It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violent Anti-Mosque crowd turns on Black Carpenter

page: 11
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by insideNSA
 





just answer me one question. why MUST they build this mosque as close to ground zero as possible and create such controversy?


A. I am not the one building the mosque and community center so asking me is rather pointless.

B. It is people asking such questions who are creating the controversy.




they could build the mosque anywhere. why do you think they chose this spot and refuse to consider other locations?


A. You have exceeded the one question you asked to ask and have answered.

B. My opinion does not matter in regards to this, the First Amendment is the opinion that does matter in regards to this.

C. You are being disengenuous they can not build this mosque anywhere, Hugh Hefner is not going to sell the Playboy Mansion, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is not available either. In fact no they can not build the mosque anyhere.

Counter question do you even know who 'They' is?

In other words can you tell me who all is involved in the planning and funding of this mosque and community center and how close they live and worship currently to the new location.

I would be really impressed if you can answer that!




if this effort is truly about bridging the gaps between cultures then
why chose this location when they know this would cause negative emotions among those that were killed in the 9/11 attacks.


I have no negative emotions regarding where they want to build a religious and community facility.

In fact I recognize that I am responsible for how positive or negative my emotions are, no one else is.



and why must they open this on 9/11/11?


They aren't and never were, that's a pure fabrication of a New York Post writer looking to sensationalize a news article for circulation and notariety.

It amazes me how poorly informed many people remain about this issue, and quite deliberately so.

Never was planned to open on 9/11/11 and why people keep spreading that story when they know it is false, just goes to show you who is responsible for being provocative and negative.




can you honestly tell me this isn't an intentional provocation?


Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.

If it's a provocation obviously mature and wise people aren't falling for that bait.

Hence why so many people are not upset and not concerned that there is religious freedom in this country.

In fact many of us our proud and secure that freedoms like these are protected because it does mean that many of the wild fears that some are pandering, can never come to pass, where one religion can dominate all others, or the non-religious, or the non-religious can dominate the religious.




just answer these questions and stop avoiding these and beating around the bush. why at ground zero? why open on 9/11?


Neither are true, it is blocks away, and within blocks also of where Iman Rauf has had a small store front mosque for 20 years that his congregation has outgrown.

So you might want to ask yourself why you are intent to promote falsehoods.

It was never slated to open on 9-11, and it is not at ground zero.

Just because you want to pretend doesn't mean intelligent and well informed people do.




I also notice you conveniently don't address what you did to stormdancer. if you want i'll pull quotes from that thread where she brings up cogent points and you bash her for it claiming they are 'off topic' just because you don't like what she had to say.


Some members are so viral in their posting of propaganda some post the same exact post in thread after thread which is against ATS Terms of Service.

As someone who had one of their own posts edited by staff in this thread, for violating terms of service you might want to read them and familiarize yourself with them.

ATS is a discussion board, and if you are going from thread to thread and posting the same exact post, you are neither discussing or paying any attention to the topic of the thread.




that says a lot about you my friend. i hope one day you realize its better to face reality than to live in a self deluded world. because one day that world will come crashing down on you in a most unpleasant way


Hey that's a cheerful thing to say to someone you don't know!

Full of positive good cheer and brimming with warm wonderful wishes that just makes me all fuzzy inside.

Amazingly some people think the Muslims are a problem!





[edit on 23/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by insideNSA


lol... conservative blogs huh? don't think so


another classic libtard tactic. when you don't like the truth, make something up



Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by nunya13
 


Numerous conservative blog sites. They're proposing the building will open on the 9/11 anniversary.


atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...
Then tell me what I'm making up then.

Looks like I have proven you wrong.
www.glennbeck.com...

www.dailyfreeman.com...

Still think I'm making everything up? Mr. Conservative?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
Uhh OK. You seem to not understand RIGHTS.


I hate debating with Barrack room lawyers. I have a Law degree and a Post Grad in law so give it a break.


Originally posted by maybereal11
People can be deprived of thier rights if they commit a crime...Convicted Pedophiles can't use the internet, Drunk Drivers get thier lisence revoked...murderers get put in prison...You do get it don't you?

RIGHTS have to do with EQUALITY.


You really haven't got a clue have you?


Originally posted by maybereal11
And in the United States of America...belonging to a specific faith is not a CRIME.


Who said it was?


Originally posted by maybereal11
If you would like an alternative system, move to Saudi Arabia or Iran.


Deary me.


Originally posted by maybereal11
ALSO - The VERY PREMISE of DEMOCRACY is that Majority Rule shall never impede on MINORITY RIGHTS...lest there be TYRANNY.


Is it really. Would this be John Stuart Mill's you are paraphrasing?


Originally posted by maybereal11
By always protecting the minority from the majority...we protect everyone of us, because each and every one of us as individuals will , with regards to faith or opinion, ethnicity or political view, be a minority at some point.


Its looking that way long term with the Muslim immigration.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Mmmm. You never did pass Constitutional Law did you? On the other hand, I did. Literally.



I find that painfully hard to believe since you have shown no understanding of what rights as defined by the constitution actually are.

