NYC Mosque Gets the go!

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.

The third sentence is just not true, in either case. Unless when using the passive voice, you only mean that you specifically call them apostates.

[Moeceefus]

People tend to ignore the fact that although many of our enemies are Muslims, not all Muslims are our enemies.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TarJak

I don't see why this site would be any more a target than the other mosques in NYC that have been there for years.

You really won't see it, yeah? GZ means nothing to you, and the symbolism behind the action and the nature of that extremely fundamenlist organisation behind the mosque, that totally openly speaks about the Islamization, does not interest you one bit, right? sure then, then you do not see, if you ignore all this.

I've linked one of several available texts explaining who they are three times now, in the other threat on the same issue, and here, and I set up the text in full once for those who do not know what to do with a link and how it works.

But you must not cnsider all this. You are free to not see.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.

Islam does not dictate peace . It dictates conquest and subjugation. This is not voluntary, it is mandatory.

Jesus did not preach like this, and it is malicious of you if you think you must claim both are the same kind of teaching. That is like comparing Ghandi to Gengis Khan and claiming both are equally peaceful. The truth about Jesus and muhammad is more like that both are antagonistic to each other.

An apostate in islam is the one refusing to discriminate other cultures/religion and refusing to claim his own superiority due to the fact that he is islamic, and refuses the enslaving of women. the one followng the dogmatic teaching of islam is the one who does not tolerate anyone but Islamic people, who thinks it is Islam'S natural right to rule the world and that he is just helping evolution's natural cause if assisting islamization with force, lie and violence, who treats women as lifestock and think all girls and women need to be the possession of their fathers or a husband, and who follows Muhammad'S order, laid down int he Quran, to not accept seize-firing for longer time than necessary to gain superiority about non-Islamic facitons, and then crush them, in this way creating "peace" by extinction of differences and victory of the others. Which is the peace of a uniform, monocultural, totalitarian society.

Disclaimer: I am not Christian. I am no member of any sect. I am hostile to the church AND Islam.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Moeceefus

People tend to ignore the fact that although many of our enemies are Muslims, not all Muslims are our enemies.

More precise:
people ignore the fact that if Muslimhood is taken serious, the muslim must be our enemy because we are not Muslim (the Quran demands all males to stand united against those who refuse to submit, and claims refusing submission to Islam is an attack on Islam against which must be defended: that way the victim of an attack becomes labelled the attacker; Muhammad also demanded that men should be happy to even give theirmlives in such "defensive" attacks against the enemy

(=suicide attacks against infidels, and that men only may fear this becasue the fail to see the logic in what Muhammad said by this explanation: in that passage of the Quran he indeed mocked his own followers hesistating to kill the enemy and accept their own death over it),

and that there are people who - for whatever their reasons are - label themselves as muslim, but indeed are not hostile to us, by that unexcusably violating basic dogma of the Quranic ideology and in principle risking their lives, because in principle they already are apostates who refuse to admit they are. Apostacy in Islam is under death penalty.

One cannot understand this if one bases on thw wrong and unfounded legend of Muhammad having preached a peaceful religion and that muhammad and Jesus in rpirnciple taught the same peaceful things. This nonsense simply is right this: an unfounded legend without any grain of truth in it. the quran shows that it is a legend, and muhammad's life shows that it is a legend.

You really won't see it, yeah? GZ means nothing to you,

I've linked one of several available texts explaining who they are three times now

It amazing what you can link to isn't it, at the moment its just McCarthy peddling the usual spiel for NRO Sky is fixated with, the other week it was how Blacks and Muslims ruin football.
Next week its gonna be Vanguard News Network with "Jews or Muslims which ones have to be got rid of first?"

[tater]

PEW shows substantial (usually significant majority) support for Islamists in the Muslim community worldwide at large.

This is unsurprising as Islamist theology is not really controversial—it's mainstream Islam.

PEW shows substantial (usually significant majority) support for Islamists in the Muslim community worldwide at large.

Same as you have said before, so again which of the dozens of PEW surveys and what are the specific questions and responses.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

it's also a small illustration of where it leads you if you accept that there are no limits to freedom and tolerance: you end up by tolerating what does not tolerate you, and giving freedom to what wants to take away freedom from you.

Very true. The problem is that the opposite is also true: If you deny those freedoms to someone just because you are convinced they want to take away yours, you run the risk of becoming them. No one knows exactly where to draw that line, and to err on once side is just as bad as erring on the other.

I'm old enough to remember the McCarthy era and the "Godless Communists." Soviet Russia really did subjugate most of their neighbors, and that government was a threat, but the witchhunt for Communists in America destroyed the careers and lives of many good people.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Very true. The problem is that the opposite is also true: If you deny those freedoms to someone just because you are convinced they want to take away yours, you run the risk of becoming them. No one knows exactly where to draw that line, and to err on once side is just as bad as erring on the other.

If you have no trust in your ability to judge that , ask me. I am confident that I can tell the difference between this and that side of the thin red line. In case of Islam, for example, I can tell for sure. It is not a guessing game, but a question of reading islam's own scripture black on white. That was different with for example McCarthy.

Caution is a virtue if used with reasonable care. Means: do not exaggerate it. One can also crucify oneself with it. Then one ends with total inabilty to act, to decide, and to project any influence.

In the end, I just need to refer to Islam's own message and statements. Islam leaves no doubt in it's scritpoures what it is about. Why should we assume we must "interprete" these statements different, and why should we assume we know Islam better than Islam says about itself?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If you have no trust in your ability to judge that , ask me. I am confident that I can tell the difference between this and that side of the thin red line. In case of Islam, for example, I can tell for sure. It is not a guessing game, but a question of reading islam's own scripture black on white. That was different with for example McCarthy.

But I don't trust you, as I have no means to judge how much of your antagonism is real and how much is in your own head. When I said "no one" I was reiterating my own philosophy: The scariest people I can think of are the ones who absolutely "know" that they are right, because what if they aren't? I don't know any answers for sure, but I don't believe you do either (the "you" here applying to everyone, not just you personally).

As I said long ago in the 'Gay Marriage' thread, either you have freedom or you don't. There is no middle ground.

Means: do not exaggerate it.

Like demographic timebomb, non existant laws, global conspiracy theories, all muslims are fundamentalists, Islamic takeover of europe, the EU being part of a jihadist plot, blacks and muslims ruining soccer sort of exaggeration.

Very true. The problem is that the opposite is also true:

Does that suggest that Skys phobia and intolerance makes him the very paradox he keeps going on about avoiding?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Same as you have said before, so again which of the dozens of PEW surveys and what are the specific questions and responses.

Read them.

There are not dozens, only a handfull.

The questions typically ask for support of bin laden, for example. A substantial majority either support bin laden at some level, or answer that they don't have an opinion (having no opinion is tantamount to a "support" in the west, anyway).

Note that when PEW puts things together they:

No Confidence combines "not too much confidence" and "no confidence at all."

Which of courser is wrong. No confidence should be ONLY no confidence. "not too much" should be added with the confidence numbers. When you do that, it looks far worse of course---which is not PEW's own PC take.

For example, ask "regular" americans on Main Street how much confidence they have in OBL to do the right thing in international relations/terrorism.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anyway....back to the issue at hand. I see nothing but trouble building this structure two blocks from the area that supported the World Trade Centers.

Read them.

Which ones?

The questions typically ask

Deal with specifics not vague "typicals" as you are making specific claims.

Which of courser is wrong.

So you cite something in a general manner about your specific claim and then say its wrong anyway

So for example from the pile of surveys do you mean the 9% who like al-qaida or the 10% who like the Taliban?

Or why not try the 2006 question about the islamic extremists. Are you concerned about the rise in the Islamic extremists in the world or not concerned? Are you a liitle bit concerned or a little bit not concerned?
Where would you place each of those answers?

Anyway....back to the issue at hand. I see nothing but trouble building this structure two blocks from the area that supported the World Trade Centers.

Do you think they should be evicted from the current mosque?
If not then why is putting a new mosque in the same location such an issue?