• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Reilly ticks off View hosts Behar and Goldberg

Your co worker sounds somewhat like my father.. except my dad is younger. I personally want to see Turkey in the EU and align with Europe more. I don't like that Angela Merkle is against it. There are so many Turkish people still in Germany today, and have been stateless since going there to rebuild their country. I lived in Germany for a little while myself.. but I have no personal complaints. I like the country. I just think the Turkish people should have some form of citizenship or voice, if not in Germany then at least through the EU.. It's not fair of Germany to block it every way possible.
It seems to me that most countries in the world are based on tribal cohesion that goes back to at least the Middle Ages and, while they may officially accept immigrants from other countries and former colonies, those immigrants are never completely accepted as German, French, Dutch, Japanese, or whatever. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are different in that their societies are built on acceptance of ideals rather than ethnic background, and it is much easier for a newcomer to be accepted - provided they adopt the social norms of their new home.

For an excellent discussion of minorities and assimilation, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's collection of essays Black Rednecks and White Liberals.

One of the major obstacles to assimilation is the misguided attempt of some to promote "multiculturalism" which facilitates the creation of ghettos that isolate the newcomers from mainstream life and delay the assimilation. The existence of those ghettos throughout Europe is now a serious problem, and Angela Merkel is the only leader so far with the courage to identify it as such and attempt to deal with it. The absurd demand of some of these ghettos that they be allowed to apply their own version of civil law within their enclaves is completely unacceptable, and the fact that a few countries have allowed it by default in some areas is simply an abdication of sovereignty for which they will pay dearly in the future.

Everyone in the world is either an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants, even those we call "natives" (whose immigration history is lost in the mists of the past). Here in the US we recognize this, mostly I suppose because so many of us are descended from recent immigrants and we have heard stories from family members who suffered discrimination against Irish, Italians, Japanese, Jews or whatever. Now we are all Americans who get along insofar as we follow the social norms and respect the ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and we accept as one of us those newcomers who will do the same.

Those who express contempt for our ideals or flaunt the social norms of courtesy are not accepted so easily, and incidents like the flying imams in Minneapolis set up all sorts of red flags. The contempt for the country and its sensibilities demonstrated by the proposal to build a mosque near Ground Zero (and named Cordoba House, no less!!) brings shame and contempt upon the whole group these jerks claim to represent. I hope that true American Muslims will convince these provocateurs to abandon their plans and work instead to restore Islam to a respectable position in the world.
 
CP, if you say, as he has, that the community center shouldn't be built due to 9/11, something done by Al Qaeda, terrorist, then you are comparing all muslims to terrorist.

1. that's not what you claimed. what you claimed was that O'Reilly and myself were arguing that simply being a muslim made one a terrorist. either cite it for me, or you owe myself (and O'Reilly, but i doubt you talk to him) an apology. even for someone as experienced as wriggling out of being caught and moving the goalposts as yourself this switchup isn't going to fly.

2. no, it doesn't mean that at all.

3. if you had bothered to read the thread, you would note that there are two issues that are insulting about this mosque: 1. it's location and 2. the particular beliefs practices and connectsions of its' leadership.
 
Those who express contempt for our ideals or flaunt the social norms of courtesy are not accepted so easily, and incidents like the flying imams in Minneapolis set up all sorts of red flags. The contempt for the country and its sensibilities demonstrated by the proposal to build a mosque near Ground Zero (and named Cordoba House, no less!!) brings shame and contempt upon the whole group these jerks claim to represent. I hope that true American Muslims will convince these provocateurs to abandon their plans and work instead to restore Islam to a respectable position in the world.

exactly. these people are who we need more of.
 
exactly. these people are who we need more of.
Agreed, in spades. When the Flying Imams made noises about suing the passengers who had complained about their misbehavior, Jasser stepped forth to create an aid fund to pay the passengers' legal defense fees (which probably played a large part in getting the arrogant ones to back off). He has done more to demonstrate the existence and value of moderate Muslims than Rauf or CAIR can ever imagine doing, and his web site is well worth following.
 
i have liked, gotten along with, trusted, and literally placed my life in the hands of (and in turn, risked my life for) many Muslim individuals.

i do not trust the Islamist advocacy movements in the West, however; they have too often proved to be merely funneling groups (or apologists) to dangerous Islamist elements both here and abroad.



