PDA

View Full Version : Our very own Muslim Community Center thread


ricardisimo
08-27-2010, 12:35 AM
And what better way to kick it off than with a humorous and well-reasoned critique? And quite honestly, could this cartoon have been any more apropos (and I'm not just talking about the mosque debate)?
http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazonaws.com/comics/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/TMW2010-08-25colorlowres.jpg

zulater
08-27-2010, 11:11 AM
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/gzm-cartoon.jpg

SteelersinCA
08-27-2010, 11:11 AM
Oh wow, Zu...

zulater
08-27-2010, 11:13 AM
Oh wow, Zu...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=196041


Shariah for Dummies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Nonie Darwish
2010


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that the U.S. Constitution is Shariah compliant. Let us examine below a few laws of Shariah to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

Jihad, defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion," is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (caliph). Muslim caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Shariah and unfit to rule.


A caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.


A caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.


A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go toward jihad.


It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.


A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.


The Muslim public must remove the caliph if he rejects Islam.


A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.


A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate, 2) an adulterer, and 3) a highway robber – making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.


A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim but will get it for killing a Muslim.
What would the world look like under Shariah law? Find out in Nonie Darwish's "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law"

Shariah never abolished slavery or sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.


Shariah dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging – even for crimes of sin such as adultery.


Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply with Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their Scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.


It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But the same does not apply to Muslims.


A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.


Banks must be Shariah compliant, and interest is not allowed.


No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.


A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslim minority.


Homosexuality is punishable by death.


There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.


Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband's obligation to support her, and gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.


Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying, "I divorce you," and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.


There is no community property between husband and wife, and the husband's property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.


A woman inherits half what a man inherits.


A man has the right to have up to four wives, and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.


The dowry is given in exchange for the woman's sexual organs.


A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married, her marriage is annulled.


The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.


A woman loses custody if she remarries.


To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.

A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.


A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered "Awrah," a sexual organ. Not all Shariah schools allow the face of a woman exposed.


A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he "could be married to the woman he was caught with."
The above are clear-cut laws in Islam decided by great imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Muhammad's life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the U.S. Constitution

MasterOfPuppets
08-27-2010, 12:09 PM
i can't believe ANY woman would freely engage in a religion that makes them subhuman.

NJarhead
08-27-2010, 12:47 PM
All fricken Muslims and all fricken liberals must fricken hang!

:chuckle:

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 01:10 PM
Wow...where to start....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=196041


Shariah for Dummies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Nonie Darwish
2010


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that the U.S. Constitution is Shariah compliant. Let us examine below a few laws of Shariah to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

Jihad, defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion," is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (caliph). Muslim caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Shariah and unfit to rule.

Right off the bat, Nonie is mistaken here. There are a few different definitions of jihad (which actually translates into "struggle"). It can mean an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's satyagraha struggle for Indian independence is called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic)... the terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.

In Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and Morocco, the majority used the term to mean "duty toward God", a "divine duty", or a "worship of God", with no militaristic connotations. Other responses referenced, in descending order of prevalence:
"A commitment to hard work" and "achieving one's goals in life"
"Struggling to achieve a noble cause"
"Promoting peace, harmony or cooperation, and assisting others"
"Living the principles of Islam"


Many of the other laws you listed may have been prevalent under pre-modern Islamic society, but they are not the norm anymore.

Most would have you believe that every Muslim country is ruled by Sharia law and Sharia law alone, and this is not the case. This is not even the case in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sharia in the secular Muslim states: Muslim countries such as Mali, Kazakhstan and Turkey (which is under pressure from religious political parties) have declared themselves to be secular. Here, religious interference in state affairs, law and politics is prohibited. In these Muslim countries, as well as the secular West, the role of Sharia is limited to personal and family matters.

Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Morocco and Malaysia have legal systems strongly influenced by Sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical Sharia.

Muslim states using classical Sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on Sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with Sharia.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

More perspective from Dr. Ali Gomaa is Grand Mufti of Egypt.

Is Sharia law reconcilable with modernity? http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/is_sharia_law_reconcilable_with_modernity.html

In my own opinion, Sharia law (meaning the more moderate version applied to family and civil matters) is about as compliant with US law as Canon Law is...but nobody protests that. In most settings, both are used for the same purpose, as set of guidlines used to govern personal and family matters.

Stinky Fred
08-27-2010, 04:14 PM
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/gzm-cartoon.jpg

Picture worth thousand word.

Stinky Fred
08-27-2010, 04:19 PM
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

More perspective from Dr. Ali Gomaa is Grand Mufti of Egypt.

Now let's hear from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem...

http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 04:28 PM
Now let's hear from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem...

http://bigjournalism.com/pgeller/2010/02/07/the-mufti-of-jerusalem-architect-of-the-holocaust/

So? I thought we've been over this Vin....I mean Stinky. :chuckle:

None of this surprises me really, and this is an example from decades ago...when many Catholic Bishops were working closely with Hitler as well. Money and power.

How about what some of the US's top Imam's have to say about the Holocaust today?

On August 7-11, 2010, we the undersigned Muslim American faith and
community leaders visited Dachau and Auschwitz concentration camps where we witnessed firsthand the historical injustice of the Holocaust.

We met survivors who, several decades later, vividly and bravely shared their horrific experience of discrimination, suffering, and loss. We saw the many chilling places where men, women and children were systematically and brutally murdered by the millions because of their faith, race, disability and political affiliation.

In Islam, the destruction of one innocent life is like the destruction of the whole of humanity and the saving of one life is like the saving of the whole of humanity (Holy Qu'ran, al-Ma'idah"the Tablespread" 5:32). While entire communities perished by the many millions, we know that righteous Muslims from Bosnia, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, and Albania saved many Jews from brutal repression, torture and senseless destruction.

We bear witness to the absolute horror and tragedy of the Holocaust where over twelve million human souls perished, including six million Jews.

We condemn any attempts to deny this historical reality and declare such denials or any justification of this tragedy as against the Islamic code of ethics.

We condemn anti-Semitism in any form. No creation of Almighty God should face discrimination based on his or her faith or religious conviction.

We stand united as Muslim American faith and community leaders and recognize that we have a shared responsibility to continue to work together with leaders of all faiths and their communities to fight the dehumanization of all peoples based on their religion, race or ethnicity. With the disturbing rise of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hatred, rhetoric and bigotry, now more than ever, people of faith must stand together for truth.

Together, we pledge to make real the commitment of "never again" and to stand united against injustice wherever it may be found in the world today.


http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/statement_of_muslim_american_imams_community_leade rs_on_holocaust_denial.html

Stinky Fred
08-27-2010, 04:32 PM
So? I thought we've been over this Vin....I mean Stinky. :chuckle:

Just kicking a dead horse Mom.

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 04:33 PM
Oh geez, I just realized your article was posted by Pamela Gellar.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/08/pamela-geller-the-looniest-blogger-ever/

Got anything better than this...and not asking in a smart ass way, honestly wondering. I don't really think of her as a trustworthy source of news like this.

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 04:35 PM
Just kicking a dead horse Mom.

7IU1bzZheWk

Stinky Fred
08-27-2010, 04:38 PM
Oh geez, I just realized your article was posted by Pamela Gellar.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/08/pamela-geller-the-looniest-blogger-ever/

Got anything better than this...and not asking in a smart ass way, honestly wondering. I don't really think of her as a trustworthy source of news like this.

This is how you people treat FNGs? You dump on my source? I'm going to go sulk now.

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 04:41 PM
This is how you people treat FNGs? You dump on my source? I'm going to go sulk now.


LOL....not only am I gonna dump on her, I'm preparing to make a thread dedicated just to her and her lunacy.

Good stuff man, good stuff. I know all chicks are a little crazy...but this one needs some heavy meds.

MasterOfPuppets
08-27-2010, 04:46 PM
In Islam, the destruction of one innocent life is like the destruction of the whole of humanity and the saving of one life is like the saving of the whole of humanity (Holy Qu'ran, al-Ma'idah"the Tablespread" 5:32).
i'm having a hard time believing many muslims buy into this verse. if they did there'd be no sanctuary for the radicals that are targeting civilian population. there's no way that there's no muslims who are not engaged in the terrorism themselves can't identify the ones that are. i mean i'm not involved in drugs anymore , but i certainly do know people who are.

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 04:58 PM
i'm having a hard time believing many muslims buy into this verse. if they did there'd be no sanctuary for the radicals that are targeting civilian population. there's no way that there's no muslims who are not engaged in the terrorism themselves can't identify the ones that are. i mean i'm not involved in drugs anymore , but i certainly do know people who are.


Many do...not the radicals of course and those that support the radicals.

That's why many Muslims (American and foreign) have fought alongside US troops to end the radicals reign of terror over these people.

cloppbeast
08-27-2010, 06:19 PM
I have yet to read a well reasoned argument to why people are upset about the mosque.

The most ridiculous crap was when Newt starting talking about Nazis and stuff. It seems like with every political discussion in this country somebody has to bring up Hitler, Stalin, communism, or some other hyperbolic nonsense.

We have some serious and legitimate concerns facing America now and in the future, (debt, social security, weakening dollar, medicare, unemployment, ect.), and there is absolutely no reason Republicans need to create imaginary, symbolic hysteria out of nothing. I'm really getting tired of these gimmicks - they're only for votes. How they keep earning votes with this shit is beyond me - but, now I'm starting to understand how we've ended up with two dip-shit Presidents in a row.

Anyway, I hope the American people start demanding more from their representatives.

pete74
08-27-2010, 06:21 PM
i wont even start on this subject or i'll end up having to ban myself

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 06:46 PM
Who Is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Man Behind the Ground Zero Mosque?

Question: Who Is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Man Behind the Ground Zero Mosque?
Answer: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is an American Sufi Muslim community leader and prayer leader who, from 1985 to 2009, led prayers at Masjid al-Farah, a mosque on West Broadway in Lower Manhattan, about 12 blocks from Ground Zero, the site where terrorists demolished the Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2010. Born in Egypt in 1948, Abdul Rauf moved to the United States when he was a teenager, with his father, who was also an imam. He graduated from Columbia University.
In Manhattan, "his sermons were infused with a 'sweet spirituality,' not focused on 'rules and regulations' or politics," according to Adem Carroll, director of the Muslim Consultative Network, an advocacy group based in New York. Carroll's comments were quoted in The New York Times in August 2010.

By then, the imam had become embroiled in a firestorm over his plan to build a 15-story Islamic community center, which would include a mosque, on the grounds of a building that once housed a Burlington Coat Factory business. That $100 million project, named Park51, was to be developed by Sharif el-Gamal,. owner of SoHo Properties, and located two blocks from Ground Zero. The project is also known as the Cordoba Initiative. To politicians such as Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, the project was an offense to the families of victims of the attack on the Twin Towers.

Legally, however, the project was always on firm ground, winning the approval of city regulatory agencies and community boards. In 1999, Abdul Rauf had tried to buy the former McBurney Y.M.C.A. on 23rd Street in Manhattan in order to convert it to a Muslim Y. He did not succeed.

Detractors have leveled numerous and universally false and slanderous accusations at Abdul Rauf, charging that he had ties to groups that may have ties to terrorism. None of the charges have been substantiated, and have in fact been refuted. The cfharges also stand in direct opposition to the imam's Sufi spirituality.

As William Darlymple wrote in a New York Times column on Aug. 16, 2010,

Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative is one of America’s leading thinkers of Sufism, the mystical form of Islam, which in terms of goals and outlook couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists. His videos and sermons preach love, the remembrance of God (or “zikr”) and reconciliation. His slightly New Agey rhetoric makes him sound, for better or worse, like a Muslim Deepak Chopra. But in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, he is an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination.
For such moderate, pluralistic Sufi imams are the front line against the most violent forms of Islam. In the most radical parts of the Muslim world, Sufi leaders risk their lives for their tolerant beliefs, every bit as bravely as American troops on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul do. Sufism is the most pluralistic incarnation of Islam — accessible to the learned and the ignorant, the faithful and nonbelievers — and is thus a uniquely valuable bridge between East and West.

In May 2010, standing outside the planned community center, Imam Abdul Rauf said: "This is not a mosque. This is a cultural center. This is a center like 92nd Street Y or the Jewish Community Center. It is planned to have programs. To serve the community, to serve both the non-Muslim community and the Muslim community. This is also our expression of the 99.9999 percent of Muslims all over the world including in America, who have condemned and continue to condemn terrorism. This is about our stand as the Muslim community which has been part of this community. I have been Imam of the mosque 10 blocks from here for the last 27 years. Our congregation, our faith community, has been as much a victim of 9/11. From my congregation there have been people who died. From my congregation, my community, we were part of those who gave water to the firefighters. We are part of this community, and we intend to be part of this community. We want to rebuild this community. We are working with the other faith communities, because this is what this is all about. This is about the vast majority of moderate Muslims who have been and want to continue to be part of the solution."

http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/f/Imam-Feisal-Abdul-Rauf.htm

ricardisimo
08-27-2010, 06:52 PM
i'm having a hard time believing many muslims buy into this verse. if they did there'd be no sanctuary for the radicals that are targeting civilian population. there's no way that there's no muslims who are not engaged in the terrorism themselves can't identify the ones that are. i mean i'm not involved in drugs anymore , but i certainly do know people who are.

This is hardly unique to Islam, as I doubt I have to mention. I'm recalling some Simon & Garfunkle wisdom right about now:
All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

MasterOfPuppets
08-27-2010, 06:54 PM
I have yet to read a well reasoned argument to why people are upset about the mosque.

