• 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!

Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque

He's part of a group (Perdana Global Peace Organization) that gave some money to another group (Free Gaza Movement). That group sponsored the IHH flotilla.

That somehow makes him a jihadist.

Care to show your reasoning? And it may help if you didn't use a website like JihadWatch :rofl

I think I am listed on JihadWatch...
 
Twitter fight? Really.

Let's just have a Pillow fight on the issue and call it a day.
 
It's only a provocation if you think Muslims and the 9/11 terrorists are actually part of the same group.
If that is the case, you should consider whether or not this applies to the Ku Klux Klan/Army of God and Christians.

I do not think Muslims & the 911 Terrorists are necessarily part of the same group.

I am more convinced that the Ku Klux Klan is part and parcel of the American Christian Church.
 
PGPO and the Free Gaza Movement aren't jihadist groups. Apparently you have no idea what a jihadist group is. Here's a hint: Al Qaida is one.

As usual Degreez you are dead wrong and what a shocker you support these groups:

The Israeli government, after a short period of debate, decided that it will intercept the convoy as it has done with other ships heading for Gaza — enforcing the blockade established in 2007 in coordination with the Egyptians after the ascent of Hamas to power. The IDF announced that the ships will be stopped by the Israeli navy, boarded, and then escorted to Ashdod, where the cargo will be unloaded and then transferred to Gaza.

Following that announcement, the father of the kidnapped soldier made his offer.

He said he would give the convoy his stamp of approval and use his considerable moral leverage to pressure Israel to allow the convoy to continue to Gaza — if the organizers of the cruise agreed to make contact with his son:

Attorney Nick Kaufman, who approached the Free Gaza Movement on behalf of the kidnapped soldier’s family, told Ynet that he offered the flotilla’s organizers the family’s full support, provided that “in addition to their demand that Israel lift its blockade they will urge Hamas to allow the soldier to receive letters and food packages from his family and allow international organizations to visit him.”

According to Kaufman, he was referred to the movement’s legal counsel, who rejected the offer. “I thought this movement supports human rights, as it claims, but according to the reaction it seems that it is only interested in provocation and expressing support for a terror group that doesn’t really care about human rights,” said the attorney.

Indeed — depressingly, but unsurprisingly — the humanitarian commitment of those aboard the “Freedom Flotilla” does not extend to Gilad Shalit. It doesn’t even sound like they spent much time debating the offer. Almost immediately after the Israeli media announced that it had been extended, it was refused, in keeping with their support of a regime that has held Shalit for four years under conditions that violate international law.


Pajamas Media » The ‘Free Gaza Movement’ Convoy: Humanitarians or Camera-Seekers?

According to your website, you describe yourselves as a "human rights movement."

You proclaim: "We respect the human rights of everyone, regardless of race, tribe, religion, ethnicity, nationality, citizenship or language."

And yet nowhere is there evidence of your respect for the human rights of Israelis, who've been the targets of massive human rights violations by Hamas and other terror groups operating freely in Gaza.

Are human rights indivisible, or only permitted for the groups you preselect?

Actually, you answer that question at a deeper level when you assert that: "We recognize the right of all Palestinian refugees and exiles and their heirs to return to their homes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.... This is an individual and not a collective right, and cannot be negotiated except by the individual."

In other words, not only do Israelis, who want nothing more than to live free of missile and mortar attacks from Gaza, have no such right, but the country in which they live has no right to exist. That's precisely what your formula means.

So much for being a "human rights movement" and respecting "the human rights of everyone."

Clearly, if it's not about pointing the finger at Israel -- or, should I say, giving Israel the finger -- then you're simply not interested.

When Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967 and imposed draconian military rule, where were you to protest and organize flotillas and "humanitarian convoys"?

When in 2005 Israel left Gaza to determine its own destiny -- for the first time in its history, I might add -- where were you to encourage investment and job creation?

When Hamas violently ousted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza in 2007, where were you to express support for the PA?

When Hamas opted to follow a dead-end strategy to turn Gaza into a pariah state and terrorist redoubt, where were you to press for a truly "free Gaza"?

When Christians were attacked in Gaza by jihadists, where were you to demonstrate solidarity with the victims?

When Egypt sealed its border with Gaza and, later, announced the construction of a steel wall along the frontier, where were you?

