Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Talk about everything else besides Stratovarius here in English. Please try to put more serious topics here, and silly topics in the Spam section.
User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK
Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by NeonVomit » Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:09 pm

Neo-Nazism is pretty widespread in Eastern Europe, especially Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Hell, there's places in Eastern Germany I wouldn't go to.

Yeah, basically all far-right politicians are closet Nazis. They're trying to justify themselves by saying they speak for some 'silent majority' (the BNP here does... but they're another story) and they're basically just racists.

But I suppose this bunch are alright because they don't hate Jews, just Arabs. And immigrants. Which is clearly fine and in line with what a free society requires.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

Babylonian
Member
Posts:212
Joined:Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:05 pm
Location:Finland

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Babylonian » Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:20 pm

NeonVomit wrote:Neo-Nazism is pretty widespread in Eastern Europe, especially Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Hell, there's places in Eastern Germany I wouldn't go to.
That's maybe true nowadays, but in 1930s/1940s one of Nazi Germany's spokesman (I don't remember his name) said, that "Poles will disappear from the world". I still don't understand, where that hate came. :?

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by miditek » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:23 pm

Rebel wrote:freedom of religion bro
Freedom of religion is indeed guaranteed by the Consitution, but that does not include setting up a front for a command and control center for terror groups to operate (from behind the veil of religion) in New York with impunity.
NeonVomit wrote: Evidence?
Author and former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat translates Imam Rauf's seditious and conspiratorial
activities from Arabic during Rauf's U.S. taxpayer sponsored tour of the Middle East.


<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Rather than being on the government payroll, he should now be under investigation- and due to his public and verbal suppport for Hamas and Hezbollah, then that is sufficent for probable and reasonable cause to be established for an indictment under the following:

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.



miditek wrote:Nor does freedom of religion allow these imams to set up a madrassa in their mosque to indoctrinate their children in Jihad 101 courses, and to create the next generation of suicide bombers.

NeonVomit wrote:Agreed. I somehow don't think that's going to be happening in this mosque however. Not with the amount of scrutiny it would be under from now on.


But that is based solely on assumptions, and not on fact. As I mentioned, I think that sufficient probable cause has already been well established via the Imam's words and actions, and not to mention the nearly 3,000 people that were killed only two blocks away.
NeonVomit wrote:They'll probably content themselves with telling five year old kids that they'll go to hell for not believing in Mohammed. Or that having sex before marriage will send you to hell. Or that Mohammed came up with the Koran after a chat with the archangel Gabriel, but conveniently forget to mention that he didn't actually write any of it down, ever.


That is, of course, a plausible assumption, but the only way to guarantee that jihiadist training and indoctrination does not occur (or if it does, as I strongly suspect it will, is not permitted to continue) is for a Federal judge to sign the necessary warrants to keep such a place under surveillance by the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, including wiretaps and audio/video bugs, in addition to the infiltration of the proposed facility by informants.
Miditek wrote:With freedom of religion also comes responsibility- the imams will incite riots worldwide over Mohammed cartoons, but are perfectly content to incite riots (and worse) with their fanatical determination to build the mosque in a location that has the majority of the country (and not only the people of New York) now at the boiling point. Let's see a mega Orthodox synagogue be constructed adjacent to the palaces of the royal family in Saudi Arabia and see how far that goes.
NeonVomit wrote:Poor analogy.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on my opinions regarding this in general. I believe that Rauf has every intention of using the proposed mosque to cause trouble, either by legal or seditious means, or both.
NeonVomit wrote:What you're describing is apples and oranges - Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy which is, culturally and socially, still in the middle ages where women get stoned for being victims of rape and publicly executes innocent people after little more than a mock trial on a fairly regular basis.
But the Saudis' Islamic jurisprudence does not in any way provide an excuse or legal precedent for Rauf's misguided and ill-intentioned project here.
NeonVomit wrote:The US on the other hand is a modern, enlightened (for the most part) democratic society where freedom for all is (usually) protected by law. More often than not, people get fair trials and have their rights protected. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but by god do you hear about it and do people get angry when things mess up.
Yes, the U.S. is, with the exception of Israel, indeed a significantly more open and free society than the majority of other nations in the Middle East. However, that does not mean that Rauf and his associates should be allowed to game the system and use the United States freedom of religion as the basis to circumvent that law behind the veil of religion.
NeonVomit wrote:Besides, them getting worked up enough over stupid cartoons is them getting angry at the very laws and rights afforded to them which allows them to practice their religion in the first place. With freedom comes responsibility - true, but with freedom also comes mass stupidity and there are, as of yet, no laws against stupidity that I am aware of.
Another view that I have over the riots, death threats, etc. that occurred after the cartoons were published were simply an excuse for Muslims to cause still more trouble while hiding behind the veil of their religion. I have asked Muslims if they believed that their prophet was a mortal, or something else. When asked this question, they would, of course, explain that he was a man. I would then counter by asking that if their prophet was indeed a man, then how could the cartoons amount to blasphemy? Blasphemy can only occur if the object of ridicule is a god, and above the status of a mere mortal- and did their actions indeed not raise their prophet above the status of a man, and elevate him to that of Deity- which in and of itself is not blasphemy?
NeonVomit wrote:A child could see their hypocrisy, but hey, that's religion for you.
Some could perhaps- a very unusually precocious child ,but most others, certainly not. I have seen all of the children in the West Bank and Gaza with their toy plastic suicide belts on, as well as the faux Mickey Mouse children's show produced by Hamas where six and seven year old children express their beliefs that it would be an honor to die in a suicide attack as long as they take plenty of Jews with them.

Palestinian Mickey Mouse

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AY0zE64thJ4?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AY0zE64thJ4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Miditek wrote:Nothing good is going to come from building the mosque there- and it is only going to lead to more tension, more trouble, and all in the name of political correctness under a freedom of religion facade.
NeonVomit wrote:See, I agree with you on this.
I think it's a pretty ridiculous thing to do, and just another example of religion being used as a political tool. Since I trust Islam about as much as I trust any other religion (i.e. hardly at all) I wouldn't be too surprised if this was some sort of calculated publicity stunt intended to rile up passions. I personally hate it when people use religion to justify a retarded sense of entitlement.
We may have to agree to agree on that statement above. The "A" team will be astounded by this revelation. A sure sign that the Apocalypse is now all but imminent.
NeonVomit wrote:BUT... having said that, it is privately owned land, and the building and administration of the mosque is in line with all local laws and ordinances. It's not actually, well, illegal or unlawful in any way. Therefore the only reason this is being made an issue, and the only reason it would possibly be blocked, is on the grounds of it being a Muslim building in Lower Manhattan.
That, we may have to disagree with. As far as I am concerned, there is a legal basis that can be used to stop this mosque at the proposed site- as what Rauf is proposing basically amounts to inciting a riot, and it will lead to far worse events than mere riots themselves. The city and the state have offered to work with Rauf to find an alternate site, but these attempts for compromise have, of course, been rejected outright.
NeonVomit wrote:And that is religious discrimination, which is unlawful.
That is arguable at best, and as I said, what Rauf is trying to do is to incite violence for the sake of propaganda purposes, and to inspire future waves of suicide attacks against innocent civilians in the NYC area, under a mere facade of religion. He clearly has anticipated what the eventual results would be if the mosque is built in such close proximity to the WTC site- and instigating trouble is his ultimate goal- not, as he publicly preaches, to use the center for the purpose of reconciliation and healing. If the State or City of New York said "No mosques, period.", then that, in my opinion, would certainly constitute religious discrimination.
NeonVomit wrote:If it was a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple we wouldn't even be hearing about it. But like it or not, freedom of religion is protected in America, and fortunately or unfortunately, that's part of living in an open society. While I agree with Obama on his reasoning behind his opinion, I still think he should have just kept quiet about it and left it as a local issue. Brave of him to do and very idealistic, but not politically wise.
But the fact remains, it is not a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple. It was not Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, nor Hindus that hijacked commercial jet planes and used them as human guided missiles to destroy the WTC. Furthermore, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not vowing to destroy the U.S. and Israel, and Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not being arrested in NYC for plots to bomb Jewish synagogues either. Many Muslims like to play both jihadist and victim at the same time, but instigators, plotters, subversives, and killers cannot simultaneously be victims. Their actions warrant, indeed demand, far greater scrutiny.
NeonVomit wrote:I don't think it's about political correctness however (which pisses me off no end). Despite me being about as atheist as they come, I do believe freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and as outlined above, there's just no legal reason for this mosque not to be built.
Again, I believe that there are strong legal arguments regarding the existence of the mosque itself- but the current outrage is not over the existence of the mosque itself, but its location, and the Imam's outright refusal to consider an alternate location, as proposed by the governor of the State of New York.
NeonVomit wrote:This entire thing is being planned to provoke the people nationwide, and could serve as a "Reichstag Fire" type of pretext for Obungler's Sturmabteilung to launch a crackdown on us. That's the game in a nutshell.
NeonVomit wrote:The first bit of this sentence is true and I agree fully with it, the second part shows you have no idea about or understanding of Nazi Germany and how it has no conceivable resemblance with the current (or, might I add, previous) US administration.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. We may agree on the first part of the sentence, but as for your assessment of the second part- it is your opinion, and as such, you are welcome to it.

