Anti Mosque Protests On The Rise

[VeganEssentials]

I'm with Fallenhorse. Though we must never forget, we've moved on from 9/11 now it's time for the rest of the world to do so too. Linking all of Islam to terrorism is like saying that all germans are nazis. Only a complete moron would think that.

 

Here's how I've heard others who are opposed describe in on context to your statement above: people who are opposed to the mosque see it as if, for example, we'd decided to put a United States Cultural Center on the site of the bombing in Hiroshima less than a decade after it happened. Nobody would have expected the Japanese to be happy about it, but as we've been bred to be uber-sensitve to everyone else's needs while being practically ashamed of our own culture, we are in turn expected to be put to a higher standard than any other nation will adhere to. So, while in almost any other country, this would have been shot down with no discussion, it in turn becomes another battleground here, and I don't think this one's going to end up in a manner that's going to offend someone.

 

I see religious freedom as a two-way street - in the USA, we bend over backward to accommodate everyone else's choices, while it often goes in the other direction for other religions in other nations. You or I can't set foot in Saudi Arabia without one hell of a good reason, simply because we're American and non-muslim. You could be jailed for the rest of your life in Iran for preaching ANYTHING but the word of Allah. Try starting a Christian/Buddhist/Bahai/etc. prayer group in Yemen, and see how far that one gets you. Heck, people have been killed simply for being college educated in Algeria, as well as those who participate in the arts, all done under the guise of it being "offensive to Islam".

 

Many muslims wish for Sharia law to be implemented in their communities here in the USA, allowing them to override our own laws in instances where they would like to rule by their ideals (with many Sharia laws giving allowance to blatant rights violations). Most in the USA will say that they do not want the bible running our country, but some will overlook that some muslims will wish to have their holy book run the laws in our nation to supercede the existing laws, and it rarely causes a stir when it gets mentioned. You will NOT receive the ability to live by US law in a muslim nation. Being open to the fact that rule under Islam allows for the convenient violation of human rights, oppresses women, and puts all who follow other/no religion as lesser people, it has to be understood that it's not simply unfounded "Islamophobia" going on. The religion has a multitude of issues that much of the world does not believe to be fair and proper in relation to treatment of its own people and those who are non-Islamic.

 

The double-standard that we're subjected to daily is what's digging both sides further and further into their trenches, and it's only going to worsen the problems as time goes on. I'm all for religious freedom, but I've always believed it has to be taken in the context of being respectful to the territory it's being conducted in. People are getting more upset due to the expectation that we must always play the role of the gracious host, while the guests are the same people who keep the door closed on anyone who does not play by their rules.

 

I'm still up in the air regarding my feelings on the mosque - again, I have a strong conviction in religious freedom for those who want it, but this issue for location is not really rubbing me the right way. I'm siding most with the mindset of that, if it were just a bit further away from a site that has such great meaning and draws such emotion to the people in NYC (and much of the rest of the country), I don't think that this would have been any issue whatsoever. But the choice to build it in proximity to the location of the WTC towers, I don't believe was a great idea and was done partly in that it was going to create controversy.

 

As a disclaimer, this is not an anti-Islam rant by any means. I don't have any more issues with Islam than I do any other religion (I'm not fond of any of them, but everyone makes their own choices for what to believe in). I'm simply making a point that there is a very, very large double-standard that goes on in the world, and we've been taking the brunt of it quietly for much longer than I'd expected before it has started to come to a head. It was only a matter of time before something like this came about to really polarize both on the far side of each opinion even more than before, and I fear for relations to get worse and worse in due time.

[Ryofire]

I'm with Fallenhorse. Though we must never forget, we've moved on from 9/11 now it's time for the rest of the world to do so too. Linking all of Islam to terrorism is like saying that all germans are nazis. Only a complete moron would think that.

 

Here's how I've heard others who are opposed describe in on context to your statement above: people who are opposed to the mosque see it as if, for example, we'd decided to put a United States Cultural Center on the site of the bombing in Hiroshima less than a decade after it happened. Nobody would have expected the Japanese to be happy about it, but as we've been bred to be uber-sensitve to everyone else's needs while being practically ashamed of our own culture, we are in turn expected to be put to a higher standard than any other nation will adhere to. So, while in almost any other country, this would have been shot down with no discussion, it in turn becomes another battleground here, and I don't think this one's going to end up in a manner that's going to offend someone.

