The Mosque Should Be Built!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

... Appeasing the Islamic militants in America is only making it harder for the more tolerant Muslims to emerge. We cannot continue to encourage their victimhood. ...

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm not asking you to get personal about your "connections," but would you say that you have at least "disassociated" yourself from the questionable activities of others if not come right out and denounced them?

Imam Faud refuses to do so.



You asked how I would like it if someone turned down a zoning or special use permit of mine because I am "of the same faith as Copeland, etc." I said that this would be a whole lot different than turning down the Park51 mosque proposal because of the close associations to terror groups and Faud's refusal to denounce those and other terror groups.

It's apples and oranges.



You don't understand Osama bin Laden as being a sort of "bully?" You don't see militant Islam as being a bullying tactic used to spread that faith? You don't see the history and legacy Islam has had as it spreads across the globe? You don't see a problem with burning down Christian churches in Malaysia or bull dozing thousand year old Buddhist temples because they never got a "building permit?"

Instead, those Christians and Buddhists who speak out against these crimes are your "bullies" and "bigots?"

You reminded me here of the one point in your previous post that I forgot to address. You speak of "Disassociating himself" from the radical wings of Islam. Do you think he has a pretty decent motivation for refraining from denouncing these murderous terrorists? Maybe, he fears for his life if he does so? These people are far-reaching in their influence.

No, I am NOT saying anyone who "speaks out against these crimes" is a bigot. I've covered this really well. I am saying that people who speak out against these "PEOPLE" because of their religion is bigoted. It's really just that simple.

[Praxeas]

Political Islam vs Religious Islam

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Political Islam vs Religious Islam

Yeah... that pretty much sums up everything... ?????

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Do you feel that there have been "False Flag" operations in the past? My father was in the Navy and he remembers well the sinking of the USS Liberty. What about the Gulf of Tonkin?

I'm certain your dad served with distinction and I thank him for that, however there's something wrong with any "memory" of the "sinking of the USS Liberty." It was never sunk. And, the mistaken attack by an Israeli jet could hardly have been a "false flag" operation. The Americans were all over the radio trying to call the Israeli jet off and were heard far and wide by other US naval vessels who were steaming to their aid.

The Liberty was a naval intelligence gathering vessel whose purpose was to collect intel by going dangerously close to our enemies and other combat areas and listen to the electronic chatter. Another example of such a vessel was the USS Pueblo which suffered similarly just a year later off the coast of North Korea.

Politicos higher up tried to silence the Liberty incident for fear of a backlash against an ally that was fighting for its life at the moment. Bad move on their part. The fact that Egyptian warships were shelling Israeli positions from the vicinity of the USS Liberty complicated matters.

There's a thread around here somewhere that has a lengthy discussion involving myself and another poster who had what I took to be anti-American thoughts concerning the Gulf of Tonkin incident. He said it was all faked. Yet for some reason, in that "faked" incident North Vietnam herself had reported loosing a couple of patrol boats.

None of these events - even accepting the conspiracy buff's version - patterns a "false flag" operation.

Here's a photo of US naval forces firing on the North Vietnamese fast torpedo/patrol boats that "didn't exist" (except that the NVA themselves said that they did!):

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Also, I'm surprised you give no scientific proof to validate your stance. Have you watched, "Press for Truth"? This film is well done, and is full of facts and live footage of these women questioning Condolezza Rice, and other officials on the 911 Commission. You gave very good facts regarding the Ark of Noah, stating it was impossible for the vessel to even float, yet you pass this buy with a very brief ridicule.

Many don't know that we funded and supported Osama Bin Laden during the Afghan War against the Soviet Union. There are many unanswered questions from 911, and engineers and qualified scientists prove foul play.

Why did building 7 fall to the ground in less than 10 seconds into a pile of dust?

No "engineers and qualified scientists" have "proved" any of the conspiracy notions about 9/11, unless you've consulted coadie's panel of "experts."

Building 7 was in very close proximity to the Twin Towers. It was weakened by the seismic event of the Twin Towers collapsing. Building 7 also had burned out of control for several hours before it collapsed. When the structure became unsound - it "pancaked," just like the towers had done.

The fact that is took "only several seconds" to collapse is obvious. How long did it take the towers to pancake? How long did it take the Marine barracks in Lebanon to pancake back in 1983 after the truck bomb hit it? Seconds.

Look at the building as a whole and the dynamics of its failure. The whole "it only took seconds to collapse!" thing is just a talking point that actually reveals little understanding of the timeline of events.

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Do something so impossible and unbelievable so that people would never believe you just did the impossible and unbelievable.

I suppose it's a topic for another thread, but what does that even mean?

I submit that YOU don't even seriously believe this stuff. Otherwise you would have been doing something about it for the past 9 years. It's just a crazy notion the swirls around your mind from time to time and you've never worked it out. That's a far cry from being a "true believer" like Alex Jones.

[Walks_in_islam]

(laughing)@ "last guy".

Not sister of Moses, but sister of Aaron.....in context meaning "righteous like Aaron and how could this happen to you"

In context:

27. Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).

28. "O sister (i.e. the like) of Harun (Aaron) (Mary)]! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."

Naturally LOL the line gets taken out of context but this one is not one of the (12) or (13) known discrepencies in the Quran

Originally Posted by pelathais

I am the LAST guy to stick up for coadie, but doesn't that same Surah say that "Miriam" (a Semitic form of the name "Mary") who was the "mother of Jesus" was also the "sister of Moses?"

There appears to be a conflation of two different characters here. Two characters who must have lived more than 1,000 years apart. I am not certain if I ever really understood what the Quran was saying here.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm certain your dad served with distinction and I thank him for that, however there's something wrong with any "memory" of the "sinking of the USS Liberty." It was never sunk. And, the mistaken attack by an Israeli jet could hardly have been a "false flag" operation. The Americans were all over the radio trying to call the Israeli jet off and were heard far and wide by other US naval vessels who were steaming to their aid.

The Liberty was a naval intelligence gathering vessel whose purpose was to collect intel by going dangerously close to our enemies and other combat areas and listen to the electronic chatter. Another example of such a vessel was the USS Pueblo which suffered similarly just a year later off the coast of North Korea.

Politicos higher up tried to silence the Liberty incident for fear of a backlash against an ally that was fighting for its life at the moment. Bad move on their part. The fact that Egyptian warships were shelling Israeli positions from the vicinity of the USS Liberty complicated matters.

There's a thread around here somewhere that has a lengthy discussion involving myself and another poster who had what I took to be anti-American thoughts concerning the Gulf of Tonkin incident. He said it was all faked. Yet for some reason, in that "faked" incident North Vietnam herself had reported loosing a couple of patrol boats.

None of these events - even accepting the conspiracy buff's version - patterns a "false flag" operation.

Here's a photo of US naval forces firing on the North Vietnamese fast torpedo/patrol boats that "didn't exist" (except that the NVA themselves said that they did!):




No "engineers and qualified scientists" have "proved" any of the conspiracy notions about 9/11, unless you've consulted coadie's panel of "experts."
Building 7 was in very close proximity to the Twin Towers. It was weakened by the seismic event of the Twin Towers collapsing. Building 7 also had burned out of control for several hours before it collapsed. When the structure became unsound - it "pancaked," just like the towers had done.

The fact that is took "only several seconds" to collapse is obvious. How long did it take the towers to pancake? How long did it take the Marine barracks in Lebanon to pancake back in 1983 after the truck bomb hit it? Seconds.

Look at the building as a whole and the dynamics of its failure. The whole "it only took seconds to collapse!" thing is just a talking point that actually reveals little understanding of the timeline of events.

I suppose it's a topic for another thread, but what does that even mean?

I submit that YOU don't even seriously believe this stuff. Otherwise you would have been doing something about it for the past 9 years. It's just a crazy notion the swirls around your mind from time to time and you've never worked it out. That's a far cry from being a "true believer" like Alex Jones.

As far as sinking the USS Liberty, you are right, it didn't sink. But the intention was to sink it and kill everyone on board. My father is far from being a conspiracy theorist, but still feels there was foul play in this incident. I've attached a link that gives an account of what happened.

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0697/9706019.htm

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

Your bolded statement surprises me. Here is not only a list of scientists, but of high ranking military personal, engineers, architects, and many more, who feel the 911 Commission failed to do a thorough and honest investigation.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Your take on Building 7 is a farce. Like I stated in a previous post, nowhere in history has a Skyscraper collapsed because of fire. Here was a fire last year in China. This building was engulfed in flames for hours, and the next morning it was still standing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mTE-Sa4STQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sO7u...eature=related

Come on, Pel, I was in the Marines during the attack in Beirut. This was a 4 story cinder block building. I can't believe you're comparing this to the World Trade Centers and Building 7;

The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 5,400 kg (12,000 pounds) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block building into rubble, crushing many inside.

The "Pancake Theory" is also proven to be false and unscientific. When a 110 story steel building Pancakes, it wouldn't plummet to the ground in 10 seconds:

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower "collapsed" in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the supposedly-undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as effortlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing any kind of fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? (And what energy source could have reduced the height of [most of] the columns, top-down, at the same rate?)

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a gravitational collapse through the path of maximum resistance should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Pel, I respect your views on many other topics, but your rush to presume and not take a more scientific and factual advance to this baffles me. My approach to this has nothing to do with trying to accuse the Government, but has everything to do with finding who is truly responsible. If the Government continues to debunk or hide the facts, then we must ask, WHY?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Your take on Building 7 is a farce. Like I stated in a previous post, nowhere in history has a Skyscraper collapsed because of fire. Here was a fire last year in China. This building was engulfed in flames for hours, and the next morning it was still standing.

Was it hit by a jet liner too?

See here are the factors. It was hit buy a jetliner traveling pretty fast. That impact weakened the structural integrity.

The fire, only added to the weakening. It was the several thousand tons of steel and concrete resting ON the impact area that eventually collapsed the support and sent tons of steel and concrete crashing down onto the next level

BTW Here is a video for you: The video shows a fire from a tanker that spilled out, caught on fire and collapsed the overpass from the heat.The fire melted the overpass. Concrete, rebar and all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXb5M...eature=related

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

But if "The People" don't want it, what difference does it make? They have no power to prevent it outside of legal means.

The issue is not if they have a legal, constitutional right at all.

The People DO have a right to express their disapproval. That may or may not effect the outcome.

It amazes me that some not only oppose those who are not in support of this building plan, but actually SUPPORT and are proponents for the Mosque to be built. Makes me scratch my head. It's like those who see issues with the Church, and their critique sounds more like a "everything not associated with the church is awesome -- while anything to do with church folks is horrendous." I've heard this in several books I've read recently. Fortunately, I was able to strip it down and hear their critique over their anti-church rhetoric. This doesn't apply to you, but just a general commentary. Self-righteousness isn't just an issue for ultra cons -- it affects all those who boast their social justice efforts, those who think they know it all and have all the answers to all things while looking low on those who aren't as arrived as them, etc...

Yes, I just took a HUGE tangent... ah well.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

We're not Israel and our Kingdom is not of this world.

This is not about Christianity vs Islam at the core. This is about rights of an American private citizen.

Conservatives want the Constitution to mean something? This situation is the perfect opportunity.

You're missing it. In all the argumentation I've heard on TV, newspapers and even in-person, no one has said there is no constitutional right. It's a matter publicly voicing opposition and clarifying that this is disrespectful, whether one buys the logic or not.