Should the Iranian President be Allowed to Visit Ground Zero?

No lobby group is saintly, so its an irrelevant point for you to bring up unless your intention was to indirectly defend what Michael Berry said.

 

WTF is wrong with all these Conservative talking heads these days?!? Have they all gone nuts?

I don't give a damn who gets pissed about it, saying crap like 'we should blow up a mosque' is ****ing stupid and sounds like exactly the kind of thing the pieces of **** who caused 911 would say. Berry is a dumbass for making that kind of mistake and giving anyone that kind of fodder.

 

There is a difference between "not saintly" and supporting terrorism. I've never heard of the guy before and what he said is clearly wrong and stupid, but he said it in the heat of the moment after a heated exchange with the caller who apparently provoked him and it does make a difference whether the ones who provoked him are terrorist supporters or not.

 

I agree 100 %.

 

Imagine what would happen if a Muslim radio host said, in response to a Jewish caller, that he hopes a synagogue gets blown up. And suppose the ADL demands this host gets fired. Who among us would actually respond to this story by trying to criticize the ADL's political stances?

 

Let's get real for a moment -- a mosque at ground zero is like an Al-Qaeda force field.

 

What is the ADL? And stop trying to make it seem like I wanted to defend his statement - I actually googled, found and posted his statement saying that he should NOT have said that, and THEN went on and googled CAIR because of the accusation made in his statement.

 

Anti-Defamation League.

 

And then you engaged in a red herring to deflect from what the host had said.

 

Whatever - as I said, I have never heard of the guy before, and I don't think I have ever heard of CAIR before, so I googled both.

What he said was wrong, but it is interesting that you are trying to shout down any criticism of CAIR. This thread is about whether the Iranian president should be allowed to visit Ground Zero and later became about whether a mosque should be allowed to be built right next to ground zero, so if anything is a red herring, it's the attempt to quote some random radio host who said something stupid, in order to discredit anyone who would think that building a mosque right next to Ground Zero might not be appropriate, depending on who is behind the initiative.

Now what would really be interesting to know - and on topic for the thread - is if there are ties between CAIR (whose co-founder, to repeat it, said "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.") and those who want to build that mosque. If yes, that would be a troubling sign and should trigger further scrutiny of the true intentions behind that mosque-building initiative.

 

Wait, did you just excuse the guy because he may have been provoked? You are arguing about provocation?!! LMFAO!! Oh man, you are comedy gold. You are like a walking contradiction :grin:

 

Calling for bombing of a mosque is pretty gross, but he shouldn't be fired for it. He's just an idiot for saying it.

That said, why would anyone think building a mosque at ground zero would be spitting in the fact of the families? To me that smacks of saying Islam is to blame for what happened.

If you say you can't build a mosque at ground zero, then you have to be opposed to any religious institution being built there. No church, no temple, no synagogue.

Should people be able to ban churches near them if a Christian committed a crime against them or their loved ones???

THat's ridiculous.

 

1) I didn't excuse the guy. I said he should probably lose his job over the statement.

2) There is a difference between saying something stupid (and taking it back like a day later) after having been provoked in a conversation that escalated and threatening someone with death, burning down embassies, etc. because of some cartoon of someone one doesn't even know.

I can see how you are not able to see the difference, though.

 

Whatever... See how easy that is? And the quoting of the guy who said he 'hopes someone will blow up the mosque' is not a red herring. It was completely related to the topic, which was the building of a mosque at ground zero. Your deflection on CAIR, however, was strictly a red herring. Do not get mad at me for calling you out on it. Learn how to identify logical fallacies better.

 

I LOL @ your attempt to repeat the same argument again to support your false claim. Just because you say it twice doesn't make it right. Try again.

 

Wanted to make sure your post was not ignored. 100% truth!

 

Oh please. Everyone here knows your hypocrisy. You only ruin your own image by engaging in fallacious reasoning to try and prove a point.

What have we learned about you from just two threads?
- Freedom of expression is critical for those whose only purpose is to offend. Then you say this same freedom of expression can be limited to help those who are oppressed (while infringing on those who aren't).
- It was alright for this radio host to say he 'hopes someone blows up the mosque' just because someone may or not have provoked him. You bash others by implying they support terrorists because they don't specifically denounce an action. Now here you are defending a guy who, on live radio, hoped for terrorism.

Sometimes your hypocrisy is worse than basso's.

 

You have a lot of learning to do, that much is obvious.

Even though religious zealots like you will not understand this - you are comparing apples and oranges, and equating them. There is absolutely no inconsistency in advocating freedom of speech and at the same time being in favor of freeing Islamic women from their mobile jails aka Burkha.

Would you prefer this? Hydhypedplaya's sharia state: Cartoons of anything Muslim are prohibited and probably under severe sanctions. The veil or burkha (= symbols of oppression) are not only not prohibited, but mandated.

You are simply lying: Find the quote from me where I said it was alright for the guy to say this, or where I defended him. I said the opposite. At the same time, you keep ignoring the fact that there are ties between the guy who is at the forefront of wanting to build that mosque and CAIR, an Islamic organization with direct links to terrorists whose founder has said that Islam should be the only accepted religion on earth. Now of course, you might like that, so that would explain it.

 

Learning? From a guy who remains ignorant on a religion he constantly bashes? Please, that is laughable.

Being in favor of freeing some Islamic women from being oppressed while infringing on the rights of the others who are not. That is hypocrisy. You are not advocating freedom of speech/expression for everyone. Only for those who you believe have a higher importance to that right. That is a mockery of inalienable rights.

Hello straw man.

You equate the burkha and the hijab with oppression while completely ignoring those who use those same items to free themselves from judgmental people such as yourself. Again, you are only displaying your own hypocrisy here.

Here's the quote:

And the worst part is... all you have done is engage in more logical fallacies. Do you know what a straw man is? Try not stating my position for me and saying that I do or do not support it.

 

You fail - the part you quoted neither states that it was right for the guy to say this, nor did I defend him. In fact, despite your attempts to make it look otherwise by bolding and font size, it says the exact opposite ("what he said is clearly wrong and stupid"). Just because I added some additional comments does not change that. In fact, even in criminal proceedings (for which there is no reason here, as we don't have your sharia law in Western civilizations - who knows, the guy might already be dead in Pakistan for saying that), any court will also look at the circumstances of a crime (heat of the moment, provocation, etc.). That doesn't mean that the court says the criminal act was right and it doesn't mean that the court defends the accused.

You appear to be another religious zealot who will try anything to discredit those who oppose attempts to intimidate those who fight for freedoms in Western civilizations.