did muslims attack us on 9/11, was bill o'reilly right

[actsnoblemartin]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video/oreilly-reacts-contentious-debate-view-11886598

[Agnapostate]

"Us"? Someone attacked you? What injuries did you sustain?

[Noir]

"Us"? Someone attacked you? What injuries did you sustain?

So you also don't believe in a collective identity?

[jimnyc]

"Us"? Someone attacked you? What injuries did you sustain?

So when you speak of immigration, Indians and your ancestry - what injuries did YOU sustain?

I could articulate how I believe ALL Americans were attacked on 9/11, but I believe I'd be wasting my time trying to have an adult/civil discussion with you.

[Jeff]

"Us"? Someone attacked you? What injuries did you sustain?

Wow is this even worth a explanation , I don't think so :poke:

[pete311]

these muslims were also men. so men attacked us. we are at war with men.

see how easy it is to frame a war?

[gabosaurus]

If Muslims (collectively) attacked America on Sept. 11, then Christians (collectively) attacked America in the Oklahoma City Bombing on April 19, 1995.

[jimnyc]

If Muslims (collectively) attacked America on Sept. 11, then Christians (collectively) attacked America in the Oklahoma City Bombing on April 19, 1995.

You liberals know damn well that he meant it was muslims who attacked us on 9/11 - as in the participants were ALL muslims and all doing their terrorism in the name of allah. And O'reilly DID NOT backtrack on his comments, he simply had to spell it out a little clearer for those who couldn't comprehend his statement.

[Little-Acorn]

did muslims attack us on 9/11, was bill o'reilly right

No.

I know for a fact that three of the 9/11 hijackers were Catholic, five were southern Baptists, one was a Hindu, and the rest were Jooooooos.

I heard it on the internet.

O'Reilly is proven wrong again!!!!!

[pete311]

O'Reily's comment was divisive. This kind of issue has been debated for years and some of you brick heads still can't get around to understanding it.

The problem with O'Reily's comment is that he grouped all Muslims together. He never stated Muslim extremists or Muslim terrorists attacked us. You can't group all people of a certain religion together in a comment like that. If one were to say all Christians are child molesters because of the actions of a few, you would probably have a problem with that.

[Trigg]

O'Reily's comment was divisive. This kind of issue has been debated for years and some of you brick heads still can't get around to understanding it.

The problem with O'Reily's comment is that he grouped all Muslims together. He never stated Muslim extremists or Muslim terrorists attacked us. You can't group all people of a certain religion together in a comment like that. If one were to say all Christians are child molesters because of the actions of a few, you would probably have a problem with that.

He was rightfully heated, they were aggressive to wards him from the minute he came onto the show.

Joy was being deliberately dense when he mentioned that 70% of Americans are against the Mosque being built so close to the sight.

[Little-Acorn]

O'Reily's comment was divisive.
No, it was factual. The hosts' hysterical response was divisive... to say the least.


He never stated Muslim extremists or Muslim terrorists attacked us.
Actually that's exactly what he DID say.

Do you even bother watching these shows before telling us what they said?

In case you wondered why nobody takes your posts seriously, now you know.

[actsnoblemartin]

one of the most articulate posts from any member, nice job. Id rep you if i didnt have to spread it around first

:clap: :clap: :clap:


So when you speak of immigration, Indians and your ancestry - what injuries did YOU sustain?

I could articulate how I believe ALL Americans were attacked on 9/11, but I believe I'd be wasting my time trying to have an adult/civil discussion with you.

[pete311]

Actually that's exactly what he DID say.

Do you even bother watching these shows before telling us what they said?


I did watch the episode. He says verbatim "muslims killed us on 9/11". so what the fuck are you talking about?

[actsnoblemartin]

joy behar is a disgrace to jews,



He was rightfully heated, they were aggressive to wards him from the minute he came onto the show.

Joy was being deliberately dense when he mentioned that 70% of Americans are against the Mosque being built so close to the sight.

[actsnoblemartin]

but u didnt listen to what he didnt say

he didnt say all muslims, he didnt say islam killed us

he said muslims killed us which is technically true, 17 MUSLIMS did kill us

does he really have to spell out every answer, so nitwits get what he means?


I did watch the episode. He says verbatim "muslims killed us on 9/11". so what the fuck are you talking about?

[pete311]

he said muslims killed us which is technically true, 17 MUSLIMS did kill us


no in this respect, he must qualify. he should have said "some", "a group", "17 muslims".

by saying just "muslims" you group every muslim in the statement.

[actsnoblemartin]

Honestly, my reaction was very similar to the hosts reaction. I knee jerked, I think he was technically right, but I cant speak for him.

I can say if I were him, I wouldve said a group of muslim jihadists, or men or something to that affect attacked us.

I dont think he said it right, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt

does that make sense, not being sarcastic


no in this respect, he must qualify. he should have said "some", "a group", "17 muslims".

by saying just "muslims" you group every muslim in the statement.

[Trigg]

no in this respect, he must qualify. he should have said "some", "a group", "17 muslims".

by saying just "muslims" you group every muslim in the statement.

Do you agree or disagree that Muslims should be sensitive to the FACT that Americans don't want a mosque so close to where "some" muslims blew up 3,000 people?

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with that statement


Do you agree or disagree that Muslims should be sensitive to the FACT that Americans don't want a mosque so close to where "some" muslims blew up 3,000 people?

[pete311]

Do you agree or disagree that Muslims should be sensitive to the FACT that Americans don't want a mosque so close to where "some" muslims blew up 3,000 people?

To clarify, it's not a mosque they want to build. yes they should be sensitive, but if you believe in the US Constitution you will let them build it and go on with your daily lives.

[Trigg]

To clarify, it's not a mosque they want to build. yes they should be sensitive, but if you believe in the US Constitution you will let them build it and go on with your daily lives.

Once again.

This is not a question of the Constitution or the legality of them building the mosque. It is about being sensitive and thoughtful.

If they really cared about "briding the gap" between Christians and Muslims they wouldn't build a mosque so close to where 3,000 people died at the hands of muslims.

[Noir]

Once again.

This is not a question of the Constitution or the legality of them building the mosque. It is about being sensitive and thoughtful.

If they really cared about "briding the gap" between Christians and Muslims they wouldn't build a mosque so close to where 3,000 people died at the hands of muslims.

Once again...how far away would of been far away enough?

[Trigg]

Once again...how far away would of been far away enough?

Honestly, I don't know.

If muslims want to bring people together they should sit down and listen to the people in New York and elsewhere and make that decision.

Why are Americans the ones who need to show sensitivity and understanding to muslims in this situation?

Why is everyone who is against a mosque so close to the 9-11 sight branded as an islamaphobe?

If Germans wanted to put an amusement park and cultural center next to Auschwitz and Jew's were against it would they be branded anti-German? I'd hope not, since they would be right to condemn such a move, legal or not.

[Agnapostate]

So you also don't believe in a collective identity?

A collective identity? That implies meaningful shared characteristics, which birth between a few imaginary lines in the ground does not produce.


So when you speak of immigration, Indians and your ancestry - what injuries did YOU sustain?

Um, no...



Are you claiming to be "currently harmed"?No, and it's not relevant, since I don't take personal experiences as indicative of general trends for a group. The fact is that American Indians are the poorest ethnic group in the country.

Perhaps if you took my actual sentiments instead of your asinine strawmen, you might learn a thing or two.


I could articulate how I believe ALL Americans were attacked on 9/11, but I believe I'd be wasting my time trying to have an adult/civil discussion with you.

You'd certainly be wasting your time, since your weak points and style would have no chance of argumentative victory. :dunno:

[Noir]

A collective identity? That implies meaningful shared characteristics, which birth between a few imaginary lines in the ground does not produce.

And what about the cultural upbringing that is pretty specific to what imaginary lines you found yourself to of grown up in?

[jimnyc]

You'd certainly be wasting your time, since your weak points and style would have no chance of argumentative victory. :dunno:

I would need not have to "argue" to be a victor. A simple few sentences would fully explain my position. You in turn would post a 1/4 novel for us of gibberish, call it empirical evidence, and proclaim yourself the winner.

No thanks. Some things defeat your history lessons based on common sense alone.

[Gaffer]

O'Reilly was right. Everyone knows it, no one wants to admit it. It was muslims that attacked the WTC. They did so because that's the kind of thing their religion tells them to do. There were many attacks before that one and there have been many attacks since then. That was just the biggest and most horrific. And now they want to build a victory mosque near the site. Again they can claim its bridge building or whatever, but it's a victory mosque plain and simple. we are at war with an ideology disguised as a religion. Liberals refuse to see it. It doesn't fit into their little social utopia dream. They think everything will be fine if they all hold hands and sing kumbiya. The next major attack is going to be a hundred times worse.

[Noir]

Honestly, I don't know.

If muslims want to bring people together they should sit down and listen to the people in New York and elsewhere and make that decision.

Why are Americans the ones who need to show sensitivity and understanding to muslims in this situation?

Why is everyone who is against a mosque so close to the 9-11 sight branded as an islamaphobe?

If Germans wanted to put an amusement park and cultural center next to Auschwitz and Jew's were against it would they be branded anti-German? I'd hope not, since they would be right to condemn such a move, legal or not.

Well I'm certainly not calling anyone an islamophobe. But I have asked everyone who says 'it's too close' the same question and no one has given an answer (expect for Martian, who then revised his answer after I told him his first answer, 2-3 blocks, was the distance away it was going to be)

[Gaffer]

Well I'm certainly not calling anyone an islamophobe. But I have asked everyone who says 'it's too close' the same question and no one has given an answer (expect for Martian, who then revised his answer after I told him his first answer, 2-3 blocks, was the distance away it was going to be)

My answer is it should not be built period. In which case distance doesn't matter.

[Noir]

My answer is it should not be built period. In which case distance doesn't matter.

Indeed.
Land of the free...

[Gaffer]

Indeed.
Land of the free...

You asked how far away it should be and I told you my opinion.

[Noir]

You asked how far away it should be and I told you my opinion.

I know, it just happens to be am intolerant one, and so not really acceptable to anyone other than another intolerant person. Which ofcourse I am not.

[Kathianne]

Noir, seems outside of lower Manhattan would be reasonable for a 'celebratory' mosque. It's my opinion, but you keep asking.

[Kathianne]

and from another source, the nuances that others don't necessarily understand about the building of the mosque and some American's attitudes about where the 'fear' really lies:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2010/oct/15/ed-hinkle15-ar-563788/


HINKLE: First They Came for the Cartoonists . . .
By A. BARTON HINKLE

Critics of the Cordoba mosque that has been proposed for a site a couple of blocks away from the location of the former World Trade Center have been labeled Islamophobic. That's not a very accurate term. Something like misislamic would be more useful -- at least in certain instances -- as it suggests hostility rather than fear.

Fear, however, seems to have been at work at The Washington Post and several other newspapers when they decided not to run a "Non Sequitur" cartoon earlier this month. Playing off the popular Where's Waldo? children's books, the cartoon showed a busy park scene. A label above the cartoon read, "Picture book title voted least likely to ever find a publisher . . . " A label below it read, "Where's Muhammad?"

...

Now here's a partial screen shot of the cartoon, just too dangerous for WaPol and others not to publish, even though it contained absolutely no image of Mohammad:

http://i55.tinypic.com/11w8yf7.png



Of course, the decision today of the prosecutors of Geert Wilders (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-prosecutors-of-dutch-mp-geert-wilders-ask-court-to-acquit-on-all-charges/) to acquit on all charges, gives hope that the US media and universities actually start forming a backbone for ALL free speech, not just those aligned with Islam:



BREAKING: Prosecutors of Dutch MP Geert Wilders Ask Court To Acquit on All Charges

Posted By Leon de Winter On October 15, 2010 @ 8:27 am In Uncategorized | 50 Comments

In a surprising twist, the prosecution in the trial of Dutch MP Geert Wilders asked for complete acquittal today [1]. With this, it strongly condemned the decision of a higher court to prosecute Wilders.

In a two-day long precise analysis of the remarks of Wilders, who had to stand trial for discrimination against Muslims and incitement to hatred, the prosecuting officers explained to the court that Wilders may have been insulting and provocative, but his words were within the limitations of Dutch law.

This doesn’t mean that the trial has stopped — next week the defense will continue. The Dutch law system demands a full cycle of prosecution and defense, and will end with an extensive verdict.

Though — in theory — the court could still convict Wilders, it now seems almost impossible.

Wilders had been charged with the following [2]:

...

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Once again...how far away would of been far away enough?

IRAN sounds about right

[DragonStryk72]

O'Reily's comment was divisive. This kind of issue has been debated for years and some of you brick heads still can't get around to understanding it.

The problem with O'Reily's comment is that he grouped all Muslims together. He never stated Muslim extremists or Muslim terrorists attacked us. You can't group all people of a certain religion together in a comment like that. If one were to say all Christians are child molesters because of the actions of a few, you would probably have a problem with that.

Then why did they ask him about his opinion on it? And why, upon hearing any part of that opinion, did they interrupt, cut him off, wash their hands of him, and storm off stage?

[Agnapostate]

And what about the cultural upbringing that is pretty specific to what imaginary lines you found yourself to of grown up in?

Such as what? Linguistic connections, through mutually intelligible dialects? Or the nationalistic illusion of meaningful relationship? Nationalism is a primitive cloaking mechanism. Innumerable masses die as a result of malnutrition and preventable disease, but that reality is simply a blip occasionally noticed on the evening news for most U.S. nationalists, because of their idiotic doctrine that chancing to have been born between invisible lines in the ground endows some with greater moral worth than others.


I would need not have to "argue" to be a victor. A simple few sentences would fully explain my position. You in turn would post a 1/4 novel for us of gibberish, call it empirical evidence, and proclaim yourself the winner.

You wouldn't be a victor in any sense; you would just have a "different" position, and all the argument in the world would make no difference on the rightness or wrongness of particular viewpoints, apparently. That is an asinine idea, though. Some opinions are demonstrably false, with sound logical argumentation defeating them.


No thanks. Some things defeat your history lessons based on common sense alone.

One would think that after an eternity of the citation of "common sense" as a justification for the most reactionary doctrines, people would eventually realize its logically fallacious nature. But bad ideas still die out only with their proponents, so time is our only savior.

[Agnapostate]

O'Reilly was right. Everyone knows it, no one wants to admit it. It was muslims that attacked the WTC. They did so because that's the kind of thing their religion tells them to do.

All of your primitive superstitions (all derived from the same Abrahamic monotheist tradition, incidentally), in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, prescribe authoritarian and unethical doctrines. The attackers were first and foremost political activists motivated by their hatred of U.S. governmental support for the Israeli government and their occupation policies.

[Noir]

Noir, seems outside of lower Manhattan would be reasonable for a 'celebratory' mosque. It's my opinion, but you keep asking.

I keep asking because I find the answers (when I get them) interesting. The most common answer I've heard is 'it shouldn't of been in New York, any city but there.' You obviously dissagree with that, for no other reason than you just do. And you expect people to be able to make judgements on what others may or may not unpredictably think?
I mean it's gonna be two blocks away, out of sound and sight, and I've honestly seen people say 'but it should be at least four blocks away!' no reason, no rhyme, that's just a number that they plucked outa the air, and some people have the brass to think that they have the right to have their made up number *respected* >,>

[Noir]

Such as what? Linguistic connections, through mutually intelligible dialects? Or the nationalistic illusion of meaningful relationship? Nationalism is a primitive cloaking mechanism. Innumerable masses die as a result of malnutrition and preventable disease, but that reality is simply a blip occasionally noticed on the evening news for most U.S. nationalists, because of their idiotic doctrine that chancing to have been born between invisible lines in the ground endows some with greater moral worth than others.

So you don't see yourself as part of the American Indian community?

[Kathianne]

I keep asking because I find the answers (when I get them) interesting. The most common answer I've heard is 'it shouldn't of been in New York, any city but there.' You obviously dissagree with that, for no other reason than you just do. And you expect people to be able to make judgements on what others may or may not unpredictably think?
I mean it's gonna be two blocks away, out of sound and sight, and I've honestly seen people say 'but it should be at least four blocks away!' no reason, no rhyme, that's just a number that they plucked outa the air, and some people have the brass to think that they have the right to have their made up number *respected* >,>

Balderdash! I do not expect 'people' to tell others where or what or when they can build or what they can think. You are just regurgitating what I thought we'd already settled. From the beginning I stated they can and if they really do have the wherewithal, will build where they damn well please. What they don't have a right to, is for everyone to be Bloombergesque about it.

You asked what was a 'reasonable distance,' I gave you what I considered reasonable. Not for any reason other than puts it by one measure, outside of the 9/11 zone. A zone that's there because some terrorists, in the name of Islam, took out 3 icons and 3000 people on what that area represents.

You want people here to be reasonable, then it would be nice to see a movement of reasonableness from those that say they wish 'to build bridges, not confrontations.' It would be easier to believe if some attempt at compromise was made.

[jimnyc]

I keep asking because I find the answers (when I get them) interesting. The most common answer I've heard is 'it shouldn't of been in New York, any city but there.'

Ok, I'll give you a definitive answer...

Not in Lower Manhattan, and more specifically, nowhere south of Houston Street. On and immediately following 9/11, Manhattan was cordoned off from Houston Street and south. No one in and no one out - 'cept for emergency personnel. Hundreds if not thousands of families had their lives disrupted and were uprooted from their "way of life" until it was deemed safe for them to go back home. Many of these people dealt with the harsh realities much more than the average citizen. This area below Houston was originally deemed "ground zero" and after the street limitations were lifted it was then designated ground zero simply at the site of the fallen towers. Since, IMO, this area was part of the "crime scene" that entailed what is "9/11" - that's the area I believe the muslims should not build any sort of mosque. And for pete, this would include a larger building which includes a mosque inside.

