Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Ground Zero Mosque

Options
  • 24-08-2010 10:52pm
    #1
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭


    I'm unquestionably for freedom of religion and and I fully support the Mosque but on the other hand I can see how it would be inflammatory to the ignorant. What has how active the media has been in magnifying the situation and fearmongering turning it into an ideological conflict which I think has exposed a complete lack of real knowledge of Islam.

    The CT is that the Mosque is purposely being used to cause conflict between Christians, mainly evangelical Christian Zionists and Muslims. Divide and conquer.

    Seems to be working.
    Confrontations break out across US over mosques
    http://www.telegram.com/article/20100808/NEWS/8080370/1052/RSS01&source=rss

    I'm on the fence at the moment


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie



    The CT is that the Mosque is purposely being used to cause conflict between Christians, mainly evangelical Christian Zionists and Muslims. Divide and conquer.

    Seems to be working.

    I would certainly agree with this and I would add this...

    Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Georges golfing buddy, who part owns FOX, is funding the proposed Mosque.

    14tv49y.jpg


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I would certainly agree with this and I would add this...

    Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Georges golfing buddy, who part owns FOX, is funding the proposed Mosque.

    original.jpg

    Yeah and check out the proposed Imam for the cultural center - CFR and Rockefeller backed. Dubious.

    Monday, June 21, 2010

    The "Ground Zero Mosque:" Why you should really be angry.


    By Tony Cartalucci
    June 22, 2010

    The anger and disbelief that most Americans feel may seem reasonable when they hear a mosque will be built next to "ground zero" in New York City. After all, this was the site of the September 11, 2001 attacks, supposedly perpetrated by "Muslim extremists" that saw three towers implode on themselves at the cost of nearly three thousand lives. The fact that the mosque, officially known as the Cordoba House, is being built as a "tribute" and will be opening on September 11, 2011 is so deliberately inciting and audacious, that more discerning Americans found it suspicious.

    What these more discerning Americans found when investigating the "Ground Zero Mosque" and the organization behind it, the Cordoba Initiative, will shock you, anger you, and honestly, should scare you.

    The Mainstream Media Weighs In

    Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun's "Ground Zero mosque an ill tribute to 9/11 victims"

    Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe's " A mosque at ground zero?"

    Considering the headlines, the media acknowledges the inflammatory, easily misconstrued intentions of the Cordoba Initiative. The media only speculates as to why the Cordoba Initiative is so seemingly ignorant of the perceptions many Americans have of their plans.

    America is divided along two predictable knee-jerk reactions. One is of anger, hatred, and a call for a tougher hardline approach to an expanding "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam. Another is one of unconditional tolerance. What neither side did, including the pundits feeding both sides, was take five minutes to research who was funding the Cordoba Initiative and who founded it in the first place.

    Behind the Cordoba House

    The Cordoba Initiative was founded by 'Imam' Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is also sitting on the Council on Foreign Relations' Religious Advisory Committee and the World Economic Forum's Council of 100. Cited as "Christian support for the Cordoba House" on the Cordoba Initiative's website, is an article from Jim Wallis' Christian publication, "Sojourners." Jim Wallis also sits on the CFR's Religious Advisory Committee. Conflict of interest doesn't enter the "Imam's" vocabulary when it comes to rubber stamping "Christian support" on his project.

    http://cordobainitiative.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/supporting-article-in-sojourners/

    http://www.cfr.org/about/outreach/re...ory_board.html

    The Cordoba Initiative is partners with the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), who Feisal Abdul Rauf also chairs, and under which the site for the $100 million Cordoba House was purchased. The list of financial supporters for the ASMA reads like a who's who of globalist foundations and includes the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Rockefeller Philanthropy, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

    http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/ci-partners

    http://www.asmasociety.org/about/p_support.html

    The CFR Connection

    But it was Feisal Abdul Rauf's Council on Foreign Relations connection that is most striking. The CFR is a corporate think-tank that supplies our elected representatives with a steady stream of policy and whose membership consists not of intellectual thinkers, but of notorious policy wonks, globalist mega-corporations and bankers. Below is a list of a few of the CFR's corporate members.

    http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

    Bank of America
    Goldman Sachs
    Chevron Corporation
    Exxon Mobil Corporation
    General Electric Company
    JPMorgan Chase & Company
    Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
    Lockheed Martin Corporation
    Morgan Stanley
    Shell Oil Company
    Rockefeller Group International, Inc.
    The Blackstone Group L.P.
    Boeing Company
    DynCorp International
    KBR
    Raytheon Company
    Rothschild North America, Inc.

