Page 57 of 59 FirstFirst ... 7475556575859 LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 587

Thread: Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

  1. #561
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    =Tucker Case;1059012748]That's exactly the thought I had just prior to posting my comment about Columbus Day, Grant. Why are you preaching to the choir on this one? Why don't you direct your scorn at the spurious relation where it belongs? i.e. the perosn who tried to relate the primarily European plot to the mosque in New York.
    Because the subject of the thread is the Mosuqe in New York so i wen along with that.

    The terror threats are now apparent;y being directed at France, Germany, the UK and possibly Denmark.

    Why do you suppose terrorists want to murder innocent Brits, Danes, French and Germans?

    I tend to think many in the West look vainly for a rational reason for terrorism rather than accepting the most obvious.
    It's satire on a tiresome argument presented by so many people who like to over-generalize the terror problem
    .

    Okay then why not specificaly state what is the cause of Islamic terrorism in the world today?

    Perhaps you can try to rid your side of debate from these faulty arguments instead of presenting a de facto defense of them by going after those who actually point out the flaws in their tiresome arguments?
    You actually haven't pointed out any flaws. You went satirical.
    Last edited by Grant; 09-30-10 at 11:47 AM.

  2. #562
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Because the subject of the thread is the Mosuqe in New York so i wen along with that.
    The thread has drifted quite a bit from that subject.

    The terror threats are now apparent;y being directed at France, Germany, the UK and possibly Denmark.
    Terror threats have always been directed at places like these. I agree with you that the burka bans and such are likely to be a factor.

    Why do you suppose terrorists want to murder innocent Brits, Danes, French and Germans?
    Because they are fanatical extremists who wish to kill anyone that they perceive as a threat to their way of life. They are indiscriminate in their attacks because they are bigots who dehumanize those they disagree with in order to justify their own despicable actions.

    I tend to think many in the West look vainly for a rational reason for terrorism rather than accepting the most obvious.
    .

    Okay then why not specificaly state what is the cause of Islamic terrorism in the world today?
    Will the above suffice?

    You actually haven't pointed out any flaws. You went satirical.
    Satire, if done correctly (such as in the same way as Jonathan Swift used it), can be used to illuminate the flaws in the opposition's position. For example, Swift's Battle of the Books is a scathing criticism of the "new" thinkers arguments against the "old" thinkers views.

    In cases where one uses reductio ad absurdum in satire (which is what I did here by applying the same logical format to a different, even more absurd argument: focussing on the timing coupled with a primarily US-centered issue), it is often best delivered dryly and it helps to make the argument as if it were your own and you actually believed it had merit. This is done because the person who used similar logic to reach a different conclusion (or someone whom they would deem to be on their side of t e debate, as was the case here) will often point out the existing flaws in the satirical argument, and thus, they will illuminate the flaws in the one that inspired the satire.

    At that point, one can show the similarities between the premises of the arguments and how the rebuttals to the satirical argument work equally well to defeat the initial argument being satired.

    In essence, Satire can be one of the most effective debate tools if used with at least a moderate degree of skill. While I would not deem my own skill at satire to be expert, I have used it quite effectively on numerous occasions, including this particular one.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #563
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Tucker Case;1059013578]The thread has drifted quite a bit from that subject.
    Yes, indeed. And not for the first time.

    Terror threats have always been directed at places like these. I agree with you that the burka bans and such are likely to be a factor.Because they are fanatical extremists who wish to kill anyone that they perceive as a threat to their way of life. They are indiscriminate in their attacks because they are bigots who dehumanize those they disagree with in order to justify their own despicable actions.
    But calling them extremists and bigots doesn't explain anything, nor does claiming they perceive a threat on their way of life. Did A muslin ever say that or are you just guessing? How are the above countries a threat when Muslims emigrated there? And I never said that the Burka ban was a cause, any more than Danish pastry is a cause. I was being satirical also. How backward would these people have to be to plan the murder of hundreds of innocent people because of an item of clothing?

    It is terrorism intended frighten everyone and to exercise more control over the democratic governments. And you can read on these pages and elsewhere that many are prepared, especially in Europe, to appease terrorists however they can. Terrorism works! Otherwise we wouldn't be paying attention to their craziness at all.

    Satire, if done correctly (such as in the same way as Jonathan Swift used it), can be used to illuminate the flaws in the opposition's position. For example, Swift's Battle of the Books is a scathing criticism of the "new" thinkers arguments against the "old" thinkers views.
    It is sometimes difficult to tell what is satire and what is honest opinion.

  4. #564
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    But calling them extremists and bigots doesn't explain anything, nor does claiming they perceive a threat on their way of life. Did A muslin ever say that or are you just guessing? How are the above countries a threat when Muslims emigrated there? And I never said that the Burka ban was a cause, any more than Danish pastry is a cause. I was being satirical also. How backward would these people have to be to plan the murder of hundreds of innocent people because of an item of clothing?
    The burka is a part of their way of life. They see these bans as a threat to their way of life. Certain aspects of our interventionism are also viewed as a threat to their way of life. Operation Ajax for example.

    And I'm not suggesting that Burkha bans ar ethe primary factor, but they are likely to be factors since htey are a part of the way of life. Imagine the reaction if wearing crosses were banned in a European country? While it probably wouldn't include terrorism, there would be an outcry from those who believe this is a symbol of their piety.



    It is terrorism intended frighten everyone and to exercise more control over the democratic governments. And you can read on these pages and elsewhere that many are prepared, especially in Europe, to appease terrorists however they can. Terrorism works! Otherwise we wouldn't be paying attention to their craziness at all.
    Terrorism is a legitimate threat to th elives on innocent people, and that is why people pay attention to their craziness. But what is it that you are seeing as appeasing the terrorists?

    Often the things that get labeled as such aren't really designed to appease terrorists so much as members of a country's population that have similar desires, but approach the issue using the proper channels of dissent.

    It is sometimes difficult to tell what is satire and what is honest opinion.
    True, if done correctly that should be the case.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #565
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    The burka is a part of their way of life. They see these bans as a threat to their way of life. Certain aspects of our interventionism are also viewed as a threat to their way of life. Operation Ajax for example.
    Is this more satire? Why offer up rationales for terrorists? What aspects of 'intervention' are you referring to? Where did Denmark or Germany, for example, intervene? If you read Islamic web sites you'll see their rationales but i suspect the reality makes too many people nervous.

    And I'm not suggesting that Burkha bans ar ethe primary factor, but they are likely to be factors since htey are a part of the way of life.
    Actually the burka is not their way of life at all. It didn't come into broader practice until the 1970's, so it is as much their way of life as bell bottomed pants are to ours.
    Imagine the reaction if wearing crosses were banned in a European country?
    They are actually banned in some Muslim countries. Why not complain about that effecting our way of life?
    While it probably wouldn't include terrorism, there would be an outcry from those who believe this is a symbol of their piety.
    No it wouldn't include terrorism because we expect more from Non Muslims, right? We wouldn't be making excuses for non Muslims if they behaved the same way. But the fact is we should expect more from Muslims and tell them what thickheads they are when they behave badly. But few have the balls for this. And its because terrorism works.

    No Muslim, by the way, would be crazy enough to suggest that bombs are being dropped on them because they made some woman, like Hillary Clinton for example, cover her head. They'd know what it was all about. We're willing to do anything to please these loons.

    Often the things that get labeled as such aren't really designed to appease terrorists so much as members of a country's population that have similar desires, but approach the issue using the proper channels of dissent.
    We listen to this "dissent" because acts of terrorism have softened up the western countries to the point where our leaders will say or do anything to prevent further terrorism. Or curb their tongues and stay cowed and silent. We know how to enjoy our freedoms but not to defend them. Our ancestors knew better.

  6. #566
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Is this more satire? Why offer up rationales for terrorists? What aspects of 'intervention' are you referring to? Where did Denmark or Germany, for example, intervene? If you read Islamic web sites you'll see their rationales but i suspect the reality makes too many people nervous.
    Westernization, in general, is viewed by them as a threat to their way of life.

    Actually the burka is not their way of life at all. It didn't come into broader practice until the 1970's, so it is as much their way of life as bell bottomed pants are to ours.
    Bell bottoms were a fashion thing, while burkas are a different thing altogether. Regardles sof when it became a part of their way of life, the fact of the matter is that it is now a part of it.

    They are actually banned in some Muslim countries. Why not complain about that effecting our way of life?
    I've heard countless people complain about the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Have you missed it? Of course not. You're doing it.




    No it wouldn't include terrorism because we expect more from Non Muslims, right? We wouldn't be making excuses for non Muslims if they behaved the same way. But the fact is we should expect more from Muslims and tell them what thickheads they are when they behave badly. But few have the balls for this. And its because terrorism works.
    No, it's not because we expect more from non-Muslims, it's that Chrsitians, more often than not, belong to "Westernized" nations. I would expect Christians in non-western nations to be more likely to utilize terrorism.

    Typically Westerners will only resort to violent methods of "defense" when they perceive things like their freedom or individualism being in jeopardy. They won't do it over religious purposes anymore.

    No Muslim, by the way, would be crazy enough to suggest that bombs are being dropped on them because they made some woman, like Hillary Clinton for example, cover her head. They'd know what it was all about. We're willing to do anything to please these loons.
    No. But they might say that bombs are being dropped on them because they threatened something we held dear. Such as capitalism, perhaps.



    We listen to this "dissent" because acts of terrorism have softened up the western countries to the point where our leaders will say or do anything to prevent further terrorism. Or curb their tongues and stay cowed and silent. We know how to enjoy our freedoms but not to defend them. Our ancestors knew better.
    We listen to the dissent because it comes from within our borders.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #567
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Westernization, in general, is viewed by them as a threat to their way of life.
    Again, what evidence do you have of this? Is this what Muslims are saying or are you surmising? In fact Muslims are emigrating to the democracies daily. Shouldn't they expect to follow the laws and customs of the lands they emigrate to? I certainly do when I live in a foreign country. What makes Muslims so special and different? It's terrorism, right?
    Bell bottoms were a fashion thing, while burkas are a different thing altogether.
    No, they are not.
    Regardles sof when it became a part of their way of life, the fact of the matter is that it is now a part of it.
    Then it is a fashion. It's a religious statement but not a religious requirement. It is, in fact, an in your face statement. Now that's irony!

    DAWN.COM | World | Niqab banned at al-Azhar University
    I've heard countless people complain about the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. Have you missed it? Of course not. You're doing it.
    Which do you sympathize with and hear about more often? The persecution of Muslims by Christians or the persecution of Christians by Muslims?

    No, it's not because we expect more from non-Muslims, it's that Chrsitians, more often than not, belong to "Westernized" nations. I would expect Christians in non-western nations to be more likely to utilize terrorism.
    You'd expect Christians in non Western nations to utilize terrorism? You expect that? Why? Do you think Christians tend toward terrorism? That's what they 're taught in Christian Churches? I don't think so.

    Typically Westerners will only resort to violent methods of "defense" when they perceive things like their freedom or individualism being in jeopardy. They won't do it over religious purposes anymore.
    Right. They won't do it for religious reasons yet Muslims will. Why is that?

    Why do you put "defense" in quotes, by the way? Do you believe freedom isn't worth defending?

    No. But they might say that bombs are being dropped on them because they threatened something we held dear. Such as capitalism, perhaps.
    Guess this is more satire. Or are you serious?

    We listen to the dissent because it comes from within our borders.
    Sure. But as Al Capone is alleged to have said, "You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word". Muslims know it.

  8. #568
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post

    Again, what evidence do you have of this? Is this what Muslims are saying or are you surmising? In fact Muslims are emigrating to the democracies daily. Shouldn't they expect to follow the laws and customs of the lands they emigrate to? I certainly do when I live in a foreign country. What makes Muslims so special and different? It's terrorism, right?
    When I said "them" I'm not talking about Muslims, I'm talking about Islamic terrorists. Muslims moving to the West doesn't have any affect on the Islamic terrorists beliefs about Westernzation being a threat to their way of life.


    No, they are not.
    Yes, they are. You even admit as much in the following sentence:

    It's a religious statement
    Religious statements are a different thing altogehter from fashion

    Which do you sympathize with and hear about more often? The persecution of Muslims by Christians or the persecution of Christians by Muslims?
    Well, I live in a coutnry where many, many more Christians seek to persecute Muslims than there are Muslims who seek to persecute Chistians, so I tend to hear a lot more about the persecution of Muslims by Chrsitians.

    But because these Christians often try to use the persecution of Christians by Muslims in other countries as a hypocritical justification for their own deplorable behavior, I tend to hear quite a bit about the persecution of Christians by Muslims as well.

    I have equal sympathy for the persecuted people of any region. I have greater opportunity to fight persecution that is present in my own country thou, so I focus on that becaus eI prefer to engage in tactics that have a chance for success instead of ignoring things I can affect in favor of things where the only option available to me is impotent rage.



    You'd expect Christians in non Western nations to utilize terrorism?
    Did you miss the "more likely"?

    You expect that?
    Did you miss the "More likely"?

    Why?
    Because the prohibition on the intentional killing of civilians for political means is a fairly recent development and was initiated by the Western nations.

    Do you think Christians tend toward terrorism?
    I think non-western cultures tend to be more likely to consider "terrorism" justifiable. Although, I think it wouldn't take much to convince most wsterners to use such tactics

    That's what they 're taught in Christian Churches? I don't think so.
    Have you really been to every single Christian church in the world? I'm Impressed.


    Right. They won't do it for religious reasons yet Muslims will. Why is that?
    Western cultures are more secularized.

    Why do you put "defense" in quotes, by the way? Do you believe freedom isn't worth defending?
    Freedom's worth defending, if it is legitimately at risk.

    There have been no legitimate threats to our freedom from outside our own nation for 60+ years, yet we've had more than a few "defenses of freedom" that involved.

    Guess this is more satire. Or are you serious?
    Bit o' both. I said capitalism, becuase of the fact that anti-socialist tendencies seem to correlate with anti-muslim tedencies. Truly, they would be more likely to say that bombs have been dropped on them because they have threatened our economic interests. Because, when it all gets boiled down to the nitty and the gritty, our only interest in the ME is economic and our interventions that preceeded terrorism (such as operation ajax) were entirely based on our economic interests.

    Sure. But as Al Capone is alleged to have said, "You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word". Muslims know it.
    Interesting role model.

    Gahndi freed an entire nation using the philosophy of Satyagraha.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #569
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    When I said "them" I'm not talking about Muslims, I'm talking about Islamic terrorists. Muslims moving to the West doesn't have any affect on the Islamic terrorists beliefs about Westernzation being a threat to their way of life.
    So your argument is based on the theory that Islamic terrorists view Westernization as a threat to their way of life. But how could that be? Both 7/7 and 9/11, as just two examples, were committed by people who had already been Westernized. Where could they possibly go not to be Westernized? And for that they would kill thousands of innocent people? Did you discover this idea on an Islamic web site or are you just looking for excuses?

    Yes, they are. You even admit as much in the following sentence:
    Religious statements are a different thing altogehter from fashion
    Right. Neither bell bottoms or burkas are necessary to either Islam or Christianity but burkas can be used as a religious statement.

    Well, I live in a coutnry where many, many more Christians seek to persecute Muslims than there are Muslims who seek to persecute Chistians, so I tend to hear a lot more about the persecution of Muslims by Chrsitians.
    Where is that? I'd really like to see some examples.

