Ground Zero Mosque

[GelMibson]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html

 

I don't know if this has been discussed here before but he does make some sense, but only if they would include synagogues too. Right Bruce Dickinson?

Edited May 14, 2011 by GelMibson

[Justice]

That's guys douche bag and anyone who supports his thoughts are douche bags, as well.

 

"Islam and it's teachings" did not bring down the WTC. A crazy group of killers lead by an a-hole who happens to watch porn and smoke pot, did. A TRUE Muslim will never do that.

 

Now it's okay to condemn that site for a mosque, because quite frankly they can put it anywhere else, but some if the things that hate monger said is down right ignorant.

Edited May 14, 2011 by b.harami98

[GelMibson]

That's guys douche bag and anyone who supports his thoughts are douche bags, as well.

 

"Islam and it's teachings" did not bring down the WTC. A crazy group of killers lead by an a-hole who happens to watch porn and smoke pot, did. A TRUE Muslim will never do that.

 

Now it's okay to condemn that site for a mosque, because quite frankly they can put it anywhere else, but some if the things that hate monger said is down right ignorant.

 

Why is there so much outrage in the Islamic world over every perceived insult? An a-hole in Florida burns the Koran and Muslims half way around the world riot and kill UN troops. Iran burns the Bible and Christians say "that's stupid". That outrage, coupled with certain interpretations of Islamic teachings is what is causing the vast amount of terrorism in the world. Although there may be some Hindu terrorism, any Buddhist or Christian terrorism is virtually non existent. To clarify that further much more violent crime or terrorism is done in the name of Islam than in the name of all other religions put together. You act like Islamic terrorism is an isolated thing. It's not "a crazy group of killers" but a whole lot of crazy groups of killers. As long as good, peaceful Muslims keep telling themselves that it is just a select few and not speak out in outrage against these acts is as long as they will all be suspect by some.

[Justice]

Let me ask you this, GM, what is your definition of terrorism? What about all those innocent people that were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Just because we have a cute term for the killings of thousands of people doesn't make it any less terrifying. The term "collateral damage" doesn't soothe the pain of those that suffer loses by the hands of people wearing uniforms as opposed to the terrorists that wear everyday clothing.

 

Terrorists come in many races, creeds and colors. Don't get it twisted. More blood has been shed by the white man than any other color and you can take that to the bank!

Edited May 14, 2011 by b.harami98

[GelMibson]

Let me ask you this, GM, what is your definition of terrorism? What about all those innocent people that were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Just because we have a cute term for the killings of thousands of people doesn't make it any less terrifying. The term "collateral damage" doesn't soothe the pain of those that suffer loses by the hands of people wearing uniforms as opposed to the terrorists that wear everyday clothing.

 

Terrorists come in many races, creeds and colors. Don't get it twisted. More blood has been shed by the white man than any other color and you can take that to the bank!

 

Nice transition from talking about religious terrorism to making it about "race, creeds and colors". The difference between all of those innocent people killed in Irag and Afghanistan has to do with intent. A lot of innocent people were killed in World War II by America and its allies. Were they terrorists? Right now a lot of innocent people are randomly being killed by people wearing suicide vests. Can you see the difference?

[Justice]

No, I can't. Dead is dead. Murder is murder. Kids in Palestine suffer from more trauma than any American ever did or will have. Terror is terror. Death is death.

 

As a matter if fact, a new terrorist is born everyday after having lost a loved one to collateral damage. Stuff like that makes recruitment easy. That's why there's no difference. It's a cycle of hate and the terrorists strike and target innocent civilians more often than not because they don't have the military might to face a real army.

 

Me, personally, absolutely hate violence and don't condone it in any way, shape or form. I could care less about intent, at the end of the day, new terrorists are born everyday because of violence. The cycle of hate must end.

 

I know many Muslims and none of them are violent people, and yet you would like to see them condemn terrorist acts even though they had nothing to do with it. Thats why I brought up race, creed and color, because it's not about the religion, just like it's not about race, creed and color. I was just pointing out how absurd it is expect people to apologize for something they didn't do.

 

So you actually believe that Islam is responsible for terrorism? That's funny, cuz I'm a Muslim and have never thought of hurting anyone or anything and neither do all of my family/friends. I see a different version of Islam, not the one TV has shown you over the years.

Edited May 15, 2011 by b.harami98

[Justice]

Nice transition from talking about religious terrorism to making it about "race, creeds and colors". The difference between all of those innocent people killed in Irag and Afghanistan has to do with intent. A lot of innocent people were killed in World War II by America and its allies. Were they terrorists? Right now a lot of innocent people are randomly being killed by people wearing suicide vests. Can you see the difference?

 

Were those people not terrified/terrorized by tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, machine guns,

check points, rape, torture, insults, missiles, oppression, occupation etc etc etc? Or were they having a jolly old time?

 

Just like they said in The Departed, when facing down the barrel of a gun, what's the difference?

 

I hope we as Americans never have to go through what some of those countries had to go through, but if we did, we would probably change our views on certain subjects.

Edited May 15, 2011 by b.harami98

[KD in CA]

What "Ground Zero Mosque" are you talking about? I was under the impression they were constructing office towers and a 9-11 memorial at Ground Zero.

[ExiledInIllinois]

That's guys douche bag and anyone who supports his thoughts are douche bags, as well.

 

"Islam and it's teachings" did not bring down the WTC. A crazy group of killers lead by an a-hole who happens to watch porn and smoke pot, did. A TRUE Muslim will never do that.

 

Now it's okay to condemn that site for a mosque, because quite frankly they can put it anywhere else, but some if the things that hate monger said is down right ignorant.

 

Then why aren't more "TRUE Muslim's" denouncing this crazy group of killers? Me thinks this crazy group isn't so small in their belief. Why do "TRUE Muslims" seem to be sitting on the fence? They can still be "TRUE Muslims" and denounce their fellow radical Muslims more openly. By sitting on the fence, they are giving the impression of a green light to the crazy bunch. In other words, Muslims need to speak out more against other Muslims. That would be a first step to ending confusion of what their beliefs are. Perception is very important here.

 

This is just a very simple request.

Edited May 15, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois

[Justice]

Then why aren't more "TRUE Muslim's" denouncing this crazy group of killers? Me thinks this crazy group isn't so small in their belief. Why do "TRUE Muslims" seem to be sitting on the fence? They can still be "TRUE Muslims" and denounce their fellow radical Muslims more openly. By sitting on the fence, they are giving the impression of a green light to the crazy bunch. In other words, Muslims need to speak out more against other Muslims. That would be a first step to ending confusion of what their beliefs are. Perception is very important here.

 

This is just a very simple request.

 

Just because our media doesn't shovel it down our throats doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

BTW, You do know how to use Google, right? I don't mean to be a d$#k about it, but if you really wanted to hear Muslims condemn terrorism, you could have found out for yourself.

 

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

[3rdnlng]

Just because our media doesn't shovel it down our throats doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

BTW, You do know how to use Google, right? I don't mean to be a d$#k about it, but if you really wanted to hear Muslims condemn terrorism, you could have found out for yourself.

 

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

 

Hey, Google Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist outrage. Then Google all the major religions and the word terrorism with it. See how many entries you get for them all. You seem to be in the "yes, but" crowd when it comes to terrorism. There's no excuse for it and when you equivocate you give off the impression that you understand why someone could randomly blow up a baby. There's a giant difference between collateral damage in a strike against real bad guys and a suicide bomber blowing up a busload of random people.

 

Let there be no mistake about it, the next generation of terrorists are being systematically trained in these madrassas by leaders of a faction of Islam.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

 

Let me make something clear---I am not painting all Muslims with the same brush. I know that the vast majority of Muslims wouldn't go out and commit violence. I also know that there are a billion Muslims living on this earth and a small percentage of them do endorse violence. If only 1/10 of one percent endorsed violence then there would be a million Muslims out there looking to blow people up. When you see the mass demonstrations over in the Middle East it's not hard to imagine that more than 1/10 of one percent are somewhat fanatical. So, I have a hard time crying for your Palistinian children when it was their parents dancing in the streets after 9/11.

[Justice]

Hey, Google Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist outrage. Then Google all the major religions and the word terrorism with it. See how many entries you get for them all. You seem to be in the "yes, but" crowd when it comes to terrorism. There's no excuse for it and when you equivocate you give off the impression that you understand why someone could randomly blow up a baby. There's a giant difference between collateral damage in a strike against real bad guys and a suicide bomber blowing up a busload of random people.

 

Let there be no mistake about it, the next generation of terrorists are being systematically trained in these madrassas by leaders of a faction of Islam.

 

http://www.pbs.org/w.../madrassas.html

 

Let me make something clear---I am not painting all Muslims with the same brush. I know that the vast majority of Muslims wouldn't go out and commit violence. I also know that there are a billion Muslims living on this earth and a small percentage of them do endorse violence. If only 1/10 of one percent endorsed violence then there would be a million Muslims out there looking to blow people up. When you see the mass demonstrations over in the Middle East it's not hard to imagine that more than 1/10 of one percent are somewhat fanatical. So, I have a hard time crying for your Palistinian children when it was their parents dancing in the streets after 9/11.

 

Everything isn't so cut and dried, every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Yes, indeed there are madrassas' training the next generation of terrorists, but what makes one join?

 

First off, I'd like to point out that Palestinian's don't fall under the terrorist label, IMO. These people had their land taken from them by force and are treated in the worst way by their oppressors. What would we do if our army was obliterated and we were under occupation? We don't know what the Palestinians are going through, so it's not fair to label them as terrorists so easily. Are you suggesting Palestinian babies aren't being killed, as well? You only like to look at one side of the argument.

 

As far as the dancing in the streets on 9/11 goes, when you're people are constantly being killed by American made weapons or American funded weapons, what would you expect? Seriously, the Palestinians have every right to hate the U.S., but since everything is so "cut and dried" to you and you can't think between the lines, it is easy for someone like you to paint a picture of who is and who isn't the bad guy.

 

In reality, everyone in power are the bad guys. Those that control the population are the bad guys. Those that send us to war, or train terrorists are the bad guys.

 

The people are the victims. Let's discuss the US response to Pearl Harbor. To this day we are the only ones ever to use such a powerful weapon and many innocent lives were lost that day. Are you trying to tell me that collateral damage is the term you would use for that strike, when in reality the killing of 1000's and 1000's of people was our goal in that mission? There is no difference between terrorist strikes and collateral damage, they both have the same result. Death of innocence and death leads to hate by their surviving family members/friends which leads to terrorism. Cause and effect, my friend.

 

So you think Islam condones terrorism? Well then show me something in the Koran that states that. I dare you. And don't give me that "kill all infidels" line, because the Koran recognizes the followers of the book and followers of the book includes Christians and Jews.

Edited May 15, 2011 by b.harami98

[3rdnlng]

Everything isn't so cut and dried, every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Yes, indeed there are madrassas' training the next generation of terrorists, but what makes one join?

 

First off, I'd like to point out that Palestinian's don't fall under the terrorist label, IMO. These people had their land taken from them by force and are treated in the worst way by their oppressors. What would we do if our army was obliterated and we were under occupation? We don't know what the Palestinians are going through, so it's not fair to label them as terrorists so easily. Are you suggesting Palestinian babies aren't being killed, as well? You only like to look at one side of the argument.

 

As far as the dancing in the streets on 9/11 goes, when you're people are constantly being killed by American made weapons or American funded weapons, what would you expect? Seriously, the Palestinians have every right to hate the U.S., but since everything is so "cut and dried" to you and you can't think between the lines, it is easy for someone like you to paint a picture of who is and who isn't the bad guy.

 

In reality, everyone in power are the bad guys. Those that control the population are the bad guys. Those that send us to war, or train terrorists are the bad guys.

 

The people are the victims. Let's discuss the US response to Pearl Harbor. To this day we are the only ones ever to use such a powerful weapon and many innocent lives were lost that day. Are you trying to tell me that collateral damage is the term you would use for that strike, when in reality the killing of 1000's and 1000's of people was our goal in that mission? There is no difference between terrorist strikes and collateral damage, they both have the same result. Death of innocence and death leads to hate by their surviving family members/friends which leads to terrorism. Cause and effect, my friend.

 

So you think Islam condones terrorism? Well then show me something in the Koran that states that. I dare you. And don't give me that "kill all infidels" line, because the Koran recognizes the followers of the book and followers of the book includes Christians and Jews.

 

Our response to the Pearl Harbor attack was to eventually go on offense to defeat Japan. Our alternative to invading the Japanese home islands with great loss of life on both sides was to drop two nuclear bombs. This ultimately saved lives.

 

I've got two questions for you. If the Palestinians or other middle eastern countries (territories)quit all acts of violence against Israel, would Israel attack them still? If Israel quit all acts of violence against Palestine or any middle eastern country, would any of them still attack Israel.

[Justice]

Our response to the Pearl Harbor attack was to eventually go on offense to defeat Japan. Our alternative to invading the Japanese home islands with great loss of life on both sides was to drop two nuclear bombs. This ultimately saved lives.

 

I've got two questions for you. If the Palestinians or other middle eastern countries (territories)quit all acts of violence against Israel, would Israel attack them still? If Israel quit all acts of violence against Palestine or any middle eastern country, would any of them still attack Israel.

 

You're asking the wrong question. Go back to the 1967 borders and let the Palestinians rule themselves, unconditionally, and you will see peace. I'm sure there will still be some isolated acts of violence, but they will be few and far between.

[3rdnlng]

You're asking the wrong question. Go back to the 1967 borders and let the Palestinians rule themselves, unconditionally, and you will see peace. I'm sure there will still be some isolated acts of violence, but they will be few and far between.

 

Why won't Hamas renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist? Why won't they abide by previous negotiated agreements that the PLO had with Israel? Syria used to occupy the Golan Heights. They only used it to try to shut off Israel's water supply and to shell them from the higher ground. When Jordan controlled the West Bank they kept the Jews (against UN Mandate) from visiting holy sites and in fact desecrated them.

 

I see where just giving the land back will lead to peace.

[joey greco]

You're asking the wrong question. Go back to the 1967 borders and let the Palestinians rule themselves, unconditionally, and you will see peace. I'm sure there will still be some isolated acts of violence, but they will be few and far between.

 

Ah, the Edenic peace of the pre-1967 Middle East. Those were the days. Of course, even then there were large numbers of Arab terrorists targeting Israel. They used to be known as the fedayeen. The global radicalization of 60's just provided them case-studies in becoming the organized, well-financed groups that we know by name today.

 

Related question-in terms of the Mid-East peace process, has there ever been a concession by Israel to the Palestinians that has been met with peace rather than with goal post moving? Serious question.

[Justice]

Okay, don't go back to the 1967 borders. Let all of Israel be Israel, but give the Palestinians the same rights that the Israelis have, including the right to vote and then we'll see who's going to run things. You like that? You can't have it both ways. Either you give us equal rights or our own state.

[GG]

Okay, don't go back to the 1967 borders. Let all of Israel be Israel, but give the Palestinians the same rights that the Israelis have, including the right to vote and then we'll see who's going to run things. You like that? You can't have it both ways. Either you give us equal rights or our own state.

 

There are more Palestinians living in Jordan under worse conditions. Why don't you also ask Hussain to give Palestinians equal rights in Jordan?

[Justice]

There are more Palestinians living in Jordan under worse conditions. Why don't you also ask Hussain to give Palestinians equal rights in Jordan?

 

Is that a fact? Collective punishment, no right to vote, white phosphorus being sprayed unbiasedly all over the place, check points everywhere, the most populated place on earth per square foot with no way out, rocket attacks, jet fighter attacks, destruction of infrastructure by tanks and bulldozers, land revocation, etc etc etc. I can go on and on. My question to you is how far out of your arse did you you pull that line of crap?

 

Sure, Palestinian human rights aren't very good in Jordan, but what else would you expect from the US's and Israel's buddy? But the situation in Jordan doesn't even compare with that of the one in Palestine.

 

I have been there. I know first hand about the situation in Pali/Israel. I'm speaking from actual experience, not the crap you learn on TV or the internet. I have spent time and know people in Jordan, Israel, and Palestine. Come talk to me when you've been there. You know nothing when it comes to the real life s**t in Palestine-NOTHING!!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

As long as Palestinians allow Israel to look like Northern Ireland, rather than the apartheid South Africa, or, in the immortal words of John Lennon, "go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow."

 

1. Every single person is responsible for their choices. Nobody is forcing these Palestinian kids to go to Madrassas, or join terrorist outfits. Much the same as nobody is forcing any American teen to join a street gang. The people who join these groups make a choice every day to stay. They make a choice every day to do whatever they are told. In making these choices, they know damn well that there will be reprisals for whatever actions they take. They known damn well that they are putting Palestinian civilians in danger every single time they attack Israeli civilians. If they are too dumb do understand that, then why should anyone feel sorry for them?

 

2. There are plenty of people who have chosen to leave these terrorist groups, much the same as their have been plenty of American kids who choose to leave street gangs. If everything was preordained and nobody had a choice, then these people wouldn't exist. However, they do exist. It is possible to leave, reject violence, etc.

 

3. It is possible for the average Palestinian to realize that what they are doing, Hamas, etc. isn't f'ing working, has never worked, and will never work. It is possible for them to change their tactics from those that fail, to those that succeed.

 

And that's the real point here: it's not just the dishonor that these people bring upon themselves and their people, it's the failure and doom they bring to their cause, that makes people like me say WTF? Sure, I understand that I would be the first to pick up a weapon and defend my country from an invader. I did already. I also understand that if, by some miracle, the US Army was defeated in the field by a foreign enemy, there's a good chance I would end up being a partisan.

 

Here's the difference: if, after 5 years, I realized that what I was doing wasn't working, I wouldn't keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. That's because: I am not an idiot. I don't understand signing up for losing, and continuing to lose. I would realize, and so would a lot of other people, that it's time to change tactics. Tactics mean "what we do", not "what we do, that must be based on closing with and engaging the enemy". I think we can agree that Israel is not, and never will be as powerful as the British Empire was. Yet, somehow, Ghandi successfully defeated them.

 

How? He changed the tactics. The strategy "force the British to leave India", never changed. At no time did he change the strategy to coexist or compromise with Britain. Nope, the only thing he changed was the tactics. The Indians had revolted violently for 150 years, with no success. Not even close. In contrast, Ghandi was able to bring about his campaigns goals, once the real campaign began, in just over 20.

 

So what is the lesson from history that b.harami98 and Palestinians have failed to learn? Google awaits.

 

When you complete that activity, you will realize that the only rational conclusions that can be drawn are:

 

"Palestinians have their leaders to blame for not changing tactics years ago".

"Apparently Palestinians etc. have become addicted to the fear, not respect, they have been able to create in others. However, just like US gang leaders, there's no future in fear, and sooner or later you end up with a bullet in your head, a fitting end to a wasted and therefore worthless life".

"There will never be any monuments to Abdullah the suicide bomber, and even if there are, they won't last long. In contrast, if the tactical change is conducted properly, there will be monuments to Abdullah, the non-violent civil disobedience protester that was killed by the Israelis, those monuments will be respected by the rest of the world, and here's the kicker: Israel too"

"If Israel is the oppressor Palestinians say they are, then they have to make sure that they are seen that way, by more than the leftist idiots in this country who are looking for an excuse. You have to prove it to rational Americans, every day, all the time, for years. Only then will you succeed in changing our policy."

As long as Palestinians allow Israel to look like Northern Ireland, and not the old South Africa, or, in the immortal words of John Lennon, "go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow."

Edited May 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo