The attack was part of a fatwā. To say the attacks were not tied to religion is absurd.
Lol! Do you even know what a fatwa is?
A fatwā (Arabic: فتوى; plural fatāwā Arabic: فتاوى) in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81
I'm aware that the fuckheads that planned the attacks and hi-jacked the plane are fanatics, but to say religion was not involved is absurd.
thanks for the wikipedia definition, but again, do you know what a fatwa is? yes, it is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law, but do you have any idea what purpose it serves?
Sorry haven't been following this thread (not sure if this has been posted), but I just read an interesting Article Related to Islamic Center
9/11 Widow: “How Did ‘9/11 Victim’ Become Shorthand For ‘White Christian’?”
-Alissa Torres, who lost her husband on 9/11, is not too happy about how there has been a calculated attempt to portray all 9/11 families the same way by the media.
The first time I heard about the Park51 Islamic community center was on May 6, 2010, when I received the following e-mail from a New York TV reporter:
“I’m doing story today about the proposed mosque project at the WTC site. I am interviewing the developers but I am also trying to look for family members who think building a mosque at the site is a bad idea.”
“Bad idea” — that was a bit leading, wasn’t it? I always thought journalists were supposed to be objective, and yet, here we were, the “victims of 9/11,” being prodded for our outrage. An hour later, another e-mail arrived, this time from CNN. The language was more measured: “As a family member of someone who was killed in the attacks on 9/11, what do you think about the decision to construct a mosque this close to Ground Zero?”
…
What did I think about the decision to construct a “mosque” this close to ground zero? I thought it was a no-brainer. Of course it should be built there. I sometimes wonder if those people fighting so passionately against Park51 can fathom the diversity of those who died at ground zero. Do we think no Muslims died in the towers? My husband, Eddie Torres, killed on his second day of work at Cantor Fitzgerald while I was pregnant with our first child, was a dark-skinned Latino, often mistaken for Pakistani, who came here illegally from Colombia. How did “9/11 victim” become sloppy shorthand for “white Christian”? I wish someone would put out a list of all the ethnicities and religions and countries and economic levels of the victims. For all the talk of “remembering 9/11,” I wonder if we’ve missed the patriotic message entirely. So, in short: No, I did not think it was “a bad idea.”
Alissa says she’s just a mom trying to raise her kid. She’s not an expert. She’s a victim, trying to get on with her life; someone who once wrote an open letter to President Bush saying, “Don’t use my husband as your mascot.”
But here is what’s been lost in this Park51 controversy: We are not experts, we are victims. We deserve to speak up, we need to speak up to acknowledge the pain and suffering, but we were never meant to be leaders in a national debate. Because the only thing we really know intimately is grief. The only thing we really know is what it feels like to lose a loved one in 9/11.
I'm aware that the fuckheads that planned the attacks and hi-jacked the plane are fanatics, but to say religion was not involved is absurd.
nobody said religion wasnt' involved.
why were the twin towers hit? out of all the targets in NYC? and why the pentagon?
Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?
it makes as much sense as banning the construction of a mosque, given the targets hit that day.
First off, I'm not an opponent of the mosque. I just saw your comment on the first page that stated the attacks were political and not religious and I disagree with that statement.
In regards to the targets they hit, they chose high profile targets and obviously did their planning. If anybody put together a top ten list of high priority targets in the US, the twin towers and the pentagon would be listed by anyone that is remotely capable of pulling an attack like this off. I'm sure the 4th plane was heading for either the capital building or the white house.
If it was a political statement, mission failed. It turned the whole region into chaos. It's one thing to be upset with American policy. But it pales in comparison to actually having America show up in full military force . . . unless your goal was to engage in direct combat in the first place.
In regards to a soccer field ban, perhaps that is something I could get behind of and support
thanks for the wikipedia definition, but again, do you know what a fatwa is? yes, it is a religious opinion concerning Islamic law, but do you have any idea what purpose it serves?
If it like any other religious creed, then its purpose is to control the weak-minded and ignorant. This is a very powerful tool in areas that don't have access to current standards of education. Hell, it's a powerful tool in areas that do have access to education.
Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?
I could support that 100%.
But last I checked they didn't fly planes into a building in the name of Pele.
that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.
if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.
as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.
Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?
I could support that 100%.
But last I checked they didn't fly planes into a building in the name of Pele.
that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.
if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.
as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.
I think both of you could be right. Bin Laden might have plan the attack due to a higher political stance while the people who flew the planes might have dome it because of religious beliefs.
that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.
if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.
as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.
It was a joke.
AS for soccer, never liked it. It's not because the US isn't good...it's because it's boring. 0-0???? Seriously, what is that, not even a sport if so many can end without a winner.
that's my main point. that religion wasn't the primary reason for the attacks. that's like a soldier in uniform fighting to get medals....its not the reason he's their but it might motivate him.
if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.
as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.
It was a joke.
AS for soccer, never liked it. It's not because the US isn't good...it's because it's boring. 0-0???? Seriously, what is that, not even a sport if so many can end without a winner.
I've talked to a lot of people who watch soccer. They admire too much about the physical aspect of watching these people play. I don't really think they're into seeing a particular team win. Unless they specifically say so. Also, i hear that it's a lot of intimidation factor involved which is very subtle on the winning side because again the sport is just so damn physical that the winning team can only score so many points unless their opponents really are that bad.
Plus without standards I think it's one of those sports that's as old as wrestling. Just from watching TV, somebody referred to it as like kicking the dead opponents head around as an analogy. That's some pretty old stuff.
Paul has tons of love on the internet where information can be shotgunned out in a million directions with no real discourse with the person himself. I personally don't have a problem with him but he is so fringe that even if he were to be elected President it would be a catastrophe. Look back at Jimmy Carter's Presidency (not to compare them philosophically) and see how both sides revolted against him and his last 2-3 years were spent just sitting there. I think Paul's would be an order of magnitude worse in political gridlock.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Of course it would, he wants to do crazy things like institute term limits on members of Congress.
Paul has tons of love on the internet where information can be shotgunned out in a million directions with no real discourse with the person himself. I personally don't have a problem with him but he is so fringe that even if he were to be elected President it would be a catastrophe. Look back at Jimmy Carter's Presidency (not to compare them philosophically) and see how both sides revolted against him and his last 2-3 years were spent just sitting there. I think Paul's would be an order of magnitude worse in political gridlock.
Maybe it would take some gridlock to show the American people how our two party system is stuck in neutral and isn't working in our interest. We already have gridlock the way it is, but it's a he said / she said type of gridlock. Let's put someone reasonable in the middle of the two giant arguing infants and see what happens.
Paul has tons of love on the internet where information can be shotgunned out in a million directions with no real discourse with the person himself. I personally don't have a problem with him but he is so fringe that even if he were to be elected President it would be a catastrophe. Look back at Jimmy Carter's Presidency (not to compare them philosophically) and see how both sides revolted against him and his last 2-3 years were spent just sitting there. I think Paul's would be an order of magnitude worse in political gridlock.
Maybe it would take some gridlock to show the American people how our two party system is stuck in neutral and isn't working in our interest. We already have gridlock the way it is, but it's a he said / she said type of gridlock. Let's put someone reasonable in the middle of the two giant arguing infants and see what happens.
It's not like it could get much worse . . .
I will not ever again vote for a candidate because he/she is the least worst option. I don't care how practical it is or isn't anymore. I pretty much won't vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't have corporation reform as one of their top priorities.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Comments
why were the twin towers hit? out of all the targets in NYC? and why the pentagon?
Ron Paul has another good point. since all of the hijackers liked soccer, do we ban the construction [edit] of soccer fields as well?
it makes as much sense as banning the construction of a mosque, given the targets hit that day.
9/11 Widow: “How Did ‘9/11 Victim’ Become Shorthand For ‘White Christian’?”
-Alissa Torres, who lost her husband on 9/11, is not too happy about how there has been a calculated attempt to portray all 9/11 families the same way by the media.
The first time I heard about the Park51 Islamic community center was on May 6, 2010, when I received the following e-mail from a New York TV reporter:
“I’m doing story today about the proposed mosque project at the WTC site. I am interviewing the developers but I am also trying to look for family members who think building a mosque at the site is a bad idea.”
“Bad idea” — that was a bit leading, wasn’t it? I always thought journalists were supposed to be objective, and yet, here we were, the “victims of 9/11,” being prodded for our outrage. An hour later, another e-mail arrived, this time from CNN. The language was more measured: “As a family member of someone who was killed in the attacks on 9/11, what do you think about the decision to construct a mosque this close to Ground Zero?”
…
What did I think about the decision to construct a “mosque” this close to ground zero? I thought it was a no-brainer. Of course it should be built there. I sometimes wonder if those people fighting so passionately against Park51 can fathom the diversity of those who died at ground zero. Do we think no Muslims died in the towers? My husband, Eddie Torres, killed on his second day of work at Cantor Fitzgerald while I was pregnant with our first child, was a dark-skinned Latino, often mistaken for Pakistani, who came here illegally from Colombia. How did “9/11 victim” become sloppy shorthand for “white Christian”? I wish someone would put out a list of all the ethnicities and religions and countries and economic levels of the victims. For all the talk of “remembering 9/11,” I wonder if we’ve missed the patriotic message entirely. So, in short: No, I did not think it was “a bad idea.”
Alissa says she’s just a mom trying to raise her kid. She’s not an expert. She’s a victim, trying to get on with her life; someone who once wrote an open letter to President Bush saying, “Don’t use my husband as your mascot.”
But here is what’s been lost in this Park51 controversy: We are not experts, we are victims. We deserve to speak up, we need to speak up to acknowledge the pain and suffering, but we were never meant to be leaders in a national debate. Because the only thing we really know intimately is grief. The only thing we really know is what it feels like to lose a loved one in 9/11.
http://www.alan.com/2010/09/08/911-wido ... christian/
In regards to the targets they hit, they chose high profile targets and obviously did their planning. If anybody put together a top ten list of high priority targets in the US, the twin towers and the pentagon would be listed by anyone that is remotely capable of pulling an attack like this off. I'm sure the 4th plane was heading for either the capital building or the white house.
If it was a political statement, mission failed. It turned the whole region into chaos. It's one thing to be upset with American policy. But it pales in comparison to actually having America show up in full military force . . . unless your goal was to engage in direct combat in the first place.
In regards to a soccer field ban, perhaps that is something I could get behind of and support
I could support that 100%.
But last I checked they didn't fly planes into a building in the name of Pele.
if they were trying to kill infidels why not fly those planes into the a sports stadium full of people? if religion was why they attacked, why not kill as many infidels as possible? why did they instead choose the twin towers, a symbol of american imperialism? yes they are motivated by god, and their extreme form of religion allowed them to do what they did, but at its core it was a strike against american imperialism. read any list of bin laden's grievances, he admitted as much.
as to soccer. if the US brought home a world cup every now people would get behind it more. as it is, aww we're not best in the world at something so i hate it. cry babies.
I think both of you could be right. Bin Laden might have plan the attack due to a higher political stance while the people who flew the planes might have dome it because of religious beliefs.
It was a joke.
AS for soccer, never liked it. It's not because the US isn't good...it's because it's boring. 0-0???? Seriously, what is that, not even a sport if so many can end without a winner.
http://www.theonion.com/video/soccer-officially-announces-it-is-gay,17603/
Plus without standards I think it's one of those sports that's as old as wrestling. Just from watching TV, somebody referred to it as like kicking the dead opponents head around as an analogy. That's some pretty old stuff.
It's not like it could get much worse . . .
I will not ever again vote for a candidate because he/she is the least worst option. I don't care how practical it is or isn't anymore. I pretty much won't vote for any presidential candidate who doesn't have corporation reform as one of their top priorities.
"With our thoughts we make the world"