• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Come on, be real for just one moment in your life. I don't apologize for my thanks, because what ric was saying is right on. Left to yours, and other liberal mindsets, this land would turn into what we see happening around the world today, do you know why?

I can remember some years back having a debate with a liberal about the causation of terrorism against the West where the liberal stance was that we should do nothing, and ignore the attacks against us. My point was that how many Americans should have to die before liberals would say enough? Would my opponent in that debate think differently if it were his/her family member that was killed? Let's just say that my opponent was no more genuine than you are here with the conflation of what was said. Thing is, what you are doing with ric's words is BS, and it is weak, and you know it.

If you have a point, why not make it honestly, instead of twisting another's words to make your point?


j-mac


These are not LIBERAL attitudes being expressed here, J-Mac. The particular sophistry being offered represents the near antithesis of liberal ideology. Just because many individuals label themselves as "liberal", that does not mean what they vomit forth has anything to do with liberalism.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

You are failing to acknowledge one key element in your rationalization here, namely, that the targets of terrorism are random civilians chosen for the fact they are ordinary citizens, whereas your scenario here is played out with a person chosen for their contribution TO the terrorism. It is a targeted assasination rather than an act of terrorism, itself.

Targetted assassinations can still be terrorism. The key is that the assassinated person is civilian. Randomization has nothing to do with it. 9/11 was a targeted attack. It's not like they were just planniong on crashing a plane in New York. They targeted the WTC because of it's economic implications.

By your rationalizations, had Goebels not commited suicide and was brought to trial at Nurenberg, you would have found him innocent.

Why on Earth would that happen? Just because something isn't labelled "terrorism" doesn't mean it would not receive consequences.

Also, I'm not the opne rationalizing. I'm creating a clear and concise definition. The only people who are rationalizing are those who wish to engage in the same types of behaviors without calling it by the same name.
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

So the next time a Muslim is putting a battery in their cell phone you are going to shoot them, very good to know.

Hey Mods, does this constitute violence yet against a person that follows the Muslim religion?

Not "A" Muslim! Only a Muslim who is encouraging the deaths of hundereds of thousands of innocent people.

Do you believe that all Muslims are terrorists?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

And where did i advocate the murders of hundreds of thousand of people?? That's what the Muslim in the video is doing. You really haven't watched to video, have you?
You and everyone else who takes a hard line stance on terrorism advocates for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. By your own definition, you would be a terrorist.

You want a soft line on terrorism!! Does anyone know this guy? Is he really this stupid or just pretending??

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this. It appears that you are advocating terrorism, but only when it used to promote your ideology. Is this correct?

My "ideology" is to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people by taking out one religious fanatic who is advocating and encouraging their deaths. What is your ideology that would permit this?
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Targetted assassinations can still be terrorism. The key is that the assassinated person is civilian. Randomization has nothing to do with it. 9/11 was a targeted attack. It's not like they were just planniong on crashing a plane in New York. They targeted the WTC because of it's economic implications.

No it is not. Terrorism is used to spread terror throught the general population, to herd them in a certain political direction. This would be an assassination which, in a time of war. is perfectly acceptable..
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

And where did i advocate the murders of hundreds of thousand of people?? That's what the Muslim in the video is doing. You really haven't watched to video, have you?

Promoting a hard line on terror is advocating the murder of hundreds of thousands. I'm not saying the hard line is wrong, I'm saying that claiming that simply advociating for deaths of hundreds of thousands is not, in and of itself, terrorism.

Terrorism is a kind of action, not a kind of rhetoric.


You want a soft line on terrorism!!

Where'd you get that idea? I'm just pointing out the flaws in your definition of terrorism because if that were the definition, those who take an extreme hard line on terrorism (such as advocating for the deaths of civilians who promote terrorist ideology without engaging in it themselves) would in fact be terrorists themselves. That's using the definition you have created, not my definition.

But just because you place the false desriptor of "terrorism" on that behavior doesn't mean I do as well.


Does anyone know this guy?

I'd say most people know me.

You've been here since January. Quite frankly, you should know who I am, too.

Is he really this stupid or just pretending??

