Interesting argument against the Ground Zero Mosque

[DiveCon]

Rumor in the Post today that Saudis may be providing the financing. That's what Rauf told a British newspaper (while lying to New Yorkers)Bloomberg doesn't seem to have a problem with that either. The Saudis openly fund mosques abroad that spread radical Wahhabi. The whole thing stinks big time.

Saudis fund a great deal of Fox News, yet you have no problem watching it.

you are confusing ownership and funding
usually owners expect a return on their investment
funding something is usually a gift

 

[Modbert]

you are confusing ownership and funding
usually owners expect a return on their investment
funding something is usually a gift

Either way, Saudis are deeply involved with Fox. Saudi Arabia is also one of our closest allies in the Middle East. Chanel wants to ignore seemingly the pictures of Bush and the Saudis holding hands and kissing.

 

[ConHog]

Rumor in the Post today that Saudis may be providing the financing. That's what Rauf told a British newspaper (while lying to New Yorkers)Bloomberg doesn't seem to have a problem with that either. The Saudis openly fund mosques abroad that spread radical Wahhabi. The whole thing stinks big time.

Saudis fund a great deal of Fox News, yet you have no problem watching it.

So, you want laws passed to limit Saudi Arabians in what stocks they can buy?

 

[Modbert]

So, you want laws passed to limit Saudi Arabians in what stocks they can buy?

Nope, not at all. Chanel seemingly has problems with Saudi Arabia involved in this if they are, but has no problem with their ownership in Faux or holding hands with the President. It's a little thing called hypocrisy.

 

[ConHog]

So, you want laws passed to limit Saudi Arabians in what stocks they can buy?

Nope, not at all. Chanel seemingly has problems with Saudi Arabia involved in this if they are, but has no problem with their ownership in Faux or holding hands with the President. It's a little thing called hypocrisy.

Well , you know all about hypocrisy...............

and off topic, but the Saudis are the worst allies in the history of allies.

 

[chanel]

No problem with Saudi money eh? Then why would Raul lie?

And divecome perhaps Bloomnerg couldn't stop the WBC but he certainly wouldn't be posing for pitctures with them.

 

[DiveCon]

No problem with Saudi money eh? Then why would Raul lie?

And divecome perhaps Bloomnerg couldn't stop the WBC but he certainly wouldn't be posing for pitctures with them.

this is true, but there is no "me" in my name

 

[Modbert]

No problem with Saudi money eh? Then why would Raul lie?

And divecome perhaps Bloomnerg couldn't stop the WBC but he certainly wouldn't be posing for pitctures with them.

The WBC promotes a message of hate, why would Bloomberg pose for pictures with them? Do these people promote a message of hate?

Chanel, you having a problem with the Saudis being involved in this at all reeks of hypocrisy to the highest degree.

 

[DiveCon]

So, you want laws passed to limit Saudi Arabians in what stocks they can buy?

Nope, not at all. Chanel seemingly has problems with Saudi Arabia involved in this if they are, but has no problem with their ownership in Faux or holding hands with the President. It's a little thing called hypocrisy.

Well , you know all about hypocrisy...............

and off topic, but the Saudis are the worst allies in the history of allies.

please elaborate


actually, that probably deserves a new thread all its own

 

[ConHog]

Nope, not at all. Chanel seemingly has problems with Saudi Arabia involved in this if they are, but has no problem with their ownership in Faux or holding hands with the President. It's a little thing called hypocrisy.

Well , you know all about hypocrisy...............

and off topic, but the Saudis are the worst allies in the history of allies.

please elaborate


actually, that probably deserves a new thread all its own

I agree, it is a topic for its own thread, why I said its off topic here, but they are . Well, actually the Pakis might be worse

 

[chanel]

Saudis are not our "friends" And yes that deserves a separate thread. But even if Iran, al qaeda, or Hamas were financing this thing, the terrorist lovers would defend that as well. The only difference between the opponents and the supporters is that us who oppose terrorisn hope we are wrong. The others don't give a flying fuck."Shit happens Move on'

 

[logical4u]

The man that wants to do this is not a "religious" man. He has spoken openly of what he wants: the destruction of western civilization. It is easy to understand why libs are so willing to accept this "faith"; it is the subjugation of the masses by the 'elites' (of the religion....).

He wants a place to launch sedition. He wants to replace our system of law, with a system based on a few 'elite' judges (can you say 'good ol' boys'). He does not want women to have rights. He does not want any person of any other faith to have rights. He only wants the 'religious elites' to have rights, but more than that, he wants them to have power over the rest of the population.

You can stop him now, when it is relatively easy or wait until the sedition starts and the power grows, before you open your eyes to 'the horror' that is this man's dream. At that point it will be a lot messier. Then the ones who were willing to lay down for him will be crying for those he has punished and hurt to stop him, because they will not have the courage to act at that point, either.

 

[chanel]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The man that wants to do this is not a "religious" man. He has spoken openly of what he wants: the destruction of western civilization. It is easy to understand why libs are so willing to accept this "faith"; it is the subjugation of the masses by the 'elites' (of the religion....).

He wants a place to launch sedition. He wants to replace our system of law, with a system based on a few 'elite' judges (can you say 'good ol' boys'). He does not want women to have rights. He does not want any person of any other faith to have rights. He only wants the 'religious elites' to have rights, but more than that, he wants them to have power over the rest of the population.

You can stop him now, when it is relatively easy or wait until the sedition starts and the power grows, before you open your eyes to 'the horror' that is this man's dream. At that point it will be a lot messier. Then the ones who were willing to lay down for him will be crying for those he has punished and hurt to stop him, because they will not have the courage to act at that point, either.

None of these things are true.

 

[Modbert]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.

Which is why people are standing up to those who wish to see the first amendment shredded in this case. Once you shred the first amendment for this case, you open the door for it to be shred in all cases. Once you open the door for one amendment to be shredded, you open the door for all of them to be.

 

[chanel]

Hey Modbert Any guestimate on how many sleeping cells there are in NYC?

 

[Modbert]

Hey Modbert Any guestimate on how many sleeping cells there are in NYC?

Don't know, irrelevant question to this thread wouldn't you say?

Benjamin Franklin quotes

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”
- Ben Franklin

I do believe the original quote is temporary security, but still applies.

 

[DiveCon]

Hey Modbert Any guestimate on how many sleeping cells there are in NYC?

Don't know, irrelevant question to this thread wouldn't you say?

Benjamin Franklin quotes

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”
- Ben Franklin

I do believe the original quote is temporary security, but still applies.

and essential liberty

 

[ConHog]

Hey Modbert Any guestimate on how many sleeping cells there are in NYC?

Don't know, irrelevant question to this thread wouldn't you say?

Benjamin Franklin quotes

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”
- Ben Franklin

I do believe the original quote is temporary security, but still applies.

Sad for you that it is NOT irrelevant. Your bullshit about this has nothing to do with religion is wearing thin

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.

Which is why people are standing up to those who wish to see the first amendment shredded in this case. Once you shred the first amendment for this case, you open the door for it to be shred in all cases. Once you open the door for one amendment to be shredded, you open the door for all of them to be.

Islam is a system of laws that muslims are required to subjugate all non muslims to until they pay the jizya or become muslims if they will not do either they must be killed.

This is not an ideology that is compatible with western culture.
That it is considered a religion is not the entire picture.