[jimnyc]

"Us"? Someone attacked you? What injuries did you sustain?


You'd certainly be wasting your time, since your weak points and style would have no chance of argumentative victory. :dunno:


You wouldn't be a victor in any sense; you would just have a "different" position, and all the argument in the world would make no difference on the rightness or wrongness of particular viewpoints, apparently. That is an asinine idea, though. Some opinions are demonstrably false, with sound logical argumentation defeating them.

One would think that after an eternity of the citation of "common sense" as a justification for the most reactionary doctrines, people would eventually realize its logically fallacious nature. But bad ideas still die out only with their proponents, so time is our only savior.

I'll bite and give a simple answer to this debate using nothing more than COMMON SENSE.

Would you laugh at, or deny, the students that were involved in the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy any type of counseling? I don't mean those who were involved, but even others just on campus that were scared or mentally involved with what took place. What about counseling or compassion for students that were not directly involved in the Columbine shootings? What about the parents of said students? What about the communities of all the above scenarios?

9/11 is no different. There are people all over the country that were affected by what took place and many seek counseling as a result. Some will never step into NYC again. Some won't go anywhere near a hi-rise building. Should we just laugh at these people and declare they sustained no injuries because they weren't directly involved?

So yes, Muslims DID attack US on 9/11. I was about 1 1/2 miles from the towers and my life was directly affected that day. No need for counseling, but I also don't need YOU telling me how I can or cannot feel simply because I don't have visible injuries.

Save your novel and empirical evidence. My "common sense" does not need your approval to be 100% correct.

[Indy]

Once again...how far away would of been far away enough?

Mecca? Or they could use any one of the 100 plus mosques in the area.;)
Personally I think this is a your face monument to the magnificent. They should show the same sensitivity they desire.

[BoogyMan]

Radical Islam attacked us that fateful day in 2001, however, why is there not any kind of effort afoot by the average Joe muslim to repudiate the actions of those who claim Islam as a hiding place for their actions such as those who planned the 9/11 attack?

[Pagan]

Radical Islam attacked us that fateful day in 2001, however, why is there not any kind of effort afoot by the average Joe muslim to repudiate the actions of those who claim Islam as a hiding place for their actions such as those who planned the 9/11 attack?

Maybe because you haven't looked -

Page with a number of links of Muslim Leaders, Scholars, etc. condemning Terrorist actions
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Yet another link
Muslim Condemnations of 9/11
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm


Hey, lookie here -

Fatwa Issued Against Bin Laden
The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community. The commission represents 200 or so mostly Sunni mosques, or about 70 percent of all mosques in Spain.

"It added: "Inasmuch as Osama bin Laden and his organization defend terrorism as legal and try to base it on the Quran ... they are committing the crime of 'istihlal' and thus become apostates that should not be considered Muslims or treated as such." The Arabic term 'istihlal' refers to the act of making up one's own laws."
http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2005/03/fatwa_issue_aga.html

Better yet, just do a google, you know it's a rather useful tool ;)

[BoogyMan]

The condemnations have been few and have been quite tame, Pagan. Since Islam is one of the fastest growing religions on the planet you would think they could choke up something a bit more public, wouldn't you think?

Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it.


Maybe because you haven't looked -

Page with a number of links of Muslim Leaders, Scholars, etc. condemning Terrorist actions
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Yet another link
Muslim Condemnations of 9/11
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm


Hey, lookie here -

Fatwa Issued Against Bin Laden
The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community. The commission represents 200 or so mostly Sunni mosques, or about 70 percent of all mosques in Spain.

"It added: "Inasmuch as Osama bin Laden and his organization defend terrorism as legal and try to base it on the Quran ... they are committing the crime of 'istihlal' and thus become apostates that should not be considered Muslims or treated as such." The Arabic term 'istihlal' refers to the act of making up one's own laws."
http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2005/03/fatwa_issue_aga.html

Better yet, just do a google, you know it's a rather useful tool ;)

[SassyLady]

Then why did they ask him about his opinion on it? And why, upon hearing any part of that opinion, did they interrupt, cut him off, wash their hands of him, and storm off stage?

Because they already knew what his opinion was. He hasn't kept is a big secret...and they have had him on several times and he's always done well for himself. I think they baited him with the full intention of being able to say that they were "offended" by O'Reilly.

Behar is so consumed with hate that her face is shriveling up like a prune.

