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

[Madeline]

The Glock dealer was no more a perpetrator than the American Imam.

The Glock dealer would not think to open up a store on the site of a mass murder. Nobody would defend the decency of his decision to do that, including me.

The American Imam, he doesn't have the same decency and respect.

Seriously, doesn't this hurt?

It's a great argument.

If you don't agree, refute it.

The cheap shot doesn't cut it Maddie.

Okay, let me see if I can explain, Missourian.

For the days since the terrible shooting in Arizona, Revere and I have been arguing. I have said the violent rhetoric should be foreclosed, and he has said I am undercutting free speech. He does not at all agree that an atmosphere of such speech may make such tragedies likely to recur.

"Only the shooter is responsible", he keeps saying.

But in the case of the Park 51 Mosque, he seems to do a complete backflip. Now ALL American Muslims, all mosques, are somehow responsible for 9/11. Now, a tenuous connection (that only exists if you agree with his beliefs about the role of religion in that tragedy, and I do not) between those who commit a crime and those whose speech MAY support their ideas (and other premise I'm not buying) should be used to foreclose freedom of religion.

Consistency is not exactly Revere's hallmark here.

 

[AllieBaba]

If you claimed to be respectful and decent, why would you thumb your nose at familes of survivors who asked to to build your mosque elsewhere?

I felt similar to you at the outset. Then I realised that you are punishing people through no fault of their own.

So, those good "christian" folk in Mississippi who killed those three civil rights' boys back in the 60s should have their local church demolished?

Where did Timothy McVeigh discuss the Oklahoma bombing with Terry Whatshisname? The local Taco Bell? And if so, is that to be demolished, too?

I'm having trouble with you analogy.

No one is saying an existing mosque should be demolished. The debate is whether or not a new mosque should be built at that very location. So, I am having trouble understanding how you come up with demolishing the church in Mississippi.

Immie

I think in his twisted mind denying the killers the privilege of building a mosque to establish Muslim dominance over Western culture at ground zero is the same as demolishing a mosque that already exists.

I guess. It's sick and twisted, but I think that's it.

Grump is a sad, hateful little bigot. I'd like to say he grows on you with time, but except in the sense that a fungus or viral infection grows, it just isn't true.

 

[Missourian]

Seriously, doesn't this hurt?

It's a great argument.

If you don't agree, refute it.

The cheap shot doesn't cut it Maddie.

Okay, let me see if I can explain, Missourian.

For the days since the terrible shooting in Arizona, Revere and I have been arguing. I have said the violent rhetoric should be foreclosed, and he has said I am undercutting free speech. He does not at all agree that an atmosphere of such speech may make such tragedies likely to recur.

"Only the shooter is responsible", he keeps saying.

But in the case of the Park 51 Mosque, he seems to do a complete backflip. Now ALL American Muslims, all mosques, are somehow responsible for 9/11. Now, a tenuous connection (that only exists if you agree with his beliefs about the role of religion in that tragedy, and I do not) between those who commit a crime and those whose speech MAY support their ideas (and other premise I'm not buying) should be used to foreclose freedom of religion.

Consistency is not exactly Revere's hallmark here.

He still makes a good point...one I've made myself.

I have as yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like.

And even tho Sunni Man and I often disagree, I like him personally.

But I still oppose the GZ Mosque for the exact reason Revere put forward.

Just like I would oppose a Shinto Shrine built at Pearl Harbor during WWII or a Glock outlet opening next to the Safeway in Tuscon next month.

When Muslim extremist are no longer plotting to kill us, we can revisit the subject.

 

[The T]

I felt similar to you at the outset. Then I realised that you are punishing people through no fault of their own.

So, those good "christian" folk in Mississippi who killed those three civil rights' boys back in the 60s should have their local church demolished?

Where did Timothy McVeigh discuss the Oklahoma bombing with Terry Whatshisname? The local Taco Bell? And if so, is that to be demolished, too?

I'm having trouble with you analogy.

No one is saying an existing mosque should be demolished. The debate is whether or not a new mosque should be built at that very location. So, I am having trouble understanding how you come up with demolishing the church in Mississippi.

