More news on the mosque---you ain't gonna like it.

1245A Defender · Sep 1, 2010

whats that phrase???

NOTFORLONG said:
Ok lets start over, let's just say they build it..............then they find out its a jihadist training center....then what do we do? what do we say?

oh oh oh !!! i know......
controlled demolition!!!

NOTFORLONG · Sep 1, 2010

1245A Defender said:
oh oh oh !!! i know......
controlled demolition!!!

haha then wiki leaks will leak it

Tawnos · Sep 1, 2010

simmonsjoe said:
I'm Muslim. I'm American. I'd like to see you try.

It's just Eric back and trolling again. He should be banned by morning. Kind of sad, really.

Tawnos · Sep 1, 2010

19Daniel91 said:
There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to pray in their community center. Simply pointing out it serves as a mosque having a place of prayer and worship.

Do you call a YMCA a church and protest any YMCAs being built in Atlanta, Georgia?

NOTFORLONG · Sep 1, 2010

Tawnos said:
It's just Eric back and trolling again. He should be banned by morning. Kind of sad, really.

It is morning you big silly goose.

eye95 · Sep 1, 2010

19Daniel91 said:
So you're saying we the people are paying $100 million for this? Because as far as I know, that's not what tax-exempt means. That's tax-paid. If you know something I don't, please do explain.

We are not paying directly for the entire cost of the mosque. However, the Imam is wrapping up a trip, on the State Department's dime, to the Middle East, where he was raising money for his mosque. So, to some extent, you are paying for part of the mosque.

The federal and city governments are not just allowing the Imam to exercise his rights; they are facilitating the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero. (While standing squarely in the way of the rebuilding of a church destroyed in the attack by Muslim terrorists.)

Ponch · Sep 1, 2010

Citizen said:
PS: We have to be a little careful how we use "moderates not denouncing" argument. As an argumentative tactic, it can be pointed back at us for not effectively demanding Congress stop the CIA meddling overseas, Yankee imperialism (such as it is), etc., and so on, and so forth.

We have a winnah! :banana:

If Muslims are to blame for "not denouncing al qaeda," then Americans are to blame for not denouncing every corrupt, evil thing the US government has done from illegally invading Iraq, to fomenting the Iran-Iraq war, to helping Saddam rise to power in the first place, to toppling Mossadagh and propping up the Shah, to in effect creating Al Qaeda by arming the Bin Ladin and his mujahideen so we could "give Russia their Vietnam in Afghanistan."

Ponch · Sep 1, 2010

eye95 said:
The evil of the Islamic terrorists flying planes into the Towers is undeniable. The initial gut reaction of someone who is not an apologist for such horrific behavior would be denunciation. Those who do not react immediately with horror give away their true feelings.

The same can be said of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions turned into "internal refugees," the bombed weddings, etc. That you don't denounce it, harshly and repeatedly, gives away your true feelings.

slowfiveoh · Sep 1, 2010

Ponch said:
The same can be said of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions turned into "internal refugees," the bombed weddings, etc. That you don't denounce it, harshly and repeatedly, gives away your true feelings.

"Illegality" in war is a comical concept.

"
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. "

--Yellowcake uranium can be used to create nuclear explosives. Smelting it produces fuel rods, which can in turn be turned into high yield explosive warheads.

--Please note the section specifying weapons of a given "range".

"On February 13, 2003, a UN panel reported that Iraq's Al-Samoud 2 missiles, disclosed by Iraq to weapons inspectors in December, have a range of 180 km, in breach of UNSCR 1441. The limit allowed by the UN is 150 km, a threshold at which the missile crosses into being known as a weapon of mass destruction.[6]"

I have personally witnessed the recovery of these missiles.
I have personally been in the van, while we shot them down.

"The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles."
(Incorrect. There were 14 engagements total prior to the crossing of the DMZ. Of these, at least 8 were PAC-2. Other missiles were not engaged due to guidance errors on the AL-Samouds gyroscopic flight system)

Just because the UN does not conclude as a whole that it is necessary to invade another nation for violation of it's own charters, does not conclude that said invasion is "illegal".

--Yellowcake Uranium in such abundance could easilly be contributed to proliferation of a nuclear weapons program.
--Possession of rockets with ranges greater than 150km, was in fact "illegal" according to the very UN sanction Saddam Hussein had agreed to comply with.