With that being the case, I would also like to point out that I've studied the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, and Imperial Japan ever since I could read from the age of six years old onward (having first started with my father's copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in addition to various World Book encyclopedias at that age), in addition to every other book and documentary I've watched in the thirty seven years since I began- which is longer than you have been alive. At the end of the day, if one (or a group) are killed by jihadists, Nazis, or Communists, then what difference does it make? The victims are still just as dead. So it's safe to assume that I have a bit more than average knowledge of the subject of tyranny that the typical person does.

In private conversations that I've had over the years with a number of Russian, Ukranian, and Armenian friends that live right here in the States, they have expressed grave concern over the direction that the country is heading in, and would it not be safe to assume that, as former citizens of the USSR, that these folks have a good idea of the dangers and warning signs of tyranny when they see it? When the explain that they did not leave Eastern Europe and travel thousands of miles to America to live in another nascent dictatorship? Would you entertain the idea that you somehow know something more about tyranny than they do or accuse them of being "Islamophobic"?

NeonVomit wrote: Look, Obama is either a Communist, or a Nazi, make up your mind. If you're going to be wilfully ignorant about the different meanings of political affiliations at least be consistent with it.
Churchill himself was on record as saying that Nazism was virtually indinguishable from the worst excesses of Bolshevism, so did that make him a buffoon as well? Again, you're welcome to your own opinions, but they do not by any means "prove" anything about my beliefs, overall level of intelligence, morals, habits, or anything else. They are your opinions, but certainly not the law of the land- as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions in the past.
icecab21 wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sled ... 60585.html

how many blocks away is ok? it's already 2 blocks away.
My vote would be for it to be located Grozny, Chechnya, inside the Russian Federation, and then establish the entire area as a "free fire" zone.
browneyedgirl wrote:It's just my opinion but I think building a mosque in that particular area is like spitting in the face of people who lost loved ones in 9/11. Its like saying, "Fuck you". It's just really bad taste, and inconsiderate.
Inconsiderate, and from an internal security standpoint, completely unacceptable. It will lead to extreme violence, and a lot of innocent people, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike are going to get killed if that mosque goes up. The imam's stubborn refusal to consider moving the mosque elsewhere will have consequences for him and his flock that he either cannot forsee, or his conveniently chosen to ignore.

If the mass influx of mosques and Muslims in general into this country is not stopped, it will invariably lead to civil war inside of the United States. It will be conceptually similar to the Balkan Wars following the breakup of Yugoslavia, but will not be isolated to a comparatively small area such as Serbia, Bosnia, and other former Yugoslav provinces, but on a much larger scale that could potentially encompass the entire contintental US.

These people do not assimilate well at all in any country that the migrate to, and their belief system is completely and utterly incompatible with the West and its democratic ideals and laws. No special concessions should be made, and Sharia Law and honor killings should be expressively prohibited.

Moreover, many in the west are completely unaware of the Islamic jurisprudential concepts of Taqiyya, as cited in Q 16:106 and Q 3:28, in addition to various Hadiths and fatwas that remain in effect, which allows for deception as a means to conceal the true goals of Islam itself when dealing with infidel society and their laws in general.

These concepts are certainly nothing new, and it is quite likely that Mohammed was well versed in Sun Tzu's philosophy, such as:

"All war is deception" and "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.", which has already been used to great effect in Europe.

The two main concepts that the enemy underestimates here in the United States include:

a) We are the most heavily armed civilian population
in the world.

b) The resolve of the American people as a whole, and
that the very spirit of the revolution remains
alive and well. (Two key points that in turn, seem
to terrify Washington as well.)
Rebel wrote:And telling them they can't is like telling more than 230 years of American history "Fuck you".
Actually, it's telling them "Fuck you, if you think that you're going to build a memorial to the so-called "Magnificent Nineteen" here on hallowed ground"
icecab21 wrote:muslims lost loved ones in 911, and i don't mean ones involved in the terrorism or the muslim sects that condone the terrorism.
So what you're saying is that the so-called "Magnificent Nineteen" were all orphans, and had no families? And that is still beyond the point- if that mosque gets built, there will be no shortage of 'martyrs' for the jihadists' families to bury. They have been warned, this is our country, and if they don't like it and won't compromise on the location, then they will face the wrath of the public. And it won't be pretty.
icecab21 wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sled ... 60585.html

how many blocks away is ok? it's already 2 blocks away.
My vote would be for it to be located Grozny, Chechnya, inside the Russian Federation, and then establish the entire area as a "free fire" zone.
Babylonian wrote:Party of Freedom. :lol: What a funny joke. That person and party have nazi roots. The only difference between "Party of Freedom" and NSDAP is it, that the first one hates muslims and blacks and the second one hated jews. And I'm not joking.
Apparently, you must be joking- an idiotic Finn pot calling the Dutch kettle black. Unless you've forgotten that there were scores of Finns that fought alongside Nazi Germany, and many of which enlisted in the Finnisches Freiwilligen-Bataillon der Waffen-SS that was formed up in 1941-

Finnish SS volunteers

Image


Their insignia


Image

Memorial for SS collaborators at Hietaniemi cemetery in Helsinki

Image
Babylonian wrote:Persons like Wilders spreads hate towards muslims and blacks very similar way, than nazis spread hate towards jews and poles in Nazi Germany. It's funny, that some persons still thinks, that nazism is dead in Europe. They are totally wrong.
Wilders is calling for a restriction on the mass influx of Muslims into his country, as well as enforcement of the rule of the law. How would you react if hundreds of thousands of goatfuckers got dumped into Lapland, refused to assimilate, began screaming for special "concessions", eating up welfare benefits designed to help Finns, murdering popular artists/authors, and generally causing public chaos?

I've got news for you Buckwheat, U.S. forces didn't sacrifice thousands of lives and gallons of blood to liberate the far more civilized Dutch in order to see an another invasion little more than sixty years later. I am behind Wilders 110%- and you can hurl all of the Nazi accusations at him that you want- but I still don't see any Muzz being rounded up and thrown into concentration camps now- do you? Got any satellite images or other materials to prove that the Dutch are Nazis?
Babylonian wrote:As to muslims, liberal muslim and radical muslim are two different things.
Bullshit- world conquest is their goal. And they will use any means necessary to obtain it. Be it via legal and political pressure, terrorism, war, etc.

Qur'an (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"
Babylonian wrote: Koran denies killing. And islam isn't the only religion, which has the "violent wing".
Wrong again:

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Babylonian wrote:There's also christians, who wants to kill all the homosexuals.
Like the Iranians are actually doing now with theirs? And after the mad twerp said that there were no homosexuals in Iran, during one of his rants at the UN in NY?

Image

Really? The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for those that practiced it. Christ preached forgiveness in the New Testament, but also assured that the sexually immoral "would not inherit the Kingdom of God"

Please provide evidence that Christian churches here in the US are doing the same thing as Ahmandinejad's Basij militia or Revolutionary Guards are handling their gay population. Christians condemn the practice, but as you can see in the MSM and various cities, such as San Francisco and New York- gays are everywhere, and I have yet to see one be hanged here in my forty three years.
&#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949; &#7952;&#955;&#941;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#957;

User avatar
Rebel
Sr. Member
Posts:2142
Joined:Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:41 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Rebel » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:44 pm

I skimmed your post miditek, honestly, I don't like putting that much effort into political discussion, so I'm not going to respond point for point. I'll just say that right now, the strongest argument that Islamic world has against America, their biggest rallying point, is that American society is incompatible with Islam, that our two cultures can never and will never integrate, that we hate them, and that we must be destroyed. Therefore, our best plan of attack is to prove that wrong. To integrate them, like we have every other society that has landed on our shores.
That strategy melds pretty well with everything I've learned about being a Christian, as well.
Take it or leave it, but I'm not going to fuel the radical fire by playing right into their propaganda campaign.

User avatar
rikkertje
Sr. Member
Posts:1801
Joined:Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:14 pm
Location:The Netherlands

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by rikkertje » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:55 pm

That case in wich 2 homosexuals were hanged because of their sexuality really sickens me. I am gay myself, not the type that walks around with handbags and make up, no no nooo. Nobody would've guessed I was gay until I told them. Just a normal guy. But when I heard that story about 2 guys who got hanged because of it I was shocked. I know all over the world there is hate against homosexuals. But this was the first time I saw people being officially killed because of it.

That is one of the reasons why I am happy to live in The Netherlands. Here you can be gay without problems. That was until more immigrants started to come in. They refused to adapt to our morals and values and rules. But still more and more come in. And it may sound prejudiced, but most violence (against gays and in general) and other criminal activities comes from foreigners. And as I've said before, as long as they refuse to adapt to our land, our culture and our ways of living, they should just fuck off and slither back into their holes.

