I think the Americans are being a little oversensitive about this.

Ground Zero mosque defies logic

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ground-zero-mosque-defies-logic/story-e6frg6so-1225903138096

NOW that Tom Friedman in The New York Times has endorsed the construction of an Islamic centre at Ground Zero, no one can be against it.

But since he has not even made a real argument for it, aside from recounting his experience at a Broadway jamboree in the White House, where the only Muslim name was the President's middle one, which is nothing more than a non sequitur, the column stands alone with neither evidence nor logic.

Still, everybody is for it . . . except Abe Foxman and his Anti-Defamation League who are correct but had better keep quiet lest they bare the stigma of prejudice that comes from being against something whose only justification is that it has no reason.

So what is the real positive excuse for a mosque at Ground Zero? Perhaps to demonstrate that we don't hold anything against the men who did it.

Or to show that we have nothing against the culture from which they came. And nothing against the societies across all Islam that cheered the news of the 3000 dead.

But, of course, these are not accurate assertions of our emotions, then or now. Even as we try to understand them, we despise them. No mosque built on the ground where mothers and fathers, children and grandparents, relatives and friends and lovers were sacrificed will ever console or conciliate.

At best, it will remind of the cool brutality and fierce passion that animated these ghoulish people of faith to murder on a scale so huge almost to daunt the imagination. Ironically it will backfire because it will (rightly) remind visitors of the religious identity of the perpetrators.

And, of course, the imagination was daunted only by the conscientious American decision-makers who deprived the polis of the true images of maimed bodies, broken limbs, desperate souls flying through the air, perhaps to land where the kadhi will intone the principles of the Muslim faith.

Given the absence of a logical explanation for this mosque, the ex cathedra reason is that it is a monument to the American credo of the freedom of religion. But that is surely insincere, at least on the part of the Islamic prayer house sponsors, who are more motivated to slip under the First Amendment protections here than to make them their own anywhere else. Islam in New York would have been just as free 10 blocks away.

In fact, the presence of an Islamic place of prayer at the sight of the human catastrophe of September 11, 2001, will be an insult to the dead. It would be as if Japan were to erect a museum about its delicate treatment of women, and to erect that museum precisely in Nanking, China. Or Germany to establish a series of Goethe Institutes where the Vilna Ghetto and the concentration camp of Maidanek once stood. Or, for that matter, Serbia might be accommodated to construct a monument to its sufferings under the Nazis in Srebrenica where it later murdered 10,000 Bosnians.

I am as much for understanding and reconciliation as the next man. But there are dark places where the only appropriate emotions are anger and grief.

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2010 at 7:33pm:

I think the Americans are being a little oversensitive about this. Ground Zero mosque defies logic http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/ground-zero-mosque-defies-logic/story-e6frg6so-1225903138096 NOW that Tom Friedman in The New York Times has endorsed the construction of an Islamic centre at Ground Zero, no one can be against it. But since he has not even made a real argument for it, aside from recounting his experience at a Broadway jamboree in the White House, where the only Muslim name was the President's middle one, which is nothing more than a non sequitur, the column stands alone with neither evidence nor logic. Still, everybody is for it . . . except Abe Foxman and his Anti-Defamation League who are correct but had better keep quiet lest they bare the stigma of prejudice that comes from being against something whose only justification is that it has no reason. So what is the real positive excuse for a mosque at Ground Zero? Perhaps to demonstrate that we don't hold anything against the men who did it. Or to show that we have nothing against the culture from which they came. And nothing against the societies across all Islam that cheered the news of the 3000 dead. But, of course, these are not accurate assertions of our emotions, then or now. Even as we try to understand them, we despise them. No mosque built on the ground where mothers and fathers, children and grandparents, relatives and friends and lovers were sacrificed will ever console or conciliate. At best, it will remind of the cool brutality and fierce passion that animated these ghoulish people of faith to murder on a scale so huge almost to daunt the imagination. Ironically it will backfire because it will (rightly) remind visitors of the religious identity of the perpetrators. And, of course, the imagination was daunted only by the conscientious American decision-makers who deprived the polis of the true images of maimed bodies, broken limbs, desperate souls flying through the air, perhaps to land where the kadhi will intone the principles of the Muslim faith. Given the absence of a logical explanation for this mosque, the ex cathedra reason is that it is a monument to the American credo of the freedom of religion. But that is surely insincere, at least on the part of the Islamic prayer house sponsors, who are more motivated to slip under the First Amendment protections here than to make them their own anywhere else. Islam in New York would have been just as free 10 blocks away. In fact, the presence of an Islamic place of prayer at the sight of the human catastrophe of September 11, 2001, will be an insult to the dead. It would be as if Japan were to erect a museum about its delicate treatment of women, and to erect that museum precisely in Nanking, China. Or Germany to establish a series of Goethe Institutes where the Vilna Ghetto and the concentration camp of Maidanek once stood. Or, for that matter, Serbia might be accommodated to construct a monument to its sufferings under the Nazis in Srebrenica where it later murdered 10,000 Bosnians. I am as much for understanding and reconciliation as the next man. But there are dark places where the only appropriate emotions are anger and grief.

Yeah I can see the point about Americans being annoyed about a Mosque at 'Ground Zero'....seriously...

"Americans" still think that 9/11 was all about Muslims killing 3000+ "Americans".  It  was more about the state of the USA SECURITY and those that did the job were "Americans" and many of those who died were Aussies, Poms, Kiwis, "Europeans" and others from a variety of different countries.

It was sad, sure. What has happened since? The War on Terrorism is a farce. Have they found Bin Laden yet?  ;D

They should leave it as a memorial for all those  innocent  REAL martyrs who were murdered by gutless terrorists. Best thing that happened that day was when brave passengers stopped the highjackers from achieving their goal.

It was sad, sure. What has happened since? The War on Terrorism is a farce.


I presume you are joking

Just a few for you

Bali bombings  1 October 2005  & October 12th 2002
Madrid train attack  20 March 2004
London train and bus attacks 21 July 2005
Mumbai attacks 26 November 2008



Since March 2001 there have been 15812 deadly terror attacks
 

cockneydoll wrote on Aug 11^th, 2010 at 8:40pm:

It was sad, sure. What has happened since? The War on Terrorism is a farce. I presume you are joking Just a few for you Bali bombings  1 October 2005  & October 12th 2002 Madrid train attack  20 March 2004 London train and bus attacks 21 July 2005 Mumbai attacks 26 November 2008 Since March 2001 there have been 15,812 deadly terror attacks

And .....

3,956,000 deaths on the roads
500,000 murders
125,000 paedophiles caught .........

I made up the numbers but there are far more important things than whether a Muslim is going to bomb you.  Get real.  If you vote GALP you are asking for more deaths.  ;D

Look really, did they expect to erect a mosque at ground zero and  thousands of peoples loved ones, friends, relatives traumatised by the tragedy to feel ok about this impertinent insult?



::)

Jee, how are they going to be when the Israelis demolish the mosque on Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
It's coming.

Before we all get carried away and start thinking this "mosque" is being built on the site where the twin towers once stood; it's not, the planned site is in fact a couple of blocks away.

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2010 at 7:33pm:

I think the Americans are being a little oversensitive about this.

Yeah, bloody Americans, typical, tsk... Wait for the generous response from the mullahs when this counter proposal gets up:



MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: MY NEW GAY BAR
So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.

As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them?

Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing.

I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

My place, however, will have better music.

For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com

http://www.dailygut.com/

One suggestion for the bar was "HoMohamo"   ;D  ;D

Madhi Gras

Submission

Ram-a-Dan

Ass-Ass-Ins

Jizya

AllahuAk Bar  :D


ANy others?

my cultural insensitivities may arise if a mosque were to arise where my  family were murdered by muslims.

Yeah, even IF the WTC attacks weren't carried out by Muslim extremists (which if pretty unlikely)...the perception of the average person in America is that it WAS extremists.....so it's a little 'insensitive' to build a Mosque on the site...

Truth or Fiction is irrelevant to the idea.....it's what the 'common' belief is that matters....

A limited excerpt from a recent "Time" magazine:

The last legal hurdle to an Islamic center near the World Trade Center site has been removed, but bigotry and politics may prove more formidable obstacles. New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission ruled that a building can be torn down to clear the way for Park 51, a cultural center and mosque. The project's critics range from those who believe Islam was the malevolent force that brought down the towers to opportunistic politicians. Ironically, Imam Feisal...

- you can't read anymore online, but the article goes on to say:

..Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, the project's main movers, are precisely the kind of Muslim leaders conservative commentators should welcome: modernists who condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda. ..etc.

This IMO, is what we sorely need to hear from Islamic moderates.
I'm damned sure that I ain't gonna hear it from the likes of Abu, but I'm hopeful that there are more moderates willing to take the reins and set an example for modern Islam.

The mosque being so close to ground zero may be a good thing if done correctly, but I personally feel that it would lend itself far too much to encouragement for the extremist dirka dirkas worldwide.

And after all, you could probably find more within the quran which supports the views of extemist muslims than you could for the views of moderates.

If we look at the counter arguments, muslims were among those killed in the attack, and as even GW Bush said, they were not targetting Islam, but terrorism.

Now if 911 had been the result of a concerted attack by the religious organisation of Islam, then it would be more clear cut.

For example, if the Pope and his Cardinals planned to carry out terrorist attacks on Tel Aviv in retaliation for the Jewish assassination of Christ, then I can understand that  building a Catholic Church on the ruins would be kind of insane, not to mention bad taste.

I guess the rationale is that relatives of the Muslim businessment killed in the WTC would want somewhere to reflect their loss. The Americans are pretty big on religion, so I'd be guessing that they'd also want to built a hand clappers assembly hall there, along with a Synogogue perhaps, and that it would somehow be bigger than the proposed Mosque.

What they should really do is have a multi-faith building for all the Abrahamic faiths and just make sure they put hoses in the toilets and serve Kosher and Halal foods. (Same concept as a coffee machine that serves different types of espresso)

After all, it's basically one religion, albeit one that rears its ugly head whenever there is tragedy in this world.

The question arises, why would they want to bother? The facility would just be desecrated and make life even worse for the surviving relatives of any persuasion.

Keep the religious places away from there. Whatever you do, the Lutherans will continue to say that the Synod Lutherans are all going to hell, that the Muslims are all terrorists and that the Jews.... well we don't criticise the big-noses, do we?   ;D

Good post Amadd. Just what I'd expect from a moderate Indonesian like yourself  :P

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 11^th, 2010 at 9:14pm:

Before we all get carried away and start thinking this "mosque" is being built on the site where the twin towers once stood; it's not, the planned site is in fact a couple of blocks away.

This most salient point, goes unnoticed, and not commented on, but it is surely crucial to the debate.
Is the mosque being built on what is described, and understood as, "Ground Zero", or is it being built somewhere near Ground Zero?

Personally, I wouldn't build a mosque, synagogue, or christian church, anywhere, but I do not object to others building them, I do balk at the fact that these groups evade tax by the special treatment for religion laws they so depend upon, which provides extra money to build these indulgent palaces of idiocy, but that is another issue.

So we need to make sure that we are not just providing another venue for anti-muslim attitudes, under the guise of concern for the dead, because that just demeans the people who may have legitimate issues with aspects of Islam, whilst not seeking to demonise all muslims as quasi terrorists.

It's very tacky someone wanting to build a mosque near the site, as it is still all too raw for many people.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 9:33am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 11th, 2010 at 9:14pm: Before we all get carried away and start thinking this "mosque" is being built on the site where the twin towers once stood; it's not, the planned site is in fact a couple of blocks away. This most salient point, goes unnoticed, and not commented on, but it is surely crucial to the debate. Is the mosque being built on what is described, and understood as, "Ground Zero", or is it being built somewhere near Ground Zero? Personally, I wouldn't build a mosque, synagogue, or christian church, anywhere, but I do not object to others building them, I do balk at the fact that these groups evade tax by the special treatment for religion laws they so depend upon, which provides extra money to build these indulgent palaces of idiocy, but that is another issue. So we need to make sure that we are not just providing another venue for anti-muslim attitudes, under the guise of concern for the dead, because that just demeans the people who may have legitimate issues with aspects of Islam, whilst not seeking to demonise all muslims as quasi terrorists.

Have a look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/World_Trade_Center_Site_9-23-01_with_Cordoba_House_location.jpg

You will see the site of the devastation and you will see the proposed mosque location, circled.

Thanks for that Soren, it makes it abundantly clear that the site is inappropriate

Soren wrote on Aug 11^th, 2010 at 9:34pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 11th, 2010 at 7:33pm: I think the Americans are being a little oversensitive about this. Yeah, bloody Americans, typical, tsk... Wait for the generous response from the mullahs when this counter proposal gets up: MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: MY NEW GAY BAR So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it's all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world. As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque - after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law - who can stop them? Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I've decided to do the same thing. I'm announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space. This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance. As you know, the Muslim faith doesn't look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I'm building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world. The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps - but still want to dance. Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine. My place, however, will have better music. For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com http://www.dailygut.com/ One suggestion for the bar was "HoMohamo"   ;D  ;D Madhi Gras Submission Ram-a-Dan Ass-Ass-Ins Jizya AllahuAk Bar  :D ANy others?

Classic..... ;D ;D ;D ;D

The propsed site is 2 blocks away.  

I wonder how far away from this hole in the ground is far enough?  

I saw on the daily show the other night that there is already a  mosque that predates the WTC only 4 blocks from ground zero.

Pre-dates is a whole other issue and is really of no consequence. This is designed to be 'in your face" they have had offers to move it elsewhere and they won't

Gov. David Paterson has offered state help if the developers of a proposed mosque near ground zero agree to move the project farther away from the site of the Sept. 11 attack (AP).

The developers of the so-called Ground Zero mosque rejected New York Gov. David Paterson’s offer to provide state property if the project is moved farther away from where the twin towers once stood.

In an effort to appease disputing parties, Paterson had said Tuesday that he would provide state help to the group sponsoring the Cordoba House if the developers opt to move it elsewhere.

“Frankly, if the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance that would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling among the people who are frustrated, I would look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need,” Paterson said.

While Paterson has “no objection” to the mosque being built a few blocks away from Ground Zero, he said he’s “very sensitive to the desire of those who are adamant against it to see something else worked out.”

But Paterson said Wednesday that the developers told his office they weren’t interested in moving.

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=24881

Good example of Muslim 5 point plan for foreign intervention.

First: a campaign of Shock and Awe.

Second: sell off all state infrastructure to foreign investors.

Third: establish investment opportunities for "affiliated ventures".

Fourth: mop up all security threats and enemy combatants.

Fifth: win hearts and minds through evangelical and other social programs such as mosques and prayer groups.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 1:33pm:

Good example of Muslim 5 point plan for foreign intervention. First: a campaign of Shock and Awe. Second: sell off all state infrastructure to foreign investors. Third: establish investment opportunities for "affiliated ventures". Fourth: mop up all security threats and enemy combatants. Fifth: win hearts and minds through evangelical and other social programs such as mosques and prayer groups.

A textbook example of 'idiot' - inability to tell the difference. Marvellous performace, you are class of your own. When it comes to 'idiot' you have no peer. Keep it up.
10/10

Yeh I agree it shouldn't be built there...i




It should be built ON the site itself, to show the true conquest of Islam as being complete!!!  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:

Yeh I agree it shouldn't be built there...i It should be built ON the site itself, to show the true conquest of Islam as being complete!!!  ;D

Thank you for that public service announcement for the propagation of better understanding of the sociopath community.





;)

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:

It should be built ON the site itself, to show the true conquest of Islam as being complete!!!  ;D

You don't speak for Islam. Most Muslims would be appalled and embarrassed by such a statement, even if it is made in jest.

I'm beginning to wonder exactly what your purpose is.

I was just reading the little quote at the bottom of Abu's post, and do you think they mean drunkenness and vice is not a GOOD thing??

That proves it, they are flippin crazy.

Personally I love the gay bar suggestion, and think that everytime an Islamic group makes their demands for allowances, a western group should reply in a reciprocal arrangement.

Like having women in masks roam our streets, is freedom for them, we should install big fat hairy gay men in g-strings in their Islamic schools as lifestyle teachers, as their chance to display their reciprocal offering of freedom to us.

Americans need to get over themselves. They seem to forget that innocent Muslims died that day, not that they care. All they care about is themselves.

They have this warped opinion that all Muslims are terrorists and that this mosque will be a place for terrorists to gather in order to plot their next attack against the US.

The only reason most Americans are against this mosque is because it offends them, and why does it offend them? Because Americans are racist, idiotic bigots who wouldn't know what respect meant if it bit them on the backside.

Couldn't have said it better myself Vanessa!

mozza,


Quote:

Personally I love the gay bar suggestion

You might be perverted enough to think gay bars are what typifies Western society, but I think most Westerners would disagree with it, and would be disgusted at having such filth represent them.


Quote:

and think that everytime an Islamic group makes their demands for allowances, a western group should reply in a reciprocal arrangement.

How on earth is buying your own property and building your own building on it "demanding allowances"??? You're obviously not playing with a full deck mate.

I can't believe some of the half wit crap you come out with sometimes mozza.

Quote:

Personally I love the gay bar suggestion, and think that everytime an Islamic group makes their demands for allowances, a western group should reply in a reciprocal arrangement.

How would the Christian, Jewish, Catholic churches etc react to having a gay bar built next door to their place of worship?

