Just not there

[sirs]

Never was arguing the 1st in this forurm.  You simply asked if I knew how it worked, and how it applies.  I'm not the one that keeps bringing up the Constitutional angle, as it relates to this Mosque.  No one is arguing that.  I merely reference that you and the Imam have such rights.

Not sure how that has anything to do with my non-support of this Imam's location choice, or why its wrong to oppose it.

[BT]

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

If you can't keep it honest, there is no sense in continuing this discussion with you.

[sirs]

I've been 100% honest.  Your effort to minimize the Imam's rhetoric is plane as.....plane.  Just merely stating a fact we've spilt more blood.  Because that's just such a positive, "bring-us-together" kinda of thing to say

And I wouldn't try pulling the "keep it honst" card, with your efforts at trying to paint my comments as claiming the Imam is in cahoots with AlQeada     

[BT]

Your effort to minimize the Imam's rhetoric is plane as.....plane. Just merely stating a fact we've spilt more blood.  Because that's just such a positive, "bring-us-together" kinda of thing to say

And I wouldn't try pulling the "keep it honst" card, with your efforts at trying to paint my comments as claiming the Imam is in cahoots with AlQeada     Roll Eyes

You don't believe stating grievances in an open, honest  and constructive manner is a prerequisite to reaching understanding and peaceful coexistence?

There was nothing untrue in what he said and i'm not sure why you would think that radicalizes the Iman at all. And i don't see the need to minimize what he said. I agree with it. We have killed more Muslims than Al Queda has killed of ours.

Though he never said we were worse than Al Queda and neither did I. That was simply a dishonest characterization of his statement.

[sirs]

If I were to believe the intention was to be "open, honest, and constructive".  He has yet to persuade me on that....epsecially with rhetoric like we've spilt more blood.  Nothing constructive anywhere in that video/audio

[BT]

He doesn't need to convince you of his intentions.

You are free to prejudge as you see fit.

But just out of curiosity, do you think the US has killed more of them than they have of us?

[sirs]

He doesn't need to convince you of his intentions.

He does if he wants me to support any notion, of what I know to be wrong in the 1st place.  I'm left to deduce the Imam is demonstrating Obama-like poor judgement......or worse

But just out of curiosity, do you think the US has killed more of them than they have of us?

More Militant Islamic Terrorists?  I would hope so.  That is what we are trying to do, but sure as hell not conveyed in the same manner as we've "spilt more blood" would imply

[BT]

That is what we are trying to do, but sure as hell not conveyed in the same manner as we've "spilt more blood" would imply

How would you have phrased it?

[sirs]

Exactly how you did.  "While, yes, the U.S. has been more efficient at killing Islamic terrorists, than AlQeada has been at killing Americans, we must be cognizant of all the innocent lives taken, in this struggle against those who have co-opted and mutate the message of Islam"

Something like that would have demonstrated both the U.S. committment to taking on AlQeada, and not Muslims in general, as was inferred, as well as noting the tragic loss of innocent life that we all should avoid causing, yet all too often AlQeada hides behind.

He said nothing along those lines, and instead gave a clear impression of just how bad the U.S. is, ironically reinforcing his past statements that basically impled "we had it coming", in reference to 911

Again, not words that inspire a desire to "bring us together", but more so devisive, in pitting those evil Islamophobic Americans against the Muslim world.  That's what I saw from the video/audio

[Xavier_Onassis]

Al Qaeda is a Wahabbi group that arose from a custom of the Saudi monarchy. When unemployment rose among young Saudis, who could not be expected to do the ickier manual labor jobs done by Pakistani and Indian emigrants, the monarchy gave them jobs as Religious Police, The Guardians for the Prevention of Vice and Encouragement of Virtue. When they were trained by the local imams into fanatical fundamentalists, they noticed that the Saudi monarchy was itself hypocritical and corrupt, drinking booze, womanizing in Cairo, Beirut and Europe and such. Then some of these religious police volunteered to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, and they because armed and dangerous fanatics.

The US government policy has always been, give the Saudis what they want. The Saudi monarchy wants to stay in power. The US gives them the arms and the surveillance equipment to do this. Without US help the monarchy is pretty much helpless. The Saudi monarchy has two principles: the royals can do anything they want, and they can buy whatever they need to continue doing it.

