• 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!

Protesters rally against, for planned Islamic center in New York

You leave out where he goes on to say that he considers himself agnostic, and that "science is his religion". It also doesn't specifically suggest "his core beliefs" are referencing to Catholic doctrine or simple morals.

Also I don't think his religion was the reason for the bombing. So it's not a good parallel.
 
The top two floors being prayer space does NOT equal a mosque. It's a 14-story building. I'm not hesitant. It's just not factual.

For breakfast I took flour, baking powder, salt, eggs, and milk and mixed them together. I then poured the substance on a hot frying pan with butter. I know what you're thinking, but no, it was not a pancake. It was much larger than any panckae you ever saw and I even added strawberrys and bannanas to the top. I like to call it a community breakfast. Yes, it is that big.
 



For God's sake people, listen to the words of this man.


j-mac
 
You leave out where he goes on to say that he considers himself agnostic, and that "science is his religion". It also doesn't specifically suggest "his core beliefs" are referencing to Catholic doctrine or simple morals.

Actually, if you look back, I mentioned that. I did not leave it out.

Boo said:
He actually grew up Catholic and stated in an interview that he kept his core childhood beliefs. You check wikipedia for that. thy also mention the agonstic article.

Though this all skips the point. If te klan works better for you, fine. I'm concerned with the point and nothing else. ;)
 
Well, I relooked it up for you:

In a recorded interview with Time magazine[80] McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."

Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, I didn't look down far enough. So he went to church as a kid then decided he was agnostic. It had nothing to do with the bombing. I found this on your Wikipedia link.

Timothy McVeigh's Letter to Fox News
Thursday, April 26, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter has been authenticated and was sent to Fox News Correspondent Rita Cosby. The opening statement was a photocopied statement in McVeigh's writing. The question-and-answer section following it is clearly an original version in McVeigh's writing.
Original story at: FOXNews.com - McVeigh's Apr. 26 Letter to Fox News - U.S. & World

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of your or my personal opinion of Timothy McVeigh and his act of war against the Murrah Federal Building and occupants, his letter to Fox News is one for the history books. Please remember the famous parable that "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Doc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of the clinical detachment. (the bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

Sincerely, Timothy J. McVeigh
USP Terre Haute (IN)
 
So he lied. He's not the first religious leader to lie, won't be the last. Why is it your business?

Because in Islam, lying to non-Muslims is a sacrament: taqiyya.

Because Islam is a de facto political state whose purpose in the United States is the overthrow of the American government, to replace it with a totalitarian Islamic theocracy:

“The Believers are but a single brotherhood.” —Quran 49:10

“A Muslim has no nationality except his belief.” —Syed Qutb

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi

Because Sharia law is the antithesis of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and proponents of it want the Constitution and the Bill of Rights shredded to be replaced by their "divine" Sharia law.

Because many of us care and are not apathetic about defending our nation and principles against enemies both domestic and foreign.

Any more questions?
 



For God's sake people, listen to the words of this man.


j-mac


So, just criticism equals radicalism? People with a sound self esteem can handle just criticism, weight it, and make judgements based on the legitimacy of the criticism.

BTW, we migh twant to be able these comments in their entirity. I have a healthy skepticism of edited quotes. ;)
 
Thanks, I didn't look down far enough. So he went to church as a kid then decided he was agnostic. It had nothing to do with the bombing. I found this on your Wikipedia link.

Timothy McVeigh's Letter to Fox News
Thursday, April 26, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter has been authenticated and was sent to Fox News Correspondent Rita Cosby. The opening statement was a photocopied statement in McVeigh's writing. The question-and-answer section following it is clearly an original version in McVeigh's writing.
Original story at: FOXNews.com - McVeigh's Apr. 26 Letter to Fox News - U.S. & World

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of your or my personal opinion of Timothy McVeigh and his act of war against the Murrah Federal Building and occupants, his letter to Fox News is one for the history books. Please remember the famous parable that "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Doc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of the clinical detachment. (the bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

Sincerely, Timothy J. McVeigh
USP Terre Haute (IN)

I don't believe I claimed he bombed for religious reason. I don't even think Al Qaeda attacked for strictly religous reasons. I merely noted McVeigh was a Christian.

Like I said above, if the klann works better for you, fine.
 
For God's sake people, listen to the words of this man.


J-mac

There's nothing radical in that video...

The final statement? He's talking about racial conflict and if you mention that lady who said it 30 times I don't care, she shouldn't have been fired for it. Whatever.

The first statement, hey, it is technically true, you have killed more innocent muslims then AND LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR TO YOU!

He STATED "Innocent non-Muslims"

He made a joke in the second statement. Whatever, doesn't mean he approves of suicide bombers.

Third statement, he never cast doubt on anything, I think what he says might be a good point, terrorism isn't just for the sake of terrorism, it is in the end trying to achieve an overall political goal...
 
There's nothing radical in that video...

The final statement? He's talking about racial conflict and if you mention that lady who said it 30 times I don't care, she shouldn't have been fired for it. Whatever.