 

I see religious freedom as a two-way street - in the USA, we bend over backward to accommodate everyone else's choices, while it often goes in the other direction for other religions in other nations. You or I can't set foot in Saudi Arabia without one hell of a good reason, simply because we're American and non-muslim. You could be jailed for the rest of your life in Iran for preaching ANYTHING but the word of Allah. Try starting a Christian/Buddhist/Bahai/etc. prayer group in Yemen, and see how far that one gets you. Heck, people have been killed simply for being college educated in Algeria, as well as those who participate in the arts, all done under the guise of it being "offensive to Islam".

 

Many muslims wish for Sharia law to be implemented in their communities here in the USA, allowing them to override our own laws in instances where they would like to rule by their ideals (with many Sharia laws giving allowance to blatant rights violations). Most in the USA will say that they do not want the bible running our country, but some will overlook that some muslims will wish to have their holy book run the laws in our nation to supercede the existing laws, and it rarely causes a stir when it gets mentioned. You will NOT receive the ability to live by US law in a muslim nation. Being open to the fact that rule under Islam allows for the convenient violation of human rights, oppresses women, and puts all who follow other/no religion as lesser people, it has to be understood that it's not simply unfounded "Islamophobia" going on. The religion has a multitude of issues that much of the world does not believe to be fair and proper in relation to treatment of its own people and those who are non-Islamic.

 

The double-standard that we're subjected to daily is what's digging both sides further and further into their trenches, and it's only going to worsen the problems as time goes on. I'm all for religious freedom, but I've always believed it has to be taken in the context of being respectful to the territory it's being conducted in. People are getting more upset due to the expectation that we must always play the role of the gracious host, while the guests are the same people who keep the door closed on anyone who does not play by their rules.

 

I'm still up in the air regarding my feelings on the mosque - again, I have a strong conviction in religious freedom for those who want it, but this issue for location is not really rubbing me the right way. I'm siding most with the mindset of that, if it were just a bit further away from a site that has such great meaning and draws such emotion to the people in NYC (and much of the rest of the country), I don't think that this would have been any issue whatsoever. But the choice to build it in proximity to the location of the WTC towers, I don't believe was a great idea and was done partly in that it was going to create controversy.

 

As a disclaimer, this is not an anti-Islam rant by any means. I don't have any more issues with Islam than I do any other religion (I'm not fond of any of them, but everyone makes their own choices for what to believe in). I'm simply making a point that there is a very, very large double-standard that goes on in the world, and we've been taking the brunt of it quietly for much longer than I'd expected before it has started to come to a head. It was only a matter of time before something like this came about to really polarize both on the far side of each opinion even more than before, and I fear for relations to get worse and worse in due time.

 

I'm not denying the double standards that you mentioned here. But when it comes to terrorism of anykind everyone always puts the blame on Islam. Yet when that radical christian group blew up the abortion clinic no one really made that big a deal about it. Yet if the group was muslim people would start calling all muslims terrorists.

 

In town I on ocasion see these assholes carrying signs and handing out flyers saying things like, "Jesus or Hell," or "Catholicism is the true faith." That right there is hate speach. I gurantee if someone who was Muslim were to do it, and trust I have had a muslim man give me something like that, everyone would be furious about it. Either way that's hate speech. Preaching ideas of, ""if you don't believe like me you're going to burn in hell."

 

In Asatru we say, "We believe that morality does not depend on commandments, but rather arises from the dignity and honor of the noble-minded man and woman." In other words do good because you want to do good, not because you feel you have to.

[Ducati]

In town I on ocasion see these assholes carrying signs and handing out flyers saying things like, "Jesus or Hell," or "Catholicism is the true faith." That right there is hate speach. I gurantee if someone who was Muslim were to do it, and trust I have had a muslim man give me something like that, everyone would be furious about it. Either way that's hate speech. Preaching ideas of, ""if you don't believe like me you're going to burn in hell."

 

Not everyone would be furious. The people likely to be furious are those who believe in a different fictitious being. People who believe in no religion wouldn't care anymore than if a child told them that their imaginary friend is going to send them to hell.

 

I have a pretty good life. I have a roof over my house, friends who love me, I have plenty of food to eat, and a pretty decent job. Now, imagine if I were to believe in any god and then look at the lives some people and animals have who live in horrid conditions with people torturing them, starving, on the streets, in pain from a disease or condition, etc. I would think that if that god does have any powers worth worshiping and it does nothing to help these people or animals, then it is one BIG FUCKING ASSHOLE!

 

The idea of praying to an imaginary god to help someone in need is just a narcissistic opiate. If people did less praying and more helping, the world would be a better place.

