If crimes "begin and end with the criminals who commit them,"....

[Ravi]

He designed his mosque...oh, yeah, he must be a terrorist.

 

[BenNatuf]

He designed his mosque...oh, yeah, he must be a terrorist.

And hosts a web site extolling his virtues.... I guess you sort of left that out.

indeed.

 

[Ravi]

He designed his mosque...oh, yeah, he must be a terrorist.

And hosts a web site extolling his virtues.... I guess you sort of left that out.

indeed.

Link?

 

[geauxtohell]

To the OP and those that seem to be in agreement with it's bogus implication...

...willful ignorance and half-baked hyperbolic nonsense is not a compelling argument.

Okay everyone! Manifold says this is a non-issue. Might as well pack it up..............

I know.

And it's still bogus for two reasons.

1) Nobody says conservative rhetoric has no effect on anyone. In fact, it's desired effect is to influence how people vote and it does an ok job in that regard.

The "effect" people are talking about isn't simple political rhetoric designed to sway votes. It's whether or not political rhetoric can cause people to do violence. I actually think Lougher acted the way he did out of some sort of form of psychosis. I don't blame Glen Beck, Sarah, Palin, or anyone else for the crazy things that crazy people do.

2) To compare any American political rhetoric, no matter how allegedly 'violent,' to the edicts issued by OBL and other Islamic terrorist leaders is about as fucking retarded as it gets.

You obviously missed the point of the OP. For the record (and those slow on the uptake), I am not comparing American political rhetoric to anything that comes out of OBL's mouth. So I agree with your last sentence.

The point is this: Sarah Palin made a stink about the Mosque that is two blocks away from Ground Zero due to the fact that it was close to (as we all know) the site of the twin towers that were destroyed by fanatical muslim terrorists. The people behind the Mosque had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. However, they were held accountable for it all the same.

Then, a year or so later, some crazy asshole in Arizona shoots up a bunch of people, to include a 9 year old girl and a congresswoman, and the left wing punditry (erroneously) claims Palin is inciting these events with her "vitriol" and shares some blame over the event.

Palin get's all high and fucking mighty and makes the statement: "Crimes begin and end with the people who commit them".

See the hypocrisy?

 

[manifold]

To the OP and those that seem to be in agreement with it's bogus implication...

...willful ignorance and half-baked hyperbolic nonsense is not a compelling argument.

Okay everyone! Manifold says this is a non-issue. Might as well pack it up..............

I know.

And it's still bogus for two reasons.

1) Nobody says conservative rhetoric has no effect on anyone. In fact, it's desired effect is to influence how people vote and it does an ok job in that regard.

The "effect" people are talking about isn't simple political rhetoric designed to sway votes. It's whether or not political rhetoric can cause people to do violence. I actually think Lougher acted the way he did out of some sort of form of psychosis. I don't blame Glen Beck, Sarah, Palin, or anyone else for the crazy things that crazy people do.

2) To compare any American political rhetoric, no matter how allegedly 'violent,' to the edicts issued by OBL and other Islamic terrorist leaders is about as fucking retarded as it gets.

You obviously missed the point of the OP. For the record (and those slow on the uptake), I am not comparing American political rhetoric to anything that comes out of OBL's mouth. So I agree with your last sentence.

The point is this: Sarah Palin made a stink about the Mosque that is two blocks away from Ground Zero due to the fact that it was close to (as we all know) the site of the twin towers that were destroyed by fanatical muslim terrorists. The people behind the Mosque had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. However, they were held accountable for it all the same.
Then, a year or so later, some crazy asshole in Arizona shoots up a bunch of people, to include a 9 year old girl and a congresswoman, and the left wing punditry (erroneously) claims Palin is inciting these events with her "vitriol" and shares some blame over the event.

Palin get's all high and fucking mighty and makes the statement: "Crimes begin and end with the people who commit them".

See the hypocrisy?

OK, thanks for the explanation.

However, I believe I've found the disconnect and bolded it above.

I do not recall anyone suggesting that those behind the ground zero mosque were to be held accountable for 9/11. If there were, my guess is it was a tiny tiny fringe minority.

But by all means, provide some links and prove me wrong. I'd be much obliged if you can.

 

[sangha]

To the OP and those that seem to be in agreement with it's bogus implication...

...willful ignorance and half-baked hyperbolic nonsense is not a compelling argument.

Okay everyone! Manifold says this is a non-issue. Might as well pack it up..............



The "effect" people are talking about isn't simple political rhetoric designed to sway votes. It's whether or not political rhetoric can cause people to do violence. I actually think Lougher acted the way he did out of some sort of form of psychosis. I don't blame Glen Beck, Sarah, Palin, or anyone else for the crazy things that crazy people do.

2) To compare any American political rhetoric, no matter how allegedly 'violent,' to the edicts issued by OBL and other Islamic terrorist leaders is about as fucking retarded as it gets.

You obviously missed the point of the OP. For the record (and those slow on the uptake), I am not comparing American political rhetoric to anything that comes out of OBL's mouth. So I agree with your last sentence.

The point is this: Sarah Palin made a stink about the Mosque that is two blocks away from Ground Zero due to the fact that it was close to (as we all know) the site of the twin towers that were destroyed by fanatical muslim terrorists. The people behind the Mosque had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. However, they were held accountable for it all the same.
Then, a year or so later, some crazy asshole in Arizona shoots up a bunch of people, to include a 9 year old girl and a congresswoman, and the left wing punditry (erroneously) claims Palin is inciting these events with her "vitriol" and shares some blame over the event.

Palin get's all high and fucking mighty and makes the statement: "Crimes begin and end with the people who commit them".

See the hypocrisy?

OK, thanks for the explanation.

However, I believe I've found the disconnect and bolded it above.

I do not recall anyone suggesting that those behind the ground zero mosque were to be held accountable for 9/11. If there were, my guess is it was a tiny tiny fringe minority.

But by all means, provide some links and prove me wrong. I'd be much obliged if you can.

There have been plenty of posts in this thread, with links, that argue that the people behind the mosque should be held accountable for 9/11.
Why don't you ask for something else that has already been posted?

 

[BenNatuf]

He designed his mosque...oh, yeah, he must be a terrorist.

And hosts a web site extolling his virtues.... I guess you sort of left that out.

indeed.

Link?

Sakeenah: Celebrating Goodness

Sakeenah: Celebrating Goodness

not hard to find seeing as how the links were identified in news stories. I guess its one of those things you actually have to not want to know to avoid knowing... good job on that!

 

[manifold]

There have been plenty of posts in this thread, with links, that argue that the people behind the mosque should be held accountable for 9/11.

 

[geauxtohell]

To the OP and those that seem to be in agreement with it's bogus implication...

...willful ignorance and half-baked hyperbolic nonsense is not a compelling argument.

Okay everyone! Manifold says this is a non-issue. Might as well pack it up..............



The "effect" people are talking about isn't simple political rhetoric designed to sway votes. It's whether or not political rhetoric can cause people to do violence. I actually think Lougher acted the way he did out of some sort of form of psychosis. I don't blame Glen Beck, Sarah, Palin, or anyone else for the crazy things that crazy people do.

2) To compare any American political rhetoric, no matter how allegedly 'violent,' to the edicts issued by OBL and other Islamic terrorist leaders is about as fucking retarded as it gets.

You obviously missed the point of the OP. For the record (and those slow on the uptake), I am not comparing American political rhetoric to anything that comes out of OBL's mouth. So I agree with your last sentence.

The point is this: Sarah Palin made a stink about the Mosque that is two blocks away from Ground Zero due to the fact that it was close to (as we all know) the site of the twin towers that were destroyed by fanatical muslim terrorists. The people behind the Mosque had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. However, they were held accountable for it all the same.
Then, a year or so later, some crazy asshole in Arizona shoots up a bunch of people, to include a 9 year old girl and a congresswoman, and the left wing punditry (erroneously) claims Palin is inciting these events with her "vitriol" and shares some blame over the event.

Palin get's all high and fucking mighty and makes the statement: "Crimes begin and end with the people who commit them".

See the hypocrisy?

OK, thanks for the explanation.

However, I believe I've found the disconnect and bolded it above.

I do not recall anyone suggesting that those behind the ground zero mosque were to be held accountable for 9/11. If there were, my guess is it was a tiny tiny fringe minority.

But by all means, provide some links and prove me wrong. I'd be much obliged if you can.

If they aren't being held accountable, then why would anyone give a damn if they build a mosque within a two block radius of Ground Zero?

 

[manifold]

Okay everyone! Manifold says this is a non-issue. Might as well pack it up..............



The "effect" people are talking about isn't simple political rhetoric designed to sway votes. It's whether or not political rhetoric can cause people to do violence. I actually think Lougher acted the way he did out of some sort of form of psychosis. I don't blame Glen Beck, Sarah, Palin, or anyone else for the crazy things that crazy people do.



You obviously missed the point of the OP. For the record (and those slow on the uptake), I am not comparing American political rhetoric to anything that comes out of OBL's mouth. So I agree with your last sentence.

The point is this: Sarah Palin made a stink about the Mosque that is two blocks away from Ground Zero due to the fact that it was close to (as we all know) the site of the twin towers that were destroyed by fanatical muslim terrorists. The people behind the Mosque had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. However, they were held accountable for it all the same.
Then, a year or so later, some crazy asshole in Arizona shoots up a bunch of people, to include a 9 year old girl and a congresswoman, and the left wing punditry (erroneously) claims Palin is inciting these events with her "vitriol" and shares some blame over the event.

Palin get's all high and fucking mighty and makes the statement: "Crimes begin and end with the people who commit them".

See the hypocrisy?

OK, thanks for the explanation.

However, I believe I've found the disconnect and bolded it above.

I do not recall anyone suggesting that those behind the ground zero mosque were to be held accountable for 9/11. If there were, my guess is it was a tiny tiny fringe minority.

But by all means, provide some links and prove me wrong. I'd be much obliged if you can.

If they aren't being held accountable, then why would anyone give a damn if they build a mosque within a two block radius of Ground Zero?

Personally, I didnt' give a crap about the mosque. But I can understand how some might have found it insensitive. But I don't see how finding it insensitive constitutes holding those behind it accountable for 9/11.

 

[BenNatuf]

Okay everyone! Manifold says this is a non-issue. Might as well pack it up..............



The "effect" people are talking about isn't simple political rhetoric designed to sway votes. It's whether or not political rhetoric can cause people to do violence. I actually think Lougher acted the way he did out of some sort of form of psychosis. I don't blame Glen Beck, Sarah, Palin, or anyone else for the crazy things that crazy people do.



You obviously missed the point of the OP. For the record (and those slow on the uptake), I am not comparing American political rhetoric to anything that comes out of OBL's mouth. So I agree with your last sentence.

The point is this: Sarah Palin made a stink about the Mosque that is two blocks away from Ground Zero due to the fact that it was close to (as we all know) the site of the twin towers that were destroyed by fanatical muslim terrorists. The people behind the Mosque had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. However, they were held accountable for it all the same.
Then, a year or so later, some crazy asshole in Arizona shoots up a bunch of people, to include a 9 year old girl and a congresswoman, and the left wing punditry (erroneously) claims Palin is inciting these events with her "vitriol" and shares some blame over the event.

Palin get's all high and fucking mighty and makes the statement: "Crimes begin and end with the people who commit them".

See the hypocrisy?

OK, thanks for the explanation.

However, I believe I've found the disconnect and bolded it above.

I do not recall anyone suggesting that those behind the ground zero mosque were to be held accountable for 9/11. If there were, my guess is it was a tiny tiny fringe minority.

But by all means, provide some links and prove me wrong. I'd be much obliged if you can.

If they aren't being held accountable, then why would anyone give a damn if they build a mosque within a two block radius of Ground Zero?

They are accountable for their own actions, and when those actions either by design OR by consequence aid or abbet an enemy in war they are accountable for it. The only question would be whether or not it's by design or consequence as in the former they could be held criminally responsible for treason and in the latter civily responsable for whatever damages are incurred from their negligence (which may also be criminal). Unless of course you are of the legal opinion that a person is NOT responsible for unintended malconsequence resulting from their actions (and in some cases innaction), which would be wrong.

 

[sangha]

OK, thanks for the explanation.

However, I believe I've found the disconnect and bolded it above.

I do not recall anyone suggesting that those behind the ground zero mosque were to be held accountable for 9/11. If there were, my guess is it was a tiny tiny fringe minority.

But by all means, provide some links and prove me wrong. I'd be much obliged if you can.

If they aren't being held accountable, then why would anyone give a damn if they build a mosque within a two block radius of Ground Zero?

Personally, I didnt' give a crap about the mosque. But I can understand how some might have found it insensitive. But I don't see how finding it insensitive constitutes holding those behind it accountable for 9/11.

How is it insensitive if the mosque has nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists?

 

[manifold]

If they aren't being held accountable, then why would anyone give a damn if they build a mosque within a two block radius of Ground Zero?

Personally, I didnt' give a crap about the mosque. But I can understand how some might have found it insensitive. But I don't see how finding it insensitive constitutes holding those behind it accountable for 9/11.

How is it insensitive if the mosque has nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists?

Good one!

 

[sangha]

Personally, I didnt' give a crap about the mosque. But I can understand how some might have found it insensitive. But I don't see how finding it insensitive constitutes holding those behind it accountable for 9/11.

How is it insensitive if the mosque has nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists?

Good one!

I see another wingnut is too scared to defend his own words

Why do wingnuts always run when challenged?

 

[Ravi]

If they aren't being held accountable, then why would anyone give a damn if they build a mosque within a two block radius of Ground Zero?

Personally, I didnt' give a crap about the mosque. But I can understand how some might have found it insensitive. But I don't see how finding it insensitive constitutes holding those behind it accountable for 9/11.

How is it insensitive if the mosque has nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists?

As far as I can tell it would mean that people who had nothing to do with 9/11 were doing a victory dance for something that they had nothing to do with.

 

[manifold]

How is it insensitive if the mosque has nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists?

Good one!

I see another wingnut is too scared to defend his own words

Why do wingnuts always run when challenged?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were being serious.

I did in fact laugh out loud when I read your post.

The answer seems obvious to me, but let me give you an analogy that might help you out...

How would it be insensitive for me to call a black man a ****** if I had nothing to do with slavery?

Suss that out and maybe you'll get it.

 

[manifold]

Personally, I didnt' give a crap about the mosque. But I can understand how some might have found it insensitive. But I don't see how finding it insensitive constitutes holding those behind it accountable for 9/11.

How is it insensitive if the mosque has nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists?

As far as I can tell it would mean that people who had nothing to do with 9/11 were doing a victory dance for something that they had nothing to do with.

Yup.

And I agree that it's a pretty silly accusation, but believing this and also believing that crime begins and ends with those who commit them is not contradictory or hypocritical, as the OP implies.

 

[sangha]

Good one!

I see another wingnut is too scared to defend his own words

Why do wingnuts always run when challenged?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were being serious.

I did in fact laugh out loud when I read your post.

The answer seems obvious to me, but let me give you an analogy that might help you out...

How would it be insensitive for me to call a black man a ****** if I had nothing to do with slavery?

Suss that out and maybe you'll get it.

Last time I went by the area, the mosque wasn't calling black people "******". Please explain how it is insensitive to build a mosque on the former site of the Sacred Burlington Coat Factory

 

[manifold]

I see another wingnut is too scared to defend his own words

Why do wingnuts always run when challenged?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were being serious.

I did in fact laugh out loud when I read your post.

The answer seems obvious to me, but let me give you an analogy that might help you out...

How would it be insensitive for me to call a black man a ****** if I had nothing to do with slavery?

Suss that out and maybe you'll get it.

Last time I went by the area, the mosque wasn't calling black people "******". Please explain how it is insensitive to build a mosque on the former site of the Sacred Burlington Coat Factory

I can't explain why something that doesn't offend me is offensive. But neither you nor I get to tell other people what they are allowed to find offensive. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that being offended by the mosque and also believing crime begins and ends with the criminals who commit them is not contradictory or hypocritical, no matter how much you and geaux want to pretend that it is.

 

[sangha]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were being serious.

I did in fact laugh out loud when I read your post.

The answer seems obvious to me, but let me give you an analogy that might help you out...

How would it be insensitive for me to call a black man a ****** if I had nothing to do with slavery?

Suss that out and maybe you'll get it.

Last time I went by the area, the mosque wasn't calling black people "******". Please explain how it is insensitive to build a mosque on the former site of the Sacred Burlington Coat Factory

I can't explain why something that doesn't offend me is offensive. But neither you nor I get to tell other people what they are allowed to find offensive. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that being offended by the mosque and also believing crime begins and ends with the criminals who commit them is not contradictory or hypocritical, no matter how much you and geaux want to pretend that it is.

Gee, earlier you said that building the mosque is insensitive and that the reason was obvious and simple. Now, it's suddenly impossible for you to explain why it's insensitive

Keep dancing