    Many of these corporations have made trillions of dollars from the Iraq and Afghan wars, some even played integral parts in calling for the wars. Two of which, Veritas' DynCorp and KBR are in the top ten list of corporations profiting from the war in Iraq.

    If the public can be played right, they all stand to make trillions more with an invasion of Iran, the subsequent rebuilding of its shattered infrastructure and the seizure of their southern oil fields. The Bill of Rights being repealed in the wake of this "war on terror" and justified with this continued "clash of civilizations" has enabled the various bankers on the above list to loot America and Europe with impunity and neutralize those who rise up in protest as "domestic terrorists."
    http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/20...ou-should.html
    Brown Bomber is online now Reply With Quote


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    I don't see why they can't build the mosque somewhere else in the city. If they are about peace and reconciliation, then they should have taken peoples feelings into account, particularily those who lost relatives in the attacks.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I don't see why they can't build the mosque somewhere else in the city. If they are about peace and reconciliation, then they should have taken peoples feelings into account, particularily those who lost relatives in the attacks.

    Meh, people can't seem to understand there are many types of muslims in the world and their religion has nothing to do with terrorism. Why should they be punished?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    How are they being punished? There's plenty of other places in New York to build it, they could have some consideration for people feelings.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    I'm unquestionably for freedom of religion and and I fully support the Mosque but on the other hand I can see how it would be inflammatory to the ignorant. What has how active the media has been in magnifying the situation and fearmongering turning it into an ideological conflict which I think has exposed a complete lack of real knowledge of Islam.

    The CT is that the Mosque is purposely being used to cause conflict between Christians, mainly evangelical Christian Zionists and Muslims. Divide and conquer.

    Seems to be working.
    Confrontations break out across US over mosques
    http://www.telegram.com/article/20100808/NEWS/8080370/1052/RSS01&source=rss

    I'm on the fence at the moment

    Wow. For someone who claims to be a moderate or capable of seeing the middle ground, you seem incapable of seeing it in this case.

    Every moderate, centrist, leftwing, and moderate rightwing group in the US admits that

    A) It's not a mosque, it's a community centre. It's got a basketball court for christs sake.

    B) It's over a dozen blocks from Ground Zero.

    Seriously, all this does it giver a ra ra for the idiots who think Sarah Palin is likely to mount a serious campaign against Obama. And believe Rush Limbamgh.

    Moderate Americans, New Yorks, and people with two brain cells to rub together understand that a Muslim community center in one of the most diverse cities in the world, several hundred meters from Ground Zero isn't a problem. Particularly in a country where freedom of religion is one of the founding concepts of the entire freaking constitution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Location of the Mosque. As you can see, it's right in the middle of the WTC :rolleyes:
    Di0genes wrote: »
    B) It's over a dozen blocks from Ground Zero.
    Incorrect. The current mosque is 12 blocks from Ground Zero, and has been there for the past 27 years.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    the_syco wrote: »
    Location of the Mosque. As you can see, it's right in the middle of the WTC :rolleyes:


    Incorrect. The current mosque is 12 blocks from Ground Zero, and has been there for the past 27 years.

    Sorry yes, I mixed up the location of the proposed mosque with the old mosque.

    Either way neither site is "right in the middle" of the WTC.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    How are they being punished? There's plenty of other places in New York to build it,

    Yes because decent real estate in Manhattan is going so cheap.
    they could have some consideration for people feelings.

    1st Amendment. 1st Clause.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    if Westboure Baptist Church can use the 1st Amendment to shout god hates fags at the funerals of AIDs victims. Then sorry the Mosque should be allowed where ever.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Yes because decent real estate in Manhattan is going so cheap.



    1st Amendment. 1st Clause.



    if Westboure Baptist Church can use the 1st Amendment to shout god hates fags at the funerals of AIDs victims. Then sorry the Mosque should be allowed where ever.

    I didn't say it shouldn't be built. I'm saying the people building it should have more respect and consideration and build it further away from ground zero. I know they have the right to build it where ever they like, but I think its distasteful.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    In America as Elsewhere

    You are free to Conform, that is it. there may be some tokenisim of tolerance for people with differences, but scratch the surface and you will find the polar opposite of what they claim to be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    I'm unquestionably for freedom of religion and and I fully support the Mosque but on the other hand I can see how it would be inflammatory to the ignorant. What has how active the media has been in magnifying the situation and fearmongering turning it into an ideological conflict which I think has exposed a complete lack of real knowledge of Islam.