And when officials today live lavishly in Gaza and humanitarian supplies are siphoned off to privileged groups and gangs, where are you?


No, it's only about Israel. Nothing else matters. Your agenda is obvious. Your motives are transparent. And surrounding yourselves with a few convenient Jews doesn't make you any more credible.


David Harris: To the Free Gaza Movement

As usual you are defending a terrorist supporting organization who doesn't have the slightest interest in peace or helping the people of Gaza. They want to hurt Israel politically as much as possible while supporting Hamas.
 
Last edited:
Last time I checked it was innocent until proven guilty in this part of the word, and not guilt by association.

These Muslims are free to build whatever they want on their property, just like any other faith. People are also free to complain about it as if there is some automatic link to Al Qaeda, but have fun proving that delusion.
 
A few things make me suspicious of this whole thing. First - down town - there's little to no one living near the WTC, so a mosque there is not really going to be a mosque, it's going to be a monument or a show place of sorts. Second - the proximity to the WTC lends some credibility to the charge: Islam builds monuments on their victories. That's an inflammatory charge but history does tend to show where Islam had victory's - monuments were erected, most of them were built or converted to mosques. One of the most famous - Hagia Sofia in Istanbul. Third, the imam view on Islam and aspects of sharia are a little disturbing. I personally find the proximity distasteful and laugh at the liberal diversity nonsense of Bloomberg as elitist and ignorant politics. He wants to show how ameniable New Yorkers are inviting Islam to the WTC. American's are forgiving but most are not THAT forgiving - and yes, it's been 10 years. I'd personally reject this building - tell them to find another spot in NY where we'd be happy to help them build. If they're dead set on this spot --- come back in another 20 years and we'll discuss it then.
 
A few things make me suspicious of this whole thing. First - down town - there's little to no one living near the WTC, so a mosque there is not really going to be a mosque, it's going to be a monument or a show place of sorts. Second - the proximity to the WTC lends some credibility to the charge: Islam builds monuments on their victories. That's an inflammatory charge but history does tend to show where Islam had victory's - monuments were erected, most of them were built or converted to mosques. One of the most famous - Hagia Sofia in Istanbul. Third, the imam view on Islam and aspects of sharia are a little disturbing. I personally find the proximity distasteful and laugh at the liberal diversity nonsense of Bloomberg as elitist and ignorant politics. He wants to show how ameniable New Yorkers are inviting Islam to the WTC. American's are forgiving but most are not THAT forgiving - and yes, it's been 10 years. I'd personally reject this building - tell them to find another spot in NY where we'd be happy to help them build. If they're dead set on this spot --- come back in another 20 years and we'll discuss it then.

That makes sense. It's a super sekret plot to erect a statue to a big victory over their own nation, and let kids go swimming and pray. Thanks for applying such strenuous logic to this.
 
A few things make me suspicious of this whole thing. First - down town - there's little to no one living near the WTC, so a mosque there is not really going to be a mosque, it's going to be a monument or a show place of sorts. Second - the proximity to the WTC lends some credibility to the charge: Islam builds monuments on their victories. That's an inflammatory charge but history does tend to show where Islam had victory's - monuments were erected, most of them were built or converted to mosques. One of the most famous - Hagia Sofia in Istanbul. Third, the imam view on Islam and aspects of sharia are a little disturbing. I personally find the proximity distasteful and laugh at the liberal diversity nonsense of Bloomberg as elitist and ignorant politics. He wants to show how ameniable New Yorkers are inviting Islam to the WTC. American's are forgiving but most are not THAT forgiving - and yes, it's been 10 years. I'd personally reject this building - tell them to find another spot in NY where we'd be happy to help them build. If they're dead set on this spot --- come back in another 20 years and we'll discuss it then.

What's this nonsense about Islam having a "victory"? Last time I checked it wasn't Islam that attacked us. It was Al-Qaeda, and too assume everyone who is muslim is a terrorist is just plain wrong.
 
I havent payed much attention to this since I really dont a flying **** but in my observations much of the opposition are people who dont live/arent even from NYC let along New York state. Its quite funny listening to carpetbaggers preach what we should and should not do. If the land was up for sale and this organization bought it the legal way then they have the right to do what they want with said land (keeping in tune with local building codes and whatnot). If you got a problem with it, dont come to New York City.
 