Immie

I think in his twisted mind denying the killers the privilege of building a mosque to establish Muslim dominance over Western culture at ground zero is the same as demolishing a mosque that already exists.

I guess. It's sick and twisted, but I think that's it.

Grump is a sad, hateful little bigot. I'd like to say he grows on you with time, but except in the sense that a fungus or viral infection grows, it just isn't true.

Yep Muslims through their history have a propensity of building MOSQUES on conquered LANDS...

Hence the project's FIRST NAME of 'Cordoba'...

And the scumbags certainly built a Mosque in Cordoba, Spain after their conquest.

 

[Madeline]

It's a great argument.

If you don't agree, refute it.

The cheap shot doesn't cut it Maddie.

Okay, let me see if I can explain, Missourian.

For the days since the terrible shooting in Arizona, Revere and I have been arguing. I have said the violent rhetoric should be foreclosed, and he has said I am undercutting free speech. He does not at all agree that an atmosphere of such speech may make such tragedies likely to recur.

"Only the shooter is responsible", he keeps saying.

But in the case of the Park 51 Mosque, he seems to do a complete backflip. Now ALL American Muslims, all mosques, are somehow responsible for 9/11. Now, a tenuous connection (that only exists if you agree with his beliefs about the role of religion in that tragedy, and I do not) between those who commit a crime and those whose speech MAY support their ideas (and other premise I'm not buying) should be used to foreclose freedom of religion.

Consistency is not exactly Revere's hallmark here.

He still makes a good point...one I've made myself.

I have as yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like.

And even tho Sunni Man and I often disagree, I like him personally.

But I still oppose the GZ Mosque for the exact reason Revere put forward.

Just like I would oppose a Shinto Shrine built at Pearl Harbor during WWII or a Glock outlet opening next to the Safeway in Tuscon next month.

When Muslim extremist are no longer plotting to kill us, we can revisit the subject.

You cannot apply vicarious liability to one group and not to another, Missourian.

That is why I have said Revere puts himself into a pretzel shape.

 

[Madeline]

I'm having trouble with you analogy.

No one is saying an existing mosque should be demolished. The debate is whether or not a new mosque should be built at that very location. So, I am having trouble understanding how you come up with demolishing the church in Mississippi.

Immie

I think in his twisted mind denying the killers the privilege of building a mosque to establish Muslim dominance over Western culture at ground zero is the same as demolishing a mosque that already exists.

I guess. It's sick and twisted, but I think that's it.

Grump is a sad, hateful little bigot. I'd like to say he grows on you with time, but except in the sense that a fungus or viral infection grows, it just isn't true.

Yep Muslims through their history have a propensity of building MOSQUES on conquered LANDS...

Hence the project's FIRST NAME of 'Cordoba'...

And the scumbags certainly built a Mosque in Cordoba, Spain after their conquest.

In what? 900 A.D.?

I guess you aren't aware of the history of christianity in the UK, or in California?

 

[The T]

I think in his twisted mind denying the killers the privilege of building a mosque to establish Muslim dominance over Western culture at ground zero is the same as demolishing a mosque that already exists.

I guess. It's sick and twisted, but I think that's it.

Grump is a sad, hateful little bigot. I'd like to say he grows on you with time, but except in the sense that a fungus or viral infection grows, it just isn't true.

Yep Muslims through their history have a propensity of building MOSQUES on conquered LANDS...

Hence the project's FIRST NAME of 'Cordoba'...

And the scumbags certainly built a Mosque in Cordoba, Spain after their conquest.

In what? 900 A.D.?

I guess you aren't aware of the history of christianity in the UK, or in California?

IDIOT...You are unaware totally aren't you?

Nice try at obfuscation. The object of ISLAM is clear. YOU reamain ignorant.

Poor little MADDIE...thinks because it's the 21st Century their CONQUEST is gone...

*MORON*

 

[Missourian]

Okay, let me see if I can explain, Missourian.

For the days since the terrible shooting in Arizona, Revere and I have been arguing. I have said the violent rhetoric should be foreclosed, and he has said I am undercutting free speech. He does not at all agree that an atmosphere of such speech may make such tragedies likely to recur.

