The Stewart & Oliver exchange at the end is one of the best I’ve seen yet.
Recent Comments
- John C: Yes there is friend, but you can’t know/see Him in (y)our... on God Hates Checkered Whiptail Lizards!!!
- Adamf: There ain’t no god, it aint truth, and you are a pathetic... on God Hates Checkered Whiptail Lizards!!!
- Stony: My [highly conservative] family delight in calling on the ghost... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- trj: Any ideas? Well, the Bible is cobbled together by a lot of contributors, and though... on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- Manny: I’m a bit confused the more I read the Bible. Some of it just doesn’t... on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- sdbear: Does it matter to anyone that what he said is simply the truth? on Cult Leaders vs The Pope
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
I agree that it’s too soon to be building Catholic churches next to playgrounds.
This is actually an argument that is a lot more sound. A tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists but a much larger percentage of Catholic priests are child molesters.
I agree with Jon Stewart, hardy har har….. dick
Glenn Beck == OWNED! Does he know that people can record the crap he says and refer to it later?
He’s banked millions on that fact…
I liked Keith Olberman’s comments on this topic. He pointed out that there is already an Islamic prayer facility in the neighborhood (in a basement) and two churches which are closer to the world Trade Center site.
i love the fact that this is so clever, and actually pretty damn balanced. stewart gets to the real issue here, in my opinion, which is that people are over-reacting and frenzied about the whole thing. if people like beck are flip-flopping, it’s hard to believe that they have any real opinion about this in the first place.
I am not sure I understand the comparison between the Boston Massacre, Catholic Churches (pedophilia), Yamakas, and building a mosque proposed by Imam Rauf. I think Stewart is trying to say that the only issue going on here is simply insensitivity (and of course he does so in a joking manner). However, the only difference between the former three examples and the example of the mosque is, when I take the subway down to Times Square, I neither worry about being fired upon by a British regular, nor do I worry about being fondled by a Catholic priest (or a Rabbi, or an Imam for that matter) and I do not even worry about Christ being killed by the Jews because as it is written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Jews were actually not responsible for the death of Christ. We can thank the Romans for that one. And no, just for the record I do not fear being crucified by Romans in Times Square either.
However, one thing that often does run through my mind is the possibility that I might enter the city right when another group of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists decide to kill 3,000 more innocent Americans. The difference between the mosque and the other three examples is that the problems associated with the mosque are real, present, and actually threatening. It is the moral obligation of the United States government to mitigate in affairs, both present and domestic, that pose a clear and present threat to its (the United States’) people. To know Imam Rauf’s true intentions may be impossible as they are probably known only by Rauf, but to say the man makes statements and acts in ways beyond any sort of reproach would be a dangerous and false assumption. Don’t believe me? Go to any search engine and try to find a bit about the man; some of his “peace loving” statements, and some of the people he has hired in the past. I am not so sure that the U.S. should leave the decision to build the mosque on Rauf’s shoulders.
It may be politically correct to say that this mosque issue holds the same kind of pertinence as the Catholic Church priest scandal and the Boston Massacre. If anyone wants to buy an apartment and live next door the mosque, be my guest. I’ll be in a suburb far away enjoying tea and crumpets with Winston (my close chap from London), Father Don, my friend Uriah with his Yamaka on, on this upcoming Good Friday, right smack dab in the middle of Boston Common.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
Are you in a suburb or smack dab in the middle of the Boston Common?
Whether the mosque is built there or not will make absolutely no impact on the ability of islamic terrorists to blow you up as you ride the subway so your attempt to make it about security and not bigotry is a load of crap. In the wake of the Oklahoma city bombing why aren’t you concerned about young white males blowing you up? Timothy Mcveigh Was raised catholic and was a registered republican, a member of the NRA and served in the US army. Should we consider it dangerous or insensitive to have Catholic churches, army bases or offices of either the republican party or the NRA in Oklahoma city?
Ya know, if you just said “I don’t trust this Rauf guy, and here’s why…” followed by a list of links, we might take you more seriously.
But instead you obfuscated your points through layers and layers of flowery almost sermon-like language. That kind of crap doesn’t work on us, make your arguments clear and be prepared to defend them vigorously with logic and citations.
Kodie, let’s just say I am in a safe place, hopefully. ;)
Yoav,
I agree with the fact that terrorist activities (from Islamic terrorists) can definitely take place with or without the presence of this new mosque. But is it possible that this location may give them a strategic foothold or advancement in any number of attacks they may have planned? If I wanted to bomb a foreign country, it may make it easier for me to carry my mission to a successful completion if I have 1,000 followers of an organization in the target area under the guise of “peace loving”. Furthermore, men who Imam Rauf has hired personally have been quoted as saying that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda are NOT terrorist in nature and that the true terrorists are Americans and Jews. Where Imam Rauf himself stands on such issues remains somewhat stultified as he seems to have never agreed with any negative comments made about both al-Qaeda and Hesbollah. For all we know, Rauf may be funding such organizations as we speak and may be able to fund better with a new mosque and more people in his organization.
I am going to switch to speaking about Timothy McVeigh and how his attacks were clearly different from Islamic terrorist activities. First and foremost, McVeigh’s actions were out of psychological disturbance uncoupled with religious intent. McVeigh was not trying to make any kind of religiopolitical statement with his attack and when he did attack, no one was up in arms about Catholicism or Christianity as support for the religion had nothing to do with his attack. What Imam Rauf is doing is feuling explicit religious tensions in an area that had previously experienced devastating death tolls due to ISLAMIC fundamentalism. Whereas it is extremely difficult to tell when any random citizen (McVeigh) will commit a heinous act, it remains statistically much easier to ASSUME that a shady religious (Islamic) leader such as Imam Rauf may pose an actual threat. Whereas Timothy McVeigh is responsible for one terrorist act, allow me to remind you of some of the Islamic terrorist acts in the modern world.
1. U.S. presidential candidate Rober Kennedy murdered by Arab terrorist group member Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angele on June 5, 1968.
2. 11 Olympic athletes killed in the Munich Olympics in 1972.
3. 38 people shot to death, including the nice of U.S. Senator Ribicoff on a beach near Tel Aviv in 1978.
4. Suicide truck boms in Lebanon, 1st crashed into lobby of US Marine Crops Headquarters, 241 Marines dead, 82 seriousy injured, the 2nd was French compounds killing 58 paratroopers. Oct 3, 1983.
5. Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York, blown up over Scotland by a bomb. All 259 passengers killed, including 35 students from Syracuse University. Dec. 21 1988.
6. World trade Center in New York badly damaged by a massive bomb by Islamic terrorists. The van bomb was planted in an underground garage and left 6 people dead and 1042 injured. Billion dollars worth of damage. Feb. 26 1993.
7. 4 U.S. jetliners hijacked and forced to crash into the World Trade Center adn the Pentagon like missiles, and 1 crashed on the way to the Capital building in D.C. In all, 266 people persiehd in the four planes, 2602 people were killed on the ground, plus 343 firefighters, and 184 people at the Pentagon. Almost 5000 inured, 500 rescue workers now have respiratory ailment including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, acute sarcoidosis, etc. Seven buildings collapsed in NY and 23 damaged, plus 4 subway stations. September 11, 2001.
This list was severely abridged….it would take me all day to keep writing these.
I’m sorry, Yoav, but if I had to place my bet on the next terrorist attack to hit the U.S. I’m not going to be thinking White Christian.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
Have you heard about the recent threat that was thwarted in Michigan? The Hutaree, iirc. Had it not been for them being caught, you’d actually have lost your bet.
Dear brgulker,
I think it is an excellent point that you bring up the Hutaree and it can even play a good role in strengthening my argument. In terms of using it to refute me, I feel you missed my point so please allow me to clarify. I noticed that a few other people have commented on the posts I have made, so I will try to answer you in this one statement. I would answer all individually but I should get back to work.
I was not trying to say in my former post that I know for a fact whether or not a White Christian fundamentalist or an Islamic fundamentalist would make the next attack. I was trying to say that we need to be able to use past events to guide our decision making and help us make logical, informative decisions in the future. That being said, the same kind of reasoning I am using to MAYBE disallow Imam Rauf from building his mosque in NYC can be used against certain members of the Hutaree as well.
It can be assumed that there are a select few members of the Hutaree who were involved in meetings, rallies, and hateful and violent speech over the past several years, who were not indicted, for one reason or another, in the recent occurence in Michigan. Now, technically, every one of those Hutaree members who fell through the cracks has every inalienable right as promised to the citizens of the United States of America. But, if you as an individual who happens to know of this individual’s lifestyle are willing to subject yourself, your family, and your friends to being in close proximity to this person (even after knowing of their hateful speech and violent connections) than you are doing all of the people you care about, including yourself, a disservice. What if this person was a teacher at the local public school where you send your children? Does this person have the right to exercise his ability to teach? Yes, he does. But, as I have stated. If you send your five year old daughter into the classroom without even batting an eyelash then perhaps you should not have children.
I digress. The real issue here is not the Hutaree, it’s Imam Rauf. Yoav, you asked me, what is the safest distance between a Muslim (I’m guessing you also mean mosque/anything Muslim in nature) and a potential target. My question for you is how many American citizens have to be killed on their own soil by Islamic terrorists before you start to say to yourself, I (personally) do not want Muslim organizations or people who sympathize with Muslim terrorist groups around our cities (any city) and our children. I mean, the man point blank said the guys and gals over at Al-Qaeda aren’t so bad. Do you want to see a snuff film of one of them slicing the head off of a migrant worker from Nepal? Anyone who condones that just is not ok in my book so I am going to call it how I see it and say that if you are ok with Al-Qaeda, I am not ok with you in my backyard whether its 23rd street, 42nd street or Michigan. I mean really Yoav, how many snuff films will it take? How many planes going into buildings? You are so preoccupied with your idea of rights that you haven’t taken a step back and asked yourself WHOSE rights you are trying to defend.
Will Imam Rauf be granted the ability to build his mosque wherever he wants? Probably.
Will he technically have the right to do it? Yes.
Should he do it? If the purpose of his mission is to build a peace loving dialogue in a multi-faith community then by all means no. He should know better.
Should people now people look at former members of the Hutaree who are walking free askance? Undoubtedly yes.
Should the rights of those radical Christians who are walking free be challenged or at least brought into question? Yes, not doing so would not be prudent.
Should the rights of Imam Rauf with his questionable statements concerning Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda be challenged or at least brought into question? Yes, not doing so would not be prudent.
Most importantly,
God Bless
More, more importantly.
Gandalf bless
(you scared impotent little person)
Like I pointed before, terrorist activities can be planed and staged out of a private apartment you don’t actually need an official mosque or community center for that. At least you finally willing to admit that it’s not about security but about your discomfort around muslims in general. What would you suggest, do you think that all muslim americans should be rounded and incarcerated in interment camps on the of chance that some of them may be terrorists or even terrorist sympathizers. Law enforcement and intelligence services are there to look for people who are actively planing attacks. In your previous post you claimed that Rauf himself never commented about Hamas or Hezbulla but in this one you assert that he support them, have you discovered additional evidence between the two posts or are you just full of it? So just stop pretending that it’s about safety and security and admit that you’re a racist bigot. Have a nice day.
Yaov,
Calm down. I am not a racist bigot. If I was a racist bigot, I would not have said that people need to be wary of the Hutaree. Instead, I would have said, “all we need to worry about is these Muslims.” Which, I did not say. Furthermore, I said that Imam Rauf never “agreed with negative comments” made about Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda. In other words, people have asked him if he thinks that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization capable of dangerous and violent acts. Instead of saying the correct answer, which is yes, Rauf simply did not agree with the person asking the question, and claimed that Al-Qaeda is actually a legitimate organization in his opinion.
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS%20WP%202006-7.web.pdf
Read page 14, it discusses the IHH; Rauf funds this organization. This article was written by an impartial Danish researcher.
Furthermore, and most importantly, the reason I raise these arguments has everything to do with national security and the safety of American lives. No one at this point, including the FBI or our other intelligence agencies have been able to find enough credible evidence to ban Imam Rauf. However, our system of law is extremely stultified and sometimes coming up with the NECESSARY information can be almost impossible even when every logical conclusion points to the fact that this person is definitely shady and quite possibly dangerous. The fact that you are not willing to combat me on my argument that included being wary of the Hutaree means that you are an individual who lacks natural survival skills and is more interested in thinking about rosy-colored rights and cute constitutional sayings then to worry about the reality of needing to stay safe and needing to stay aware. When I was in grammar school I loved the idea that everyone in the U.S.A. and in some other countries have been granted all these rights. But then I grew up and realized that that is just not the way the world works. You have to be real, you have to be smart, and trying to fruitlessly fight to preserve the rights of a dangerous and impertinent “religious” man will definitely bring more pain than good.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
You may not be a “bigot,” but you are an idiot.
Whoa, ma’am. That’s what a terrorist wants us to do! They are getting us to destroy the foundation of our country by getting people like you to attack the freedoms and liberties without measuring the cost. You don’t know when they will come for you. You think you’re the one on the right side, it’s only your safety that matters, you will take away someone else’s rights to pretend you are safe from everything. That is rosy-colored thinking. I’m also vaguely interested in which constitutional rights you’re not willing to budge. The document exists so we can point to it when you think you count more than someone else, that your emotions and fears count more than equal coverage of freedom for everyone. What the F is safety? Without Constitutional Rights, what about our nation or national identity is worth preserving? Borders? People? Muslims aren’t your problem, when you don’t have freedoms, you don’t have the US, you’re in another country altogether.
I would rather they build this mosque where everyone can see it, not building it will not make the Muslims go away, you just won’t know where they are. Does that make you feel all better?
He has condemned the actions of Al-Qaeda in no uncertain terms, stating that they’re a terrorist organisation and that violence has no place in Islam. The confusion comes from the fact that he went on to say that US foreign policy was a factor in encouraging Muslim violence against America, an opinion echoed by Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson.
You’re right that he doesn’t denounce Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but declaring them so is far less clear cut than with Al-Qaeda. I’m inclined to cut him some slack on that, unless you have something more substantial.
How many people have to be killed by the catholic church before you start to say to yourself I do not want catholic organizations or people who sympathize with catholic terrorist groups around our cities and our children?
I’m not asking this to be a dick. And I’m certainly not asking because I endorse islam.
But taking the approach you endorsed in your last post (“we need to be able to use past events to guide our decision making and help us make logical, informative decisions in the future”) (a statement I fully agree with by the way) one would inevitably come to the conclusion that christianity has a far bloodier track record than islam. If we are going to tell muslims that they can’t have mosques because they are dangerous then we should tell christians they can’t build churches because they are more dangerous than mosques. Of course that would mean getting rid of that whole freedom of religion thing, and that is a bad trade off for everyone. No group will always be the majority in every time at every place. So the only way anyone gets freedom of religious expression is if everyone gets freedom of religious expression (or expression of no religion). Just because you do not feel comfortable around people of other faiths does not mean they should have less of a right to practice their faith than you have to practice yours.
As a person who is philosophically opposed to islam on almost every possible level, I don’t like having to defend an oppressive and intolerant religion on grounds of religious tolerance, but whether you or I like it or not, the fact remains. If muslims are denied the freedom to pray to allah, then your freedom to pray to jesus, and my freedom to not pray to Jesus mean absolutely nothing.
Nox,
I am replying to you as you seem the most level headed. I think that you raise a good point, but only if we were living during the Inquisition. If I was a European of any faith (including catholicism) living hundreds of years ago then I would probably (naturally) be extremely wary and probably alter the way I lived my life personally (especially if I resided under the power of the Spanish monarch.)
However, from the year 1900 and beyond, what has the Catholic Church endorsed or committed that has come anything close to the terrorist activities that Islamic fundamentalists have committed? The Roman Catholic Church has no standing army, no allegiance to any army, and occupies its own central governing body in Rome aka the Vatican Holy See.
A friend who I have spoken about this calls to mind the same exact argument that you are using. If we disallow Imam Rauf to build his mosque, then we all lose the right to free religion. I personally do not agree with that and do not see how one can make the jump from disallowing a dangerous and questionable man from practicing his religion the way he wishes to taking away my and your rights to be religious or not. In other words, if we deny this man the right to build a mosque where he wants to build it, I would not feel as though my right to pray or my right to practice or not practice religion would be taken away. In fact, I might feel a little bit safer walking to ground zero to say a prayer. Just as I would feel safer praying in Michigan knowing that those right wing fundamentalist Christians were brought to justice.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
So you think it’s safer to suspect all Muslims. You enjoy your freedom, go ahead, take it for granted, pray, go to Ground Zero and pray. Steal that right from someone else who loves their god as much as you love yours, and you have just broken America.
That’s right. By preferring your religion to Islam, the government has thereby established a religion: everything except Islam. Meanwhile, I keep hearing rumblings that fundamentalist Christians are stockpiling weapons and ammunition and basic survival goods in bunkers. Who are these nuts? Why do we let them stay here, what are they up to? Seriously, your false sense of safety means nothing to me at all.
I find the evidence for Rauf being a radical rather weak. Some claims about whether or not he was willing to use the word terrorist (the same attacks your buddies at fix noise made against Obama after the underwear bomber) and, OH THE HORROR, his organization once used the same building as another islamic group that was later found to have some radical connections. Hardly a terrorist mastermind. However the issue is much bigger then any one person, are we willing to let fear dictate our lives and throw a way concepts like freedom to placate unreasonable terrors. If we do then the terrorists won and as others have pointed before you can never know if you are going to be next to be on the wrong end of such a thing.
nextdoorneighbor,
I appreciate the “level headed” comment, and I don’t think anyone here is unaware of the very real issue of islamic extremism or the dangers associated with it. But there is not as much of a jump as you might suspect between “disallowing a dangerous and questionable man from practicing his religion the way he wishes” and “taking away my and your rights to be religious or not”. The Establishment Clause is not just rosy sounding. And it was not an accident. It was a sensible reaction to seeing Europe decimated by religious war. Catholics were persecuted in protestant countries and protestants were persecuted in catholic countries. This is why YOUR right to pray or practice religion would be taken away if Rauf is not allowed to build the Cordoba Center. Because you either have freedom of religious expression or you do not.
By the way, we did already try arresting muslims without solid evidence based on their philosophies and associations in the aftermath of 9/11. In addition to providing almost no valuable intelligence whatsoever, the rendition program managed to severely weaken our credibility in addressing human rights issues, and in general made us the assholes of the international community (google:”Waterboarding”).
Hitler?
Mussolini, Pinochet, Franco, Salazar, Duvalier. Not to mention the fight against condom use in Africa directly contributing to countless deaths and widespread child rape.