The most ridiculous crap was when Newt starting talking about Nazis and stuff. It seems like with every political discussion in this country somebody has to bring up Hitler, Stalin, communism, or some other hyperbolic nonsense.

We have some serious and legitimate concerns facing America now and in the future, (debt, social security, weakening dollar, medicare, unemployment, ect.), and there is absolutely no reason Republicans need to create imaginary, symbolic hysteria out of nothing. I'm really getting tired of these gimmicks - they're only for votes. How they keep earning votes with this shit is beyond me - but, now I'm starting to understand how we've ended up with two dip-shit Presidents in a row.

Anyway, I hope the American people start demanding more from their representatives. you said it right there. its just like illegal immigration ....look how they've jumped on that bandwagon. why is ALL THE SUDDEN they wanna control the borders ? why didn't they do something about it when THEY had the white house and congress ? same with healthcare. why have they never tried to do anything about it ? where were their idea's like allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines ? why didn't bush push for that ?

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 08:33 PM
y61RAP4joWU

BmEw5M-xK64

SteelCityMom
08-27-2010, 08:33 PM
Can Jews and Muslims co-exist? These Jewish men says yes.

-eCXbBdhhZY

zulater
08-28-2010, 05:58 AM
http://undhimmi.com/2010/08/26/a-tale-of-two-cities-copts-call-muslim-hypocrisy-over-ground-zero-mosque/

zulater
08-28-2010, 10:46 AM
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/28-Aug-2010/Relief-organisations-discriminating-against-Christian-flood-victims-report

http://continentalnews.net/christian-news/bangladesh/christian-convert-in-bangladesh-falsely-accused-of-theft-2177.html

zulater
08-28-2010, 11:22 AM
I just want to get a few things straight. I understand people, all people are largely a product of their envirorment. If you're born to Christain parents, chances are you'll be a Christian or even if you don't embrace God or the church ( at least you'll have the choice) your character will largely be grounded in Christian principles.Same would be true with a child born and raised in a Jewish community, Hindu community, Muslim etc... Therefore I don't hate Muslims just for being Muslims.That said I find Islam to be a grotesque excuse for a religion.


I understand all religions have their share of ugliness in their history. I also understand there's extemists in virtually all religions, though I've never heard of a Budhist extremsit, lol. But getting back to Islam, I can't find a single instance where a nation with a Muslim majority doesn't practice and enforce some degree of Sharia law. Maybe SCM can dig up one or two examples where there's not, but regardless, the exception doesn't disprove the rule. By a large majority states and countries that have a Muslim majority have laws on their books that are actively enforced that go against all principles of what civilized society should be about in the 21st century.

To wit, find me a country with a Muslim marority that doesn't have laws against Apostasy ( the right to deny and change religions for those born into islam) not only are these laws on the book they are actively enforced.

find me a Muslim nation that grants woman equal rights to men. To gays. To all other religions in their borders. Or even the fact that they don't think that non belieivers have the right to question or critisize them. Can you imagine declaring a death sentence against a cartoonists for drawing Jesus? Or a novelsist for slandering Jesus?

I could go on and on but my time is limited.Bottom line is I'm against the spread of Islam in this country. I don't see the rationale of extending understanding and tolerance to people that never extend either when they are in a position of power and influence.

SteelCityMom
08-28-2010, 11:54 AM
Turkey, Tunisia, and Tajikistan are Muslim-majority countries where the law prohibits the wearing of hijab in government buildings, schools, and universities. In Turkey, women actually protest to be able to wear the hijab. And even though Turkey is 99% Muslim...they are a secular government.

Tunisia is 98% Muslim and declares Islam as the official state religion and requires the President to be Muslim. They also have laws prohibiting the hijab in certain areas and encourage women not to wear them on the street. It is a nation that embraces freedom of religion.

Kosovo and Albania are two more perfect examples of moderate Muslims. Both secular states with very moderate Muslims. You only need to watch the video I posted to understand how Muslims in Albania are not out to impose Sharia.

Here's more examples...It's from wikipedia, but it comes with a wealth of sources. It list secular states with Muslim majority and goes into detail about the secularism in each nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Secular_states_with_majority_ Muslim_populations

It's easy to take a few bad examples, like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (where local and foreign Muslims are fighting against extreme Sharia law right now alongside Americans), and say that it's the norm for all Muslim countries. It's not. Just like communism is not the norm, even though China and N.Korea are communist.

It's also fanatical to think that allowing Muslims and Mosques in our secular nation, with its own laws is going to result in an Islamic takeover. To me, it sounds like you're getting real close to saying you don't want them to have the same rights because you're scared of their religion. Just know, there are far more tolerant Muslim nations than there are intolerant ones.

Just like many laws in the US are based off of the Christian religion (yes, I know we're secular, but the leaders, lawmaker and voters are majority Christian, we do not force other to follow laws handed down by the Bible. Many secular Muslim nations, that do have some sort of Sharia law (mostly when concerning family and civil matters), they do not impose those laws on those who are not Muslim. And people DO have choice of religion in many of those nations.

chacha
08-28-2010, 01:01 PM
you said it right there. its just like illegal immigration ....look how they've jumped on that bandwagon. why is ALL THE SUDDEN they wanna control the borders ? why didn't they do something about it when THEY had the white house and congress ? same with healthcare. why have they never tried to do anything about it ? where were their idea's like allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines ? why didn't bush push for that ?

EXACTLY it's only to get the sheeps to vote for them, it worked for McCain and his BS build the dang fence already after years of being against it. There's already another mosque near the WTC site. This only became the "monster mosque saga" after the dreaded NY Post picked the story up and ran with it. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it before that. It's all smoke and mirrors as usual.

urgle burgle
08-28-2010, 11:39 PM
[QUOTE=SCMom;836437]Tunisia is 98% Muslim and declares Islam as the official state religion and requires the President to be Muslim. They also have laws prohibiting the hijab in certain areas and encourage women not to wear them on the street. It is a nation that embraces freedom of religion.

not trying to be a dick, but the above quote says Tunisia ebraces freedom of religion, but Islam is the official state religion and the Pres has to be Muslim.....I dont see how that really ebraces freedom of relgion.

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 12:14 AM
[QUOTE=SCMom;836437]Tunisia is 98% Muslim and declares Islam as the official state religion and requires the President to be Muslim. They also have laws prohibiting the hijab in certain areas and encourage women not to wear them on the street. It is a nation that embraces freedom of religion.

not trying to be a dick, but the above quote says Tunisia ebraces freedom of religion, but Islam is the official state religion and the Pres has to be Muslim.....I dont see how that really ebraces freedom of relgion.

Well, their Constitution states that Islam is the official religion and that the President must be a Muslim...but it also provides for freedom of religion and the freedom to practice the rites of one's religion...that's what I was getting at.

MasterOfPuppets
08-29-2010, 12:19 AM
[QUOTE=SCMom;836437]Tunisia is 98% Muslim and declares Islam as the official state religion and requires the President to be Muslim. They also have laws prohibiting the hijab in certain areas and encourage women not to wear them on the street. It is a nation that embraces freedom of religion.

not trying to be a dick, but the above quote says Tunisia ebraces freedom of religion, but Islam is the official state religion and the Pres has to be Muslim.....I dont see how that really ebraces freedom of relgion.

that does seem to contradict itself a bit ....:noidea:

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 12:24 AM
[QUOTE=urgle burgle;836552]

that does seem to contradict itself a bit ....:noidea:

Right...I know it does. I didn't say it was perfect, but it's an example of an Islamic nation that has very high tolerance for religious freedoms.

I accept the fact that not every nation is going to be run like the US, not even all secular nations. That doesn't mean I fear a communist, radical Muslim, rugby playing, cheese eating take over though either. I just think it's silly to think that allowing Muslims to have equal religious freedoms is going to result in the takeover of the nation.

zulater
08-29-2010, 12:30 AM
[QUOTE=MasterOfPuppets;836574]

Right...I know it does. I didn't say it was perfect, but it's an example of an Islamic nation that has very high tolerance for religious freedoms.

I accept the fact that not every nation is going to be run like the US, not even all secular nations. That doesn't mean I fear a communist, radical Muslim, rugby playing, cheese eating take over though either. I just think it's silly to think that allowing Muslims to have equal religious freedoms is going to result in the takeover of the nation.

Uh, who exactly is denying them equal religious freedom? Hell if Jerry fallwell were still alive and he tried to put up a big house of worship around Manhattan there would probably be protesters to that too. Actually no probably about it, there would have been.

zulater
08-29-2010, 12:30 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245004/why-they-can-t-condemn-hamas-andrew-c-mccarthy

MattsMe
08-29-2010, 12:38 AM
http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazonaws.com/comics/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/TMW2010-08-25colorlowres.jpg

I just want to know why Rosie O'donnell and her life partner are in the last frame of the cartoon. I have nothing against them, it just doesn't fit with the message of the artist.

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 12:43 AM
Uh, who exactly is denying them equal religious freedom? Hell if Jerry fallwell were still alive and he tried to put up a big house of worship around Manhattan there would probably be protesters to that to. Actually no probably about it, there would have been.

Nobody yet...but what do you think all the protests across the country about expanding or building mosques in communities are all about? Also, I was talking about a completely different country in the post you quoted. I wasn't talking about the government denying Muslims equal rights here. You asked for example of Muslim nations that had religious tolerance, etc, and I was just trying to provide some examples.

And I hate repeating myself...but this is not a big house of worship.

And I guess I took one of your previous quotes the wrong way. If you could expound on what it meant that would be great.

I'm against the spread of Islam in this country. I don't see the rationale of extending understanding and tolerance to people that never extend either when they are in a position of power and influence.

MasterOfPuppets
08-29-2010, 12:53 AM
Nobody yet...but what do you think all the protests across the country about expanding or building mosques in communities are all about? Also, I was talking about a completely different country in the post you quoted. I wasn't talking about the government denying Muslims equal rights here. You asked for example of Muslim nations that had religious tolerance, etc, and I was just trying to provide some examples.

And I hate repeating myself...but this is not a big house of worship.

And I guess I took one of your previous quotes the wrong way. If you could expound on what it meant that would be great.

and not to mention all the time spent by the right trying to pin the muslim tag on the president.

MattsMe
08-29-2010, 12:57 AM
and not to mention all the time spent by the right trying to pin the muslim tag on the president.

It's not just them, it's credible news sources as well:

http://www.globemagazine.com/media/originals/201036.jpg

To be fair, I didn't vote for the guy.

zulater
08-29-2010, 12:59 AM
Nobody yet...but what do you think all the protests across the country about expanding or building mosques in communities are all about? Also, I was talking about a completely different country in the post you quoted. I wasn't talking about the government denying Muslims equal rights here. You asked for example of Muslim nations that had religious tolerance, etc, and I was just trying to provide some examples.

And I hate repeating myself...but this is not a big house of worship.

And I guess I took one of your previous quotes the wrong way. If you could expound on what it meant that would be great.

I personally detest the spread of Islam in this country because i find it a distastefull religion.That's not to say all Muslim's are bad,I just don't trust or like their Imans. I think they ( Imans) have underlying and alterior motives, talk out of both sides of their mouths without saying anything, and don't promote anything of value.

I don't have much use for southern Baptists either if that means anything. :chuckle:

MasterOfPuppets
08-29-2010, 01:01 AM
I personally detest the spread of Islam in this country because i find it a distastefull religion.That's not to say all Muslim's are bad,I just don't trust or like their Imans. I think they ( Imans) have underlying and alterior motives, talk out of both sides of their mouths without saying anything, and don't promote anything of value.

I don't have much use for southern Baptists either if that means anything. :chuckle:
you've just described our politicians ...:noidea:

Shea
08-29-2010, 01:03 AM
With his latest remarks about whether the Mosque should be built, another poll was recently done and opinion actually shot up thinking Obama is a Muslim.

People are such fascinating little creatures.

Shea
08-29-2010, 01:05 AM
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/gzm-cartoon.jpg

Zu, I like you but that ain't cool.

zulater
08-29-2010, 01:09 AM
Zu, I like you but that ain't cool.

People seem to forget that over 3000 people were murderded that day. Call that a little reminder of the true nature of what we're talking about here. Should a cavalry museum go near a Native American burial ground?

I was thinking of going with a depiction of Muhamad but i thought that might get the site owners killed. :coffee:

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 01:20 AM
I personally detest the spread of Islam in this country because i find it a distastefull religion.That's not to say all Muslim's are bad,I just don't trust or like their Imans. I think they ( Imans) have underlying and alterior motives, talk out of both sides of their mouths without saying anything, and don't promote anything of value.

I don't have much use for southern Baptists either if that means anything. :chuckle:

Yes, I know what you mean in that respect...but try to keep in mind that if all you are looking for is hate, violence and death, that's all you will find.

After reading much about Rauf, there is a lot I like about him...as a person ( I don't care for any religion, so naturally I don't care too much for his ). He's been an Imam in lower Manhattan for over 20 years now, was always well respected in the community, lost some members of his congregation on 9/11 (so it's personal to him too) and is an Imam of probably the most moderate, softest version of Islam that there ever was. If you don't know anything about Sufism, look it up. If Faisal Rauf preached his beliefs in full Sharia Muslim nations, he would most certainly be killed.

Which leads me to my next point. The article you posted goes into some detail about his stance on Hamas...but it only quotes part of what he said. Here's what he really said.

"Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

His job with the US government right now is to go over to radical and secular Muslim nations alike and try to convince them that there can be some sort of peace worked out. He's trying to convey to them that Islam can work with other religions. Do you REALLY think he wants to go on TV and call out terrorist groups? Even with the security that follows him, I know I wouldn't want to.

Shea
08-29-2010, 01:23 AM
People seem to forget that over 3000 people were murderded that day. Call that a little reminder of the true nature of what we're talking about here. Should a cavalry museum go near a Native American burial ground?
I was thinking of going with a depiction of Muhamad but i thought that might get the site owners killed.

Nobody has lost sight of how many people died that day.

Actually, I saw footage that day live that I haven't seen since. Actual shots of people jumping from the towers that I haven't seen since. Probably, because it's so disturbing.

That's why it ain't right, Zu.

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 01:24 AM
People seem to forget that over 3000 people were murderded that day. Call that a little reminder of the true nature of what we're talking about here. Should a cavalry museum go near a Native American burial ground?

I was thinking of going with a depiction of Muhamad but i thought that might get the site owners killed. :coffee:

Your example holds no water. Many Muslims lost their lives in the same attack. That's something many people seem to forget about as well.

Shea
08-29-2010, 01:26 AM
Your example holds no water. Many Muslims lost their lives in the same attack. That's something many people seem to forget about as well.

Exactly.

But do they really count? Many seem to think not.

urgle burgle
08-29-2010, 01:34 AM
Which leads me to my next point. The article you posted goes into some detail about his stance on Hamas...but it only quotes part of what he said. Here's what he really said.

"Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

His job with the US government right now is to go over to radical and secular Muslim nations alike and try to convince them that there can be some sort of peace worked out. He's trying to convey to them that Islam can work with other religions. Do you REALLY think he wants to go on TV and call out terrorist groups? Even with the security that follows him, I know I wouldn't want to.

i would disagree. if he is what he says that he is, he shouldn't sit on the fence about a disgusting terrorist organization. many other ways he could have finished the quote. like, "i condemn what they have done in the past, but i look to bridge them to the rest of the moderate Muslim world." just as many on the anti-israel side, codemn Israel for actions that are much less comparable. you can still condemn the actions of evil, but try to end that evil and work with the evildoer to "reform", if you will.

zulater
08-29-2010, 01:39 AM
Your example holds no water. Many Muslims lost their lives in the same attack. That's something many people seem to forget about as well.

Yeah so who commited the murders?

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 01:42 AM
i would disagree. if he is what he says that he is, he shouldn't sit on the fence about a disgusting terrorist organization. many other ways he could have finished the quote. like, "i condemn what they have done in the past, but i look to bridge them to the rest of the moderate Muslim world." just as many on the anti-israel side, codemn Israel for actions that are much less comparable. you can still condemn the actions of evil, but try to end that evil and work with the evildoer to "reform", if you will.

Yeah, that probably would have been a better way to phrase it I suppose. I just don't see what he said being as bad as others make it out to be though. That's all.

zulater
08-29-2010, 01:42 AM
Exactly.

But do they really count? Many seem to think not.


So were they the targets, did the terrorists set out to murder 2 or 3 hundred of their own brethren, that was the point of the attack?

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 01:43 AM
Yeah so who commited the murders?

Radical Muslims. What does that matter though? Seriously? Are you saying that the Muslims who died on that day don't count because radical Muslims attacked American soil?

I don't get the point of this question.

Shea
08-29-2010, 01:45 AM
Yeah so who commited the murders?

Was Timothy McVeigh a Christain?

If he was, does that make the Christains he murdered just a statistical unfortunate blight on the whole story?

Should we not mourn them too?

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 01:45 AM
So were they the targets, did the terrorists set out to murder 2 or 3 hundred of their own brethren, that was the point of the attack?

Seriously...what does it matter who they set out to kill. They set out to kill whoever was in those buildings. They obviously weren't being choosy. Many Muslims and their families suffered on that day too. Don't diminish that.

zulater
08-29-2010, 01:52 AM
Yeah, that probably would have been a better way to phrase it I suppose. I just don't see what he said being as bad as others make it out to be though. That's all.

What about him dismissing a two state solution? As much as anything my dislike of Islam has to do with how they've used the Palestinain situation as a permanant wedge against Jews and Israel. In the last 100 years many cultures have been divided by boundries imposed upon them by outside nations. the Kurds for example. Anyway I don't see any of those situations being used as permanant sticking points . Basically what i think it comes down to is way too many Muslims are racially bigoted against Jews. Look in their text books, look at the cartoons they show their children, they see Jews as subhumans. I can't support that.

zulater
08-29-2010, 01:55 AM
Was Timothy McVeigh a Christain?

If he was, does that make the Christains he murdered just a statistical unfortunate blight on the whole story?

Should we not mourn them too?


He was an atheist and he didn't claim or set out t to kill in the name of Christ.

zulater
08-29-2010, 01:58 AM
Radical Muslims. What does that matter though? Seriously? Are you saying that the Muslims who died on that day don't count because radical Muslims attacked American soil?

I don't get the point of this question.

Nope, just pointing out they were collateral damage and not the target. In fact that's true of all the victims, the target was our country as a whole.

MasterOfPuppets
08-29-2010, 02:00 AM
zu, did you come back over here just to find someone to debate with ? i see the political discussions over there have died out. i guess its no fun when everybody agrees with you....:chuckle:

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 02:00 AM
What about him dismissing a two state solution? As much as anything my dislike of Islam has to do with how they've used the Palestinain situation as a permanant wedge against Jews and Israel. In the last 100 years many cultures have been divided by boundries imposed upon them by outside nations. the Kurds for example. Anyway I don't see any of those situations being used as permanant sticking points . Basically what i think it comes down to is way too many Muslims are racially bigoted against Jews. Look in their text books, look at the cartoons they show their children, they see Jews as subhumans. I can't support that.

Well, I don't support that notion either, just like I don't support KKK members and neo-nazis hating Jews, blacks, gays, Catholics and the black and white cookie....but I'd never deny their right to congregate and share their beliefs with each other.

Besides, lots of people are racially bigoted against a lot of other people. I'm not going to sit back and assume that every person of that faith or persuasion is though.

And like I said before, if all you're looking for is hate, all you'll find is hate.

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 02:02 AM
Nope, just pointing out they were collateral damage and not the target. In fact that's true of all the victims, the target was our country as a whole.

If that's true of all their victims, then why even bring it up and then say that the Muslims were just collateral damage, like their deaths didn't mean as much as the non-Muslims deaths?

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 02:03 AM
zu, did you come back over here just to find someone to debate with ? i see the political discussions over there have died out. i guess its no fun when everybody agrees with you....:chuckle:

I don't mind it one bit...he's doing his part to help get my post count back up. It's much appreciated. :chuckle:

FogOnTheMon
08-29-2010, 03:49 AM
While it's true that not every Muslim is a terrorist, every terrorist on 9/11 was a Muslim. Unless the grand Imamahad or whatever expels these terrorists, jihadists, and rabble rousers like Benny Laden, I will NEVER accept Islam as a peaceful religion. Remember, the Koran specifically preaches AGAINST peace with non-Muslims.

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 10:33 AM
While I get your sentiment and what your getting at, there is no "Grand Pubbah" of Pope-like figure in Islam.

And yes, some of the Koran talks about violence against non-Muslims, but all 3 major religious texts touch on how violence against non-believers of their faith was condoned by God. Many people have used that to their political advantage in the past and the present.

FogOnTheMon
08-29-2010, 02:44 PM
So? I thought we've been over this Vin....I mean Stinky. :chuckle:

None of this surprises me really, and this is an example from decades ago...when many Catholic Bishops were working closely with Hitler as well. Money and power.

How about what some of the US's top Imam's have to say about the Holocaust today?



http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/statement_of_muslim_american_imams_community_leade rs_on_holocaust_denial.html


Quran 3:28

"Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah, unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security."

Got that from Acts17Apologetics. Anyway, the Muslims will say whatever they want to, in order to convince certain people that that have nothing but pure intentions.

Yeah, I know, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't really represent the Muslim community, and that Iran, Pakistan, and other extreme Islamic dictatorships aren't really Muslim, but when we talk about 9/11, and 3/11, and 7/7, we're not cursing the peaceful side of Islam, rather we are thinking of the only representations of Islam in our world, fear, terror, and destruction.

The peaceful side of Islam has no face in the West, and it would be presumptuous to think that most public dismay of the Manhattan Muslim center is based on racism, rather than fear, and memory. Muslims have done nothing major to dispel that fear, and close to 90% of Americans, whenever the topic of Islam is breached, the first thought and the first mental image that pop into their heads, is September 11th.

And that's all I got to say about that.

urgle burgle
08-29-2010, 07:54 PM
zu, did you come back over here just to find someone to debate with ? i see the political discussions over there have died out. i guess its no fun when everybody agrees with you....:chuckle:

in the immoral words of the dearly departed Ed McMahon....

"You are CORRECT, Siiiiiir!!!"

urgle burgle
08-29-2010, 08:02 PM
Yeah, that probably would have been a better way to phrase it I suppose. I just don't see what he said being as bad as others make it out to be though. That's all.

the problem, as i see it, and mind you im just the homeless guy down the road, it is two specific things why their is a problem
1) 9 times out of 10, those that do not disavow Hamas, or at least acknowledge them as a terrorist organization, have shown to either actually support, or quietly support them. it's like a gian red flag.
2} it goes in conjunction with all the other issues people have with him, the center, etc.
it just compounds the unsureity(is that a word?)

thats what i see....but again, im homeless, and like Barry Manilow.

zulater
08-29-2010, 08:56 PM
Nobody has lost sight of how many people died that day.

Actually, I saw footage that day live that I haven't seen since. Actual shots of people jumping from the towers that I haven't seen since. Probably, because it's so disturbing.

That's why it ain't right, Zu.

I saw it too shea, and I haven't forgetten either. And I'm not trying to make light of it, I'm doing the opposite I'm reminding people that there were 3000+ plus people murdered that day * The murdered part, the degree of suffering incured by those victims is largely forgotten. If it takes a tasteless cartoon to bring that back to light so be it.


.* I couldn't care less about the racial or religious divide or the victims, it's inconsequential, none of them did anything that day to deserve the fate that was to become them. I do however know the religious breakdown on the part of the murderers, and that is quite relevant.

zulater
08-29-2010, 09:07 PM
If that's true of all their victims, then why even bring it up and then say that the Muslims were just collateral damage, like their deaths didn't mean as much as the non-Muslims deaths?


Never said such a thing nor did I intend to. :coffee:

zulater
08-29-2010, 09:20 PM
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7197/pub_detail.asp

We really know how to pick 'em don't we? :doh:

I guess it's pretty hard for the state department to find an American Iman who's unsoiled by Jihad.

SteelCityMom
08-29-2010, 09:26 PM
Ok Zu...you win, there's not many places this argument is going to go for you and I that it hasn't already gone. Most likely we'll never agree.

You should be watching the game anyhow...Willie Gay got an INT!! :chuckle:

zulater
08-29-2010, 09:49 PM
Ok Zu...you win, there's not many places this argument is going to go for you and I that it hasn't already gone. Most likely we'll never agree.

You should be watching the game anyhow...Willie Gay got an INT!! :chuckle:

I'm watching the game, but I need some distraction otherwise i might become depressed. :wink02:

chacha
08-29-2010, 11:16 PM
I saw it too shea, and I haven't forgetten either. And I'm not trying to make light of it, I'm doing the opposite I'm reminding people that there were 3000+ plus people murdered that day * The murdered part, the degree of suffering incured by those victims is largely forgotten. If it takes a tasteless cartoon to bring that back to light so be it.


.

I'd hate to think that it takes a tasteless cartoon to remind people about the many who were lost, I really doubt anyones forgotten all the people who died that day

ricardisimo
08-30-2010, 03:04 AM
This is as good a spot as any to begin:

What about him dismissing a two state solution? As much as anything my dislike of Islam has to do with how they've used the Palestinain situation as a permanant wedge against Jews and Israel. In the last 100 years many cultures have been divided by boundries imposed upon them by outside nations. the Kurds for example. Anyway I don't see any of those situations being used as permanant sticking points . Basically what i think it comes down to is way too many Muslims are racially bigoted against Jews. Look in their text books, look at the cartoons they show their children, they see Jews as subhumans. I can't support that.

I'm not sure "dismissing" is the correct term here, but in any event, what of it? I'm opposed to the Two-State Solution as well. Many people are opposed to it for the same reason we were opposed to the Bantustans in South Africa. These were fake, weak, disconnected fragments of a puppet state which SA would never allow to develop in any way, certainly not in terms of its autonomy. Palestine resembles it in many ways.

As it turns out, we were absolutely correct in South Africa, where democracy won out, and peace and reconciliation ruled the day. The bloodbath many predicted when those commie ANC savages took power never materialized, for obvious reasons.

We have a different situation in Israel/Palestine, which is that both sides at least nominally support the Two-State solution (the ANC in SA never supported the Bantustans) and the global consensus has given it the stamp of approval. That means it is almost a foregone conclusion, and that it doesn't matter what I think, nor what Rauf nor anyone else thinks. However, he and I are well within our rights to have an opinion on the matter which runs counter to established US policy... and make no mistake, that's his real crime.