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts:1186
Joined:Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location:Finland

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Carcass » Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:33 pm

Babylonian fought with the SS? :shock: :shock: :shock:

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by NeonVomit » Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:58 pm

miditek wrote:
Rebel wrote:freedom of religion bro
Freedom of religion is indeed guaranteed by the Consitution, but that does not include setting up a front for a command and control center for terror groups to operate (from behind the veil of religion) in New York with impunity.
NeonVomit wrote: Evidence?
Author and former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat translates Imam Rauf's seditious and conspiratorial
activities from Arabic during Rauf's U.S. taxpayer sponsored tour of the Middle East.


<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
A video from Fox News is not evidence. You'd have the same reaction if anyone posted anything from Al-Jazeera, wouldn't you?

Try again.
Rather than being on the government payroll, he should now be under investigation- and due to his public and verbal suppport for Hamas and Hezbollah, then that is sufficent for probable and reasonable cause to be established for an indictment under the following:

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
No, he is not committing treason. You think everyone who disagrees with US policy (pre-Obama, of course) is committing treason.

Try again.
miditek wrote:Nor does freedom of religion allow these imams to set up a madrassa in their mosque to indoctrinate their children in Jihad 101 courses, and to create the next generation of suicide bombers.

NeonVomit wrote:Agreed. I somehow don't think that's going to be happening in this mosque however. Not with the amount of scrutiny it would be under from now on.


But that is based solely on assumptions, and not on fact. As I mentioned, I think that sufficient probable cause has already been well established via the Imam's words and actions, and not to mention the nearly 3,000 people that were killed only two blocks away.
You do not know what 'probable cause' means. Look it up.

Try again.
NeonVomit wrote:They'll probably content themselves with telling five year old kids that they'll go to hell for not believing in Mohammed. Or that having sex before marriage will send you to hell. Or that Mohammed came up with the Koran after a chat with the archangel Gabriel, but conveniently forget to mention that he didn't actually write any of it down, ever.


That is, of course, a plausible assumption, but the only way to guarantee that jihiadist training and indoctrination does not occur (or if it does, as I strongly suspect it will, is not permitted to continue) is for a Federal judge to sign the necessary warrants to keep such a place under surveillance by the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, including wiretaps and audio/video bugs, in addition to the infiltration of the proposed facility by informants.
[/quote]

So by that reasoning, they should bug and infiltrate every single mosque in the country. Right?
But the Saudis' Islamic jurisprudence does not in any way provide an excuse or legal precedent for Rauf's misguided and ill-intentioned project here.
I wasn't saying it did, I was just pointing out your example is flawed. The US is different from Saudi Arabia in basically every way conceivable, so comparing them is pointless. Such a thing would never be allowed there.

I said it was a pretty fucked up thing to do, and fucked up things are allowed to happen in a free society. It's part of the price we pay.
NeonVomit wrote:The US on the other hand is a modern, enlightened (for the most part) democratic society where freedom for all is (usually) protected by law. More often than not, people get fair trials and have their rights protected. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but by god do you hear about it and do people get angry when things mess up.
Yes, the U.S. is, with the exception of Israel, indeed a significantly more open and free society than the majority of other nations in the Middle East. However, that does not mean that Rauf and his associates should be allowed to game the system and use the United States freedom of religion as the basis to circumvent that law behind the veil of religion.
Uh, trust me, the US is way more open and free than Israel and indeed most European countries. I've been to Israel a few times, it's a nice place, almost identical to Cyprus, but believe me it's no paradise because some ancient myths were set there.

And hey, Fred Phelps and co. have a national platform to spew hate speech, but I never see you saying anything against that bunch. Do you agree with them?
NeonVomit wrote:BUT... having said that, it is privately owned land, and the building and administration of the mosque is in line with all local laws and ordinances. It's not actually, well, illegal or unlawful in any way. Therefore the only reason this is being made an issue, and the only reason it would possibly be blocked, is on the grounds of it being a Muslim building in Lower Manhattan.
That, we may have to disagree with. As far as I am concerned, there is a legal basis that can be used to stop this mosque at the proposed site- as what Rauf is proposing basically amounts to inciting a riot, and it will lead to far worse events than mere riots themselves. The city and the state have offered to work with Rauf to find an alternate site, but these attempts for compromise have, of course, been rejected outright.
Storm in a teacup. Nobody will actually riot over this. It will piss people off, sure, and right wingers will fan the flames because it gets them ratings.

He wanted to build there and did. Once again, it's a stupid, cold-hearted thing to do, but not illegal.
NeonVomit wrote:And that is religious discrimination, which is unlawful.
That is arguable at best, and as I said, what Rauf is trying to do is to incite violence for the sake of propaganda purposes, and to inspire future waves of suicide attacks against innocent civilians in the NYC area, under a mere facade of religion. He clearly has anticipated what the eventual results would be if the mosque is built in such close proximity to the WTC site- and instigating trouble is his ultimate goal- not, as he publicly preaches, to use the center for the purpose of reconciliation and healing.


No, it's not 'arguable at best', after all you've said, religious discrimination is still illegal. It's in the law, it cannot be challenged.

It doesn't matter if he insisted he wanted to build it there - that makes him a bastard trying to incite hatred, but no more than Fred Phelps and co.

It is not illegal to build, and therefore blocking the construction because of the fact that it is a Muslim building and no other is religious discrimination. Which is, again, prevented by the constitution.
If the State or City of New York said "No mosques, period.", then that, in my opinion, would certainly constitute religious discrimination.
And saying 'you can't build here because it's a mosque' without any other good reasons is also religious discrimination. It's exactly the same thing.
NeonVomit wrote:If it was a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple we wouldn't even be hearing about it. But like it or not, freedom of religion is protected in America, and fortunately or unfortunately, that's part of living in an open society. While I agree with Obama on his reasoning behind his opinion, I still think he should have just kept quiet about it and left it as a local issue. Brave of him to do and very idealistic, but not politically wise.
But the fact remains, it is not a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple. It was not Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, nor Hindus that hijacked commercial jet planes and used them as human guided missiles to destroy the WTC. Furthermore, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not vowing to destroy the U.S. and Israel, and Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not being arrested in NYC for plots to bomb Jewish synagogues either. Many Muslims like to play both jihadist and victim at the same time, but instigators, plotters, subversives, and killers cannot simultaneously be victims. Their actions warrant, indeed demand, far greater scrutiny.
[/quote]
dis·crim·i·na·tion
&#8194; &#8194;/d&#618;&#716;skr&#618;m&#601;&#712;ne&#618;&#643;&#601;n/ –noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
As you put it, it is religious discrimination. That is a textbook example of it, and you seem to firmly believe it is OK. You're saying an entire section of the population, based on their faith, should be observed and monitored because of what a bunch of extremists did.

Please explain how is that not religious discrimination.

By that thinking, why not ban all Roman Catholic priests because of the numerous documented cases of child abuse? Why not sterilise all black people because their kids are more likely to commit crimes?
NeonVomit wrote:I don't think it's about political correctness however (which pisses me off no end). Despite me being about as atheist as they come, I do believe freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and as outlined above, there's just no legal reason for this mosque not to be built.
Again, I believe that there are strong legal arguments regarding the existence of the mosque itself- but the current outrage is not over the existence of the mosque itself, but its location, and the Imam's outright refusal to consider an alternate location, as proposed by the governor of the State of New York.
Yeah, but he's not actually breaking any laws apart from pissing people off. Again, I think it's cruel, cold and calculated but it's not illegal.

Trust me, the law is probably the one thing I actually, like, know about. Don't go down that path.
miditek wrote:This entire thing is being planned to provoke the people nationwide, and could serve as a "Reichstag Fire" type of pretext for Obungler's Sturmabteilung to launch a crackdown on us. That's the game in a nutshell.
NeonVomit wrote:The first bit of this sentence is true and I agree fully with it, the second part shows you have no idea about or understanding of Nazi Germany and how it has no conceivable resemblance with the current (or, might I add, previous) US administration.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. We may agree on the first part of the sentence, but as for your assessment of the second part- it is your opinion, and as such, you are welcome to it.

With that being the case, I would also like to point out that I've studied the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, and Imperial Japan ever since I could read from the age of six years old onward (having first started with my father's copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in addition to various World Book encyclopedias at that age), in addition to every other book and documentary I've watched in the thirty seven years since I began- which is longer than you have been alive. At the end of the day, if one (or a group) are killed by jihadists, Nazis, or Communists, then what difference does it make? The victims are still just as dead. So it's safe to assume that I have a bit more than average knowledge of the subject of tyranny that the typical person does.
The people killed by US bombs are, however, not dead at all. Vietnamese people aren't still getting fucked up genetic mutations from Agent Orange.

Right?
In private conversations that I've had over the years with a number of Russian, Ukranian, and Armenian friends that live right here in the States, they have expressed grave concern over the direction that the country is heading in, and would it not be safe to assume that, as former citizens of the USSR, that these folks have a good idea of the dangers and warning signs of tyranny when they see it? When the explain that they did not leave Eastern Europe and travel thousands of miles to America to live in another nascent dictatorship? Would you entertain the idea that you somehow know something more about tyranny than they do or accuse them of being "Islamophobic"?
So tyranny - like bugging and infiltrating religious organisations as you mentioned above? Monitoring and scrutinising a whole religion because of what extremists did? Sounds like you sort of want tyranny.

The US is more free than any country in Europe could ever hope to be, and will be for a long time. Please don't wish for it to change.

Chill out and be thankful for what you have.

NeonVomit wrote: Look, Obama is either a Communist, or a Nazi, make up your mind. If you're going to be wilfully ignorant about the different meanings of political affiliations at least be consistent with it.
Churchill himself was on record as saying that Nazism was virtually indinguishable from the worst excesses of Bolshevism, so did that make him a buffoon as well? Again, you're welcome to your own opinions, but they do not by any means "prove" anything about my beliefs, overall level of intelligence, morals, habits, or anything else.
You prove that yourself, I don't have to do anything. And no, I don't really have much love for Churchill, there's a reason he was voted out of office before WWII was even over.

Just understand that Obama is neither a Nazi nor a Boshelvist because you happen to disagree with him. I think GWB was the worst US president in history, but he wasn't any Nazi - he just had terrible policy ideas.
They are your opinions, but certainly not the law of the land- as I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions in the past.
I never expressed them as anything other than my opinions.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts:3774
Joined:Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location:Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Shurik » Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:22 pm

Neo-Nazism is pretty widespread in Eastern Europe, especially Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.
I know this and I will never understand it. How fucking stupid one has to be in order to worship the very same people who just 70 years ago declared him an untermensch and intended to exterminate his people and leave a few for slave labour? When I hear stuff like this, I regret that there are no laws against stupidity.
I don't have the real evidence, but why he spreads pure propaganda and hate towards muslims if he don't hate them? His hate towards muslims is very similar, than nazis hate towards jews in 1930s/1940s. Afterall it's very hard to say is he a nazi or not, but the fact is it, that his and many others European far right populist parties political message is hate. That's the key thing.
I think that it's more of a xenophobia than outright racism. Xenophobia exists in every place with lots of immigrants who don't want to integrate. It's not something good but it's understandable. I consider it a less severe thing than racism.
I can give you an example of local xenophobia - about 1 million former Soviet Jews came to Israel in early 1990s (I myself came in 1993). Since USSR did not exactly supported religions, most of the Soviet Jews are secular and came because of the economic reasons. There were quite strong anti-immigrant sentiments here during the first years of this big emigration wave. Those sentiments are mostly gone now because the vast majority of the immigrants integrated pretty well into the Israeli society. There are ~15 members of parliament out of 120 who came from USSR.
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

Hector Leonardo
Member
Posts:65
Joined:Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:50 pm
Location:Argentina

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Hector Leonardo » Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:07 am

I'm sorry but what is ground zero???

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts:3774
Joined:Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location:Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Shurik » Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:28 am

Hector Leonardo wrote:I'm sorry but what is ground zero???
The place where Twin Towers stood (World Trade Center buldings).
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
JensJohansson
Administrator
Posts:1490
Joined:Thu Feb 28, 2002 10:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by JensJohansson » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:18 am

miditek wrote: Memorial for SS collaborators at Hietaniemi cemetery in Helsinki
Image
Just a small point, I don't think that monument is specifically for "SS collaborators". At least i hope not. That would go over like a lead zeppelin (not the Led kind).

It seems the text is "Isänmaan vapauden puolesta vuosina 1941 – 1943 Saksan sotavoimissa kaatuneitten suomalaisten vapaaehtoisten muistoksi. --Aseveljet." My best translation guess; "In remembrance of Finnish volunteers in the German Armed Forces during 41-43 who fell defending the homeland. --Brothers in arms." It's unclear if the brothers in arms who "signed" it were Germans or Finns, or just brother in arms regardless of nationality. Useful allies of Germany or not, the Finns in general were pretty lousy Nazis. Didn't fill the Jew deportation requests/quotas in orderly fashion, etc.. to the germans they probably seemed annoyingly lackadaisical about all those "important racial biology issues."

I personally don't think they should build the mosque in that spot. If they do build it, I wouldn't mind if a pig slaughterhouse, a strip club, a Hells Angels clubhouse, a Norwegian black metal venue, and a gay bar to be its neighbors... it's NYC after all. Some diversity, so the visitors of the mosque can show the world how tolerant and peaceful they are.
Jens.

================================
"Koskenkorva is very good."
-Ronald Reagan
================================

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by NeonVomit » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:36 am

Weren't some Finnish Jewish officers actually awarded the Iron Cross while fighting the Russians? (which they obviously refused) as well as actually having field synagogues... yeah, real National Socialists, the Finns.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
Rebel
Sr. Member
Posts:2142
Joined:Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:41 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Rebel » Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:39 am

JensJohansson wrote: If they do build it, I wouldn't mind if a pig slaughterhouse, a strip club, a Hells Angels clubhouse, a Norwegian black metal venue, and a gay bar to be its neighbors... it's NYC after all. Some diversity, so the visitors of the mosque can show the world how tolerant and peaceful they are.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You are my hero Jens. Just, Wow.

User avatar
rikkertje
Sr. Member
Posts:1801
Joined:Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:14 pm
Location:The Netherlands

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by rikkertje » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:53 am

JensJohansson wrote:I personally don't think they should build the mosque in that spot. If they do build it, I wouldn't mind if a pig slaughterhouse, a strip club, a Hells Angels clubhouse, a Norwegian black metal venue, and a gay bar to be its neighbors... it's NYC after all. Some diversity, so the visitors of the mosque can show the world how tolerant and peaceful they are.
I agree completely.

Babylonian
Member
Posts:212
Joined:Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:05 pm
Location:Finland

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Babylonian » Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:14 am

Apparently, you must be joking- an idiotic Finn pot calling the Dutch kettle black. Unless you've forgotten that there were scores of Finns that fought alongside Nazi Germany, and many of which enlisted in the Finnisches Freiwilligen-Bataillon der Waffen-SS that was formed up in 1941-
If Finland was the ally of Nazi Germany it doesn't mean, that nowadays citizens of Finland support the nazis. There's lot of people in Finland, who are ashamed of Finland's past.
Wilders is calling for a restriction on the mass influx of Muslims into his country, as well as enforcement of the rule of the law. How would you react if hundreds of thousands of goatfuckers got dumped into Lapland, refused to assimilate, began screaming for special "concessions", eating up welfare benefits designed to help Finns, murdering popular artists/authors, and generally causing public chaos?

I've got news for you Buckwheat, U.S. forces didn't sacrifice thousands of lives and gallons of blood to liberate the far more civilized Dutch in order to see an another invasion little more than sixty years later. I am behind Wilders 110%- and you can hurl all of the Nazi accusations at him that you want- but I still don't see any Muzz being rounded up and thrown into concentration camps now- do you? Got any satellite images or other materials to prove that the Dutch are Nazis?
You can say whatever you want, but the fact is it, that Wilder's political message is hate and propaganda. Have you ever seen his movie about islam? It's pure war propaganda just like "Mein Kampf".

I'm not saying, that Dutch people are nazis, but they are blind, because they voted person and party, whose political message is hate.
Wrong again:

Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Qur'an (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
It's a fact, that islam isn't the only one violent religion. There are also christian cults, who wants to kill all the homosexuals. And radical christian Sarah Palin said, that "Iraqi war is God's volition". Don't misunderstand, I'm not against religions, like some atheists, but I'm criticising radical christian cults, which doesn't even have connection to normal christian religions.
Babylonian fought with the SS? Shocked Shocked Shocked
Ha ha ha, very funny joke. I know, that there's neo nazis in Finland, but you should know as a Finn, that the history doesn't make Finns nazis.
I think that it's more of a xenophobia than outright racism. Xenophobia exists in every place with lots of immigrants who don't want to integrate. It's not something good but it's understandable. I consider it a less severe thing than racism.
I can give you an example of local xenophobia - about 1 million former Soviet Jews came to Israel in early 1990s (I myself came in 1993). Since USSR did not exactly supported religions, most of the Soviet Jews are secular and came because of the economic reasons. There were quite strong anti-immigrant sentiments here during the first years of this big emigration wave. Those sentiments are mostly gone now because the vast majority of the immigrants integrated pretty well into the Israeli society. There are ~15 members of parliament out of 120 who came from USSR.
I think, that xenophobia is nowadays version of racism. Xenophobia is still exist, if there's immigrants who wants to integrate. I think, that you should know, what I mean as a immigrant.

