People are free in this country to think that Bin Laden is a swell guy. They are also free to say so. And to worship as they please.
Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero
- Thread starter pavlosmarcos
- Start date
People are free in this country to think that Bin Laden is a swell guy. They are also free to say so. And to worship as they please.
In what reality are you living in? Number one, I am not even convinced that the official account of what happened on 9/11 presented by the Bush adminstration is true. Number two, even if it was true, Muslims in general do not bear the collective guilt of what these individuals did, the burden of guilt rest solely upon them, period. If I presented the same argumentation against Jews you would call me an anti-Semite and accuse me of hate speech, you're a fucking hypocrite.
You don't even understand what the word 'fatwa' means and it's obvious. The rest of you're post is hysterical nonsense.
Stating that bin Laden is a "neo-prophet," is anti-Islamic and is blatantly so. Muhammad (saw) was called khatim an-nabiyin for a reason.
Again, I can't take you seriously, you're a buffoon.
No sir. Advocating hatred is not a right of free speech. Free speech is conditional and has responsibilities.
Which reality am I living in!!!???
There goes no 1 - you win both ways. How clever is an Iranian court.
LOL. The guilt is not in doubt - only the response of Muslims as a whole is in question. Bin Bin is free - his posters, shrines and videos are doing brisk sales in Islamic countries.
No - if you offer a single clause against the Jews - "outside of their provable homeland" - I will support you. Your problem is you have nothing else than the one lie. Why not invent some Muslim Zionists as well?
Ok, So why not do unto Bin Laden as was done unto novelists and cartoonists - after all, they never killed 3000 innocent folk?
Stating that bin Laden is a "neo-prophet," is anti-Islamic and is blatantly so. Muhammad (saw) was called khatim an-nabiyin for a reason.
Not far from the truth.
I agree with the first clause in your statements. But I am no baffoon - 'born of apes' being a sacred Islamic belief long before Darwin came along.
I think that will be news to constitutional scholars. But I'm not going to give myself carpal tunnel syndrome trying to persuade someone who uses World Nut Daily as a credible source.
Shouting FIRE in a theatre is not free speech.
The Constitution was exclusively based on the Hebrew laws. WND is no nut case - it exposes Osama - oops, I mean Obama, while the Lefties' resume against terror is 'BLANK'.
WND: WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
Well, actually I only saw the pilot. I liked the X-Files better myself too.
It was the actor that played the "Garth" character Dean Haglund, that said "The Lone Gunman" was better in his opinion in his interview with Alex Jones.
But that's not the issue here. This is about September 11, 2001 and a government operation to generate hatred towards Muslims in the American public so they can get funding to start a military campaign in the Middle East.
Plain and simple. This also relates to our topic about building a mosque at ground zero.
They are still building that hatred. That is what all the hype about the ground zero mosque is really all about.
Here is the entire interview in three parts where Haglund talks about what happened on September 11, 2001 and how Chris Carter and FOX were approached by the government to "tone down" the anti-government sentiment of their shows.
They don't just have control of the news, they want complete control over content of the shows too.
(Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njJUs960LvQ
(Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUFfkueTgoU
(Part 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYcf9qVpzAc&feature=related
He also talks about the similarities between the pilot which was done 8 months before Sept, 11 and the actual events that transpired on that day.
He also goes into how the writers got their material for the shows, especially the one that had the government flying airliners into the WTC.
Very interesting stuff.
Last edited:
Also don't forget:
Muslims are Palestineans.
The Jewish temple and the Holocaust are Zionist myths.
Dogs & Jews forbidden in Hebron.
All the ficticious, dis-historical states created by the Brits 100 years ago are now sacred Islamic soil.
Naturally, 9/11, like the bombings in London, Madrid, India, Australia, Thailand and Israel - are all lies to create anti-muslim hatreds.
Operation Northwoods had them starting this war in 1962 by setting up Cubans as the terrorists.
Kennedy ruined that plan by backing the Soviets down in the missile crisis.
They say good things come to those who wait...
So there had to be a new bad guy after the cold war, they didn't wait long to find one did they? How convenient.