I havent payed much attention to this since I really dont a flying **** but in my observations much of the opposition are people who dont live/arent even from NYC let along New York state. Its quite funny listening to carpetbaggers preach what we should and should not do. If the land was up for sale and this organization bought it the legal way then they have the right to do what they want with said land (keeping in tune with local building codes and whatnot). If you got a problem with it, dont come to New York City.

I'd be so ****ing happy if Sarah Palin restricted her activities to Alaska. You betcha I would.
 
That makes sense. It's a super sekret plot to erect a statue to a big victory over their own nation, and let kids go swimming and pray. Thanks for applying such strenuous logic to this.

Thanks for a bad attempt to discredit something you obviously disagree with by not addressing the concerns, history or the sensitivity and emotion this issue obviously generates. Alinsky and apologists would be proud.
 
What's this nonsense about Islam having a "victory"? Last time I checked it wasn't Islam that attacked us. It was Al-Qaeda, and too assume everyone who is muslim is a terrorist is just plain wrong.

I'm not claiming Islam attacked us nor am I claiming all muslims are terrorists - I'm claiming Islam historically puts up monuments over victory's. Does Islam see 9/11 as a victory over the United States? I don't know - I would hope not. I would hope they see it as mass murder. Does Al Qaeda see 9/11 as a victory off the United States? Yes I believe they do. Would Al Qaeda like to see a Mosque go up near the WTC site? Do we know everything about this Imam and his motivations for putting a Mosque so close to the WTC site? We only know what we read or hear. Could this mosque be construed as a monument of victory? Yes it can -- whether you see it that way or not does not mean it's not legitimate to others who may see it that way.

Bottom line is - NY is a pretty big place... lots of places to put a monument or a mosque. Why does it have to be there?
 
Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque - Yahoo! News





Interesting. On one hand I agree with Palin, it feels like a provocation. On the other hand, Palin should mind her own damn business. This is a New York City issue. The Masjid Manhattan Mosque is only a few blocks away from the WTC. Muslims regularly can be seen praying OUTSIDE of the mosque when it is too busy. Is that a provocation? Not at all. Seems to me like one more issue she feels the need to cash in on. New Yorkers pride themselves in being multicultural. It should be up to them to decide whether or not the mosque is built and for what reason. Not up to politicians who pimp themselves out at every chance or their xenophobic followers around America.

Provocation or not, they're doing nothing illegal so there ain't **** we can do about it. Sure we can sit around and be pissed off, piss and moan about it; but that's ain't gonna do anything. May as well be happy that we live in a country where something like this is even possible and enjoy the fact that we've adhered to the concepts of freedom and liberty for so long.
 
Provocation or not, they're doing nothing illegal so there ain't **** we can do about it. Sure we can sit around and be pissed off, piss and moan about it; but that's ain't gonna do anything. May as well be happy that we live in a country where something like this is even possible and enjoy the fact that we've adhered to the concepts of freedom and liberty for so long.

I disagree to a point --- there's nothing illegal, that's clear. However lots of pissing and moaning politically and strategically can change people's minds about voting for or against allowing the measure. You know as well as I do that strings can and probably are being pulled to reject the building and lots of threats of pulling political money, public pressure, etc.. is being applied which could in the end reject this building or overturn it even after it's approval.
 
A few things make me suspicious of this whole thing. First - down town - there's little to no one living near the WTC, so a mosque there is not really going to be a mosque, it's going to be a monument or a show place of sorts. Second - the proximity to the WTC lends some credibility to the charge: Islam builds monuments on their victories. That's an inflammatory charge but history does tend to show where Islam had victory's - monuments were erected, most of them were built or converted to mosques. One of the most famous - Hagia Sofia in Istanbul. Third, the imam view on Islam and aspects of sharia are a little disturbing. I personally find the proximity distasteful and laugh at the liberal diversity nonsense of Bloomberg as elitist and ignorant politics. He wants to show how ameniable New Yorkers are inviting Islam to the WTC. American's are forgiving but most are not THAT forgiving - and yes, it's been 10 years. I'd personally reject this building - tell them to find another spot in NY where we'd be happy to help them build. If they're dead set on this spot --- come back in another 20 years and we'll discuss it then.

And by what authority will you infringe upon their freedom of religion? And what proof do you condemn these people by other than hearsay, assumption, and supposition? And do you think those are valid forms of "evidence" to excuse the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual?
 
