• 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!

Grant said:
It's heartening to see that in secular Turkey only 14% of them support suicide bombings and violence against civilians.

I hope the numbers remain that low once they join the EU.
Click to expand...

The way the question is worded conditionally "In the defense of Islam" is likely to have more people in support of suicide bombings in possible occupations by western powers. Gallup has a poll conducted in every muslim country with tens of thousands of persons polled that comes to much lower numbers, to the point that they note in their publications Americans have a higher support of killing civilians in war. "Killing civilians in war, Always Justified?" I believe was the question. The sampling in this research composes only a fraction of the gallup poll as well. I got the book in my room at home.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
I'm confused. How would being willing to engage in acts of terrorism lead to a minimization of acts of terrorism? It seems as though such an approach would increase the overall number of acts of terrorism, not decrease them.
Click to expand...

Probably its your lack of understanding of the Arab mindset. The Arabs respect force and the overt appearance of it, period. I've seen this as an --- in Israel, ---- and Saudi 8 times over the last --- years. Holding hands and "moving toward democracy" doesn't mean **** to Abu Banat with 12 kids if you can't back up the rhetoric with OPs aimed at the Arab street. Rabin used to call it "an iron fist in a velvet glove".Exactly. Enough fluff to keep things rolling and enough iron to flatten any problems.




No. I think he believes his motives are good and true. Just like those who oppose him think their motives are good and true.
Click to expand...

I would never 'off' an "innocent" especially kids. Thats the difference
My personal is that we shouldn't engage in the same tactics if we are going to demonize them for those tactics. If we don't demonize their tactics, then we lose no "moral" high ground by engaging in the same tactics.
Click to expand...

One of the keys to winning a fight is knowing when the fight actually began. Most people continue to argue (diplomacy) long after the fight has actually started. And it usually started long before the first punch and if we keep looking to punish them for what they did instead of beating them to the punch, we will lose this thing.

There is no excuse for a live terrorist - that, like all bad things in life, is a marksmanship issue. You shoot them in the face
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

ptif219 said:
It appears Muslims do support terrorism

Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World - Pew Research Center
Click to expand...
That's called moving the goalposts. The claim was that a certain portion of the 1.5 billion Muslims (10-15% or 150,000,000-225,000,000) worldwide are actively engaged in terrorism. That was a fabrication from ric27. Supporting terrorism is not the equivalent of engaging in terrorism. America supports terrorism when it suits them.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case;1059006661]I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised?

How would being willing to engage in acts of terrorismlead to a minimization of acts of terrorism? It seems as though such an approach would increase the overall number of acts of terrorism, not decrease them.
Click to expand...

Nowhere was I advocating terrorism. The idiot in the video was. My position is that we should eliminate those who advocate terrorism. That is not terrorism.

This is the definition. "Terrorism is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".

I know there are many such videos, and there are also many videos of the reverse (people who are on "our" side who have similar types of views as this guy has).
Click to expand...

It seems you just don't get it. We are not concerned with those millions of Muslims who only want peace and to get along in their lives, look after their families, etc. They are not our concern, Our concern is only those who advocate and abet terrorism. There really is no need for your confusion.

I also don't believe that complacency is the answer. But I also believe that the options are far more varied than simply being "complacency" vs. "assasination/terrorism in response to supporting terrorism". :shrug:
Click to expand...

The fact is you don't know what to do, do you? You're hoping everything somehow magically works out and we eventually form a big circle, holding hands, and sing "All You Need Is Love". Right?

No. I think he believes his motives are good and true.
Click to expand...

You think advocating the murder of 300,000 innocent people is good and true???

Just like those who oppose him think their motives are good and true.
Click to expand...

I oppose all those who believe killing innocent people is justified, no matter what their motives. Are you European?

My personal is that we shouldn't engage in the same tactics if we are going to demonize them for those tactics. If we don't demonize their tactics, then we lose no "moral" high ground by engaging in the same tactics.
Click to expand...

If there is anyone who is advocating the murder of 300,000 innocent Muslims I wouldn't fault them for shooting the guy. Someone should have done it with Hitler.

I disagree with the conclusion. I believe that it will escalate the situation.
Click to expand...

Escalate how?

I think that our own short-sighted immediate-gratification policies have led to the mess we are dealing with in regards to terrorism. I think that continuing to engage in similar short-sighted immediate-gratification policies is folly.
Click to expand...

So you have another plan apart from taking out terrorism advocates, huh? Why not share it?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Degreez said:
That's called moving the goalposts. The claim was that a certain portion of the 1.5 billion Muslims (10-15% or 150,000,000-225,000,000) worldwide are actively engaged in terrorism. That was a fabrication from ric27. Supporting terrorism is not the equivalent of engaging in terrorism. America supports terrorism when it suits them.
Click to expand...

Actively supporting terrorism can take many different forms, including making financial donations. Those numbers would seem to be optimistic, as there are entire Islamic states which actively support terrorism.

Perhaps you can explain where an American government has supported terrorism. Do you have a special reason for centering out the Americans?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Degreez said:
That's called moving the goalposts. The claim was that a certain portion of the 1.5 billion Muslims (10-15% or 150,000,000-225,000,000) worldwide are actively engaged in terrorism. That was a fabrication from ric27. Supporting terrorism is not the equivalent of engaging in terrorism. America supports terrorism when it suits them.
Click to expand...

Nice spin but it shows it is not a religion of Peace
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
Actively supporting terrorism can take many different forms, including making financial donations. Those numbers would seem to be optimistic, as there are entire Islamic states which actively support terrorism.

Perhaps you can explain where an American government has supported terrorism. Do you have a special reason for centering out the Americans?
Click to expand...

America engaged in state terrorism by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Look at Luis Carriles. An exported terrorist of America. Same with Orlando Bosch and Robert Lady.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Degreez said:
America engaged in state terrorism by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Look at Luis Carriles. An exported terrorist of America. Same with Orlando Bosch and Robert Lady.
Click to expand...

It seems you don't quite understand what terrorism means. The United States and its allies were already at war with Japan, and fighting each other. Dropping bombs during a time of war is not terrorism. It's what a declared war is all about.

The other examples should be mentioned separately because, as a group, it makes little sense.

Do you have a definition of terrorism that is apart from the dictionary definition?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
It seems you don't quite understand what terrorism means. The United States and its allies were already at war with Japan, and fighting each other. Dropping bombs during a time of war is not terrorism. It's what a declared war is all about.
Click to expand...
Dropping bombs on military targets is not terrorism. Dropping bombs on civilians is not a military target and IS terrorism, no matter how you try to spin it.
Grant said:
The other examples should be mentioned separately because, as a group, it makes little sense.
Click to expand...
They are examples of America using terrorism when it suits their interests (until it backfires).
Grant said:
Do you have a definition of terrorism that is apart from the dictionary definition?
Click to expand...
I think you should be asking yourself that question.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Degreez said:
Dropping bombs on military targets is not terrorism. Dropping bombs on civilians is not a military target and IS terrorism, no matter how you try to spin it.
Click to expand...

You don't see a difference between a soldier or airman attacking a military target from someone who targets unarmed civilians? Or are you trying to suggest that our forces are targeting unarmed civilians?
They are examples of America using terrorism when it suits their interests (until it backfires).
Click to expand...

Well, go for it
I think you should be asking yourself that question.
Click to expand...

What do think about urban guerrilla warfare?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
The United States and its allies were already at war with Japan, and fighting each other. Dropping bombs during a time of war is not terrorism. It's what a declared war is all about.
Click to expand...

Dropping the bombs on Japan is the exact definition of terrorism. It was used to terrorize the Japanese into surrendering. Hence terrorism.

You can try and justify it all you want, but the shear power, size, and eventually civilian causality loss was far beyond simply a "military target". It was meant to terrorize and it worked.

I don't doubt for a second that if Al-Qaeda got their hands on a full nuke and detonated it in Ft. Bragg or Ft. Hood (a military target) that killed millions of civilians outside the base, you would be ranting and raving it was a terrorist attack.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Degreez said:
Dropping bombs on military targets is not terrorism. Dropping bombs on civilians is not a military target and IS terrorism, no matter how you try to spin it.

They are examples of America using terrorism when it suits their interests (until it backfires).
Click to expand...

Quite aside from the fact that the British government also supported the bombing of Japan, the Japanese people were all prepared to fight to protect their homeland, just as the Americans would and British at one time. I don't think you quite understand the Japanese mindset of the day nor their determination. If you are aware of Kamikaze pilots, that should give you an idea of how strongly they felt, as well as any other battles in the Pacific. But the object of your post appears to be more concerned with slamming the Americans than looking at history with any knowledge and perspective.
I think you should be asking yourself that question.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware what terrorism means but it's unclear that you understand.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

TheNextEra;1059007660]Dropping the bombs on Japan is the exact definition of terrorism. It was used to terrorize the Japanese into surrendering. Hence terrorism.

You can try and justify it all you want, but the shear power, size, and eventually civilian causality loss was far beyond simply a "military target". It was meant to terrorize and it worked.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't work, which is why the second bomb was dropped and then, despite the objections of many Japanese who were determined to fight to the death, their emperor announced the cessation of the war. The Japanese people were quite prepared to fight to the death to protect their homeland, and this fact is well documented. Many livves were saved, British and American, as a result of the quick ending of the war.

Twisting history about in order to vilify Americans is a tiresome game and, despite having nothing to do with the subject of this thread, is as old as America itself.
I don't doubt for a second that if Al-Qaeda got their hands on a full nuke and detonated it in Ft. Bragg or Ft. Hood (a military target) that killed millions of civilians outside the base, you would be ranting and raving it was a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda always attacks innocent and unsuspecting civilians and will continue to do so. They are murderous cowards and that should be common knowledge by now.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

Because people often get confused by the hypocritical nature of your arguments?
Nowhere was I advocating terrorism. The idiot in the video was. My position is that we should eliminate those who advocate terrorism. That is not terrorism.

This is the definition. "Terrorism is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".
Click to expand...

And you are talking about the calculated use of violence against a civilian to attain a political/ideological goal in this case.

See, it's easy to get confused by your arguments when you contradict yourself.



It seems you just don't get it. We are not concerned with those millions of Muslims who only want peace and to get along in their lives, look after their families, etc. They are not our concern, Our concern is only those who advocate and abet terrorism. There really is no need for your confusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you arbitrarily have decided that those who advocate terrorism are not civilians (ven though rhetoric is not enough to warrant combatant status). But the trust is that those who advocate terrorism without engagin in terrorism are still civilians. Which makes your advocacy of their elimination an advocacy of terrorism as well.

I'm no longer confused by your hypocritical arguments becuase it is now clear that it is merely hypocricy.

The fact is you don't know what to do, do you? You're hoping everything somehow magically works out and we eventually form a big circle, holding hands, and sing "All You Need Is Love". Right?
Click to expand...

Wow. What an utterly simplistic way to view the world. It must be nice to go through life believing that only two equally idiotic options are avaialable for major issues.

You think advocating the murder of 300,000 innocent people is good and true???
Click to expand...

No. Reread what was writtin.

I oppose all those who believe killing innocent people is justified, no matter what their motives.
Click to expand...

So you agre that hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustifiable, then.

Are you European?
Click to expand...

What would that have to do with anything? Are you South American?

If there is anyone who is advocating the murder of 300,000 innocent Muslims I wouldn't fault them for shooting the guy. Someone should have done it with Hitler.
Click to expand...

People in this thread have supported the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese. Do you think they should be shot?


Escalate how?
Click to expand...

By creating martyrs and creating an environment where it becomes readily apparent that we only pay lip service to preserving the lives of civilians.


So you have another plan apart from taking out terrorism advocates, huh? Why not share it?
Click to expand...

Work in opposition to their rhetoric using diplomatic means and by changing the way the target demographic of their rhetoric views us. Don't prove their rhetoric correct by giving them more evidence supporting their current beliefs.

But I'm sure you will view this as having a flower party or some other such mindless nonsense instead of a legitimate option.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
Work in opposition to their rhetoric using diplomatic means and by changing the way the target demographic of their rhetoric views us. Don't prove their rhetoric correct by giving them more evidence supporting their current beliefs.
Click to expand...

Imagine that you are the President of the United States for a moment, and lay out for us exactly at this moment how you would go about this in detail please.


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

ric27 said:
Probably its your lack of understanding of the Arab mindset. The Arabs respect force and the overt appearance of it, period. I've seen this as an --- in Israel, ---- and Saudi 8 times over the last --- years. Holding hands and "moving toward democracy" doesn't mean **** to Abu Banat with 12 kids if you can't back up the rhetoric with OPs aimed at the Arab street. Rabin used to call it "an iron fist in a velvet glove".Exactly. Enough fluff to keep things rolling and enough iron to flatten any problems.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have an understanding of the "arab" mindset at all given what you say here. Why should I believe that you can "educate" me when I see no evidence that would support such a hypothesis?






I would never 'off' an "innocent" especially kids. Thats the difference
Click to expand...

So you haven't sat here justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki repeatedly? Has someone else been posting under your username?

One of the keys to winning a fight is knowing when the fight actually began. Most people continue to argue (diplomacy) long after the fight has actually started. And it usually started long before the first punch and if we keep looking to punish them for what they did instead of beating them to the punch, we will lose this thing.
Click to expand...

You realize that this type of reasoning could be used to justify 9/11 right? It's also the essential argument provided by the advocates of terrorism.

I'm sure that you have a theory on when the fight between the US and the ME actually began, since you place a primacy on it. Perhaps you can share it. I'd love to see what you feel the "beginning" was.

There is no excuse for a live terrorist - that, like all bad things in life, is a marksmanship issue. You shoot them in the face
Click to expand...

If the definition of terrorist that you are using is devoid of logical consistency, then eventually you will become one yourself and will use the same rationalizations to justify your own acts of terror.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

j-mac said:
Imagine that you are the President of the United States for a moment, and lay out for us exactly at this moment how you would go about this in detail please.


j-mac
Click to expand...

"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. ... By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all."
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. ... By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all."
Click to expand...


Very clever. Citing Bush on ME relations from 2007. Am I to conclude then that you agree with Bush's strategies on the ME?

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

j-mac said:
Very clever. Citing Bush on ME relations from 2007. Am I to conclude then that you agree with Bush's strategies on the ME?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Given the phrasing of your question, it was too good to pass up.

And truthfully, I agree with quite a few of his ME strategies. Not all of them, but many of them.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
Given the phrasing of your question, it was too good to pass up.

And truthfully, I agree with quite a few of his ME strategies. Not all of them, but many of them.
Click to expand...


Ok, now please answer it fully in your own words.

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

j-mac said:
OMG! Really?!


j-mac
Click to expand...

As president I would have a wealth of knowledge at my disposal regarding what resources are available at my disposal. Do I already have charismatic "boots on the ground" within the moderate mulsim community in the regions where these advocates are active? etc. etc. Then, I would also have to be quiet about my strategy in order to protect my operatives, and thus my public discolosures of the policy and I'd have to worry about political blowback from peoplewho can only see the world in black and white and will use a long-term plan as a way to gain political support simply becaus elong-term plans don't satisfy a sound-bite society interested in immediate gratification

As myself, I have no idea what resources are avilable, but I would say that gaining certain resourses within moderate communities and even within extremist communities (covert operatives) if not currently avialable would be the first plan of attack. If they are avialable, utilizing them would be the first course of action. If they are currently being utilized, edterimining th eefficacy of their current efforts would be the first course of action.

The war on terror is a marathon, not a sprint. Ultimately it will not be won with a gun. They are fanatics who are more than wiling to die for their cause. The idea that "they only understand violence" is way too simple-minded and devoid of logic for me to support it. Obviously, the war on terror will require actual fighting directed at actual terrorists. But the rhetoric of civilians can be combatted without resorting to violence against those civilians. Think about it, their goal is recruitment to the cause of hating and fighting against America. Killing them and martyring them will achieve the same ultimate goal of recruitment. It's a self-defeating behavior.

Instead, I would seek to present arguments that defeat theirs. Show that America is not the place he decribes. That we do no hate all muslims and that we are not a threat to their way of life. Granted, the American public will do their damndest to **** that up if given the chance. Say, if a mosque were to be built a couple of blocks from ground zero.

But as I said, it's a marathon, not a sprtint. It wouldn't have immedaitely recognizable rewards. The terrorist rhetoric didn't take hold overnight, either. My posiition is that relying on teh bullet to solve one's p[roblems will have immediate rewards, but only if one is unconcerned about long-term goals of actually winning the war on terror instead of being mired in the same mess 100, even 200 years form now.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case;1059007706B said:
ecause people often get confused by the hypocritical nature of your arguments?
Click to expand...

You appear to be the only one who's confused.
And you are talking about the calculated use of violence against a civilian to attain a political/ideological goal in this case.
Click to expand...

No. I am talking abput taking out an individual who is encouraging the murder of 300,000 people in front of an applauding audience..
See, it's easy to get confused by your arguments when you contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

You are becoming confused only because you are reading what is not there.
Yes, but you arbitrarily have decided that those who advocate terrorism are not civilians (ven though rhetoric is not enough to warrant combatant status). But the trust is that those who advocate terrorism without engagin in terrorism are still civilians. Which makes your advocacy of their elimination an advocacy of terrorism as well.
Click to expand...

See above.

I'm no longer confused by your hypocritical arguments becuase it is now clear that it is merely hypocricy.
Click to expand...

I think we'll let others determine whether you remain confused or not.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
You appear to be the only one who's confused.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused anymore. It's clear that you are arbitrarily removing his civilian status so that you can justify an act of terrorism as being correct.

No. I am talking abput taking out an individual who is encouraging the murder of 300,000 people in front of an applauding audience..
Click to expand...

His rhetoric doesn't remove his civilian status.

You are becoming confused only because you are reading what is not there.

See above.
Click to expand...

I was confused because I assumed your argument was fallacy free until such a point as it became clear that it was based on logical fallacies. Now that the falalcies are clearly present, the confusion no longer exists.

I think we'll let others determine whether you remain confused or not.
Click to expand...

How could they possibly determine that? It's clear that you feel that terrorism is justified when it's against civilians who espouse rhetoric you disagree with. You do this by dishonestly moving the goalposts on what makes a civilian to mean "innocent", which is another arbitrarily decided term on your part.


The only reason a perosn would be confused would be if they start from the presumption that your argumetns are based on sound logic instead fo fallacy. Once they relinquish this incorrect presumption based on the fact that it is evident that your argumetns are based on fallacious reasoning, the confusion is alleviated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom