The last refuge of a liberal

[LnGrrrR]

Who thinks that? I totally understand where the other side is coming from.

Yes, your "terrorist sympathizer" angle certainly showed your rational capabilities, your fairness and your eagerness not to engage in mudslinging.

[DarrinS]

So your argument is that, because Rauf said some (possibly) unpatriotic statements, he should morally decide to not build a mosque there.

But what do his statements have to do with it being a mosque? I mean, would you oppose the building if it were, say, a church? If you think it shouldn't be built because he opposes America or something similar, you would then oppose any building he wanted there, right?


If Mormons attacked us on 9/11 (and had been attacking us for the past 40 years), I'd have a problem with an enormous Morman temple being constructed at Ground Zero.

[ChumpDumper]

If Mormons attacked us on 9/11 (and had been attacking us for the past 40 years), I'd have a problem with an enormous Morman temple being constructed at Ground Zero.Then you would be a Mormon-phobe.

As it is, you're an Islamophobe.

[DarrinS]

Yes, your "terrorist sympathizer" angle certainly showed your rational capabilities, your fairness and your eagerness not to engage in mudslinging.


Perhaps terrorist empathizer would be more appropriate?

[DarrinS]

Then you would be a Mormon-phobe.

As it is, you're an Islamophobe.


As it is, you're an idiot.

[LnGrrrR]

A VERY large scale mosque being built VERY near to where 3000 Americans were killed in the name of Islam (not necessarily by Islam) seems in poor taste to some. But, they have every right to build it. Move it a couple miles away and I don't see a problem with it.

WHY is it in poor taste? Would you explain that?

Is it your argument that because a small number of people who practice Islam did something horrible against us, therefore, it is wrong to open a mosque within the vacinity?

That's rather poor logic, wouldn't you say? Do you think it's acceptable to hold the actions of the few against the many?

[DarrinS]

If Americans were really so intolerant, they'd throw all Muslims in an internment camp. Oh wait, liberal hero FDR did that to the Japanese. Now THAT, I wouldn't agree with.

[DarrinS]

why is it in poor taste? Would you explain that?

Is it your argument that because a small number of people who practice islam did something horrible against us, therefore, it is wrong to open a mosque within the vacinity?


yes!!!!!

[Blake]

If Mormons attacked us on 9/11 (and had been attacking us for the past 40 years), I'd have a problem with an enormous Morman temple being constructed at Ground Zero.

Most of us were able to deduce that you would be Mormonophobic if Mormons attacked us and other Mormons wanted to build a temple at Ground Zero.

[Blackjack]

I'm going to do what apparently you and some others won't and give you the benefit of a doubt.


That doesn't answer my question.

You brought up the moral issue. Again, how is it morally wrong?


It's not mine, it's theirs -- some might believe it morally wrong to allow the building of something that could be seen as some kind feather-in-the-cap of the extremists that perpetrated the act.

Does that really need expounding? Could it really be that perplexing as to know a (radical) segment of a group celebrates, takes pride and finds accomplishment in the building of a mosque, on what is being referred to as sacred ground, a place that became sacred because of their willingness to slaughter thousands in the name of Islam? You couldn't see anyone having a moral dilemma as to what the right thing to do is or being so emotional towards the subject as to have a visceral-type reaction and not look to be academic and introspective?

Really?

If so, I suggest you meet some new people and hang around a more diverse group -- group-think ain't all it's cracked up to be.


No you didn't but is it really that difficult for you to clarify again upon request?

Please clarify [again].

I did (again).


No, I don't think so.

Is the mosque that is being built looking to terrorize the United States?

No, it's not.

A sizable amount of its supporters and followers of its teaching are.


rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm]
–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


What else is it if it's not racism or Islamophobia?

We've established you can Google, unfortunately, we've also discovered you lack basic reading comprehension.

Racism implies superiority and, in most cases, hatred. It's not really as subtle a nuance as many who throw around the word think.

Fear, ignorance or making broad judgments on the basis of a few bad or horrific events in one's life, that's not racist.

Prejudice, yes. Racist, no.


I'm not making any argument. I'm trying to become wiser like you apparently think you are by asking a question.

Do you; trying to be me ain't workin'.


Then make it easy on yourself and asnwer the question.

I did (yet again).


What else is it if it's not racism or Islamophobia?


What is it called when you can only think to call someone a racist or bigot when knowing nothing of what the other feels?

Ignorance. The same thing.

Maybe you'd like to keep asking questions you've already been given the answer to?

Again ... do you.

[rjv]

The thesis of the article isn't that the left doesn't have any valid arguments with respect to the issues -- it's that they completely DISREGARD the other sides' arguments as the crazy rants of racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes, etc.

The fact that you don't understand that, says something about you, not me.

this is exactly what i'm saying you are asserting and in the same manner that the thesis purports the left to be doing (by categorically accusing the opponents of the mosque of being racist, etc.)

not all of the amorphous and mythological "left" that you have created in your mind (or have allowed to be brainwashed about by the likes of krauthhammer) disregard the arguments of opponents to the mosque in the fashion that you are alleging. to those who do feign such antipathy will be assigned to them such a classification. to those who make other arguments, emotive or not, would not come such a label.

[Blake]

What might their reasons be?

If anyone can come up with some more, I'm open to hear it.....but so far I have counted 3 reasons:

racism, Islamophobia, and people who think it's just inapproproate (i.e. bad taste).

All lousy reasons to be crying about the mosque.

[LnGrrrR]

yes!!!!!

Do you use small numbers of radical figures as a slight against larger groups in other areas? For instance, if a few Republicans do something negative, do you then paint the whole group in a negative light?

[LnGrrrR]

A sizable amount of its supporters and followers of its teaching are.

Define "sizable", please. Are we talking about just numbers, or percentages?

And do you think that all terrorists against the US are so only due to religious preference?

[Blackjack]

Define "sizable", please. Are we talking about just numbers, or percentages?

And do you think that all terrorists against the US are so only due to religious preference?

I'm for the building of the mosque. It is not my view that an extremist group that happens to use the same teachings of Islam should be taken into consideration when rendering a verdict/decision on what to do.

But it's naive to believe that there aren't people out there that genuinely wrestle with that notion and find themselves opposing this mosque.

Again, like I've said before, there are never good reasons to do the wrong thing. The right thing is always they right thing, regardless of any pain, suffering or consternation that might come in the process.

[LnGrrrR]

But it's naive to believe that there aren't people out there that genuinely wrestle with that notion and find themselves opposing this mosque.

I don't think there aren't those people out there. I just think their set of morality is skewed. But hey, I've known people who said that if they ever stopped believing in God, they'd go out and do whatever they wanted. Those people are messed up too.


Again, like I've said before, there are never good reasons to do the wrong thing. The right thing is always they right thing, regardless of any pain, suffering or consternation that might come in the process.

Sounds good to me. :tu

[Blake]

Does that really need expounding? Could it really be that perplexing as to know a (radical) segment of a group celebrates, takes pride and finds accomplishment in the building of a mosque, on what is being referred to as sacred ground, a place that became sacred because of their willingness to slaughter thousands in the name of Islam? You couldn't see anyone having a moral dilemma as to what the right thing to do is or being so emotional towards the subject as to have a visceral-type reaction and not look to be academic and introspective?

Really?

So it's back to it being a moral issue for some.

So again, what is the moral dilemma?


No, it's not.

A sizable amount of its supporters and followers of its teaching are.

so you think that justifies their Islamophobia, racism, feelings of bad taste or that they think it's morally wrong?


We've established you can Google, unfortunately, we've also discovered you lack basic reading comprehension.

Racism implies superiority and, in most cases, hatred. It's not really as subtle a nuance as many who throw around the word think.

Fear, ignorance or making broad judgments on the basis of a few bad or horrific events in one's life, that's not racist.

Prejudice, yes. Racist, no.

racism (n)

Synonyms: racial discrimination, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, xenophobia, bias, racialism

prejudice

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: belief without basis, information; intolerance

Synonyms: ageism, animosity, antipathy, apartheid, aversion, bad opinion, bias, bigotry, chauvinism, contemptuousness, detriment, discrimination, disgust, dislike, displeasure, disrelish, enmity, foregone conclusion, illiberality, injustice, jaundiced eye, mindset, misjudgment, narrow-mindedness, one-sidedness, partiality, pique, preconceived notion, preconception, prejudgment, prepossession, racism, repugnance, revulsion, sexism, slant, spleen, tilt, twist, umbrage, unfairness, warp, xenophobia

We've established that either you are hung on semantics or lack the ability to google up a thesaurus.


I did (yet again).

Maybe you'd like to keep asking questions you've already been given the answer to?

Again ... do you.

Your answer was a vague blurb about how it could be a moral dilemma for some without expounding on what the moral dilemma might be.

I can see that you trying to be you is not workin' either.

[Blake]

But it's naive to believe that there aren't people out there that genuinely wrestle with that notion and find themselves opposing this mosque.


Do you feel they are justified in wrestling with that notion?

[Blackjack]

I don't think there aren't those people out there. I just think their set of morality is skewed.

There are always the batshit crazy people. There's no getting around that, and every segment/group/race/party/religious faction has them.

But those that genuinely wrestle with the notion of deciphering between what's right and wrong in an issue so fueled with emotion, I can't be so dismissive of their view. I disagree with them, I believe in my heart they're wrong, but I respect their struggle with the issue. I can't simply dismiss them as being racists or bigots, even if there will inevitably be those out there.


But hey, I've known people who said that if they ever stopped believing in God, they'd go out and do whatever they wanted. Those people are messed up too.

I'm not religious. I'm not affiliated with any sort of religion. But truthfully, I've always known there's something. I've always had some sort of spirituality. That's me, though. To each his own.

I think anything is bad if used or practiced naively, without the requisite knowledge or done without the right amount of respect. If you're a follower -- in the worst sense of the word (i.e., lemming) -- than you'll never be worth your salt.

Not all can be leaders, but it'd be nice if everyone had the intellectual curiosity to know exactly who or what they're following.

[Blackjack]

Do you feel they are justified in wrestling with that notion?

Yes. Those that genuinely wrestle with the idea that thousands of their fellow countrymen/women were slaughtered by Islamic extremists and are now being forced with the proposition of having to allow those that did the slaughtering to claim any kind of victory because of it, absolutely.

I think in terms of "human," not ideology or whatever suits my point of view.

If 90% of Muslims denounced and/or were appalled by the actions of 9-11, there'd still be 10% that found it to be a joyous event. Reconciling with that is a lot easier for some than others.

The rest of your retort has fallen into the irresponsible. Not that it's the first, I'm just not willing to take the time copying and pasting the same things over again.

The fact that you don't understand that prejudice on it's own doesn't imply superiority or hatred, is another matter . . .

[Blake]

But those that genuinely wrestle with the notion of deciphering between what's right and wrong in an issue so fueled with emotion, I can't be so dismissive of their view. I disagree with them, I believe in my heart they're wrong, but I respect their struggle with the issue. I can't simply dismiss them as being racists or bigots, even if there will inevitably be those out there.


so you are wrestling with the notion of deciphering right and wrong regarding the issue of those wrestling with the notion of deciphering between what's right and wrong on this issue.

What reason do you think justifies them wrestling with this notion?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

There are always the batshit crazy people. There's no getting around that, and every segment/group/race/party/religious faction has them.

But those that genuinely wrestle with the notion of deciphering between what's right and wrong in an issue so fueled with emotion, I can't be so dismissive of their view. I disagree with them, I believe in my heart they're wrong, but I respect their struggle with the issue. I can't simply dismiss them as being racists or bigots, even if there will inevitably be those out there.

I'm not religious. I'm not affiliated with any sort of religion. But truthfully, I've always known there's something. I've always had some sort of spirituality. That's me, though. To each his own.

I think anything is bad if used or practiced naively, without the requisite knowledge or done without the right amount of respect. If you're a follower -- in the worst sense of the word (i.e., lemming) -- than you'll never be worth your salt.

Not all can be leaders, but it'd be nice if everyone had the intellectual curiosity to know exactly who or what they're following.

Honestly, if people would approach it this way, nobody would have a problem. As it stands though, those people that struggle with the issue are doing so at the expense of Muslim people's right to worship their faith. In here, everything is academic, but give people like Darrins enough leaway on this and soon you'll find that its no longer academic and the mosque is now being built somewhere else.

The bottom line in all this is, one can empathize with why the protest but they are ultimately wrong. I think you have the right approach, as long as it remains evident that you can't let people like Darrins force America to commit what would be a grave injustice in the name of fear.

[Blake]

Yes. Those that genuinely wrestle with the idea that thousands of their fellow countrymen/women were slaughtered by Islamic extremists and are now being forced with the proposition of having to allow those that did the slaughtering to claim any kind of victory because of it, absolutely.

Where exactly are these people that did the slaughtering?

If these people are out there, then they aren't claiming victory because a mosque is being built. They would be claimining victory that there are those wrestling with that idea.

In other words, they would be claiming victory because of the hypocrisy and butthurt of these American people.


The fact that you don't understand that prejudice on it's own doesn't imply superiority or hatred, is another matter . . .


prej·u·dice   /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
–noun

3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

I think we've established you aren't good at using google.

[Blackjack]

You fail really hard, Blake.

HARD -- but at least I won't call you a racist. :toast

[Blake]

You fail really hard, Blake.

HARD -- but at least I won't call you a racist. :toast

Na, it's clear now you are unable to show where "those that did the slaughtering" are which amounts to you setting up a strawman that butthurt Americans apparently are also using to justify their racism, prejudice, and Islamophobia.

You failed to acknowledge that prejudice and racism are synonyms, (even though it's of minor relevance to any argument you are trying to make)

You also failed to justify your confused feelings for those with confused feelings.

:toast

[Findog]

Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.


The Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly powered and animated by partisanship, not racism. The Tea Partiers are conservative Republicans who do not want to be associated with the Republican Party that they supported for 8 years while they drove this country into a ditch. Just as the media zeroed in on people with purple mohawks, multiple piercings and tattoo sleeves during coverage of protests in the run-up to the Iraq War, and ignored the guys showing up wearing khakis and oxford shirts, the same phenomenon exists in coverage of Tea Partiers - the racist signs are what ends up on the blogs and on the news, not the people who eschew racist sentiment.


Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

It's not possible to legally immigrate to the United States from Mexico. There's a waiting list with people who have been on it for 16 years. As long as conditions in Mexico remain shitty, and as long as there are jobs available here that white-collar professionals consider beneath them, and employers are eager to look the other way regarding the status of this workforce, then people from Mexico will continue to come here illegally. I think it would make more sense to work out some sort of guest worker or amnesty program for the people who have been here and have abided by our laws than to demonize them or continue the status quo. I find it amazing that the governor of Arizona would destroy her state's reputation and torpedo tourism opportunities by portraying it as a lawless wasteland when crime statistics show that the violent crime rate has essentially remained the same. Aside from that, people who are US citizens and are of Latino heritage would potentially be singled out for unreasonable searches and seizure. I don't know if you call that nativism or not, but it's wrong and not at all a constructive solution to the problem. As for the violence associated with the drug trade and coyote smuggling, there's two pretty easy solutions: End the Drug War and the incarceration economy, as well as working out a process for Mexican citizens to come here legally.


-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

Base motives or not, there's really no rational or logical reason to oppose the right of gay couples to marry and file a joint tax return. I don't know if that's homophobia, but as even Glenn Beck would say 'If it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg, why should I care?"


-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Islam didn't knock down the towers, 19 terrorists did. Opponents of the planned Cordoba House development seem to center their arguments around two themes:

1. It's insensitive (which is subjective opinion and should not carry greater weight than private property rights, freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and respecting local control, since the municipal authority granted a construction permit). When as a nation did we become a bunch of emo pussies whose feelings carry greater weight than the rule of law?

2. Conflating the developers with the 9/11 hijackers and condemning Islam itself as a barbaric religion that glorifies attacks against innocent civilians. This kind of thinking really does not merit a response, but I will point out the irony that jihadists would bomb the Cordoba House if they could, because they see Muslims behind it as sellouts to the West and not "true" adherents of Islam. It's also an insult to the Muslim group behind Cordoba House since they have been battling these extremists far longer than we have to be lumped in with them.


But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

Oh Charles Krauthammer, you are so lacking in serious thought and self-awareness. Conservative political operatives and their allies in conservative media outlets ginned up controversy over Cordoba House when opposition in the local community was minimal and muted at best. Plans for Cordoba House were announced last December. It wasn't until the New York Post began running stories on it in May that other conservative media outlets picked up on the story and ran with it. They want to make it a defining issue in the mid-term elections when it has no practical effect on the lives of people who don't live and work in lower Manhattan. If you oppose the Cordoba House Construction after hearing about it while watching Fox News, know that you are being played by professional political operatives in a position of power, authority and influence and are co-opting a cause for their purposes.

The Democrats are going to lose badly this fall because this economic environment is toxic for incumbents period, and there are far more Democratic incumbents than Republican ones.

[Findog]

Is opposition to the Ground Zero mosque Islamophobia if those opposed wouldn't mind it being built 2 miles further away?




Why is it a problem if Cordoba House is built two blocks from Ground Zero? Why are those opposed such emo pussies? It's not like they're building a minaret as tall as the towers were in the craters left behind.

[Findog]

It's too close and too big.

Well tough shit. Get over it. Private Property Rights, Freedom of Religion, Local Control as embodied by the local zoning authority granting a construction permit. Seems like a conservative would have no problem with it being built. But you'll sell out your principles to get your desired outcome. Big surprise. Movement "conservatives" don't know the first fucking thing about classical conservatism.

[Findog]

Freedom of religion. Ha. This isn't a freedom of religion issue. Pull your head out of your ass.

What is it about then?

[Goran Dragic]

A VERY large scale mosque being built VERY near to where 3000 Americans were killed in the name of Islam (not necessarily by Islam)

It was in the name of Islam according to Islamic extremists who use the Islamic religion to brainwash people into committing terrorist acts. It's not like something in the Koran advocates violence of that magnitude. If you wonder why people call Republicans racists, it's because of asinine statements like that that generalize a religion that has 1 billion plus followers with only a very small fraction being terrorists.

[Blackjack]

Na, it's clear now you are unable to show where "those that did the slaughtering" are which amounts to you setting up a strawman that butthurt Americans apparently are also using to justify their racism, prejudice, and Islamophobia.

What's clear is your lack of reading comprehension. You've been answering or asking questions that had little or nothing to do with the posts I've made.

You need to ask yourself, "What is Blackjack stating and what am I stating?"

I've said the mosque should be built, that it's the "right " thing to do and that there is never a good reason to do the wrong thing. What's right is right.

You've argued that anyone conflicted with the idea of a mosque -- on sacred ground -- consists of no grey and that anyone whom opposes is either a racist or Islamaphobe, never once taking into consideration the emotion of the situation.

Thousands of innocent Americans were slaughtered by Islamic extremists in the name of Jihad, Islam. And while they're a minority of the Islamic faith, one that happens to be the largest in the world, that minority consists of a sizable group and even more that sympathize. They are the people that make it hard for those who either lost loved ones or were just genuinely affected by the events of 9-11. It doesn't matter to them that the vast majority of Islam doesn't or wouldn't condone the actions of 9-11. The simple fact that those extremists would be able to claim some kind of victory and mock from afar, is just too unsettling a proposition.

But you see no grey, no emotion, no reason or justification for anyone to have pause or form opposition to the mosque at Ground Zero. Instead, you paint all that oppose as racists.

No need for me to ask the question now: definitely lemming.


You failed to acknowledge that prejudice and racism are synonyms, (even though it's of minor relevance to any argument you are trying to make)

You can lead a horse to water but you can't learn 'em Google.

Let me ask you a question, is a predjudiced view or opinion contingent on race or being racial?


You also failed to justify your confused feelings for those with confused feelings.

:toast

The confusion lies with you. What you can't or fail to comprehend tends to do that. ;)

[BadOdor]

It was in the name of Islam according to Islamic extremists who use the Islamic religion to brainwash people into committing terrorist acts. It's not like something in the Koran advocates violence of that magnitude. If you wonder why people call Republicans racists, it's because of asinine statements like that that generalize a religion that has 1 billion plus followers with only a very small fraction being terrorists.

Tbh brah pretty sure there's a verse that says "kill all the unbelievers" or some shit like that.

But I bet someone would say it's "out of context".

[Winehole23]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2032:27&version=KJV

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[Blake]

You need to ask yourself, "What is Blackjack stating and what am I stating?"

I've said the mosque should be built, that it's the "right " thing to do and that there is never a good reason to do the wrong thing. What's right is right.

I don't need to ask what you have previously stated. It is right here:


but I respect their struggle with the issue.

If they are wrong, right is right, and you are for the mosque being built, why do you respect their struggle with the issue?


You've argued that anyone conflicted with the idea of a mosque -- on sacred ground -- consists of no grey and that anyone whom opposes is either a racist or Islamaphobe, never once taking into consideration the emotion of the situation.

I absolutely have taken into consideration the emotion of the situation. Islamophobic emotion is not a good reason to protest them building a mosque.

Do you think it is?


You couldn't see anyone having a moral dilemma as to what the right thing to do is or being so emotional towards the subject as to have a visceral-type reaction and not look to be academic and introspective?


Apparently you do.

If right is right and wrong is wrong, what's the moral dilemma?


Thousands of innocent Americans were slaughtered by Islamic extremists in the name of Jihad, Islam. And while they're a minority of the Islamic faith, one that happens to be the largest in the world, that minority consists of a sizable group and even more that sympathize. They are the people that make it hard for those who either lost loved ones or were just genuinely affected by the events of 9-11. It doesn't matter to them that the vast majority of Islam doesn't or wouldn't condone the actions of 9-11. The simple fact that those extremists would be able to claim some kind of victory and mock from afar, is just too unsettling a proposition.

Where exactly are these extremists?

If they are mocking from afar, why is it so unsettling for people?

Don't throw out shit and hope it sticks. Be specific.


But you see no grey, no emotion, no reason or justification for anyone to have pause or form opposition to the mosque at Ground Zero. Instead, you paint all that oppose as racists.

No I don't. I clearly stated that so far we have, racists, Islamophobes, and bad tasters.


No need for me to ask the question now: definitely lemming.

I am absolutely not a lemming. I am absolutely open to any suggestion as to why people are getting so butthurt over a mosque.

I would really, really like to know if someone out there has a justifiable reason to protest the mosque.

If they aren't protesting due to their racism, Islamophobia, or bad tastism, why are they protesting?

If they can't come up with a good reason, then they should shut the fuck up.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't learn 'em Google.

I get it. You are the horse. Good one.


Let me ask you a question, is a predjudiced view or opinion contingent on race or being racial?

No.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think their prejudice in this situation is justifiable?


The confusion lies with you. What you can't or fail to comprehend tends to do that. ;)

Absolutely not. I understand very clearly the questions I am asking you, based on what you have posted so far.

You can lead a horse to a question, but you can't learn 'em how to read it.

What is the moral dilemma for these people?

Right is right, wrong is wrong, right? What exactly is it that is wrong with the center being built? Be specific.

[Blackjack]

If they are wrong, right is right, and you are for the mosque being built, why do you respect their struggle with the issue?

So we're to believe that all morals, ethics and sensitivities are the same?

Are you suggesting that your morals are my morals and my morals are their morals?

Please explain.


I absolutely have taken into consideration the emotion of the situation. Islamophobic emotion is not a good reason to protest them building a mosque.

Do you think it is?

I guess you would like me to answer again. It's annoying when someone is clearly losing an argument and tries to keep it alive long enough to escape with some kind of victory. But, alas, I'll humor you.

Islamaphobia exists. Racism exists. Predjudice on it's own exists -- which comes from a fear, ignorance or some event in one's life that taints and skews a view to paint a whole people as a threat to them in some way. It's not a hatred or a superiority, it's wrong-minded. It's thinking that could be swayed to the right side of the argument given experience and a greater light shed on the subject matter.



Apparently you do.

If right is right and wrong is wrong, what's the moral dilemma?

I know me and my morals, ethics and insensitivities. I know people that genuinely feel the way I've relayed to you and you've simply dismissed with no logic, other than it doesn't coincide with your own beliefs.

You going to show me how to prove a negative?


Where exactly are these extremists?

If they are mocking from afar, why is it so unsettling for people?

Don't throw out shit and hope it sticks. Be specific.

You can't be this ignorant, and simply asking questions for the sake of asking questions isn't going to help you with your argument.

Should I have all of the recordings of Al-Qaeda leadership and video of celebrations and flag burning on cue to prove that people mock from afar and celebrate their muse -- in the form of a mosque -- being built where their heroes slaughtered thousands? Are you really that dense?


No I don't. I clearly stated that so far we have, racists, Islamophobes, and bad tasters.

Bad taste doesn't bring forth the type of emotion you've seen. Being wronged, feeling taken advantage of, thinking that the memory of those that lost their lives could potentially be defiled and/or dishonored does -- and, yes, so does ignorance, fear and hate, which belongs to the intolerant and bigoted.


I am absolutely not a lemming. I am absolutely open to any suggestion as to why people are getting so butthurt over a mosque.

I would really, really like to know if someone out there has a justifiable reason to protest the mosque.

If they aren't protesting due to their racism, Islamophobia, or bad tastism, why are they protesting?

If they can't come up with a good reason, then they should shut the fuck up.

There will obviously never be a reason that doesn't include racism, Islamaphobia or bad taste in your mind. You're not looking for an answer, you're looking to minimalize and demonize those you disagree with. That's all this back and forth's been about -- we don't disagree on the mosque, yet you feel it necessary to state that ALL of those who disagree with our view are bigots, racists (and the newest entry "bad tasters").



I get it. You are the horse. Good one.

Wish you would have come with better to back that up ...


No.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think their prejudice in this situation is justifiable?

... because this ain't it.

Your views are clearly prejudiced, so much as to affect your comprehension.


Absolutely not. I understand very clearly the questions I am asking you, based on what you have posted so far.

You can lead a horse to a question, but you can't learn 'em how to read it.

No, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't learn 'em how to use and comprehend what he's found and read.


What is the moral dilemma for these people?

What are your morals?


Right is right, wrong is wrong, right? What exactly is it that is wrong with the center being built? Be specific.

Why is this a question to me, be specific?

[Blake]

So we're to believe that all morals, ethics and sensitivities are the same?

Are you suggesting that your morals are my morals and my morals are their morals?

Please explain.

No.

You sympathize with those that object to the mosque because they are wrestling with a moral issue.

What is that moral issue?



I guess you would like me to answer again. It's annoying when someone is clearly losing an argument and tries to keep it alive long enough to escape with some kind of victory. But, alas, I'll humor you.

Islamaphobia exists. Racism exists. Predjudice on it's own exists -- which comes from a fear, ignorance or some event in one's life that taints and skews a view to paint a whole people as a threat to them in some way. It's not a hatred or a superiority, it's wrong-minded. It's thinking that could be swayed to the right side of the argument given experience and a greater light shed on the subject matter.

It was a simple yes or no question that you failed to answer again.



I know me and my morals, ethics and insensitivities. I know people that genuinely feel the way I've relayed to you and you've simply dismissed with no logic, other than it doesn't coincide with your own beliefs.

You going to show me how to prove a negative?

No.

The original question again is:

If it isn't racism, Islamophobia, or bad tastism then what is it that makes these people feel this way?

If it's a moral dilemma which you have stated it is, then what specifically is the dilemma?


You can't be this ignorant, and simply asking questions for the sake of asking questions isn't going to help you with your argument.

I'm not making any arguments. I'm asking questions. Thus the question marks at the end of my sentences.


Should I have all of the recordings of Al-Qaeda leadership and video of celebrations and flag burning on cue to prove that people mock from afar and celebrate their muse -- in the form of a mosque -- being built where their heroes slaughtered thousands? Are you really that dense?

None of that is an answer to my questions. Why is it so hard for you to answer questions regarding your posts?

But regarding this post, how do you know these celebrations and flag burning come in the form of this mosque?

But back to the original questions again:

Where exactly are these extremists?

If they are mocking from afar, why is it so unsettling for people?

Don't throw out shit and hope it sticks. Be specific.


Bad taste doesn't bring forth the type of emotion you've seen. Being wronged, feeling taken advantage of, thinking that the memory of those that lost their lives could potentially be defiled and/or dishonored does -- and, yes, so does ignorance, fear and hate, which belongs to the intolerant and bigoted.

How will this mosque potentially defile or dishonor the memory of those that lost their lives?

I would agree that it won't unless you live in ignorance, fear and hate which belong to the intolerant and bigoted.

I think we might be getting somewhere here.


There will obviously never be a reason that doesn't include racism, Islamaphobia or bad taste in your mind. You're not looking for an answer.

Yes, I am looking for an answer. If it's not one of those things listed, then what is it?

Gottdam. :lol



Wish you would have come with better to back that up ...

You are like the horse that can't google a thesaurus. I think it made the point just fine.



... because this ain't it.

Your views are clearly prejudiced, so much as to affect your comprehension.

So are they or aren't they prejudiced?

I never brought up the word....you did.

Now you are all over the place and having to resort to name calling.



No, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't learn 'em how to use and comprehend what he's found and read.

Sounds about right, horse.


What are your morals?

Regarding what?

Be specific in your question so I can give you a specific answer.



Why is this a question to me, be specific?

Specifically? Because you specifically said it was a moral dilemma for some, specifically.

What is the moral dilemma?

[DarrinS]

Hypothetical:



Say you board an aircraft and notice several middle eastern men board the aircraft after you. If you do a double-take or in any way give them more scrutiny than any other passenger, are you an Islamophobe? Or, do you just have common sense based on knowledge of the past 40 years?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Hypothetically, if you notice several middle eastern men board the aircraft after you and the first thing you think about is terrorist, then yeah, hypothetically, you're an Islamophobe. What the hell do you think Islamophobia means?

I think you have the wrong idea of what common sense is. Common sense should be telling you that most Muslims are NOT terrorists, but no, you immediately jump to terrorism. Your double take of those middle eastern men wasn't out of common sense, it was out of paranoid fear.

[balli]

Obviously, it's not islamophobia until you call them sand-######s.

[DarrinS]

Hypothetically, if you notice several middle eastern men board the aircraft after you and the first thing you think about is terrorist, then yeah, hypothetically, you're an Islamophobe. What the hell do you think Islamophobia means?

I think you have the wrong idea of what common sense is. Common sense should be telling you that most Muslims are NOT terrorists, but no, you immediately jump to terrorism. Your double take of those middle eastern men wasn't out of common sense, it was out of paranoid fear.


Wrong. You would scope them out and it would be completely natural to do so. It would probably be even out of your control NOT to be hyper-vigilant.

You lie.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you consider every middle eastern man a terrorist until proven otherwise, Darrin?

[DarrinS]

Do you consider every middle eastern man a terrorist until proven otherwise, Darrin?


No.

[ChumpDumper]

No.Only on planes?

[DarrinS]

If a black man were to walk down the street and see a group of young white men, with heads shaved very close to the scalp, and acting a bit rowdy, he'd probably be wise to keep an eye on them. Even though, they may just be a group of military guys having a night on the town. The "better safe than sorry" attitude of the black man is hardly racism.

[ChumpDumper]

So you are afraid of black men too?

[DarrinS]

Only on planes?


On a plane would definitely make me more vigilant.


Keep in mind, James Woods was on a flight in August 2001 and saw a group of middle eastern men behaving strangely on a flight. He reported it to authorities. Maybe James Woods is just a racist.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/woods.asp

[DarrinS]

So you are afraid of black men too?

If so, I'm afraid of several of my relatives.

[ChumpDumper]

On a plane would definitely make me more vigilant.


Keep in mind, James Woods was on a flight in August 2001 and saw a group of middle eastern men behaving strangely on a flight. He reported it to authorities. Maybe James Woods is just a racist.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/woods.aspYou're a real American hero, DarrinS. Do you dream about stopping terrorists?

I don't know if Woods is a racist, but you prove your Islamophobia earlier in this thread.

[ChumpDumper]

If so, I'm afraid of several of my relatives.I believe that.

[DarrinS]

I believe that.


I could care less.

[ChumpDumper]

I could care less.How much less could you care?

[DarrinS]

An interesting study:

Prejudice Is Hard-Wired Into The Human Brain, Says ASU Study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050525105357.htm





Contrary to what most people believe, the tendency to be prejudiced is a form of common sense, hard-wired into the human brain through evolution as an adaptive response to protect our prehistoric ancestors from danger.

So suggests a new study published by Arizona State University researchers in the May issue of the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology," which contends that, because human survival was based on group living, "outsiders" were viewed as -- and often were -- very real threats.

"By nature, people are group-living animals -- a strategy that enhances individual survival and leads to what we might call a 'tribal psychology'," says Steven Neuberg, ASU professor of social psychology, who authored the study with doctoral student Catherine Cottrell. "It was adaptive for our ancestors to be attuned to those outside the group who posed threats such as to physical security, health or economic resources, and to respond to these different kinds of threats in ways tailored to have a good chance of reducing them."

Unfortunately, says Neuberg, because evolved psychological tendencies are imperfectly attuned to the existence of dangers, people may react negatively to groups and their members even when they actually pose no realistic threat.

Neuberg and Cottrell had 235 European American students at ASU think about nine different groups: activist feminists, African Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, fundamentalist Christians, gay men, Mexican Americans, Native Americans and nonfundamentalist Christians. The researchers then had the participants rate these groups on the threats they pose to American society (e.g., to physical safety, values, health, etc.) and report the emotions they felt toward these groups (e.g., fear, anger, disgust, pity, etc.).

Consistent with the researchers' hypotheses, findings revealed that distinct prejudices exist toward different groups of people. Some groups elicited prejudices characterized largely by fear, others by disgust, others by anger, and so on. Moreover, the different "flavors" of prejudice were associated with different patterns of perceived threat.

Follow-up work further shows that these different prejudices motivate inclinations toward different kinds of discrimination, in ways apparently aimed at reducing the perceived threat.

"Groups seen as posing threats to physical safety elicit fear and self-protective actions, groups seen as choosing to take more than they give elicit anger and inclinations toward aggression, and groups seen as posing health threats elicit disgust and the desire to avoid close physical contact," says Cottrell.

"One important practical implication of this research is that we may need to create different interventions to reduce inappropriate prejudices against different groups," says Neuberg.

For example, if one is trying to decrease prejudices among new college students during freshman orientation, different strategies might be used for bringing different groups together.

"For instance, given that whites stereotypically perceive blacks as threats to physical safety, it would be inadvisable to suggest a game of outdoor night-time basketball, given that darkness heightens people's fear. Sharing a plate of nachos might be a better choice," Cottrell says. "But if the aim is to reduce prejudice against gay men -- viewed to pose a health treat because of association with AIDS, and thereby eliciting physical disgust --sharing finger food might not be a good idea."

Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take place and that responses can't be dampened.

"People sometimes assume that because we say prejudice has evolved roots we are saying that specific prejudices can't be changed. That's simply not the case," Neuberg says. "What we think and feel and how we behave is typically the result of complex interactions between biological tendencies and learning experiences. Evolution may have prepared our minds to be prejudiced, but our environment influences the specific targets of those prejudices and how we act on them."

[ChumpDumper]

Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take placeWell, it can't take place in some people.

[Blackjack]

No.

You sympathize with those that object to the mosque because they are wrestling with a moral issue.

What is that moral issue?

You can't respect other people's views that don't coincide with your own, that's the perception you're putting out there with this back and forth. You look for, expect and maybe even hope for, the worst in your fellow countrymen. That's been made quite clear.

What hasn't been made clear is why you keep asking the same circuitous questions that have no answer or relevance to anything I've said. I told you quite clearly why some struggle with the idea, you couldn't care less. That, too, has been made quite clear.


It was a simple yes or no question that you failed to answer again.


You can ask questions for a lot of things: to find answers, to annoy ... to distract from the actual topic at hand, you're clearly not looking for answers. They've been presented. Stop being Indiana Jones and look right in front of you. There's no trap door, no boobie traps, no "fortune cookies."

You wanted to know why it is some might object and how it wasn't racist (the main contention I've had), I told you.

You don't want an answer because it's already been given to you.

What morals? Are their specific ones that fit a particular category? Would you like to give me a multiple choice or is their some code I should know about?

At some point I'm gonna have to let this go, but I gotta admit ... your ignorance is becoming quite amusing.


The original question again is:

If it isn't racism, Islamophobia, or bad tastism then what is it that makes these people feel this way?

I told you. You want a single word to define it and I told you the one word that comes closest: ignorance; but it's only the closest and doesn't imply hatred or that it's coming from some sinister place.


If it's a moral dilemma which you have stated it is, then what specifically is the dilemma?

Told you, you don't care. That, or your just not reading the responses (which I actually hope is your excuse).


I'm not making any arguments. I'm asking questions. Thus the question marks at the end of my sentences.

Right. Your asking honest questions from a sincere place. Right . . .

Your worse than a kid who asks "Why?" At least they have an actual curiosity and don't know any better -- it's not like their lives or vocabulary lead them to have much else to say.


None of that is an answer to my questions. Why is it so hard for you to answer questions regarding your posts?


Yeah, it is. You've been given the answer, why it is that having a mosque built on Ground Zero would bring pause and even opposition, but it's not enough. In fact, I'm hoping your just trying to troll.


But regarding this post, how do you know these celebrations and flag burning come in the form of this mosque?

Common sense, Blake. Stands to reason if they do that on the day the Towers were reduced to rubble and all the rhetoric we've all seen and heard from Al-Qaeda's leaders and others, that they might just crack a smile or two at the thought. Almost 10 years later and they're still reaping the rewards. They still have an impact on a good chunk of Americans and their way of life. Hard to believe that the brethren of those that took the lives of all those innocent people on 9-11 would find satisfaction in that.

Crazy, I know, but this common sense stuff is quite useful.


But back to the original questions again:

Where exactly are these extremists?

If they are mocking from afar, why is it so unsettling for people?

You want addresses, wiseguy?

If someone walked into your house, killed your family and themselves and then the group that sent the people into your home, laughed from a far or took satisfaction in knowing they'd have a place to worship the faith that led them to perpetrate the acts -- next door to the home your family was slain -- that wouldn't bother you? Let's not even say your family, say the family down the street from you, maybe you don't know a thing about them. Same thing occurs, that doesn't stick in your craw and leave you questioning whether legality makes something right or wrong?

Stop being a putz.


Don't throw out shit and hope it sticks. Be specific.

I haven't and I wouldn't. It's not a good look, as you've clearly illustrated.

I'm gonna start calling you Nancy:

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/67/s_cc0a60ecd4344c97905d5a52b1339f6f.jpg

Why!?!


How will this mosque potentially defile or dishonor the memory of those that lost their lives?

Just addressed that once again, not that it'll matter.


I would agree that it won't unless you live in ignorance, fear and hate which belong to the intolerant and bigoted.

I think we might be getting somewhere here.

I'm beginning to think you're one of those people that has an overwhelming amount of shame because of bigoted beliefs or past actions and tries to atone by carrying the tolerance flag for the poor outsiders, only your tolerance only extends to those you feel you have wronged in some way or fashion.

Closet racist?


Yes, I am looking for an answer. If it's not one of those things listed, then what is it?

Gottdam. :lol

I'm glad you find your redundant and terrible questioning amusing. :tu


You are like the horse that can't google a thesaurus. I think it made the point just fine.

As long as you've convinced yourself you've made a point, I guess that's all that really matters. Ignorance -- I'm told -- can be bliss.


So are they or aren't they prejudiced?

I never brought up the word....you did.

I've made that distinction on more than one occasion, guy. You'd know that if you read and comprehended what was posted before you responded.

Prejudice is not without nuance, a fact that alludes you -- you only see black and white (could that be because you're a closet racist?).


Now you are all over the place and having to resort to name calling.

Same place, and I've yet to call you a name. Well, other than a horse that can't comprehend the words he uses. But in all honesty, no one expects a horse to know how to do that.


Sounds about right, horse.

Thanks, Nancy (oh, and Nancy. I've now called you a horse and Nancy)!


Regarding what?

Be specific in your question so I can give you a specific answer.

How 'bout the scenario I laid out in this post. Your family or a neighbor's family is murdered at their home by a suicide bomber. 9 years later a mosque is built next door, it's within their rights and all legal prerequisites have been met. The people that sent the suicide bomber to your house are still at large and have made no secret of their happiness of your family's or neighbors slaughter. They still claim the same faith as their reasoning, Islam, and find it hysterical, pleasing or just a good ol' feather in the cap that they'll be able to attend a service next door to the "Zionist's" family they had slaughtered.

Would you feel conflicted at all? Maybe even reluctant to have such a venue so close to where the murder took place?


Specifically? Because you specifically said it was a moral dilemma for some, specifically.

What is the moral dilemma?

For the record, I said "do you" because you weren't me.

In retrospect. ... "Do you," you're no ChumpDumper. :toast

[Blake]

How 'bout the scenario I laid out in this post. Your family or a neighbor's family is murdered at their home by a suicide bomber. 9 years later a mosque is built next door, it's within their rights and all legal prerequisites have been met. The people that sent the suicide bomber to your house are still at large and have made no secret of their happiness of your family's or neighbors slaughter. They still claim the same faith as their reasoning, Islam, and find it hysterical, pleasing or just a good ol' feather in the cap that they'll be able to attend a service next door to the "Zionist's" family they had slaughtered.

So these strawman people, whoever they are, are still at large, but they'll be able to attend a service next door to me? :lol

No, I would have no problem with a mosque being built within zoning codes because I believe there are no foul motives involved in building a mosque with law abiding citizens attending it.

The person in this scenario you just described that has a problem with the mosque is the definition of an Islamophobe. What the hell do you think the issue is in real life?

And all that typing, and still no answers. Why are you going to all this trouble to not answer the simple questions?

[Blake]

Wrong. You would scope them out and it would be completely natural to do so. It would probably be even out of your control NOT to be hyper-vigilant.

You lie.

So you would object to them boarding the plane to begin with because of their race?

[DarrinS]

So you would object to them boarding the plane to begin with because of their race?

No, but you and I would both watch them like a hawk. If you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.

[Blake]

No, but you and I would both watch them like a hawk. If you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.

If you and the other phobes are watching like a hawk, then I'll relax and enjoy my flight.

[DarrinS]

If you and the other phobes are watching like a hawk, then I'll relax and enjoy my flight.

Yeah, right. You probably wound't even notice.

[Blake]

Yeah, right. You probably wound't even notice.

Does security suck at the airports you use?

[DarrinS]

Does security suck at the airports you use?


Probably. They're too busy frisking old women and single moms. Too bad they won't profile high risk individuals.

[Blackjack]

So these strawman people, whoever they are, are still at large, but they'll be able to attend a service next door to me? :lol

No, I would have no problem with a mosque being built within zoning codes because I believe there are no foul motives involved in building a mosque with law abiding citizens attending it.

The person in this scenario you just described that has a problem with the mosque is the definition of an Islamophobe. What the hell do you think the issue is in real life?

And all that typing, and still no answers. Why are you going to all this trouble to not answer the simple questions?

Listen, Nancy.

There comes a time where you just have to leave well-enough alone and move on. A time where you have to ask yourself who the bigger fool is: the one spouting fool's words; or the person whom allows those fool's words to not fall on deaf ears. I've decided to wash my hands of you're disingenuous posts, intolerance and bigotry -- after all, if those whom oppose your view are only filled with hate (racists), fear (Islamaphobes) or are deemed "bad-tasters" (i.e. unintelligent morons), that's exactly what you've conveyed.

Ironic, don't you think, Nancy?

[ChumpDumper]

Too bad they won't profile high risk individuals.What is your proof they won't?

[Blake]

Listen, Nancy.

There comes a time where you just have to leave well-enough alone and move on.

Are you admitting you don't know when to leave well enough alone and move on?

and Nancy? Why are you getting so butthurt that you have to try to change my name? Should I change your name too? You're acting like a pussy so I'll call you Vaginia.


A time where you have to ask yourself who the bigger fool is: the one spouting fool's words; or the person whom allows those fool's words to not fall on deaf ears. I've decided to wash my hands of you're disingenuous posts, intolerance and bigotry -- after all, if those whom oppose your view are only filled with hate (racists), fear (Islamaphobes) or are deemed "bad-tasters" (i.e. unintelligent morons), that's exactly what you've conveyed.

Ironic, don't you think, Nancy?

It's not ironic at all, Vaginia.

The scenario you posted amounted to nothing more than Islamophobia whether you realized it or not.

These are the reasons we have come up with so far: hate (racists), fear (Islamophobes) or are "bad-tasters".

What are other reasons people have for not wanting a mosque 2 blocks away from Ground Zero, Vaginia?

You have stated that some that oppose it have a moral dilemma. What is that moral dilemma?

Very simple question to answer if there really is a moral dilemma, Vaginia. It shouldn't take a 3 page response filled with poor assumptions and strawman arguments that amount to nothing.

[Blackjack]

lol Nancy

lol "strawman"

[Blake]

lol Nancy

lol "strawman"


There comes a time where you just have to leave well-enough alone and move on.

lol Vaginia

lol you don't know what a "strawman" is

lol you don't know how to stay on topic or move on.

What is another reason people have for opposing the mosque?

What is the moral dilemma these people might face?

[Blackjack]

lol racist

lol bigot

lol moron

lol "strawman"

LOL NANCY :lmao

[admiralsnackbar]

C'mon, Black -- you're more articulate than this. Blake raises what seems like a perfectly valid criticizm that you've refused to answer for pages, namely: if you believe in what's "right," how can you excuse the racist/islamophobic/aesthetic position held by some. It seems like, having taken a decisive position about right and wrong, you then admit to universal moral relativism that holds that what you believe is right may not be right for all. Sounds reasonable enough at first blush.

But writ simply, would you also say that while you believe racism is wrong, you can also understand that there are those who have their perfectly legitimate reasons for thinking blacks are a subordinate species? If you can explain your answer to this question, I -- and maybe Blake, too -- might be able to understand where you're coming from and we can dispense with the Nancys and Vaginas and act like fucking grownups maybe.

[Blackjack]

If you've read what I've written, there's no way you could come to that conclusion unless your just in the tank for your argument.

Some people take offense for reasons that aren't based in fear, hate or lack of intelligence.

I never once said that racism, Islamaphobia, stupidity or ignorance doesn't exist in some of the protest. I simply find it disingenuous to paint with a broad brush and expect, look or hope for the worst in all that oppose your particular view.

What are morals and how do you define them for others?

This isn't rocket science. There is no nuance with racist or racism. Simply calling someone that -- whom you know nothing about -- is ridiculous. Plain and simple.

We're better than that, at least we should be.

[admiralsnackbar]

If you've read what I've written, there's no way you could come to that conclusion unless your just in the tank for your argument.

Some people take offense for reasons that aren't based in fear, hate or lack of intelligence.

I never once said that racism, Islamaphobia, stupidity or ignorance doesn't exist in some of the protest. I simply find it disingenuous to paint with a broad brush and expect, look or hope for the worst in all that oppose your particular view.

What are morals and how do you define them for others?

This isn't rocket science. There is no nuance with racist or racism. Simply calling someone that -- whom you know nothing about -- is ridiculous. Plain and simple.

We're better than that, at least we should be.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm just saying that I've read your argument these many pages and you haven't been able to reconcile the statement that you believe in a "right" with the moral relativism you follow it with.

Without trying to pick a fight, allowing both those sentiments to coexists seems to me to be at least as under-reasoned and/or disingenuous as you're painting my absurd scenario. I might as well add that you didn't explain how your argument was substantively different than said scenario -- which was intentionally exaggerated to underscore what I'm perceiving as the flaw in your position.

I apologize if you're making some meta-point about morality that's going over my head, but just based on what I'm reading, it seems to me you're contradicting yourself.


I never once said that racism, Islamaphobia, stupidity or ignorance doesn't exist in some of the protest. I simply find it disingenuous to paint with a broad brush and expect, look or hope for the worst in all that oppose your particular view.

To this in particular, I think you're making a needless assumption about how people who are resistant to the mosque are characterized (or should not be characterized). Whether opponents to the rec center are painted in a flattering light or not isn't really as important as whether or not they are right. And "right" isn't a diffuse term given that we work from a document of law that is explicit.

Based on this document, there is no legitimate reason to interfere with the construction of the community center, and as regards having misgivings, troubling emotions, or whatever... there's just no place for them.

I dislike the color yellow, but that doesn't give me legitimate grounds to demand that yellow be removed from all restaurants I frequent. And taking that notion to a larger plane of regard, it doesn't make it reasonable or legitimate to gather an army of people who hate yellow to petition for striking yellow from the color wheel. Might does not make stupidity viable, nor do aesthetics have any place in legislation.

Now, if a reasonable argument against the construction of the community center arises, that may force us to a different response to the issue -- but given no such argument has been articulated thus far, it should follow that there is no need to accept the legitimacy of sentiments which contradict the law of the land.

[Mikesatx]

I just moved in next door to you and your family with my pit bull. You don't know more than the average person about pit bulls but you have seen and heard many stories of their brutality. You don't like it and you are concerned for the welfare of your kids as they are separated from my dog by an old wood fence. Do you view it as its just a dog? Do you keep a closer eye on your kids and if so does that mean you hate dogs or are a cynophobe (fear of dogs)?

[Blackjack]

The only problem I've had is with those that dismiss other's viewpoints as racist, basically. I'm just tired of people locking into an opinion or stance and dismissing those that disagree or marginalizing them at every opportunity.

I've been around long enough and around a diverse enough group of people to know well-intentioned people don't always agree with me. What I believe is "right" might not always be "right" in their view. What one believes as "right" end the end is only a belief -- legality and correct doesn't necessarily coincide with what is "right" or "wrong."

The acts of 9-11 were perpetrated by terrorists. But they weren't lone gunmen. They had an affiliation and cause -- they have friends and they're still out there. To suggest that notion is a "strawman" is a slap-in-the-face to common sense.

Is it really that hard to believe some good-hearted Americans would find this community center to be objectional? Would they ALL have to be racists or people that should be marginalized because they oppose the community center?

Innocent people were slaughtered. Americans -- people of all faiths and color.

It doesn't seem all that strange why it would stick in the craw of some, make them question what was "right and "wrong" (morality), even if not legality.

It is my belief and opinion that the mosque should be built. I'm jokingly Omnipotent, not legitimately all-knowing.

[admiralsnackbar]

I just moved in next door to you and your family with my pit bull. You don't know more than the average person about pit bulls but you have seen and heard many stories of their brutality. You don't like it and you are concerned for the welfare of your kids as they are separated from my dog by an old wood fence. Do you view it as its just a dog? Do you keep a closer eye on your kids and if so does that mean you hate dogs or are a cynophobe (fear of dogs)?

It's a clever analogy, but ultimately you're equating a breed of dog that (it is known) has been developed to fight with a religion that contains a whole spectrum of beliefs, from total pacifism to total belligerence. Just saying somebody is Muslim in and of itself isn't grounds for suspicion. More criteria need to be met before you can have a justifiable complaint or motive to ostracize your neighbor, and fortunately you're entitled to the same protections from harassment, alienation, etc.

[Mikesatx]

The analogy doesn't suggest you ostracize me for having a pit bull. It asks the question if your actions as a parent are any different than before I moved in and if so does that classify you as a dog hater?

[admiralsnackbar]

The acts of 9-11 were perpetrated by terrorists. But they weren't lone gunmen. They had an affiliation and cause -- they have friends and they're still out there. To suggest that notion is a "strawman" is a slap-in-the-face to common sense.

I don't think it's a strawman as much as an inaccurate generalization like the one I wrote about in the above post. The terrorists were united by a common ideology, but said ideology is as commensurate with mainstream Islam as Fred Phelps' clan of creeps is with mainstream Babtist Christianity. Extremism, by definition, is not to be confused with the mainstream.


Is it really that hard to believe some good-hearted Americans would find this community center to be objectional? Would they ALL have to be racists or people that should be marginalized because they oppose the community center?Does it matter what kind of American believes what he/she does? It only matters that to be Americans, we must obey a code of conduct. And again, if a reasonable argument can be made for wanting to marginalize an equally American community, great -- but nobody in this thread has yet made a reasonable case for the denial of privileges to Americans of a different faith (with, granted, unsavory psychological associations) than themselves.

Without this reasonable case made, I don't see how you get around racism, or Islamophobia, or what have you. These are loaded words with their own decisively pejorative connotations, but if we're honest with ourselves, what else could we be talking about when we want to deny our fellow citizens rights and comforts we ourselves enjoy without a reason we can articulate?

