Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Rod Breslau
5224 Followers
Fenrir III
79 Followers
Fenrir III
79 Followers
Art Thou Bored
2897 Followers
Art Thou Bored
2897 Followers
WildAmmo.com
288 Followers
WildAmmo.com
288 Followers
fenririiiAug 17, 2010
The problem is that many people see Islam as completely un-American or anti-American, forgetting that a respectable part of the population of this country is Muslim. These bigoted asses think this is a "Christian" nation and want to throw out any other religions. If they succeeded in that then there would be a war among the Christians over whether its Catholic or Baptist.
This crap will never end so long as narrow-minded, loud-mouthed retards command the public discourse and push their own brand of insanity on the population. Stop listening to them, stop giving them a voice, stop making their stupidity look valid.
kasha34Aug 17, 2010
A "respectable" part of this country is Muslim? What part is that?
dalhectarAug 18, 2010
The overwhelming majority of the 2.5 million Muslims in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States
Do you piss on yourself every time you see someone who might not be Christian in this country? Your fear is irrational enough to be considered a psychological disorder.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
@Dal: Take a look at the disgusting things Kasha the white-supremacist birther lunatic has to say in its history to see what this person believes! I hope you aren't eating because you will be sick:
http://digg.com/users/kasha34
kasha34Aug 18, 2010
White supremacist? Where do you get that from? Any criticism of Obama is racist, right?
ironhideAug 18, 2010
birthers are inherently racist.
eir574Aug 18, 2010
Nah, ironhide. They're inherently gullible, pathetic people, but only some of them are racist.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
No Kasha, being a person who believes that minorities and people of other faiths are less than human makes you a white supremacist. The proof is here:http://digg.com/users/kasha34
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
I get that is what you always say when you are called a racist, because as a racist you get called that a lot, but I am pretty sure that I said:
"No Kasha, being a person who believes that minorities and people of other faiths are less than human makes you a white supremacist. The proof is here:http://digg.com/users/kasha34
Damn, this RWNJ White Supremacist, racist, bigoted birther actually cannot go one comment away before misquoting people! What an idiot!
Seriously though, look at all of the disgusting racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, insane birther nonsense this guy spews! Amazingly, it is on every single page of his comments! I actually went back three before getting nauseous and every single comment was absolutely revolting! The guy may very well be Breitbart! You should take a look at what he claimed Jefferson said and did. Any Tea Partier who isn't thoroughly repulsed by this fascist bastard and will not come out against him is proving what the far left say about how the Tea Party actually feels about things.
The Conservatives on Digg should be far more pissed about the absolute s**t this guy spews than anyone else!
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
For those who don't feel like making themselves ill reading Kasha's racist, bigoted, anti-liberty, constitution hating rants, (and let's face it, he spams every comment forum 4-5 times with the same hateful talking point, it's a little much) here is some of his/hers/its greatest hits:
-It's time to kick the UN out of New York. And stop paying dues!
-When Americans stop seeing Islam as a religion and start realizing it's a military and political system bent on conquest, this all will be simpler.
-Do you know that the Koran says that Judgment Day cannot come until Muslims war with the Jews and kill them all?
-They want to keep half-black Americans in the black category. Or they'd lose constituents!
-Even Obama would have to show his real birth certificate to get a passport. He's got it somewhere. He just won't show it to us. Don't you libs even wonder why?
-Just as (Obama) lied to us about his ties and even membership in Marxist organizations like Democratic Socialists of America.
-He joined a "church" in Chicago with a pastor who's a "former" BlackMuslim!
-Did the Westboro Church virtually invent the intercontinental trade in black slaves? Did it kidnap a million whites into slavery during a 1,000 year period?
-Cat Stevens has been linked to terrorist groups.
-That's where "public/private partnerships" also known as fascism, takes you. And that's where Obama and these Democratic Socialists of America jerkoffs would take us too.
-Violent Muslims are following Mohammad and Allah's orders.
-Did you know that Obama had the State Dept illegally steer tens of millions to convincing KENYANS to vote last week to change their Constitution?
-When Hitler had Jews wearing the Star-of-David, he was taught that idea by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
-Every Muslim on earth heard the President of the United States proclaim himself a Muslim.
-Who said he (POTUS *comment added*) was a Muslim?
-Anything where business and government work together? That is fascism.
-Which clause in the Constitution are you referring to exactly? I don't think the Constitution spells out "religious freedom" you know.
( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ *comment added*)
-The public schools are three-quarters illegal immigrants. Maybe that's why they're out of money.
Unlike this fascist, anti-American, constitution hating idiot, this is what he ACTUALLY SAID!
planet87Aug 19, 2010
And I can't find a racist comment in the whole lot. Where exactly is it. Can you pick just one? She probably went over the top with the 3/4 illegal immigrants in the public schools. Please take any one of these comments, individually, and explain how it is racist. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Funny enough, he just chose a "she" name and used a child's picture to lessen criticism of his ridiculous comments. He hates minorities, especially Arabic, Black and Hispanic people but most of his rage is against the Islamic faith, which he considers a military cult that only exist to destroy Christians and Jews while destroying all of humanity, as you can see above.
Since he equates all of Islam with Arabic people and those he calls "dhimmis" who he feels the Arabs have somehow brainwashed, this of course, is another point to his demented racist, bigoted lunacy. He has also specified that obvious lies that he has crafted about famous people throughout history prove that he is not alone in his bigoted, demented spew regardless of whether or not it was obviously not the case by breitbarting quotes from these same people to make them appear to believe the opposite of what these people are known to actually believe. Again, all of this is obvious if you have read his statements.
If after reading that list, you are willing to claim that somehow this person is not a racist, bigoted lunatic and spew apologia for him, much less are not offended by the statements he has made, you are probably a troll, lunatic or a partisan so committed to your "team" that you will attack anyone who questions any members of that "team". Either way, maybe you should get a hobby and/or an adjustment of your medication according to that scale.
