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.

 

Ron Paul Defends NYC Mosque

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


I am not going to take the word of an imam who said we are responsible for creating bin laden. Listen to his interview on 60 minutes after 9/11, he is making excuses for the terrorists. F-him. If they could prove the funding for the mosque is not from terrorists supporters I would not care, but sadley that is not the truth. It is OK to not to be politically correct. This mosque is not being built because a community center is needed for the unserviced muslim population there, but just as a rallying cry for all who hate America and what is stands for.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by pyramid head]




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
RP is right again.

However, if someone with money really doesnt like it - they should build a stripper bat next door.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by rival
Ron Paul never strays. He is man of principle. He is a straight-shot arrow to
the heart of everything that is corrupt and wrong about our government, and
he never disappoints me.

This country has been mislead, mishandled, and intentionally manipulated
for far too long.

We should have put him at the helm in 2004, because right now we are heading
for the rocks and there is little time left.

Register to vote. Vote for Ron Paul on whatever ticket he runs. Then vote out
all the incumbents in the House and Senate.

WE ARE ALL BICKERING ABOUT THE ROOM ACCOMMODATIONS...
WHILE THE SHIP IS SINKING!

[edit on 24-8-2010 by rival]


Dream on, he has no mandate, no party to lead as he is not the leader, he's not even leader of the opposition. He does not have to deliver so can pander to whatever opinion the public (or public based on his opinion polls) would like him to hold - why not? He won't have to actually do anything.


Mandate? What do you mean? This makes no sense.
Opposition to what? Again, you make no sense.
What does he not have to deliver?

AND PANDER?! This man has a voting record in congress that has NEVER
strayed from upholding the constitution. He has never been accused of
pandering to any constituency--rather he has been accused of being too
rigid and inflexible. He has maintained a strict platform of principled
constitutionality from his first day in congress.

Tell me to dream on? You need to get some sleep, you're delusional



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


First off you should consider getting the facts right before beating your club on the cave floor and frothing at the mouth.
9/11 had as much to do with Islam as the Oklahoma City bombing had to do with Christianity. Islam did not attack us - Al Qaeda did - or at least thats what I remember being told.
The so called mosque at ground zero is not a mosque. It is a community center with a prayer room and it is 1/4 mile away from actual ground zero.

So your anger is misplaced and your assumptions are wrong. Now go sulk and feel sorry for yourself, because you were conned yet again.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
While I question the wisdom and the motives of building the mosque there, I'm not against it (but neither am I for it). I do agree with Dr. Paul, however, as it is their right as Americans to build wherever they want...within zoning laws, of course!


/Q



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


Ron Paul Defends NYC Mosque

Mr. Paul


My view is it is the


Unless..



I'm quiet sure it doesn't.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EFGuy
 


ZOMG! I lol'd at that.
second verse, same as the first.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   


It is enlightening to note the comments of Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of Vermont, John Henry Hopkins, who wrote, over fifty years later, on the Christian character of the U.S. Constitution in The American Citizen: His Rights and Duties, According to the Spirit of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Pudney & Russell, 1857), pp. 77-8:


and we are bound to believe that whatever was tolerated publicly in England, was doubtless meant to be protected here.



which, of course, is why we protected the monarchy.


so are we supposed to fashion our country after england of the 1800's?


"The mosque, on the ground floor of a 19th century grade II-listed building in Liverpool, was established in 1889 by Henry William Quilliam (pictured), who converted to Islam after visiting Morocco, adopting the name Abdullah Quilliam."


and wales was a bit ahead of the times.


"Britain's oldest mosque can be found at 2 Glynrhondda Street in Cardiff.

It was founded by Yemeni sailors in 1860. It is still a working mosque known as the Al-Manar Islamic & Cultural Centre."


so, now you know. islamic centers of worship are publicly tolerated in england. you can get on with protecting them here.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


So instead of looking to what the builders say the purpose is you will listen to the various branches of Murdoch's NewsCorp (partly owned by the very Muslim they're insinuating is a funder of the both the project and terrorism)?

Both the Park51 non-profit and the Cordoba Initiative non-profit have vowed to work with the authorities to make sure they don't take any funding from anyone on the government watchlists of terrorist funders.

There is clearly an underserviced Muslim population there, since the mosque the imam leads is already using the building for their prayer services, which were overflowing their old space.

The idea that they are deliberately provoking would hold a lot more water if they hadn't gotten near-unanimous community board approval, or even if when the proposal was first addressed on Fox News there had been any outcry (there wasn't, the Fox commentator basically said "oh how nice").

No, it's only as people try to drum up anti-Islamic fervor in the U.S. in one of our recurring demonizations of Iran, and in the face of waning support for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that it became a national issue.

As for the comment the imam made about U.S. foreign policy being a contributing factor to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 -- I completely agree with him.

That doesn't mean I hate America, it means I think that we have made some bad decisions about how to treat the rest of the world, and some short-sighted decisions to demonize a religion for political gain at home. It does not in any way excuse the actions of the terrorists of 9/11 -- this is something that we "liberals" are often accused of trying to do when we point to contributing causes.

Understanding the context of an action does not excuse that action. Saying that the U.S. foreign policy was part of the context that allowed Bin Laden and al Qaida to gain strength and followers does not mean the U.S. is to blame for what they do.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


Really? Are you that ignorant? Only a coward is to scared to call his enemy by his real name, ISLAMIC extremists. Al-Queda is a terrorists virtual state supported by Islamo-facists regimes. Religon is the common bond, they fight and unite under it. I am not going to bother with a historical and cultural lesson on Islams expansionists nature and intolerence of other religons. It is sad when so many have died you feel the right to stand up for the rights of those who want to celebrate their massacre.

Im beating my club and frothing at the mouth because so many are misguided, quit pretending to be better than everyone, and point out the elephant in the room. Many American have died at the hands of ISLAMIC extremists, and that worthless imam in charge of the mosque has made excuses for them. Its much easier to stick your head in the sand and say it is their right, so you do not have to feel outraged. It should shame you has an American that this is happening.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


I'm amused by your primitive attempts to communicate. History would be a good place for you to start. Also consider learning how to reason properly - you know, without someone helping you along, i.e. think for yourself.
I won't bother to argue that I am better than you. I think that is readily apparent to anyone with an IQ higher than 50 and a working conscience.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   


"This is all about hate and Islamaphobia," he argues.

Glad to see that we are seeing more conservatives calling people out on this! It's not a liberal-vs-conservative issue, it's a prejudice issue. IMH(f)O.


[edit on 2010-8-25 by EnhancedInterrogator]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


Speaking arrogantly does not make you intelligent, spoken like a true self serving liberal. I know plenty of history I'm sorry you could not participate in the discussion. I noticed you just ran your mouth and did not say much of anything, you are probably so intelligent and your IQ is so high all you can communicate in is gibberish. I understand you are not able to argue point because it an unintelligent position based on arrogance and the ability to point out some sort of superiority, your false sense of intelligence clearly backed that up.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Look, this place will be touted by our enemies in the middle east as some sort of vicotry. The imam can give all of the bs excuses he wants, thats what it is. America's policy is not reponsible for that animal trash bin ladin causing 9/11. bin ladin's pimp father and his slut mother are responsible, for his hatred, like any good dejected psychopath looking for daddy's affection he sought out that lack of attention and found it in religon.

It is not the fault of the innocent American civillians who died that bin ladins mom was slut #23 in his dads harem. It is not American civillians fault that his dad did not care or pay attention to him. It is not American policy that motivates this loser, no more than a race war motivated charles manson. They are both losers with daddy issues. They both use cult-like followings to maintain power and influence over the feeble minded and get the attention they so desperatly seek. America did not help create bin ladin.

The last thing this animal deserves is another victory, and I guarantee that if they truley investigate where this money comes from they will find terrorists supporters behind the money.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by EFGuy
 


For your reference, the plane of 9/11 was not flown by strippers and drug dealers.

It was flown by Mohamed Atta, under the influence of Islam.

You know what other mosque no one made fuss about before 9/11 (or after for that matter)?

The Hamburg mosque, which they finally closed.

So you see, your little cartoon does not work.



[edit on 25-8-2010 by tungus]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrillsAngelWings
reply to post by SeventhSeal
 


Ron and his son Rand are the needle in a haystack politicians.The most honerable in my opinion and should be in the oval office instead of Obama.They together could really change the problems of america.


Ahem,

Ron's son, Rand is against the Mosque. They disagree on various policies as well.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


On the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) it's readily acknowledged that there are inconsistencies with the various translations of the text that have led to much confusion over it. In fact, the translation overseen by Joel Barlow, the American consul at Algiers, who was in charge of negotiating the treaty, differs greatly from a more literal translation of the text made over a century later. In relation to the controversial Article 11 there actually is evidence undermining its authenticity. From Charles Bevans’s Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949 (Department of State, 1974), vol. XI, pp. 1073-4:



...Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.


Furthermore, 8 years later when the Treaty was renewed the phrase in question was nowhere stipulated.

reply to post by abubakrs
 


Concerning Hopkins’s comments about the constitutional right of other religions besides Judaism and Christianity to erect places of worship in the US it's interesting to note it wasn’t until the mid-19th to early 20th centuries when the first temples and mosques were built on American soil. Moreover, his comments emphasize the period wherein the Constitution was ratified. For instance, he states: “The religious rights of the citizen of the United States consist in the enjoyment of his own conscientious choice, amongst all the forms of our common Christianity which were in existence at the time when the Constitution was established.” I only bring attention to this because it's my contention such is crucial to a more complete understanding of the Christian nature of the American Republic as it was founded as Jefferson once made clear to a Supreme Court judge: “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

But, as I said previously, I appreciate others might have a different view about what I have posted and I respect that. I also understand that the country has changed over the last 200 years and is suffering especially from rampant secularism, to the point that many deem America a post-Christian nation. And IMO the media hype over the erection of the mosque or Islamic community center, is an effect of this warped mentality that idolizes liberty at all costs without accountability and in time will lead to tyranny and anarchy since this kind of irresponsible freedom inevitably gives way to tighter controls that usher in totalitarianism. We're seeing this more as the religio-politico-socio-economic (etc.) zeitgeist in America and the Western world is leading us to a clash of civilizations or ideologies not unlike the crusades of Europe. And such surely could be averted if we chose to repent and reform ourselves as a nation. I admit, however, the likelihood of that happening is fairly slim. I'm afraid we've reached the point of no return.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tungus
reply to post by EFGuy
 

It was flown by Mohamed Atta, under the influence of Islam.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by tungus]


That is a very disingenuous statement. Considering you believe the official story the motivations identified for the attacks include

1. Support of Israel by the United States (specially the Palestine conflict)
2. Presence of the U. S. military in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
3. and the US enforcement of sanctions against Iraq.

You can read more here: Motives for the September 11 attacks



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tungus
reply to post by EFGuy
 


The Hamburg mosque, which they finally closed.
[edit on 25-8-2010 by tungus]


I was not aware of this mosque so I just did a search on this. I was connected to the website of the mosque in question which is also known as Manhattan Mosque. You can read it yourself that they have shifted 2 doors away


OUR MASJID NEEDS YOUR URGENT HELP!
Help Us Replace What We've Lost.

On May 25th 2008 our Masjid was evicted and forced to vacate the building which it occupied for 28 years. By the mercy of Allah, we found a small temporary location just two doors down the street from the old location and Alhamdullillah we did not have to close the Masjid. This new rental space is extremely small and it only has room for 20% of our members during Jummah. The rest of the members have to pray on the sidewalk outside the Masjid and are not able to listen to the Khutbah.

We, the members of the Board and the Committee, are working very hard to find a proper location to relocate the Masjid to. We ask every brother and sister to make sincere duas to Allah-Subhanahu-wa-tala to help us and to make it easy for us. We also plead to those who are financially able, to help us by donating or by giving us a Qardhan hassanan (Islamic loan).

www.masjidmanhattan.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by smurfy
 


Why equate two paragraphs? Isn't the purpose of a paragraph to start a new idea? I suppose I could have created a new chapter heading, but this is just a silly forum after all.

The point of the first paragraph is that it is not an issue of religious freedom, since that is already established for muslims here. They can build mosques all over new york and they are. It's a city planning issue as to whether or not we should have religous establishments near the site of a heinous attack on innocent Americans. Apparently the Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed at 911, was not permitted to rebuild. There has been no public outcry over that.

The second paragraph is an unrelated comment on what the real motivations of the idiots who are allowing this is. That is to create discord, confusion and demoralization in the ranks of their enemies, the American people.


There already are and were religious establishments in the area. I understand that there seems, on the face of it a double standard in operation, it could be mischievious media reporting of the Greek church, but much more info is needed. As I understand it as reported, the Greek officials were offered 130 Liberty street in 2008, (a redevelopement site) plus a large funding. Other reports mention that JPMorgan Chase had already that site in 2007 as to be their World heaquarters?? so, at the moment 130 Liberty street is planned as part of the new WTC as an office. I don't know if any work has started there yet. I do think it is a long time for Greek worshippers to wait for a new building in the real-estate messaround...did you ever try moving house when you want, when a lot of chain moving is going on..nothing moves until the biggest deals are settled, this is what the port authority is at.




top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join