PDA

View Full Version : Bill 'O Reily says Muslims are responsible for 9/11 on The View


EmeraldFields
14-10-10, 17:51
Bp891YJw_VY&feature

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 17:54
But technically he is right. He could've said it in a better way though.

AmericanAssassin
14-10-10, 17:56
Bill O'Reily is a worthless piece of trash who stands for everything Americans should be against. Go Whoopi and Joy! :tmb:

Lemmie
14-10-10, 17:57
Uh, oh.

Spaghettios.

Can anyone take Fox News or their anchors seriously any more? With the exception of some, most people who work for them either have no idea what they're saying or know very well that it's a pile of crap.

Catapharact
14-10-10, 18:01
Contrary to what Bill O' Reily thinks, there are American Muslim soldiers out there fighting in Afganistan and Iraq (many of whome have died in combat... One of them got a Medal of Honour for protecting his comrades in 4:1 firefight) for the very constitutional rights that he thinks can easily be displaced because of rampant Islamophobia. Can he look those Muslim Soldiers in the eye and tell them that they have no right to practice their religion because of unwarrented fears?

I have my views against the building of the mosque but it statements such as these that tell me that Muslims should practice their constitutional rights openly.

Encore
14-10-10, 18:02
Well, it's true that some muslims were responsible, but he's obviously trying to say that the muslim religion is guilty (considering they were talking about the mosque plans). That's where he's wrong.

I consider this type of rethoric particularly dangerous nowadays. Some people keep "conveniently" ignoring the fact that terrorists are fanatics and extremists, and they prefer to believe that it's all the same thing; it gives them an easier target to hate.

Mr.Burns
14-10-10, 18:07
Contrary to what Bill O' Reily thinks, there are American Muslim soldiers out there fighting in Afganistan and Iraq (many of whome have died in combat... One of them got a Medal of Honour for protecting his comrades in 4:1 firefight) for the very constitutional rights that he thinks can easily be displaced because of rampant Islamophobia. Can he look those Muslim Soldiers in the eye and tell them that they have no right to practice their religion because of unwarrented fears?

I have my views against the building of the mosque but it statements such as these that tell me that Muslims should practice their constitutional rights openly.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. OReily, like pretty much everyone on Fox are a few fries short of a happy meal, imo. I've met plenty of Muslims and they are far from terrorists.

Melonie Tomb Raider
14-10-10, 18:14
Technically the people responsible were Muslims, but they were extremist. I don't think it's fair to label all Muslims for the extreme actions of others.

There are some pretty crazy Christians out there, and I hate to be grouped with them. I really feel like this is the same type of scenario.

Some Muslims are good, and some are bad. Just the same with any type of people, and we can't group them all together and act as if all the bad ones represent the good ones too.

tonyme
14-10-10, 18:21
Wow... this is just... wow!

Cochrane
14-10-10, 18:27
But technically he is right. He could've said it in a better way though.
Yeah, but he didn’t, and I think it is obvious that this was not some sort of accident. If questioned, I’m sure he will say "yes, not all muslims killed us on 9/11", but he makes it very clear that he has no interest in better relations between muslims and other americans.

trXD
14-10-10, 18:31
I think it's more important that the people who drove the plane into the twin towers were Al-Qaeda than Muslims.

Lemmie
14-10-10, 18:32
But technically he is right. He could've said it in a better way though.

But when connected to an argument over the 'Ground Zero' mosque, bringing that in as an argument against it is untenable.

EDIT: Not to mention that the professed religion of the 9/11 terrorists is irrelevant.

Ward Dragon
14-10-10, 18:37
But when connected to an argument over the 'Ground Zero' mosque, bringing that in as an argument against it is untenable.

EDIT: Not to mention that the professed religion of the 9/11 terrorists is irrelevant.

But it is relevant when the imam at the ground zero mosque preaches sharia law and makes excuses for the terrorists.

Avalon SARL
14-10-10, 18:37
As much as how dumb and idiot extremists are, as much as this man is in error :)

Shariah law doesnot tell people togo crash an airplane into a building :p

In shariah law, if muslims want to battle, they must at first get the permission/warn the country they are invading :p
And in shariah law, muslims are not allowed to attack another country unless that country first made the attack without any prior warning

tonyme
14-10-10, 18:38
^ Indeed. There is nothing worse than stereotyping in this world.

Lemmie
14-10-10, 18:44
But it is relevant when the imam at the ground zero mosque preaches sharia law and makes excuses for the terrorists.

Is that true though? I was under the impression that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, was very much a moderate who worked closely with the Bush administration in something of an outreach programme after the attacks.

Cochrane
14-10-10, 18:44
But it is relevant when the imam at the ground zero mosque preaches sharia law and makes excuses for the terrorists.

Could you give sources for that?

Avalon SARL
14-10-10, 18:49
But it is relevant when the imam at the ground zero mosque preaches sharia law and makes excuses for the terrorists.

The matter is that it is not him who gives excuses
things have to be applied from the proper point of view, which is not the imam's point of view or excuses, but by what the scriptures says since he considers himself a preacher and follows the law, which if ever true as you say, is total contradictory to the faith

Ward Dragon
14-10-10, 19:05
Could you give sources for that?

I know it's Wikipedia, but the sources on the article are better than what I could find on my own XD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Feisal_Abdul_Rauf#Controversies

Alex Shepherd
14-10-10, 19:11
Bp891YJw_VY&feature

OrFd3ebyyo0

larson n natla
14-10-10, 19:12
The people responsible for 9/11 were Muslim extremists as far as I know and while he said it rather crassly he is saying what others are afraid to and whilst I don't agree it is obvious that people still link the Muslim religion to terrorism in America and this is the main opposition against the mosque.

Personally I think the two ladies over reacted to create drama. Very unprofessional of them. Also the guy is stubborn and refuses to change his view so the best thing to do would have been to let him have his say, and then leave.

larafan25
14-10-10, 19:17
I <3 Whoopi.

I also need to watch the view more often.:)

Encore
14-10-10, 19:18
he is saying what others are afraid to and whilst I don't agree it is obvious that people still link the Muslim religion to terrorism in America and this is the main opposition against the mosque.


Just because "a lot of people" think something, doesn't mean it's OK to agree with it. And I realize you personally don't, but your post somehow suggests that you understand why he said this. I don't. I expect journalists to be more intelligent and responsible than the general populace.


(lmao, if only)

Lemmie
14-10-10, 19:18
I know it's Wikipedia, but the sources on the article are better than what I could find on my own XD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Feisal_Abdul_Rauf#Controversies

I think a figure like Imam Rauf is always going to attract controversy. I read through those sources on wikipedia too, and nothing I read there made me particularly sympathetic to your assertion.

I think it's going a bit far to say that he advocates sharia law or has any sympathy for fundamentalist terrorism, without having anything other than wikipedia to back it up. Are you convinced by what's on there? And if you can't find any other evidence that does, why would you continue to hold this opinion of him?

Ward Dragon
14-10-10, 19:21
Just because "a lot of people" think something, doesn't mean it's OK to agree with it. And I realize you personally don't, but your post somehow suggests that you understand why he said this. I don't. I expect journalists to be more intelligent and responsible than the general populace.

O'Reilly's not a journalist. He's a commentator and an entertainer. Also he's an idiot who likes fighting with people and not giving them a chance to get a word in edge-wise.

But anyhow, regardless of whatever O'Reilly says, I think it's a legitimate concern to worry about what the imam's true agenda is. I don't trust this guy and I think he's up to something.

I think a figure like Imam Rauf is always going to attract controversy. I read through those sources on wikipedia too, and nothing I read there made me particularly sympathetic to your assertion.

I think it's going a bit far to say that he advocates sharia law or has any sympathy for fundamentalist terrorism, without having anything other than wikipedia to back it up. Are you convinced by what's on there? And if you can't find any other evidence that does, why would you continue to hold this opinion of him?

I read through a lot of the articles in the sources of the wiki page and it really sounds like this guy is lying about his motives and pushing an agenda to promote sharia law.

