Mosque @ Ground Zero

[JamesHunt]

Do you believe this is a reaching hand for cultural diversity in the USA, or do you believe somebody somewhere is taking the piss?

YouTube- No mosque at Ground Zero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4)

[rameses2]

It's NOT a mosque: it's a cultural center. It's NOT near ground zero. Just fear mongering by ignorant, cowardly bigots who believe that 'Merrica belongs only to them! I'm embarrassed to be an American.

[JamesHunt]

It's NOT a mosque: it's a cultural center. It's NOT near ground zero. Just fear mongering by ignorant, cowardly bigots who believe that 'Merrica belongs only to them! I'm embarrassed to be an American.

YouTube- No mosque at Ground Zero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeI7Due2qc&feature=related)

[trish]

No big deal. One religion is as false as another. Besides, it's not a Mosque, it's an Islamic community center; and it's not at ground zero (hi rameses). The three pictures in the last clip weren't funny, but then neither was the joke about the bottle of water. The red haired bigot seem[s] to be as comedy-challenged as the Muslim friend he met in college.

I heard there were some strip clubs planning to open in the very same block. Anyone know if there's any truth to that? http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/ground-zero-mosque-religion-terrorism-opinions-columnists-conor-friedersdorf.html

[south ov da border]

yay strip clubs...

[hippifried]

I'm embarrassed to be an American.
I'm not. That clown in the first vid is a Brit. Who cares?

They have the property. They have the proper permits. Is the building preexisting? Regardless, it's a bunch of jobs. The whiners are going to whine no matter what's going on or where, so I see no reason to pay them any mind. Apparently, the city of New York feels the same way for the most part. So again: Who cares?

[russtafa]

they should put a mosque on ground zero and implement sharia law in the us of a to teach people who should really rule

[evilernie]

Is this the same a Christian Conservative imposing their will on other people?

Seriously, this is the USA, we don't fear religious radicals: Christians, Muslims, Zionist or whatever religion people can come up with. We believe the good in everyone as long as they are informed and educated.

[russtafa]

americans dont live in iraq so religious tension wont touch them

[russtafa]

it was the same before world war 2 the americans didnt want to know about the situation until it was almost over

[Ben]

Obama defends "Ground Zero mosque" (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/13/mosque/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald

This (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14obama.html?hp) is one of the most impressive and commendable things Obama has done since being inaugurated:
President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that "as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country" . . . .
"I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground," the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.
But, he continued: "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are" . . . .
What makes this particularly commendable is there is virtually no political gain to be had from doing it, and substantial political risk. Polls shows overwhelming opposition to the mosque nationwide (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/overwhelming-majority-oppose-mosque-near-ground-zero/) (close to 70% opposed), and that's true even in New York (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/08/10/marist-majority-opposes-ground-zero-mosque-blooomberg-approval-at-5-year-low/), where an extraordinary "50% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, and 52% of 'non-enrolled' voters, don't want to see the mosque built." The White House originally indicated it would refrain from involving itself in the dispute, and there was little pressure or controversy over that decision. There was little anger over the President's silence even among liberal critics. And given the standard attacks directed at Obama -- everything from being "soft on Terror" to being a hidden Muslim -- choosing this issue on which to take a very politically unpopular and controversial stand is commendable in the extreme.
The campaign against this mosque is one of the ugliest and most odious controversies in some time. It's based purely on appeals to base fear and bigotry. There are no reasonable arguments against it, and the precedent that would be set if its construction were prevented -- equating Islam with Terrorism, implying 9/11 guilt for Muslims generally, imposing serious restrictions on core religious liberty -- are quite serious. It was Michael Bloomberg who first stood up (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/03/mayor_bloomberg_on_mosque) and eloquently condemned this anti-mosque campaign for what it is, but Obama's choice to lend his voice to a vital and noble cause is a rare demonstration of principled, politically risky leadership. It's not merely a symbolic gesture, but also an important substantive stand against something quite ugly and wrong. This is an act that deserves pure praise.

UPDATE: To anyone wanting to quibble with what was done here -- the timing, the wording, etc. -- I'll just pose this question: when is the last time a President voluntarily entered an inflammatory public controversy by taking a position opposed by 70% of the public?

[flabbybody]

It may be commendable but it doesn't make much sense for Obama to take an extremely unpopular stance on an issue which has nothing to do with the Federal government. It's similar to his "stupid" comment about the Boston cops who arrested that Harvard professor last year.
Obama's strength is supposed to be his political smarts. He's not showing any right now.

[NYBURBS]

It may be commendable but it doesn't make much sense for Obama to take an extremely unpopular stance on an issue which has nothing to do with the Federal government. It's similar to his "stupid" comment about the Boston cops who arrested that Harvard professor last year.
Obama's strength is supposed to be his political smarts. He's not showing any right now.

Sometimes it's important for an elected official in a powerful office to take a public stance on an issue, even when it's a local issue. I think there is a clear distinction that can be made between this and the Boston police fiasco.

My two cents on the issue is that they have every right to build their place of worship there; however, that doesn't mean it's a particularly sensitive or smart exercise of their rights.

[NYBURBS]

Seriously, this is the USA, we don't fear religious radicals

Oh idk about that; christian radicals scare the shit out of me.

[yodajazz]

The real way the story should be framed is religious freedom. That's freedom to have positive ideas and actions that do not cause harm to others.

So religous people should support it, under the name of religious freedom.

[Chief1860]

Sometimes it's important for an elected official in a powerful office to take a public stance on an issue, even when it's a local issue. I think there is a clear distinction that can be made between this and the Boston police fiasco.

My two cents on the issue is that they have every right to build their place of worship there; however, that doesn't mean it's a particularly sensitive or smart exercise of their rights.

And sometimes it is important for a powerful elected official to shut the fuck up. I don't really give two shits about religion but I did spend far too many days at Groun Zero digging in the aftermath of the islamic extremist attack. I still live in NYC and unless you do or have had someone MURDERED by islamic extremists then your opinion doesn't count for shit. The cordoba institute? Fuck them. There is no moslem community without a mosque in this area, no demand for a house of worship. I think I'd like to open a pork store next to every mosque in America, just because I have a right to do it wouldn't make it right.

[trish]

The cordoba institute? Fuck them.The Islamic community center that will be built two NY city blocks away from ground zero (not on ground zero nor within its formal boundaries) is not a mosque, though it will house a room for worship and prayer. Feisal Abdul Rauf, the creative force behind the community center is a Sufi. The Sufi have been known for centuries for their peaceful, poetic, artistic and mystical understanding of Islam. They have always been on the wrong side of the fanatics, and in recent times their mosques and communities have been under violent attack by the Taliban, the Wahhabi, and Al Qaeda. Opposing their presence two blocks away from ground zero is akin to opposing the construction of a Lutheran youth center two blocks from a public school on the grounds that some Catholic priests are child molesters. Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Hindi, atheists etc. were murdered on 9/11. But you don't want Muslims who are U.S. citizens to exercise their religious freedom because (in your opinion) it would be in bad taste for a Muslim to grieve at ground zero or have the healing presence of an Islamic place of prayer a couple of city blocks away. Fuck you.

[Chief1860]

Fuck you.[/QUOTE]
Well Trish, I certainly don't want to stop moslems from their worship of God in whatever form they want. However, if it is not a mosque as you say then what is the problem. If most people don't want it there why force it down the throats of New Yorkers that don't want it? If it is about peace then put it where it won't cause so much controversy? Why there if no one wants it? It's sort of like a criminal holding you down and making you say you want to give him your money. We will put this building here for peace even if it will only cause hate. The governor tried to help the builders find a new spot that wouldn't cause a stir. They told him no thanks. The janitor (yes a janitor) that bought the property had a little over 3 million to do so. (best paid janitor in the US) Why the BS surrounding the sale? By the way I didn't see you picking up any bodies in the rubble of the World Trade Center so in this - FUCK YOU!

[trish]

We will put this building here for peace even if it will only cause hate.Oh now I understand. They're forcing you to hate them. Poor little chief, can't control his own emotions. He has to hate Muslims because they're building a community center two blocks away from ground zero. (sob)


If most people don't want it there why force it down the throats of New Yorkers that don't want it?How about Murphreesboro, TN. is that far enough away? No. How about Sheboygan, WI.? Not far enough away? How about Temecula, CA.? I've seen this shit before and it's not about ground zero. The community center is two city blocks away, only fourteen stories high and not visible from ground zero. This is about religious and ethnic intolerance, plain and simple (well okay, some political hay making before the November elections too).


By the way I didn't see you picking up any bodies in the rubble of the World Trade Center I didn't see you there either. But whether you were there or not, we'll never know unless you want to give us your real name and some proof. 'That's the way anonymity works__you lose all your trump cards__sorry. But it's not like your alleged volunteerism could possibly trump the first amendment rights of free citizens, so why bring it up?

[NYBURBS]

And sometimes it is important for a powerful elected official to shut the fuck up. I don't really give two shits about religion but I did spend far too many days at Groun Zero digging in the aftermath of the islamic extremist attack. I still live in NYC and unless you do or have had someone MURDERED by islamic extremists then your opinion doesn't count for shit. The cordoba institute? Fuck them. There is no moslem community without a mosque in this area, no demand for a house of worship. I think I'd like to open a pork store next to every mosque in America, just because I have a right to do it wouldn't make it right.

Well, I do live in NY. I remember the day vividly, and I also remember volunteering down there when they asked for more cops. I didn't dig at the site, since they had that area highly restricted, but I remember passing it in a radio car, and I remember sitting with firefighters who had lost half their company. Moral decency and the rule of law require that we hold responsible the individuals who committed a particular act, not entire groups merely because of relation by blood or belief.

[Chief1860]

Oh now I understand. They're forcing you to hate them. Poor little chief, can't control his own emotions. He has to hate Muslims because they're building a community center two blocks away from ground zero. (sob)

How about Murphreesboro, TN. is that far enough away? No. How about Sheboygan, WI.? Not far enough away? How about Temecula, CA.? I've seen this shit before and it's not about ground zero. The community center is two city blocks away, only fourteen stories high and not visible from ground zero. This is about religious and ethnic intolerance, plain and simple (well okay, some political hay making before the November elections too).

I didn't see you there either. But whether you were there or not, we'll never know unless you want to give us your real name and some proof. 'That's the way anonymity works__you lose all your trump cards__sorry. But it's not like your alleged volunteerism could possibly trump the first amendment rights of free citizens, so why bring it up?

Trish; 1) sorry but I don't hate muslims. 2) I don't know what "shit" you have seen before but I do fail to see how a community center that elicits so much negativity from not just me but over 70% of Americans can be a good thing. If your family was murdered, would you want the murderer's family to move in next door to you as a gesture of peace? If so you are a better more enlightened person than I am and I commend you. 3) in your add as "Shante" you list your age as 23 which would have made you 12 in 2001. I guess your parents didn't let you come down to help out so you would not have seen me. Thanks for the edification regarding anonymity, believe what you want.
NYBurbs; don't you mean RMP?
The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an eestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speach, or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not say stick a community center up the ass of NY. Just wondering, how do trannys make out under Sharia law? No BS, does anyone know?

[JerseyMike]

Is there a right to build a "Muslim community center" there, sure there is, but is it stupid of them to build one there sure. Plus one should look at the big picture and how liberal policies of Europe and the Americas make us look weak to the Muslim world.

[hippifried]

This is America. We not only have a right to believe in omnipotent goblins, we have a right to be stupid. All this offence & outrage is just a personal problem with the offended & outraged. The government can get involved if an action can be shown to cause harm. That's not the case here. Nobody's obliged to kowtow to someone else's neuroses. Get over it.

[Chief1860]

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)

"It would be hard to think how Obama could have done a worse job on the Ground Zero mosque controversy. He took a position objectionable to the vast majority of Americans, within 24 hours chickened out, and then sent his press minions forward to assure his base and the Muslim World and its American community (over which he fawns incessantly) that he really does think we must accept a mosque that will produce nothing but pain for his countrymen and a sense of vindication to those who incinerated 3,000 Americans. It's bad policy, bad politics, and bad execution, with a side order of political cowardice." --columnist Jennifer Rubin

"You don't need to have been a lecturer in constitutional law like Obama to know that the mosque's backers have a right to build at Ground Zero. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly acknowledge that right. But unlike the president, when his fellow Americans think of the construction of a mosque on Ground Zero, their view doesn't begin and end with the First Amendment and local zoning ordinances. ... That Obama, as the leader of the nation, fails to recognize that the situation calls for more than a sophomoric analysis that could be rendered by any first-year law student is disquieting." --columnist Peter Kirsanow
"Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. ... This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable." --Barack Obama on Friday offering support for the nose-thumbing mosque near Ground Zero
"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there." --BO backtracking on Saturday after his original comments didn't poll well.

[Rogers]

Plus one should look at the big picture and how liberal policies of Europe and the Americas make us look weak to the Muslim world.

Weak? Like this you mean?
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

This muslim bashing is EXACTLY what those behind 9/11 wanted all along. America's response was predicted well in advance of the event. Welcome to "Dumbfuck Club".
http://exiledonline.com/american-dumbfucks-put-on-a-clown-show-for-billionaire-masters-called-dumbfuck-club-the-first-rule-of-dumbfuck-club-is-americans-cant-possibly-be-dumber-that-these-fucks-scene-1-banksters-s/
""I say that is a culture of vengeance," he said. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.""
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10905562

YouTube- Apocalypse Now - Kurtz Dies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGTe1vF679U)

[evilernie]

If your family was murdered, would you want the murderer's family to move in next door to you as a gesture of peace? If so you are a better more enlightened person than I am and I commend you.

This is a clear example what HATE looks like. Seriously, think about what you just said.

[Ben]

This is a clear example what HATE looks like. Seriously, think about what you just said.

It's irrational fear.... And Republicans -- like Palin and Gingrich -- are trying to capitalize on this irrational fear.
It's completely irrational to link ALL Muslims with terrorists, with terrorism.
And it reeks of outright racism.