The first statement, hey, it is technically true, you have killed more innocent muslims then AND LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR TO YOU!

He STATED "Innocent non-Muslims"

He made a joke in the second statement. Whatever, doesn't mean he approves of suicide bombers.

Third statement, he never cast doubt on anything, I think what he says might be a good point, terrorism isn't just for the sake of terrorism, it is in the end trying to achieve an overall political goal...

Thisis the game played that so disappoints me. The extreme effort made to misrepresent every statement into something it isn't. It keeps us divided and causes more pain where understnading might develop.
 
All I can do is shake my head and feel sorry for you libs.


j-mac
 
All I can do is shake my head and feel sorry for you libs.


j-mac

And all I can do is shake my head and feel sorry for you J-Mac....

Truly sorry for someone who has so much hate in his heart.

Who can't see the difference between Radical Islam and Islam.
 
Are you saying all muslims in SA, 3rd generation, have the same views as terrorists?

They've held the same views for 1400 years. The Quran is the constitution of Saudi Arabia.

OnlyOneIslam-X-KissMe.jpg
 
Who can't see the difference between Radical Islam and Islam.

There is no such thing as "Radical Islam," and there is no such thing as unicorns, either. It is a fiction. It is a myth. You are wholly uninformed on the subject, or you wouldn't believe in such Islamic propaganda fantasies.

OnlyOneIslam-V-911.jpg
 
For breakfast I took flour, baking powder, salt, eggs, and milk and mixed them together. I then poured the substance on a hot frying pan with butter. I know what you're thinking, but no, it was not a pancake. It was much larger than any panckae you ever saw and I even added strawberrys and bannanas to the top. I like to call it a community breakfast. Yes, it is that big.

Yeah. It's still not a mosque.
 
There is no such thing as "Radical Islam," and there is no such thing as unicorns, either. It is a fiction. It is a myth. You are wholly uninformed on the subject, or you wouldn't believe in such Islamic propaganda fantasies.

Gracious, you sure did hit the ground running here. Your post reeks of "And the only good _________ is a dead _________."
 
Yes, my analogies are not exactly the same. However, UNLIKE Jamesrage I'm not CLAIMING they're the same.

Jamesrage's anaolgy is just as applicable to the situation as the one's you have presented are. If his is not applicable and invalid, then your's has the saem flaw.



Correct. However, I was giving an example of a similiar...not EXACT as was the words James used...situation. The reason I changed portions of it is because to me, SCALE matters. A drunk driving accident that kills 5 people in a single town is not anywhere near the scale of an attack on a massive American building known the world over that killed more than 3,000 people and was a devestating attack upon the country, affecting almost every citizen in some way and is known by almost every citizen even those that weren't alive at the time. That SCALE doesn't compare at all to a drunk driving accident that killed 5 people, so to me relatively immedietely after a drunk driving accident is about the same impact in regards to how touchy of a subject it still is as ten years after 9/11 would be.



As above, I'm not stating its EXACTLY the same, and again, the SCALE would be greatly different which factors into it.

You say scale factors in, but you haven't presented any logical arguments for that factoring, especially with regards to geographical distance.

Except you've missed my comments regarding what I think "right outside" could denote. Here's the issue, I am not familiar with whether or not Pearl Harbor is in a large city or not. I was there 12 years ago. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t. I’ve already explained why I think within a few blocks in a large city is essentially “right outside” of an area. If it was down the road walking distance away from Pearl Harbor my statement would remain the same. Right Outside is within the vicinity of the location thought of as the Pearl Harbor area. To me, the blocks surrounding and serviced by the World Trade Center subway are is generally the World Trade Center area.

Then you are equivocationg on the term "right outside" to create a subjective range for your arguments to have a perceived merit that is not inhrenetly present in the argument. The mosque is not "right outside" that's a gross distortion of reality used to create an emotional argument, not a logical one.






Japanese history, specifically the mentality of their emperors, was instrumental in the actions that caused pearl harbor. Shinto, to my understanding, was not involved in the decision to, justification for, or methods used to attack Pearl Harbor.


Actually, Shintoism was teh cause of Pearl Harbor and the militarization of Japan in general. That's why we banned State Shintoism in Japan after WWII and Hirohito had to make a pronouncement that he was human and not a god after WWII.


Of course its supported by logic based on what I'm arguing which is the respect and tact shown to those affected by the attacks. Scale greatly matters and logically is a part of it. Something that is not remember 5 years ago doesn't matter with regards to the affecting emotions based on respect and tact shown because no ones remembering it to be offended. Something that IS remembered 5 years later would matter.

It's not based on logic, it's based on emotion. Just because something is remembered doesn't mean that it justifies the use of equivocation, distortions, and moving the goal posts when making analogies. Especially when one invokes the name of the indivudal victims/sutvivors emotional reactions.

The problem with your analogies is that they all use the emotional reactions of the victims familiies as their basis, but they assume that the number of victim's families extant will affect their emotional reactions regarding time passed and distance from "ground zero".

That's pure nonsense that has no foundation in logic at all.

It doesn't matter if it's 5 people or 50 people killed in the DUI accident. Teh numebr of victims is does not affect the necessary distance and time passing for tactfullness to be present. If 2 blocks is too close and 10 years too little time when 3,000 peopel are killed, it should follow that tehse distances and times are constant regardless of how the peopel are killed and regardless of how many because the EMOTIONAL reaction for the individual would be constant for those affected.

i.e. the family members of the 5 peopel killed in the DUI accident should be just as affected by a bar being built two blocks away from the location of the accident and ten years later as the family members of the 3000+ People killed on 9/11 are by a mosque being built two blocks away and 10 years later.

That's why your attempts to use scale as a justification are not logically based. The basis for the arguemtn is the emotional reaction, and it pretends that time and distance away are dependent on the number of victims involved. This premise is not logically supported.



False, but now you veer off from it. McDonalds is not associated with the American government, has a hand in any of the actions going on across the seas in regards to wars, and other such things. McDonalds != Democracy. Indeed, one can find McDonalds in locations that are far from Democracies.

McDonald's ooften crop up just before democracy becoems established in a country. Check out Hungary, Yugoslavia, the USSR.

You were doing well until you reached with McDonalds trying to equate McDonalds as directly related to the doctrine and belief of Democracy as a mosque is directly related to the doctrine and belief of Islam.

True or false: McDonalds is often used as a symbol of American ideals.
 
Yeah. It's still not a mosque.

No, of course not. Muslims are just entering to worship and pray to their God. Which means it just coincidentally fits the very definition of mosque. I really wish I were capable of such self decption. BTW, Larger and more modern mosques have become centers for the community and offer many social activities. including Gynasiums, health clinics, etc. Well, all except this one.. Well, at least to the more liberal of Americans.
 
No, of course not. Muslims are just entering to worship and pray to their God. Which means it just coincidentally fits the very definition of mosque. I really wish I were capable of such self decption. BTW, Larger and more modern mosques have become centers for the community and offer many social activities. including Gynasiums, health clinics, etc. Well, all except this one.. Well, at least to the more liberal of Americans.

technically it's not a Mousque, but I fail to understand why it matters.
 
No, of course not. Muslims are just entering to worship and pray to their God. Which means it just coincidentally fits the very definition of mosque. I really wish I were capable of such self decption. BTW, Larger and more modern mosques have become centers for the community and offer many social activities. including Gynasiums, health clinics, etc. Well, all except this one.. Well, at least to the more liberal of Americans.

Surely you are not saying anywhere people gather to pray is perforce a house of worship?

It gives them a place to pray. There are two mosques in that vicinity that are full on a regular basis. One is closer to Ground Zero than the Islamic Cultural Center in Manhattan would be. Are you going to object to that actual mosque?
 
Surely you are not saying anywhere people gather to pray is perforce a house of worship?

It gives them a place to pray. There are two mosques in that vicinity that are full on a regular basis. One is closer to Ground Zero than the Islamic Cultural Center in Manhattan would be. Are you going to object to that actual mosque?

Dunno. Let's look at the defintion of mosque:
a Muslim place of worship

So let's break it down. Is it a place? Are Muslims involved? Will Muslims be worshipping there?

It gives them a place to pray. There are two mosques in that vicinity that are full on a regular basis. One is closer to Ground Zero than the Islamic Cultural Center in Manhattan would be. Are you going to object to that actual mosque?
Exactly Correct. And Rauf has stated that this place will take the overflow from the other mosques. What do you think he meant by the word "other"?
 
Last edited:
Your post reeks of "And the only good _________ is a dead _________."

Unfortunately, that was generated by your own mind. That's not what my post said at all.
 
Dunno. Let's look at the defintion of mosque:
a Muslim place of worship

So let's break it down. Is it a place? Are Muslims involved? Will Muslims be worshipping there?


Exactly Correct. And Rauf has stated that this place will take the overflow from the other mosques. What do you think he meant by the word "other"?

The're trying to change the language to try and change minds. AP and who knows who else, has suggested we start calling it a Culture Center near Ground Zero, instead of a Mosque at Ground Zero.
 
LOL Sarah is going to be there.
What about Glenn's Constitutional rights? What about the incorrect facts that people are getting from MSNBC about his rally? They have called it a Tea Party event that will be filled with hate and Obama bashing. Those are total lies according to Glenn. It is supposed to be a non political event to bring people together. no signs and bring your kids.
If you say something like "Yea, that's what Glenn says" I'll just say "yea, that's what the Imam says."
I'm just wondering why it's ok to protest Glenn but it's somehow uncontitutional and bigotted to protest the building of a mosgue so close to ground zero that it was damaged on 9/11.
Also their original planned opening was to be on a "special" day. 9/11/2011, 10 yrs to the day we were hit by Islamic terrorists.

awesome......i have some swampland for sale, if you believe the event will be non-political, according to glenn. that's a hoot.
 
Back
Top Bottom