The scenarios you attribute to being "horrendous acts" on behalf of American soldiers and/or government, are the same exact scenarios that have been factual casualties of war in every conflict that has ever occurred.

Just the raw facts.

Ruby · Sep 1, 2010

simmonsjoe said:
Thats funny. I already face-palmed for that one!

Not sure why they need our money with the rate their printing it at.

So because you already face-palmed for that no one else can?!? I was expressing my own amazement at the fact that he didn't seem to know where the money comes from. You sure are nit-picky! My comment didn't even concern you and was not directed at you.

eye95 · Sep 1, 2010

Ponch said:
The same can be said of the illegal invasion of Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of dead, the millions turned into "internal refugees," the bombed weddings, etc. That you don't denounce it, harshly and repeatedly, gives away your true feelings.

Of course the same can be said of the Iraq war. As I implied regarding the 9/11 attacks, folks should be vocal in their opinion about the war. I proudly and loudly say I was (and still am) in favor of the war against Saddam Hussein and terrorists in Iraq. You are clearly against the war and are willing to say so.

My comment was dealing with the self-styled "moderate" Muslims whose reaction to 9/11 was the gutless and self-serving "don't blame us" instead of "what horrible people and what a horrible thing to do" or, as Muslims around the world reacted, "yay." Their reaction leads me to believe that many of those "moderates" are secretly in the "yay" group and just too wishy-washy to say so.

Your post missed that point entirely. Your post also made this personal by making a comment about me. I don't have discussions with folks who do that, so welcome to Ignoreland.

simmonsjoe · Sep 1, 2010

Ruby said:
So because you already face-palmed for that no one else can?!? I was expressing my own amazement at the fact that he didn't seem to know where the money comes from. You sure are nit-picky! My comment didn't even concern you and was not directed at you.

What the **** are you talking about?

rodbender · Sep 1, 2010

eye95 said:
Your post also made this personal by making a comment about me. I don't have discussions with folks who do that, so welcome to Ignoreland.

I know I'm on your ignore list but I'm going to reply anyway. If that is all it takes to get on your ignore list, before long you will only have a blank page to look at when you log on here. Do you think that people will want to debate you so bad that they will be extra careful when talking to you. You sure get your feelings hurt awful easily. You are nothing more than a crybaby. Geez

Personal attack. Ban me. See ya guys.

Ponch · Sep 1, 2010

slowfiveoh said:
"Illegality" in war is a comical concept.

The concept is old, but in a sense we created the concept at Nuremberg. There we hanged people for obeying their superiors' orders, on the grounds that waging an aggressive war is inherently a crime against humanity.

I snipped the rest of your reply, in which you attempt to justify the WMD argument that even GWB gave up on.

Ponch · Sep 1, 2010

eye95 said:
Of course the same can be said of the Iraq war. As I implied regarding the 9/11 attacks, folks should be vocal in their opinion about the war. I proudly and loudly say I was (and still am) in favor of the war against Saddam Hussein and terrorists in Iraq. You are clearly against the war and are willing to say so.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Ignoring that, how many of the hundreds of thousands killed were "terrorists"? You are endorsing an atrocity here. By that reasoning, the WTC would be a justifiable target because it contained US government offices, and the rest of the dead were just "collateral damage."

My comment was dealing with the self-styled "moderate" Muslims whose reaction to 9/11 was the gutless and self-serving "don't blame us"...

They did plenty of condemning, including candlelight vigils and fatwas against terrorism. Are you even aware of it? If you aren't, you should probably not be so quick to say what they are and aren't doing about terrorism. And if you are, why aren't you satisfied? Must they wear sackcloth for the next 40 years?

...as Muslims around the world reacted, "yay."

We know about the pissed-off Palis--but did you know there were also public demonstrations of sympathy for the United States in the Palestinian Authority after 9/11? Do you know about the candlelight vigil in Tehran, or the demonstrations in Bangladesh and other places? If not, you might want to think twice about making such generalizations without knowing the facts. Or if you do know about them, why are you omitting to mention them?

Your post missed that point entirely. Your post also made this personal by making a comment about me...

How do you know I'm not a Muslim? Your post directly accuses "Muslims" of holding certain views. I merely point out that your argument applies equally well to yourself.

slowfiveoh · Sep 1, 2010

Ponch said:
The concept is old, but in a sense we created the concept at Nuremberg. There we hanged people for obeying their superiors' orders, on the grounds that waging an aggressive war is inherently a crime against humanity.

I snipped the rest of your reply, in which you attempt to justify the WMD argument that even GWB gave up on.

You snipped the rest of my reply because it factually proves justification, and you did not want to respond to that.

I was there bud, boots on ground. First wave OIF I, March 20th 2003. I was actually at Camp Virginia early February.

I am well aware of what actually occurred in spite of liberal ballyhooing.

By all technical justifications, we were factually in the right. Saddam broke the boundaries imposed upon him by UN Sanctions following Desert Storm by possessing weapons he was not authorized to have.

This was presented to the UN and confirmed by UN weapons inspectors. The cook-off of Al-Samoud rockets began as instructed, however, what Saddam was hiding was that he had stockpiles of even newer Al-Samoud rockets (Freshly painted poo-poo brown with the Iraqi flag on the side of them)that were not disclosed which we discovered later at BIAP after the invasion. UN inspectors were being stalled and flown in circles, and the whole inspection process became a purposeful dance.

Did Saddam possess weapons classified as "WMD's"? Yes. He did.
Did Saddam possess stockpiles of Yellowcake uranium that could be refined to weapons grade materials via smelting? Yes. He did.

Both are violations of the UN Sanction.

NOW, if you mean to specify something else, I'd be happy to hear it.

Do you perhaps find yourself irritated that we went to Iraq before dealing exclusively with Al-Qaeda?

Ponch said:
The concept is old, but in a sense we created the concept at Nuremberg. There we hanged people for obeying their superiors' orders, on the grounds that waging an aggressive war is inherently a crime against humanity.

Did we round up ground forces and hang them?
Was it the men behind the gewehrs that were tried for following their superiors orders?

No.

It was the high level affiliates who were more deeply involved in inhumane acts that are not an appropriate foundational purpose to any war.

The grunts went home to their women and children.

We didn't just "Hang people for obeying their superiors orders".
We hung those who WERE the superiors driving the entire genocidal movement.

By the way, you are hovering dangerously close to fulfilling Godwins Law.

eye95 · Sep 1, 2010

I just thought I'd insert a little factuality into this thread. If anyone wonders what the stated reasons for the Iraq War are, the following is the exact wording from the resolution explaining the reasoning:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order
to defend the national security of the United States and enforce
United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into
a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to
which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate
its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for
international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations’’;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other
nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities
that threaten international peace and security, including the
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or
obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors
or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized
the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660,
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress,
‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work
for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
unavoidable’’;

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war
on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991
cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war
on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue
to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international
terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in
the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf
region: Now, therefore, be it

Ponch · Sep 1, 2010

eye95 said:
I just thought I'd insert a little factuality into this thread. If anyone wonders what the stated reasons for the Iraq War are, the following is the exact wording from the resolution explaining the reasoning:

Here's the money quote:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;

Every word of it was bullshit, and we knew it very well.

slowfiveoh · Sep 1, 2010

Ponch said:
Every word of it was bullshit, and we knew it very well.

Except they did in fact possess illegal armaments prohibited by the UN sanction.
Except they did possess sufficient amounts of yellowcake uranium to produce nuclear weapons, also violating the UN sanction.

The crying failure of an argument is, and has always been, that we did not find the proverbial "smoking gun" that was demanded by some.

My personal apologies; There was no 40kiloton Nuclear Warheads of vast vats of Ricin uncovered.

Just the lowby, entry level prohibited items that were specified.

Ponch · Sep 1, 2010

slowfiveoh said:
Except they did in fact possess illegal armaments prohibited by the UN sanction.

Read it again, slowly:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;

They did not have "stockpiles of chemical weapons." They did not have a "large scale biological weapons program," and they did not have an "advanced nuclear weapons development program." The paragraph, exactly as I said, was bullshit.

You're trying to bob and weave by complaining about rockets that could go 30km farther than some legal limit--but still thousands of miles short of threatening the US, and some leftovers from their perfectly legal civilian light-water nuclear power reactor at Osirak.

Except they did possess sufficient amounts of yellowcake uranium to produce nuclear weapons, also violating the UN sanction.

Leftovers of Osirak that posed no danger because Iraq completely lacked enrichment technology. There was no threat imminent enough to justify invasion.

My personal apologies; There was no 40kiloton Nuclear Warheads of vast vats of Ricin uncovered.

In other words, the paragraph was bullshit exactly like I said. Thank you for confirming my statement.

More news on the mosque---you ain't gonna like it.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member