GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Ground zero church (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=982847)

seeandsee 08-18-2010 07:24 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_New_York.jpg

Airplanes did this? Fuck off Bush

Brujah 08-18-2010 07:32 AM

The media that creates all this bigotry and hatred and ignorance in their uneducated followers should be held accountable. These are dangerous seeds.

Cyandin 08-18-2010 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17423835)
Get off your fucking soapbox shit for brains

Soapbox? I'm not the one who makes daily posts crying boo-hoo about everything.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17423835)
Where did I say anything about BARRY?

I was referring to your overall rhetoric. Shall we examine your post history?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17423835)
Just that one religion has more pull than another, get a fucking clue MORON.
The only thing tiresome is you jumping to conclusions and not opening your fucking eyes, which is truly the sign of an idiot

The fact that you so quickly resort to personal attacks is - as most intelligent people know - a hallmark of poor debating skills, low intelligence, and insecurity when weathering public criticism.

When I woke up this morning and sat down at my workstation, I thought to myself "Hmm, I wonder if Vendzilla replied to my post? If so, I wonder if he merely made an intelligent rebuttal, or if he just resorted to name calling?"

Unfortunately, you disappointed me.

Notice how when I made my comment, I did not personally attack you or label you? I even took care to state that it was your stance and posting behavior that I took issue with, and that I wasn't branding you personally as an idiot, since you may very well be a very intelligent person with a poorly thought out worldview. Even though I gave you that respect, you unabashedly attacked me (instead of my stance), which is a disappointing testament to your intelligence and character.

In the future, if you want people to actually take anything you have to say seriously, I would suggest brushing up on these things. :2 cents:

BFT3K 08-18-2010 08:02 AM

I think ALL religions are fucking stupid, retarded, brainwashing fairy tales, used to control people and push agendas, whether they be land wars, oil wars, water wars, or whatever.

That having been said, all of the fairy tale religions SHOULD be treated equally here in the US. Here in the US we have the RIGHT to ridicule, mock, make fun of, and laugh at whatever political and religious figures we wish to.

If you are practicing your fairy tale religion in our country, we get to make fun of Muhammad in ANY fucking way we want to, just like we get to make fun of Jesus, or whoever.

You want to worship your idiotic faith in the US, and we CAN'T make fun of Muhammad, then you get the fuck out of this country, we don't need your stupid ass shit here! And take your goofball face masks off too - you don't have the right to HIDE here in the US.

There! That's my semi-racist rant for today. Thank you for your time.

Amputate Your Head 08-18-2010 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyandin (Post 17424093)
Soapbox? I'm not the one who makes daily posts crying boo-hoo about everything.




I was referring to your overall rhetoric. Shall we examine your post history?




The fact that you so quickly resort to personal attacks is - as most intelligent people know - a hallmark of poor debating skills, low intelligence, and insecurity when weathering public criticism.

When I woke up this morning and sat down at my workstation, I thought to myself "Hmm, I wonder if Vendzilla replied to my post? If so, I wonder if he merely made an intelligent rebuttal, or if he just resorted to name calling?"

Unfortunately, you disappointed me.

Notice how when I made my comment, I did not personally attack you or label you? I even took care to state that it was your stance and posting behavior that I took issue with, and that I wasn't branding you personally as an idiot, since you may very well be a very intelligent person with a poorly thought out worldview. Even though I gave you that respect, you unabashedly attacked me (instead of my stance), which is a disappointing testament to your intelligence and character.

In the future, if you want people to actually take anything you have to say seriously, I would suggest brushing up on these things. :2 cents:

In a perfect world....

I've tried this approach here. It doesn't work. I've since adapted & devolved myself and my posting styles to better fit the dynamic of GFY.

dyna mo 08-18-2010 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damnage (Post 17423855)

The religion, is actually very peaceful and when examined (as I have done indepth along side my English degree) from a historical and theological viewpoint is extraordinarily wonderful in its teachings on fairness and equality. When you get into Christological research you see this highlighted even more.





The study of religion is absolutely fascinating.


hardly.

i too studied the history of religion in college and learned exactly opposite of what you are stating.

in fact, 10s of millions have died/been murdered due to christianity & catholicism.

wig 08-18-2010 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damnage (Post 17423855)
Actually the dark ages were called the dark ages because of the fall of the Roman empire which basically set the clock back.

