Nice 9/11ish news story

[paraschtick]

A couple of Muslim guys have travelled across the US and have been greeted with open arms wherever they've gone.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/...tml?iref=allsearch#fbid=1iyxj6_18NB&wom=false

Shows that there is still some humanity left in the US. And as it says at the end:

"It's a small but vocal group of Americans in this country pushing this anti-Muslim rhetoric," Ali said. "And unfortunately in our society, whomever shouts the loudest is going to get the most air time."

Best wishes

paraschtick

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's really nice to hear. Most Americans don't blame an entire religion for what happened that day - it just seems that way in the media sometimes.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

That's really nice to hear. Most Americans don't blame an entire religion for what happened that day - it just seems that way in the media sometimes.

I'm not even sure what that's suppose to mean but I suspect it has something to do with my replies in the burning books thread. Whatever, I don't condemn an entire religion for the attacks. I simply don't believe that special consideration should be afforded those of the Muslim faith based on fear. I find it surreal that so many of you can be up in arms about some old, partially senile guy wanting to burn some books (And yeah, I recognize the stupidity in it. Difference is I recognize the stupidity of both actions) and at the same time advocate the building of a religious symbol at the site of a religious attack that killed thousands of people. Both are insensitive and both are idiotic, yet you condemn one and celebrate the other. What lies at the heart of this is fear: You don't fear the old guy but you do fear the Muslims in support of the building of that mosque. No other explanation makes sense, otherwise you would condemn both or neither. No matter how you try to spin it there is nothing intellectual or factual about special treatment based on emotional motivations. An impartial thinker would condemn both of these actions or would not comment on either of them.

 

[paraschtick]

I'm not even sure what that's suppose to mean but I suspect it has something to do with my replies in the burning books thread. Whatever, I don't condemn an entire religion for the attacks. I simply don't believe that special consideration should be afforded those of the Muslim faith based on fear ...

Umm you do realise that there is a mosque just round the corner from where the other one is to be?? ... which means that someone is just jumping on this to stir up fear about Muslims around 9/11. And that someone just happens to be the media, them who own it and those people who follow their entire agenda of casting Muslims as the devil and therefore getting more publicity for their whole plan to get the US into another war in the Middle East, probably with Iran.

But I'm glad that there are still some Americans who don't jump on the media's bandwagon, and actually welcome people like the guys in the article and don't lynch them at first sight ... it just shows there is some hope left.

 

[NTS]

A New York take on the mosque controversy:

Dear Rest-of-America: Take This Map, It's Why You're Wrong About the "Ground Zero Mosque" - New York News - Runnin' Scared

The "mosque" (actually a cultural center) is not at the WTC site ("Ground Zero"). Nor do its builders intend it to be gratuitously offensive. The building currently at the proposed location is already being used for Muslim worship.

The pastor who wanted to burn Korans was planning something he (and everyone) knew would be offensive to most Muslims, and a good many non-Muslims. It was an act deliberately intended to cause outrage.

That's the difference an impartial thinker would see immediately.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Umm you do realise that there is a mosque just round the corner from where the other one is to be?? ... which means that someone is just jumping on this to stir up fear about Muslims around 9/11. And that someone just happens to be the media, them who own it and those people who follow their entire agenda of casting Muslims as the devil and therefore getting more publicity for their whole plan to get the US into another war in the Middle East, probably with Iran.

But I'm glad that there are still some Americans who don't jump on the media's bandwagon, and actually welcome people like the guys in the article and don't lynch them at first sight ... it just shows there is some hope left.

I don't know if the mosque just around the corner thing is true or not. I do know there's a couple hundred of them in New York so who knows? But the rest of your comment amuses me a bit. Sounds like a truther argument. Look, the US needs no reason to attack a foreign nation because we are the biggest kid on the block. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just the way it is. Seriously, what can another country do if we decide to attack some 3rd world nation? They can whine about it, that's about it. The Frances, Germanys, Canadas, etc., of the world might be decent places to live in but militarily they are nothing when stacked up against the US (I don't say this to make out like foreign people are pussies. The reality is that America spends more on defense than these nations combined and that is why it is so much more militarily powerful). Even Russia fails to match up anymore. I don't believe for a minute that US leaders think they need some huge conspiracy to wage war. Yep, when we do it the other nations of the world complain like crazy, no doubt about it, but ultimately there is nothing they can really do or nothing they would even attempt to do unless we made an attack that was really bizarre, like against somebody like Sweden. Yep, an attack against them. or Finland, or Spain or something like that would probably cause the world to take up arms against us. But sane nations aren't going to declare war against the US to protect Saddam Hussein (Or Iran or N. Korea imo), destroyed towers or not. Instead all we'd see is a lot of protest marches and angry speeches. Big deal. Bush didn't need 9/11 to wage war with Iraq. The opinion polls would have been lower had it not happened (I remember that they were around 80% at the time amongst US citizens. I find that hilarious because now the majority of them will not admit that they were ever in favor of it. There's a whole lot of hypocritical "Monday morning quarterbacks" in this country that hide behind their anonymity) but he could have done it anyway. Other countries would have bitched their asses off about it (And did anyway) but that's the only thing they would have done. I don't believe for a second that an American leader is going to kill thousands of American citizens with a huge conspiracy just to avoid some pissed off lip service from abroad.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I don't know if the mosque just around the corner thing is true or not. I do know there's a couple hundred of them in New York so who knows? But the rest of your comment amuses me a bit. Sounds like a truther argument. Look, the US needs no reason to attack a foreign nation because we are the biggest kid on the block. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just the way it is. Seriously, what can another country do if we decide to attack some 3rd world nation? They can whine about it, that's about it. The Frances, Germanys, Canadas, etc., of the world might be decent places to live in but militarily they are nothing when stacked up against the US (I don't say this to make out like foreign people are pussies. The reality is that America spends more on defense than these nations combined and that is why it is so much more militarily powerful). Even Russia fails to match up anymore. I don't believe for a minute that US leaders think they need some huge conspiracy to wage war. Yep, when we do it the other nations of the world complain like crazy, no doubt about it, but ultimately there is nothing they can really do or nothing they would even attempt to do unless we made an attack that was really bizarre, like against somebody like Sweden. Yep, an attack against them. or Finland, or Spain or something like that would probably cause the world to take up arms against us. But sane nations aren't going to declare war against the US to protect Saddam Hussein (Or Iran or N. Korea imo), destroyed towers or not. Instead all we'd see is a lot of protest marches and angry speeches. Big deal. Bush didn't need 9/11 to wage war with Iraq. The opinion polls would have been lower had it not happened (I remember that they were around 80% at the time amongst US citizens. I find that hilarious because now the majority of them will not admit that they were ever in favor of it. There's a whole lot of hypocritical "Monday morning quarterbacks" in this country that hide behind their anonymity) but he could have done it anyway. Other countries would have bitched their asses off about it (And did anyway) but that's the only thing they would have done. I don't believe for a second that an American leader is going to kill thousands of American citizens with a huge conspiracy just to avoid some pissed off lip service from abroad.

Moreover, I rather think wiping out any terrorist rather than letting them carrying out any of their objectives which result in killing or injuring innocent folks until you have experienced there actions you have no idea! However, no insurgency war is a better solution and we should always back the men and women in service which many are Christians and Muslims fighting these terrorist scum because they are watching your back folks unless you rather have RPGs , IEDs and suicide bombers in your suburb !

http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stori...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-09-12-09-44-38

Furthermore, no one has the correct answers only theories which all sides of the religious faiths are fighting to remove this ugly form of a ideology from extremist who use racism, hatered and abuse women and children as a cover for faith and all moderates in all religions must stamp it out as its like cancer and spreads like a virus.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I'm not even sure what that's suppose to mean but I suspect it has something to do with my replies in the burning books thread. Whatever, I don't condemn an entire religion for the attacks. I simply don't believe that special consideration should be afforded those of the Muslim faith based on fear. I find it surreal that so many of you can be up in arms about some old, partially senile guy wanting to burn some books (And yeah, I recognize the stupidity in it. Difference is I recognize the stupidity of both actions) and at the same time advocate the building of a religious symbol at the site of a religious attack that killed thousands of people. Both are insensitive and both are idiotic, yet you condemn one and celebrate the other. What lies at the heart of this is fear: You don't fear the old guy but you do fear the Muslims in support of the building of that mosque. No other explanation makes sense, otherwise you would condemn both or neither. No matter how you try to spin it there is nothing intellectual or factual about special treatment based on emotional motivations. An impartial thinker would condemn both of these actions or would not comment on either of them.

My comment had nothing to do with the thoughts you posted on a different thread. In general, the media seems to paint a picture that is probably wrong.

 

[trainedobserver]

n general, the media seems to paint a picture that is probably wrong.

The news media is just a very expensive game of "telephone."

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The news media is just a very expensive game of "telephone."

Except for Fox News
Sometimes I think the best news is relayed by the Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

 

[paraschtick]

If anyone wants to read about those who are behind the current Islamophobia in the US, you could do no better than visit this site: http://www.loonwatch.com - it shows who is behind it all, and who is funding them. It might just open your eyes to the truth ...