User avatar
Shurik
Sr. Member
Posts:3774
Joined:Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:17 am
Location:Satellite Of Love
Contact:

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Shurik » Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:57 am

I think, that xenophobia is nowadays version of racism. Xenophobia is still exist, if there's immigrants who wants to integrate. I think, that you should know, what I mean as a immigrant.
Well, it can't be defined as racism if Jews in Israel don't like Jews from USSR. Or Jews from Poland don't like Jews from Morocco. You will be surprised how much of this crap still exists here ...
If they do build it, I wouldn't mind if a pig slaughterhouse, a strip club, a Hells Angels clubhouse, a Norwegian black metal venue, and a gay bar to be its neighbors... it's NYC after all. Some diversity, so the visitors of the mosque can show the world how tolerant and peaceful they are.
I would pay to see that happen :lol:
Chemistry is physics without a thought
Mathematics is physics without a purpose

User avatar
Mormegil
Sr. Member
Posts:4327
Joined:Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:31 pm
Location:United States of Europe, FI, Pori
Contact:

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Mormegil » Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:35 pm

Babylonian wrote:You can say whatever you want, but the fact is it, that Wilder's political message is hate and propaganda. Have you ever seen his movie about islam? It's pure war propaganda just like "Mein Kampf".
Mind pointing out what part of that film (Fitna) exactly do you consider propaganda? Seriously, it's been a while since I last saw it and I might have simply forgotten something. Pointing out well documented facts shouldn't be prevented, right?

I would think it has aready been established, that rise of Islam influence is causing problems all around the West. Only thing we can do is try to work on that problem and from what I've gathered, Geert Wilders has actually very level-headed, albeit populist (=/= wrong), ideas on how to do it.
JensJohansson wrote:I personally don't think they should build the mosque in that spot. If they do build it, I wouldn't mind if a pig slaughterhouse, a strip club, a Hells Angels clubhouse, a Norwegian black metal venue, and a gay bar to be its neighbors... it's NYC after all. Some diversity, so the visitors of the mosque can show the world how tolerant and peaceful they are.
And the Nobel Peace Price goes to...
Why didn't anyone think of this before? :lol:

User avatar
Carcass
Sr. Member
Posts:1186
Joined:Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:41 am
Location:Finland

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Carcass » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:00 pm

Babylonian wrote:
Babylonian fought with the SS? Shocked Shocked Shocked
Ha ha ha, very funny joke. I know, that there's neo nazis in Finland, but you should know as a Finn, that the history doesn't make Finns nazis.
:lol: I completely agree with you. I was trying to say that miditek's Nazi argument was retarded. As if 1000 Finnish SS volunteers makes you a Nazi. You had nothing to do with it.

But this is nothing new, miditek repeatedly chooses to see broad categories of people defined by what happened in 1939-45.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by NeonVomit » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:46 pm

JensJohansson wrote: I personally don't think they should build the mosque in that spot. If they do build it, I wouldn't mind if a pig slaughterhouse, a strip club, a Hells Angels clubhouse, a Norwegian black metal venue, and a gay bar to be its neighbors... it's NYC after all. Some diversity, so the visitors of the mosque can show the world how tolerant and peaceful they are.
Didn't Glenn Beck air the idea of opening a gay bar next door called 'Suspicious Packages'? That's possibly the only thing he's ever said that I agree with. I think it would be fantastic.
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
rikkertje
Sr. Member
Posts:1801
Joined:Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:14 pm
Location:The Netherlands

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by rikkertje » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:47 pm

NeonVomit wrote:
JensJohansson wrote: I personally don't think they should build the mosque in that spot. If they do build it, I wouldn't mind if a pig slaughterhouse, a strip club, a Hells Angels clubhouse, a Norwegian black metal venue, and a gay bar to be its neighbors... it's NYC after all. Some diversity, so the visitors of the mosque can show the world how tolerant and peaceful they are.
Didn't Glenn Beck air the idea of opening a gay bar next door called 'Suspicious Packages'? That's possibly the only thing he's ever said that I agree with. I think it would be fantastic.
:lol: Now that would be great!

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by miditek » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:43 am

miditek wrote:Author and former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat translates Imam Rauf's seditious and conspiratorial activities from Arabic during Rauf's U.S. taxpayer sponsored tour of the Middle East.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AhlQqb5Vzjk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
NeonVomit wrote:A video from Fox News is not evidence. You'd have the same reaction if anyone posted anything from Al-Jazeera, wouldn't you?

Try again.
So essentially what you're saying is that you conveniently choose to ignore a former PLO terrorist that is a native Arabic speaker that is translating what Rauf is saying in his speeches overseas. If Shoebat was still associated with Fatah and calling for the destruction of Israel and America, I'm quite sure that you'd be cheering him on- but now that he is a Christian, has renounced terrorism and Islam, and is currently explaining the differences in what the imam's messages are in English to American venues and Arabic in Middle Eastern venues, then what he is saying now must be propaganda. Fox News is certainly not the only media institution that Shoebat has granted interviews to.
miditek wrote:Rather than being on the government payroll, he should now be under investigation- and due to his public and verbal suppport for Hamas and Hezbollah, then that is sufficent for probable and reasonable cause to be established for an indictment under the following:

USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
NeonVomit wrote:No, he is not committing treason. You think everyone who disagrees with US policy (pre-Obama, of course) is committing treason.

Try again.
Giving aid, comfort, or support in any form and at any venue whatsoever to the enemy is treason- particularly given the fact that he is on the government's payroll. Re-read USC 18-2381, with particular emphasis on "giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"
miditek wrote:Nor does freedom of religion allow these imams to set up a madrassa in their mosque to indoctrinate their children in Jihad 101 courses, and to create the next generation of suicide bombers.

NeonVomit wrote:Agreed. I somehow don't think that's going to be happening in this mosque however. Not with the amount of scrutiny it would be under from now on.

miditek wrote:But that is based solely on assumptions, and not on fact. As I mentioned, I think that sufficient probable cause has already been well established via the Imam's words and actions, and not to mention the nearly 3,000 people that were killed only two blocks away.
NeonVomit wrote:You do not know what 'probable cause' means. Look it up.

Try again.
I believe that the definitions of probable cause and reasonable suspicion are quite clear, and do not require a juris doctorate for clear interpretation. Perhaps you choose to conveniently ignore how many mosques have been raided here in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. Moreover, in the METO (Middle Eastern Theater of Operations) mosques have been used time and again to hide fugitives and weapons, and as strongholds or fortress types of structures from which coalition troops have been fired upon.

Once evidence has been established, either via confidential informants and/or other forms of surveillance- that a mosque is being used for seditious activities, the planning of criminal/treasonous activity, inspiring or inciting violence, and/or harboring fugitives, illegal aliens, or hiding illegal weapons- it ceases to become a house of worship, and as such, is subject to search, seizure, and if necessary and the insurgents do not surrender(in a battlefield environment) the destruction thereof by force.
NeonVomit wrote:They'll probably content themselves with telling five year old kids that they'll go to hell for not believing in Mohammed. Or that having sex before marriage will send you to hell. Or that Mohammed came up with the Koran after a chat with the archangel Gabriel, but conveniently forget to mention that he didn't actually write any of it down, ever.

miditek wrote:That is, of course, a plausible assumption, but the only way to guarantee that jihiadist training and indoctrination does not occur (or if it does, as I strongly suspect it will, is not permitted to continue) is for a Federal judge to sign the necessary warrants to keep such a place under surveillance by the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, including wiretaps and audio/video bugs, in addition to the infiltration of the proposed facility by informants.
[/quote]
NeonVomit wrote:So by that reasoning, they should bug and infiltrate every single mosque in the country. Right?
It should be quite obvious that we don't have the time nor the resources to bug and infiltrate every single mosque in America- and there are many more being built every year.

However, the vast majority of the congregations in these mosques are not American citizens, but more likely are resident aliens, and as such, are potentially enemy aliens and of course should be subjected to far greater scrutiny- given Islam's penchant for violence, and their established history of using houses of worship as a cover for illegal and terroristic activities.

Moreover, why the influx of so many of them to a society that that proclaim hatred for and have vowed to destroy? If Islam is so superior, why the invasion of tens of millions of them to Europe and millions more to America? Given the fact that we are at war with radical Islam, any and all of them are, at the very least, subject to be suspected of being enemy aliens.

miditek wrote:But the Saudis' Islamic jurisprudence does not in any way provide an excuse or legal precedent for Rauf's misguided and ill-intentioned project here.
NeonVomit wrote:I wasn't saying it did, I was just pointing out your example is flawed. The US is different from Saudi Arabia in basically every way conceivable, so comparing them is pointless. Such a thing would never be allowed there.
NeonVomit wrote:I said it was a pretty fucked up thing to do, and fucked up things are allowed to happen in a free society. It's part of the price we pay.
Freedom of religion is one thing- one that I am sure that we can both agree, but using mosques as a facade to set up a fifth column of subversion is not the same thing as freedom of religion.
NeonVomit wrote:The US on the other hand is a modern, enlightened (for the most part) democratic society where freedom for all is (usually) protected by law. More often than not, people get fair trials and have their rights protected. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but by god do you hear about it and do people get angry when things mess up.
And there are limits to freedom- for instance, they are not free to build bombs, hide heavy weapons, or indoctrinate jihadist theory into young impressionable minds here. Once they cross that line, all bets are off. Many already have as evidenced from numerous raids on existing mosques, in addition to a significant number of arrests by the FBI. With as many problems as the U.S. and other countries have had with them, reasonable suspicion has already been well established.
Miditek wrote:Yes, the U.S. is, with the exception of Israel, indeed a significantly more open and free society than the majority of other nations in the Middle East. However, that does not mean that Rauf and his associates should be allowed to game the system and use the United States freedom of religion as the basis to circumvent that law behind the veil of religion.
NeonVomit wrote:Uh, trust me, the US is way more open and free than Israel and indeed most European countries. I've been to Israel a few times, it's a nice place, almost identical to Cyprus, but believe me it's no paradise because some ancient myths were set there.
No country on Earth is a "paradise", but Israel itself is significantly more advanced in finance, agriculture, information technology, medical technology, military technology, and about a gazillion other things than her neighbors. Why do you think that Microsoft, Intel, Google, and other Silicon Valley giants have a major presence there as opposed to, let's say Syria?
NeonVomit wrote:And hey, Fred Phelps and co. have a national platform to spew hate speech, but I never see you saying anything against that bunch. Do you agree with them?
Phelps is, in my own opinion, a royal and first class asshole that is in no way associated with the nation's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which ranks second only to the Roman Catholic Church, in terms of membership numbers. As far as we are concerned, Phelps is definitely considered a heretic. He would never be welcome to speak at our church. His flock's presence would certainly not be welcome at the National Cemetery over on Bailey Avenue here in my city- where I have family and friends buried, and Westboro congregants might find themselves to be at great risk at the hands of several known motorcycle gangs, such, as the Outlaws, who have chapters here in the city- and "brothers" buried at National.

I find his anti-Semitism to be completely abominable, in addition to the picketing the funerals of our fallen servicemen and servicewomen. I was also highly annoyed when the picketed Dio's funeral as well. This guy is a rabble-rouser that is best to be ignored, since it should be obvious that he and his flock are little more than attention whores. The only thing that I have ever heard him say that made sense was that anti-hate speech laws in Canada and Sweden that subject pastors to jail sentences for speaking out against the sin of homosexuality is wrong, and is a violation of free speech- but that is where our agreement ends.

If he were truly a minister of Christ, he would indeed say that homosexuality is wrong and that God's judgement is certainly coming for practitioners of that (and a great many other)sins)- but rather than picketing funerals and adding hurt to the already devastated survivors of our fallen warriors, he would lead his congregation to pray for people that are gay, and that God would lead them away from such a lifestyle. It is also very likely that this pastor conveniently forgets that he is a sinner as well, and is in every bit as much of need of Christ's forgiveness and salvation as anyone else in the world.
NeonVomit wrote:BUT... having said that, it is privately owned land, and the building and administration of the mosque is in line with all local laws and ordinances. It's not actually, well, illegal or unlawful in any way. Therefore the only reason this is being made an issue, and the only reason it would possibly be blocked, is on the grounds of it being a Muslim building in Lower Manhattan.
Miditek wrote:That, we may have to disagree with. As far as I am concerned, there is a legal basis that can be used to stop this mosque at the proposed site- as what Rauf is proposing basically amounts to inciting a riot, and it will lead to far worse events than mere riots themselves. The city and the state have offered to work with Rauf to find an alternate site, but these attempts for compromise have, of course, been rejected outright.
NeonVomit wrote:Storm in a teacup. Nobody will actually riot over this. It will piss people off, sure, and right wingers will fan the flames because it gets them ratings.
It's far more than that- Imam Rauf is playing with fire and knows exactly what he's doing. When you see union building contractors (none of which are right-wing by any stretch of the imagination) and IBEW members indicating that they will refuse to build the mosque (and good luck getting non-union scabs to cross the picket line in NYC without a fight), then you can bet the rent money that this is certainly not isolated to the right-wing.
NeonVomit wrote:He wanted to build there and did. Once again, it's a stupid, cold-hearted thing to do, but not illegal.
Not illegal to build, but certainly not legal for the purpose of jihadist indoctrination and training or to use the mosque as a base of operations. If the Imam was so concerned about bridge building (rather than burning them) as he claims that he is, he would at least sit down with NY Governor David Patterson to explore options for another location- which he has utterly refused to do. This proves that Rauf has no interest in defusing any situations- and will use the fallout that will inevitably result for his own cynical political gains.

New York is definitely not a "right-wing" city, but if you piss these people off- then look out, because they certainly have a history of inflicting extremely unpleasant actions upon people that instigate trouble there.
NeonVomit wrote:And that is religious discrimination, which is unlawful.
Miditek wrote:That is arguable at best, and as I said, what Rauf is trying to do is to incite violence for the sake of propaganda purposes, and to inspire future waves of suicide attacks against innocent civilians in the NYC area, under a mere facade of religion. He clearly has anticipated what the eventual results would be if the mosque is built in such close proximity to the WTC site- and instigating trouble is his ultimate goal- not, as he publicly preaches, to use the center for the purpose of reconciliation and healing.

NeonVomit wrote:No, it's not 'arguable at best', after all you've said, religious discrimination is still illegal. It's in the law, it cannot be challenged.


It is indeed arguable. Do you want to see lower Manhattan turn into a war zone? Rauf has refused to consider another location that is not in such close proximity to ground zero. And what the hell is he doing on the government's payroll to begin with? Even Gov. Patterson offering to provide state land is offensive, but certainly less so than building at the proposed site. If anything, I can see both the Fed and the State of New York crossing all sorts of lines with the separation of church and state.
NeonVomit wrote:It doesn't matter if he insisted he wanted to build it there - that makes him a bastard trying to incite hatred, but no more than Fred Phelps and co.
I disagree, Phelps and Company, and their fringe cult that call themselves Baptists had nothing to do with Islam, and nothing to do with the WTC, do not support Hamas, and do not support Hezbollah. To the best of my knowledge, while the Westboro congregation have made complete asses out of themselves on a number of occasions, they have not committed any acts of treason, sabotage, or terrorism against the homeland. He has a handful of idiotic followers, while Rauf has financing from the Saudis and others, and hundreds of millions of people on his side. That is a major difference.
NeonVomit wrote:It is not illegal to build, and therefore blocking the construction because of the fact that it is a Muslim building and no other is religious discrimination. Which is, again, prevented by the constitution.
But treason and sedition are against the law, and that is exactly what they are planning to do inside of that building- and to use the GZM for propaganda purposes, as opposed to being a house of worship. Do you think that the Greek Orthodox priests at the St. Nicholas church (which was destroyed in that same vicinity) were teaching jihad from the pulpit in their church?
NeonVomit wrote:If the State or City of New York said "No mosques, period.", then that, in my opinion, would certainly constitute religious discrimination.
NeonVomit wrote:And saying 'you can't build here because it's a mosque' without any other good reasons is also religious discrimination. It's exactly the same thing.
Unless you haven't heard, the NY City Council, including Mayor Bloomberg has approved , as well as the building inspectors have approved that the mosque can indeed be built. But there are a great deal of residents in the city that oppose it, in addition to 70% of the rest of the country- and as I previously stated- Rauf has refused to consider any alternative sites.
NeonVomit wrote:If it was a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple we wouldn't even be hearing about it. But like it or not, freedom of religion is protected in America, and fortunately or unfortunately, that's part of living in an open society. While I agree with Obama on his reasoning behind his opinion, I still think he should have just kept quiet about it and left it as a local issue. Brave of him to do and very idealistic, but not politically wise.
But the fact remains, it is not a church, synagogue, Bhuddist, Sikh or Hindu temple. It was not Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, nor Hindus that hijacked commercial jet planes and used them as human guided missiles to destroy the WTC. Furthermore, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not vowing to destroy the U.S. and Israel, and Christians, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, and Hindus are not being arrested in NYC for plots to bomb Jewish synagogues either. Many Muslims like to play both jihadist and victim at the same time, but instigators, plotters, subversives, and killers cannot simultaneously be victims. Their actions warrant, indeed demand, far greater scrutiny.[/quote][/quote]
NeonVomit wrote: dis·crim·i·na·tion
&#8194; &#8194;/d&#618;&#716;skr&#618;m&#601;&#712;ne&#618;&#643;&#601;n/ –noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

As you put it, it is religious discrimination. That is a textbook example of it, and you seem to firmly believe it is OK. You're saying an entire section of the population, based on their faith, should be observed and monitored because of what a bunch of extremists did.

Please explain how is that not religious discrimination.


There are a great number of people nationwide that have asked Rauf to move the mosque elsewhere- and that is not discrimination.
NeonVomit wrote:By that thinking, why not ban all Roman Catholic priests because of the numerous documented cases of child abuse? Why not sterilise all black people because their kids are more likely to commit crimes?


The (Catholic) church has done a poor job of policing itself in regards to pedophiliac clergy- and it is certainly not limited to the Catholic church either. Such offenders should be prosecuted and then imprisoned. Pedos have rather short life spans in American prisons. Personally, I'd like to see convicted pedophiles shot by firing squad- particularly if their DNA is found to be present in the victim's body- but that topic has already been discussed here.

