The Ground Zero Mosque

Brown Bomber

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

TalkieWalkie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

Brown Bomber

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

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.

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

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.

Brown Bomber

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

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?

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.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

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.

the_syco

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

Di0genes wrote: »

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.

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.

Di0genes

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

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.

1st Amendment wrote:

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.

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.

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.

digme

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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?

alastair

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

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.

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.........

uprising2

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

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]

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

everyday taxi

This is how i feel about it.





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


I think it smacks of extreme bad taste.

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.

uprising2

everyday taxi wrote: »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

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

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

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

alastair

everyday taxi wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

alastair

everyday taxi wrote: »

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?

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.



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

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?

alastair

everyday taxi wrote: »

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.

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.

humanji

Don't get personal. Stick to the topic.

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.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.



Coincidentally :rolleyes:, CIA associate Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa (religious ruling) against the US just 2 months after this report was published.

...

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.

It's worth pointing out that there was no Bush administration in '96, and the IASPS do nothing but advocate 'getting tough' with Islam. It was business as usual with them, and unlikely to provoke anything except a yawn.

I'm not sure how you imagine Douglas Feith 'covered up 9/11' - he had pretty much nothing to do with it - he had lots of involvement in the invasion of Iraq, and spin over WMD etc, and was lambasted for his effectiveness in that role. None of the others were 'key players' in the later Bush administration.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that there was no Bush administration in '96,

It is? I know the sentence wasn't structured the best but I have to assume I am not dealing with total idiots.

911 happened in 2001 there was a Bush presidency in 2001. Shouldn't be to hard to put 2 and 2 together.

alastair wrote: »

Iand the IASPS do nothing but advocate 'getting tough' with Islam. It was business as usual with them, and unlikely to provoke anything except a yawn.

That is bollox. Abandoning the Oslo Accords, seeking the overthrow of neighbours, redefining the whole region in Israel's favour, attacking Palestine on a whim for self-defence, attacking other regional rivals etc is "getting tough with Islam"? Give it a rest...:rolleyes:

alastair wrote: »

I'm not sure how you imagine Douglas Feith 'covered up 9/11' - he had pretty much nothing to do with it - he had lots of involvement in the invasion of Iraq, and spin over WMD etc, and was lambasted for his effectiveness in that role. None of the others were 'key players' in the later Bush administration.

Of course you would take that because everything you need to know is in the 911 commission report.

Q. Who was the lead author of the Clean Break paper and what was he doing in 2001?

Sparticle

I think this is kinda relevant. (In a totally non-NWO way)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-pxUIBO5EU

If you start infringing on the rights of others you're no better than the terrorists you fight against.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is? I know the sentence wasn't structured the best but I have to assume I am not dealing with total idiots.

911 happened in 2001 there was a Bush presidency in 2001. Shouldn't be to hard to put 2 and 2 together.

What, and get 22? There's no logic to your assumed 'connections'.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is bollox. Abandoning the Oslo Accords, seeking the overthrow of neighbours, redefining the whole region in Israel's favour, attacking Palestine on a whim for self-defence, attacking other regional rivals etc is "getting tough with Islam"? Give it a rest...:rolleyes:

Yep - try and find any report from the IASPS that sings any really different song. It's just more of the same from them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course you would take that because everything you need to know is in the 911 commission report.

Q. Who was the lead author of the Clean Break paper and what was he doing in 2001?

Everything I need to know about the events on the day are in the commission report - yep. I notice you aren't prepared to speak up about what 'theory' you actually subscribe to (quite the norm with the 'truther' scene I've noticed) - so I wouldn't be quite so quick to laugh.

Douglas Feith was supposedly the main man in that report and he was up to his neck in Iraq in 2001 - well away from any 9/11 responsibilities.

everyday taxi

alastair wrote: »

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

Is this casual? Dont you think this is at the very least suspicious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djb_oSoZLDc&feature=player_embedded


If its not muslims who have the connection with all the terrorism, who is it that does? I mean one of the associations behind it(the ground zero mosque) is "the american society for muslim advancement". Why chose the word advancement? The agenda is staring people in the face. Even you will surely admit, muslims do take their "ideology" very serious (cant quite bring myself to abuse the word religion), so we'll take that as a giving, whats your view on their belief that they will take and rule the world?

