Thanks for the video it gave me a giggle. Damn it! That is video of Beck’s radio show, radio shows are like that. Damn it! GB is making fun of the fact that no one pays any attention to KO. While GB is the number 2 rated show just behind Oprah. [/quote]
I understand he was trying to be funny, but in no way - no, not even if you want to look at ratings - does he attempt to shoot down anything Olbermann said. Who cares if KO has lower ratings? I want to hear a coherent argument against anything he said.
Let’s whip out our dicks because I have nothing else to say!
[quote]Sifu wrote:
They are deliberately rubbing salt in an open wound looking to get a reaction.
[/quote]
That is YOUR assumption and to claim THAT is the reason for building the community center - my own Muslim friend says he wouldn’t accept that as a “mosque” because it’s not solely a place of worship - then you are falling for the same Right-wing bullshit hysteria.
Watch the Olbermann video because he makes excellent, COHERENT arguments, unlike Newt/Palin/Beck and the other fear mongerers.
Here is a great discussion on CNN about the whole debate, from both sides and moderated by Fareed Zakaria. Please watch this first:
A) The 9/11 inauguration date. I did not see a single reference to that anywhere.
"There are many claims in the media that the proposed mosque is set to open on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the attacks. Admittedly, I cannot find any direct quotes from Rauf himself on confirming that particular day for the proposed inauguration date. Indeed, in an interview published on May 26, Rauf denied that the mosque/Islamic center would be opened on that date. However, in the same interview, he suggested that the 9/11 victims would be commemorated in the mosque:
In the interview, Rauf said his own congregation was affected by 9/11. “We had 200 people who bled and died on 9/11. We gave water to firefighters; doctors from the community volunteered to be medics. We are part of the 9/11 family,” said Rauf, reiterating his plans to put a memorial inside the Islamic center with the names of 9/11 victims."
From an interview with Imam Rauf, denying the 9/11/2011 “inauguration” date:
“Rauf said the mosque would not open on the anniversary of 9/11, and that it would take between 18 months to three years before the money is raised to open the center at the old Burlington Coat Factory building on Park Place, which was damaged on 9/11.”
Also, accusations that Glenn Beck and Pamela Geller intentionally lied about the 9/11 inauguration date
"Its name - Cordoba House - is not a tribute to medieval Muslim subjugation of Spain. Newt Gingrich has been pushing that nonsense, that “Cordoba” is a Muslim dog-whistle for “triumphalism.” "It refers to CÃ?³rdoba, Spain - the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex. Today, some of the mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolize interfaith co-operation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes CÃ?³rdoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.
Those “Muslim conquerors” are a figment of Mr. Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multi-cultural, non-denominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christians, and from a series of internal all-Muslim Civil Wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba, and the Christian church they transformed into the “world’s third-largest mosque complex?” It was turned back into a Christian Cathedral. In the 13th Century. And it has been that, ever since."
And by the way, a point Mr. Gingrich has not even whispered as he has shouted fire in a crowded theaterâ??when the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They already compromised.
“We are calling it Park 51 because of the backlash to the name Cordoba House,” he told the Financial Times. "
C) The Imam’s own background. He was first appointed by Bush and then by Obama, as a figure to facilitate inter-faith dialogue.
“If one were to hearken back to the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, one would remember that, when Bush adviser Karen Hughes was appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the Bush Administration saw improving America’s standing among Muslims abroad as a part of its national security strategy. And, as such, Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that – shocking, by today’s Republican standards – included actual Muslims.”
D) My favorite: Colin Powell, spoke out against accusations of Obama being “Muslim” even though he admitted that he would NOT endorse the Obama campaign:
"Powell also spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim.
“Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian,” he said. “But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, ‘He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.’ This is not the way we should be doing it in America.”
Powell said he does not plan to campaign for Obama."
E) History of the actual mosque in Cordoba, which is now a cathedral:
[/quote]
Two floors of the “community center” are going to be reserved for prayer space. That is where the notion that it is a mosque comes from. Your friends distinction that it is not a mosque because there are other activities going on there is ridiculous. It would be like saying a church is only a community center because they have a bingo hall in the basement.
As to your comment about “fear mongerers” I don’t get the “fear” element perhaps you would care to explain the “fear”. That is of course if you can. Or did you figure you could resort to playground tactics and get away with it?
Frankly I couldn’t watch another Olbermann video for a while without some kind of cleansing ritual such as multiple rounds of colonic irrigation therapy, just to relieve myself of the last one I saw.
His video was a pathetic attempt to dump an emotional guilt trip on everyone about the nazis. All that emotional baggage he brought into it really detracted from the one interesting bit of information about an already existent mosque in the area. Even there he missed an important point. That mosque has been there for decades and hasn’t made enough money to expand into something bigger, like Park 51 because there just aren’t a lot of muslims in that area for a mosque or community center to serve. With no large community there to serve what is the purpose Park 51 other than to provoke and cause problems.
KO’s references to Cordoba are deceptively disingenuous. During the Caliphate of Cordoba Jews and Christians were dhimmi’s subject to jizya tax. KO describes “multi-cultural, non-denominational institutions of learning” and how the muslims were “under constant attack from Christians” while conveniently ignoring a social structure whereby non-muslims payed a tax to muslims or got their heads chopped off and a major source of income was raiding and plundering neighboring Christian areas.
Olbermann was very selective in his narrative in order to paint muslims as completely unbiased people who treated Jews and Christians like there were family, while Christians were just horrible people who attacked them. It is a muslims as victim narrative with christians as the bad people picking on them.
Colin Powell is a good man of impeccable character. I watched his interview about Obama when it happened. He is trying to be fair with people and I respect him for that. However I don’t think he was very well informed. If you listen to Obama speak he repeatedly talks about collective salvation, that salvation cannot come to individuals but only to preferred groups. Salvation for the collective is not Christianity it is marxist liberation theology. Liberation theology is a marxist ideology that has been rejected by the Vatican.
About Obama always being a Christian, Powell is wrong. When Obama went to school in Indonesia as a child he was registered as a muslim. So despite his vehement denials, at one point in his life his own family were saying he was one and put it on official documents. I think Obama saw church as a useful tool to achieve support and political power and nothing more.
Therefore the answer to Powells question “what if he is a muslim?” is even though there may be nothing wrong with that, there is something wrong with Obama lying to us about it. It goes to character and people have every right to judge him based upon his character.
Just because Bush hired the Imam that doesn’t mean much either. Bush wasn’t infallible.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Clearly you have not met any people who have had their family or friends killed or injured by muslims, while I have. [/quote]
You’re such a pussy.[/quote]
And why is that? Because I can see the other side of the issue? Because I don’t let a bunch of liberal assholes like Olbermann spoon feed me my thoughts.
I have news for you homeboy. As big of a shock as it was for America when 9/11 occurred it was not something new and unusual for people in other parts of the world who are used to living near muslims. 9/11 was just one more in a chain of massacres that goes all the way back to mohammad. You should try hanging out with some Hindus sometime or some Sikhs. [/quote]
Who has killed more people on foreign soil since the second world war? All muslim countries combined or America? Correct answer is America. [/quote]
The US has not gone around killing people over religion. So what is the point that you are trying to make? Prior to WW2 muslims have killed several times the number who died in WW2 and after WW2 they have killed millions. The killing of such large numbers was justified by muslims because their victims were non muslims.
[/quote]
No, the US killed them to bring freedom and democracy to them.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Clearly you have not met any people who have had their family or friends killed or injured by muslims, while I have. [/quote]
You’re such a pussy.[/quote]
And why is that? Because I can see the other side of the issue? Because I don’t let a bunch of liberal assholes like Olbermann spoon feed me my thoughts.
I have news for you homeboy. As big of a shock as it was for America when 9/11 occurred it was not something new and unusual for people in other parts of the world who are used to living near muslims. 9/11 was just one more in a chain of massacres that goes all the way back to mohammad. You should try hanging out with some Hindus sometime or some Sikhs. [/quote]
Who has killed more people on foreign soil since the second world war? All muslim countries combined or America? Correct answer is America. [/quote]
The US has not gone around killing people over religion. So what is the point that you are trying to make? Prior to WW2 muslims have killed several times the number who died in WW2 and after WW2 they have killed millions. The killing of such large numbers was justified by muslims because their victims were non muslims.
[/quote]
No, the US killed them to bring freedom and democracy to them.
Potatoes, pothatoes, they are no less dead.
[/quote]
Are you fucking serious? You see no difference between fighting to defend freedom in this world and slaughtering people because you think it will score you brownie points with god?
Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised an Austrian would think like that.
[quote]Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.[/quote]
you seem to confuse the muslims with the ancient aztecs.
Human sacrifice isn’t integral to their religion.
From their perspective, they have to fight to defend and expand their Faith. The ultimate goal is the conversion of the unfaithfuls, that is : to free them …from their false gods, from their idolatry, from their impure and inferior laws…
From their perspective, they ARE fighting to defend freedom in the world.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
it’s the same thing with each and every idealism/universalism. including our current occidental “humanism”.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Clearly you have not met any people who have had their family or friends killed or injured by muslims, while I have. [/quote]
You’re such a pussy.[/quote]
And why is that? Because I can see the other side of the issue? Because I don’t let a bunch of liberal assholes like Olbermann spoon feed me my thoughts.
I have news for you homeboy. As big of a shock as it was for America when 9/11 occurred it was not something new and unusual for people in other parts of the world who are used to living near muslims. 9/11 was just one more in a chain of massacres that goes all the way back to mohammad. You should try hanging out with some Hindus sometime or some Sikhs. [/quote]
Who has killed more people on foreign soil since the second world war? All muslim countries combined or America? Correct answer is America. [/quote]
The US has not gone around killing people over religion. So what is the point that you are trying to make? Prior to WW2 muslims have killed several times the number who died in WW2 and after WW2 they have killed millions. The killing of such large numbers was justified by muslims because their victims were non muslims.
[/quote]
No, the US killed them to bring freedom and democracy to them.
Potatoes, pothatoes, they are no less dead.
[/quote]
Are you fucking serious? You see no difference between fighting to defend freedom in this world and slaughtering people because you think it will score you brownie points with god?
Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised an Austrian would think like that. [/quote]
Ah nonsense, what nobler cause could there be than to serve the one, true GOD?
How is that even comparable to a mere form of government?
You should be thankful for the people who risk their lives to bring the word of Allah to you, to save you from a life lived in vain.
Now you might not agree, but that only shows how desperately you need to be saved.
[quote]Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.[/quote]
you seem to confuse the muslims with the ancient aztecs.
Human sacrifice isn’t integral to their religion.
From their perspective, they have to fight to defend and expand their Faith. The ultimate goal is the conversion of the unfaithfuls, that is : to free them …from their false gods, from their idolatry, from their impure and inferior laws…
From their perspective, they ARE fighting to defend freedom in the world.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
it’s the same thing with each and every idealism/universalism. including our current occidental “humanism”.[/quote]
[quote]Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.[/quote]
you seem to confuse the muslims with the ancient aztecs.
Human sacrifice isn’t integral to their religion.
[/quote]
You are the one who is confused if you think that stoning someone to death for committing adultery or killing them for apostasy because your religion preaches that god will favor you for it, is different from what the Aztecs were doing. It is human sacrifice meant to curry favor from the gods.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Clearly you have not met any people who have had their family or friends killed or injured by muslims, while I have. [/quote]
You’re such a pussy.[/quote]
And why is that? Because I can see the other side of the issue? Because I don’t let a bunch of liberal assholes like Olbermann spoon feed me my thoughts.
I have news for you homeboy. As big of a shock as it was for America when 9/11 occurred it was not something new and unusual for people in other parts of the world who are used to living near muslims. 9/11 was just one more in a chain of massacres that goes all the way back to mohammad. You should try hanging out with some Hindus sometime or some Sikhs. [/quote]
Who has killed more people on foreign soil since the second world war? All muslim countries combined or America? Correct answer is America. [/quote]
The US has not gone around killing people over religion. So what is the point that you are trying to make? Prior to WW2 muslims have killed several times the number who died in WW2 and after WW2 they have killed millions. The killing of such large numbers was justified by muslims because their victims were non muslims.
[/quote]
No, the US killed them to bring freedom and democracy to them.
Potatoes, pothatoes, they are no less dead.
[/quote]
Are you fucking serious? You see no difference between fighting to defend freedom in this world and slaughtering people because you think it will score you brownie points with god?
Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised an Austrian would think like that. [/quote]
Ah nonsense, what nobler cause could there be than to serve the one, true GOD?
How is that even comparable to a mere form of government?
You should be thankful for the people who risk their lives to bring the word of Allah to you, to save you from a life lived in vain.
Now you might not agree, but that only shows how desperately you need to be saved.
[/quote]
You know there is a large percentage of Europeans called atheists who would disagree with you. Atheists would say there is no god. Therefore the greatest power and intellect in existence is government. Surely as a loyal European you must believe that there is nothing greater than government.
Therefore there is no greater gift we can give people than government. Or as all loyal Europeans believe more government.
[quote]Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.[/quote]
you seem to confuse the muslims with the ancient aztecs.
Human sacrifice isn’t integral to their religion.
[/quote]
You are the one who is confused if you think that stoning someone to death for committing adultery or killing them for apostasy because your religion preaches that god will favor you for it, is different from what the Aztecs were doing. It is human sacrifice meant to curry favor from the gods.
[/quote]
stoning someone to death for committing adultery or killing them for apostasy does not qualify as human sacrifice.
it’s death penalty, in a theocratic context.
that’s stupid, that’s awful, that’s brutal, but that is not human sacrifice.
Islamist violence is moustruous enough as it is, there’s no need to fantasize it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Clearly you have not met any people who have had their family or friends killed or injured by muslims, while I have. [/quote]
You’re such a pussy.[/quote]
And why is that? Because I can see the other side of the issue? Because I don’t let a bunch of liberal assholes like Olbermann spoon feed me my thoughts.
I have news for you homeboy. As big of a shock as it was for America when 9/11 occurred it was not something new and unusual for people in other parts of the world who are used to living near muslims. 9/11 was just one more in a chain of massacres that goes all the way back to mohammad. You should try hanging out with some Hindus sometime or some Sikhs. [/quote]
Who has killed more people on foreign soil since the second world war? All muslim countries combined or America? Correct answer is America. [/quote]
The US has not gone around killing people over religion. So what is the point that you are trying to make? Prior to WW2 muslims have killed several times the number who died in WW2 and after WW2 they have killed millions. The killing of such large numbers was justified by muslims because their victims were non muslims.
[/quote]
No, the US killed them to bring freedom and democracy to them.
Potatoes, pothatoes, they are no less dead.
[/quote]
Are you fucking serious? You see no difference between fighting to defend freedom in this world and slaughtering people because you think it will score you brownie points with god?
Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised an Austrian would think like that. [/quote]
Ah nonsense, what nobler cause could there be than to serve the one, true GOD?
How is that even comparable to a mere form of government?
You should be thankful for the people who risk their lives to bring the word of Allah to you, to save you from a life lived in vain.
Now you might not agree, but that only shows how desperately you need to be saved.
[/quote]
You know there is a large percentage of Europeans called atheists who would disagree with you. Atheists would say there is no god. Therefore the greatest power and intellect in existence is government. Surely as a loyal European you must believe that there is nothing greater than government.
Therefore there is no greater gift we can give people than government. Or as all loyal Europeans believe more government. [/quote]
I dont know what a “loyal European” is.
Does not matter anyway, because you are afraid that they might try to reshape your society in their image and yet you kill them by the hundreds of thousands to reshape their society in your likeness.
And yet they are dangerous fanatics whereas the US is only there to “help” them.
[quote]Helping people to be free and have self determination is a noble cause.
Killing people because human sacrifice is integral to your religion is sick and selfish.[/quote]
you seem to confuse the muslims with the ancient aztecs.
Human sacrifice isn’t integral to their religion.
[/quote]
You are the one who is confused if you think that stoning someone to death for committing adultery or killing them for apostasy because your religion preaches that god will favor you for it, is different from what the Aztecs were doing. It is human sacrifice meant to curry favor from the gods.
[/quote]
stoning someone to death for committing adultery or killing them for apostasy does not qualify as human sacrifice.
it’s death penalty, in a theocratic context.
that’s stupid, that’s awful, that’s brutal, but that is not human sacrifice.
Islamist violence is moustruous enough as it is, there’s no need to fantasize it.[/quote]
Killing someone because you believe that god will favor you for it is human sacrifice. Just because you can try and attach some kind of legal context to it doesn’t change what it is.
The people who flew airplanes into the world trade center believed that they were going to get a reward in heaven for what they were doing. Ground zero is a site of mass human sacrifice. Calling it something else diminishes the stark reality of what occurred there.
Does not matter anyway, because you are afraid that they might try to reshape your society in their image and yet you kill them by the hundreds of thousands to reshape their society in your likeness.
And yet they are dangerous fanatics whereas the US is only there to “help” them.
Preposterous.
[/quote]
You are full of criticisms yet you offer no solutions of your own. The reason why is because you know that we are in a situation where there are no nice, neat, sanitary, pleasant, solutions.
However the solutions can be more or less neatly put into two categories. Pro action and reaction. The realities of WMD are such that a policy of pro-action makes a lot more sense than a policy of reaction.
But I could be wrong. So why don’t you prove me wrong by telling us how you would have handled Saddam without anyone getting hurt. Can you do it or are you full of scheisse?
Does not matter anyway, because you are afraid that they might try to reshape your society in their image and yet you kill them by the hundreds of thousands to reshape their society in your likeness.
And yet they are dangerous fanatics whereas the US is only there to “help” them.
Preposterous.
[/quote]
You are full of criticisms yet you offer no solutions of your own. The reason why is because you know that we are in a situation where there are no nice, neat, sanitary, pleasant, solutions.
However the solutions can be more or less neatly put into two categories. Pro action and reaction. The realities of WMD are such that a policy of pro-action makes a lot more sense than a policy of reaction.
But I could be wrong. So why don’t you prove me wrong by telling us how you would have handled Saddam without anyone getting hurt. Can you do it or are you full of scheisse? [/quote]
I would have left him where he was.
He would have handled his own population, kept al-Quaeda out and would have frightened the Iranians enough so that they would have more immediate problems than jousting for a leading role in the Islamic world.
Does not matter anyway, because you are afraid that they might try to reshape your society in their image and yet you kill them by the hundreds of thousands to reshape their society in your likeness.
And yet they are dangerous fanatics whereas the US is only there to “help” them.
Preposterous.
[/quote]
You are full of criticisms yet you offer no solutions of your own. The reason why is because you know that we are in a situation where there are no nice, neat, sanitary, pleasant, solutions.
However the solutions can be more or less neatly put into two categories. Pro action and reaction. The realities of WMD are such that a policy of pro-action makes a lot more sense than a policy of reaction.
But I could be wrong. So why don’t you prove me wrong by telling us how you would have handled Saddam without anyone getting hurt. Can you do it or are you full of scheisse? [/quote]
I would have left him where he was.
He would have handled his own population, kept al-Quaeda out and would have frightened the Iranians enough so that they would have more immediate problems than jousting for a leading role in the Islamic world.
[/quote]
Like I thought. Your solution would do nothing while hoping Saddam didn’t do something. Then when something did happen your hope would be that it could be correctly figured out who is responsible. Just like how they had to figure out who was responsible on 9/11 as Air force one was jetting out of Florida.
You have a double standard. While you have terrible problems with how America has handled Iraq and the Iraqi people you don’t have a problem with the way Saddam was handling them. You don’t give a damn about anyone who has died in Iraq all you care about is blaming America.
You assume Al Qaeda and Saddam would never work with each other. In that part of the world there is a saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” that is the culture we are dealing with. But I am certain you will deny that they could work together because that would undermine your narrative that America is bad.
There is no way that Saddam could have continued to contain the Iranians. They have been buying a lot of weapons from the Russians and either already have or are about to have nuclear weapons. We would have had to let Saddam start rearming to keep the Iranians in check and we would have to do something about their nuclear program.
[quote]molnes wrote:
Agree with Orion. It’s not like Iraq posed even a small threat to the security of America. [/quote]
How can you possibly say that? Just look at how much damage was inflicted on the US by 19 men armed with box cutters. 9/11 cost Al Qaeda half a million dollars. Saddam had way more resources that Osama yet you are going to say that he couldn’t hurt us? You are not being realistic.