Of course! That democrat citizens are almost as uninformed as republican citizens regarding this issue is a shame but not surprising. And it's also not surprising that republican representatives are sharking for their vote!
Anti_Islam protests victory for extremists?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Of course! That democrat citizens are almost as uninformed as republican citizens regarding this issue is a shame but not surprising. And it's also not surprising that republican representatives are sharking for their vote!
I don't have one yet as I'm not too antiquated with those factions. When I have a full understanding of the scope and general demeanor of those groups, I can give you an educated synopsis.
What I can say, is that I'm aware that Feisel's "non-comments" regarding these groups are part in parcel for why he is unjustly getting heat. Something along the lines of the fact that he since didn't immediately denounce them, means that he's subversively working for terrorists. I personally think that's a pretty assumptive way of thinking, but that's just me. If you're going to put him in a box because he didn't immediately condemn all the naughty terrorists in this world, then that's your problem. There's no basis for any conspiracy there.
Regardless, I did some research and checked him out. Of course, I won't be referencing radical sites like 'the jihadist', because they're pretty biased, but here's a reasonable bio of the man and the comments which you are referring to..
Who is Feisal Abdul Rauf — the man behind the 'Ground Zero mosque'? - The Week
I don't have time to disect his every nuance, but here's a very thorough depiction of his ideals..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
You don't have an opinion regarding Hamas and Hezbollah.
But you have an opinion relying on and quoting news articles for everything else........interesting8O
But you have an opinion relying on and quoting news articles for everything else........interesting8O
Okay, how about this, since you are craving my attention. Those groups are politically driven factions and are seen as terrorist-driven by Western nations. If you'd like to discuss these groups in further detail, feel free to make a thread about them.
If, somehow, you believe I'm funding terrorism then I don't know how to help you.
I was just pointing out in this thread the completely natural tendency of people to read articles by people who have a similar point of view while barely scanning an opposing one and then looking for an appropriate repartee...
Just like I couldn't listen to Rachel Maddow or the Young turks for more than ten minutes...you probably wouldn't listen to Glen Beck or the O'Reilly Factor for to long...
Human Bias.....that's all....no slight intended, I question everything and anything....always have...always will
Why get so defensive??? hmmm
Just like I couldn't listen to Rachel Maddow or the Young turks for more than ten minutes...you probably wouldn't listen to Glen Beck or the O'Reilly Factor for to long...
Human Bias.....that's all....no slight intended, I question everything and anything....always have...always will
Why get so defensive??? hmmm
Your answer...
How else am I supposed to take..." Those groups are politically driven factions", while you qualify the difference in perceptions with..."and are seen as terrorist-driven by Western nations."
You separated the perceptions, with what I can only take as your view, as apposed to the view by western nations.
Well, that's clearly not true, because you referred to me specifically regarding the issue of the hamas and hezbollah.
I'm not sure where your survey of others came into that comment as it seems pretty blatantly directed toward me.
If you would like to actually show the tendency of people in this thread to be biased -- and to clearly depict this bias in the thread -- then you should reference more than one person and your references should be balanced enough to show what bias each side has. Don't cherry pick me if you're actually trying to prove that everyone in this thread has some sort of bias.
Because that's as much as I know herein. I'm not making a hasty generalization without enough facts. If you would like to validate the claim that they are all clearly terrorists, then go ahead. And then you can some how tie that back into this thread because now it has gone way off course as far as I can tell.
:roll:
No it hasn't. And if I have to do a song and dance about the crimes committed by Hamas and Hezbollah, for some one that has been saying the Imam not condemning those groups, shouldn't held accountable for that. Only shows me you are really qualified to offer an opinion on the Imam in question.
The part of your post I didn't quote was to Bear....
Verry conveniently ignore the rest of my post...
Cherrypick much???
