The US and Europe have labelled Hamas as a terrorist organization. Not something Schumer came up with on his own.
This was bound to happen, imo. All this PC talk about tolerance is dangerous. If the builders of the mosque were truly wanting to mend bridges, then they wouldn't even think about putting it there. This won't be a terrorist traing center; but it is a lighting rod for trouble down the road
Bingo, you hit it right on the head, Dude...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:
The US and Europe have labelled Hamas as a terrorist organization. Not something Schumer came up with on his own.
This was bound to happen, imo. All this PC talk about tolerance is dangerous. If the builders of the mosque were truly wanting to mend bridges, then they wouldn't even think about putting it there. This won't be a terrorist traing center; but it is a lighting rod for trouble down the road
The whole objection here is not about the right to religious free expression in building the mosque, but rather the prudence of seeking to build a symbol of Islamic faith at the doorstep of a site where terrorists "invoking the name of Islam" killed 3,000 Americans.
I will go a step further, and say that Americans really need to better understand this Feisal Abdul Rauf... the developer of this 13-story complex he wants to build near ground-zero.
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Rauf told CBS that "the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
...or how about this one. When asked earlier this summer whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, Mr. Rauf said, "I am not a politician."
Bottom line... you will not convince me that there is a clear distinction between Islam... and the "perverted" teachings of Islam that have created suicide bombers against the West.
The lines are too blurred to convince me otherwise that the faith of Islam is an innocent one .
0
The whole objection here is not about the right to religious free expression in building the mosque, but rather the prudence of seeking to build a symbol of Islamic faith at the doorstep of a site where terrorists "invoking the name of Islam" killed 3,000 Americans.
I will go a step further, and say that Americans really need to better understand this Feisal Abdul Rauf... the developer of this 13-story complex he wants to build near ground-zero.
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Rauf told CBS that "the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
...or how about this one. When asked earlier this summer whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, Mr. Rauf said, "I am not a politician."
Bottom line... you will not convince me that there is a clear distinction between Islam... and the "perverted" teachings of Islam that have created suicide bombers against the West.
The lines are too blurred to convince me otherwise that the faith of Islam is an innocent one .
The whole objection here is not about the right to religious free expression in building the mosque, but rather the prudence of seeking to build a symbol of Islamic faith at the doorstep of a site where terrorists "invoking the name of Islam" killed 3,000 Americans.
I will go a step further, and say that Americans really need to better understand this Feisal Abdul Rauf... the developer of this 13-story complex he wants to build near ground-zero.
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Rauf told CBS that "the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
...or how about this one. When asked earlier this summer whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, Mr. Rauf said, "I am not a politician."
Bottom line... you will not convince me that there is a clear distinction between Islam... and the "perverted" teachings of Islam that have created suicide bombers against the West.
The lines are too blurred to convince me otherwise that the faith of Islam is an innocent one .
This logic is atrocious. Reread what you posted and then explain how the fuck you draw the conclusion which you did. First of all just because one guy says something does not mean they speak for the entire religion. There are many interpretations, so by you using one guy as your example you state Islam is not innocent...fail, not logical. Second, what did the guy say that makes Islam not innocent because he answers the question by stating he is not a politician, obviously that means Islam is violent. We start wars, that makes us violent too, right using the logic which you use. Remember there are two sides to every argument. Third his other argument about US policies being an accessory to the attacks...Again how does that make Islam not innocent? This guy believes it was our foreign policy that caused the attacks, guess what many other believe the same thing and you know something many of them are not Muslim. You use two statements this guy makes to draw up a conclusion about what Islam is and is not. How about you look at other comments this guy has made and see what else he has said. Not only that but the statements you use don't even prove anything. I don't like either party, and try not to consider myself either liberal or conservative but then I read shit like this from the "conservatives." Then realize that if I ever thought and made arguments like they do I would want to kill myself. I am not saying liberals make any better arguments but this type of reasoning that "conservatives" like this guy use are so illogical and terrible, I realize I could never rationalize with them. This is complete ignorance.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
The whole objection here is not about the right to religious free expression in building the mosque, but rather the prudence of seeking to build a symbol of Islamic faith at the doorstep of a site where terrorists "invoking the name of Islam" killed 3,000 Americans.
I will go a step further, and say that Americans really need to better understand this Feisal Abdul Rauf... the developer of this 13-story complex he wants to build near ground-zero.
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Rauf told CBS that "the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."
...or how about this one. When asked earlier this summer whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, Mr. Rauf said, "I am not a politician."
Bottom line... you will not convince me that there is a clear distinction between Islam... and the "perverted" teachings of Islam that have created suicide bombers against the West.
The lines are too blurred to convince me otherwise that the faith of Islam is an innocent one .
This logic is atrocious. Reread what you posted and then explain how the fuck you draw the conclusion which you did. First of all just because one guy says something does not mean they speak for the entire religion. There are many interpretations, so by you using one guy as your example you state Islam is not innocent...fail, not logical. Second, what did the guy say that makes Islam not innocent because he answers the question by stating he is not a politician, obviously that means Islam is violent. We start wars, that makes us violent too, right using the logic which you use. Remember there are two sides to every argument. Third his other argument about US policies being an accessory to the attacks...Again how does that make Islam not innocent? This guy believes it was our foreign policy that caused the attacks, guess what many other believe the same thing and you know something many of them are not Muslim. You use two statements this guy makes to draw up a conclusion about what Islam is and is not. How about you look at other comments this guy has made and see what else he has said. Not only that but the statements you use don't even prove anything. I don't like either party, and try not to consider myself either liberal or conservative but then I read shit like this from the "conservatives." Then realize that if I ever thought and made arguments like they do I would want to kill myself. I am not saying liberals make any better arguments but this type of reasoning that "conservatives" like this guy use are so illogical and terrible, I realize I could never rationalize with them. This is complete ignorance.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
