Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Ground Zero Mosque

1…910121415…26

Comments

  • #332
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Because I think it's insensitive and offensive and I dont think its going to harmonise relations, but do the opposite.

    It can only be "offensive" if you (and or others )associate ordinary muslims and their faith with the 9/11 attacks....


  • #333
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Clawdeeus wrote: »
    Really? Vindictive? How so?
    Clawdeeus wrote: »
    I agree, that stopping the mosque would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.

    Sounds like you already have an idea How So. But to humour discussion it's people getting back at Islam whom they view as trying to attack America, 9 years ago next month.


  • #334
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    ...but if you believe the mosque should not be built and and respect their right to build the mosque how do you see this resolved? It seems unlikely that an alternative site in downtown Manhattan can be found, clearly ground zero was chosen because the demand for a mosque was there and knowing New York the planning process was likely long and painful. If people are opposed to it they need to offer a viable alternative which will fill Muslim needs in the area.

    In this dreadful economy, there is plenty of available buildings all over Manhattan.


  • #335
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    In this dreadful economy, there is plenty of available buildings all over Manhattan.
    And there are other mosques in the city. But only Starbucks is trying to take over by putting one location every 2 blocks. Still, I'd wager the mosque will cater to Muslims living and working in the direct vicinity.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Because I think it's insensitive and offensive and I dont think its going to harmonise relations, but do the opposite.
    On the contrary I expect people will visit Ground Zero, make their way past the souvenir shops and ask the Imam "Why did you do this?"

    And I hope everyone leaves that building with the answer. Islam didn't attack America: Terrorist dick-faces attacked America.


  • #336
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Amerika wrote: »
    In this dreadful economy, there is plenty of available buildings all over Manhattan.
    Such as?


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Anonymous1987 wrote: »
    Such as?
    You've got to be kidding right? You actually want me to find you one? Do a simple commerical real estate search in Manhattan and you will have your pick of probably thousands.


  • #338
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Overheal wrote: »
    And there are other mosques in the city. But only Starbucks is trying to take over by putting one location every 2 blocks. Still, I'd wager the mosque will cater to Muslims living and working in the direct vicinity.
    On the contrary I expect people will visit Ground Zero, make their way past the souvenir shops and ask the Imam "Why did you do this?"

    And I hope everyone leaves that building with the answer. Islam didn't attack America: Terrorist dick-faces attacked America.

    I actually laughed out loud.


  • #339
    Anonymous1987
    Closed Accounts Posts: 784 ✭✭✭Anonymous1987


    Amerika wrote: »
    You've got to be kidding right? You actually want me to find you one? Do a simple commerical real estate search in Manhattan and you will have your pick of probably thousands.
    Of course I don't expect you to besides you'd have to know the requirements of building but if people are going to oppose this they should be doing the groundwork on a reasonable alternative and by reasonable I mean in the downtown area where the mosque is needed which isn't all that big an area especially if you rule out anything in close proximity to ground zero.

    The thing is it shouldn't matter to people that a mosque is being built near ground zero if people didn't associate Muslims with terrorism but clearly they do and they are wrong in doing so.


  • #340
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    I actually laughed out loud.
    Indeed. Overly idealist-sounding, but I think that will be the case in practice.


  • #341
    Palmach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭Palmach


    wes wrote: »
    Yes, but not soley a mosque.

    It includes a Mosque. Correct?

    Completely irrelevant to whether there center should be built or not.
    Again irrelevant.

    Even if what you said was true, its again irrelevant. The center doesn't break any laws, and as such should be built if they can get they money for it.

    No matter how often you keep shouting irrelevant it doesn't mean the feelings of people should be ignore. It is very relevant. It is a provocation and it sullies the ground at Ground Zero. That is why people are against it. Planning is not just about black and white laws. There are many factors that take into account the environment, cultural factors historical factors etc. All this is considered before granting planning permission. What should be considered is the sensitivity of the survivors and relations of the dead of the biggest terorist outrage ever. That is relevant.

    Still waiting, on some proof regarding you various claims of provocation from the Cordoba people, and not to mention your other claims in your latest post..... As it stands you are spouting what amounts to stuff that belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

    http://www.cordobainitiative.org/program_areas.html
    Here is their website and here is the second paragraph............

    "The Shariah Project     – Shariah (Islamic holy law) requires a nation to care for its citizens’ welfare, provide religious freedom, offer educational opportunities, protect minorities, and allow citizens to participate in their own governance."