I don't have to know precisely about Hamas and Hezbollah to come up with an informed opinion about what to think about this man, and his influence or intentions regarding the building of this community center. The exact quote you are commenting on is this:
--
I don't see anything wrong with that comment. Clearly, he wants to remain non-partisan. Maybe I'm not seeing something that you are, here. Are you saying that just because he doesn't immediately have some sort of revulsion or condemnation of a possible terrorist group, legitimizes something here?
I find it hard to believe that one 'non-comment' justifies dumping this project or allows one to point the 'you're supporting terrorism' finger. That seems a bit extreme.
Last edited:
In my opinion, it does. In my opinion, if an Imam that reportedly tours under the banner of moderate, spreading the blessings of peace, who doesn't condemn terrorists, seems disingenuous at best.
Hence why I find the placement of his Mosque distasteful.
I've read it enough.
You see, that's the neat things about perspectives.
Calling a spade a spade isn't partisan in my books.
Ummm, ya. As much as your use of the word possible.
That's your opinion. Just as much as I don't think that makes you stupid or anything, my position doesn't make me a bigot.
Okay, well I guess that's where we stand. You have your 'non-comment' and that suits your purpose for believing this whole production is distasteful just fine.
But, now I'm curious then.. what if it wasn't in New York, but under the same man? Would you still have the same opinion. What if it was in the same place, but under a different man who immediately denounced The Hamas/Hezbollah? Would you still think the construction of that to be distasteful?
This article was written by one of the sharpest and most reasonable person in America, Thomas Sowell:
"The proposed mosque near where the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed, along with thousands of American lives, would be a 15-story middle finger to America.
It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious, so it is not surprising that the intelligentsia are out in force, decrying those who criticize this calculated insult.
What may surprise some people is that the American taxpayer is currently financing a trip to the Middle East by the imam who is pushing this project, so that he can raise the money to build it. The State Department is subsidizing his travel.
The big talking point is that this is an issue about "religious freedom" and that Muslims have a "right" to build a mosque where they choose. But those who oppose this project are not claiming that there is no legal right to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center.
If anybody did, it would be a matter for the courts to decide -- and they would undoubtedly say that it is not illegal to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack.
The intelligentsia and others who are wrapping themselves in the Constitution are fighting a phony war against a straw man. Why create a false issue, except to evade the real issue?
Our betters are telling us that we need to be more "tolerant" and more "sensitive" to the feelings of Muslims. But if we are supposed to be sensitive to Muslims, why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?
It would not be illegal for Japanese Americans to build a massive shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it.
When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it.
He didn't say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp.
There is no question that Muslims have a right to build a mosque where they chose to. The real question is why they chose that particular location, in a country that covers more than 3 million square miles.
If we all did everything that we have a legal right to do, we could not even survive as individuals, much less as a society. So the question is whether those who are planning a Ground Zero mosque want to be part of American society or just to see how much they can get away with in American society?
Can anyone in his right mind believe that this was intended to show solidarity with Americans, rather than solidarity with those who attacked America? Does anyone imagine that the Middle East nations, including Iran, from whom financial contributions will be solicited, want to promote reconciliation between Americans and Muslims?
That the President of the United States has joined the chorus of those calling the Ground Zero mosque a religious freedom issue tells us a lot about the moral dry rot that is undermining this country from within.
In this, as in other things, Barack Obama is not so much the cause of our decline but the culmination of it. He had many predecessors and many contemporaries who represent the same mindset and the same malaise.
There are people for whom moral preening has become a way of life. They are out in force denouncing critics of the Ground Zero mosque.
There are others for whom a citizen of the world affectation puts them one-up on those of us who are grateful to be Americans, and to enjoy a freedom that is all too rare in other countries around the world, even at this late date in human history.
They think the United States is somehow on trial, and needs to prove itself to others by bending over backwards. But bending over backwards does not win friends. It loses respect, including self-respect."
"The proposed mosque near where the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed, along with thousands of American lives, would be a 15-story middle finger to America.
It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious, so it is not surprising that the intelligentsia are out in force, decrying those who criticize this calculated insult.
What may surprise some people is that the American taxpayer is currently financing a trip to the Middle East by the imam who is pushing this project, so that he can raise the money to build it. The State Department is subsidizing his travel.
The big talking point is that this is an issue about "religious freedom" and that Muslims have a "right" to build a mosque where they choose. But those who oppose this project are not claiming that there is no legal right to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center.
If anybody did, it would be a matter for the courts to decide -- and they would undoubtedly say that it is not illegal to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack.
The intelligentsia and others who are wrapping themselves in the Constitution are fighting a phony war against a straw man. Why create a false issue, except to evade the real issue?
Our betters are telling us that we need to be more "tolerant" and more "sensitive" to the feelings of Muslims. But if we are supposed to be sensitive to Muslims, why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?
It would not be illegal for Japanese Americans to build a massive shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it.
When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it.
He didn't say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp.
There is no question that Muslims have a right to build a mosque where they chose to. The real question is why they chose that particular location, in a country that covers more than 3 million square miles.
If we all did everything that we have a legal right to do, we could not even survive as individuals, much less as a society. So the question is whether those who are planning a Ground Zero mosque want to be part of American society or just to see how much they can get away with in American society?
Can anyone in his right mind believe that this was intended to show solidarity with Americans, rather than solidarity with those who attacked America? Does anyone imagine that the Middle East nations, including Iran, from whom financial contributions will be solicited, want to promote reconciliation between Americans and Muslims?
That the President of the United States has joined the chorus of those calling the Ground Zero mosque a religious freedom issue tells us a lot about the moral dry rot that is undermining this country from within.
In this, as in other things, Barack Obama is not so much the cause of our decline but the culmination of it. He had many predecessors and many contemporaries who represent the same mindset and the same malaise.
There are people for whom moral preening has become a way of life. They are out in force denouncing critics of the Ground Zero mosque.
There are others for whom a citizen of the world affectation puts them one-up on those of us who are grateful to be Americans, and to enjoy a freedom that is all too rare in other countries around the world, even at this late date in human history.
They think the United States is somehow on trial, and needs to prove itself to others by bending over backwards. But bending over backwards does not win friends. It loses respect, including self-respect."
You can say non comment until the cows come home. You have already stated you don't know anything about Hamas or the Hezbollah. So your "non comment" comment, is vacuous.
I don't trust him. Like I don't trust some people in my own community who bitch about the border Agents, who have refused to condemn on the smugglers and antagonists.
Yes.
I'd be more inclined to support it's building.
I'd have to rethink my position and formulate an opinion based on the new data.
Although I may find myself in the position of defending it then, I would still acknowledge a slight flaw in the logic behind it.
Heck, in the uppity town next door the citizens were flipping out when the Mobil Station wanted to put a rain roof over their gas pumps. You'd think they were trying to build a mosque!
Rain Roofophobes...Bigots
Rain Roofophobes...Bigots
C;ear;y you are a well educated man, well read, thoughtful and have insight. But Hamas and Hezbollah activities have been written about for decades and article ad nauseum.
To have little idea as to what they stand for I find that astounding to say the least.
Can one non comment harm a person - Yes -
Can one remain Non Partisan on the existence of the State of Israel and not condemn these 2 groups - No. It is not credible position Religiously or Morally..
Is he unsuited for the politics of this project - Then he should not have started one that would cause all hell to break lose -
Did he not forsee this - How could anyone not forsee the implications of this decision. It is creating division and having the opposite effect of what he states he intended.
Wow. Alright, well if you want to put me in a box then. I can say that even if they are both legitimate terrorist organizations, I still wouldn't have a problem with someone who didn't want to get involved in the political dispute. That, in my opinion, is fair, as long as that same party is promoting non-terrorist activity - like bringing christians, jews, and muslims together.
That there is this existing rift, does not make him the proximate cause. The proximate cause is those quarreling themselves as well as the media and government taking advantage of them.
Fair enough.
Last edited: