Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!
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.
I tend to agree.
rof There is no evidence of any "new energy".