Wintermute,
You are uneducated at best. Adolf Hitler stood for no religion. Though he was raised Catholic, the outcome of WWI led him to defy his faith and made him realize that religion is only present to benefit clergy. By the time the Holocaust came along, Hitler committed all of his atrocities in the name of GERMANY, not CHRISTIANITY. There are these things called libraries. They contain these things called books. Maybe you should hop your liberal ass to one and start reading.
Yaov,
The same thing goes for you, none of the dictators you listed above used Christianity or Catholicism (or Judaism) as a means to their end. None of these men killed in the name of Jesus or God. Muslim terrorists kill in the name of Islam. They are engaged in something referred to as “religious warfare”. dictators do not = religious warfare. Furthermore, Duvalier wasn’t actually Christian , he practiced VOODOO in Haiti. READ A BOOK.
“You are uneducated at best. Adolf Hitler stood for no religion. Though he was raised Catholic, the outcome of WWI led him to defy his faith and made him realize that religion is only present to benefit clergy. By the time the Holocaust came along, Hitler committed all of his atrocities in the name of GERMANY, not CHRISTIANITY. There are these things called libraries. They contain these things called books. Maybe you should hop your liberal ass to one and start reading. ”
You’re right, books are awesome.
You should check out some of the ones that show Catholic priests blessing the weapons of SS soldiers before they go into battle, or the various German Catholic Priests who loudly supported Hitler in his attacks on the Jews.
You are calling someone else uneducated?
Another data point for my hypothesis that true believers can not detect irony.
But most important
your god can kiss my ass
Francois (Papa doc) Duvalier was raised catholic, after taking power he created a personality cult that combined elements of voodoo and Christianity. While officially not supporting him the catholic church helped his son Jean-Claude (baby doc) by expelling Jean-Bertrand Aristide from the priesthood on the claim that it’s not his job to oppose blood thirsty crazy dictators and arranging a PR photo-op with mother Theresa.
My point isn’t that Hitler killed the Jews because he was Catholic. My point is that the Catholic Church, all the way up to Pope Pius XII, supported and encouraged the killing of Jews, and was directly involved in handing over Jews to Hitler’s troops so that they could be killed.
Whatever Hitler’s personal beliefs it does, however, remain a fact that his speeches designed to sell the idea of killing all the Jews was based on explicitly religious reasoning, not only from Catholic sources, but also drawing strongly on the anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther. It’s clear that Hitler believed that the Christian faith (whether Catholic or Protestant) was the primary motivation for the majority of people involved in the Holocaust.
Yes, well, that’s rather the point, isn’t it? It’s not just your right. It’s also my right, and Rauf’s right.
So I took your advice and hopped my liberal ass down to a library to see what these book things are. Turns out there’s one called Mein Kampf that was actually written by this Hitler guy before that whole holocaust thing happened. And then right there in the second chapter I come across this puzzling sentence.
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
-Adolph Hitler
-Mein Kampf
That’s weird. That random muslim hating sock puppet on the internet just said Hitler stood for no religion. But Hitler says he was on a mission from god. And it’s in a book. But the random muslim hating sock puppet on the internet also said I should read books. Man now I am so confused. Oh wait here’s another book. The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, maybe this will shed some light on things.
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”
-Adolph Hitler
-From a speech on April 12th, 1922
Wow, that guy on the internet was right. Reading books is an interesting way to find out interesting information. But since the sock puppeteer probably does not actually read actual books and will not go to the work of actually verifying these quotes and finding out that they are real, I recommend to whatever the f*ck you are now calling yourself to simply do a google image search for “hitler pope” “reichskonkordat” or “hitler praying” if you honestly believe the holocaust was not an extension of christian anti-semitism.
@alittlereason — just to be clear here, have you changed your name from ‘nextdoorneighbor’ or are you trying to pretend you’re someone else?
Not only the Hutaree, but there was Joseph Stack (a white conservative Baptist) who flew a plane into a government building in Austin, Texas in a premeditated act of violence.
Also in Texas, Patrick Gray Sharp (a white conservative Baptist) just yesterday attacked a government building with rifles and home-made explosives. [Slactivist's inimitable response]
Back in 1996, Eric Robert Rudolph (a white conservative Baptist) planted bombs at the Atlanta Olympic games.
In 2002, Leo Felton and Erica Chase (white conservative Baptists) tried to blow up the United States Holocaust Museum.
In 1999, Buford O. Furrow, Jr. (a white conservative Baptist) fired 70 shots from a semi-automatic weapon into the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center.
Do you think a Baptist church within two blocks of the United States Holocaust Museum, or the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center would be “disrespectful”?
wintermute,
I can make lists of killers and violent people of every religion, ethnicity, and culture. Were these men acting out of the will of their God? Did they cry, “long live Jesus” as they were acting out of violence? The difference between these crazed men and the terrorist organizations of the middle east are that these terrorist groups are TIED INTO the religion. There is a difference between 5 radical men who happened to be Christian, and groups of thousands upon thousands of Islamic terrorists who signed a decree back around the year 2000 giving them the “right” to slaughter and pillage American citizens. In fact, the pact (as promulgated by Osama bin Laden) states that it is an Islamic man’s duty to fight America and do everything within that individuals means to destroy the United States. Your man Rauf supports groups that are known to have men that signed this pact. I’m sorry, but you are going to have to come up with a little bit more than a few crazed individuals. Just for your information, the list of Islamic terrorist acts from 1960 to the present is about fifty times (literally) longer than your list. Furthermore, the death toll of these few Christian men seems to be around 0. 9/11 took 3000 men and that was ONE event of the hundreds listed on the page I posted before. Is it disrespectful to place a Baptist Church near a Holocaust museum? Being that there aren’t thousands upon thousands of Baptist Christians who have formed well established and government supported organizations that have taken the lives of tens of thousands of Jews, or any Jews from you have said, I would say no. The day a Baptist Christian or Baptist Christian group is solely reponsible for terrorizing a city full of Jews (like Islamic terrorists do) then it will be disrespectful.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
Were they acting out of religious motivations? In many cases, yes. Stack, I’m pretty sure was not, but Rudolph, Felton and Furrow all explicitly cited their Christian faith as a driving motivation in their terrorist attacks. If you want to expand the list searching Google for “God told me to kill” is always informative.
You’re right that a full list of terrorist attacks committed around the world by Muslims is significantly longer than the handful of examples of Christian terrorists in America I pulled up in five minutes of Googling. However, I’m not sure that’s meaningful. On the other hand, you’re wrong that the people I named didn’t kill anyone. Between them, I count over 20 deaths in terrorist acts. Discounting 9/11 (yes, yes), that’s about the same rate at which Muslim terrorists have killed people in America.
In both cases, though, we’re talking about a small number (yes, a few thousand is a small number, out of 1.6 billion Muslims) of extremists who aren’t supported by the mainstream of their faith. Rauf, specifically, is one of the most moderate Muslims, to the extent that Bush used him to preach pro-American messages to the Middle East. He’s been very vocal about condemning Al-Qaeda, and his opinions on Hamas are complex, as they are for anyone who knows anything about Palestine, but he does condemn their violence, without exception.
So, post World War II, you would feel that a Catholic church pretty much anywhere in Eastern Europe would be disrespectful? Or any Christian church, really, given that so many Protestant churches were equally eager to terrorise and murder Jews, and hand the survivors over to Hitler?
Or what if, a few days after Columbine, the NRA had held their AGM a few miles down the road? I bet a lot of people would have felt that was really insensitive; would that have been a good enough reason to force them to move it?
Personally, I don’t think so.
We are all aware of the connections between militant Islam and terrorism. I’m not even going to claim the koran doesn’t contains a lot of passages that can be used to justify violence (as does the bible). However just as you shouldn’t restrict the rights of white Christians because a political movement that advocate a violent overthrow of the government (white power/militia movements) is almost exclusively white Christians you shouldn’t restrict the rights of Muslims because you fear radical islamists. If you have a specific information about contacts between Rauf and his organization and terrorist then you should contact the FBI and tell them about it. Your claim that the mosque can be used as a staging area is just ridiculous. Once the terrorist have got the man and explosives into the US then having a meeting area at a specific spot won’t make much of a difference. Moreover since the WTC have already been attacked do you think we should ban the building of mosques near anything that can be a target for terrorists, should Muslims be prohibited from living next to potential targets to avoid the risk of them using their apartments as staging areas? what is the minimal safe distance between a Muslim and a potential target?
And whats the difference between there and a meeting place a mile away where you can plot?
answered above
Ok so ban all mosques in the US? How long is long enough for you?
Ban them for as long as nextdoorneighbor needs to feel safe, basically forever.
Yeah, Rauf is such a radical that G. W. Bush hired him as a cultural ambassador to the Middle East, to try to convince Arab nations that America isn’t so bad after all.
With friends like that, he must be a terrorist.
“For all we know, Rauf may be funding such organizations as we speak and may be able to fund better with a new mosque and more people in his organization.”
For all we know, Bill Gates may be hanging by his ankles as Steve Jobs spanks him with a trout while wearing a tutu. Doesn’t make it true, but for all we know that COULD be happening.
That’s a Glenn Beck style persuasion tactic. “Hey! I’m just asking the question!”
I almost pissed my pants at this.
Thanks for the mental image, man.
Happy to oblige!
