Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-02-2010, 12:59 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,089
Anti-Defamtion League should change its name

To Pro-Defamation League. Because they are only against defamation when it isn't directed at Muslims.

Religion: A correction request | The Economist

And to all the bigots who say there shouldn't be a Mosque at ground zero, there already is a Mosque at ground zero and it's been there since 1970.

Attention Bigots: There Is Already a Mosque Near the WTC Site

08-02-2010, 02:34 PM   #2
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
To Pro-Defamation League. Because they are only against defamation when it isn't directed at Muslims.

Religion: A correction request | The Economist

And to all the bigots who say there shouldn't be a Mosque at ground zero, there already is a Mosque at ground zero and it's been there since 1970.

Attention Bigots: There Is Already a Mosque Near the WTC Site
Not sure the anti-defamation league is very impartial....
QuoteQuote:
The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." Now the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.
But regardless they do have a point:
QuoteQuote:
Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain unnecessarily and that is not right.
BUT it wasn't Islam that caused the problem, just a group of criminals...
Sticky issue all around.
08-02-2010, 03:03 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 328
Just like there should be no problem having a church by the FBI building on Oklahoma City. Riiiight?

I agree with you about the hypocrisy there.
08-02-2010, 03:19 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,454
Given that it's Oklahoma, I don't doubt there's at least one church within a similar radius of the FBI building.

08-03-2010, 06:28 AM   #5
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,822
The statement concludes:

QuoteQuote:
In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain unnecessarily and that is not right.
Who is funding this mosque?

I was surprised to find that the ADL has as its purpose something beyond the protection of Jewish people from defamation. In any case, this seems like something they should have left alone.
08-03-2010, 02:18 PM   #6
Veteran Member
gokenin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: lowell,ma
Posts: 1,890
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
BUT it wasn't Islam that caused the problem, just a group of criminals...
Sticky issue all around.
I think this goes well beyond simple criminals don't you a multi plane attack against several civilian and military targets planned by followers of a radic sect of Islam. No dont think that qualifies as just a plain criminal if it does than thats like saying that any action no matter how heinous is simply a crime. This was an attack by a group of radical islamists against targets that they considered the enemy. So I take it that you must think that any act Isreal took agasint the blockade runners as simply criminal acts then, I am guessing that you dont but would have to reread that thread to find out. Please lets call it what it was there is no need to be politically correct it was an attack by Radical Islam.

---------- Post added Aug 3rd, 2010 at 17:22 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote

And to all the bigots who say there shouldn't be a Mosque at ground zero, there already is a Mosque at ground zero and it's been there since 1970.

Attention Bigots: There Is Already a Mosque Near the WTC Site
Just curious do you really consider someone that states in an article that they are an operative as a real source of unbiased news? thats as bad as getting your "news" from comedy central.

---------- Post added Aug 3rd, 2010 at 17:26 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
The statement concludes:



Who is funding this mosque?

I was surprised to find that the ADL has as its purpose something beyond the protection of Jewish people from defamation. In any case, this seems like something they should have left alone.
I didn't realize that an organization was only limited to one item issue and had to keep there nose out of anything else.

Just in case you might want to read up on them by the way

About The Anti-Defamation League
08-03-2010, 03:03 PM   #7
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by gokenin Quote
I think this goes well beyond simple criminals don't you a multi plane attack against several civilian and military targets planned by followers of a radical sect of Islam. No dont think that qualifies as just a plain criminal if it does than thats like saying that any action no matter how heinous is simply a crime. This was an attack by a group of radical islamists against targets that they considered the enemy. So I take it that you must think that any act Isreal took against the blockade runners as simply criminal acts then, I am guessing that you don't but
About The Anti-Defamation League
I see no benefit in treating them as anything more than criminals.
QuoteQuote:
Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.

Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians.

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon. For all these reasons, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is not “unlawful combatant” but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

The second major problem with the approach of the Bush administration is that it endangers our political traditions and our commitment to liberty, and further damages America’s legitimacy in the eyes of others. Almost 50 years ago, at the height of the cold war, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians.”

A great danger in treating operatives for Al Qaeda as combatants is precisely that its members are not easily distinguished from the population at large. The government wields frightening power when it can designate who is, and who is not, subject to indefinite military detention. The Marri case turned on this issue. Mr. Marri is a legal resident of the United States and a citizen of Qatar; the government contends that he is a sleeper agent of Al Qaeda. For the last four years he has been held as an enemy combatant at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.
Criminals pretending to support "Islam" is the closest I'd come.......
As to the Israelis... It was a Waco type incident. Israel is buried in a rats nest of hostile opponents, some created by their own actions... I have mixed emotions on them and their land grabs are not usually in their best political interest...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/opinion/08clark.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
As an example I wouldn't condemn Christianity on this:
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/news/dpgonc-radical-christian-extremists-ar...100329_6813005
QuoteQuote:
Six U.S. residents arrested Sunday were members of a violent Christian militia who planned to use "weapons of mass destruction" to kill law enforcement officials, the FBI announced Monday.

The residents were arrested in raids on property owned in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois by the Huntaree group, which the FBI termed a "radical and extremist" fringe group.
I'd just call them kooks or nuts or criminals.............

Last edited by jeffkrol; 08-03-2010 at 03:12 PM.
08-08-2010, 09:45 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,089
Original Poster
Fareed Zakaria Returns Honor From ADL Because Of Their "Ground Zero Mosque" Stance | Crooks and Liars

08-10-2010, 04:50 PM   #9
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
Pregnant Muslim widow stoned to death because it was a bastard child.

Yeah--let's put a mosque at Ground Zero. Let's put one on EVERY street corner!

Give me a break.

---------- Post added 08-10-10 at 04:53 PM ----------

Fareed is a very smart guy, but this was stupid of him.
08-10-2010, 05:36 PM   #10
Pentaxian
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,822
QuoteOriginally posted by gokenin Quote
Just curious do you really consider someone that states in an article that they are an operative as a real source of unbiased news? thats as bad as getting your "news" from comedy central.

---------- Post added Aug 3rd, 2010 at 17:26 ----------



I didn't realize that an organization was only limited to one item issue and had to keep there nose out of anything else.

Just in case you might want to read up on them by the way

About The Anti-Defamation League
I read that, and that lead to my "surprise." The reason for founding and the primary focus of the organization has always been combatting antisemitism. It is often called the "Jewish Anti-defamation League."

Likewise, the stated purpose of the NAACP includes preserving the "rights of all persons" but the focus of that organization is on fighting discrimination against persons of color. Most of the civil rights groups seem to have purpose statements that are considerably broader than the purpose for which they were formed.

Despite some broader language in their charters, I don't really expect the ADL to fight for the civil rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie or for the rights of other religions which have a history of hostility toward Jewish people, any more than I expect the NAACP to fight for the rights of the KKK.
08-11-2010, 02:06 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,089
Original Poster
It sounded better in the original German.

Top Social Conservative: 'No More Mosques, Period' | TPMMuckraker
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
ground, league, mosque, zero
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sports Some Little League Action Scottnorwo Post Your Photos! 2 06-14-2010 02:07 PM
Sports Little League Baseball Scottnorwo Post Your Photos! 8 05-08-2010 09:34 AM
Sports Little League ncinshore Post Your Photos! 5 04-28-2010 05:22 AM
Hope and Change , "Hey mister can you spare some change?" seacapt General Talk 19 04-13-2010 05:56 AM
Little League Nowhere Matt Post Your Photos! 10 06-26-2009 07:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top