[Pagan]

The condemnations have been few and have been quite tame, Pagan. Since Islam is one of the fastest growing religions on the planet you would think they could choke up something a bit more public, wouldn't you think?

Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it.

Yes honesty is valuable, you ought to try it some time :lame2:

[BoogyMan]

Yes honesty is valuable, you ought to try it some time :lame2:

Poor critter, can't take your own tactics?

What major effort has been made by the muslims in America to disavow the actions of the 19 mass murderers of 9/11/2001?

[Pagan]

Poor critter, can't take your own tactics?

What major effort has been made by the muslims in America to disavow the actions of the 19 mass murderers of 9/11/2001?

What was it about "Honesty" eh? #47 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446235#post446235) :lame2:

[BoogyMan]

What was it about "Honesty" eh? #47 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446235#post446235) :lame2:

Your claim that the Muslim rank and file HAD denounced the actions of the 9/11 mass murderers. That claim carries with it the idea that a preponderance of the Muslim rank and file had done so, a claim that is completely false.

My original point stands firm.

[Pagan]

Your claim that the Muslim rank and file HAD denounced the actions of the 9/11 mass murderers. That claim carries with it the idea that a preponderance of the Muslim rank and file had done so, a claim that is completely false.

My original point stands firm.

Really?

I not only know but work with Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindu's, etc. and all the Muslims I know condemn it along with their Cleric's. You know like -

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335

"American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."

"These attacks are against both divine and human laws and we condemn them in the strongest terms. The Muslim Americans join the nation in calling for swift apprehension and stiff punishment of the perpetrators, and offer our sympathies to the victims and their families."



You know if you bothered to look at the link in the previous post you'd see it. But then again that would call for "Honesty" in your statements.

[BoogyMan]

And yet there has been no high profile repudiation by the Muslim rank and file. There are certainly some, but nothing of scale. I submit that it is that way because of the fear of the murderous backlash of their brethren.


Really?

I not only know but work with Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindu's, etc. and all the Muslims I know condemn it along with their Cleric's. You know like -

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335

"American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."

"These attacks are against both divine and human laws and we condemn them in the strongest terms. The Muslim Americans join the nation in calling for swift apprehension and stiff punishment of the perpetrators, and offer our sympathies to the victims and their families."



You know if you bothered to look at the link in the previous post you'd see it. But then again that would call for "Honesty" in your statements.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

the answer is real simple
DON'T TRUST ANY MUSLIM

[Pagan]

And yet there has been no high profile repudiation by the Muslim rank and file. There are certainly some, but nothing of scale. I submit that it is that way because of the fear of the murderous backlash of their brethren.

Really?

OK if you say so.

"Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it."

[DragonStryk72]

Well I'm certainly not calling anyone an islamophobe. But I have asked everyone who says 'it's too close' the same question and no one has given an answer (expect for Martian, who then revised his answer after I told him his first answer, 2-3 blocks, was the distance away it was going to be)

Wait, hold on, 2-3 blocks?! In NYC, that's almost a god damn mile!! You couldn't even vaguely see the damned thing, unless you were in a helicopter with the specific intent to look for a mosque near ground zero. It's all skyscrapers in that area of NYC, so until it hits 15+ stories, it can't even be seen from the next block over.

fuck it, it's fine, let them build it

[DragonStryk72]

And yet there has been no high profile repudiation by the Muslim rank and file. There are certainly some, but nothing of scale. I submit that it is that way because of the fear of the murderous backlash of their brethren.

Oh right, cause the Catholic Church is getting right on it at taking care of their scandals.

[NightTrain]

Oh right, cause the Catholic Church is getting right on it at taking care of their scandals.

The Pope and the rest of the the Catholic church organization have indeed publicly condemned the despicable actions of a few within their organization.

[Pagan]

The Pope and the rest of the the Catholic church organization have indeed publicly condemned the despicable actions of a few within their organization.

You mean like just moving their Pedophile Priests to another area? Or just retire them like that filth of a human being Father O'Grady with full benefits so he can continue to fuck little boys and girls in retirement.

[NightTrain]

You mean like just moving their Pedophile Priests to another area? Or just retire them like that filth of a human being Father O'Grady with full benefits so he can continue to fuck little boys and girls in retirement.

No, it means exactly what I said.

[avatar4321]

They sure as heck weren't Buddhists.

[DragonStryk72]

The Pope and the rest of the the Catholic church organization have indeed publicly condemned the despicable actions of a few within their organization.

And how many have been removed from the cloth? Yeah, none. They got transferred to other parishes.

[NightTrain]

And how many have been removed from the cloth? Yeah, none. They got transferred to other parishes.

Well, it took all of 10 seconds to disprove your statement.


Many of the accused priests were forced to resign. Some priests whose crimes fell within statutes of limitation are in jail. Some have been defrocked. Others — because they are elderly, because of the nature of their offenses, or because they have had some success fighting the charges — cannot be defrocked under canon law. Some priests live in retreat houses that are carefully monitored and sometimes locked.[50]
Bernard Francis Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, United States resigned after Church documents were revealed which suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese.[51] On December 13, 2002 Pope John Paul II accepted Law's resignation as Archbishop and reassigned him to an administrative position in the Roman Curia naming him archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, and he later presided at one of the Pope's funeral masses. Law's successor in Boston, Archbishop (later Cardinal) Séan P. O'Malley found it necessary to sell substantial real estate properties and close a number of churches in order to pay the $120 million in claims against the archdiocese.
Two bishops of Palm Beach, Florida resigned due to child abuse allegations. Resigned bishop Joseph Keith Symons was replaced by Anthony O'Connell, who later also resigned in 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Resignations.2C_retiremen ts_and_defrockings

[Pagan]

Well, it took all of 10 seconds to disprove your statement.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Resignations.2C_retiremen ts_and_defrockings


Really?

Pope Sexual Abuse Scandal: Benedict Implicated In Cover-Up Of Wisconsin Abuse Case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/pope-sexual-abuse-lawrence-murphy_n_512483.html

CA diocese to pay pedophile priest $94.5 K annuity
http://thewordwarrior.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/ca-diocese-to-pay-pedophile-priest-94-5-k-annuity/

Oliver O'Grady Busted Working w/Children at Abuse Shelter for Women and as Church Deacon Under False Name in Rotterdam
http://cityofangels8.blogspot.com/2010/04/oliver-ogrady-working.html


A Glimpse at the Mind of a Pedophile
A former priest who served under Mahony in the Stockton Diocese describes his ploys
http://www.snapnetwork.org/priest_stories/glimpse_mind_pedophile.htm
"O'Grady testified that Mahony sent him to a psychiatrist for an evaluation, which the cardinal has acknowledged was the church's standard operating procedure at the time for handling pedophile priests. Almost immediately thereafter, O'Grady said, Mahony transferred him to a parish in San Andreas, about an hour outside Stockton. Mahony later promoted him to pastor."


Yep, you fuck little boy's and girls and what happens? You get promoted

[NightTrain]

Really?

Pope Sexual Abuse Scandal: Benedict Implicated In Cover-Up Of Wisconsin Abuse Case
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/pope-sexual-abuse-lawrence-murphy_n_512483.html

CA diocese to pay pedophile priest $94.5 K annuity
http://thewordwarrior.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/ca-diocese-to-pay-pedophile-priest-94-5-k-annuity/

Oliver O'Grady Busted Working w/Children at Abuse Shelter for Women and as Church Deacon Under False Name in Rotterdam
http://cityofangels8.blogspot.com/2010/04/oliver-ogrady-working.html

So, are you claiming that ZERO priests have been defrocked, as well?

[Pagan]

So, are you claiming that ZERO priests have been defrocked, as well?

No

Are you claiming there's not an ongoing problem nor a cover up that goes all the way up to the Vatican?

[NightTrain]

No

Are you claiming there's not an ongoing problem nor a cover up that goes all the way up to the Vatican?

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never once said anything of the sort. That would be as foolish as saying zero priests have been defrocked.

[BoogyMan]

Words mean things, my friend. What HIGH PROFILE attempt has been made by the rank and file to reject the actions we are discussing?


Really?

OK if you say so.

"Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it."

[Pagan]

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I never once said anything of the sort. That would be as foolish as saying zero priests have been defrocked.

I just call it making a few sacrificial lambs in a pathetic attempt to make it look like they're doing something about it. When in all sense of reality the problem is so deeply entrenched that it's an integral part of the institution itself.

[NightTrain]

You're free to think what you want.

I think historically the pedophile activities, when discovered, involved a very serious ass chewing and transfer to a new area with someone designated to keep a close eye on the offending priest and a coverup to protect the Church's image.

In this day and age of instant widespread communications, the problem was impossible to cover up and it forced the Church, from the Pope down, to acknowledge the problem and take steps to identify & root out perverted people from within their ranks.

I don't think any rational person would condone the coverups and transfers of the accused pedophile, this was the wrong approach. But quietly 'fixing' the problem worked for centuries, which amounted to sweeping it under the rug and it would appear that they have taken a new, more open approach.

The analogy here, however, comparing muslims to Catholics in acknowledging and condemning the actions of misguided individuals within their organizations doesn't fly.

Have you ever read of a Catholic praising the actions of a pedophile priest? Nope.

Have you ever read of a muslim praising the 9/11 tragedy? Yep. A shitload of them.

[Pagan]

Words mean things, my friend. What HIGH PROFILE attempt has been made by the rank and file to reject the actions we are discussing?

Like I said here -


Maybe because you haven't looked -

Page with a number of links of Muslim Leaders, Scholars, etc. condemning Terrorist actions
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Yet another link
Muslim Condemnations of 9/11
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/9_11statements.htm


Hey, lookie here -

Fatwa Issued Against Bin Laden
The ruling was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the country's 1 million-member Muslim community. The commission represents 200 or so mostly Sunni mosques, or about 70 percent of all mosques in Spain.

"It added: "Inasmuch as Osama bin Laden and his organization defend terrorism as legal and try to base it on the Quran ... they are committing the crime of 'istihlal' and thus become apostates that should not be considered Muslims or treated as such." The Arabic term 'istihlal' refers to the act of making up one's own laws."
http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2005/03/fatwa_issue_aga.html

Better yet, just do a google, you know it's a rather useful tool ;)

Then further -



Really?

I not only know but work with Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindu's, etc. and all the Muslims I know condemn it along with their Cleric's. You know like -

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=AM0109-335

"American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."

"These attacks are against both divine and human laws and we condemn them in the strongest terms. The Muslim Americans join the nation in calling for swift apprehension and stiff punishment of the perpetrators, and offer our sympathies to the victims and their families."



You know if you bothered to look at the link in the previous post you'd see it. But then again that would call for "Honesty" in your statements.

I've not only seen Muslims condemnation of the acts on the news but from the Muslims I personally know also condemn the actions. Now take a look at our own poster here abso who condemns the actions.

Lumping all Muslims into the same pool as the fanatics who are condemned by the Muslim community only serves to push them into the influence of the fanatics which you have validated their lunatic position due to your bigotry.

With your philosophy all Christians should be judged by the actions of Westborough Baptist Church, the KKK, Christian Identity, Lambs of Christ, Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, etc. etc. and yes the Pedophile Priests of the Catholic Church.

[BoogyMan]

Pagan, I see what you mean about being able to find some that do repudiate the act. Where are the HIGH PROFILE repudiations? That is what I have been asking for. The rank and file in small number do, but it is my point that they are too afraid to do so in a HIGH PROFILE fashion.

[BoogyMan]

Oh right, cause the Catholic Church is getting right on it at taking care of their scandals.

Umm, where did I defend the Catholic church on any level? I find them just as despotic as the radical islamicists we are discussing.

[Pagan]

Pagan, I see what you mean about being able to find some that do repudiate the act. Where are the HIGH PROFILE repudiations? That is what I have been asking for. The rank and file in small number do, but it is my point that they are too afraid to do so in a HIGH PROFILE fashion.

Chasing your tail again I see :lame2:

#47 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446235#post446235), #54 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446264#post446264), #73 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446400#post446400)

What was it you said? Oh yeah -

"Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it."

Yes, you should try it sometime.

[BoogyMan]

I see the point evades you, enjoy your denial. :) :clap:


Chasing your tail again I see :lame2:

#47 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446235#post446235), #54 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446264#post446264), #73 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446400#post446400)

What was it you said? Oh yeah -

"Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it."

Yes, you should try it sometime.

[Pagan]

I see the point evades you, enjoy your denial. :) :clap:

Really?

OK if you say so :uhoh:

"Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it."

Yes, you should try it sometime.

[BoogyMan]

Really?

OK if you say so :uhoh:

"Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it."

Yes, you should try it sometime.

LOL, considering the sheer size of the growing Muslim religion, the high profile rejection of 9/11 tactics by the rank and file should be pretty much everywhere.......it isn't.

Enjoy the delusion, my friend.

[Pagan]

LOL, considering the sheer size of the growing Muslim religion, the high profile rejection of 9/11 tactics by the rank and file should be pretty much everywhere.......it isn't.

Enjoy the delusion, my friend.

Really?



Chasing your tail again I see :lame2:

#47 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446235#post446235), #54 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446264#post446264), #73 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29532-did-muslims-attack-us-on-9-11-was-bill-o-reilly-right&p=446400#post446400)

What was it you said? Oh yeah -

"Honesty is valuable in these discussions, you should try it."

Yes, you should try it sometime.