PDA

View Full Version : Banned by CBS



warpig
07-11-2010, 01:47 AM
http://www.breitbart.tv/banned-by-cbs-watch-the-ad-opposing-the-ground-zero-mosque/

Watch the Ad Opposing the Ground Zero Mosque

noonwitch
07-12-2010, 11:06 AM
It's not being built on the site of the World Trade Center, and to call it the "Ground Zero Mosque" is imprecise, at best.


Is the site of the WTC somehow sacred ground, because a lot of people were killed there? Are the blocks surrounding it, where the proposed mosque is to be built, also sacred ground by extension?

Are all muslims guilty of the attacks on 9-11? Are the ones building this mosque somehow tied to al Queda? If the latter is true, I can understand the objections.


The people who own the property want to put a mosque there. It's their property.

djones520
07-12-2010, 11:25 AM
It's not being built on the site of the World Trade Center, and to call it the "Ground Zero Mosque" is imprecise, at best.


Is the site of the WTC somehow sacred ground, because a lot of people were killed there? Are the blocks surrounding it, where the proposed mosque is to be built, also sacred ground by extension?

Are all muslims guilty of the attacks on 9-11? Are the ones building this mosque somehow tied to al Queda? If the latter is true, I can understand the objections.


The people who own the property want to put a mosque there. It's their property.

Don't forget that dozens of the victims on that day were also Muslims.

Odysseus
07-12-2010, 11:30 AM
It's not being built on the site of the World Trade Center, and to call it the "Ground Zero Mosque" is imprecise, at best.


Is the site of the WTC somehow sacred ground, because a lot of people were killed there? Are the blocks surrounding it, where the proposed mosque is to be built, also sacred ground by extension?

Are all muslims guilty of the attacks on 9-11? Are the ones building this mosque somehow tied to al Queda? If the latter is true, I can understand the objections.

The people who own the property want to put a mosque there. It's their property.

It's being built on a site that overlooks Ground Zero, over another building that was damaged in the attacks. Islam has a history of building mosques on sites of conquest, as a means of rubbing their victories in the noses of the infidels. The American Thinker had a great article on the subjec (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/the_ground_zero_mosque_and_con.html)t:


Muslims have always built mosques on the sites of their conquests. The Prophet Muhammad himself made the Ka'aba, a pagan pantheon, into a mosque after he captured Mecca in 630 CE. The Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was deliberately built near the Temple Mount, the holiest places in Judaism. The Ummayad mosque in Damascus was built on the site of the Church of Saint John. Babri mosque in Ayodhya, India was built by demolishing a Hindu temple at the site of Hinduism's Lord Rama's birthplace. They built mosques on the sites of thousands of temples throughout India.

The request to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center is not accidental. It is astute and deliberate, as is the decision to call the place Cordoba House. Cordoba is city in Spain that resonates mightily in Muslim history. It was the capital of the Islamic empire in Spain. It was the place where Islam established its first caliphate in Europe. The Grand Cordoba Mosque was built where a Visigoth Christian church stood.

This is a deliberate provocation by an imam with ties to CAIR, and therefore the Muslim Brotherhood. If we permit this construction, we are taking another step down the road to perpetual dhimmitude, and our grandchildren will curse us for our cowardice.

marv
07-12-2010, 11:49 AM
The term "sacred ground" is overused. But the question of "what is the intent" should not be overlooked.

My cynical 2¢.....

NJCardFan
07-12-2010, 12:52 PM
This is a deliberate provocation by an imam with ties to CAIR, and therefore the Muslim Brotherhood. If we permit this construction, we are taking another step down the road to perpetual dhimmitude, and our grandchildren will curse us for our cowardice.

This so blatantly deliberate. And these people know that the American left would be blind to what and why they're doing it and they also know that a majority of the American media is sympathetic to them so they know they can get away with it. Hell, look at Noon. She doesn't see a problem with it but then again, she more than likely doesn't know the history and meaning behind such a gesture.

noonwitch
07-12-2010, 01:44 PM
This so blatantly deliberate. And these people know that the American left would be blind to what and why they're doing it and they also know that a majority of the American media is sympathetic to them so they know they can get away with it. Hell, look at Noon. She doesn't see a problem with it but then again, she more than likely doesn't know the history and meaning behind such a gesture.


I do know the history. It's not a matter of "them getting away with it". It's a matter of they own the property and can build a mosque on it if they want to do so. To stop them from building on a site they own would be a violation of their rights, unless the mosque was somehow going to violate city zoning laws. And if the city were to try it to change zoning laws to address this situation, it would appear to be purposely changing their laws to target this one group. It would be a long, fruitless legal battle that the city would eventually lose, which means a big waste of money.

I don't see a problem with building mosques-I have no intention of joining one, or any religion that would deny me equal participation due to my gender, including the right to be a pastor, if I chose to do so. I would have a problem if a muslim group tried to inflict Sharia law on all americans. I don't see building a mosque as a step toward that.

marv
07-12-2010, 03:10 PM
I would have a problem if a muslim group tried to inflict Sharia law on all americans. I don't see building a mosque as a step toward that.
...hmmmm, that's interesting!

Speedy
07-12-2010, 05:11 PM
Don't forget that dozens of the victims on that day were also Muslims.