Coffee Jedi,
I am not permitted to add links to my comments as is the rules of this domain server. That’s why I simply said you can find several facts about Rauf by using your usual search engine.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
“Also, I do not know how to use the reply link.” – nextdoorneighbor
You can put links in a comment, you can’t just can’t put a link to someone else’s site in the URL field.
http://www.google.com
See?
I think the rule is you’re not supposed to put links to your own website in the text of your post, but you can put it in for the URL on your login name.
You can also probably put a link to your favorite website in your name, I don’t think that’s taking credit for it. I don’t know why a lot of people on the internet don’t know that field is optional, I’ve seen them put links to anything just because they think they have to, or invent a fake url. If you put too many links in your post, it might get caught in the spam filter. I don’t know how many is one too many though, I have been caught in the filter from it a few times.
I think three is the limit. But even if you go over that, it’ll just be in moderation for a while, and then show up. Unless they’re all for Chinese watches or erection pills, anyway.
“Unless they’re all for Chinese watches or erection pills, anyway.”
Do you know where I can get those, then?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1993321/posts
http://www.seatstaysup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=410994
http://www.seatstaysup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=410994
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hamas_nod_for_gz_mosque_cSohH9eha8sNZMTDz0VVPI
In the words of Arthur’s butler, Hobson, in the 1981 comedy “Arthur”, “Do you want me to wash your dick for you too?”
Most Importantly
God Bless
These links kinda suck. All the sites look sketchy and are poorly written. It’s like Fox News made them.
The first link is just a list of terrorist acts. So what? We know that there are Islamic terrorists, no one is denying it. There’s no connection to this mosque.
The next 2 are links to forum posts where (from what I gather) a bunch of energy-drink fueled morons get together to talk about football and guns and complain about their girlfriends.
The third link is from the NY Post which is a right-leaning tabloid. But to put a more fine point on it, it includes this quote: “If Rauf really were a bridge builder and an interfaith guy and all the things he professes to be, he wouldn’t be doing this to people.” with absolutely no indication of what the speaker is talking about. I searched the article for Rauf’s name. There’s nothing he’s “doing to people” before that statement.
Also, seriously, learn how to use the Reply button. It’s a pet peeve of mine on this site, and seems like it’s only people who come here to stir up trouble have problems with it. Seriously, if you don’t use the Reply feature to reply to this and instead stick it at the bottom of the thread, I’m going to ridicule you.
Coffee Jedi,
I was done blogging for awhile until I read your third paragraph above. You say that he’s not “doing anything to people”. I am not sure if you have heard, but a few years ago there was an attack on the U.S. 3,000 people were killed BUT some of their family members are still alive… yes, even 9 years later (human longevity is an amazing thing). You may not believe it, but most of those family members are extremely torn up and upset about the fact that this Muslim man is building a building of Islam (the same faith responsible for the death of their beloved) right over the site of their death. In some circles, this is considered uncouth and disrespectful. Are you human? I am not sure if you are a male, female, American or not, but we as humans try not to rub salt in wounds when situations deal with loss of life and other occurences of strife. For instance, it probably would not be a good idea to erect a huge statue of Hideki Tojo in Pearl Harbor. That would cause something called indignation and remorse to veterans of world war II, who lost friends and fellow soldiers during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
You are an idiot. They are building a community center not a 50 foot statue of osama bin-laden. Pearl harbor is a good example since the religion of Shinto was very much a part of the Japanese politics with the emperor being considered a god. However if you check your facts you will find that there is a Shinto temple a few miles from pearl harbor and somehow the world didn’t end.
Yoav,
Yeah but did they build a Shinto temple next to the U.S.S. Arizona memorial? Get real it is the same principal. Statue of Osama bin Laden or not, it stands for the same thing to the people who lost loved ones on 9/11. Also, using words like idiot detract from your argument 100%. I have not used a degrading word to you once this entire day. Relax. We are discussing a situation that we have different views about. Tomorrow the sun will come up I promise.
And Most Importantly,
God Bless
Should the whole country pander to the emotions of a small percentage of people or hold up the Constitution and say, yay America. It is not a monument, it is a community center like they have in your town for your church also. You are too paranoid, it’s unfunny now. You are using weak excuses to attempt to destroy what the US actually is. Weak and emotional is not the country I want to live in, we’re not strong if we’re scared of every little thing… oooh, it’s a religious building, boooooh. I’m not in love with the mosque up on my corner, but they’re generally good neighbors, unobtrusive. Your arguments are no good so far.
Google maps estimate 11 minutes to get from the Kotohira Jinsha Shinto shrine to the Arizona memorial. It will not surprise me if it will take longer to get from the hallowed ground of the abandoned Burlington coat factory, where the islamic center is planed, to the site of the WTC.
I’ll bet anything that your church is built in a place where Native Americans were killed by White Christian Europeans. Isn’t that insensitive to Native Americans?
We get it, you want to treat all Muslims differently than we do Christians.
Do you have any other reasons other than just being a scared bigot?
Sunny Day,
I am not speaking about all Muslims. I am speaking about this questionable Muslim who endorsed Al-Qaeda. Relax. Your tone makes you seem a bit afraid and unsure. The right wing Christians who plotted to kill innocent Americans should be brought to justice to the full extent of the law.
Most Importantly,
God Bless
“I am speaking about this questionable Muslim who endorsed Al-Qaeda.”
Ah, so if he takes his name off the building, and has nothing more to do with this Cultural Center you’d be ok with that?
Next this wretched piece of shit will be trying to sell me a bridge.
I won’t try to belittle the emotions of the relatives and friends who suffered losses that day but that’s just not how you make decisions. They should probably have built the monument at Ground Zero like they planned. I’m not sure how many people directly related to anyone in the disaster oppose this mosque on principle or who just have to go by it very often, I’m guessing not many on the latter. It’s irrational to expect the country to collapse to Islam because someone wants to build a mosque center a couple blocks away, and I’ll say it, it’s irrational to play the 9/11 card to get your way here. You are being xenophobic, talking about your safety, obliterating the constitution for safety, and for sensitivity to others, let’s just fall apart crying, hide under the covers, and forget who we are. You’re terrorizing America with your suggestions now, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that wasn’t all part of the plan 9 years ago – destroy the US from the inside. If you think this mosque means the terrorists are salting the wounds of a few people, think what you are doing to the rest of us.
Yeah, 9/11, I get it. But this Rauf guy, what is he actively “doing” to people? I see a lot of folks riled up over this, but that’s THEIR reaction, not his pro-action. He had nothing to do with what happened 9 years ago as far as I can tell.
I don’t like Islam any more than you do. I also don’t like Christianity too much either, but I don’t bitch when a new church gets built on private land. The religious battles worth fighting are ones where a religion is imposing its rules against our personal rights, and that is NOT what’s happening here in any way shape or form.
First three links: Right-wingers disapprove of the mosque, but can’t come up with any actual reason for it. We already knew this.
Fourth link: Hamas likes the mosque. So what? Do we just do the opposite of what terrorists say they want us to do? What if two different terrorist groups want us to do mutually incompatible things?
Also the entirety of the “hamas nod” in the NY Post article seems to be a hamas spokesmen claiming that muslims in the area need a place to pray. Hardly as sinister as the headline “Hamas nod for Ground Zero mosque” would imply to the average reader who just reads the headline without the article.
I mean I’m no fan of prayer in general, and that goes double when your talking about mandatory prayer five times a day, but if we’re gonna equate prayer with terrorism…
“In the words of Arthur’s butler,……”
How else were we to know how pathetic and empty your argument was without you being willing to tell us your reasons?
Continuing Hobsons quote, “you little shit”.
I know, what the hell. First fail reading comprehension on not being able to post links, then find 4 links to support your argument = sarcastic movie quote? Most importantly, “God Bless”? Nobody is sticking a gun to your temple, nextdoorneighbor, to continue discussing this with us, but it’s not asking too much for you to hold up your side if you’re inclined to stay here peddling your meaningful opinions on when it’s a good time to piss on the Constitution. Apparently we are not being sensitive to the right people, that’s the Constitution’s role, to break ties in the interest of consistent American values, which you don’t think matters as much as feeling safe (but not actually being safer).
In reality, is this insensitive? Yes most likely, but what would be sensitive? A mile away, 5, a state? There was a poll that came out* today (I think) that said people thought it was insensitive, but they have the right to do it.
From the Seattle Times write up of it:
A CNN/Opinion Research poll released last week found that nearly 70 percent of Americans opposed the mosque plan, while 29 percent approved.
In a new question, the latest poll found that many New Yorkers believe the project is protected by the Constitution, even if they oppose the plan.
Nearly two-thirds of voters, 64 percent, say the developers have a constitutional right to build the mosque. Twenty-eight percent say they do not.
Protected by the constitution yes.
But how do they feel about it and how will they act when it is actually built?
I am quite glad that our laws aren’t based on people’s feelings. Imagine if abolishing slavery had depended on white people’s feelings or granting women the right to vote depended on white men’s feelings.
Better yet, as in this case, ignoring any law you want based on your feelings.
Law what is it good for?
I’m going to go ahead and posit that I think no one who isn’t a Muslim particularly wants a mosque to be built anywhere. I mean, all of us who have no use for one would all have to vote no, no mosque. If it were up to us, with no outside considerations at all, we would non-Muslims all vote no on the mosque.
So what are the outside considerations that bring this to an informal poll of no consequence? A few thousand parents, spouses, children, and friends will probably not have occasion to walk by it, ever. Even visiting the Ground Zero site itself does not require a walk past this mosque unless one purposely wishes to spit on it. Spitting may be an offense in itself; spitting on a person, even a Muslim, will almost definitely be charged with an assault.