Same script different actors that's all.
The reason they picked Muslims as the terrorists this time is because they want control of the world's resources.
A big part of that is the oil in the Middle East.
If they found uranium deposits in Australia the terrorists would be poison dart shooting aborigines.
Don't think I'm just picking on the American government here. No. This goes beyond the US, they are globalists.
America is just a tool to them, our freedom here was just a temporary thing.
They will soon move on, like rats from a sinking ship.
After they run it into the ground, move all their wealth to Europe and China they'll use Russia to nuke the US.
They're not pouring all that new found oil money into their military for nothing. Just picking up where they left off.
Do you really believe this war will stop if they find Bin Laden?
He is a figure head, a computer generated villain.
He is either already dead, or is being held in a very safe place somewhere.
They don't want to find Bin Laden. They've got too much invested in creating him.
But if they do decide it's time to change things up a little, they've always got Ahmadinejad and Kim ll Sung.
Plenty of bad guy options left on the table.
Last edited:
So, wait everything I said becomes irrelevant, and bogus because I'm not a Muslim? Ah, to interpret the meaning behind 'Cordoba House' and its location I have to fully understand Islam. Bullshit (My religious status is IRRELEVANT since it's about history NOT religious teachings). Does me becoming a Muslim empower me of the ability to fully understand Islam? Is it a prerequisite to understand Islam? How many Muslims fully understand Islam? How many of the so-called Muslims have ever read the whole Koran? Do you understand Islam? Read the whole Koran, and fully understood it? Got a clue about European History? Oh you didn't interpret it as such? Then, please, elaborate, what does 'Cordoba' in connection with Ground Zero imply for you, oh all-knowing Muslim? No, I didn't know that they have a website, please link it to me, but honestly any explanation that tries to see a different implication behind Cordoba House and its location is blatantly mocking European history. (screw this what has the religion to do with that? It's about history, not the religion's teachings itself -- do you understand that much, Muslim?)
Last edited:
No it wasn't. it was based on the ideas of the enlightment.
yes it is
you do know their is a standing warning against this on this site?
Um untrue lefties have a long resume against terrorism. so does the right but its resume mostly conissts of committing acts of terrorism.
WND: WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
IT already been shown repteatedly. not our fault you can't accept it.
And so you take them strictly at their word. Rauf's actions tell a very different story; and, again, just what kind of Sufi is he? The mosque and center is just a little ostentacious.
Well, do the opinions of Americans who don't want the mosque center count? Do the opinions of Muslim Americans who don't want the mosque center count? Who says there aren't Muslim Americans who see this as needless provocation and triumphalism?
A Muslim victim of 9/11: 'Build your mosque somewhere else'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html
Wow, that was a nice post by Neda Bolourchi. I can sympathise with her thoughts.
Not at all nor was I am implying this. I am just saying, you as a non-Muslim may and probably would not know how Muslims would interpret this reference of a specific time in Islamic history. Judging from this post it would seem that I am right.
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
This attempt to put into question my knowledge of my religion and my culture of which I was raised in and have practicd my entire life is really pathetic and ridiculous. I have not seen hardly anyone (if anyone at all) on this forum whom even has an elementary understanding of Islamic terms, beliefs, teachings, history, culture and so forth, I'm well within my right to say this. Some people here think that 'fatwa' means "death sentence," and 'jihad' means "holy war," which is to say if you don't even the meaning of such elementary terms such as this, how the fuck can you criticize an entire religion or try to speak with any authority on what Muslims think and or believe? You can't, also, way to misinterpret my entire post, nice.
Taken from the CI website:
"The divide is rooted in misunderstanding. Despite what many think, Islam and the West have a long history of coexistence and harmony. For nearly 800 years, the city of Cordoba in Spain endured as a shining example of tolerance among the three monotheistic religions. Muslim, Christian and Jew cohabited in prosperity during a period known for its outstanding literary and scientific productivity."
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/about-muslim-west-engagement
Generally speaking, this is how a lot of Muslims would view this reference, whether or not you agree with this assertion about said historical period is irrelevant as far as this group and conversation are concerned because this is what it means for CI and so on. It doesn't in anyway reflect the interpretation that was previously stated by you and really, this just backs up my comments in the previous post.
In other words, you didn't evn bother to research this group or anything, you just automatically decided you were against them and that one should be suspicious of them, nice. How very unbiased and open-minded of you.
See, you people here keep trying to switch things around. First its, (God forbid) Islam is evil and is responsible for infecting the minds of Muslims and making them do X and becoming terrorists and all this sort of nonsense. Then, oh, it's more political and doesn't have to do religion. Then it's that, then it's this. Come the fuck on.
I really haven't seen anything or been given any reason not to.
I am not saying that however I don't think that CI should have their project shut down just because a group of New Yorkers read some inaccurate and hysteria inducing articles in their local paper. If they really want to voice their opinion then they can do so, we can have a dialogue and discussion about it. I thought America was this "beacon of freedom," and all this shit, this is what I am told but yet, this nonviolent and assumingly progressive group is being attacked and fought against because America in general doesn't like this group (read: Muslims). They can't build there centre even though they have gone through the regular legal channels to be able to do so because America doesn't like this group, America doesn't do Islam, it "just isn't done." Is that it? Freedom only for those we accept and approve of? Go somewhere else you crazy Arabs?
Come on. The fact that some American Muslims disagree also, doesn't really mean anything to me. I do remember some well known Muslim family from an organization in America being friends and supporting Bush. This Muslims for Bush/America. It doesn't mean they're necessarily right or that I don't disagree with them.
From the linked Washington Post opinion:
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people in this country that would be troubled by a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue being built in this location would be vanishingly small; so small that almost certainly no one would pay any attention to them.
So what if it did? Giving the backers of this the benefit of the doubt, should they be held accountable for what extremists around the world take from their efforts? I'd have to imagine those types exult in the construction of any new mosques in the U.S., and the west in general, as signs that they will eventually be taking over. Who cares what they think?
How can anyone believe that? How does being born into a Muslim family remove your freedom of choice about what you believe? Does being born into a Muslim family somehow alter your neurochemistry and paralyze the brain's capability for critical thinking? I was born into a nominally Christian family, but I'm certainly not a Christian. I believe Ms. Belourchi has the same choice available to her, so I cannot agree that being born into a Muslim family means you are destined to believe in Islamic dogma against your will.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people in this country that would be troubled by a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue being built in this location would be vanishingly small; so small that almost certainly no one would pay any attention to them.
So what if it did? Giving the backers of this the benefit of the doubt, should they be held accountable for what extremists around the world take from their efforts? I'd have to imagine those types exult in the construction of any new mosques in the U.S., and the west in general, as signs that they will eventually be taking over. Who cares what they think?
How can anyone believe that? How does being born into a Muslim family remove your freedom of choice about what you believe? Does being born into a Muslim family somehow alter your neurochemistry and paralyze the brain's capability for critical thinking? I was born into a nominally Christian family, but I'm certainly not a Christian. I believe Ms. Belourchi has the same choice available to her, so I cannot agree that being born into a Muslim family means you are destined to believe in Islamic dogma against your will.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Of course, Americans on your side in this debate aren't always in favor of that either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?hp
With a billion Muslims in the world, moreover, I am sure there are some who feel mosques should never be built where there is a vocal protest over them. That doesn't change the question of whether the right to build them exists or should be respected.
At least, with the project clearing the Landmarks Commission, the last significant legal barrier to this project has fallen. The Constitution has won, and by extension, so have all Americans--even the ones too biased to know it.
None so blind as he who will not see - or who just doesn't care.
Illustrate their inaccuracy.
And they are: and when the question is put to Rauf, he runs.
Doubtful on both fronts: I don't know that they're either nonviolent or progressive, and neither do you. If you want to read that as "Muslims", then that's your reading. Or else show this widespread pandemic against mosque-building.
But it matters for you that some non-Muslims do agree with the mosque being built? Why not the latter and why the former? You weight the opinion of the one as heavier than the world, and of the other as lighter than a feather.