There is a separate point you make which really doesn't hold water, namely that antipathy a) towards Jews specifically, and b) towards non-Muslims generally is somehow at the core of the Muslim faith or the Muslim experience. The first is demonstrably false, a complete fabrication. If this were true, it would mean that Islam didn't exist before 1948 - the very moment when the Arab-Israeli conflict began. The historical suffering and persecution of the Jews up until that very instant was almost exclusively at the hands of Christians. And yet your comments are directed at Islam, and not at Christianity. Why?

The second part is true of a significant segment of Islam, just as it is true of a significant segment of Christianity and of Judaism, a point both Shea and Mom appear to have made already. What can I tell you? Religion sucks, and it screws with peoples' heads, and it does so purposefully. Politicians figured that out eons ago.

The bright side of this situation is that despite all of the incessant propaganda and brainwashing and racism and everything else, the vast majority of people everywhere on this planet would rather get along with their neighbors than kill them. That includes the Islamic world, and Mr. Rauf.

ricardisimo
08-30-2010, 03:06 AM
Never said such a thing nor did I intend to. :coffee:

Ummm... that's exactly what you said, and you got called out on it quite accurately. How's the coffee, by the way? :popcorn:

ricardisimo
08-30-2010, 03:20 AM
the problem, as i see it, and mind you im just the homeless guy down the road, it is two specific things why their is a problem
1) 9 times out of 10, those that do not disavow Hamas, or at least acknowledge them as a terrorist organization, have shown to either actually support, or quietly support them. it's like a gian red flag.
2} it goes in conjunction with all the other issues people have with him, the center, etc.
it just compounds the unsureity(is that a word?)

thats what i see....but again, im homeless, and like Barry Manilow.

I think people have to remember that Hamas is to Palestine what Sinn Fein is (or was) to Northern Ireland, or what Herri Batasuna was in the Basque Country. These are the political wings of nationalist or separatist movements who were dismissed as terrorist organizations and declared illegal. The problem is that if you make open political affiliation illegal, then all you are left with is, well... terrorism.

Many, many people spoke in support of Sinn Fein throughout the world, and probably almost none of them were "anti-Protestant". And almost none (outside of South Boston - the main source of IRA funding) supported Sinn Fein in any other way. Most of them were just sympathetic with the colonized rather than with the colonizers. The same can be said of the Palestinians and the people who speak in support of them, like Rauf. I don't know, though... maybe he's running guns there. I could very well be wrong.

And for the record, Hamas has not only issued a moratorium on rocket attacks and suicide bombings, but also has expressed a willingness to accept a Two-State solution. Israel still invaded Gaza despite the moratoriums, so go figure.

The point here is that Rauf is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants about Israel and Palestine without being called a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. He has denounced 9/11 publicly. Have you?

urgle burgle
08-30-2010, 04:23 AM
I think people have to remember that Hamas is to Palestine what Sinn Fein is (or was) to Northern Ireland, or what Herri Batasuna was in the Basque Country. These are the political wings of nationalist or separatist movements who were dismissed as terrorist organizations and declared illegal. The problem is that if you make open political affiliation illegal, then all you are left with is, well... terrorism.

Many, many people spoke in support of Sinn Fein throughout the world, and probably almost none of them were "anti-Protestant". And almost none (outside of South Boston - the main source of IRA funding) supported Sinn Fein in any other way. Most of them were just sympathetic with the colonized rather than with the colonizers. The same can be said of the Palestinians and the people who speak in support of them, like Rauf. I don't know, though... maybe he's running guns there. I could very well be wrong.

And for the record, Hamas has not only issued a moratorium on rocket attacks and suicide bombings, but also has expressed a willingness to accept a Two-State solution. Israel still invaded Gaza despite the moratoriums, so go figure.

The point here is that Rauf is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants about Israel and Palestine without being called a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. He has denounced 9/11 publicly. Have you?

well, one, im not a public figure, nor am i building a center that is controversial....but i have denounced 9/11, however i guess my mic wasnt on. As far as i know, i have not heard anyone that means anything to call Rauf a terrorist or a sympathizer. But i dont listen to every outlet. Hamas has said many things in the past, but has yet to uphold, or, control (its members) from breaking that moratorium.

as far as sinn fein, to say or argue one despicable act against another makes neither acceptable or less despicable (and im part Irish). and yes Rauf can say whatever the hell he wants to say, as a citizen, just like the rest of us, but that doesnt mean we have to agree, or be a silent opposition to what he says or his beliefs if we so choose.

zulater
08-30-2010, 06:20 AM
Ummm... that's exactly what you said, and you got called out on it quite accurately. How's the coffee, by the way? :popcorn:

Go pound sand ric, it's not what i said or meant.Tthe religion of the victims has nothing to do with anything that's been said here.

zulater
08-30-2010, 06:40 AM
I think people have to remember that Hamas is to Palestine what Sinn Fein is (or was) to Northern Ireland, or what Herri Batasuna was in the Basque Country. These are the political wings of nationalist or separatist movements who were dismissed as terrorist organizations and declared illegal. The problem is that if you make open political affiliation illegal, then all you are left with is, well... terrorism.

Many, many people spoke in support of Sinn Fein throughout the world, and probably almost none of them were "anti-Protestant". And almost none (outside of South Boston - the main source of IRA funding) supported Sinn Fein in any other way. Most of them were just sympathetic with the colonized rather than with the colonizers. The same can be said of the Palestinians and the people who speak in support of them, like Rauf. I don't know, though... maybe he's running guns there. I could very well be wrong.

And for the record, Hamas has not only issued a moratorium on rocket attacks and suicide bombings, but also has expressed a willingness to accept a Two-State solution. Israel still invaded Gaza despite the moratoriums, so go figure.

The point here is that Rauf is allowed to say whatever the hell he wants about Israel and Palestine without being called a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. He has denounced 9/11 publicly. Have you?

Hamas is bullshit, they are all about the destruction of Israel, all the while talking out of both sides of their mouth, claiming permanant victimhood, while saps like you gobble up all the shit they swill out. There will be no meaningfull peace in that region as long as Hamas is the representatives of the Palestinan people. They'll continue to delude their people into thinking that their end game is achievable that they can eliminate the zionist state, so the people will continue to suffer, blame Israel for their suffering and let dupes like you sing their song instead of taking advantage of a real peace that could have been had and genuine personal prosperity tha they and their children could have realized. But of course the people of Palestine are too ignorant to realize that they're nothing more than a pawn for their Arab, and African brothers to use to keep their own populace's at bay. Because as long as the Palestine situation is in play it will keep the ignorant masses in their own countries in enough rage so as not to question why their own plight isn't better in their countries. A common enemy is the greatest uniter after all. And the end result is that the populace of most Muslim nations will gladly continue to suffer at the hands of their governments all the while laying the blame at Israels feet. Brilliant! A perverted perpetual Orwellian 1984.

zulater
08-30-2010, 06:49 AM
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/MiddleEast.htm


When set against the larger picture, it becomes apparent that there is far more beneath the surface of Arab support for the Palestinians than a curious enthusiasm for democratic freedom. Muslims currently control about 99.9 percent of all land in the Middle East and the entire nation of Israel is only about half the size of San Bernardino County in California. This lends support to those claiming that the issue, for Muslims in the region, is more about Israel's existence, rather than a new Arab homeland. Even those sympathetic to the Palestinian cause cannot help but notice that the people are being used as pawns by the leaders of Muslim countries, who are only too willing to see the grievance perpetuated for purposes of political distraction, even to the point of refusing Palestinians the right to settle permanently in the same Arab counties where they have been living as "refugees" for nearly 40 years.



The PLO made a disastrous error in 1991 by supporting Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion and annexation of Kuwait. The Iraqi dictator incorporated the "liberation" of Palestinians along with the traditional demagoguery used in justification for Arab imperialism. The problem for Yassir Arafat was that no one else was buying it.



The Gulf states reacted harshly in the wake of the Palestinian betrayal. Previously a supporter of the "cause," Kuwait alone ejected 400,000 of Palestinian workers following the war, adding to the lost revenue from donations.



The PLO was literally on the verge of bankruptcy in 1993, which forced Arafat into appearing to compromise with Israel in 1993. In exchange for a phased autonomy, the right of Israel to exist would finally be recognized. The agreement was signified by a White House photo-op session arranged by the American President, Bill Clinton, who visibly coaxed the two parties into shaking hands while standing in the backdrop looking toward the cameras. It was a legacy-defining moment for Clinton that later cost the Israeli Prime Minister his life.



Yasser Arafat returned from exile to head the newly created Palestinian Authority. Israel provided weapons to Arafat’s police force and withdrew from the non-settlement areas of the territories. The Palestinians were given a perfect opportunity to build their economy and infrastructure, and get on with their lives. The future seemed bright and hopeful but, as usual, the world had underestimated the undercurrent of Muslim hate.



After decades of fomenting rage and encouraging the most horrible sort of terror against the innocent, the Palestinian leadership found it difficult to simply turn off the violence. At the end of the day, the more radical elements of the Palestinian community, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad, do not want peace with Israel. They simply want Israel to not exist (even though it powers 80% of the Palestinian economy).



These forces have been engaged in a terrorist campaign, both against Israel and against their own people. Their tactics of intimidation give them majority support within the community and enable them to control the peace issue by keeping the moderates from speaking out. Whenever an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel seems imminent, a new terrorist campaign will begin, with the hope that massive loss of civilian life will provoke a military response from Israel. An Israeli military incursion will in turn agitate ordinary Palestinians, pressuring their leadership to withdraw from the bargaining table.



Oddly, this cycle of violence has worked mostly to the detriment of the Palestinians themselves, particularly in economic terms. Scholar Benny Morris has noted that the first four months of the latest Intifada (uprising) cost the Palestinians more than $500 million in lost revenue and mushroomed the unemployment rate from 12% to over 40%. Five more years of violence, in a community where half the people already lived on less than $2 per day, has no doubt caused the sort of economic devastation that may take more than a generation to recover.



International sympathy for the Palestinians has declined almost to the point of being sustained merely by anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this is a powerful motive, particularly in the Muslim world, where hatred of Jews is rooted in the Qur'an. There is no greater proof of the cynicism behind the sympathy for Palestinians than the near absence of concern for the millions of displaced, raped and murdered Darfurans, who, despite being Muslim themselves, have been brutalized by the Islamic Republic of Sudan in the name of Jihad since 2001.



Yasir Arafat’s personal credibility was put to the test in 1999 when the Israelis agreed to meet 95% of his demands (with additional compensation), including a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem. The former Nobel Peace Prize winner rejected the offer, opting instead for the Intifada and a breath-taking loss of stature before his death in 2004.



Though both sides have their extremists, there is hardly the same commitment to wanton terrorism on the part of the Israeli community that is seen from the Palestinians. The attack by a settler on a Hebron mosque in 1994, though celebrated by some orthodox members of the Jewish community (and vigorously cited by Muslim apologists) still stands largely as a singular event against the backdrop of routine bombings and home invasions by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah over the years.



The decision by the ruling party of Palestine (Arafat's al-Fatah organization) to leave the terrorist groups intact, as well as jaw-dropping corruption and abuse of public funds, cost them political power as Hamas won elections outright in January of 2006 despite that organization's support for hundreds of inhuman attacks on Israeli civilians.



The fact that the Palestinians elected a terrorist group to power only months after Israel unilaterally turned the Gaza strip over to them speaks volumes about the mindset of the people. Although it is popular to use terms like "cycle of violence" to imply moral equivalence between the two parties, there is no real similarity in the way that the two sides approach the conflict today.



Peace requires the commitment of both parties. Agreements aren't possible when one side promotes terror and consistently fails to keep its word. Peace will only happen when the Palestinians value their children's future more than their own grievances.

SteelCityMom
08-30-2010, 11:42 AM
Ok...I have no love for any part of the war that's been going on over there for 62 years, but BOTH sides (sometimes mostly Israel and sometimes mostly Palestine) have and are being played like puppets. To point to one side and say that they are the cause and they are the ones being controlled is just naive.

Let's start at the beginning (no, not with Abraham, I won't go back that far). Let's start with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. In short this is where the British promised to find the Jews (Zionist Jews) a national home. Zionist Jews had been trying for decades already, with no luck, to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine through the Ottoman Empire. Time went on, they pursued other lands, still with no success.

Then, a man named Haim Weizmann (a Russian Zionist), began actively lobbying the British government to support a Zionist takeover of Palestine. The British (for more political reasons than anything else...they wanted an ally to control the Suez Canal) began to appease them. In short (and it's a long read if you're interested) the British began to speak out of both sides of their mouths to try and get the Zionist Jews in control of Palestine.

Read more here...http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

A little further down the road (1936-1939), after Zionist Jews began to immigrate into Palestine, the Arabs there (rightfully so) began to have suspicions of their intents and began revolting. Nearly 500,000 Jews had immigrated into Palestine by this time and the area was overwhelmed.

In 1942, Zionist leaders met in NY and declare their postwar program (known as the Biltmore Program). The program recommended an end to the British Mandate and demand Jewish control over immigration to Palestine with the aim of founding a Jewish "Commonwealth".

http://www.mideastweb.org/biltmore_program.htm

In 1948 began the Israeli War for Independence (I guess independence for a land they were immigrants to). Declaration of Israel as the Jewish State, British leave Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian invasion began.

In 1949 an Armistace was reached. Israel gained about 50% more territory than was originally allotted to it by the UN Partition Plan. This led to the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians. No Palestinians were even given the option to become citizens, though all Jews were given full Israeli citizenship.

From there it's been nothing but one side biting at the other...with Israel being backed by the British, French and the US and Palestine being backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Jordan.

Picture it like this...Imagine if Mexican immigrants crossing the border (doesn't matter if they're legals or illegals in this scenario) decided one day that they wanted to form a national state for themselves, with their own laws and such. What do you think the reaction of the government and the people would be? Would we be terrorists for opposing such a violent takeover? I don't think any of us would be too keen on the idea of just ceding land to a foreign entity when they just walk in and demand it. They would be laughed at...then shot.

So in essence, this is a big reason why many Arabs and Muslims do not support Zionist Israel. Hell, there are a good number of Jews who are against Zionist Israel. They feel that Israel should abandon the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and strive to be a state of all its citizens.

Wrong has been done on both sides since 1948...but I fully understand why Palestinians would harbor animosity. I think if this happened in the US, the reaction would be similar, if not more violent.

SteelCityMom
08-30-2010, 02:06 PM
NEW YORK – New revelations about the owner of the Ground Zero mosque building could mean a split between him and the project's influential imam, making it unlikely to ever get built.

Sharif El-Gamal, 37, the owner of the building at the center of the storm over the construction of a "ground zero mosque," is a quintessential American story, a man who went from waiting tables in New York's A-list restaurants to buying and selling properties.

But new revelations are emerging that present a very different narrative. And it could lead to a split between the forces behind the mosque.

Court records from Florida to New York state reveal that Sharif and his younger brother, Samir "Sammy" El-Gamal, 35, a partner with him in his company SoHo Properties, both have a history replete with intersections with tax and debt issues, dating back to at least 1994 and continuing into this year. In one instance, Sharif told a court he didn't hit a tenant from whom his brother and he were trying to collect back rent. He said to police, the tenant's "face could have run into my hand."

I now don't think the mosque will be built at the location staked out near ground zero.
After tracking Sharif's finances and talking to acquaintances about his rough-and-tumble business style, I now don't think the mosque will be built at the location staked out near ground zero. According to people familiar with the mosque project, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan, a community leader, were blindsided by the revelations about Sharif, making a partnership unlikely. Moreover, Sharif’s domineering personality troubles them because it doesn't fit into the slow, methodical, and even boring work of building a nonprofit.

I expect that Rauf and Khan will gracefully bow out of this project near ground zero, lead an interfaith community effort to build an Islamic center elsewhere, and welcome Sharif and his family in the congregation with open arms. To me, that’s the best solution out of this political—and now PR—debacle. I'm also certain that somewhere in there the businessman in Sharif will see a profit.

The New York Post reported yesterday that Sharif and SoHo Properties are "tax deadbeats," owing $224,270.77 in back property taxes on the site, and that a Sharif company “failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July.” (An El-Gamal spokesman told the Post the taxes had been paid.)

More details here...http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/9670_sharifelgamalandthegroundzeromosque;_ylt=AlwF ecZ2UH7oJQMvuWeZDMqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTRrcXZhM2NoBGFz c2V0A2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMjAxMDA4MzAvOTY3MF9zaGFyaWZlbG dhbWFsYW5kdGhlZ3JvdW5kemVyb21vc3F1ZQRjY29kZQNtb3N0 cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzQEcG9zAzEEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYw N5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawN0aGVzaGFkb3d5bWE-

Hopefully now everyone can stop saying that Rauf was planning of building a "Victory Mosque". If that was his plan all along, I have a feeling that the "terrorists" supporting him would have paid this debt off well before hand.

I hope he finds a new location for his project...it's one I think that would benefit the city greatly.

ricardisimo
08-30-2010, 05:07 PM
Go pound sand ric, it's not what i said or meant.Tthe religion of the victims has nothing to do with anything that's been said here.

Go pound sand? http://smiliesftw.com/x/huh.gif By that I assume you mean "go engage in a fruitless activity". OK, here goes:

zu: "People seem to forget that over 3000 people were murderded that day. Call that a little reminder of the true nature of what we're talking about here. Should a cavalry museum go near a Native American burial ground?" [Editor's note: Do you really think there is no such thing throughout the US?]

Mom: "Your example holds no water. Many Muslims lost their lives in the same attack. That's something many people seem to forget about as well." [True, true and true]

zu: "Yeah so who commited the murders?" [Huh? What's the point of this question, exactly?]

Mom: "Radical Muslims. What does that matter though? Are you saying that the Muslims who died on that day don't count because radical Muslims attacked American soil?" [There's more than a little debate regarding just how "Muslim" these "radical Muslims" really were. As Tony pointed out elsewhere, they were drinking and whoring it up just before the attacks. Although I have no doubt that some promissory notes in the sweet hereafter were generously handed out to these bozos, I still maintain that their nationalities had far more to do with their motives than Allah ever did. Their stated objections were to US military presence in their countries, not to decadent Western ideas and freedoms]

zu: "Nope, just pointing out they were collateral damage and not the target. In fact that's true of all the victims, the target was our country as a whole." [This makes no sense... How can anyone translate "Yeah so who commited the murders?" as "the Muslim dead were just collateral damage"? Do you mean they couldn't possibly have been targeting "their own"?]

Mom: "If that's true of all their victims, then why even bring it up and then say that the Muslims were just collateral damage, like their deaths didn't mean as much as the non-Muslims deaths?" [Bingo... if everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim - in the WTC was collateral damage, then how could a Muslim community center two blocks away from the site impact "the true nature of what we're talking about here"? Wouldn't a church of any denomination cause the same uproar?]

zu: "Never said such a thing nor did I intend to." [I'm not sure that you literally meant to say that Muslim lives mean less than non-Muslim ones, but you did intend to say that because certain Muslims (radical, nominal, whatever) committed this atrocity, then non-Muslims get the karma points in exchange, and now get to decide all matters within a 20-block radius of Ground Zero. The Muslim world as a whole and their "supporters" can "pound sand" if they don't like it.]

I would like to add that you are right... your cartoon actually does go straight to "the true nature" of this entire debate. Namely, at its core this is all just inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda meant to sustain a sufficiently wounded and violent psyche in the US, allowing our enlightened leaders to do as they wish in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and eventually Iran. These wars are helping somebody, not too difficult to figure out who, and we need to keep them going indefinitely.

Fire Haley
08-30-2010, 05:13 PM
I fought the oil war! - I demand my free oil, dammit!

I still say we should just load up and take over Saudi, kick them all back to their tents in the ****ing desert and we got all the oil we'll need for a thousand years. Who's gonna stop us? I bet the Persians will jump on our side in a heartbeat.

who's with me?

tony hipchest
08-30-2010, 06:35 PM
I fought the oil war! - I demand my free oil, dammit!

?i read about a year ago how the military over in iraq was paying above the US national average for a gallon of gas.

talk about screwed up (and ironic).

what? not even a 10% military discount? :dang:

ricardisimo
08-30-2010, 06:42 PM
i read about a year ago how the military over in iraq was paying above the US national average for a gallon of gas.

talk about screwed up (and ironic).

what? not even a 10% military discount? :dang:

And paying to whom? Do you think that's the Iraqi mark-up? Uh-uh.

zulater
08-30-2010, 08:15 PM
Ok...I have no love for any part of the war that's been going on over there for 62 years, but BOTH sides (sometimes mostly Israel and sometimes mostly Palestine) have and are being played like puppets. To point to one side and say that they are the cause and they are the ones being controlled is just naive.

Let's start at the beginning (no, not with Abraham, I won't go back that far). Let's start with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. In short this is where the British promised to find the Jews (Zionist Jews) a national home. Zionist Jews had been trying for decades already, with no luck, to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine through the Ottoman Empire. Time went on, they pursued other lands, still with no success.

Then, a man named Haim Weizmann (a Russian Zionist), began actively lobbying the British government to support a Zionist takeover of Palestine. The British (for more political reasons than anything else...they wanted an ally to control the Suez Canal) began to appease them. In short (and it's a long read if you're interested) the British began to speak out of both sides of their mouths to try and get the Zionist Jews in control of Palestine.

Read more here...http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

A little further down the road (1936-1939), after Zionist Jews began to immigrate into Palestine, the Arabs there (rightfully so) began to have suspicions of their intents and began revolting. Nearly 500,000 Jews had immigrated into Palestine by this time and the area was overwhelmed.

In 1942, Zionist leaders met in NY and declare their postwar program (known as the Biltmore Program). The program recommended an end to the British Mandate and demand Jewish control over immigration to Palestine with the aim of founding a Jewish "Commonwealth".

http://www.mideastweb.org/biltmore_program.htm

In 1948 began the Israeli War for Independence (I guess independence for a land they were immigrants to). Declaration of Israel as the Jewish State, British leave Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia declared war on Israel. Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian invasion began.

In 1949 an Armistace was reached. Israel gained about 50% more territory than was originally allotted to it by the UN Partition Plan. This led to the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians. No Palestinians were even given the option to become citizens, though all Jews were given full Israeli citizenship.

From there it's been nothing but one side biting at the other...with Israel being backed by the British, French and the US and Palestine being backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Jordan.

Picture it like this...Imagine if Mexican immigrants crossing the border (doesn't matter if they're legals or illegals in this scenario) decided one day that they wanted to form a national state for themselves, with their own laws and such. What do you think the reaction of the government and the people would be? Would we be terrorists for opposing such a violent takeover? I don't think any of us would be too keen on the idea of just ceding land to a foreign entity when they just walk in and demand it. They would be laughed at...then shot.

So in essence, this is a big reason why many Arabs and Muslims do not support Zionist Israel. Hell, there are a good number of Jews who are against Zionist Israel. They feel that Israel should abandon the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and strive to be a state of all its citizens.

Wrong has been done on both sides since 1948...but I fully understand why Palestinians would harbor animosity. I think if this happened in the US, the reaction would be similar, if not more violent.

Oh I understand it perfectly. The reality of the situation is that Jordon, Syria and Lebanon posses much of what was formerly Palestinian land as well, yet they are never asked to cede land for a Palestian state, ever wonder why that is?

And if you think that a one state solution wouldn't end with Jews being harrased and harranged right out of the region in a matter of decades then you don't have much understanding of how Muslim's "coexist" with their neighbors.

In other words you're barking mad if you think Israel will cease to exist without going down guns a blazing as in nuclear guns. Sounds fun huh?

The real reason Israel is such a bother to them is because a people they believe to be racially inferior ( Jews are decsended from dogs and apes according to our loving Muslim brothers) to them, with a tiny little bit of real estate, and very little in the way of natural recourses have lapped their dumb asses, culturally, economically, and militarily. :banging:

:toofunny:

Go Israel!!! :tt:

ricardisimo
08-30-2010, 08:22 PM
Well, Jews are descended from apes, as are the rest of us... so they got that much right at least.

zulater
08-30-2010, 08:28 PM
Well, Jews are descended from apes, as are the rest of us... so they got that much right at least.

supposedly pig and donkey too.



http://llphfreedom.blogspot.com/2010/06/study-of-palestinian-authoritys.html
Portrayal of Jews as Animals
In three instances (Surahs 2, 5 and 7), the Koran tells of Muhammad turning people into monkeys and/or pigs: “Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and his Wrath, and those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swine.” (Surah 5:60) Another section of the Koran compares the Jews to donkeys. PA leaders repeatedly dehumanize Jews by applying these animal references to Jews:
Dr. Mahmoud Mustafa Najem
“... for which Allah transformed them to monkeys and pigs...“
PA TV, November 1, 2002
Dr. Mahmoud Mustafah Najem
“Praise be to Allah, who has cursed [the Jews], the brothers of monkeys and pigs.”
PA TV, December 6, 2002
Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Maadi
“We are waging this cruel war with the brothers of the monkeys and pigs, the Jews and the sons of Zion.”
PA TV, September 12, 2004
Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Maadi
“For Allah was angry and called them once monkeys, pigs and donkeys…”
PA TV, March 30, 2001
PA schoolbooks:
PA educators have chosen to include this donkey reference from the Koran in the new PA schoolbooks:
“...Those [Jews] who were charged with the Torah, but did not observe it, are like a donkey carrying books...”
Reading the Koran, Surat al-Jum’a, Sixth Grade, p. 20
This depiction by PA leaders of Jews as animals is reflected in popular behavior and language. At one anti-Israel march, PA demonstrators wrapped a donkey in a Jewish prayer shawl, demonstrating the imagery they had been taught of donkeys as Jews.

PA Daily Newspapers:
Writers have used this animal imagery to slur Jews, as illustrated by this editorial in the official PA daily:
“In the past the young Jerusalem [Arab] girls were captive, and exposed to acts of horror by the sons of the monkeys and pigs...”
Al Hayat Al Jadida, June 5, 2004


PA Children:
Even very young Palestinian children have incorporated this language into their image of Jews. A 10-year-old girl on PA TV introduced her message to Jews with the following racial slur:
“My name is Ala. I am from Rafah, [I am]10 years old. Let the pigs and monkeys know and their leaders Sharon and Bush...”
PA TV, September 29, 2003


As early as 1998 Jews were already being called Devil and Satan:


Abdul Muiz Al Satar, Teacher of Religion
“They [Jews] are the descendants of the Devil and the descendants of the Satan.”
PA TV, December 17, 1998


Complementing the verbal depiction of Jews as animals and Satan are visual demonization and dehumanization in the PA media. Note that long before the terror war, the PA media was already publishing these odious visual images of Jews. In 1999, approaching the end of the century, the cartoon of the official PA daily captioned the sub-human dwarf Jew as “the disease of the century.”


This dehumanization of Jews plays a role in preparing PA society to be willing to kill Jews (see Stage 3 below.) Animals are clearly inferior to humans, and in many societies have no rights, are used for experiments and routinely hunted.

SteelCityMom
08-30-2010, 08:54 PM
Oh I understand it perfectly. The reality of the situation is that Jordon, Syria and Lebanon posses much of what was formerly Palestinian land as well, yet they are never asked to cede land for a Palestian state, ever wonder why that is?

And if you think that a one state solution wouldn't end with Jews being harrased and harranged right out of the region in a matter of decades then you don't have much understanding of how Muslim's "coexist" with their neighbors.

In other words you're barking mad if you think Israel will cease to exist without going down guns a blazing as in nuclear guns. Sounds fun huh?

The real reason Israel is such a bother to them is because a people they believe to be racially inferior ( Jews are decsended from dogs and apes according to our loving Muslim brothers) to them, with a tiny little bit of real estate, and very little in the way of natural recourses have lapped their dumb asses, culturally, economically, and militarily. :banging:

:toofunny:

Go Israel!!! :tt:

Ummm...you do know that Jews and Muslims lived quite happily together for a very long time right?

And I don't think you fully understand what I'm talking about. The situation with Palestine (which, before 1920, simply referred to a general area), Jordan and Syria is different than the situation with Israel.

Palestine, Jordan and Syria were formed between GB, France and the League of Nations. Israel was formed after Britain mandated for years that they (Jews) immigrate to Palestine. Then Britain ran out of funds to support an army down there, along with the fact that rapid deterioration due to the actions of the Jewish paramilitary organizations (Hagana, Irgun and Lehi), involving attacks on strategic installations (by all three) as well as on British forces and officials (by the Irgun and Lehi). This caused severe damage to British morale and prestige, as well as increasing opposition to the mandate in Britain itself, public opinion demanding to "bring the boys home".

So Britain completely left Palestine and the Zionist Jews they implanted there completely alone (this is between 1945-1948). With nobody stopping them, the Jews went to war with Palestine to create a nation that nobody except the British (who had conveniently left) promised to them.

You need to stop pretending that everything is the Muslims fault. I blame them for how extreme many factions have become, but there's not much in history to show that they were any worse or better than any other people of faith, until 1948 that is.

SteelCityMom
08-30-2010, 09:00 PM
Zu....while that man may have said those things, it does not mean that every Muslim believes that. There are plenty of Christians who feel that way about Jews and Muslims as well, but not all of them. Broad examples don't mean it's the norm.

SteelCityMom
08-30-2010, 09:11 PM
I have a better scenario here too...let's consider for a moment how the US is set up. States are divided and terms are agreed to (this is how Palestine, Syria and Jordan were created). Let's say that the slaves that were forced over into the US decided when they were freed that they wanted to control a portion of US land for themselves to create a nation within a nation. What do you think the outcome of that would have been?

zulater
08-30-2010, 09:35 PM
Ummm...you do know that Jews and Muslims lived quite happily together for a very long time right?

And I don't think you fully understand what I'm talking about. The situation with Palestine (which, before 1920, simply referred to a general area), Jordan and Syria is different than the situation with Israel.

Palestine, Jordan and Syria were formed between GB, France and the League of Nations. Israel was formed after Britain mandated for years that they (Jews) immigrate to Palestine. Then Britain ran out of funds to support an army down there, along with the fact that rapid deterioration due to the actions of the Jewish paramilitary organizations (Hagana, Irgun and Lehi), involving attacks on strategic installations (by all three) as well as on British forces and officials (by the Irgun and Lehi). This caused severe damage to British morale and prestige, as well as increasing opposition to the mandate in Britain itself, public opinion demanding to "bring the boys home".

So Britain completely left Palestine and the Zionist Jews they implanted there completely alone (this is between 1945-1948). With nobody stopping them, the Jews went to war with Palestine to create a nation that nobody except the British (who had conveniently left) promised to them.

You need to stop pretending that everything is the Muslims fault. I blame them for how extreme many factions have become, but there's not much in history to show that they were any worse or better than any other people of faith, until 1948 that is.

Allright you win, let's tell Isreal to lay down it's arms and trust the Palestine to do right by them. I'm sure a real oasis of brotherhood and prosperity will spring up as a shining example of how to treat a religious minority for all Islam to rejoice in.


Now for my next fairy tale I'll explain how Obama is turning the economy in the right direction....:sun:
















o

MasterOfPuppets
08-30-2010, 09:45 PM
supposedly pig and donkey too.
.
http://tedhickman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/man-pig-09.jpg

http://images.sodahead.com/blogs/000253261/blogs_manpig-1265243697_xlarge.jpeg

tony hipchest
08-30-2010, 09:46 PM
but there's not much in history to show that they were any worse or better than any other people of faith,.

truth be told, the fact that they still require women to walk around wrapped up like egyptian mummies, leads me to believe they are boarderline psychotic and twisted in their beliefs (much moreso than any other faith).

french kissing rattlesnakes makes more sense....

but thats just me.

SteelCityMom
08-30-2010, 09:58 PM
Allright you win, let's tell Isreal to lay down it's arms and trust the Palestine to do right by them. I'm sure a real oasis of brotherhood and prosperity will spring up as a shining example of how to treat a religious minority for all Islam to rejoice in.


Now for my next fairy tale I'll explain how Obama is turning the economy in the right direction....:sun:

I'm not pretending everything's going to be all sunshine and fairy tales...it's not going to be. But you seem to think that Palestine started this whole thing. They didn't.

You have yet to say anything to my points of how Muslims and Jews lived side by side with very little conflict (outside of the conflict Christians created) for hundreds of years. You also don't want to face up to the notion that if the US was ever presented with the same kind of scenario that Palestine was, it would have reacted the same way.

Besides, judging from what both sides have done in the past 62 years, I highly doubt that Israel and Zionist Jews would treat Muslims and Palestinians any better. I can just understand why Palestinians got so pissed off in the first place.

SteelCityMom
08-30-2010, 10:03 PM
truth be told, the fact that they still require women to walk around wrapped up like egyptian mummies, leads me to believe they are boarderline psychotic and twisted in their beliefs (much moreso than any other faith).

french kissing rattlesnakes makes more sense....

but thats just me.

Not all Muslim nations require that. Extremist ones do, but not all of them. I mentioned it before, but in Turkey and Tunisia, there are actually Muslim women protesting because the governments have banned the hijab in certain areas.

That's part of their faith though...like how Orthodox Jews wear their hair in those silly curls and put on beanies. Or how Quaker women aren't allowed to wear makeup or play with dolls that have faces. Or how Scientologists aren't allowed to think for themselves (unless they pay enough money). :chuckle:

No matter the way the require their people of faith to dress, historically, the two religions got along quite well.

zulater
08-31-2010, 07:03 AM
I'm not pretending everything's going to be all sunshine and fairy tales...it's not going to be. But you seem to think that Palestine started this whole thing. They didn't.

You have yet to say anything to my points of how Muslims and Jews lived side by side with very little conflict (outside of the conflict Christians created) for hundreds of years. You also don't want to face up to the notion that if the US was ever presented with the same kind of scenario that Palestine was, it would have reacted the same way.

Besides, judging from what both sides have done in the past 62 years, I highly doubt that Israel and Zionist Jews would treat Muslims and Palestinians any better. I can just understand why Palestinians got so pissed off in the first place.

I can understand why they're pissed off too. I never said that Palestinians didn't have any cause for grievance.

But in my opinion in order to be progressive in life it's of more value to concentrate on where you are and where you're going than dwelling on how you got there or where you've been. Playing the victim card and circumventing the rules on every single turn destroys the game. At some point you simply evaluate where you stand, decide where it is you need to go,( hopefully with everyone's best interest at heart), and start plotting your best course there with the information that's available.

Carrying the yoke of racial hatred and old grudges serves no one's best interest and only further litters the road that lies ahead.

SteelCityMom
08-31-2010, 10:24 AM
I can understand why they're pissed off too. I never said that Palestinians didn't have any cause for grievance.

But in my opinion in order to be progressive in life it's of more value to concentrate on where you are and where you're going than dwelling on how you got there or where you've been. Playing the victim card and circumventing the rules on every single turn destroys the game. At some point you simply evaluate where you stand, decide where it is you need to go,( hopefully with everyone's best interest at heart), and start plotting your best course there with the information that's available.

Carrying the yoke of racial hatred and old grudges serves no one's best interest and only further litters the road that lies ahead.

I don't disagree with this at all. Both sides over the years have done nothing but continuously fan the flames for the next generation though. And I do find it a horrible shame, because for such a long time, the people of both religions were able to live side by side with relative ease. Hopefully in the future they figure out again that they are not each others enemies...but I'm not holding my breath.

I guess going back to how this topic started, with Faisal Rauf's statements about Hamas, I can understand if he agrees with their position over the years. Like Ric said, that's his right. Doesn't mean he's going to build a center to start training terrorists, he just has an opinion on the matter.

zulater
09-01-2010, 07:17 AM
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010082911480/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/name-calling-qislamophobiaq-the-latest-charge-to-try-to-stifle-legitimate-debate.html


Recently, in defending an imam's proposal to build a triumphalist "Muslim Cultural Center" near Manhattan's Ground Zero-where, we may remember, so many innocents were slaughtered in the name of Allah-the Left has outdone itself. Rather than engage in serious debate with the vast majority of New Yorkers and Americans who oppose the project, the mosque's defenders have simply dubbed the opposing viewpoint "Islamophobia." As ever when this naming device is used, the left-wing media seem to rally as one. Within the space of a single week, Time put the word on its cover, Maureen Dowd accused the entire nation of it in her column, and CBS News trotted out the charge in reporting on mosque opposition.

For anyone born with the gift of laughter, the term is absurd to the point of hilarity. A phobia, after all, is an irrational fear. Given that Islam is cancerous with violence in virtually every corner of the globe, given the oppressive and exclusionary nature of many Islamic governments, given the insidious Islamist inroads against long-held freedoms in western Europe, and given those aspects of sharia that seem, to an outsider at least, to prohibit democracy, free speech, and the fair treatment of the female half of our species, those who love peace and liberty would, in fact, be irrational not to harbor at least a measure of concern.

A religion is only a system of beliefs, and to say that all beliefs deserve equal respect or acceptance is to say that ideas have no moral weight, a patent absurdity. Because the human soul thirsts so for God, the sacred principle of individual liberty demands that religion be given wide latitude when it comes to internal mind-states, modes of worship, and the description of the metaphysical. But when it comes to the practical affairs of humankind, humankind may judge-and Islam, as the world stands now, has a lot to answer for. Whether radical Islamic violence, sexism, religious bigotry, and triumphalism are the natural outgrowths of its dogma or a series of aberrations is a perfectly valid question. Likewise the question of Islamic intentions toward Western culture in general and, by extension, the intentions of those behind the Ground Zero Mosque proposal. By what outlandish moral logic does Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf call America an "accomplice to the crime" of 9/11? From whom will he acquire the $100 million required to build his center, and what will they receive in return? None of these questions will be answered by simply condemning as phobic those who bring them to the fore.

With a hostility toward Christianity second only to Dracula's, the Left has no credibility on the subject of freedom of religion. In a representative moment in February 2006, liberalism's flagship paper, the New York Times, refused to publish the controversial Danish cartoons of Mohammed in order to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." The next day, it famously illustrated a story on the cartoons with an offensive image of the Virgin Mary smeared with dung. One wonders, therefore: Does the Left really cherish the rights of Islam, or is theirs but a short-sighted alliance with the enemy of their enemies?

Which is to say that perhaps opponents of the mosque should question the motives of those who question their motives. In any case, they should greet the designation of Islamophobia with the derision that it deserves.

ricardisimo
09-01-2010, 08:18 PM
Look, zu... irrational means you look at the world, preferably with something upon which numerous people can agree, like reliable statistics, and you discard it completely. So, statistically, you are much, much more likely to die in your bathroom than by lightning strike, but you're afraid of lightning and not at all afraid of using your bathroom. That's an irrational fear. Being convinced that all lightning is evil and out to get you... that's fulgurphobia, and is essentially what we are seeing with Islam in this country.

So, let's first figure out what statistics are meaningful to you. How about homicide rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate) by country or by region? Would that give us an insight into Christian respect for life vs. Muslim disdain for it? Hmmm... it looks like that's not going to work. All of the predominantly Muslim regions (even desperately poor ones, like North Africa) are in single digits in homicides per 100,000. Well, they screwed with the numbers, clearly. We know the truth.

How about we browse a list of wars by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_by_country), and confirm how bloodthirsty and expansionist Islamic countries are, and how peace-loving all of the Christian nations are? Oops... That's really odd... For some strange reason, the US, UK, France and other Western, Christian nations seem to be involved in many more wars. Not only that, but it appears that Muslim nations tend to be involved in wars on their own soil only... against Western powers. Well, we know to discard that immediately as liberal propaganda. Let's move on...

How about rape (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf). That's it! They hate women, those Muslims, and they rape them at every opportunity. Oh,... umm... That's really strange. Third World Christian countries and Canada, South Africa and the US seem to lead the way by leaps and bounds. OK, this is just getting too weird. I mean, we know the truth. Who the hell needs statistics?

You will find few people in this world with a more dismal view of Islam (and Christianity) than myself. That doesn't obscure the fact that the population is being gamed here, and masterfully so. Don't fall for it, zu.

As far as the rest of that piece you posted, the New York Times is a center-Right rag, the human soul does not thirst for God (that line alone should have tipped you off, being a professed agnostic), and ideas, indeed, have no moral weight, any more than the pen that writes them down. People, their words and specifically their actions are all that matter.

MasterOfPuppets
09-01-2010, 08:29 PM
So, statistically, you are much, much more likely to die in your bathroom than by lightning strike, but you're afraid of lightning and not at all afraid of using your bathroom..

if my brother ever stopped by YOUR house and pinched a loaf, you wouldn't say that .... :puke:
i'd go outside and piss in the mother of all electrical storms before i'd go in the bathroom a half hour or less after he tore it up...my dogs go to the back door and whine to get out when they see him heading for the throne...

ricardisimo
09-01-2010, 08:37 PM
if my brother ever stopped by YOUR house and pinched a loaf, you wouldn't say that .... :puke:
i'd go outside and piss in the mother of all electrical storms before i'd go in the bathroom a half hour or less after he tore it up...my dogs go to the back door and whine to get out when they see him heading for the throne...

And I suspect that it's your brother that has skewed the stats away from lightning and towards the bathroom. I mean, isn't it obvious? Lightning is really, really scary... like Muslims.

MasterOfPuppets
09-01-2010, 08:48 PM
And I suspect that it's your brother that has skewed the stats away from lightning and towards the bathroom. I mean, isn't it obvious? Lightning is really, really scary... like Muslims.

well he's not a muslim...he's irish / german....:huh: ... so are you saying a muslim could stink up a shitter worse than he can ? :hunch:

ricardisimo
09-01-2010, 09:08 PM
well he's not a muslim...he's irish / german....:huh: ... so are you saying a muslim could stink up a shitter worse than he can ? :hunch:

I'm saying he's clearly been planted here in these United States by none other than Osama bin Laden. Tell him we're on to him.

zulater
09-01-2010, 11:33 PM
Look, zu... irrational means you look at the world, preferably with something upon which numerous people can agree, like reliable statistics, and you discard it completely. So, statistically, you are much, much more likely to die in your bathroom than by lightning strike, but you're afraid of lightning and not at all afraid of using your bathroom. That's an irrational fear. Being convinced that all lightning is evil and out to get you... that's fulgurphobia, and is essentially what we are seeing with Islam in this country.

So, let's first figure out what statistics are meaningful to you. How about homicide rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate) by country or by region? Would that give us an insight into Christian respect for life vs. Muslim disdain for it? Hmmm... it looks like that's not going to work. All of the predominantly Muslim regions (even desperately poor ones, like North Africa) are in single digits in homicides per 100,000. Well, they screwed with the numbers, clearly. We know the truth.

How about we browse a list of wars by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_by_country), and confirm how bloodthirsty and expansionist Islamic countries are, and how peace-loving all of the Christian nations are? Oops... That's really odd... For some strange reason, the US, UK, France and other Western, Christian nations seem to be involved in many more wars. Not only that, but it appears that Muslim nations tend to be involved in wars on their own soil only... against Western powers. Well, we know to discard that immediately as liberal propaganda. Let's move on...

How about rape (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf). That's it! They hate women, those Muslims, and they rape them at every opportunity. Oh,... umm... That's really strange. Third World Christian countries and Canada, South Africa and the US seem to lead the way by leaps and bounds. OK, this is just getting too weird. I mean, we know the truth. Who the hell needs statistics?

You will find few people in this world with a more dismal view of Islam (and Christianity) than myself. That doesn't obscure the fact that the population is being gamed here, and masterfully so. Don't fall for it, zu.

As far as the rest of that piece you posted, the New York Times is a center-Right rag, the human soul does not thirst for God (that line alone should have tipped you off, being a professed agnostic), and ideas, indeed, have no moral weight, any more than the pen that writes them down. People, their words and specifically their actions are all that matter.



ric I don't have the time or energy to go through your whole post, but just on the topic of rape being less prominent in Muslim countries. ever think that could be due to the arcaic laws that make it virtually impossible for a woman to gain a conviction for rape? A woman who is legitimately raped in a country that has any form of Sharia law is more likely to be viewed as the provacateur than the victim if she goes through with charges. Think they would even begin to buy the notion of a husband raping a wife over there either? In this country while rare a husband can be charged and convicted for raping his wife, think that ever happens in a Muslim state ric? You know where you need four male witnesses to confirm rape has occured. Oh yeah what about young girls( early teens sometimes younger) that are forced into arranged marriages with middle aged and older perverts, think they get charged with rape ric old buddy?

Need to think that one through a little better theer ric. :coffee:

ricardisimo
09-02-2010, 01:35 AM
And the UN cares about that when compiling their stats? Somehow, miraculously, they are able to get the correct data in the poorest, most backwards, machista and conservative Christian countries in Central and South America, as well as in non-Muslim tribally-based nations in West Africa. But sharia has them completely fooled. Astounding. It's the same with the murder stats in Muslim countries, right? Dead Muslims are too ashamed to admit to the authorities when they've been murdered; the stigma is just too much for their rotting corpses to bear.

I can see that the Force is strong in this one... your intellectual discipline is not lacking in the least. You know exactly what to think on this matter - facts, logic and even basic empathy be damned. I don't know what to tell you, zu... I would have thought that someone who called themselves an agnostic would be able to figure out that religion is a meaningless distraction, and that everyone everywhere is basically the same... until the politicians or some other "higher power" needs division and conflict. Then there's "us" and "them".

You never told me how the coffee was.

SteelCityMom
09-02-2010, 01:03 PM
One thing I'd like to say before this goes into an all out war, is that while we should be mindful of the threat radical Islam presents (and really, the threat any person presents when they go a little crazy in the head), we should be more mindful of the trick politicians are trying to play on all of us right now.

There is a great divide that is has been culminating among the masses for quite some time now. Democrats vs. Republicans. Liberals vs. Conservatives. Both sides seem quite content to stir the political pot as much as they can, and this issue of a Sharia take over vs. Islamophobia is no different at all.

Maybe before we focus too much of our attention on what outsiders may be trying to infiltrate and take over our laws, we should focus on the people who are already in positions of power and have already been restricting our Constitutional freedoms. They are the wolves in sheep clothes that we really need to worry about.

Maybe instead of regurgitating what talking heads like Olberman and Beck spew out daily and nodding our heads in agreement, we should focus more on who we are putting in charge of this nation...from the President all the way down to your local council members. Elections have become more about who can get the most sponsors and recite the most lines that people want to hear than about what they will actually do.

Our nation is in a sad state right now, IMO. And if any kind of a foreign government takeover ever happens (like Sharia or Communism), then we have no one to blame but ourselves for not paying attention to the talking heads we put into positions of power. They have weakened our system, because we let them. Maybe some of us were too busy watching American Idol, or the Emmy Awards, or MTV to notice it...but it happened.

zulater
09-02-2010, 02:11 PM
And the UN cares about that when compiling their stats? Somehow, miraculously, they are able to get the correct data in the poorest, most backwards, machista and conservative Christian countries in Central and South America, as well as in non-Muslim tribally-based nations in West Africa. But sharia has them completely fooled. Astounding. It's the same with the murder stats in Muslim countries, right? Dead Muslims are too ashamed to admit to the authorities when they've been murdered; the stigma is just too much for their rotting corpses to bear.

I can see that the Force is strong in this one... your intellectual discipline is not lacking in the least. You know exactly what to think on this matter - facts, logic and even basic empathy be damned. I don't know what to tell you, zu... I would have thought that someone who called themselves an agnostic would be able to figure out that religion is a meaningless distraction, and that everyone everywhere is basically the same... until the politicians or some other "higher power" needs division and conflict. Then there's "us" and "them".

You never told me how the coffee was.

Stats are like history, it all depends on who's interpreting and writing them as to what they say.

Look ric we have two different world views, our perspective on just about any historical event is 180 degrees opposite. To you the flight crew of the Enola Gay is as criminally corrupt and morally bankrupt as the 9-11 plotters. To you Dwight Eisenhower is no less a war criminal than Tojo. And truthfully I can understand the point on some level. but then when I dig beneath the surface and examine the nuance the disparity is loud and clear, my team occupies the moral highground despite the ambiguity of the situation.

So we'll end it here ric. I don't think the Islamic community center is the worst idea ever. If it eventually gets built hopefully it will be operated with a western like cultural tolerance. and again I know you think the last sentence is contradictory, but in my opinion even at our worst, as long as we're just talking and shaking empyt fists at one another in the long term we'll all benifit, and maybe a higher understanding of each other will be the end net result? :noidea:

Or I could have just typed a bunch of bullshit because I don't feel like digging up a bunch of "facts" to support a counter argement against you when in the end I know we'll still disagree no matter how well we each make our argument. :chuckle::wave:

ricardisimo
09-02-2010, 07:09 PM
Maybe before we focus too much of our attention on what outsiders may be trying to infiltrate and take over our laws, we should focus on the people who are already in positions of power and have already been restricting our Constitutional freedoms. They are the wolves in sheep clothes that we really need to worry about.

Bingo. Give that lady a cigar. This issue has come up for me in numerous threads now, most notably the Chavez debate and the Arizona law. Is Chavez really a child-raping zombie, or is he a convenient distraction from the failings and abuses of our own government? Are immigrants coming in over the Mexican border really driving our economy into the tank, or was it all of the emigrating jobs going to non-union and low-standard nations?

Our focus should be squarely on ourselves. We shouldn't be "nation-building" or "promoting democracy" unless that nation and that democracy is us.

To bring it back to the thread, I suspect that the "Muslim issue" is useful for all of the normal reasons, most notably "softening" the American public in advance of some possible military engagement in the near future, obviously against some Muslim nation. Hmmm... who could that be? :scratchchin: There's also the convenient distraction it provides from the government's complete and utter failure to put up any sort of commemoration at all nearly a full decade later.

ricardisimo
09-02-2010, 07:15 PM
Stats are like history, it all depends on who's interpreting and writing them as to what they say.

Look ric we have two different world views, our perspective on just about any historical event is 180 degrees opposite. To you the flight crew of the Enola Gay is as criminally corrupt and morally bankrupt as the 9-11 plotters. To you Dwight Eisenhower is no less a war criminal than Tojo. And truthfully I can understand the point on some level. but then when I dig beneath the surface and examine the nuance the disparity is loud and clear, my team occupies the moral highground despite the ambiguity of the situation.

So we'll end it here ric. I don't think the Islamic community center is the worst idea ever. If it eventually gets built hopefully it will be operated with a western like cultural tolerance. and again I know you think the last sentence is contradictory, but in my opinion even at our worst, as long as we're just talking and shaking empyt fists at one another in the long term we'll all benifit, and maybe a higher understanding of each other will be the end net result? :noidea:

Or I could have just typed a bunch of bullshit because I don't feel like digging up a bunch of "facts" to support a counter argement against you when in the end I know we'll still disagree no matter how well we each make our argument. :chuckle::wave:

That's cool. I appreciate not being told by you to leave the country if I hate it so much, as was standard procedure with Warden, Vinny, HTG and a few others. The point they never really gathered is that I live here for numerous reasons, not least of which is the great degree of freedom we have in the US, particularly freedom of speech. Everyone else pales in comparison to us in this regard.

These freedoms take a lot of work, though. I take my contributions here, in my local papers, at city council meetings and elsewhere pretty seriously. I want to expand freedoms for myself and everyone else, and that includes religious people with whom I have little or nothing in common, other than being human. In other words, contrary to popular belief, I'm not a contrarian.

urgle burgle
09-02-2010, 07:52 PM
well.............i'll be damned......

this may be the best grouping of postings i have seen since i last kissed a girl (the last 4 posts). i am dumbfounded.

oh, by the way ric, get out of my country..........:flap:

ricardisimo
09-02-2010, 07:54 PM
D'oh! :doh:

zulater
09-02-2010, 08:17 PM
That's cool. I appreciate not being told by you to leave the country if I hate it so much, as was standard procedure with Warden, Vinny, HTG and a few others. The point they never really gathered is that I live here for numerous reasons, not least of which is the great degree of freedom we have in the US, particularly freedom of speech. Everyone else pales in comparison to us in this regard.

These freedoms take a lot of work, though. I take my contributions here, in my local papers, at city council meetings and elsewhere pretty seriously. I want to expand freedoms for myself and everyone else, and that includes religious people with whom I have little or nothing in common, other than being human. In other words, contrary to popular belief, I'm not a contrarian.

ric I'm sure you're a fine citizen, and I hope I've said nothing to offend you, check that, I hope you aren't too offended by the offensive things I've said. :chuckle: Anyway bottom line while I disagree with much of what you say I usually enjoy reading it, the back and forth between dissenting opinions, even if it gets somewhat heated at times is what makes posting here interesting.

I wouldn't have returned back to this message board if it wasn't for the fact that ienjoy arguing with you SCM , tony, and MOP. You guys make me think, even when I don't want to. :banging:

But you're all still wrong most of the time, i know this because I'm almost always right. :flap:

:wink02:

ricardisimo
09-02-2010, 11:34 PM
But you're all still wrong most of the time, i know this because I'm almost always right. :flap:

Damn! He's on to us...

zulater
09-07-2010, 02:43 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/06/inconvenient-truth-10-times-more-hate-crimes-against-jews-muslims

MasterOfPuppets
09-07-2010, 03:04 PM
holy shit.... we need to start balancing our hate crimes more evenly ...we're starting to look like racist !!! ......:doh:
i myself work to hate everyone the same ... no prejudice here ...:sofunny:

MACH1
09-07-2010, 03:43 PM
Hey Ric, if ya don't like it here get out. :wink:

ricardisimo
09-08-2010, 08:09 PM
Hey Ric, if ya don't like it here get out. :wink:

I keep hoping you guys will buy me tickets to Monaco, or maybe Tahiti. I'm sure they also have wrongs I could be righting.

MasterOfPuppets
09-08-2010, 09:02 PM
damn libs...always wanting something for free ...:chuckle:

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 09:06 PM
can i have his air miles?

MasterOfPuppets
09-08-2010, 09:24 PM
i'm thinking a place like somalia or liberia, would be a good fit for Ric....:thumbsup:

tony hipchest
09-08-2010, 10:03 PM
even better.

and again... can i have his frequent flyer miles?

(you cant spell frequent flyer miles w/o 'free')

Stinky Fred
09-09-2010, 02:15 PM
All amusement aside, "Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it."

Is that a threat? "Bridge to peace"? You will know a tree by its fruit.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/new....html?hpt=Sbin
Imam: Handling of Islamic center plan a matter of national security
By the CNN Wire Staff
September 9, 2010 5:10 a.m. EDT

(CNN) -- The religious leader behind plans to build an Islamic center and mosque a few blocks from New York's ground zero said Wednesday night that America's national security depends on how it handles the controversy.

"If we move from that location, the story will be the radicals have taken over the discourse," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told CNN's Soledad O'Brien on "Larry King Live."

"The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack."

But some critics decried his assessment.

"The whole national security thing: that's a veiled threat," Andy Sullivan, a union construction worker who wants all New York construction workers to boycott the proposed Islamic center, said on CNN's "AC 360" Wednesday night. "He's saying 'you make me move' and, guess what, the whole radical Muslim world is coming after us."

"This is a turf war," Sullivan said.

The imam, who repeatedly said his mission was to promote peace and build a bridge among faiths, said he was also speaking about "radicals" on both sides of the debate on the Islamic center. "Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it."

ricardisimo
09-09-2010, 04:13 PM
Unfortunately, he appears to have appropriated the language of the protesters, making this center far, far more important than it really is. Sad. Yeah, whatever... It's the end of the world as we know if this thing gets built and it's the end of the world as we know it if it doesn't.

The really scary thing is that if you get enough people to believe this nonsense it becomes true.

thMm-7RFsm0

zulater
09-10-2010, 02:45 PM
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/No-place-for-democracy-and-human-rights-in-Islam,-says-Qom-theologian-19404.html

No place for democracy and human rights in Islam, says Qom theologian
Imam Mesbah Yazdi, great supporter of Ahmadinejad, makes the claim. For him, sexual and moral deviants like Sakineh should be punished and suppressed. Obeying Ahmadinejad is like obeying God. Pro-reform students are beaten, pro-reform professors are fired, all for being against Iran’s rulers. Journalists are accused of being “mohareb”, enemies of God.

Tehran (AsiaNews) – As the world mobilises against the stoning of Sakineh, a 43-year-old woman convicted for adultery and killing her husband, Iranian police continue to threaten and arrest journalists and human rights lawyers. Dozens of university professors are fired and pro-reform students are beaten. The reason is simple. “Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place” in Islam, said Mesbah Yazdi, who heads Shia Taliban, in a speech reprinted in Rooz, an online Iranian news website.
Speaking before members of paramilitary groups, soldiers and his followers, the cleric said that Iran “is not a place to back down for cultural reasons against people who promote corruption.”

In a veiled reference to Sakineh and others, he added, “sexual or moral deviants or promoters of any other kind of corruption must be suppressed.”

Mesbah Yadzi is a member of the Association of Teachers of Qom Theological Centre (Jame Modaresin Hoze Elmie Qom) and a great supporter of Ahmadinejad. In fact, “When the president received the supreme leader’s confirmation, obeying him is like obeying God,” he said.

A similar extremist vision explains recent events in Iran, where dozens of students, followers of pro-reform Ayatollah Dastgheib, who was against to Ahmadinejad’s re-election, were beaten in Shiraz’s Qoba Mosque.

Pro-democracy activists are also concerned about the firing of 40 professors from Tehran University since March. The activists have slammed the professors’ removal, calling it a case of “political cleansing” of the faculties that led the Green Wave movement that came out against the results in last year’s presidential election. Indeed, Science Minister Kamran Daneshjoo said repeatedly that the universities would not tolerate professors who are not “in tune with the Islamic Republic regime.”

For Mesbah Yazdi, anyone who opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in fact an “enemy of God” (Mohareb).

Human rights activist Shiva Nazar Ahari (pictured), who is the editor of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters website, has recently found out what that means. Arrested on 14 July 2009, a month after Ahmadinejad’s re-election, she was released on bail on 23 September of the same year. Re-arrested on 20 December and charged with a “mohareb”, a very serious crime in Iran, she is still waiting to go to a trial, expected very soon.

Badrolssadat Mofidi, secretary general of the Iranian Journalists Association, is another prominent figure accused of being a “mohareb”. He was recently sentenced to six years in prison and five years without the right to work as a journalist.

ricardisimo
09-10-2010, 05:13 PM
Uh, zu... we're not really going to get into a posting war comparing religious crazies, and seeing who's crazy wee-wee is bigger, or are we? My crazies might not have length, but they've got girth.

Vincent
09-10-2010, 05:17 PM
Unfortunately, he appears to have appropriated the language of the protesters...

Perhaps they all speak from the same "talking points". I've yet to hear an original thought from any of them.

Prolly that inbred thing. That's bait Ric. Run with it. :flap:

MasterOfPuppets
09-10-2010, 05:18 PM
they better keep their eye on that muslim that plays for the vikings.... he's definetely up to something .. i seen him on the sidelines lookin around.. probably lookin for the best place to put a bomb....:wtf:

Vincent
09-10-2010, 05:23 PM
they better keep their eye on that muslim that plays for the vikings.... he's definetely up to something .. i seen him on the sidelines lookin around.. probably lookin for the best place to put a bomb....:wtf:

They've infiltrated all the teams. Cheerleaders are the next to go.

http://www.nerepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/virgin-cheerleaders.jpg

MasterOfPuppets
09-10-2010, 05:29 PM
dude that was a mascot tryout...

http://imgs.sfgate.com/n/p/2010/08/21/2ac14d9b-c716-4cf2-9a0e-8e72dcc30938.jpg

tony hipchest
09-10-2010, 06:46 PM
They've infiltrated all the teams. ]

im keeping a close eye on antwaan randle-el :mg:

billybob49
09-10-2010, 07:24 PM
To the mosque. Talk to the sons and daughters that lost their parents on that day. Brave fireman and rescue workers that gave their own lives to save others.But most of all to the perpitraters of the incident :rocket:

Vis
09-10-2010, 07:38 PM
To the mosque. Talk to the sons and daughters that lost their parents on that day. Brave fireman and rescue workers that gave their own lives to save others.But most of all to the perpitraters of the incident :rocket:

These people didn't kill the parents. The Terrorists were brunettes. I hope all you brunettes pay!

Vis
09-10-2010, 07:47 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs365.snc4/44803_468667162673_607062673_7107838_5966018_n.jpg This might help some of you.

cloppbeast
09-10-2010, 07:50 PM
These people didn't kill the parents. The Terrorists were brunettes. I hope all you brunettes pay!

:hatsoff::applaudit: Good point! I really don't see how we can point the finger at Muslims who had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack, who just simply want to practice their religion in peace. The guy who's building the community center was put on Fox News the day after 9/11 denouncing the attack.

Al-Qaeda is made up of some wack-job Muslims from the Middle East trying to repel Western military forces from their homeland, and by no means represents the Muslim religion as a whole, especially for Islamic Americans.

Vis
09-10-2010, 07:55 PM
:hatsoff::applaudit: Good point! I really don't see how we can point the finger at Muslims who had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack, who just simply want to practice their religion in peace. The guy who's building the community center was put on Fox News the day after 9/11 denouncing the attack.

Al-Qaeda is made up of some wack-job Muslims from the Middle East trying to repel Western military forces from their homeland, and by no means represents the Muslim religion as a whole, especially for Islamic Americans.

Oh, I just meant that I'm blond.

billybob49
09-10-2010, 07:58 PM
:hatsoff::applaudit: Good point! I really don't see how we can point the finger at Muslims who had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack, who just simply want to practice their religion in peace. The guy who's building the community center was put on Fox News the day after 9/11 denouncing the attack.

Al-Qaeda is made up of some wack-job Muslims from the Middle East trying to repel Western military forces from their homeland, and by no means represents the Muslim religion as a whole, especially for Islamic Americans.

Namely because Al-Qaeda is derived from the Islamic religion. So some group comes and builds a big azz church or cathedral right next to the mosque.Think there would be anything wrong with that in the eyes of Muslims?

cloppbeast
09-10-2010, 08:05 PM
Namely because Al-Qaeda is derived from the Islamic religion. So some group comes and builds a big azz church or cathedral right next to the mosque.Think there would be anything wrong with that in the eyes of Muslims?

That's not really my point. Idk if they would have a problem with it or not. The question is, should they have a problem with it? In America, the land of religious freedom, I don't see why they would. In Iran, which is a theocracy, I don't expect they would allow such a thing. Regardless, though, they shouldn't have a problem with it.

billybob49
09-10-2010, 08:07 PM
Never mind brother.I spoke my piece,and it is only my opinion.

billybob49
09-10-2010, 10:29 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs365.snc4/44803_468667162673_607062673_7107838_5966018_n.jpg This might help some of you.

Well there is one flaw at least i will point out to you. You think there are .31 billion americans?

cloppbeast
09-10-2010, 10:39 PM
Well there is one flaw at least i will point out to you. You think there are .31 billion americans?

I've never counted them....:chuckle:

MasterOfPuppets
09-10-2010, 10:43 PM
Well there is one flaw at least i will point out to you. You think there are .31 billion americans?

thats POINT three one billion...meaning 310 million, which is our population...so yes.

billybob49
09-10-2010, 10:49 PM
thats POINT three one billion...meaning 310 million, which is our population...so yes.

According to my calculations it's 314.5 million.(thats the latest census i could find) Whats that have to do with Billions? Why don't we create a poll those for or against? I'm game.

cloppbeast
09-10-2010, 11:04 PM
According to my calculations it's 314.5 million.(thats the latest census i could find) Whats that have to do with Billions? Why don't we create a poll those for or against? I'm game.

Master is correct. It's only a matter of syntax. .31 billion = 310 million. It's that exact same thing.

MasterOfPuppets
09-10-2010, 11:12 PM
According to my calculations it's 314.5 million.(thats the latest census i could find) Whats that have to do with Billions? Why don't we create a poll those for or against? I'm game.

You think there are .31 billion americans

you ask if there was .31 billion americans .... the answer IS YES !!! . ...:banging:

The United States has a total resident population of 310,208,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

xXTheSteelKingsXx
09-10-2010, 11:39 PM
According to my calculations it's 314.5 million.(thats the latest census i could find) Whats that have to do with Billions? Why don't we create a poll those for or against? I'm game.

You do realize that 300 million is the same as 3 tenths (0.3) of one billion. :noidea:

urgle burgle
09-11-2010, 12:02 AM
JHC...is everybody friggin' retarded in here?

SteelersinCA
09-11-2010, 01:52 AM
LOL, who let the stalker back on the board, come on!!!!!!!

ricardisimo
09-11-2010, 03:07 AM
JHC...is everybody friggin' retarded in here?

Yeah... What of it?

ricardisimo
09-11-2010, 05:36 AM
Oh, I just meant that I'm blond.

They were all men... I think it was because they were men. Kill them all! (Except me, of course. Someone has to repopulate the species.)

billybob49
09-11-2010, 08:18 AM
You do realize that 300 million is the same as 3 tenths (0.3) of one billion. :noidea:

Yeah sure,i think about it every day.

billybob49
09-11-2010, 08:30 AM
LOL, who let the stalker back on the board, come on!!!!!!!

I'm a stalker arrest me.I stayed when others chose to leave.I've been here all the long.I chose to be a part of sf on my own.Some may not like,or agree with my opinions,and i may not like or agree with theirs. You have a problem with that?Well.california boy?

SteelersinCA
09-11-2010, 01:44 PM
I'm a stalker arrest me.I stayed when others chose to leave.I've been here all the long.I chose to be a part of sf on my own.Some may not like,or agree with my opinions,and i may not like or agree with theirs. You have a problem with that?Well.california boy?

I should have known you'd follow Mom. As long as you learn to count I have no problem, fair enough?:hatsoff:

ricardisimo
09-11-2010, 03:59 PM
I'm a stalker arrest me.I stayed when others chose to leave.I've been here all the long.I chose to be a part of sf on my own.Some may not like,or agree with my opinions,and i may not like or agree with theirs. You have a problem with that?Well.california boy?
Let's just keep things... oh, how shall I put this?... legal. And non-genocidal. I think those are two fairly reasonable goalposts.

tony hipchest
09-11-2010, 04:41 PM
You have a problem with that?Well.california boy?

chill, man... heres a funny comic-

http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu6/keevin33/normal_626201325.jpg

MasterOfPuppets
09-11-2010, 05:13 PM
dsKO_r76kfQ