That's right, but the change that occurred after Christianity was declared the State religion cannot be swept under the rug. The fall of the empire was in some part due to Christianity -- a weakening from within.

Quote:

In fact if you read your history, you will see it was the Catholic monks and their monastery's who saved most of the literature. Without that, progress would have been far slower.
This is simply not true. Most of the literature was saved because it went East, where Arabs were busy accumulating the works of Aristotle, etc. The Monks did however save Christian literature, but on the whole they were not interested in literature that did not support their view.

Moreover, there was an overwhelming desire to ‘surrender to divine powers forcing men inwardly’ and ‘a need for’ supernatural revelation.

As a result, the thinkers of the area were not much interested in -- even discouraged from -- investigating the physical world. Contrariwise, the supreme task of Christian scholarship was to apprehend and deepen the truths of revelation.

Christianity during this time actively rejected scientific inquiry. This is just a small sampling of the attitude that permeated the dark ages when the Church was replacing the State…

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan on the study of the heavens said: “for wherein does it assist in Salvation”.

Justinian, on the thought that philosophical speculations aided heretics, closed the Platonic Academy in Athens.

John Crysostom, Arch Bishop of Constantinople said: “Restrain our reasoning, and empty our mind of secular learning, in order to provide a mind swept clear for the reception of divine words”.

By the 600's all but two of the learning centers were closed. This is indicative of what you got during the dark ages from the Church. The East during this time were far more innovative and productive.

Quote:

Do not think that I am blindly defending Catholicism, I just want to draw a distinction between the religion and the people.

People have always been capable of good, evil and necessity. Fact.
People have always used some banner (be it patriotism, religion, bigotry, idealism) to try and exert power and influence. Its no different for Catholicism.
Agreed. Unfortunately, you cannot remove human nature from the equation. It is pretty clear that the Church was just as guilty of trying to secure their own power and influence. And, the world got what they gave us during the dark ages, which for the most part was not pretty.

Quote:

The religion, is actually very peaceful and when examined (as I have done indepth along side my English degree) from a historical and theological viewpoint is extraordinarily wonderful in its teachings on fairness and equality. When you get into Christological research you see this highlighted even more.
That's fine and all. I don't take issue with most of the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, although there are some teachings that I find amusing to abhorrent.

The real question is whether the supernatural claims are true and I find no evidence for that.

I see a long line of change, promulgated by the Church, and ending in something far removed from the Christology you mention.

wig 08-18-2010 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damnage (Post 17423876)
America's backbone is that of a Christian entity, hence I would support the indigenous cultures native religion, even though its NOT the countries religion.

The country's religion? I did not know the USA had a State religion. :Oh crap

Tom_PM 08-18-2010 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17424032)
The media that creates all this bigotry and hatred and ignorance in their uneducated followers should be held accountable. These are dangerous seeds.

Totally true of course to anyone with their eyes even slightly open.



People for a segregated melting pot.



Jesus H fucking Christ.

dyna mo 08-18-2010 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig (Post 17424147)
That's right, but the change that occurred after Christianity was declared the State religion cannot be swept under the rug. The fall of the empire was in some part due to Christianity -- a weakening from within.



This is simply not true. Most of the literature was saved because it went East, where Arabs were busy accumulating the works of Aristotle, etc. The Monks did however save Christian literature, but on the whole they were not interested in literature that did not support their view.

Moreover, there was an overwhelming desire to ?surrender to divine powers forcing men inwardly? and ?a need for? supernatural revelation.

As a result, the thinkers of the area were not much interested in -- even discouraged from -- investigating the physical world. Contrariwise, the supreme task of Christian scholarship was to apprehend and deepen the truths of revelation.

Christianity during this time actively rejected scientific inquiry. This is just a small sampling of the attitude that permeated the dark ages when the Church was replacing the State?

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan on the study of the heavens said: ?for wherein does it assist in Salvation?.

Justinian, on the thought that philosophical speculations aided heretics, closed the Platonic Academy in Athens.

John Crysostom, Arch Bishop of Constantinople said: ?Restrain our reasoning, and empty our mind of secular learning, in order to provide a mind swept clear for the reception of divine words?.