    Total and utter baloney and a down right lie. Everyone knows (but some pc types will ignore) that Sharia means minorities being maltreated and religious freedom for non-Muslims being curtailed.

    http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3453
    Read the above as it is an excellent piece on the whole Cordoba Initiative and their Imam Faisal Rauf.
    Nodin wrote: »
    It can only be "offensive" if you (and or others )associate ordinary muslims and their faith with the 9/11 attacks....

    Undoubtedly the most stupid post on this thread. What religion were the 9/11 hijackers? What motivated them? Think hard before answering.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Palmach wrote: »
    No matter how often you keep shouting irrelevant it doesn't mean the feelings of people should be ignore. It is very relevant. It is a provocation and it sullies the ground at Ground Zero.

    Its not on Ground zero.

    In addition, I wasn't aware that the ground there had become some religous area that could be 'sullied'.
    Palmach wrote: »
    What should be considered is the sensitivity of the survivors and relations of the dead of the biggest terorist outrage ever.

    ....except the muslim ones, of course.


    Palmach wrote: »
    "The Shariah Project – Shariah (Islamic holy law) requires a nation to care for its citizens’ welfare, provide religious freedom, offer educational opportunities, protect minorities, and allow citizens to participate in their own governance."

    Total and utter baloney and a down right lie. Everyone knows (but some pc types will ignore) that Sharia means minorities being maltreated and religious freedom for non-Muslims being curtailed.

    Spare us the childish "everyone knows" crap please. Theres a number of different ways of reading Shariah law and the word "Shariah" literally translates as "path" or "way".
    Palmach wrote: »
    http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3453
    Read the above as it is an excellent piece on the whole Cordoba Initiative and their Imam Faisal Rauf.

    Its a crock. He's a Sufi, for starters.
    Palmach wrote: »
    Undoubtedly the most stupid post on this thread. What religion were the 9/11 hijackers? What motivated them? Think hard before answering.

    O. So one does something that means they're all the same? I hadn't realised. Does that mean every Jewish person is a Dr Baruch Goldstein?


  • #343
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Palmach wrote: »

    No matter how often you keep shouting irrelevant it doesn't mean the feelings of people should be ignore. It is very relevant. It is a provocation and it sullies the ground at Ground Zero. That is why people are against it. Planning is not just about black and white laws. There are many factors that take into account the environment, cultural factors historical factors etc. All this is considered before granting planning permission. What should be considered is the sensitivity of the survivors and relations of the dead of the biggest terorist outrage ever. That is relevant.
    Oh yeah, i'm sure all that cultural and historical talk is really important to those white americans.
    Afterall, didn't they steal land from Indians then vandalise this mountain?
    Culture, History?
    Puleeze.


  • #344
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I see that Harry Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, now says a mosque should not be built near the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    Let the calls of scumbag begin... Wait! There is a (D) behind his name... NEVER MIND! ;)


  • #345
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Amerika wrote: »
    I see that Harry Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, now says a mosque should not be built near the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    Let the calls of scumbag begin...

    Scumbag!!!


  • #346
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Overheal wrote: »
    Indeed. Overly idealist-sounding, but I think that will be the case in practice.

    You wear Birkenstocks don't you? :)


  • #347
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    You wear Birkenstocks don't you? :)
    ...

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65778070

    Never again :/


  • #348
    Palmach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭Palmach


    Nodin wrote: »
    Its not on Ground zero.

    In addition, I wasn't aware that the ground there had become some religous area that could be 'sullied'.

    It is within sighting distance and people are buried there. Maybe it doesn't bother you but it bothers plenty of others.


    Spare us the childish "everyone knows" crap please. Theres a number of different ways of reading Shariah law and the word "Shariah" literally translates as "path" or "way".

    Total pathetic pc gibberish. You know absolutely nothing about Sharia or even worse you choose to ignore the facts. The criminal codes of Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as the Taliban's "way" are Sharia. 'Nuff said


    Its a crock. He's a Sufi, for starters.

    Bull. The article has direct quotes.
    O. So one does something that means they're all the same? I hadn't realised. Does that mean every Jewish person is a Dr Baruch Goldstein?

    Did Goldstein justify his actions with reference to the Torah? No. The 9/11 murderers and the hundreds of others since then claim to be inspired by the Koran and Hadith. You won't find a Rabbi defending the killing of innocent people.