i've served with them; we were colocated with and responsible for training both Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police



quite the contrary; i had many positive experience with them as well as many negative experiences. when it comes to hospitality, their culture has ours beat to the point where it's almost embarrassing. my lord, what a spread they would make at the house meetings; it put me onto organic food for the rest of my life. Iraqi Police worked under conditions that you and I can't even imagine: as a member of the military, the worst that would happen to me is that I get killed. Iraqi Police faced the daily very realistic threat that, instead of them dying, someone would torture their family to death in retaliation for them standing up. Some of our IP's got caught alone at night; we would find pieces of them scattered across the city; brave men who had faced and paid a tab you and I can't even imagine in order to give their people some peace and security.

do you have anything that you would be willing to risk your children being tortured to death for? yet they were willing to face that nightmare in order to protect their neighborhoods. I admit, I love my country, but it would be a strong temptation to just move rather than lose my kids.



well i have also met and interacted with the True Believers; the Islamists, members of AQI, etc. If ever you didn't believe there was such a thing as Evil in the world; that kind of experience would cure you.



yup, that's there too. It depends on where you are and who you are dealing with. In Afghanistan our biggest hamperence with regards to the locals is that the people think they can't trust us to protect them.... seems our Commander In Chief keeps making noises about pulling out in 2011...



i don't hate muslims. but i recognize what Islamism is, and I am aware of both it's pull to the general muslim population, and the threat that that represents to a weakened West.

But your concept of Islam comes from a war zone.. no offense. It's just that it's different for me and children who have eastern, Muslim parents but are Americans. I don't identify with any of those things... I wasn't born there, and ever lived there. They are not American. This issue is about American Muslims, and I don't see the the Muslim people the same as you. I have had my experiences in America..
 
1. that's not what you claimed. what you claimed was that O'Reilly and myself were arguing that simply being a muslim made one a terrorist. either cite it for me, or you owe myself (and O'Reilly, but i doubt you talk to him) an apology. even for someone as experienced as wriggling out of being caught and moving the goalposts as yourself this switchup isn't going to fly.

2. no, it doesn't mean that at all.

3. if you had bothered to read the thread, you would note that there are two issues that are insulting about this mosque: 1. it's location and 2. the particular beliefs practices and connectsions of its' leadership.

There is nothing that links the people building the community center to 9/11 except a misguided notion that they're muslim, so they must be terrorist. I'm sorry, cp, but I owe you and O'Reilly nothing. Nor have I moved any goal post.

1) Location. If not linked to those who attacked us, what possible reason would there be for location being a concern? Seriously CP, don't hide or skirt. No one building the community center has anything to do with 9/11, so location should have no bearing. None. Unless you're linking them to the terrorist who attacked. You can't pretend the logic behind your complaint doesn't exist.

2) Again, another red herring. The leaders of this have a very moderate and open view. If you're refering to the efforts to mislead people on his views, remember, I can read. I'm not as easily fooled as a Fox viewer. ;) :lol:
 
But your concept of Islam comes from a war zone.. no offense.

none taken because my concept of Islam only comes partly from service in that war zone. I also study the history of that faith and region of the world academically (if you like i can post for you the best case i have ever tried to make demonstrating how conceptually how representative government can anchor itself in Islamic history and theology), and interact with them in their application in other settings; for example i spent about a year and a half as a member of a forum like this one that was dedicated to Shia Muslims; conversing, debating, comparing, contrasting; so on and so forth.

This issue is about American Muslims, and I don't see the the Muslim people the same as you.

clearly. the question is which one of us is closest to the true matter of the thing?

I have had my experiences in America..

? what. are you now going to claim that because you've seen one or a few events that contained bigotry that that is some kind of broad brush you can use to paint all those who disagree with you?
 
There is nothing that links the people building the community center to 9/11 except a misguided notion that they're muslim, so they must be terrorist.

that is absolutely incorrect, as demonstrated by your complete inability to post even one instance of someone ever actually utilizing that line of reasoning. it is no more legitimate than me saying if you opposed the invasion of Iraq you must hate America, because i say so.

but i would love to see your line of reasoning on how, for example, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are exhibiting the misguided notion that because Iman Rauf is a muslim, he must be a terrorist?

obviously Dr. Zhudi Jasser is an anti-Islamic bigot, right? :roll:

Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in order to provide a Muslim American voice that would genuinely advocate and defend the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution. He has taken the fight against radical Islam to heart and sees it as a responsibility of all “true” Muslims. Where many U.S.-based Islamic organizations, such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, claim to support the U.S. Constitution but provide dodgy answers and shoddy excuses for terrorism when the rubber meets the road, Dr. Jasser’s AIFD is based on the founding principles of the United States. Where CAIR’s rhetoric tends to create a tension between Americans and its Muslim members, the rhetoric of Jasser and AIFD refers to Americans as an “us” and not a “them.”

“I have always looked upon myself, long before 9-11, as a Jeffersonian Muslim, if you will,” Dr. Jasser answers when asked about his identification as a Muslim. “Along with the ideas of liberty as embodied in the works of our founding fathers, naturally emanating from that is a deep antipathy for Islamism (political Islam), salafism, jihadism, governmental sharia, and the global collectivist movement of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Terms such as “moderate,” “secular,” and “radical” are innately controversial as any group is able to contort them to mean what they want. For example, Jasser posits, the term “moderate” has become synonymous with being non-violent or anti-terrorism. But this is an oversimplification that blinds Americans to the very political ideologies — which he identifies as “Islamism” — that are the cogs and gears of terrorism.

“I know everyone is looking for an easy label to know the ‘good Muslim’ from the ‘bad Muslim,’” Jasser continues, “but … I believe that the ‘anti-Islamist’ or at least ‘non-Islamist’ Muslims are on our side and the pro-Islamist Muslims, those who believe in the Islamic state and governmental sharia, are not on our side but on the side of political Islam.”

AIFD’s slogan is that its members are “Americans who happen to be Muslim, and not Muslims who demand to be American.” As a devout Muslim, Dr. Jasser has voiced strong opposition to the mosque now called “Park 51” that threatens to encroach on Ground Zero. When he first heard of the plans, he says, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Post detailing why he as a Muslim felt a mosque in such a location would only offer more misguidance for the U.S. Muslim community.

“The reality is that many of us have never said their rights should be infringed in any way but rather that we pray that a light will finally go on in their heads which tells them that ‘this ostentatious $100 million Islamic center should be built elsewhere and not in a place that casts a shadow upon the graves of thousands of Americans’ — still an open raw wound for most Americans,” Dr. Jasser explains....

“I cannot see genuine Muslim reform happening on the dime of foreign Islamist interests,” Jasser says. “Make no mistake, this Islamic center is not a spiritual statement but a global political one in the name of Islam. … Every group I have been directly involved with in building mosques and Islamic projects in the U.S. have rejected foreign funds entirely because of the ideological hypocrisies and Islamism that comes with them.”...

Dr. Jasser has also taken serious issue with the background story that the mosque’s developers have chosen to promote... the possibility of the Ground Zero mosque coalescing from idea into structure presents not only the insult to the millions of Americans who experienced true horror on September 11, 2001, nor the threat of a new mammoth gateway for radical Islamic ideas to slip into the U.S., but the threat of sending a message of weakness to Islamists the world over.

“It will be used by Islamist leadership around the world to say, ‘despite the violence that al-Qaeda perpetrated on the American population, political Islam will always be victorious and from its ashes has risen the largest religious Muslim structure in the United States,’” Jasser warns. “As the administration continues to move backwards, [outlawing] the use of any specific religious Islamic terms like jihad, Islamsim, and salafism, the Islamists continue to make unopposed headway in the contest of ideas. We are losing the war of ideas.”..

“If the organizers [of the Ground Zero mosque] were truly moderate, they would not be building mammoth structures like this but rather investing in spreading the ideas of liberty into the Muslim community against the ideas of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. They would be teaching American Muslim youth to reach out by joining our military and homeland security efforts en masse rather than allowing Islamist organizations in D.C. like CAIR to brainwash young Muslims that our military and FBI are anti-Muslim and the U.S. is anti-Islam.”


no doubt Tawfik Hamid is also anti-Muslim, and thinks that all Muslims are terrorists....

Hamid is well acquainted with the threats from radical Islam — he was once a member of a terrorist Islamic organization along with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who later became the second in command of al-Qaida.

Today Hamid is a senior fellow and chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. He is the author of "Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam,"...

President Barack Obama said over the weekend that the Muslims have the right to build the mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, although he later stated he did not advocate the construction. But New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he does advocate construction.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Hamid criticized Bloomberg’s advocacy of the mosque.

“I believe he did this without doing the most basic step, which is to make sure that the leaders of the mosque are truly moderates,” Hamid says.

“I don’t have any specific negative things against them except for the issue of Hamas. They support Hamas. This is a very serious issue. It means they support killing innocent children in the name of Islam. This is what Hamas does. He should have made sure first that this group [that wants to build the mosque] is moderate.

“He should have asked them, if they are truly moderate, shall they tell us, and tell the media and tell the world, their position on the violent Shariah teachings, such as killing the apostate and stoning women to death and declaring wars to spread their religion.

“How could he consider them moderate without making sure that they stand clearly and unambiguously against the violent ethics of Shariah?”

As for why he personally opposes construction of the mosque, Hamid says: “Many Islamists believe that this is a sign of victory for Islam, a triumph over America. It’s a symbol of victory for Islam over the values of America.”...

Asked if the mosque project will further polarize Muslims and non-Muslims, Hamid says: “Absolutely. It will create friction between civilizations, and I’m afraid it can be the spark that will start the big fire of a war between civilizations, because I can see people are getting angry.

“And it shows a lot of insensitivity from the Muslim side. Doing something legal does not mean that you are sensitive to others.”..

“Some people pretend they are moderates but they are not moderates. And there are some people who do not have the theological knowledge to discredit the beliefs of the radicals.

“It’s tribal mentality. We haven’t seen demonstrations in the Muslim world against bin-Laden, for example. So it’s sort of a tribal mentality that makes them unable to criticize their fellow Muslim brothers.”

Nor have I moved any goal post.

as long as you are pretending to the insanely stupid idea that thinking the 9/11 mosque is insensitive = thinking that all muslims are terrorists, then you are correct, your worldview is logically consistent. it just also has little connection with reality.

The leaders of this have a very moderate and open view.

really. firstly, if they were moderate, they would be pursuing a course more like that outlined above. secondly, they would be willing to discredit hamas. thirdly, they wouldn't include 9/11 truthers.
 
Last edited:
I know.. it's like you can't win.. ever. If you say you're moderate, you could still bomb NYC.. don't trust any Muslim ever, they can suddenly change teams.

If this is all Muslims are going to get in return for being moderate and decrying terrorism.. then I say build the Mosque. Don't even listen to these people.. they won't listen to you. The Muslim community knows who their American friends are.

Really, who are their friends?
 
Juan Williams sat in for Bill O'Reilly last night, and the last ten minutes of the first half hour were an excellent recap of this thread: 3 minutes to replay part of Megyn Kelly's interview with Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR earlier in the day, and 7 minutes with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser who completely demolished Hooper as a "moderate" Muslim.

Dr. Jasser is exactly correct that the self-professed "moderate" Muslims complain about bias and Islamaphobia in order to misdirect the conversation away from the real problem, which is that they are trying to hide Political Islam behind Religious Islam. Dr. Jasser recognizes that Islam needs a Reformation to separate the two, an Enlightenment, and that this is a Muslim problem which can only be solved by Muslims who will unite to disavow the political ideology that motivates the Islamists. The guy is absolutely brilliant, a true moderate Muslim, and I hope to see more of him and his ideas in the future.
 
that is absolutely incorrect, as demonstrated by your complete inability to post even one instance of someone ever actually utilizing that line of reasoning. it is no more legitimate than me saying if you opposed the invasion of Iraq you must hate America, because i say so.

but i would love to see your line of reasoning on how, for example, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are exhibiting the misguided notion that because Iman Rauf is a muslim, he must be a terrorist?

obviously Dr. Zhudi Jasser is an anti-Islamic bigot, right? :roll:




no doubt Tawfik Hamid is also anti-Muslim, and thinks that all Muslims are terrorists....





as long as you are pretending to the insanely stupid idea that thinking the 9/11 mosque is insensitive = thinking that all muslims are terrorists, then you are correct, your worldview is logically consistent. it just also has little connection with reality.



really. firstly, if they were moderate, they would be pursuing a course more like that outlined above. secondly, they would be willing to discredit hamas. thirdly, they wouldn't include 9/11 truthers.

Where to begin with such nonsense. Only if they do what you or someone else tells them to do, can they be moderate? Utter horse ****. It is not logically possible to link 9'11 familes being upset to the community center and not link those building it to the terrorist of 9'11. Not possible. If they are not link to 9/11 terrorist, family members have no reason to be offended.

And no where above do you link any action by the Iman that justifies the objections. Instead, you repeatedly use faulty logic, making flawed connections without ever showing any actual action committed. You simply set forth your view of what he should do, and label anything less as not being moderate. This is flawed logic. I'm sorry, but you are doing exactly what I say you are doing.
 
I didn't watch the video, but I hope Bill O'Reily got kicked out before he could say Jack Robinson.
 
Where to begin with such nonsense. Only if they do what you or someone else tells them to do, can they be moderate? Utter horse ****. It is not logically possible to link 9'11 familes being upset to the community center and not link those building it to the terrorist of 9'11. Not possible. If they are not link to 9/11 terrorist, family members have no reason to be offended.

what the hell...???

joe, i need you to make sure that you are responding to the post that you think you are before i suggest the onset of senility to explain your sudden reading comprehension issues. i have never brought the 9/11 families into this debate.

however, your logical fallacy (it's called the "Fallacy of Assumption") in ascribing to others the belief that all muslims are terrorists (when you could not possibly know their beliefs unless they themselves announced them) stands. you were presented with outspoken and public individuals who cannot possibly be considered to hold the viewpoint that "all muslims are terrorists" who nonetheless oppose the building of the Cordoba 'Victory' Mosque for good reasons; not least of which is that it will result in exactly the opposite of what it purports to be its goals.

And no where above do you link any action by the Iman that justifies the objections.

you didn't say that Imam Rauf was moderate, you said the leadership of this project is moderate and open. it's not my fault that you were willing to broaden your group to include 9/11 truthers (though hey, maybe the President needs a new Green Jobs Czar?).

first rule of thumb for determining whether a self-proclaimed 'Islamic Moderate Leader' is, in fact, a moderate; devoted to things like peaceful discourse, rule of law, etc. ask him whether he supports imposing sharia on the West (Imam Rauf does), and ask him what his stance on Hamas is (guess what Imam connected to the Cordoba Mosque project is at best ambivalent and certainly refuses to disown a group that even the State Department recognizes as a terrorist organization?).

the second rule of thumb is to see what they say in Arabic.

Imam Rauf said:
On March 24, 2010, Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for the website Rights4All, a leading educational institution of the Arabic-speaking world, entitled "The Most Prominent Imam in New York: 'I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.'" He goes on to say that "Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing." Finally, Rauf says "it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of sharia that are required to govern."


now, the funny thing is that you are arguing that those who believe one thing (having these yahoos build the 9/11 Cordoba Mosque is insensitive, insulting, and unlikely to increase rapproachment between the west and Islam) must believe another (Muslims attacked us on 9/11, so all Muslims are all terrorists)..... and yet, by making that connection, you are utilizing the exact same failed logic that you accuse others of. :D
 
what the hell...???

joe, i need you to make sure that you are responding to the post that you think you are before i suggest the onset of senility to explain your sudden reading comprehension issues. i have never brought the 9/11 families into this debate.

however, your logical fallacy (it's called the "Fallacy of Assumption") in ascribing to others the belief that all muslims are terrorists (when you could not possibly know their beliefs unless they themselves announced them) stands. you were presented with outspoken and public individuals who cannot possibly be considered to hold the viewpoint that "all muslims are terrorists" who nonetheless oppose the building of the Cordoba 'Victory' Mosque for good reasons; not least of which is that it will result in exactly the opposite of what it purports to be its goals.

Many do, including O'Rielly:


O'Reilly called the project "inappropriate" because “a lot of the 9/11 families, who I know, say, ‘Look, we don’t want that, that shouldn’t be there.’”

(snip)


That's when O'Reilly said: "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11."

Read more: Bill O'Reilly fireworks: Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar walk off 'The View' (Poll) - KansasCity.com

You defend what O'Rielly says, then you are accepting his argument.

you didn't say that Imam Rauf was moderate, you said the leadership of this project is moderate and open. it's not my fault that you were willing to broaden your group to include 9/11 truthers (though hey, maybe the President needs a new Green Jobs Czar?).

I thought we were talking about Rauf, but again, you use, much like Fox, loose affiliations and misrepresenting statements ot skew things. no one involved is pro-terrorist.

first rule of thumb for determining whether a self-proclaimed 'Islamic Moderate Leader' is, in fact, a moderate; devoted to things like peaceful discourse, rule of law, etc. ask him whether he supports imposing sharia on the West (Imam Rauf does), and ask him what his stance on Hamas is (guess what Imam connected to the Cordoba Mosque project is at best ambivalent and certainly refuses to disown a group that even the State Department recognizes as a terrorist organization?).

No, he doesn't. I've read the comments others have presented to say this, and they have clearly misread the comments. If you have something different present it. But nothing in the comments given so far actually say what you claim.

the second rule of thumb is to see what they say in Arabic.

Which says nothing shocking here? What crazy interpretation are you trying to attach to this? :confused:



now, the funny thing is that you are arguing that those who believe one thing (having these yahoos build the 9/11 Cordoba Mosque is insensitive, insulting, and unlikely to increase rapproachment between the west and Islam) must believe another (Muslims attacked us on 9/11, so all Muslims are all terrorists)..... and yet, by making that connection, you are utilizing the exact same failed logic that you accuse others of. :D

From my position, you just don't know what the person your defending has said. If you did, you would know he said exactly what I said he siad. And you defending him. Also, your rather skewed view of things is also inaccurate. I'm not sure yet as to why what you claim is so far off what you quote, much like those who claimed he want to impose sharia law on us. They clearly misread, and I could not see how int he world they could such a poor reading of something. Unless you have something that is actually intepreted correctly, I stand by what I have said.
 
Back
Top Bottom