Yeah, at least a dozen and a half of them were the hijackers. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
07-12-2010, 07:53 PM
Given the Islamic view on property - I'm against any muslims or muslim organization owning property within the US.

SaintLouieWoman
07-12-2010, 08:01 PM
Given the Islamic view on property - I'm against any muslims or muslim organization owning property within the US.

Our home near St Louis had a mosque within a half mile. It was 2 blocks from a Catholic church. Guess which one had beautifully manicured lawns and nice landscaping? It wasn't the mosque. It always looked like a dump.

Odysseus has a point. It's way too blatant that they just happen to have land by the WTC. It's not just a coincidence. Surely NYC can find some sort of zoning violation. I hate them rubbing our collective noses in their villany.

Hawkgirl
07-12-2010, 08:24 PM
I'm with Odysseus on this one....100%

Why don't they go build a mosque in Harlem instead...they are rebuilding that area nicely.

Odysseus
07-12-2010, 09:59 PM
I do know the history. It's not a matter of "them getting away with it". It's a matter of they own the property and can build a mosque on it if they want to do so. To stop them from building on a site they own would be a violation of their rights, unless the mosque was somehow going to violate city zoning laws. And if the city were to try it to change zoning laws to address this situation, it would appear to be purposely changing their laws to target this one group. It would be a long, fruitless legal battle that the city would eventually lose, which means a big waste of money.

I don't see a problem with building mosques-I have no intention of joining one, or any religion that would deny me equal participation due to my gender, including the right to be a pastor, if I chose to do so. I would have a problem if a muslim group tried to inflict Sharia law on all americans. I don't see building a mosque as a step toward that.

What if they owned the property and wanted to put up a sign that said "Infidel, your days are numbered! Convert to Islam or you will be killed like the people in the World Trade Center?" Would that be within their rights, since they owned the property? Because that's what they're doing. They're building a great big sign, with minarets and "party space" that overlooks the sign of the greatest mass murder on American soil, and they're doing it so that they can revel in it.

And the imam who is spearheading this effort is affiliated with CAIR, which is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is the subversion of our Constitution in favor of Sharia. That makes this an issue of sedition, not religious freedom.

PoliCon
07-13-2010, 12:01 AM
Our home near St Louis had a mosque within a half mile. It was 2 blocks from a Catholic church. Guess which one had beautifully manicured lawns and nice landscaping? It wasn't the mosque. It always looked like a dump.

Odysseus has a point. It's way too blatant that they just happen to have land by the WTC. It's not just a coincidence. Surely NYC can find some sort of zoning violation. I hate them rubbing our collective noses in their villany.

I'm not at all surprised. One of the things that westerners fail to realize is that according to Islam - once land is in muslim hands - it is in their minds forever islamic land. Hence their claim to Spain - their claim to Israel - and if we allow them to build here - their claims on us as well.

noonwitch
07-13-2010, 10:41 AM
What if they owned the property and wanted to put up a sign that said "Infidel, your days are numbered! Convert to Islam or you will be killed like the people in the World Trade Center?" Would that be within their rights, since they owned the property? Because that's what they're doing. They're building a great big sign, with minarets and "party space" that overlooks the sign of the greatest mass murder on American soil, and they're doing it so that they can revel in it.

And the imam who is spearheading this effort is affiliated with CAIR, which is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is the subversion of our Constitution in favor of Sharia. That makes this an issue of sedition, not religious freedom.



If they put up signs like that, they would be guilty of a prosecutable offense: making death threats, which is against the law in most states.


You are interpreting the very act of building the mosque as making a threat. The courts will not see it that way. It's not an issue of sedition unless steps are being taken to overthrow our system, and forcibly replace the Constitution with Sharia law by the group building the mosque. Trying to convince people to convert to Islam by peaceful means is no different under law than christian groups trying to convert people in similar ways, i.e. street evangelism. And, yes, I'm aware of the case in Dearborn, but I am witholding judgment until the court rules on the issue, as the people arrested are taking their cases to court. I think and hope that the court will rule against the city. My suburb, Warren, is having a middle eastern-american festival either this weekend or next. It'll be interesting to see if David Wood and company show up to witness to muslims there, and how the city of Warren handles it if they do.

I am not about to convert to Islam any time soon. I'm a feminist, and I would vehemently fight any effort to inflict sharia law on the population if there were any serious efforts to do so. I live in a community with a lot of muslims, a lot of mosques, and we all get along pretty well around here, for the most part-except for the fact that most merchants in Detroit are of recent arabic descent, and there is a lot of hatred of them in the black community, because they are seen as price gougers and racists. I have not noticed around here that mosques are poorly maintained, or that the property around them is also in poor shape. A good number of them here have renovated abandoned buildings and added little minarets and tile patterns, and the buildings look better than they did as abandoned storefronts.

Odysseus
07-13-2010, 12:27 PM
If they put up signs like that, they would be guilty of a prosecutable offense: making death threats, which is against the law in most states.
They will say those things, and worse, from the pulpit. Imams there will preach against Jews, Christians, Americans, temporal legal authority and anything that does not conform to Islamic jurisprudence. It will be a site of sedition, whether you want to admit it or not.


You are interpreting the very act of building the mosque as making a threat. The courts will not see it that way. It's not an issue of sedition unless steps are being taken to overthrow our system, and forcibly replace the Constitution with Sharia law by the group building the mosque. Trying to convince people to convert to Islam by peaceful means is no different under law than christian groups trying to convert people in similar ways, i.e. street evangelism. And, yes, I'm aware of the case in Dearborn, but I am witholding judgment until the court rules on the issue, as the people arrested are taking their cases to court. I think and hope that the court will rule against the city. My suburb, Warren, is having a middle eastern-american festival either this weekend or next. It'll be interesting to see if David Wood and company show up to witness to muslims there, and how the city of Warren handles it if they do.
Under US law, preaching is no different. Under Sharia law, preaching Christianity to Muslims is a crime, and converting from Islam carries a death sentence. Once in, never out, just like a street gang, with the same retaliatory mindset. The presence of the building will be a provocation because of its site. It will be an Islamic center, named after a city in which Islam subjugated infidels, overlooking the site of the murder of three-thousand people by Muslims in the name of Islam. It would be like building a shrine to the SS at Auschwitz. And the building will be the site of numerous threats.


I am not about to convert to Islam any time soon. I'm a feminist, and I would vehemently fight any effort to inflict sharia law on the population if there were any serious efforts to do so. I live in a community with a lot of muslims, a lot of mosques, and we all get along pretty well around here, for the most part-except for the fact that most merchants in Detroit are of recent arabic descent, and there is a lot of hatred of them in the black community, because they are seen as price gougers and racists. I have not noticed around here that mosques are poorly maintained, or that the property around them is also in poor shape. A good number of them here have renovated abandoned buildings and added little minarets and tile patterns, and the buildings look better than they did as abandoned storefronts.

You would? Have you supported Riqfa Bary's attempt to leave Islam? Have you contacted the SMART bus authority to demand that they allow the Leaving Islam ads the same leeway as the atheist group's ads, which they permitted (see below)? Yeah, you'll fight it when it's in your face, trying to force a burka over it, but until then, you'll keep your head low and ignore the evidence around you.


ANN ARBOR, MI – Federal District Court Judge Denise Page Hood will hold a hearing on Tuesday, July 12, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. to determine whether refusal by the SMART bus authority to run a controversial paid-for ad passes constitutional muster.

The “Leaving Islam” ad lists a web address and states, “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!”

A motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was filed in the federal lawsuit against the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan and attorney David Yerushalmi, P.C. on behalf of the ad’s sponsors, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI) and its officers, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

Although Judge Hood denied FDI’s TRO motion without prejudice, she scheduled tomorrow’s hearing to determine FDI’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. FDI attorneys expect to call at least two SMART officials to testify at tomorrow’s hearing.

FDI’s ad campaign follows on the heels of the Rifqa Barry story, the seventeen- year-old Ohio girl, who fearing for her life, ran away from home after her parents discovered she had converted to Christianity. Traditional Islamic law prescribes the penalty of death if a Muslim leaves his or her religion.

SMART authorities had earlier allowed an atheist group’s ads on its buses, “Don’t Believe in God? You are not alone,” yet, without giving any explanation, it refused the “Leaving Islam” ads.

FDI’s motion asks Judge Hood to order SMART to allow display of the “Leaving Islam” ads on the grounds that refusing to display the ads violated First Amendment rights to engage in political and religious speech.

noonwitch
07-13-2010, 02:16 PM
They will say those things, and worse, from the pulpit. Imams there will preach against Jews, Christians, Americans, temporal legal authority and anything that does not conform to Islamic jurisprudence. It will be a site of sedition, whether you want to admit it or not.


Under US law, preaching is no different. Under Sharia law, preaching Christianity to Muslims is a crime, and converting from Islam carries a death sentence. Once in, never out, just like a street gang, with the same retaliatory mindset. The presence of the building will be a provocation because of its site. It will be an Islamic center, named after a city in which Islam subjugated infidels, overlooking the site of the murder of three-thousand people by Muslims in the name of Islam. It would be like building a shrine to the SS at Auschwitz. And the building will be the site of numerous threats.



You would? Have you supported Riqfa Bary's attempt to leave Islam? Have you contacted the SMART bus authority to demand that they allow the Leaving Islam ads the same leeway as the atheist group's ads, which they permitted (see below)? Yeah, you'll fight it when it's in your face, trying to force a burka over it, but until then, you'll keep your head low and ignore the evidence around you.


How would I support Riqfa Bary's attempt to leave Islam? I agree that it is her right to do so, and if I had a case like that on my caseload, I would support the kid's right to do so. I had a case that involved parental disputes based on islamic rules about father's rights-the court smacked that father down, because the mother was a better parent. The arab/muslim social service agency involved backed the mother, and helped her divorce the father.


I haven't heard of anything as far as the SMART buses are concerned. I don't ride them, and it hasn't been covered on the local news, so I wasn't aware that there was such a policy. I would really have to see what kind of ads Leaving Islam wanted to put in the buses before I made a judgment-there is such a thing as being too inflammatory for a city bus or a billboard. Lots of anti-choice organizations have found that out.


The difference between a mosque being built near ground zero and building a monument to the SS at Auschwitz is that not all muslims are responsible for 9-11, and all SS officers were responsible for the Holocaust. That's a really bad analogy, for that reason.

djones520
07-13-2010, 02:24 PM
Under US law, preaching is no different. Under Sharia law, preaching Christianity to Muslims is a crime, and converting from Islam carries a death sentence. Once in, never out, just like a street gang, with the same retaliatory mindset. The presence of the building will be a provocation because of its site. It will be an Islamic center, named after a city in which Islam subjugated infidels, overlooking the site of the murder of three-thousand people by Muslims in the name of Islam. It would be like building a shrine to the SS at Auschwitz. And the building will be the site of numerous threats.


Major, until the 1st Amendment is amended to exclude Islam, then there is no grounds to stop it. Period.

Odysseus
07-13-2010, 03:39 PM
The difference between a mosque being built near ground zero and building a monument to the SS at Auschwitz is that not all muslims are responsible for 9-11, and all SS officers were responsible for the Holocaust. That's a really bad analogy, for that reason.
This mosque is being built by a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, and they are an Islamist terror group, so they do share responsibility for 9/11, just as the Waffen SS, which didn't guard the camps, shared the responsibility for the Holocaust with the Totenkampf SS, which did. But, if you want to refine the analogy, then let's say that it's a monument to German WWII dead at Auschwitz. You could make the claim that there were lots of moderate Germans in 1939, too, not that they did us a whole lot of good.
Major, until the 1st Amendment is amended to exclude Islam, then there is no grounds to stop it. Period.
If a Christian denomination declared the Bible to be the sole legitimate governing document in America and sought to impose it in lieu of the Constitution, how long do you think that Church's tax-exempt status would last? If their adherents had resorted to terrorism, would they be scrutinized? And if they had links to violent sects or factions, would they be given building permits? The First Amendment isn't a license to destroy the rest of the Constitution. Its guarantees of religious freedom don't simply permit religious observance, it also places limits on the impositions of religion. Sharia, which punishes any deviation from Islam, is in direct conflict with the First Amendment.

djones520
07-13-2010, 04:07 PM
And Sharia is not the law of the land, and if any attempts to use it they will be punished by that law. Building a mosque does not give Sharia any legal grounds here.

Molon Labe
07-13-2010, 05:05 PM
I'm not at all surprised. One of the things that westerners fail to realize is that according to Islam - once land is in muslim hands - it is in their minds forever islamic land. Hence their claim to Spain - their claim to Israel - and if we allow them to build here - their claims on us as well.

But the way they are getting "their lands" back isn't through force of arms......it's through legislation and general apathy of the West.

DU+NU_Reject
07-13-2010, 05:12 PM
It's being built on a site that overlooks Ground Zero, over another building that was damaged in the attacks. Islam has a history of building mosques on sites of conquest, as a means of rubbing their victories in the noses of the infidels. The American Thinker had a great article on the subjec (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/the_ground_zero_mosque_and_con.html)t:



This is a deliberate provocation by an imam with ties to CAIR, and therefore the Muslim Brotherhood. If we permit this construction, we are taking another step down the road to perpetual dhimmitude, and our grandchildren will curse us for our cowardice.

Not to disagree with you, but these guys are out of touch with reality if they think they've had any sort of 'victory' :rolleyes:

Odysseus
07-14-2010, 12:26 AM
Not to disagree with you, but these guys are out of touch with reality if they think they've had any sort of 'victory' :rolleyes:

Nineteen Islamists pilot aircraft into buildings in order to punish America and kill Americans in order to drive us out of the Middle East so that they can restore a seventh century caliphate. When were they ever in touch with reality?

PoliCon
07-14-2010, 12:33 AM
Not to disagree with you, but these guys are out of touch with reality if they think they've had any sort of 'victory' :rolleyes:

how goes the rebuilding project? How many of the lost buildings have been replaced?

DU+NU_Reject
07-14-2010, 02:00 AM
how goes the rebuilding project? How many of the lost buildings have been replaced?

My point being, is that in their maniacal frenzy to attack unarmed civilians, they forgot to conquer the rest of the population.

I think some of them actually understand that, even with the US military hypothetically out of commission, they'd have more than their work cut out for them if they ever attempted a straight-up confrontation with the locals. (It's why the higher ups in Islam have made their "Fatwa" on Jihad)

Then again, some of our enemies, I'd wager, have NO understanding of how nasty we can get if provoked. Lynch mobs, gang wars, massive riots over perceived injustice (Rodney King, anyone?), Black Panthers, Sicilian Mob, etc... I don't think many fascists out there grasp how America earned the title "Most Violent of Developed Nations", and how we'd kindly give them a first-hand demonstration of it if they tried anymore of their stupid kamikaze douchebag stunts.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/iamjooish/th_evil.gif

To me, compared to what I've pointed out in this post... lax rebuilding schedules and super-expensive replacement of historically important structures are immaterial. They succeeded in knocking the castle down; bully for them. They've yet to finish off the kingdom...

DU+NU_Reject
07-14-2010, 02:01 AM
Nineteen Islamists pilot aircraft into buildings in order to punish America and kill Americans in order to drive us out of the Middle East so that they can restore a seventh century caliphate. When were they ever in touch with reality?

Probably not, but I might think so for different reasons than you (some of which I pointed out in my previous post.)

Cobra
07-14-2010, 02:10 AM
Not to disagree with you, but these guys are out of touch with reality if they think they've had any sort of 'victory' :rolleyes:

Crazy people don't know they are crazy.

Islam laughs at us. Because they are not crazy - WE are. To allow this.

Some excuse -any should be given to forbid this buiilding. Even the excuse of " we don't want your kind here" should suffice. But it won't. Because we are too scared of how we look to the world.

We won't see the effects. Our Grandchildren will.

DU+NU_Reject
07-14-2010, 02:37 AM
Crazy people don't know they are crazy.

Islam laughs at us. Because they are not crazy - WE are. To allow this.

Some excuse -any should be given to forbid this buiilding. Even the excuse of " we don't want your kind here" should suffice. But it won't. Because we are too scared of how we look to the world.

We won't see the effects. Our Grandchildren will.

And then the grandchildren will fight, as will their grandparents, if some crazy-ass imam stands between them and their liberty. :cool:

Not being nonchalant about it, just saying... we're a nation of fighters.

NJCardFan
07-14-2010, 03:03 AM
how goes the rebuilding project? How many of the lost buildings have been replaced?

Um, if it weren't the endless bullshit and red tape, the entire area would have been rebuilt by now.

noonwitch
07-14-2010, 09:35 AM
Crazy people don't know they are crazy.

Islam laughs at us. Because they are not crazy - WE are. To allow this.

Some excuse -any should be given to forbid this buiilding. Even the excuse of " we don't want your kind here" should suffice. But it won't. Because we are too scared of how we look to the world.

We won't see the effects. Our Grandchildren will.



I'm curious as to how you define "your kind". Do you mean all muslims? Because there are plenty of muslim americans serving in the military, and making the same sacrifices for this country that anyone else in that role makes.

namvet
07-14-2010, 10:34 AM
wasn't it a muslim that killed all those people at ft hood??? so much for they're so called loyality.

Mosque's are used by terrorists to build bombs. no thanks.

Odysseus
07-14-2010, 10:45 AM
My point being, is that in their maniacal frenzy to attack unarmed civilians, they forgot to conquer the rest of the population.

I think some of them actually understand that, even with the US military hypothetically out of commission, they'd have more than their work cut out for them if they ever attempted a straight-up confrontation with the locals. (It's why the higher ups in Islam have made their "Fatwa" on Jihad)

Then again, some of our enemies, I'd wager, have NO understanding of how nasty we can get if provoked. Lynch mobs, gang wars, massive riots over perceived injustice (Rodney King, anyone?), Black Panthers, Sicilian Mob, etc... I don't think many fascists out there grasp how America earned the title "Most Violent of Developed Nations", and how we'd kindly give them a first-hand demonstration of it if they tried anymore of their stupid kamikaze douchebag stunts.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y116/iamjooish/th_evil.gif

To me, compared to what I've pointed out in this post... lax rebuilding schedules and super-expensive replacement of historically important structures are immaterial. They succeeded in knocking the castle down; bully for them. They've yet to finish off the kingdom...
The destruction of America is a multi-generational project. They knocked down the castle, survived, and turned out culture against itself. We're so busy debating who is and is not the enemy that our leadership can't even say the words "Islamic Terrorism" without stuttering like Porky Pig having a seizure. Can you imagine this debate occurring during WWII? Can you imagine a Japanese organization denouncing Japanophobia and trumpeting diversity after Pearl Harbor? We're losing the war for the minds of our own people. We don't even have the will to say to a Muslim Brotherhood front group that they cannot build a shrine to Islam over the site where Islamic terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans. We're afraid of offending people who want to behead us, enslave our children and drive mankind back to the seventh century. They don't have to finish the kingdom, we're finishing off ourselves quite nicely.

I'm curious as to how you define "your kind". Do you mean all muslims? Because there are plenty of muslim americans serving in the military, and making the same sacrifices for this country that anyone else in that role makes.

And some, not many, just a couple, have turned their arms on their fellow Soldiers in the name of Islam. And what are we doing about preventing future recurrences? Nada. There is too much fear of being labeled as a bigot or Islamophobe, so no one is looking at the remaining Muslim troopers to see if there are any other potential MAJ Nidal Hasans in the ranks. Nidal Hasan was not only not scrutinized because of his conduct prior to the FT Hood shootings, he was promoted and he kept his security clearance. The single worst thing about MAJ Hasan's rampage wasn't the body count, it was that the chain of command looked the other way while he telegraphed his intent, and that every Soldier knows it and now has to worry about what their fellow Soldiers are thinking because the people at the top pretend that it's not an issue. How do you think we will view other Muslims after that, when the chain of command that failed to examine the complaints about MAJ Hasan tells us not to worry about it? That's how the radicals work. They dominate and cow their opposition, and create the impression that all Muslims think like them, so that they will be viewed with fear. And when they are, they have nowhere to go but back to the radicals. The best thing that we can do for the moderates is to empower them, and expose and oppose the radicals. The WTC mosque is a project by radicals that will further establish them as the voice of American Islam. If you care about the moderates, then help them avoid the subjugation that they came here to escape.

noonwitch
07-14-2010, 11:33 AM
wasn't it a muslim that killed all those people at ft hood??? so much for they're so called loyality.

Mosque's are used by terrorists to build bombs. no thanks.


Wasn't it a couple of ex-military white americans that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City? Maybe we should question the loyalty of all white people who serve in the military.


There were a lot of warning signs that were ignored as far as the Ft. Hood shootings go. The military may have ignored those signs out of a sense of political correctness, and that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed. But that one guy doesn't represent the many muslims who serve because they are loyal to the nation that gave their families a better life than the one they had in Lebanon or Syria, or whatever other place they came from.

When muslim immigrants in Dearborn hang american flags in front of their businesses, it isn't necessarily some kind of shallow display to fool the rest of us "real americans" into shopping there, although I'm sure you could find an example of a muslim who does that. Most of the time, it's because the owner loves this country, loves doing business here, and appreciates that this is a far better place to live than Lebanon or Syria (which is where most of the muslims in Dearborn's families originated).

djones520
07-14-2010, 11:45 AM
wasn't it a muslim that killed all those people at ft hood??? so much for they're so called loyality.

Mosque's are used by terrorists to build bombs. no thanks.

I'm putting a squash to this right now. Unless you have proof of compromised loyalties of US Service Members, then keep your mouth shut. Every Muslim who wears that uniform faces more dangers when deployed then the rest of us already do. The last thing they need is to be stabbed in the back by the ungrateful pricks their defending.

namvet
07-14-2010, 11:52 AM
Wasn't it a couple of ex-military white americans that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City? Maybe we should question the loyalty of all white people who serve in the military.


There were a lot of warning signs that were ignored as far as the Ft. Hood shootings go. The military may have ignored those signs out of a sense of political correctness, and that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed. But that one guy doesn't represent the many muslims who serve because they are loyal to the nation that gave their families a better life than the one they had in Lebanon or Syria, or whatever other place they came from.

When muslim immigrants in Dearborn hang american flags in front of their businesses, it isn't necessarily some kind of shallow display to fool the rest of us "real americans" into shopping there, although I'm sure you could find an example of a muslim who does that. Most of the time, it's because the owner loves this country, loves doing business here, and appreciates that this is a far better place to live than Lebanon or Syria (which is where most of the muslims in Dearborn's families originated).


Wasn't it a couple of ex-military white americans that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City? Maybe we should question the loyalty of all white people who serve in the military.


apples to oranges. today you would call them tea baggers???? ever hear of CAIR??? check it out.just one or two??? your ass.

namvet
07-14-2010, 12:04 PM
I'm putting a squash to this right now. Unless you have proof of compromised loyalties of US Service Members, then keep your mouth shut. Every Muslim who wears that uniform faces more dangers when deployed then the rest of us already do. The last thing they need is to be stabbed in the back by the ungrateful pricks their defending.

i would say the massacre is proof of they're loyality.

I did my service so fuck off moron. ill say what i god damned please

djones520
07-14-2010, 12:08 PM
i would say the massacre is proof of they're loyality.

I did my service so fuck off moron. ill say what i god damned please

And I'm here in the Afghan theatre fighting with these people you want to piss all over. I don't give a damn what service you did, it doesn't give you any right to call loyal service members traitors. The actions of one man does not reflect on the thousands of others out there, and for anyone to think so just reflects poorly on them.

namvet
07-14-2010, 12:23 PM
And I'm here in the Afghan theatre fighting with these people you want to piss all over. I don't give a damn what service you did, it doesn't give you any right to call loyal service members traitors. The actions of one man does not reflect on the thousands of others out there, and for anyone to think so just reflects poorly on them.

its NOT just the actions of one dumbass. and im talkin' about the muslim ivasion of this country. get it ???!!!! so don't drag me into your conflict. ive always supported our military. so piss off. if you think the sunshine blows out they're ass fine. i don't. never will

hampshirebrit
07-14-2010, 12:39 PM
Crazy people don't know they are crazy.

Islam laughs at us. Because they are not crazy - WE are. To allow this.



Damn right.




Some excuse -any should be given to forbid this buiilding. Even the excuse of " we don't want your kind here" should suffice. But it won't. Because we are too scared of how we look to the world.



Americans should not give a shit about how it would look, and anyway, THIS part of the world (UK) would entirely approve of the planned construction being nixxed.

There is no way this mosque should be allowed at all, anywhere near to the WTC, and I'd say anywhere south of Canal Street should be placed off limits.

The European worldview is starting to shift against the prevailing view of the former ruling political class. The Swiss have banned all further minaret construction. The French government have just (this week) voted to prohibit wearing of the hijab in public ... there was only one vote against. Wim Wilders PVV have 24 seats in the Dutch parliament.

What a pity it would be if America allowed construction of this mosque to proceed, thereby rolling over and playing injured puppy to this vile religion. It would be a direct insult to the memory of the dead and to their families.

DU+NU_Reject
07-14-2010, 12:45 PM
I'm putting a squash to this right now. Unless you have proof of compromised loyalties of US Service Members, then keep your mouth shut. Every Muslim who wears that uniform faces more dangers when deployed then the rest of us already do. The last thing they need is to be stabbed in the back by the ungrateful pricks their defending.

:cool:

Let me just add to this by saying that, last time I checked, one of America's founding principles was that a person is NOT guilty by whom they associate with. (It was something the 13 colonies dealt with on a regular basis before Emancipation, iirc)

My grandmother on mom's side is a member of Daughters of the Confederacy. Does that mean she's a racist that wants to make blacks into the personal property of someone else? Of course not.

namvet
07-14-2010, 12:45 PM
loyal muslims in the military huh??? my ass

17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base?

A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from a Texas Air Force base where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.



http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/17-afghan-military-members-awol-from-u-s-air-force-base/

Abdul Ghani Barakzai, born 8/8/1977

Mohd Ali Karimi, born 9/3/1982

Mohammad Nasim Fateh Zada, born 12/4/1966

Aminullah Sangarwal, born 8/27/1982

Mohd Ahmadi, born 5/5/1978

Ahad Abdulahad, born 5/5/1984

Sayed Qadir Shah Habiby, born 5/7/1985

Javed Aryan a.k.a. Aryan Javed, born 1/1/1987

Mirwais Qassmi, born 4/24/1974

Barsat Noorani, born 6/3/1981

Atiqullah Habibi, two dates of birth are listed on the alert: 6/2/1982 and 7/2/1982

Ahmad Sameer Samar, born 5/2/1983

Mohamed Fahim Faqier, born 6/1/1987

Obaiddullah Abrahimy, born 8/1/1979

Sayed Nasir Hashimi, born 4/5/1972

Shawali Kakar, born 12/31/1979

Khan Padshah Amiri, born 4/1/1978

http://www.politicalbyline.com/2010/06/18/uh-oh-afgan-military-members-go-awol-in-texas/

just 1 or 2 right ???

PoliCon
07-14-2010, 01:04 PM
loyal muslims in the military huh??? my ass

17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base?


http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/17-afghan-military-members-awol-from-u-s-air-force-base/

Abdul Ghani Barakzai, born 8/8/1977

Mohd Ali Karimi, born 9/3/1982

Mohammad Nasim Fateh Zada, born 12/4/1966

Aminullah Sangarwal, born 8/27/1982

Mohd Ahmadi, born 5/5/1978

Ahad Abdulahad, born 5/5/1984

Sayed Qadir Shah Habiby, born 5/7/1985

Javed Aryan a.k.a. Aryan Javed, born 1/1/1987

Mirwais Qassmi, born 4/24/1974

Barsat Noorani, born 6/3/1981

Atiqullah Habibi, two dates of birth are listed on the alert: 6/2/1982 and 7/2/1982

Ahmad Sameer Samar, born 5/2/1983

Mohamed Fahim Faqier, born 6/1/1987

Obaiddullah Abrahimy, born 8/1/1979

Sayed Nasir Hashimi, born 4/5/1972

Shawali Kakar, born 12/31/1979

Khan Padshah Amiri, born 4/1/1978

http://www.politicalbyline.com/2010/06/18/uh-oh-afgan-military-members-go-awol-in-texas/

just 1 or 2 right ???


You did catch that these are AFGHAN military personnel gone missing right?

noonwitch
07-14-2010, 01:35 PM
And I'm here in the Afghan theatre fighting with these people you want to piss all over. I don't give a damn what service you did, it doesn't give you any right to call loyal service members traitors. The actions of one man does not reflect on the thousands of others out there, and for anyone to think so just reflects poorly on them.



Thank you for your service! It can't be an easy job.

DU+NU_Reject
07-14-2010, 01:35 PM
The destruction of America is a multi-generational project.
True... they never planned to conquer us in one day.



They knocked down the castle, survived, and turned out culture against itself. We're so busy debating who is and is not the enemy that our leadership can't even say the words "Islamic Terrorism" without stuttering like Porky Pig having a seizure.

Again- dead on!
We've become complacent after the Cold War, no doubt. There isn't a clear, geographically apparent threat to the free world. In some extreme cases, many of the loud-mouthed leftist campus kids see many Muslim radicals as freedom fighters on the same level as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.




Can you imagine this debate occurring during WWII?

Hells no. There wouldn't have been any question about evicting the current owners of the build site for the future mosque, and possibly even writing local laws to prohibit non-secular use of land near ground zero back in 1941-46.

As the old saying goes:the only way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. And maybe evil is triumphing right here, on this very continent.

I'm not really arguing any of that. I'm simply saying, they can establish Shari-ha over my cold dead diabetic ass! (and most likely the ass of millions of other Americans, but that remains to be seen)


We're losing the war for the minds of our own people.
Yes, at the moment many of our fellow citizens have become complacent either in the name of being ignorant creatures of comfort, or because they don't have the spine to stand up and say no for fear of stepping on someone else's toes.

I can't say I'm proud of this, nor can I claim to have any idea of what to do about it (yet...), I simply know I am nowhere near ready to acknowledge defeat at ANY level, and more importantly, I am not ready to scorn AN ENTIRE RELIGION simply because of the acts of a few shit heads who follow said religion!
:mad:
I'd no sooner fault the entire Catholic Church for the actions of pedophile Catholics...
(It's kinda hard to fault an entire household of your family simply because they follow one Religion or another...)

Maybe other CU'ers and RWers don't see the comparison with Catholic sex scandals as valid, but then... there are quite a few other nasty, murderous AND sadistic acts done in the name of Catholicism, and even Christianity as a whole, but that doesn't mean Christians alive today should be shamed for it.

Nor should Muslim Americans in uniform or purely civilian be blamed or scorned because of the actions of their brethren. A person should NEVER be guilty by whom they associate with, or what aspects in their life they see as sacred.

namvet
07-14-2010, 02:18 PM
You did catch that these are AFGHAN military personnel gone missing right?

no they probably flew away

Odysseus
07-14-2010, 11:26 PM
Wasn't it a couple of ex-military white americans that blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City? Maybe we should question the loyalty of all white people who serve in the military.
Janet Napolitano already beat you to that.


There were a lot of warning signs that were ignored as far as the Ft. Hood shootings go. The military may have ignored those signs out of a sense of political correctness, and that kind of thing shouldn't be allowed. But that one guy doesn't represent the many muslims who serve because they are loyal to the nation that gave their families a better life than the one they had in Lebanon or Syria, or whatever other place they came from.
Does he or doesn't he? The problem is that we don't know, because the powers that be refuse to ask the right questions, and by their refusal, they end up leaving every Muslim under a cloud of suspicion.


When muslim immigrants in Dearborn hang american flags in front of their businesses, it isn't necessarily some kind of shallow display to fool the rest of us "real americans" into shopping there, although I'm sure you could find an example of a muslim who does that. Most of the time, it's because the owner loves this country, loves doing business here, and appreciates that this is a far better place to live than Lebanon or Syria (which is where most of the muslims in Dearborn's families originated).
Glad to hear it. And the best way to serve them is to protect them from the radicals who want to return them to the rotting carcass of Sharia law that they left behind.

Yes, at the moment many of our fellow citizens have become complacent either in the name of being ignorant creatures of comfort, or because they don't have the spine to stand up and say no for fear of stepping on someone else's toes.

I can't say I'm proud of this, nor can I claim to have any idea of what to do about it (yet...), I simply know I am nowhere near ready to acknowledge defeat at ANY level, and more importantly, I am not ready to scorn AN ENTIRE RELIGION simply because of the acts of a few shit heads who follow said religion!
:mad:
I'd no sooner fault the entire Catholic Church for the actions of pedophile Catholics...
(It's kinda hard to fault an entire household of your family simply because they follow one Religion or another...)

Maybe other CU'ers and RWers don't see the comparison with Catholic sex scandals as valid, but then... there are quite a few other nasty, murderous AND sadistic acts done in the name of Catholicism, and even Christianity as a whole, but that doesn't mean Christians alive today should be shamed for it.

Nor should Muslim Americans in uniform or purely civilian be blamed or scorned because of the actions of their brethren. A person should NEVER be guilty by whom they associate with, or what aspects in their life they see as sacred.

You're comparing apples and watermelons. The violence in Islam isn't ancient history, it's current events. Pick a border between an Islamic state and a non-Islamic state and you'll see violent conflict, and in those places where Muslims are increasing their numbers, they are imposing their will with a vengeance. The rioting "youths" in Paris, the rapists in Sweden who see all infidel women as spoils of war, the imams who are working to build a shrine to Islamic conquest over the site of the WTC are all part of the same movement, and they are aided and abetted by the millions of fellow Muslims who danced in the streets of Gaza, Cairo, Baghdad and, yes, Brooklyn, as the towers fell. The best thing that we can do for the Muslims who want nothing to do with that is to provide them with sanctuary from it, and that means zero tolerance for Islamic Jihad, PC idiocy and encroaching attacks on western civilization. Otherwise, a few generations from now, we'll be looking for a place to go to where we can get out from under their insanity.

Molon Labe
07-15-2010, 11:49 AM
I'm putting a squash to this right now. Unless you have proof of compromised loyalties of US Service Members, then keep your mouth shut. Every Muslim who wears that uniform faces more dangers when deployed then the rest of us already do. The last thing they need is to be stabbed in the back by the ungrateful pricks their defending.

+1




Can you imagine this debate occurring during WWII? Can you imagine a Japanese organization denouncing Japanophobia and trumpeting diversity after Pearl Harbor? We're losing the war for the minds of our own people.

Except this isn't WW2 and hindsight showed that Japanaphobia was a farce especially for those AMERICANS interned during that period.


And some, not many, just a couple, have turned their arms on their fellow Soldiers in the name of Islam. And what are we doing about preventing future recurrences? Nada. There is too much fear of being labeled as a bigot or Islamophobe, so no one is looking at the remaining Muslim troopers to see if there are any other potential MAJ Nidal Hasans in the ranks. Nidal Hasan was not only not scrutinized because of his conduct prior to the FT Hood shootings, he was promoted and he kept his security clearance. The single worst thing about MAJ Hasan's rampage wasn't the body count, it was that the chain of command looked the other way while he telegraphed his intent,

And then there's anoter lesson fo Hasan's rampage. What is most clear about Army policy, is that disarming sworn military person's on military bases has been an abject failure. Stupid and unexplainable.

If you are good enough and trustworthy enough to earn a commission as a U.S officer, or be promoted to the rank of a senior NCO..... then you are good enough to carry a firearm with you on post. Disarming military person's on post is the epitome of irony. Major Hassan would be a dead man had he done this on a post 20 years ago.