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

[Immanuel]

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?

I went to bed before this was posted or at least before I read it. I hope to get a response from you later now that I have read this.

Who is "they"? By they do you mean that the people that want to build the mosque near ground zero are/were in league with OBL? If so, I will need proof of that. As far as I know they, the people that want to build this community center are American citizens who want nothing more than a place to worship in Lower Manhattan.

As for this particular project, I do not see it as you. I see it as an attempt by some Muslim people to build a community center in New York City. I can't fault them for that.

The fact that this center is being built so close to "ground zero" has been made an issue here. I have to say that I think that if they wanted to build it (please realize I am not familiar with Manhattan as I have never been there and am not taking the time to look at the map as I type this out) on the northern most point of Manhattan Island as far away from GZ as possible yet still on Manhattan, the right wing pundits who are making such a big deal about this would still be making a big deal about it. The issue for them is not where it is, but who it is.

A mosque on GZ would be offensive to me. Two blocks away? As long as they remain respectful of the people that lost their lives on 9/11, I see no problem with them being two blocks away.

Cordoba has no particular meaning to me in this regards so I can't answer your question. Cordoba is a city in Spain that was once ruled by Muslims. Maybe Cordoba has a meaning to Muslims, but if so, I do not know what that meaning would be. I don't know why they called it the "Cordoba Project" nor do I know why they changed the name of the project.

Maybe I can look that up later when I have some time. If you have any links as to your information and what it means I would be interested.

In the meantime, my feelings are this. This is America. We say that we believe in the right of every individual to worship (or not worship) in his own way. If we believe that, then we have to be willing to allow those with whom we do not agree to worship in the way they want as long as it does not break other laws (i.e. human sacrifice) when and wherever they can do so legally. As far as I can tell, the people wanting to build this project are not breaking any laws, so as long as they remain respectful of those who lost their lives on 9/11, I will respect their rights.

Immie

 

[Vanquish]

There are two views you can have of Muslims...hell...for any religion.

Either you equate the religion with all its members, including the whackos...

or you take the moderates as the "norm" and you dont just a religion by its extremists.

Saying that Muslims can't put a mosque anywhere near GZ just because they are Muslims means you have decided to do the former, not the latter.

I think the latter is more valid, because extremists are perversions of whatever religion you're talking about...and every group has bad apples.

But that's just me.

 

[Trajan]

That Palin can say crimes begin and end with the criminal and also oppose the NYC mosque is easily explained.

She's an intellectually bankrupt hypocrite who simply mutilates the facts and reason and logic so that it fits her agenda.

In that she's hardly unique.

you are seriously conflating issues so as to create a medium where in she can be made hypocritical, and you're right; thats hardly unique NY CArb.

Look, if you just want to trash her cool, but please, lets not pretend there is any intellectual honesty going on here.

She's not a hypocrite? Why not?

dude don't ask me vacant leading questions like that. you wanna discuss this or just emote and play games?

I answered the query of GTH a page or 2 back,....


here, becasue I like you, I'll re-post it right here;


I saw that as a twitter btw, in any event if 20 guys like this guy went out and committed the same crimes, then there is most probably a common causality, here this isn't the case, he appears unbalanced and....the end of him is the end of this singular event via his madness that drove him to it. I think the mosque and what we see as motivating factor behind Khobar towers, the embassies, the Cole, 911, Hasan are linked, it doesn't disappear with just 20 Terrorists.


as far as evil? no of course not, but its best we be on our guard, theres only one or 2 threads that ties the overarching threat together...*shrugs* what are we supposed to do forget the minute after a T act is committed or self bungled or unsuccessful for whatever reason?

 

[NYcarbineer]

you are seriously conflating issues so as to create a medium where in she can be made hypocritical, and you're right; thats hardly unique NY CArb.

Look, if you just want to trash her cool, but please, lets not pretend there is any intellectual honesty going on here.

She's not a hypocrite? Why not?

dude don't ask me vacant leading questions like that. you wanna discuss this or just emote and play games?

I answered the query of GTH a page or 2 back,....


here, becasue I like you, I'll re-post it right here;


I saw that as a twitter btw, in any event if 20 guys like this guy went out and committed the same crimes, then there is most probably a common causality, here this isn't the case, he appears unbalanced and....the end of him is the end of this singular event via his madness that drove him to it. I think the mosque and what we see as motivating factor behind Khobar towers, the embassies, the Cole, 911, Hasan are linked, it doesn't disappear with just 20 Terrorists.


as far as evil? no of course not, but its best we be on our guard, theres only one or 2 threads that ties the overarching threat together...*shrugs* what are we supposed to do forget the minute after a T act is committed or self bungled or unsuccessful for whatever reason?

Whatever. jeezus what is wrong with people?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Palin said, specifically that journalists and pundits were

"manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

She is thus stating, unequivocally, her opinion that journalists/pundits CAN in fact incite violence with their words.

But she also says:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle

...thus contradicting what she said above that.

In short, she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

 

[Madeline]

Oh come on Madeline, of all people, YOU should understand this issue.
Here's a question for you:

If someone were to propose tearing down Auschwitz or the Holocaust memorial and replacing it with an "earth-friendly German car dealership"....How would you react?

Come come now...Be truthful.

Seems to me the proper analogy is how would I feel if someone tore down a Burlington Coat Factory and built a House of Worship?

Why wasn't this land "sacred" before the Muslims wanted to build a new mosque? How "sacred" is the land next door, which sports a titty bar?

Just as I thought...You're avoiding the question.
I'll ask again, just to watch the next dance you do to avoid it.

If someone were to propose tearing down Auschwitz or the Holocaust memorial and replacing it with an "earth-friendly German car dealership"....How would you react?

This analogy involves land that was not deemed "sacred" before WWII, but now is.
The analogy is appropriate.

To treat a death camp's grounds as anything other than a memorial would offend me deeply. However, if something MUST be built there, a house of worship would be the most appropriate choice.

Speaking of which, think we can get a memorial to the victims of 9/11 built before the next decade? ON Ground Zero?

 

[Trajan]

She's not a hypocrite? Why not?

dude don't ask me vacant leading questions like that. you wanna discuss this or just emote and play games?

I answered the query of GTH a page or 2 back,....


here, becasue I like you, I'll re-post it right here;


I saw that as a twitter btw, in any event if 20 guys like this guy went out and committed the same crimes, then there is most probably a common causality, here this isn't the case, he appears unbalanced and....the end of him is the end of this singular event via his madness that drove him to it. I think the mosque and what we see as motivating factor behind Khobar towers, the embassies, the Cole, 911, Hasan are linked, it doesn't disappear with just 20 Terrorists.


as far as evil? no of course not, but its best we be on our guard, theres only one or 2 threads that ties the overarching threat together...*shrugs* what are we supposed to do forget the minute after a T act is committed or self bungled or unsuccessful for whatever reason?

Whatever. jeezus what is wrong with people?

dude, tell me about it

here we are dissecting a sermonette from someone who got rolled, trashed, burned and taken to the cleaners in a day and half by everyone from the NY Times and Wapo to the real honest to goodness pajama laden denizen of grannies basement Blogger ...I mean the gall? How dare she barge into a story to defend herself against charges of inspiring murder?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh come on Madeline, of all people, YOU should understand this issue.
Here's a question for you:

If someone were to propose tearing down Auschwitz or the Holocaust memorial and replacing it with an "earth-friendly German car dealership"....How would you react?

Come come now...Be truthful.

Seems to me the proper analogy is how would I feel if someone tore down a Burlington Coat Factory and built a House of Worship?

Why wasn't this land "sacred" before the Muslims wanted to build a new mosque? How "sacred" is the land next door, which sports a titty bar?

Just as I thought...You're avoiding the question.
I'll ask again, just to watch the next dance you do to avoid it.

If someone were to propose tearing down Auschwitz or the Holocaust memorial and replacing it with an "earth-friendly German car dealership"....How would you react?

This analogy involves land that was not deemed "sacred" before WWII, but now is.
The analogy is appropriate.

That is the worst analogy ever.

 

[rikules]

dude, tell me about it,...

here we are dissecting a sermonette from someone who got rolled, trashed, burned and taken to the cleaners in a day and half by everyone from the NY Times and Wapo to the real honest to goodness pajama laden denizen of grannies basement Blogger ...I mean the gall? How dare she barge into a story to defend herself against charges of inspiring murder?

"How dare she barge into a story to defend herself against charges of inspiring murder?"

is THAT what she was doing?

cus I thought she was using this as a means to DEMONIZE liberals and democrats and show her mindless minions that liberals and democrats are REALLY EVIL and REALLY DESERVE what ever they get...(even death)


my bad

 

[NYcarbineer]

dude don't ask me vacant leading questions like that. you wanna discuss this or just emote and play games?

I answered the query of GTH a page or 2 back,....


here, becasue I like you, I'll re-post it right here;


I saw that as a twitter btw, in any event if 20 guys like this guy went out and committed the same crimes, then there is most probably a common causality, here this isn't the case, he appears unbalanced and....the end of him is the end of this singular event via his madness that drove him to it. I think the mosque and what we see as motivating factor behind Khobar towers, the embassies, the Cole, 911, Hasan are linked, it doesn't disappear with just 20 Terrorists.


as far as evil? no of course not, but its best we be on our guard, theres only one or 2 threads that ties the overarching threat together...*shrugs* what are we supposed to do forget the minute after a T act is committed or self bungled or unsuccessful for whatever reason?

Whatever. jeezus what is wrong with people?

dude, tell me about it

here we are dissecting a sermonette from someone who got rolled, trashed, burned and taken to the cleaners in a day and half by everyone from the NY Times and Wapo to the real honest to goodness pajama laden denizen of grannies basement Blogger ...I mean the gall? How dare she barge into a story to defend herself against charges of inspiring murder?

I am merely showing the illogic and inconsistency in what she said, point by point, fact by fact (and which no one is so far disputing, so what I'm saying is apparently indisputable).

What's wrong, exactly, with what I'm doing?

 

[Talismen]

Seems to me the proper analogy is how would I feel if someone tore down a Burlington Coat Factory and built a House of Worship?

Why wasn't this land "sacred" before the Muslims wanted to build a new mosque? How "sacred" is the land next door, which sports a titty bar?

Just as I thought...You're avoiding the question.
I'll ask again, just to watch the next dance you do to avoid it.

If someone were to propose tearing down Auschwitz or the Holocaust memorial and replacing it with an "earth-friendly German car dealership"....How would you react?

This analogy involves land that was not deemed "sacred" before WWII, but now is.
The analogy is appropriate.

To treat a death camp's grounds as anything other than a memorial would offend me deeply.

Thank you. All I wanted was an honest answer.

However, if something MUST be built there, a house of worship would be the most appropriate choice.

But think of this....

If it were a "house of worship", built only for...say...skinheads.
How would you feel? Granted, they did nothing to you, nor have they done anything to masses of Jews. But, they follow much the same ideology as the nazi's did. They could very well use that house of worship for ill deeds.

Would the very thought of that possibly happening give you pause?

Speaking of which, think we can get a memorial to the victims of 9/11 built before the next decade? ON Ground Zero?

I'm with ya there.
It's been FAR too long.

 

[Trajan]

Whatever. jeezus what is wrong with people?

dude, tell me about it

here we are dissecting a sermonette from someone who got rolled, trashed, burned and taken to the cleaners in a day and half by everyone from the NY Times and Wapo to the real honest to goodness pajama laden denizen of grannies basement Blogger ...I mean the gall? How dare she barge into a story to defend herself against charges of inspiring murder?

I am merely showing the illogic and inconsistency in what she said, point by point, fact by fact (and which no one is so far disputing, so what I'm saying is apparently indisputable).

What's wrong, exactly, with what I'm doing?

not a thing. however; seen in the light of the fav. bugaboo de juer, the Big "H", how much energy did you expend on her behalf or anyone's for that matter who was accused of driving this guy over the edge into a murderous rage when in fact it was none of the above, zip nada bupkas...and had nothing to do with the right or left, not Palin and her graphic, not Kanjorski's rage against Rick Scott etc etc etc.?

 

[Trajan]

Whatever. jeezus what is wrong with people?

dude, tell me about it

here we are dissecting a sermonette from someone who got rolled, trashed, burned and taken to the cleaners in a day and half by everyone from the NY Times and Wapo to the real honest to goodness pajama laden denizen of grannies basement Blogger ...I mean the gall? How dare she barge into a story to defend herself against charges of inspiring murder?

I am merely showing the illogic and inconsistency in what she said, point by point, fact by fact (and which no one is so far disputing, so what I'm saying is apparently indisputable).

I suggest you read my post 2 back, again.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Because people need something to be outraged about.

Today it's guns.

Tomorrow it's... who knows.

When all else fails, we've always got The Old Standard; the U.S. Black-population....that red-herring that keeps-on-giving.

*

 

[High_Gravity]

Because people need something to be outraged about.

Today it's guns.

Tomorrow it's... who knows.

When all else fails, we've always got The Old Standard; the U.S. Black-population....that red-herring that keeps-on-giving.

*

What the fuck?

 

[rikules]

than why the outrage over the Mosque at Ground Zero?

For the same reason the local Glock dealer would not open up a store in the same strip mall where 20 people got shot, 6 killed.

It's the decent and respectful thing to do.

yet that same glock dealer will go to an NRA gun show and sell bumper stickers that say;

make America a better place, KILL a liberal
and "HUNTING PERMIT for LIBERALS"
and stickers that show a donkey with a target on its' back

is THAT decent and respectful?

 

[Immanuel]

Palin said, specifically that journalists and pundits were

"manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

She is thus stating, unequivocally, her opinion that journalists/pundits CAN in fact incite violence with their words.

But she also says:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle

...thus contradicting what she said above that.

In short, she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

I am not defending her. I have not read what she said beyond this site nor do I care what she said. However, the way I see it is that by blaming the pundits i.e. "hate speech", rather than Jared Lee Loughner, we are taking away the focus on what it should be and that is that Mr. Loughner committed murder and quite frankly I believe he was mentally disturbed. If any blame should be placed on anyone's shoulders besides Jared Lee Loughner's it should be placed on the shoulders of the people and places that refused to help a man who needed help mentally.

I do not believe that anyone can successfully argue that this man was not mentally disturbed. Blaming politicians, pundits and internet speech is not the answer here. The focus should not be upon us being more civil to each other (although it would be nice if we were) but rather on what caused Jared Lee Loughner to snap last Saturday. I must say convincing me that our incivility to each other played any kind of a part in this will take a miracle.

Immie

 

[Talismen]

than why the outrage over the Mosque at Ground Zero?

For the same reason the local Glock dealer would not open up a store in the same strip mall where 20 people got shot, 6 killed.

It's the decent and respectful thing to do.

yet that same glock dealer will go to an NRA gun show and sell bumper stickers that say;

make America a better place, KILL a liberal
and "HUNTING PERMIT for LIBERALS"
and stickers that show a donkey with a target on its' back

is THAT decent and respectful?

You seriously think the left doesn't have equally distasteful bumper stickers?

 

[rikules]

For the same reason the local Glock dealer would not open up a store in the same strip mall where 20 people got shot, 6 killed.

It's the decent and respectful thing to do.

yet that same glock dealer will go to an NRA gun show and sell bumper stickers that say;

make America a better place, KILL a liberal
and "HUNTING PERMIT for LIBERALS"
and stickers that show a donkey with a target on its' back

is THAT decent and respectful?

You seriously think the left doesn't have equally distasteful bumper stickers?

yup
I did a very thorough search on line for;

liberal and democratic bumper stickers

and

conservative/republican bumper stickers

I found MANY SITES for both.

from the liberals I found things like;

save the whales
stop polluting
hate is NOT a family value
etc....

from the conservative sites I found;


nuke liberals
nuke france
nuke NY
club liberals, not (sandwhiches, seals)
make America a better place, kill a liberal
I accelerate for liberals
liberal HUNTING PERMITS
targets with pictures of liberals (obama, hilliary) on them

 

[Talismen]

Palin said, specifically that journalists and pundits were

"manufacturing a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."

She is thus stating, unequivocally, her opinion that journalists/pundits CAN in fact incite violence with their words.

But she also says:

Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle

...thus contradicting what she said above that.

In short, she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

I am not defending her. I have not read what she said beyond this site nor do I care what she said. However, the way I see it is that by blaming the pundits i.e. "hate speech", rather than Jared Lee Loughner, we are taking away the focus on what it should be and that is that Mr. Loughner committed murder and quite frankly I believe he was mentally disturbed. If any blame should be placed on anyone's shoulders besides Jared Lee Loughner's it should be placed on the shoulders of the people and places that refused to help a man who needed help mentally.

I do not believe that anyone can successfully argue that this man was not mentally disturbed. Blaming politicians, pundits and internet speech is not the answer here. The focus should not be upon us being more civil to each other (although it would be nice if we were) but rather on what caused Jared Lee Loughner to snap last Saturday. I must say convincing me that our incivility to each other played any kind of a part in this will take a miracle.

Immie

This is what she said (highlights = mine):

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.



- Sarah Palin