By the 600's all but two of the learning centers were closed. This is indicative of what you got during the dark ages from the Church. The East during this time were far more innovative and productive.



Agreed. Unfortunately, you cannot remove human nature from the equation. It is pretty clear that the Church was just as guilty of trying to secure their own power and influence. And, the world got what they gave us during the dark ages, which for the most part was not pretty.



That's fine and all. I don't take issue with most of the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, although there are some teachings that I find amusing to abhorrent.

The real question is whether the supernatural claims are true and I find no evidence for that.

I see a long line of change, promulgated by the Church, and ending in something far removed from the Christology you mention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig (Post 17424206)
The country's religion? I did not know the USA had a State religion. :Oh crap

me thinks you chased him off with these! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

dyna mo 08-18-2010 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 17424238)
Totally true of course to anyone with their eyes even slightly open.



People for a segregated melting pot.



Jesus H fucking Christ.

i agree. but-
the media covered several republicans making it an issue, at least that's how i recall it all getting started.

wig 08-18-2010 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17424241)
me thinks you chased him off with these! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I hope not. It wasn't my intent.

BFT3K 08-18-2010 09:32 AM

We don't need your radical shit going on here in the US.

If this is the future of "tolerance" them you can label me "intolerant"...

http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/u...law-uk-new.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...01_468x309.jpg

http://readersquotient.com/wp-conten...an_stoning.gif

http://www.thehotjoints.com/wp-conte...ope_cancer.jpg

http://www.libertiesalliance.org/wp-...-All-Thumb.jpg

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Gr...etherlands.jpg

Ron Bennett 08-18-2010 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeandsee (Post 17424007)

Airplanes, or whatever one wants to believe started it, but gravity did the ultimate damage, as shown in the photo.

What goes up, without support, will come down with the combined kinetic energy that went into raising it ... consider how much power it took to raise all that steel, pipes, air conditioning units, facade material, furniture, etc several hundred feet (all the mass of the buildings above the respective impact points) into the air over many, many months ... when the support failed, gravity took over releasing all that power in an instant. It's the same principle behind implosions - knock out some key supports and gravity does rest; there's nothing mysterious about the destruction.

Ron

tony286 08-18-2010 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17423890)
well that explains a few things

isn't that the guy thats trying to bring sharia law to the US?

nope thats just extremist bullshit. Come on Vend you are a smart guy Im surprised you believe everything they spoon feed you.

Amputate Your Head 08-18-2010 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett (Post 17424404)
there's nothing mysterious about the destruction.

Ron

Of course not. Det charges do the job quite effectively.

tony286 08-18-2010 09:53 AM

Once again the right needs this to win because they have no plan to save the country its all go back to the same shit that made it fail. So they jump on this bullshit. I got to give W credit, he never took that road. He said openly that it was a religion of peace and visited mosques and said what the manics didn't reflect on the rest of muslims.

BFT3K 08-18-2010 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony299 (Post 17424438)
Once again the right needs this to win because they have no plan to save the country its all go back to the same shit that made it fail. So they jump on this bullshit. I got to give W credit, he never took that road. He said openly that it was a religion of peace and visited mosques and said what the manics didn't reflect on the rest of muslims.

I agree that Obama's mosque comments are being used as a political football, but I also think Obama should keep his 2 cents out of polarizing issues. He needs to shut the fuck up sometimes.

Between this issue, the "police acted stupidly" statement, and so on, he just needs to keep his opinions out of petty controversial issues. No good ever comes from it. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. It is a matter of perception and emotion.

I am a huge Obama fan, but even I'm getting pissed off by some of his shit now. Just shut the fuck up, and get some stuff done already!

tony286 08-18-2010 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17424457)
I agree that Obama's mosque comments are being used as a political football, but I also think Obama should keep his 2 cents out of polarizing issues. He needs to shut the fuck up sometimes.

Between this issue, the "police acted stupidly" statement, and so on, he just needs to keep his opinions out of petty controversial issues. No good ever comes from it.

I am a huge Obama fan, but even I'm getting pissed off by some of his shit now. Just shut the fuck up, and get some stuff done already!

I agree and he needs to grow a back bone. When cheney was asked there is a growing deficit his response with a smirk was so. Then asked a large number of Americans are against the war in iraq this was 4 yrs in and again his response was so. I respect that , its like we won it all and we will do what the fuck we want to do.
Where my party is the party of fucking wimps. the right is minority and they still run the message, I blame obama for that.
And robert gibbs gets pissed off at progressives for judging the president.maybe its time for them to wake the fuck up.

dyna mo 08-18-2010 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17424457)
I agree that Obama's mosque comments are being used as a political football, but I also think Obama should keep his 2 cents out of polarizing issues. He needs to shut the fuck up sometimes.

Between this issue, the "police acted stupidly" statement, and so on, he just needs to keep his opinions out of petty controversial issues. No good ever comes from it. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. It is a matter of perception and emotion.

I am a huge Obama fan, but even I'm getting pissed off by some of his shit now. Just shut the fuck up, and get some stuff done already!

i'm torn on this issue. on one hand, he's the pusa, it's his job to set the tone. on the other hand, his *tone setting* is more along the lines of politicizing the issue and perpetuating the left v right bullcrud.

Ron Bennett 08-18-2010 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head (Post 17424435)
Of course not. Det charges do the job quite effectively.

And so does fire ... steel significantly weakens well below its melting point...

The twin towers were built with economy in mind and some of those trade-offs made them even more vulnerable to fire than some other very tall structures, such as the Empire State building or the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower.

In particular, the twin towers had large open floor plans with minimal steel used with minimal fire protection compared to that of buildings utilizing box construction, such as the Empire State building, which contains more steel, much of which is well fire protected, than both of the taller, more spacious twin towers combined!

Once one floor fails, it pancakes on to the one below it, which in turn fails due to that extra mass on top of it, followed by more pancaking rapidly leading to building collapse.

Placing explosives would be far more difficult than people realize - sure it doesn't take much, relatively speaking to bring down a building, but one can't just place them haphazardly. The amount of time and effort required would have been considerable, as well as very noticeable, especially if placing them so high into the structure.

I'm amazed what people believe and post without at least thinking it through a bit first. But then this is GFY so perhaps that's par for the course :1orglaugh

Ron

dyna mo 08-18-2010 10:19 AM

come on, let's not make this a 9/11 conspiracy thread eh.

2c :-)

tony286 08-18-2010 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett (Post 17424498)
And so does fire ... steel significantly weakens well below its melting point...

The twin towers were built with economy in mind and some of those trade-offs made them even more vulnerable to fire than some other very tall structures, such as the Empire State building or the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower.

In particular, the twin towers had large open floor plans with minimal steel used with minimal fire protection compared to that of buildings utilizing box construction, such as the Empire State building, which contains more steel, much of which is well fire protected, than both of the taller, more spacious twin towers combined!

Once one floor fails, it pancakes on to the one below it, which in turn fails due to that extra mass on top of it, followed by more pancaking rapidly leading to building collapse.

Placing explosives would be far more difficult than people realize - sure it doesn't take much, relatively speaking to bring down a building, but one can't just place them haphazardly. The amount of time and effort required would have been considerable, as well as very noticeable, especially if placing them so high into the structure.

I'm amazed what people believe and post without at least thinking it through a bit first. But then this is GFY so perhaps that's par for the course :1orglaugh

Ron

the empire state building had a plane crash into it and only that floor and the poor people on it were fucked.

DamianJ 08-18-2010 11:13 AM

if Muslims can't build a Mosque near GroundZero, Catholics can't build a church near a playground

Bryan G 08-18-2010 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 17424649)
if Muslims can't build a Mosque near GroundZero, Catholics can't build a church near a playground

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Amputate Your Head 08-18-2010 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett (Post 17424498)
And so does fire ... steel significantly weakens well below its melting point...

The twin towers were built with economy in mind and some of those trade-offs made them even more vulnerable to fire than some other very tall structures, such as the Empire State building or the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower.

In particular, the twin towers had large open floor plans with minimal steel used with minimal fire protection compared to that of buildings utilizing box construction, such as the Empire State building, which contains more steel, much of which is well fire protected, than both of the taller, more spacious twin towers combined!

Once one floor fails, it pancakes on to the one below it, which in turn fails due to that extra mass on top of it, followed by more pancaking rapidly leading to building collapse.

Placing explosives would be far more difficult than people realize - sure it doesn't take much, relatively speaking to bring down a building, but one can't just place them haphazardly. The amount of time and effort required would have been considerable, as well as very noticeable, especially if placing them so high into the structure.

I'm amazed what people believe and post without at least thinking it through a bit first. But then this is GFY so perhaps that's par for the course :1orglaugh

Ron

I've been "thinking it through" for 9 years. Believe what you want. I believe it was blown.

alessergod 08-18-2010 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 17424486)
i'm torn on this issue. on one hand, he's the pusa, it's his job to set the tone. on the other hand, his *tone setting* is more along the lines of politicizing the issue and perpetuating the left v right bullcrud.

He came as POTUS and stood up for what the 1st Amendment clearly states, then when the right wing starts hollering muslim lover, campaign issue, etc, he waffles and says because they can doesn't mean they should. I think steps back because he still thinks he can swing the right to work with him, which they never will. I agree, He should say what he thinks and be like Cheney and "SO".

topnotch, standup guy 08-18-2010 12:04 PM

"Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"

Those were the last words recorded on the cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93, and the very same words that will be chanted five times a day at the Ground Zero Mosque should it be built.

Say what you will about religious freedom and such but that's just plain wrong.

Very wrong.

http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/imag...ago_9_11_6.jpg

Brujah 08-18-2010 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony299 (Post 17424429)
Come on Vend you are a smart guy ...

Some of the threads lately, and you really still think that?

mechanicvirus 08-18-2010 12:31 PM

I'm gay, how come no one is debating that???

Brujah 08-18-2010 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanicvirus (Post 17424865)
I'm gay, how come no one is debating that???

but are you also trying to get married? We're very serious when it comes to our words. We don't want any of you gays using our words. The word "Marriage" belongs to us straight peoples. :1orglaugh

EZRhino 08-18-2010 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coup (Post 17423834)
the mosque protests are just amerikkka's bigotry rearing it's ugly little head. :thumbsup

Wow this country is really bigoted, maybe when we have a black president maybe we can get away from the stereotype.
As a country and culture America does not tolerate racism. Its not accepted in our media, justice system, religion or government. Can that be said in even moderate Muslim countries?
The Imam that is involved in the Ground Zero mosque won't condemn terrorists groups.

tony286 08-18-2010 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EZRhino (Post 17424891)
Wow this country is really bigoted, maybe when we have a black president maybe we can get away from the stereotype.
As a country and culture America does not tolerate racism. Its not accepted in our media, justice system, religion or government. Can that be said in even moderate Muslim countries?
The Imam that is involved in the Ground Zero mosque won't condemn terrorists groups.


'Ground Zero Mosque' Imam Helped FBI With Counterterrorism Efforts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_685071.html

Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. "He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam.


stopping buying rightwing boogieman talk :)

TheDoc 08-18-2010 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EZRhino (Post 17424891)
The Imam that is involved in the Ground Zero mosque won't condemn terrorists groups.

Is this what fox news is reporting now, well.. not really reporting, basically this is the shit they're spewing now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_685071.html

"Imam Feisal ..... He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam...." P.S. in that article he helps our Government too.

The video of him speaking to the news about this, he says his group and 99.9% of all Muslims condemn terrorism.

http://www.asmasociety.org/home/p_press_16.html
NY Times Article: Imam Feiasl said, "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion."

A Nexis/newsday article (pw protected) has Rauf saying after 9/11 "categorically condemned suicide bombers."

I don't really care either way, but I do hate fox news so....

alessergod 08-18-2010 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17425010)
Is this what fox news is reporting now, well.. not really reporting, basically this is the shit they're spewing now?

"Imam Feisal ..... He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam...." P.S. in that article he helps our Government too.

The video of him speaking to the news about this, he says his group and 99.9% of all Muslims condemn terrorism.

NY Times Article: Imam Feiasl said, "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion."

A Nexis/newsday article (pw protected) has Rauf saying after 9/11 "categorically condemned suicide bombers."

I don't really care either way, but I do hate fox news so....

uh oh Doc, pesky facts, tsk tsk

Vendzilla 08-18-2010 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyandin (Post 17424093)
Soapbox? I'm not the one who makes daily posts crying boo-hoo about everything.




I was referring to your overall rhetoric. Shall we examine your post history?




The fact that you so quickly resort to personal attacks is - as most intelligent people know - a hallmark of poor debating skills, low intelligence, and insecurity when weathering public criticism.

When I woke up this morning and sat down at my workstation, I thought to myself "Hmm, I wonder if Vendzilla replied to my post? If so, I wonder if he merely made an intelligent rebuttal, or if he just resorted to name calling?"

Unfortunately, you disappointed me.

Notice how when I made my comment, I did not personally attack you or label you? I even took care to state that it was your stance and posting behavior that I took issue with, and that I wasn't branding you personally as an idiot, since you may very well be a very intelligent person with a poorly thought out worldview. Even though I gave you that respect, you unabashedly attacked me (instead of my stance), which is a disappointing testament to your intelligence and character.

In the future, if you want people to actually take anything you have to say seriously, I would suggest brushing up on these things. :2 cents:

So you're saying you were calling me names first thing because of other threads? What a fucking moron

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony299 (Post 17424429)
nope thats just extremist bullshit. Come on Vend you are a smart guy Im surprised you believe everything they spoon feed you.

He is a big backer of Sharia law and I read something about him wanting to change somethings about Muslims in the US to be under Sharia law, I don't think that will ever happen, it was probably a opinion piece

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 17424852)
Some of the threads lately, and you really still think that?

You're still mad at me because my opinion doesn't conform to the Obamanation of beliefs?
Dude, look at the polls, I'm not the only one!

EZRhino 08-18-2010 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 17425010)
Is this what fox news is reporting now, well.. not really reporting, basically this is the shit they're spewing now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_685071.html

"Imam Feisal ..... He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam...." P.S. in that article he helps our Government too.

The video of him speaking to the news about this, he says his group and 99.9% of all Muslims condemn terrorism.

http://www.asmasociety.org/home/p_press_16.html
NY Times Article: Imam Feiasl said, "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion."

A Nexis/newsday article (pw protected) has Rauf saying after 9/11 "categorically condemned suicide bombers."

I don't really care either way, but I do hate fox news so....

You know what I decided to look up any past quotes from the Imam before this controversy. All I found was 1 video promoting his book and 1 with Tom Brokaw (2006).
Sounds like he is saying what everyone wants to hear. I would love to hear or see all his condemnation for terrorism before 2009. If anyone can dig that up, I'll be a convert about his motives.

TheDoc 08-18-2010 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EZRhino (Post 17425459)
You know what I decided to look up any past quotes from the Imam before this controversy. All I found was 1 video promoting his book and 1 with Tom Brokaw (2006).
Sounds like he is saying what everyone wants to hear. I would love to hear or see all his condemnation for terrorism before 2009. If anyone can dig that up, I'll be a convert about his motives.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm

60 minutes trans script, dated: Sept 30, 2001 he said: "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That's just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity, or David Koresh with Christianity."

On Google to the left is more search tools, you can enter a data range and it will pull up news/articles, etc from those ranges, somewhat at least.

Coup 08-18-2010 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 17423913)
Hey Shithead, there you go putting words in my post
Where did I say all islamic people?
I was referring to the assholes that attacked New York, you know, those fucking people.

Just like not all Muslims believe that a mosque should go there, the Koran teaches respect for others and putting it there shows insensitivity to the 9/11 event

wtf did those that want to build that thing have to do with 9-11? not one fucking thing that I've seen. ALSO..

IT'S TWO FUCKING BLOCKS AWAY FROM WTC.

what the fuck is insensitive about that? not one god damn thing

so what are you left with? making a bunch of fucking noise about nothing because YOU are fucking bigoted against the muslim faith. that's it.. that is all you fucking have.

directfiesta 08-18-2010 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coup (Post 17425738)
wtf did those that want to build that thing have to do with 9-11? not one fucking thing that I've seen. ALSO..

IT'S TWO FUCKING BLOCKS AWAY FROM WTC.

It would be 3 blocks, or 4 blocks= tea baggers would still be on it ... after all, what they they have concrete to run on ?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123