I don't think your tactic here is a very good idea. If you don't wish to debate the merits and demerits of your definition, then simply refrain from commenting. This kind of statement, however, is highly inadvisable.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

No it is not. Terrorism is used to spread terror throught the general population, to herd them in a certain political direction. This would be an assassination which, in a time of war. is perfectly acceptable..

Teh assasination in question would be an attempt to instill terror in the extremist Muslim population by killing one of their religious leaders.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Targetted assassinations can still be terrorism. The key is that the assassinated person is civilian.


No, the key is the randomness of the selection of victim. Those in the wtc were not known to the attackers, and even as their choice was symbolic, their identity was not known. The key to the assumption from the standpoint of potential victim is "hey, that could have been me", since people's own actions cannot guarantee they will avoid being killed. In the case of a targeted assassination, the person is known, their actions are absolutely central to the issue of why they are being targeted and the average citizen DOESN'T come away thinking "Hey, that could have been me", because most obviously, it couldn't -- not unless they were actively engaged in the promotion of terror.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

No, the key is the randomness of the selection of victim. Those in the wtc were not known to the attackers, and even as their choice was symbolic, their identity was not known. THe key to the assumption from the standoint of potential victim is "hey, that could have been me", since people's own actions cannot guarantee they will avoid being killed. In the case of a targeted assasination, he person is known, their actions are absolutely central to the issue of why they are being targeted and the average citizen DOESN'T come away thinking "Hey, that could have been me", because most obviously, it couldn't -- not unless they were actively engaged in the promotion of terror.

Terrorism doesn't require a random selction. Remember the Unabomber? Disd he "assasinate" college professors and others who espoused a pro-technology ideology, or was he commiting terrorism?

He killed people because of the ideology they promoted. He specifically targetted people. It's considered terrorism. The only real difference here is that this professor promotes a different ideology than the ideology old Teddy-boy sent his letter bombs about.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Promoting a hard line on terror is advocating the murder of hundreds of thousands. I'm not saying the hard line is wrong, I'm saying that claiming that simply advociating for deaths of hundreds of thousands is not, in and of itself, terrorism.

You are playing a little bit fast and loose with your terms here, Tucker. Promoting a hard line on terror is advocating the DEATHS of hundreds of thousands, but your implication that those deaths would be murders is unfounded. We do not call it a murder when a criminal is executed, nor do we call it a murder when a soldier dies. Implicit in the use of the term "murder" is the underlying innocence of the targets in question. Those involved in terrorism AREN'T innocent, since they are actively plotting to murder, themselves, and to call their deaths "murder" is a rhetorical slight of hand that plays right into their agenda -- an agenda predicated upon the creation of false moral equivalencies.
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

You are playing a little bit fast and loose with your terms here, Tucker. Promoting a hard line on terror is advocating the DEATHS of hundreds of thousands, but your implication that those deaths would be murders is unfounded. We do not call it a murder when a criminal is executed, nor do we call it a murder when a soldier dies. Implicit in the use of the term "murder" is the underlying innocence of the targets in question. Those involved in terrorism AREN'T innocent, since they are actively plotting to murder, themselves, and to call their deaths "murder" is a rhetorical slight of hand that plays right into their agenda -- an agenda predicated upon the creation of false moral equivalencies.

And those who commit terrorist acts would not consider what they do to be murder. What is technically murder differs from region to region because each rgion has different laws.

And what aggravates the situation is the belief that they are at "war" with the West in general. In their ideological construct, what they do is not murder.

But eitehr way, what precipitated this discussion was a specific stance taken by a certain subset of hard-liners about killing a civillian who espouses a certain ideology. Regardless of the ideology, such an act taken with what one who is very accurately described as a non-combatant would fit the realm of murder.

It is true that many hard-line stances on terrorism leave the simple discussion of actual terrorism and often includes those who support terrorism ideologically. That's when the opposition to terrorism actually promotes terrorism itself, and creates a hypocritical foundation for that particular brand of hard-line stance.


But you are correct that I should stick with using "deaths" or "killing" instead of "murder' since 'murder' is a variable term depending on a person's subjective morality and legal beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Yes, i realize that supporting Shariia is not engaging in terrorism.....

"The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity".

I'm obviously talking of the other one percent.

...

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The initial claim was that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide are actively engaged in terrorism. I asked for evidence of this. You provided evidence that 99% of Britain's Muslims thought the 7/7 attackers were wrong. How does that validate the asinine claim that 150,000,000 to 225,000,000 Muslims are actively engaged in terrorism?

Come back when you can provide anything that substantiates the inane claim.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

...

Come back when you can provide anything that substantiates the inane claim.

The "socal change" that is required is the indoctrination of Muslim youth in madrasas?

Who is behind it? Once you give, the indoctrinated youth.... a target and moral relativism (lack of punishment) they will attack.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

...

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The initial claim was that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide are actively engaged in terrorism. I asked for evidence of this. You provided evidence that 99% of Britain's Muslims thought the 7/7 attackers were wrong. How does that validate the asinine claim that 150,000,000 to 225,000,000 Muslims are actively engaged in terrorism?

Come back when you can provide anything that substantiates the inane claim.


Suppose you lay out what you will accept as definitive proof of this, because it is becoming clear that there may be more than 10% world wide. Consider:

Robert Satloff takes apart a new book by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both of them professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, where Mogehed is executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Satloff shows how, through fraudulent definition of the word "radical," the authors make it appear that a multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide showed that only seven percent of Muslims are radical, when, in reality, by any fair reading of the authors' own polling data, the correct number is 37 percent.

The authors define Muslim radicals as those who say the 9/11 attack was "completely justified," which was seven percent of the sample. However, there were two other categories of respondents who said that the attack was at least partially justified, and they are labeled by the authors as "moderates." The first of those groups comprises 6.5 percent of the sample, the second comprises 23.1 percent. Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1 percent, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women. Yet Esposito and Mogahed call them "moderates."

How many radical Muslims are there in the world?

or the original article:

Similar arguments have been made before; some of this is true, some is rubbish, much is irrelevant. The real debate about the "clash of civilizations" is about whether a determined element of radical Muslims could, like the Bolsheviks, take control of their societies and lead them into conflict with the West. The question often revolves around a disputed data point: Of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, how many are radicals? If the number is relatively small, then the fear of a clash is inflated; if the number is relatively large, then the nightmare might not be so outlandish after all.

What gives Who Speaks for Islam? its aura of credibility is that its answers are allegedly based on hard data, not taxi-driver anecdotes from a quick visit to Cairo. The book draws on a mammoth, six-year effort to poll and interview tens of thousands of Muslims in more than 35 countries with Muslim majorities or substantial minorities. The polling sample, Esposito and Mogahed claim, represents "more than 90 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims." To back up the claim, the book bears the name of the gold-standard of American polling firms, Gallup.

The answer to that all-important question, the authors say, is 7 percent. That is the percentage of Muslims who told pollsters that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were "completely" justified and who said they view the United States unfavorably--the double-barreled litmus test devised by Esposito and Mogahed to determine who is radical and who isn't.

The authors don't actually call even these people "radicals," however; the term they use is "politically radicalized," which implies that someone else is responsible for turning these otherwise ordinary Muslims into bin Laden sympathizers. By contrast, Muslims who said the 9/11 attacks were "not justified" they term "moderates."

Just Like Us! Really? | The Weekly Standard

So what will you accept as proof?


j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Suppose you lay out what you will accept as definitive proof of this, because it is becoming clear that there may be more than 10% world wide. Consider:



or the original article:



So what will you accept as proof?


j-mac

It's probably good to start by noting the difference between being "radicalized" and being "actively involved in terrorism". Assuming that there is a difference for you between these things.

Because the evidence you are offering is for radicalized Muslims, not terrorists.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

It's probably good to start by noting the difference between being "radicalized" and being "actively involved in terrorism". Assuming that there is a difference for you between these things.

Because the evidence you are offering is for radicalized Muslims, not terrorists.


the difference being that they haven't strapped on the bomb belt yet? Wow, maybe we don't want that to be the case, but to say that they haven't carried out terror acts so therefore they are "Moderates" is pure BS to me.

j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

And those who commit terrorist acts would not consider what they do to be murder. What is technically murder differs from region to region because each rgion has different laws.

And what aggravates the situation is the belief that they are at "war" with the West in general. In their ideological construct, what they do is not murder.

.


Yet you live in the west, Tucker, and are furthering THEIR point of view as to what constitutes murder when you apply definitions according to their rationalizations.

THis extreme moral relativism may seem to provide you with an easy out, but the mere fact you would have to rely on such tells me that you have exhausted any real argument you might come up with and are having to rely on one that is basically nihilistic in its application. Nothing really matters because we can define something according to its convenience to our arguments.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

the difference being that they haven't strapped on the bomb belt yet? Wow, maybe we don't want that to be the case, but to say that they haven't carried out terror acts so therefore they are "Moderates" is pure BS to me.

j-mac

Look at the question that was asked as the determinant. I can use the same type of question to paint the US as radicals:

The US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were:

A. Completely justified
B. At least partly justified
C. Not at all justified

I know that people will say that the rules of war were different back then, but really, why do we expect everyone to adopt the new rules and demonize them if they don't while simultaneously giving ourselves passes on two acts that were a lot worse as far as civilian casualties go?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Yet you live in the west, Tucker, and are furthering THEIR point of view as to what constitutes murder when you apply definitions according to their rationalizations.

Murder is not a universal term. It varies from region to region. It has no merit when applied in global terms at all and only serves to provide emotional fodder for arguments of no real substance.

Nothing really matters because we can define something according to its convenience to our arguments.

Ironically, that's what I'm arguing against here.

It's people who shift the definitions so that their side never commits such actions while the other sides always commits such an action who have movable definitions. Mine are constant.

Nowadays, due to the variability of people's definitions, using rhetoric like terrorism and murder only serve to promote emotion-laden arguments of no real merit.
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Look at the question that was asked as the determinant. I can use the same type of question to paint the US as radicals:

The US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were:

A. Completely justified
B. At least partly justified
C. Not at all justified

I know that people will say that the rules of war were different back then, but really, why do we expect everyone to adopt the new rules and demonize them if they don't while simultaneously giving ourselves passes on two acts that were a lot worse as far as civilian casualties go?


I'd say that depends on whether or not you believe that the only use of an atomic device by the US in that World War, ended it, or was just a use or overuse of power. In any case I believe that the use saved lives by ending the war.

I don't think you can compare the two unless you agree that we are at war with Islam.


j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I'd say that depends on whether or not you believe that the only use of an atomic device by the US in that World War, ended it, or was just a use or overuse of power. In any case I believe that the use saved lives by ending the war.

I don't think you can compare the two unless you agree that we are at war with Islam.


j-mac

I don't have to think that we are at war with Islam for that to be an accurate comparison. My beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the comparison.

Also, it's interesting that you feel that killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese people saved lives. Do you mean the bombings saved American lives or do you mean lives in general (including Japanese lives)?
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I don't have to think that we are at war with Islam for that to be an accurate comparison. My beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the comparison.

It's interesting that you feel that killing hundreds of thousands of japanese people saved lives. Do you mean the bombings saved American lives or do you mean lives in general (including Japanese lives)?


It ended the war which in the long run means lives saved over all.


j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Murder is not a universal term. It varies from region to region. It has no merit when applied in global terms at all and only serves to provide emotional fodder for arguments of no real substance.

Do you think this would be a good time for me to remind you that YOU used the term to describe the killing of terrorists?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Do you think this would be a good time for me to remind you that YOU used the term to describe the killing of terrorists?

Do you think that this would be a good time to remind you that I admitted that I was in error to do so at the end of post #411?

But let's be honest, I was using the terms that the person I was debating had used to try and make my point that, from their perspective, what we do could be considered murder, just like from our perspective what they do could be considered murder.

In essence, if we're doing the exact same thing they are, yet we demonize them for it while excusing ourselves, we are using malleable definitions to suit our arguments. that's always been my argument.

I would prefer to look at things objectively and avoid the use of subjective terminology either by not using th eterms that have become subjectively used, or by being willing to use them in self-reference when applicable to remove the emotional aspect.
 
Back
Top Bottom