"Only the shooter is responsible", he keeps saying.

But in the case of the Park 51 Mosque, he seems to do a complete backflip. Now ALL American Muslims, all mosques, are somehow responsible for 9/11. Now, a tenuous connection (that only exists if you agree with his beliefs about the role of religion in that tragedy, and I do not) between those who commit a crime and those whose speech MAY support their ideas (and other premise I'm not buying) should be used to foreclose freedom of religion.

Consistency is not exactly Revere's hallmark here.

He still makes a good point...one I've made myself.

I have as yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like.

And even tho Sunni Man and I often disagree, I like him personally.

But I still oppose the GZ Mosque for the exact reason Revere put forward.

Just like I would oppose a Shinto Shrine built at Pearl Harbor during WWII or a Glock outlet opening next to the Safeway in Tuscon next month.

When Muslim extremist are no longer plotting to kill us, we can revisit the subject.

You cannot apply vicarious liability to one group and not to another, Missourian.

That is why I have said Revere puts himself into a pretzel shape.

What group did Loughner belong to?

 

[Immanuel]

I'm having trouble with you analogy.

No one is saying an existing mosque should be demolished. The debate is whether or not a new mosque should be built at that very location. So, I am having trouble understanding how you come up with demolishing the church in Mississippi.

Immie

I think in his twisted mind denying the killers the privilege of building a mosque to establish Muslim dominance over Western culture at ground zero is the same as demolishing a mosque that already exists.

I guess. It's sick and twisted, but I think that's it.

Grump is a sad, hateful little bigot. I'd like to say he grows on you with time, but except in the sense that a fungus or viral infection grows, it just isn't true.

Yep Muslims through their history have a propensity of building MOSQUES on conquered LANDS...

Hence the project's FIRST NAME of 'Cordoba'...

And the scumbags certainly built a Mosque in Cordoba, Spain after their conquest.

Wouldn't you expect them to build mosques in their own territories? They controlled Spain for quite awhile back then. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian churches built during and shortly after the various Crusades in what had formally been Muslim territories.

The Muslim Community Center in NYC that has been termed the Ground Zero Mosque is not a monument of Muslim victory but rather a place of worship that American Muslims would like to build and according to our own Constitution they have the right to build it if they own the property.

I still feel that it would be disrespectful to build on ground zero.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

He still makes a good point...one I've made myself.

I have as yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like.

And even tho Sunni Man and I often disagree, I like him personally.

But I still oppose the GZ Mosque for the exact reason Revere put forward.

Just like I would oppose a Shinto Shrine built at Pearl Harbor during WWII or a Glock outlet opening next to the Safeway in Tuscon next month.

When Muslim extremist are no longer plotting to kill us, we can revisit the subject.

You cannot apply vicarious liability to one group and not to another, Missourian.

That is why I have said Revere puts himself into a pretzel shape.

What group did Loughner belong to?

He was an American, and evidentially had some interest in politics.

 

[The T]

I think in his twisted mind denying the killers the privilege of building a mosque to establish Muslim dominance over Western culture at ground zero is the same as demolishing a mosque that already exists.

I guess. It's sick and twisted, but I think that's it.

Grump is a sad, hateful little bigot. I'd like to say he grows on you with time, but except in the sense that a fungus or viral infection grows, it just isn't true.

Yep Muslims through their history have a propensity of building MOSQUES on conquered LANDS...

Hence the project's FIRST NAME of 'Cordoba'...

And the scumbags certainly built a Mosque in Cordoba, Spain after their conquest.

Wouldn't you expect them to build mosques in their own territories? They controlled Spain for quite awhile back then. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian churches built during and shortly after the various Crusades in what had formally been Muslim territories.

The Muslim Community Center in NYC that has been termed the Ground Zero Mosque is not a monument of Muslim victory but rather a place of worship that American Muslims would like to build and according to our own Constitution they have the right to build it if they own the property.

I still feel that it would be disrespectful to build on ground zero.

Immie

One would expect that? THEY had a Victory on US SOIL. Why do you think the fervant PUSH to build so close to where they murdered so many?

It's a statement by them...as they have done throughout their history.

 

[The T]

He still makes a good point...one I've made myself.

I have as yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like.

And even tho Sunni Man and I often disagree, I like him personally.

But I still oppose the GZ Mosque for the exact reason Revere put forward.

Just like I would oppose a Shinto Shrine built at Pearl Harbor during WWII or a Glock outlet opening next to the Safeway in Tuscon next month.

When Muslim extremist are no longer plotting to kill us, we can revisit the subject.

You cannot apply vicarious liability to one group and not to another, Missourian.

That is why I have said Revere puts himself into a pretzel shape.

What group did Loughner belong to?

NONE. He was a NUTCASE in his own right.

 

[AllieBaba]

Okay, let me see if I can explain, Missourian.

For the days since the terrible shooting in Arizona, Revere and I have been arguing. I have said the violent rhetoric should be foreclosed, and he has said I am undercutting free speech. He does not at all agree that an atmosphere of such speech may make such tragedies likely to recur.

"Only the shooter is responsible", he keeps saying.

But in the case of the Park 51 Mosque, he seems to do a complete backflip. Now ALL American Muslims, all mosques, are somehow responsible for 9/11. Now, a tenuous connection (that only exists if you agree with his beliefs about the role of religion in that tragedy, and I do not) between those who commit a crime and those whose speech MAY support their ideas (and other premise I'm not buying) should be used to foreclose freedom of religion.

Consistency is not exactly Revere's hallmark here.

He still makes a good point...one I've made myself.

I have as yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like.

And even tho Sunni Man and I often disagree, I like him personally.

But I still oppose the GZ Mosque for the exact reason Revere put forward.

Just like I would oppose a Shinto Shrine built at Pearl Harbor during WWII or a Glock outlet opening next to the Safeway in Tuscon next month.

When Muslim extremist are no longer plotting to kill us, we can revisit the subject.

You cannot apply vicarious liability to one group and not to another, Missourian.

That is why I have said Revere puts himself into a pretzel shape.

Bullshit. To say a lone gunman with no particular political views and no backing is the same as the thousands of zealots, fueled by $$ and rhetoric of their imams are the same is juvenile and dangerous.

Stop defending terrorism, Madeline. It's not a good thing. Even if you do it by pretending it doesn't exist. It does exist, and it's a fucking crime. Islam is a controlled and carefully orchestrated terrorist movement.

Arizona lunatic acting on his own is not.

There are no groups of right wingers dancing in the streets waving signs that say "Death to Liberals!" or people stepping forward to support this guy's family. If he dies tomorrow, he won't be considered a martyr; there will be no mother saying "I'm proud of what my son did!"

I can't believe you cannot fathom the difference.

 

[AllieBaba]

And PS, this is a perfect example of blood tithing...you insisting that right wingers are as bloody as the Taliban.

That IS blood libel, you know.

 

[The T]

He still makes a good point...one I've made myself.

I have as yet to meet a Muslim I didn't like.

And even tho Sunni Man and I often disagree, I like him personally.

But I still oppose the GZ Mosque for the exact reason Revere put forward.

Just like I would oppose a Shinto Shrine built at Pearl Harbor during WWII or a Glock outlet opening next to the Safeway in Tuscon next month.

When Muslim extremist are no longer plotting to kill us, we can revisit the subject.

You cannot apply vicarious liability to one group and not to another, Missourian.

That is why I have said Revere puts himself into a pretzel shape.

Bullshit. To say a lone gunman with no particular political views and no backing is the same as the thousands of zealots, fueled by $$ and rhetoric of their imams are the same is juvenile and dangerous.

Stop defending terrorism, Madeline. It's not a good thing. Even if you do it by pretending it doesn't exist. It does exist, and it's a fucking crime. Islam is a controlled and carefully orchestrated terrorist movement.

Arizona lunatic acting on his own is not.

There are no groups of right wingers dancing in the streets waving signs that say "Death to Liberals!" or people stepping forward to support this guy's family. If he dies tomorrow, he won't be considered a martyr; there will be no mother saying "I'm proud of what my son did!"

I can't believe you cannot fathom the difference.

TWO SNAPS UP...and a TWIST.

Well stated.

 

[The T]

and ps, this is a perfect example of blood tithing...you insisting that right wingers are as bloody as the taliban.

That is blood libel, you know.

yep.

 

[Missourian]

You cannot apply vicarious liability to one group and not to another, Missourian.

That is why I have said Revere puts himself into a pretzel shape.

What group did Loughner belong to?

He was an American, and evidentially had some interest in politics.

Does he belong to a group of other Americans who have some interest in politics who are plotting to kill too?

Cuz if not, that explains why this is "a crime that start and ends" with this criminal.

 

[Immanuel]

Yep Muslims through their history have a propensity of building MOSQUES on conquered LANDS...

Hence the project's FIRST NAME of 'Cordoba'...

And the scumbags certainly built a Mosque in Cordoba, Spain after their conquest.

Wouldn't you expect them to build mosques in their own territories? They controlled Spain for quite awhile back then. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian churches built during and shortly after the various Crusades in what had formally been Muslim territories.

The Muslim Community Center in NYC that has been termed the Ground Zero Mosque is not a monument of Muslim victory but rather a place of worship that American Muslims would like to build and according to our own Constitution they have the right to build it if they own the property.

I still feel that it would be disrespectful to build on ground zero.

Immie

One would expect that? THEY had a Victory on US SOIL. Why do you think the fervant PUSH to build so close to where they murdered so many?

It's a statement by them...as they have done throughout their history.

A victory on US Soil is not in the same league as conquering the U.S.

We have had victories in Iraq and Afghanistan but we have not taken over the land. One might say that Muslims won a victory on 9/11, but in reality all that happened was that America suffered a terrorist attack. If a victory is won by simply killing people then you can say they won a victory. My definition of a victory in war is winning the battle and pushing your enemy out of the territory which was fought for. I do not believe the 9/11 terrorists accomplished that task.

Nor have I seen any proof that those who are associated with the so-called Ground Zero Mosque were in anyway associated with the murderers of 9/11.

You say that this is a statement by them. Maybe that would be the case if they were actually planning on building on the grounds of the World Trade Center. How far away is far enough? 10 blocks? 20 blocks? All of Manhattan? How about all of New York State?

Immie

 

[The T]

Wouldn't you expect them to build mosques in their own territories? They controlled Spain for quite awhile back then. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian churches built during and shortly after the various Crusades in what had formally been Muslim territories.

The Muslim Community Center in NYC that has been termed the Ground Zero Mosque is not a monument of Muslim victory but rather a place of worship that American Muslims would like to build and according to our own Constitution they have the right to build it if they own the property.

I still feel that it would be disrespectful to build on ground zero.

Immie

One would expect that? THEY had a Victory on US SOIL. Why do you think the fervant PUSH to build so close to where they murdered so many?

It's a statement by them...as they have done throughout their history.

A victory on US Soil is not in the same league as conquering the U.S.

We have had victories in Iraq and Afghanistan but we have not taken over the land. One might say that Muslims won a victory on 9/11, but in reality all that happened was that America suffered a terrorist attack. If a victory is won by simply killing people then you can say they won a victory. My definition of a victory in war is winning the battle and pushing your enemy out of the territory which was fought for. I do not believe the 9/11 terrorists accomplished that task.

Nor have I seen any proof that those who are associated with the so-called Ground Zero Mosque were in anyway associated with the murderers of 9/11.

You say that this is a statement by them. Maybe that would be the case if they were actually planning on building on the grounds of the World Trade Center. How far away is far enough? 10 blocks? 20 blocks? All of Manhattan? How about all of New York State?

Immie

Immie? It doesn't matter. They brought down the very SYMBOL of Western Capitalist Culture. The Twin Towers.

They at the time almost caused an economic collapse.

To them it was good enough.

WHY was the initial project name of this mosque called 'Cordoba Project'?"

WHY was it changed later?

 

[AllieBaba]

I know why! Pick me!