You also seem to think that Majority should rule at the expense of the minority and that policy should be driven by opinion polls and despite your back-pedaling, you did state that "perhaps the constitution should be amended" to reflect this opinion poll.

Here let's try this..



Minority Rights I: Individual Rights vs. Majority Tyranny

Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.




Democracy Requires Minority Rights

Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.

www.democracyweb.org...



[edit on 23-8-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by insideNSA

how about I"m getting it from multiple news sources



The opening date shall live in infamy: Sept. 11, 2011. The 10th anniversary of the day a hole was punched in the city's heart.


Read more: www.nypost.com...


Well, the Post got it wrong:


Glenn Beck and Pamela Geller advanced the false claim that the New York City Islamic cultural center will open on September 11, 2011. In fact, both the executive director of one of the groups spearheading the project, as well as the Imam involved, have flatly denied that the center is slated to open on September 11.

source

Back when the NYPost printed the article you cite, they didn't even know yet whether the building would get landmark status -- in other words, whether they would have to modify the existing building or whether they'd be able to go ahead with plans to demolish it and rebuild. They don't have a firm timeline, but they're hoping to have it built in 2012 sometime.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by insideNSA



lol... conservative blogs huh? don't think so


another classic [snip]tactic. when you don't like the truth, make something up


You have no idea just how true your words are.
If you take a look at the approach of some on here, you will see the tactic's changing greatly.
For instance, not too long ago someone bombarded posters who wanted to speak out, speak up.
The poster's bullying tactics usually work but not that time


You will even notice the tactic changing again, using horrible hate labels and then when a puppet ACTUALLY posted something independent of the bully's thoughts...lol, the puppet was shamed for his independent thought.
The latest tactic is a softer approach seasoned with a feeble attempt of applying guilt.

Times have changed. People are speaking up!

Those who are speaking up and speaking out are called all kinds of horrible names but thankfully, they are strong enough that they aren't bullied into silence.

Speaking up does not mean they are against the Constitution, Freedom of Religion..ect.
The problem here is that those who are use to dominating and through their trickery, they can usually silence others but now their bag of tricks aren't working.

I’m happy more are speaking up.

Best Regards,
sweetliberty




edit to snip a word I chose not to spread around. A word I would not use when describing anyone. Thank you maybereal11 for pointing that word out



[edit on 23-8-2010 by sweetliberty]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   


reply to post by insideNSA



just answer me one question. why MUST they build this mosque as close to ground zero as possible and create such controversy?


Because they are Americans and they can build a mosque where ever they want as Americans. There is no controversy in that, and there is no debate in this discussion, it is just racist bigots patriot wannabes..


This debate has already been shaped and formed so no side can win. This is called political trolling, Obama jumped in so quick, just to give the BS debate a boost because he is involved in this diversion of attention.



Your side can keep saying, well its next to ground Zero, then my side can say Jesus F'en Christ, so what. Your side will say, well Moosies killed thousands of Americans in that site. Then my side would say, Jesus F'en Christ it is a mosque not a terrorist training camp. Then your side would say, it is an insult and people just don't want it there. Then My side would say if you have something against Muslim Americans go take it to the courts. Then your side would say, we don't want the mosque. Then my side would say, go get a F'en life morons + control freaks..


No side can win the argument, and will end up in the streets screaming their lungs out because they were stupid enough to think this is important.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty

Originally posted by insideNSA


lol... conservative blogs huh? don't think so


another classic libtard tactic. when you don't like the truth, make something up




I'll let the "libtard" thing pass, but not sure the Mods will...political baiting/T&C etc.

I like to research...and I researched everywhere I could to find out if the purported date of the Mosque opening was 9/11.

All I found was conservative Blogs...so I have to agree with this poster.

I'd be interested if you could find any legitimate news source stating that date...otherwwise..stop with the name calling and back your BullS*&^ up...Please.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
They went after that guy because he was different pure and simple. He had dark skin and a beard and that was enough. For the person who said it wasn't because of skin color, what about the other people in the crowd that had beards. They didn't "confuse" them with being a muslim. Also just the idea, the idea of politicians and religious leaders and even media pundits even considering intolerance and bigotry is okay in this instance has shown we are well on our way to Nazism. You say no way, it can't happen here etc. etc. etc.. Well have many of you wondered why such a society like Germany could have allowed Nazism to happen and/or those people even follow orders that a mad man wanted. There was two experiments done in the early 1960's, one called the Stanford Prison Experiment and the other the Milgram Experiment. I will post both links to them.

In it's conclusion "The experiment's result has been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. It is also used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.". People followed because they believed what was being said because in essence everybody else believed it. And when enough people believing an ideology are in positions of power, its real easy for the ones that don't believe to submit. And thats because of two things, fear (fear of being on the outside of the group and fear of being a victim of the group) and as one German psychologists said decades ago, if you put a sane person in an insane asylum over the course of time they will eventually go crazy, same with the person or persons living in an insane ideology of people all around you.

Americans are killing America, and they don't even know it. Democracies are few and don't last long, and we are seeing why, we revert back to the same things that drove us to a place that wouldn't do that. And in so doing we do it to somebody else, in fact being the monster that terrorized us.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 23-8-2010 by hoghead cheese]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Democracy Requires Minority Rights

Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.


www.democracyweb.org...



I hate to break it to you, but nothing you posted is law. It a philosophical discussion of constitutional rights.

All very interesting, maybe even persuasive, but not law.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
This totally mimics what happened in Nazi Germany and people are so stupid they don't see it. A little famous quote from history,just replace jews with Muslims.


First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 


OMG!!! Someone see's it! Someone has a brain and a heart. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by flycatch
 


did you even watch the video??

the guy stated more than once that he is not muslim.
Therefore your point is invalid.

-b0s-



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you posted is law. It a philosophical discussion of constitutional rights.

All very interesting, maybe even persuasive, but not law.


On one hand you claim to have a law degree...on the other you don't seem to recognize the bill of rights as law...

An odd kind of dishonesty.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaiinguy12

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.




First they blew up the Twin Towers and killed 3,000 people but I did not speak out because I was afraid of being called a bigot.

Then they arrived by the boatloads but I did not speak out because I was afraid of being branded a xenophobe.

Then the NY police department reported that extremists had infiltrated the NY Muslim community but I still didn't speak out from fear of being branded a racist.

Then they tried to build a mosque beside Ground Zero and name it after a victory mosque they had built on top of a conquered Spanish Cathedral. I did speak out because they were obviously using our freedoms against us and were clearly trying to rub our noses in it.

I was still called a xenophobe, a racist and bigot, but I didn't mind because 70% of Americans agreed with me.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 


OMG!!! Someone see's it! Someone has a brain and a heart. Thank you.


The good news is kind of the bad news in this case, the religious nutters have been trying to take over government since the Salem Witch Trials.

Back in those early colonial days, America had yet to become the much more diverse place it had become by the Revolution when the founding fathers wisely made the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights to ensure that the Constitution would be specific enough to adequately ensure equality and freedoms regarding religious matters.

Today you are free to be a witch!

Sadly a few of them are running around ATS causing a lot of mayhem in regards to this issue, but the truth is no, America is too diverse a place to let the self serving wishes of a few, ruin the protections and freedoms for all.

They would love to see it happen, and they have made their little inroads, usually as a concession by the government manipulating them to support some murderous and bankrupting agenda it is taking on.

In God we trust first appeared on some coins in the Civil War as a concession to northern Christians to get them to support brother killing brother.

Then God showed up in the Pledge of Allegiance for Flag Day when trying to extoll Americans to fight World War I a European War that the financial arrangements of the Treaty of Versailles would send the United States into Bankruptcy where it still remains to this day.

Then In God we Trust made it onto all currency during the McCarthy years of rabid anti-Communist paranoia, to in part better define the difference between Godless Communists and decent God Fearing Americans so the religious would not complain that the Federal Income Tax that was only allowed to be levied in time of war, wasn't repealed to grow a big government and a big military industrial complex at the citizens expense.

Perhaps why the ultra religious are so concerned about the Muslims is they know that in fact they would sell their own souls to get one more concession to God as they desperately want to define God to not serve that Lord, but so that Lord serves them!

America is to diverse of a place though to let any religious clique take over, because too many of us know, that's how to return to the days of burning witches and heretics at the stake.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
OP let me remind you that those “Basic Tenets” that this country was Built upon were White European
Christian. It was UNITY that made us Great. Multi-culturism is is divisive and results in the death of this country as it has to all others in all of history.

Those who do not learn from history may never get another chance.

No way was that Freedom of Religion clause meant to allow for the Usurpation of our Culture.
We were not and were not intended to be a “melting pot” of different cultures and races.
You all must be total delirious with joy to learn that folks of White European descent will be the minority in about 20 years.

All you PC-roll-over-and-give-up minions scare the ## out of me..
Will you defend the Muslims when they push for Sharia law?
But then you won’t have to. They will be the Majority and you won’t have a say.

This shows the basic feeling in this country toward these strangers who come here and demand that we change our ways to please them. I’m glad to see them standing up for the Traditional U.S.A.

23432 says:
“All Americans are equal .
Aren't they ? “

“Equal” No; equal under the law yes. Big difference.

maybereal11, there is nothing more divisive than this Multi-Culturism you are defending.
There can be no unity of different races, religions and cultures. Wake up to Reality.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Sorry but your failed attempt at an argument loses all of its power by you believing the official story of 9/11



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Sorry,wrong again. America was built by slaves. The white Christians were the ones telling them what to do for many years.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by ollncasino

I hate to break it to you, but nothing you posted is law. It a philosophical discussion of constitutional rights.

All very interesting, maybe even persuasive, but not law.


On one hand you claim to have a law degree...on the other you don't seem to recognize the bill of rights as law...

An odd kind of dishonesty.


You wouldn't know the Bill of Rights if you fell over it. You posted a discussion about constitutional law and rights. Read it yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join