The Muslim Hijacking of Ground Zero

[none-ya]

What don't you get?

[Anne Bonney]

Anne Bonney wrote;
"Why is everyone so afraid of all the brown people? Mexicans, blacks, muslims......the rightwing party has become the frightend-wing party."

Why? 'Causeall muslims are not terrorists. But all of the 9-11 terrorists were muslims.

And?  I don't see the correlation.  Are we to judge all muslims by the actions of those on 9/11?  Should we judge all Xtians by the actions of a few nutcases who bomb abortion clinics or kill the doctors (Tiller)?   And it doesn't explain this paralyzing fear of our friends south of the border either.  Sheriff Joe has gotten out of hand (he's been out of hand for some time, but it's finally hitting the national spotlight now) and it's gonna get ugly down there.  Talk about a terrorist....take a look at Arapaio.

And by the way , I'm a democrat.

Meh, I'm registered that way but I'm not happy with either party at the moment.  Republicans are supposed to be for small government, but they sold themselves to Falwell's Moral Majority and now make all kinds of exceptions for that small gov't based on being Xtians....they're completely ready to stick their noses into peoples bedrooms to make sure they're not sinning (DOMA, DADT).  They're ready to insinuate themselves into others' lives where abortion is concerned because of their beliefs about life and a god, even when it's a case of rape, incest or threatens the mother's life.  And then there's the whole war machine that they've got going.  They're all for cutting spending (on programs that benefit the poor) except military spending.  Don't touch that!!   Dems just have no balls whatsoever and will do or say whatever they think people want to hear.

IMO, we as a nation need to grow the fuck up and get over ourselves.

[Froderik]

IMO, we as a nation need to grow the fuck up and get over ourselves.

 :notworthy:

[none-ya]

Anne Bonney wrote
" Are we to judge all muslims by the actions of those on 9/11?"

No. Just the ones who get on planes in the U.S.
And I don't trust any religious fanatics. I don't care what "brand".Especially christians.

[none-ya]

I started a thread to this effect (or affect?), until it was hijacked by the troll patrol.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30862

[ajax13]

Anne Bonney wrote
" Are we to judge all muslims by the actions of those on 9/11?"

No. Just the ones who get on planes in the U.S.
And I don't trust any religious fanatics. I don't care what "brand".Especially christians.

What a funny thing, this nomenclature.  Having never heard from the horse's mouth, so to speak, just how the hijackers of September 2001 referred to themselves, it falls to the observer to name the phenomenon.  The most prominent of the fellows featured in news of the events was Mohammed Atta.  Atta seems to have had a fondness for narcotics, liquor and women of questionable virtue.  This seems very much at odds with the image of a fundamenalist follower of Islam.  I for one would not use the term Fundamentalist Muslim to refer to such an individual.  I tend more towards the school of "walks like a duck", so to speak.  Rather than their relationship to a desert-dwelling religious leader who has been dead for a millenium or so, I am more inclinced to look at the relationship that the men in question had with people like Wally Hilliard, and the folks who retain Mr. Hilliard's services, where etymology is concerned.

[Antigen]

I still maintain that it's theocracy, not the  brand of religion, that's dangerous. Anne cites the abortion clinic bombers as a pretty good recent example of dangerous x-tians.  None-ya shows some clips of militant x-tian brainwashing.

Conversely, a long while back, GregFl showed some clips of Islamic Madrasah in the context of how similar they are to a day in Group.

The primary difference between a fundamentalist radical who bombs abortion clinics and fundamentalist radicals who blow themselves up in a holy war is that the x-tian fundamentalists, for the time being anyway, generally are indicted, tried and convicted of their crimes. That's because, so far, we haven't let them completely take over government again.

[IslamIsViolent]

I still maintain that it's theocracy, not the  brand of religion, that's dangerous. Anne cites the abortion clinic bombers as a pretty good recent example of dangerous x-tians.  None-ya shows some clips of militant x-tian brainwashing.

Right, Antigen.  but the difference is that Christianity itself does not permit or dictate violence.  Strictly speaking it's a pacifist religion where one is supposed to turn the other cheek, even if attacked first.  Islam, on the other hand, commands violence and those who commit violence in Islam's name are indeed doing what the Qur'an and Hadiths command.  It's relatively easy to convince a violent Christian that they are not following the will of god by pointing to the Bible.  On the other hand it's impossible to do the same with Islam.

