Mosque going up in NYC building

[DogOnPorch]

Oh, and just a note about 'Muslim Armies'... To say Hitler was inspired by Islam is ludicrous. Muslims were not necessarily suppressed, but their freedom of religion was still restricted. Had he been inspired by Islam, he would have certainly glorified it, no?

She's incorrect on this count. It was Himmler that admired Islam calling it the perfect warrior's religion. Himmler, Eichmann and the Mufti were all buddies. Hitler was far more pragmatic as to the Arab's role in his war. Both, however were impressed enough with the Mufti himself as Hitler made in in charge of his 'Arab Bureau' with generous funding.

Edited August 29, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Semantics but it was not an army.

What's an army? The Mufti raised about a dozen divisions in all. The 13th SS had 30,000+ men, alone.

[DogOnPorch]

Pamela Geller and her blog don't even begin to have that much power. I never even heard of her or her blog and I'm sure the same goes for most Americans. We think for ourselves; we're not a bunch of sheep following some blogger.

She's always been a bit of a Robert Spencer since way before this mosque dealie. To be taken with a grain of salt.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What's an army? The Mufti raised about a dozen divisions in all. The 13th SS had 30,000+ men, alone.

A field army is about 80000 to 20000 troops, the division you linked to had according to you 30000+ men (though the only thing I found in the wiki entry claimed 21,065 without source, you have a better one?) But other "divisions" like the 23rd Waffen Mountain Division only had some 2000 men and couldn't be considered an actual division. Could you give me a list of these division because I'm having trouble find them and in actuality Wikipedia disputes your claim on it's page for the Mufti saying.

Throughout World War II, al-Husayni worked for the Axis Powers as a broadcaster in propaganda targeting Arab public opinion. He recruited Muslim volunteers for the German armed forces operating in the Balkans. Beginning in 1941, Al-Husayni visited Bosnia, and convinced Muslim leaders that a Muslim S.S. division would be in the interest of Islam. In spite of these and other propaganda efforts, only half of the expected 20,000 to 25,000 Muslims volunteered."[137] Al-Husayni was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units. The largest was the 13th "Handschar" division of 21,065 men, which conducted operations against Communist partisans in the Balkans from February 1944,[138] committing numerous atrocities against their traditional ethnic rivals the local Christian Serbs.[127]

My link

So how did the Mufti manage to raise a dozen divisions when he got so few people to join up?

Edited August 29, 2010 by TrueMetis

[jbg]

Those Muslims weren't from NY AND none of the flights were from NY. You are wrong and are trying to re-write history. Again if you a Muslim from NY you are more likely to be killed for it then BE A TERRORIST.

Why do you insist on missing the obvious symbolism?

[DogOnPorch]

A field army is about 80000 to 20000 troops, the division you linked to had according to you 30000+ men (though the only thing I found in the wiki entry claimed 21,065 without source, you have a better one?) But other "divisions" like the 23rd Waffen Mountain Division only had some 2000 men and couldn't be considered an actual division. Could you give me a list of these division because I'm having trouble find them and in actuality Wikipedia disputes your claim on it's page for the Mufti saying.

So how did the Mufti manage to raise a dozen divisions when he got so few people to join up?

An army is no certain size. Stonwall Jackson's Army of the Valley had a mere 5,000 men during its glory days. Certain Russian armies during the opening moves of Barbarossa had zero men in them.

Re: the Grand Mufti. You deny his roll in WW2 and what me to prove otherwise? Your side claims I'm beating a dead horse. I'd rather see fellows like yourself deny the Holocaust and the Mufti's roll in it right out in public where others can see. So please, True Metis...expalin away a Nazi. Either that or educate yourself.

[Shady]

That's a very Canadian reason and perspective...anything to "keep the peace"....not as important to Americans, who can protest peacefully if they wish...or not.

Yep. You'll have to excuse us. We wouldn't even let Ann Coulter speak in Ottawa.

[Shady]

Why do you insist on missing the obvious symbolism?

He might have to acknowledge reality, and then his head would explode from the guilt.

[jbg]

He might have to acknowledge reality, and then his head would explode from the guilt.

That's the nub of the problem. The nit-pickers refuse to acknowledge the big picture.

[BubberMiley]

That's the nub of the problem. The nit-pickers refuse to acknowledge the big picture.

I agree. It's not about one stupid mosque. It's about freedom of religion and the values that make America great. It would be far worse symbolism to forsake those values for the sake of some resentment against a religion. Especially when sowing that resentment was exactly what the terrorists were after.

Glad to see you're starting to think clearly.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree. It's not about one stupid mosque. It's about freedom of religion and the values that make America great. It would be far worse symbolism to forsake those values for the sake of some resentment against a religion. Especially when sowing that resentment was exactly what the terrorists were after.

Glad to see you're starting to think clearly.

When you can wrap your head around the fact that thinking people should be able to put themselves in others' shoes and act accordingly, that doing so is a two-way street, and that "resentment" has nothing to do with it, then perhaps it will be you who is starting to think clearly.

But until you can recognize the reasons most people oppose the mosque going on that property, until you can see both sides of an issue, you will continue to see what you want to/expect to see rather than what is.

[Guest American Woman]

What I got is that they should pull the plug on it because they happen to share the same religion, at least in name, as those who'd flown the planes into the buildings on 9/11. The difference lies in that had there not been any protest, I would not have seen any problem whatsoever with building the mosque there, unless of course there had already been a movement prior to save that building. Clearly the protest is about Islam and Muslims and not just the mosque itself. So I can argue that I'm not opposed to the mosque being built there in principle, but rather only as a consequence of the protests so as to bring about peace. That's very different from the reasons the protesters have.

So in other words, your reasons are more virtuous than others' reasons?

And your "from what you got" scenario just proves my point; that you aren't recognizing other people's reasons as you expect us to notice yours.

Edited August 29, 2010 by American Woman

[ToadBrother]

When you can wrap your head around the fact that thinking people should be able to put themselves in others' shoes and act accordingly, that doing so is a two-way street, and that "resentment" has nothing to do with it, then perhaps it will be you who is starting to think clearly.

But until you can recognize the reasons most people oppose the mosque going on that property, until you can see both sides of an issue, you will continue to see what you want to/expect to see rather than what is.

I think we understand the nature of the opposition. Some people blame Islam, and think it terrible that Muslims will be able to have a Mosque near ground zero.

[Guest American Woman]

I think we understand the nature of the opposition. Some people blame Islam, and think it terrible that Muslims will be able to have a Mosque near ground zero.

And it's obvious you only understand the nature of a small percentage of the opposition. You're correct when you say "some," but it's the minority of those opposing the mosque going on that property. And that's been explained to you over and over again, so either cannot see beyond your mindset or you refuse to see beyond your mindset. Either way, the problem lies with you.

[jbg]

I agree. It's not about one stupid mosque. It's about freedom of religion and the values that make America great. It would be far worse symbolism to forsake those values for the sake of some resentment against a religion. Especially when sowing that resentment was exactly what the terrorists were after.

Glad to see you're starting to think clearly.

If the mosque welcomes reciprocal use of their facilities by other groups when their places of worship are under construction, joines local ecumenical groups I would agree. Totally.

[ToadBrother]

And it's obvious you only understand the nature of a small percentage of the opposition. You're correct when you say "some," but it's the minority of those opposing the mosque going on that property. And that's been explained to you over and over again, so either cannot see beyond your mindset or you refuse to see beyond your mindset. Either way, the problem lies with you.

Yes, you've explained it, with tortured logic that still rolls into "It hurts 9-11 families feelings to have a mosque nearby."

Edited August 29, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shady]

Especially when sowing that resentment was exactly what the terrorists were after.

In other words, if you don't agree with Bubbles, the terrorists win.

[BubberMiley]

But until you can recognize the reasons most people oppose the mosque going on that property, until you can see both sides of an issue, you will continue to see what you want to/expect to see rather than what is.

Are you still on your "I have nothing against those people but I don't think those people should do what they want because those people were responsible for 9/11" spiel?

[BubberMiley]

In other words, if you don't agree with Bubbles, the terrorists win.

Or rather, if you do exactly what the terrorists wanted you to do, the terrorists win.

[Shady]

Or rather, if you do exactly what the terrorists wanted you to do, the terrorists win.

If the terrorists wanted us to exercise our constitutional rights, then guilty as charged.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, you've explained it, with tortured logic that still rolls into "It hurts 9-11 families feelings to have a mosque nearby."

Again, you ignorantly and totally misrepresent what I have said, so I'd appreciate your not using quotes when you're applying "logic" I don't have to what I've "explained."

Edited August 29, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Are you still on your "I have nothing against those people but I don't think those people should do what they want because those people were responsible for 9/11" spiel?

Nope. Never was on that "spiel." That's why the problem lies with you and your ignorance. As I said to Toadbrother, you either cannot see beyond your mindset or you refuse to. Your ignorant take in regards to my "spiel" says it all.

Edited August 29, 2010 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

If the terrorists wanted us to exercise our constitutional rights, then guilty as charged.

People have every right to protest, and far be it from me to tell them they shouldn't express their feelings. I just recall after 9/11, that great leader GWB telling the nation that America is not at war with Islam. I assumed he did that because he knew that America had nothing to gain from such a war, that such a war would be totally avoidable, and that such a war was exactly what the terrorists were trying to provoke. I see these protests as helping to create the wedge between the West and islam that the terrorists sought, so I'm within my rights to protest their protests. That's how it works.

I know that whole freedom for everybody to protest thing is hard for you and Sarah Palin to fully grasp sometimes.

[BubberMiley]

Nope. Never was on that "spiel." That's why the problem lies with you and your ignorance. As I said to Toadbrother, you either cannot see beyond your mindset or you refuse to. Your ignorant take in regards to my "spiel" says it all.

It's amazing how you can say something and then deny that's what you meant, over and over again, over hundreds and hundreds of posts.

[Guest American Woman]

It's amazing how you can say something and then deny that's what you meant, over and over again, over hundreds and hundreds of posts.

What's amazing is that I can explain over and over that what you claim ISN'T what I meant, yet you repeat over and over in hundreds and hundreds of posts that what YOU say I meant IS what *I* meant.

Seriously. Learn how to listen to people or STFU, because if you think I'm going to let your ignorance/dishonestly slide and speak for me, think again. As often as you make your ignorant claims regarding what *I* meant, I'll call you on it.