Brown Bomber

everyday taxi wrote: »

Is this casual? Dont you think this is at the very least suspicious?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djb_oSoZLDc&feature=player_embedded


If its not muslims who have the connection with all the terrorism, who is it that does? I mean one of the associations behind it(the ground zero mosque) is "the american society for muslim advancement". Why chose the word advancement? The agenda is staring people in the face. Even you will surely admit, muslims do take their "ideology" very serious (cant quite bring myself to abuse the word religion), so we'll take that as a giving, whats your view on their belief that they will take and rule the world?

oooooooooooh advancement :D. Sorry to interrupt. You were suggesting a pogrom I believe? Please, do carry on.

Oh, and maybe lay off the Daniel Pipes and atlasshrugs for a while yeah?

everyday taxi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

oooooooooooh advancement :D. Sorry to interrupt. You were suggesting a pogrom I believe? Please, do carry on.

Oh, and maybe lay off the Daniel Pipes and atlasshrugs for a while yeah?

Riot my ass! Just hoping commonsense prevails. Ohh, and on the word advancement, words are chosen for a reason. This word reflects true muslim belief. I know people will think its just a word, but it is a statement. Also i think its a very fair conclusion to assume that, if this was proposed a couple of months after 9/11, it would have been blown out like a light from everyone, you included.
Now i asked this question already and still got no answer, whats the difference between now and then?

old_aussie

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

After the evangelical Christian Zionists and Muslims have been divided, who will conquer them?

Darlughda

Seems like a good move to me. A genuine hand towards the muslim population.

bonkey

everyday taxi wrote: »

Riot my ass! Just hoping commonsense prevails. Ohh, and on the word advancement, words are chosen for a reason. This word reflects true muslim belief. I know people will think its just a word, but it is a statement.

So the adherents of a religion wish to advance their belief, its spread, and its influence. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Indeed, I'd say its something that they are entitled under the US constitution to do, as long as they do so in a law-abiding manner. Last time I checked, opening a center wasn't illegal.

Also i think its a very fair conclusion to assume that, if this was proposed a couple of months after 9/11, it would have been blown out like a light from everyone, you included.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I seem to recall that on the Politics forum at the time, there were very very few voices agreeing that recriminations against the Islamic religion or middle-eastern people in general was a good idea. Most people were agreed that such blind lashing out would be, in fact, a really really dumb idea.

I may, of course, be misremembering, and imagining that more people agreed with me then actually did.

Now i asked this question already and still got no answer, whats the difference between now and then?

The main difference, I suspect, is that a greater proportion of people (now compared to then) are likely to act rationally rather then emotionally.

Run_to_da_hills

I would have no problems with a mosque being built at this site however I would have serious problems if there was word of a Synagogue being built.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would have no problems with a mosque being built at this site however I would have serious problems if there was word of a Synagogue being built.

Why?

Yitzhak Rabin

There is more anti-Islamic sentiments in other states now too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/31mosque.html

Incidents at Mosque in Tennessee Spread Fear
By ROBBIE BROWN
Published: August 30, 2010


ATLANTA — After a suspected arson and reports of gunshots at an Islamic center in Tennessee over the weekend, nearby mosques have hired security guards, installed surveillance cameras and requested the presence of federal agents at prayer services.
Related


Muslim leaders in central Tennessee say that frightened worshipers are observing Ramadan in private and that some Muslim parents are wary of sending their children to school after a large fire on Saturday that destroyed property at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Federal authorities suspect that the fire was arson.

The Islamic center has attracted national attention recently because its planned expansion into a larger building in some ways parallels a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks in New York.

The Murfreesboro center, which has existed for nearly 30 years, suddenly found itself on front pages of newspapers this month and on “The Daily Show.” *It became a hot topic in the local Congressional race, with one Republican candidate accusing the center of fostering terrorism and trying to link it to the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

Then, on Saturday, the police say, someone set fire to construction equipment at the site where the Islamic center is planning to move, destroying an earthmover and three other pieces of machinery. And on Sunday, as CNN was filming a news segment about the controversy, someone fired at least five shots near the property.

