He links from the Washinton Times. Click the link below him.
Ah, the Moonie Times. They certainly have a lot of leeway to talk about foreign religions trying to take over the country…
You don’t understand something, Perciful. We aren’t debating you anymore. You’re hopeless. It’s a wash. All we’re doing now is kind of making fun of your so-called cites, trying to keep within the rules of GD.
If you think that’s a credible source then it’s no wonder about the links from Youtube. The fact is, that link and the one you posted after it, have very simple facts incorrect. There’s no point worrying about the other stuff if they can’t even get the basics right.
Are you offended by a church or even the Christian memorial near the site of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building? If not, why not? I’d put forth the reason that you’re offended by a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center is prejudice against Muslims. By the way, weren’t some of the victims of that attack Muslims?
Do not insult other posters outside The BBQ Pit.
If you have credible evidence that you are being stalked or harrassed, then report that information, but do not carry on feuds in Great Debates and do not insult other posters.
[ /Moderating ]
Don’t worry. I do not think that you had been persuaded by any actual facts.
Let’s look at your issues, here.
You want to believe that a person who has rejected her religion and now makes her living criticising it is an “objective” observer of that religion, even when she makes comments that are demonstrably not true or are true of a particular sect within that religion within a particular locale. When I point out that I can find people who have behaved in exactly the same way regarding your religion, you want to dismiss that as being off topic. Nope. It is a clear parallel and it is the reason why your speaker is not really a reliable source.
I gave the bank’s citation. I noted that at the bottom of that bank’s web page, they provided the specific indications that they were in compliance with U.S. law. The web site of the bank had already been provided earlier on page 4:
I am not arguing against you deciding to be miffed that people you dislike are involved in actions you dislike. I am pointiong out that a number of claims that you and others have lodged against the group are silly and that most of your claims about “Sharia banking” are in error.
You can dislike whomever you choose, but when you post information that is wrong, you are going to be challenged.
Your particular complaints seem pretty silly, to me, but I am not bothered by them.
Complaints that one group that has been involved in the Tribeca neighborhood of New York City for thirty years, or so, is somehow “insulting” someone by continuing to be involved in that same neighborhood, just because some other members of a completely different sect within the same overall religion did something horrible strike me as silly. This is not even condemning a building for Catholic Charities because one is angry about the Catholic pedophilia scandal, it is condemning a building for the United Methodist Committee on Relief because one is angry about the pedophilia scandal. Your choice, but when you post nothing but links to people who are clearly ignorant or biased on the topic, you are unpersuasive.
Perhaps you should read the rest of my posts, then. I pointed out the facts, and you promptly ignored them; possibly, due to lack of snazzy YouTube citations.
Unfortunately, I can’t watch videos right now – the sound isn’t working on my computer. But I’m guessing it’s more of the same bullshit you’ve been spewing.
THE MOSQUE IS NOT ON GROUND ZERO. Why are you unable to understand this point? Ground Zero (a term I never liked and try to avoid using) is the World Trade Center site. This building is two blocks away. I even linked to a map upthread. And there is not going to be a party on September 11th of next year. At one point there was a proposal that it would open that date, but they have expanded their plans since then. I have not seen any proposed date for the laying of the cornerstone, much less the opening.
You can’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you get stuff like this wrong. Especially after people have already given you the correct information.
Bloody hell this is daft as well as bigoted thinking.
Who is this they? What “country” are you talking about in contrast to “your country.” Rubbing your nose in what? That you’re no longer the Puritan Theocracy that you bloody well started off as back in the 17th century? Jaysus
Maybe that’s because your fellow Americans aren’t buying into bigotry. I’d say that’s a good, nay, a great thing and shows the strength of my country.
Not all of the colonies were Puritan. One was even Catholic and another Quaker.
Well aware of that mate, but I saw from something else she posted that she is in Live Free or Die State, which a bit of googling told me is in old New England, thus part of the old Puritan establishement.
Perciful, I feel the need to ask a question that’s been asked of you before. When you look at things on the internet, how is it you determine that they’re accurate or worthy of listening to?
I mean, you’ve said that we must be careful to question things, and not take things just because some authority figure says so. What questions do you ask of the videos you’ve linked to? Possibly it’s just a matter of this being a debating forum, and so your arguments and questions are revealed to all, but it seems as though you are more willing to question posters on this board than those videos that you post. And that the degree to which you’re willing to question something is the extent to which you already agree with them - posters on here disagree with you, so they’re wrong and closed-minded, but those videos agree with you, so they are excellent and correct.
I apologise if this is not so. But I would appreciate an insight into your deliberative process. How do you decide who has good points to make?
Surely if “things many, many people on the Internet say” is a valid source of information, we should rightly conclude that 9/11 had nothing to do with Muslims at all and was in fact a government conspiracy (or a Jewish conspiracy, or maybe both - it’s so hard to keep up). And since the Muslims had nothing to do with it, there’s no problem with a mosque being built near the site, right?
Problem solved.
I’m pretty sure that there are Catholic churches within sight of any IRA bombing that you care to name.
Like a US Air Force base at Nagasaki?
Oh, c’mon. The base is there at the request of the Japanese government. And it wasn’t terrorism. It was a declared war.
The Cordoba House issue seems to have quieted down of late, but Salon asked an interesting question.
In 2007, where was the outrage over the reports of celebration of Ramadan inside the ‘Sacred Ground’ of the Pentagon where 184 died on 9/11?
A more or less serious question: I believe the architect has only recently been chosen, so there is no firm design; but does the concept incorporate minaret(s) and muezzin(s) to call the faithful to prayer? And if not, can it properly be called a mosque?
Of course, the dedicated opponents would not be placated in any way were it called something different; but repeatedly referring to the project as a mosque only fans the proverbial flames.