Regarding the sterilization of black people, that of course is ridiculous particularly if based on the assumption that they are more likely to commit crimes- although I do think that "Welfare Queens" of all races should be sterilized by the complete removal of their ovaries (and at their own expense) after the first child is born if they expect someone else (read: taxpayers) to be responsible for paying for their offspring's upbringing.
NeonVomit wrote:I don't think it's about political correctness however (which pisses me off no end). Despite me being about as atheist as they come, I do believe freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and as outlined above, there's just no legal reason for this mosque not to be built.
Again, I believe that there are strong legal arguments regarding the existence of the mosque itself- but the current outrage is not over the existence of the mosque itself, but its location, and the Imam's outright refusal to consider an alternate location, as proposed by the governor of the State of New York.[/quote]
NeonVomit wrote:Yeah, but he's not actually breaking any laws apart from pissing people off. Again, I think it's cruel, cold and calculated but it's not illegal. Trust me, the law is probably the one thing I actually, like, know about. Don't go down that path.
Again, if the purpose of the mosque (as it has been in countless other parts of the world, including America) is to be used as a base of operations for terrorist and/or seditious activities, then the 1st Amendment offers no protection as it is no longer a house of worship, but a "safe house" for those that engage in criminal activity.

Once you get your juris doctorate and pass your bar exams, then by all means, please feel free to lecture me as often as you wish on the law- particularly if you pass the bar exam in any one of the fifty United States, and especially if you become an expert on U.S. Constitutional law, as well as actually having read the Patriot Act itself to begin with. While I am certainly no attorney, as an engineer I deal with complex legal and security related issues on a daily basis with my work- and can research and interpret legal documentation for myself.
miditek wrote:This entire thing is being planned to provoke the people nationwide, and could serve as a "Reichstag Fire" type of pretext for Obungler's Sturmabteilung to launch a crackdown on us. That's the game in a nutshell.
NeonVomit wrote:The first bit of this sentence is true and I agree fully with it, the second part shows you have no idea about or understanding of Nazi Germany and how it has no conceivable resemblance with the current (or, might I add, previous) US administration.
miditek wrote:Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. We may agree on the first part of the sentence, but as for your assessment of the second part- it is your opinion, and as such, you are welcome to it.
miditek wrote:With that being the case, I would also like to point out that I've studied the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, and Imperial Japan ever since I could read from the age of six years old onward (having first started with my father's copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in addition to various World Book encyclopedias at that age), in addition to every other book and documentary I've watched in the thirty seven years since I began- which is longer than you have been alive. At the end of the day, if one (or a group) are killed by jihadists, Nazis, or Communists, then what difference does it make? The victims are still just as dead. So it's safe to assume that I have a bit more than average knowledge of the subject of tyranny that the typical person does.
NeonVomit wrote:The people killed by US bombs are, however, not dead at all. Vietnamese people aren't still getting fucked up genetic mutations from Agent Orange. Right?
Completely irrelevant and off-topic. Do you know what ridiculous slogans were painted on the side of the tanks of DeGaulle's 2nd Armored Div. during the battle to liberate Paris? I'll give you a hint- "Today Paris, Tomorrow Saigon!" So in essence, the stupid frogs had not even had liberated their capital city liberated yet, despite a four year occupation by the Krauts (with whom they certainly collaborated with and also fired on US troops landing in North Africa)- and yet they could not wait to reoccupy their former colonies in Indochina.

As I have told you before (in order to refresh your selective memory) Uncle Ho begged Eisenhower for political assistance in getting the frogs out of Indochina once and for all- but Ike, out of some sort of ridiclous fear of offending French "sensibilities" refused to do so. Why anyone would be afraid of offending a vanquished ally like France that required US and UK help to be liberated is completely beyond me.

But in the end, Uncle Ho went to China (an ancient and implacable enemy) as well as the Soviet Union for help with expelling the French from their country. Uncle Mao and Uncles Malenkov, Beria, Molotov, and Khrushchev, who were more than happy to assist Uncle Ho with killing the French, for assistance.

After the frogs' glorious humiliation at Dien Bien Phu, that was when US involvement began- and after Eisenhower, Kennedy began sending more advisors, and then Johnson began a full scale escalation of the war. Nixon nearly won the war during Operation Rolling Thunder in 1972 (as the North Vietnamese were at the Paris Peace Conference and almost ready to sign that year, but the democrats (who started the fucking war to begin with) and the peaceniks and the hippies began protesting, and eventually it was Ford that pulled the remaining troops out.

So if you want to look at who originally instigated the entire conflict, look no further than Paris and its desire to continue with its colonial ambitions- and then had their heads handed to them by Ho and the Viet Minh. It was democratic presidents that got us in with full force, and republicans that eventually pulled our troops out. So you can't blame Ronnie Ray-gun or Boosch for this adventure, as much as it's apparent that you would love to pin the tail on that donkey. Personally, I would have told the French to go fuck themselves and to get the hell out of Indochina, and the entire thing could have been avoided.
miditek wrote:In private conversations that I've had over the years with a number of Russian, Ukranian, and Armenian friends that live right here in the States, they have expressed grave concern over the direction that the country is heading in, and would it not be safe to assume that, as former citizens of the USSR, that these folks have a good idea of the dangers and warning signs of tyranny when they see it? When the explain that they did not leave Eastern Europe and travel thousands of miles to America to live in another nascent dictatorship? Would you entertain the idea that you somehow know something more about tyranny than they do or accuse them of being "Islamophobic"?
NeonVomit wrote:So tyranny - like bugging and infiltrating religious organisations as you mentioned above? Monitoring and scrutinising a whole religion because of what extremists did? Sounds like you sort of want tyranny.
No, why don't we let them import Sharia law here and give it full and official recognition as is the case now in the United Khaliphate? Since you know so much about the law, please provide evidence that Sharia courts are not operating in Britain now.

The best way to ensure freedom here will be to protect our fellow Americans from those that have vowed to topple us and our way of life. This mass immigration of Muslims here into the US serves no legitimate purpose, other than to allow our own enemy to live amongst us. Immigration of Muslims should be severely restricted- if not completely eliminated. Doctors, dentists, engineers, etc. I can see and understand letting them come in, but jihadists? Not a chance in hell.
NeonVomit wrote:The US is more free than any country in Europe could ever hope to be, and will be for a long time. Please don't wish for it to change. Chill out and be thankful for what you have.
Americans are thankful for what they have, but we will jealously guard our freedom from those that would wish to subjugate us- freedom is not free, and Europeans of all people should know that.
NeonVomit wrote: Look, Obama is either a Communist, or a Nazi, make up your mind. If you're going to be wilfully ignorant about the different meanings of political affiliations at least be consistent with it.
miditek wrote:Churchill himself was on record as saying that Nazism was virtually indinguishable from the worst excesses of Bolshevism, so did that make him a buffoon as well? Again, you're welcome to your own opinions, but they do not by any means "prove" anything about my beliefs, overall level of intelligence, morals, habits, or anything else.
NeonVomit wrote:You prove that yourself, I don't have to do anything. And no, I don't really have much love for Churchill, there's a reason he was voted out of office before WWII was even over.
I can only imagine your dislike of Churchill- and you probably thought that Chamberlain's and Daladier's political skills were far superior, which as far as being snookered by Hitler's lies- you would be absolutely correct!

Churchill was voted out just after V-E Day, but not V-J day. I cannot think of any other PM in the entire history of the UK that would have been a better wartime leader- and in the postwar years as the leader of the opposition, he still wielded considerable international influence. He was also voted back into office as PM in 1951- which also speaks volumes of the man.
NeonVomit wrote:Just understand that Obama is neither a Nazi nor a Boshelvist because you happen to disagree with him. I think GWB was the worst US president in history, but he wasn't any Nazi - he just had terrible policy ideas.
It is impossible for a mulatto to be a Nazi- but certainly not impossible for him to be a Socialist, which is essentially "Communist-lite"- as he has nationalized wide swaths of the American private sectors of business during his short time in power- healthcare, elements of the automotive industry, investment banks, and other institutions.
Carcass wrote:I completely agree with you. I was trying to say that miditek's Nazi argument was retarded. As if 1000 Finnish SS volunteers makes you a Nazi. You had nothing to do with it. But this is nothing new, miditek repeatedly chooses to see broad categories of people defined by what happened in 1939-45.
What I said was that Babylonian was an idiot Finn functioning as the pot calling the kettle black due to his suggestions that Wilders was a Nazi. Have you seen Fitna for yourself? Did Wilders hire Arabic speaking actors to simply play roles in this film, and did he somehow re-write the Koran and then quote from it to somehow express his own political views?

And besides, there were a lot more than just 1,000 Finns serving in the SS foreign legions that fought alongside the Germans in WWII. The Finnish I, II, and IV Corps (under Mannerheim), which comprised a total of seven infantry divisions were attached to Army Group North under the overall command of German Field Marshall Ritter von Leeb, and the Finn forces did participate in the seige of Leningrad.

Moreover, it was estimated that 19,000 Soviet POWs died of starvation and disease (with an additional 1,000 executed) in Finnish POW camps. Also, it was estimated that some 4,000 Russian civilians from East Karelia that died in Finnish concentration camps during the war.

So before Babylonian calls Wilders a Kraut, he should understand that Wilders and his party are not committing atrocities, they are defending the Dutch way of life, will not capitulate to yet another facist foreign invader, and the Finns by no means have a spotless history themselves. In other words, people that live in glass houses need not throw rocks at their neighbors.
NeonVomit wrote:Didn't Glenn Beck air the idea of opening a gay bar next door called 'Suspicious Packages'? That's possibly the only thing he's ever said that I agree with. I think it would be fantastic.
You're close, but it was actually Greg Gutfeld, the host of Fox News' "Redeye Report" that comes on late at night that suggested this solution while he was a guest on Beck's show. Beck, for his part, of course found the notion to be amusing, and even went as far as questioning Gutfeld if he were actually serious- and Gutfeld claimed that he had financial backers that had indicated that there was indeed an interest in opening an alcohol-free gay bar that catered exclusively to gay Muslim men- right next door to the mosque.

Here's the clip, but you'll want to draw your own conclusions as to whether or not Gutfeld was actually serious- it sounded like more of a gag (if you'll pardon the pun) or a joke to me.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Son_1YeL4K8?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Son_1YeL4K8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
&#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949; &#7952;&#955;&#941;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#957;

User avatar
AGAG
Sr. Member
Posts:7857
Joined:Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:04 am
Location:El Salvador

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by AGAG » Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:39 am

Do you guys find it pleasant to write books in response to other people's arguments..? is it some sort of self-relief? delusion? What not? :?
---...---

User avatar
Kosmo
Sr. Member
Posts:2288
Joined:Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:19 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Kosmo » Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:38 am

A muslim gay bar next to a mosque.

USA, truly a wonder.

User avatar
NeonVomit
Sr. Member
Posts:4628
Joined:Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:36 pm
Location:London, UK

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by NeonVomit » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:11 pm

AGAG wrote:Do you guys find it pleasant to write books in response to other people's arguments..? is it some sort of self-relief? delusion? What not? :?
I just find his self-contradiction (terrified about America turning into a tyrrany while in the same breath advocating Nazi-era policies) and barely-concealed racism entertaining and his borderline fanaticism kinda creepy; the glimpses of how his mind works are sort of like wantching a horror film :D (not to mention his incredibly distorted grasp of basic legal concepts but I guess the law takes a back seat when you see things the way he does)
"Beneath the freezing sky arrives Winter's Verge..."

http://www.wintersverge.com


I'm going to hell, and loving the ride!

User avatar
AAAAAAAAAA
Sr. Member
Posts:3585
Joined:Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:37 pm

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by AAAAAAAAAA » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:30 pm

NeonVomit wrote:
AGAG wrote:Do you guys find it pleasant to write books in response to other people's arguments..? is it some sort of self-relief? delusion? What not? :?
I just find his self-contradiction (terrified about America turning into a tyrrany while in the same breath advocating Nazi-era policies) and barely-concealed racism entertaining and his borderline fanaticism kinda creepy; the glimpses of how his mind works are sort of like wantching a horror film :D (not to mention his incredibly distorted grasp of basic legal concepts but I guess the law takes a back seat when you see things the way he does)
It sounds more like a battle of egos. How DARE someone have a different outlook on life than me??

Its rather puzzling that roughly 50% of American voters are conservative and 50% are liberal. Each of these voter pools contains doctors, lawyers, and noble prize winning scientists- people who by all accounts are more informed than you and I. If these elites can't find any political common ground, it only goes to show how arbitrary politics are. And still, everyone is sure that THEY know the truth and have to enlighten others.

The obvious conclusion is that there are two perhaps equally valid interpretations, and its all a matter of perspective. But if you'd prefer to carry on labeling each other communists, hippies, fascists and goatfuckers all for the sin of having a different worldview, then I'll continue to watch from the sidelines. I'll be taking notes (I am a troll after all :lol:).

PS: I just bought a shrew :)

User avatar
Kosmo
Sr. Member
Posts:2288
Joined:Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:19 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by Kosmo » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:34 pm

That shrew will be dead in a week. :x You'll see..

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by miditek » Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:59 pm

NeonVomit wrote:Neo-Nazism is pretty widespread in Eastern Europe, especially Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Hell, there's places in Eastern Germany I wouldn't go to.
And jihadism in Eastern Europe isn't exactly unheard of either now, is it?

Image

Image

I know, you're probably like the rest of the moonbats that believe that 9/11, 7/7, and other attacks are part of a greater Zionist conspiracy that was underwritten by the Mossad.

NeonVomit wrote:Yeah, basically all far-right politicians are closet Nazis. They're trying to justify themselves by saying they speak for some 'silent majority' (the BNP here does... but they're another story) and they're basically just racists.
I can't wait for you to graduate from law school and pass your bar exams. I can already forsee you handling a case in the United Khaliphate's Sharia Family Court TV channel. A young Pakistani woman that happens to also be a rape victim (at the hands of a gang of Somalis or Algerians) is brought in before the court. She is charged with adultery, and you are defending her against the obligatory death sentence.

Not only would you plead her guilty, but would recommend that she be executed as Sharia Law demands. You do ask the judge for the court to be merciful, and to execute her quickly. The judge then responds by saying, "your wish is granted- take the accused out back and stone her now!"
NeonVomit wrote:But I suppose this bunch are alright because they don't hate Jews, just Arabs. And immigrants. Which is clearly fine and in line with what a free society requires.
Your notion of a free society is to allow the imposition of Sharia Law to proceed as quickly as possible. Free handouts for anyone crossing the border with or without a passport, and anyone that disagrees with your radically idiotic ideas is then, per the standard lefty playbook, a "racist".

It's the old retail "bait and switch" operation- tar and feather those that you disagree with as "Nazis" while you simultaneously glorify Islamofascism as it spreads its poisonous tentacles across the globe!

Here is NV's dream of a "free and open society in Europe" (and, if at all possible, in America as well.)

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
&#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949; &#7952;&#955;&#941;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#957;

User avatar
NeverendingAbyss
Sr. Member
Posts:4840
Joined:Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:41 pm
Location:Betty White will outlive the queen.

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by NeverendingAbyss » Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:48 pm

90% of those pictures are photoshopped.

Except for the last one.

User avatar
miditek
Sr. Member
Posts:2045
Joined:Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:59 am

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by miditek » Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:55 pm

NeverendingAbyss wrote:90% of those pictures are photoshopped.

Except for the last one.
Does this look Photoshopped to you? No, probably produced with Adobe Premiere using stock Chechen terrorist footage. I guess the hundreds of the (then) freshly dug graves 2004 at Beslan's local cemetery must be empty as well.

Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia, Public school # 1

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b34GCpCS7Ds?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b34GCpCS7Ds?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The 1st photo showed Russian security forces taking survivors out of Public School #1 in Beslan.

The 2nd photo showed a female Chechen terrorist guarding hostages during the Moscow Theater siege in 2002. She was executed on the scene by an FSB colonel after stun gas was pumped into the building. Some 129 hostages also died during the rescue attempt. I guess their graves must be empty as well.

The 3rd photo is obviously a Photoshop project, while the 4th is a live unedited shot of the Muzz torching cars and building during riots in Paris. (I'd hate to be an AXA insurance agent there) If they tried that kind of shit in Algeria, Syria, Iran, or other places, they would have been mowed down by .30 caliber machine gun fire rather than being arrested.

The 5th photo made national headlines in Sweden of a young 18 year old girl that was beaten and gang-raped by the Muzz (lucky for them it wasn't my sister or one of my cousins, as they would mostly certainly have been hosed down in the appropriate number needed to stop the attack on site with 5.56mm NATO rounds - and I would have beat the case in court, thanks to the Tennessee Castle Doctrine.), although I cannot independently verify the authenticity of this photo. There are plenty of crime statistics with the Swedish ministry of justice that documents several other similiar well known and publicized cases.

The sixth photo may (or may not) have been a Photoshop project- but you can judge for yourself if
the series of videos shown at the link below are authentic or if they were simply edited in Premiere.

http://freedomvatan.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... lamic.html

The sixth photo is "Rage Boy" who is a paid professional prostestor that seems to show up everywhere there is an Islamic protest.

Here's another shot of RageBoy, in one of his lighter moments:

Image

And the 7th and final pic is most definitely not a Photoshopped pic.

Were all of the Renaults and Peugeots in Paris actually torched, or was that more Adobe Photoshop and Premiere propaganda? Contact the local insurance agents and police for more detailed information.
&#922;&#973;&#961;&#953;&#949; &#7952;&#955;&#941;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#957;

User avatar
NeverendingAbyss
Sr. Member
Posts:4840
Joined:Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:41 pm
Location:Betty White will outlive the queen.

Re: Tempers flare at Ground Zero Mosque rally in New York

Post by NeverendingAbyss » Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:34 pm

miditek wrote: lol not photoshopped, noobcake.
Image

I beg to differ-



Image

Post Reply