[Ben]

Quoting from an article written by Robert Scheer: "Just ask Gen. David Petraeus, who is leading the war without end to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in Afghanistan, how helpful it is to the Taliban for American politicians to identify all Muslims with terrorism."

[Ben]

Even Jerry Springer weighs in on the controversy:

YouTube- Jerry Springer on Ground Zero Mosque Controversy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ7lrm70rAI)

[trish]

... when ... Americans think of the construction of a mosque on Ground Zero, their view doesn't begin and end with the First Amendment and local zoning ordinances.Why would Americans be thinking of the construction of a mosque ON ground zero? There is no such thing. No such thing being contemplated. The only reason Americans might be thinking of a mosque ON ground zero is because they are being persistently bombarded by that particular lie. There is no mosque on ground zero. No one is contemplating putting a mosque on ground zero. No one is even contemplating putting an Islamic community center on ground zero. The community center, which has been the target of so much bigotry and hatred, is not visible from any where in the ground zero memorial park. If not for the lie, this would not have been an issue.


...I do fail to see how a community center that elicits so much negativity from not just me but over 70% of Americans can be a good thing.The center doesn't elicit negativity, you do. The center is merely the current target of the right's cynical strategy to use bigotry, hatred, and religious intolerance to keep it's base fired up and politically active until November.


If your family was murdered, would you want the murderer's family to move in next door to you as a gesture of peace?You seriously think this is a legitimate analogy??? How about this one: if your child were molested by a Catholic priest, would you object to the construction of an Unitarian community center in your neighborhood?

[thombergeron]

The Cordoba House project was approved — unanimously — by the Community Board of Lower Manhattan. There are no zoning changes required. Soho Properties owns the building, in partnership with the Cordoba Institute and American Society for Muslim Advancement. So it's going in. Makes literally no difference at all what "most Americans" think. Isn't private property a a bitch? Talk about a debate about nothing.

If Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich want to talk themselves into irrelevance, where's the downside? They've already been working overtime to alienate the Hispanic population, which will be a majority of the population of the most populous state in the Union in about five years. The fake ACORN and New Black Panther controversies put the nail in the coffin of the GOP's relationship with the African-American population. And if you want quotes, here's a good one:

"Some GOP leaders like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are working overtime to ensure that we'll never get the Muslim vote back. The [Muslim] community is one that is looking for help on bread and butter issues: taxes, health care, the economy, education. But if you have party leaders coming out and trashing religious freedom issues, private property — these are things that people came to the party for. People are going to remember that." - Suhail Khan, Chairman of the Conservative Inclusion Coalition, and a former Bush political adviser.

White people are going to be a minority in this country in about 30 years -- within most of our lifetimes. If it were me, I probably wouldn't want to accept permanent demographic irrelevance in exchange for a couple of House seats in 2010, but I'm not a Republican.

[Ben]

As Amy Goodman (Amy Goodman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Amy_Goodman.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Amy_Goodman.jpg/220px-Amy_Goodman.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a2/Amy_Goodman.jpg/220px-Amy_Goodman.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Goodman)) writes: "Does anyone seriously say that there shouldn't be a Christian church near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing, just because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian?"

[Silcc69]

This 70% of the population thing is pretty amusing i'm sure 98% of the people in the south wanted to keep blacks as slaves to. I thought constitutional rights always trump popularity.

[thombergeron]

"But from a national security perspective, our leaders need to understand that no one is likely to be happier with the opposition to building a mosque than Osama Bin Laden. His next video script has just written itself."

-Ali Soufan, FBI counterterrorism specialist, 1997-2005.

Edited: Just to be clear, Soufan wrote this in Forbes yesterday, but was with the FBI between 1997-2005.

[Chief1860]

Córdoba was the capital of the Spanish Muslim dynasty of the Ummayads (756-1031). The Great Mosque of Córdoba (La Mezquita) was founded 785 CE. It was added to and expanded over the next two hundred years to make it the third largest structure in the Islamic world.

The prayer hall (23,400 square meters) is filled with almost 500 hundred slender columns and superimposed striped arches; a forest sprouting from the marble floor.

Previously the site had been occupied by a Christian church dedicated to Saint Vincent that had been built by the Visigoths around 500 CE. Before that, when Córdoba was a provincial capital in the Roman Empire, the site was occupied by a temple dedicated to Janus, the double-headed god of doorways and gates.

When Córdoba was captured by the Christian Spanish king of Castile, Ferdinand III, in the 13th century, the mosque reverted to a Christian sanctuary. Then in 1523, the local clergy, with the support of Emperor Charles V, built a cathedral in the middle of the mosque.

Cordoba is an interesting choice for a name, it would seem to be named after a place of conflict for muslims and christians. Not very peaceful or harmonious, but I am just an infidel.

[Chief1860]

This 70% of the population thing is pretty amusing i'm sure 98% of the people in the south wanted to keep blacks as slaves to. I thought constitutional rights always trump popularity.

It was a sad time in American history, but slavery was not unconstitutional during the time before or during the war. The 13th Amendment (prohibiting slavery) was not ratified until 1865. A 3/4 majority of all states is required to ratify an amendment. 70% is damn close don't you think?

BTW, most southerners did not keep slaves, believe what you will but slaves were an economic luxury in the south that only the rich could afford. The south was dominated by the Democratic party and it was the predominantly Republican north that eventually won. Most northerners were not for the abolishing slavery either, even Republican Lincoln didn't issue the emancipation proclamation until a year and a half after the start of the Civil War and that didn't free the slaves in northern states (yes there were slaves in northern states)

[thombergeron]

Córdoba was the capital of the Spanish Muslim dynasty of the Ummayads (756-1031).

That's fascinating. Of course, that was 1,000 years ago, so I'm not certain what relevance it has to the current discussion. If you're truly interested in what the Cordoba Initiative is all about, they do have a pretty extensive web site: http://www.cordobainitiative.org/.

Also, when you cut-and-paste someone else's work, I think it's traditional to acknowledge and link to the original: http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/cordoba.html


A 3/4 majority of all states is required to ratify an amendment. 70% is damn close don't you think?

Almost, but not quite. Three-quarters of the states' legislatures must ratify an amendment, but obviously, that isn't 3/4 of the population. But again, I'm not certain of the relevance. Are you proposing a Constitutional amendment to block construction of Park51? I think that would be a tough proposition. But I think the point that Silcc69 was making is that, in the modern nation-state, the rule of law trumps mob rule.

[Ben]

A recent CNN poll found two-thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque in the neighborhood around Ground Zero.

American blogger Arthur Silber writes:

"Ah, the voice of the people!

The people are an ignorant ass.

You have to admit that, in a sick, twisted kind of way, this is very damned funny. Here you have a country that endlessly proclaims its dedication to individual rights. But when controversies like this arise -- make that: especially when controversies like this arise -- people's immediate argument of choice is to appeal to public opinion polls. Two-thirds of Americans agree with me!

That is: two-thirds of Americans are profoundly ignorant and/or vicious bigots."

[thombergeron]

Good opportunity to post my favorite album cover OF ALL TIME:

http://www.sound-screen.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Black-Sabbath-Mob-Rules-Deluxe-Edition.jpg

[Ben]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdyV59378tU&feature=player_embedded#!

[Ben]

YouTube- Glenn Greenwald interviews Howard Dean (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqArhrLH4Cs&feature=player_embedded)

[JamesHunt]

It's completely irrational to link ALL Muslims with terrorists, with terrorism.
And it reeks of outright racism.

what's racism gotta do with the argument?

[NYBURBS]

NYBurbs; don't you mean RMP?


No, city cops call it an RMP, but it's not necessarily the term used elsewhere. In fact, elsewhere most just call it a patrol car.

[yodajazz]

...The center doesn't elicit negativity, you do. The center is merely the current target of the right's cynical strategy to use bigotry, hatred, and religious intolerance to keep it's base fired up and politically active until November.

...

So true, so true. Al Queda's main purpose of the attack on 9/11, was to get Americans, to hate all Muslims, thereby helping to unite all Muslims behind his views, which represented only 10% Muslims. The right does not care that it is helping Bin Laden accomplish his goals, because they profit from it, in politics and other ways. It was used to justify the attack on Iraq, by implying that they had something to do with 9/11, when it was not true.

Now I'm seeing news about the resurgence of the rumor that Obama is Muslim. I wonder who's behind this?! Instead of legitimate debate about policy, I see lots of mind control techniques being used by the right, based upon fear. Funny thing, in the Bible it states that "we were not given a spirit of fear", yet the right has no trouble claiming that they support the Bible.

[russtafa]

we will loose this war/invasion to the muslims thanks to the liberals amonst us

[evilernie]

we will loose this war/invasion to the muslims thanks to the liberals amonst us

There is no war. If Christians consider this as a war, instead of demonizing other faiths, why don't they show the world that Christianity is the true religion. The animosity towards others is driving people away from believing your preachings.

[Ben]

Democratic Hypocrisy on the Mosque

Mean Gov. Dean

By JOSHUA FRANK

There has been a bit of an uproar made over Howard Dean’s recent comments on the proposed cultural center to be built near Ground Zero. Joining Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Dean is the second high profile Democrat to oppose the building.

If you missed it, here is what Howard Dean told WABC radio earlier this week, "We have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims. That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion,” said Dean. “So I think a good reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.”

Dean, the former chair of Democratic National Committee, joined the chorus of hate-filled Conservatives who have come out against the so-called Mosque, which isn’t really a Mosque at all. Some may be stunned that one of the more progressive members of the Democratic Party has joined forces with the likes of Sarah Palin and Karl Rove, but Dean is far from progressive.

Six years ago I wrote a little book called Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, which dedicated a good portion to Howard Dean’s gruesome record as Governor of Vermont, his rise to prominence on the heels of the grassroots while running for president, his disastrous fall from power and the symbolic role he was awarded by the Democratic elites who feared his legions of followers.

In all the dirt I uncovered on Gov. Dean I learned few things. First and foremost the man propped up by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was far from progressive himself.

On civil liberties, Dean had a disgusting track record, going out of his way to crackdown on legitimate dissent in his home state. On foreign policy, Dean proved to be an opportunist and was far from an anti-war candidate. On health care, Dean, a doctor, refused to back legitimate reform. On the economy, Dean was a freewheeling neoliberal.

The list was indeed endless and the point of the exercise was to show just how far right the alleged left wing of the Democratic Party had lurched over the decades.

Such was the setting that allowed the rise of Barack Obama and the legions of supporters that ushered him into office two years ago. In the neoconservative age of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney a smooth talking Obama was deemed a radical departure from politics as usual. Many in fact saw Obama as a progressive candidate, despite a somewhat wretched record as a U.S. Senator and his war-mongering attitudes he espoused along the campaign trail.

And the result was quite predictable once he was elected: more war, more civil liberties infringements, failed health-care reform, free-market energy solutions and more Wall Street bailouts. Truth be told, Obama has brought about as much change as his Republican opponent had hoped for.

As such, Howard Dean, with his anti-Mosque sentiment in tow, may well be angling to enter the electoral fold in six years labeling himself a moderate, Muslim-hating Democrat whose cautious following can save his weakened party from its Tea Party foes.

If anything, Howard Dean’s recent comments about the Muslim center being built near Ground Zero ought to be catalogued up right next to Rand Paul’s disgusting view of monumental Civil Rights Act and Sarah Palin’s belief that the BP oil explosion was the fault of those damn environmentalists.

President Obama and other leading Democrats may pay lip service to Muslim civil rights and support the Ground Zero building, but what good is their rhetoric if they simply turn around and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and order drones to murder innocent Muslims in the Middle East?

Howard Dean’s opinion should not come as much of a surprise. What should, however, is that people are not flooding the streets in opposition to the White House’s bitter hypocrisy on the issue.
Joshua Frank is author of Amazon.com: Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (9781567513103): Joshua Frank, Jeffrey St. Clair: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KR1i67QnL.@@AMEPARAM@@51KR1i67QnL (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567513107/counterpunchmaga), published by AK Press.

[Rogers]

Now I'm seeing news about the resurgence of the rumor that Obama is Muslim. I wonder who's behind this?!

Cui bono?

There are still wars to fight with Iran, Syria, and Saudi, yoda. The "Clash of Civilizations" (Samuel Hungtington) was "predicted" almost a decade before 9/11. It's all been hyped just like the Cold War was, and still has to be. Far too many are still assuming it was Bin Laden behind 9/11.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26185.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26164.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23460.htm
"The theory was originally formulated in a 1992 lecture[1] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-0) at the American Enterprise Institute (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute)" ;)
The Clash of Civilizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Clash_civilizations.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Clash civilizations.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Clash_civilizations.jpg/200px-Clash_civilizations.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/b/b9/Clash_civilizations.jpg/200px-Clash_civilizations.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24428.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26174.htm
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/08/01/anti-defamers-defame-muslims/

YouTube- Orly Taitz is working for Benjamin Netayahu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Amljmaamj0)

YouTube- Fake Al Qaeda Actors EXPOSED! Adam Gadahn & Yousef al-Khattab (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0)

[Rogers]

They came first...

YouTube- Keith Olbermann Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque' - 08/16/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0)

[Ben]

I didn't write this blog.... But here it is anyway.

I do like Ron Paul on some of his stances... like ending the inane/costly/moronic drug war. (He's firmly against the drug war. That doesn't mean he favors drug use. He, like I, believes it should be treated as a health and medical problem. Like tobacco and alcohol.) And I like his position on the scariness of outstretched executive power and his viewpoint on the war(s).


BELOW IS THE BLOG -- :)


Ron Paul on the Park51 Community Center Demagogues (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100820005843/en):
“It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the
political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we
do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become
oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators.
Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of
government in a free society—protecting liberty."

At least he's consistent, unlike the vast majority of fake conservatives parading around on this issue. And although Paul is halfway insane on some issues, he does show where there could be a lot of common ground between real, actual conservatives and real liberals--the common ground being a respect for the constitution (and also that the Bush Neocons were/are evil incarnate).

So, will big-government Republicans listen to Ron Paul, or will they continue to listen to the likes of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich?



Yeah, afraid you're probably right.

[Amsterdamage]

although as a European i'm not fully integrated into US politics, but nevertheless i am pretty much coz i follow it as closely as i can, and i must say, since the first time i heard the guy about 2 years ago, Ron Paul seems to be the only sane, rational and least corrupt politician in the whole country. but then of course he's the one getting written off as the crackpot. go figure.

[Ben]

although as a European i'm not fully integrated into US politics, but nevertheless i am pretty much coz i follow it as closely as i can, and i must say, since the first time i heard the guy about 2 years ago, Ron Paul seems to be the only sane, rational and least corrupt politician in the whole country. but then of course he's the one getting written off as the crackpot. go figure.

YouTube- Ron Paul to Obama: Don't Assassinate American Citizens! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_7W0U_BuVU)

[Ben]

although as a European i'm not fully integrated into US politics, but nevertheless i am pretty much coz i follow it as closely as i can, and i must say, since the first time i heard the guy about 2 years ago, Ron Paul seems to be the only sane, rational and least corrupt politician in the whole country. but then of course he's the one getting written off as the crackpot. go figure.

YouTube- Ron Paul Blasts the War on Drugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3SYWDkWyXA)

[Ben]

http://images.salon.com/img/branded_features/glenn_greenwald.png (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html)


Friday, May 28, 2010 10:29 ET Who are the real "crazies" in our political culture?

By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy/md_horiz.jpg Reuters/Sean Gardner
Texas Congressman Ron Paul

(updated below - Update II)
One of the favorite self-affirming pastimes of establishment Democratic and Republican pundits is to mock anyone and everyone outside of the two-party mainstream as crazy, sick lunatics. That serves to bolster the two political parties as the sole arbiters of what is acceptable: anyone who meaningfully deviates from their orthodoxies are, by definition, fringe, crazy losers. Ron Paul is one of those most frequently smeared in that fashion, and even someone like Howard Dean, during those times when he stepped outside of mainstream orthodoxy, was similarly smeared as literally insane (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/04/26/charles-krauthammer-the-perils-of-pundit-psychiatry/), and still is (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/has_howard_dean_lost_his_mind.html).
Last night, the crazy, hateful, fringe lunatic Ron Paul voted to repeal the Clinton-era Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (or, more accurately, he voted to allow the Pentagon to repeal it if and when it chooses to (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59356)) -- while 26 normal, sane, upstanding, mainstream House Democrats voted to retain that bigoted policy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100528/ap_on_el_ho/us_rollcall_gays_military_1). Paul explained today that he changed his mind on DADT (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/ron_paul_constituents_changed.html) because gay constituents of his who were forced out of the military convinced him of the policy's wrongness -- how insane and evil he is!
In 2003, the crank lunatic-monster Ron Paul vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml), while countless sane, normal, upstanding, good-hearted Democrats -- including the current Vice President (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237), Secretary of State (http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=147), Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and many of the progressive (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/11/the-trouble-with-extremists/46901/) pundits (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012452.php) who love to scorn Ron Paul as insane -- supported (http://yglesias.blogspot.com/2002_05_26_archive.html#77102836) the monstrous attack (http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_02/000496.php) on that country.
In 2008, the sicko Ron Paul opposed (http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/25/ron-paul-denounces-the-new-fisa-bill/1207/) the legalization of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program and the granting of retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, while the Democratic (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168) Congress (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml) -- led by the current U.S. President, his Chief of Staff, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Majority Leader -- overwhelmingly voted it into law. Paul, who apparently belongs in a mental hospital, vehemently condemned America's use of torture from the start (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst061404.htm), while many leading Democrats were silent (or even supportive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html)), and mainstream, sane Progressive Newsweek and MSNBC pundit Jonathan Alter was explicitly calling for its use (http://www.newsweek.com/2001/11/04/time-to-think-about-torture.html). Compare Paul's February, 2010 emphatic condemnation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJZOq8NDFrA) of America's denial of habeas corpus, lawless detentions and presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens to what the current U.S. Government is doing (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90007124).
The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-18/ron-paul-end-the-war-in-afghanistan/), while the Democratic Congress continues to fund (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/98305-dems-prepare-to-pass-war-spending-measure-without-gop-support) it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=29151). Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation's insane, devastating and oppressive "drug war" (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul1.html) -- that imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans with a vastly disparate racial impact and continuously incinerates both billions of dollars and an array of basic liberties -- while virtually no Democrat dares speak against it. Paul crusades against limitless corporate control of government and extreme Federal Reserve secrecy, while the current administration works to preserve it. He was warning of the collapsing dollar (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/ron-pauls-prescience/66303/) and housing bubble (http://ezinearticles.com/?Ron-Paul-Predicts-a-Collapse-of-the-Housing-Market&id=727686) at a time when our Nation's Bipartisan Cast of Geniuses were oblivious. In sum, behold the embodiment of clinical, certifiable insanity: anti-DADT, anti-Iraq-war, anti-illegal-domestic-surveillance, anti-drug-war, anti-secrecy, anti-corporatism, anti-telecom-immunity, anti-war-in-Afghanistan.
There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html). But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties (just look at the condition of the U.S. if you doubt that; and note how Ron Paul's anti-abortion views render him an Untouchable for progressives while Harry Reid's anti-abortion views permit him to be a Progressive hero and even Senate Majority Leader). My point isn't that Ron Paul is not crazy; it's that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as "crazy." Indeed, those who support countless insane policies and/or who support politicians in their own party who do -- from the Iraq War to the Drug War, from warrantless eavesdropping and denial of habeas corpus to presidential assassinations and endless war in the Muslim world -- love to spit the "crazy" label at anyone who falls outside of the two-party establishment.
* * * * *

[Ben]

PART TWO OF GG article:


This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques -- standard Democrats and Republicans -- is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability. But regardless of what drives this behavior, it's irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.
I've been writing for several years (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/print.html) about this destructive dynamic (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/04/crazy): whereby people who embrace clearly crazy ideas and crazy politicians anoint themselves the Arbiters of Sanity simply because they're good mainstream Democrats and Republicans and because the objects of their scorn are not. For me, the issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with how the "crazy" smear is defined and applied as a weapon in our political culture. Perhaps the clearest and most harmful example was the way in which the anti-war view was marginalized, even suppressed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58127-2004Aug11?language=printer), in the run-up to the attack on Iraq because the leadership of both parties supported the war, and the anti-war position was thus inherently the province of the Crazies. That's what happens to any views not endorsed by either of the two parties.
Last week in Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier-than-anyone-else-in-d-c.html), in the wake of the national fixation on Rand Paul, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a superb article on this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Rand Paul's questioning of the Civil Rights Act (and other positions Paul holds) are "wacky" and deeply wrong, Friedersdorf writes: Forced to name the "craziest" policy favored by American politicians, I'd say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable. Asked about the most "extreme," I'd cite the invasion of Iraq, a war of choice that has cost many billions of dollars and countless innocent lives. The "kookiest" policy is arguably farm subsidies for corn, sugar, and tobacco -- products that people ought to consume less, not more. . . .
If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, any American living abroad whom he designates as an enemy combatant? Or that Joe Lieberman wants to strip Americans of their citizenship not when they are convicted of terrorist activities, but upon their being accused and designated as enemy combatants?

He goes on to note that "these disparaging descriptors are never applied to America's policy establishment, even when it is proved ruinously wrong, whereas politicians who don't fit the mainstream Democratic or Republican mode, such as libertarians, are mocked almost reflexively in these terms, if they are covered at all." Indeed, this is true of anyone who deviates at all -- even in tone -- from the two-party orthodoxy, as figures as disparate as Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean or even Alan Grayson (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/03/bachmann_grayson) will be happy to tell you.
* * * * *
The reason this is so significant -- the reason I'm writing about it again -- is because forced adherence to the two parties' orthodoxies, forced allegiance to the two parties' establishments, is the most potent weapon in status quo preservation. That's how our political debates remain suffocatingly narrow, the permanent power factions in Washington remain firmly in control, the central political orthodoxies remain largely unchallenged. Neither party nor its loyalists are really willing to undermine the prevailing political system because that's the source of their power. And neither parties' loyalists are really willing to oppose serious expansions or abuses of government power when their side is in control, and no serious challenge is therefore ever mounted; the only ones who are willing to do so are the Crazies.
Thus, for the two parties to ensure that they, and only they, are recognized as Sane, Mainstream voices is to ensure, above all else, the perpetuation of status quo power. As Noah Millman insightfully pointed out (http://theamericanscene.com/2010/05/26/setting-priorities) this week, those on the Right and Left devoted to civil liberties and limitations on executive power find more common cause with each other than with either of the two parties' establishments. The same is true on a wide array of issues, including limitations on corporate influence in Washington and opposition to the National Security State.
That's why the greatest sin, the surest path to marginalized Unseriousness, is to stray from the safe confines of loyalty to the Democratic or Republican establishments. To our political class, Treason is defined as anyone who forms an alliance, even on a single issue, with someone in the Crazy Zone. That's because breaking down those divisive barriers can be uniquely effective in enabling ideologically diverse citizens to join together to weaken power factions, as Alan Grayson proved when he teamed up with Ron Paul to force the uber-secret Fed to submit to at least some version of an audit (backed by several leading progressives joining with Grover Norquist and other Crazies to support it (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coalition-calls-for-an-audit-of-the-federal-reserve-before-bernanke-is-reappointed-as-chair-78372177.html)), or as Al Gore proved when he brought substantial attention to Bush's war on the Constitution by forming an alliance with Bob Barr and other right-wing libertarians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html). Preventing (or at least minimizing) those types of ad hoc alliances through use of the Crazy smear ensures a divided and thus weakened citizenry against entrenched political power in the form of the two parties. Obviously, the more stigmatized it is to stray from two-party loyalty, the stronger the two parties (and those who most benefit from their dominance (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html)) will be.
If one wants to argue that Ron Paul and others like him hold specific views that are crazy, that's certainly reasonable. But those who make that claim virtually always hold views at least as crazy, and devote themselves to one of the two political parties that has, over and over, embraced insane, destructive and warped policies of their own. The reason the U.S. is in the shape it's in isn't because Ron Paul and the rest of the so-called "crazies" have been in charge; they haven't been, at all. The policies that have prevailed are the ones which the two parties have endorsed. So where does the real craziness lie?

[Ben]

Quoting Glenn Greenwald from his blog (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/23/park51/index.html): (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/23/park51/index.html%29:) "Opponents of the Park51 Islamic community center held a rally yesterday in Lower Manhattan, and a 4-minute video, posted below, reveals the true sentiments behind this campaign. It has little to do with The Hallowed Ground of the World Trade Center -- that's just the pretext -- and everything to do with animosity toward Muslims."

YouTube- Anti-muslim Rally at Ground Zero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaNRWMN-F4&feature=player_embedded)

[Ben]

Glenn Greenwald's blog:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[Ben]

Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on the mosque

By Justin Elliott (http://www.salon.com/author/justin_elliott/index.html)
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/23/ron_and_rand_paul_on_mosque/md_horiz.jpg AP/Reuters
Rand Paul and Ron Paul

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is out with a strong new statement going after conservative critics of the Islamic community center near ground zero that implicitly criticizes his own son, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.
The background here is that Rand Paul has been on the record several times (http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/18/rand-paul-and-the-mosque) saying that, while he doesn't support any federal intervention, he does not think the so-called "ground zero mosque" should be built. "I think reconciliation is best promoted by -- instead of having a multi-million dollar mosque -- maybe having a multi-million dollar donation to the memorial site, would be better for all," he told (http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/exclusive-rand-paul-talks-to-thedc-about-the-ground-zero-mosque-the-media-and-president-obama/) the Daily Caller. (His opponent, Democrat Jack Conway, has said (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/114985-conway-wants-mosque-project-located-elsewhere) much the same.)
Now here's a taste of Ron Paul's scathing statement on the matter, which slams the position taken by many conservatives, including his son:

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”
Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
The whole statement is worth a read (http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/), and it highlights another issue that, unlike his father, Rand Paul has been conspicuously laconic on: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Ben]

More from the rational Ron Paul:


"In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. . . Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam -- the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. . . .
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. . . . . This is all about hate and Islamaphobia."

[Ben]

http://images.salon.com/img/branded_features/glenn_greenwald.png (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html)


Sunday, Aug 29, 2010 08:30 ET Anti-mosque sentiment rages far from Ground Zero (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/29/mosques/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald
One of the most under-reported political stories is the increasingly vehement, nationwide movement -- far from Ground Zero -- to oppose new mosques and Islamic community centers. These ugly campaigns (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_opposition) are found across the country (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202895.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010082202944), in every region (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/nyregion/11mosque.html?_r=1), and extend far beyond the warped extremists (http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Angry-protesters-descend-on-mosque-606515.php) who are doing things such as sponsoring "Burn a Quran Day." (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/20/ahmed.quran.burning/index.html) And now, from CBS News last night (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/28/national/main6814690.shtml), we have this:

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson
Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb.
Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is being ruled as arson. . . .
The chair of the center's planning committee, Essim Fathy, said he drove to the site at around 5:30 a.m. Saturday morning after he was contacted by the sheriff's department.
"Our people and community are so worried of what else can happen," said Fathy. "They are so scared" . . .
Opponents of a new Islamic center say they believe the mosque will be more than a place of prayer; they are afraid the 15-acre site that was once farmland will be turned into a terrorist training ground for Muslim militants bent on overthrowing the U.S. government.
"They are not a religion. They are a political, militaristic group," Bob Shelton, a 76-year-old retiree who lives in the area, told The Associated Press.
Shelton was among several hundred demonstrators who recently wore "Vote for Jesus" T-shirts and carried signs that said "No Sharia law for USA!," referring to the Islamic code of law.
Others took their opposition further, spray painting a sign announcing the "Future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro" and tearing it up.
Earlier this summer opponents criticized the planned mosque at hearings held by the Rutherford County Commission, as supporters held prayer vigils.
At one such prayer vigil, WTVF reported opponents speaking out against construction.
"No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don't want it. I don't want them here," Evy Summers said to WTVF. "Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity."