    The CT is that the Mosque is purposely being used to cause conflict between Christians, mainly evangelical Christian Zionists and Muslims. Divide and conquer.

    Seems to be working.
    Confrontations break out across US over mosques
    http://www.telegram.com/article/20100808/NEWS/8080370/1052/RSS01&source=rss

    I'm on the fence at the moment
    why is this even important to peoples daily lives, please tell me?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    I didn't say it shouldn't be built. I'm saying the people building it should have more respect and consideration and build it further away from ground zero. I know they have the right to build it where ever they like, but I think its distasteful.

    What's distasteful is the casual association of a community centre for Muslims with a bunch of terrorists that they have no connection to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,771 ✭✭✭Dude111


    The only people against this STILL BELIEVE THE LIES ABOUT 9/11 AND THINK THE MUSLIMS ARE CLAIMING VICTORY OR SOME BS LIKE THAT!

    Really quite sad.........


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    I don't see why they can't build the mosque somewhere else in the city. If they are about peace and reconciliation, then they should have taken peoples feelings into account, particularily those who lost relatives in the attacks.


    Are you aware that maybe upto 1/3 of victims of 9/11 were muslim?

    While the motive for the Mosque is questionable considering the parasites behind it, people tend to forget that many muslim's were also victims of this attack.
    http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm

    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Partial List of Muslim 9/11 Victims:[/FONT]
    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Note: This list is as yet incomplete and unconfirmed. It has been compiled from the Islamic Circle of North America, the Newsday victims database, and reports from other major news organizations. The victims' ages, employers, or other personal information is included when available, along with links to further information or photos.[/FONT]
    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Samad Afridi
    Ashraf Ahmad
    Shabbir Ahmad (45 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and 3 children)
    Umar Ahmad
    Azam Ahsan
    Ahmed Ali
    Tariq Amanullah (40 years old; Fiduciary Trust Co.; ICNA website team member; leaves wife and 2 children)
    Touri Bolourchi (69 years old; United Airlines #175; a retired nurse from Tehran)
    Salauddin Ahmad Chaudhury
    Abdul K. Chowdhury (30 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
    Mohammad S. Chowdhury (39 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and child born 2 days after the attack)
    Jamal Legesse Desantis
    Ramzi Attallah Douani (35 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
    SaleemUllah Farooqi
    Syed Fatha (54 years old; Pitney Bowes)
    Osman Gani
    Mohammad Hamdani (50 years old)
    Salman Hamdani (NYPD Cadet)
    Aisha Harris (21 years old; General Telecom)
    Shakila Hoque (Marsh & McLennan)
    Nabid Hossain
    Shahzad Hussain
    Talat Hussain
    Mohammad Shah Jahan (Marsh & McLennan)
    Yasmeen Jamal
    Mohammed Jawarta (MAS security)
    Arslan Khan Khakwani
    Asim Khan
    Ataullah Khan
    Ayub Khan
    Qasim Ali Khan
    Sarah Khan (32 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
    Taimour Khan (29 years old; Karr Futures)
    Yasmeen Khan
    Zahida Khan
    Badruddin Lakhani
    Omar Malick
    Nurul Hoque Miah (36 years old)
    Mubarak Mohammad (23 years old)
    Boyie Mohammed (Carr Futures)
    Raza Mujtaba
    Omar Namoos
    Mujeb Qazi
    Tarranum Rahim
    Ehtesham U. Raja (28 years old)
    Ameenia Rasool (33 years old)
    Naveed Rehman
    Yusuf Saad
    Rahma Salie & unborn child (28 years old; American Airlines #11; wife of Michael Theodoridis; 7 months pregnant)
    Shoman Samad
    Asad Samir
    Khalid Shahid (25 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald; engaged to be married in November)
    Mohammed Shajahan (44 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
    Naseema Simjee (Franklin Resources Inc.'s Fiduciary Trust)
    Jamil Swaati
    Sanober Syed
    Robert Elias Talhami (40 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
    Michael Theodoridis (32 years old; American Airlines #11; husband of Rahma Salie)
    W. Wahid
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][/FONT]
    [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]


    [/FONT]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Are you aware that maybe upto 1/3 of victims of 9/11 were muslim?