[Ryofire]

In town I on ocasion see these assholes carrying signs and handing out flyers saying things like, "Jesus or Hell," or "Catholicism is the true faith." That right there is hate speach. I gurantee if someone who was Muslim were to do it, and trust I have had a muslim man give me something like that, everyone would be furious about it. Either way that's hate speech. Preaching ideas of, ""if you don't believe like me you're going to burn in hell."

 

Not everyone would be furious. The people likely to be furious are those who believe in a different fictitious being. People who believe in no religion wouldn't care anymore than if a child told them that their imaginary friend is going to send them to hell.

 

I have a pretty good life. I have a roof over my house, friends who love me, I have plenty of food to eat, and a pretty decent job. Now, imagine if I were to believe in any god and then look at the lives some people and animals have who live in horrid conditions with people torturing them, starving, on the streets, in pain from a disease or condition, etc. I would think that if that god does have any powers worth worshiping and it does nothing to help these people or animals, then it is one BIG FUCKING ASSHOLE!

 

The idea of praying to an imaginary god to help someone in need is just a narcissistic opiate. If people did less praying and more helping, the world would be a better place.

 

Say what you want, but I still believe in the gods. You and no one else can take that away from me no matter how much you may judge me or ridicule me.

[Ducati]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100721/pl_yblog_upshot/anti-mosque-protests-on-the-rise-say-muslim-advocates

 

Only a low life white trash red neck would be against the building of a mosque.

 

Say what you want, but I will never believe in the gods. You and no one else can take that away from me no matter how much you may judge me or ridicule me.

[Fallen_Horse]

I think the original point of the post is that it's idiotic to protest a mosque being built near the WTC memorial. Basically people need to stop being douchebags....

 

I disagree with that point.

 

I don't like the looks of the protests or the protesters......it all looks borderline bigoted to me.

 

However I think it is in very poor taste and insensitive to build a mosque on the WTC site. Apart from what the owners may think they are doing many non-muslims will take it as rubbing their noses in the attack, if not at a conscious level, then at a deeper emotional level.

 

Yes, they have the legal right to build there. That is difference from my and other people's preferences that they do not.

 

Especially with the borderline bigoted and violent types out there. The presence of the mosque there will invite anger and possibly events that will not help anyone.

That's part of the issue. It's not ON the WTC site, it's 5 blocks away, amongst a movie theater and shopping center. The mosque has nothing to do with the WTC, simply the fact that the Muslim community wants a place of worship in a busy downtown area. They aren't trying to push Islam into a sensitive area, they just want a place to go. If people built a church or a synagogue there, then no one would be saying anything, and I think that's where the bigotry comes in. If one religious building is allowed on a spot, so should all the others...

[Ryofire]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100721/pl_yblog_upshot/anti-mosque-protests-on-the-rise-say-muslim-advocates

 

Only a low life white trash red neck would be against the building of a mosque.

 

Say what you want, but I will never believe in the gods. You and no one else can take that away from me no matter how much you may judge me or ridicule me.

 

I'm not trying to make you believe in the gods, and I never will.

[Ryofire]

I think the original point of the post is that it's idiotic to protest a mosque being built near the WTC memorial. Basically people need to stop being douchebags....

 

I disagree with that point.

 

I don't like the looks of the protests or the protesters......it all looks borderline bigoted to me.

 

However I think it is in very poor taste and insensitive to build a mosque on the WTC site. Apart from what the owners may think they are doing many non-muslims will take it as rubbing their noses in the attack, if not at a conscious level, then at a deeper emotional level.

 

Yes, they have the legal right to build there. That is difference from my and other people's preferences that they do not.

 

Especially with the borderline bigoted and violent types out there. The presence of the mosque there will invite anger and possibly events that will not help anyone.

That's part of the issue. It's not ON the WTC site, it's 5 blocks away, amongst a movie theater and shopping center. The mosque has nothing to do with the WTC, simply the fact that the Muslim community wants a place of worship in a busy downtown area. They aren't trying to push Islam into a sensitive area, they just want a place to go. If people built a church or a synagogue there, then no one would be saying anything, and I think that's where the bigotry comes in. If one religious building is allowed on a spot, so should all the others...

 

Thank you for saying this Fallenhorse.

[VeganEssentials]

I'm not denying the double standards that you mentioned here. But when it comes to terrorism of anykind everyone always puts the blame on Islam. Yet when that radical christian group blew up the abortion clinic no one really made that big a deal about it. Yet if the group was muslim people would start calling all muslims terrorists.

 

Unfortunately, the current majority of terrorist activities that are going on in the world at this time are done under the name of Islam. There are, without fail, daily bombings in parts of the middle east and other areas, all attributed to islamic groups who use faith to justify killing people (and themselves, many times). I know people like to equate it to something like an abortion clinic bombing, but unfortunately, it's very apples-to-oranges for the motives between the two and their tactics. I'm not saying in any way that something like an abortion clinic bombing is any less violent/tragic/stupid/etc. than any other bombing done under any other guise, but we could get down to business and compare the rates of bombings/kidnappings/murders done in the name of Allah in the past decade and you'll find that the totals between acts of violence and body counts/complete destruction are in two very different ball parks. The count on bombings on abortion clinics since 1977 in the US comes in at 41 (with a bit over 90 attempted bombings). Compare with over 15,000 global terrorist attacks claimed by those using Islam as their reasoning, and that's just since 2001. One is waging terror on a group based on one issue that they have a contention with (anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion), the other wages war against all who oppose its faith, and many times, even with those who share the same faith.

 

Here stands the stark contrast - when a radical Christian group does something terrible (such as violence against an abortion clinic), the overwhelming majority of Christians will step up and condemn the act. Many muslims who have no wishes for inciting violence themselves have refused to publicly condemn acts of terror done in the name of Allah, which puts to scope that it should be more than a bit frightening when many will simply say they "feel bad for the families of the victims" but will refuse to condemn those who carried out the attacks. Such has been the sentiment of Daisy Khan and her husband Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (who are the faces behind the new site near the WTC location), who not only refused to publicly condemn the 9/11 tragedy, but also refused to sign the Freedom Pledge, giving assurance of their support that there will not be initimidation or violence against people who choose to leave Islam (being as in most Islamic nations, you will be executed for abandoning the faith and it is publicly accepted for such violence to be doled out). Just look up Mansur Mohamed to see what happens to those in other countries who leave Islam, but be warned, do NOT watch his execution video unless you have one hell of a strong stomach.

 

That is one more reason I cannot get behind the proposed mosque/community center and it's location. I do not have any more trust for Khan or Rauf being genuinely interested in promoting peace and unity than I do for Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church congregation being in favor of gay marriage. To those who have investigated more into the people spearheading the proposed center, it becomes more and more clear that the motives are not quite what they claim to be. I simply can't back the actions of those who will not decry the actions of those who use violence in the name of pushing religious agenda, regardless of what religion it is. But, these days, Islam is in the spotlight, and I'd have been speaking out against Christianity during any of the times it killed in the name of Christ if it were era-appropriate. The one difference being, one did their violence en masse hundreds of years ago, the other is still doing it today and has a great deal of support from the community that says it does not believe in being violent to further their religious agenda, which is completely hypocritical.

 

In town I on ocasion see these assholes carrying signs and handing out flyers saying things like, "Jesus or Hell," or "Catholicism is the true faith." That right there is hate speach. I gurantee if someone who was Muslim were to do it, and trust I have had a muslim man give me something like that, everyone would be furious about it. Either way that's hate speech. Preaching ideas of, ""if you don't believe like me you're going to burn in hell."

 

I don't care for ANYONE trying to publicly preach to convert/intimidate/whatever, regardless of what religion it is, I'm in agreeance there. However, it does seem that those promoting Islam seem to be following a much more subtle route, such as in my previous note regarding working to implement sharia law to override our own existing laws (which no other religion has worked so hard to do until this time). That's not to say that there aren't places where Islam is being preached about openly, however, many who are pushing the agenda tend to take a different route from those who push other religions openly via the usual methods. Personally, I'm not afraid of someone telling me I'm a sinner unless I repent - I am, however, afraid of any religion that is given the clearance to overrule existing US law based on their claims for need to be under their own rule.

 

You have to remember this in regard to people such as the Christian Fundamentalist goofs who spew their vitriol from megaphones at public places - the same freedoms we cherish for being able to speak what we want for good do simultaneously allow for kooks to share their thoughts as well, and it's tough to be able to say where to draw the line. It's a two-way street, and unfortuntely, we have to take some bad with the good. It's simply up to us to filter out what we don't want to hear, because we're already bombarded with crap every day.

 

In Asatru we say, "We believe that morality does not depend on commandments, but rather arises from the dignity and honor of the noble-minded man and woman." In other words do good because you want to do good, not because you feel you have to.

 

And, I agree with that statement, the only difference being that I don't subscribe to any religion and have felt that way regardless of a personal faith Though, regardless of my stance, I don't look down on anyone else for their choices, so long as it follows the golden rule - as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights or anyone else's, I don't care whether you choose to worship Jesus Christ or your kitchen sink. So long as one doesn't use religion to do stupid things under the guise of it being right or acceptable based on their chosen worship, I'm cool with it.

[Ducati]

And I thought the majority of terrorist acts committed at this time were done in the name of commercialism and done so by Western civilized nations. hmmm

[VeganEssentials]

You'd have to ask someone who has a vehement anti-capitalism mindset to get a good discussion on that one, Ducati. I'm not one who thinks that money is the root of all evil or that Nike is the Great Satan, so I'm not the greatest one to debate in that regard

[Fallen_Horse]

Corporations (and governments) are only as evil as the people that fund them....

[VeganEssentials]

Corporations (and governments) are only as evil as the people that fund them....

 

Exactly. Precisely why I'm not anti-capitalist, in that money can do as much or more good than harm, and blaming "evil corporations" and the like for too many problems only reduces the accountability of the general public (in essence, saying we're too stupid to know better than fall for what we're told to like/purchase/etc.) Since I'm kind of big on personal responsibility and accountability for each and every individual human, I'm not big on scapegoating and making us all out to be sheep that could never figure things out for ourselves. It's just too easy to create "victims" that way and make people less responsible for their own actions.

[Ducati]

Corporations (and governments) are only as evil as the people that fund them....

 

Yup, and so are religions.

 

Corporate fascism is the basis of our current political system and major belief system. Western nation citizens will believe a commercial more readily then a peer reviewed scientific study. They believe our government officials who were sponsored by corporations, even if they lie repeatedly. They also refuse to hold many government officials accountable for their actions. Remember the lie to get us in Iraq? Weapons of Mass destruction. Were any found? Nope. Why are we still there? Why do our elected officials still trust our intelligence community? Why do we still trust our elected officials?

 

Look at the whole issue surrounding the health care debate in the US. People are fighting vehemently against any type of socialism. Yet, we have a great deal of socialism in our society already. Countries with more socialist programs have happier citizens. But because someone saw on a commercial that socialism is bad or wrong, they ignore that we already have socialism in our society and fight against it without knowing anything about the reasons why.

 

The whole idea behind Muslim terrorist attacks is ridiculous when you consider that the US and other Western nations have been committing terrorist acts on many Muslim countries for decades. We call it war, but that is because it is perpetuated by our government.

 

Tell me how our bombing of a suspected "terrorist" in Afghanistan which causes the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians is any different than the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

[Fallen_Horse]

Corporations (and governments) are only as evil as the people that fund them....

 

Exactly. Precisely why I'm not anti-capitalist, in that money can do as much or more good than harm, and blaming "evil corporations" and the like for too many problems only reduces the accountability of the general public (in essence, saying we're too stupid to know better than fall for what we're told to like/purchase/etc.) Since I'm kind of big on personal responsibility and accountability for each and every individual human, I'm not big on scapegoating and making us all out to be sheep that could never figure things out for ourselves. It's just too easy to create "victims" that way and make people less responsible for their own actions.

You libertarian?

I also think it's fair to point out that a capitalist agenda generally favors greed more than a socialist agenda does. The capitalist system is designed as a 'survival of the fittest' ideology, while the socialist system is more of a 'helping handouts' ideology. They both have good and bad points, but I tend to favor the socialist view...

 

Tell me how our bombing of a suspected "terrorist" in Afghanistan which causes the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians is any different than the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

The only difference between a terrorist and a soldier is a fighter jet?

 

Of course it can't be completely boiled down into one sarcastic blurb (for example generally soldiers attempt to attack military targets, while often terrorists attempt the opposite), but it's a nice way to sum everything up I think.

[VeganEssentials]

You libertarian? I also think it's fair to point out that a capitalist agenda generally favors greed more than a socialist agenda does. The capitalist system is designed as a 'survival of the fittest' ideology, while the socialist system is more of a 'helping handouts' ideology. They both have good and bad points, but I tend to favor the socialist view...

 

Libertarian indeed. I was on the far left for the bulk of my life, then having been a business owner under rule of both parties made me re-evaluate my stance, forcing me to move to the middle because I got fed up with the far end of both sides of the spectrum. I'm a moderate at heart, who thinks that we need to take care of those that truly need it while finding ways to uplift and empower those who CAN take care of themselves to be fully accountable for their actions and their lives. And, of course, I fully believe that if what we do only affects us, then we should be entitled to do it.

 

I agree that uber-capitalist mentality where money rules over all is NOT ideal for people, quite obviously. When money becomes the main goal and people are left in the dust, it's obviously not the way to be. Just as extreme socialism is also incapable of truly being for the people, taken too far it becomes an oppressive tool against success and forces the haves to redistribute to the have-nots without proper reasoning. Again, I'm talking in extremes here, just as our capitalist system isn't necessarily as extreme as some people tend to make it out to be, as if people were simply being killed by Sony death squads for not purchasing their flat-screen televisions.

 

The system here is broken in some ways, without question, but unfortunately, we've yet to see a current system that works near-flawlessly in any other nation that would be ideal to emulate (take a look at what's happening in many European nations for a prime example of how more and more countries with socialist stances are finding themselves going broke, which will inevitably lead to new crises soon enough). Hence my stance that if people were more willing to become self-reliant and were willing to do as people did a century ago and work hard at all costs for the betterment of themselves and society in general, it'd create a massive shift in overall social consciousness for the better. I don't agree with cutting off social programs to those who need it, nor do I believe that creating dependance on the government to take care of you helps people to develop independence, I'm right in the middle on that issue and I belive that finding balance as a people is the only way we won't sink ourselves. I'd love to see a center path that was successful, but alas, it hasn't come this way yet. Maybe we need to evolve a bit further to figure that one out well enough

[Ducati]

The only difference between a terrorist and a soldier is a fighter jet?

 

Of course it can't be completely boiled down into one sarcastic blurb (for example generally soldiers attempt to attack military targets, while often terrorists attempt the opposite), but it's a nice way to sum everything up I think.

 

Military targets? The US military has been known to shoot at anyone with a gun and anyone standing near them. That does not constitute a military target.

 

The suicide attacks on 9/11 attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is obviously a "military" target, but the World Trade Center can also be consider a strategic military target. The attack was intended to take down our economic system which would have made funding military occupations of the Middle East much more difficult.

 

Of course I have my doubts that the 9/11 attacks were totally perpetrated by a few men with box cutters.

 

And if you claim that the WTC was not a military target, then that makes the US military the biggest terrorists of all when they destroyed two entire cities in Japan with the only wartime use of nuclear weapons in history.

[Ducati]

The only difference between a terrorist and a soldier is a fighter jet?

 

Of course it can't be completely boiled down into one sarcastic blurb (for example generally soldiers attempt to attack military targets, while often terrorists attempt the opposite), but it's a nice way to sum everything up I think.

 

Military targets? The US military has been known to shoot at anyone with a gun and anyone standing near them. That does not constitute a military target.

 

The suicide attacks on 9/11 attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is obviously a "military" target, but the World Trade Center can also be consider a strategic military target. The attack was intended to take down our economic system which would have made funding military occupations of the Middle East much more difficult.

 

Of course I have my doubts that the 9/11 attacks were totally perpetrated by a few men with box cutters.

 

And if you claim that the WTC was not a military target, then that makes the US military the biggest terrorists of all when they destroyed two entire cities in Japan with the only wartime use of nuclear weapons in history.

[NicholasV]

If anyone wants to inform themselves on the reality of what a mosque is and how Islam is really a total system encompassing all aspects of life, listen to this excellent interview of Sam Solomon. We cannot equate Islam with a personal religion like Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism and Islam should not be allowed to take advantage of "freedom of religion" to conduct their ever developing lawfare against infidels across the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDs-hCIL_wM

Interview, Sam Solomon, Ottawa june 7

 

Sam Solomon: "A mosque is not like a church or synagogue, because religion and life are not separate. ... In Islam life is a part of religion. So there is no concept of personal freedom. ... People live by prescription. ... A mosque is a seat of government, it is school, it is court, a training center, a gathering center. It is not worship per say as worship only."

 

His bio: "Sam Solomon, born and raised as a Muslim, had trained in Sharia law for 15 years before converting to Christianity. He was imprisoned and questioned; and was to be put to death, whereupon he chose to go to exile on the pain of death. As a leading experts on Islam and Sharia law, Mr. Solomon has testified before the congress and is a consultant to the British parliament for matters regarding Islam."

 

If you watch the video you will see that the interviewer, uploader and vid creator, Vlad Tepes has spliced together lots of footage showing a Taliban commander in Afghanistan building his house right next to a mosque and muslim forces around the world using mosques to hide militants and weapons to fight infidel forces in conflicts across the world.

[VeganEssentials]

What is the overall goal of the United States military agenda then? If this is about something other than industrialization please explain it to me.

 

I'm afraid that ANY military has some degree of agenda under the control of its government beyond what any of us would hope for it to be used for. Conversely, a military NOT under the control of its government is simply another means to form an oppressive dictatorship, you can pick which one you consider to be worse than the other. But, your question can be applied to ANY nation's military that has ever left the borders of its nation and has ever committed a single act of violence or repression against the populace of its area. If you can find me a military of any nation that exists who fits those criteria for altruism under peaceful and defensive-only rule, I'll be happy to send you a nice crisp dollar for the work. Somehow, I have the feeling that you'd have to dig pretty deep to come up with something that fits that description If you're trying to insinuate that somehow the US military is completely rogue in regard to concern for any life and only follows the agenda of promotion capitalism at the expense of all else while the military in other nations is a benevolent force used only in peacekeeping, I've got some nice swampland I'd be happy to sell at a really great price

 

No longer does the military simply provide for the common defense as it once was intended, but at the same time, it's never going to disappear, so the only way for it to be used less to create volatility is to change the forces that control it. The military to me is simply another tool - it could bring stability to a region in need, it could just as well take a chunk off of the world map, it's all up to the powers that be for what it is to be used. And, to a debatable degree, we have somewhat of a hand in controlling the powers that be (we could start a whole new thread on that one if someone's inclined to do so). In essence, the powers that be who call the shots dictate its purpose, and right now, the current administration is simply following in the footsteps of the previous one, so it's no different under the rule of the left than it was under the right. As of now, it's primarily a force that was used to destabilize specific regions under the guise of being for our safety, then turned to be the power that was said would restore stability to those regions. And we can see how well that's going, can't we?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-military, but I'm not completely anti-military as well. The world's too scary right now for anyone to consider disarmament, that's just the hard truth. There's no immediate potential for detente - nobody is willing to lay their guns down first, so we all keep holding them and rattling our sabers just like it has been for a very long time. I don't expect to see the military disappear, so rather, I'd prefer to see change in how it is used.

[Fallen_Horse]

If anyone wants to inform themselves on the reality of what a mosque is and how Islam is really a total system encompassing all aspects of life, listen to this excellent interview of Sam Solomon. We cannot equate Islam with a personal religion like Christianity, Judaism or Buddhism and Islam should not be allowed to take advantage of "freedom of religion" to conduct their ever developing lawfare against infidels across the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDs-hCIL_wM

Interview, Sam Solomon, Ottawa june 7

 

Sam Solomon: "A mosque is not like a church or synagogue, because religion and life are not separate. ... In Islam life is a part of religion. So there is no concept of personal freedom. ... People live by prescription. ... A mosque is a seat of government, it is school, it is court, a training center, a gathering center. It is not worship per say as worship only."

 

His bio: "Sam Solomon, born and raised as a Muslim, had trained in Sharia law for 15 years before converting to Christianity. He was imprisoned and questioned; and was to be put to death, whereupon he chose to go to exile on the pain of death. As a leading experts on Islam and Sharia law, Mr. Solomon has testified before the congress and is a consultant to the British parliament for matters regarding Islam."

 

If you watch the video you will see that the interviewer, uploader and vid creator, Vlad Tepes has spliced together lots of footage showing a Taliban commander in Afghanistan building his house right next to a mosque and muslim forces around the world using mosques to hide militants and weapons to fight infidel forces in conflicts across the world.

I'm sorry but that guy is just bringing his own bias to the situation. Islam is like any other religion, made up of the people that follow and practice it. And everyone has different viewpoints, leading to many people practicing Islam very differently. There is MUCH debate among Islamic scholars about the definition (and purpose) of Sharia law, and many of the Muslims I know believe in 'separation of mosque and state'.

 

It's nice and fun to group 1.5+ billion people into a single violent fundamentalist group, but it is a biased way to look at Islam....

[NicholasV]

I am sorry but you are just writing and whacking at the keyboard from ignorance.

 

To give perspective my family is all from Greece and they tried to raise me Greek Orthodox, but failed and I went atheist for a bit before turning Buddhist. Briefly I attended Catholic school and I remember one day sitting in Church and they handed me a piece of a Styrofoam like substance and I asked what it was during that mass. I got sent to the principal's office for that, since being raised Greek Orthodox in our rites we always used real bread to represent the body of Christ and not this fake Styrofoam imitation, which I didn't know I was supposed to eat. The differences between Christian sects are like this, they are doctrinal and ritualistic. For example in the Greek Orthodox Church I used to attend as a child the liturgy was always read in its Koine Greek original form(which modern Greeks can understand most of), but the Priest used to give the sermon in modern Greek though.

 

The differences between sects of Islam though are much deeper, from jurisprudence in what what Islamic source texts they emphasize above others to render Sharia law. You cannot compare Islam to a religion, because what Westerners conceive as a personal religion is only a small part of what Islam really is. Islam is really the most retrograde force in this world, apostates from Islam are to be killed. But sometimes they get off easy, their family and community just disown them. If 20% of the American population ever was to be muslim they would start to mitigate for even more special rights or increased lawfare, the spread of sharia over us, the subsidy of mosques(the barracks, court, education center of parallel Islamic centers of authority vying against the US government), terror attacks and death threat intimidation(like against Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park fame).

[Fallen_Horse]

The differences between sects of Islam though are much deeper, from jurisprudence in what what Islamic source texts they emphasize above others to render Sharia law. You cannot compare Islam to a religion, because what Westerners conceive as a personal religion is only a small part of what Islam really is. Islam is really the most retrograde force in this world, apostates from Islam are to be killed. But sometimes they get off easy, their family and community just disown them. If 20% of the American population ever was to be muslim they would start to mitigate for even more special rights or increased lawfare, the spread of sharia over us, the subsidy of mosques(the barracks, court, education center of parallel Islamic centers of authority vying against the US government), terror attacks and death threat intimidation(like against Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park fame).

You racist?

 

 

Seriously though, you are trying to classify 1.5 BILLION people into this ideology. That's just not how it is.

[NicholasV]

Fallen_Horse:

Let me know when you can come with something other than projecting your values onto another civilization, that absolutely does not have the same values. Cultural anthropologists always say that a given society can only think in its own terms and concepts and transpose these concepts to other societies when analyzing them. All your doing is accusing me of racism because you cannot handle what Islam really entails and accept it in your mind. Or telling me not to discriminate, but the whole muslim world-view is based on discriminating between believers that form the community of the faithful, called ummah, who are to mitigate against the unbeliever infidels until Islam has full dominion over the world as ordained in the Koran.

 

You can't demonstrate that you know anything about Islam. Or why it is not the same as the Christianity you are probably used to.

[VeganEssentials]

Ah, you're too perceptive, Jaleel!

 

I didn't exactly intend to skirt the issue, but here's how things went -

 

It's extremely visible when someone has a very firm pre-conceived notion and is viewing the situation in black and white absoltues and is not open to thinking anywhere but extremes. The existence of the military is not black and white any longer. It's far too complex in how it is intertwined with the politics of the party in power, therefore, the debate goes where the person posing the question wishes to take it. Had I been anti-military, you'd have tried to keep me into believing that there's no need for it to exist and it's only a tool of evil. Had I been overtly pro-military, you'd have done more to try and convince me that the forces of the US military are simply furthering mega-corporate capitalist agenda and tried to sway me via that means. I don't see it in absolutes, I see it again as simply a tool that can be utilized for good (assisting with damage control during natural disasters when needed, assisting in safety for groups such as the Red Cross providing aid to nations at war, etc.), or, that it can be a tool to simply further the agenda of those in power. And, while most who are opposed to it tend to only want to acknowledge the harm it does, it's not really going to do me any favors to try and counter with any claims of what good it can be used for (and has been in the past). So, it's not clearly black and white, I'm not big on conspiracies, and I don't hate my country so much that I'm willing to abuse the rights it gives me to hate it while praising every other nation as being morally superior. That's why you won't get a straight answer from me, it's not a question that can be answered simply with one sole purpose for its existence. It's simultaneously terrible and potentially wonderful in what it is, but rather than simply choosing to blame the military industrial complex blah blah blah, I'll simply acknowledge the fact that it's not doing what it should do, and I'd prefer to see it serve the people of our country and those who need assistance in a way that does as little damage as possible. After all, you really were after my opinion more than anything else, weren't you?

 

I know it's in vogue to look for the bad in everything to further entrench one's stance rather than consider that maybe there's a yin/yang balance in everything, and sometimes, things get out of whack and need to be put back into proper place. That's my take on the military - it's no more inherently evil than a hatchet, but it all depends on whose hands you put it into for the sake of getting to chopping.

 

And your assumption that I'm defending US foreign policy is actually quite laughable. It's not that simple that you love something or hate it - there are middle paths, but it appears you've pushed yourself to where you only have disdain for what's being discussed. A lack of overt condemnation is not shameless defense, it's simply acknowledging that the scenario is not as simple to form a concrete conclusion based on emotion and one's normal leanings. I can empathize with differing opinions and don't have any lesser feelings for those who are polarized, that's just human nature that's played on by those in power daily with great success. I simply ask that people stop falling for the same polarizing schtick that the parties that be have WANTED us to fall for, because when that happens, there's no hope left, and then they've got us right where they want us. And hope for TRUE positive change is what I'm not giving up on. Yet, at least....