“We are very concerned about our safety,” said Essam Fathy, head of the center’s planning committee. “Whatever it takes, I’m not going to allow anybody to do something like this again.”

No people were injured in either incident. The cases are being investigated by the police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

In a statement on the center’s Web site, a spokeswoman called the fire an “arson attack” and an “atrocious act of terrorism.”

In Nashville, 30 miles northwest, local imams met with representatives of the United States attorney’s office on Monday to discuss the risk of further anti-Islamic violence. Several mosques have requested police surveillance, they said, especially with the end of Ramadan this year nearly coinciding with the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We’re worried that these attacks could spill over into Nashville,” said Mwafaq Mohammed, president of the Salahadeen Islamic Center there. “We don’t want people to misunderstand what we’re celebrating around Sept. 11. It would be better to take precautionary measures.”

Another mosque, the Islamic Center of Nashville, has installed indoor and outdoor surveillance cameras, hired round-the-clock security guards and requested that F.B.I. agents be on site during worship services, according to the imam, Mohamed Ahmed.

“Whoever did this, they are terrorists,” Mr. Ahmed said. “What’s the difference between them and Al Qaeda?”

But in other parts of Tennessee, including Chattanooga, Knoxville and Memphis, Muslim leaders reported that they had experienced no hostility and saw no reason to increase security.

A version of this article appeared in print on August 31, 2010, on page A10 of the New York edition.

*This bit certainly fits in with the CT.

The centre and the non-muslim residents have co-existed peacefully side-by-side for the past 30 years, until the media starts to whip up a bit of anti-islamic sentiments among the community. Culminating(well at least I hope its the culmination) with an arson attack and gunshots being fired.

At best it is unneccesary and distasteful journalism, at worst it is as outlined in the OP and a concerted effort among the media to raise tensions between muslim and non-muslims in the area.

everyday taxi

bonkey wrote: »

So the adherents of a religion wish to advance their belief, its spread, and its influence. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Indeed, I'd say its something that they are entitled under the US constitution to do, as long as they do so in a law-abiding manner. Last time I checked, opening a center wasn't illegal.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I seem to recall that on the Politics forum at the time, there were very very few voices agreeing that recriminations against the Islamic religion or middle-eastern people in general was a good idea. Most people were agreed that such blind lashing out would be, in fact, a really really dumb idea.

I may, of course, be misremembering, and imagining that more people agreed with me then actually did.


The main difference, I suspect, is that a greater proportion of people (now compared to then) are likely to act rationally rather then emotionally.

On the point of advancement, can you answer a direct question? Are you familiar with islamic preaching and the view they will rule the world? You see this word as a kind of "muslims hope to encourage and convert non muslims to turn to islam", when they see it as, "you will all submit before allah, we will take the world by stealth".
The proof is out there. Lets look at global warming as a pointer. If people provide proof climates are changin and give you the reasons and consequences, its pretty much accepted. Yet people are pointing out the rapid growth rates of muslim communities all over the west, made bigger by they're higher birth ratio compared to western families. Now with mosques propping up everywhere, and western laws constantly changing to try and integrate a religion which has little respect for them. So if we look to the future the same way we do with global warming, its clear there are going to be massive social problems if things are not giving the genuine concern they need. We've all seen our own moderate muslims try dictate to us here in little ole Ireland that our christian ways such as christmas cribs, statues of Mary etc "upset" them, and ask for them to be stopped or removed. Respect is a two way street. Muslims demand respect of their religion, but dont return the courtesty. This is the prime reason i have little respect for them. Of all the religions im familiar with, islam is the only modern day violent, anti western one.

Sparticle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0

Brown Bomber

everyday taxi wrote: »

On the point of advancement, can you answer a direct question? Are you familiar with islamic preaching and the view they will rule the world? You see this word as a kind of "muslims hope to encourage and convert non muslims to turn to islam", when they see it as, "you will all submit before allah, we will take the world by stealth".
The proof is out there. Lets look at global warming as a pointer. If people provide proof climates are changin and give you the reasons and consequences, its pretty much accepted. Yet people are pointing out the rapid growth rates of muslim communities all over the west, made bigger by they're higher birth ratio compared to western families. Now with mosques propping up everywhere, and western laws constantly changing to try and integrate a religion which has little respect for them. So if we look to the future the same way we do with global warming, its clear there are going to be massive social problems if things are not giving the genuine concern they need. We've all seen our own moderate muslims try dictate to us here in little ole Ireland that our christian ways such as christmas cribs, statues of Mary etc "upset" them, and ask for them to be stopped or removed. Respect is a two way street. Muslims demand respect of their religion, but dont return the courtesty. This is the prime reason i have little respect for them. Of all the religions im familiar with, islam is the only modern day violent, anti western one.

Completely disagree with everything you've said.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Timothy McVeigh supposedly is the Oklahoma bomber.

This guy -



did this -



Here is a map of Christian Churches in the Oklahoma City area.



Got a problem with this? If you don't you are a hypocrite.

It's the atheists you really need to worry about anyways.





Not forgetting of course the Judeo-Christians...

Who by any reasonable definition are the biggest terrorists of all

Brown Bomber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

يجوز للكونغرس أن يسن أي قانون خاص بإقامة دين من الأديان أو يمنع حرية ممارسته

everyday taxi

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Completely disagree with everything you've said.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian.

Timothy McVeigh supposedly is the Oklahoma bomber.

This guy -



did this -



Here is a map of Christian Churches in the Oklahoma City area.



Got a problem with this? If you don't you are a hypocrite.

It's the atheists you really need to worry about anyways.





Not forgetting of course the Judeo-Christians...

Who by any reasonable definition are the biggest terrorists of all

Judeo christians, timothy mcveigh, you having a laugh right? To suggest these come remotely close to islamic terrorism is funny. I'll try a different angle for a giggle. How do you feel about beating up one's wife? Whats that the koran says, its ok if you dont bruise her, was it? Lets here your views on this. You clearly want to ignore the stealth argument. Better still, answer yes or no to the following..
does the koran promote violence to non muslims?
does the koran say its ok to beat your wife?
does the koran say to kill homosexuals?
does the koran tell muslims to go and conquer the world?
do muslims treat women badly? Sharia and all that, ya know?

uprising2

everyday taxi wrote: »

On the point of advancement, can you answer a direct question? Are you familiar with islamic preaching and the view they will rule the world? You see this word as a kind of "muslims hope to encourage and convert non muslims to turn to islam", when they see it as, "you will all submit before allah, we will take the world by stealth".
The proof is out there. Lets look at global warming as a pointer. If people provide proof climates are changin and give you the reasons and consequences, its pretty much accepted. Yet people are pointing out the rapid growth rates of muslim communities all over the west, made bigger by they're higher birth ratio compared to western families. Now with mosques propping up everywhere, and western laws constantly changing to try and integrate a religion which has little respect for them. So if we look to the future the same way we do with global warming, its clear there are going to be massive social problems if things are not giving the genuine concern they need. We've all seen our own moderate muslims try dictate to us here in little ole Ireland that our christian ways such as christmas cribs, statues of Mary etc "upset" them, and ask for them to be stopped or removed. Respect is a two way street. Muslims demand respect of their religion, but dont return the courtesty. This is the prime reason i have little respect for them. Of all the religions im familiar with, islam is the only modern day violent, anti western one.

I think you got a medical condition there, ask the dr for an Islamaphobia pill. They're great, I'm munching my way through a box a day.

Also Mr Christian see what the Bible says about statues of mary and other crap, it fukking says they should be smashed up aswell, it's not just a muslim thing.

Yitzhak Rabin

everyday taxi wrote: »

does the koran promote violence to non muslims?
does the koran say its ok to beat your wife?
does the koran say to kill homosexuals?
does the koran tell muslims to go and conquer the world?
do muslims treat women badly? Sharia and all that, ya know?

You could almost certainly find justifications for all of these things in the bible if you wanted.

You've been watching too much Pat Condell.