I disagree to a point --- there's nothing illegal, that's clear. However lots of pissing and moaning politically and strategically can change people's minds about voting for or against allowing the measure. You know as well as I do that strings can and probably are being pulled to reject the building and lots of threats of pulling political money, public pressure, etc.. is being applied which could in the end reject this building or overturn it even after it's approval.

There's no reason to "pull strings". There's nothing illegal here. These are citizens expressing and exercising their rights. I am not going to call for government intervention merely because of that. People MUST be allowed to practice and exercise their rights, it's the only way to remain free. The day we start robbing freedom from others due to fear or irrational argument is the day the terrorists really win.
 
Last edited:
And by what authority will you infringe upon their freedom of religion? And what proof do you condemn these people by other than hearsay, assumption, and supposition? And do you think those are valid forms of "evidence" to excuse the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual?
I have no evidence nor is any required. Politicall, social and public pressure can and do have an effect on what occurs - down to what buildings will and will not be built. I'm not making claims I'm simply pointing out that the arguements against putting up this mosque by those who are vocal about it are not 100% bupkus. They have concerns - and some of them may actually be legitimate. Americans like the constitution and law as much as the next guy - that does NOT mean that if they disagree with something which is legal and constitutional, that they won't use money, politics, or social / public pressure to get their way. We're all wearing big boy pants here I think and know that the sun does not rise and set strictly on the law or constitution.
 
There's no reason to "pull strings".
Says you. Others do not agree. People can excercise their rights and practices but are not entitled to do those things everywhere they want to for various reasons.
 
Says you. Others do not agree. People can excercise their rights and practices but are not entitled to do those things everywhere they want to for various reasons.

It's a right, so actually yes they are. There are certain zoning things lets say for buildings; but given everything is within those boundaries they are indeed free to do so everywhere they want to for whatever reason they want to. It's a right, not a privilege.
 
I have no evidence nor is any required. Politicall, social and public pressure can and do have an effect on what occurs - down to what buildings will and will not be built. I'm not making claims I'm simply pointing out that the arguements against putting up this mosque by those who are vocal about it are not 100% bupkus. They have concerns - and some of them may actually be legitimate. Americans like the constitution and law as much as the next guy - that does NOT mean that if they disagree with something which is legal and constitutional, that they won't use money, politics, or social / public pressure to get their way. We're all wearing big boy pants here I think and know that the sun does not rise and set strictly on the law or constitution.

So you have no proof, no valid argument, nothing to support your claim; yet you'd still call for intervention in the exercise of rights because you want to. Sick. People like you are why we can't give up guns.
 
It's a right, so actually yes they are. There are certain zoning things lets say for buildings; but given everything is within those boundaries they are indeed free to do so everywhere they want to for whatever reason they want to. It's a right, not a privilege.

Where in the constitution does it state that I have the right to build a religious building anywhere I want? That does not however address social/public or politial pressure ... something you didn't mention and which occurs all the time when issues are legal and constitutional.

Ikari said:
So you have no proof, no valid argument, nothing to support your claim; yet you'd still call for intervention in the exercise of rights because you want to. Sick. People like you are why we can't give up guns.
I'm not calling for anything - I'm stating that public, political and social pressure can and do make a difference. No evidence required.

And people like you are why we have so many apologists. :shrug:
 
Where in the constitution does it state that I have the right to build a religious building anywhere I want? That does not however address social/public or politial pressure ... something you didn't mention and which occurs all the time when issues are legal and constitutional.

The Constitution doesn't limit the People, it limits the government. I mean, how many times does this have to be explained to fascists?

I'm not calling for anything - I'm stating that public, political and social pressure can and do make a difference. No evidence required.

Which is why what you engage in is treason and tyranny. Because you want to infringe upon people's rights without due process, without any evidence, nothing in the least other than "you want to". That's it. It's sick. Plain and simple. And can only be espoused by those with little to no knowledge and understanding of freedom and liberty.

Land of the free, it's high time people learn what that means and the consequences of it. Sometimes I think this country has become a bunch of ******s. So ****ing scared over some groups exercising their rights that they piss themselves and try to look for alternate ways to infringe upon the free exercise of rights of others.

And people like you are why we have so many apologists. :shrug:

People like you are why we have so much intrusive government and fascism. Maybe we should expel those who cannot live by the responsibilities and consequences of freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom