Page 58 of 59 FirstFirst ... 84856575859 LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 587

Thread: Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

  1. #571
    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
    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?
    What is your theory, then? That the terrorists are in favor of Westernization?



    Right. Neither bell bottoms or burkas are necessary to either Islam or Christianity but burkas can be used as a religious statement.
    Which makes burkas something different from "fashion" altogether.

    Where is that? I'd really like to see some examples.
    See: this thread

    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.
    I didn't make that statement at all. Nothing even remotely close to it, in fact. Reread what I've written and then formulate your response without the strawman if you would like me to respond. I don't defend arguments that I haven't presented.

    And based on Christian concepts within those Western nations.
    I disagree. Christian concepts have multiple examples of God himself using terrorist tactics for political religious goals. I've read nothing regarding not targetting civilians in any religious text, and I've read many religious texts.

    I agree. In a war one option, among many, is to fight like with like.
    Which is why many people in the US support terrorism, but only when the terrorism is used to achieve their own goals. When it is someone else's goals, they demonize terrorism.

    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?
    Reread what I've written and then formulate your response without the strawman if you would like me to respond. I don't defend arguments that I haven't presented.



    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.
    That desire to secularize them is precicely why they feel we are a threat to their way of life.... and why they are correct to think that we are.

    If they wish to secularize, they will do so.

    But it would have to be pretty serious, right?
    It would need to be a legitimate threat.

    Then what would you do? Fight?
    Fighting would be one option, yes.



    I don''t know what you mean by "our". Where are you from?
    Chicago

    If you are European surely you must be aware of Communism.
    Communism was never a legitimate threat to American freedom. The "hot" wars fought over communism were dismal failures, but lo and behold, we still exist and we are still free (Well, not really, but communism itself had nothing to do with our losses of freedom).


    And I've noticed that those who most make excuses for terrorism tend to be of the Left.
    My political philosophy is similar to those of the anti-federalists. This would make me very firmly on the "Right".

    I would say that your observations are flawed in the sense that your use of the term "excuses" makes no sense in the context, as you define any reason that explains the terrorism mindset that you disagree with as an "excuse" for terrorism. But that equivocal type of definition doesn't take into account that something that is an excuse must seek to minimize fault or justify the behavior.

    In this thread, it has only been people on the "right" who have created excuses for terrorism. They have done so repeatedly when it was terrorism they agreed with.

    I have given what I beleive are their reasons behind their terrorism. I do not seek to minimize fault or justify their behaviors in any way. I find all terrorism to be inexcusable (even when it is usd to advance goals I agree with).

    On top of that, it appears that your definition of "left" is "anyone who disagrees with me". This is a common error in definiiton for people who are prone to making argumetns that are false dichotomies. It is a natural offshoot of the "with us or against us" mentality.

    They would rather see terrorism win than capitalism and freedom continue.
    Because terrorism is a tactic that can also be used by free capitalists, this sentence makes no sense. Terrorism, as a tactic, cannot "win" anything.



    Do you think all wars are based on economic interests?
    Ultimately, yes.

    Do you believe that Left wing countries never go to war?
    Of course not. Are you under the impression that being "left wing" prevents the existence of economic interests?

    How would they defend themselves, or would they not bother; they'd just go with the flow?
    Do you realize that "left" and "right" are actually based on economic principles?


    There you go being satirical again, Tucker. Why don't you leave that to more talented people?
    When someone uses an "appeal to authority" in their argument (a quote from someone intended to support a position is, by its very nature, an appeal to authority) they are saying that said person should be emulated, i.e. they are modelling the role in a psychological sense.

    It wasn't satire, I merely found your choice of role model interesting.

    And judging by your apparent inability to recognize satire, I don't think you are very capable of judging talent in this regard. I mean, It'd be kind of like me, as a color-blind person, judging the talents of people who design color-schemes. Being incapable of recognizing that which I would be judging would render me incapable of being such a judge.

    Good for Ghandi.
    I tend to agree.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #572
    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 ric27 View Post
    Some event that happened in 1952 or 1953??? lol
    That was one example, yes.

    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?
    All of this supports my argument. I used Operation Ajax as one example that can clearly be seen as having increased anti-west sentiments. You have provided more.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #573
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post

    All of this supports my argument. I used Operation Ajax as one example that can clearly be seen as having increased anti-west sentiments. You have provided more.
    It's funny, but invariably any discussion about the root causes of terrorism usually devolves into a series of postings by people eager to advance only one part of the formula while seeking to deny the other part. "Look, it's a fish because it has scales!" "No, it's a fish because it swims!!"

    In the case of modern Islamic terrorism -- at least the portion that has become international -- the hatred against us is directed against us for what we do AND for who we are, and it is important to note that much of the former is viewed through a lens influenced heavily by the latter.

    I'm not at all impressed by those who refuse to see that both contribute, so eager they are to promote a limited viewpoint.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  4. #574
    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
    Containment?
    Didn't see this....so, here it goes (also, for the elusive Jet)

    We ought to be following a policy of containment. I can't go so far as a policy of genocide and destroy the threat utterly, so the alternative is isolation. Quarantine. Keep them in their countries, don't accept them in your nation as immigrants, and here is the biggie, remove Islam from the sphere of religious freedom and don't allow it's practice outside traditional Muslim countries. Its basic, core beliefs make it a threat to anyone and any country that isn't Muslim. You can educate all you want. You can hope for or celebrate a Muslim reformation. But the fact is, Islam declares that the Koran is perfect and can't be altered. And if it can't be altered, the plain reading of the text calls for Jihad against all unbelievers. And no matter how peaceful you make one generation, there will be the next one and there will be plenty of Muslims who will be true believers. Not radical moderates who just want to get along. And they will follow Jihad. So it is better to not have them already in your house.

    I know you won't like it, but there it is. You can argue that you don't like it, but you can't argue with the facts. You'll just not like the conclusion.

  5. #575
    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 Gardener View Post
    It's funny, but invariably any discussion about the root causes of terrorism usually devolves into a series of postings by people eager to advance only one part of the formula while seeking to deny the other part. "Look, it's a fish because it has scales!" "No, it's a fish because it swims!!"
    That's an interesting analogy because neither argument presented is what is required to make it a fish, nor does the presence of both characteristics make something a fish.

    For example, sea snakes have scales and they swim, yet they are not fish.

    Nor does something actualy need to have one of those charchteristics to be a fish: Catfish have no scales, for example.

    As far as swimming goes, I'm not aware of any fish existing which doesn't have the ability to swim, but when you look at something like th emudskipper, it's clear that this need not be the primary means of locomotion either.

    So I think your analogy is very appropriate becuse of this. It is hitting on one aspect of my arguments perfectly: by arbitrarily defining something using superficial characteristics instead of substantial characteristics, we tend to label things whatever we wish them to be without any regard for the veracity of that label.

    Instead, these terms need to be defined objectively and with a primacy taken on the charactersitics that actually delineate such a thing from something else and then making sure to include all aspects into the definition.

    For example, any such argument regarding definitions doesn't include the way that fish respirate is ignroing a major part of the actual definitions in favor of nonessential stuff.


    In the case of modern Islamic terrorism -- at least the portion that has become international -- the hatred against us is directed against us for what we do AND for who we are, and it is important to note that much of the former is viewed through a lens influenced heavily by the latter.
    I disagree with your assesment that the influence primarily one directional.

    I would say it is a two-way influence i.e. what we do influences how they perceive who we are and who we are influences their perceptions of what we do. It is more cyclical than anything else, creating a snowball effect over time.

    I'm not at all impressed by those who refuse to see that both contribute, so eager they are to promote a limited viewpoint.
    Meh, most people promote a limited and/or simplistic view of things. I don't take the same approach myself, for example, earlier in this thread I've pointed out that who we are is definitely a factor. I think I've been one of the few peopel who have acknoeldged both aspects when discussing their motives. While you and I clearly disagree on the one-directional vs. two-directional aspects of the influence, we both agree that it is dualistic in its nature with regard to Islamic terrorism.

    I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #576
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?

    I have a question based on your question here Tucker: Why is it that many arguments in defense of this Mosque, and or terrorism stemming from the Islamic world today seem to be mired with certain individuals in some sort of guilt based acceptance of what they do today?

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #577
    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 j-mac View Post
    I have a question based on your question here Tucker: Why is it that many arguments in defense of this Mosque, and or terrorism stemming from the Islamic world today seem to be mired with certain individuals in some sort of guilt based acceptance of what they do today?

    j-mac
    I'm not sure I uderstand the question. What do you mean by "Guilt-based acceptance of what they do today"?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #578
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I'm not sure I uderstand the question. What do you mean by "Guilt-based acceptance of what they do today"?
    Approaching the defense of terrorism being seen today because we have done something in the long ago past. Sometimes centuries before a reasonable analogy can be drawn.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #579
    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 j-mac View Post
    Approaching the defense of terrorism being seen today because we have done something in the long ago past. Sometimes centuries before a reasonable analogy can be drawn.


    j-mac
    I have never seen any such defense of terrorism as you speak of.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #580
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    .

    I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?

    I have, albeit rarely.

    The reason I confront those who act as apologists for Islamist terrorism more than I do the jingoists is the relative threat to our way of life both pose. Whereas the jingoists can be annoying, their error is one of excessive defense of our way of life, whereas the Islamist apologists only attack it. Oddly enough, as most of the more patriotic individual tend to describe themselves as "conservative", they are the ones quick to support liberalism by pointing out the deplorable lack of liberal values inherent in the Islamist viewpoint, while far too many self-described "liberals" act to deflect away from these observations, so obsessed they are with their attacks and justificatons.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

Page 58 of 59 FirstFirst ... 84856575859 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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