[ajax13]

Sockpuppet, while there is nothing new under the sun, and imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I find your personification of the abstract series of ideas known as Islam, to be a little too deriviative.  Stony trotted out that reism in a different thread, and I admire his dedication to his comedic art, but I'm not seeing anything new in your routine.  The underlying theme of Stony's comedy, the fact that neither Islam nor Christianity nor any other abstract that exists only as a series of ideas can permit or dictate or command anything is well-emphasized in his material.  I admire your willingness to take a chance by forcing the element of absurdity in the wholly preposterous claim about the ease of dissuading a violent Christian.  It's over the top, but was succinct and I did find it to be funny.

[......]

[attachment=0:2pkojkbg]TERRORIST.jpg[/attachment:2pkojkbg]

[Stonewall]

I still maintain that it's theocracy, not the  brand of religion, that's dangerous. Anne cites the abortion clinic bombers as a pretty good recent example of dangerous x-tians.  None-ya shows some clips of militant x-tian brainwashing.

Conversely, a long while back, GregFl showed some clips of Islamic Madrasah in the context of how similar they are to a day in Group.

The primary difference between a fundamentalist radical who bombs abortion clinics and fundamentalist radicals who blow themselves up in a holy war is that the x-tian fundamentalists, for the time being anyway, generally are indicted, tried and convicted of their crimes. That's because, so far, we haven't let them completely take over government again.

I think it is the brand of religion. You could put every Abortion Clinic act of violence and have it occur on a single day and it will not even come close to a normal everyday occurrence in a Muslim nation against those that are hated.

The Mosque at Ground Zero will probably happen. This nation of majority Christians will allow it to happen.

[ajax13]

Stony, you are killing as usual.  That vague bit of nonsense about those that are hated, every day occurrence etc., is just too good.  After all, it stands to reason that those who are hated are going to be the objects of mistreatment, and your singling out Islamic nations certainly illuminates the sheer folly of the current trend of fear-mongering about muslims.  Hilarious and thought-provoking as usual.

[Antigen]

I think it is the brand of religion. You could put every Abortion Clinic act of violence and have it occur on a single day and it will not even come close to a normal everyday occurrence in a Muslim nation against those that are hated.

Right. This is now. Almost 600 after the huddled masses began crossing the sea to escape the benevolence of the  Holy Roman Catholic Church. Back in the good old days when X-tians ruled the world with armies and crusades they called that the Inquisition.

According to the legend, Mohamed changed the mission from one of peace and love to one of outright murder and conquest. So did the Catholic rulers. They simply wrote an adjunct to their scripture and called it The Malleus Maleficarum or Witch Hammer. They then proceeded to act on this new idea with great zeal.

[Stonewall]

I think it is the brand of religion. You could put every Abortion Clinic act of violence and have it occur on a single day and it will not even come close to a normal everyday occurrence in a Muslim nation against those that are hated.

Right. This is now. Almost 600 after the huddled masses began crossing the sea to escape the benevolence of the  Holy Roman Catholic Church. Back in the good old days when X-tians ruled the world with armies and crusades they called that the Inquisition.

According to the legend, Mohamed changed the mission from one of peace and love to one of outright murder and conquest. So did the Catholic rulers. They simply wrote an adjunct to their scripture and called it The Malleus Maleficarum or Witch Hammer. They then proceeded to act on this new idea with great zeal.

The crusades occurred some 200 years after the invent of Islam. Muhammad had already created his ideology of Jihad. Long before. The Crusades did not begin until Islam had conquered into Europe, N. Africa, Persia, India, etc..

The concept of Jihad cannot be blamed on forces outside of Mecca and Medina.

[ajax13]

Stony, I firmly believe that you are the hardest working man in show business, particularly in light of the passing of James Brown.  This is a medium that I think is fertile ground for working comics like yourself, and I have to tip my hat to you.  And as always, I admire your willingness to stick with the bit.  This factually challenged propagandist that you play is a great character.  The absence of empirical evidence in your arguments is consistent, and as always points to the fundamentally absurd nature of bigotted hate propaganda.  The bit about the Crusades coming two hundred years after the advent of Islam is a nice touch.  The presentation of factual inaccuracies by propagandists is a common tactic, and you blow it right out of the water.