Tolerence or Intolerence....

[Turtle]

No, people shouldn't be beheaded when captured. They shouldn't be killed regardless of the method. But the method is meaningless. You're still dead. We don't behead captives, but we have killed them while in captivity. We've even killed them at capture because we don't want to be bothered with having to deal with prisoners.

Yes, the lines are more blurred, but they're only more blurred than are the lines from wars before any of us were alive. Even in WWII there were "civilian" combatants, and spies, on both sides. And other than the beheadings, the US has been guilty of everything you stated above. Not many US civilians "house, protect, store arms, feed and support our troops," but that's because we don't have too many domestic battles. It did happen during the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, tho. We've used human civilians as shields, and have operated out of churches and hospitals. And killing civilians, whether on purpose or by accident, and then blaming the North was nearly a routine occurrence in both Korea and Vietnam.

But, of course, when we do all that stuff, it's OK, but when they do all that stuff, it makes them bad.

Bring back land mines, cluster bombs and napalm. Those were the good old days, when we fought the good fight and fought it the right way. <snort>

Look, I understand that in times of war, bad things happen to good people. I also understand that we're going to do whatever we have to do to win this thing, whether it's killing as many as possible or blowing up as much as we can. I also understand the enemy is going to do the same thing. I just don't buy it that the enemy is somehow more evil and despicable than we are, simply because they are forced to use alternate methods due to not being as well financed as we are.

 

[layoutshooter]

No, people shouldn't be beheaded when captured. They shouldn't be killed regardless of the method. But the method is meaningless. You're still dead. We don't behead captives, but we have killed them while in captivity. We've even killed them at capture because we don't want to be bothered with having to deal with prisoners.

Yes, the lines are more blurred, but they're only more blurred than are the lines from wars before any of us were alive. Even in WWII there were "civilian" combatants, and spies, on both sides. And other than the beheadings, the US has been guilty of everything you stated above. Not many US civilians "house, protect, store arms, feed and support our troops," but that's because we don't have too many domestic battles. It did happen during the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, tho. We've used human civilians as shields, and have operated out of churches and hospitals. And killing civilians, whether on purpose or by accident, and then blaming the North was nearly a routine occurrence in both Korea and Vietnam.

But, of course, when we do all that stuff, it's OK, but when they do all that stuff, it makes them bad.

Bring back land mines, cluster bombs and napalm. Those were the good old days, when we fought the good fight and fought it the right way. <snort>

Look, I understand that in times of war, bad things happen to good people. I also understand that we're going to do whatever we have to do to win this thing, whether it's killing as many as possible or blowing up as much as we can. I also understand the enemy is going to do the same thing. I just don't buy it that the enemy is somehow more evil and despicable than we are, simply because they are forced to use alternate methods due to not being as well financed as we are.

NO we are NOT doing whatever we can to win this thing. Our leadership(?) is doing all they can to lose it. It would be and is VERY possible to win this and still keep "real" civilian deaths to a minimum. Our troops are being prevented from doing so.

I know you don't understand the difference between premeditated murder and fighting a war, they are NOT the same. Our enemy is NOT doing what they do because of lack of funding. You really should have a talk with my nephew. Maybe you don't buy it or understand it simply because you were never in the situation. That is NOT a put down, just an observation. Might be wrong, don't know. The biggest difference between us and them is that we do NOT target civilians as a National Policy and it IS the policy of CHOICE by those we fight.

I wish I had a solution as I am sure that you do as well. We cannot retreat into isolationism, that is a means to extinction. We cannot police the world. We cannot allow certain countries to control vast areas of the world and yet it we cannot do everything alone.

There is NO easy answer.

 

[chefdennis]

Whats wrong with this picture!?!? This church was there before the Twin towers, was flattened when they fall on it and they still can't get it rebuilt... now it is not totally the govs fault but they aren't making it a reality either, but the politicians feel the need to get that mosque up asap....and if you disagree, you are just anti islam....While this article is months old, this fight is still ongoing...well except for the fact that the gov isn't talking to the church leaders...

Church Destroyed at Ground Zero Is Still at Square One

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: March 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html?_r=1

The tiny St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church is once again at the forefront of the myriad disputes that plague the rebuilding effort at ground zero.

The fate of the church, a narrow whitewashed building that was crushed in the attack on the World Trade Center, was supposed to have been settled eight months ago, with a tentative agreement in which the church would swap its land for a grander church building on a larger parcel nearby, with a $20 million subsidy from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This would have allowed work to begin at the south end of the site.

But the two sides never came to final terms. After months of negotiations, the Port Authority, which is overseeing reconstruction at ground zero, ended its talks with the church on Monday, saying that the church had sought increasingly costly concessions.

Complaints, of course, abound on both sides.

The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.

“We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” said Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “They have now given us no choice but to move on to ensure the site is not delayed. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”

Last July, the Port Authority and the Greek Orthodox Church announced a tentative plan to rebuild the church just east of its original site, at Liberty and Greenwich Streets. The authority agreed to provide the church with land for a 24,000-square-foot house of worship, far larger than the original, and $20 million. Since the church would be built in a park over the bomb-screening center, the authority also agreed to pay up to $40 million for a blast-proof platform and foundation.

In recent negotiations, the authority cut the size of the church slightly and told church officials that its dome could not rise higher than the trade center memorial. The church, in turn, wanted the right to review plans for both the garage with the bomb-screening center and the park, something the authority was unwilling to provide. More important, authority officials said, the church wanted the $20 million up front, rather than in stages. Officials said they feared that the church, which has raised about $2 million for its new building, would come back to the authority for more.

The termination of negotiations is a major setback for the little church, a parish of 70 families that is nearly 90 years old. St. Nicholas officials had hoped to build an impressive structure, with a traditional Greek Orthodox dome, and a nondenominational center for visitors to ground zero. That will not be possible on the church’s original 1,200-square-foot lot, although church officials say they hope for reconciliation.

“We consider the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church a sacred obligation to the victims of 9/11, to the city of New York, to the people of America and in fact to the international community,” said Stavros H. Papagermanos, a spokesman for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. “We will continue to discuss in good faith and we believe that all parties involved are well-intended, and ultimately we will overcome any obstacles that have arisen.”

One person who was involved in the negotiations on behalf of the church, and who insisted on anonymity so as not to inflame the situation, criticized the Port Authority, saying it had made constantly shifting demands on St. Nicholas. Still, he said, the remaining issues were relatively small.

But it does not appear that the Port Authority is posturing. And while the Bloomberg administration expressed regrets about the impasse, officials said it was far more important to proceed apace with building a memorial, a transit center and other projects at ground zero.

St. Nicholas, a four-story church, became a symbol of resilience after it was destroyed, with George E. Pataki, then the governor, and Archbishop Demetrios, primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, vowing that it would rise again.

 

[Turtle]

I know you don't understand the difference between premeditated murder and fighting a war, they are NOT the same.

Thanks for the blatant insult to my intelligence.

Our enemy is NOT doing what they do because of lack of funding. You really should have a talk with my nephew.

Why? I wouldn't be able to understand anything he says. Clearly, I'm a friggin' moron. I don't even understand the difference between murder and killing someone in a war.

Maybe you don't buy it or understand it simply because you were never in the situation. That is NOT a put down, just an observation. Might be wrong, don't know.

While you believe that is impossible for someone to have an understanding of anything unless they actually experienced it, the whole of human history would disagree with you, and so do I. I'm not a Muslim, so I cannot fully understand it, but I have studied Islam extensively, and I think I have a pretty good idea of how they think and what motivates them, and can see and understand how they, just like Christians often do, will take parts of their religious texts out of context and misinterpret them in a manner that suits their purpose. Combine that with extensive and frequent conversations with some of my relatives who were and still are in both military and civilian intelligence, and with some of my relatives who have and are serving in the military, one cousin in particular who has spent the better part of the last 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have a far better understanding of things that you obviously can fathom or admit.

The biggest mistake with your observation is that you have concluded that you think you know my position or thoughts on a given issue, simply because I fail to expound on them while dismissing other sides or points within the issue. For example, because I can look at and understand how Muslims are viewing all this, and can understand what they are doing and why, and because I will talk about it, you may think I support them and that they're right. If so, you would be wrong. While I have a strong belief that being pragmatic is the best overall way to look at any situation, I also believe just as strongly in "Know thine enemy as thyself", which comes directly from being pragmatic, BTW. That doesn't mean treat thine enemy as you would another enemy that thinks like you do, either.

It's stupid and silly to project human traits and human emotions onto things, such as saying, or worse thinking, that your Wandering Jew is happy or sad depending on how you talk to it that day. It's also just as stupid and silly to project our culture and ways of thinking onto an enemy and then expect them to think and act like us, but that's exactly what most Americans try to do with Muslims, and it's why most Americans can't understand the difference between a wacko radical Islamist a Muslim who just wants to get by and live life like the rest of us. There are people who actually believe that all Muslims want all infidels dead and the soul goal of Islam is to take over the world. There are people who believe, nay they know, that the Qur'an says, very simply, "Kill the infidels", in that context, period. As if it was a standlalone Commandment or something. These people are stupid.

The biggest difference between us and them is that we do NOT target civilians as a National Policy and it IS the policy of CHOICE by those we fight.

Not only is that the biggest difference, it may very well be the only difference. Well, that and religion.

I wish I had a solution as I am sure that you do as well. We cannot retreat into isolationism, that is a means to extinction. We cannot police the world. We cannot allow certain countries to control vast areas of the world and yet it we cannot do everything alone.

There is NO easy answer.

Well, there us an easy answer, but it flies in the face of those who want to kill Muslims because they want to kill us. We will not win this, ever, by trying to force Muslims to alter their religious beliefs to suit us (or our religious beliefs). They will not cave, any more than an evangelical Christian, for example, will cave to his beliefs and start to believe something else simply because they are told to or threatened with death if they don't change. Rather than force them to change their beliefs, we will have to understand them and accommodate them in order to peacefully coexist. The only alternative is to simply wipe them out, all of them.

We have to figure out, understand, and realize what we have done or are still doing that ****es them off, and then stop doing it, or at least reach some kind of compromise. The attitude of, "We're Americans, we have the power, and we can do whatever the Hеll we want, and everyone else can suсk it. So deal with it," is not exactly the way to win friends and influence people. The ramifications of that attitude is coming back to bite us in the butt. They're dealing with it.

We need to learn to mind our own business and keep our noses out of the business of others. But we can't do that, because we are, in no small part, a Christian nation, and minding other people's business is the bread and butter of Christianity. Muslims are like fire ants, if you leave them alone, they'll leave you alone, but get all up in their business or threaten them, even if it's unintentional and out of ignorance, and you'll wish you hadn't.

Christians, on the other hand, are like flies in a sleeper. They just will... not... leave you alone. And that's US. That's America, a Christian nation founded by Christians on Christian principles. If we're not careful, or too arrogant, one of these days we're gonna meet the business end of a swatter.

 

[layoutshooter]

Never mind Turtle. This is a waste of time. I had NO intention of insulting you or your intelligence. Maybe I just don't write in such a way that my meaning comes through, maybe your too touchy. Who knows? Who really cares?

Funny, I have NEVER had problems conversing with ANYONE in my career, no matter how highly educated or uneducated they were. I have NEVER had problems in my life conversing with anyone, except in here. That includes rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians of the highest levels and the "slow" people we hired in other places I have worked. ONLY in here have I almost NEVER been able to get my point across, understand others points and work with them. Strange. Wonder why that is? Maybe because it is not "live", just typed?

 

[Turtle]

Whats wrong with this picture!?!? This church was there before the Twin towers, was flattened when they fall on it and they still can't get it rebuilt... now it is not totally the govs fault but they aren't making it a reality either, but the politicians feel the need to get that mosque up asap....and if you disagree, you are just anti islam....

What's wrong with the picture is what Greg talks about with regard to the victims of 911. The church wants to rebuild, but because they are victims, they want their payday, too, and want to rebuild their church bigger and better and grander than it ever was, and they want the government to pay for it.

The mosque is actually already there and functioning as a mosque and cultural center. It was there before 911, too. The building itself has been there for 152 years. It's not at Ground Zero, but two blocks away. They aren't building something that wasn't there before, they are renovating an existing building. Once finished, it will house prayer space for 2000 people, a pool, a gym, a 500 seat theater, galleries and exhibitions, a catering hall for weddings and other events, and a day care facility. People call it a "massive 13 story structure", as if 13 stories means anything in Manhattan. <snort>

Here's an ad that all the television networks flat rejected. It's a great illustration as to why the far right wing, religious Republicans pіss me off with their hypocrisy. Have you seen it? See how many outright lies you can count. The video is chocked full of subtle and not-so subtle messages, not the least of which is at the end with how "KILL" and "MOSQUE" are prominent, over the top of a dome, to connect them, and to the hot button emotional issue of Ground Zero, and then when it quickly moves to the resolution, the thing that you can do to fix this situation, we see the GOP Trust in angelic text overlays complete with blue sky and part of the Twin Towers ruins with a Cross made of girders. It's a tour de force in the manipulation of the mind, using some of the best tricks of advertisers and others who's business it is to change the way people think.

I think this will be a test of whether America really and truly has a commitment to religious freedom. I think the developers should be able to build the mosque wherever they want, even though I also think two other things, 1), it's stupid to build it there, in-your-face, where it will likely accomplish the exact opposite of its stated goal, which is to foster a better relationship between the Muslim world and the West, "steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions", and 2), that there's more to it that meets the eye, since the developer is a group called The Cordoba Initiative.

The Cordoba Initiative, a non-profit organization with offices in New York and Kuala Lumpur, was founded by Feisal Abdul Rauf, and is funded primarily by the Malaysian government. Rauf is an Imam at a mosque in New York, and has written a couple of book on Islam and its place in modern western society. Mainly, he's trying to build bridges between Islam and the west so that both can live in peace. He's also been very critical of the 911 attacks, while at the same time (correctly) criticizing the US government for not altering it's policies in the Middle East, since those policies pretty much caused 911 and continue to fuel the extremist jihad that we see today.

But still, why did he pick the name Cordoba Initiative?

We Americans, and many other in the west, have short memories and think 100 years ago is a long time. We see the War on Terror through a prism of recent events: Afghanistan, the Gulf War, the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. But in truth, the landscape of Islamic memory stretches to a more distant horizon: to the Christian flag unfurling over the Alhambra, the great 14th-century Muslim fortress of Granada. The loss of the Muslim kingdom that the Moors called al-Andalus and we still call Andalusia today, is emotively engraved in the collective memory of Islam and its adherents.

Right after 911, Osama bin Laden’s deputy explicitly linked the destruction of the World Trade Center with events in southern Spain 512 years ago, by referring to “the tragedy in al-Andalus” (al Andalus is now Portugal and Spain), when in 1492 the Christian troops of Ferdinand and Isabella finally conquered Granada, bringing to an end nearly 800 years of Islamic rule in Spain.

The capital of al-Andalus?

The city of Cordoba, Spain.


So while I think they should be able to build a mosque anywhere they want, they should be watched very closely once it opens.

 

[greg334]

Like it or not, here is what I am getting at;

...with a $20 million subsidy from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Why is a government entity giving money to build a church?

AND

The authority agreed to provide the church with land for a 24,000-square-foot house of worship, far larger than the original, and $20 million. Since the church would be built in a park over the bomb-screening center, the authority also agreed to pay up to $40 million for a blast-proof platform and foundation.

St. Nicholas officials had hoped to build an impressive structure, with a traditional Greek Orthodox dome, and a nondenominational center for visitors to ground zero. That will not be possible on the church’s original 1,200-square-foot lot, although church officials say they hope for reconciliation.

Again why not just rebuild it as it was, not something that shows some opulent MISUSE of tax payer money.

 

[Turtle]

Never mind Turtle. This is a waste of time. I had NO intention of insulting you or your intelligence. Maybe I just don't write in such a way that my meaning comes through, maybe your too touchy. Who knows? Who really cares?

I care. If the point of posting stuff here is to communicate your thoughts and ideas to others, then it's best to do so in a manner in which you can be comprehended. You say you had no intention of insulting my intelligence. Fine, I accept that.

However, when you state, "I know you don't understand the difference between premeditated murder and fighting a war..." then you are telling me one of two things: one, either that I don't know the difference between premeditated murder and fighting a war, or, two, that you are stating you know something, when you clearly don't.

But then, when you reinforce the fact that I don't know the difference with, "they are NOT the same," which in an implicit statement that I am incorrect in believing that they are the same, then the only conclusion that can be reached by me or any reader is that I don't know the difference, that I think they are the same, and not only that, but you know for sure that I don't know the difference.

If you didn't mean to type that, and meant to type something else that had some other meaning, well OK.

Funny, I have NEVER had problems conversing with ANYONE in my career, no matter how highly educated or uneducated they were. I have NEVER had problems in my life conversing with anyone, except in here. That includes rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians of the highest levels and the "slow" people we hired in other places I have worked. ONLY in here have I almost NEVER been able to get my point across, understand others points and work with them. Strange. Wonder why that is? Maybe because it is not "live", just typed?

It may very well be. A lot can be lost in translation when dealing with naked text on a screen. It may also be that while expediting includes people of all backgrounds, including rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians of the highest levels, and "slow" folks, weez all just a bunch a dumb truck drivers that don't know nuthin and this danged ol internet's got us bamboozled. Perhaps if you type it all out, hit "Preview Post", and then read it as if someone else wrote it, you will be able to see how others will receive and perceive it.

 

[layoutshooter]

I care. If the point of posting stuff here is to communicate your thoughts and ideas to others, then it's best to do so in a manner in which you can be comprehended. You say you had no intention of insulting my intelligence. Fine, I accept that.

However, when you state, "I know you don't understand the difference between premeditated murder and fighting a war..." then you are telling me one of two things: one, either that I don't know the difference between premeditated murder and fighting a war, or, two, that you are stating you know something, when you clearly don't.

But then, when you reinforce the fact that I don't know the difference with, "they are NOT the same," which in an implicit statement that I am incorrect in believing that they are the same, then the only conclusion that can be reached by me or any reader is that I don't know the difference, that I think they are the same, and not only that, but you know for sure that I don't know the difference.

If you didn't mean to type that, and meant to type something else that had some other meaning, well OK.


It may very well be. A lot can be lost in translation when dealing with naked text on a screen. It may also be that while expediting includes people of all backgrounds, including rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians of the highest levels, and "slow" folks, weez all just a bunch a dumb truck drivers that don't know nuthin and this danged ol internet's got us bamboozled. Perhaps if you type it all out, hit "Preview Post", and then read it as if someone else wrote it, you will be able to see how others will receive and perceive it.

I don't believe the "dumb trucker" thing, well maybe in one or two cases I do.

Maybe I will try the preview post thing, I don't know. I will still only see my thoughts and I understand them. Maybe I should reread Greg's post on quoting. That might help. I see things, I read them and understand them. (despite what some may think) There is a disconnect somewhere between what I respond to and how it comes out. It all makes sense to me when I write it. Just as the difference between murder and war. I was refering to the remarks that there is no difference between the beheading of Pearl and inadvertant civilian deaths. One is premedetated the other is not and we do our best to avoid it. (despite what some in here may think) The way I understood what YOU wrote implied to me that, either you did not understand the difference, or, choose not to worry about that difference. It does not matter. We most likely will never agree on much but it is fun, at least sometimes.


"It's not, but apparently when you kill someone by beheading them, it's far, far worse than just blowing up them into a million pieces."

That is the part I was at least trying to address. Maybe I did not read in enough or read in too much about what you mean. I was NOT intending to belittle more like explain how I see a difference and maybe explain why. Sorry it came out wrong.

 

[Turtle]

That's what you get for trying to figure out what I really meant to say, rather than reading what I actually said.

"It's not [relevant to the issue being discussed], but apparently when you kill someone by beheading them, it's far, far worse than just blowing up them into a million pieces."

That's a statement that, while sarcastic, still stands on its own, nonetheless, and means precisely what it says, no more and no less. Pilgrim and maybe some others, keep bring up the beheading of Daniel Pearl, as if beheading him, instead of blowing him up into a million pieces on the battlefield, makes Muslims way worse than us. Either way, dead is dead. These extremists viewed Daniel Pearl as the enemy. They beheaded him on the Internet for it's PR value, but he was not an inadvertent civilian death. He was an enemy that was going to be killed, one way or the other. I didn't even mention inadvertent civilian deaths, much less mention any remarks even remotely close to there being no difference between the beheading of Pearl and inadvertant civilian deaths. When I said "just blowing up them into a million pieces," I wasn't referring to collateral damage, since Daniel Perl wasn't collateral murder. I was referring to the two disparate methods of how Al Qaeda kills their enemies, versus how we kill ours. They behead them on the Internet, we blow 'em up. I don't see how one is worse than the other. They're both pretty bad.

And just for the record, I do know the difference between premeditated murder and fighting a war. I also know the difference between premeditated murder and inadvertent civilian casualties. I also know the difference between premeditated murder and the kinds of collateral damage that can occur as a result of the devaluing of human life, as in "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim," and "Kill them all. Let Allah sort them out."

 

[layoutshooter]

What ever. I said it was a waste of time. Sure wish I had a really good burning building to run into. Much easier. Makes sense too.

 

[LDB]

Kill them all and let allah sort them out. That's just giving them what they want, letting allah choose who gets the virgins and placing the same value on their lives they place on everyone else's. If/when they change then stop killing them all.

 

[witness23]

Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/10/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[chefdennis]

makes you go hmmm....

Offer Rejected to Move Mosque Away From Ground Zero to 'State Property'

Published August 11, 2010
FoxNews.com
FOXNews.com - Offer Rejected to Move Mosque Away From Ground Zero to 'State Property'

The developers of the so-called Ground Zero mosque rejected New York Gov. David Paterson's offer to provide state property if the project is moved farther away from where the twin towers once stood.

In an effort to appease disputing parties, Paterson had said Tuesday that he would provide state help to the group sponsoring the Cordoba House if the developers opt to move it elsewhere.

"Frankly, if the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance that would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling among the people who are frustrated, I would look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need," Paterson said.

While Paterson has "no objection" to the mosque being built a few blocks away from Ground Zero, he said he’s "very sensitive to the desire of those who are adamant against it to see something else worked out."

But Paterson said Wednesday that the developers told his office they weren't interested in moving.

"I think they would like to stay where they are, and I certainly respect that and I certainly respect them," Paterson said. "Having said that, how much more foresighted would it have been if the imam who is the developer of the project had been willing to hear what we are actually talking about?"

The building of the $100 million Islamic center and mosque has led to a firestorm of criticism over its proposed location – just a few blocks away from the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by Islamic terrorists that left nearly 3,000 dead.

A handful of Republicans, like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have blasted the project’s location, while others, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have forcefully defended it as a symbol of America's religious tolerance.

Religious leaders from various denominations also have supported the group's plans, arguing that critics' attacks amount to "religious bigotry."

"It’s simply wrong for Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, public figures who frequently reference their Christian values, to malign all Muslims by comparing this cultural center and mosque with a radical ideology that led to the horrific attacks of 9-11," said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, a national lobbying group that advocates Catholic social justice. "We fail to honor those killed by terrorists when we betray the bedrock principle of religious freedom that has guided our democracy for centuries."

On Wednesday, the group leading the opposition against the mosque's planned location called the governor's "willingness to engage this issue” a “positive development."

"We’re pleased that he realizes the sensitive nature of this issue," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, adding that he supports "having other land available to the mosque" but wouldn't want taxpayers to subsidize it.

The American Center for Law and Justice is fighting the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee over the mosque plans -- the group filed suit against the committee after it declined to grant landmark status to the proposed site. The tower could span up to 15 stories and will house a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium and a pool.

The group also is calling on the State Department to back off plans to sponsor the imam of that controversial mosque on an upcoming trip to the Middle East.

The department confirmed Tuesday that the administration is sponsoring Feisal Abdul Rauf's trip to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which is described as part of a program to send Muslims abroad to educate other countries about the role of religion in the United States. Rauf made similar trips during the Bush administration. Rauf has become a controversial figure because of his refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, which is how the U.S. government classifies the group.

The State Department, meanwhile, has defended Rauf and his planned visit to the Middle East.

"He is a distinguished Muslim cleric," said State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley. "We do have a program whereby, through our Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau here at the State Department, we send people from Muslim communities here in this country around the world to help people overseas understand our society and the role of religion within our society."

 

[Turtle]

makes you go hmmm....

It makes you go hmmm... only if the catholic church there having rejected essentially the same offer also makes you go hmmm...

 

[chefdennis]

From my post that I wrote on the Catholic Church:

now it is not totally the govs fault

Yeap, both made me go hmmmm....

 

[chefdennis]

Ok now how is this for intolerence....I have no love lost for the islamic extremist but this is the type of christian extremism that lets those that support islam make their point....

The Ugly Truth Podcast–Special Edition at theuglytruth

 

[RLENT]

I was refering to the remarks that there is no difference between the beheading of Pearl and inadvertant civilian deaths.

Your above statement, while clearly true, appears to assume something that may or may not be true in specific instances:

.... that there are no civilian deaths which are not inadvertent ...

or

.... that non-inadvertent civilian deaths are not widespread and fairly numerous ....

Whether thru careless and incompetent disregard for human life or the deliberate and intentional targeting of innocent civilians, it is the case that civilian deaths are occurring at the hands of our troops and other allied forces ....

And we aren't talking about just one or two isolated instances ala Mai Lai ....

And despite the military's best efforts to suppress, withhold, deny, and even outright lie about it (ostensibly under the guise of "security"), the information is trickling out ......

It's probably a fair bet that the rest of the world is far better informed about these matters than the US population is - because their media isn't in the bag for our military .....

With the release of the WikiLeaks "Afghan War Diary" documents, and the impending release of the 260,000 State Department cables, there will be a virtual treasure trove of data for a literal army of individuals who are interested in exposing criminality and human rights violations to sort through and pull the strings on ...... investigating, to get to the actual truth of whatever happened (as opposed to whatever propaganda is being fed to the American people) ..... and bring to light the acts of criminality that have occurred.

This is something that the politicians (and the military) desperately want to avoid - not so much because it poses a real imminent security threat (although it does to some degree - simply because there is no better way to foment a rebellion than going around killing innocent civilians) ..... but because they already have some inkling of how much unethical, immoral, criminal conduct has occurred .....

The truly sad fact is that one cannot depend on government to do the above (ie. expose criminal wrongdoing within itself, when that criminality appears to be in furtherance of policy) - one has to depend on outsiders to get the job done.

History is replete with numerous instances of governmental officials failing to expose and hold people accountable, many times actually seeking to coverup the matter and obstruct anyone who seeks to do .... and often promoting those officials who actually should be serving time behind bars to higher positions ....

One is premedetated the other is not and we do our best to avoid it. (despite what some in here may think)

Any personal experience you may have in this regard is long stale and outdated .... and as such is largely irrelevant to what may be occurring on the ground at this time, and in the near past.

And besides, even if your experience were current (which it clearly isn't) it would only represent a single data point - much too small of a sample to have any statistically significant meaning ...

 

[RLENT]

Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/10/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Awesome dude !

Nothing like a little comedy and humor to render the situation in it's actual, true light .... and expose the utter retardedness and sheer lunacy of the moronic, anti-freedom whack-jobs on the far right (some of whom, sadly, probably call themselves "Christian" ... as well as "American".....)

Newsflash to apparently ill-informed and misguided:

It matters little what one calls oneself ..... one could be a mass-murderer and call oneself a "civil libertarian" ....

The true nature or character of the acts one has committed are still what they are .....

A label is merely that: a label ...... it doesn't have any effect on the product that is in the can .....

...... loved the cheeshead burka BTW .....

 

[LDB]

True, there's nothing like a little comedy and humor and Jon Stewart is definitely nothing like comedy or humor.