Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

I'd just like to reiterate building a multicultural multifaith center here is a great idea. If CAIR is going to pay, hey, sounds even better. I suggest Native Americans, Shinto and Hindu polytheistic faiths being represented first and foremost. and by the Aliens, finally, a venue for Scientologist to discuss the common points of Allah and Xenu. Very good. Mmmm Mmmmm Ale and Crackling all around

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure nuff

Oh, right. That must be why your arguments make so much sense: your one retired FBI agent is the entire "gov'mint", presumably since we're not privy to your other assuredly stellar examples of benevolent bureaucratic oversight. Don't worry about them, Geoff: one ex-FBI guy says they're jake. For all we know, the one retired FBI guy was canned for accepting bribes from the KKK: who knows? But when you isolate one tinny ex-voice in the entire legal system as an argument, I have to wonder about your motivations, Bubba. Quid pro quo. (You could call it tu quoque if you like, except that you miss on the quoque.)

To start with: which kind of superiority are you trying to preach, here? Trust me that I don't lie awake worrying about your ill-formed diatribes against everyone who disagrees with them either. Ralph Nader doesn't lie awake worrying about the ill-formed diatribes of Ann Coulter. What exactly is your point, except a kind of literary "nyah nyah nyah"? Supremacist drivel, basically. "You don't matter, Geoff." Well, neither do you, Pandi. And then?

And they have members of Congress who strongly back them.

However, your framing of this new argument appears to be not that CAIR is innocuous, but rather that they aren't innocuous, and that no one has caught them out yet while they snooze away without worrying about my ill-formed diatribes. Your earlier argument - the one based on the one ex-FBI guy - was that they were of no concern. So has the one ex-FBI guy recanted or something?

Are you serious, here? This is that bizarre personal game you like to run again: "If you're demanding riots, Geoff..." "If you think you can run up and down Manhattan Island with a pitchfork and torch, Geoff..." "If you think for one second you can arbitrarily imprison all members of CAIR, Geoff..." I bolded the "you"'s in the hope that this point would sink in this time, since the last time we discussed this "personal liability for all wrongdoing of people I don't like" you (bolded "you": you personally, not your "side", whatever that's meant to be) backed right off.

So, seriously, what is it with you and this personal approach? And who is it you think I am, that I would have the power to do all these things? - riots, wholesale imprisonment, hearings on CAIR. Am I a real Lizardoid? Maybe I am and don't know. We're sneaky, you know. It's possible.

I mean, I could kind of see this as some kind of bizarre ah hominem...if I actually had done those things, or even argued that they should be done. But the leap from meme to maim seems to be a very short one for you. So where are you going with this?

Are you very sure about that last bit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#Criticisms
http://netwmd.com/blog/2007/03/17/1467

Or just Google "Ismail Royer". Purty-pleaase.

The argument as proposed is wrong in two ways.

One: your new tack is that the "gov'mint" knows "all about 'em". OK, then: you should demonstrate which ones are investigating them, and thereby know "all about 'em", and know they're perfectly genteel.

If not, your argument is supposition, not mine, since I didn't make the point that the "gov'mint" both knows "all about 'em" and doesn't think they're a concern of any kind. I never made the claim that no one of any authority knew anything about them, since I can't validate that statement and since it probably isn't so: to clarify for you, I do indeed think that some branches or offices of the "gov'mint" do know many things about them.

Your argument was - and is - that the "gov'mint" knows "all about 'em" and that they are innocuous, which is an entirely different argument and not sufficiently supported by the opinion of a single ex-FBI agent. As to why the "gov'mint" "ain't a-rounded 'em up so far" (or if they ever will), this is an unknown quantity. One could speculate about this for quite some time. However, the evidence based on their associations suggests they are not innocuous, and this is kind of my point. This is the difference between our arguments; you can now insinuate about my actual standpoint instead of the one you thought I had. OK?

Interesting: let's fisk this a bit. Does an arrest of a CAIR member for terrorism (and there have been several in their senior staff, in point of fact; see above) translate into the monitoring of the organization as a whole, or its goals? Did the arrests come about as a consequence of such monitoring, or as independent investigations? Am I somehow privy to the legal investigations of the higher powers?

Although ironically you have attempted to establish for me a point that you have sort of denied yourself. "The gov knaws about 'em and they're fine; but no one's investigating them; you have to prove that someone knows about them; they are; they aren't." This might be a slightly unfair description of the argument so far, but frankly it does also fit and I don't feel particularly generous given the kind of things you like to label people with.

Why? Has the KKK been shut down? Let's take the long view on this and say facetiously for a moment that CAIR are out-and-out terrorists: did the United States shut down every terrorist organization the moment it got started? Or was there a lag time? What is the "Holy Land Foundation"? And so forth.

Interesting: where did I say "in league with CAIR", above? Where did even allude to it? Let's have this, please. Thanks.

...Well, it would be perfectly reasonable, if I hadn't already answered that question above:

It is now, concurrently, quite reasonable to ask you whether there are any religious fundamentalist organizations you don't like. I answered your question some time ago, so now reciprocity is called for.

Couldn't care less. You have not earned the right to accuse me of bigotry or much of anything else, except prolixity, yet it has not stayed your keyboard. (And I thought I was criticizing your logical process, rather than your grammar?) Quid pro quo, Clarice. Par example (that's French for "hay lookie"):

Rather, I am questioning the morality of this particular group of Muslims in selecting such a site, the interpretation which such a selection will receive internationally in conjunction with historical precedent, and the financial backing of this group. On the latter, I am happy to say that my supposition was proven right; the others may follow in time.

Then please desist from attempting to create your own brand label ("libel label"?) for it and apply it to those with reasoned opposition to your sacred issues.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hey you guys, cool it. Or face the consequences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry. I will attempt to cool my ire. Bondage dwarves are held in much reverence and horror in East Korea.

 

Carnival time?

Anyway, I like GeoffP's wittiness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Aw shucks. T'weren't nothin'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If the dwarf doesn't fix things, I'll call in the guy next to him with half a pound of sausages in his pants.
Not shy is he?

 

The mosque was supported by Zionist group. It is the old tactic - to monitor the muslim as close as they can - even in thier temple. You could imagine those Imam are undercover agents or informants. Don't forget those hijackers of 911, they were in government paylist too. This is a spy country.

 

It does look like he sticks his nose in other people's business.

I was wondering if anyone would drag out that particular conspiracy theory.

In similar vein, I wouldn't place any credence on the accounts of Israelis bombing Lebanon. It was a false flag operation by Syria and Iran. Shh! Don't tell anyone.

 

Not a conspiracy. Here is the evidence.

All roads lead to Rome. All terrorist cases connect to the intelligence. This is a spy country.

 

So the FBI is a Zionist group? And the FBI knew that he would strike? Do all countries share all terrorist information? Who coordinates this massive, universal enterprise?

Terrorism leads to conservative Islam. Just about every time.

 

I quote myself! Start the shoosting!

Found a link on the FBI-drops-CAIR-like-hot-potato issue.

Pandaemoni, your ethics are trying to get hold of you. Pick up the phone.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/985/fbi-cuts-off-cair-over-hamas-questions

 

People from outside NY who don't want a Mosque built at Ground Zero, and are agitating against it, should keep out of the argument.
I'd bet a lot of those people would deny the right of Muslims to build a Mosque anywhere.

Myself, I don't think a Mosque should be built at GZ, but only because New Yorkers don't feel ready for one.
I think that the builders should understand and accommodate local people.

 

Do you think they know what they are doing, by not "understanding" and "accommodating"?

What's your best guess as to how this project was sold to its funders and backers?

How about if we just argue with and about the people from outside New York who do want this international showcase built at Ground Zero,

such as its major funders and international backers?

 

This center is a plot by the NWO/Illuminati, western elites, what have you. They're the ones funding it to stoke the fires of this eternal, "war on terror" so that their war profiteering can continue and the lower IQ scored kids in High School will be enraged and sign up to fight in their wars. I wish people weren't so jerked around by the state media and the puppeteers. Ignore it and don't get your panties in a bunch, it isn't worth it.

They found this, then they found radical Islamic schools in the middle east and organizations like CARE so they will have recruits for the other side. See through the illusion already. We're paying for both sides of this "war" so our economy has something to do, and quite frankly, the Russians and Chinese are starting to get sick of it.

So get used to the idea, the "people" have no choice, they are the property of "the owners" of society. It doesn't matter WHAT you guys think about it. What does matter is how we react. Are we going to continue funding both sides? Are we going to continue to believe in this phoney war? Are we going to continue to let them build weapons and send our kids off to war?

If we do, eventually, mark my words, the Russians and the Chinese will shut us down. Not violently, but financially.

 

Look at this islamophobe jackass who also doesn't want the mosque there.

They just crawl out of the woodwork, don't they?

 

Wow, what an islamophobe jackass. Even a Saudi prince has more understanding for the New Yorkers than the American Muslims who are in favour of this building. That's truly shocking, in a good sense.

 

Of course he does. How many churches do the Saudis have? They are all about protecting the sensibilities of the population - the royal family does not promote democracy or free choice.

 

So it's the people themselves that are intolerant of other religions? Curious. I'd thought you'd bitterly explained otherwise, previously.

It does illustrate the salient fact that one need not be an 'Islamophobe' to criticize the concept of the 'Victory Mosque'. I think we can also safely confine the term 'racist' in the latter discussion to the scrapheap, excepting in exceptional cases.

 

It's very strange after those information, you still have those question. Then tell me what's the use of informants?