So is it insensitive to smack them in the face with it, in principle? I mean, some suppose reactionaries will do at least go spit on it, if not more. So whose fault is this? I think it’s the spitter’s fault. The population of Muslims in that neighborhood would like a mosque/cultural center, something other religious believers seem to take for granted. You are equating a house of worship with something I think I saw in a Far Side cartoon. “Heaven knows how he keeps getting in here, Betty, but you better count ‘em.” Sadly, I could not find this one in an image search.
Is Rauf a bad man and so we shouldn’t let him have his bad mosque? Will not being able to build his mosque there keep him from having some ties to the US or ability to plot something if he were indeed into evil? I don’t know if or how bad this Rauf guy is, but I do know that if someone wants to commit some act of violence, building a mosque isn’t like handing him a permit. If he’s going to do something, he will try anyway or hopefully be discovered in early stages, and if he’s not going to do something, why shouldn’t he make a mosque in lower Manhattan or anywhere? A mosque is not like giving permission to plot terrorism right under our noses, it’s a house of worship.
Let’s see, let’s see… as for my first comment, I would also posit, nobody particularly wants any churches or temples in their neighborhood if they personally have no use for such a building. In a community of average, tens of thousands of people, only a couple hundred fit in the church, so why do they get such a lovely building if tens of thousands of people have no use for it? Em… why not? Not only that, but it may be empty all week. It might have a school and/or social programs. That’s your small church, I’m not talking stadium churches. Why do any of y’all get to have a building non-taxed in a central location in my town with a parking lot and a bell and everything, for only a couple hundred local citizens at most? It does nothing for me, I’d rather have it not there, but I don’t have a say in it. Why do you have a say in the mosque?
“But it’s different.” No, it’s not.
We have the 1st amendment to thank for people agreeing your church is ok in town. Otherwise, they don’t care, they don’t need it, they worship elsewhere, or nowhere. Their full consideration for tolerating your church at all is that they care about your rights to worship freely. Anyone who voted in this poll that the mosque is not constitutionally protected is an idiot, a full-blind, non-thinking moron. Anyone who thinks the government should make an exception to break the constitution to prevent the mosque from being built is a terrorist to me.
While I wouldn’t go so far as you do in your last sentence, I think that you have a very good case. And I see no reason to deny the mosque. Rather (and especially following your reasoning), I see reasons to allow it.
But I wonder about the number of Muslims in the area who would actually benefit from a mosque there (it’s business rather than residential).
I realize my last sentence may be unnecessarily inflammatory, but it’s hard to get inside the head of someone who doesn’t recognize they are accessory to terrorism. What does it mean to attack America? Does it mean killing a few thousand people? Or does it mean calculating our reaction to it, such that we destroy our own values?
Dead people = sad, very sad.
Do fundamental Muslims respect our culture and values? No.
Do they destroy our culture and values by destroying massive life and property? No.
“Do they destroy our culture and values by destroying massive life and property? No.”
Actually, there’s a fairly good argument to be made that our violent and fear based reaction to their attack did exactly that. So, no, they can’t do it by themselves. It’s just too bad we joined in and made it a team effort.
Like the security checks at airports. 9/11 made security a BIG business.
After 9/11 I went through some personal fears and made one very bad life decision in reaction, that might apply here. There was so much talk of “if you do/don’t do X, then the terrorists will have won,” but it’s not exactly normal to go back to the way you’re used to living right away. On my end, I did get back to normal, but I was literally afraid of living too close to NYC or trying to get a job there. I never felt vengeful. On the other end is the “Never Forget” crusade. They were terrorized into a vigilant and violent reaction, repulsed by all things Islam, suspicious of motives, xenophobic, concern trolls for the feelings of anyone who lost someone in the attack.
Establishing what amounts to a holy war, fulfilling the prophesies of end times, attacking the liberty of others to save your own is all backwards thinking, no understanding of cause and effect. They’re the real victims of terrorism. The feelings of killing several thousand people in one day is not to kill them but to terrorize the survivors into destroying their own liberties, to trick them into thinking that it’s the most sane course. The fundamentalist Islam disrespect for human life takes center stage but it wasn’t the goal. I hate to accuse them of being smart, but that’s misdirection on an enormous scale. The war continues because? They are not afraid of us, nor afraid to die for what they consider a just cause. We’re trying supposedly to do right by the victims, our borders, and uh, god, as if the terrorists hadn’t planned it themselves, and now break the 1st amendment just this one time, for these specific people. That won’t harm us, would it?
Do you people think that many tourists and none-Muslims will visit this centre?
Or do you think that none-Muslim will move out of that area and make place for new Muslims to move in the area becoming a Muslim concentrated area?
And? So what if it does?
Then you could rename the place to “New Bagdad”
Well, why not? Once upon a time, it was New Amsterdam, and you don’t hear the Dutch complaining.
Wow, reading most of these posts has got me worried. Next door neighbor sent ya’ll many links from good sources tellin you that Rauf funds terrorist groups and how he doesn’t look at other groups with scorn. you guys are tryin to protect this guys rights as if he were the last muslim on earth. He’s not sayin tear down all mosques, its just that this guy is bad news. Don’t worry next door, these people won’t care about the mosque till it’s their father or mother or sister or brother jumping to their death after a plane hits their building. Hell, I think Osama should come to the U.S. and build a mosque right on ground zero. Shit, it’s his right fellas…YOU CANT TAKE AWAY HIS RIGHTSSSS. stupid Oh Rauf? he just funds Osama’s homies, he’s all good…stupid… i’m out
ndn didn’t send us many links from good sources tellin us that Rauf funds terrorist groups. He sent 1 link that was unrelated and 3 links that were nothing and speculated that Rauf funds terrorist groups so far with no further evidence than that Rauf is a muslim.
If anyone anywhere has actual evidence that Rauf is funding terrorism then he should be arrested and given a trial in light of evidence with the right to present a defense in a court of law. If (as it strongly appears so far) there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any connection between Rauf and any criminal activity (stuff on glenn beck’s chalkboard does not count as evidence) then we should just leave the man alone and let him build his stupid church.
And I would think that if people on these boards could find credible information, that the government would have it as well. Yes sometimes things get lost, but for the most part if we can find it with only the internet, if it is credible, the government would have it. If all of it was credible, I would think he would be gone.
Do you know how difficult it is to mount sufficient evidence to put someone away in the U.S.? We know that Rauf supports the IHH, which is an organization that funds terrorists. However, this is not actually against American law, so there is nothing that we can do. Except; we can use reason to guide our decision to disallow a religious quack from trying to make a statement on American soil. Stevee I hate to say this but you are a liberal and are uneducated.
@triviallls – another sock puppet already?
The IHH? You mean The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, out of Turkey? Yeah, they do horrible, horrible terroristy things like try to get food and medicines into Palestine so people don’t die.
Clearly, anyone who supports an organisation that tried to get life-saving supplies to the poor and disenfranchised is not the kind of person we want promoting their religion in America. That would be socialism.
I like Jon Stewart – he asks some sensible questions and makes some good observations. I like the segments of his shows that are included in posts here. Humour is very often the best way to get a point across – something he does very well. It’s something I also try to do.
I’ve only heard of Glenn Beck through this blog (I live in Belgium. Who is Glenn Beck? Must be American – backwater news). But what I see of Beck in this segment (and I only presume it’s him because of TC’s comment at the top) is that he’s willing to change his mind. Is that wrong? Isn’t that what rational people are supposed to do? Think and draw conclusions; re-think (later) and maybe draw different conclusions – for example, in light of new evidence. I’m not really interested in what else he’s said or done (although many contributors here appear to be), so don’t flame me for that – I only have this segment as evidence. And I’m not interested enough in him to search further. Backwater news.
What worries me is the stance that many atheists take – and that I also often see in the comments on this site (I think the site is excellent, by the way) and many other atheist sites. It’s always against Christians and Christianity. Whatever Christians say, many atheists typically say the opposite, pretty much as a knee jerk reaction. Often having to bend logic to make sense (where have I heard that before?). I rarely, if ever, see that with other religions. Many atheists (OK, I’m grouping us all together here) will happily agree with Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, FSM-ers, or others – as long as they are against Christianity. Outspoken Christians oppose the “ground-zero mosque”. So many atheists automatically say that it’s fully in line with the freedoms that the American constitution guarantees, and – therefore – should be allowed.
What scares me is the “soft jihad” that’s rolling through the free world. And I see in the “ground-zero mosque” discussion a very good move by Islam. To oppose the mosque is to go against the constitution, which guarantees religious freedom. But to allow it is to allow the “soft jihad” to gain yet more ground. Without any more fighting.
In many countries (but especially in the UK, which I follow more closely), Islam is often (usually) treated as if it can do no wrong. Political correctness means that people don’t dare speak out against the religion of violence (I know, they call it the religion of peace, but, er, no).
I don’t know what the “correct” next steps are – for the mosque and in general. But I’m scared that one day we will lose the freedoms that our forefathers fought so hard to obtain. And it will be sooner than we think.
I do agree with you, it really baffles me that the same atheists on this blog so against any Christian believe and symbols are now actively defending Islam.
I am wondering about those atheists that defend the Mosque, where do you live? Europe, USA, Canada, ???
Belgium is in Europe.
Yes I know, but where do the other atheists here that defend Islam so much as free speech and such actually live? I want to know if there is a relationship with where they live and if someone is for or against it.
I think you there is a pattern that those opposing the Mosque all live near Muslims that do not adapt to the style of the country while those for the mosque live near Muslims that are integrated or are in a very minority.
Personally, I lived the first 30 years of my life in London, which has a quite large Muslim population, some of which integrate seamlessly into British culture, and some do not. Now, I live in southern Ohio, where Muslims are rather less common.
I live right near a mosque in Boston, MA, USA. It wasn’t there before a year ago, I think they had their opening in time for Ramadan. I don’t see a lot of Muslims nearby, but that’s probably because they are moderate and dress like the rest of us, so it’s hard to calculate where they are living. They haven’t any shops or restaurants to serve their other cultural needs yet, just a mosque.
Not so for many of the Jews of my neighborhood. There are at least 2 temples, one I believe is Orthodox, that the Jews I see walking toward or home from, they dress recognizably Orthodox Jew and others at the nearer temple dress “normal.” There are a few shops, nothing much.
A couple weeks ago, a Muslim from the mosque spoke to me, he asked me if I had seen the bus already go by, and I told him it went the other way, so it would be returning in a few minutes and that he had not missed it. It was sort of awkward at first, as we were walking toward each other, he looked hesitant to bother me with his question, and I don’t know how I looked.
I don’t know how I’d feel any different if my neighborhood seemed to get a little more Muslim. Although it seems primarily white, young, middle-class neighborhood, I think there are a lot of Jews and Chinese people, it wouldn’t matter if you added Muslims. I don’t know what’s wrong with a diverse neighborhood, or one that changes over time. My grandmother lives in an apartment in Queens that used to be a lot of Jewish neighbors, now it’s mostly Korean, in between that was something else I can’t remember, she’s lived there almost 70 years. In Boston, we have several enclaves like that – South Boston is big Irish town and the North End is primarily Italian, in Somerville, there are a lot of Portuguese concentrated neighborhoods, and of course, Chinatown, and etc.
Because I am not in touch with my roots or any of 4 varieties of European culture that is my ethnic heritage, I would feel out of place in any neighborhood with a high concentration of any particular nationality/ethnicity; I did used to live in the North End, and though “part Italian,” I’m not really. I don’t know what’s so special about Muslims that they can’t have a place like that though. Treating people like outsiders tends to have the effect of them making tight communities of themselves and running people out (letting people run themselves out). I would probably leave a highly concentrated neighborhood of Muslims for the same reason I don’t want to live in South Boston or Chinatown. Another thing my mother always used to say out loud was that “such and such was taking over.” The whole notion of “taking over” is… I mean, what’s your heritage? All immigrants have “taken over” at some point and it’s not going to stop with Muslims.
I’m not anti-Christian or pro-Islam in this sense, it’s only that the Christians are favoring themselves over another religion. Rights are rights, there’s no “that kind” doesn’t deserve rights but “this kind” is good, can keep their rights.
Kodie your description is of integrated Muslims. They blend into the culture and these people give no problem. These people I do respect. If these people would live in my neighbourhood then I would also say yes to build a Mosque next door.
But sadly enough most Europe has Muslims unlike your description.
That’s because, by-and-large, Europe has been less interested historically in assimilating anyone than the US has. The rhetoric in much of the continent is about cultural annihilationism in place of assimilation. FWIW, each European country has had many hundreds of years to establish a strong cultural identity, whereas the comparatively young US has not been so burdened.
“But sadly enough most Europe has Muslims unlike your description.”
Exactly what are you basing this on as last time it was because you didn’t see Muslims at music events and they tended to leave early … yes some Musilms don’t integrate but you’ve stated that *most* Muslims don’t “… blend into the culture and these people give no problem.”
“Kodie your description is of integrated Muslims.”
Where do integrated Muslims come from?
As one of the atheists ‘defending islam’ here, I can honestly say that this is not about defending islam. And it is not a knee jerk reaction based on wanting to be on the opposite side of every issue as christians. It is a cost benefit analysis. No matter how much I may be opposed to a religion, it is always a bad trade to prohibit freedom of religion. Ignorance must be battled with enlightenment. It cannot be oppressed (especially when you are talking about a type of ignorance that has martyrdom as a central theme).
So yeah, I don’t want a mosque in New York. I don’t even want a mosque in Mecca. But it isn’t about that. I don’t want a single christian church in my hometown, but no matter how much I oppose christianity I would have to respect the right of christians to build a church, because the freedom to make that choice is more important that whether they make a choice I do not like.
And I would remind all here that in the eyes of a rabid torch wielding christian majority we are all infidels. That goes for muslims, atheists, agnostics, jews, buddhists, hindus, pagans, and whatever branch of christianity they happen to disagree with. They don’t care whether you pray to allah or not, just whether or not you pray to their version of Jesus. And make no mistake my friend, our sock puppet friend here would be as happy to shut down this website as to shut down the mosque, and would just as soon burn you at the stake as burn a young girl accused of witchcraft.
The First Amendment is absolutely the best protection that is currently afforded to atheists living in the United States of Jesus. From a secular strategic perspective, protection for the freedom of minorities equals protection for us.
See this quote today from the UK paper, the Daily Mail (also known as the Beano, but sometimes fun). The quote is several paragraphs long:
“What seems to be forgotten in this case, as so often when it comes to dealing with Islam, is that tolerance is a two-way street. This isn’t about freedom to worship. There are already 100 official mosques in New York’s five boroughs, and more than 1,800 across America.
So the question is: Why here? Why now? Why a stone’s throw from Ground Zero? There’s no Muslim population in this part of Manhattan. It’s a business district.
New York’s Governor David Paterson has offered the mosque’s backers an alternative site, away from Ground Zero, but has so far been rebuffed. It is difficult not to conclude that the location of this project is designed deliberately to be provocative.
While Pelosi and others have questioned the motives of the mosque’s opponents, there has been little investigation into its backers.
Most of the money is said to be coming from Saudi Arabia, which would never allow a Christian church to be built in Riyadh. That should, of course be irrelevant given America’s tradition of religious freedom — but somehow, in this context, it isn’t.”
The full piece is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1304326/If-Ground-Zero-mosque-opens-9-11-year-Obama-say-goodbye.html
Richard Littlejohn – the voice of reason!
Jabster I could not agree with you more.. These liberals don’t get it.
Maybe it’s me (I’m at home sick, so not firing on all cylinders anyway), but I can’t tell whether you’re disagreeing with the article because of the author, or disagreeing with the content of the article. Or agreeing with the article. I need more medicine.
Was there not supposed to be a mega giant mosque to be built by 2012 in London that would dwarf any cathedral ever built? I saw some reports from 2007 but lost the links. What happened to the idea?
Political correctness means that we look to the Constitution to see what is right and consistent with American values. What are we trying to protect? The argument on the other side is putting this mosque at that location hurts people’s feelings. Oh, so you want us to be “politically correct,” i.e. sensitive, to those people, but at the cost of being “politically incorrect” by making an exception on the 1st amendment for Islam, infringing on the right to free religious expression.
I don’t particularly care for any mosque to be built, nor any church, temple, anything. I have no use for these buildings or the beliefs practiced in them. What I do have use for is a consistent usage and application of the Constitution. It’s a difficult case, what should we do, who should we favor? Ignore the 1st amendment or apply it consistently? This is not a pro-Islam/anti-Christian reaction. We have to make room for Christians, as is their right to practice their religion, and we have to demonstrate that we’re consistent or else that breaks the rules we’re given.
What is off-balance to me is that many situations seem to have a Christian side, at least the vocal ones, who want smaller government in some situations, but they want to destroy the Constitution, they want the government to sit up and take this mosque more seriously than they would any other house of worship in America, to interfere and deny its construction, to take liberty away from some Americans so they can feel safe, and imagine somewhere it says we have to be nice. And then they ignore that nice-being when it’s convenient to them, because guess what? That amendment allows them free speech and they use it.
Yeah, I am for the consistency of the application of the amendment, they are not for consistency, they are for favoritism. It just seems “anti-Christian” because they protest fairness and consistency. It is not a “knee-jerk” reaction to Christians, it is a normal response when someone wants to rearrange the Constitution so it favors their particular wants, and for them to consider themselves “real America” or “taking back America”. They don’t get to redefine our values. When things get muddy, we have a fine document to clear it up, which, when tested, they obviously have no respect for it.
Your comment in your first paragraph goes along with what I said:
“To oppose the mosque is to go against the constitution, which guarantees religious freedom.”
But I also said: “But to allow it is to allow the “soft jihad” to gain yet more ground. Without any more fighting.” That’s the part that worries me. Following the constitution is what should be done – and it’s what has made America. But where will that lead us? What may it cost us all?
In my second note (the quote from the Daily Mail), I read that there is no Muslim community where they want to build the mosque. I don’t know whether that’s true, but it’s a business district, not a residential one. And there are 100 mosques in New York (so I read – I haven’t checked). So why must one be built there – away from where people, specifically Muslims, live?
To clarify a bit: political correctness usually means something different than how I used it. It’s ironic to me that people are criticizing the political correctness of tolerating Islam, protesting the political incorrectness of pouring salt on the wounds of people who lost dear ones in the attack. Using the Constitution here is the most correct thing to do politically.
I think the strength of the Constitution lies in applying it consistently, and I don’t particularly think this location is too close to anything that it should be farther away. What is jihad about this mosque, the location or the fact that it’s built at all? It is to suspect the Muslims who will use the facility to be violent, it is to single out a population and accuse them of violent action. If they want the jihad, they could do it from anyplace. It just so happens this location was available, and it’s my understanding there are plenty of Muslims who do live in the area to use it. Saying “100 mosques” already means nothing to me. How many other houses of worship are there? Are all Muslims supposed to get on a subway and crowd into another mosque?
It’s just my reaction that this mosque isn’t going to set us on fire with violence any more than any other mosque. What it apparently is doing is to create a panic and calls for specific exceptions to the liberties granted all citizens in the 1st amendment. If they’re going to do something violent, they don’t need a mosque. The mosque itself is not going to cause something that wouldn’t happen or be planned otherwise. What it seems rather well to be working against the values of America by protesting it actually.
What is a mosque going to do itself that you think can’t be done if they don’t build the mosque? Nothing. What is preventing the mosque going to do? It destroys freedom, it favors emotional over rational responses, it favors one religion over another. Once you set a precedent on the Constitution that it’s ok to infringe on one types’ religion, you can apply that logic any time. I don’t think it’s a jihad, I don’t think they’re building a mosque to stick it to anyone, although I would not ignore the idea that knowing it would be controversial, that it might test our values and break them, but that just might also be a coincidence.
Good points. Some of what you say matches with what I just wrote (2 minutes ago) just below your comment to lenny5 (no relation!) about “This man is bothering me!”
The soft-jihad I mention is one that takes place slowly, over many years. Also noted in my post of 2 (now 3) minutes ago.
I think there’s a quick route and a slow route, if that’s our only two choices, I take the slow route. As a country, we’ve allowed people to come and enjoy our freedoms, that is what we have here to offer. We cannot really keep our country from changing as it will over time, I think more people become Americanized versions of their origin rather than impose their origin on the rest of us. I would look to other immigrant groups for an example. If we prohibited any particular group from settling here, how would that make America better? Some people think, there goes the neighborhood, in effect. I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen, but it’s not going to be “the same” or “like it’s supposed to be.”
It is a lot like evolution in that way. Our limit here is the establishment of the US Constitution and to use it and apply it to guarantee freedoms for everyone. That’s the only way it’s “supposed to be.” Changes to it should be difficult and carried out with utmost consideration. The implied result of infringing on the rights of Muslims to freedom of worship is to be willing to break a promise, and not trust the wisdom of the document to be tested and stretched to apply to everyone. If they break the law, they break the law and get handled as it comes up; breaking the law is not included in religious freedom. If you’re all of a sudden worried there’s going to be too many Muslims in the US, well, they said that about the Irish and Italians and Mexicans and Jews and Chinese and (Asian) Indians too. It changes things to allow cultures to plant themselves here, but it’s not “our” country, our “white euro-Christian” country. It’s the rights we have, that’s our preservation.
I agree, your constitution gives you a line in the sand. Anyone crossing it suffers the consequences. I also agree that it should be difficult to change that constitution.
The constitution also helps people to become Americans, rather than that they establish their old country within the US.
I defend the mosque and live in Japan. I think the public who LIVE there should have the final say and not a bunch of kooks who don’t live there. Same goes for the Wal-Marts/strip clubs/medicinal pot clinics that communities are against and don’t want there. Last I saw the community there are not the ones protesting it.
That being said I think the level of paranoia and fear from the religious right is funny. If it is not communism it’s Islam. Oh and as far as the stupid comparison to building some temple or statue near the USS Arizona goes… Last I checked the USA has yet to apologize (and finally decided to show up this year) for the nukes they dropped. Yet there are Christian churches in Hiroshima?
When the USA gets rid of the churches in Hiroshima (and the USA occupying troops here in Japan) then they have credibility about not wanting a mosque.
Hey Tee,
Why would the U.S. apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? You surprise attacked and killed over 2000 American citizens that day on our own soil. Then, in battle, you guys used trick attacks, fake surrenders, and used to throw babies in the air and bayonnet them like animals. Also, the Rape of Nanking? Remember when you raped, beheaded, and pillaged innocent Chinese people back in 1937? Sorry man, but when you mess with the bull you get the horns. It was about time a bigger, more powerful country like the U.S. shoved two nukes up your ass…. go make me a nintendo
Because if we compile the wrongs on both sides, nobody will ever have to say they’re sorry. Everybody wins!
Starting a war by surprise attacking a group of sleeping naval soldiers and nurses is not even something that one can apologize for. Elemenope, let’s say I walked to your house right now and punched you square in the jaw. Then, when you were bleeding on your carpet with all of your teeth knocked out, I said “OH SORRRRYY” You guys are like children. “HE DIDNT SAY SORRY TO ME.” Get fucking real. If you kill 2000 people, the country that you attacked is going to pay you back-end of story. Apologies don’t matter, only time will make it go away, and even that will never work completely.
Elemenope, let’s say I walked to your house right now and punched you square in the jaw. Then, when you were bleeding on your carpet with all of your teeth knocked out, I said “OH SORRRRYY”
Hm. Yeah, that’s exactly the equivalent of what we’re talking about. What an impressive metaphor.
What ‘Nope said.
hey guys,
let’s say i went to your home, and punched you square in the jaw. When you were on the floor bleeding from the mouth with your teeth on the floor, what good what it do for me to say “sorry”. Children… Only time heals wounds like that.
@ lenny5! YET ANOTHER SOCK PUPPET for nextdoorneighbor.
Well, aren’t you busy this morning. That’s 4 identities I count on you so far.
“Political correctness means that we look to the Constitution to see what is right and consistent with American values”. – Kodie
Political correctness is actually a form of social tyranny used by liberals like you in order to prevent the minority from being “offended”. People who follow “political correctness” utilize this tactic because it.
Dissembles the real nature of the claim
Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name
very good Kodie, I changed my slogan name because I felt as though I was being too nice and reasonable as next door neighbor. If all of you liberals I am speaking against are going to team up I thought I would assemble my own reasonable team. You, however, are still an idiot.
“kodieisgay”
Ahahahaha, very nice. I’m sure being labeled as a homosexual is Kodie’s prime concern. You’re really getting your point across. Maybe you should call a team meeting.
I used it more literally, which you’re too knee-jerk (and plain old jerk) to comprehend.
Well, Lenny, by your logic, then the Muslims are totally right to stick two planes in your damned country (or even more, really): you’ve done a lot of harm to them and everyone else, after all.
your argument makes no sense siberia, i have no idea what you’re talking about
That’s because you’re an idiot Lenny5, or whatever your name is at the moment.
I am on your side, lenny5. I don’t take advantage of idiot.
Let’s see, there’s 2 “different” lenny5′s, but you are the same one as maximus24. Socks must have been on sale at Wal-mart.
way to refute my argument… i suppose you have nothing to say
I’m not interested in refuting your argument than calling you out for making several attempts to pretend you have people to agree with you. You’re pathetic.
this is a liberal website that disagrees with everything conservatives like me say. You are obviously used to taking advantage of people like me who stumble onto this site. If I was arguing with you one on one in a coffee shop and you had no friends to help you with your points, you would have nothing. Seriously, I would destroy your arguments in ten minutes.
I think I’d be able to have you thrown out of that coffee shop in less than 10 minutes. “This man is bothering me!”
LOL! You’re hilarious. You just can’t handle the fact that you’ve been out reasoned.
FYI I lived in New York for four years. I was THERE when 9/11 happened. Neither I, nor many of my friends from NYC has a problem with the Cordoba center.
You make an extraordinary claim that the leader of this cultural center is tied to radical jihadist Islam, but you fail to deliver the extraordinary EVIDENCE that such a claim warrants.
Further, you’ve tried to argue by analogy, and failed. The cultural environment of America in the 1940′s was quite different that the one we are living in today. We are no longer an isolationist country, but part of a global system which requires tolerance for success.
I’m sorry you don’t like it, but too bad. New York isn’t your hometown. You have no say. Period.
@lenny5: If you and Kodie ever get into a face to face discussion, please let me know. I’d love to watch Kodie demolish you.
@LRA: I can find no logical reason to have a problem with the Cordoba Centre, but I do have an irrational, emotional one. The concern I have is: what will the Cordoba Centre be 20 or 30 years on? While I have no sympathies for Christianity, I also have none for Islam. I wouldn’t want to see New York transformed – as certain parts of England have been – into mini-Muslim countries, including Sharia law. Is that illegal? Yes. Is it happening? Yes.
LRA,
The bottom of page 14 of this link will give you a brief synopsis of the criminal investigation of the IHH, and how it is a fundraising front for Hamas.
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS%20WP%202006-7.web.pdf
That being said, allow me to explain more. It is a well known fact that Rauf supports a group known as the Perdana Global Peace Organization, a well-known sponsor (perhaps the highest sponsor) of the Free Gaza Flotilla movement. However, Perdana does not fund this movement directly, rather, it supplies money to the IHH, the same fundraising front for Hamas which is currently undergoing investigation by the State Department. If you follow the trend, Rauf – Perdana – IHH, you can easily see that money goes from Rauf to the IHH, a radical group that has been disbanded in Germany due to the fact that the group denies Israel’s right to exist. Any question of what I just said can be found here:
http://ricochet.com/conversations/A-Rock-Solid-Case-Against-the-Ground-Zero-Mosque/(source)/picks
But, LRA, this is not about the fact that there is evidence out there that might implicate Imam Rauf. You and Kodie don’t care. This is about you. This is about the pleasure you get from putting your two cents against a white conservative male. It’s about getting back at your parents and all of their “1940’s” ways of thinking. It’s about not appreciating all of daddy’s money that you love to live off of and have always squandered without regard. So I am not going to call you out on the fact that you just said that you have been living in New York for 4 years, and therefore you were there when 9/11 happened. That happened 9 years ago, not 4 years ago. I’m also not going to bring up the fact that the United States was nothing close to an isolationist country in the 1940s. In fact, the 1940s triggered the end of isolationism as a foreign policy altogether until the present.
I have lived in New York for 22 years and know honest, down-to-earth people who were directly involved in 9/11. You and the other liberals on this site laugh at people like me who don’t adhere to your ways of being politically correct, of being all accepting, of being relativistic and atheistic. The problem with you atheists is not that you believe in nothing, it’s that you will believe anything.
You and Kodie laugh as you outnumber me, but I remember an expression I heard in an Italian movie I was watching with my girlfriend the other day. It fits perfectly. Il riso abbonda in bocca degli sciocchi.
But most importantly, MOST importantly LRA, God bless you. I will pray for you.
1. This is an atheist blog and while atheists tend to fall on the liberal side in regard to social issues (equal rights for gays, separation of church and state) from past discussions on this blog I can say that in many other topics (healthcare is a good example) the people on this site cover most of the political spectrum.
2. The argument that you are one against many may be relevant in face to face discussion but in a read where post are made one at a time it make no difference. In this case sockpuppetry doesn’t get your point to be heard more and just make you look ridiculous when you inevitably get caught. Your argument get even weaker by the fact that some comentators such as Olaf and Len, who are regulars on the site, gave you at least partial support. Moreover, while he was quiet on this tread, Custador who is a contributor to this site have referred to himself as an islamophobe on more then one occasion and have posted several stories that are very critical of islam so you can’t really claim that the anti-islamic viewpoint doesn’t get a chance here.
3. The fact that you considered calling Kodie gay to be an insult tell a lot about what kind of an A-hole you are.
BTW I’m Israeli, currently living in the US but my entire family is in Israel so Hamas and Hizbulla are not just theoretical issues for me.
lenny5, I’ll follow your links about Rauf when I have time to read what’s there.
But you really shouldn’t get your panties in such a twist. And you really should make more effort to comprehend what people write. LRA didn’t say when 9/11 happened. But LRA was there when it did.
You mention that the US was nothing close to an isolationist country in the ’40s, and in fact the ’40s triggered the end of isolationism as a foreign policy. But doesn’t that mean that the US must have been isolationist, as a result of the foreign policy they had been following? I know pretty much nothing about recent American history (except what I see in American movies – which must be true, obviously, since they were made in Hollywood), I just gather this from your text.
And what’s that about not appreciating daddy’s money? Do you know Kodie or LRA personally? Do you know that they’ve been spoiled by daddy’s money, or are you just trying to justify to yourself being out-reasoned by a girl? So you stereotype them into liberal, politically correct, relativistic (is that a real word in this context?), atheists. They beat you. Learn to live with it and move on. Or come with better arguments.
And the problem with us atheists is not that we’ll believe anything. It’s that we won’t believe anything, unless it comes with some form of proof or evidence (Hollywood movies aside). As opposed to being spouted from a pulpit.
I’m not sure I get the Italian quote about rice and fools. But I only watch Hollywood movies (did I mention that?).
@Kodie and LRA – I hope you don’t mind me sticking my nose in here.
Good for you lenny, not calling LRA for saying she has lived in NYC for 4 years when 9/11 was 9 years ago, because that’s not what she said, and not the first time you have failed reading comprehension on this site.
You haven’t brought any good arguments why this mosque shouldn’t be built. Now you are having a rant about being a conservative white male and all the leebaralllS rejecting the 1940s values and living off our daddy’s money and being gay. Why, you’re nothing more than a huffy-puffy fox-watching curmudgeon.
Sorry, you were nextdoorneighbor – it’s not easy to keep up.
Hmmmm… Let’s just see what REPUBLICAN Mayor Bloomberg has to say about this issue:
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2010b/pr337-10.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1
*SHOCK!* *GASP!!!*
(LOL!)
I don’t think it’s because I’m female or left-leaning. I think NDN just isn’t logical. BTW, my dad abandoned me at age 12 and I haven’t had a relationship with him since. Plus, my mom was a single secretary from Venezuela, so I had to put myself through college. No daddy’s money here.
Len and Kodie, I most certainly appreciate you all taking up for me! :D
Len, I don’t know what’s going to happen in 30 years, but what I do know is the NYC is incredibly diverse and believe it or not, people co-exist just fine there. They intermarry, they have friends of all kinds, they grow up dealing with diversity every day. I left NYC because I had a hard time adjusting to the cultural differences there. I’m from a place where politeness is a high priority for social cohesion and happiness. You can see why I didn’t fit in there, right? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (ps, I know I can be gruff on this site, but I’m pretty sweet in person, for the most part. LOLOL!!!!)
ps Len,
I hear what you are saying about mini-countries, but don’t we have that here already? For instance, a girl raised in a fundamentalist christian family and community has social pressure on her about how to dress, how to act, whether or not to have sex, etc. Think about the extreme Mormons, or the Amish… right?
I don’t like Sharia law at all, but I also don’t like fundamentalist Mormons living like it’s 1880, nor the Amish living like it’s 1780. I think all religion is ridiculous, but our Constitution guarantees people the right to practice it, whether I like it or not.
:)
New definition for the Moron to English guidebook.
“taking advantage of people like me who stumble onto this site” = Using reason and logic to refute a position based in fear and bigotry.
Wow, I didn’t know being from a country makes you responsible for everything it has ever done. And your finish was beautiful, “go make me a nintendo”.
The next time you travel outside America, don’t wonder why you have to wear a Canadian flag on your backpack.
First of all, when I travel outside the U.S. I don’t wear any flag on my backpack ( I am a straight male). But, if I ever felt the urge to wear the American flag, I would have no problem or any fear of doing so. What are you going to do? Ask me how cool it is to live in America just like everyone did the last time I was in Europe?
“What [am I] going to do?” Are you calling me out on the internet? Cool.
“Ask me how cool it is to live in America just like everyone did the last time I was in Europe?”
People like you are the only reason I had to debate vacationing in the US.
“( I am a straight male)”
Glad you told me, otherwise I would never have known.
Or cared.
In your future postings could you try to be a little more butch? This way you wont have to waste time by declaring your sexuality.
Sunny, that was hilarious.
I think I love you a little bit now.
BUT I AM TOTALLY HETEROSEXUAL!!1!!!
*flexes muscles while drinking beer and watching football next to his guns*
Are they manly guns?
See Lenny5!
Try to be more like TY. He’s doing it right.
Olaf – I don’t have to deal with religious kooks here (2% are christian and Muslims are even less 150K total).
Lenny – Decent attempt at trolling I give it a 6 out of 10. But I’ll play your game just this once and feed ya.
If you are seriously comparing Pearl Harbor (which was an attack on a military target), to two nukes with lots of collateral damage then you are beyond help. Japan apologized but I guess the USA feels they don’t have to? Then get they upset over a mosque being built? When the USA still has bases/occupying countries that don’t want them there anymore.
Oh and you want to compare war crimes? The USA has had more than their fair share of them. Hello Kettle I’m Pot…
Finally at least Japan MAKES products and is the #2 economy in the world right now. :P
Te do you have many Muslims in Japan? Do you get a lot of contact with them like daily basis?
poor olaf, he actually is trying to garner information from this. Olaf, this is not a website to get information. This is a website for people to argue their points mindlessly. Just look at what Siberia, Kodie, and the others have to say. Some guy wrote yesterday that Hitler was a Christian fundamentalist. If you want answers use an online encyclopedia.
What, the argument that your country bombs and harasses the hell out of other people’s countries then gets outraged when someone attacks them back?
Americans are such crybabies.
Note: no offense meant to those Americans who are not, in fact, crybabies and are able to see their own country’s responsibilities to other countries as well as uphold their own goddamn constitution. I know it’s not all of you.
Thanks Siberia.
Some of us are trying.
I, however, am a crybaby.
Here’s your lolipop.
Mmm. A tootsie roll pop.
I don’t think that nextdoorneighbor/triviallls/kodieisgay/alittlereason/lenny5 realizes that he has already revealed his sock puppetry. Dude, we know that you are all one person and that you are making up extra names in a lame attempt to pretend you have people who agree with you on the mistaken assumption that stupid ideas are smarter if more people argue for them.
I almost thought of going on this whole tirade about how the United States is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and how Rauf’s infamous statement was actually 100% correct and that 9/11 was not a completely random attack, but if you’re already at the point of tacitly admitting the weakness of your arguments by resorting to sock puppetry and whining about liberals beating you in an argument then it isn’t really necessary for me to bother. You’ve made my point for me.
Thank you for demonstrating so beautifully that most christians are more stupid, reactionary, violent, and deceitful than any muslim I have ever met, and showing us all why christian theocracy is not the way to combat islamic theocracy.
Most importantly,
F*ck god
It look like the writers of the daily show have been reading what ever his name’s comments and have come up with a reply
link
Excellent. And the other one there: Extremist Makeover – Team Mohammed vs. Team Jesus
nextdoorneighbor: most importantly, Jon Stewart bless.