Cochrane
14-10-10, 19:21
I know it's Wikipedia, but the sources on the article are better than what I could find on my own XD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam_Feisal_Abdul_Rauf#Controversies

I have no problem with links to Wikipedia. I don’t think what he did really qualifies as making excuses, though. The idea that the 9/11 attacks were at least partially a result of US foreign politics during the 1980s is not exactly new and there are many christians sharing it.

Alex Shepherd
14-10-10, 19:30
http://c0022506.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/60_8.png

“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.” (Quran 60:8)

The Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, used to prohibit soldiers from killing women and children,[1] and he would advise them: “...Do not betray, do not be excessive, do not kill a newborn child.”[2] And he also said: “Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of forty years.”[3]

Also, the Prophet Muhammad has forbidden punishment with fire.[4]

He once listed murder as the second of the major sins,[5] and he even warned that on the Day of Judgment, “The first cases to be adjudicated between people on the Day of Judgment will be those of bloodshed.[6]”[7]

Muslims are even encouraged to be kind to animals and are forbidden to hurt them. Once the Prophet Muhammad said: “A woman was punished because she imprisoned a cat until it died. On account of this, she was doomed to Hell. While she imprisoned it, she did not give the cat food or drink, nor did she free it to eat the insects of the earth.”[8]

He also said that a man gave a very thirsty dog a drink, so God forgave his sins for this action. The Prophet, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, was asked, “Messenger of God, are we rewarded for kindness towards animals?” He said: “There is a reward for kindness to every living animal or human.”[9]

Additionally, while taking the life of an animal for food, Muslims are commanded to do so in a manner that causes the least amount of fright and suffering possible. The Prophet Muhammad said: “When you slaughter an animal, do so in the best way. One should sharpen his knife to reduce the suffering of the animal.”[10]

In light of these and other Islamic texts, the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the violent events some have associated with Muslims. If an individual Muslim were to commit an act of terrorism, this person would be guilty of violating the laws of Islam.

Sorts:
1] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #1744, and Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #3015.

[2] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #1731, and Al-Tirmizi, #1408.

[3] Narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #3166, and Ibn Majah, #2686.

[4] Narrated in Abu-Dawood, #2675.

[5] Narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #6871, and Saheeh Muslim, #88.

[6] This means killing and injuring.

[7] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #1678, and Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #6533.

[8] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #2422, and Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #2365.

[9] This saying of Muhammad has been mentioned in more detail on this page. Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #2244, and Saheeh Al-Bukhari, #2466.

[10] Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #1955, and Al-Tirmizi, #1409.

As a conclusion: For any who caused the terrorist trouble is away from Islam... Bill O Rielly know nothing about Muslim doesn't mean that he's saying the fact...

I think this is enough to give proof on Muslim are away of terrorists...

Ward Dragon
14-10-10, 19:35
I have no problem with links to Wikipedia. I don’t think what he did really qualifies as making excuses, though. The idea that the 9/11 attacks were at least partially a result of US foreign politics during the 1980s is not exactly new and there are many christians sharing it.

He justifies the terrorists attacking civilian buildings by claiming Christians did it first in WWII. What does one have to do with the other?

Lemmie
14-10-10, 19:36
I read through a lot of the articles in the sources of the wiki page and it really sounds like this guy is lying about his motives and pushing an agenda to promote sharia law.

Fair enough. Based on what I've read, I really can't agree, but fine.

Avalon SARL
14-10-10, 19:40
@ Alex Shepherd :Excellent Post...
:hug:

Alex Shepherd
14-10-10, 19:41
kVKGRB3cygg

Avalon SARL
14-10-10, 19:46
Of curse Israel has got its bloody hands in this

Just the way they are ruining Lebanon these days :mad: and trying to ignite a huge civil war which will never happen hopefully

larson n natla
14-10-10, 19:56
Just because "a lot of people" think something, doesn't mean it's OK to agree with it. And I realize you personally don't, but your post somehow suggests that you understand why he said this. I don't. I expect journalists to be more intelligent and responsible than the general populace.


(lmao, if only)

I do understand why he said it. Because he is one of the 'many' who link Muslim religion to terrorism. Isn't that obvious :confused:

I didn't say it was ok to agree with it but the fact is he did and many people agree with him. Not my opinion although I don't really see the point in the mosque I am not opposed to it.

Alex Shepherd
14-10-10, 20:00
I do understand why he said it. Because he is one of the 'many' who link Muslim religion to terrorism. Isn't that obvious :confused:

I didn't say it was ok to agree with it but the fact is he did and many people agree with him. Not my opinion although I don't really see the point in the mosque I am not opposed to it.

But many many many people also agree that Muslims are not responsible of 9/11 :confused: So you are choosing not folllowing facts... ;)

digitizedboy
14-10-10, 21:10
Technically the people responsible were Muslims

They weren't Muslims, they abused the religion by committing that act.

trlestew
14-10-10, 21:20
America, 9 years of sheer ignorance since September 11, 2001

Miharu
14-10-10, 21:35
I know muslim relatives/friends (on my mum's side of the family) and they are completely against any form of terrorism, what the terrorists did on 9/11 goes completely AGAINST the muslim religion.

Even if the terrorists were muslim it doesn't mean to say that every single muslim out there is a crazy loonatic hell bent on killing 100's of people.

PS. I hate Bill O'Rielly.

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 22:02
Yeah, but he didn’t, and I think it is obvious that this was not some sort of accident. If questioned, I’m sure he will say "yes, not all muslims killed us on 9/11", but he makes it very clear that he has no interest in better relations between muslims and other americans.I prefer not to jump to conclusions. Regardless, he certainly was a bit careless in his comment.

*snip*

:hea:

You just lost all credibility with that. I thought your first post was good and all true but when you started with the anti-semitism you ruined it.

Of curse Israel has got its bloody hands in thisProof? I think you're giving Israel more credit than they're worth.

America, 9 years of sheer ignorance since September 11, 2001:confused:

Tombraiderx08
14-10-10, 22:07
There's a big difference between "Mulsims are our problem." and "Terrorism is our problem" way to be a champ O Reily, way to be a champ.

robm_2007
14-10-10, 22:08
he's the one who should have left :ohn:

larafan25
14-10-10, 22:14
:confused:

I believe the person was saying that since 911 Americans have been ignorant...

xmamacitax
14-10-10, 22:20
Technically the people responsible were Muslims, but they were extremist. I don't think it's fair to label all Muslims for the extreme actions of others.

There are some pretty crazy Christians out there, and I hate to be grouped with them. I really feel like this is the same type of scenario.

Some Muslims are good, and some are bad. Just the same with any type of people, and we can't group them all together and act as if all the bad ones represent the good ones too.

Im muslim myself , and I see it as an loved one religion but some people out of the world make a wrong image about it:mad:

robm_2007
14-10-10, 22:23
what did he actually say? im at school and the computers dont have speakers.

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 22:27
I believe the person was saying that since 911 Americans have been ignorant...Yeah I know that but it was just a bit vague and generalizing. O'Reily is just one person.

Mr.Burns
14-10-10, 22:45
I believe the person was saying that since 911 Americans have been ignorant...


Naaa, we've been ignorant for years. We just get more media coverage now.

xb4b1x
14-10-10, 22:46
Naaa, we've been ignorant for years. We just get more media coverage now.

Rofl! :vlol:

Archetype
14-10-10, 22:47
kVKGRB3cygg

I could have sworn you made a thread a month or so ago with that video on it, why on earth are you blaming israel?

Of curse Israel has got its bloody hands in this

Just the way they are ruining Lebanon these days :mad: and trying to ignite a huge civil war which will never happen hopefully

:rolleyes: Blame game.

larafan25
14-10-10, 22:48
Yeah I know that but it was just a bit vague and generalizing. O'Reily is just one person.

Ya, it's clearly more than this one person,. but never the full nation.:)

Catapharact
14-10-10, 22:49
Naaa, we've been ignorant for years. We just get more media coverage now.

Nah! Me still likes America. I just find it really ironic though that the prime investor and major stock holder of Fox news just happens to be a Saudi Arabian prince who... Get this... is one of the financial supporters of the mosque :whi:.

Oh Bill... Poor misguided Bill...

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 22:51
I could have sworn you made a thread a month or so ago with that video on it, why on earth are you blaming israel?Because the Jews/Israel are always to blame for any kind of tragic event that happens. Remember the Haiti Earthquake? Yep, that was Israel. Remember the 2004 Tsunami? That was Israel too. ;)

Catapharact
14-10-10, 22:53
[youtube]kVKGRB3cygg[youtube]

Did u know that u already wasted 5 sec in ur whole life while readin this?

Add another 15 sec. on that for reading and quoting this post of yours.

Lara's home
14-10-10, 22:54
Because the Jews/Israel are always to blame for any kind of tragic event that happens. Remember the Haiti Earthquake? Yep, that was Israel. Remember the 2004 Tsunami? That was Israel too. ;)


http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/oh_you.jpg

Archetype
14-10-10, 22:56
Because the Jews/Israel are always to blame for any kind of tragic event that happens. Remember the Haiti Earthquake? Yep, that was Israel. Remember the 2004 Tsunami? That was Israel too. ;)

I stubbed my toe, i'm going to blame..

oh wait.

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 23:01
I stubbed my toe, i'm going to blame..

oh wait.http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/jews012.jpg

Love2Raid
14-10-10, 23:04
That guy is a waste of space, he should be blown up like in that global warming video.

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 23:05
That guy is a waste of space, he should be blown up like in that global warming video.Hey, some guy has an offensive opinion, let's kill him.

Love2Raid
14-10-10, 23:10
Hey, some guy has an offensive opinion, let's kill him.
In the video, they ´blew up´ people who only polluted the earth but didn´t contribute in any positive way. So yeah, let´s press that button.

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 23:14
In the video, they ´blew up´ people who only polluted the earth but didn´t contribute in any positive way. So yeah, let´s press that button.Yeah. **** him, he deserves to die.

Lara's Nemesis
14-10-10, 23:22
Fox News is a joke, blatant right wing propaganda.

I prefer my news to be unbiased, shame that is so hard to find these days.:(

Mad Tony
14-10-10, 23:28
Fox News is a joke, blatant right wing propaganda.

I prefer my news to be unbiased, shame that is so hard to find these days.:(From an outsider's view all the other major networks are just as biased but in the other direction.

Although apparently that's ok.

Love2Raid
14-10-10, 23:31
Yeah. **** him, he deserves to die.
Hehe, no he doesn´t. It just sucks that people like him, who don´t have a clue of what they are talking about, get so much screen time to influence the big herd of ignorant people. But meh, censorship sucks as well.

Lara's Nemesis
14-10-10, 23:34
From an outsider's view all the other major networks are just as biased but in the other direction.

Although apparently that's ok.

I don't think it is ok but as you say most news channels are biased. How difficult can it be to just report the news without a political slant on it. :p

Love2Raid
14-10-10, 23:37
I don't think it is ok but as you say most news channels are biased. How difficult can it be to just report the news without a political slant on it. :p
It´s not. They are intentionally biased to keep their dedicated viewers.

Beans-Bot
14-10-10, 23:39
While I do disagree with the man (on more issues than this alone),

holy entrapment, Batman. Do you really the The View would want some extreme right-winger on their show to honestly listen to his opinions? They were just waiting for him to slip up and make himself look stupid. I mean, what, six against one? Come on now. As crazy as he and his opinion may be, at least make it a fair discussion.

Catapharact
14-10-10, 23:45
I mean, what, six against one? Come on now. As crazy as he and his opinion may be, at least make it a fair discussion.

Sounds like your average tangle on TRF with left wingers :whi: :p.

If some of us can hold our own in this forum (while kicking Liberal butt in the process) I am sure Bill O' Reily could have easily silenced the View's braindead squakers while staying within the topic of discussion at hand.

His slip up is inexcusable. Conservatives weed out their weak... They don't support them like the Libbies do ;).

Uzi master
15-10-10, 00:10
Because the Jews/Israel are always to blame for any kind of tragic event that happens. Remember the Haiti Earthquake? Yep, that was Israel. Remember the 2004 Tsunami? That was Israel too. ;)

really:confused:

but I thought they said that was promiscuous women who did those things...

Sounds like your average tangle on TRF with left wingers :whi: :p.

If some of us can hold our own in this forum (while kicking Liberal butt in the process) I am sure Bill O' Reily could have easily silenced the View's braindead squakers while staying within the topic of discussion at hand.

His slip up is inexcusable. Conservatives weed out their weak... They don't support them like the Libbies do ;).

why is it you seem to hate liberals? oh I care for the inviorment lock me up!

speaking of which you do know canada is more liberal than most countries out there, so why would you move here with your aparrently extreme dislike for Liberalism?

AmericanAssassin
15-10-10, 00:15
Do you really the The View would want some extreme right-winger on their show to honestly listen to his opinions? They were just waiting for him to slip up and make himself look stupid. I mean, what, six against one? Come on now. As crazy as he and his opinion may be, at least make it a fair discussion.

Elizabeth is a "right-winger" you know (and a couple of them don't say). The View has always tried to have hosts from both sides.

Catapharact
15-10-10, 00:30
why is it you seem to hate liberals? oh I care for the inviorment lock me up!

speaking of which you do know canada is more liberal than most countries out there, so why would you move here with your aparrently extreme dislike for Liberalism?

Oh you guys don't care about the environment... What you care about is insanity... Masked in the form of inefficient and idiotic ideas that come in flashy boxes labled "environmentaly friendly" ;).

And you are assuming that I support the Liberal party in Canada... Like hell! I am a conservative supporter (only because they are the only ones who come close to pitching ideas that relate to Libertarian views.) Canada's conservatives are REAL conservatives (unlike their American counterparts) who stick with the true ideology of conservativism (i.e. Fiscal responsibility, Military support, etc.) The only Liberal representatives I respect in Canada happen to be Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Paul Martin (but then again he was fiscally conservative ;).)

Uzi master
15-10-10, 00:38
Oh you guys don't care about the environment... What you care about is insanity... Masked in the form of inefficient and idiotic ideas that come in flashy boxes labled "environmentaly friendly" ;).
And you are assuming that I support the Liberal party in Canada... Like hell! I am a conservative supporter. Canada's conservatives are REAL conservatives (unlike their American counterparts) who stick with the true ideology of conservativism (i.e. Fiscal responsibility, Military support, etc.) The only Liberal representatives I respect in Canada happen to be Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Paul Martin (but then again he was fiscally conservative ;).)

care to explain this, insulting someone and walking away doesnt really count as kicking are buts, as you like to put it ;)


Id rather be in-effeciant poor crazy person than be a resouce gobbling wastefull person who's more concerned with profit and winning wars than he is with the well being of the plannet.

Catapharact
15-10-10, 00:42
care to explain this, insulting someone and walking away doesnt really count as kicking are buts, as you like to put it ;)


Id rather be in-effeciant poor crazy person than be a resouce gobbling wastefull person who's more concerned with profit and winning wars than he is with the well being of the plannet.

Canada has NEVER profited from environmentally friendly concepts. Infact, they have harmed the environment more then they helped. Case in point; The Wind Turbine project. Not only do these turbines produces inefficiently low wattage output (they don't even produce Mega-watts) but they actually have harmed bird flocks during their annual migration :vlol:.

Ah Liberals... Like I said... Insanity galore ;).

Love2Raid
15-10-10, 00:43
Oh you guys don't care about the environment... What you care about is insanity... Masked in the form of inefficient and idiotic ideas that come in flashy boxes labled "environmentaly friendly" ;).


Well, you guys are boring and stuck in the past. There.

Catapharact
15-10-10, 00:46
Well, you guys are boring and stuck in the past. There.

Actually no... Libertarians embrace new ideas which are PRAGMATIC ;). Libbies on the other hand want to run around in their make belief never-lands and probably jump off of cliffs with the idea that if they can believe hard enough, they can actually fly :p.

larafan25
15-10-10, 00:49
Can you really separate individual people into such general groups based on their views?

Clearly you can, however it's not successful because we all have such fine tunned ideas and opinions.

Uzi master
15-10-10, 00:55
Actually no... Libertarians embrace new ideas which are PRAGMATIC ;). Libbies on the other hand want to run around in their make belief never-lands and probably jump off of cliffs with the idea that if they can believe hard enough, they can actually fly :p.

like WHAT? what ideas do you find crazy? I bet you'd find it crazy if I said they should stop cutting down the rainforrest, wouldn't you?;)

Love2Raid
15-10-10, 00:57
Actually no... Libertarians embrace new ideas which are PRAGMATIC ;). Libbies on the other hand want to run around in their make belief never-lands and probably jump off of cliffs with the idea that if they can believe hard enough, they can actually fly :p.
Haha, you are saying that 'progressive' people base their policies on fairy tales? This is ridiculous, lol. At least they think ahead.
And you can be progressive and right-wing at the same time.

Catapharact
15-10-10, 01:00
like WHAT? what ideas do you find crazy? I bet you'd find it crazy if I said they should stop cutting down the rainforrest, wouldn't you?;)

Actually no. The market (much to the dismay of Libbies who want more control of it ;)) has spoken. Print material is going with the way of the do-do bird to be replaced with digital readers, and more and more construction material for scaffolding is switching over to wood related substitues. Hence the shift to the use of more optimized material is happening on its own WITHOUT forceful interference of enviro-gimps ;).

Libertarianism 101 right there ;).

Haha, you are saying that 'progressive' people base their policies on fairy tales? This is ridiculous, lol. At least they think ahead
And you can be progressive and right-wing at the same time.

You are assuming that Liberal are progressive thinkers :vlol:. They aren't progressive thinkers... They are INSANE! Yes you can think progressively and be a right wing supporter... Hence why I am a Libertarian ;).

Uzi master
15-10-10, 01:03
so what ideas DO you think are crazy then? all your saying is ere crazy, why? what idea is crazy? or can you not think of one;)

Beans-Bot
15-10-10, 01:03
Not to go all quasi-mod but is this really necessary?

PMs, people. :smk:

Uzi master
15-10-10, 01:06
well I thin kthis is as much a political thread as it is, uhh, what else would it be? say how much you're appaled thread?:p

Catapharact
15-10-10, 01:07
so what ideas DO you think are crazy then? all your saying is ere crazy, why? what idea is crazy? or can you not think of one;)

Well for starters.

a) Forceful input of environmental laws in industries that really REALLY do not need regulators whose expertise happen to be "hippy" clap trap.

b) Unwarrented interference from anyone in the financial sector. At the same time, the population itself needs to learn how to manage its money PROPERLY.

c) Baseless fear mongering when it comes to the military.

And I can go on and on and on :whi:.

Love2Raid
15-10-10, 01:09
You are assuming that Liberal are progressive thinkers :vlol:. They aren't progressive thinkers... They are INSANE! Yes you can think progressively and be a right wing supporter... Hence why I am a Libertarian ;).
Wait a minute, you just said you were a conservative supporter. :confused:
I don't think I am really getting the difference between Liberal and Libertarian...

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with caring for the environment. It doesn't make you insane.

Catapharact
15-10-10, 01:12
I don't think I am really getting the difference between Liberal and Libertarian...

Simple difference.

Libertarianism takes a more moderate stance on goverment policies and supports conservative fiscal ideologies. Liberals support more left wing oriented policies and views.

Have a read:

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

Uzi master
15-10-10, 01:12
Well for starters.

a) Forceful input of environmental laws in industries that really REALLY do not need regulators whose expertise happen to be "hippy" clap trap.

b) Unwarrented interference from anyone in the financial sector. At the same time, the population itself needs to learn how to manage its money PROPERLY.

c) Baseless fear mongering when it comes to the military.

And I can go on and on and on :whi:.

and this is crazy? hardly crazier than the amount of smog and sludge companies just through in the enviorment, or how big compannies pay theyre workers so little, or how much killing and destruction the military causes.

Catapharact
15-10-10, 01:17
and this is crazy? hardly crazier than the amount of smog and sludge companies just through in the enviorment, or how big compannies pay theyre workers so little, or how much killing and destruction the military causes.

Mr. Uzi, I can give you a CLEAR LOGICAL lesson on basic economics, current political situaitons around the world, and how painfully idiotic liberal environmental polices are (which have not only failed to help the environment but have harmed it further) but then I think to myself... Why bother... You support Liberals... Liberals don't understand logic ;).

I have debated with you in the past as to why your views are wrong with LOGICAL and COHERENT sources to support my views where as you haven't given the curtosy of doing the same when it comes to your views. I am certainly not going to waste energy doing it all over again.

Let me ask you a few questions (you don't have to answer if you think they are personal.)

- How old are you?
- Are you currently in highschool?
- Do you ever research about the things you support?

Love2Raid
15-10-10, 01:28
Simple difference.

Libertarianism takes a more moderate stance on goverment policies and supports conservative fiscal ideologies. Liberals support more left wing oriented policies and views.

Have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Thanks.

Beans-Bot
15-10-10, 01:28
well I thin kthis is as much a political thread as it is, uhh, what else would it be? say how much you're appaled thread?:p


It's not so much that you're arguing about politics, it's that the politics you're arguing about have nothing to do with the topic.

"Liberals are stupid. :cen:" "Conservatives are stupid. :cen:" Seriously?

Uzi master
15-10-10, 01:34
Mr. Uzi, I can give you a CLEAR LOGICAL lesson on basic economics, current political situaitons around the world, and how painfully idiotic liberal environmental polices are (which have not only failed to help the environment but have harmed it further) but then I think to myself... Why bother... You support Liberals... Liberals don't understand logic ;).

I have debated with you in the past as to why your views are wrong with LOGICAL and COHERENT sources to support my views where as you haven't given the curtosy of doing the same when it comes to your views. I am certainly not going to waste energy doing it all over again.

Let me ask you a few questions (you don't have to answer if you think they are personal.)

- How old are you?
- Are you currently in highschool?
- Do you ever research about the things you support?

I would like an example please, and no I will not fill out your "form" all you responded to me with was insults saying why bother? your a liberal. I would like an awnswer, containing at least two examples of policies or veiws that are crazy, and liberal. not an insult to my intellegence saying I dont know logic, which makes no sence if there is nothing about my veiws in your post other than baseless insults.

and I'm one of the last peope who should be said doesnt know logic, considering what I am :whi:

Catapharact
15-10-10, 01:42
I would like an example please, and no I will not fill out your "form" all you responded to me with was insults saying why bother? your a liberal.

Just look at this thread!

My usual response.

Actually no.

Followed by a logically backed reason:

The market (much to the dismay of Libbies who want more control of it ) has spoken. Print material is going with the way of the do-do bird to be replaced with digital readers, and more and more construction material for scaffolding is switching over to wood related substitues. Hence the shift to the use of more optimized material is happening on its own WITHOUT forceful interference of enviro-gimps.

Libertarianism 101 right there.

Your usual answer to ANYTHING:

I would like an example please.

Or

hardly crazier than the amount of smog and sludge companies just through in the enviorment, or how big compannies pay theyre workers so little, or how much killing and destruction the military causes.

No solid reasoning. No sound proposal. Just lame slandering that has no basis to it (which you accuse others of.) You know what I think? ... I personally think you have NO logical reasons to back your arguments with ;). You ask for examples (and I provide them to back my views) where as you can't be bother to do the same to support yours.

Is it a Liberal trait? Lol!

Uzi master
15-10-10, 01:52
you brought up something that had nothing to do with what I was asking though, sorry if I would like to know what you're thinking of, but that quote of yourself had nothing to do with something you thought was crazy, and my post you quoted stated that, first polution chould be controlled, second there should be some restrictions for bussnesis and third, the military has done many bad things and really should at least have stricter rules as to which they canand cant do in other countries.

Catapharact
15-10-10, 01:56
you brought up something that had nothing to do with what I was asking though, sorry if I would like to know what you're thinking of, but that quote of yourself had nothing to do with something you thought was crazy, and my post you quoted stated that, first polution chould be controlled, second there should be some restrictions for bussnesis and third, the military has done many bad things and really should at least have stricter rules as to which they canand cant do in other countries.

Again, same baseless claims of what you think with NO supporting argument after it whatsoever. You might as well be saying (and I quote) "hardly crazier than the amount of smog and sludge companies just through in the enviorment, or how big compannies pay theyre workers so little, or how much killing and destruction the military causes" all over again. I gave you a real working world example where as you give me nothing but "could be" "could be" "could be."

I am sorry but you are basically highlighting exactly what I said about Liberals:

Actually no... Libertarians embrace new ideas which are PRAGMATIC ;). Libbies on the other hand want to run around in their make belief never-lands and probably jump off of cliffs with the idea that if they can believe hard enough, they can actually fly :p.

Killercowz
15-10-10, 01:57
I think that we should all, (TRF as a community) should kidnap, drug, and rape 'O Reily.

Kidding.... kind of. :P

Catapharact
15-10-10, 02:00
I think that we should all, (TRF as a community) should kidnap

No thankyou. Why should I get a criminal charge for him? He is basically killing himself whenever he opens his mouth ;).

drug,

Again same thing as above.

and rape 'O Reily.

... Are you kidding me? First off, I have REALLY high standards ;), and secondly even the most desperate bloke out there doesn't deserves such a punishment.

Killercowz
15-10-10, 02:01
Read the white text. ;)

Catapharact
15-10-10, 02:02
Read the white text. ;)

I read it... But my post still needed to be posted ;).

Solice
15-10-10, 02:04
He knew he would tweak noses by generalizing like that.

Uzi master
15-10-10, 02:14
Again, same baseless claims of what you think with NO supporting argument after it whatsoever. You might as well be saying (and I quote) "hardly crazier than the amount of smog and sludge companies just through in the enviorment, or how big compannies pay theyre workers so little, or how much killing and destruction the military causes" all over again. I gave you a real working world example where as you give me nothing but "could be" "could be" "could be."

I am sorry but you are basically highlighting exactly what I said about Liberals:

you say we beleive in never-land, yeah sure. Tell me something you actually find crazy and why, I never said could be, like I said I want an example not a statement just saing its so, but exaples of what we say that is apparently so crazy, and what you say thats apparently so much more realistic.

about your quote of me, can you deny that those things take place? do you deny industries/companies pollute and should be restricted to the amount of pollution they can emmit, or that there is problems in companies, or the military causes destruction? I already elaborated a little on these points too, incase you missed it;)

Catapharact
15-10-10, 02:23
you say we beleive in never-land, yeah sure. Tell me something you actually find crazy and why, I never said could be, like I said I want an example not a statement just saing its so, but exaples of what we say that is apparently so crazy, and what you say thats apparently so much more realistic.

My views and the examples that back them are backed by ACTUAL actions that are happening as well as to how they are being a negitive influence in the world in ACTUAL REAL TIME situations. I gave you my example with the Wind Turbines for instance... You have a real world Liberal moronic plan backfiring because of REAL WORLD restrictions (i.e. killing birds and not producing enough power.)

All you usually give me is "military is killing people." No... Militaries fight other militaries and try to cut down on civilian based casualties. I want you to give me a REAL world alternative to militaries that can ACTUALLY WORK to make sure we have global peace and security ;). I want ACTUAL EXAMPLES from YOU! I want you to give me a real world pragmatic solution of market control and how it can help people out. I already gave you my example with digital material and how its natural evolution is driving out the old ways ON ITS OWN!

about your quote of me, can you deny that those things take place? do you deny industries/companies pollute and should be restricted to the amount of pollution they can emmit, or that there is problems in companies, or the military causes destruction? I already elaborated a little on these points too, incase you missed it;)

Sure they do! But most companies actually take resposibility and have already equipped most of their smoke stacks with scrubbers and filters (again... REAL world example) without the interference of the government. Why? Because their shareholders demand it and its part of their mission statement. Most companies take the innitative without being FORCED into it and they end up setting a trend that other competitors usually have to follow (or they get left in the dust.) They don't need government environmental regulation to force em.

Again, these are REAL world examples... Not "could be" could be" "could be."

Paddy
15-10-10, 02:45
I found the fact they threw such tantis on the air quite amusing.
Not the actual reason for it but the fact they didnt at least go to an ad break.

AmericanAssassin
15-10-10, 02:50
I found the fact they threw such tantis on the air quite amusing. Not the actual reason for it but the fact they didnt at least go to an ad break.

The View is known to stay on the air when dramatic things are going on. The Rosie/Elizabeth showdown a couple years back was epic! :mis:

Uzi master
15-10-10, 02:53
My views and the examples that back them are backed by ACTUAL actions that are happening as well as to how they are being a negitive influence in the world in ACTUAL REAL TIME situations. I gave you my example with the Wind Turbines for instance... You have a real world Liberal moronic plan backfiring because of REAL WORLD restrictions (i.e. killing birds and not producing enough power.)

All you usually give me is "military is killing people." No... Militaries fight other militaries and try to cut down on civilian based casualties. I want you to give me a REAL world alternative to militaries that can ACTUALLY WORK to make sure we have global peace and security ;). I want ACTUAL EXAMPLES from YOU! I want you to give me a real world pragmatic solution of market control and how it can help people out. I already gave you my example with digital material and how its natural evolution is driving out the old ways ON ITS OWN!



Sure they do! But most companies actually take resposibility and have already equipped most of their smoke stacks with scrubbers and filters (again... REAL world example) without the interference of the government. Why? Because their shareholders demand it and its part of their mission statement. Most companies take the innitative without being FORCED into it and they end up setting a trend that other competitors usually have to follow (or they get left in the dust.) They don't need government environmental regulation to force em.

Again, these are REAL world examples... Not "could be" could be" "could be."

I might have missed your wind turbine thing, now I dont think the whole world shouodl only be wind powered, but it certainly is a good alternative to say, coal on the pollution aspect of things, it may not produce a lot of power, but it at least makes some without pollution. I also doubt many birds fly into them, so source or it doesnt happen :p Some alternative energies are quite effecient though, hydro power to be specific, Hydro power powers most of B.C. (granted latley power usage has went up, but theres always the possibility of building a new dam or say, solar/wind power to fill the gap) and if I'm not mistaken the Hoover dam in Nevada powers three states. there are some real world examples of how alternative clean energy can work well.

concerning military I think that we should focus more on peace and helpiong countries get on there feet, instead of sending in troops to kill the people taken advantage of in these situations. I know military does provide aid, but actual aid workers would be better for support, and concernign civilian cassulties, you can't honestly say militaries dont take their toll, (heroshima and Nagisaki come to mind) but aside from human cassulties, money is spent on military, a lot is which could go to say developement. of course theres also costs to repair damages caused by fighting as well... at any rate money should instead be spent on releif efforts, wars a lot of the time are starteed by a relativley poor country led by a malicouse person willing to exploit them, Hitler in Germany is an example.

also concerning your statment on forestry you gave a reason why it might be fased out, but I doubt that is the case, maybe over time but at this rate it's not going to happen if we just leave them be, something has to be done quickly and not just waited out. government funding for the things you mentioned would help bt danngle the apple-tree in front of the forestry companies and the'll cut it down. the forest needs to be protected and not ignored because "eventually it will be fased out".


Market control, without any control theres nothing to stop companies from taking all the mony for themselves, or at least theyre higher ups. saying money will trickle down is saying you trust them to pay employees more, instead of just taking monney for themselves. to put my veiw on market simply, without enoguh monney for consumers to buy things, compannies will make less money, pay their workers less, who can buy less, and so on. perhaps legislation to restrict how much percentage the owners of compannies take from prophits and how much go's to wage increases, bt I havent exactly planned a whole scheme or anything, but just a basic idea;)

hope this awnswers some questions but if not, well it seems we would be even then:ton:

Catapharact
15-10-10, 03:13
And now I am going to point out where you went wrong ;).

I might have missed your wind turbine thing, now I dont think the whole world shouodl only be wind powered, but it certainly is a good alternative to say, coal on the pollution aspect of things, it may not produce a lot of power, but it at least makes some without pollution. I also doubt many birds fly into them, so source or it doesnt happen :p Some alternative energies are quite effecient though, hydro power to be specific, Hydro power powers most of B.C. (granted latley power usage has went up, but theres always the possibility of building a new dam or say, solar/wind power to fill the gap) and if I'm not mistaken the Hoover dam in Nevada powers three states. there are some real world examples of how alternative clean energy can work well.

Offcourse I agree that coal plants need to be shut down. They are inefficient. But the libbie idiots have cut off a more cleaners (and in the long run, a more effective) alternative solution; Nuclear power. In the long run, Nuclear Waste that comes from the newly upgraded powerplants is actually recycle-able and is usually kept in storage until it can be used again to power up another reactor. except for plutonium-240 and -241, these recyclable isotopes have very long half-lives and they emit their radiation slowly--so slowly, in fact, that they can safely be handled with bare hands. But there is no need for the public to come into contact with any of these since they can be used immediately as nuclear fuel. Already in LWRs, plutonium transmuted from U-238 provides nearly a third of the generated electrical energy. Hydro power is a good alternative but its STILL not enough to manage demand. Last year we actually had to IMPORT energy from the U.S. because of overtaxed steam turbines in Ontario. It was a hefty price to pay... Which could have been easily displaced if we had a reactor.

concerning military I think that we should focus more on peace and helpiong countries get on there feet, instead of sending in troops to kill the people taken advantage of in these situations. I know military does provide aid, but actual aid workers would be better for support, and concernign civilian cassulties, you can't honestly say militaries dont take their toll, (heroshima and Nagisaki come to mind) but aside from human cassulties, money is spent on military, a lot is which could go to say developement. of course theres also costs to repair damages caused by fighting as well... at any rate money should instead be spent on releif efforts, wars a lot of the time are starteed by a relativley poor country led by a malicouse person willing to exploit them, Hitler in Germany is an example.

I have to say, your view of our military is so small minded... Its microscopic really ;). Have you forgotten all about our Military peacekeeping missions and the rebuilding processes we have taken in Bosnia? What about events where security IS needed and we failed to take action because of Liberal buffonary and idiocy for not taking action when they should? Case in Point: The Rwandan Genocide. General Romeo Dillare called it an "embarrasment" for Canada. Those people who were systematically killed were relying on Canadian peacekeepers to protect them... Which they failed to do because the Security Council couldn't get its butt off its seat and take action to support those poor people who certainly didn't deserve to die.

Security is very well part of nation building and we need our already overtaxed military to be better prepared for the situation. We already have so much depreciating equipment (the C17 rifles, the damned Sea Kings, the F/A-18s!) They are all falling apart! We need to upgrade them to give our troops the tools to do their jobs effectively.

also concerning your statment on forestry you gave a reason why it might be fased out, but I doubt that is the case, maybe over time but at this rate it's not going to happen if we just leave them be, something has to be done quickly and not just waited out. government funding for the things you mentioned would help bt danngle the apple-tree in front of the forestry companies and the'll cut it down. the forest needs to be protected and not ignored because "eventually it will be fased out".

I don't need to doubt it; Its already happening ;). We had a nation wide day of literature in Canada not too long ago and most of the publisher booths had e-readers stacked high near their cashiers. Most publishers are now planning on switching over most of their print material to digital form because of its popularity. If the trend contiues, pretty soon everyone is going to be using an e-reader. Natural market at work ;).


Market control, without any control theres nothing to stop companies from taking all the mony for themselves, or at least theyre higher ups. saying money will trickle down is saying you trust them to pay employees more, instead of just taking monney for themselves. to put my veiw on market simply, without enoguh monney for consumers to buy things, compannies will make less money, pay their workers less, who can buy less, and so on. perhaps legislation to restrict how much percentage the owners of compannies take from prophits and how much go's to wage increases, bt I havent exactly planned a whole scheme or anything, but just a basic idea;)

Bull. Shareholders are there to prevent them from pulling something like that out and shareholders happen to be people like you and me. You can always buy a share in a company and be part of a committee that decides as to what you want from the company and which direction do you want it to take. By most legal laws (nearly every capitalistic based society) your legal stake in your company is set when you buy a share and they can't legally envoke illegal share hording (or they will face prison time.)

Again the market wins ;).

Librarian
15-10-10, 03:20
I think Bill O'Reilly is nothing more than the greatest troll this world has ever seen.

Beans-Bot
15-10-10, 03:32
You obviously haven't heard of Glenn "Get off mah phone!1!!1!!one!!" Beck then. :p

ul9YGlapNiA

:vlol:

Edit: How did "1!" get up there? :pi:

Avalon SARL
15-10-10, 06:13
It is just distracting the way everyone acts...

Practically speaking, let me ask: If any of you, as a student, educated persomn, desires to learn something, for example medicine, engineering or anything as a job, definitely each one of you will go study in that field with subjects that relate to the job and from professional tachers who can help you reah your goals.

I wouldnt see anyone getting entitled to a personal chocie/ attittude or whatever...

You'd be seeking facts...

Same goes to religion, as for whom to blame/ whether extremist muslims did this or not....

You cant base the whole religion as to what they did, if it was them :rolleyes:

If you want to know the religion, as we all pay millions and millions for education, you have to learn it from the professionals, not phsychos ;)

EscondeR
15-10-10, 07:18
There are extremists within any nation and any religion.
But somehow e.g. when an american John Doe shoots a dozen of heads off with a boomstick in the city mall, he hardly gets any national labels. But if a muslim farts in public, everyone goes: "WAAAH!!! Terrorist with a gas bomb..." :mis:
Pathetic!

tampi
15-10-10, 08:57
Lately I'm thinking that the real perpetrators of 11S are ourselves. Western civilization.

We have left so far behind our beliefs ...

The other day, watching the film they've done to TV on "The Pillars of the Earth (Ken Follett), I thought about it.

Before we build temples, cathedrals. These constructions uniting people into having something in common.
All In association on the same task. Build something that would improve their lives, bringing trade, wealth, etc. and also had the interest to be something that also fill the spirit and not only pockets.

Western society is now entirely given up to this task.
No more cathedrals were built. Now built nuclear power plants.
This means that in a globalized society such as ours, bring tensions and the balance needed by the people who still want to build cathedrals (in this case mosques).

Alex Shepherd
15-10-10, 09:02
:hea:
You just lost all credibility with that. I thought your first post was good and all true but when you started with the anti-semitism you ruined it.


Listen just because you are Islamaphobic doesn't mean that I am ruining it ok?! :) Most of people are following (not my opinion) but facts but since you HATE muslims and you are brainwashed by Bill O Reily and you are on his side doesn't mean that I ruined it... I ruined your brain and mind for giving up the facts... If thats what you're talking about then its true :D

Alex Shepherd
15-10-10, 09:06
I could have sworn you made a thread a month or so ago with that video on it, why on earth are you blaming israel?



:rolleyes: Blame game.

MOST SILLY QUERSTION I EVER HEARD!!!

WHEN YOU BECOME LEBANESE AS AVALON SARL AND ME!! YOU WILL GET THE ANSWER!

And if you want to play sarcasm game... I think this is not the place to be...

Archetype
15-10-10, 09:13
MOPT SILLY QUERSTION I EVER HEARD!!!

WHEN YOU BECOME LEBANESE AS AVALON SARL AND ME!! YOU WILL GET THE ANSWER!

And if you want to play sarcasm game... I think this is not the place to be...

Excessive use of caps?

It's not silly at all, you need to learn to look at both sides of the coin.

TRLegendLuver
15-10-10, 09:34
Listen just because you are Islamaphobic doesn't mean that I am ruining it ok?!

Who said he was 'Islamaphobic'? I don't recall that. Everyone has their opinion. He's not saying you're responsible for it. Relax.

Yes, I agree. Muslims were responsible for 9/11. I'm not saying all people in the Muslim religion are extremists, unlike the ones that killed 2751 people that were murdered, and yes, murdered, because they were innocent. Building a moskau very close to ground zero, I think personally, is insulting. Like I said, I'm not saying all muslims are extremists, but for the people who lost loved ones and friends do not want to see something like that near there that even hint of what happened. Yes, people die, people live. For example, say my sister was killed by the hands of an extremeist, that just happens to be a muslim, I would not want something built, where she was killed, that represented anything like what happened to her. 'O Reily shouldn't of said it the way he did, but I think he was trying to get peoples' attention, and obviously, it did.

So bash me for my opinion, I haven't been nasty for theirs. So let's act like adults and talk. Not argue. Talk. It's just a discussion.

Mad Tony
15-10-10, 11:07
but I thought they said that was promiscuous women who did those things...Wasn't that what one of those radical Muslim clerics in Iran said?

Listen just because you are Islamaphobic doesn't mean that I am ruining it ok?! :) If I was Islamophobic I don't think I would've approved of your first post where you talked about how killing and violence go against Islam.
you HATE muslimsSee above

and you are brainwashed by Bill O Reily and you are on his sideI have no opinion on the man. I don't like or dislike him.

Lemmie
15-10-10, 11:15
Building a moskau very close to ground zero, I think personally, is insulting. Like I said, I'm not saying all muslims are extremists, but for the people who lost loved ones and friends do not want to see something like that near there that even hint of what happened.

I really think it's only insulting if you choose to be insulted by it. Among the innocents who died in 9/11 there were Muslims as well as Christians, Jews or people with no professed religious affiliations. I think that by saying it is insulting, even in regard to the families of those who died who would be offended and reminded of their suffering, is to admit that there is something fundamental in Islam that encourages or condones or celebrates the deaths of people who are not Muslim. Which the majority of Muslims worldwide would not agree with at all.

Quite apart from the location of the mosque being some distance from Ground Zero itself, it is described as a cultural centre rather than strictly a place for worship. And even if it was strictly a mosque, there is no legitimate reason, particularly in regards to the US Constitution, that prevents it; in fact if any governing body, whether in NYC or federally made any move to prevent its being built, that action would be unconstitutional.

Sharon_14
15-10-10, 11:20
its true, lol.

how lovely, obviously, someone has to remind israel in one way or another, even though its unrelated. :)

Alex Shepherd
15-10-10, 19:40
http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/oh_you.jpg

:ton:

Who said he was 'Islamaphobic'? I don't recall that. Everyone has their opinion. He's not saying you're responsible for it. Relax.

Yes, I agree. Muslims were responsible for 9/11. I'm not saying all people in the Muslim religion are extremists, unlike the ones that killed 2751 people that were murdered, and yes, murdered, because they were innocent. Building a moskau very close to ground zero, I think personally, is insulting. Like I said, I'm not saying all muslims are extremists, but for the people who lost loved ones and friends do not want to see something like that near there that even hint of what happened. Yes, people die, people live. For example, say my sister was killed by the hands of an extremeist, that just happens to be a muslim, I would not want something built, where she was killed, that represented anything like what happened to her. 'O Reily shouldn't of said it the way he did, but I think he was trying to get peoples' attention, and obviously, it did.

So bash me for my opinion, I haven't been nasty for theirs. So let's act like adults and talk. Not argue. Talk. It's just a discussion.

But also American did horrible things to Muslim countries... Do I have to blame England and America together just because they hold the same language od= English?! They did terrible things in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq this is SUFFER!! Signing up for the war in each of the country especially for Iraq just because of the gas that's completely innocent... If you really want to remember all the friends and families who had been killed in 9/11 had anybody of you just mentioned one woman's or boy's or girl's name that killed in Iraq?!!!

Again... I am not against of the idea if Al Ka3ida did it and Bin Laden is responsible for it but doesn't mean that its ISLAM.

There is a LONG different between Al Ka3ida and Muslim

Avalon SARL
15-10-10, 19:45
:p well, this i do not disbeleive, thast some proclaim that Al-Qaida is an American Invention :cln:
lmao

Mad Tony
15-10-10, 19:49
:p well, this i do not disbeleive, thast some proclaim that Al-Qaida is an American Invention :cln:
lmaoNo it's not. :confused:

Again... I am not against of the idea if Al Ka3ida did it and Bin Laden is responsible for it but doesn't mean that its ISLAM.I thought it was Israel's fault?

Avalon SARL
15-10-10, 19:53
^^^^ what's the proof you have

Dolnik and others believe that, in many ways, the thing we refer to as 'al-Qaeda' is largely a creation of Western officials.

I have this old article about someone studying terrorism back in 2003
Pretty lovely
I dont mean he is right...
but US policy is deceiving and not for the sake of humanity as it spreads hatred in many places around the world

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DFED.htm

Mad Tony
15-10-10, 19:56
^^^^ what's the proof you have



I have this old article about someone studying terrorism back in 2003
Pretty lovely
I dont mean he is right...
but US policy is deceiving and not for the sake of humanity as it spreads hatred in many places around the world

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006DFED.htmThat's one article. Doesn't exactly constitute proof since it's just one person giving their opinion.

Ward Dragon
15-10-10, 20:00
:p well, this i do not disbeleive, thast some proclaim that Al-Qaida is an American Invention :cln:
lmao

Maybe the name "Al-Qaeda" has been largely used in the media as a catch-all label for terrorist groups in general, but the terrorist groups still exist regardless of what they call themselves.

Avalon SARL
15-10-10, 20:00
Yeah i know
But the article isvery interesting and makes you see how can one idea from one man just create lots and lots of new ideas and makes you see new things you did not even think of

As a muslim, what hurts me, is suppose al-qaedareally is a group of extremist muslims....
Muslims are the ones to stop them before anyone else...

This makes me sad,bcz, unfortunately, none is even trying it because the world has a huge war over muslims everywhere, and many modern muslims have put their religion behind for the daily affairs and pleasures :(

TRLegendLuver
16-10-10, 09:08
But also American did horrible things to Muslim countries... Do I have to blame England and America together just because they hold the same language od= English?! They did terrible things in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq this is SUFFER!! Signing up for the war in each of the country especially for Iraq just because of the gas that's completely innocent... If you really want to remember all the friends and families who had been killed in 9/11 had anybody of you just mentioned one woman's or boy's or girl's name that killed in Iraq?!!!

Again... I am not against of the idea if Al Ka3ida did it and Bin Laden is responsible for it but doesn't mean that its ISLAM.

There is a LONG different between Al Ka3ida and Muslim

Um...most of your post didn't make any sense. I couldn't really follow to be perfectly honest. :confused:

I really think it's only insulting if you choose to be insulted by it. Among the innocents who died in 9/11 there were Muslims as well as Christians, Jews or people with no professed religious affiliations. I think that by saying it is insulting, even in regard to the families of those who died who would be offended and reminded of their suffering, is to admit that there is something fundamental in Islam that encourages or condones or celebrates the deaths of people who are not Muslim. Which the majority of Muslims worldwide would not agree with at all.

Quite apart from the location of the mosque being some distance from Ground Zero itself, it is described as a cultural centre rather than strictly a place for worship. And even if it was strictly a mosque, there is no legitimate reason, particularly in regards to the US Constitution, that prevents it; in fact if any governing body, whether in NYC or federally made any move to prevent its being built, that action would be unconstitutional.

Cultural center or worship place, it is a legitimate reason, constitutional or not. Okay, say someone who who killed someone in your family and they were a Christian. Would you honestly want anything built that was even related to the Christian belief or 'cultural center' built near where they died? If you didn't mind, that's very weird in my opinion. I actually knew people who's friends and family died there. Some of them are still recooperating from it, even though it was 9 years ago. It grieves me to know that a little boy is no an orphan because his parents were killed and is being raised by relatives he's not familiar with. How do you explain that to a 6 year old? Exactly. I have nothing against the muslim community and as I said before, and again since it was not highlighted, not all of them are extremist. And it was extremists who planned and killed over 2,500 people. If they want to build a mosque, fine. But not there. And as I said, it always seems that if someone has a contrary belief to others, that they are the bad guys.

But back to 'O Reily, yes he should of spoke better than he did. But I think his main intention was to get peoples' attention. He apparently did so with flying colors.

remote91
16-10-10, 09:12
Oh Kathy Griffin you're gonna have a field day with this one

TRLegendLuver
16-10-10, 09:36
Oh Kathy Griffin you're gonna have a field day with this one

Lol. :P

Peanut
16-10-10, 09:54
Wow.. O.O
I am Muslim but I am not religious and when I saw that video I was just surprised at what that guy said. Wasn't it Osama bin Ladin who caused 9/11? :p

Also Alex Shepard, write Al Ka3ida "Al Kaida" in that way, the number/letters can only be understood by Arabians. ;) (It's just something people in the middle east use to be able to write Arabic in English.)

Lemmie
16-10-10, 10:03
Cultural center or worship place, it is a legitimate reason, constitutional or not. Okay, say someone who who killed someone in your family and they were a Christian. Would you honestly want anything built that was even related to the Christian belief or 'cultural center' built near where they died? If you didn't mind, that's very weird in my opinion.

That's so ridiculous. So the families of the 9/11 victims have the right to be offended by what's built in Lower Manhatten forever? Besides which, many of the families of the victims have said that they have nothing against or even welcome the building of Cordoba House. So it seems a lot of people are weird, in your opinion, even if others among them agree with you.

I have nothing against the muslim community and as I said before, and again since it was not highlighted, not all of them are extremist. And it was extremists who planned and killed over 2,500 people. If they want to build a mosque, fine. But not there.

If you don't want to be seen to say that all Muslims are extremists or terrorists, then don't have a problem with it. The mosque or cultural centre, whatever it is, is not a monument to the 9/11 terrorists, it is not a celebration of some kind of victory over the people who died.

Tragic as it is the thousands of people died there, their families do not now have a say in what can and cannot be built at Ground Zero, or three blocks from it.

Here's an article from August about the reactions of the 9/11 families. As you can see, quite a lot of disagreement between them.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100820/ap_on_re_us/us_nyc_mosque_families)

Also a link to another Fox News host, Brian Kilmeade, coming out with yet another Islamophobic comment this week.

Kilmeade: "Not every Muslim is an extremist, a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim. You can't avoid that fact" (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010150027)

Johnnay
16-10-10, 11:03
But technically he is right. He could've said it in a better way though.

this, he opened his mouth in the wrong way most of the time, it was obviously extremists who caused 911 to occur, just ones who

*observe Sharia Law
*obviously Follow Islam
*were trained to do it
*are losers


Of curse Israel has got its bloody hands in this

Just the way they are ruining Lebanon these days :mad: and trying to ignite a huge civil war which will never happen hopefully

true, Israeli Spies have been in Lebanon( i dont know since but presumably after the 2006 war), most have been captured, some are still there, and some have fled, but not all the spies are Jewish working for Israel though

not too sure about the civil war part, but i do hope hezbollah doesnt ignite with Lebanese affairs.:)
Listen just because you are Islamaphobic doesn't mean that I am ruining it ok?! :) Most of people are following (not my opinion) but facts but since you HATE muslims and you are brainwashed by Bill O Reily and you are on his side doesn't mean that I ruined it... I ruined your brain and mind for giving up the facts... If thats what you're talking about then its true :D

Ben isnt Islamophobic Khalid:)


WHEN YOU BECOME LEBANESE AS AVALON SARL AND ME!! YOU WILL GET THE ANSWER!


this, especially, Lebanese( and the Arab World) can easily adapt to whats going on in the middle east, you just have to feel it:)

M.A.
16-10-10, 11:04
Yes, I agree. Muslims were responsible for 9/11.

Sigh.

If I rephrase that to - "(Insert some other religion) were responsible for 9/11.", what would the people of that religion think? Put yourself in Muslims shoes. Nobody condone the attack. The people you said were murdered, well some of them are also, Muslims.

The attack of 9/11 is not by Muslims. It is a terrorist attack. An extremist group. Don't let that cloud your gudgement by lumping 1.57 billion Muslims with that despicable group.

Ward Dragon
16-10-10, 11:08
Besides which, many of the families of the victims have said that they have nothing against or even welcome the building of Cordoba House.

It's actually called Park51 now, not Cordoba House. They changed the name after people got offended that it would be named after a church that Muslims turned into a mosque when they conquered Spain.

Lemmie
16-10-10, 11:19
It's actually called Park51 now, not Cordoba House. They changed the name after people got offended that it would be named after a church that Muslims turned into a mosque when they conquered Spain.

Ah, okay, I've heard both names but though they referred to it concurrently, rather than it being a re-naming. Thanks. :)

Peanut
16-10-10, 11:20
Into wen 2e3deen? :p

I hate the fact that us Muslims hate Jewish people, I have never met anyone Jewish for me to judge anything but I don't hate them, I just hate their government. They keep on planning wars for some reason, correct me if I'm wrong. ;)

Sigh.

If I rephrase that to - "(Insert some other religion) were responsible for 9/11.", what would the people of that religion think? Put yourself in Muslims shoes. Nobody condone the attack. The people you said were murdered, well some of them are also, Muslims.

The attack of 9/11 is not by Muslims. It is a terrorist attack. An extremist group. Don't let that cloud your gudgement by lumping 1.57 billion Muslims with that despicable group.

:tmb:

Mad Tony
16-10-10, 11:26
I hate the fact that us Muslims hate Jewish people, I have never met anyone Jewish for me to judge anything but I don't hate them, I just hate their government. They keep on planning wars for some reason, correct me if I'm wrong. ;)There are more Jews than just Israeli Jews. I don't know how you can hate the "Jewish government" when there is no Jewish government.

As for the wars, both sides can be as bad as each other.

ryan91
16-10-10, 11:32
'O Reily ? :P

Minty Mouth
16-10-10, 11:36
I haven't read this thread, but that woman screaming: "But this is America! I'm an American!" Made me want to punch her in the face.

I wonder how many of these people who quote the constituion actually understand its implications and have studied it. Moreover, how many have actually read it?

Peanut
16-10-10, 11:44
There are more Jews than just Israeli Jews. I don't know how you can hate the "Jewish government" when there is no Jewish government.

As for the wars, both sides can be as bad as each other.

Sorry it came out wrong, I meant Israel's government and yes I agree both of them are as bad as each other because they keep on provoking each other.

Ward Dragon
16-10-10, 11:51
Ah, okay, I've heard both names but though they referred to it concurrently, rather than it being a re-naming. Thanks. :)

You're welcome :) Park51 is the street address, so they're using it as a name for now (I assume they'll come up with a new name eventually). It looks like they actually are still using the name "Cordoba House" for the specific part of the building that will deal with "interfaith and religious component of the center" so I guess you weren't wrong in the first place :p But the whole building overall is now being called Park51.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Naming_of_the_project

I haven't read this thread, but that woman screaming: "But this is America! I'm an American!" Made me want to punch her in the face.

I wonder how many of these people who quote the constituion actually understand its implications and have studied it. Moreover, how many have actually read it?

Very good point. Even though the first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, that doesn't mean that people should throw common sense out of the window and ignore how other people feel about their actions. It's obvious that there's a lot of pain and tension surrounding ground zero, so I think that should be respected. Even if people have the freedom to do something, that doesn't mean that they should do it.

Wiki quoted several Muslim groups who are opposed to the mosque because they see it as an unnecessary provocation which is very insensitive to the victims of 9/11 and their families. I pretty much agree with what they said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Muslims

Alex Shepherd
16-10-10, 17:19
No it's not. :confused:

I thought it was Israel's fault?

http://i39.************/2ptcht1.jpg

amore-guy
16-10-10, 18:01
lol at this thread!:vlol:

TRF was behind 9/11

I am looking at you Muslim penguins:mis:
:D:D:D:p

Smog
16-10-10, 18:42
Why should anything Bill O'Rielly says surprise anyone?

Alex Shepherd
16-10-10, 18:58
Why should anything Bill O'Rielly says surprise anyone?

And why are you surprised?!

Mad Tony
16-10-10, 19:01
Yes, that's the logo of an Israeli lobby group in America. Your point?

voltz
16-10-10, 22:24
Yes, that's the logo of an Israeli lobby group in America. Your point?

I think the idea of an "American Israeli" defeats the point. :whi:

Killercowz
16-10-10, 23:42
And why are you surprised?!

:confused:

He's not really surprised by what Bill 'O Reily saying.