    While the motive for the Mosque is questionable considering the parasites behind it, people tend to forget that many muslim's were also victims of this attack.

    No, although that seems like an inflated figure, I don't see how that makes a difference. It would be the same in my opinion if someone killed 3000 people in the name of Christianity in Riyadh, I'd have more cop on than to build a Catholic centre beside where they died, whether I was allowed or not. In respect to the people that died, and the obvious tension it would cause, I'd choose a better location


  • Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭everyday taxi


    This is how i feel about it.





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4


    I think it smacks of extreme bad taste.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,229 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    The CT behind the Ground Zero Mosque occurs when former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin fan the flames of religious discrimination, bigotry, and hate that a large number of Americans have for Islam to gain votes for their 2012 presidential election campaigns.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    This is how i feel about it.





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4


    I think it smacks of extreme bad taste.

    This is how I feel about it....

    500,000 Iraqi children died from sanctions imposed on Iraq by USA while Saddam lived like a king......But just ask madelin albright was it worth it??, this is before the 2003 invasion, 1996 infact.



    While Ambassador to the UN Albright was criticized for defending the U.N. sanctions against Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) in a 1996 interview with Lesley Stahl on a segment of CBS's 60 Minutes that, according to Albright, ignored



    Iraqi civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion
    US General Tommy Franks "we don't do body counts"

    Iraqi civilians killed 864,531
    Iraqi civilians seriously injured 1,556,156

    Afghan civilian deaths
    Afghan civilians killed 8,813
    Afghan civilians seriously injured 15,863


  • Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭everyday taxi


    uprising2 wrote: »
    This is how I feel about it....

    500,000 Iraqi children died from sanctions imposed on Iraq by USA while Saddam lived like a king......But just ask madelin albright was it worth it??, this is before the 2003 invasion, 1996 infact.






    Iraqi civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion
    US General Tommy Franks "we don't do body counts"

    Iraqi civilians killed 864,531
    Iraqi civilians seriously injured 1,556,156

    Afghan civilian deaths
    Afghan civilians killed 8,813
    Afghan civilians seriously injured 15,863

    I too would be against america's foreign policy. So dont try pigeon hole me thank you very much. I just happen to side with Geert on the issue of islam.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ZUZ9CPZII


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    This is how i feel about it.





    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4


    I think it smacks of extreme bad taste.

    Your link? Yep. Sure does.


  • Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭everyday taxi


    Dude111 wrote: »
    The only people against this STILL BELIEVE THE LIES ABOUT 9/11 AND THINK THE MUSLIMS ARE CLAIMING VICTORY OR SOME BS LIKE THAT!

    Really quite sad.........

    What lies would that be?


  • Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭everyday taxi


    alastair wrote: »
    Your link? Yep. Sure does.

    Is that because it differs from yours? In my opinion, islam is not a religion, certainly not a religion of peace. I would doubt very much you watched either link, but there is so much truth in them e.g, islam demands tolerance, yet shows none. Whats your view on islams treatment of women, gays, jews? I ask you to watch the next link, and give me your view on what she says?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISNpOkpcWqg&feature=related

    Again, its only my opinion, but i think she speaks the truth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Is that because it differs from yours? In my opinion, islam is not a religion, certainly not a religion of peace. I would doubt very much you watched either link, but there is so much truth in them e.g, islam demands tolerance, yet shows none. Whats your view on islams treatment of women, gays, jews? I ask you to watch the next link, and give me your view on what she says?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISNpOkpcWqg&feature=related

    Again, its only my opinion, but i think she speaks the truth.

    Yeah - I don't really rate your opinion on this - but then I'm not a fan of bigotry from anyone. If you don't like the religion, then don't join - otherwise it's really no skin off your nose, is it?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    So back to the conspiracy, that the NWO are creating this whole situation to try and increase Islamophobia. Here's an article I found about it.
    Ground Zero Mosque Imam Is Globalist Stooge

    Steve Watson

    Friday, Aug 20th, 2010

    The Imam of the now infamous “ground zero mosque” is a member of the ultra elitist Council On Foreign Relations and receives financial backing from powerful globalist sources including the Rockefellers, the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation.

    This information provides a compelling backdrop to the theory that the move to establish the mosque is a deliberate attempt to further stoke religious tensions and divert attention away from the real enemy of free humanity, the corporate globalist elite who continue to profit from global war and division.


    alg_resize_mosque_imam-feisal.jpg

    The proposed mosque, to be known as Cordoba House is the project of the Cordoba Initiative, an organisation founded by ‘Imam’ Feisal Abdul Rauf (pictured above), who, in addition to being a member of the World Economic Forum’s Council of 100, is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Religious Advisory Committee.

    The Cordoba Initiative’s website cites “Christian support for the Cordoba House” in the form of Christian publication, “Sojourners”, which is owned by evangelical Christian writer and political activist Jim Wallis, also coincidentally a sitting member of the CFR’s Religious Advisory Committee.

    The CFR, as regular readers know, is populated exclusively by major players with the biggest corporations, banks and defence contractors in the world – all of whom are making vast profits and securing more power from continued global conflict. The CFR also exerts far reaching influence over the U.S. government.

    Tony Cartalucci at landdestroyer blog breaks down the fact that every single leading player in both the neocon infested Bush administration and the “change” gang under Barrack Obama is a CFR luminary. Cartalucci also provides further stunning research relating to Cordoba House and its CFR Imam, which breaks down as follows.

    Feisal Abdul Rauf also heads up the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) which enjoys a partnership with the Cordoba Initiative and provided $100 million to secure the site close to ground zero for the mosque to be built.
    That $100 million came directly from the back pockets of ASMA’s financial backers.

    According to ASMA’s website they include the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Rockefeller Philanthropy, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund – essentially the tip of the pyramid of the international globalist elite.


    This story is a perfect microcosm of the new world order agenda.
    The mainstream media continues to push the mosque story hour after hour, day after day, from the perspective of both the left and the right, manufacturing a controversy that plays on a now indentured fear of Islam that has been cooked up over the last nine years via endless phony “muslim” terror plots and concocted “al qaeda” threats.

    Real muslims are witnesses to a vicious backlash, stirred up and served from this corporate media cauldron, creating the impression they are under attack by non-muslims and forcing them to have to defend their religion, and the whole thing snowballs onwards.

    The connections to 9/11 are clear, and also serve to enforce the mythical notion that 19 radical muslims controlled by some guys in a cave in Afghanistan were able to direct military precision attacks on America with devastating consequences.

    Meanwhile behind all of this are the global elite, rubbing their hands in glee as a manufactured “clash of civilizations” unfolds and the whole of humanity lunges at each other’s throats.

    http://www.infowars.com/ground-zero-mosque-imam-is-globalist-stooge/


    Also, the first mainstream media source to stir up the controversy was Rupert Murdoch owned NY Times, which wrote a passioned and scathing piece about it. I think there could be something to this conspiracy if there is truth in who is funding the centre.














    I never thought I would be posting an article from Prison Planet. I think I've spent too much time in this madhouse :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭everyday taxi


    alastair wrote: »
    Yeah - I don't really rate your opinion on this - but then I'm not a fan of bigotry from anyone. If you don't like the religion, then don't join - otherwise it's really no skin off your nose, is it?

    Well at that rate, if you dont like my dogma, then dont join in, its really no skin off your nose is it? When did the truth become bigotry btw?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Well at that rate, if you dont like my dogma, then dont join in, its really no skin off your nose is it? When did the truth become bigotry btw?

    When it was twisted to be blanket applied to a religious group alone. And this is a public forum, I fully expect to find people with objectionable views in here the same as the rest. I'm not looking to deny anyone access - unlike you, my bigoted friend.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,480 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    The idea of putting a mosque at ground zero does sound like a potential bone of contention.
    I personally couldn't care less, in my view all religions are a giant waste of time, so I wouldn't come at it from the viewpoint of one dogma v another.

    Hopefully it doesn't become a flashpoint for racial or xenophobic abuse or even violence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Don't get personal. Stick to the topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    came across this from an Israeli think-tank The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS), which I think is on topic. It was published on the day of September 11th and follows the same line of thinking as the anti-mosque crowd. Could they both be deceptions by the same group of insane facists to whip up anti-Islam hysteria to justify the continued massacre, pillaging, theft destruction of a whole region cursed with oil and other resources and strategic values? I think so. Anyway, here it is in full.
    September 11, 2001 A War Against the West



    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Robert J. Loewenberg, President, IASPS[/FONT]
    [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
    [/FONT]
    Today's sensational attacks on the U. S., certainly by Muslims who were likely Arabs, are being described as "terrorist" acts by "madmen" for example by Chris Patton, EU. Others seeking an academic perspective along the lines of Sam Huntington, see the attacks as a new bi-polar division between Muslims and Western states and culture.


    Our reading at the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (Jerusalem and Washington, D. C.) is these attacks are the beginning of a struggle against the West in which the source or cause is primarily the West itself, a group of societies divided internally by an array of factors.

    Practically speaking, residents of New York and Washington, D. C. as well as other U.S. cities can now expect routine terrorist assaults ranging from individual terrorist assaults, suicide bombings, germ and chemical attacks in subways and buildings. The existence in the U.S. of legal and tax exempt Arab and Muslim groups, for example CAIR, can be expected to fund and participate in, and most of all to defend these attacks while holding up their opponents as racist.

    The strategic, military effect of this struggle against the West, presently most visible in the Middle East and concerning Islam and Arabs, finds its "advanced case" in Israel. Just as Israel has been the object of an Arab undertaking, supported in the West (and most of all in Israel itself and among Jews) to extinguish, cruelly and barbarically to be sure by Arabs and Muslims, Israel's national existence, the assault today on the U.S. was driven by this same wish or hope to exterminate a nation and its people, and for which the source of support and complicity, grotesquely, resides in the West among its rulers and elites. In other words, what makes this effort a signal one in addition to being genocidal, is that its cause (to be distinguished from its executors) is not Arabs or Muslims or per Huntington, Islam.

    Today's opening assault in a war to destroy Western states is marked by two Western strategies respecting Israel and the West -by Israel and the West.

    These strategies are 1) to establish among states and peoples as their leading principle that national existence is an option, particularly one that should be exercised against national existence and the balance of power by means of "conflict resolution," cessation of "violence," by peace processes, treaties, moral equivalence and a host of similar undertakings to which Israel (and Jews) and the larger West are committed, and, 2) a strategy with respect to war and alliance which rejects the solution of conflicts, as in Ireland, Israel, Kosovo, by the victory of one side, the defeat and surrender of the other. The mantra: "there is no military solution to the conflict," is at once the rejection of this simple response -victory, defeat, surrender -and, so far as such events can be "caused" by words and ideas --the direct cause of today's attacks and their certain continuation.

    Again, Israel is the "advanced case." In a series of wars beginning in 1948, Israel has won by trading its final battle for a cease fire, an armistice and dollars. This is to say, Israel traded victory, surrender of the other side(s) and, of course, peace, borders, "neighbors" for what it has today-a peace process. This trade included what the U.S. experienced today and can expect to continue, indeed until victory or defeat.

    We in the West, today in New York and Washington, D. C., are paying our price for supporting Israel's "advanced case" of the affliction of the West. Our "pro-Israel" support of the Jewish state's attempt to accommodate the Arabs instead of defeating them and establishing rational peace was perhaps a Western attempt to "buy off" our own day of reckoning for failure to face up to the obligations of self-defense and national existence.

    If there is a simple, strategic "explanation" of today's attacks on the U.S. it is this: the U.S. and the West, along with Israel, have insisted, at least since September 1993, that the Palestinian Problem has "no military solution." At the end of the day, and after all the pundits are talked out in matters of "violence" and "peace" and the rest, the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon (and the other assaults to come in what is now a serious if newfangled war) -which resulted in the hideous and unspeakable deaths of thousands of innocent souls, American citizens who have been effectively betrayed -these deaths were triggered by the peace process in Israel (and other peace processes) and by the very people and institutions of the West that are today making the speeches about "madmen" and "terrorism." The proximate charge of murder is on the murderers. The wider charge is on the West itself.

    Sticking with motive for 911 and creating anti-Islam sentiment. This paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm was published by the same group in June 1996 and was authored by American Neo-Cons who held key positions in the Bush administration for covering up 911 on behalf of Israeli incoming PM Benjamin Netanyahu. It called for the removal of Saddam and the redefining of Iraq.
    Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.

    Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq.

    Coincidentally :rolleyes:, CIA associate Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa (religious ruling) against the US just 2 months after this report was published.
    On August 23, 1996, bin Laden issued Al Qaeda’s first “declaration of war” against America, his “Message from Osama bin Laden to his Muslim brothers in the whole world and especially in the Arabian Peninsula: declaration of jihad against the Americans occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques (Saudi Arabia); expel the heretics from the Arabian Peninsula.”
    http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp

    The rest is history. 911 justified the removal of Saddam and the destruction and colonisation of Iraq and her oilfields.

    But people need to be reminded of history which is why I think this situation with the Mosque has come about.


Advertisement