The Saudi religious police have no way of influencing the monarchy. To the royals, they are simpletons that have been given stupid make-work jobs. The religious police, on the other hand., blame the corruption of the royals on the US, which has served as a procurer for sinful Western ways: whiskey, loose women, immoral TV shows and films, jet aircraft, whatever. Left exclusively to their own devices the best the Saudi royals could do is have fancy tents and palaces, faster camels, better hunting hawks and perhaps a trove of gems.

The religious police that evolved into Al Qaeda see the world outside Arabia as evil and corrupted by wealth. The most ostentatious symbol of this corrupting wealth was the WTC. The White House and the Pentagon were also sources of support for the corrupt Saudi royals.

Just as the Saudi royals see themselves as exceptional beings that are not bound by their own fundamentalist religion, the American oligarchy sees itself as beyond morality as well, supporting the Saudi monarchy and its whims for the benefits bestowed on Big Oil and Big Everything else by trade with the immensely wealthy Saudi monarchy.

There is a reason that 9-11 was not staged by irate Kashmiris, seething Sikhs, destructive Danes or bilious Bhutanese. It was a foreseeable act of payback for the US supporting the Saudi monarchy.

[sirs]

The religious police that evolved into Al Qaeda see the world outside Arabia as evil and corrupted by wealth.

And we, the U.S., are apparently worse than they, as implied by the Imam behind the Ground 0 Mosque/Cultural center.  Because we've spilt more blood, which is a good thing, because we're supposed to kill more of them than us...oh wait, it's a bad thing, which is why we had it coming.  Wow, the spinning used to justify this Imam's opinions are indeed staggering

[BT]

And we, the U.S., are apparently worse than they, as implied by the Imam behind the Ground 0 Mosque/Cultural center.  Because we've spilt more blood, which is a good thing, because we're supposed to kill more of them than us...oh wait, it's a bad thing, which is why we had it coming.  Wow, the spinning used to justify this Imam's opinions are indeed staggering

The only spin i am seeing is the perpetuation of the lie that he said the US was worse than Al - Queda.

And unless you can show where he said those words, then you are complicit in aiding and abetting that lie.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no spinning at all.

This is not a contest, no prizes are awarded. But the government of the US is not blameless. The people working in the WTC were innocent victims for the most part, but as a rule, all civilians killed in acts of terror are innocent victims.

I was just pointing out that the attack was justified in the eyes of the attackers, and that understanding how and why is better than just saying "they hate us for our freedoms", which is just dumb.

Any way you look at it, too much blood has been spilled.

[sirs]

And we, the U.S., are apparently worse than they, as implied by the Imam behind the Ground 0 Mosque/Cultural center.  Because we've spilt more blood, which is a good thing, because we're supposed to kill more of them than us...oh wait, it's a bad thing, which is why we had it coming.  Wow, the spinning used to justify this Imam's opinions are indeed staggering

The only spin i am seeing is the perpetuation of the lie that he said the US was worse than Al - Queda.

Yea, because we've "spilt more blood" is meant to be a positive, a good thing in fact....minus all the relevent qualifiers to make it a positive of course.  Which then leads us to deduce how on earth did we "had it coming", when what we're doing is a supposed good thing

Contrary to popular miniority opinion, I can see and read the Imam's words in their context, and where he gaive it, which wasn't inside a court room, where lawyers can parse different definitions of "is" or "spilt", or at some deposition, where he was merely pointing out a fact

[BT]

Yea, because we've "spilt more blood" is meant to be a positive, a good thing in fact....minus all the relevent qualifiers to make it a positive of course.  Which then leads us to deduce how on earth did we "had it coming", when what we're doing is a supposed good thing

Contrary to popular miniority opinion, I can see and read the Imam's words in their context, and where he gaive it, which wasn't inside a court room, where lawyers can parse different definitions of "is" or "spilt", or at some deposition, where he was merely pointing out a fact

I see so you admit to the lie that he said we were worse than Al-Queda.

And no he didn't make his statements in a courtroom. He made them at a University in Australia during a Q&A session with students. Part of an outreach effort I guess. Both Bush and Obama have sent him on State Department speaking tours. Whether he was sent by them to Australia, i don't know. But i seriously doubt the Bush Admin would assign a radical muslim to their speakers roster.



But then again you didn't make your post in a courtroom. either, but that doesn't make it right to make up stuff on the fly.