  • #349
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Palmach wrote: »
    You won't find a Rabbi defending the killing of innocent people.

    You must like being wrong or something:

    Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira: Killing Non-Jewish Infants is Permitted


  • #350
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Amerika wrote: »
    But according to you, are they not just a small fringe element, and subject to the same arugment of "I am sure most American's are intelligent enough, to know the difference between the reactions of a small group of people on some random street in the occupied terroritories" (spelling or Freudian slip? ;)), and not be of consequence?

    What are you even getting at anymore? The fact is that the people behind all the fear mongering, you know the people leading the campaign are liars, and it has been shown several times already in the thread.

    Also, I stated it started with a fringe element before being picked up by more main stream crazies, but you do have a habit of picking and choosing which parts of posts you choose to remember when replying. The fact remains that they have lied, and have done so numerous times. Of course, you don't seem to have any issues with there lies.

    Also, the vast majority of American's aren't actually you know involved in the campaign, regardless of there opinion on the center, so you really are talking a lot of nonsense, and are grasping at straws.


  • #351
    wes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,749 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Palmach wrote: »
    It includes a Mosque. Correct?

    Yes, but its not just a Mosque, and it isn't at ground zero either, as has been claimed numerous times. I would expect those against the Center, to at the very least know what there against, but the constant claims of it being solely being a Mosques, shows that they aren't even sure what there against. Of course, that would probably tax there tiny brains to much.
    Palmach wrote: »
    No matter how often you keep shouting irrelevant it doesn't mean the feelings of people should be ignore. It is very relevant. It is a provocation and it sullies the ground at Ground Zero. That is why people are against it.

    Prove it is a provocation, then. I am waiting for you to back up your claims. As it stands you are talking utter nonsense, and you know damn well you can't back up your nonsensical claims with a single fact, and your constantly stating the same nonsense again and again.

    Stating the same blatant lie again and again, does not make it true. You have no proof, and you refuse to provide any, and still you state it is a provocation, with not a shred of evidence that the Cordoba people intend to provoke anyone.

    So show me a statement where those behind the Center, have said it is a provocation. I mean a very clear statement of intent, and none of the hear say nonsense that you have been peddling, as its stands you statement has no basis in reality.

    Also, once again the center is not at Ground Zero, and those who are against it, were looking to be offended, and sadly a lot of gullible people bought into there nonsense.

    Also, the sighting thing, is just a cover for what is a blatant lie, after people call people out on the whole Ground Zero lie, its a quick change of the goal posts for those who are looking to be offended, and is pretty ridiculous tactic. Do you think people won't notice, the back tracking on the blatant lie or something?

    Finally, a lot of what you say is actually irrelevant. Just stating a simple fact there.
    Palmach wrote: »
    Planning is not just about black and white laws. There are many factors that take into account the environment, cultural factors historical factors etc. All this is considered before granting planning permission. What should be considered is the sensitivity of the survivors and relations of the dead of the biggest terorist outrage ever. That is relevant.

    No, actually it isn't relevant, and the appropriate authorities have already decided it isn't irrelevant, and it is a simple case of the law. Whether you like it or not, the Center has been approved thus far by the relevant authorities, so you are talking some nonsense again.
    Palmach wrote: »
    Total and utter baloney and a down right lie. Everyone knows (but some pc types will ignore) that Sharia means minorities being maltreated and religious freedom for non-Muslims being curtailed.

    What lies? There are many different Islamic sects.......

    Secondly, I fail to see the trojan horse you mentioned earlier. You will have to do better. Also, I actually read the whole part of there program area's, and I think it safe to say that your claims are some nonsense.

    Also, you clearly have no issues with lies, otherwise you would have issues with the Centers opponents and there various lies....
    Palmach wrote: »
    http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3453
    Read the above as it is an excellent piece on the whole Cordoba Initiative and their Imam Faisal Rauf.

    Seriously a blog:
    About International Analyst Network

    The International Analyst Network is a profile-based community to provide the perfect environment for interactive blogging, self-publication, and the best source of personalized up-to-date news feeds on the web. The founders wanted to develop an initiative to encourage young analysts to establish themselves and provide a platform through which the youth could become more involved in foreign policy and related analysis.

    Wow, you have 0 proof of this so called provocation, and um the Imam is a Sufi. Really, the Author needs to get basic facts right, if there going to try and peddle there lies. The amount of crap in that article is nothing short of hilarious, I wonder how many horses it took to generate the crap need for that blog posting.

    Now, lets take a look at the author of the little blog posting:
    Alyssa A. Lappen

    Alyssa A. Lappen describes herself as an "investigative journalist", former editor for mainstream magazines, or "a freelance journalist and poet, whose work frequently focuses on Jewish themes".[1] Her recent articles often appear in right-wing websites like FrontPage Magazine, AmericanThinker, Midstream and JihadWatch.org. Her articles, which commonly defend Israel, are often published by Campus Watch, DiscoverTheNetwork, Israel Hasbara Committee.[2]

    Lappen is currently a "Senior Fellow" at the American Center for Democracy. She is also very active in submitting "book reviews" to Amazon and often copied through to other online book sellers websites.

    So, the author doesn't seem to be a fan of Muslims. Can't say I am surprised.

    **EDIT**
    BTW, the article makes several false claims and provides no proof for them.
    For example, one lies is that the Imam is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (or has links), but none of the provided links prove this, but basically tried the whole guilt by association nonsense which prove nothing, but the authors desperation. So the author is lieing and provides no proof at all, and half her links are broken, which is just unprofessional. If your going to lie, they really need to make sure there links work, at a minimum.
    **END EDIT**
    Palmach wrote: »
    Undoubtedly the most stupid post on this thread. What religion were the 9/11 hijackers? What motivated them? Think hard before answering.

    Coming from the guy who makes claims, and then provides a blog as proof....


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Palmach wrote: »
    It is within sighting distance and people are buried there. Maybe it doesn't bother you but it bothers plenty of others.
    .

    So no muslim or Islamic centre can be within sight of this 'sacred' space....Hmmmmm.
    Palmach wrote: »
    Total (..........)are Sharia. 'Nuff said .

    I'm totally correct in my assertions. You, however, seem to be repeating right wing catchphrases with gay abandon....


    Palmach wrote: »
    Bull. The article has direct quotes. .


    Palmach wrote: »
    Did Goldstein justify his actions with reference to the Torah? .

    He - in his own lights - was re-enacting part of the Purim story, by all accounts. Having been a member of an extreme right wing religous organisation and shown similar proclivities and threats before, he was unlikely to be having a secular crisis at that moment in time.
    To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/685792.stm
    Palmach wrote: »
    . You won't find a Rabbi defending the killing of innocent people.

    You reckon?
    Rabbi Dov Lior, Chairman of the Jewish Rabbinical Council, was quoted as saying "during warfare, killing non-Jewish civilians is permitted if it saves Jewish lives".
    Dov Lior

    Religion: Hasidic Judaism

    Who is he?: Head rabbi of Kiryat Arba settlement

    Country: Israel

    Quote: "A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail."

    Why he matters: Lior is the chief rabbi for Kiryat-Arba, a Jewish settlement near the turbulent West Bank town of Hebron, and leads the council of rabbis for the West Bank settlements. He has stated repeatedly that the killing of Palestinian civilians is compatible with Jewish law and that the commandment "thou shalt not kill"applies only to Jews.
    http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2462
    Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburgh..........

    Ginzburgh’s 1998 book “Baruch Hagever” — which can be translated as both “Baruch the Man” and “Blessed is the Man” — had praised Baruch Goldstein’s deeds, prompting a lengthy police investigation that ended with a decision by state prosecutors not to indict. However, Ginzburgh received a warning from police that criminal proceedings would be launched if he should reiterate such statements in the future.
    Ginzburgh served two months in administrative detention in 1996, following a speech on the second anniversary of Goldstein’s massacre in which he reportedly argued that Jews are required to exact revenge for Jewish blood, supposedly based on the writings of the Lubavitcher rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.
    His arrest became the focus of a worldwide protest campaign led by Lubavitch rabbis demanding his release. Following his release, he was brought to the United States by a faction of the Lubavitch movement for a fund-raising and publicity tour, during which he aroused further controversy.
    http://www.forward.com/articles/8955/
    Rabbi Manis Friedman wrote:

    "The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)," Friedman wrote in response to the question posed by Moment Magazine for its "Ask the Rabbis" feature.
    Friedman argued that if Israel followed this wisdom, there would be "no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war."
    "I don't believe in Western morality," he wrote. "Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention."
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/chabad-rabbi-jews-should-kill-arab-men-women-and-children-during-war-1.277616

    And of course theres more.....

    Now, if its ok to blame Islam and all muslims for the activities of a few yahoos, why isn't the same logic to be extended above?


  • #353
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ...other avenues we could explore include Italians and the mafia, the Irish and the IRA, but the Jewish thing has the religous element, so we'll go with them for the moment.


  • #354
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...other avenues we could explore include Italians and the mafia, the Irish and the IRA, but the Jewish thing has the religous element, so we'll go with them for the moment.

    The IRA doesn't have a religious element? Is that why it's called The Easter Rising?


  • #355
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    wes wrote: »
    Prove it is a provocation, then. I am waiting for you to back up your claims.
    He's not going to back up his claims, because they're not based in fact.

    Much of this episode reminds me of the controversy surrounding mobile phone masts. I had a conversation once with someone who said they wouldn't want a mast within miles of their house. I explained the inverse square law, and how being close to a mast is actually safer because it lowers the transmit power of the handset. She listened to me, nodded along, and then replied with "well yeah, fair enough, but I still wouldn't want one near me."

    We're being asked to respect people's automatic associations between ordinary decent Muslims and Jihadist terrorists. We're being told we don't understand what it's like to have these irrational associations, because we're not New Yorkers.

    We're not going to get a rational argument for objecting to this building; only irrational and emotive arguments. And that's all we can do: show that on one side of the argument is reason, and on the other is nothing but emotion.


  • #356
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    The IRA doesn't have a religious element? Is that why it's called The Easter Rising?

    It was an uprising that happened at Easter to overthrow British rule in Ireland (where is the religious part?). The IRA wasnt even at it (in name) it was the IRB who mostly organised it with the Irish Citizens army. The didnt start referring to themselves as the IRA until just after it happened.


  • #357
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    It was an uprising that happened at Easter to overthrow British rule in Ireland (where is the religious part?). The IRA wasnt even at it (in name) it was the IRB who mostly organised it with the Irish Citizens army. The didnt start referring to themselves as the IRA until just after it happened.

    Im no expert at Irish history so bear with me, because I am trying to understand this. And Ive seen enough disputes on Humanties about this to know that a consensus probably can't be reached.

    But... didn't the Church have a lot to do with separating from England and isnt nationalism very much tied into the theocracy that was Ireland?


  • #358
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Im no expert at Irish history so bear with me, because I am trying to understand this. And Ive seen enough disputes on Humanties about this to know that a consensus probably can't be reached.

    But... didn't the Church have a lot to do with separating from England and isnt nationalism very much tied into the theocracy that was Ireland?

    Nationalism and the Church in Ireland are not mutually exclusive (look up north). I could be here all day explaining what happened but I would recommend the following if you want to know more about The IRA and The Easter Rising in General:

    - Anything by Tim Pat Coogan
    - The Easter Rising by Michael Foy and Brian Barton
    - James Connolly and the Irish Left by W K Anderson


  • #359
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    Nationalism and the Church in Ireland are not mutually exclusive (look up north). I could be here all day explaining what happened but I would recommend the following if you want to know more about The IRA and The Easter Rising in General:

    - Anything by Tim Pat Coogan
    - The Easter Rising by Michael Foy and Brian Barton
    - James Connolly and the Irish Left by W K Anderson

    Ok. My point was that there is an association between nationalism, the IRA and religion.


  • #360
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Ok. My point was that there is an association between nationalism, the IRA and religion.

    One could argue that the IRA view nationalism as a religion. But they did not view their war as a holy war or anything to do with Jesus. They were mostly religious men but the IRA and their actions had nothing to do with religion.

    Al Qaeda and other guerrilla networks of their type usually promote the will of Allah and perceived American imperialist policy as justifcation for their action. I cannot think of an occasion where the IRA used the will of Jesus as justification.

    So I would disagree with your assertion.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    One could argue that the IRA view nationalism as a religion. But they did not view their war as a holy war or anything to do with Jesus. They were mostly religious men but the IRA and their actions had nothing to do with religion.

    Al Qaeda and other guerrilla networks of their type usually promote the will of Allah and perceived American imperialist policy as justifcation for their action. I cannot think of an occasion where the IRA used the will of Jesus as justification.

    So I would disagree with your assertion.

    I can see how the IRA did not bring theoology into it, unlike jihadists. But am I wrong that the 800 years of oppression, the awful Brits, yadda yadda yadda, is THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS version of history that most people grew up with?


Advertisement