If prejudice is believing things about a group of people before having met them individually or learning about their group diversity, then sorry, but some of the people we're discussing are prejudiced. If phobias are irrational fears that distort our normal behavior for unknown reasons, why is it inaccurate to describe somebody as phobic when he regards a group of people he has no reason to distrust with abnormal suspicion or as deserving of abridged rights? It doesn't make the bigot or the phobic a bad or hateful person, just an unreasonable one, because they ultimately can't defend their actions, only articulate their stereotypes or anxieties.

If you can give an example of a credible argument for denying the Muslims their Community Center that a good-hearted American might employ, I'm all ears. But it honestly just sounds like you're playing apologist because it offends your sensibilities that prejudice and fear could be omnipresent. Pardon the didactic obviousness, but prejudice doesn't have to wear a white hood or jackboots (these are our prejudicial stereotypes of bigotry and xenophobia).

There's a great quote by Hannah Arendt talking about Nazi Germany and the final solution... she described it as "the banality of evil." In other words, evil doesn't look like Snidely Whiplash -- it looks like us.

[admiralsnackbar]

The analogy doesn't suggest you ostracize me for having a pit bull. It asks the question if your actions as a parent are any different than before I moved in and if so does that classify you as a dog hater?

But again -- I know what pitbulls have been bred for over the centuries, and I have a large body of evidence from which to draw from to confirm any apprehensions about somebody bringing a threat into the sphere of my children's life. Because I can make a reasonable argument against a pitbull sharing living space with me and my family, it isn't a phobia or an action predicated on prejudice. At worst, it's a sound opinion.

I have no such body of knowledge to justify similar concerns were we to replace the pitbull with a Muslim. Not only are Muslims human (and, as such, biologically diverse and not "bred" for a specific task -- not to mention as capable of critical thought, individuality, and judgment as you or I), but they also belong to a religion which has hundreds if not thousands of sects, movements, denominations, hermeneutic philosophies etc.

[rjv]

The analogy doesn't suggest you ostracize me for having a pit bull. It asks the question if your actions as a parent are any different than before I moved in and if so does that classify you as a dog hater?


this is just an appeal to emotion disguised as analogy. as admiral pointed out, it's far too obtuse and general to really be used as an effective analogy and the use of a parents concern for a child in this case certainly dominates the scenario. also, in this case, the parents can not forbid the neighbors from having the dog which is really more the problem that your analogy would want to address.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I just find it hilarious that we've now reached a point where comparing a muslim to a fucking pitbull passes as a valid argument... and when I say hilarious I mean really. fucking. sad.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I don't think it's a strawman as much as an inaccurate generalization like the one I wrote about in the above post. The terrorists were united by a common ideology, but said ideology is as commensurate with mainstream Islam as Fred Phelps' clan of creeps is with mainstream Babtist Christianity. Extremism, by definition, is not to be confused with the mainstream.
Does it matter what kind of American believes what he/she does? It only matters that to be Americans, we must obey a code of conduct. And again, if a reasonable argument can be made for wanting to marginalize an equally American community, great -- but nobody in this thread has yet made a reasonable case for the denial of privileges to Americans of a different faith (with, granted, unsavory psychological associations) than themselves.

Without this reasonable case made, I don't see how you get around racism, or Islamophobia, or what have you. These are loaded words with their own decisively pejorative connotations, but if we're honest with ourselves, what else could we be talking about when we want to deny our fellow citizens rights and comforts we ourselves enjoy without a reason we can articulate?

If prejudice is believing things about a group of people before having met them individually or learning about their group diversity, then sorry, but some of the people we're discussing are prejudiced. If phobias are irrational fears that distort our normal behavior for unknown reasons, why is it inaccurate to describe somebody as phobic when he regards a group of people he has no reason to distrust with abnormal suspicion or as deserving of abridged rights? It doesn't make the bigot or the phobic a bad or hateful person, just an unreasonable one, because they ultimately can't defend their actions, only articulate their stereotypes or anxieties.

If you can give an example of a credible argument for denying the Muslims their Community Center that a good-hearted American might employ, I'm all ears. But it honestly just sounds like you're playing apologist because it offends your sensibilities that prejudice and fear could be omnipresent. Pardon the didactic obviousness, but prejudice doesn't have to wear a white hood or jackboots (these are our prejudicial stereotypes of bigotry and xenophobia).

There's a great quote by Hannah Arendt talking about Nazi Germany and the final solution... she described it as "the banality of evil." In other words, evil doesn't look like Snidely Whiplash -- it looks like us.

Nicely put

[boutons_deux]

"the banality of evil."

I think we'll look back at the VRWC period which got into full-swing with diseased, ridiculed St Ronnie getting elected, his cutting taxes on wealthy/himself, laffer curves, voodoo economics, raising SocSec taxes, then Repugs went really nasty with Willie Horton, then full blown insanity with the 1994 mid-terms, the witch-hunting and destruction of Clinton's presidency, the criminality of dubya and dickhead's Reign of Error, and the non-stop bullying, intimidation, and obstructionism of the Repugs, the Tea baggin assholes, Limbaugh, BecKKK, pitbull bitch, Fox Repug Propaganda channel, the massive, 24x7, right-wing hate-media, the xenophobia, "Christian" supremacist theocrats, anti-science and anti-rationality of Bible-thumpers, the militarization of municipal police, the outright non-stop lying by Repugs and their enablers, the proven criminality, fraud, predations of Wall St. and the unrestrained growth of the financial sector, an economy being driven by self-inflicted diseases, stagnant real incomes for the lower 95%, insanely growing economic inequaltiy.

This isn't "normal". It's perverse, it's totally fucked up. America, fat, dumb, enslaved, and getting sicker and poorer by the day.

[DarrinS]

I just find it hilarious that we've now reached a point where comparing a muslim to a fucking pitbull passes as a valid argument... and when I say hilarious I mean really. fucking. sad.


Muslim terrorists have killed FAR more people than pit bulls.

[rjv]

Muslim terrorists have killed FAR more people than pit bulls.

so have Christian terrorists.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Muslim terrorists have killed FAR more people than pit bulls.

is that supposed to be a joke??

[DarrinS]

so have Christian terrorists.

Which ones are those?

[DarrinS]

is that supposed to be a joke??

Is it factually inaccurate?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Is it factually inaccurate?

are all muslims terrorists?

[rjv]

Which ones are those?


well you can start in nothern ireland and then go from there. you can also buy a globe and some history books while you're at it.

[boutons_deux]

"nothern ireland"

"the troubles" had nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant. It was all about extortion, gangsterism, protection money, etc. Religious conflict was the pretext, the charade hiding the criminality.

[DarrinS]

are all muslims terrorists?

No one thinks this, so it's pretty stupid to keep asking it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

No one thinks this, so it's pretty stupid to keep asking it.

its what you keep implying, isn't it?

Me: I can't believe we're down to comparing muslims to pitbulls.

You: Muslim terrorists have killed more than pitbulls.

People say muslim, you say terrorist.

If that's not what you're implying then please, go ahead and explain yourself once and for all.

[DarrinS]

its what you keep implying, isn't it?

Me: I can't believe we're down to comparing muslims to pitbulls.

You: Muslim terrorists have killed more than pitbulls.

People say muslim, you say terrorist.

If that's not what you're implying then please, go ahead and explain yourself once and for all.



Did I say "Mulsims killed" or "Muslim terrorists killed"?


It's kind of subtle, but there is a difference.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Did I say "Mulsims killed" or "Muslim terrorists killed"?


It's kind of subtle, but there is a difference.

ah so basically you're saying you believe Mikesatx original analogy was equating terrorists to pitbulls, not Muslims in general?

to which I would have to call bullshit, having read this post from you


Say you board an aircraft and notice several middle eastern men board the aircraft after you. If you do a double-take or in any way give them more scrutiny than any other passenger, are you an Islamophobe? Or, do you just have common sense based on knowledge of the past 40 years?

and then Mikesatx says this


I just moved in next door to you and your family with my pit bull. You don't know more than the average person about pit bulls but you have seen and heard many stories of their brutality. You don't like it and you are concerned for the welfare of your kids as they are separated from my dog by an old wood fence. Do you view it as its just a dog? Do you keep a closer eye on your kids and if so does that mean you hate dogs or are a cynophobe (fear of dogs)?

now you sit there and tell me you weren't trying to make the same fucking point. To which I will add that you made no mention of terrorism in that first analogy of yours either, but you sure implied the shit out of it.

Seriously, I know I've asked this before but who do you think you're fooling?

[clambake]

"nothern ireland"

"the troubles" had nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant. It was all about extortion, gangsterism, protection money, etc. Religious conflict was the pretext, the charade hiding the criminality.

pretty close, bou. :toast

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm not entirely sure I'm not being trolled right now. It would be DarrinS only saving grace.

[DarrinS]

now you sit there and tell me you weren't trying to make the same fucking point. To which I will add that you made no mention of terrorism in that first analogy of yours either, but you sure implied the shit out of it.

Seriously, I know I've asked this before but who do you think you're fooling?



Is English your first language?


NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.


Before some libtard has a hissy fit and mentions the IRA -- when I say terrorist, I mean those that have been actively attacking the US or US interests for the past 40 years.

[ChumpDumper]

NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Spurminator]

There it is.

[ChumpDumper]

He should make that his sig.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Is English your first language?


NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.


Before some libtard has a hissy fit and mentions the IRA -- when I say terrorist, I mean those that have been actively attacking the US or US interests for the past 40 years.

I'm not even going to try and explain how much ignorance it takes to make the statement you just made, and since it has very little to do with my original question I'd say its for the better.

Now, do you or do you not agree with Mikesatx analogy between a pitbull and a Muslim? and don't bring that bullshit about Muslim terrorism, that's is not what he was referring to.

[LnGrrrR]

Wrong. You would scope them out and it would be completely natural to do so. It would probably be even out of your control NOT to be hyper-vigilant.

You lie.

DarrinS, you slay me. You ask if someone would be afraid/concerned/nervous if you saw a few Muslim men on an airplane, and immediately associate them with terrorists. Then you use that as an example of your LACK of Islamophobia. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Here's how DarrinS would bold this quote:



Keep in mind, James Woods was on a flight in August 2001 and saw a group of middle eastern men behaving strangely on a flight. He reported it to authorities. Maybe James Woods is just a racist.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/woods.asp

Here's the actual relevant info:



Keep in mind, James Woods was on a flight in August 2001 and saw a group of middle eastern men behaving strangely on a flight. He reported it to authorities. Maybe James Woods is just a racist.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/woods.asp

Tell me, if those men were white, do you think Mr. Woods shouldn't have notified anyone?

[LnGrrrR]

NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.

Wow, I never knew McVeigh was Muslim. Or the Unabomber. :lmao

[admiralsnackbar]

Wow, I never knew McVeigh was Muslim. Or the Unabomber. :lmao

Or the KKK.

[LnGrrrR]

What are morals and how do you define them for others?


Yes, but your argument seems to be "Some people are morally opposed and that's ok."

But that doesn't seem to work in this case, anymore so than saying, "Well some people think it's morally ok to have sex with little children, and so we should respect those moral beliefs". Just because there are different sets of morality doesn't make them right. Why should we LEGITIMIZE the moralities of people who wish the mosque to move?

[Spurminator]

Or Joseph Stack.

[rjv]

Is English your first language?


NO, NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.


Before some libtard has a hissy fit and mentions the IRA -- when I say terrorist, I mean those that have been actively attacking the US or US interests for the past 40 years.

so i guess the unibomber, eric rudolph, bruce ivins, timothy mcveigh were muslims?

or this from the FBI: FBI statistics show that, from 1980 through 1985, there were 18 terrorist attacks in the U.S. committed by Jews; 15 of those by members of the JDL.[13] Mary Doran, an FBI agent, described the JDL in a 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group". Most recently, then-JDL Chairman Irv Rubin was jailed while awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy in planning bomb attacks against the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, Calif., and on the office of Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa

apparently, darrin likes to qualify premises in order to make them somehow immune to validity tests. alice in wonderland logic seems to be his level of comfort.

[ChumpDumper]

or this from the FBI: FBI statistics show that, from 1980 through 1985, there were 18 terrorist attacks in the U.S. committed by Jews; 15 of those by members of the JDL.[13] Mary Doran, an FBI agent, described the JDL in a 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group". Most recently, then-JDL Chairman Irv Rubin was jailed while awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy in planning bomb attacks against the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, Calif., and on the office of Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa.
Anti-Semite!

[Mikesatx]

this is just an appeal to emotion disguised as analogy. as admiral pointed out, it's far too obtuse and general to really be used as an effective analogy and the use of a parents concern for a child in this case certainly dominates the scenario. also, in this case, the parents can not forbid the neighbors from having the dog which is really more the problem that your analogy would want to address.

The parent can't forbid me from having the dog and American's can't nor shouldn't forbid a mosque from being built on private land. The point of the analogy was to address the idea of Islamaphobia. Many on this site are quick to attach this label to anyone expressing concerns. With the label comes the assumption of racist, biggot or just ignorant. Just as the parent at the very least keeping a closer eye on their kids with my dog next door doesn't make them a dog hater or ignorant. Those that express concerns over the mosque are not necessarily racists, biggots or ignorant.

[ChumpDumper]

Those that express concerns over the mosque are not necessarily racists, biggots or ignorant.That may be, but most of the reasoning against the mosque expressed here has been racist, bigoted and/or ignorant.

[clambake]

what are the relevant concerns?

[LnGrrrR]

Muslim terrorists have killed FAR more people than pit bulls.

So have cars. I bet DarrinS watches out for suspicious cars at every dealership he goes to, like a hawk. You'd be lying if you said you didn't too.

[Spurminator]

Nobody wants to be called a racist or a bigot because it implies that you're a bad person. I don't think opposition to the mosque makes you a bad person, but there is really no argument against it that doesn't involve some form of prejudice... even for the most sympathetic and understandable arguments against it, of which there are few, and which are surrounded and drowned out by undeniably bigoted opposition.

[Blake]

what are the relevant concerns?

Nancy!

[rjv]

The parent can't forbid me from having the dog and American's can't nor shouldn't forbid a mosque from being built on private land. The point of the analogy was to address the idea of Islamaphobia. Many on this site are quick to attach this label to anyone expressing concerns. With the label comes the assumption of racist, biggot or just ignorant. Just as the parent at the very least keeping a closer eye on their kids with my dog next door doesn't make them a dog hater or ignorant. Those that express concerns over the mosque are not necessarily racists, biggots or ignorant.

so muslims are pit bulls and christians are puppies ?

[clambake]

so muslims are pit bulls and christians are puppies ?

yes, the puppies set fire to a mosque site in tennessee on saturday.

i guess it's too close to ground zero.

[Blake]

I don't think it's a strawman as much as an inaccurate generalization like the one I wrote about in the above post. The terrorists were united by a common ideology, but said ideology is as commensurate with mainstream Islam as Fred Phelps' clan of creeps is with mainstream Babtist Christianity. Extremism, by definition, is not to be confused with the mainstream.
Does it matter what kind of American believes what he/she does? It only matters that to be Americans, we must obey a code of conduct. And again, if a reasonable argument can be made for wanting to marginalize an equally American community, great -- but nobody in this thread has yet made a reasonable case for the denial of privileges to Americans of a different faith (with, granted, unsavory psychological associations) than themselves.

Without this reasonable case made, I don't see how you get around racism, or Islamophobia, or what have you. These are loaded words with their own decisively pejorative connotations, but if we're honest with ourselves, what else could we be talking about when we want to deny our fellow citizens rights and comforts we ourselves enjoy without a reason we can articulate?

If prejudice is believing things about a group of people before having met them individually or learning about their group diversity, then sorry, but some of the people we're discussing are prejudiced. If phobias are irrational fears that distort our normal behavior for unknown reasons, why is it inaccurate to describe somebody as phobic when he regards a group of people he has no reason to distrust with abnormal suspicion or as deserving of abridged rights? It doesn't make the bigot or the phobic a bad or hateful person, just an unreasonable one, because they ultimately can't defend their actions, only articulate their stereotypes or anxieties.

If you can give an example of a credible argument for denying the Muslims their Community Center that a good-hearted American might employ, I'm all ears. But it honestly just sounds like you're playing apologist because it offends your sensibilities that prejudice and fear could be omnipresent. Pardon the didactic obviousness, but prejudice doesn't have to wear a white hood or jackboots (these are our prejudicial stereotypes of bigotry and xenophobia).

There's a great quote by Hannah Arendt talking about Nazi Germany and the final solution... she described it as "the banality of evil." In other words, evil doesn't look like Snidely Whiplash -- it looks like us.

Better than I really ever wanted to to take the time to put it.

Well done. :tu

After further thought, imo, it appears that those that consider it to be in bad taste or inappropriate simply fall into the racist or anti-Islamic category.

[ChumpDumper]

yes, the puppies set fire to a mosque site in tennessee on saturday.

i guess it's too close to ground zero.The puppies were just expressing concern.

Probably about parking.

[LnGrrrR]

The parent can't forbid me from having the dog and American's can't nor shouldn't forbid a mosque from being built on private land. The point of the analogy was to address the idea of Islamaphobia. Many on this site are quick to attach this label to anyone expressing concerns. With the label comes the assumption of racist, biggot or just ignorant. Just as the parent at the very least keeping a closer eye on their kids with my dog next door doesn't make them a dog hater or ignorant. Those that express concerns over the mosque are not necessarily racists, biggots or ignorant.