Continue reading (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/29/mosques/index.html)


The arsonists undoubtedly will be happy to tell you how much they hate Terrorism. And how there's a War on Christianity underway in the U.S. The harm from these actions are not merely the physical damage they cause, but also the well-grounded fear it imposes on a minority of the American population. If you launch a nationwide, anti-Islamic campaign in Lower Manhattan based on the toxic premise that Muslims generally are responsible for 9/11 -- and spend a decade expanding American wars on one Muslim country after the next -- this is the inevitable, and obviously dangerous, outcome.

[Silcc69]

Yeah there has a been huge upheaval with these Mosque's in Middle TN. I think there are liek 800 churches in Nashville alone and maybe maybe 8 mosques here too its all pretty amusing though.

[Ben]

Radio host Thom Hartmann interviews Ron Paul:
YouTube- Ron Paul: NYC Mosque Demagogues Peddle Hate to Justify War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsK0UiVr_s4)

[russtafa]

muslims in their countries treat christians worse than dogs but the liberals amongst us expect us to open our arms to these dogs

[yodajazz]

muslims in their countries treat christians worse than dogs but the liberals amongst us expect us to open our arms to these dogs
How will behavior change unless someone sets a good example? Should we try to emulate the behavior of the worse examples in humanity? Also taking away human status (i.e. "dogs")is the first step to treat people inhumanely. Also tell me what good is to come of potentially billions of people fighting one another? Is it our duty to help the Islamic millitants accomplish their goals? Understanding is more potent than bombs.

[Faldur]

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/Chamberlain%2BMunich.JPEG

[Ben]

muslims in their countries treat christians worse than dogs but the liberals amongst us expect us to open our arms to these dogs

Explain Ron Paul's position then? I mean, he's a conservative, a Republican. He's taking the opposing view of Republicans and conservatives. Because he's being rational and sensible and thoughtful.... The kind of conservatives I like.
Remember Noam Chomsky calls himself a conservative.
For true conservatism, well, you gotta go back a hundred years. Conservatism was about a rejection of concentrated power (be it government or corporate) and it was also about morality and traditional values. Conservatism, true conservatism. You know, sensible and rational.

YouTube- Ron Paul Right On Ground Zero 'Mosque' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wur6BH5i0so)

[russtafa]

liberals love muslims so much they should go and live with these creatures and find out how they get along. saudi arabia is a fun place

[hippifried]

Thios whole thing is a non-issue. Shame on the general media for allowing themselves to get played & letting this get out of hand.

[Ben]

YouTube - Michael Moore in Real Time with Bill Maher (Se 8 Ep 17, September 17, 2010) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEiSi-hsyqQ)

[Faldur]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WoIE9xf9-Jo/S_WjKdRzo3I/AAAAAAAABEk/EF2-QOmaYt8/s400/Mohammed.jpg

[PomonaCA]

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/Chamberlain%2BMunich.JPEG

Quoted for truth

[Amsterdamage]

Bill Maher....smh

@Ben: Ron Paul is a republican the way republicans USED to be (and should be, imo). The republicans of nowadays have actually nothing much in common anymore with the initial 'republicanism'. And yes, i believe Ron Paul is one of the few sensible and rational politicians around over there. Too bad he's being ridiculed, but that's what happen to people who speak the truth. At least it beats getting killed :)

[Ben]

Bill Maher....smh

@Ben: Ron Paul is a republican the way republicans USED to be (and should be, imo). The republicans of nowadays have actually nothing much in common anymore with the initial 'republicanism'. And yes, i believe Ron Paul is one of the few sensible and rational politicians around over there. Too bad he's being ridiculed, but that's what happen to people who speak the truth. At least it beats getting killed :)

As well, Ron Paul is principled. And independent. He receives ample amounts of criticism because he does stray from the irrational and bellicose Republican Party line.
Organizations, like government, are going to disdain independence. Such is the nature of government. And ya wanna isolate those who display any degree of independence.

[Ben]

YouTube - WAR IS A RACKET! Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ITXSi4zLyk)

YouTube - 10/28/09 Ron Paul: Sanctions on Iran are an Act of War! (Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYX9xhRi_to)

[russtafa]

you dont to pat a snarling ,snapping dog and we should not try to appease these radical muslims

[Amsterdamage]

spot on Ben. couldn't have said it better.

[hippifried]

you dont to pat a snarling ,snapping dog and we should not try to appease these radical muslims
You also don't keep kicking the dog until it starts & keeps snarling & snapping. There's no good reason or justification for going out of one's way to be an asshole. We shouldn't be trying to appease the rabid anti-Muslims either.

[yodajazz]

Quoted for truth

Quoted for inacurate comparison. Are you saying that we should not be trying to treat Muslims in the world with the respect and dignity that we would ask for ourselves? A segment of Islam is the enemy. A sensible strategy is to not help your enemy recruit new members, but to divide and isolate your enemies.

Your picture proves my point. Too many people are stuck in the warfare of the past. Hitler had visible armies, borders, etc. Guerilla warfare is a different animal. You can't bomb your way out of this type of warfare, because killing non involved people ads sympathy to insurgents. Modern warfare is about psychology as much as it is combat operations. It's about the will of the general population to support or not support military efforts.

People that talk about "appeasement" is mental manipulation, but based upon outmoded concepts. Republican strategy has been to accuse those who advocate the use modern combat strategy, (like Democrats), of weakness. Its actually effective as it is deceptive. Who needs truth, when you can have power.

[russtafa]

the enemy is a fifth column and they have already infultrated thru immigration

[yodajazz]

the enemy is a fifth column and they have already infultrated thru immigration

It is the responsibility of our governments to protect us. But of course, that is secondary to making tax cuts permanent for the group of people who already gained a greater percentage of the wealth.

[hippifried]

the enemy is a fifth column and they have already infultrated thru immigration
Yeah, those damn Irish.

[russtafa]

yes those Irish carpet kissers

[hippifried]

yes those Irish carpet kissers
Only when they kiss enough bottles.

[Rogers]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/24/gaffney-mosque-website/
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Gaffney_Frank
Frank Gaffney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Frank_Gaffney.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Frank_Gaffney.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/9/94/Frank_Gaffney.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney)

Fucking NeoCons!!!

[Rogers]

"THE WAR WHICH IS COMING
Is not the first one...
WHEN IT COMES TO MARCHING MANY DO NOT
KNOW
That their enemy is marching at their head.
The voice which gives them their orders
Is their enemy's voice and
The man who speaks of the enemy
Is the enemy himself."
- Bertolt Brecht
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/from-a-german-war-primer/

"On March 12, 2009, Gaffney appeared on MSNBC (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/MSNBC)'s Hardball with Chris Matthews (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Hardball_with_Chris_Matthews) and accused Iraqi President (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Iraqi_President) Saddam Hussein (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) of being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing) and the Oklahoma City bombing (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing), "There is also circumstantial evidence, not proven by any means, but nonetheless some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence of Saddam Hussein's Iraq being involved with the people who perpetrated both the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and even the Oklahoma City bombing."[22] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=48982#cite_note-21)"
Frank Gaffney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Frank_Gaffney.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Frank_Gaffney.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/9/94/Frank_Gaffney.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney)

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it..."
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html
"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked..."
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/naturally_the_common_people_don-t_want_war/339098.html

[yodajazz]

"THE WAR WHICH IS COMING
Is not the first one...
WHEN IT COMES TO MARCHING MANY DO NOT
KNOW
That their enemy is marching at their head.
The voice which gives them their orders
Is their enemy's voice and
The man who speaks of the enemy
Is the enemy himself."
- Bertolt Brecht
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/from-a-german-war-primer/

"On March 12, 2009, Gaffney appeared on MSNBC (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/MSNBC)'s Hardball with Chris Matthews (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Hardball_with_Chris_Matthews) and accused Iraqi President (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Iraqi_President) Saddam Hussein (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) of being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing) and the Oklahoma City bombing (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing), "There is also circumstantial evidence, not proven by any means, but nonetheless some pretty compelling circumstantial evidence of Saddam Hussein's Iraq being involved with the people who perpetrated both the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and even the Oklahoma City bombing."[22] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=48982#cite_note-21)"
Frank Gaffney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney)

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it..."
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html
"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked..."
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/naturally_the_common_people_don-t_want_war/339098.html

Great post! Wow this Gaffney is heavy duty. Upon reading the Wiki article, this jumped out at me;

: Project for the New American Century (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)
Along with a number of figures who later assumed leading positions in the George W. Bush administration (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration), Gaffney was one of 25 signatories[8] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-7) of the June 3, 1997 "Statement of Principles" from the Project for the New American Century (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century),[9] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-8) an educational and political advocacy organization whose stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[10] (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#cite_note-9)

One the conclusions of PNAC was that the US should attack Iraq, in order to expand it's global power. Mind you, this was in 1997, four years before 9/11. But I do wonder why there weren't more people pointing this out, during the 'buildup' of publicity to the attack on Iraq? They even took out a newpaper ad in the Washington Post in 1998, urging Clinton to attack Iraq, I have been told.

And your other part of the post, including the quote from Brecht, is so true. Fear gives the military industrial complex a blank check, to create billion dollar war toys. With all the talk about government spending, who out there is talking about looking at the military budget?

The public need to be educated about strategies in guerilla warfare. Making all Muslims the enemy, actually palys into the radicals hands. Its better to have an occaisional homegrown terrorist than 1/5 ot the world's population, be your enemy. Any sensible strategy would be to isolate your potential enemies. But too many people are profitting from keeping the public in ignorance and fear. And to be honest, it is the Republicans who are profitting the most.

[yodajazz]

So one more thing, relating directly back to the subject of this thread. The anti Muslim sentiment around "Ground Zero", plays directly into the hands of the stated enemy's recruitment. However, certain elements try to say, that treating Muslims with dignity, or giving them legal rights, is a sign of weakness. Political positioning, is often deceptive. A really good strategy is for the US to live up to it's own principles, of human rights, not keeping people locked up for years, without trials.

[hippifried]

Just to clarify:
Nobody's "giving" Muslims "legal rights". Rights aren't something that can be given or taken away. The US legally recognizes certain rights, & as long as someone's here, the same rights apply. We can't control the recognition processes of other nations, but if someone's here, & not in the employ of a foreign government, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the US & whatever State they happen to be in.

Under the Geneva Conventions, you can hold prisoners for the duration of the conflict without trial. The problem here is the lawyers were looking for loopholes, so nobody got POW status. If you're accusing someone of a crime, & have them in custody, you've assumed jurisdiction. Therefore all civil rights apply, or should. This current war has turned the law on its head. Everybody just makes it up as they go along & then bogs down the courts in minutiae, one point at a time. If the guys at Guantanamo had POW status, none of this nonsense would be necessary, & we could ship them all back home after July.

[Rogers]

"Pamela Geller is on a mission to save the free world and she's doing it, on this occasion, in a bikini as she writhes around in the sea.

"Here I am in my chador, my burka," Geller jokes to the camera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TG7DTOkU-s&gt) in one of a string of video blogs campaigning against Islamic "world domination" shortly before kicking back in the waves."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/20/rightwing-blogs-islam-america
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/02/pamela-geller-watch-5-israel-should-nuke-tehran-mecca-and-medina/

Look at her picture on the Wiki page about her. ;)
"Pamela Geller with former IDF (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) chief of staff,..."
Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Yaalon.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Yaalon.jpg/220px-Yaalon.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/8a/Yaalon.jpg/220px-Yaalon.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller)
YouTube - Pamela Geller Speaks NYC Pro-Israel rally Against Obama's Anti-Israel Policies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMVIDK3gjn4)

[Rogers]

One the conclusions of PNAC was that the US should attack Iraq, in order to expand it's global power. Mind you, this was in 1997, four years before 9/11. But I do wonder why there weren't more people pointing this out, during the 'buildup' of publicity to the attack on Iraq? They even took out a newpaper ad in the Washington Post in 1998, urging Clinton to attack Iraq, I have been told.

Oh, many were pointing it out, yoda. It was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Don't listen to the American MSM!

From the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3021001.stm
YouTube - Panorama - The War Party pt3/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AgyYtn7aOc)
YouTube - Declassified: Massive Israeli manipulation of US media exposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kureFeGmoDI)
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
YouTube - A Clean Break and A Pretext for War, read James Bamford (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNN9cMvnHdc)

[russtafa]

Americans are so good at starting wars but hopeless at finishing them .They seem to lack the resolve ,KOREA,VETNAM

[hippifried]

Finishing wars isn't the point anymore. It's all about keeping the perpetual war going.

Country Joe said it:

"Come on Wall Street, don't move slow
why this is war a-go-go
there's plenty good money to be made
by supplyin' the army with the tools of the trade
just hope & pray that if they drop the bomb
they drop it on ___(enter this week's enemy here) ____."

~Country Joe & the Fish, from "Fixin' to Die Rag"~

[russtafa]

Finishing a war is the only reason for starting one and America takes one on and never finishes .China or even Samoa could probably beat them lol

[Faldur]

Save the man who pisses off Samoa..

[notdrunk]

Finishing a war is the only reason for starting one and America takes one on and never finishes .China or even Samoa could probably beat them lol

The only funny thing is that you don't know history.

