, apple/oranges kinda thing
And certainly you aren't saying that people should abandon their faith (Islam) because some (Al Queda) of that faith practice it badly?
Never even implied such a thing. You're still not getting it, are you. Choices......and repercussion of said choices. That's the point. The bad guys here are those radicals that have hijacked the religion of Islam, and using it to justify thier murdering of innocents. The bad guys are not, and have never been Muslims who practice Islam. So trying to keep repeating that point, as if that's the one being made by myself, only degrades the credibility of the accuser, when its never been an issue to begin with. It's the actions of those who murder (AlQeada), in the name of Islam, that's the issue.
I'm a little stunned you're not grasping that
-
Buddhists seemed to have a bad habit of catching themselves on fire
Also, apparently practicing self-mummification: http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-self-mummification-buddhist-monks (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-self-mummification-buddhist-monks)
(Just an interesting aside.)
-
Buddhists have only occasionally practiced self-immolation, and never have these events threatened the safety of anyone else. I don't think self-mummification poses a threat to anyone, either.
All in all, Buddhists are almost as peaceful as the Jains, who are more peaceful than anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism)
In a world in which everyone was a Jain, we could probably have successful anarchy.
-
Come on BT...so you post more apples to oranges nonsense.
I ask for credible sources/findings of Associated Press anti-Muslim bias & UK Newspaper bias against Muslims
and you post some generic link about AP bias. So what?
Where are the credible sources for bias against Muslims from these organizations?
Do you not think if there was a problem our President would have called out AP?
CNN uses the term "Islamist" as well....does CNN have a bias against Muslims too?
Is it "biased" to call an Islamist an Islamist?
What news source on the earth has not been accused of some type of bias?
And again the more important point...
explain to me what is "biased" about a headline stating the fact that the terrorists were Islamist?
Do we just ignore the perpetrators own words so you can feel comfy in your political correctness?
It seems as though you want to pretend that these are just criminals unrelated to Islam....
that it is almost an accident they are Muslim & could just as easily be another religion...
when in fact no other religion today has anywhere near the scale of violence problem coming from it's ranks.
"And i guess the Black Panthers spoke for the Negro Race"
Why are you just making stuff up?
Did I ever say the Islamist "spoke for Islam"?
You imply I said that...show me where I said that?
That would be ridiculous.....that's not my point at all.....unfortunately they are the loudest voice of Islam right now.
Right now what voice in Islam is louder? What voice gets by far the most headlines? Sadly it's violence...
if US Black Panthers suddenly start flying planes into buildings, slaughtering thousands in schools, offices, buses..ect
Then hell yeah it's a big problem for the US Black population if Black Panthers say they are doing it to advance the black race in America.
As hard as you try for political correctness you can't separate the criminal from his motivation....it is what it is.
Ok....I am walking out the door to go watch some live college football and maybe a few "other things"....ya'll have a good day!
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/SMU/2306aae6.jpg)
-
Is Michael Bloomberg to blame for the deaths of the 18 Muslim men in Indian-controlled Kashmir who rioted over reports that someone in America burned the Koran?
Let's think it through.
As I explained at length in an earlier column, I believe that the New York City mayor could have stopped the Park51 ("ground zero mosque") project months ago, long before it became a national story. It would have taken some wheeling and dealing and a few phone calls. Instead, in his grandiose pomposity, he went a different way.
Even if you don't buy that Bloomberg could have nipped this noxious weed in the bud, Commentary magazine editor John Podhoretz is surely correct that this wouldn't be nearly the controversy it is today if only Bloomberg had been capable of getting the "Freedom Tower" built in a timely manner.
Enter storefront pastor Terry Jones, who introduced the idiotic idea of Koran-burning to the American people. He clearly got his inspiration from the debate over the ground zero mosque. He chickened out, but not before he inspired others to do something similar. Two pastors in Tennessee held a private Koran-burning, and a New Jersey transit worker tore up and burned a few pages (and was fired for it). These acts, plus the media coverage of Jones' planned stunt, sparked the deadly riots in Kashmir.
So, should we put Bloomberg in the dock? Recall him from office? Drop him, bound and gagged, into downtown Lahore?
Alas, no. While we should criticize him for his thumbless grasp of church-state issues and his megalomaniacal incompetence, he's not to blame for the actions of others. And it isn't fair to hold people legally accountable for the evil or misguided deeds of others.
And the same basically goes for Jones. His plan to burn the Koran was stupid, irresponsible and repugnant, but it's not his fault that there are a significant number of Muslim men who are not only ready but eager to riot and kill in response to insults to Islam.
If you deny this, you are basically denying the humanity of Muslims. We take it as a given in this country that not only are all men created equal, but that each individual is responsible for his own actions. Each man and woman is a captain of his or her own self.
To say that Muslims have no choice in the matter, that they must act like animals, is to say that they are animals. If you tease a bear and he kills you, your stupidity is to blame. If you tease a man and he kills you, the murderer is to blame.
Again, I think burning the Koran is reprehensible. And I could live with a local law that banned Koran-burning (and flag-burning, Bible-burning, Torah-burning, etc.) because I think communities should be able to set standards of decency. But that hardly settles things. It's easy to condemn Koran-burning. What about those Danish cartoons of Mohammed (that Yale University won't even reproduce in a book on the controversy)? What about highbrow novels like "The Satanic Verses"? When Pope Benedict delivered his Regensburg address in 2006, he suggested that Islam had a link to violence. In response, many Muslims rioted. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
When Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was asked in an interview about Koran-burning, he brought up former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous comment that the First Amendment "doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. ... Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?"
There are a number of grave problems with the crowded-theater cliche. First, you can -- even must -- yell "fire" in a crowded theater. It just has to be the truth.
But more to the point, fires are not human beings. Fire has no choice but to burn because that is what fire does. Humans have choices. Yet in this formulation (from which Breyer has somewhat retreated), Muslims are akin to soulless, unthinking flames. Taken seriously, this comparison suggests rational people have every reason to fear Muslims in much the same way they fear fire.
There are complex issues here. But the simple truth is the Islamist extremists who behead and riot do have a choice. They want to murder. What they want is an excuse, and they'll find one no matter what.
A Convenient Excuse (http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/09/18/a_convenient_excuse)
-
Why do you consider building a community center to be equivalent to yelling FIRE! in a theatre?
-
::) Literal nazi strikes again
-
Choices......and repercussion of said choices. That's the point. The bad guys here are those radicals that have hijacked the religion of Islam, and using it to justify thier murdering of innocents. The bad guys are not, and have never been Muslims who practice Islam.
Well you have it partly right. The bad guys are not Muslims who practice Islam. Where you have it wrong is that you say the bad guys are those radicals who have "hijacked" the religion and that the non bad guys simply have to renounce their religion in order to avoid your sneering disdain. That's where choice come in, right.
You don't commit the violent acts.
You walk your walk with your God, but because some infinitesimal small sub group of your fellow coreligionists behave badly your only option is to renounce your faith.
What a crock.
-
Choices......and repercussion of said choices. That's the point. The bad guys here are those radicals that have hijacked the religion of Islam, and using it to justify thier murdering of innocents. The bad guys are not, and have never been Muslims who practice Islam.
Well you have it partly right. The bad guys are not Muslims who practice Islam.
FINALLY. Now, let's hope the repetition of claiming I've been meaning that will cease
Where you have it wrong is that you say the bad guys are those radicals who have "hijacked" the religion and that the non bad guys simply have to renounce their religion in order to avoid your sneering disdain. That's where choice come in, right.
NO NO NO...NEVER SAID that, NEVER IMPLIED that. Good gravy, why are you pulling this dren?? You must have it set in your mind, that I must hate Islam. How, I have no idea. But that apparently is so rooted to each and every comment made, no manner how often you're shown in error, and corrected, you're still going to pull it, aren't you.
You don't commit the violent acts. You walk your walk with your God, but because some infinitesimal small sub group of your fellow coreligionists behave badly your only option is to renounce your faith. What a crock.
And what a complete pile of AMBE. :o You show me ANYWHERE, where I've claimed such. Not by 6 degrees of seperation, but where sirs directly implies that Muslims need to renounce their faith and take up.........<insert other religion/pastime here>
Miss Henny is one of the greatest posters on this site, and more knowledgable of Islam that you and I combined. You ask her, if any of my commentary on this topic rises to this level of you claiming my advocation that Muslims renounce their religion.
-
You are the one who brought up choice. Why would that be relevant in discussing groups and subgroups unless choosing to opt out of the group was the recommended course of action.
Perhaps you should explain why you think choice is relevant to the discussion.
-
Yes, I brought up choice. And it had nothing to do with denouncing one's religion. That was your illogical leap, based on, I can only assume, your made up mind of my apparent hatred of Islam (sneering disdain ::) )
What else could it be?
Choice has to do with one's decision making and the repercussions of those decisions. Radicals murdering in the name of islam is a bad choice. Buidling an Islamic Mosque in the shadow of thousands killed (rightly or wrongly, obviously wrongly) in the name of that religion, is a bad choice/decision. It's insenstive, it's borderline looking to instigate hostility, given the insenstivity and intolerance currently being displayed by this Imam, and the vast majority of the citizenry that also disagree with this location selection.
AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WANTING TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION, NOR ANY BIGOTED HATRED AIMED AT THAT RELIGION
Now, that's not to say there aren't those fringe folk, (the pastor wanting to burn the Koran comes to mind) that do hate Islam. That's their own cross to have to bear. But for you to insist I mean one thing when i've clearly and consistently have demonstrated the near polar opposite.......well, as I said earlier, merely degrades the credibility of the accuser
Moving it even just a few blocks away, or working towards a compromise with the City would have demonstrated this supposed tolerance, everyone keeps saying is the foundation of Islam. But no, dammit, an Islamic cultural center must be built in the shadow of the thousands murdered when the WTC came down in the name (wrongly of course) of Islam
-
The fact remains that applying the actions of the subgroup to the larger group is what you are doing. You give credence to the subgroup speaking in the name of Islam, hijacking the religion, as if their claim automatically was true, whatever it is you are doing that applies what ever bin laden did to what Rauf is trying to do.
And their only option is to renounce their religion, because you have prejudged the fact that what bin laden did was in the name of and at the behest of folks like Rauf.
And in my mind that is wrong.
A week ago the crescent moon shone over ground zero. I'm sure some fool somewhere thinks that is a sign of Allah's approval of what was done.
-
The fact remains that at no time am I calling for anyone to renounce anything
The fact also remains that the location of this proposed Islamic site is one of poor judgement, IMHO, given the actions of those who have chosen to pervert the name of Islam, in order to justify the murder of innocents, and yet requires not 1 shred of renouncing anything. Again, that's your illogical leap
None of which points to anything even remotly bigoted or "disdainful" as it relates to the religion of Islam. Your efforts, not withstanding
-
The fact also remains that the location of this proposed Islamic site is one of poor judgement, IMHO, given the actions of those who have chosen to pervert the name of Islam, in order to justify the murder of innocents, and yet requires not 1 shred of renouncing anything.
The location is one of poor judgment only if you apply the guilt of the subgroup to the larger group. Now you are on record as saying the larger group does not bear the guilt of the smaller group, yet they exhibit poor judgment because...?
-
The location is poor judgement because 3000+ men, women, and children were murdered in the name of Islam
::)
-
So even though you don't agree that the larger group shares the guilt, and that the assessment that the location is wrong is based on the erroneous assumption that the larger group shares the guilt, you are OK with sacrificing your principles because you don't want to what ... tell the people who lost loved ones at ground zero that their misapplication of guilt is wrong?
Talk about profiles in courage.... ::)
-
Excellent, by all means, you go tell those families who lost loved ones on 911 how they need to buck up, move on, turn off their emotions, and show some "courage"
Talk about profiles in compassion.... ::)
-
Fine. WTC families your reasons for opposing the mosque are wrong.
But i believe i have been doing that for a month now.
But let's take this a step further.
The whole outrage about the attacks on the WTC was that the primary victims and the first responders who died trying to rescue them was that they were innocents. The outrage was that these people were not responsible and unfair targets for Al Queda to take out it's anger upon.
So since when do two wrongs make a right?
Since when should the followers of Islam be held responsible for actions they have no control over. Even you admit that is wrong. so pressuring the innocents to put their center somewhere else because some folks want to presume guilt instead of innocence based on misplaced anger is wrong to it's core.
And this has nothing to do with a lack of compassion. I was just as shocked and angry as the rest of the country on 9/11. But i wonder how much compassion the families feel for the men and women who enlisted in the armed services as a direct result of 9/11 and fought to punish the guilty for that act and the 4000 plus who died in that effort only to discover that the constitution they swore to defend only applies to certain people, and only at certain times and certainly only in certain locations. Wonder how they feel knowing their sons, brothers, fathers and husbands died for a lie.
-
Your premice requires that believe such close proximity of an Islamic mosque to the location of thousands killed in the name of Islam is wrong. And Miss Henny, no overt supporter of either Bush or Conservatism or our military interventions into the Middle East, & who knows more about Islam than we can possibly ever learn, must also be wrong
We're not, so the only one wrong here, would be yourself, thus your theory of 2 wrongs is moot
-
Your premice requires that believe such close proximity of an Islamic mosque to the location of thousands killed in the name of Islam is wrong.
Really? Is Al Queda building the mosque? You have evidence of this? Because if you don't and it is simply an innocent Muslim community exercising their rights guaranteed under the constitution, then saying they must move because they share the guilt of Al Queda is simply wrong.
And Henny is free to jump in at any time. but just be forewarned that when she first weighed in on this subject she said this:
Well, here's the problem - I find myself becoming "bigoted" in a certain manner. But I am writing from another country where Islam is shoved down my throat 24/7.
I doubt she is "bigoted" but i can understand how she might have resentments.
But if you want her to argue your case for you, since you seem to be having trouble justifying the inconsistencies you present, that's fine.
-
Miss Henny can clearly speak for herself, and I recall her use of the word bigot, in that if a certain constituency of folks are going to call a person X, regardless of actual realities, then so be it. it's kind of when the hard core left call Tea party folk racist, because they just have to be, since they don't agree with them
The point is her comments were spot on, as it relates to the piss poor jdgement in demanding the mosque be built no place else but in the shadow of what once was the WTC, where thosands were murdered in the name of that religion
And if you want to try to pull the 1st amendment card on freedom of religion one more time, we can end this now, since it hasn't been, nor ever was about the freedom of religion. Getting really tired of these continuous misrepresentations of my position. Especially from one who is ususally so credible
-
This is what Henny said about the Mosque
Surprising take on this, Henny. My argument for the Mosque is also two-fold. As you stated it is Un- American to deny Muslims the right to build their Mosque wherever they choose as long as it conforms to existing building codes. And secondly i don't buy "the salt in the wound" argument because that sanctifies the notion that all Muslims share Bin Laden and his band of Merry Men's guilt. And i just don't buy that.
You know, you're right BT. It just goes to show how jaded I am becoming over here in Muslim-land, also forgetting that American-variety Muslims are a much more pleasant group in general. However, the fact that they are considering that very location smells like a statement to me.
So in essence she suspects that something smells, that a statement might be being made, and for those reasons she is against the location. As if those are valid reasons to treat one group differently than another.
On the other hand Pooch has no problem with the location. And perhaps what informs his position is that he is a member of a religion that some have called a cult. So he might be sensitive to the idea that it is probably a bad idea to treat religious organizations differently.
And as an aside, i suggest that you concentrate more on explaining the inconsistencies in your position, than worrying about how i present mine.
-
My positions have been crystal clear from the beginning, your efforts not withstanding. The only inconsistencies are the ones where you proclaim me as saying/implying one thing, while I consistently keep demonstrating how in error you are.
Let's make it easy for you, since your mind has already been made up.......Sirs hates Islam.......declare victory........hit enter
And as soon as Bt sends a form letter to the 911 families to "get over it", then we can truely all feel better
-
So is Al Queda building the mosque?
-
Pretty dumb question, don't ya think. And no, Bin Laden doesn't speak for Islam. And no, Bin laden is not an official cleric. And no, AlQeada doesn't represent Islam. They are merely the agents that use Islam as their justification for murder
And since we've already gone over this, adnauseum, I think we're finished
-
So there is no legitimate reason to be against the mosque.
-
There are absolutely legitimate rational reasons, already explained in detail, by not just myself, not just the pundits I've posted, Krauthammer in particular, and most recently by Goldberg, but by Miss Henny as well. And prescious little have anything to do with some irrational suppression of one's religion or hatred towards Islam
Sorry, you're literally in the minority on this one, Bt
-
There are absolutely legitimate rational reasons, already explained in detail, by not just myself, not just the pundits I've posted, Krauthammer in particular, and most recently by Goldberg, but by Miss Henny as well. And prescious little have anything to do with some irrational suppression of one's religion or hatred towards Islam
Sorry, you're literally in the minority on this one, Bt
My mistake. I thought you had your own reasons for being against the mosque. I didn't realize you were simply echoing others heavy lifting.
Being in the minority is no big deal. i don't govern my life by polls.
-
My mistake, I thought you were going to actually pay attention to what I've written, that clearly provides my own heft on the matter, that merely coincides with the majority. Didn't realize you were going to play the deflection card. Just add it to the misrepresentation card, I suppose
-
What deflection?
You mention pundit articles you posted as if it means anything.
That is their opinion and if they were on this board i'm sure they would be willing to defend them.
But let's get to the heart of the issue.
You say the mosque in that location is a bad idea because 3000 people died at the hands of Al Queda.
We have established that Bin Laden is not building the mosque in question.
We have established that the religion and adherents of Islam are not responsible for Bin Ladens actions, no matter the reasons Bin Laden gave.
So why is the location of this mosque a bad idea?
-
SIRS...don't bite that BS....don't you even think about being apologetic.
There is nothing wrong with forming opinions after reading material on a topic.
BT acts like it is odd that you have an opinion but you realize others may be more articulate
about laying out the reasons this Ground Zero Mosque should not be built...so God forbid
you post someone like Charles Krauthammer. What the hell difference does it make if you
post Krauthammer's words or say the same thing in your own words.....that's exactly what
BT is doing if he will admit the truth. BT has read and studied the issue and come to a
different conclusion but for him to slight your position by pretending you cant think for
yourself is really a cheap shot....Just be glad you are with most Americans in opposing
this ridiculous Ground Zero Mosque.
The way to beat the enemy is pretty simple....
Its the same way to get around the bs complaints about the Arizona immigration law being racist
You just play their own game better than they do.
In NY you declare Ground Zero a National Park....NO CHURCHES OF ANY KIND
Problem solved the A-Holes dont get their Ground Zero Mosque!
The Arizona Law is racist?
Ummm ok...
New Arizona Law just require EVERYONE top carry proof of citizenship...EVERYONE
Anyone pulled over must show proof of citizenship....new proof of citizenship card.
Then boom the A-Holes cant weasel out claiming racism.
How can it be racist if everyone is required?
-
You don't commit the violent acts. You walk your walk with your God, but because some infinitesimal small sub group of your fellow coreligionists behave badly your only option is to renounce your faith. What a crock.
And what a complete pile of AMBE. :o You show me ANYWHERE, where I've claimed such. Not by 6 degrees of seperation, but where sirs directly implies that Muslims need to renounce their faith and take up.........<insert other religion/pastime here>
Miss Henny is one of the greatest posters on this site, and more knowledgable of Islam that you and I combined. You ask her, if any of my commentary on this topic rises to this level of you claiming my advocation that Muslims renounce their religion.
It did kind of look that way to me - saying that religion is a choice. But you have explained yourself well since that post.
-
Your premice requires that believe such close proximity of an Islamic mosque to the location of thousands killed in the name of Islam is wrong. And Miss Henny, no overt supporter of either Bush or Conservatism or our military interventions into the Middle East, & who knows more about Islam than we can possibly ever learn, must also be wrong
We're not, so the only one wrong here, would be yourself, thus your theory of 2 wrongs is moot
I might be wrong. But it is how I FEEL about the subject; there is no concrete answer here. In fact, it's all about how people FEEL - some people FEEL that it's right, some people FEEL that it's wrong.
-
Miss Henny can clearly speak for herself, and I recall her use of the word bigot, in that if a certain constituency of folks are going to call a person X, regardless of actual realities, then so be it. it's kind of when the hard core left call Tea party folk racist, because they just have to be, since they don't agree with them
No really, I might have a bigoted slant now on Islamic issues. I am no longer able to discuss the issue without negative emotional overtones. But I do my best to still discuss Islamic issues from an educated viewpoint - but I end up with a different conclusion than I used to.
-
does anyone one else find it ironic that as we sit here in 3DHS and discuss Islam
fundamentalist and the Middle East that I guess some GOOGLE filter picks up our
words and banner ads start appearing like the one below?....LOL.
(http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=COy0sMSMmdmXuAEQ2AUYTzIIAX1ctSO3X3E)
-
It's not ironic, it is intentional. It seem the name of any Middle Eastern country or anything relating to the ME and there is a filter that picks it up and hits you with the ad.
-
XO I wouldn't complain if I came home and found
an Arab princess taking a bubble bath in my tub!
(http://data5.blog.de/media/854/2549854_489e3b1943_m.jpg)
-
Your premice requires that believe such close proximity of an Islamic mosque to the location of thousands killed in the name of Islam is wrong. And Miss Henny, no overt supporter of either Bush or Conservatism or our military interventions into the Middle East, & who knows more about Islam than we can possibly ever learn, must also be wrong
We're not, so the only one wrong here, would be yourself, thus your theory of 2 wrongs is moot
I might be wrong. But it is how I FEEL about the subject; there is no concrete answer here. In fact, it's all about how people FEEL - some people FEEL that it's right, some people FEEL that it's wrong.
That is a good point, rationality is not referenced in how people feel , but the feeling itself is a legitamate thing to discuss isn't it?
That the first admendment protects the practice of religion isn't in question, shouldn't the criticism of this religion protected by that same admendment have the same lattitude that the religion itself enjoys?
-
Osama Bin Laden has stated that it is a duty of Islam to join his cause and to attack Americans .
How wrong is he?
-
Osama Bin Laden has stated that it is a duty of Islam to join his cause and to attack Americans .
How wrong is he?
From where does he get his authority to make such a claim?
-
Osama Bin Laden has stated that it is a duty of Islam to join his cause and to attack Americans .
How wrong is he?
From where does he get his authority to make such a claim?
His own personal authority and the public respect he enjoys as a scolor and inspired leader. The weight of a Fatwah depends on the person who issues it and how seriously he is accepted as an authority by the Umma.
-
The weight of a Fatwah depends on the person who issues it and how seriously he is accepted as an authority by the Umma.
So you accept Bin Ladens authority to speak for all of Islam?
Do you accept the Underwear Bombers authority as well?
-
The weight of a Fatwah depends on the person who issues it and how seriously he is accepted as an authority by the Umma.
So you accept Bin Ladens authority to speak for all of Islam?
Do you accept the Underwear Bombers authority as well?
Why shouldn't I accept Osama as an authority just as he claims?
He certainly speaks for all who are in agreement with him , how wrong are all they?
-
More from the Ummah:
The prevailing view of the participants of the conference was that terrorism and
extremism constitute a threat to the peace, security and stability of all countries and
peoples. Terrorism has no justification no matter what pretext terrorists may use for their deeds.
It was underlined that terrorism should be understood in its own political,
religious, historical and cultural context. Societies experience terrorism differently and its
motives are diverse. However, every country faces an urgent need to prevent and
suppress terrorist crimes as well as in addressing their national specific conditions that
are conducive to the spread of terrorism.
President Ben Ali underscored the urgent need to address the spread of terrorism~m
from a global perspective especially since "terrorism has become a transcontinental
scourge that unsettles international relations and threatens security and stability in the
world". Terrorists may exploit vulnerabilities and grievances which help to breed
extremism locally, and connect quickly with others at the international level. Keeping in
mind that the most efficient remedy to the problem of terrorism was cooperative
prevention, the conference aimed to: (a) identify "vulnerable" areas exploited by
terrorists in the social, economic, cultural and educational spheres, (b) recommend
appropriate solutions and (c) dispel misapprehensions about Islam.
Within the framework of the ab6above objectives, the Conference focused on five
key themes: Conditions conducive to terrorism; Challenging stereotypes and promoting
interfaith dialogue; Education for preventing terrorism; Dialogue among cultures and
civilizations and their role in countering terrorism; and Role of international and
specialized organizations in countering terrorism. As deliberations proceeded, it was
made clear that exclusive reliance on enforcement solutions .only could not address the
various menaces of terrorism. Indeed, the need ta formulate a comprehensive, collective
and intergovernmental approach to combating terrorism highlighted the urgency far
collaborative efforts aimed at addressing conditions conducive to terrorism. As Prof.
Ekmeleddin Ihsangalu, Ole Secretary General noted, there is a growing need to be mare
concerned with tackling "defamatory campaigns that seek ta incite a particular
civilization against another, thereby inflaming violence; hatred and extremism, and
ultimately leading to terrorism" .
. Furthermore, the participants believed that terrorism flourishes in environments
.of discontent, exclusion, humiliation, poverty,political oppression, and human rights
abuse as well as in the environment of regional conflicts. It profits from weak State
capacity to maintain law and .order. These vulnerable areas are exploited by terrorists to
mobilize~ recruits and justify violence. None .of the religions are a cause of political
radicalism and extremism; Religious doctrine may be 'tools of mobilization' rather than'
a direct cause. Islam does not cause terrorism, nor does any other religion with which
terrorist acts have been associated. Methods of terrorism, as underlined by many
. participants are employed by many different groups in many parts of the world in pursuit
of various .objectives which have nothing to do with the true image of Islam or any other
religion. Participants suggested that the real motives which provide fertile environment
for terrorism should be addressed by finding local solutions, including at grass roots
level.
http://www.oicun.org/uploads/files/articles/terrorism_conference_concl-en.pdf (http://www.oicun.org/uploads/files/articles/terrorism_conference_concl-en.pdf)
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the main organization representing the whole Muslim Ummah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah)
-
The weight of a Fatwah depends on the person who issues it and how seriously he is accepted as an authority by the Umma.
So you accept Bin Ladens authority to speak for all of Islam?
Do you accept the Underwear Bombers authority as well?
Why shouldn't I accept Osama as an authority just as he claims?
He certainly speaks for all who are in agreement with him , how wrong are all they?
And if a Muslim disagrees with him, should he be treated as if he did?
-
The weight of a Fatwah depends on the person who issues it and how seriously he is accepted as an authority by the Umma.
So you accept Bin Ladens authority to speak for all of Islam?
Do you accept the Underwear Bombers authority as well?
Why shouldn't I accept Osama as an authority just as he claims?
He certainly speaks for all who are in agreement with him , how wrong are all they?
And if a Muslim disagrees with him, should he be treated as if he did?
I would say not.
But I would shoot a Muslim who gave Osama Bin Laden a cup of tea .
Whether in agreement or not.
I think that by now Osama Bin Laden hasn't met with anyone who disagrees with him ,even a little ,for twelve years.
-
As far as I know Iman Rauf has not offered Bin Laden a cup of tea.
-
As far as I know Iman Rauf has not offered Bin Laden a cup of tea.
Bully for him , I shall not help shoot him.
Has he ever said that 9-11 is an understandable reaction in light of this or that ?
-
Has he ever said that 9-11 is an understandable reaction in light of this or that ?
Dunno.
You have a quote or url with context?
Would that make him better or worse than Americans non Muslims who have said the same thing.
I believe the phrase was root causes.
-
Iman Rauf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/americles/ground-zero-protests-islamic-center_n_690504_58093315.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/americles/ground-zero-protests-islamic-center_n_690504_58093315.html)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
This one seems commendable.
http://www.daylife.com/topic/Imam_Feisal_Abdul_Rauf
If 9/11 happens there again, I want to be the first to die ... It's my duty as an American Muslim to stand between you, the American non-Muslim, and the radicals who are trying to attack you.
– Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
In this one he seems almost to understand that he has caused a problem.
http://video.aol.com/video/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-on-larry-king-live-090810-tv-replay/36028814548726404 (http://video.aol.com/video/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-on-larry-king-live-090810-tv-replay/36028814548726404)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
In this one his quotes are being manipulated.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/ny-times-scrubs-imam-raufs-controversial-islamic-supremacist-ground-zero-mosque-remark-new-york-is-t.html (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/ny-times-scrubs-imam-raufs-controversial-islamic-supremacist-ground-zero-mosque-remark-new-york-is-t.html)
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Finally , here is the one I remembered,
"I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9-11, but the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201008130037 (http://mediamatters.org/research/201008130037)
Perhaps this guy hasa helpfull attitude , but he is really clumsy in expressing it.
-
Perhaps he isn't Bin Laden and shouldn't be lumped in with him.
-
Perhaps he isn't Bin Laden and shouldn't be lumped in with him.
Human nature is like that.
Bin Laden lumps all Americans together .
Iman Rauf oversimplyfies US policys so he can point at them as a root cause.
If the Mosque gets built , Muslims who understand the Issues for Americans poorly will celebrate it as a victory over and opposeing force , and if somebody firebombs it these same Muslims will be livid at us all even if the guilty amount to just one.
I see little potential for a good outcome , the Imam himself can be quoted as beig regretfull that he brought it up.