Just not there

[hnumpah]

Show me, convince me, that the reason you oppose this is not simply because they are Muslim. Give me one example where you have opposed building a Jewish temple in occupied territory in Palestine; show me one example where you have opposed building a Catholic church pretty much anywhere in the world they have oppressed and murdered and wiped out other belief systems in the name of 'saving' the uninitiated pagans' souls and enriching the church, either through plunder or claiming new territory. Show me where you opposed Christians building new churches because a few extremists hung uppity blacks, shot abortion doctors or bombed their clinics, or bombed the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Show me where you have opposed whites building churches on Native American reservations, or Mormons building their temples. Go ahead, show me where you have opposed any other religious group using their own property as they wished, when they are in full compliance with all federal, state and local laws, zoning ordinances, and have even gone so far as to ask in advance if their old building is considered any sort of historic landmark that might prevent it from being torn down. Show me anywhere else any of you has advocated that anyone should not be allowed to use their property as they see fit under those same circumstances.

Sirs is fond of crying, "Where's the outrage?" Well, where was it?

Now convince me it's not just a matter of prejudice against just one religious group.

[BT]

So apparently, now is 2005. And he is right. We have taken out more Muslims than Al Queada has taken of ours. So yes we are far more efficient than they are.

What were the figures for the Iraqi sanctions 250-500k a year?

Of course, there wouldn't have been sanctions if Saddam was compliant. And he might have been more compliant if we had turned our backs on Israel.

[sirs]

So apparently, now is 2005. And he is right. We have taken out more Muslims than Al Queada has taken of ours. So yes we are far more efficient than they are.

Ahhh, so you agree with him.  Glad you 2 understand now this isn't a 1st amendment issue, as you both espouse hyperbole...the U.S. is worse than AlQeada (in your words, "more efficient"    

Show me, convince me, that the reason you oppose this is not simply because they are Muslim.

Been there, done that.  Location, NOT religion is the ongoing issue here.  If you can't accept that, I can't help you

 

[BT]

Glad you 2 understand now this isn't a 1st amendment issue, as you both espouse hyperbole

Where did i espouse hyperbole. I simply stated he has a point , we are far more efficient than al Queda, but our actions were lawful. The sanctions were blessed by the UN.

[sirs]

Glad you 2 understand now this isn't a 1st amendment issue, as you both espouse hyperbole

Where did i espouse hyperbole.

In your agreement with the Imam's hyperbolic, and distorted "point"

I simply stated he has a point , we are far more efficient than al Queda, but our actions were lawful. The sanctions were blessed by the UN.

A point most notably absent when the Imam was comparing us to being worse than AlQeada

[BT]

Then obviously i must be a horrible person, engaged in hyperbole and all. What next, someone will call me a closet liberal or an asshole? Oh woe is me.

Should never let the facts stand in the way of a good demonization. And the facts are the US Govt has killed far more Muslims than Al Queda has killed Americans. That is the expected result of any war we get involved in. Ask Patton.

[sirs]

I don't recall saying that.  I do seem to say how you're trying to demonstrate how the Imam is "technically" correct in how the U.S. is worse than AlQeada.  Be nice to see your 1st amendment application of criticising his 1st amendment criticism of the U.S.

But then, you might be catching on to the underlying points I've been making, especially in what the possible motivating factor(s) are behind's this Imam's insistance that the only place he can build a house of peace and tolerance is the one place that will make those pretty much impossible

[BT]

I don't believe i placed a value on the Iman's statement other than that he was correct.

It was you who made the judgment call that he was in cahoots with Al Queda and must be a radical because he made such a statement.

BTW where did he say we were worse than Al Queda? Seems to me he just said we had more blood on our hands. Was it you who modified his statement to meet your perception of him, or are you just parroting some other pundits bias in reporting?

[sirs]

I don't believe i placed a value on the Iman's statement other than that he was correct.

That the U.S. is worse than AlQeada.  Yea, I got that

It was you who made the judgment call that he was in cahoots with Al Queda and must be a radical because he made such a statement.

Nope, that would be a leap of illogic on your part, as i never made such a claim.  I referenced his rhetoric is FAR from that which he supposedly seeks, that of tolerance, respect, and a peaceful coexistance with Americans, by way of building a mosque in the one place that'll make that decidely implausible

BTW where did he say we were worse than Al Queda? Seems to me he just said we had more blood on our hands.

oy....you're serious?     You're now trying to minimize the rhetoric even more??  IF it was merely a "statement of fact", he would have included precisely what you did....UN support, lawfully undertaken by our military.  That was decidely absent....and transparently on purpose.

 

[BT]

oy....you're serious?

Yeah i'm serious. Where did he say that?

I saw where the column you posted put those words in Raufs mouth, but i didn't see where he said it.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, since you repeated the false allegation.

Or was his meaning just "obvious".

[BT]

I referenced his rhetoric is FAR from that which he supposedly seeks, that of tolerance, respect, and a peaceful coexistance with Americans, by way of building a mosque in the one place that'll make that decidely implausible

Since when is speaking the truth intolerant and disrespectful. Of course we have killed more Muslims in the war on terror than Al Queda has killed of us. That's the whole idea.

[sirs]

You have an absolute 1st amendment right to your rationalization efforts Bt.  You want to minimize this Imam's rhetoric as nothing more than merely "stating a fact"?, whatever makes you sleep better.  When one listens to a person, in full context, and the audio was provided, it was clear what was and what wasn't said, your minimization efforts, not withstanding.  I like the new twist on we "have more blood on our hands", because of course, that's a good thing, being the "whole idea" and all.     Apparently stating we've done a better job at taking out Muslim terrorists than AlQueada has taken out Americans, was too.........bland & unclear.  More blood on our hands is so much more..........well, folks can fill in the blanks     

[BT]

You have an absolute 1st amendment right to your rationalization efforts Bt.

Do you understand how the first amendment works, who it applies to and who it doesn't?

[sirs]

Yea I do.  I also would fight for a person's 1st amendment right, if it were ever being squelched, even from rhetoric I'd oppose.  But since this is NOT a 1st amendment issue, I'm not obligated to support this Imam's choice of location

[BT]

Perhaps what you don't understand is that the first amendment does not apply to this forum, my posts are not protected by the constitution unless the government barges in and tries to suppress them.

They haven't. So why bring up first amendment rights when they aren't applicable?

BTW i listened to the edited audio. I didn't find anything offensive.

He even used the n word.