[Rogers]

The Hate Mongers Among Us
"As the “how” of hate mongering becomes transparent, its common source will become apparent. With transparency comes accountability."
http://criminalstate.com/2010/09/the-hate-mongers-among-us-first-in-a-4-part-series/

Well worth a read if you want to understand what's going on. Jeff Goldberg is mentioned in part 2, Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller in part 3. All have the same agenda:
"Absent this sustained provocation (43 years and counting), hatred might subside and peace may become a possibility. That’s a danger Tel Aviv works hard to avoid."
Jeffrey Goldberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Goldberg)
Daniel Pipes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Daniel_Pipes.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Daniel_Pipes.jpg/230px-Daniel_Pipes.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/14/Daniel_Pipes.jpg/230px-Daniel_Pipes.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes)

[Niccolo]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Q2bN5ytx4)

[Niccolo]

Oh and btw Rogers, read the koran & the hadith. You'll find real hate mongering in those pages, I assure you. After you've done that, cast your mind back to the mass murders committed on 9/11, in Madrid, Bali, London , etc. etc. Those murders were not carried out in the name of love or peace. They were done in the service of a religion. It's name is Islam.

Read this. (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

.

[russtafa]

niccolo you tell it how it is and dont bury your head in the sand like others

[african1]

Oh and btw Rogers, read the koran & the hadith. You'll find real hate mongering in those pages, I assure you. After you've done that, cast your mind back to the mass murders commited on 9/11, in Madrid, Bali, London , etc. etc. Those murders were not carried out in the name of love or peace. They were done in the service of a religion. It's name is Islam.

Read this. (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

.

They are all crazy. It's just that some are more active than others.

YouTube - 'Jesus Camp' divides America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eERDW1d5joQ)

YouTube - Jesus Camp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fq4wZ_lQjc&feature=related)

YouTube - Crazy Religious Lady On Fox News...AGAIN!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5FIMpHbgU&feature=related)

YouTube - Jewish Hate Caught on tape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hefIti-uFUo&feature=related)

YouTube - Jewish Attack Morgan Spurlock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApGnV4pYhug)

YouTube - Crazy Christians disrupt Hindu Senate invocation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAM5PFB7Lc)

[african1]

YouTube - U.S. State Senator: Earth Is 6,000 Years Old (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVAzYIbh2Qg)

YouTube - THE 6000 year old CREATION? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB_78_3z_iw)

And finally, Happy Fighting Niccolo.

YouTube - Waiting For Armageddon (Trailer) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNcPX9KbwSY)

[yodajazz]

Oh and btw Rogers, read the koran & the hadith. You'll find real hate mongering in those pages, I assure you. After you've done that, cast your mind back to the mass murders commited on 9/11, in Madrid, Bali, London , etc. etc. Those murders were not carried out in the name of love or peace. They were done in the service of a religion. It's name is Islam.

Read this. (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

.

People who want to hate and kill will find a reason to do so, despite whatever reasoning comes out to the contrary of thier hate. Like for instance, I have been told that the Koran has specific prohibitions against suicide, and killing non-combative people. It's more about the culture, and what is considered acceptable in that culture. Jesus once said, "There is no greater love than a man, who would lay down his life for his friends." Somebody could use that to justify a Christian suicide bombing, ignoring Christ's commandment to Love. Hitler found a way to use hate, without much religious underpinnings. In fact they found some other pagan tales, to justify their actions.

It's about a history of dessert culture, where when things got tough, you raided a propserous city. Like a read in a book by a Muslim scholar that was written in the 60's; Some of those people have been feuding since before Islam came in the 7th century. Incidently, the US attacking Iraq, was as much about "raiding a prosperous city", as it was anything else.

Instead of burning the Koran, the answer is to use the words of the Koran and common sense, to take away the justification of those who use it for evil. Mohammed, basically said that he loved Jesus, in some other words. So it is not about Christian's and Jews being infidels. Its about political power, and whatever ideas are used to justify conquest, and control of the general population.

I want to add this about the Hadith. Stories that were reported to be directly about the Prophet, were still coming it 300 years after he died. They finally had to make a political decision to cut off new stories. So while they might give an indication to his actions, the Hadith is not the same as the word of God. Further more it illustrates that the Prophet, as military, and political leader, had to make practical decisions, which were specific to that time; not nescessarily a commandment or anything.

So it comes down to ideas, and interpretation, of what is the real word of God, to determine what practices are acceptable, (culture). Ideas are spread by communication. Burning the Koran is just plain stupid, counter- productive, and goes against the principles that made us strong. The book (the Koran), is the greatest weapon against terrorism. Understanding, what is the truth of higher principles, is the key, to peace.

[Niccolo]

niccolo you tell it how it is and dont bury your head in the sand like others
You're an even bigger windup merchant than I am, lol ... :Bowdown:

[Niccolo]

You've 'been told' that the Koran has specific prohibitions against suicide and killing innocents. Well you to right ahead and read the Koran for yourself. Remember that you'll have to apply the principle of abrogation when you come upon the parts of the Koran which I just pointed out to you, and which contradict the verses you mention.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/evidence-given-by-prof-hans-jansen-at.html

'Instead of burning the Koran, the answer is to use the words of the Koran and common sense, to take away the justification of those who use it for evil.' You've said in your opening paragraph that trying to reason with true believers won't work. So you've already undermined the very argument you're now trying to make. According to you, using 'common sense' won't work, and the principle of abrogation means that your effort to use the words of the Koran to take away the justification of those who commit evil acts in the name of Islam will actually result in your providing justification for those who want to commit evil acts in the name of Islam.

'Mohammad, basically said that he loved Jesus, in some other words.' - Give me a break. Mohammad 'basically' murdered people who spoke out against him, 'basically' raped a woman who's husband he'd just had executed, 'basically' made up 'revelations' so that he could screw other men's women, just like Joseph Smith, and let's not forget, Mohammad 'basically' fucked a nine year old girl and said she was the best piece of ass he'd ever had. If that's seventh century desert culture, then that's where it should stay. It's obviously got no place in the West in 2010.

And despite all their wishy-washy attempts to link their Satanic religion to Christianity by saying that they see Jesus as a prophet, Muslims deny the divinity of Christ, and just wait till you find out what role Muslims think Jesus will play when he returns to Earth!

[russtafa]

People who want to hate and kill will find a reason to do so, despite whatever reasoning comes out to the contrary of thier hate. Like for instance, I have been told that the Koran has specific prohibitions against suicide, and killing non-combative people. It's more about the culture, and what is considered acceptable in that culture. Jesus once said, "There is no greater love than a man, who would lay down his life for his friends." Somebody could use that to justify a Christian suicide bombing, ignoring Christ's commandment to Love. Hitler found a way to use hate, without much religious underpinnings. In fact they found some other pagan tales, to justify their actions.

It's about a history of dessert culture, where when things got tough, you raided a propserous city. Like a read in a book by a Muslim scholar that was written in the 60's; Some of those people have been feuding since before Islam came in the 7th century. Incidently, the US attacking Iraq, was as much about "raiding a prosperous city", as it was anything else.

Instead of burning the Koran, the answer is to use the words of the Koran and common sense, to take away the justification of those who use it for evil. Mohammed, basically said that he loved Jesus, in some other words. So it is not about Christian's and Jews being infidels. Its about political power, and whatever ideas are used to justify conquest, and control of the general population.

I want to add this about the Hadith. Stories that were reported to be directly about the Prophet, were still coming it 300 years after he died. They finally had to make a political decision to cut off new stories. So while they might give an indication to his actions, the Hadith is not the same as the word of God. Further more it illustrates that the Prophet, as military, and political leader, had to make practical decisions, which were specific to that time; not nescessarily a commandment or anything.

So it comes down to ideas, and interpretation, of what is the real word of God, to determine what practices are acceptable, (culture). Ideas are spread by communication. Burning the Koran is just plain stupid, counter- productive, and goes against the principles that made us strong. The book (the Koran), is the greatest weapon against terrorism. Understanding, what is the truth of higher principles, is the key, to peace.
yes as Sandra Bullock said in "miss congeniality" world peace=lol:party:

[Niccolo]

People who want to hate and kill will find a reason to do so ...And this is just the height of nonsense. Mohammad Atta didn't hijack that plane on 9/11 and just as it was heading into the WTC, right before impact, suddenly decide to convert to Islam. Mohammad Bouyeri didn't see Theo van Gogh cycling along the cobbles and suddenly decide to stab him to death. And as he was raising the blade, Mohammad Bouyeri didn't stop and think that so long as he was murdering someone, he might as well convert to Islam. The pair of them were already Muslims, who hated and ultimately, killed, for perfectly obvious reasons. Read the murderers' own words, and you'll understand what their motives were. They didn't 'find' a reason to hate and kill people somewhere, by accident, as they were looking for their car keys one morning before they headed off to their work - did they now? (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

[Niccolo]

And finally, Happy Fighting Niccolo.

YouTube - Waiting For Armageddon (Trailer) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNcPX9KbwSY)I've got a copy of that movie on my hard drive, but I haven't had time to watch it yet. Is it any good? (Btw the 'tu quoque' move is logically unimpressive, as I'm sure you know. And if you didn't already, you do now.)

[yodajazz]

And this is just the height of nonsense. Mohammad Atta didn't hijack that plane on 9/11 and just as it was heading into the WTC, right before impact, suddenly decide to convert to Islam. Mohammad Bouyeri didn't see Theo van Gogh cycling along the cobbles and suddenly decide to stab him to death. And as he was raising the blade, Mohammad Bouyeri didn't stop and think that so long as he was murdering someone, he might as well convert to Islam. The pair of them were already Muslims, who hated and ultimately, killed, for perfectly obvious reasons. Read the murderers' own words, and you'll understand what their motives were. They didn't 'find' a reason to hate and kill people somewhere, by accident, as they were looking for their car keys one morning before they headed off to their work - did they now? (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

I believe that war, is an intentional venture, that is directed from leadership with a specific purpose. If its not religion, then its nationalism, then it's ethnicity, or someones been attacked, (often, those 'attacks' are faked). Leadership finds a way to whip up hatred, and fear. Do I need to list every war, such as WW II, that was not started by Muslims? How do you explain the World Wars, or the murderous regime of Pol Pot? You yourself seem to be advocating war on 1/5 of the world's population, and you are not a Muslim are you?

I am saying that people are a product of the culture, the values that are handed down to them. Islam has many tenets,for example prayer. So how many Muslims are praying, and how many a raping 9 year old girls? Which is more important to emphasize? For those, like you who advocating, death/war: the 9 year girl is the most important. For those that want peace, the billions of people praying to the same God is more important. What is the source of the story about the girl? I have heard it before. I think some say that the 'marriage was never consumated.

Niccolo you are no different than the Jihadists. Cherry picking the most negative stuff. The positive stuff can also be 'cherry picked', if the intention is peace. I think the biggest issue is too many people that profit by fear. Look at the US war in Iraq: lies when it was all about money.

But the actual strategy, I'm talking about, is not changing the mind of someone with a bomb strapped to them. It's about influencing a critical mass of people. That mass people, who live in the community, would report suspicious activity to the police, etc. The 9/11 Report, has a chapter about what it calls, "the war of ideas". This is in a similar vein of what I am talking about.

[yodajazz]

yes as Sandra Bullock said in "miss congeniality" world peace=lol:party:

So what's your solution?

[Niccolo]

More wishy washy crap. As I just explained to your mate, your tu quoque move isn't going to impress anyone, nor will it convince anyone or anything. Do try to stay on topic. I'm the polar opposite of the jihadists, you ignorant fucking dumbass. You on the other hand, are giving them succour by trying to cherry pick your way through the Koran, and denying what the holy texts of Islam actually preach. I've addressed this tendency of yours before, and suggested that you apply the principle of abrogation as you actually read the Koran and the hadith. Until you've actually done that, I suggest you shut the fuck up and stop revealing your own ignorance. Because that's all you're doing. And I'm not the one advocating death/war, you stupid fucking tit. I'm pointing out that there are people walking the earth who are doing so, and your mealy mouthed denial won't alter that one fucking iota. There they are, and as I told you already - read their own words and you'll see perfectly well that they didn't just find a reason to kill people somewhere one fine morning when they were looking for their car keys. Once again - read those verses Sam Harris points to , and actually address them. You want to engage in a war of ideas? Really? Then first you need to understand which ideas are involved. Again: read the book which contains the 'ideas' that form the bedrock of Islam, apply the principle of abrogation as you do so, and then get back to me.

[yodajazz]

...
And despite all their wishy-washy attempts to link their Satanic religion to Christianity by saying that they see Jesus as a prophet, Muslims deny the divinity of Christ, and just wait till you find out what role Muslims think Jesus will play when he returns to Earth!

This is where we get into creed, doctrine, and rules vs principles. Lots of people get into conflicts about doctrine. That's the beliefs of one religion tell us we need to have to get to God. Jesus called himself, "the son of man", and also "the son of God". I think once when he was questioned about being the son of God, he referred to another earlier scripture which basically said that we are all God's children. The concept of Jesus being God's onlly begotten son, is doctrine which was also born of a political compromise. I think it was from the Council of Nicea around year 411. If you believe he was the only begotten son, that's okay. But if you don't, however you believe that his message was from God, you still believe in Jesus. Doctrine in all religions is a lot like club membership. Believe exactly what I say, and you can get into our club, and pay dues.

Muslims believe in Jesus, and that he was a 'man of God'. But whether he is worshiped or not, is different from understanding his message, and trying to live by it. Some people live by his message, but dont know that much about him. Others, know a lot about him, but dont live by his message. If you read the words of Jesus, from the Bible, he is clear on what he thinks is most important. The story of the "Good Samaritan" is one example. Jesus did not say that the Samaritan, thought he was 'divine', he used him as a example of good behavior. This is where we get into principle.

Things like, kindness, charity, respect and love are principles. Rules vary to show respect, but the principle is the same end. Spritiuality, is about a relationship with others, the world and God. Each religion is a supposed to be a path to higher power, or God, by whatever name you call it/him/her. But it is to often used as a control agent, forgetting what are the over riding principles. Mankind can be taught greater respect for differences. The US was founded on such principles and has prospered.

Niccolo, I suggest you take the approach, of looking for God, instead of Satan. It is written; "Seek and ye shall find". I am not a follower of Mohammed, but I have heard things that he is reported to have said, that resonate with me. I see Muslims that live leave peacefully and respectfully. I try to practice what Jesus taught, when he said, "to love thy neighbor". And I am a peace with God. I wish the same for you. But I see you following agents, who are using the tools of Satan; fear and hate.

[trish]

The beef that Al Qaeda had with us on 9/11 was not religious. We weren’t attacked because we’re a “Christian nation.” Nor was their beef about political ideology. We weren’t attacked because they hate our freedoms. Nevertheless religion and politics were the key motivating factors. Throughout the time leading up to 9/11 Bin Laden repeatedly complained about the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; never mind that the Saudi royal family invited the U.S. presence. To Bin Laden this was tantamount to a foreign occupation of his home country. This perspective on the presence of U.S. troops might be crazy, but it also is a perspective that served Bin Laden’s political aspirations. The point is, Bin Laden had political motivations to order the 9/11 attacks.

But wait. Saudi Arabia is the home of Mecca and Medina, the two holy cities of the Koran. Fundamentalists throughout the Middle East were fearful that the mere presence of U.S. soldiers would desecrate these holiest of cities and bring down the wrath of God. So in this sense religion, but not religious disagreement, was also a motivation for the initial attacks by Al Qaeda. (It was simply the mirror image of the what’s happening in New York today. Some New Yorkers don’t want a Mosque within four blocks of “sacred” site at ground zero. Al Qaeda didn’t want Christian troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This is not so much a difference of opinion on a point of theology as it is just general distrust, misunderstanding and ignorance.)

The “war” against Al Qaeda is not a war between religions and responsible commentators would refrain from pushing it in that direction. The Middle East suffers the same ills as all other regions: fear, greed and the desire for power. Religion, as it does everywhere, just makes it easier for the powerful and charismatic to manipulate the poor and the uneducated.

[yodajazz]

More wishy washy crap. As I just explained to your mate, your tu quoque move isn't going to impress anyone, nor will it convince anyone or anything. Do try to stay on topic. I'm the polar opposite of the jihadists, you ignorant fucking dumbass. You on the other hand, are giving them succour by trying to cherry pick your way through the Koran, and denying what the holy texts of Islam actually preach. I've addressed this tendency of yours before, and suggested that you apply the principle of abrogation as you actually read the Koran and the hadith. Until you've actually done that, I suggest you shut the fuck up and stop revealing your own ignorance. Because that's all you're doing. And I'm not the one advocating death/war, you stupid fucking tit. I'm pointing out that there are people walking the earth who are doing so, and your mealy mouthed denial won't alter that one fucking iota. There they are, and as I told you already - read their own words and you'll see perfectly well that they didn't just find a reason to kill people somewhere one fine morning when they were looking for their car keys. Once again - read those verses Sam Harris points to , and actually address them. You want to engage in a war of ideas? Really? Then first you need to understand which ideas are involved. Again: read the book which contains the 'ideas' that form the bedrock of Islam, apply the principle of abrogation as you do so, and then get back to me.

Have you read the Koran in it's entirety? I doubt it. The Bible has many instances of violence, and war. The point is, people have chosen the passages from the Bible that teaches them to live better, to find peace, etc. The same can be done with Koran, especially with leadership who want their people to live that way. Yes there are people in this world, who are violent, and have ill intent, but it is not limited to Muslims. I may be a "stupid fucking tit", but I am talking about ways to combat the Jihdists, to lead to a more peaceful world. I see very few people talking about effective solutions to gurerilla warfare, types of insurgencies. Insulting billions of Muslims, by telling them their whole belief system is Satanic, does not seem to be solving any issues in my view. But of course, I'm "an ignorant dumbass".

Abrogation from what I read, means that one passage supercedes an earlier one. However, all ideas are still open to the possibilty of greater understanding. Different scholars have different interpretations. All the more reason to believe that those who advocate violence, can be decertified with certain interpretations. And how can people be certain of what precedes another, when the order of Suras was changed from the shortest to the longest, insted of time?

[yodajazz]

The beef that Al Qaeda had with us on 9/11 was not religious. We weren’t attacked because we’re a “Christian nation.” Nor was their beef about political ideology. We weren’t attacked because they hate our freedoms. Nevertheless religion and politics were the key motivating factors. Throughout the time leading up to 9/11 Bin Laden repeatedly complained about the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia; never mind that the Saudi royal family invited the U.S. presence. To Bin Laden this was tantamount to a foreign occupation of his home country. This perspective on the presence of U.S. troops might be crazy, but it also is a perspective that served Bin Laden’s political aspirations. The point is, Bin Laden had political motivations to order the 9/11 attacks.

But wait. Saudi Arabia is the home of Mecca and Medina, the two holy cities of the Koran. Fundamentalists throughout the Middle East were fearful that the mere presence of U.S. soldiers would desecrate these holiest of cities and bring down the wrath of God. So in this sense religion, but not religious disagreement, was also a motivation for the initial attacks by Al Qaeda. (It was simply the mirror image of the what’s happening in New York today. Some New Yorkers don’t want a Mosque within four blocks of “sacred” site at ground zero. Al Qaeda didn’t want Christian troops in Saudi Arabia, home of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This is not so much a difference of opinion on a point of theology as it is just general distrust, misunderstanding and ignorance.)

The “war” against Al Qaeda is not a war between religions and responsible commentators would refrain from pushing it in that direction. The Middle East suffers the same ills as all other regions: fear, greed and the desire for power. Religion, as it does everywhere, just makes it easier for the powerful and charismatic to manipulate the poor and the uneducated.

As I was researching, I just happen to run across this. This is the Fatwa by Bin Laden, urging war on all Americans and Jews.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

It is just as you stated, about the US occupying Muslim land and waging war on Muslim countries. At least in this 1998 document, there is nothing about wanted to convert the US to Islam, and establish Sharia Law, as some are claiming to be their goal. I see fear, greed and the desire for power, being used a lot here.

I have heard about this one political commercial shown here, that claimed their opponent was for letting sex offenders out of jail, to work with children. Then they have a scene with a little boy, alone on a school bus with a leering male bus driver. I'm still triying to find out who it is.

A few years back, a man who was a former Middle East hostage, named Terry Anderson ran for office. His opponent found a picture of him, when he went back to the Middle East, and met with parties responsible for is abduction, and posted pictures from the meeting, and said he would be weak on terrorism. He lost.

[PomonaCA]

More of that "I believe in the personage of Jesus and his good teachings, but I don't believe in his divinity"? That's the same old Jesus patronizing shit that motherfuckers have been mongering in europe for what now? 700 years? Really. That shit is sooo tired.

[hippifried]

I'm the polar opposite of the jihadists, you ignorant fucking dumbass.
Well yeah I guess, but that just means you're on the other end of the same spindle. You're advocating "holy war". You're a mirror image. The real difference is direct involvement. You want everybody else to do your dirty work. That everybody else is my country. As an American, I'm not supporting your BS even a little bit. I don't think I'm alone in that.

I don't care what anybody else believes, & I care even less what some clown wrote a milenia or 2 ago. All mythology passes over time, & the monotheist religions are no different. This is America, where anybody's free to believe what they want. It all gets swallowed up by the culture sooner or later. Sooner if you get out of the way.

Terrorism only works if you allow yourself to be terrorized.
Terrorism is to Islam as KKK is to Protestant Christianity.
Your argument is spurious at best.

[PomonaCA]

Terrorism only works if you allow yourself to be terrorized.



Epic quote!!!

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01210/lockerbie_1210206c.jpg

[yodajazz]

More of that "I believe in the personage of Jesus and his good teachings, but I don't believe in his divinity"? That's the same old Jesus patronizing shit that motherfuckers have been mongering in europe for what now? 700 years? Really. That shit is sooo tired.
I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs. In my case and many others, there's no question that Jesus was/is divine. But we also believe that everyone is, (at least connected too). It also says so in the Bible. There is no debate over whether the Bible or Koran is the word of God, they both are. But the 'word of God' is also creative and is written in the hearts of each of us, as love and other good things. Jesus is the divine example that help show the way.

Mostly from what I can see, it was the Apostle Paul, who said that all you have to do is believe in Jesus and you will be saved. So most people, then believe that a serial killer can confess on his death bed, that he believes in Jesus's divinity and he will be saved. However, I see a distinctly different message from the words of Jesus. He talks about a person's actions in life. So my interpretation is that anyone who behaves certain ways is saved, no matter what their religion. That makes sense to me. So "going through Jesus" to get through the father, means actions; not just memorizing a creed. I see atheists, saying things that promote the general good, and a few 'believers' saying hate filled things. Which is more Jesus like?

I have lots of criticism of Islam, but it's not about the words that 'came through' the Prophet. It's about the practice and priority ot hose words. I think so many people get lost in the rules and ritual, they lose the most important part of the message. I just read a quote from the Koran that says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error." So what about this statement justifies someone setting off a bomb in the middle of a religious cermony?

So to go back to PomonaCA's quote; I believe those who say they believe in Jesus's divinity, yet to not follow the types of things, that he asks of us, are the ones patronizing him.

[african1]

More of that "I believe in the personage of Jesus and his good teachings, but I don't believe in his divinity"? That's the same old Jesus patronizing shit that motherfuckers have been mongering in europe for what now? 700 years? Really. That shit is sooo tired.

Assuming he ever existed.:praying:

Happy fighting...

[Niccolo]

Well yeah I guess, but that just means you're on the other end of the same spindle. You're advocating "holy war". You're a mirror image. The real difference is direct involvement. You want everybody else to do your dirty work. That everybody else is my country. As an American, I'm not supporting your BS even a little bit. I don't think I'm alone in that.

I don't care what anybody else believes, & I care even less what some clown wrote a milenia or 2 ago. All mythology passes over time, & the monotheist religions are no different. This is America, where anybody's free to believe what they want. It all gets swallowed up by the culture sooner or later. Sooner if you get out of the way.

Terrorism only works if you allow yourself to be terrorized.
Terrorism is to Islam as KKK is to Protestant Christianity.
Your argument is spurious at best.
What a load of old crap. About what I expect from the likes of you though. I'm not advocating a holy war you illiterate twat. I'm pointing out what the teachings of Islam are, and pointing out the obvious fact that there have been many, many mass murders commited in the name of Islam since 9/11.

And as for you crying about 'your country' doing someone else's dirty work - that's fucking hilarious. Still, we can't expect an idiot to give a toss about the Brits out there doing your country's dirty work, eh? Just ignore the British troops who have died out there in Afghanistan running around doing sweet fuck all, just because our former PM didn't want to take your former President's dick out of his ass. Your comment does nothing but reveal the depth of your own ignorance. Well done, prick.

As for your pathetic little analogy. Try dealing with what I said earlier, why dont you? Read the Islamic holy texts and apply the principle of abrogation as you do so.

The other guy tried to say that I was like the jihadists because I was 'cherry picking' nasty parts of the Koran & the hadith. Now you try to make the same silly claim, based on your own fantasy that I, a British citizen, somehow want your country to engage in a holy war. What a pile of pants! Just like you, he perverted reality in order to maintain his own ignorance. Just to be clear to him, and to you: I was, of course, arguing that it was he who was 'cherry picking' by taking nice, pleasant verses from the Koran. I was merely pointing out that if you want to engage in a 'war of ideas' and not just utter those words because you think they sound impressive, then you're going to have to understand the ideas you're trying to tackle. Only by not cherry picking nice, happy smiley verses, and instead reading the whole Islamic holy book, and by applying the princple of abrogation as you do so, in order to resolve the many contradictions you will encounter, will you actually come to an understanding of which Islamic 'ideas' you actually need to be waging your 'war of ideas' against!

This is simple stuff, but of course I wouldn't expect an ignorant, brainwashed ass like you to challenge his own worldview by actually taking the time to learn something new. That's not what you're about, after all.

[Niccolo]

I have lots of criticism of Islam, but it's not about the words that 'came through' the Prophet. It's about the practice and priority ot hose words. I think so many people get lost in the rules and ritual, they lose the most important part of the message. I just read a quote from the Koran that says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error." So what about this statement justifies someone setting off a bomb in the middle of a religious cermony?

Consider the principle of abrogation (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/evidence-given-by-prof-hans-jansen-at.html), as you read on, and find those statements that do justify such acts. It's quite amusing how all the people on this thread trying to pretend they know something about Islam refuse point blank to repeat, let alone address, such verses. Yet there they are.
(http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

[Niccolo]

Verses from the Koran

By Sam Harris
Open the Koran, which is perfect in its every syllable, and simply read it with the eyes of faith. You will see how little compassion need be wasted on those whom God himself is in the process of "mocking," "cursing," " shaming," "punishing," "scourging," "judging," "burning," "annihilating," "not forgiving," and "not reprieving." God, who is infinitely wise, has cursed the infidels with their doubts. He prolongs their life and prosperity so that they may continue heaping sin upon sin and all the more richly deserve the torments that await them beyond the grave. In this light, the people who died on Sept. 11 were nothing more than fuel for the eternal fires of God's justice. To convey the relentlessness with which unbelievers are vilified in the text of the Koran, I provide a long compilation of quotations below, in order of their appearance in the text. This is what the Creator of the universe apparently has on his mind (when he is not fussing with gravitational constants and atomic weights):
"It is the same whether or not you forwarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith" (2:6). "God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along" (2:15).
A fire "whose fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2:24).
They will be "rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection" (2:85).
"God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2:89).
"They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits [them]" (2:90).
"God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98 ).
"The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2:105).
"They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (2:114).
"Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2:122).
"[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2:126).
"The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight path" (2:142).
"Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2:154).
"But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2:162).
"They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire" (2:168 ).

[Niccolo]

"The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing" (2:172).
"Theirs shall be a woeful punishment" (2:175).
"How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2:176).
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190–93).
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).
"They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith—if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the Faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2:217–18 ).
"God does not guide the evil-doers" (2:258 ).
"God does not guide the unbelievers" (2:264).
"The evil-doers shall have none to help them" (2:270).
"God gives guidance to whom He will" (2:272).
"Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge" (3:5).
"As for the unbelievers, neither their riches nor their children will in the least save them from God's judgment. They shall become fuel for the Fire" (3:10).
"Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an evil resting place!'" (3:12).
"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam. . . . He that denies God's revelations should know that swift is God's reckoning" (3:19).
"Let the believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful—he that does this has nothing to hope for from God—except in self-defense" (3:28 ).
"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" (3:118 ).
"If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy.We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the true believers and choose martyrs from among you (God does not love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels" (3:140).
"Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition. . . .We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home" (3:149-51).
"Believers, do not follow the example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet death abroad or in battle: ‘Had they stayed with us they would not have died, nor would they have been killed.' God will cause them to regret their words. . . . If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, God's forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass" (3:156).
"Never think that those who were slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their Lord; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those they left behind, who have not yet joined them, have nothing to fear or to regret; rejoicing in God's grace and bounty. God will not deny the faithful their reward" (3:169).
"Let not the unbelievers think that We prolong their days for their own good. We give them respite only so that they may commit more grievous sins. Shameful punishment awaits them" (3:178 ).
"Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief. Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place" (3:195–96).
"God has cursed them in their unbelief" (4:46).
"God will not forgive those who serve other gods besides Him; but He will forgive whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God is guilty of a heinous sin. . . . Consider those to whom a portion of the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols and false gods and say of the infidels: ‘These are better guided than the believers'" (4:50–51).
"Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise" (4:55–56).
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime" (5:57).

[Niccolo]

"That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. We have stirred among them enmity and hatred, which will endure till the Day of Resurrection" (5:65).
"God does not guide the unbelievers" (5:67).
"That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. But do not grieve for the unbelievers" (5:69).
"You see many among them making friends with unbelievers. Evil is that to which their souls prompt them. They have incurred the wrath of God and shall endure eternal torment. . . .You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those who say: ‘We are Christians'" (5:80–82).
"[T]hose that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates of Hell" (5:86).
"[T]hey deny the truth when it is declared to them: but they shall learn the consequences of their scorn" (6:5).
"We had made them more powerful in the land than yourselves [the Meccans], sent down for them abundant water from the sky and gave them rivers that rolled at their feet. Yet because they sinned We destroyed them all and raised up other generations after them. If We sent down to you a Book inscribed on real parchment and they touched it with their own hands, the unbelievers would still assert: ‘This is but plain sorcery.' They ask: ‘Why has no angel been sent down to him [Muhammad]?' If We had sent down an angel, their fate would have been sealed and they would have never been reprieved" (6:5–8 ).
"Who is more wicked than the man who invents falsehoods about God or denies His revelations?" (6:21).
"Some of them listen to you. But We have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs, even if they see them one and all. When they come to argue with you the unbelievers say: ‘This is nothing but old fictitious tales.' They forbid it and depart from it. They ruin none but themselves, though they do not perceive it. If you could see them when they are set before the Fire! They will say: ‘Would that we could return! Then we would not deny the revelations of our Lord and would be true believers' 6:23–27).
"But if they were sent back, they would return to that which they have been forbidden. They are liars all" (6:29).
"Had God pleased He would have given them guidance, one and all" (6:35).
"Deaf and dumb are those that deny Our revelations: they blunder about in darkness. God confounds whom He will, and guides to a straight path whom He pleases." (6:39)
"[T]heir hearts were hardened, and Satan made their deeds seem fair to them. And when they had clean forgotten Our admonition We granted them all that they desired; but just as they were rejoicing in what they were given, We suddenly smote them and they were plunged into utter despair. Thus were the evil-doers annihilated. Praise be to God, Lord of the Universe!" (6:43–45).
"[T]hose that deny Our revelations shall be punished for their misdeeds" (6:49).
"Such are those that are damned by their own sins. They shall drink scalding water and be sternly punished for their unbelief" (6:70).
"Could you but see the wrongdoers when death overwhelms them! With hands outstretched, the angels will say: ‘Yield up your souls. You shall be rewarded with the scourge of shame this day, for you have said of God what is untrue and scorned His revelations" (6:93).
"Avoid the pagans. Had God pleased, they would not have worshipped idols. . . . We will turn away their hearts and eyes from the Truth since they refused to believe in it at first. We will let them blunder about in their wrongdoing. If We sent the angels down to them, and caused the dead to speak to them, . . . and ranged all things in front of them, they would still not believe, unless God willed otherwise. . . . Thus have We assigned for every prophet an enemy: the devils among men and jinn, who inspire each other with vain and varnished falsehoods. But had your Lord pleased, they would not have done so. Therefore leave them to their own inventions, so that the hearts of those who have no faith in the life to come may be inclined to what they say and, being pleased, persist in their sinful ways" (6:107–12).
"The devils will teach their votaries to argue with you. If you obey them you shall yourselves become idolaters. . . . God will humiliate the transgressors and mete out to them a grievous punishment for their scheming" (6:121–25).
"If God wills to guide a man, He opens his bosom to Islam. But if he pleases to confound him, He makes his bosom small and narrow as though he were climbing up to heaven. Thus shall God lay the scourge on the unbelievers" (6:125).
This is all desperately tedious, of course. But there is no substitute for confronting the text itself. I cannot judge the quality of the Arabic; perhaps it is sublime. But the book's contents are not. On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise nonbelievers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can read passages like those quoted above and still not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist. - Sam Harris (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html).

[trish]

The operative ideas in "the war on terrorism" are political, not religious. There's no need to fight, or tackle or support the various contradictions to be found in the Koran or in the Bible for that matter. Making Islam your focus in the war of ideas is to promote religious war. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The number is growing. We are not going to win that "war of ideas." We can, however, continue to plug away on the issue of Palestine. We can address the plight of Middle Easterners in our own countries who find themselves ghettoized in western culture. We can withdraw support from tyrants and monarchs who reap riches while keeping their populations poor and uneducated. We can stop being the exploitive fuck-ups we've been in the past.

[african1]

NICCO, settle down man. It seems like you're about to blow yourself up.

So what is it that you advocate we should do to cure the world from this issue?

[russtafa]

As the crusaders used to say the cross or the sword

[yodajazz]

Terrorism only works if you allow yourself to be terrorized.



Epic quote!!!

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01210/lockerbie_1210206c.jpg

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101009/wl_afp/europeusattackssecurityqaeda_20101009224151


Al-Qaeda views West terror alert fears as victory: experts

[yodajazz]

Verses from the Koran

By Sam Harris
Open the Koran, which is perfect in its every syllable, and simply read it with the eyes of faith. You will see how little compassion need be wasted on those whom God himself is in the process of "mocking," "cursing," " shaming," "punishing," "scourging," "judging," "burning," "annihilating," "not forgiving," and "not reprieving." God, who is infinitely wise, has cursed the infidels with their doubts. He prolongs their life and prosperity so that they may continue heaping sin upon sin and all the more richly deserve the torments that await them beyond the grave. In this light, the people who died on Sept. 11 were nothing more than fuel for the eternal fires of God's justice. To convey the relentlessness with which unbelievers are vilified in the text of the Koran, I provide a long compilation of quotations below, in order of their appearance in the text. This is what the Creator of the universe apparently has on his mind (when he is not fussing with gravitational constants and atomic weights):

"It is the same whether or not you forwarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith" (2:6). "God will mock them and keep them long in sin, blundering blindly along" (2:15).
A fire "whose fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2:24).
They will be "rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection" (2:85).
"God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2:89).
"They have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits [them]" (2:90).
"God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98 ).
"The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2:105).
"They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (2:114).
"Those to whom We [God] have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to be read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost" (2:122).
"[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2:126).
"The East and the West are God's. He guides whom He will to a straight path" (2:142).
"Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2:154).
"But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2:162).
"They shall sigh with remorse, but shall never come out of the Fire" (2:168 ).



Christians and Jews are not considered 'un-believers'. They are the people of the book. It's not about religion. Muslims lived peacefully with Christians and Jews, in their lands for centuries. One of the passages here says, "un-believers among the Christians and Jews". Mohammed speak highly about Jesus in the Koran, and also Abraham.


The operative ideas in "the war on terrorism" are political, not religious. There's no need to fight, or tackle or support the various contradictions to be found in the Koran or in the Bible for that matter. Making Islam your focus in the war of ideas is to promote religious war. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The number is growing. We are not going to win that "war of ideas." We can, however, continue to plug away on the issue of Palestine. We can address the plight of Middle Easterners in our own countries who find themselves ghettoized in western culture. We can withdraw support from tyrants and monarchs who reap riches while keeping their populations poor and uneducated. We can stop being the exploitive fuck-ups we've been in the past.

I think saying it is a war of ideas is a little of a misnomer. Anyway it is not between Islam an Christianity. It is on those who would wage war on the West. Right after 9/11 the approval ratings of the US were at 70% in Malaysia, which has the world's largest Muslim population. Also 100,000 people held a candlelight vigil in Terhan, in support of th US. Of course, things went way south after that. Darn that Bush.

[hippifried]

What a load of old crap. About what I expect from the likes of you though. I'm not advocating a holy war you illiterate twat. I'm pointing out what the teachings of Islam are, and pointing out the obvious fact that there have been many, many mass murders commited in the name of Islam since 9/11.

And as for you crying about 'your country' doing someone else's dirty work - that's fucking hilarious. Still, we can't expect an idiot to give a toss about the Brits out there doing your country's dirty work, eh? Just ignore the British troops who have died out there in Afghanistan running around doing sweet fuck all, just because our former PM didn't want to take your former President's dick out of his ass. Your comment does nothing but reveal the depth of your own ignorance. Well done, prick.

As for your pathetic little analogy. Try dealing with what I said earlier, why dont you? Read the Islamic holy texts and apply the principle of abrogation as you do so.

The other guy tried to say that I was like the jihadists because I was 'cherry picking' nasty parts of the Koran & the hadith. Now you try to make the same silly claim, based on your own fantasy that I, a British citizen, somehow want your country to engage in a holy war. What a pile of pants! Just like you, he perverted reality in order to maintain his own ignorance. Just to be clear to him, and to you: I was, of course, arguing that it was he who was 'cherry picking' by taking nice, pleasant verses from the Koran. I was merely pointing out that if you want to engage in a 'war of ideas' and not just utter those words because you think they sound impressive, then you're going to have to understand the ideas you're trying to tackle. Only by not cherry picking nice, happy smiley verses, and instead reading the whole Islamic holy book, and by applying the princple of abrogation as you do so, in order to resolve the many contradictions you will encounter, will you actually come to an understanding of which Islamic 'ideas' you actually need to be waging your 'war of ideas' against!

This is simple stuff, but of course I wouldn't expect an ignorant, brainwashed ass like you to challenge his own worldview by actually taking the time to learn something new. That's not what you're about, after all.
You've never seen the "likes of me". There are no "likes of me". Of course you're advocating holy war, crusade, cultural genocide, or whatever you want to call it. Nobody's naive enough to buy your lame attempts at doublespeak. You're not that slick. Mindless parrot pasting doesn't count as knowlege. You can't point out what you don't know. All war is mass murder, & it's always in the name of something. So what?

I don't care about the Brits. Their unearned hubris caused all this shit. We wouldn't be going through all this crap if the Brits hadn't tried to lay claim to southern Asia & drawn up a bunch of borders with no regard for people. They can clean up their own mess. Maybe. I see no reason why we should be continuously bailing them out. We were just getting warmed up when Spain cried uncle. I think we should have continued & put an end to European colonialism right then.

If you'd ever read the Qur'an, you'd know how to spell it. Which Hadith? Sunni & Shia each have different sets. You don't know what you're talking about. You're just a parrot.

I don't care about "the other guy" either. I don't think you're cherry picking the texts. I don't think you know how. I think somebody else does it & you just blindly follow along like a good little lemming on your way to the final rock. Have a nice swim.

There's a big difference between simple & simplistic. Of course I don't expect you to know that. I don't expect you to know anything actually. I haven't been impressed yet. The only thing I expect of you is consistant gullibility.

[Niccolo]

That's about what I'd expect from the likes of you. More of the same. An absolute refusal to deal with what's been put to you, fantasies of yours about other people's motives, blah blah fucking blah. 'Of course'? Persuader words which don't actually have any bearing on the truth value of what follows. So let's disregard that. Next up? 'Whatever you want to call it' - well if I had ever called 'it' anything, you wouldn't have to wonder what I'd called 'it' now, would you? Just for a moment, try to think logically about the crap flying around inside your head. Whatever you want to call 'it' is whatever your fantasies lead you to call 'it'. If you were actually addressing what someone else had said to you, then you'd be able to quote them directly. You wouldn't have to use 'it' to refer to the other person's words, and you certainly wouldn't have to put forward a series of options, and end up saying 'whatever you call it'. Everything you've written in that post shows that you're actually refusing to deal with what someone else has said, and that you're just making shit up. Pathetic. Still, it's good to know that there are Americans out there who appreciate the efforts of, for example, 40 Commando, as they rescued a downed American chopper crew in Afghanistan. I refer to the pilots of the second 'Pedro' of course. And normal people. (See link. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8052760/Marines-tell-of-Black-Hawk-Down-rescue-mission.html)) Not the likes of you.

[hippifried]

Yeah yeah yeah... So you got nothin' to say? That's what I thought.

[russtafa]

That's about what I'd expect from the likes of you. More of the same. An absolute refusal to deal with what's been put to you, fantasies of yours about other people's motives, blah blah fucking blah. 'Of course'? Persuader words which don't actually have any bearing on the truth value of what follows. So let's disregard that. Next up? 'Whatever you want to call it' - well if I had ever called 'it' anything, you wouldn't have to wonder what I'd called 'it' now, would you? Just for a moment, try to think logically about the crap flying around inside your head. Whatever you want to call 'it' is whatever your fantasies lead you to call 'it'. If you were actually addressing what someone else had said to you, then you'd be able to quote them directly. You wouldn't have to use 'it' to refer to the other person's words, and you certainly wouldn't have to put forward a series of options, and end up saying 'whatever you call it'. Everything you've written in that post shows that you're actually refusing to deal with what someone else has said, and that you're just making shit up. Pathetic. Still, it's good to know that there are Americans out there who appreciate the efforts of, for example, 40 Commando, as they rescued a downed American chopper crew in Afghanistan. I refer to the pilots of the second 'Pedro' of course. And normal people. (See link. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8052760/Marines-tell-of-Black-Hawk-Down-rescue-mission.html)) Not the likes of you.
Good for you Niccolo i would hate to be caught in a situation like that without the aid of our brave allies

[Niccolo]

I don't care about the Brits. - hippifried. (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=809332&postcount=130) I'd like to think you have made one meaningful statement; that there are no other Americans like you.

[Niccolo]

It's really noticeable how all those Brits get America to do their 'dirty work' for them, isn't it? It's just so obvious that that's a worldview which corresponds with reality.

Nothing to see here btw, folks. Move along. After all, Linda Norgrove was not an American.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11507313

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/204694/Island-community-in-mourning-for-aid-worker-killed-as-she-tried-to-help-others/

[JamesHunt]

Religion, as it does everywhere, just makes it easier for the powerful and charismatic to manipulate the poor and the uneducated.

It's a real pity the poor and the uneducated can't see this:Bowdown:

[hippifried]

Still don't care about the Brits. If the entire empire collapsed tomorrow, I could shrug it off easily enough. Sorry. Just not impressed.

[yodajazz]

It's a real pity the poor and the uneducated can't see this:Bowdown:

Today more people are manipulated by medias world view. Or maybe it's more what the media leaves out. The real value of religion is to give people comfort on a day to day level, having a view to understand life and the universe. The powerful will find ways to manipulate others. What about nationalism?

[yodajazz]

That's about what I'd expect from the likes of you. More of the same. An absolute refusal to deal with what's been put to you, fantasies of yours about other people's motives, blah blah fucking blah. 'Of course'? Persuader words which don't actually have any bearing on the truth value of what follows. So let's disregard that. Next up? 'Whatever you want to call it' - well if I had ever called 'it' anything, you wouldn't have to wonder what I'd called 'it' now, would you? Just for a moment, try to think logically about the crap flying around inside your head. Whatever you want to call 'it' is whatever your fantasies lead you to call 'it'. If you were actually addressing what someone else had said to you, then you'd be able to quote them directly. You wouldn't have to use 'it' to refer to the other person's words, and you certainly wouldn't have to put forward a series of options, and end up saying 'whatever you call it'. Everything you've written in that post shows that you're actually refusing to deal with what someone else has said, and that you're just making shit up. Pathetic. Still, it's good to know that there are Americans out there who appreciate the efforts of, for example, 40 Commando, as they rescued a downed American chopper crew in Afghanistan. I refer to the pilots of the second 'Pedro' of course. And normal people. (See link. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8052760/Marines-tell-of-Black-Hawk-Down-rescue-mission.html)) Not the likes of you.

You were the one that called me stupid, and other insults. When a person makes such judgments, it means they have a closed mind. You quoted several Koran passages, that talked about "unbelievers", yet when I said that that Christians are not considered unbelievers, you did not respond.
Even in the passage you quoted, he called Jews and Christians, "people of the book".

I asked you to give your view of the meaning of the word you asked me to look up, (abrogation), you did not respond. You may have touched on something important. You are not so much in touch with reality yourself. I have a Koran and it is over 1800 pages. How can you say that your quote has the essence of Islam? Or is more important than the 1800 pages that you are not quoting. What about the five pillars, of Islam? What's to say, that the context of your quotes dont change, with a wider view of the chapter? And perhaps, historically the verses represented a specific situation.

I have listened to you, but you do not view me respectfully. I gain from listening to you, but you can't hear those that you don't respect. So I win.

I am not the only one to ask you, what it the solution to this world situation. I have studied war and military strategy throughout my youth. I have a historical perspective on war and combat. But all you can do is call me names.

[russtafa]

Niccolo there have always been people who would open the gates of rome and let the barbarian hordes in.Theres just more of them these days

[trish]

If only they had let the hordes in before Constantine established Christianity throughout the empire. The problem with empires is they often spread the bad ideas and squelch the good ones.

[yodajazz]

Niccolo there have always been people who would open the gates of rome and let the barbarian hordes in.Theres just more of them these days

I don't think the analogy works in this situation. The US has military operations in Muslim nations. If you want to use the analogy, then we have busted through their gates. And I'm not saying that military force should never be used. But the realities of modern insurgencie/guerilla warfare, is that winning the will of the people is more important that killing a few enemies, hiding out among the people. If you can get the enemy without hurting others, fine. But if you are killing or injuring 5 bystanders, you're doing more harm than good. Each of those bystanders have relatives, etc.

This forum is a lot the the political landscape. Lots of criticism but very little facing solutions, or actual strategies. I'm willing to listen. But people like Niccolo can only say how stupid I am. So instead of trying to find a common purpose to address a stated enemy, we are dividing ourselves, making it easier for them. How smart is that?

[yodajazz]

It's really noticeable how all those Brits get America to do their 'dirty work' for them, isn't it? It's just so obvious that that's a worldview which corresponds with reality.

Nothing to see here btw, folks. Move along. After all, Linda Norgrove was not an American.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11507313

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/204694/Island-community-in-mourning-for-aid-worker-killed-as-she-tried-to-help-others/

Sorry to hear about the death of this well meaning woman. But as for reality, wars have been fought from the beginning. There have always been winners and losers. The side with the larger army or more powerful weapons, does not always win. It is most often the side with the most effective strategies, realistically taking into account their enemies strengths, weakness, and motivations. Often actions are taken because of their psychological effort. I have been talking about the mental aspects. Despite what some think, human beings are not that much different, that you cannot predict the consequences of actions, on people's psychology. It is usually the side with the best understanding that has the advantage. I could be wrong in my views, but those who are limited in thier thinking often are outsmarted.

[russtafa]

The vetnamese never beat america it was young liberal/communist americans

[hippifried]

Well yeah. & FDR caused the great depression, & Nixon was framed, & Reagan cut the deficit, & Clinton caused the ice age, & Joe McCarthy's in cryonic stasis just waiting for the teabaggers to get control of the country...

[Rogers]

Oh and btw Rogers, read the koran & the hadith. You'll find real hate mongering in those pages, I assure you. After you've done that, cast your mind back to the mass murders committed on 9/11, in Madrid, Bali, London , etc. etc. Those murders were not carried out in the name of love or peace. They were done in the service of a religion. It's name is Islam.

Read this. (http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/verses.html)

.

Hey, it's "paintball gun guy" again!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26470.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26471.htm

Shows how much you know, again.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/03/19/22329/
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

[fraggle543]

It is all about Nimrod and mother/ wife Semiramis and their religio, politico, financial, sporting, spiritual systems of man which eveybody has been brainwashed into their idoloatrous festivals like easter, christmas, thansgiving, Tammuz festival in Israel, Asia which from the hebrew word for woman Isha, ramadan etc, only Abib festival is the only one acknowledged in the New Blood Covenant / Testament which sets everybody free forever from the old Law Covenant / Testament and all its hijacked once holy into paganized fasts and feasts hence the carnival festival to their pagan gods and godesses. World Empire of False Religion, False Empire of world Religion aka Babylon the Great the Mother of the Harlots and of the disgusting things of the Earth. Caput e Cauda Draconis

[hippifried]

If Nimrod invented parties & the debauchery that comes along with them, he's a hero in my book.

[thombergeron]

Yay! We're back to, "My Absurd Bronze Age Cult Is Better Than Your Absurd Bronze Age Cult." I love this game.

So we've heard from the papists about their favorite intolerant and blood-drenched Koranic passages. I'd like to offer my favorite story from the Old Testament, the one where God tells Joshua to raze Jericho and slaughter every living thing within its walls. Joshua's army of Israelites obediently killed every man, woman, child, and beast in Jericho, burned the city, and salted the earth. Joshua vowed that if anyone ever tried to rebuild the city, he would come back and kill their children.

Now, why would God tell Joshua to invade Canaan and sack Jericho? Well, because the Canaanites were the wrong kind of Jews, and God didn't like 'em. Boy, there's a moral code for the ages.

But the Muslims! The Muslims have brown skin and they smell funny!

Oh, but wait. Are you cut? Man, you better be cut:

"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Genesis 17:14

And you better be on good terms with your mom and your dad:

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him." Leviticus 20:9

Watch your goshdarn language:

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:16

And you better be sure you show up at the right church on Sunday:

"He that sacrificeth unto [any] god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20

And you better pay 110% attention while you're there:

"And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel." Deuteronomy 17:12

But it's actually too late for you, since even engaging the non-believers and idolators on this board is a sin:

"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Romans 16:17

Your only hope is to shut down the computer and stop reading anything that is not the Christian bible:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

One thing is for damn sure. You are in the wrong place, here:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 24:16

[trish]

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 24:16 That only means that when a man lies with a woman he should use the missionary position, but when he lies with a man he should they should use the doggy position. That way he is not lying with the man as you would with a woman. When you take the Bible literally all kinds of loopholes open up :)

[thombergeron]

But what if I do a lady in the butt? Is that laying with a woman as a man? Geez, this mortal sin stuff is confusing. I guess if there are only 144,000 spots in paradise, you gotta exclude a significant number of people through sheer trickery.

[hippifried]

Eh... Just say a couple of our fathers, 10 hail Marys, a dozen glory bes, & say you're real sorry. You can cut a plea bargain & knock your sentence down to a couple milenia in Purgatory.

[Rogers]

But what if I do a lady in the butt?

That's a sin too, because every sperm is sacred!
YouTube - Theology of Monty Python - Every Sperm is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-L3JMk7C1A)

[SkankyTrannyAnna]

We need to round up all the Christians, and Muslims, build a giant wrestling ring big enough for 3.5 billion people, then have a massive royal rumble to settle this once and for all. Then any survivors can go up against the Hindus in a Tag team with the Jews. Meanwhile Buddhists and Sikhs will be having a silly fake fight back stage, and whoever wins will rush in with a chair wrapped in barbed wire...

[russtafa]

Fantasy land is wonderful

[hippifried]

I used to prefer Adventureland as a kid, but now I hang out in Bear Country.

[russtafa]

I thought you were a bear.Theres lots of bears in sydney and twinks around im glad im not one of them

[hippifried]

Well Tinkerbell, Americans (you know, those people who aren't upside down) will get the Disney reference.

[russtafa]

Yes hippie bear we don't have disney here and I'm glad .However we have too many bears and twinks lol xx

[russtafa]

I see Whoopi walked out of her own show when she was told the truth =they killed us

[trish]

Who's they again??

[russtafa]

you know lol xxxx

[russtafa]

It's flight 380 from Final Destination...who do you think? Lol

[trish]

No come on, who are they? I know, they were all men. Are men the enemy? They were all less than forty. Are all men less than forty the enemy? They were all mammals. Are mammals the enemy? They were all Saudis. Are Saudis the enemy? They were all opposed to the presence of American troops on Arabian soil. Are all those opposed to the presence of American troops on Saudi soil the enemy? Of course not, even some of our own military were against that. No to all of the above.

They were all opposed to the presence of American troops on Saudi soil and they were willing to commit an act of terrorism to protest that presence; i.e. they were political terrorists. Political terrorists, like the Oklahoma bomber and the anti-abortionists who murder doctors, are the enemy; not survivalists, not anti-abortionists, not Christians and not Muslims...but terrorists.

[russtafa]

There would be zero terrorists if muslims could not immigrate to the west =end of story so blame our liberal leaders for the deaths of innocent people

[trish]

Oh what a load of bullshit!! Zero is a small number. You're conveniently forgetting Oklahoma City. You're forgetting the idiot American who piloted his plane into an IRS building a year or two back to protest taxes, and the American who walked into the Capitol building with a bomb protesting who knows what? You're forgetting the obstetricians who were murdered by anti-abortionists. You're also forgetting the the 60's students who bombed a research lab in Madison, WI. You're forgetting the lynchings in the early twentieth century, which had the clear intent to keep a certain segment of the population in check through the application of terror. You're forgetting the ongoing beating and killing of homosexuals in the U.S. These are crimes that express a clear political message. They are examples of terrorism pure and simple. The story continues...not because of our religious tolerance, but because of intolerance ... those who encourage it, those who practice it and those who act upon it.

[russtafa]

Yes i forgot but thats in america not in aussie so i dont care

[yodajazz]

No come on, who are they? I know, they were all men. Are men the enemy? They were all less than forty. Are all men less than forty the enemy? They were all mammals. Are mammals the enemy? They were all Saudis. Are Saudis the enemy? They were all opposed to the presence of American troops on Arabian soil. Are all those opposed to the presence of American troops on Saudi soil the enemy? Of course not, even some of our own military were against that. No to all of the above.

They were all opposed to the presence of American troops on Saudi soil and they were willing to commit an act of terrorism to protest that presence; i.e. they were political terrorists. Political terrorists, like the Oklahoma bomber and the anti-abortionists who murder doctors, are the enemy; not survivalists, not anti-abortionists, not Christians and not Muslims...but terrorists.

You just answered a bunch of questions, I posed in another thread.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?p=812185#post812185

It does seem to me, that many people are not clear on who is the 'enemy'. Howver certain parties in the US do profit from the confusion. In fact the buildup to the 2003 attack on Iraq, was helped by that confusion.

[hippifried]

Yes i forgot but thats in america not in aussie so i dont care
What a total crock of shit!

[russtafa]

What a total crock of shit!
Yes you would know you are the hippie expert on crock of shit