No, you are probably just a crazy too. Have fun writing on the walls with your own feces, Wingy!!
kasha34Aug 20, 2010
Thank you planet. Of course there aren't any racist comments in the whole lot. And I challenged him on several specific comments. To no avail.
Now you've got him calling you names too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/38vstkf
planet87Aug 21, 2010
poor nowingdings, must be a brainwashed victim of our teachers unions & communist controlled universities. Fully drunk with the Kool-Aid. Unable to make a coherent argument... only call people names. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Aug 21, 2010
He also invents imaginary things he thinks I've said.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
Actually, I was a victim of the GeeHoddy Mooozlinz and their Chemtrails just like you and Kasha think, Planet. Let's all write our congressmen and beg them to deny those Moozlin GeeHoddies their first amendment rights since as LiZarDmEn terror BABBYS, they deserve NOTHING!
By the way, thanks for the picture of the two of you, but Kasha, I think you need a shave, your starting to annoy Planet!: http://moshland.com/wp-content/gallery/motivational/conspiracy.jpg
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
Also, the chemtrails made my hybrid-lizardman terrorbrain copy and paste things from here http://digg.com/world_news/Mosque_Developer_Rejects_Meeting_With_NY_Governor?t=34391780#c34396016 wif theer eeevull GeeHoddy blackmagic!
kasha34Aug 21, 2010
@nowingnutlies
Just as a start, here's what I never said:
"Islam is a military organization."
or that I "hates minorities "
Or that I "thinks that women are property."
I never " stated that the President of the United States is an illegal alien"
Or a " "Terror Baby"
All of those are your mischaracterizations.
You're weird, you know that? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 21, 2010
Oh, don't you know? Chemtrails are the eeevul airplane juice left behind when jets fly over that the lizardman Gee-Hoddyz (like the terror-baby President) use to make you liberal!! AYEEE!
Oh, here is a greatest hits list of what you have "never" said: http://digg.com/world_news/Mosque_Developer_Rejects_Meeting_With_NY_Governor?t=34391780#c34396016
But don't read it since it was probably caused by the mind control of EEEvul m000zlin GeeHoddys.
Whatever you do, DON'T look here: http://digg.com/users/kasha34/history/comments
and realize you have been babbling like a lunatic and maybe go see somebody for your insanity since, you see, they are probably m00zlin Muzzlemen too!
Seriously dude, you are a living joke. People just bury what you say without reading it since they think you are crazy and, well, it looks like you very well may be. The weirdness you see is people (myself included) making fun of your nonsensical lies and misquotes since it is useless talking to you. I am actually almost starting to feel bad for mocking you since I think you might have a serious mental disorder.
Read what you have said. You are reacting angrily to actual things you have said that I have copied and pasted from your comment history. No "mischaracterizations" (which is not a word) are going on here except for now when I am teasing you for your crazy statements and my liberal bleeding heart is starting to wonder if I am actually slapping around a crazy guy. Read the crazy nonsense you have been saying, really think about it, and decide if maybe it has gone on far enough and you might need some help.
Dude, you are a mental and need to see a doctor. Really, there is nothing else to say, but if you keep spewing nonsense I am going to keep mocking you since there is already enough insanity in the public forum and well, you are fun to beat on since you are a living stereotype and your responses are very entertaining and crazy.
sealaAug 22, 2010
@nowingnutlies
Just as a start, here's what I never said:
"Islam is a military organization."
Kashas right. He never said that. He said
When Americans stop seeing Islam as a religion and start realizing it's a military and political system bent on conquest, this all will be simpler.
Reminds me of someone who once owed me a fairly large sum of money and had promised to repay me. When the money never came, He said "Didnt you read my letter properly I said I would pay when I could" -well I cant . 10 years later and he has managed to buy a house in that time and "still can't" "Fool me once... "
jgregcAug 17, 2010
Crosses in the desert for service men is bad, but this is okay? I guess I just don't get it...
janineeeAug 17, 2010
You very obviously don't.
jgregcAug 17, 2010
Janineee, you obviously couldn't... ;)
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
I am going to take a chance here since you may be sincere and not just playing "I'm asking questions here, folks" and take the bait:
The Cross in the desert you are referring to is not only unauthorized to be constructed there, it is on the property of the federal government and implies that Protestant Christianity (No Jesus on the Cross implies Protestant) is the USA's state backed religion and this is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. Unless the Constitution is modified to be bigoted against non-christians who still pay taxes and die in wars, that cross is a slap in the face for those people who were fighting for freedom and against the religious theocratic terror and hatred our Founding Fathers were so opposed to.
The Cordoba House Community Center, it's mosque included, is on private land, is zoned properly, does not imply state religion as it is private, and since our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to its citizens as a moral and just duty, the mosque is completely legal. Stopping the construction of the Cordoba center is a violation of the Constitution that the teabaggers opposing this claim to love so very much and is completely illegal. The Christian and Jewish extremist intolerant bigots who are attacking the Cordoba center while claiming to love freedom, liberty and the constitution are proving themselves to be hypocrites who are only concerned about their personal liberty while seeking to force their beliefs and demands on those who are different then them.
Does that clarify things for you?
kasha34Aug 17, 2010
A slap in the face for "our Founding Fathers"?
Did you know that the very first war the USA had to fight was against Islamic jihadis? The Barbary pirates. When asked why they were attacking American ships and enslaving the crews, they said back then just what jihadis say right now: our Koran tells us we may attack you and that we must attack you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jgregcAug 17, 2010
You are painting me as somebody I'm not. So, please lay off the emotional knee jerk reactions, mkay?
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
JG, If you had read the comment completely and not made a knee-jerk response about who you think I am saying you are, you would see that I said, "I am going to take a chance here since you may be sincere" and not accusing you of being anything. That being said, you may be saying that I am painting you as someone who IS sincere, which I am, so it is hard to say
janineeeAug 17, 2010
Who the f**k dugg Kasha up that much? You people are f**king idiots.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
Wow, Kasha the WP birther is still around, i am shocked!