Most people don't have a problem with gay bars, but there are more suitable areas aside from residential, educational and religious locations.  

Deleted

Churches in CBD areas would have to put up with all sorts of things they object to. Like planes flying into buildings.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 10:40pm:

You might be perverted enough to think gay bars are what typifies Western society, but I think most Westerners would disagree with it, and would be disgusted at having such filth represent them.

We could always compromise.  Maybe this mob would be interested in setting up a club in New York.  :D
http://www.stichtingsecretgarden.nl/index_eng.html


Quote:

Secret Garden is a foundation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Muslims. Established in Amsterdam, Secret Garden has been set up in December 1994, with the intention to reach and bring together young Muslims who are transgender, or have homosexual or bisexual feelings.

Quote:

Secret Garden organises events in a multicultural environment. We have music from different Islamic countries and World Music. During these meetings, special attention is given to the activities of Secret Garden. This could be information concerning office hours, concerning AIDS/STD prevention and other activities.

 :D

mozzaok wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 8:22am:

Personally I love the gay bar suggestion, and think that everytime an Islamic group makes their demands for allowances, a western group should reply in a reciprocal arrangement. Like having women in masks roam our streets, is freedom for them, we should install big fat hairy gay men in g-strings in their Islamic schools as lifestyle teachers, as their chance to display their reciprocal offering of freedom to us.

I doubt that a gay bar would go all that well near a mosque, too much competition. A mosque really is a thinly disguisd gay bar, so the competition would be too hot for the gar bar. These "blokes" are so gay  that they can`t even bear the sight of a woman`s FACE!

:o

Quote:

We could always compromise

Amadd wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 9:40am:

Quote: We could always compromise Totally agree muso, as I have said on another thread, a gay bar is not nearly as discusting as ignorant muslim morons. No heart, no us. Bye Bye Islam you retards. Just be warned that your life is always dependent upon our opinion retard Abu. You are right on the edge buddy..don't push it too much.

This is totally inappropriate Amadd. Veiled threats and insults are not welcome here.

Quote:

This is totally inappropriate Amadd. Veiled threats and insults are not welcome here.

You're not making any sense Amadd.

Quote:

You're not making any sense Amadd.

No it didn't

As usual I am finding it hard to reconcile my experiences with people who follow Islam and the frenzied way the media portrays  Islam.
It is of course Ramadan and I must say some Muslims I know can get a tad cranky while giving up ciggies food and drink from dawn to dusk but apart from that they are exactly the same sort of people as any of my other friends.
If people draw their opinions on a group of people purely based on how the media and political groups portray them then they will always get a false sense of the truth.
By far, more Muslims around the world are killed, maimed and have their lives ruined at the hands of these despicable terrorist groups than any one else so why should we think they support terrorism?

Deleted

Quote:

Islam has not earned the right by any means to be encroaching upon hallowed turf. I haven't yet heard any direct rational response to religious based terrorist attacks by any muslim.

Amadd it isn't black or white. Who sold this "hallowed turf" in the first place? It is inviting trouble. I can't see why the Muslims would want to build a mosque there in the first place and I thought it was going to be made into a memorial park or similar.


Quote:

That's probably the slap in the face that goes even beyond Christian indignation Mantra. Christians would more readily accept a flambouyant gay bar on their hallowed ground rather than accept a pitiful offering of peace which cuts deep into the heart of many.

I'm not too sure about that - Christians can be fairly close minded about gay sex and alcohol also.

Quote:

Ok, I admit it, my religion is democracy.

Gayest religion ever.

Quote:

I'm not too sure about that - Christians can be fairly close minded about gay sex and alcohol also.

Quote:

Gayest religion ever.

Mantra,


Quote:

I can't see why the Muslims would want to build a mosque there in the first place and I thought it was going to be made into a memorial park or similar.

As pointed out already it's not actually on the site, it's a coupla blocks away, so the memorial park thing has nothing to do with this.

Imperium,


Quote:

Gayest religion ever.

Finally we agree on something... it's not impossible.

Amadd,


Quote:

If you don't want me to want to kill you, then you must embrace democracy.

"Embrace my religion or I'll want to kill you"... it sounds like you actually subscribe to the kinds of things that people falsely accuse Islam of.

You don't belong in this country, maggots like you seriously should be deported, pronto!

The mosque is 2 blocks away from ground zero will be run by a moderate who was an adviser to the Bush govt..and the building will not just be a mosque.
There are no plans to build any mosque on ground zero  :)

Amadd wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 11:13am:

And that's my deal. If you don't want me to want to kill you, then you must embrace democracy. No compromise there sorry. At leat I'm truthful. Youy can be gay, Islamic, a scientologist..etc. If you encroach upon my democracy, then I will have a will to kill, no exceptions. Try me out. Ok, I admit it, my religion is democracy.

So democracy always trumps human rights?

Would you support democracy if Muslims were the majority?

Quote:

So tell me alpha dude, what is your religion?

I'm an atheist so I don't have one. If I could choose an actual religion, it would be Nordic paganism.


Quote:

We have fought and died for it for many a year buddy. Is that gay?

Would you be willing to fight and die for a democratic society consisting entirely (beyond yourself) of Indigenous Australians who have enacted a law -- by democratic consensus -- that says that you must relinquish 99.9% of your income to them? How about one directly inverse of the one you live in where heterosexual, rather than homosexual, marriage is illegal -- and its legislative status is maintained by a militant homosexual population that considers heterosexual relationships an abomination? How gay would that be?

Really smacking gay.


Quote:

Finally we agree on something... it's not impossible.

I think you'll find Abu that we agree on a lot more than I let on. I'm not a member of the "Islam sucks squad" here -- I see it in many respects as a formidable, warrior faith that brought a significant portion of the civilized world under its aegis, and brought the remnants of the Roman empire to its knees. Once Islam is abstracted from my own ethnic identity, I find myself sharing a lot, ideologically, in common with Musselmen. I still find many tenets of it distasteful and arbitrary, but it isn't in my interest whatsoever to care whether or not Moslems choose to discipline their women.

Quote:

Would you be willing to fight and die for a democratic society consisting entirely (beyond yourself) of Indigenous Australians who have enacted a law -- by democratic consensus -- that says that you must relinquish 99.9% of your income to them? How about one directly inverse of the one you live in where heterosexual, rather than homosexual, marriage is illegal -- and its legislative status is maintained by a militant homosexual population that considers heterosexual relationships an abomination? How gay would that be? Really smacking gay.

I wouldn't choose to reside in a nation that is not agreeable to me. Would you?
The fact is that democracy is an innate knowledge of what is right and fair. It's also an acceptance that one's version of right and fair may not agree with that of others.
Within a real democracy (as I see it), there is no requirement to subscribe to particular groups to make personal opinions count. Individual opinions stand alone, and if those opinions happen to coalesce, then what you have is a democratic opinion.

In our particular version of 'democracy', I wouldn't fight or die for it. I don't think that we have a democracy that provides choices anything beyond being eaten by a crocodile or an alligator.

Yes I see your point Imperium. My version of something to kill or die for belongs in yesteryear. There's nothing that I could feel so passionate about nowadays. To be honest, I really don't give a sh!t.

May as well leave it to the likes of Abu to dictate direction if you like. But it's not in the best interests of others...ie: Democracists.

Quote:

I wouldn't choose to reside in a nation that is not agreeable to me. Would you?

Did you choose to live here, or was it an accident of birth?


Quote:

The fact is that democracy is an innate knowledge of what is right and fair.

Wrong. Democracy is rule by majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

Wrong. Democracy is rule by majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

Seems like the mosque is going to be declared kosher. The Americans themselves have no say in it, since their Zionist overlords have already ruled.

---

Jewish Leaders Gather to Support Ground Zero Mosque
By JILLIAN SCHARR
Updated 8:02 AM EDT, Fri, Aug 6, 2010

http://media.nbcnewyork.com/images/410*260/ground+zero+mosque+vote.JPG

Jewish community leaders gathered at the site of the proposed mosque and community center -- called the Cordoba Initiative -- Thursday afternoon to express their support for the controversial project.
"As Jews committed to religious freedom, to honest dialogue, to peacemaking, and to the celebration of the One God, we strongly support the plans of the Cordoba Initiative to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center at the tip of Manhattan, near the site of the World Trade Centers destroyed on 9/11," said Rabbi Ellen Lippman at the rally.
Daisy Khan, co-founder of the Cordoba Initiative and wife of Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, also spoke briefly at the rally, thanking the New York City Jewish community for their support.  Rabbi Lippman presented Khan with traditional Jewish housewarming gifts: bread, honey, salt, and a candle, representing sustenance, sweetness, spice, and light.
The proposal to build the mosque has sparked widespread controversy throughout the city and garnered nationwide reaction as politicians, religious leaders and civilians alike weigh in on the plan. Some say that building a mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center is "an intolerable and tragic mistake," in the words of Sarah Palin, who came out against the mosque on her Facebook.
The project's source of funding is also a source of controversy.  Imam Rauf has said that the estimated $100 million would be raised in the U.S., but told a London-based Arabic newspaper that the money would come from Muslims throughout the world. Skeptics, concerned that the center will have foreign funding, which could conceivably come from fundamentalist Islamic groups, have expressed frustration that Rauf Rauf has not named any specific sources of funding as of yet.
The Siena Research Institute (SRI) released a poll Thursday that showed that 61 percent of New Yorkers oppose the mosque's construction. The poll also found that "over half of all New Yorkers and NYC residents either agree that the project would prmote tolerance or are, at least, willing to listen," SRI Director Don Levy said in the release.
Khan declined to answer questions, but Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center said of the funding: "We don't want to deal with that right now.  This is a time for celebration, for welcoming.  When you give people salt, bread, honey and candles, you don't ask them 'Now who paid to put up the house?' You welcome them into the house.  that's what we are here to do."
After the rally, Lippman told reporters that the Jewish communities represented at the rally have no information about the Cordoba Institute's funding, nor do they have any plans to fundraise for the center in the immediate future.
Rally speakers also criticized the ADL's recent statement in opposition to the Cordoba Center's construction.  "Though the ADL has often done good work, in this specific case -- whatever its intention--it has undermined those very adherents of Islam who uphold the Quran's teachings of peace, who condemn terrorsm, and who share with some Jews, some Christians, and some others a commitment to the Unity of God," said Lippman.
Rabbi Waskow concluded his statement at the rally with an anecdote: "I've heard some people say 'well, if it was just the community center, okay, but a mosque?' reminds me of an old Jewish story about somebody who came to a synagogue on Yom Kippur but he didn't have a ticket, and [had to]  the person at the door, and finally the guy at the door said 'all right, i'll let you in--but i don't want to catch you praying!'  I want to catch us, us Jews, us Muslims, us Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, meditating, praying, not in the same identical ways with each other, but with each other toward the One who is beyond us all."
The rally comes after the Landmark Preservation Committee decided on Tuesday not to grand landmark status to the building scheduled to be demolished as part of the construction, clearing the way for the project to continue. Opponents of the construction, however, have launched a lawsuit challenging the committee's decision.

Source: NBC

Love it - if a jew says it it must be OK.  Wish you applied it to all other aspects of your life.

Ok, I can see you're a tough nut to crack soren, how about this one?

Jon Stewart: Ground Zero Mosque

Pure and simple logic here.

It's an insult to those who died.

How on earth can you possibly have a mosque, which is Mulsim, next to where Muslims committed the worst crime in America's history?

It defies logic

It's an insult only in the minds of simpleton mungbeans who can't fathom that "Muslims" did not commit any crime.

Even if we go with the peddled lines about OBL being responsible for 9/11, that's got absolutely nothing to do with this group building a cultural centre. It's like saying because some Christians carried out the crusades, or because Christians from France liquidated 1/3 of the population of Algeria during their occupation, therefore no Churches should be allowed in Palestine, Lebanon or Algeria.

Get a grip on yourself.

accordig to abu, muslims never committ any crime

Then Abu has a few loose screws.

They admited they did it.

The Cordoba Centre is touted as being a mosque and cultural centre.

Like hell it is............just the name of the place is an insult to those who died.

Building the mosque is in effect building a triumphal mosque marking Islam’s superiority and victory — which is how the Ground Zero mosque will be viewed in the Islamic world

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 9:22pm:

Ok, I can see you're a tough nut to crack soren, how about this one? Jon Stewart: Ground Zero Mosque

"It appears distrust of Muslims is the only thing that goes from 'sea to shining sea.'"

Own it. It is all yours.

Quote:

Building the mosque is in effect building a triumphal mosque marking Islam’s superiority and victory — which is how the Ground Zero mosque will be viewed in the Islamic world

If it weren't for all this sensationalist garbage all over the media, nobody in the "Islamic world" would even have known the community/cultural centre was going to exist (it's not even a mosque, it's just got a prayer room in it). Did you know the Pentagon has a prayer room for Muslims too? and it was a direct target of the 9/11 attacks, not like this building which is several blocks away. Why no hoo-hah about that one?

Anyone who thinks there's anything untoward about this centre is obviously a half-witted red-necked hillbilly who needs some serious sense knocked into them. Did you also know the centre is going to have a 9/11 memorial in it?


Quote:

just the name of the place is an insult to those who died

Do you even know what the name means? I'd guess not.

It's the name of a city in Spain, which was famous for the peace and co-operation that Muslims, Christians and Jews shared together throughout the golden years of Islamic Andalus (Spain). Cordoba, Andalus etc. are names usually used by what you'd call "moderate" Muslim groups to reflect on their stance of peace and sharing with the West.

Nobody would bat an eyelid if the proposal was for a Buddhist or Hindu cultural centre on that site.

The issue is that it is a Muslim place, linking it with the people who commited the atrocities so near to it in 2001 - the last words by the pilots of those planes were 'allahu akhbar'.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 10:37pm:

It's an insult only in the minds of simpleton mungbeans who can't fathom that "Muslims" did not commit any crime. Get a grip on yourself.

Killing infidels may not be a crime to you, but it is to us.  Muslims shouldn`t be allowed to immigrate to the West, thereby infecting our society with dark ages dogma and gaining a reputation for insular arrogance and fervent self satisfaction.  Islam doesn`t belong in a free, and humanitarian society.

"It's the name of a city in Spain, which was famous for the peace and co-operation that Muslims, Christians and Jews shared together"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Really, after they slaughtered them  and raised the city, that is I presume?


"Nobody would bat an eyelid if the proposal was for a Buddhist or Hindu cultural centre on that site."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No- because they are people of peace

aussiefree2ride,


Quote:

Muslims shouldn`t be allowed to immigrate to the West

Well I can't speak for all Muslims, but I didn't immigrate anywhere, my history in this country probably goes back further than yours, so you'd wanna plug yourself up on that one.

cockneydoll,


Quote:

Really, after they slaughtered them  and raised the city, that is I presume?

Indeed, raised up from the depths of darkness that they were steeped in.  ;D

Nothing more ironic, or is that moronic, than an "Anglo patriot" who can't even read and write the language properly.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

aussiefree2ride, Quote: Muslims shouldn`t be allowed to immigrate to the West Well I can't speak for all Muslims, but I didn't immigrate anywhere, my history in this country probably goes back further than yours, so you'd wanna plug yourself up on that one. cockneydoll, [quote]Really, after they slaughtered them  and raised the city, that is I presume?

Indeed, raised up from the depths of darkness that they were steeped in.  ;D

Nothing more ironic, or is that moronic, than an "Anglo patriot" who can't even read and write the language properly.[/quote]
What are you on about ??

raise-raze

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 7:40pm:

raise-raze

Definitely RAZE

Looks like they are building elsewhere too.

The Towers of Barbarism

The Saudis have unveiled a plan to define Mecca as the center of the world by building a giant clock tower in Mecca. The Bin Laden group's Royal Mecca Clock Tower which reads "In the Name of Allah", aims to replace GMT time, with "Mecca Time". The Royal Mecca Clock Tower, which looks like something you expect to pass on the way to Disneyland, like Dubai's Burj Tower, or its world islands are pathetic attempts to buy the facade of civilization with petrodollars.

The Royal Mecca Clock Tower is emblematic of the inability of the Muslim world to do the hard work of actually becoming civilized. Instead they build Pharaoh-like monuments to their own glory using imported slave labor. And they finance all that using money given to them by civilized countries in exchange for a particular resource that happens to be located on their territory. A resource that was discovered and developed for them by companies belonging to civilized countries.

The barbaric thinking behind the Royal Mecca Clock Tower is that if they build a really big clock tower, it will become a global standard and the infidels will acknowledge the Koran's Islamic science "zero magnetism zone"  claims for Mecca. That sort of thinking demonstrates a basic incomprehension of how civilization works. It shows no understanding of why Greenwich Mean Time serves the function that it does, which isn't because England spent money given to it by more civilized countries to build a really big ugly tower that impressed everyone.

This same kind of ignorance lies behind Dubai's frenzied construction projects, in which modern skyscrapers are plunked down in the middle of a backward country. Where Western skyscrapers were the natural product of expanding economic and technological frontiers, Muslim skyscrapers are desperate attempts to buy superiority. A product of the same need to be superior to the infidels, that caused Islamic law to ban synagogues and churches from being taller than mosques. And now that they have the money, Muslim rulers are determined to build bigger buildings than the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower, or the World Trade Center, which they destroyed.

9/11 was at its heart motivated by that same bigoted need to suppress the infidels, that drive the Saudi, Malaysian and UAE construction projects. That same drive is behind the Ground Zero mosque. It is the combination of an inferiority complex and a hatred for non-Muslims, that same combination which causes the left and some on the far-right to urge us to feel ashamed of how badly we must be treating Muslims, for them to feel that way. But the reason that Muslims feel this way is because they cannot accept non-Muslims as equals. It was the reason why they banned synagogues and churches from being taller than mosques. It is why non-Muslims are still not allowed into Mecca.

Bigotry drives Muslims to prove that non-Muslims are inferior. When Jews or Christians or Hindus demonstrate that they are not inferior, the reaction is furious as Muslims strive to prove that the infidels are beneath them after all. This motivates everything from the frenzied Muslim campaign against Israel, to the pathetic need to promote the wonders of "Islamic Science", from Al Queda's terrorism, to the Saudi financed Islamization of Europe. All that energy directed into showing non-Muslims their proper place.


More at .........
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/08/towers-of-barbarism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FromNyToIsraelSultanRevealsTheStoriesBehindTheNews+%28from+NY+to+Israel+Sultan+Reveals+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 6:24pm:

aussiefree2ride, Quote: Muslims shouldn`t be allowed to immigrate to the West Well I can't speak for all Muslims, but I didn't immigrate anywhere, my history in this country probably goes back further than yours, so you'd wanna plug yourself up on that one.

My family has been here since 1872.  Our main point of difference is that we love this country, we love freedom and the respect of all life.

cockneydoll,


Quote:

Definitely RAZE

Right... now that you actually know which word you mean... No Muslims did not raze Cordoba, they turned it from a backwards little village of filthy heathens into one of the centres of civilisation and enlightenment of it's time.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

During the caliphate apogee (1000 AD), Córdoba had a population of roughly 400,000 inhabitants, though estimates range between 250,000 and 500,000. In the 10th-11th centuries Córdoba was one of the most advanced cities in the world, as well as a great cultural, political, financial and economic centre. The Great Mosque of Córdoba dates back to this time; under caliph Al-Hakam II Córdoba received what was then the largest library in the world, housing from 400,000 to 1,000,000 volumes... After the fall of the caliphate (1031)... it was captured by King Ferdinand III of Castile, during the Spanish Reconquista. The city was divided into 14 barrios and numerous new church buildings were added. The city declined especially after Renaissance times. In the 18th century it had reduced to just 20,000 inhabitants.

From one of the most advanced cities in the world under Islam, with a population of over 400,000 (in that time making it a metropolis) to a little backwater of 20,000 or so under the Christian/Secular Western leadership. As we can see it was never razed, but it was indeed _raised_, when the Muslims arrived.

Until this day, some of the greatest tourist attractions in Spain are still the wonderous palaces and mosques built by the Muslims over 1000 years ago.


Quote:

The Royal Mecca Clock Tower is emblematic of the inability of the Muslim world to do the hard work of actually becoming civilized. Instead they build Pharaoh-like monuments to their own glory using imported slave labor.

No argument from me there. It's an absolute disgrace!

But whose mates are they? The Saudi pirate clan are the loyal little servants of the West, and have been ever since the British dug them up in the deserts of Diriya over 2 centuries ago and began using them to take swipes at the Ottoman Caliphate.

aussiefree2ride,,


Quote:

My family has been here since 1872.  Our main point of difference is that we love this country, we love freedom and the respect of all life.

1853 here, so go back to where you came from you bloody import.


Quote:

Our main point of difference is that we love this country, we love freedom and the respect of all life.

No, our main difference is that you think you have some kind of racial superiority over others.

"No, our main difference is that you think you have some kind of racial superiority over others."

Sounds like your forte mister, you're the one with a chip on your shoulder

Just out of curiosity do any of those dimwits who oppose this mosque also oppose building churches near the Oklahoma City building that little Timmy McVeigh blew up?

Grow up child.!!

He didn't for starters kill 3000 people.

He killed 100 and something,and the reasoning behind it was nothing to do with a so-called relgion that tells people, to kill, hate, commit paedophilia, treats women like dirt, etc. etc

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 11:44pm:

aussiefree2ride,, Quote: My family has been here since 1872.  Our main point of difference is that we love this country, we love freedom and the respect of all life. 1853 here, so go back to where you came from you bloody import. [quote]Our main point of difference is that we love this country, we love freedom and the respect of all life.

No, our main difference is that you think you have some kind of racial superiority over others.[/quote]

When you presume to read other people`s minds, the only outcome is that you expose your own stupidity. It`s the Islamists who segregate themselves from mainstream Australia with their dark ages delusions of grand superioty. Islam is a narrow minded cult, trapped in the Old Testament mentality, it can never advance to become an honourable belief system.

The accumulation of first-hand information may explain why American attitudes toward Islam have hardened since 2001. In November 2001, with the memory of the World Trade Center attacks fresh in their minds, half of Americans told the Pew Forum poll that there was not much difference between Islam and their own religion. By 2007, the proportion had risen to 70%, the same percentage that opposes the Ground Zero Islamic center.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LH17Ak01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/images/speng160810a.gif

Don't you guys realise that you're stuck in a loop. It's ground hog day around here every day.

Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there.

I suppose whilst we're lingering on terrorism, if you thumb through the pages of history since 1945, you will see bully boy USA causing all sorts of mayhem all over the world resulting in millions of deaths. Some significant events have included Korea, Vietnam, and lets not forget their egregious behaviour in various South American countries. Of course, we now have Afghanistan and the bogus war on terrorism- more like it's a war for the trillion dollars worth of minerals there. Of course, I might be cynical but then again it seems that wars throughout history have been fought for booty.

Sure, let's all put voice against the evils in this world from wherever they come. What that group of extremists did on 9/11 was undeniably wrong. However, let's not forget that a band of extremists do not represent an entire population or religious group.

Ziggy wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 11:15am:

Don't you guys realise that you're stuck in a loop. It's ground hog day around here every day. Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there. I suppose whilst we're lingering on terrorism, if you thumb through the pages of history since 1945, you will see bully boy USA causing all sorts of mayhem all over the world resulting in millions of deaths. Some significant events have included Korea, Vietnam, and lets not forget their egregious behaviour in various South American countries. Of course, we now have Afghanistan and the bogus war on terrorism- more like it's a war for the trillion dollars worth of minerals there. Of course, I might be cynical but then again it seems that wars throughout history have been fought for booty. Sure, let's all put voice against the evils in this world from wherever they come. What that group of extremists did on 9/11 was undeniably wrong. However, let's not forget that a band of extremists do not represent an entire population or religious group.

Tell it to the victims of terrorism, and of the genocidal Saddam Hussein dictatorship.

Quote:

Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there.

The WTC attacks were religiously motivated. The invasion of Iraq was not.


Quote:

Of course, we now have Afghanistan and the bogus war on terrorism- more like it's a war for the trillion dollars worth of minerals there. Of course, I might be cynical but then again it seems that wars throughout history have been fought for booty.

Do you honestly think the Americans are making money out of either war? Think about it.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 6:58pm:

Ziggy wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 11:15am: Don't you guys realise that you're stuck in a loop. It's ground hog day around here every day. Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there. I suppose whilst we're lingering on terrorism, if you thumb through the pages of history since 1945, you will see bully boy USA causing all sorts of mayhem all over the world resulting in millions of deaths. Some significant events have included Korea, Vietnam, and lets not forget their egregious behaviour in various South American countries. Of course, we now have Afghanistan and the bogus war on terrorism- more like it's a war for the trillion dollars worth of minerals there. Of course, I might be cynical but then again it seems that wars throughout history have been fought for booty. Sure, let's all put voice against the evils in this world from wherever they come. What that group of extremists did on 9/11 was undeniably wrong. However, let's not forget that a band of extremists do not represent an entire population or religious group. Tell it to the victims of terrorism, and of the genocidal Saddam Hussein dictatorship.

Unfortunately more Iraqi's have died during both Gulf Wars and the 10 year embargo of that nation than Saddam's long dictatorship ever caused.
Because whether we like it or not, it was Saddam's boot on the neck of the radicals in that country which kept a lid on things over there.
And what else is unfortunate, is that terrorism now thrives in Iraq where before it was non existant.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 7:18pm:

Quote: Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there. The WTC attacks were religiously motivated. The invasion of Iraq was not.

You can't just say 9/11 was religiously motivated. It went a lot deeper than that and the US certainly didn't have clean hands.

It was a revenge attack of mammoth proportions, although certainly nowhere near as horrific as the attack on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

http://www.infowars.com/mosque-imam%E2%80%99s-wife-injects-more-religious-fervor-into-ground-zero-debate/

Mosque Imam’s Wife Injects More Religious Fervor Into Ground Zero Debate
                                     
Tensions being heightened as more elite backers are revealed
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, Aug 23rd, 2010


The wife of ‘Imam’ Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed mosque three blocks away from ground zero in lower Manhattan has further fanned the flames of the controversy by comparing opposition to the project to a hatred of Jews.
“We are deeply concerned, because this is like a metastasized antisemitism,” Daisy Khan said in an interview with ABC News on Sunday.
Ms. Khan is an executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), putting her at the forefront of the proposed 15-story Cordoba House building, along with her husband Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
“It’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.” Khan added in comments picked up and pushed by other mainstream media sources.
Khan, appearing on “This Week” said that she and her husband were determined to push ahead with the mosque, adding that there is “too much at stake.”

watch video report*

As we reported in our article last Friday, Imam Rauf is a sitting member of the ultra elitist Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) and in his role at ASMA has also received financial backing for the mosque from powerful globalist sources including the Rockefellers and the Carnegie Corporation.
Employees of the Cordoba Initiative have refused to comment on the connection, with one stating that “It is not necessary to disclose” who is funding the mosque.
It has since emerged that evangelist Jim Wallis and his Sojourners publication, the CFR’s “Christian” backers of the Cordoba project, are heavily backed by the left arm of the globalist franchise, billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Another report revealed that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, the co-owner of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, has also directly funded Rauf’s projects to the tune of more than $300,000.
It seems that every elite tentacle is extending itself into the mosque project.
This information provides a compelling backdrop to the theory that the move to establish the mosque is a deliberate attempt to further stoke religious tensions and divert attention away from the real enemy of free humanity, the corporate globalist elite who continue to profit from global war and division.
Indeed, intelligence officials suggested over the weekend that the spectacle could boost extremist movements by fueling feelings of discrimination and vilification via ongoing extensive news media coverage in Muslim countries.
Scenes at the proposed site, some two minutes walk away from the World Trade Center complex, have become heated, with clashes between protesters both for and against the mosque.
The media is today playing up a video showing protesters confronting an African American man who they presumed was a muslim, but in fact was not:
(WARNING – CONTAINS PROFANITY)

http://www.infowars.com/mosque-imam%E2%80%99s-wife-injects-more-religious-fervor-into-ground-zero-debate/

Quote:

As we reported in our article last Friday, Imam Rauf is a sitting member of the ultra elitist Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) and in his role at ASMA has also received financial backing for the mosque from powerful globalist sources including the Rockefellers and the Carnegie Corporation. Employees of the Cordoba Initiative have refused to comment on the connection, with one stating that “It is not necessary to disclose” who is funding the mosque.

Strange! It looks like a conspiracy by the Jews to inflame the hatred towards the Muslims.

This might not be the case, but if it was a genuine gesture of reconciliation between the two religions - there would be no secrecy about this deal.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:20am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 6:58pm: Ziggy wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 11:15am: Don't you guys realise that you're stuck in a loop. It's ground hog day around here every day. Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there. I suppose whilst we're lingering on terrorism, if you thumb through the pages of history since 1945, you will see bully boy USA causing all sorts of mayhem all over the world resulting in millions of deaths. Some significant events have included Korea, Vietnam, and lets not forget their egregious behaviour in various South American countries. Of course, we now have Afghanistan and the bogus war on terrorism- more like it's a war for the trillion dollars worth of minerals there. Of course, I might be cynical but then again it seems that wars throughout history have been fought for booty. Sure, let's all put voice against the evils in this world from wherever they come. What that group of extremists did on 9/11 was undeniably wrong. However, let's not forget that a band of extremists do not represent an entire population or religious group. Tell it to the victims of terrorism, and of the genocidal Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Unfortunately more Iraqi's have died during both Gulf Wars and the 10 year embargo of that nation than Saddam's long dictatorship ever caused. Because whether we like it or not, it was Saddam's boot on the neck of the radicals in that country which kept a lid on things over there. And what else is unfortunate, is that terrorism now thrives in Iraq where before it was non existant.

I`m aware of those facts Lips.  I also believe that Hussein was probably the best man for "controlling" Iraq in his time, problem was that the only reason for this was that he was the strongest, psychopathic terrorist on the block.  

When appraising the figures of this case we need to be aware that the actions of the coalition have given Iraq a fighting chance at gaining freedom from tyranny.  Having said that, I do harbor doubts that the national character of these people, and their various brands of Islam can ever allow peace.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:10am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 7:20am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 6:58pm: Ziggy wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 11:15am: Don't you guys realise that you're stuck in a loop. It's ground hog day around here every day. Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there. I suppose whilst we're lingering on terrorism, if you thumb through the pages of history since 1945, you will see bully boy USA causing all sorts of mayhem all over the world resulting in millions of deaths. Some significant events have included Korea, Vietnam, and lets not forget their egregious behaviour in various South American countries. Of course, we now have Afghanistan and the bogus war on terrorism- more like it's a war for the trillion dollars worth of minerals there. Of course, I might be cynical but then again it seems that wars throughout history have been fought for booty. Sure, let's all put voice against the evils in this world from wherever they come. What that group of extremists did on 9/11 was undeniably wrong. However, let's not forget that a band of extremists do not represent an entire population or religious group. Tell it to the victims of terrorism, and of the genocidal Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Unfortunately more Iraqi's have died during both Gulf Wars and the 10 year embargo of that nation than Saddam's long dictatorship ever caused. Because whether we like it or not, it was Saddam's boot on the neck of the radicals in that country which kept a lid on things over there. And what else is unfortunate, is that terrorism now thrives in Iraq where before it was non existant. I`m aware of those facts Lips.  I also believe that Hussein was probably the best man for "controlling" Iraq in his time, problem was that the only reason for this was that he was the strongest, psychopathic terrorist on the block.   When appraising the figures of this case we need to be aware that the actions of the coalition have given Iraq a fighting chance at gaining freedom from tyranny.  Having said that, I do harbor doubts that the national character of these people, and their various brands of Islam can ever allow peace.

Saddam unfortunately was the best man for the job, simply because he stayed alive long enough to keep the foreign extremists out of the country, and keep the local factions under control.
And if he wasn't the biggest psychopathic terrorist in the region, he would have been assassinated by the Kurds or another group like all his predessors were.
The small fighting chance given to the Iraqi's today has seen the extremists given a very large fighting chance to do what they do best.
So cutting off our nose to spite our face may not have been the best course of action after all as we are now finding out.
Iraq's 5000 year old history has very few pages of democratic reform in it, and imposing our one size fits all 200 year old value system on them unfortunately won't be accepted, and is continuing to grow resentment against us.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:46am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:10am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 7:20am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 6:58pm: Ziggy wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 11:15am: Don't you guys realise that you're stuck in a loop. It's ground hog day around here every day. Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there. I suppose whilst we're lingering on terrorism, if you thumb through the pages of history since 1945, you will see bully boy USA causing all sorts of mayhem all over the world resulting in millions of deaths. Some significant events have included Korea, Vietnam, and lets not forget their egregious behaviour in various South American countries. Of course, we now have Afghanistan and the bogus war on terrorism- more like it's a war for the trillion dollars worth of minerals there. Of course, I might be cynical but then again it seems that wars throughout history have been fought for booty. Sure, let's all put voice against the evils in this world from wherever they come. What that group of extremists did on 9/11 was undeniably wrong. However, let's not forget that a band of extremists do not represent an entire population or religious group. Tell it to the victims of terrorism, and of the genocidal Saddam Hussein dictatorship. Unfortunately more Iraqi's have died during both Gulf Wars and the 10 year embargo of that nation than Saddam's long dictatorship ever caused. Because whether we like it or not, it was Saddam's boot on the neck of the radicals in that country which kept a lid on things over there. And what else is unfortunate, is that terrorism now thrives in Iraq where before it was non existant. I`m aware of those facts Lips.  I also believe that Hussein was probably the best man for "controlling" Iraq in his time, problem was that the only reason for this was that he was the strongest, psychopathic terrorist on the block.   When appraising the figures of this case we need to be aware that the actions of the coalition have given Iraq a fighting chance at gaining freedom from tyranny.  Having said that, I do harbor doubts that the national character of these people, and their various brands of Islam can ever allow peace. Saddam unfortunately was the best man for the job, simply because he stayed alive long enough to keep the foreign extremists out of the country, and keep the local factions under control. And if he wasn't the biggest psychopathic terrorist in the region, he would have been assassinated by the Kurds or another group like all his predessors were. The small fighting chance given to the Iraqi's today has seen the extremists given a very large fighting chance to do what they do best. So cutting off our nose to spite our face may not have been the best course of action after all as we are now finding out. Iraq's 5000 year old history has very few pages of democratic reform in it, and imposing our one size fits all 200 year old value system on them unfortunately won't be accepted, and is continuing to grow resentment against us.

Let them kill each other for all I care.  If it wasn`t for oil money they`d still be riding camels and bashing their wives in another 15,000 years, or 15 million years, for that matter.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:

Yeh I agree it shouldn't be built there... It should be built ON the site itself, to show the true conquest of Islam as being complete!!!  ;D

This is not an uncommon view amongst more extreme Muslims, and is acknowledged as being divisive by moderate Muslims.

None the less, the first amendment makes it the right of all to establish and express their religion, so that if Muslims with to establish and peach near ground zero and link that mosque to Islamic conquest in the West, they are free to do so.

It works in the West's favour also, because if these rumours of war with Iran, which Israel is preparing for, come to fruition and the US must act with their Allies Israel, that mosque near ground zero will become a symbol of retaliation to be exacted by The West against Islamic Iran, in the thoughts of the small minded US and Israeli soldiers.

Quote:

You can't just say 9/11 was religiously motivated. It went a lot deeper than that and the US certainly didn't have clean hands.

Those who orchestrated it view it as a religious war and interpret all the actions from both sides as Muslims vs non-Muslims. That's close enough for me.

mantra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:46am:

freediver wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 7:18pm: Quote: Nonetheless, for the sake of engaging you media mushrooms, I suppose on the same principle the Iraqis should oppose the building of Christian churches in Iraq. After all, as per a Lancet article, the illegal invasion( as per UN Charter) of Iraq precipitated the death of some 800,000 people. They would have at the very least as much justification as America for that stance- if you accept that as justification. I wonder what a gallup poll would show there. The WTC attacks were religiously motivated. The invasion of Iraq was not. You can't just say 9/11 was religiously motivated. It went a lot deeper than that and the US certainly didn't have clean hands.

What goes deeper than religion for Muslims?

Vanessa wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 3:45pm:

Americans need to get over themselves. They seem to forget that innocent Muslims died that day, not that they care. All they care about is themselves. They have this warped opinion that all Muslims are terrorists and that this mosque will be a place for terrorists to gather in order to plot their next attack against the US. The only reason most Americans are against this mosque is because it offends them, and why does it offend them? Because Americans are racist, idiotic bigots who wouldn't know what respect meant if it bit them on the backside.

Hitchens in Slate:

"Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …"

You've got to admit, it's a cunning idea. A mosque for Ground Zero. Allah Uakbar!

However, all politics aside, this is a way for the Amerikans to show grace. A mosque in Ground Zero says more than anything else that Amerika is willing to turn the other cheek.

Ziggy wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 11:15am:

Don't you guys realise that you're stuck in a loop. It's ground hog day around here every day.

Ha! You've noticed.

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Vanessa wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 3:45pm: Americans need to get over themselves. They seem to forget that innocent Muslims died that day, not that they care. All they care about is themselves. They have this warped opinion that all Muslims are terrorists and that this mosque will be a place for terrorists to gather in order to plot their next attack against the US. The only reason most Americans are against this mosque is because it offends them, and why does it offend them? Because Americans are racist, idiotic bigots who wouldn't know what respect meant if it bit them on the backside. Hitchens in Slate: "Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …"

So who is this caricature addressing- moderates or extremists?  Whatever the case, that's America. America is for allowing disparate views. And if Hitchens is puling about Muslim extremist opinion then I hope he's aware that America has all kinds of non-muslim extremism as well. If he pules about them in the future, then maybe Soren might be kind enough to quote Hitchens again.

On religious extremism, look at the Westboro Baptist Church. They hate everybody.

"The Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a small virulently homophobic, anti-Semitic hate group that regularly stages protests around the country, often several times a week. The group pickets institutions and individuals they think support homosexuality or otherwise subvert what they believe is God’s law.

Incorporated in 1967 as a not-for-profit organization, WBC considers itself an “Old School (or Primitive)” Baptist Church. WBC’s leader is Fred Phelps and several of his children and dozens of his grandchildren appear to constitute the majority of the group’s members. WBC has no official affiliation with mainstream Baptist organizations.

While WBC members have protested at Jewish institutions over the years, such institutions were not a major focus for the group until April 2009. Since then, WBC has targeted dozens of Jewish institutions around the country, from Israeli consulates to synagogues to Jewish community centers, distributing anti-Semitic fliers to announce planned protests at these sites. WBC has also been sending volumes (in some cases dozens over the course of a week) of faxes and emails with anti-Semitic and anti-gay messages to various Jewish institutions and individuals.

In addition, in April 2010, the group began mailing a virulently anti-Semitic DVD to Jewish organizations and leaders. The DVD also attacks President Obama, describing him as the anti-Christ, and is filled with anti-gay and anti-Catholic vitriol.


Other WBC targets include schools the group deems to be accepting of homosexuality; Catholic, Lutheran, and other Christian denominations that WBC feels are heretical; and funerals for people murdered or killed in accidents like plane crashes and for American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a tactic the group started in 2005. Though the group's specific focus may shift over time, they believe that nearly all Americans and American institutions are “sinful,” so nearly any individual or organization can be targeted."

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=WBC


Soren, you might like to use this quote from Westboro in the Multiculturalism thread:

“Anybody babbling about 'multicultural affairs' and 'celebrating diversity' is a propagandist for the militant sodomite agenda..."

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/WBC-on-blacks.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=WBC


Then you have the  pro-lifers over there who kill to prevent abortions. Of course, we mustn't overlook the usual fare-your racist nutjobs with the flower sack head-dress and  swastikas, who always get themselves into bother with the law- murder, rape, drugs, illegal weapons etc .

All of the above make demands and, well, golly gee, they hint at a "smidge" of violence. However, somehow, for some, the Muslims seem to have the only poo that stinks.  ::)

*All of the above make demands and, well, golly gee, they hint at a "smidge" of violence. However, somehow, for some, the Muslims seem to have the only poo that stinks. *

Yup, they sure do.

A mosque is not what we know as a house of prayer, such as a church, synagogue or temple.

Throughout history, Muslims have built a mosque as a celebration of victory.........hence the building of one as close as possible to the site of "victory" at the site of the World Trade Centre slaughter

Most people assume the mosque is simply a place where Muslims go to worship, almost like a “Muslim church,” but this is not really the full story.

You see, Islam is predominately a works-based system and unlike Christianity,Judaism, etc.., which are faith-based systems.  And how does the average Muslim know how he or she should act?  Allah has given them the perfect example in Mohammed. Muslims should imitate him.

While the Qu’ran is believed by Muslims to be the revelation of Allah’s word, the “perfect example” of Mohammed’s life, teachings and character are recorded in another body of writings called the Hadith.

These writings, called the Sunnah, record the way Mohammed lived and taught, and are used to interpret the Qu’ran and develop Islamic ideology.

Because Muslims view the mosque through Mohammed’s life, the role of the mosque can only be understood as it was used by Mohammed.  It would be a fatal error for us to assume that the mosque functions like a church. We must see the mosque in the context of Mohammed’s life.

Mohammed did indeed go to the mosque to worship.  Therefore it is a house of worship. He performed his prayers in the mosque and taught all Muslims that it is an important place to say prayers. Every Friday, Muslims around the world go to their local mosque and face toward the city of Mecca to perform their ritual prayers.

But worship for Mohammed was not limited to religious ritual. Worship is an entire way of life. For Mohammed, worship is about implementing Allah’s law. This is called Shariah law, and it encompasses every area of life. Shariah means “path.”  In the desert context from which it comes, it means “a path leading to water.”  While for the Christian, the words of Christ are “living water,” for the Muslim, it is this law which is a life-preserving force, and water in the desert.
Since worship is not merely religious ritual, Mohammed acted in his role as the supreme leader of the community and the mosque was his base of operation. Here are some examples of how Mohammed used the mosque to implement his all-encompassing Shariah law:

· He made legislative decrees from the mosque. It is the seat of legislative government.

· He taught his followers his ideology in the mosque. It is the educational seminary.

· He sent and received official delegations at the mosque.

· He conducted the affairs of the Islamic state, entertained heads of state, and appointed judges there. It is the seat of executive power.

· He issued legal decrees and developed Sharia law there.  It is the supreme court.

· He issued social decrees.  It is the social centre of the community.

· He proclaimed the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims, issued death sentences against those who opposed him, and dispatched the executioners to carry out their duties.  It is the place and symbol of Islamic rule.

·He proclaimed the superiority of men over women at the mosque. It is place of inequality.
· It is where he issued marching orders, proclaimed jihad, and recognized his warriors. It is a military base.

In short, THE MOSQUE IS THE COMMAND AND CONTROL CENTRE OF ISLAM.

We were in "shock horror" when Israeli forces captured mosques or blew up those which were used as a weapons stores, as this explosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw&feature=related


Hamas Weapons in Mosque
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaTooVUviTQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Ziggy wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 2:16am:

Soren, you might like to use this quote from Westboro in the Multiculturalism thread:

EVERY time Muslim extremism comes up, useful idiots like you immediately start talking about non-Muslims, strutting and preening, showing off how 'balanced' you are. This is why you probably failed at school: you need to address the topic. Always talking about the voices in your head, however well, is missing the point - the most important distinguishing feature for the likes of you.


Look at the title of this thread, bozo. If you want to talk about Westboro loonies, start a thread about them. Here, it's about Muslim loonies.

Latest news says that hatred and tension rises among US citizens over building the mosque at Ground Zero.
A cab driver has been stabbed in New York after telling his passenger that he was Muslim.
Ahmed H Sharif was slashed in the face and neck after the passenger, 21-year-old Michael Enright, allegedly attacked him.
The attack came as tensions over plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero are threatening to spill over into the streets of New York and maybe over all America.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/26/article-1306276-0AEAC441000005DC-529_468x339.jpg

Victim: New York cab driver Ahmed H Sharif, 43, lies in New York's Bellevue Hospital after he was attacked and slashed across the neck, face and shoulders by a passenger he was driving because he said he was Muslim

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/26/article-1306276-0AEB08EB000005DC-37_233x687.jpg

Michael Enright handcuffed and shackled, is charged with the crimes. He could be facing up to 25 years in jail.

"Michael Enright handcuffed and shackled, is charged with the crimes. He could be facing up to 25 years in jail."

.................................good, so he should, but in saying that, tensions are running high, after all it was Muslims who killed 3000 people !!

They should also have had more sense not to want a mosque there....but then a mosque is a sign of conquest, which is exactly what the massacre was.

Typical way Christians deal things I guess. Beat them into accepting your dominance... and Muslims are supposedly the violent ones.


Quote:

after all it was Muslims who killed 3000 people !!

Which had nothing to do with America liquidating 1 million or so Iraqi kids, or supplying weapons to the Zionist terrorists to murder and expel hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.... of course not.

3000 is a pretty insignificant number in comparison isn't it? Barely worth mentioning.

Gee what a warped twisted sense of truth you have.!!

Where on earth do you come up with "America liquidating 1 million or so Iraqi kids" from?

"Zionsts terrorists" ??  Who's that?


"expel hundreds of thousands of Palestinians"'  Where from?

Also which Palestinians are you talking about  Arab/Palestinians, Christian/Palestinians, Jewish/Palestinians or Bedouins?

This should be interesting

cockneydoll wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

This should be interesting

Don't hold your breath...

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Typical way Christians deal things I guess. Beat them into accepting your dominance...

Think of it as our jihad. That should make you feel good about it.

This is OK I presume?



In October 2000, the Palestinian Arabs in Israel started a new war of terror against the Israeli nations. Terror attacks against Israeli civilians occured in every possible place in Israel.


In coffee shops and restaurants, On dozens of buses, In the middle of the street

Among the thousands of Israeli people who were murdered and injured, there were hundreds of children. Some of the attacks were deliberately intended against children and youth.

Some murdered in their beds while they were asleep

http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2006/08/123-israeli-children-killed-by.html

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 2:39pm:

Typical way Christians deal things I guess. Beat them into accepting your dominance... and Muslims are supposedly the violent ones. Quote: after all it was Muslims who killed 3000 people !! Which had nothing to do with America liquidating 1 million or so Iraqi kids, or supplying weapons to the Zionist terrorists to murder and expel hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.... of course not. 3000 is a pretty insignificant number in comparison isn't it? Barely worth mentioning.

Abu..."expel hundreds of thousands of Palestinians", from where??

From where???

From their land!

There are today over 4 and a half MILLION Palestinian refugees.

Contrary to your delusions they don't live in refugee camps because it's more interesting way of life, they do so because their land was confiscated from them and given to another people.

When will you maggots understand that you can't do this... you can't just take a people's country from them like that, and think you will not suffer the consequences. 9/11 etc. are just the beginning of the rebound effect of this grave injustice, which is just going to grow and grow and grow.

The smug attitude is going to be blown away with some pretty stark realities in the near future.

When you wanna smugly deny what has been done to them, remind yourself by the consequences that await, and ponder whether or not it's worth it.

Quote:

Where on earth do you come up with "America liquidating 1 million or so Iraqi kids" from?

Madeline Albright, Sec. of State at the time, admitting openly to it, and even commented "It was worth it".

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 10:18pm:

When will you maggots understand that you can't do this... you can't just take a people's country from them like that, and think you will not suffer the consequences.

Oh, this is very un-Islamic: attributing just cause and effect. Tsk, tsk. Haram stuff. As you know, it's all Allah's will and just deserts does not come into it.

See? Even you do not actually believe all that rot about everything being controlled by Allah. otherwise you wouldn't bang on about consequences. In Islam, there are NO consequences, only Allah is in control of every hair on every head, every second of every day. You speak and live in bad faith, pseudo-moor, bad faith.


But if you insist, well, take the muslim suffering over the last few hundred years as the consequences of Islamic conquests of other peoples lands, Islamic raids, enslavement - in short, jihad.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 10:18pm:

From where??? From their land! Contrary to your delusions they don't live in refugee camps because it's more interesting way of life, they do so because their land was confiscated from them and given to another people. When will you maggots understand that you can't do this... you can't just take a people's country from them like that, and think you will not suffer the consequences. 9/11 etc. are just the beginning of the rebound effect of this grave injustice, which is just going to grow and grow and grow. The smug attitude is going to be blown away with some pretty stark realities in the near future. When you wanna smugly deny what has been done to them, remind yourself by the consequences that await, and ponder whether or not it's worth it.

Oh boy......now we see who you are.......typical.  My ex-Muslim friends left the so-called religion, because of the indoctrination of hate and lies,  which you exhibit openly.

They are on their land twerp...sort of seeing they are in Palestine, but they came from the Jordan part of Palestine.

Ever heard of the Black September movement?

I guess not.  They were kicked out of Jordan for being trouble makers

Why aren't they taken in by their own?

I'll tell you why, they aren't wanted by anyone, they are treated as scum and troublemakers which they are , if you are referring to the Gazan Arabs.

Israel took her own when they were thrown out of Arab/Muslim countries, after being forced at gun point to sign everything over to the country they were being kicked out of.

Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled or left their homes in Arab countries due to persecution and anti-Semitism

Those that left Eretz Yisroel left at the urging of their own leaders, with the promise that the Jews would be annihilated and they could then return.

Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas says the Arabs of the Galilee city of Tzfat left in 1948 not because they were driven out, but on their own volition.

Many biographies of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas imply that his family became “refugees” because of the War of Independence in 1948. For instance, a BBC profile on Abbas when he succeeded Yasser Arafat as PLO chairman in 2005 writes, “In the light of his origins in Safed in Galilee - in what is now northern Israel - he is said to hold strong views about the right of return of Palestinian refugees.” Answers.com states, “As a result of the Arab-Israel War of 1948, he became a refugee.” Wikipedia articles on the topic say the same – all giving the impression that the Abbas family was driven out and became homeless.

However, Abbas himself – co-founder of Fatah with Arafat, and known as Abu Mazen - now tells a different story. Speaking with Al-Palestinia TV on Monday, Abbas admitted that his family was not expelled or driven out, but rather left for fear that the Jews might take revenge for the slaughter of 20 Jews in the city during the Arab pogroms of 19 years earlier.

In the words of Abbas:

“I am among those who were born in the city of Tzfat (Safed). We were a family of means. I studied in elementary school, and then came the naqba [calamity, namely, the founding of the State of Israel – ed.]. At night, we left by foot from Tzfat, to the Jordan River, where we remained for a month. Then we went to Damascus, and then to our relatives in Jordan, and then we settled in Damascus.

“My father had money, and he spent his money systematically, and after a year, the money ran out and we began to work.

“The people’s basic motives brought them to run away for their lives and with their property. These [motives] were very important, for they feared the violence of the Zionist terrorist organizations – and especially those of us from Tzfat felt that there was an old desire for revenge from the rebellion of 1929, and this was in the memory of our families and parents.”

The “rebellion” Abbas referred to was a series of brutal Arab attacks on Jewish towns in the summer of 1929. Nearly 70 Jews were slaughtered in their homes in Hevron, 20 in Tzfat, 17 in Jerusalem, and others were murdered in Motza, Kfar Uriah and Tel Aviv.

The memory of the slaughter, Abbas said, “brought [our families] to understand that the military balance had changed, and that [we] no longer had military forces in their real meaning. There were only young people who fought, and there was an initial action. They felt that the balance of power had collapsed and they therefore decided to leave. The entire city was abandoned based on this thought – the thought of their property and saving themselves.”

Return to Roots - in Damascus
It is notable that the Abbas family moved back to Damascus, as that is likely the place where it had originated less than 90 years earlier. Joan Peters, in her scholarly work “From Time Immemorial” on the Arab population of Israel, writes that in 1860, “Algerian tribes moved from Damascus en masse to Safed.” She notes that the Muslims in the city were mostly descended from Moorish settlers and from Kurds – more evidence negating the claim that the Arabs in the Land of Israel had been there “from time immemorial.”

I might add too abu_rashid that the so-called refugee camps are not what you envisage. They are houses.

Have a look at what has been in the news this past week about the deplorable plight of so-called Palestinians in Lebanon

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 10:18pm:

When you wanna smugly deny what has been done to them, remind yourself by the consequences that await, and ponder whether or not it's worth it.

Effende, Gud shall give the consequence in the life that awaits. There is much torment awaiting those who kills Gad's creature.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 27^th, 2010 at 10:18pm:

When you wanna smugly deny what has been done to them, remind yourself by the consequences that await, and ponder whether or not it's worth it.

But those who kill those who kills Gad's creature shall be saved.

Gad is like Amerika. He has his favourites, insh'allah.

All is the will of Gud.

Quote:

ou are referring to the Gazan Arabs. Israel took her own when they were thrown out of Arab/Muslim countries, after being forced at gun point to sign everything over to the country they were being kicked out of. Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled or left their homes in Arab countries due to persecution and anti-Semitism Those that left Eretz Yisroel left at the urging of their own leaders, with the promise that the Jews would be annihilated and they could then return.

One little problem with this ridiculous propaganda, the expulsion of the Palestinians from their lands PRECEDED the counter-expulsion of Jews by about 5-10 years in most cases. Not a single Jew was expelled from any Arab land until AFTER the Jews had overrun Palestine.

Never mind that little thing we call history though, make up your nice little stories as you go along... it's par for the course on your side.

One of the current problems in the Middle East and South/ Central Asia is the borders the Allies drew up post WW 2 and the corrupt and brutal dictators they installed so they still had access to the resources  there.

If the western world is so upset by the Muslim community centre and Mosque being build a few blocks from ground zero then they should also be up in arms if the Catholics try and build churches in any of the countries brutalised by the Inquisition and also ban Catholics building churches any where near child care centres, playgrounds, schools etc  :)

But Catholics dont have a diverse variety of terrorists organisations all devoted to some firebrand teaching, except for the IRA which are not even that active today,

Catholics didnt issue a fatwa against Madonna when she mocked Christianity in her music videos.

But when someone like Salmain Rushdie writes an opinion about Islam in a book, or a danish cartoonist mocks the Muhamend in his drawings, and the whole muslim world goes up in arms like **** has hit the fan, it proves that THIS RELIGION DOES HAVE PROBLEMS. PERIOD

I'm with Rahid on this, the Palestinian situation is  like David throwing stones at the Israel Goliath who wants Holy 'Land' as well as a Holy 'City' - funny, I thought Islam was Land based, especially in comparison to the very City based Israel religion. One word I guess : Greed.
The difference with Palestinians compared to every other form of Islam or Mohommedism is that it is stripped bare of all empowerment, it is almost as if Palestine were just a nation of women and their children just trying to 'exist' in the world. Palestine has no power, the kids are throwing stones at heavily armed and empowered Israelis.
I guess this is because all of Islam is gonna throw its last empowerment against the French (& Europe ...except the Balkans - where they get badly bitten) and has nothing in the tank against the Israelis.

Oh well, in time, Islam and Israel will UNITE ...like tears in rain.

and God help those Italians when they do.

after that,

The End (finally)

until the Samericans enter the Middle-East to shoot any 'Religious' person with a Military weapon (Don't bugger with the Green Lizard people Brown boy!)
;)

Oh really, so what should we do, get together and try to remove the Jewish population who WILL not leave this land whats so ever. ???
;D ;D ;D

Oh well, in time, Islam and Israel will UNITE ...like tears in rain.

=============================================

Like your optimism. Jas

But given the nature of radical Islam which DOES have an audience in the muslim world, I DOUBT it will happen within our lifetime.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 9:57am:

Quote: ou are referring to the Gazan Arabs. Israel took her own when they were thrown out of Arab/Muslim countries, after being forced at gun point to sign everything over to the country they were being kicked out of. Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled or left their homes in Arab countries due to persecution and anti-Semitism Those that left Eretz Yisroel left at the urging of their own leaders, with the promise that the Jews would be annihilated and they could then return. One little problem with this ridiculous propaganda, the expulsion of the Palestinians from their lands PRECEDED the counter-expulsion of Jews by about 5-10 years in most cases. Not a single Jew was expelled from any Arab land until AFTER the Jews had overrun Palestine. Never mind that little thing we call history though, make up your nice little stories as you go along... it's par for the course on your side.

What a pathetic thing coming from you.  True to type.


Evidence abounds that Israel did its utmost to get the Arabs to stay, whilst the Arabs left at the insistence of their leaders..they promised as soon as the Jews were slaughtered they would return triumphant.

The point is that Israel absorbed these refugees, but Arab/Muslim countries would not take them and even today they are treat as vermin. Jordan has refused to take any back and that’s where they come from in the main.

This is Lebanon today…………

Evidence abounds that Israel did its utmost to get the Arabs to stay, whilst the Arabs left at the insistence of their leaders..they promised as soon as the Jews were slaughtered they would return triumphant.

The point is that Israel absorbed these refugees, but Arab/Muslim countries would not take them and even today they are treat as vermin. Jordan has refused to take any back and that’s where they come from in the main.

This is Lebanon today…………

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are mostly relegated to society's fringes. A history of violence, poverty and state-sanctioned discrimination combine to beget more violence and poverty. These refugees are traumatised. Theirs is a psychology of besieged dispossession – and they yearn simultaneously for home and a better life now, in Lebanon.

The new law fails to address the causes for discrimination and inequality. For instance, parliament waived work permit fees, but the process of applying for those permits remains prohibitively cumbersome. Before hiring a Palestinian, a Lebanese employer must demonstrate to the ministry of labour that a Lebanese national cannot perform the job. It's this bureaucratic hurdle that forces many unskilled Palestinian labourers to work without permits – and the new law does nothing to mitigate its effects.
Furthermore, many Palestinian professionals are prohibited from working as doctors, lawyers or engineers because the professional syndicates here disallow their participation. The government can remove all barriers to employment, but if organised labour doesn't do the same, the effect will be minimal. That's why the new law hasn't changed the status quo in meaningful ways.
Lebanon's responsibility to those residing within its borders is principally a humanitarian one. But this humanitarian imperative is accompanied by an economic opportunity: Lebanon will benefit when Palestinians can fully access the labour markets.
There are 422,000 registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (10% of the total population). Roughly half of those live in one of the 12 recognised refugee camps (the remainder are dispersed among unofficial camps and Lebanese urban centres).

Agree - it won't happen in our lifetime.
Such things like this - take some time.
But after the Moslems do to the French
something akin to what the Germans did to the Jews
both Jew & Moslem will eventually find a common enemy to settle their differences,
someone that will die for their sins you could say  ;)

So do you think the Italians will take a sympathy 'dive' and seek all of Europe to save their arse in the face of a combined Islamic-Israeli adversity ?
Reckon they will pull a 'sickie' - their way of choosing the Pro-Medical Europe over the Pro-Religious Middle-East ?

"Let the (Precious) Ring go..."

Who knows, maybe the Pope at the time might return something in the face of Islam/Israel and say "Sorry" (pause) "I will die for the sins of my Italian people instead"?
Who knows?

“Arabs who left Israel in the 1948 are beginning to blame Arab countries for leaving them stateless after promising a quick return to “Palestine.” "They [Arab leaders] said, 'A week, two weeks, approximately, and you'll return to Palestine,'" Sadek Mufid, formerly of Akko (Acre) and now living in Lebanon, recently told Palestinian Authority television.”

“Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas says the Arabs of the Galilee city of Tzfat left in 1948 not because they were driven out, but on their own volition.

Many biographies of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas imply that his family became “refugees” because of the War of Independence in 1948. For instance, a BBC profile on Abbas when he succeeded Yasser Arafat as PLO chairman in 2005 writes, “In the light of his origins in Safed in Galilee - in what is now northern Israel - he is said to hold strong views about the right of return of Palestinian refugees.” Answers.com states, “As a result of the Arab-Israel War of 1948, he became a refugee.” Wikipedia articles on the topic say the same – all giving the impression that the Abbas family was driven out and became homeless.

However, Abbas himself – co-founder of Fatah with Arafat, and known as Abu Mazen - now tells a different story. Speaking with Al-Palestinia TV on Monday, Abbas admitted that his family was not expelled or driven out, but rather left for fear that the Jews might take revenge for the slaughter of 20 Jews in the city during the Arab pogroms of 19 years earlier.
In the words of Abbas:

“I am among those who were born in the city of Tzfat (Safed). We were a family of means. I studied in elementary school, and then came the naqba [calamity, namely, the founding of the State of Israel – ed.]. At night, we left by foot from Tzfat, to the Jordan River, where we remained for a month. Then we went to Damascus, and then to our relatives in Jordan, and then we settled in Damascus.

“My father had money, and he spent his money systematically, and after a year, the money ran out and we began to work.
“The people’s basic motives brought them to run away for their lives and with their property. These [motives] were very important, for they feared the violence of the Zionist terrorist organizations – and especially those of us from Tzfat felt that there was an old desire for revenge from the rebellion of 1929, and this was in the memory of our families and parents.”

The “rebellion” Abbas referred to was a series of brutal Arab attacks on Jewish towns in the summer of 1929. Nearly 70 Jews were slaughtered in their homes in Hevron, 20 in Tzfat, 17 in Jerusalem, and others were murdered in Motza, Kfar Uriah and Tel Aviv."

T

Sorry I think I posted this last time previously

So it seems the Palestinians get shafted by other Islamic nations.
Guess it will get to the point where they will have nothing and I mean nothing.
What then?
I guess we will see the true measure of Israel then as it takes all the land of former Palestine and is left with a displaced 'people', all of whom are Moslem.
Will they be treated humanely? Given equal rights in an Israel nation?

Or will they be quietly gassed?

Careful what you ask for Israel, you might have to carry something far heavier than a Cross upon your back.
But I guess this is the process that will bring about the Unification or the Oneness of both Mohommedism and Judaism.

Unification isn't a positive outlook - its a fact that is so obvious. The other fact is how many Jews and Moslems behave in the face of such inevitability.

Queensland and NSW will bash each other senseless in the name of State of Origin Nation Redneck League, but they wil be the best of mates rather than with something entirely different like GayFL
...and even those two Codes would be best of mates under the Banner of Sport in the face of adveristy from, say ...the Farmers.

Better the Devil you know I guess ;)

"The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947-49.

The last census was taken by the British in 1945. It found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine.  (118,000 sq kms)

A 1949 Government of Israel census counted 160,000 Arabs living in the country after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.

This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower figure — 472,000, and calculated that only about 360,000 Arab refugees required aid

Seems to me that if the Jews can exaggerate their Holocaust numbers then the Palestinians can exaggerate their Holocaust numbers too.

What ever the case, we should not let the matter of numbers detract us from the atrocities at question.

both Jew & Moslem will eventually find a common enemy to settle their differences

=============================================

Lol And what enemy would that be, Jas ??

And invading and hostile alien force from outer space ?????  8-)

stryder wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 7:14pm:

both Jew & Moslem will eventually find a common enemy to settle their differences ============================================= Lol And what enemy would that be, Jas ?? And invading and hostile alien force from outer space ?????  8-)

Nah... t'will probably be the Christians.

tl;dr - watch this...

Keith Olbermann Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0

Sappho wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 6:57pm:

Seems to me that if the Jews can exaggerate their Holocaust numbers then the Palestinians can exaggerate their Holocaust numbers too. What ever the case, we should not let the matter of numbers detract us from the atrocities at question.

Holocaust is the systematic, state-sponsored rounding up and killing of an identified ethnicity. This happened to the jews. It is not happening to the Arabs.


It is cheap and stupid to equate whatever attrocities are committed in the middle east, by arabs or jews, with the holocaust.  Arab citizens of israel have more rights than in any of the Arab countries. Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank are under the civil authority of other Arabs.

If they had any sense, they'd stop lobbing rockets at Israel and get the jews to help them build a proper society for themselves.

When Israel gave "land for peace" in 1967, after both sides accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. they left behind many farming businesses, which were flourishing. They did last long and neither did the peace agreed to by the Gazan Arabs

Seems that the Arabs and Jews have something in common, no one likes either of them. Islam is peace and the jews the meek, what a load of crap.

Sappho wrote on Aug 28^th, 2010 at 6:57pm:

Seems to me that if the Jews can exaggerate their Holocaust numbers then the Palestinians can exaggerate their Holocaust numbers too. What ever the case, we should not let the matter of numbers detract us from the atrocities at question.

Yes it is very powerful when you combine creating own Holywood mythology  and use that to cover up world crime historical activities.

For example was it Cosa Nostra? or real name was actually Cosher Nostra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwfFarPWpMI&p=AB65954BE61DCAE2&playnext=1&index=3

or Is it Russian mafia or some other Mafia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY3b_ns4CLU&p=690FB596B7A6AA3E&playnext=1&index=5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br2dz89vkAo

The problem with America is that can not find real uncorrupted patriot leader who will save the nation, as for example, Putin saved Russia from this the most powerful ruthless organized crime in the world history.

Lets face it, to salve their guilt after the Nazi atrocities and the allies turning back on the Jewish refugees during the war. Post WW2 they took land that was already occupied in the middle east and gave it to the Jews.

This was always going to cause ongoing conflict and misery and because it was a problem created largely by Britain and the USA it is up to them to clear the Jewish people out of the Middle East and find them somewhere more suitable..considering most of them are from Eastern Europe or decedents of Eastern Europeans Im sure there is a few spare hectares somewhere in their real homeland now the Russians have cleared out  :)

Quote:

Lets face it, to salve their guilt after the Nazi atrocities and the allies turning back on the Jewish refugees during the war. Post WW2 they took land that was already occupied in the middle east and gave it to the Jews.

..and then baby bear came home and said, "Somebody's been sleeping in my bed".....

adelcrow wrote on Aug 29^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Lets face it, to salve their guilt after the Nazi atrocities and the allies turning back on the Jewish refugees during the war. Post WW2 they took land that was already occupied in the middle east and gave it to the Jews. This was always going to cause ongoing conflict and misery and because it was a problem created largely by Britain and the USA it is up to them to clear the Jewish people out of the Middle East and find them somewhere more suitable..considering most of them are from Eastern Europe or decedents of Eastern Europeans Im sure there is a few spare hectares somewhere in their real homeland now the Russians have cleared out  :)

It looks as if the antisemites are out in force today.

Read your history books darling.  It was always Jewish land, the Arabs are the interlopers.

Before you start to blame people, check out who actually voted for the creation of Israel, Australia was one who did but England did not not. At the time America didnt like Jews either, the creation of Isreal was a way to keep them out ofr America.

pope urban 2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

Before you start to blame people, check out who actually voted for the creation of Israel, Australia was one who did but England did not not. At the time America didnt like Jews either, the creation of Isreal was a way to keep them out ofr America.

They succeeded in this, while Australia is ruled by British Queen and America by Wall Street and Hollywood.

Sorry Stryder, like I said...
The common enemy that both Jew and Moslem will 'Unite' against would inevitably be the Italians - specifically the Religious ones.
Even the Mafia will finally find itself up against it on behalf of 'its' people.

Its a no-win situation. If you sympathise the Individuality of Jesus, then you eventually take it out upon the Jews as a people like Nazism did. If you are pro-sympathetic to the Jewish Holocaust, then you will eventually condemn Jesus. Its a vicious circle.

Having had to dump gassed baby chickens for a job into slush bins, I can't help but feel totally sorry for what happened to those Jewish people. I don't have to be religious to feel this way, let alone be anything else but just plain human. Ironically, Animal Production for Consumation consider 'gassing' as a 'humane' way of getting rid of unwanted excess stock, since throwing them into churning macerators 'live' was considered 'inhumane'.

I think there are a lot of nations that like the fact that Israel & Islam continue to hate and kill each other and will promote such hatred as much as possible ...never looking at the positive things in both Religions.

Religion: the state of being of carrying a Book (doesn't really matter what language or what story) and teaching the gift of being able to Read & Write ...nothing more and nothing less.

Im not anti Jewish..in fact I think what happened to them during ww 2 at the hands of the Nazis and the pre war persecution by just about every country in Europe was a disgrace. Im simply saying that the Jewish people are obviously from Eastern Europe and not the Middle East and so just to salve ourselves from our guilt for the treatment of the Jewish people we should not have stolen Palestinian Land and handed it to the Eastern European Jews.
Im simply saying this one act of shortsighted stupidity is one of the major reasons for the post ww 2 problems in the Middle East so we only have ourselves to blame..I dont blame the Jewish or Palestinian people for the position they have both found themselves in post WW 2 .
Lets face it, creating a homeland in the Middle East for millions of Eastern European Jewish refugees and asylum seekers was a dumb idea and was always going to end in tears.

much like dumping shiploads of Western Europeans, specifically the English/Irish, all the way over here in a place called Oceania.

Luckily the Slavics are making a go of this region.
;)

Cockney Doll,


Quote:

Jordan has refused to take any back and that’s where they come from in the main.

Your post is just utter fantasy.

For a start Jordan has taken more Palestinian refugees than any other country. Jordan has about 2 million people who were displaced as a result of the creation of Israel in Palestine. Out of those 2 million, about 300,000 of them still live in refugee camps, the rest has assimilated into the mainstream society.

Secondly, could you please provide some evidence for this wild claim that "that's where they come from in the main"? I realise it might be convenient for you to claim Palestinians are actually from Jordan, and that "Eretz Yisrael" was an empty land when the Jews arrived at the turn of the 20th. century, but don't try to pass it off as historical fact, because it simply is not.

Eastern Europe. another s**t hole, Bosnain Serbs, Masodonkeys, Romanians and others, more people that add nothing, get in you Gypsy wagons and F**k off

Dear Pope (or is that poop?),
Nothing like a yell from behind enemy lines.

America: The West - created by Western Europeans known as the Celts. (Eire, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Czech and Slovakia). Has the tendency to 'Unite' States into a single Nation and greatly influences Europe to do the same.

Yugoslavia - fractured into smaller nations from a United nation. Australia will eventually dissolve from a Unified nation into Independent Provinces (and the start of the RiftWars -  8-))
There is a growth in Slavic Australians, a decline in Celtic Australians - population wise.

The Celts went West into America, and the Slavs went east a bit and down into another Hemisphere.

...this is the tricky bit, because there is no facet of European history that transcends a Hemisphere, so the Slavs really are making new ground, unlike the Americans who are just replaying what has gone before.

Oh, I wonder where the Scandinavians and the Latins went? ;D

By the way Poop, er...I mean Pope, Gypsies are Indian by original heritage and justification, not Slavic  ::)

Its not hard to be Slavic and successful in Australia, considering the Anglo-Saxons or Westerners speak a 3rd Class form of English here, so you get get by quite easily with such words as "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie - Oink Oink Oink" - even "Dinkum" is a Chinese word.

;D

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 29^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Cockney Doll, Quote: Jordan has refused to take any back and that’s where they come from in the main. Your post is just utter fantasy. For a start Jordan has taken more Palestinian refugees than any other country. Jordan has about 2 million people who were displaced as a result of the creation of Israel in Palestine. Out of those 2 million, about 300,000 of them still live in refugee camps, the rest has assimilated into the mainstream society. Secondly, could you please provide some evidence for this wild claim that "that's where they come from in the main"? I realise it might be convenient for you to claim Palestinians are actually from Jordan, and that "Eretz Yisrael" was an empty land when the Jews arrived at the turn of the 20th. century, but don't try to pass it off as historical fact, because it simply is not.

My goodness what an anger issue you have, it needs attention professionally.

I don't intend on answering too much, as my typing is slow and I don't have the time.

I never said that the land where Israel now sits was empty [those are your words] However it was  VERY sparsely inhabited.

Don't argue on that score, as you will only show your ignorance.

From a British source and I never bothered with the link

"By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million" ( the Mandate was 118,000 sq klms, of which 77% went to Jordan)

...................... so where you get your figures from I don't know.

Estimates vary from about 520,000 (Israeli sources) to 711,000 (UN sources) on the numbers of Arabs who fled Israel at Partition in 1948, which would be about right, if you work it out.

Firstly Mark Twain made a strong point of it. So read his book.

Secondly, my father was taken as a 2 month old baby to Israel and I have tales galore of what Palestine was like back then.  Not only from my father, but from his mother and  7 remaining siblings. I say remaining. because one was killed at the age of 19, in 1922, by a bomb during the Arabs riots, which where in abundance during the 1920s. Another was killed in London is a freak accident.
My family in Israel are still in very close contact with the descendants of a number of Arabs, with whom they grew up.

The majority of Arabs in the Gaza Strip where those and their descendants, who were thrown out of Jordan during the era of the Black September movement. King Hussein said in no uncertain terms. that the country would not allow them back, as they were trouble makers, as we well know,   I think, because I don't have the link and don’t have the time or the inclination to go looking, you will have to take me on my word .  However, I can see from your rude, self serving, superior and insulting attitude, that you judge people by your own standards, so you most likely won't........tough luck.

Why are you Arabs so all consumed over a tiny country with a population of just
7 ½ million, which occupies 1/8th of 1% of the ME??  Maybe it’s the achievements that such a small group of people have reached.?  

Hey, remember how I suggested this? Well it seems that somebody is in the process of planning to build a gay bar next door to the proposed mosque :)

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/post-34.html


muso wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 9:08am:

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 10:40pm: You might be perverted enough to think gay bars are what typifies Western society, but I think most Westerners would disagree with it, and would be disgusted at having such filth represent them. We could always compromise.  Maybe this mob would be interested in setting up a club in New York.  :D http://www.stichtingsecretgarden.nl/index_eng.html Quote: Secret Garden is a foundation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Muslims. Established in Amsterdam, Secret Garden has been set up in December 1994, with the intention to reach and bring together young Muslims who are transgender, or have homosexual or bisexual feelings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJQ4bwGPRuk

Why 'build' anything, just grow a wonderful Botanic Garden over the site? God, Allah, Yalweh knows what an efin dump the city is and needs some 02 pumped back into it ...before it kills even more people.
:P

Something slightly ironic about Pat Condell speaking of "phony manufactured grievances".

Listen arsesignature, you sound like the Muslims, trying to justify your existance, screwing up your own countries then trying to take over others by osmosis, sitting back in the Balkins, looking at us with envious eyes, a goat under one arm and an AK47 in the other.

LOL. Dear Poop, I ain't Slavic and I ain't Moslem.

Born in Lewisham, raised in Mt Druitt, St Clair, Kirribilli, Ashfield, Quakers Hill, Sunshine Caravan Park, West Brunswick, Box Hill TAFE carpark, Yarra River Heliport carpark, Cape Schanck National Park, Scotts Heads Caravan Park, Macksville, Nambucca Heads, Macquaire Fields (x3), Petersham, Ambarvale (x2), Rosemeadow and been around New Zealand numerous times (x6) as well.

I'm just an Oceanian who enjoys his occasional Diving amongst other things.

Down Under ...but also a Day Ahead.
;)

Sound like a doley jas, guess you are a true aussie, the dole and the beach, cant get any better than that.  ;)

Have been on the dole in my younger, naive days. But luckily it wasn't for long. Since then I've paid my own way - even if it meant doing some job that is considered 'gay' for a male to do and cleaning poo from peoples arses at the cost of a bad back and apprentice-like pay. Nah, I don't think I'm a Doley. :-?
If I remember rightly, when I was on the Dole: I could barely afford a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk ...I even had to jump backyards and raid the compost heaps/bins for food. No, I don't think I would wish the Dole upon anyone.

Cockney Troll,


Quote:

I don't intend on answering too much, as my typing is slow and I don't have the time.

What you actually meant to say was "He's exposing my bovine faeces for what it is, so I'd better not open my mouth too much more here, lest I come off like a complete buffoon"


Quote:

I never said that the land where Israel now sits was empty [those are your words] However it was  VERY sparsely inhabited.

Compared to what? Compared to other Middle Eastern regions at the time it was not sparsely populated at all. This is nothing but Zionist revisionist garbage. And even if it were, that doesn't make it a magnet for land grabbing squatters to come and swipe other peoples' land. One could also argue Australia is sparsely populated today, so illegals coming here to turn it into their own are quite within their rights... right? Is this is the kind of crap you hope to peddle?


Quote:

"By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million" ( the Mandate was 118,000 sq klms, of which 77% went to Jordan)

As has already been pointed out enough times, this nonsense about Jordan being part of the mandate of Palestine is just that, nonsense. Jordan was technically lumped with the BMP for about a year in 1922 (although administered completely separate anyway), the idea that in 1947 Jordan was carved out of the BMP for the Arabs is completely unhistorical. Show us a single map (from the time, not those fantasy revisionist maps drawn up about 10 years ago and posted all over wikipedia) that shows the BMP as consisting of Jordan and Palestine. All British maps from the time show only Palestine as part of the BMP and Jordan being completely separate. But if you think you've got evidence, please feel free to present it. Otherwise quit while you're ahead and shut your mouth.


Quote:

Firstly Mark Twain made a strong point of it. So read his book.

A single American traveler who saw a tiny fraction of Palestine is taken as though he was some sort of land surveying and demographic expert. This is one of the weakest Zionist revisionist arguments that's ever been sorry enough to be shown the light of day.


Quote:

The majority of Arabs in the Gaza Strip where those and their descendants, who were thrown out of Jordan...

Perhaps you'd like to provide a bit of evidence for that one? I know quite a lot of people from Gaza, and most of them have never even been to Jordan, and many of them can trace their family history there back to the time of the early Muslims (ie. about 1400 years ago).

Don't hurry though, like the rest of your wild assertions, don't feel any pressure to actually back it up with evidence.


Quote:

Why are you Arabs so all consumed over a tiny country with a population of just 7 ½ million, which occupies 1/8th of 1% of the ME??  Maybe it’s the achievements that such a small group of people have reached.?

Prior to the Zionists invading and saturating the population of their country, Palestinians couldn't have given two hoots about you. I don't remember too many Palestinians traveling to Poland or England or Russia or U.S in the early 20th. century and blowing Jews up. But when you steal another people's country, they tend to get a little peeved, funny that... isn't it? I can't for the life of me understand why....

Pak Minister wants Obama to be ''leader of all Muslims''
http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4337606
Islamabad, Sep 2 (PTI) A Pakistani minister wants US President Barack Obama to offer Eid prayers at Ground Zero in New York and become the "Amir-ul-Momineen" or Caliph of Muslims.

Minister of State for Industries Ayatullah Durrani, who belongs to the ruling Pakistan People''s Party, said the upcoming Eid-ul-Fitr festival, expected to be observed on September 11, would be a "golden opportunity" for Obama to offer Eid prayers and declare himself the leader of all Muslims.

"In this way, all the problems of the Muslim world would be solved," Durrani told The Nation newspaper.

Durrani, a former member of the Pakistan Ideological Council, contended that the Muslim world is in "dire need" of a Caliph and occupying this distinguished slot would provide Obama "exemplary titles" like "Mullah Barack Hussain Obama" or "Allama Obama".

He said: "The time is approaching fast. Barack Hussain Obama must act now. This is a golden opportunity, Muslims badly need it."
Obama''s elevation to the Islamic Caliphate would be the "key to success, he claimed but did not offer any explanation for his remarks.

We all knew as much didn't we Soren?






As for abu_rashid  you are a real twerp mister, who has no idea what he is talking about . I ( and others) have your measure.  You have shown your ignorance in more ways than one and if you believe your so-called friend can trace his/her ancestry back as far as you/they claim, you are thicker than I thought. Records of births, deaths and marriages don't go back that far.

All you can do is insult and copy from web sites.

By the way.....I can tell you for a fact that Palestine was VERY sparsely populated at the turn of the 20th century.

How do I know?

My family were there, that's how I know.

     




Between the lines



By Joseph Farah

When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century, he was greatly disappointed. He didn't see any people. He referred to it as a vast wasteland. The land we now know as Israel was practically deserted.

By the beginning of the 20th century, that began to change. Jews from all over the world began to return to their ancestral homeland – the Promised Land Moses and Joshua had conquered millennia earlier, Christians and Jews believe, on the direct orders of God.

That's not to say there wasn't always a strong Jewish presence in the land – particularly in and around Jerusalem. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. The source for that statistic? A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.

A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

"The number of Jews has greatly risen in the last few decades, in spite of the fact that they are forbidden to immigrate or to possess landed property," the book states.

Even though the Jews were persecuted, still they came to Jerusalem and represented the overwhelming majority of the population as early as 1906. And even though Muslims today claim Jerusalem as the third holiest site in Islam, when the city was under Islamic rule, they had little interest in it.

As the Jews came, drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, something interesting began to happen. Arabs followed. I don't blame them. They had good reason to come. They came for jobs. They came for prosperity. They came for freedom. And they came in large numbers.

Winston Churchill observed in 1939: "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."

Then came 1948 and the great partition. The United Nations proposed the creation of two states in the region – one Jewish, one Arab. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and declared war.

Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war – not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism.

In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

Fifty-four years later, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of those refugees are all-too-often still living in refugee camps – not because of Israeli intransigence, but because they are misused as a political tool of the Arab powers.

Those poor unfortunates could be settled in a week by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass, but they are kept as virtual prisoners, filled with misplaced hatred for Jews and armed as suicide martyrs by the Arab power brokers.

This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world.

It's a great big lie that the Israelis displaced anyone – one of a series of lies and myths that have the world on the verge of committing yet another great injustice to the Jews.

Latest News.....just in

Ground Zero mosque backer has ties to Hamas

Egyptian-born businessman Hisham Elzanaty, reportedly one of the largest financial contributors to the Ground Zero mosque project on the ruins of New York's World Trade Center, was revealed at the weekend to have past ties to Palestinian terror group Hamas.

According to Fox News, in 1999, Elzanaty donated more than $6,000 to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).

Two years later, a federal court shut down the HLF and designated it as a terror-supporting entity. In 2008, five former HLF officials were indicted for actively aiding Hamas terrorist activity against Israel.

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 10:38pm:

Latest News.....just in Ground Zero mosque backer has ties to Hamas Egyptian-born businessman Hisham Elzanaty, reportedly one of the largest financial contributors to the Ground Zero mosque project on the ruins of New York's World Trade Center, was revealed at the weekend to have past ties to Palestinian terror group Hamas. According to Fox News, in 1999, Elzanaty donated more than $6,000 to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). Two years later, a federal court shut down the HLF and designated it as a terror-supporting entity. In 2008, five former HLF officials were indicted for actively aiding Hamas terrorist activity against Israel.

Come on Cockney Doll, that's a pretty tenuous link.

HLF was the biggest Islamic Charity in the United States for a long time, and had a long list of contributors. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, donated to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (an organisation directly linked with HLF which also had charges brought against it).

Al-Waleed bin Talal is News Corporation's (owners of Fox News as you already know) second largest shareholder.

Which, by your logic (i.e. Fox New's logic) would suggest that News Corp and Fox News have ties to Hamas.

See the problem there.

And it's not really 'the latest news... Just in'.

It's rather old actually.

Complain to Google

Quote:

Complain to Google

Wake up to yourself, and learn to think beyond google.

Speak for yourself moron..........................who copies from web sites and claims them as his/her  own

Australian greatest intellectual dissident about September 11and and World Trade Centre.

"He is happy that what he calls that "great ugly scaleless box of a thing" no longer disfigures the New York skyline".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-wrath-of-hughes/story-e6frg6z6-1111112226411


FROM the windows of the Manhattan loft he has inhabited for more than 20 years, Robert Hughes, Australia's most opinionated aesthete, looked out last week at the patch of sky where the World Trade Centre used to stand.

Hughes was looking out of this window on September 11, 2001, when a hijacked aircraft flew low over his SoHo building and crashed into one of the towers.

"There were a couple of BBC producers standing with their backs to the window; we were talking about a possible film on Goya," Hughes recalled last week. "One of them said to me, 'Bob, you've got a very strange expression on your face."'

Five years later, the rest of New York continues to wallow in pained debate about how the victims of the attacks should be memorialised and what kind of buildings should be erected next to the void at ground zero. Not Hughes, though.

He is happy that what he calls that "great ugly scaleless box of a thing" no longer disfigures the New York skyline.

"deeply discombobulating". The post-9/11 view from his window was like "looking into a familiar face with a piece bashed out by some maniac with a baseball bat, which of course was the case". "But do I miss it aesthetically? Obviously not."

This was fighting talk from a New York resident on the day most of the city was weepily observing the fifth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on the US. Yet Hughes has made a career out of the unflinching honesty of his opinions, as several prominent British artists know to their cost. As the vastly influential art critic for Time magazine for more than 30 years, Hughes was never much impressed with Brit Art celebrities such as Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin, and he is not about to change his mind now he is ageing and injured.

Nor is he in any hurry to make peace with his biggest critics, his fellow Australians, some of whom seem to regard him as a traitorous exile devoted to pissing venom on his homeland. Further aggro may well follow the publication of Things I Didn't Know, the first volume of Hughes's memoirs.

The book opens with an embittered account of the head-on car crash that nearly claimed his life on a remote road in Western Australia in 1999. After a long legal wrangle over who had caused the crash, Hughes was eventually fined $2500 and banned from driving in the state for three years.

Hughes, now 68, still walks with a severe limp and is in near-constant pain from the injuries he suffered. He has not forgiven the Australian reporters who condemned his behaviour during his trial.

At one point, he incautiously described the occupants of the oncoming car as "low-life scum" and was then alleged to have described a prosecutor of Indian ancestry as a "curry-muncher" (a charge he has always denied). The media depicted him as an elitist bully; he accused them of making it all up.

On learning that Hughes would be returning to Australia in November to promote his memoirs, The Australian's Strewth column summed up the relationship thus: "He thinks we are an uncultured and ungrateful bunch of yobs ("Bullshit!" interjects Hughes, when I read him this passage); we think he's a grumpy old bugger who should get over it." "Well, I am a grumpy old bugger, but I don't see any need to get over it," snaps Hughes as he hobbles barefoot around his kitchen, making coffee.

It may seem odd that so distinguished an Australian intellectual, so admired by much of the English-speaking world, should be regarded with such reserve by his countrymen. Yet Hughes believes he is not alone in suffering from what he calls "the strange cluster of fantasies that cling to the word 'expatriate' in Australia". "There are at present north of 70,000 Australians living and earning their keep abroad," he says. "As far as the Australian media is concerned (he pronounces it 'meejah' with a contemptuous flourish), there are only four expats, and these are Germaine (Greer), Barry (Humphries), Clive (James) and Bob (Hughes)." According to Hughes, the Australian media has concluded that "we four form a sort of cabal whose purpose is to denigrate Australia and piss on its fair name. It's total rubbish."

Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America: “If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.” GZM is a “national security issue”

Fresh off his US taxpayer funded [fund raising] tour of the Middle East, Imam Rauf held command over the mainstream media. He rolled out with his unchallenged oped piece in this morning’s NY Times (“We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House.” ) and followed it up with his not so veiled against America threats on Larry King.  Soledad O’Brien did the interview on King’s moribund show. You remember Soledad, she called demagogue racebaiter Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s speech a “homerun”. Rauf was given free run of the joint on the Crescent NewsNetwork tonight.
Rauf said more than once that the issue about what to do with the mosque  is important for national security. Imam Bridge Builder warns us numerous times that the 15 story Islamic supremacist mega mosque at Ground Zero is now a “national security issue.”
“If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” Rauf said. “… If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.”

This crisis could become much bigger than the Danish Cartoon crisis shich resutled in attack on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world [and hundreds of non-Muslims were slaughtered]
He said moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals’ ability to recruit followers and will increase violence against Americans.
Rauf’s contempt for us oozes from his every enlarged pore.
This is based on the false assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don’t like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? The Muslim Students Association is already pushing for halal cafeterias, segregated dorms, segregated gym facilities on campus. This is incompatible with American freedom. Where do we draw the line? And when did America decide to surrender in installments? Has America so “fundamentally changed” that we cave to jihadist bullies or threats made Peter Lorre-ish imams with delusions of caliphs on the Hudson?

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 11:06pm:

Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America: “If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.” GZM is a “national security issue” Fresh off his US taxpayer funded [fund raising] tour of the Middle East, Imam Rauf held command over the mainstream media. He rolled out with his unchallenged oped piece in this morning’s NY Times (“We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House.” ) and followed it up with his not so veiled against America threats on Larry King.  Soledad O’Brien did the interview on King’s moribund show. You remember Soledad, she called demagogue racebaiter Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s speech a “homerun”. Rauf was given free run of the joint on the Crescent NewsNetwork tonight. Rauf said more than once that the issue about what to do with the mosque  is important for national security. Imam Bridge Builder warns us numerous times that the 15 story Islamic supremacist mega mosque at Ground Zero is now a “national security issue.” “If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” Rauf said. “… If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.” This crisis could become much bigger than the Danish Cartoon crisis shich resutled in attack on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world [and hundreds of non-Muslims were slaughtered] He said moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals’ ability to recruit followers and will increase violence against Americans. Rauf’s contempt for us oozes from his every enlarged pore. This is based on the false assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don’t like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? The Muslim Students Association is already pushing for halal cafeterias, segregated dorms, segregated gym facilities on campus. This is incompatible with American freedom. Where do we draw the line? And when did America decide to surrender in installments? Has America so “fundamentally changed” that we cave to jihadist bullies or threats made Peter Lorre-ish imams with delusions of caliphs on the Hudson?

I've read some serious rubbish over the past few months. That just about tops it all.

You didn't actually watch the interview, did you. He didn't "threaten America". He highlighted the risks that have unfortunately come with the radical hijacking of this issue - and the ensuing rhetoric.

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 11:31pm:

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 9th, 2010 at 11:06pm: Ground Zero Supremacist Imam Rauf Threatens America: “If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.” GZM is a “national security issue” Fresh off his US taxpayer funded [fund raising] tour of the Middle East, Imam Rauf held command over the mainstream media. He rolled out with his unchallenged oped piece in this morning’s NY Times (“We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House.” ) and followed it up with his not so veiled against America threats on Larry King.  Soledad O’Brien did the interview on King’s moribund show. You remember Soledad, she called demagogue racebaiter Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s speech a “homerun”. Rauf was given free run of the joint on the Crescent NewsNetwork tonight. Rauf said more than once that the issue about what to do with the mosque  is important for national security. Imam Bridge Builder warns us numerous times that the 15 story Islamic supremacist mega mosque at Ground Zero is now a “national security issue.” “If we don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” Rauf said. “… If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something very dangerous indeed.” This crisis could become much bigger than the Danish Cartoon crisis shich resutled in attack on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world [and hundreds of non-Muslims were slaughtered] He said moving the project to another location would strengthen Islamist radicals’ ability to recruit followers and will increase violence against Americans. Rauf’s contempt for us oozes from his every enlarged pore. This is based on the false assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don’t like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? The Muslim Students Association is already pushing for halal cafeterias, segregated dorms, segregated gym facilities on campus. This is incompatible with American freedom. Where do we draw the line? And when did America decide to surrender in installments? Has America so “fundamentally changed” that we cave to jihadist bullies or threats made Peter Lorre-ish imams with delusions of caliphs on the Hudson? I've read some serious rubbish over the past few months. That just about tops it all. You didn't actually watch the interview, did you. He didn't "threaten America". He highlighted the risks that have unfortunately come with the radical hijacking of this issue - and the ensuing rhetoric.

You "may have read some serious rubbish over the past few months and you sure as hell write it too.

You really are arrogant & rude

You questioning Larry King too ? Are you?

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 11:58pm:

You "may have read some serious rubbish over the past few months and you sure as hell write it too. You really are arrogant & rude You questioning Larry King too ? Are you?

He wasn't interviewed by Larry King. Ouch, huh.

And I more or less stated what was said in the interview with CNN - as opposed to posting some rant from an aggro blogger (with too much sand in his 'gynie it would appear).

Cockney Troll you can't get anything right side up can you?

"Imam" Rauf is no "Islamic supremacist", he's an employee of the U.S government, and a member of many of the leading U.S/Western think-tanks and other globalist organisations.

In fact last I heard, he was doing a tour of the Middle East on behalf of the U.S state department, bolstering support for the U.S in the region. Never mind these _facts_ though, as you never do.

Latest news, Koran burning called off, S**t, I was looking forward to it.

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 12:01am:

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 9th, 2010 at 11:58pm: You "may have read some serious rubbish over the past few months and you sure as hell write it too. You really are arrogant & rude You questioning Larry King too ? Are you? He wasn't interviewed by Larry King. Ouch, huh. And I more or less stated what was said in the interview with CNN - as opposed to posting some rant from an aggro blogger (with too much sand in his 'gynie it would appear).

CNN...Larry KIng !!!

Who cares......according to all I read there is a big question mark over his head.

pope urban 2 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 7:49am:

Latest news, Koran burning called off, S**t, I was looking forward to it.

That's good, because it would have shown they were just as bad as them

""Imam" Rauf is no "Islamic supremacist", he's an employee of the U.S government, and a member of many of the leading U.S/Western think-tanks and other globalist organisations."


Oh dear !!!
http://www.newyorkpost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/more_mosque_revelations_yMtNnRzphiKKAGJQAksoQN




o now it transpires that a key money- man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas.

No wonder the mosque's principal imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, refuses to discuss the project's finances.

Or, for that matter, refuses to speak harshly of Hamas -- an Iranian cat's-paw that's long been one of the deadliest Islamist terrorist organizations operating in the Mideast.

It was reported last night that Hisham Elzanaty -- an Egyptian-born businessman from Long Island -- provided a big chunk of the $4.8 million needed to buy the building that will be demolished to make way for the mosque.
Feisal Abdul Rauf
AFP/Getty Images
Feisal Abdul Rauf

Among other things, Elzanaty runs a Bronx-based medicial supply company that had to refund more than $300,000 in Medicaid payments in 2004-2005.

In 1999, he donated thousands to the Holy Land Foundation, later shuttered by the feds because of its Hamas ties.

All of this is, as they say, enough to give one pause.

But we doubt it will truly surprise any among the 71 percent of New Yorkers found this week by Quinnipiac University pollsters to oppose the mosque.

Mayor Mike and others think they are bigots, but most seem to have asked -- and answered to their own satisfaction -- a fair question:

How close to the scene of that deadly Islamist attack on America is too close to build a mosque?

Answer: The proposed site was close enough to have been hit by a landing-gear assembly from one of the crashed airliners on 9/11 -- and that's way too close.

They're also nervous about the project's backers -- even before Elzanaty popped up -- deciding that, with those folks involved, anywhere might be too close.

As The Post reported yesterday, Rauf has been catching iffy tax breaks since 1998 for an organization run from his wife's Upper West Side apartment.

How'd he do it? By telling the IRS the one-bedroom digs were actually a mosque where 500 people prayed daily.

These are only the latest revelations about the mosque's backers, who've run up a cumulative record of petty crime, slumlording and tax-scamming.

And that's being generous.

Rauf, who's due back in New York this weekend after a long trip abroad, has plenty of explaining to do to the people he's been thumbing in the eye for weeks.

First there is Elzanaty's role, of course.

Then there's the elephant in the room: Whence the $100 million needed for the mosque?

And then there is this.

At a forum in Dubai on Tuesday, Rauf appeared to call the 71 percent of New Yorkers who oppose his project religious "extremists."

"The battlefront . . . is not between Muslims and non-Muslims," he said. "It is between moderates [and] extremists and radicals of all faith traditions."

We'd guess 71 percent of New Yorkers would include a representative cross-section of "all faith traditions."

Are they "extremists" for opposing the mosque?

New Yorkers hardly ever agree on any thing -- but they agree it's inappropriate.

Are they "radicals?"

If Rauf thinks so, then New York ain't the town for him.

Nor is there room for his mosque at Ground Zero.


Read more: http://www.newyorkpost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/more_mosque_revelations_yMtNnRzphiKKAGJQAksoQN#ixzz0z4fOT72t

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 8:31am:

now it transpires that a key money - man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas.

We've already discussed this Cockney.

You (or the New York Post's editor) have made a tenuous link which really doesn't 'prove' anything. It's a classic case of 'guilt by association', the logic behind which would also see Fox News (another source you used concerning this story) have links to Hamas.

It's stupidity.

Oh, and getting news from the New York Post . . . Bravo.

Has shirl finally switched to ozpolitic?

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 1:45pm:

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:31am: now it transpires that a key money - man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas. We've already discussed this Cockney. You (or the New York Post's editor) have made a tenuous link which really doesn't 'prove' anything. It's a classic case of 'guilt by association', the logic behind which would also see Fox News (another source you used concerning this story) have links to Hamas. It's stupidity. Oh, and getting news from the New York Post . . . Bravo.

You take issue with the NY Post?

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 2:08pm:

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 1:45pm: Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:31am: now it transpires that a key money - man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas. We've already discussed this Cockney. You (or the New York Post's editor) have made a tenuous link which really doesn't 'prove' anything. It's a classic case of 'guilt by association', the logic behind which would also see Fox News (another source you used concerning this story) have links to Hamas. It's stupidity. Oh, and getting news from the New York Post . . . Bravo. You take issue with the NY Post?

Well yes. It's a tabloid, and should be treated as such.

Incidentally, I forgot that the New York Post is also owned by News Corporation (who owns the Fox News Network).

Therefore, using your logic (and theirs), the New York Post has ties to Hamas.

See what I mean, it's stupidity.

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 1:51pm:

Has shirl finally switched to ozpolitic?

Heh. Don't know, but it feels like something might be missing...

How have you been?

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 1:51pm: Has shirl finally switched to ozpolitic? Heh. Don't know, but it feels like something might be missing... How have you been?

Busy doing nothing.

Enjoyed a long stint away from messageboards during my summer holidays but now an back at work with oodles of time on my hands and I feel I'm getting  back sucked in again.


Yourself?

I was sorta hinting that cockney might be our esteemed colleague from yahoo.


I might be wrong but a lot of the thought processes and information sourcing are similar.

Her calling you "rude and arrogant" is a pretty big tell too.

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 1:45pm:

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:31am: now it transpires that a key money - man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas. We've already discussed this Cockney. You (or the New York Post's editor) have made a tenuous link which really doesn't 'prove' anything. It's a classic case of 'guilt by association', the logic behind which would also see Fox News (another source you used concerning this story) have links to Hamas. It's stupidity. Oh, and getting news from the New York Post . . . Bravo.

“already discussed this Cockney”
Have you……..so that makes it OK.?

I think you have a few wired crossed here or there, or a few loose screws, or are self- opinionated, self absorbed individual.  Which ever way you care to look at it.

By your assumption, if you don't like or approve of my point of reference, then it's no good.
The New York Post, established on Nov. 16, 1801 as the New-York Evening Post, describes itself as the nation's oldest continuously published daily newspaper

You have issues with that for some unknown reason. Quite astounding

So if we go with the publication of your choice, all it is acceptable. Why is your choice of news source better than anyone else’s

"Therefore, using your logic (and theirs), the New York Post has ties to Hamas”
I think you have some issues that need to be dealt with after that kind of a remark.  Really. !.

Truly childish and hilarious.


An addition for you. I doubt the publication in question, which you don’t like, and we won’t mention, got is information from nowhere,

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 3:08pm:

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 2:56pm: darkhall67 wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 1:51pm: Has shirl finally switched to ozpolitic? Heh. Don't know, but it feels like something might be missing... How have you been? Busy doing nothing. Enjoyed a long stint away from messageboards during my summer holidays but now an back at work with oodles of time on my hands and I feel I'm getting  back sucked in again. Yourself?

Ah, of course. I keep forgetting you're from that part of the world.

I'm doing my postgrad and, by extension, seem to have a bit of time on my hands at the moment . . . Kind of.

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 3:15pm:

Her calling you "rude and arrogant" is a pretty big tell too.

It all just seems less coherent than usual. Still...

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 4:56pm:

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 1:45pm: Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:31am: now it transpires that a key money - man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas. We've already discussed this Cockney. You (or the New York Post's editor) have made a tenuous link which really doesn't 'prove' anything. It's a classic case of 'guilt by association', the logic behind which would also see Fox News (another source you used concerning this story) have links to Hamas. It's stupidity. Oh, and getting news from the New York Post . . . Bravo. “already discussed this Cockney” Have you……..so that makes it OK.? I think you have a few wired crossed here or there, or a few loose screws, or are self- opinionated, self absorbed individual.  Which ever way you care to look at it. By your assumption, if you don't like or approve of my point of reference, then it's no good. The New York Post, established on Nov. 16, 1801 as the New-York Evening Post, describes itself as the nation's oldest continuously published daily newspaper You have issues with that for some unknown reason. Quite astounding So if we go with the publication of your choice, all it is acceptable. Why is your choice of news source better than anyone else’s "Therefore, using your logic (and theirs), the New York Post has ties to Hamas” I think you have some issues that need to be dealt with after that kind of a remark.  Really. !. Truly childish and hilarious. An addition for you. I doubt the publication in question, which you don’t like, and we won’t mention, got is information from nowhere,

I'm aware of the history of the New York Post, and I'm also aware that it has rightly come under much criticism for becoming little more than a tabloid - routinely coming under fire for it's sensationalist and manipulative "reporting". Clearly you're a fan of Wikipedia, so I'm sure you can find more about that there. And, you may not like to admit it, but some news organisations are more reputable than others.

And my comment concerning the New York Post's link to Hamas only follows your line of reasoning (and that of the NY Post and Fox News).

See if you can follow:

HLF was the biggest Islamic Charity in the United States for a long time, and had a long list of contributors. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, donated to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (an organisation directly linked with HLF which also had charges brought against it).

Al-Waleed bin Talal is News Corporation's (owners of the New York Post and Fox News Network as you already know) second largest shareholder.

Which, by your logic (i.e. Fox New's logic) would suggest that News Corp, Fox News and the New York Post have ties to Hamas.

See the problem there.

It's the same sort of link you're trying to establish between the "Ground Zero Mosque" and "terrorist organisations". It's not a matter of the information being incorrect, it's a matter of it's relevance beyond guilt by association.

It's pathetic, and doesn't stand up to common sense.

You've so far failed to provide anything that shows otherwise.

Sorry.

Truly unbelievable and you would have us believe you are about to undertake a course for a postgraduate degree

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

Truly unbelievable and you would have us believe you are about to undertake a course for a postgraduate degree

Please do tell me what you find so unbelievable. I'll try and explain it further.

None of what I've written is wrong.

And I'm not about to commence my postgrad... I've already started.

1. According to the New York Post and Fox News, the backing for the "Ground Zero Mosque" should come under question, after one of the alleged financiers was found to have donated to a large charity, the Holy Land Foundation, which was later found (by the US Courts) to have ties with Hamas.

2. The Holy Land Foundation was not the only organisation found to have ties to Hamas by prosecutors. Named in the same case by prosecutors was the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

3. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has in the past donated large charitable contributions to the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

4. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is also the second largest shareholder of News Corporation, which owns the New York Post and Fox News Network.

5. Therefore, making the exact same connections that both the NY Post and Fox News have attempted to do concerning Hamas and the "Ground Zero Mosque", then one could also, without effort, make the same connections concerning Hamas and News Corporation (the NY Post and Fox News).

Trying to appear clever does not make you clever.

Any Muslim organisation that is still pushing for a mosque at Cordoba House is a terrorist-supporting organisation, at best.
Those who insist, in the face of so much genuine objection from the families of the murdered, on a mosque by the co-religionists of the murderers who shouted 'Allahu Akhbar' in their final seconds, are evil fvcks, to speak Arabic for a moment. Your sidling up to them is putting you in a dangerously close-by basket - and I use the word 'basket' advisedly when describing your case.

And I have two PG degrees, so you can get buggered, as far as comparing credentials is concerned. I hope this is not too insensitive and you feel the ecumenism with which I offer you this advice to get buggered. In peace.
As I said, if all you can be is a clever bugger, PG or no PG, well, you are setting youself too low an aspiration.

I hope you feel my pain and take the appropriate steps to obtain penance.

Thanks Soren.

I have been playing games with him and was just typing a response. He was well know at Yahoo for being a self opinionated pain in the butt.

What is unbelievable is the way you he is carrying on and on like a raving idiot. Which is a sign of immaturity.  Who the hell cares and asked for his "EXPERT" opinion., I posted a topic and he acted like the be-all and know-all of everything.

I agree who cares, I also have two degrees, but degrees don't necessarily mean 'common sense', as is the case here.

Muslims don't care what anyone thinks.

Mosques traditionally have been built as a sign of a conquest. Hence the Cordoba mosque in Spain and now they want their symbol of victory at Ground Zero

There is much trouble ahead.

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 7:15pm:

It's the same sort of link you're trying to establish between the "Ground Zero Mosque" and "terrorist organisations". It's not a matter of the information being incorrect, it's a matter of it's relevance beyond guilt by association.

Crap, as we have now grown to expect from you. A muslim organisation still supporting the mosque IS a terrorist organisation.
Citing a bunch Saudi princelings as proof of legitimacy and cosmopolitan credentials is stupid in the extreme, considering that most of the allahu akhbar-shouting fvckers on those planes 9 years ago were Saudis.

Good luck with your PG degree, it must be in the 'social sciences' field for you to be admitted with such lack of lustre.

Soren wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 8:21pm:

Trying to appear clever does not make you clever. Any Muslim organisation that is still pushing for a mosque at Cordoba House is a terrorist-supporting organisation, at best. Those who insist, in the face of so much genuine objection from the families of the murdered, on a mosque by the co-religionists of the murderers who shouted 'Allahu Akhbar' in their final seconds, are evil fvcks, to speak Arabic for a moment. Your sidling up to them is putting you in a dangerously close-by basket - and I use the word 'basket' advisedly when describing your case. And I have two PG degrees, so you can get buggered, as far as comparing credentials is concerned. I hope this is not too insensitive and you feel the ecumenism with which I offer you this advice to get buggered. In peace. As I said, if all you can be is a clever bugger, PG or no PG, well, you are setting youself too low an aspiration. I hope you feel my pain and take the appropriate steps to obtain penance.

Hi Soren - the only reason I raised my postgrad was because I was asked by another poster what I had been doing lately - that's all.

And my posts have been aimed at showing just how flawed the logic used by Fox News and the New York Post is - attempting to draw a link between Hamas and the "Ground Zero Mosque".

Good article in the Australian Conservative

[url]http://australianconservative.com/2010/09/911-retrospective-%E2%80%93-islam-religion-of-peace-or-ideology-of-terror/[/url]

Soren wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 8:50pm:

Crap, as we have now grown to expect from you. A muslim organisation still supporting the mosque IS a terrorist organisation. Citing a bunch Saudi princelings as proof of legitimacy and cosmopolitan credentials is stupid in the extreme, considering that most of the allahu akhbar-shouting fvckers on those planes 9 years ago were Saudis.

How so?

And the "Saudi Prince" is the second largest shareholder of News Corporation - the owner of the two news organisations which have made the link between Hamas and the "Ground Zero Mosque".

By citing Saudi involvement in terrorism, you've not exactly disproved my comments, rather shown them to be correct.

Cheers.  

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 8:34pm:

Thanks Soren. I have been playing games with him and was just typing a response. He was well know at Yahoo for being a self opinionated pain in the butt.

You and about two others were the only ones that thought as such... But anyway.

I didn't mention my postgraduate studies in an attempt to portray myself in a certain light - I did it because someone had asked what I had been up to lately. You're the one that brought it up following that.

That's all.

Work on your comprehension love.

Anyway, as I don't wish to get bogged down in personal attacks - I'll stick with the topic at hand, and why I (and others) find that New York Post editorial to be severely flawed.

You're more than welcome to critique the points raised, but have failed to do so.

I still hold out some hope though.


Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

1. According to the New York Post and Fox News, the backing for the "Ground Zero Mosque" should come under question, after one of the alleged financiers was found to have donated to a large charity, the Holy Land Foundation, which was later found (by the US Courts) to have ties with Hamas. 2. The Holy Land Foundation was not the only organisation found to have ties to Hamas by prosecutors. Named in the same case by prosecutors was the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 3. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has in the past donated large charitable contributions to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 4. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal is also the second largest shareholder of News Corporation, which owns the New York Post and Fox News Network. 5. Therefore, making the exact same connections that both the NY Post and Fox News have attempted to do concerning Hamas and the "Ground Zero Mosque", then one could also, without effort, make the same connections concerning Hamas and News Corporation (the NY Post and Fox News).

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 8:59pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:21pm: Trying to appear clever does not make you clever. Any Muslim organisation that is still pushing for a mosque at Cordoba House is a terrorist-supporting organisation, at best. Those who insist, in the face of so much genuine objection from the families of the murdered, on a mosque by the co-religionists of the murderers who shouted 'Allahu Akhbar' in their final seconds, are evil fvcks, to speak Arabic for a moment. Your sidling up to them is putting you in a dangerously close-by basket - and I use the word 'basket' advisedly when describing your case. And I have two PG degrees, so you can get buggered, as far as comparing credentials is concerned. I hope this is not too insensitive and you feel the ecumenism with which I offer you this advice to get buggered. In peace. As I said, if all you can be is a clever bugger, PG or no PG, well, you are setting youself too low an aspiration. I hope you feel my pain and take the appropriate steps to obtain penance. Hi Soren - the only reason I raised my postgrad was because I was asked by another poster what I had been doing lately - that's all. And my posts have been aimed at showing just how flawed the logic used by Fox News and the New York Post is - attempting to draw a link between Hamas and the "Ground Zero Mosque".

I would not put ANYTHING past a Muslim organisation that still support Cordoba House. Knowing their clannish ways, I think any Hamas connection (actual or sympathetic) is stronger than it appears. I think that only completely vicious Islamic front bottoms still support that mosque because they put the triumph of Islam above any other consideration. In the context of a free society like the US, that is nothing but a provocation. Not to see that is to be wilfully stupid - a provocative thing in itself.i

Soren wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 9:13pm:

I would not put ANYTHING past a Muslim organisation that still support Cordoba House. Knowing their clannish ways, I think any Hamas connection (actual or sympathetic) is stronger than it appears. I think that only completely vicious Islamic front bottoms still support that mosque because they put the triumph of Islam above any other consideration. In the context of a free society like the US, that is nothing but a provocation. Not to see that is to be wilfully stupid - a provocative thing in itself.

Hey Soren,

Whilst the above might well be the case (though I'm not convinced it is), all my posts were made to show the tenuous link made by Fox News and the New York Post, and how that reasoning is deeply flawed. That is all.

It is not deeply flawed.

If you are a 'religion of peace'-type, you give it away and seek harmony.

If you a vicious front bottom, supporting hamas or hizb ul tahrir of any other confrontational Islamic sect, you support the mosque, despite or because of the disharmony your support engenders. The disharmony trumps any other consideration for front bottoms.  

I don't see what is hard to grasp about any of this. Pretending that Muslims are like Anglicans - conciliatory and awkward - is the sign of deep and ineradicable cvntness. You come across as pretending just that.

Soren wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 9:29pm:

It is not deeply flawed. If you are a 'religion of peace'-type, you give it away and seek harmony. If you a vicious front bottom, supporting hamas or hizb ul tahrir of any other confrontational Islamic sect, you support the mosque, despite or because of the disharmony your support engenders. The disharmony trumps any other consideration for front bottoms.   I don't see what is hard to grasp about any of this. Pretending that Muslims are like Anglicans - conciliatory and awkward - is the sign of deep and ineradicable cvntness. You come across as pretending just that.

That being the case, you seemed to have drawn a completely different link between Hamas and the "Ground Zero Mosque" and it's supporters (as opposed to that link made by Fox News and the NYP)

You don't make sense. Speak plainly.

Soren wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 9:42pm:

You don't make sense. Speak plainly.

Heh.

That's funny. You're funny.

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 8:34pm:

Thanks Soren. I have been playing games with him and was just typing a response. He was well know at Yahoo for being a self opinionated pain in the butt.

No. He was well known at yahoo for continually destroying your arguments with logic and rationality.


The fact that he is young only rubbed more salt into the wounds he gave you and you cant get over that.

I think this is perfect muslim logic to stick it to the infidel .

Real harmony creators this lot.

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 4:05pm:

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:34pm: Thanks Soren. I have been playing games with him and was just typing a response. He was well know at Yahoo for being a self opinionated pain in the butt. No. He was well known at yahoo for continually destroying your arguments with logic and rationality. The fact that he is young only rubbed more salt into the wounds he gave you and you cant get over that.

Rot...........It’s already been picked up on here.

He's a self opinionated immature little boy.

He didn't "destroying  arguments with logic and rationality."

I hardly exchanged words, except to tell him what he is/was. Baha was the one who argued with him constantly.

A tip for you,which may not even be of concern, but as I am now somewhat knowledgeable about Japanese law, in regards to Australian, thanks to a little so-and so of an ex daughter in law, it's worth passing on the knowledge, as I have spent a good deal of time at Sydney uni with Prof. Luke Nottage

Your marriage may be sound, but beware when, and if, you have a child, because a child born of a Japanese mother, has to be registered in Japan with that name, not her married name.  She then can obtain a Japanese passport, thereby by-passing an "Airport Watch" court order, if you are living here.

Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, so if a child is taken out of this country, even with a court order in place, our government can do nothing about it.

I have been in contact a few times with the DFAT legal department, they knew nothing of this, which I find amazing, even though it is a huge hole in our legal and immigration system. No one seems concerned. Once all this election nonsense has died down, I will be contacting the relevant Minister. No wonder so many children get taken illegally out of this country.

We were lucky that my son thought that she may have obtained an Japanese passport, when he applied for an "Airport Watch"  The Federal Magistrate asked her if she had and  hit the roof when given an answer in the affirmative.. She told her the passport had to be handed to the court within 24 hours.  My son was also concerned that she might apply for a new one, in place of her “lost one”  She was then told that if she did, she would be in contempt of court and have to serve time in gaol.

This whole thing has been quite an eye opener as to how wrong one can be about a person.  It is still going on and has made me very ill, because this young lady has no thought for her child in her actions, all she is intent on doing is destroying my son, who fortunately is weathering the storm well.

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 6:25pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 4:05pm: Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:34pm: Thanks Soren. I have been playing games with him and was just typing a response. He was well know at Yahoo for being a self opinionated pain in the butt. No. He was well known at yahoo for continually destroying your arguments with logic and rationality. The fact that he is young only rubbed more salt into the wounds he gave you and you cant get over that. Rot...........It’s already been picked up on here. He's a self opinionated immature little boy. He didn't "destroying  arguments with logic and rationality." I hardly exchanged words, except to tell him what he is/was. Baha was the one who argued with him constantly. A tip for you,which may not even be of concern, but as I am now somewhat knowledgeable about Japanese law, in regards to Australian, thanks to a little so-and so of an ex daughter in law, it's worth passing on the knowledge, as I have spent a good deal of time at Sydney uni with Prof. Luke Nottage Your marriage may be sound, but beware when, and if, you have a child, because a child born of a Japanese mother, has to be registered in Japan with that name, not her married name.  She then can obtain a Japanese passport, thereby by-passing an "Airport Watch" court order, if you are living here. Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, so if a child is taken out of this country, even with a court order in place, our government can do nothing about it. I have been in contact a few times with the DFAT legal department, they knew nothing of this, which I find amazing, even though it is a huge hole in our legal and immigration system. No one seems concerned. Once all this election nonsense has died down, I will be contacting the relevant Minister. No wonder so many children get taken illegally out of this country. We were lucky that my son thought that she may have obtained an Japanese passport, when he applied for an "Airport Watch"  The Federal Magistrate asked her if she had and  hit the roof when given an answer in the affirmative.. She told her the passport had to be handed to the court within 24 hours.  My son was also concerned that she might apply for a new one, in place of her “lost one”  She was then told that if she did, she would be in contempt of court and have to serve time in gaol. This whole thing has been quite an eye opener as to how wrong one can be about a person.  It is still going on and has made me very ill, because this young lady has no thought for her child in her actions, all she is intent on doing is destroying my son, who fortunately is weathering the storm well.

Yep I am aware of that.

There is a fairly high profile campaign in Japan now to get it to sign the hague agreements.


A couple of western dads over here started the campaign to get access to their kids.


I dont think it will be very long before japan feels the pressure and becomes a signatory.

Soren wrote on Sep 10^th, 2010 at 9:29pm:

It is not deeply flawed. If you are a 'religion of peace'-type, you give it away and seek harmony.

Just like ourselves, dear. Everything we post here is written in love to seek harmony with our fellow brothers and sisters in God.

Allah Akbar!

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 7:58pm:

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 6:25pm: darkhall67 wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 4:05pm: Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:34pm: Thanks Soren. I have been playing games with him and was just typing a response. He was well know at Yahoo for being a self opinionated pain in the butt. No. He was well known at yahoo for continually destroying your arguments with logic and rationality. The fact that he is young only rubbed more salt into the wounds he gave you and you cant get over that. Rot...........It’s already been picked up on here. He's a self opinionated immature little boy. He didn't "destroying  arguments with logic and rationality." I hardly exchanged words, except to tell him what he is/was. Baha was the one who argued with him constantly. A tip for you,which may not even be of concern, but as I am now somewhat knowledgeable about Japanese law, in regards to Australian, thanks to a little so-and so of an ex daughter in law, it's worth passing on the knowledge, as I have spent a good deal of time at Sydney uni with Prof. Luke Nottage Your marriage may be sound, but beware when, and if, you have a child, because a child born of a Japanese mother, has to be registered in Japan with that name, not her married name.  She then can obtain a Japanese passport, thereby by-passing an "Airport Watch" court order, if you are living here. Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, so if a child is taken out of this country, even with a court order in place, our government can do nothing about it. I have been in contact a few times with the DFAT legal department, they knew nothing of this, which I find amazing, even though it is a huge hole in our legal and immigration system. No one seems concerned. Once all this election nonsense has died down, I will be contacting the relevant Minister. No wonder so many children get taken illegally out of this country. We were lucky that my son thought that she may have obtained an Japanese passport, when he applied for an "Airport Watch"  The Federal Magistrate asked her if she had and  hit the roof when given an answer in the affirmative.. She told her the passport had to be handed to the court within 24 hours.  My son was also concerned that she might apply for a new one, in place of her “lost one”  She was then told that if she did, she would be in contempt of court and have to serve time in gaol. This whole thing has been quite an eye opener as to how wrong one can be about a person.  It is still going on and has made me very ill, because this young lady has no thought for her child in her actions, all she is intent on doing is destroying my son, who fortunately is weathering the storm well. Yep I am aware of that. There is a fairly high profile campaign in Japan now to get it to sign the hague agreements. A couple of western dads over here started the campaign to get access to their kids. I dont think it will be very long before japan feels the pressure and becomes a signatory.

Japan is not a signatory to any conventions of the Hague. They have always kept away from signing any thing.

Something has to be done here too and I WILL do something. I wasn't raised in a political house for nothing!!!

So Cockney . . . you watched that CNN interview yet, you know, to see what was actually said?

When trying to read the minds of others, the only result is that you expose your own stupidity. Its the Islamists who are separated from mainstream Australia with his illusions of the dark ages superiority large. Islam is a religious fanatic trapped in the mentality of the Old Testament, which can never progress to become an honourable belief system.

My Nipponese friend has kindly asked for me to ask this Forum
to stop referring to his people/coutry/etc as Japan/Japanese
or he will go back to calling Australia/Australians
as Poofters!

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 2:18pm:

My Nipponese friend has kindly asked for me to ask this Forum to stop referring to his people/coutry/etc as Japan/Japanese or he will go back to calling Australia/Australians as Poofters!

You alright there mate?

What else does he want us to call them ?  

Having just dealt recently with an abominable Japanese person, with many faces person, I could come up with many names

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 2:18pm: My Nipponese friend has kindly asked for me to ask this Forum to stop referring to his people/coutry/etc as Japan/Japanese or he will go back to calling Australia/Australians as Poofters! You alright there mate? What else does he want us to call them ?   Having just dealt recently with an abominable Japanese person, with many faces person, I could come up with many names

Nippon and Nipponese are Japanese, we speak English in the country, as least some of us do anyhow...so it's Japan and Japanese

We used to call them "Nips", but that became offensive.

Amadd wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 3:47pm:

We used to call them "Nips", but that became offensive.

I suppose it all depends on how one looks at it. It's only an abbreviation.

We don't find it offensive to be called aussies.

Maybe we should also be offended

Cockney Doll wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 4:32pm:

Amadd wrote on Sep 17th, 2010 at 3:47pm: We used to call them "Nips", but that became offensive. I suppose it all depends on how one looks at it. It's only an abbreviation. We don't find it offensive to be called aussies. Maybe we should also be offended

It is the intention behind the words that makes the difference.

Calling them "nips" was always meant as a disparaging term to belittle and offend.

The term "aussie" has never been used that way.

It has never even entered my head to use the word, I've never thought of it one way or the other !

Hong Kong - Honkers
Nippon - Nippers.