If the dog seems friendly, than yes, it'd be a paranoid fear I think. And the chance of getting bit by a pitbull is probably more likely than the chance of being attacked by terrrorists.

[clambake]

The puppies were just expressing concern.

Probably about parking.

it was a terrorist act. darrin says they have to be muslims. wc says muslims did it just to make christians look bad.

[Blake]

The parent can't forbid me from having the dog and American's can't nor shouldn't forbid a mosque from being built on private land. The point of the analogy was to address the idea of Islamaphobia. Many on this site are quick to attach this label to anyone expressing concerns. With the label comes the assumption of racist, biggot or just ignorant. Just as the parent at the very least keeping a closer eye on their kids with my dog next door doesn't make them a dog hater or ignorant. Those that express concerns over the mosque are not necessarily racists, biggots or ignorant.

so you are saying that Muslims are born with a natural tendency to attack like a pit bull?

[DarrinS]

Those poor, beseiged Muslims. Why, they're as harmless as puppies. Why on Earth would anyone scrutinize them?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_ toll#Terrorist_attacks


Estimated killed, Name, Country, City, Date

2,976 September 11, 2001 attacks United States New York City, NY,
Arlington, VA,
Shanksville, PA 2001
796 2007 Qahtaniya bombings Iraq Qahtaniya 2007
422 Cinema Rex fire Iran Abadan 1978
334 Beslan School Siege Russia Beslan 2004
329 Air India Flight 182 Atlantic Ocean, South of Ireland 1985
309 1983 Beirut barracks bombing Lebanon Beirut 1983
293 1999 Russian apartment bombings Russia Moscow 1999
270 Pan Am Flight 103 United Kingdom Lockerbie, Scotland 1988
257 1993 Mumbai bombings India Mumbai 1993
252 2001 Angola train attack Angola 2001
238 MV Dara Southwest Asia Persian Gulf 1961
237 1998 United States embassy bombings Kenya,
Tanzania Nairobi,
Dar es Salaam 1998
215 Sadr City bombings Iraq Sadr City 2006
209 Mumbai train bombings India Mumbai 2006
202 2002 Bali bombings Indonesia Bali 2002
198 April 18, 2007 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2007
191 March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings Spain Madrid 2004
178 Ashoura Massacre Iraq Kerbala and Baghdad 2004
175 2008 Mumbai attacks India Mumbai 2008
171 UTA Flight UT-772 Niger 1989
170 Moscow Theatre Siege Russia Moscow 2002
168 Oklahoma City bombing United States Oklahoma City 1995
155 25 October 2009 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2009
152 2007 Tal Afar bombings and massacre Iraq Tal Afar 2007
150 St Nedelya Church assault Bulgaria Sofia 1925
148 Gyaneshwari Express train derailment India 2010
140 Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis Russia Budyonnovsk 1995
136 2007 Karachi bombing Pakistan Karachi 2007
135 February 3, 2007 Baghdad market bombing Iraq Baghdad 2007
130 Rafiganj train disaster India Rafiganj 2002
128 Xiamen Airlines Flight 8301 Guangzhou China 1990
127 8 December 2009 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2009
127 2005 Al Hillah bombing Iraq Al Hillah 2005
125 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 Indian Ocean 1996
120 2007 Al Hillah bombings Iraq Al Hillah 2007
117 28 October 2009 Peshawar bombing Pakistan Peshawar 2009
117 2004 Irbil bombings Iraq Irbil 2004
116 2004 SuperFerry 14 bombing Philippines 2004
114+ 10 May 2010 Iraq attacks Iraq Baghdad 2010
112 2006 Digampathana bombing Sri Lanka Digampathana 2006
112 September 14, 2005 Baghdad bombing Iraq Baghdad 2005
112 Avianca Flight 203 Colombia 1989
112 Gulf Air Flight 771 United Arab Emirates Dubai 1983
110 10 October 2008 Orakzai bombing Pakistan Orakzai 2008
105 2010 Lakki Marwat suicide bombing Pakistan Lakki Marwat 2010
104 Mohmand Agency attack Pakistan Mohmand Agency 2010
102 First Tyre truck bombing attack Lebanon Tyre 1982
101 19 August 2009 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2009
100+ 10 May 2010 Iraq attacks Iraq 2010
100 2008 Kandahar bombing Afghanistan Kandahar 2008
98 1 February 2008 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2008
98 Musayyib fuel tanker bombing Iraq Musayyib 2005
91 King David Hotel bombing Mandatory Palestine Jerusalem 1946
90 Central Bank Bombing Sri Lanka Colombo 1996
90 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks Egypt Sharm el-Sheikh 2005
89 Russian airplane bombings Russia Moscow 2004
88 TWA Flight 841 Ionian Sea 1974
88 22 January 2007 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2007
98 May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore Pakistan Lahore 2010
86 AMIA Bombing Argentina Buenos Aires 1994
85 April 2010 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2010
85 Buratha Mosque bombing Iraq Baghdad 2006
85 Stazione Centrale bombing Italy Bologna 1980
83 2002 Grozny truck bombing Russia Grozny 2002
83 Imam Ali Mosque bombing Iraq Najaf 2003
81 2008 Assam bombings India Assam 2008
80 Jaipur bombings India Jaipur 2008
80 1985 Beirut car bombing Lebanon Beirut 1985
76 February 12, 2007 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2007
76 2010 Maoist attack in Dantewada India Dantewada, Chattisgarh 2010
75 2007 Baghlan sugar factory bombing Afghanistan Baghlan 2008
74 July 2010 Kampala attacks Uganda Kampala 2010
74 2005 Khanaqin bombings Iraq Khanaqin 2005
74 21 April 2004 Basra bombings Iraq Basra 2004
74 2004 Kufa shelling Iraq Kufa 2004
73 20 June 2009 Taza bombing Iraq Taza 2009
72+ March 2010 Lahore bombings Pakistan Lahore 2010
70+ July 2010 Baghdad attacks Iraq Baghdad 2010
70 2008 Wah bombing Pakistan Wah 2008
70 2007 Baghdad Mustansiriya University bombing Iraq Baghdad 2007
69+ 17 August 2010 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2010
69 24 June 2009 Baghdad bombing Iraq Baghdad 2009
68 6 March 2008 Baghdad bombing Iraq Baghdad 2008
68 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings India 2007
68 2004 Baqubah bombing Baqubah Iraq 2004
67 19 December 2004 Karbala and Najaf bombings Iraq Karbala 2004
63 Luxor massacre Egypt Luxor 1997
63 February 18, 2007 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2007
63 DAS Building bombing Colombia Bogotá 1989
63 Iraqi Airways Flight 163 Arar Saudi Arabia 1986
63 April 1983 US Embassy bombing Lebanon Beirut 1983
62 1999 Vladikavkaz bombing Russia Vladikavkaz 1999
62 July 1, 2006 Sadr City bombing Iraq Sadr City 2006
62 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings India Delhi 2005
62 24 June 2004 Mosul bombings Iraq Mosul 2004
60 2005 Amman bombings Jordan Amman 2005
60 EgyptAir Flight 648 Athens Greece 1985
60 Second Tyre truck bombing attack Lebanon Tyre 1983
59 2003 Znamenskoye suicide bombing Russia Znamenskoye 2003
58 6 April 2010 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2010
58 April 2010 Kohat bombings Pakistan Kohat 2010
58 2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul Afghanistan Kabul 2008
58 1948 Ben Yehuda Street bombing Mandatory Palestine Jerusalem 1948
57 2003 Istanbul Bombings Turkey Istanbul 2003
56 2008 Ahmedabad bombings Pakistan Ahmedabad 2008
54 1 February 2010 Baghdad bombing Iraq Baghdad 2010
54 December 2009 Lahore attacks Pakistan Lahore 2009
54 Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing Pakistan Islamabad 2008
53+ 25 August 2010 Iraq bombings Iraq Kut 2010
52 7 July 2005 London bombings United Kingdom London 2005
52 2003 Mumbai bombings India Mumbai 2003
51 2009 African Union base bombings in Mogadishu Somalia Mogadishu 2009
51 17 June 2008 Baghdad bombing Iraq Baghdad 2008
50 5 April 2010 Peshawar bombings Pakistan Peshawar 2010
50 July 2010 Lahore bombings Pakistan Lahore 2010
48 2009 Jamrud mosque bombing Pakistan Jamrud 2009
47 14 September 2004 Baghdad bombing Iraq Baghdad 2004
47 2008 Parachinar bombing Pakistan Parachinar 2008
46 2003 Stavropol train bombing Russia Stavropol 2003
46 2003 Casablanca bombings Morocco Casablanca 2003
44 Kaspiysk bombing Russia Kaspiysk 2002
43+ 7 August 2010 Basra attacks Iraq Basra 2010
43 2009 Pishin bombing Iran Pishin 2009
43 2009 Karachi bombing Pakistan Karachi 2009
43 2008 Issers bombing Algeria Issers 2008
42 April 4, 2010 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2010
42 February 2004 Moscow metro bombing Russia Moscow 2004
41 30 September 2004 Baghdad bombing Iraq Baghdad 2004
41 25 January 2010 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2010
41 December 11, 2007 Algiers bombings Algeria Algiers 2007
40 Nadahan wedding bombing Afghanistan Kandahar Province 2010
40 2010 Moscow Metro bombings Russia Moscow 2010
39 May 2010 Mogadishu bombings Somalia Mogadishu 2010
38 October 2009 Lahore attacks Pakistan Lahore 2009
38 December 2009 Rawalpindi attack Pakistan Rawalpindi 2009
38 2001 attack on Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly India Srinagar 2001
38 Wall Street bombing United States New York City 1920
37 2006 Malegaon blasts India 2006
35+ 2010 Dantewada bus bombing India Dantewada 2010
35 27 October 2003 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2003
35 November 2009 Rawalpindi bombing Pakistan Rawalpindi 2009
35 2009 Beledweyne bombing Somalia Beledweyne 2009
35 2009 Lahore bombing Pakistan Lahore 2009
35 September 2008 Peshawar bombing Pakistan Peshawar 2008
35 15 July 2008 Baquba bombings Iraq Baqubah 2008
35 Riyadh compound bombings Saudi Arabia Riyadh 2003
34 6 April 2009 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2009
34 2004 Sinai bombings Egypt Taba,
Nuweiba 2004
33 Akshardham Temple attack India Gandhinagar 2002
33 December 2009 Dera Ghazi Khan bombing Pakistan Dera Ghazi Khan 2009
33 3 March 2010 Baqubah bombings Iraq Baqubah 2010
33 11 April 2007 Algiers bombings Algeria Algiers 2007
33 Pan Am Flight 110 Italy 1973
33 1998 Coimbatore bombings India Coimbatore 1998
33 Dublin and Monaghan Bombings Ireland Dublin,
Monaghan 1974
32 Muna hotel attack Somalia Mogadishu 2010
32 28 September 2008 Baghdad bombings Iraq Baghdad 2008
30 13 September 2008 Delhi bombings India Delhi 2008
30 February 2010 Khyber Mosque bombing Pakistan Khyber Agency 2010
30 Passover massacre Israel Netanya 2002
30 2007 Dellys bombing Algeria Dellys 2007
29 Omagh Bombing Northern Ireland Omagh 1998
28 2003 Nasiriyah bombing Iraq Nasiriyah 2003
28 2009 Nevsky Express bombing Russia Bologoye 2009
28 2006 Varanasi bombings India Varanasi 2006
27+ July 2010 Zahedan bombings Iran Zahedan 2010
27 1994 Baku Metro bombings Azerbaijan Baku 1994
25+ February 2010 Karachi bombings Pakistan Karachi 2010
25 2009 Nazran bombing Russia Nazran 2009
25 19 April 2010 Peshawar bombing Pakistan Peshawar 2010
23 2009 Pakistan Army General Headquarters attack Pakistan Punjab 2009
23 2006 Dahab bombings Egypt Dahab 2006
23 Shmuel HaNavi bus bombing Israel Jerusalem 2003
22 Rizal Day bombings Philippines Metro Manila 2000
22 2004 Khobar massacre Saudi Arabia Khobar 2004
22 2007 Batna bombing Algeria Batna 2007
22 2004 Forward Operating Base Marez bombing Iraq Mosul 2004
22 Canal Hotel bombing Iraq Baghdad 2003
22 Dizengoff Street bus bombing Israel Tel Aviv 1994
22 Beit Lid massacre Israel 1995
21 1987 Hipercor bombing Spain Barcelona 1987
21 Birmingham pub bombings United Kingdom Birmingham 1974
21 Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing Israel Tel Aviv 2001
21 Maxim restaurant suicide bombing Israel Haifa 2003
20+ Pan Am Flight 73 Pakistan Karachi 1986
20 2009 Zahedan explosion Iran Zahedan 2009
19 Rome and Vienna airport attacks Italy Rome 1985
19 USS Cole bombing Yemen Aden 2000
19 2003 Karbala bombings Iraq Karbala 2003
19 2008 American Embassy attack in Yemen Yemen Sana'a 2008
19 February 2010 Khyber bombing Pakistan Khyber 2010
19 Patt Junction Bus Bombing Israel Jerusalem 2002
18 1985 El Descanso bombing Spain Madrid 1985
18 2007 Zahedan bombings Iran Zahedan 2007
18 May 2010 Kabul bombing Afghanistan Kabul 2010
18 February 2010 Kabul attack Afghanistan Kabul 2010
17 Munich massacre Germany Munich 1972
17 2003 Jordanian embassy bombing in Baghdad Iraq Baghdad 2003
17 2009 Kabul Indian embassy attack Afghanistan Kabul 2009
17 2010 Pune bombing India Pune 2010
17 Haifa bus 37 suicide bombing Israel Haifa 2003
16 January 2010 Bajaur bombing Pakistan Bajaur 2010
15 Matza restaurant suicide bombing Israel Haifa 2002
15 Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing Israel Jerusalem 2001
14 Karkur junction suicide bombing Israel 2002
13 Fort Hood shooting United States Texas 2009
13 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway Japan Tokyo 1995
13 2006 Moscow market bombing Russia Moscow 2006
13 Dizengoff Center suicide bombing Israel Tel Aviv 1996
13 2008 Beni Amrane bombings Algeria Beni Amrane 2008
12 Remembrance Day bombing Enniskillen United Kingdom 1987
12 M62 coach bombing United Kingdom Yorkshire 1974
12 December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing Pakistan Lower Dir 2009
12 2010 Kizlyar bombings Russia Kizlyar 2010
12 2008 Vladikavkaz bombing Russia Vladikavkaz 2008
11 2002 Zamboanga City bombings Philippines Zamboanga City 2002
11 Deal barracks bombing United Kingdom Deal 1989
11 Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings United Kingdom London 1982
11 Café Moment bombing Israel Jerusalem 2002
11 Kiryat Menachem bus bombing Israel Jerusalem 2002
11 Jerusalem bus 19 suicide bombing Israel Jerusalem 2004
10 13 March 2003 Mumbai train bombing India Mumbai 2003
10 2007 attack on tourists in Yemen Yemen Mareb 2007
10 August 2004 Moscow metro bombing Russia Moscow 2004
10 February 2010 Lower Dir bombing Pakistan Lower Dir 2010
9 2007 Ankara bombing Turkey Ankara 2007
9 Camp Chapman attack Afghanistan Khost Province 2009
8 2006 Central Mindanao bombings Philippines Central Mindanao 2006
8 July 2009 Mindanao bombings Philippines Mindanao 2009
8 2008 Danish embassy bombing in Islamabad Pakistan Islamabad 2008
8 1995 Paris Metro bombing France Paris 1995
8 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team Pakistan Lahore 2009
8 2010 Stavropol bomb blast Russia Stavropol 2010
8 2009 UN guest house attack in Kabul Afghanistan Kabul 2009
8 Mercaz HaRav massacre Israel Jerusalem 2008
7 1977 Moscow bombings Russia Moscow 1977
7 1972 Aldershot Bombing United Kingdom Aldershot 1972
6 Batasang Pambansa bombing Philippines Quezon City 2007
6 2009 International Islamic University bombing Pakistan Islamabad 2009
6 Harrods bombing United Kingdom London 1983
6 2003 Red Square bombing Russia Moscow 2003
6 1993 World Trade Center bombing United States New York City 1993

[clambake]

hey d, you think they'll catch the muslims that burned the mosque site in tennessee?

[DarrinS]

Don't call it 'Islamophobia'

http://www.nationalpost.com/call+Islamophobia/3449245/story.html





Wow! The Washington Post is warning us about "rabble-rousing outsiders!" I don't think I've heard language like that since Southern segregationists complained about young civil-rights activists descending on Mississippi.

So who are these interlopers stirring up the unwashed masses? No need to guess: It's anyone who dares criticize plans for an Islamic centre near Ground Zero in Manhattan. According to Jason Horowitz, the author of a story on the front page of the Post's Style section, New Yorkers take a "dim view" of them.

Mr. Horowitz informs us that the planned Islamic centre has become "the prime target of national conservatives who, after years of disparaging New York as a hotbed of liberal activity, are defending New York against a mosque that will rise two city blocks from Ground Zero."

The hypocrisy! Have they no shame?

Mr. Horowitz also scored an interview with Ali Mohammed, who sells "falafel over rice" in the besieged neighbourhood, and who has "reached his saturation point." Opponents of the project, he says, "got nothing to do with New York and they don't care about New York. They are trying to create propaganda."

Yes, of course, this is a New York thing. Foreigners wouldn't understand. The terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers had a bone to pick with the Big Apple. That explains why Mr. Horowitz doesn't ask Mr. Mohammed who he thinks attacked us on 9/11, or what their ideology and goals were. Indeed, there is not a single sentence in his article relating to such matters.

If this Washington Post piece were exceptional, it would be unfair of me to give it such a tongue-lashing. But, as I've argued before, it's part of a pattern, a trend -- one that, despite criticism, continues to strengthen. A companion piece in the Post exclaims that the Islamic centre will contain "a Sept. 11 memorial," but never bothers to question what that memorial might say about the 9/11 attacks. Will they be described as an atrocity or merely a tragedy? Who will the memorial say was responsible, and on behalf of what belief system were they acting?

A New York Times piece on the controversy similarly avoids any uncomfortable questions. Its reading of recent history: "On top of the fear and confusion in New York about Islam after 9/11, a movement had begun to spring up against Muslims seeking a larger role in American public life." What movement would that be? Who leads it? Where do they meet? Shouldn't the Times -- the Times! -- include some attempt to substantiate the announcement of the birth of such a terrible "movement"?

Last week, I was a guest on To the Point, a radio show broadcast on public stations around the United States and moderated by Warren Olney, whom I consider both professional and fair. But, to my chagrin, he asked not a single question about Imam Rauf's beliefs, and when I tried to quote the cleric he cut me off, saying that was a distraction from the real issue. Which is what? Warren later told me he thinks it's "America's tradition of religious freedom." But I -- and most critics of this project --have never argued that Imam Rauf doesn't have a First Amendment right to build a mosque anywhere he owns property. I've argued that he should not be above scrutiny.

To some, that makes me an Islamophobe; and according to Time magazine, I have plenty of company. A cover story titled "Is America Islamophobic?" asserts that "many opponents" of the Islamic centre "are motivated by deep-seated Islamophobia." Not a shred of evidence is offered, though Time does cite a poll that finds 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers.

Goodness, why would anyone think that? Could it have something to do with the fact that there have been close to 16,000 terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam since 9/11? Just last month, Time had on its cover the photograph of an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears were sliced off by members of the Taliban because she had violated Islamic religious law as they interpret it by "running away from her husband's house." The word "Taliban" means "the students." Students of what? Engineering? Dentistry? No. Of Islam.

Let's say it one more time loudly for the media moguls in the cheap seats: Most Muslims are not terrorists. But in the 21st century, most of those slaughtering women and children in the name of religion are Muslims. This is a movement. This is a reality. And it is a problem. It ought to be seen by Muslims as very much their problem -- a pathology within their community, within the "Muslim world," within the ummah.

Instead, the richest and most powerful Islamic organizations -- often financed by oil money from the Middle East -- incessantly play the victim card. Time encourages this grievance mentality (or tactic) by asserting that "to be a Muslim in America now is to endure slings and arrows against your faith -- not just in the schoolyard and the office but also outside your place of worship and in the public square, where some of the country's most powerful mainstream religious and political leaders unthinkingly (or worse, deliberately) conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery."

No, they don't. What they conflate with terrorism and savagery are al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba, al-Shabaab, Abu Sayyef, Fatah Al-Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood and dozens of other groups that justify their terrorism and savagery based on their interpretation of Islamic doctrine.

Many of the country's religious and political leaders would like to hear more of their Muslim neighbours say plainly: "Not in my name! Not in the name of my religion!" They are distressed when they learn -- not through the mainstream media -- that Imam Rauf has said instead: "The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda."

He said that some time ago, when he was still answering questions from the media. In recent weeks, as a national controversy has swirled around the biggest project in which he has ever been involved, he has been " unavailable." Time does not criticize him for stonewalling as they would criticize any non-Muslim who declined comment for a cover story. Instead, Time excuses him, saying he seems to have been "stunned into paralysis" by the unfairness of it all.

Is this moral posturing or cowardice or self-delusion or the by-product of the multicultural ideological mush that so much of the media has been both eating and dishing out? Whatever the cause, they really have gone mad. Small wonder that the rabble is becoming roused -- with or without the help of those pesky outsiders.

[clambake]

tell us about dublin.

[DarrinS]

tell us about dublin.

fail

[Spurminator]

So now American Muslims have to answer for attacks foreign Muslims have made on foreign lands?

Bigot.

[clambake]

fail

yes, you failed at telling us about dublin.

[rjv]

suddenly darrin has extended his definition of terrorism to include attacks outside the US (unless these acts do not include muslims-which is impossible anyway because, although the US state department and FBI list non muslim groups as terrorist organizations, that would hinder darrins' non testability trait when it comes to his 'premises' and he would have to look the other way and ignore these facts)

[DarrinS]

suddenly darrin has extended his definition of terrorism to include attacks outside the US (unless these acts do not include muslims-which is impossible anyway because, although the US state department and FBI list non muslim groups as terrorist organizations, that would hinder darrins' non testability trait when it comes to his 'premises' and he would have to look the other way and ignore these facts)

huh?

[rjv]

huh?

see mohammed run. see darrin scream 'terrorist'. see right wing fanatic blow up building. see darrin say 'huh ?'

[DarrinS]

see mohammed run. see darrin scream 'terrorist'. see right wing fanatic blow up building. see darrin say 'huh ?'


Do you think that terrorist attacks on foreign soil are not terrorist attacks?

[rjv]

Do you think that terrorist attacks on foreign soil are not terrorist attacks?

i think they are but you might have to ask yourself what you think:


when I say terrorist, I mean those that have been actively attacking the US or US interests for the past 40 years.

that definition definitely became more liberal when it suddenly pertained to muslims. unless, the bombings in moscow and algeria affected US interests (if so, please let us know all the details of each and every one of the incidents you copy and pasted from what i am sure was an extremely neutral site)

[Spurminator]

Man Already Knows Everything He Needs To Know About Muslims (http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/)
AUGUST 30, 2010 | ISSUE 46•35

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/17990/Man-Already-large.jpg
Gentries made a conscious decision to stop learning anything new about the Muslim faith on May 22, 2005.

RELATED ARTICLES
Uncool Zookeeper Won't Let Anyone Ride Gorillas
06.04.07
Daddy Hitting Mommy Again
02.03.99

SALINA, KS—Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world.

Gentries, 48, said he had absolutely no interest in exposing himself to further knowledge of Islamic civilization or putting his sweeping opinions into a broader context of any kind, and confirmed he was "perfectly happy" to make a handful of emotionally charged words the basis of his mistrust toward all members of the world's second-largest religion.

"I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11," Gentries said in reference to the terrorist attacks on the United States undertaken by 19 of Islam's approximately 1.6 billion practitioners. "What more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?"

"And now they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero," continued Gentries, eliminating any distinction between the 9/11 hijackers and Muslims in general. "No, I won't examine the accuracy of that statement, but yes, I will allow myself to be outraged by it and use it as evidence of these people's universal callousness toward Americans who lost loved ones when the Twin Towers fell."

"Even though I am not one of those people," he added.

When told that the proposed "Ground Zero mosque" is actually a community center two blocks north of the site that would include, in addition to a public prayer space, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant, and athletic facilities, Gentries shook his head and said, "I know all I'm going to let myself know."

Gentries explained that it "didn't take long" to find out as much about the tenets of Islam as he needed to. He said he knew Muslims stoned their women for committing adultery, trained for terrorist attacks at fundamentalist madrassas, and believed in jihad, which Gentries described as the thing they used to justify killing infidels.

"All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts," said Gentries, who threatened to leave the room if presented with the number of Muslims who live peacefully in the United States, serve in the country's armed forces, or were victims themselves of the 9/11 attacks. "Period."

"If you don't believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka," Gentries continued in reference to the face-and-body-covering worn by a small minority of Muslim women and banned in the universities of Turkey, Tunisia, and Syria. "Or worse, a rape camp. That's right: For reasons I am content being totally unable to articulate, I am choosing to associate Muslims with rape camps."

Over the past decade, Gentries said he has taken pains to avoid personal interactions or media that might have the potential to compromise his point of view. He told reporters that the closest he had come to confronting a contrary standpoint was tuning in to the first few seconds of an interview with a moderate Muslim cleric before hastily turning off the television.

"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."

Added Gentries, "That really put things back into perspective."

[DarrinS]

Men bahaving badly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/united-flight-arrested-terror-charges-amsterdam/story?id=11517664

ABC News Exclusive: Two Men on United Flight from Chicago Arrested on 'Preparation of a Terrorist Attack' in Amsterdam

:nope

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/abc_terror_suspects_100830_mn.jpg




Two men taken off a Chicago-to-Amsterdam United Airlines flight in the Netherlands have been charged by Dutch police with "preparation of a terrorist attack," U.S. law enforcement officials tell ABC News.

U.S. officials said the two appeared to be travelling with what were termed "mock bombs" in their luggage. "This was almost certainly a dry run, a test," said one senior law enforcement official.

A spokesman for the Dutch public prosecutor, Ernst Koelman, confirmed the two men were arrested this morning and said "the investigation is ongoing." He said the arrests were made "at the request of American authorities."

The two were allowed to board the flight at O'Hare airport last night despite security concerns surrounding one of them, the officials said.

The men were identified as Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al Soofi, of Detroit, MI, and Hezem al Murisi, the officials said. A neighbor of al Soofi told ABC News he is from Yemen.

Airport security screeners in Birmingham, Alabama first stopped al Soofi and referred him to additional screening because of what officials said was his "bulky clothing."

[clambake]

oh noes, terrorist in amsterdam! you think they were going to dublin?

[DarrinS]

oh noes, terrorist in amsterdam! you think they were going to dublin?


Do you think Muslims commit a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks?

[clambake]

Do you think Muslims commit a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks?

disproportionate? what would you consider to be the correct portion?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

the more you post DarrinS, the more it becomes perfectly clear that you've been full of shit from the beginning and don't intend to make any attempt at differencing the Muslim religion from extremists. In other words, all that "I didn't say Muslims, I said Muslim terrorists" bullshit was you covering your ass.

Disingenuous prick...

[Mikesatx]

Interesting that we have a group of non-muslims defending muslims to non-muslims. It would be interesting to me and educational to get their view.

[clambake]

more like non-muslims to anti-muslims.

[Mikesatx]

I mentioned the conotation Islamaphobia has in a previous post in this thread and what I characterized as the tags that it brings. Namely bigotry, racism and ignorance. The reality is most here and throughout the country including myself are ignorant to the Islamic faith. It would be responsible on my part to educate myself and then deccide whether or not I am comfortable.

[admiralsnackbar]

Interesting that we have a group of non-muslims defending muslims to non-muslims. It would be interesting to me and educational to get their view.

I don't understand why it should even be noteworthy that Americans stand up for their own.

[Darrin]

That's not much of a straw man. Conservatives are, generally, opposed to change. The roots of this country is in zenophobia and mistrust. Sure, there's the Mayflower, full of people who all had the same faith afraid the colony would grow into anarchy, reached over their fear to form a government. If someone is different, he or she is met with a bunch of wagging fingers.

If you feel that America is under attack constantly and needs to be protected from any change of any kind, you come off as a racist, a homophobe, and definitely a zenophobe. If you embrace the changing face of America--children raised by a same-sex couple that still grow up to salute the flag and do it next to a child who's of mixed heritage, then we have a more inclusive America, closer to our ideals.

But if you have a view that this country was perfect and our mis-steps and scandals are ruining the perfect nature of the country we were handed then you can't see that future. You like how things look and feel right now when you look into everyone's face and think you know the character of everyone of them because they look the same, they sound the same.

We inherited racism. We inherited bigotry. We inherited sexism. We inherited zenophobia. These things have to be pushed out of our collective consciousness. Freedom is messy and must be maintained. We will never be perfectly safe. We will never have completely happy lives. Freedom is the cousin to anarchy and Conservatives sometimes confuse the two. And we cannot use the words and motivations of people who openly embraced bigotry and sexism, calling for a simpler time.

A return to our ideals. Our ideal is to respect one-another and give freedom to each other. That is the American ideal. Why is it that people who are in love cannot marry? Why is it that we have to embrace an anti-Mexican view to curb illegal immigrantion? Why do we have to push away Islam when it was radicals that attacked us on September 11th?

Let me put it another way: What better symbol of unity after September 11th than to embrace the sane, rational portion of this religion, celebrate multiculturalism to raise a middle finger to Osama bin Ladin that no matter what he does, America is a place where people gather and accept one-another? Are you telling me that no Islamic people died in the Twin Towers? How strong would we be not to brush strokes of that hurt, hatred, and fear over the people who look like Al Qaeda operatives in a place so much destruction was done? We embraced each other after that day. Let us do so again.

It's not a monument to Al Qaeda. It's not a mural of Osama. It is a place of worship. A faith that prayed for New Yorkers on September 11th. A religion that donated time and money to relief efforts. Americans.

And because of the Conservative voices, it did not unite us. It divided us. We had another moment we could accept our ideals--acceptance and freedom--and instead gave into fear and hurt. Our zenophobia.

It takes courage to be an American. It is not for the weak. It will challenge your assumptions. It will make you think. It will make you have an opinion (which you are supposed to use to vote).

If America only salutes the flag for the soldiers that carry it, and not for the states it represents, the people who gave their lives so we could live a little more free, ALL the people who are citizens, then don't salute it. Salute the USMC flag next time. Think about more than the military.

If you cannot embrace all of us no matter how we look or sound then get the fuck out of my country. We don't need you.

[jack sommerset]

Just couple of months away and Obama will be stripped of his evil powers. Atleast most. Of course Barry and chewy will think America is being mean again and the idiots will scream "racist" but Obongo took the goddamn car out of the ditch and drove it off a cliff. You can't have the keys anymore.

<LoL> smiles real big :)

[DarrinS]

the more you post DarrinS, the more it becomes perfectly clear that you've been full of shit from the beginning and don't intend to make any attempt at differencing the Muslim religion from extremists. In other words, all that "I didn't say Muslims, I said Muslim terrorists" bullshit was you covering your ass.

Disingenuous prick...



Unfortunately, no one can tell the good ones from the bad ones. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated and clean cut. Before 9/11, you'd probably wouldn't even give them a second look.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you think Muslims commit a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks?

So what you're saying is, you're afraid of the .00000006 % chance that a Muslim will commit a terrorist attack on the flight you're on, whereas the chance is probably only .00000002 % for non-Muslims.

[LnGrrrR]

Unfortunately, no one can tell the good ones from the bad ones. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated and clean cut. Before 9/11, you'd probably wouldn't even give them a second look.

Right on! Better to just distrust ALL Muslims. In fact, why limit it to Muslims? Pretty much anyone who's brown is qualified. After all, if they're not terrorists, they're probably illegal immigrants.

[DarrinS]

So what you're saying is, you're afraid of the .00000006 % chance that a Muslim will commit a terrorist attack on the flight you're on, whereas the chance is probably only .00000002 % for non-Muslims.


No, I'm saying there's a reason that people will be suspicious (and rightfully so) of Muslims. I actually feel bad for the regular, law-abiding, moderate Muslim. They suffer because their religion has so many America-hating nutjobs. But, it's not my job to apologize to the moderate Muslim for the extremists among them.

[DarrinS]

Right on! Better to just distrust ALL Muslims. In fact, why limit it to Muslims? Pretty much anyone who's brown is qualified. After all, if they're not terrorists, they're probably illegal immigrants.


:rolleyes

[Darrin]

:rolleyes

Barack Huessein Obama and his religion. Roll your eyes when it isn't true.

[DarrinS]

Barack Huessein Obama and his religion. Roll your eyes when it isn't true.


Dude's got Muslim background and sat through 20 years of black seperatist theology. He also hasn't picked a church to attend in DC.

And people wonder why there's questions about his faith.

I take him at his word that he's Christian, but the man doesn't exactly wear his beliefs on his sleeve.

[Darrin]

Dude's got Muslim background and sat through 20 years of black seperatist theology. He also hasn't picked a church to attend in DC.

And people wonder why there's questions about his faith.

I take him at his word that he's Christian, but the man doesn't exactly wear his beliefs on his sleeve.

When was the last time you demanded that a President show his credential on religion. It's because of the skin color, no other reason. Bob Jones University influenced Judicial nominees from George W. Bush and didn't get this much flak.

[DarrinS]

When was the last time you demanded that a President show his credential on religion. It's because of the skin color, no other reason. Bob Jones University influenced Judicial nominees from George W. Bush and didn't get this much flak.



I don't care if he's an athiest. You brought up Obama.

[Darrin]

I don't care if he's an athiest. You brought up Obama.

General You. I brought up a great example.

[Spurminator]

But, it's not my job to apologize to the moderate Muslim for the extremists among them.

What you don't seem to get is that it's not the moderate Muslim's job to apologize for extremist Muslims either.

[LnGrrrR]

No, I'm saying there's a reason that people will be suspicious (and rightfully so) of Muslims. I actually feel bad for the regular, law-abiding, moderate Muslim. They suffer because their religion has so many America-hating nutjobs. But, it's not my job to apologize to the moderate Muslim for the extremists among them.

So like you're saying, you think it's fair to blame the whole for the actions of a small minority. I don't know how much sense that makes.

I mean, that's like calling all Tea Parties racist for the actions of a select few. But I guess there's a reason that people will be suspicious (and rightfully so) of racist Tea Partiers. I actually feel bad for the regular, law-abiding, fiscally conservative Tea Partiers. They suffer because their movement has so many racists. But it's not my job to apologize to the moderate Tea Partiers for the extremists among them.

[LnGrrrR]

I take him at his word that he's Christian, but the man doesn't exactly wear his beliefs on his sleeve.

Christians aren't true Christians unless they pray in public, loudly and often!

Man, it's fun creating strawmen. I can see why DarrinS enjoys it so.

[ChumpDumper]

Has Darrin apologized for the Oklahoma City bombing yet?

[Darrin]

Has Darrin apologized for the Oklahoma City bombing yet?

What?

[LnGrrrR]

What?

I think he's referring to DarrinS here.

[Blackjack]

...Without this reasonable case made, I don't see how you get around racism, or Islamophobia, or what have you. These are loaded words with their own decisively pejorative connotations, but if we're honest with ourselves, what else could we be talking about when we want to deny our fellow citizens rights and comforts we ourselves enjoy without a reason we can articulate?

If prejudice is believing things about a group of people before having met them individually or learning about their group diversity, then sorry, but some of the people we're discussing are prejudiced. If phobias are irrational fears that distort our normal behavior for unknown reasons, why is it inaccurate to describe somebody as phobic when he regards a group of people he has no reason to distrust with abnormal suspicion or as deserving of abridged rights? It doesn't make the bigot or the phobic a bad or hateful person, just an unreasonable one, because they ultimately can't defend their actions, only articulate their stereotypes or anxieties.

If you can give an example of a credible argument for denying the Muslims their Community Center that a good-hearted American might employ, I'm all ears. But it honestly just sounds like you're playing apologist because it offends your sensibilities that prejudice and fear could be omnipresent. Pardon the didactic obviousness, but prejudice doesn't have to wear a white hood or jackboots (these are our prejudicial stereotypes of bigotry and xenophobia)....

I've given up on Nancy but I respect your actual takes and think there might be a language barrier or you've just got a bad read on me, or are simply reading into my posts more than you should -- I believe this happened with a post on Gist recently but I could be mistaken.

Let me make this as clear as possible and I'll be on my way.

The only thing I've taken exception to is the belief that all whom oppose are racists. They're ALL coming from a place hatred, fear or are simply stupid. So instead of preaching to the choir or trying to convert the converted, let's try to look at this from the eyes of the people I know and believe to genuinely oppose the community center without malice or racist/fearful intolerance.

People I know and believe to be out there:

They take exception with the extremist element and they resent the fact this Imam and the people responsible for the building of the community center would be as insensitive as to not take that into consideration. From their understanding, this mosque is not being placed in an under-served community, the logistics of the Muslim community and commute makes little-to-no sense to build it where they're building it, and they had plenty of options available to build the center in a better or just more sensible venue. There were options available that wouldn't have brought forth the emotion of 9-11 and they resent the fact they wouldn't choose one of them -- common sense would lead anyone to believe the groups and supporters of those who perpetrated the acts would spin the new community center as a gift from Allah and some kind of positive sign to their cause.

The community center:

Once deciding on the location and starting the development process they had to either believe their intentions were so pure naivety lost sight of potential objections; they were aware of some potential objection but believed they were in the "right" and the opposition wouldn't be overwhelming; they believed they were in the "right" and that's all they needed to know to move forward (objections or protestations be damned); they didn't care to even acknowledge whether they were in the "right" or "wrong," only that they had the right to move forward and couldn't care less about outside perceptions or views; or -- in the most extreme and unlikely case -- it was a big ol' F-U and affront to the victims of 9-11 and the American non-Muslim community.

Perception:

Terrorists will spin whatever happens in a way to help their cause. If the community center is built, it's a sign from Allah and validation to their cause and actions; if it's not built it will simply be because of the ugly, intolerant, Zionist who demonizes their faith. The Zionist oppressor strikes again. Bottom line, win-win.

So what's the best and most appropriate thing to do?

Run to 9-11. Embrace it.

There isn't a doubt in my mind this mosque should be built. Not one. But I know good people whom oppose -- for reasons I've stated on numerous occasions -- and I respect their view, even in disagreement. The potential gains for the extremist/"bad" Muslims and the resentment they have for "good" Muslims allowing that potential outcome is just too much to bear -- 9-11 brings forth just too much emotional baggage and an unwillingness to allow any kind of dishonor to come to those victim's memory; and not from the vast majority of Muslims but from those that would use the new mosque's building and location as validation to their cause.

Like it or not, America and the real world isn't a utopia. There's a give and take we all have deal with to make things work, even sometimes when we're in the right -- baggage, perceptions, ignorance, etc., exist in us all and are brought to the table when dealing with anything, whether it's a people or view. America wasn't founded on Islamic principles. Islam may be the largest faith there is, but it ain't in America. Islam is a minority and, thus, is not as well know or understood. Therefore, it's going to take a little extra effot on their behalf to assimilate and find common ground and understanding with their fellow Americans. It's no different than if you're a foreign-exchange student, really. Perceptions, misconceptions, ignorance and the ability to get passed them, take time and an effort on your behalf. If you want to make friends and find acceptance, you have to be willing to put yourself out there -- sitting by yourself or with the two or three people like you isn't going to help your cause.

Back to 9-11 and running to it. How do you make this thing a positive for the Muslim-American community and take away any kind of promotion/fuel for the extremist's cause?

Simple. Use some common sense.

Dedicate the community center to the memory of those that lost their lives on 9-11. Put some kind of commemorative plaque or statue outside the community center as a sign of solidarity to your fellow Americans. Show that the actions were not only an affront to America and its ideals, but to Islam and what it truly means to be a Muslim -- convert the convertible with actions of good faith.

There will always be cooks. Always. But if the people responsible for this community center just make a small gesture like that, they take away any kind of unease from those with genuine objection. They'll also allow themselves the opportunity to win over and convert the legitimately ignorant.

But that's just too commonsensical and stuff.

[boutons_deux]

"all whom oppose are racists"

the "mosk" (it's a community center near a sacred titty bar) is a Fox Repug Propaganda wedge/inflammatory issue, intentional, fabricated Islamophobia, and the sheeple yelling the loudist are Islamophobes/racists, esp the Manichean "Christians" who see the world as "Christian" warriors vs Islam and anybody else.

[Blake]

I've given up on Nancy but I respect your actual takes and think there might be a language barrier or you've just got a bad read on me, or are simply reading into my posts more than you should -- I believe this happened with a post on Gist recently but I could be mistaken.

I think I read you well enough, Vaginia.


Let me make this as clear as possible.

:lol We'll see.


The only thing I've taken exception to is the belief that all whom oppose are racists.

Not just racists......Islamophobes.

If there is another reason, please share in less than 1000 words.


They're ALL coming from a place hatred, fear or are simply stupid.

Exactly. So why do you take exception to it when someone else says it?


So instead of preaching to the choir or trying to convert the converted, let's try to look at this from the eyes of the people I know and believe to genuinely oppose the community center without malice or racist/fearful intolerance.

I'm betting you don't come up with anything more than Islamophobia or racism, but I hope you finally do.


People I know and believe to be out there:

They take exception with the extremist element and they resent the fact this Imam and the people responsible for the building of the community center would be as insensitive as to not take that into consideration. From their understanding, this mosque is not being placed in an under-served community, the logistics of the Muslim community and commute makes little-to-no sense to build it where they're building it, and they had plenty of options available to build the center in a better or just more sensible venue.


They are taking their exceptions and frustrations with the extremist element out on the law abiding citizens.

Racism or Islamophobia? Maybe a little of both.

When the mosque closes down because of it's poor logistics, the racists and Islamophobes can flip the tables and declare victory.


There were options available that wouldn't have brought forth the emotion of 9-11 and they resent the fact they wouldn't choose one of them -- common sense would lead anyone to believe the groups and supporters of those who perpetrated the acts would spin the new community center as a gift from Allah and some kind of positive sign to their cause.

Who specifically exactly are you talking about that is a supporter of the 9-11 acts?

And other than high fiving each other, what is a literal victory in hand that they can lay claim to?


The community center:

Once deciding on the location and starting the development process they had to either believe their intentions were so pure naivety lost sight of potential objections; they were aware of some potential objection but believed they were in the "right" and the opposition wouldn't be overwhelming; they believed they were in the "right" and that's all they needed to know to move forward (objections or protestations be damned); they didn't care to even acknowledge whether they were in the "right" or "wrong," only that they had the right to move forward and couldn't care less about outside perceptions or views; or -- in the most extreme and unlikely case -- it was a big ol' F-U and affront to the victims of 9-11 and the American non-Muslim community.

The motives of why they are building it are irrelevant.

If they are legally building it within city building codes, then there is absolutely no good reason at all to be opposed to it.

Is there such a thing as big ol' F-U phobia?


Perception:

Terrorists will spin whatever happens in a way to help their cause. If the community center is built, it's a sign from Allah and validation to their cause and actions; if it's not built it will simply be because of the ugly, intolerant, Zionist who demonizes their faith. The Zionist oppressor strikes again. Bottom line, win-win.

Nice example of Islamophobia.


So what's the best and most appropriate thing to do?

Run to 9-11. Embrace it.

There isn't a doubt in my mind this mosque should be built. Not one. But I know good people whom oppose -- for reasons I've stated on numerous occasions -- and I respect their view, even in disagreement. The potential gains for the extremist/"bad" Muslims and the resentment they have for "good" Muslims allowing that potential outcome is just too much to bear -- 9-11 brings forth just too much emotional baggage and an unwillingness to allow any kind of dishonor to come to those victim's memory; and not from the vast majority of Muslims but from those that would use the new mosque's building and location as validation to their cause.

Like it or not, America and the real world isn't a utopia. There's a give and take we all have deal with to make things work, even sometimes when we're in the right -- baggage, perceptions, ignorance, etc., exist in us all and are brought to the table when dealing with anything, whether it's a people or view. America wasn't founded on Islamic principles. Islam may be the largest faith there is, but it ain't in America. Islam is a minority and, thus, is not as well know or understood. Therefore, it's going to take a little extra effot on their behalf to assimilate and find common ground and understanding with their fellow Americans. It's no different than if you're a foreign-exchange student, really. Perceptions, misconceptions, ignorance and the ability to get passed them, take time and an effort on your behalf. If you want to make friends and find acceptance, you have to be willing to put yourself out there -- sitting by yourself or with the two or three people like you isn't going to help your cause.

Back to 9-11 and running to it. How do you make this thing a positive for the Muslim-American community and take away any kind of promotion/fuel for the extremist's cause?

Simple. Use some common sense.

Dedicate the community center to the memory of those that lost their lives on 9-11. Put some kind of commemorative plaque or statue outside the community center as a sign of solidarity to your fellow Americans. Show that the actions were not only an affront to America and its ideals, but to Islam and what it truly means to be a Muslim -- convert the convertible with actions of good faith.

There will always be cooks. Always. But if the people responsible for this community center just make a small gesture like that, they take away any kind of unease from those with genuine objection. They'll also allow themselves the opportunity to win over and convert the legitimately ignorant.

But that's just too commonsensical and stuff.

Bull shit.

Common sense says that if you have a problem with a legally built mosque then you should check yourself for racism or Islamophobia or come up with a damn good reason why it shouldn't be built.

Different words, but basically the same 1000 word post as the others. Nice job at clearing up nothing, Vaginia.

[Blackjack]

I've given up on Nancy...

[Blake]

Vaginia hasn't given up on trying to justify others' racism and Islamophobia...

[Blackjack]

"all whom oppose are racists"

the "mosk" (it's a community center near a sacred titty bar) is a Fox Repug Propaganda wedge/inflammatory issue, intentional, fabricated Islamophobia, and the sheeple yelling the loudist are Islamophobes/racists, esp the Manichean "Christians" who see the world as "Christian" warriors vs Islam and anybody else.

You're either a fantastic troll or possibly missing your calling.

People make good money disseminating talking points and being one for "the cause."

[Blackjack]

lol responding in-depth to a person who's given up on them

lol doing so and complaining about the length of post not directed at her

lol Nancy :lmao

[Blake]

lol responding in-depth to a person who's given up on them

lol doing so and complaining about the length of post not directed at her

lol Nancy :lmao

lol responding to a person who he claims he gave up on

lol vaginia :lmao :lmao

[Blackjack]

lol thinking given up on you means anything other than on your intelligence or the topic at hand

lol Vagina comeback

lol Nancy. :lmao

ROTFLMMFAOYRFIIF :rollin

[cool cat]

"all whom oppose are racists"

the "mosk" (it's a community center near a sacred titty bar) is a Fox Repug Propaganda wedge/inflammatory issue, intentional, fabricated Islamophobia, and the sheeple yelling the loudist are Islamophobes/racists, esp the Manichean "Christians" who see the world as "Christian" warriors vs Islam and anybody else.

Fact check: it's a mosque that they want to build there.

From Park51 website "a mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51"

http://www.park51.org/faq.htm

[clambake]

Men bahaving badly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/united-flight-arrested-terror-charges-amsterdam/story?id=11517664

ABC News Exclusive: Two Men on United Flight from Chicago Arrested on 'Preparation of a Terrorist Attack' in Amsterdam

:nope

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/abc_terror_suspects_100830_mn.jpg

:lol made darrins run crazy in his hampster wheel for nothing.

[clambake]

Fact check: it's a mosque that they want to build there.

From Park51 website "a mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51"

http://www.park51.org/faq.htm

fact check: there's a mosque in the pentagon.

[cool cat]

fact check: there's a mosque in the pentagon.

Whose facts are you checking?

[clambake]

Whose facts are you checking?

do muslims consider a mosque as a chapel?

[cool cat]

do muslims consider a mosque as a chapel?

What? You quoted me and said "fact check: there's a mosque in the pentagon". I never talked about the pentagon or if their is a mosque there or not. So I don't understand what you are fact checking.

[clambake]

just trying to remind everyone that muslims worship their faith "in the pentagon".........where bad guys crashed a plane.

where's the outrage on that?

[cool cat]

just trying to remind everyone that muslims worship their faith "in the pentagon".........where bad guys crashed a plane.

where's the outrage on that?

I don't know and I don't care, maybe instead of fact checking random points that no one has made you should make a thread about it and see what happens.

[jack sommerset]

I don't know and I don't care, maybe instead of fact checking random points that no one has made you should make a thread about it and see what happens.

LoL

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know and I don't care, maybe instead of fact checking random points that no one has made you should make a thread about it and see what happens.So what do you care about here?

[jack sommerset]

So what do you care about here?

You need to make some friends.

[cool cat]

So what do you care about here?

Spurs

:flag:

[ChumpDumper]

You need to make some friends.Got plenty. Thanks for your continued interest in me.


Spurs

:flag:What do they have to do with the mosque?

[RandomGuy]

Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left


:lmao

I wish.

"liberalism under seige" bla bla bla bla. :sleep

[jack sommerset]

Got plenty. Thanks for your continued interest in me.

No you don't. You are a liar. LOL at continued interest in you. You stalk people in here and the few times I actually say something about you I get that crazy ass statement. Fucking retard.

[ChumpDumper]

No you don't.Sure I do.
You are a liar.Not about that.
LOL at continued interest in you.I do laugh at your continued interest in me. My personal life has become a hobby to people like you.
You stalk people in here and the few times I actually say something about you I get that crazy ass statement.You say things about me quite often. Like now. that makes you a liar. I predict you will say something about me again very soon.
Fucking retard.Palinesque.

[cool cat]

What do they have to do with the mosque?

Nothing but I answered your question. If you were asking about a mosque you were not specific.

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing but I answered your question. If you were asking about a mosque you were not specific.You were posting about the mosque here, in this thread. I thought you might be able to stay on that train of thought without having your hand held.

Sorry.

[DarrinS]

:lmao

I wish.

"liberalism under seige" bla bla bla bla. :sleep


My sig after November.

[cool cat]

You were posting about the mosque here, in this thread. I thought you might be able to hold that train of thought without having your hand held.

Sorry.

Yes I made a post about the mosque here in this thread. It didn't need clarifying it was not an opinion, so you asking a stupid question like what do I care about didn't apply.

A stupid question deserves a stupid answer.

[DarrinS]

Yes I made a post about the mosque here in this thread. It didn't need clarifying it was not an opinion, so you asking a stupid question like what do I care about didn't apply.

A stupid question deserves a stupid answer.


Don't bother with that dickhead. It's an exercise in futility. He actually has no opinion on anything and just tries to shoot holes at others.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes I made a post about the mosque here in this thread. It didn't need clarifying it was not an opinion, so you asking a stupid question like what do I care about didn't apply.

A stupid question deserves a stupid answer.So you care about nothing else in this thread except clarifying that it is indeed a mosque? Your work here is done forever? If you have no opinion on the mosque, Darrin will hate you. See below.


Don't bother with that dickhead. It's an exercise in futility. He actually has no opinion on anything and just tries to shoot holes at others.Sure I do. You just asked me a stupid question so I gave you a stupid answer.

[cool cat]

So you care about nothing else in this thread except clarifying that it is indeed a mosque? Your work here is done forever? If you have no opinion on the mosque, Darrin will hate you. See below.


No and probably unless you want to ask me another question.

[clambake]

I don't know and I don't care, maybe instead of fact checking random points that no one has made you should make a thread about it and see what happens.

why make another thread about mosque?

all the islamophobes are in here, already.

[ChumpDumper]

NoI already asked you. If it is important to clarify it is a mosque, one would think its being a mosque is significant to you.

Is it?

Do you have an opinion on whether it should be built at that particular location?

[cool cat]

why make another thread about mosque?

all the islamophobes are in here, already.

Well done :toast

[cool cat]

I already asked you. If it is important to clarify it is a mosque, one would think its being a mosque is significant to you.

Is it?

Do you have an opinion on whether it should be built at that particular location?

It's significant to people who say it's just a community center with a pray room. Instead of what it is: a community center with a mosque. If it's not important why make the arguement?

Yes I do have an opinion on wherther it should be built there. I think most people do.

[ChumpDumper]

It's significant to people who say it's just a community center with a pray room. Instead of what it is: a community center with a mosque. If it's not important why make the arguement?

Yes I do have an opinion on wherther it should be built there. I think most people do.And that opinion is?

[cool cat]

And that opinion is?

No sorry I answered several of your questions but you didn't answer mine.

[ChumpDumper]

No sorry I answered several of your questions but you didn't answer mine.
If it's not important why make the arguement?I don't know why other people make their arguments or what they think is important.

Let's stipulate it is important -- you'll notice I already have accepted your characterization that it is a mosque.

What is your opinion of the construction of a mosque at that location?

[cool cat]

I don't know why other people make their arguments or what they think is important.

Let's stipulate it is important -- you'll notice I already have accepted your characterization that it is a mosque.

What is your opinion of the construction of a mosque at that location?

I didn't characterize it as a mosque, the people building it say they are building a mosque there. It's on there website.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't characterize it as a mosque, the people building it say they are building a mosque there. It's on there website.Great.

What is your opinion on the construction of what we have agreed twice is a mosque at that location?

[Blake]

lol thinking given up on you means anything other than on your intelligence or the topic at hand

lol Vagina comeback

lol Nancy. :lmao

ROTFLMMFAOYRFIIF :rollin

lol you thinking that sympathizing with racist and Islamophobic protesters is intelligent

lol you saying you've given up on me and still responding

lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Blackjack]

lol you thinking that sympathizing with racist and Islamophobic protesters is intelligent

lol you saying you've given up on me and still responding

lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

lol racist

lol Islamaphobe

lol bad-taster

lol projection

lol Vagina

lol logging out to visit my page

lol ...








http://bluedoglove.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/nancy_kerrigan31.jpg


:rollin

[Winehole23]

btw it's spelled vaginia, with an undercase v. :lol

[Blackjack]

Unlike Nancy, I gave him the benefit of a doubt. Figured he took creative license with a proper name. :lol

But it's now been proven he not only had his head in his ass but both 'I's in his vagina.

Oh, and ...


Who specifically exactly are you talking about that is a supporter of the 9-11 acts?

lol Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan :rollin

[RandomGuy]

My sig after November.

I have little doubt that Democrats will lose seats come November.

Quite frankly, I am hoping for a real rout.

I won't even mind too terribly if Obama loses in 2012, as long as Palin isn't on the ticket.

A good chunk of the mess we are in is due, in no small part, to failed Republican policies, and "business friendly" attitudes that put narrow business intrests ahead of the wider public good. The GOP has controlled congress for most of the last two decades.

The mess we are in will probably be rather sustained, and ultimately require tax increases or spending cuts of the sort that Republicans seem to be unable to muster the poltical will to vote for.

The continuing economic malaise will then fall squarely on the GOP. The fact that they would rather run up the deficit than raise taxes will be the long term death knell for the party when the butcher's bill comes due.

[TeyshaBlue]

btw it's spelled vaginia, with an undercase v. :lol

Unless it's a proper noun.:nope

/Sister Grammar.:lol

[Blake]

lol racist

lol Islamaphobe

lol bad-taster

lol projection

yes, I lol at those

but you already made it clear that you don't. You respect their decision to be racist and Islamphobic


lol logging out to visit my page

lol ...

lol I have no reason to visit your page

lol paranoia

lol racism

lol Islamophobia

lol lol lol ...


http://bluedoglove.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/nancy_kerrigan31.jpg


:rollin

lol you are so through with talking to me that you keep on talking to me.....and taking extra time to dig up and post a pictures of an ice skater.

lol pussy hurt

lol vaginia

:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Spurminator]

The continuing economic malaise will then fall squarely on the GOP.

Before which they will find a reason to go to war with someone.

[Blake]

Unlike Nancy, I gave him the benefit of a doubt. Figured he took creative license with a proper name. :lol

But it's now been proven he not only had his head in his ass but both 'I's in his vagina.

clearly you have been proven to be a pussy that won't answer simple questions.


Oh, and ...

lol Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan :rollin

what does an Obama troop surge in Afghanistan have to do with racist/Islamophobic opposition to the mosque in New York near ground zero?

Don't beat around your bush, pussy. Be specific and get to the point.

[Blake]

Unless it's a proper noun.:nope

/Sister Grammar.:lol

naw, I think it's fine

/blake grammar

[Blackjack]

yes, I lol at those

but you already made it clear that you don't. You respect their decision to be racist and Islamphobic



lol I have no reason to visit your page

lol paranoia

lol racism

lol Islamophobia

lol lol lol ...



lol you are so through with talking to me that you keep on talking to me.....and taking extra time to dig up and post a pictures of an ice skater.

lol pussy hurt

lol vaginia

:rollin:rollin:rollin


clearly you have been proven to be a pussy that won't answer simple questions.



what does an Obama troop surge in Afghanistan have to do with racist/Islamophobic opposition to the mosque in New York near ground zero?

Don't beat around your bush, pussy. Be specific and get to the point.

http://ultimatedroid.com/u-mad1.jpg

:rollin

[Blake]

http://ultimatedroid.com/u-mad1.jpg

:rollin

lol simple question

lol more pictures

:rollin:rollin



what does an Obama troop surge in Afghanistan have to do with racist/Islamophobic opposition to the mosque in New York near ground zero?

Don't beat around your bush, pussy. Be specific and get to the point.

[Blackjack]

what does an Obama troop surge in Afghanistan have to do with racist/Islamophobic opposition to the mosque in New York near ground zero?


People I know and believe to be out there:

They take exception with the extremist element and they resent the fact this Imam and the people responsible for the building of the community center would be as insensitive as to not take that into consideration. From their understanding, this mosque is not being placed in an under-served community, the logistics of the Muslim community and commute makes little-to-no sense to build it where they're building it, and they had plenty of options available to build the center in a better or just more sensible venue. There were options available that wouldn't have brought forth the emotion of 9-11 and they resent the fact they wouldn't choose one of them -- common sense would lead anyone to believe the groups and supporters of those who perpetrated the acts would spin the new community center as a gift from Allah and some kind of positive sign to their cause.



Who specifically exactly are you talking about that is a supporter of the 9-11 acts?

And other than high fiving each other, what is a literal victory in hand that they can lay claim to?


lol Obama's non-related troop surge to 9-11:



Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -- and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies -- have been killed or captured around the world.



The only thing I've taken exception to is the belief that all whom oppose are racists. They're ALL coming from a place hatred, fear or are simply stupid.



Exactly. So why do you take exception to it when someone else says it?

lol making sweeping generalizations that ALL whom oppose are racists, Islamaphobes or stupid on the basis of no facts

lol projection, by way of guilty conscience

lol the irony

lol Nancy having her head so far up her ass she's got 2 'I's in her vagina and could use her clit as a nose guard

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0910/head-up-her-ass-head-up-ass-we-all-know-one-motivational-ron-demotivational-poster-1256790516.jpg


:rollin

[Blake]

my question


what does an Obama troop surge in Afghanistan have to do with racist/Islamophobic opposition to the mosque in New York near ground zero?

your response:




People I know and believe to be out there:

They take exception with the extremist element and they resent the fact this Imam and the people responsible for the building of the community center would be as insensitive as to not take that into consideration. From their understanding, this mosque is not being placed in an under-served community, the logistics of the Muslim community and commute makes little-to-no sense to build it where they're building it, and they had plenty of options available to build the center in a better or just more sensible venue. There were options available that wouldn't have brought forth the emotion of 9-11 and they resent the fact they wouldn't choose one of them -- common sense would lead anyone to believe the groups and supporters of those who perpetrated the acts would spin the new community center as a gift from Allah and some kind of positive sign to their cause.

so you are saying that because these extremists that are "afar" are viewing this as a gift from Allah, Obama pushed for a troop surge in Afghanistan.

you're an idiot. :lol



lol Obama's non-related troop surge to 9-11:


Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -- and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies -- have been killed or captured around the world.

so you are saying part of Al Qaeda's plot was to build a community center in New York City.

Victory!

You're an idiot. :lol


lol making sweeping generalizations that ALL whom oppose are racists, Islamaphobes or stupid on the basis of no facts

lol I have facts that there are people who fit those categories

lol you have provided no other options upon request


lol projection, by way of guilty conscience

lol I don't project

lol I have a clear conscience


lol the irony

lol there's no irony


lol Nancy having her head so far up her ass she's got 2 'I's in her vagina and could use her clit as a nose guard

lol you're simply a pussy


http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0910/head-up-her-ass-head-up-ass-we-all-know-one-motivational-ron-demotivational-poster-1256790516.jpg

lol more severe butthurt pictures


:rollin

:rollin:rollin

[Winehole23]

Before which they will find a reason to go to war with someone.*They* could be Obama.

[Spurminator]

*They* could be Obama.

If re-elected, no doubt. Maybe even before then. I was just amending RG's scenario.

[Winehole23]

Rec'd. :tu

[Blake]

Before which they will find a reason to go to war with someone.

Seems to me we are doing are best to find reasons not go to war with someone like say...North Korea....

which is good.....but it seems to me we had a lot less reason to go to war in other places......

[Winehole23]

NK ain't Iran.

[Blake]

NK ain't Iran.

I guess NK has too many WMDs?

[Winehole23]

Deterrence?

I think the unclassified answer is that NK has the technical capability to strike the west coast of the USA. Is that deterrence?

Dunno.

[Winehole23]

(That's from George Tenet's testimony before Congress, recalled by heart. Early aughts or thereabouts.)

[Blake]

Deterrence?

I think the unclassified answer is that NK has the technical capability to strike the west coast of the USA. Is that deterrence?

Dunno.

I dunno either. Mostly tongue in cheek. Maybe one day we will see Team America in action for realz against KJ Il.

[Winehole23]

You say that like it might be a good thing. I'm more hoping they'll cave in all on their own.

[Blake]

You say that like it might be a good thing.

aw, no way.

The movie however, was a good thing, imo.

“Freedom isn’t free.... No, there’s a hefty fucking fee.”

http://upcomingdiscs.com/ecs_covers/team-america-world-police-unrate-large.jpg

[Winehole23]

I LOLd. (@Team America: World Police)

[Blackjack]

so you are saying that because these extremists that are "afar" are viewing this as a gift from Allah, Obama pushed for a troop surge in Afghanistan.

you're an idiot. :lol

:lmao

lol your understanding of the English language and/or attempts to move the goal posts by answering and asking questions never asked or answered


so you are saying part of Al Qaeda's plot was to build a community center in New York City.

Victory!

You're an idiot. :lol

That's a hell of a nose guard, Nancy lol


lol I have facts that there are people who fit those categories

lol you have provided no other options upon request

lol "I have facts" and it's that all whom oppose are racist, ignorant, Islamophobic morons because I say so

lol pot calling kettle one black sonbitch


lol I don't project

lol I have a clear conscience


lol denial


lol there's no irony

lol not seeing the irony in proclaiming an entire segment of the population to be monolithic in their views in being intolerable, stupid racists

lol Nancy's stereotyping, generalizations and bigotry


lol you're simply a pussy

lol you giving up on vagina, I mean, Vaginia :lmao


lol more severe butthurt pictures

lol it being a rather common symptom for those -- like yourself -- with their head that far up their ass

lol you're a fuckin' beauty, Nancy.


:rollin :rollin :rollin

[Blake]

:lmao

lol your understanding of the English language and/or attempts to move the goal posts by answering and asking questions never asked or answered

There is no moving of the goal posts. I made it absolutely crystal clear that my question was based on your post and will do so again:

your post



lol Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan :rollin

my post


what does an Obama troop surge in Afghanistan have to do with racist/Islamophobic opposition to the mosque in New York near ground zero?




That's a hell of a nose guard, Nancy lol

You're a hell of a pussy, vaginia.


lol "I have facts" and it's that all whom oppose are racist, ignorant, Islamophobic morons because I say so

lol I have facts that there are those that fit those categories.

lol STILL waiting for you to provide more categories.

LMAO at your butthurt.


lol pot calling kettle one black sonbitch

lol I am calling you one huge, illiterate dumbfuck


lol not seeing the irony in proclaiming an entire segment of the population to be monolithic in their views in being intolerable, stupid racists

lol Nancy's stereotyping, generalizations and bigotry

lol there is no irony, only me asking what more is it if it's not racism or Islamophobia

lol at your continued failure to answer

lol at your continued butthurt


lol you're a fuckin' beauty, Nancy.


:rollin :rollin :rollin

your sympathy for racism and Islamophobia is ugly, vaginia

:(

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm not interested in calling you a vagina or otherwise being an asshole to you, but nothing you've said has addressed the points I made, Black. I appreciate that you spent the time to write a considered reply, but I feel like you didn't actually craft a response as much as re-articulated a point I had already proven unfeasible.

Blake may be on your shit-list, but he pointed out all the problems in your position, whether you are aware of it or not. I'd say more, but it's been said already.

[Blake]

I'm not interested in calling you a vagina or otherwise being an asshole to you.

I found it fascinating that he was interested in calling me a nancy instead of answering a rather simple question if what he claims is true.

[admiralsnackbar]

I found it fascinating that he was interested in calling me a nancy instead of answering a rather simple question if what he claims is true.

It does seem unnecessary how things escalated between y'all, but if a conversation gets caught on a point where neither side is willing to concede, I guess things can only get progressively more redundant and shitty eventually. Oh well.

[Blake]

It does seem unnecessary how things escalated between y'all, but if a conversation gets caught on a point where neither side is willing to concede, I guess things can only get progressively more redundant and shitty eventually. Oh well.

nothing new

/messageboards

[admiralsnackbar]

nothing new

/messageboards

Word.

[LnGrrrR]

Blackjack, you still haven't described why you respect the morality of people whose morality is ill-informed. (As I said upthread, would you respect the morals of NAMBLA members who thought it was moral to sleep with little children?)

[DarrinS]

It's weird how a statistically insignificant number of reported Toyota problems leads to Toyota spending billions of dollars, having their brand tainted, and having their president grilled before congress.

I'm sure not ALL Toyotas are coffins on wheels.

But just don't apply the same principle to a few "defective" Muslims.


EDIT> And Toyota had to apologize PROFUSELY for their recalls.

[LnGrrrR]

It's weird how a statistically insignificant number of reported Toyota problems leads to Toyota spending billions of dollars, having their brand tainted, and having their president grilled before congress.

I'm sure not ALL Toyotas are coffins on wheels.

But just don't apply the same principle to a few "defective" Muslims.


EDIT> And Toyota had to apologize PROFUSELY for their recalls.

I know alot of Christians who have cheated on their wives. Funny how I don't just assume that every Christian cheats.

I know alot of southerners who believe atheists are evil. Funny how I don't just assume that every Southerner is ignorant.

I know alot of people who can think before they speak. Funny how I don't just assume DarrinS can do the same.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's weird how a statistically insignificant number of reported Toyota problems leads to Toyota spending billions of dollars, having their brand tainted, and having their president grilled before congress.

I'm sure not ALL Toyotas are coffins on wheels.

But just don't apply the same principle to a few "defective" Muslims.


EDIT> And Toyota had to apologize PROFUSELY for their recalls.

Jesus... that is the weakest shit I've heard all week. Are we allowed to conflate manufacturers and religions and say both manufacture little automatons?

[DarrinS]

I know alot of Christians who have cheated on their wives. Funny how I don't just assume that every Christian cheats.

I know alot of southerners who believe atheists are evil. Funny how I don't just assume that every Southerner is ignorant.

I know alot of people who can think before they speak. Funny how I don't just assume DarrinS can do the same.


Wake me up when any of those groups murder 3000 people.

[DarrinS]

Jesus... that is the weakest shit I've heard all week. Are we allowed to conflate manufacturers and religions and say both manufacture little automatons?


Hey, I even gave them the benefit of the doubt by saying they were "defective" (i.e. nuts) instead of saying what they really were.

[admiralsnackbar]

Wake me up when any of those groups murder 3000 people.

Try the Crusades.

[admiralsnackbar]

Hey, I even gave them the benefit of the doubt by saying they were "defective" (i.e. nuts) instead of saying what they really were.

:lol which is what? Don't be coy, now.

[DarrinS]

Try the Crusades.


Try relevance

[admiralsnackbar]

Try relevance

I suggest you follow your advice.

[Blake]

It's weird how a statistically insignificant number of reported Toyota problems leads to Toyota spending billions of dollars, having their brand tainted, and having their president grilled before congress.

I'm sure not ALL Toyotas are coffins on wheels.

But just don't apply the same principle to a few "defective" Muslims.


EDIT> And Toyota had to apologize PROFUSELY for their recalls.

Toyota had to apologize because a lot of people paid to own their vehicles

I agree.......don't apply the same principle because it's a hardcore analogy fail.

[AFBlue]

Wake me up when any of those groups murder 3000 people.

I don't have the history on this debate, but I'd like to comment on something you said...

Christians have been murdering people for centuries in the name of Christianity.

It continues more slowly today, but I'd say every Christian that decides it's morally acceptable to kill a doctor who performs abortions or blow up an abortion clinic would meet the same criteria as Islamic fundamentalists that distort their religion to justify an immoral act.

[Blake]

Wake me up when any of those groups murder 3000 people.

Wake us up when Toyota attacks.

[DarrinS]

I don't have the history on this debate, but I'd like to comment on something you said...

Christians have been murdering people for centuries in the name of Christianity.

It continues more slowly today, but I'd say every Christian that decides it's morally acceptable to kill a doctor who performs abortions or blow up an abortion clinic would meet the same criteria as Islamic fundamentalists that distort their religion to justify an immoral act.


Tavis. That you?

LOL @ Columbine. Really? Really?

eH0YYic_JpY

[ChumpDumper]

Terrorist Toyotas?

DarrinS is an idiot.