Funny enough, the Barbary pirates were not "jihadis" but the people we aligned with, armed and paid to overthrow them actually were. Funny you would know about the Barbary states conflict and wouldn't know that unless you are just spreading WND copy-pasta you hadn't researched yet again.
Of course the Koran says no such thing and you just made that up out of thin air, but considering you commonly just write whatever you and others at extremist right-wing hate sites dream up, it isn't a shock I guess.
jgregcAug 17, 2010
nowingnutlies,
I was sincere in what I posted. Your response - such long, run on sentences really shows how emotional you were. Every time a left winger gets emotional. Every time.
Quick joke to lighten the mood - how do you turn a left winger into a conservative? Mug them.
Nothing personal, we just have different views. Mine is right, yours is childish.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Aug 17, 2010
nowingnutlies -
"...Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman .... Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
In other words:
question:
why are you attacking us when we've done you no wrong?
answer:
The Koran tells us we can and we must.
And that's the same thing they say now.
Q.E.D.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
Oh, I see, JGregc, so you were just lying and not actually asking a question.
Makes more sense now.
So, did you and Kasha just come over from Stormfront or WingNutDaily?
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
Oh Kasha, do you ever get sick of misquoting when you know you are wrong?
Are you just trolling people and making up anything to get a reaction or are you really that crazy?
kasha34Aug 18, 2010
You're ridiculous and you know it. This is a direct quote.
This is American history. This is how it happened.
If you have a different source, provide it. Or prove that you're a blowhard.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jgregcAug 18, 2010
nowingnutlies, like I said you were painting me with the wrong brush. Let me explain.
I believe that private property should be done with as the owners please. That is the basic freedom I believe in. But I also believe that a monument to the fallen in the desert should be allowed to stand. After all, "Federal Property" should be translated to say, "Property of the people". And what could be more dear to the people than the souls that died preserving that freedom.
Unfortunately, in the minds of the left the government should be feared by the government, not the other way around as it should be. The big government claims the property, and the effort is washed away in political correctness.
So, when you strip it all away, my original post stands. No, I am not affiliated with any groups. But you may be too blind to see that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
As always, Kasha the White Supremacist Birther spews copy-pasta from extremist hate sites and gets fussy when his nonsense is questioned.
Of course the Barbary Conflicts were real: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
However, as is typical with this bigoted birther, nothing else he says is true but is instead an intentional hack job to make it appear that his Muslim-hating fantasies have merit. The conflict was between the United States and Tripoli (and later Algiers) and had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Matter of fact, the Treaty of Algiers specifically stated not only that this was not a religious conflict, but that the US was NOT a Christian nation, as you can see:
ARTICLE 15TH.
As the Government of the United States of America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation, and as the said States have never entered into any voluntary war, or act of hostility, except in defense of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the Contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of Harmony between the two nations; and the Consuls and agents of both nations, shall have liberty to Celebrate the rights of their respective religions in their own houses.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1815t.asp
This conflict ended when the US gave up trying to support the Pasha of Tripoli's brother (an actual Muslim extremist who was trying to overthrow the secular-leaning Pasha) and used reasonable diplomacy with instead of boneheaded neo-crusaderism that the lunatic wingnut fringe Kasha associates with seem to love so much.
The copy-pasta Kasha is parroting comes from here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25122
This renowned bigoted hate site is his second home. Look at his history and look at their hate-spew and tell me if you do not see a great many correlations.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
@JG: I could care less about what "group" you are or are not a member of. What you are trying to do is equate the US Government refusing to violate the Constitution of the United States by endorsing a specific sect of a specific religion and slapping the face of all of those who died to defend that very Constitution with something that is not even REMOTELY related, e.g. the use of privately owned property to practice protected speech and the freedom to worship the way these citizens choose, the very attempt to do such, of course is also a violation of the very rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.
Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
http://www.aclu-sc.org/releases/view/100354
kasha34Aug 18, 2010
nowingnutlies
About the Barbary pirates --- there are numerous sources that all agree. The pirate ambassador told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 1785:
"When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
You don't want to admit this as it would tend to suggest that our modern "War On Terror" is simply a continuation of Islam's long war against civilization. But the more you squirm and whine the more it is obvious how desperate you are to deny the truth.
Why do you hate your own culture? Why do you want to be, in a very teeny tiny way, a help to those who would destroy your culture? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
The culture of the United States of America is multi-ethnic, multi-faith and multi-racial. It's enemy is intolerant lying bigots like yourself and your white supremacist friends who claim to support the Constitution while, as the traitors you are, do everything you can to circumvent it.
You are a lying bigot who has now quoted Hitchens of all people (Hitchens is a liberal atheist who completely opposes all of what this birther has to say, except against Islam when he lies just like Kasha) to claim that Jefferson would somehow agree with your vile hatred when in reality the opposite was the case.
As Jefferson wrote in 1802, "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson would have despised your hatred and bigotry, would have supported the Park51 community center, and probably would have backhanded you for claiming that religious freedom was a hatred of American culture.
As for those who would try to destroy my culture, I am already fighting you here, and well, one at a time is enough for destroying enemies of America, you fascist bastard.
As for your intentional misquote, here is the rest of the SAME PARAGRAPH that shows the ambassador was only trying to get a commission from the United States by encouraging them to pay instead of fight that he would only receive if they paid the ransom. A classic "chicken" move:
"One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence. Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce... Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants (who we ended up supporting which I have illustrated above. *comment added*), on the other—or indeed a collusion between them." Sounds a little different now, doesn't it?
Yet again, another intentional "quote mining" lie from Kesha the birther. There is the lines Kesha decided to cut out to again play his revisionist-history bulls**t games to make his bigoted hate-speech sound less disgusting. Do you think that people will not look up your nonsense, wingnut?
Jefferson speaks for me and the clear majority of people around the world (as shown by the global Gallup poll published in Feb. 2008) that the only true relationship to the Divine must be of the individual believer, unfettered by religious or political leaders who claim to speak in the name of the Divine.
Your argument is pure anti-Islamic bigotry and your personal vendetta against people who worship differently than yourself is disgusting and the proof I needed to show that those you quote would despise you and fight to stop your demented schemes.
You should be ashamed of yourself you sick, depraved lunatic.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
Yes the same Thomas Jefferson who said, "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." would have despised your hatred and bigotry, would have supported the Park51 community center, and probably would have backhanded you for claiming that religious freedom was a hatred of American culture.
Clearly, you are completely wrong about Jefferson and have proved you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how Jefferson felt about anything. He was very clear about why he hated opinions such as yours.
eatingpieAug 18, 2010
Actually, it didn't clarify anything, because you have your facts wrong on this speific account.
The cross in the California desert, presumably the one referred to above, was deemed *legal*. It was, however, stolen immediately following the decision, and a new cross has not been approved to replace it.
I believe that the decision was based upon the legal cultural expression of religion, but I don't have the decision in full (a google search would be in order for anyone interested).
-PieComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63R3M720100428
Actually, no. It was not deemed "legal", the US sold the land to the VFW and therefore the cross could stay.
As for it being stolen, maybe they should consider making it heavier since they own the land now. Better yet, why not make it all inclusive to ALL of the people who lost their lives in WWI? That being said, their land, their call. If they want to cheapen the sacrifice of all those who died who were NOT Protestant Christian, it is their call...
eatingpieAug 18, 2010
As I stated, google for details. Thanks for providing a link.
I also don't see how shifting blame on the cross theft is justified ("the should have made it heavier"). A theft is a theft, and is therefore wrong.
I also don't see how it cheapens the sacrifice of ALL those who died in the war. The original, intended purpose of the cross is to remind us of ALL those who died. Given that our culture at the time was largely Christian, why is it wrong to express pain in a specifically Christian manner, when that manner actually is interpreted by those very Christians as a recognition of all people who died?
-PieComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
@Pie - Never justified the theft. I think now that the land belongs to a private entity they can make it more permanent so that it will not be stolen again. After further research, I have discovered that they have done exactly that.
- A cross is insulting to those who fought for our constitution which states that the US does not have any one religion and all are free to worship as they see fit. Millions of people outside of the christian faith fought and died in world war 1, many came here to escape the kind of religious persecution and indoctrination that forcing a protestant cross on land which is just as much owned by non-christian taxpayers without any outside discussion because those who erected it intended to show that that war was a religious sacrifice for the protestant faith. It was not and the insuation is both demeaning and disgusting.
- Why do you feel the need to force your faith on others with land that belongs to everyone? Are you that weak in your beliefs that you need to hoist them upon others, especially those who cannot speak out against it because they died serving their religiously tolerant country?
- Yes, I am sure that the Jews, Muslims and Catholics who fought for the US in WWI feel that a protestant cross is the best way to remember their service and sacrifice. Are you really that brainwashed by your faith to think such a thing?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Oh, and since it was not and never was legal to have that cross on public land, you get that your original argument was completely factually incorrect, right?
eatingpieAug 19, 2010
- Yes, you did shift blame, as I pointed out above.
- Seeing a symbol of Christianity is forced indoctrination? If a person cannot stand to see a cross, and feel compelled to be indoctrinated just from viewing that symbol, that makes *them* the weak minded. Think about it. If just seeing a symbol makes them change affiliations, they had a very poor foundation in the first place. I could also ask the reverse of the question you directed at me (ad hominen remaining intact, unfortunately): Do you feel so weak minded that you must purge all expressions of belief systems from public land, lest you be indoctrinated?
Now, you are missing the crux of my statements. So let me rephrase.
- If the memorial were a Jewish Star or a Islam Moon, I would actually feel that this particular religious group was honoring ALL veterans via their own (Jewish/Islamic) faith. It is how THEY express their honor, their memorialization of the dead. And I would not ever interpret it as them "forcing" their faith upon me (I'm still perplexed at how someone "forces" me to accept their faith simply via displaying a symbol).
This was my point. A Christian cross is a particular faith's expression of honor for all in this case. It's not intended to indoctrinate, make a statement about other faiths, but to simply present honor from a Christian worldview by using a Christian symbol.
"- Yes, I am sure that the Jews,...Are you really that brainwashed by your faith to think such a thing?"
First question, what does this statement even mean? You seem to agree and disagree at the same time. And second, what faith have I stated affiliation with?
To imply that I am "brainwashed" or "weak minded" is actually an Ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy. Even asking it by question. If you would like further discussion, I would appreciate you sticking to the topic specifically.
-PieComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eatingpieAug 19, 2010
"Oh, and since it was not and never was legal to have that cross on public land, you get that your original argument was completely factually incorrect, right?"
Not at all.
Please re-read my post. It is accurate as stated. I specifically did not state "public land" because I was pretty sure it was deeded or purchased land by a private organization.
-PieComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Ok, much blather, little time. Lets see:
-nope, sorry, you said placing a religiously biased war memorial was legal, it wasnt. you were wrong.
-you said I was wrong that it was illegal, it was, they fixed it, next...
-Dead guys cannot complain. Each religion gets their own religious symbol on their tombstone because they asked for it, they do not want yours.
-Yes, protestant Christians and Mormons constantly try to claim the dead of a conflict they like as their own, hence the cross and graveyard conversions.
-No, you probably would not be ok with other religions symbols. The theocrats who created this religious attack on these war dead refused other symbols as they wanted to pretend this was a Christian war.
-If I pay taxes for the purchase, holding and maint of OUR land, I don't want you stealing it to force your religion on my dead Grandfather who left his homeland to avoid your form of religious oppression.
-Flowers and Rice do not mean that this dead guy worshiped my Deity. Crosses do, and naked crosses mean Protestant lies here. Give it up, you are projecting your religion on others and no one outside of your faith buys your nonsense,
- People of other faiths do not have bare "t"s on their headstones because they did not belong to your faith and do not want to be associated with it. I get you don't understand scarcasm but maybe you understand this, WE DO NOT WORSHIP YOUR WAY AND WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO PRETEND THAT WE DO
-You are brainwashed and weak minded if you think that the symbols of your sect of your faith are so wonderful that we all want our dead and our personal sacrifice marked with them because somehow they are better than ours and clear up confusion.
Have you no respect for anyone but yourself and those who look, act, think and worship like you?
eatingpieAug 19, 2010
I will reiterate that my original statement was not wrong, though you keep accusing it as such. Please re-read it. I even point out where I am unsure of the specific facts, and recommend a google search.
Now, I am going to address only one point. I pointed out the ad hominem attacks, and the above is simply rife with them. Making it logical fallacy built upon logical fallacy (but name calling sounds good).
"You are brainwashed and weak minded if you think that the symbols of your sect of your faith are so wonderful that we all want our dead and our personal sacrifice marked with them because somehow they are better than ours and clear up confusion."
You simply are not reading my statements. This is absolute proof.
You still refer to things as "[my] sect of [my] faith" though I told you I have made no stated affiliation. Second, you apparently do not understand how one group of a specific religious or cultural belief system can honor another group not of said culture/beliefs, even if they use their own religious/cultural symbology. Note also that I never said this particular expression was "better" than another -- I actually cited other faiths using similar faith-based imagery to the same end, and said that was equally legitimate, even though it was specific to another faith.
Now, I want to point out another fallacy. It's referred to as "the fallacy of many questions." Though I would call it the fallacy of the same question here. You make an accusation (question), and when it is addressed, you simply make the same accusation again (with the addition of further ad hominen attacks). No discussion, just repetition. You also put words into my mouth (saying I called "my" faith "better") which is yet a third logical fallacy.
-Pie
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Pie:
It is quite funny that you would chose to point out "the fallacy of many questions" as this and constant deflection is the entirity of the argument you have presented from your very second statement. You have lost a great deal of credibility by deflecting, demeaning and distracting from the original debunking of your reply but, unfortunately, I took the bait so I cannot blame you anymore than myself for the devolution of this thread. The reality of the situation is this and this alone: your original comments were completely false on two points.
To begin with, your statement "Actually, it didn't clarify because you have your facts wrong on this specific account." is completely inaccurate as my facts are completely correct. The argument was that placing a monument to a particular religious sect on public land is illegal via the first amendment of the Constitution and this was and still is true. When the VFW bought the land, it was no longer the property of the US government and as a private entity they are allowed to display a monument to any sect of any religion that pleases them.
Secondly, your statement that "The cross in the California desert, presumably the one referred to above, was deemed *legal*" was also completely incorrect as the unauthorized creation and display of a monument to a specific sect of a specific religion still is considered illegal under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This was the only thing being discussed in the statement you were replying to as any reasonable person can attest.
Everything else you have stated in this thread is simply an attempt to mislead and distract from this fact and until you are honest and admit fault, so any further discussion is pointless as it is simply an attempt on your part to divert attention from the truth. Once you have decided to be honestly forthright and admit to these obvious facts, we can continue to discuss your other points.
Until you are honest about your erroneous statements, you have no credibility.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Pie, "so any further discussion" should read "any further discussion". Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
eatingpieAug 20, 2010
A "deflection"? You continue to miscast me. A logical fallacy once again. *Sigh*
Your first post stated the following: "better yet, why not make it all inclusive to ALL of the people who lost their lives in WWI? That being said, their land, their call. If they want to cheapen the sacrifice of all those who died who were NOT Protestant Christian, it is their decision to make..."
You do realize I responded specifically to that -- YOUR post -- and justified my response? That was no "deflection," that was a "response." As with all my posts, the majority of which are simply explanations to clarify my position. (No ad hominem/name calling, no throwing multiple irrelevant questions, no misrepresentation of another person's words, just an attempt at reasoned debate.)
Okay, now, that said, I appreciate your clarification on your original post. But before attacking my credibility, let us look at your first statement:
"The Cross in the desert you are referring to is not only unauthorized to be constructed there, it is on the property of the federal government..."
Now my statement:
"The cross in the California desert, presumably the one referred to above, was deemed *legal*. It was, however, stolen immediately following the decision, and a new cross has not been approved to replace it."
There is one thing missing from BOTH our posts: The cross was deemed legal because it -- prior to the court proceedings -- resided on land deeded to a private organization.
However, your statement is present-tense. "The cross IS on federal land." That is untrue, as you yourself say in a subsequent post. I did not specify, as I was unsure at post time if it resided on private or public land, and it was most certainly stolen.
So, now I have to ask. Why is *my* credibility in question? Your initial statement is factually incorrect on the land count. Mine is vague on the land count (hence me recommending a google search in that very post), but correct on the legality count.
Yet you demand I admit *I* am wrong, and my "credibility" is at issue? When your post was the one that can be demonstrated as factually incorrect on the very issue my "credibility" somehow relies upon.
-Pie
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
It is obvious that you are not going to admit you were wrong and will go to any extreme to avoid doing so.
I guess we are done here.
eatingpieAug 23, 2010
Of course I'm not going to admit I'm wrong. Because I'm not. See the citations above. I'll let people judge for themselves.
Sheesh.
-Pie
d4nie1Aug 18, 2010
It's hard for you to get things when you're an idiot. Don't worry about it.
jgregcAug 18, 2010
Thanks. I guess you found out that experience is the best teacher?
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Well, JGregc, it is really good for all of us that you could lead by example. You are a real champ, Idiot.
jgregcAug 19, 2010
nowingnutlies - Sorry if you feel left out. Tell you what, let's all sing Kumbaya while we all admit that the Mosque in question should have its money trail investigated.
Agree or not? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Don't worry Champ, my dance card is full these days, but since you ask,
Right after we investigate the money trail from the Mormon church to Prop 8 in California and between Fox "news" and the GOP-Teabagger party, I would have no problem with that. Matter of fact, let's investigate the finances of all religious entities and tax them on everything that doesn't go to charity! We could start with Protestant mega-churches and work our way over to whatever you are pretending is going on with this organization.
Does that work for you or do you just want to single out Park51 because your are prejudiced against Muslims and/or want to scare independent voters that secret Muslims are out to get them?
Also, what would you do with the findings? I get that you have probably dreamed up a scenario where this organization is secretly being run by BinLaden himself, but unless it was, what would you want done with the findings? What would be the criteria? If Catholic churches are getting money from the Pope, a leader of a foreign nation, would they be closed? Since it is not against the law for foreign people to give money to religious institutions in the US and it is already illegal and very closely tracked when people on Terrorist watch lists donate to US organizations of any kind, what good would it do?
Obviously the US Government tracks and freezes money from terrorist groups and arrests anyone involved in the US and has for at least a decade, so why would this additional and seemingly unfairly applied investigation be necessary other than to make it look like the bigoted faux-outrage of the right-wing during this non-event was somehow justified?
Face it, this and all of the other recent religious and race baiting of the Republican-Teabagger party has been an attempt to scare caucasian Prodestants who are currently not alligned into voting for the extremists that the right-wing has put forward. This is needed to distract from the current roster of candidates they have advanced who are wholly unelectable otherwise, the victories of the current administration, the end of the Iraq war, and the disgusting mouth job given by the GOP-Teabaggers to BP during the Senate spill hearings.
Everyone on both sides knows this.
Hopefully the American public is smarter now then when the GOP pulled the "gays are out to steal your children and marry them" distraction of 2004, but only time will tell.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
"caucasian Prodestants who are currently not alligned" should read "Caucasian Protestants who are currently not aligned"
too many typos, not enough edit time :-(
swampswingAug 17, 2010
Beyond the fact they have right to have a mosque where ever they please, it is driving me bats that people seem to think there is only one version of Islam. The community centre builders are sufis and the terrorists were super extreme salafis. Lets hold the mormons accountable for the spanish inquistion while we are at it.
kasha34Aug 17, 2010
Islam is a militaristic political party with a religious component. Its stated goal is to take over the world.
boo1Aug 18, 2010
lol...seriously man. I am not sure if I feel bad for you or those around you.
Closed AccountAug 17, 2010
"All this leaves moderate Muslims in the lurch. How can they say to their excitable kids that it’s not Islam itself that is under siege?"
I would hope that moderate Muslims would tell their kids that many Americans in NYC that close to Ground Zero are a bit excitable and somewhat skeptical of Islam as a result of what happened on 9/11.
I would think that it is understandable.
Here's my view....they have a right to put the mosque/community center there. We have the right to practice religion in the USA. I do think it's normal that some New Yorkers and some Americans would have questions about it due to its proximity to the scene of the attack.
Maybe some Diggers can post some links, but I haven't seen much "public outreach" to non-Muslim Americans regarding WHY they want to build here and how they feel about the events of 9/11. I'm still unsure as to the grand-opening date; I have read that it's scheduled to be 9/11....and I don't think that's very pr savvy...but some people have said it's not scheduled to open on 9/11.
In short, I think that some of the hard feelings are as a result of the public relations aspect of this community center/mosque not making their mission clear.
It's like saying, "You are a terrible Nazi because you have objections and unanswered questions" instead of saying, "we really need to make our mission statement and our condemnation of the 9/11 attackers and our case to the American people more transparent."
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dalhectarAug 18, 2010
"WORSE bigotry than that which cost thousands of lives?"
The bigotry that inhibits millions from enjoying first amendment protections the majority of us takes for granted.
Such as anti Muslim protests in Staten island, Tennessee, or California. After all the main group against the Cordoba House isn't called "9/11 families against the mosque" it's "Stop Islamization of America" http://sioaonline.com/
fadedblueAug 18, 2010
Your questions are fair and balanced. While I'm no expert on the subject, I'll try and address them as best I can.
The claim that it's schedueled to be opened on 9/11 is bollocks, basically. It's made up in the same way the original name of Corbuda house was re-invented by imaginative fear-mongers to be a reference to Muslim subjegation of Christian land.
As for it's proximity to ground zero.... so what? Is it now a case that we hold all muslims responsible for what happened, and so are suspect when they want to have anything to do with the area? This would seem an absurd double standard. Feisel Abdul Rauf, the Imam of Park 51, is a pretty moderate muslim: he's called for cooperation with the West, supports equal rights for women, strongly opposes unequal laws for muslims and non-muslims as see in some Islamic countries etc. Why should he be expected to prove he isn't building it there to celebrate 9/11 when his very character is so opposed to political and religious views of those who backed and committed the attack? In fact the reason behind the attraction to that building is explained as being for the very opposite reason:
"The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”
“We want to push back against the extremists,” added Imam Feisal, 61."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=1
If you look further down that article you'll see Imam Feisel being praised by Christian and Jewish leaders for his efforts to reach out to other communities, as well as by the FBI for helping them reach out to Muslims after 9/11.
wefarrellAug 18, 2010
The Cordoba house didn't see the controversy coming and failed to mount a PR campaign explaining themselves to the public, I'm sure Muslim leaders will learn from their experience. But it shouldn't be an issue, legally we are a tolerant nation that treats all religions equally. A Mosque shouldn't have to explain itself anymore than a church or synagogue.
kasha34Aug 19, 2010
Sure. Except Islam is more of a military philosophy with a religious component.
You know that Mohammad himself gave the order to behead hundreds of bound prisoners and kick their bodies into the freshly-dug ditch, right?
You know that Mohammad himself gave the order to rape 100s of just captured women and girls, right?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bawbzillaAug 19, 2010
You know that the christian god killed the entire f**king world by making them drown except for a few people just because he was pissed at them, right? You know that very same god turned people into pillars of salt because he didn't like how they were getting their hanky-panky on or that they were worshipping someone other than him, right? You know the idea of that christian god inspired a bunch of f**kwits to get wrapped up in the crusades, which were a little more bloody than a caravan attack or raping hundreds of captives, right?
Stories from that long ago really aren't to be believed fully, and if you're going to go that far, I'd say Christianity has a much darker past. Since this isn't a pissing match, however, I'll just say this- people should be judged on who they are, not what people did in the name of their religion hundreds of years ago or more. As the people who are involved in this mosque dealie aren't calling for the extermination of the US, I'd say there's no reason to judge them, and definitely no basis to deny them the building even if they were anti-US. Maybe you didn't get this from our discussion on McCarthy, but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you can discriminate against them. People can say they hate the US, but guess what? They're entitled to think that! People can be communists, and guess what? This might come as a surprise to you, but being a communist isn't illegal OR something you should hold against a person.
Plus, Islam is a religion. Islam is a religion.
Islam is a f**king religion. Know how it is a religion? People pray, read their holy texts, celebrate religious holidays, and have a god. Know how it isn't a military? They don't have tanks, planes, missiles, aircraft carriers, generals and lieutenants
kasha34Aug 19, 2010
@Bawbzilla
Maybe you don't know this: Mohammad is an actual historical figure. No one disputes that. One the other hand, Jehovah...
And you're missing another key point -- when Christians are violent that are not following Jesus message. When Muslims are violent, at least against non-believers, they are following Allah and Mohammad's specific orders. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bawbzillaAug 20, 2010
Big f**king difference. Christianity has a darker past than Islam does, accept it friendo :)
kasha34Aug 20, 2010
A "darker past"? Hardly. And irrelevant.
Islam is the bloody one in a dozen countries NOW.
Closed AccountAug 20, 2010
Kasha is a bigot who has openly stated that Islam is a military organization. He is also a bigot who hates minorities and thinks that women are property. Not only is he a birther, he has stated that the President of the United States is an illegal alien and a "Terror Baby" who was "dropped" in this country to become a citizen and then transported to Indonesia to complete his terrorist training. He has claimed that Breitbarted quotes of Thomas Jefferson proved he hated Muslims and that all of the serious crimes committed in the United States have been carried out by Democrats or Liberals. He believes and has stated that all undocumented immigrants are habitual criminals and that not only was Obama a secret member of a Communist organization but that the religion of Islam (that he says is not a religion) has colluded with Communists and are now one in the same, and that we are all now under their control. Please see more of his greatest hits in one tidy location, look here:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Thoughts_on_Islamic_Center_in_NY_Image?t=34396100#c34396100
or check out his comments here: http://digg.com/users/kasha34
But I wouldn't suggest the full comment listing as what he says is not only hideous and disgusting hate speech, but it is repeated ad nauseum as he is also a copy-pasta spammer. You have been warned.
kasha34Aug 17, 2010
Here's yet another hypocritical thing about lefty/libs:
If someone wants to build on land that was a Native American burial ground five hundred years ago, they'll go nuts.
But building a Muslim mosque right where Muslims chanted Islamic nut chants while murdering almost 3,000 Americans only 9 years ago? No problemo.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emailowndmeAug 17, 2010
So, are all Muslims terrorists then?
kasha34Aug 17, 2010
Have you stopped beating your wife?
emailowndmeAug 18, 2010
You're equating the religion that the terrorists follow with the religion that 1.4 billion mostly peaceful people follow.
I think you gotta answer this.
kasha34Aug 18, 2010
Polls have shown a healthy chunk of Muslims in Western countries admit to wanting to live under sharia. And a healthy chunk admit to supporting suicide bombers, for example.
Certainly, ALL good Muslims make zakat knowing that some of the money they contribute goes to the jihad.
Hidden cameras have proven that mainstream imams in western countries preach jihad.
Either we can admit the inconvenient truth. Or we can wait for our children to be overrun. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emailowndmeAug 18, 2010
So, "Has your child completed his or her suspicious activity booklet?
Don’t let this summer go to waste.
The enemy is preparing their children are you?
Time to show them who’s boss.
Moloch demands fresh blood to maintain the appetite of his mechanical heart.
Will you sacrifice your first born like Abraham would his Isaac?" Basically?
kasha34Aug 18, 2010
It's weird how you lefty/libs dig this comment down. But you can't say any part of it is factually incorrect. You can't say it's not true. You just don't WANT it to be true.
The world is was it is, not what you lefty/libs wish it to be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gamegyro56Aug 18, 2010
"If someone wants to build on land that was a Native American burial ground five hundred years ago, they'll go nuts."
You're acting like this Mosque is being built on the 9/11 victims' graves. It's not. It's not even being built on Ground Zero. It's 2 block away.
I live 2 blocks from the beach. Does that mean I live in the ocean?
What do the people that are in charge of this Community Center have anything to do with Al Qaeda? The only answer is that they are all Muslim. That doesn't mean that they are in any way definitively connected to 9/11 (other than the fact that many of the people that will go there are AMERICAN). You can't stereotype over a billion people because of what 1 terrorist group did? Is Cat Stevens evil? Was Freddie Mercury evil? Was Malcolm X evil? Is Muhammad Ali evil?
kasha34Aug 18, 2010
The building WAS attacked on 9/11:
"On 9/11, landing gear from one of the planes crashed through the building’s roof..."
http://dnainfo.com/20100708/manhattan/mosque-building-not-worth-landmarking-community-board-says#ixzz0wxf20QPL
Cat Stevens has been linked to terrorist groups. For ex:
"in 1998, Yusuf Islam [Cat Stevens]spoke at a fundraising dinner sponsored by an organization, the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services, that has been identified by the Canadian government as a Hamas front group."
"He publicly supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence for blasphemy against Salman Rushdie in 1989 (“The Qur’an makes it clear,” said the author of “Peace Train,” that “if someone defames the Prophet, then he must die”)"
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11194
Look, for 1,400 years Muslims have built mosques at the sites of the military victories. That's why they want it there.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
machine16Aug 17, 2010
I have a question, and I'm asking in all seriousness - would those of you who support this mosque (or community center, whatever you prefer) support the building of a Church of Scientology at or near Ground Zero with the same zeal? And if not, why?
For the record, I believe the mosque should be permitted to be built without government interference and under the law of the Constitution. But that does not mean I support it.
envirochemAug 18, 2010
Machine16: "I have a question, and I'm asking in all seriousness - would those of you who support this mosque (or community center, whatever you prefer) support the building of a Church of Scientology at or near Ground Zero with the same zeal?"
Given the same conditions (e.g. on private land, in accordance with local zoning/building codes and in accordance with local laws) then the Church of Scientology would have every right to build a building near Ground Zero, as would any other private group.
Machine16: "For the record, I believe the mosque should be permitted to be built without government interference and under the law of the Constitution. But that does not mean I support it."
Exactly. We don't need to agree with a group to recognize the need to protect their rights. Our own rights are only protected when we protect the rights of everyone.
rkthoadanAug 18, 2010
Sure, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, Buddhists, Mormons, Jedi and whomever else are welcome to build anything they want so long as local zoning laws are followed. And for the record I'm a Christian and prefer a light touch with the zoning laws as well - but not entirely eliminating them.
I'm rather hesitantly supportive the the project overall. I understand that part of the motivation is to heal the rift between the US and the Muslim world, and therefore they are somewhat intentionally locating themselves near where the most damage was done. I'm not sure of the wisdom of that, but I do wish them luck.
eatingpieAug 18, 2010
A talk show host named Denis Prager sums up the problems people have with the mosque pretty succinctly: If Islam at large condemned the 9/11 terrorist attacks, people opposing the mosque would view the issue very differently. I believe that to be true.
Yes, I realize the Imam in charge of the mosque reportedly helped the FBI. But I am disturbed by him stating that US policy made us an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks. He also stating that "terrorism is a complex issue" when asked if Hamas was accurately termed a terrorist group. Context is imperative, so the following is the link.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/imam_terror_error_efmizkHuBUaVnfuQcrcabL
There are tons of quotes from this guy, and they are contradictory and often out of context. This adds to the difficulty of deciding on the issue, as well as the frustration.
-Pie
fadedblueAug 18, 2010
The part about the US being an accessory though; he does say "because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world." I do doubt that anyone who regarded US policy in any similar as Islamists do would also consider himself as part of that country. And of course in the same interview he does say the attacks were undeserved.
As it is, claiming that US policy had a hand in bringing about 9/11 and that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is not quite as simple as labelling people as terrorists are ideas that have been banded around Left wing circles for years. Regardless of whether you agree with that view, you wouldn't naturally assume they supported terrorism, would you? Expecting this Imam to categorically condemn everyone the US condemns to prove he doesn't support terrorism is holding him up to a much higher standard than we would most other people.
rkthoadanAug 18, 2010
The Islamic world in general did condemn the 9/11 attacks. That just doesn't create much spectacle to show to the people, so it wasn't given much play by the Mainstream Media - or any other US media for that matter. The extremist nuts celebrating in the streets get more viewers.
Go Google "Muslims condemn 9/11 attacks" to see what the Muslim world had to say. Clear your schedule though, there's a whole lot of it. Here's the very first link: http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
PLEASE, quite spreading the lie that the Muslim world did not condemn these attacks. Always remember, just because you didn't read about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eatingpieAug 19, 2010
@rkthoadan:
Thanks for the link, I took a quick look at it, and will investigate it more thoroughly.
In my defense, I'm not intending to spread a "lie" about anything. I care about the truth more than you can know. Prager actually does too. And I trust him, though he is not infallible, and may be reporting this incorrectly (no person gets everything 100% right).
As I said, I will look at the link more thoroughly, and may even consider sending it to Prager himself.
-Pie
kasha34Aug 19, 2010
@rkthoadan
Ya gotta be kidding. Bin Laden is a hero in the Islamic world, except in the particular places were Al Qaida kills local Muslims.
dadumtishAug 18, 2010
Wow america. I cant believe you are allowing this mosque to go ahead.
Way to bend over and assume the position.
boo1Aug 18, 2010
You say "bend over and assume the position" and I say "stand up for the constitution".
dadumtishAug 18, 2010
I'll repeat,
Are you saying its in the constitution that you have to promote the beliefs of those who try to destroy you?
Al qaeda carried out the attack in the name of islam. If they carried out the attacks in the name of, and with the support of, a country do you think they'd be allowed to put the embassy for that country near ground zero? Muslims around the world rejoiced after the attacks. Wake up moron.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boo1Aug 18, 2010
First off, who said anything about promoting it?
Second, you are demonstrably incorrect in your baseless ASSumption that every muslim around the world wanted 9/11 to occur.
Jihadism, was a failed philosophy in the muslim world and soundly rejected by most muslims. It has however, gained some traction since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet still rejected by most.
Al qaeda carried out the attack in the name of a very few demented practitioners of Islam.
The constitution guarantees certain freedoms, especially when they are inconvenient.
By your argument, you are essentially stating with equivocation, that no catholic church should be built near a school or playground....?
kasha34Aug 19, 2010
"Jihadism, was a failed philosophy in the muslim world and soundly rejected by most muslims. "
Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.
Closed AccountAug 19, 2010
Of course! Jihadeez arr LizardMEN! CHEMTRAILS!
boo1Aug 19, 2010
@ KASHA....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#
watch the documentary......yes it is long, but to say "Objection, assuming facts not in evidence....." is just you saying, "i didn't know that, and since i must know everything, it can't be fact.
The doc is by BBC. A good history of jihadism.
your welcome.
kasha34Aug 19, 2010
"Islam is first and foremost a military ideology. Its holiest prophet was not a man of peace but of war. That its so-called Holy Book is in fact an army handbook detailing the subjugation, conversion, and killing of the unbelievers. "
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/08/negotiating_with_terrorists.html
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.