Mosque at Ground Zero

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"I think you should look again at how you present yourself, because despite your protests that is how you look."

Oh REALLY?

And what about this:

"Naturally, this should not be taken as though every Muslim immigrant is a knife-happy Jihadist- "

And this:

"my fellow Conservatives to poh-poh "Islamophobia" as nonexistant, I myself can confirm it is very much alive albiet often misused by the various apologists and talking heads."

And this:

"In short: the Jihad does not merely threaten the lives of "Infidels", and failure to act will likely brew a counterreaction from the extremists that will make the plight of the Japanese and those of Japanese descent abroad look like a nice day on the beach"

How much more do I have to emphasize that I do NOT like the blackshirt battalion and their lovely plans of racial purging? Do I have to write it in ALL CAPS to make it clear?

That should be plain to those who have actually read my posts, and failure to grasp that is the fault of those who have not read them, not my own.

"Regardless, your angry attack there was not justified."

And what was Symmetric Chaos' post, eh? Again, what do you intend to do about that?

"Dial it down."

I intend to. But I desire to have this slander addressed.

I believe you need to familiarize yourself with the forum rules.

When you are told to drop it, you do so. Immediately. Period.

Also, it's not slander.

Edit: Whoops, Ush beat me to it. However, the point still stands.

"Also, it's not slander."

May I politiely what comparing a fear of religious fanatics equals supporting violence and/or tyranny against a religious or racial group is?

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
"Also, it's not slander."

May I politiely what comparing a fear of religious fanatics equals supporting violence and/or tyranny against a religious or racial group is?

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
What do you THINK you know about Islam, because it is by no means a violent religion. It was only twisted by the jihadists, like Christianity was during the Crusades, to appear to support violence, but, in essence, it supports peace and harmony just as much as the other modern world religions. Also, I'm getting sick of you referring to Muslims as they, or them, as though they are a single unit. There are many different philosophies of Islam, just as there are for Christianity.

Lol..one needs only to open and read the Quran.

For example, what's the penalty for apostasy?

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
My entire point is that by failing to actually kill of the Muslims who enjoy holy war and chopping heads, we are only hurting the INNOCENT MAJORITY of the Muslims to say nothing of the others who will die if the Islamists succeed (ironically with the help of the anti-Muslim extremists who have been stepping into the breach BECAUSE FOOLS LIKE YOURSELF CANNOT BRING THEMSELVES TO STAMP OUT THE RADICALS!).

You say that we should slaughter an entire group of people but then in below you will complain about being compared to a "racist genocidal tyrant". Are you sure you don't see the problem here?

I don't believe I've said we shouldn't stamp out radical crazy people. As we've seen in history radicals can't do much unless you force people to join them with a culture that hates them. We didn't have to kill Andrea Dworkin to save men from castration, we just made it impossible for most people to support her version of feminism by making it unappealing and pointless.

If you want to stop radical Islam you don't take the fight to them. It's not an army you're up against, it's an idea. They get power from two sources: their own propaganda and actual things that the west does to Muslims. Yes, you also have to be vigilant about protecting people but that has always been and always will be true. There's no real reason to direct it toward dangerous Islamist in particular.

But let's look at history again. Civil rights:

Who helped white people more? The ones who hunted down the Black Panthers or the ones who pulled the rug out from under their ideology that white people are evil? And in the end how "blackified" did America get by that "weak liberal" response?

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
Is this your strategy all the time: accuse absolutely ANYBODY raising the point of being a rascist genocidal tyrant?

See? I said you were going to say this up top.

Originally posted by Tortoise Herder
It is times like this that I wish dueling were still legal.

It's times like this I'm glad it isn't and that in fact you have to either present ideas rationally or be treated as a wacko. Seriously this applies to me too, I get angry sometimes and it never has any effect on the person I'm talking too except to make them think I don't know what I'm talking about.

Symmetric Chaos:

Ah, here's the disconnect:

"you say that we should slaughter an entire group of people"

I was not saying we SHOULD slaughter all Muslims, I only siad that UNLESS the governments of the West fulfill their part of the Social contract and stamp out Islamist terrorism like any other terrorist group, that is what WILL happen. Nothing nice or recommended about it, but if you have been looking at European politics and the advent of extremely racist and downright Neo-Fascist political parties both there and even here (Vlaams Belgans, the Sweden Democrats, etc, etc , etc,), that is ultimately the conclusion.

To illustrate, what do you think would have happened to Japan after WWII had the operation of the occupation been run by the average American infuriated by Pearl Harbor and the various crimes of the Japanese military across Asia and the Pacific and ginned up on some of the very worst type of racial hatred? Which was why we did NOT allow the average American to run the occupation, because we instead put level heads in charge who would not dishonor their nation and the sacrifices of their dead by dwarfing even the crimes of the Japanese regime.

That is how government is supposed to operate: in large part as the brake upon the worst instincts of the masses. Unfortunately, many have not been doing that (which includes clamping down on terrorism of any stripe) by giving Islamists a free hand (for instance, take a look at the infamous "Mullah Hook" who lived off British welfare even as he incited violence against all who did not fufill his violent creed, including several Muslims). And unfortunately, when people believe the legitimate governments are doing nothing, they turn to several VERY unpleasant people instead. I'm sure we can all name a few historical precedents of that. But the simple bottom line is that if and when these demogauges get sufficient support sufficiently riled up enough, it is quite likely that they will commit crimes that might even dwarf those of the Islamists. And the best way to prevent that is to release the pressure by going after the actual terrorists.

"If you want to stop radical Islam you don't take the fight to them. It's not an army you're up against, it's an idea."

Sorry, but with all due respect, that is historically naive. That is akin to saying that in order to fight Fascism, you do not take the fight to them because you are not up against an army. Which is partially true, but unfortunately it DOES have an "army" of sorts in its service, one which has already threatened several nations (sometimes, like Pakistan, almost to the brink of collapse). While the ideological fight is crucial, one cannot win this war without destroying the military infrastructure that supports it. Which means going after the camps.

"their own propaganda and actual things that the west does to Muslims."

Unfortunately, they have a third source of power: the legions of thugs, wannabe martyrs, and recruits who wield concrete force. Hitler's power began not with Versailles but with the Brownshirts. Lenin's power began not with Das Kapital but with the hordes of disillusioned and hungry who flocked to the Red banner. And likewise, the power of Achmadinijad, Osama, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ultimately starts with their "holy warriors." And like it or not, in order to win, we are going to have to get through them.

I apologize for the confusion, but that does not change the fact that you misinterpreted my post.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
The elected officials of New York city are planning on building a Mosque close to where the twin towers fell on 9/11 as a commemoration of the lives lost that day and to please the Muslim population. Personally I find this insulting and quite ridiculous. What do you guys think?

Here is a link for a petition in opposition of the Mosque.

how is building a mosque near groud zero gonna commemorate 911 victims? more like dishonor. i think it's being done as a cruel insult in reality. the whole thing's in very poor taste.

like wtf? the very people that'll be practicing the same religion the 911 terrorists practiced want to build a mosque near where these islamofacists killed 3000 americans in 1 morning? gtfo.. that's what i'm gonna remember...

to please the muslim community? uh no. i'm sorry. wtf is that..? lol..

it's the dumbest sh*t i've ever heard this year. i can't believe this is even being considered! and by the U.S. gov't!

i say we draw mohammed saying "no way, jose" with the american flag as his turban, print them on legal sized flyers and post them around every scaffolding, telephone post, and available ad space on every street corner near and around groud zero.

The Government must offer muslim Americans' needs. Mosque is one of them. Therefore, It should not be problem for you to build a mosque. Also, this would be good answer in order to explain that we are not enemy of them.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Lol..one needs only to open and read the Quran.

For example, what's the penalty for apostasy?

The same as in The Bible.

c'mon. you'd have to be a stupid idiot to think that this back handed peaceful and gentle gesture is supose to be some kinda benevolent act that's supose to honor the 911 fallen.

no. don't build that mosque. fcuk that. build that freedom tower..

you think iran or pakistan would build a christian church near an area where americans killed 3000 iranians or pakistanis. hell fcuking no. go ahead and erect one. they'd bomb and demolish it on christmas eve and hang everyone associated with the building the next morning.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Lol..one needs only to open and read the BIBLE.

For example, what's the penalty for apostasy?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
c'mon. you'd have to be a stupid idiot to think that this back handed peaceful and gentle gesture is supose to be some kinda benevolent act that's supose to honor the 911 fallen.

no. don't build that mosque. fcuk that. build that freedom tower..

you think iran or pakistan would build a christian church near an area where americans killed 3000 iranians or pakistanis. hell fcuking no. go ahead and erect one. they'd bomb and demolish it on christmas eve and hang everyone associated with the building the next morning.

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
Good job implying that all Americans are Christians, and that all Middle Eastern residents are Muslim.

well it's not what i meant. get it right. but, i will say that most religious americans are christians and most religious middle-easterners are muslim. not all, most. i'll also say that although not all muslims are terrorists, so far all terrorists have been muslim. and that should say something, if anything. now i'm not anti-muslim, i'm anti islamo-facist, an anti-terrorist and against those whom harbor their murderous beliefs within.

look, point is, this wouldn't fly out there. it would here because we here in the U.S. are afraid of offending anyone and everyone in the whole world except americans.

the whole world can offend us and we have to take it, while still offering aid, but we're not allowed to defend ourselves, our country and our principles because it'd be the incorrect thing to do just because? fcuk outta here..

No Mosque near Ground Zero! !

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
well it's not what i meant. get it right. but, i will say that most religious americans are christians and most religious middle-easterners are muslim. not all, most. i'll also say that although not all muslims are terrorists, so far all terrorists have been muslim. and that should say something, if anything. now i'm not anti-muslim, i'm anti islamo-facist, an anti-terrorist and against those whom harbor their murderous beliefs within.

look, point is, this wouldn't fly out there. it would here because we here in the U.S. are afraid of offending anyone and everyone in the whole world except americans.

the whole world can offend us and we have to take it, while still offering aid, but we're not allowed to defend ourselves, our country and our principles because it'd be the incorrect thing to do just because? fcuk outta here..

No Mosque near Ground Zero! !

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
Banishment usually, but in some cases, execution.

Nice edit. Banishment and execution are pretty serious end results. Not to mention violent ones. The entire Quran is filled with talks about waging war against non-believers. Some of the details are gruesome and not open to interpretation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The same as in The Bible.

That was the Old Testament. Since Jesus came around, a "new law" was made. A law of love and peace: turning the other cheek, etc. If someone apostatized from the church, they were not to be stoned or persecuted, but loved and prayed for. It's the gross perversion of Christ's message that justified things like the Crusades.

Before Christ, usually, someone was stoned (not drugs, but rocks) to death for apostasy and blaspheme. After Christ, it became a "let he who is sinless cast for the stone" law.

If you ever hear of a Christian demanding the life of someone, saying that God told them to kill, etc. etc...they really missed the whole point of Jesus Christ's message: one of love and forgiveness. Jesus was a hippie, yo.

I'd say that public projects like the one on this thread, should be voted on by the public. Majoritarianism? Sure. Thems the shits.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The same as in The Bible.

Not quite.

If an apostate from Islam is a sane, adult, male then they are executed. An apostate, according to Sharia, has to meet those three criteria.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was the Old Testament. Since Jesus came around, a "new law" was made. A law of love and peace: turning the other cheek, etc. If someone apostatized from the church, they were not to be stoned or persecuted, but loved and prayed for. It's the gross perversion of Christ's message that justified things like the Crusades.

Before Christ, usually, someone was stoned (not drugs, but rocks) to death for apostasy and blaspheme. After Christ, it became a "let he who is sinless cast for the stone" law.

Matthew 5:17–18

And Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you ever hear of a Christian demanding the life of someone, saying that God told them to kill, etc. etc...they really missed the whole point of Jesus Christ's message: one of love and forgiveness. Jesus was a hippie, yo.

Luke 19:27

And Jesus said, "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not quite.

If an apostate from Islam is a sane, adult, male then they are executed. An apostate, according to Sharia, has to meet those three criteria.

Deuteronomy 13:6–9

If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying:

"Let us go and serve other gods (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end),"

You shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

That's not what any version of Luke 19:27 I can find says. It is the king in a story Jesus tells speaking at that point and, well, kings were like that back then.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not what any version of Luke 19:27 I can find says. It is the king in a story Jesus tells speaking at that point and, well, kings were like that back then.

It is a parable for salvation. The nobleman in the story is Jesus. One will suffer eternal damnation if he does not follow, serve, and obey Jesus.