    But because these Christians often try to use the persecution of Christians by Muslims in other countries as a hypocritical justification for their own deplorable behavior, I tend to hear quite a bit about the persecution of Christians by Muslims as well.
    Yes, i think you would.

    Did you miss the "more likely"?
    No, i didn't. You said the odds are ("more likely") that Christians will use violence against Muslims than vice versa. Please show some evidence for this statement.

    Because the prohibition on the intentional killing of civilians for political means is a fairly recent development and was initiated by the Western nations.
    And based on Christian concepts within those Western nations.

    I think non-western cultures tend to be more likely to consider "terrorism" justifiable. Although, I think it wouldn't take much to convince most wsterners to use such tactics
    I agree. In a war one option, among many, is to fight like with like.

    Have you really been to every single Christian church in the world? I'm Impressed.
    Getting satirical again, huh? You should leave that to those like Swift. But if you feel that violence against Muslims is preached in Christian Churches let's hear it and we'll both condemn it. Do you need evidence that hatred is being taught in Mosques?

    Western cultures are more secularized.
    Right. So how do we get Islamic nations more 'secularized' so there might be a chance of everyone getting along? Secularization doesn't appear to be a growing trend in any Islamic countries.
    Freedom's worth defending, if it is legitimately at risk.
    But it would have to be pretty serious, right? Then what would you do? Fight?


    There have been no legitimate threats to our freedom from outside our own nation for 60+ years, yet we've had more than a few "defenses of freedom" that involved.
    I don''t know what you mean by "our". Where are you from? If you are European surely you must be aware of Communism.
    Bit o' both. I said capitalism, becuase of the fact that anti-socialist tendencies seem to correlate with anti-muslim tedencies.
    And I've noticed that those who most make excuses for terrorism tend to be of the Left. They would rather see terrorism win than capitalism and freedom continue.
    Truly, they would be more likely to say that bombs have been dropped on them because they have threatened our economic interests. Because, when it all gets boiled down to the nitty and the gritty, our only interest in the ME is economic and our interventions that preceeded terrorism (such as operation ajax) were entirely based on our economic interests.
    Do you think all wars are based on economic interests? Do you believe that Left wing countries never go to war? How would they defend themselves, or would they not bother; they'd just go with the flow?
    Interesting role model.
    There you go being satirical again, Tucker. Why don't you leave that to more talented people?
    Gahndi freed an entire nation using the philosophy of Satyagraha.
    Good for Ghandi.
    Last edited by Grant; 10-01-10 at 09:01 PM.

  10. #570
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post

    Because, when it all gets boiled down to the nitty and the gritty, our only interest in the ME is economic and our interventions that preceeded terrorism (such as operation ajax) were entirely based on our economic interests.
    Some event that happened in 1952 or 1953??? lol

    Do you realize, the Shia - Sunni split occurred what, less than 100 years after the founding of the religion and the tensions still remain. Mixed with that is the fact that the Arab world is still strongly tribal and clan/family oriented and in many ways, artificially national. I say artificial because Europeans created the national boundaries and that really helped **** things up. Boundaries were first created based on colonial boundaries, and then the political concerns following WWII. Britain pretty much drew up the ME boundaries and they did it without a strong understanding of the tribal boundaries and areas. Then to reward the Arabs who had helped them against the Turks, they took Arabs out of the Arabian peninsula and made them Kings in Jordan (Trans-Jordan), Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and probably others as well....

    Let me throw something else into the mix. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. Iran is already a concern to them. A Shia Iraq would also give them concern, especially if Iran gains nukes and the Iraqi Shia Mullahs lean them towards Iran. The Saudis could be in real trouble. So, could we see an anti-Shia alliance with the objective of limiting their power? Saudi's giving the Israelis clearance to overfly Saudi airspace so that they can strike Iranian nuclear facilities?

    Lets assume that the Saudis allowed this, or joined the west in taking action against Iran, etc. Would it mean the end of the Saudis at the hands of their own radical element?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •