Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on August 23, 2010, 08:11:22 AM

Title: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 23, 2010, 08:11:22 AM
Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Hudson New York ^ | August 23, 2010 | Gabriel Scheinmann


________________________ ________________________ ____________

Behind the real issue behind the controversy that has erupted over plans to build a 15-story cultural center, mosque and madrassa a few yards from Ground Zero is not only about the mysterious funding behind the Cordoba Center initiative, or whether or not its founders and backers have malign intentions. It is primarily about understanding how Muslims across the world, in particular Islamists, would view the conversion of the site of the greatest Muslim attack on U.S. soil into a Muslim house of worship. Given the long history of mosque-building following Muslim military victories, the building of the Cordoba House on Ground Zero will be seen in the same light as the Muslim conquests of Mecca, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Whereas Americans hope that the attacks on New York City and Washington are seen as the clarion's call for aggressive American action to counter Islamist ideology, the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque will be seen by the same Islamists as its first step towards the decline of America.

Bin Laden and his Islamists would love nothing better to plant the flag of Islam in the cultural capital of the West. This would not be read in the Muslim world as a sign of the West's tolerance, but of its weakness. In its long history of conquest, Islam has habitually converted the scared shrines of its enemies into mosques and madrasas. A cursory look at the world's most famous mosques lays bare the fact that many were former houses of worships of defeated enemies.

Islam's most sacred site, al-Kaaba, in Mecca was a pagan shrine that predated Islam by hundreds of years. Mohammed himself, after his army's conquest of Mecca in 630, destroyed hundreds of idols, proclaiming the truth of his new religion, and, since, it has become the hub of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, hajj, and a core pillar of Islam. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, the Ummayad Caliphate proceeded to build the Dome of the Rock, the Masjid Qubat al-Sakhra, on top of the Jewish Temple Mount in 689. Inscribed on the inner walls of the shrine are clear warnings to Christianity, professing Islamic supremacy. Sprawled on the inner octagonal arcade, flowing counterclockwise, the dedication warns Christians and Jews to "not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth" and threatens the Christian Trinity by insisting that "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One God."[1] Whoever believes that God had a son, "whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning!"[2] Having defeated their Christian enemies, the Umayyads built a grand mosque on top of Judaism's most sacred site that contained a clear declaration of Muslim supremacy over their brother Abrahamic religions.

Similar conversions were ordered as the Muslim conquests expanded across Africa and Europe. The Grand Mosque of Damascus, also known as the Umayyad Mosque, was converted from a church dedicated to John the Baptist in 705. The world-renown Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was a thousand year-old Christian church before being transformed into a mosque following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was only converted into a museum in 1935 by ultra-secularist and Turkish founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Over the long history of Muslim territorial advance, thousands of mosques, from Spain to India, were built on sites of important religious or political value to their defeated foes.

Supporters of the project might argue that the actions of invading Muslim armies over a millennia ago are irrelevant to the issue at hand in lower Manhattan. However, it is impossible to separate the recent decline of such a trend with the parallel decline and territorial recession of Muslim lands in the second half of the second millennium. Moreover, recent territories that have returned to Muslim rule following decolonization have seen the return of the conversions of religious sites into mosques. Muammar Qaddafi, the ruler of Libya, converted 78 synagogues into mosques in the 1970s.[3] In 1975, the Great Synagogue of Oran was confiscated by the Algerian government and similarly transformed.

Proponents like to cite the namesake of the Cordoba House complex as evidence of its goal of tolerance and pluralism, referring to the relative tolerant attitude of Muslim Spain to its Jewish and Christian minorities. Those proponents, however, should recall that the Great Mosque, or Mezquita, of Cordoba was itself a Visigoth Church that was converted and rebuilt as a mosque following Muslim conquest in 784, lasting nearly 500 years before it was recaptured and converted back into a Catholic cathedral.

Both survivors and the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks, as well as most prideful New Yorkers, have strongly objected to what they see at best as an insensitive project to, at worst, a malicious broadside against those who suffered tremendously on that day and since.

It has even divided the organized Jewish community, pitting a vehemently supportive J Street against a nuancedly opposed Anti-Defamation League. The mosque, run by the Cordoba House, claims to be promoting the project not only for functional reasons, but also for civilizational ones. Its supporters say that its aim is to use the 9/11 tragedy and the location of the Ground Zero Mosque as a message of tolerance and compromise in America. By hoping that Americans would never buy into the "Us against Them" rhetoric espoused by Islamists, supporters are seeking to demonstrate the superiority of Western culture and liberalism. The fact that this is even a debate in America demonstrates American tolerance; it is illegal to build a church or synagogue anywhere in Saudi Arabia.

American government officials have been divided over the plan, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Governor Deval Patrick, and, most recently, President Obama himself in support and many local and national politicians, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and Olympia Snowe, Congressman Peter King, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, in opposition.


But the symbolism could not be clearer: If the Cordoba's House supporters seek to emulate the tolerance of al-Andalus, the Arabic term for Muslim Spain, they are unwittingly declaring their possible acceptance of Muslim rule.

[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[2] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[3] http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=623&PID=0&IID=1901&TTL=The_Final_Exodus_of_the_Libyan_Jews_in_1967


________________________ ________________________ ________________

Wake up fools. 

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 23, 2010, 08:17:22 AM
People are fucking clueless to history. They'll honestly sit there and argue against you on this point. It's a FACT that Muslims have built mosques all over the world as a sign of Islamic supremacism. Thousands of religious structures have been destroyed over the centuries and mosques or other Muslim signs of conquest now sit in their place. And it's not like it's all from past centuries. The Taliban blew up those beautiful Buddhist statues carved in the rocks. Nothing has changed among the Islamists in the last 1400 years.

People need to wake up.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 23, 2010, 08:19:20 AM
I'm sure palin threads will push this into oblivion. 

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 23, 2010, 08:21:06 AM
I'm sure palin threads will push this into oblivion.  



Either that or you'll be called a bigoted, racist Islamophobe for posting facts.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 23, 2010, 08:29:34 AM
Either or you'll be called a bigoted, racist Islamophobe for posting facts.

I'm not expecting anything even resembling a refutation, or refudiation in Palin-speak, of this article. 

This is the 800lb gorrilla in the room the leftists are ignoring. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Skip8282 on August 23, 2010, 04:57:29 PM


This is the 800lb gorrilla in the room the leftists are ignoring. 




Very true.  It's even worse in Europe.  Libtard fear of insulting the Muslim is growing and these morons are well versed in using our system against us.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 23, 2010, 05:37:02 PM
We're a secular country

How is the WTC a "sacred site"

and the only things WTC symbolizes to me is the massive and mutltiple failures of the administration in control at the time of the attack

we should put up a statue of Bush reading My Pet Goat

that would be more appropriate
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 23, 2010, 06:37:32 PM
We're a secular country

How is the WTC a "sacred site"

and the only things WTC symbolizes to me is the massive and mutltiple failures of the administration in control at the time of the attack

we should put up a statue of Bush reading My Pet Goat

that would be more appropriate

Beyond disgraceful, even for you Straw, which says a lot. 

In my mind there are certain sites, like Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, Statue of Liberty, Antietum battlefield, Lexington Concord, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Shankesville PA, the Alamo, the area where Custers last stand took place, Bull Run, Ft. Sumpter, Valley Forge, certain sites in Boston like Fanieul Hall, State House, etc, that are sacred to our history and history. 

But that's me, to you leftists, I guess the only sites that are sacred are where the first abortions and gay marriages performed as well as the sites of radical leftism like the 1968 Dem Convention, etc.   
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 23, 2010, 09:54:38 PM
Beyond disgraceful, even for you Straw, which says a lot. 

In my mind there are certain sites, like Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, Statue of Liberty, Antietum battlefield, Lexington Concord, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Shankesville PA, the Alamo, the area where Custers last stand took place, Bull Run, Ft. Sumpter, Valley Forge, certain sites in Boston like Fanieul Hall, State House, etc, that are sacred to our history and history. 

But that's me, to you leftists, I guess the only sites that are sacred are where the first abortions and gay marriages performed as well as the sites of radical leftism like the 1968 Dem Convention, etc.   

no site is sacred to me

you could also say that everything is sacred and nothing is special

seriously though

I might consider the actual latitude and longitude of historical importance if I knew what really happened that day
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 04:20:45 AM
no site is sacred to me

you could also say that everything is sacred and nothing is special

seriously though

I might consider the actual latitude and longitude of historical importance if I knew what really happened that day

You have taken many whacked out positions in the past, but I think this probably takes the cake. 

BTW - Savage has you pegged to the tee. 

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 07:54:53 AM
You have taken many whacked out positions in the past, but I think this probably takes the cake. 

BTW - Savage has you pegged to the tee. 



I can't listen to that idiot so why don't you summarize it for me
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 08:02:53 AM
I can't listen to that idiot so why don't you summarize it for me

In sum - you are mentally sick and need help. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 08:08:15 AM
In sum - you are mentally sick and need help.  

But, he's a liberal just like George Washington!  ::)

He's a fool. Not to mention that he's grossly uninformed on this topic so his opinion means dick. He thought it was being built 10 blocks away from the epicenter of GZ so should we really expect him to know anything else about it? That's like debating theoretical physics with a 4-year-old.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 08:13:50 AM
In my mind there are certain sites, like Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, Statue of Liberty, Antietum battlefield, Lexington Concord, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Shankesville PA, the Alamo, the area where Custers last stand took place, Bull Run, Ft. Sumpter, Valley Forge, certain sites in Boston like Fanieul Hall, State House, etc, that are sacred to our history and history.   


I guess we have different values Straw. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 10:16:57 AM
In sum - you are mentally sick and need help. 

LoL - just because I don't buy into the fear mongering and bullshit symbolism?

believe whatever you want and I'll do the same

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 10:19:13 AM
LoL - just because I don't buy into the fear mongering and bullshit symbolism?

believe whatever you want and I'll do the same



In my mind there are certain sites, like Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, Statue of Liberty, Antietum battlefield, Lexington Concord, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Shankesville PA, the Alamo, the area where Custers last stand took place, Bull Run, Ft. Sumpter, Valley Forge, certain sites in Boston like Fanieul Hall, State House, etc, that are sacred to our history and history. 

 


I value and appreaciate our history, you detest it.   
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 10:21:30 AM
In my mind there are certain sites, like Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, Statue of Liberty, Antietum battlefield, Lexington Concord, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Shankesville PA, the Alamo, the area where Custers last stand took place, Bull Run, Ft. Sumpter, Valley Forge, certain sites in Boston like Fanieul Hall, State House, etc, that are sacred to our history and history.   


I guess we have different values Straw. 

I'm sure we do but I agreed with you on "historical significance" of WTC (and certainly most of those other sites too) but I don't see them as sacred

no site is sacred to me

you could also say that everything is sacred and nothing is special

seriously though

I might consider the actual latitude and longitude of historical importance if I knew what really happened that day
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 10:25:42 AM
Come on guys Savage is a Hate mongering nut job.   Anyone know if he ever got himself lifted from the "banned do not allow to enter list" in England?

I wonder why these Radical Islamic terrorists aren't attacking Dubai? 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 10:27:33 AM
Come on guys Savage is a Hate mongering nut job.   Anyone know if he ever got himself lifted from the "banned do not allow to enter list" in England?

I wonder why these Radical Islamic terrorists aren't attacking Dubai? 

Savage was 1000000000000% correct in that clip. 


BTW - why does England consider him worse than a convicted terrorist or murder? 
 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 10:28:33 AM
But, he's a liberal just like George Washington!  ::)

He's a fool. Not to mention that he's grossly uninformed on this topic so his opinion means dick. He thought it was being built 10 blocks away from the epicenter of GZ so should we really expect him to know anything else about it? That's like debating theoretical physics with a 4-year-old.

10 blocks, 2 blocks - makes no difference to me (and I didn't argue the point when 333 mentioned it was two blocks).

the only foolish thing I do is waste time on this board talking with morons such as yourself

I frequently ask myself why I bother

If I met someone like you in real life I'd know in a matter of minutes if not seconds that you were an idiot and not worth my time so and I occasionally wonder why I don't apply that same standard to this board
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 10:32:46 AM
Savage was 1000000000000% correct in that clip. 


BTW - why does England consider him worse than a convicted terrorist or murder? 
 


Nah, Savage is just a mouth piece, IMO.  He's occasionally spot on, but most of the time he's just stirring shit while spewing hate.  I was occasionally listening to him last year when he got banned from England, I am just wondering what became of it, he was pursuing legal action if i remember.   
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 10:33:55 AM
10 blocks, 2 blocks - makes no difference to me (and I didn't argue the point when 333 mentioned it was two blocks).

the only foolish thing I do is waste time on this board talking with morons such as yourself

I frequently ask myself why I bother

If I met someone like you in real life I'd know in a matter of minutes if not seconds that you were an idiot and not worth my time so and I occasionally wonder why I don't apply that same standard to this board


That's a pretty long way to say, "I don't know what I'm talking about with regards to this topic yet I'm arguing like I do."

Why should you be taken seriously when you're clueless on even the most simple of points regarding this mosque?

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 10:34:52 AM
10 blocks, 2 blocks - makes no difference to me (and I didn't argue the point when 333 mentioned it was two blocks).

the only foolish thing I do is waste time on this board talking with morons such as yourself

I frequently ask myself why I bother

If I met someone like you in real life I'd know in a matter of minutes if not seconds that you were an idiot and not worth my time so and I occasionally wonder why I don't apply that same standard to this board


It must be hard getting owned so royally all the time.  Maybe DU, FDL, Daily Kos, or HP will be a friendlier audience for some of your insanity.   
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 10:36:31 AM
Straw, 

Just for the record are you OK with this Muslim community center being built at that location?
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: blacken700 on August 24, 2010, 10:39:23 AM
10 blocks, 2 blocks - makes no difference to me (and I didn't argue the point when 333 mentioned it was two blocks).

the only foolish thing I do is waste time on this board talking with morons such as yourself

I frequently ask myself why I bother

If I met someone like you in real life I'd know in a matter of minutes if not seconds that you were an idiot and not worth my time so and I occasionally wonder why I don't apply that same standard to this board




now that's a classic :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 10:41:03 AM
It must be hard getting owned so royally all the time.  Maybe DU, FDL, Daily Kos, or HP will be a friendlier audience for some of your insanity.   

that's hilarious coming from you

btw - this is the only political board I post on and actually GetBig is really the only board in the interenet that I read (well I read MD and a few others for bodybuidling, weight training stuff)
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 10:42:21 AM


now that's a classic :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Looks like I'm getting to someone. My posts about your lack of education and pathetic command of the English language must have hit closer to home than I thought.  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 10:42:35 AM
Straw, 

Just for the record are you OK with this Muslim community center being built at that location?

haven't I made it pretty clear that I dont' give a shit

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 10:45:38 AM
haven't I made it pretty clear that I dont' give a shit



If you lived here where 3,000 of your fellow countrymen, friends, neighbors, etc did you would. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 10:47:37 AM
If you lived here where 3,000 of your fellow countrymen, friends, neighbors, etc did you would. 

I would ?

how do you know that ?

aren't there people in NYC who share my point of view just as there are people who share your point of view?
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 10:49:47 AM
I would ?

how do you know that ?

aren't there people in NYC who share my point of view just as there are people who share your point of view?

People in NY are very much against this.  We live here and deal with this daily.  Its easy to flap you mouth from 3,000 miles away in CA. 

People here overwhelmingly don't want this crap. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 10:50:27 AM
People in NY are very much against this.  We live here and deal with this daily.  Its easy to flap you mouth from 3,000 miles away in CA. 

People here overwhelmingly don't want this crap. 

70% of the people in this country don't want this shit. NYC'ers aren't alone.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 10:51:39 AM
haven't I made it pretty clear that I dont' give a shit



So you don't care either way?  You don't see any symbolism in it?  You don't see any disrespect to all those who lost their lives in it?
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 11:06:43 AM
So you don't care either way?  You don't see any symbolism in it?  You don't see any disrespect to all those who lost their lives in it?

I can see their point of view but I don't personally share it

I thought I made that very clear
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 11:08:31 AM
I can see their point of view but I don't personally share it

I thought I made that very clear

Because you don't live here, have probably never seen the before and after of the site, don't know anyone who perished, and don't have any connection with this area like people from here do. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 11:18:45 AM
I can see their point of view but I don't personally share it

I thought I made that very clear

Why wouldn't you share it?  A terrorist group attacked the USA in NYC killing 3000 people in the name of Islam and now they want to build a Muslim Community Center 3 blocks from GZ on the site of a building damaged int he attack and you don't have problem with that?

It's like Japan wanting to build an Embassy on Ford Island after WW2.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2010, 11:21:03 AM
We're a secular country

How is the WTC a "sacred site"

and the only things WTC symbolizes to me is the massive and mutltiple failures of the administration in control at the time of the attack

we should put up a statue of Bush reading My Pet Goat

that would be more appropriate

Good grief.  What an utterly moronic statement.  I can't believe there are people like this walking around in real life.   :-\
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 11:23:39 AM
Good grief.  What an utterly moronic statement.  I can't believe there are people like this walking around in real life.   :-\

I completely stand by that statement

it doen'st suprise me that you're incapable of comprehending it

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 11:26:20 AM
I completely stand by that statement

it doen'st suprise me that you're incapable of comprehending it



Probably 90% of the population can't comprehend such trash. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 11:31:29 AM
I completely stand by that statement

it doen'st suprise me that you're incapable of comprehending it



Do you feel that way about the Arizona memorial too?
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2010, 11:31:46 AM
I completely stand by that statement

it doen'st suprise me that you're incapable of comprehending it



Not asking for the Village Idiot's opinion.  Just commenting on the level of stupidity.  It's even greater than I thought.  
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 11:35:04 AM
Let's cut the fucking bullshit. If these people were interested in anything other than building a shrine to Islamic supremacism, they would use that money and space to dedicate a memorial to the victims of 9/11. THAT would help them build bridges.

Even other Muslims (the true moderates) have come out and said this mosque is being built for no other reason than to thumb their noses at the infidel and rub it in our faces. If you're too stupid to see that then I can only hope you don't reproduce.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: 240 is Back on August 24, 2010, 11:36:09 AM
I value and appreaciate our history, you detest it.  

I also value and appreciate history.  I got my AA in history back in 97.  Community college, sure, but still, I love history and I studied a great deal of it.  

It's possible to love history but not be caught up in the emotions of it too much... I dislike intangible things about how ppl "feel" or how many feet away is less painful, etc.

Anyway, joe scarborough said it this morning.  every 2-3 weeks, we have another silly issue like this... it was naacp last month.  and we all take our eye off obama's spending.  so he wins on this one.  For the last 5 weeks, we've talked about race and 911 hatred... and how much of our tax dollars did obama spend in that 5 weeks?  lol...
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 11:36:34 AM
In my mind there are certain sites, like Pearl Harbor, Gettysburg, Statue of Liberty, Antietum battlefield, Lexington Concord, Yorktown, Bunker Hill, Shankesville PA, the Alamo, the area where Custers last stand took place, Bull Run, Ft. Sumpter, Valley Forge, certain sites in Boston like Fanieul Hall, State House, etc, that are sacred to our history and history.    

I guess we have different values Straw.  
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 11:37:47 AM
I also value and appreciate history.  I got my AA in history back in 97.  Community college, sure, but still, I love history and I studied a great deal of it.  

It's possible to love history but not be caught up in the emotions of it too much... I dislike intangible things about how ppl "feel" or how many feet away is less painful, etc.

Anyway, joe scarborough said it this morning.  every 2-3 weeks, we have another silly issue like this... it was naacp last month.  and we all take our eye off obama's spending.  so he wins on this one.  For the last 5 weeks, we've talked about race and 911 hatred... and how much of our tax dollars did obama spend in that 5 weeks?  lol...

You know, it's completely possible to discuss more than one topic at a time. Seeing as 99% of the threads about Obama's handling of the economy go ignored on here by the Obama supporters, it's not surprising that the mosque threads are getting the most action. They actually open their suckholes in these.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 11:40:18 AM
I also value and appreciate history.  I got my AA in history back in 97.  Community college, sure, but still, I love history and I studied a great deal of it.  

It's possible to love history but not be caught up in the emotions of it too much... I dislike intangible things about how ppl "feel" or how many feet away is less painful, etc.

Anyway, joe scarborough said it this morning.  every 2-3 weeks, we have another silly issue like this... it was naacp last month.  and we all take our eye off obama's spending.  so he wins on this one.  For the last 5 weeks, we've talked about race and 911 hatred... and how much of our tax dollars did obama spend in that 5 weeks?  lol...

1.  Some of us can focus on more than one issue at once.

2.  I have focused like a lazer on Obama's disgusting acts.  Did you even read my thread about what he is doing to the Fishermen?  Who elese would post that little diddy about how he is destroying this nation day by day?  

3.  Yes, as an American Citizen, I feel a patriotic, historical, and civic connection to the sites I listed.  


BORDERS, LANGUAGE, CULTURE! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !  ! ! !    
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: 240 is Back on August 24, 2010, 11:42:29 AM
to my other point... I guess i'd like to see some sort of uniformly applied list of rules as to how many years, how many feet, etc needs to be between a historical event and the construction of something which arguably disrespects it.

If these pricks were putting up a 500 foot billboard with osama bin laden giving a thumbs up, yeah, I'd say that's pretty fuct up.  But this Iman is a frequent FOX news guest, the money man behind it owns 7% of FOX and is a huge parter with rupert overseas on projects, and it's a community center containing a room for worshiip (and other mosques are actually closer) and people are getting all riled up.

I dont get it.  

I just don't get it.  

And the fact the same people who said it would be 'disrespectful to the victims' to fully investigate the events of 911... being the same ones who are so offended by this...

it's partisan politics, plain and simple.  
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2010, 12:14:43 PM
You know, it's completely possible to discuss more than one topic at a time. Seeing as 99% of the threads about Obama's handling of the economy go ignored on here by the Obama supporters, it's not surprising that the mosque threads are getting the most action. They actually open their suckholes in these.

Completely agree.  Most people can discuss multiple topics. 

And you are absolutely right about the reason why they want to build the GZ mosque.  Has nothing to with promoting tolerance. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 01:08:37 PM
to my other point... I guess i'd like to see some sort of uniformly applied list of rules as to how many years, how many feet, etc needs to be between a historical event and the construction of something which arguably disrespects it.

If these pricks were putting up a 500 foot billboard with osama bin laden giving a thumbs up, yeah, I'd say that's pretty fuct up.  But this Iman is a frequent FOX news guest, the money man behind it owns 7% of FOX and is a huge parter with rupert overseas on projects, and it's a community center containing a room for worshiip (and other mosques are actually closer) and people are getting all riled up.

I dont get it.  

I just don't get it.  

And the fact the same people who said it would be 'disrespectful to the victims' to fully investigate the events of 911... being the same ones who are so offended by this...

it's partisan politics, plain and simple.  

Screw off with your crap spin.  I live here fool and this has nothing to do with partisan politics.  i was revolted by the KSM trials and this too. 

Take you MSNBC spin on another thread. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 01:22:29 PM
Why wouldn't you share it?  A terrorist group attacked the USA in NYC killing 3000 people in the name of Islam and now they want to build a Muslim Community Center 3 blocks from GZ on the site of a building damaged int he attack and you don't have problem with that?

It's like Japan wanting to build an Embassy on Ford Island after WW2.

I agree with Ron Paul wrote and I made similar statements a few days ago before RP published that piece:

Quote
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Mons Venus on August 24, 2010, 01:25:02 PM
Fox News co-owner funding NYC Mosque !!!!!

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 01:25:53 PM
I agree with Ron Paul wrote and I made similar statements a few days ago before RP published that piece:


You really are a vile Straw.  I'm not kidding.  You don't live here and don't speak for me, or any of the other millions of people in NYC revolted by this disgrace.  

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 01:38:01 PM
You really are a vile Straw.  I'm not kidding.  You don't live here and don't speak for me, or any of the other millions of people in NYC revolted by this disgrace.  

3333 - good grief you're dumber than a box of rocks

I never said I spoke for you nor did I say you have to agree with me.

I also said I understood and acknowledge other peoples points of view on the topic

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: SAMSON123 on August 24, 2010, 01:50:39 PM
Is this fight over or is everyone just reloading their guns?
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 02:50:44 PM
I agree with Ron Paul wrote and I made similar statements a few days ago before RP published that piece:


Where does it end and where does it begin?  I agree in principle with what RP is saying, but what are you willing to let go and what are you willing to stand for?

Again, would you be OK with Japan building an Embassy on Ford Island?  Does being against that make you an "attack all neo con" anymore than being against this mosque?

RP statements can't be looked at as "principle" but instead political blabber. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: 24KT on August 24, 2010, 03:04:08 PM
Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Hudson New York ^ | August 23, 2010 | Gabriel Scheinmann

________________________ ________________________ _________________

Wake up fools.  



Travel all throughout Europe and you will find many Catholic Cathedrals which were former Muslim mosques.
It's a pragmatic thing. If China were to invade the USA tomorrow, and was victorious, do you think they would tear down Yankee stadium in order to build a new baseball field?

Since when did a defunct Burlington coat factory warehouse become a former house of worship or "sacred site"?
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 24, 2010, 03:06:05 PM

Travel all throughout Europe and you will find many Catholic Cathedrals which were former Muslim mosques.


And you'll find that almost all of those mosques were originally churches before they were taken over by the Moors and the armies of the pedophile Prophet. Get the fuck out of here with your revisionist history trash.

The Great Mosque of Cordoba, arguably the pinnacle of the Moor's conquest of Spain, was built on top of a Christian Visigothic Church that was destroyed. This, along with countless other churches, temples, synagogues and the like have all been torn down, built on top of or converted to mosques over the centuries. An estimated 2,000 Hindu Temples were either destroyed or converted to mosques when the Muslims weren't busy killing 80 million Hindus in their failed conquest of India.

So don't even come slinking around here trying to fabricate history to fit your agenda.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 04:21:11 PM
Where does it end and where does it begin?  I agree in principle with what RP is saying, but what are you willing to let go and what are you willing to stand for?

Again, would you be OK with Japan building an Embassy on Ford Island?  Does being against that make you an "attack all neo con" anymore than being against this mosque?

RP statements can't be looked at as "principle" but instead political blabber. 

I don't see how that's even a relevent comparison

Japan is a country

We were not attacked by a country on 911 and we were not attacked by a religion

we were attacked (allegedly) by 19 individuals

The muslim community center is not an embassy (does not represent a country) and the people buidling it having nothing to do (from what I understand) with the people who a allegedly attacked us on 911
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 04:32:15 PM
I don't see how that's even a relevent comparison

Japan is a country

We were not attacked by a country on 911 and we were not attacked by a religion

we were attacked (allegedly) by 19 individuals

The muslim community center is not an embassy (does not represent a country) and the people buidling it having nothing to do (from what I understand) with the people who a allegedly attacked us on 911


We weren't, we were attacked by a group of terrorists obviously funded and trained by a third party in the name of Islam.  A muslim community center that close to GZ is symbolically similar to Japan putting an embassy on Ford Island.  If it was simply a criminal act your argument would carry weight. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Straw Man on August 24, 2010, 09:11:55 PM
We weren't, we were attacked by a group of terrorists obviously funded and trained by a third party in the name of Islam.  A muslim community center that close to GZ is symbolically similar to Japan putting an embassy on Ford Island.  If it was simply a criminal act your argument would carry weight.  

an embassy the official office of one country in the capital of another country

the muslim cultural center is in no way the equivalent of an embassy and the people behind it (to the best of my knowledge) have nothing to do with the people (and groups who funded and supported them) on 911

your argument seems to be (and please correct me if I misunderstand you) that any muslim is the equivalent of the muslims who allegedly attacked us on 911
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: SAMSON123 on August 24, 2010, 10:19:09 PM

Travel all throughout Europe and you will find many Catholic Cathedrals which were former Muslim mosques.
It's a pragmatic thing. If China were to invade the USA tomorrow, and was victorious, do you think they would tear down Yankee stadium in order to build a new baseball field?

Since when did a defunct Burlington coat factory warehouse become a former house of worship or "sacred site"?

Since 3 said it was.... I guess that makes it so...go figure.

BTW...Most people do not realize that those Catholic cathedrals were actually Freemsaon Temples before they were claimed as Christian...That is why there is no reference to Jesus or anything Biblical inside. The images on the stain glass windows are images of Freemason members, the outside of the "cathedrals" are covered with Gargoyles and Demonic statues...what does that have to do with Christ, God or the Bible? The Catholics look upon Mary (Jesus Mother) as Holy, yet NEVER mention Jesus name at all. The Pope is called the Holy Father, which in short means the Catholics look at the Pope as GOD and not the REAL GOD as GOD. Every now and then you will see a image of a blond haired man with blue eye paraded around as Jesus, but that is the image of Caesar Borgia who was the son of the Alexander Borgia who was the sixth pope of Rome. Caesar was a pedophile and homosexual who was despised and he had a sister named Lucretia Borgia who gave new meaning to a SINFUL LIFE. Also the fake image you may see suspended in Catholic cathedrals is NOT JESUS it is a man named Maitrea who they (Freemasons and unknowing Catholics) worship as a GOD. You will notice that he doesn't have a crown of thorns on his head, but rather a round hat and a solar sun sign behind his head, which represents Babylonian worship.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: SAMSON123 on August 24, 2010, 10:24:00 PM
Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Hudson New York ^ | August 23, 2010 | Gabriel Scheinmann


________________________ ________________________ ____________

Behind the real issue behind the controversy that has erupted over plans to build a 15-story cultural center, mosque and madrassa a few yards from Ground Zero is not only about the mysterious funding behind the Cordoba Center initiative, or whether or not its founders and backers have malign intentions. It is primarily about understanding how Muslims across the world, in particular Islamists, would view the conversion of the site of the greatest Muslim attack on U.S. soil into a Muslim house of worship. Given the long history of mosque-building following Muslim military victories, the building of the Cordoba House on Ground Zero will be seen in the same light as the Muslim conquests of Mecca, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. Whereas Americans hope that the attacks on New York City and Washington are seen as the clarion's call for aggressive American action to counter Islamist ideology, the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque will be seen by the same Islamists as its first step towards the decline of America.

Bin Laden and his Islamists would love nothing better to plant the flag of Islam in the cultural capital of the West. This would not be read in the Muslim world as a sign of the West's tolerance, but of its weakness. In its long history of conquest, Islam has habitually converted the scared shrines of its enemies into mosques and madrasas. A cursory look at the world's most famous mosques lays bare the fact that many were former houses of worships of defeated enemies.

Islam's most sacred site, al-Kaaba, in Mecca was a pagan shrine that predated Islam by hundreds of years. Mohammed himself, after his army's conquest of Mecca in 630, destroyed hundreds of idols, proclaiming the truth of his new religion, and, since, it has become the hub of the annual Muslim pilgrimage, hajj, and a core pillar of Islam. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, the Ummayad Caliphate proceeded to build the Dome of the Rock, the Masjid Qubat al-Sakhra, on top of the Jewish Temple Mount in 689. Inscribed on the inner walls of the shrine are clear warnings to Christianity, professing Islamic supremacy. Sprawled on the inner octagonal arcade, flowing counterclockwise, the dedication warns Christians and Jews to "not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth" and threatens the Christian Trinity by insisting that "The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) better for you! - God is only One God."[1] Whoever believes that God had a son, "whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning!"[2] Having defeated their Christian enemies, the Umayyads built a grand mosque on top of Judaism's most sacred site that contained a clear declaration of Muslim supremacy over their brother Abrahamic religions.

Similar conversions were ordered as the Muslim conquests expanded across Africa and Europe. The Grand Mosque of Damascus, also known as the Umayyad Mosque, was converted from a church dedicated to John the Baptist in 705. The world-renown Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was a thousand year-old Christian church before being transformed into a mosque following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. It was only converted into a museum in 1935 by ultra-secularist and Turkish founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Over the long history of Muslim territorial advance, thousands of mosques, from Spain to India, were built on sites of important religious or political value to their defeated foes.

Supporters of the project might argue that the actions of invading Muslim armies over a millennia ago are irrelevant to the issue at hand in lower Manhattan. However, it is impossible to separate the recent decline of such a trend with the parallel decline and territorial recession of Muslim lands in the second half of the second millennium. Moreover, recent territories that have returned to Muslim rule following decolonization have seen the return of the conversions of religious sites into mosques. Muammar Qaddafi, the ruler of Libya, converted 78 synagogues into mosques in the 1970s.[3] In 1975, the Great Synagogue of Oran was confiscated by the Algerian government and similarly transformed.

Proponents like to cite the namesake of the Cordoba House complex as evidence of its goal of tolerance and pluralism, referring to the relative tolerant attitude of Muslim Spain to its Jewish and Christian minorities. Those proponents, however, should recall that the Great Mosque, or Mezquita, of Cordoba was itself a Visigoth Church that was converted and rebuilt as a mosque following Muslim conquest in 784, lasting nearly 500 years before it was recaptured and converted back into a Catholic cathedral.

Both survivors and the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks, as well as most prideful New Yorkers, have strongly objected to what they see at best as an insensitive project to, at worst, a malicious broadside against those who suffered tremendously on that day and since.

It has even divided the organized Jewish community, pitting a vehemently supportive J Street against a nuancedly opposed Anti-Defamation League. The mosque, run by the Cordoba House, claims to be promoting the project not only for functional reasons, but also for civilizational ones. Its supporters say that its aim is to use the 9/11 tragedy and the location of the Ground Zero Mosque as a message of tolerance and compromise in America. By hoping that Americans would never buy into the "Us against Them" rhetoric espoused by Islamists, supporters are seeking to demonstrate the superiority of Western culture and liberalism. The fact that this is even a debate in America demonstrates American tolerance; it is illegal to build a church or synagogue anywhere in Saudi Arabia.

American government officials have been divided over the plan, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Governor Deval Patrick, and, most recently, President Obama himself in support and many local and national politicians, including Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, and Olympia Snowe, Congressman Peter King, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, in opposition.


But the symbolism could not be clearer: If the Cordoba's House supporters seek to emulate the tolerance of al-Andalus, the Arabic term for Muslim Spain, they are unwittingly declaring their possible acceptance of Muslim rule.

[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[2] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
[3] http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=623&PID=0&IID=1901&TTL=The_Final_Exodus_of_the_Libyan_Jews_in_1967


________________________ ________________________ ________________

Wake up fools. 



3 How is this any different than america building military bases in countries it has had a hand in defeating or causing civil wars? There are american military bases all over Europe, Japan, South Pacific, various African nations, Middle Easter nations etc etc and with it has come the introduction of so called democracy or attempts to force it; has come americas FAKE CHRISTIANITY, has come its drugs and violence, has come it weapons and divisive tactics to get a nation embroiled in civil wars... Maybe you should refocus your anger onto the REAL ENEMY OF THE WORLD.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on August 24, 2010, 10:46:28 PM


your argument seems to be (and please correct me if I misunderstand you) that any muslim is the equivalent of the muslims who allegedly attacked us on 911

That seems to be a problem with many on this board and around the country. They don't distinguish between the two.

I have to say that although I agree with most of the other posters on matters of economics and such, the level of hysteria over this is fucking sad. I would hate to be around you guys when the shit really hits the fan, it would be like getting sucked under  water by a drowning person who's freaking right the fuck out. How can you reason with anyone who's behaving like their hair is on fire?
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: 24KT on August 24, 2010, 10:50:30 PM
That seems to be a problem with many on this board and around the country. They don't distinguish between the two.

I have to say that although I agree with most of the other posters on matters of economics and such, the level of hysteria over this is fucking sad. I would hate to be around you guys when the shit really hits the fan, it would be like getting sucked under  water by a drowning person who's freaking right the fuck out. How can you reason with anyone who's behaving like their hair is on fire?

Turn firehoses on them?  :D
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on August 24, 2010, 10:57:07 PM
Turn firehoses on them?  :D

I think this is all pretty simple. Build the thing. If there is any true evidence of anti Americanism coming outta the place that threatens lives or the security of the country we turn the place into something sacred like a  Mc Donalds or strip joint, you know, something that everyone can agree on.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 24, 2010, 10:59:42 PM
an embassy the official office of one country in the capital of another country

the muslim cultural center is in no way the equivalent of an embassy and the people behind it (to the best of my knowledge) have nothing to do with the people (and groups who funded and supported them) on 911

your argument seems to be (and please correct me if I misunderstand you) that any muslim is the equivalent of the muslims who allegedly attacked us on 911

In terms of a religion it is.  Churches are to a religion as embassies are to a country.  A church and the "clergy" is a official representation of a religion much as a Embassy serves a vessel containing a representation of the country via it's ambassador(s).  The people in a Japanese Embassy may or may not have had any involvement in the attack however, they represent the country that did the attack as well as the land it now occupies.  In 9/11's case those hijackers did it in the name of Islam and murdered 3000 people.  The people running the muslim community center that provides religious services and they represent muslim community.  My argument is not that they are the equivalent of the muslims that attacked but they represent the religion they attacked in the name of.  

It doesn't even have to be true.  Maybe everyone of those hijackers and the people who sent, trained and financed them aren't religious at all.  the fact is, it's commonly accepted in NYC that 3000 were murdered in cold blood because they aren't Muslim, but instead part of the great Satan.  And now they want to erect a 13 story Muslim community center 3 blocks from were 3000 people died in there name?  Fuck that.  

As BF said, if they were interested in peace, healing etc. they wouldn't be building it there.  Even 1 mile is too close.  The symbolism is disrespectful and offensive.

This isn't about being ultra whatever, a savage head or what have you.  It about doing what's right.  And that ain't right.  

This whole idealistic crap about how its not related goes to the core reason why the "liberal Agenda" never takes hold while in so many ways the ideals are worthy.  It's because they go from common sense to complete lunacy like announcing San Fran is an open city for illegals with no penalties where cops are encouraged not to impound the cars of illegal alien unlicensed drivers or american flags are removed from fire trucks becuase they might be offense to some obscure group of people yet here we are getting a Muslim community center shoved down our throats and told its not the same thing.  And Liberals wonder why they are accused of having a mental disorder?  LOL.   Priceless.    

I bet the thing never gets built.  But then again, I am a sucker for a flush draw with middle pair.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: 24KT on August 24, 2010, 11:31:12 PM
In terms of a religion it is.  Churches are to a religion as embassies are to a country.  A church and the "clergy" is a official representation of a religion much as a Embassy serves a vessel containing a representation of the country via it's ambassador(s).  The people in a Japanese Embassy may or may not have had any involvement in the attack however, they represent the country that did the attack as well as the land it now occupies.  In 9/11's case those hijackers did it in the name of Islam and murdered 3000 people.  The people running the muslim community center that provides religious services and they represent muslim community.  My argument is not that they are the equivalent of the muslims that attacked but they represent the religion they attacked in the name of.  

It doesn't even have to be true.  Maybe everyone of those hijackers and the people who sent, trained and financed them aren't religious at all.  the fact is, it's commonly accepted in NYC that 3000 were murdered in cold blood because they aren't Muslim, but instead part of the great Satan.  And now they want to erect a 13 story Muslim community center 3 blocks from were 3000 people died in there name?  Fuck that.  

As BF said, if they were interested in peace, healing etc. they wouldn't be building it there.  Even 1 mile is too close.  The symbolism is disrespectful and offensive.

Symbolism is open to much interpretation.

Quote
This isn't about being ultra whatever, a savage head or what have you.  It about doing what's right.  And that ain't right.  

This whole idealistic crap about how its not related goes to the core reason why the "liberal Agenda" never takes hold while in so many ways the ideals are worthy.  It's because they go from common sense to complete lunacy like announcing San Fran is an open city for illegals with no penalties where cops are encouraged not to impound the cars of illegal alien unlicensed drivers or american flags are removed from fire trucks becuase they might be offense to some obscure group of people yet here we are getting a Muslim community center shoved down our throats and told its not the same thing.  And Liberals wonder why they are accused of having a mental disorder?  LOL.   Priceless.    

I bet the thing never gets built.  But then again, I am a sucker for a flush draw with middle pair.

Big difference. Cordoba house is not a government initiative. It is a private one, to be erected on private property. It is not being shoved down your throat, ...although the vociferous arguments against it are.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 06:00:45 AM
Symbolism is open to much interpretation.

Big difference. Cordoba house is not a government initiative. It is a private one, to be erected on private property. It is not being shoved down your throat, ...although the vociferous arguments against it are.

And Feisal is going overseas to seek funding from foreign governments for this outrage. 

Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: OzmO on August 25, 2010, 07:26:26 AM
Symbolism is open to much interpretation.

Exactly, and how is it being interpreted in NYC?

Quote
Big difference. Cordoba house is not a government initiative. It is a private one, to be erected on private property. It is not being shoved down your throat, ...although the vociferous arguments against it are.

Exactly AGAIN, You were spot last night, its a religious initiative and as i've been saying, the group that attacked the USA was a private one who did it in the name of Allah, Islam etc.
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 25, 2010, 07:28:32 AM
Exactly, and how is it being interpreted in NYC?

Exactly AGAIN, You were spot last night, its a religious initiative and as i've been saying, the group that attacked the USA was a private one who did it in the name of Allah, Islam etc.

Ozmo - check out my thread about Obama's Cairo speech.  The Imam says clearly the the GZ mosque is meant to be an Icon for Muslims across the world. 
Title: Re: Building Mosques on Sacred Sites of Defeated Enemies a Symbol of Conquest
Post by: Fury on August 25, 2010, 07:57:39 AM
In terms of a religion it is.  Churches are to a religion as embassies are to a country.  A church and the "clergy" is a official representation of a religion much as a Embassy serves a vessel containing a representation of the country via it's ambassador(s).  The people in a Japanese Embassy may or may not have had any involvement in the attack however, they represent the country that did the attack as well as the land it now occupies.  In 9/11's case those hijackers did it in the name of Islam and murdered 3000 people.  The people running the muslim community center that provides religious services and they represent muslim community.  My argument is not that they are the equivalent of the muslims that attacked but they represent the religion they attacked in the name of.  

It doesn't even have to be true.  Maybe everyone of those hijackers and the people who sent, trained and financed them aren't religious at all.  the fact is, it's commonly accepted in NYC that 3000 were murdered in cold blood because they aren't Muslim, but instead part of the great Satan.  And now they want to erect a 13 story Muslim community center 3 blocks from were 3000 people died in there name?  Fuck that.  

As BF said, if they were interested in peace, healing etc. they wouldn't be building it there.  Even 1 mile is too close.  The symbolism is disrespectful and offensive.

This isn't about being ultra whatever, a savage head or what have you.  It about doing what's right.  And that ain't right.  

This whole idealistic crap about how its not related goes to the core reason why the "liberal Agenda" never takes hold while in so many ways the ideals are worthy.  It's because they go from common sense to complete lunacy like announcing San Fran is an open city for illegals with no penalties where cops are encouraged not to impound the cars of illegal alien unlicensed drivers or american flags are removed from fire trucks becuase they might be offense to some obscure group of people yet here we are getting a Muslim community center shoved down our throats and told its not the same thing.  And Liberals wonder why they are accused of having a mental disorder?  LOL.   Priceless.    

I bet the thing never gets built.  But then again, I am a sucker for a flush draw with middle pair.

Well said. And we're all occasional suckers for flush draws with mid pair.  :D