Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

j-mac · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
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

Like Iran maybe? Also I get the feeling that you don't think things like this are already, and have long been used? How about the people of Iran? Is Obama supporting a strategy anything close to what you describe here? Or is he hanging them out to be dried, while he pursues a stupid 'make nice' agenda while being played by Amadinjihad?

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.

As to the bolded part, then let me ask you, how in the world can you so strongly attack another member poster with vitriol as you did above, how does that make your point assuming you actually had one, other than we should treat them nice?

As for so called "Moderate communities" who determines that? The State dept? I don't know if I would trust that completely. And these "Moderate communities", Where are they? Red House Va.? York SC? Dearborn MI? Recent studies place as many as 1 in 5 Mosques in the US as radical, and for sure 1 in 10. how much will you gamble with our lives?

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.

I can agree with this to a point, however, we must carry out actions against the most able to project their violence while at the same time convincing these governments not to support them, and the populations to denounce their tactics from within. We can't do that with the current calls of isolationism, and a President that is not committed to win.

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.

And when they reject your arguments based on the fact that in their eyes you are an infidel? We do not 'hate' Muslims, we have shed much blood in their defense, and freedom. Calling the American public stupid is no way to further anything other than a show of how guilty you feel for being American in the first place, and a severe lack of understanding of Taqyaia. (sic)

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.

To realize that Islam has been at war with any that do not believe the same as they do, since their inception is naive. To think that terrorists can be coddled, or negotiated with in some pre 9/11 mindset is also equally naive.

You should in the future think through before you just attack someone for not believing the same things that you believe. Your approach at present is an invite to get American's killed.

j-mac

Grant · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case;1059007821]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

.

All terrorists are "civilians". Do you think they follow the Geneva conventions?

His rhetoric doesn't remove his civilian status.

I wasn't discussing his "civilian" status. Osamma bin laden is a "civilian".

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.

oh, okay.

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.

It's not just "rhetoric I disagree with". He is advocating and supporting the idea of 'one brave man' who should murder 300,000 Americans. Do you agree with this "rhetoric"? This has to stop.

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.

Whatever

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.

Perhaps you should point out this "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.

Sure.

Tucker Case · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

j-mac said:
Like Iran maybe? Also I get the feeling that you don't think things like this are already, and have long been used? How about the people of Iran? Is Obama supporting a strategy anything close to what you describe here? Or is he hanging them out to be dried, while he pursues a stupid 'make nice' agenda while being played by Amadinjihad?

If the approach I'm hoping for is being use din Iran, we would not and should not be aware of it. It would involve empowering the people of Iran, but would, by necessity, be covertly ran.

As to the bolded part, then let me ask you, how in the world can you so strongly attack another member poster with vitriol as you did above, how does that make your point assuming you actually had one, other than we should treat them nice?

What are you talking about? There is no vitriol in my posts. Only observations about the arguments that have been presented.

As far as the bolded part goes, the plans I would support and try to enact would require security in order to protect the operatives. If they currently exist, my not knowing that they do is a benefit to those tactics, not a detriment. I won't pretend to have knowledge of their actual existence, but I do assume that an intelligent counter-terrorism approach would have covert operatives in a "boots on the ground" situation, so to speak.

As for so called "Moderate communities" who determines that? The State dept? I don't know if I would trust that completely. And these "Moderate communities", Where are they? Red House Va.? York SC? Dearborn MI? Recent studies place as many as 1 in 5 Mosques in the US as radical, and for sure 1 in 10. how much will you gamble with our lives?

Before I answer this, I would like to clarify that I'm talking about sociological communities, not necesarily geographic communities. So the "location" wouldn't be as important as identifying the people who are within the community. I would think that the same methods use dto determine radical communities would also identify the moderate communites.

I can agree with this to a point, however, we must carry out actions against the most able to project their violence while at the same time convincing these governments not to support them, and the populations to denounce their tactics from within. We can't do that with the current calls of isolationism, and a President that is not committed to win.

I agree. When it comes down to the one's who are showing a willingness to engage in the violence instead of simply acting as mouthpeices promoting said violence, a violent intervention may be required. When they show no willingness to engage in the violence themselves and act as mouthpeices, I do not suppor the use of violence as it will be counter-productive.

And when they reject your arguments based on the fact that in their eyes you are an infidel? We do not 'hate' Muslims, we have shed much blood in their defense, and freedom.

The fact that my arguments would be rejected is why there is a need for "boots on tehground" acting as the medium for the argumetns. And I agree that we do nto hate muslims. and have shed much blood in defense of them and their freedom. My approach would be to have that message sspread by those who would not be viewed as infidels.

From what you said in the previous paragraph, you agree with that strategy. Your statemnt here: "...while at the same time convincing these governments not to support them, and the populations to denounce their tactics from within." is precisely what I feel is th ebest approach, but it is a long-term tactic that must be adhered to continuously.

Calling the American public stupid is no way to further anything other than a show of how guilty you feel for being American in the first place, and a severe lack of understanding of Taqyaia. (sic)

I'm not guilty about being an American at all. I'm very lucky that my parents chose to come here. I do, however, believe that many of us become riled up by emotional argumetn and that we've become a sound-bite society that can't look to long-term solutions. Bush had to deal with that as much as anyone, in fact. Prior to the surge, I disagreed with his tactics in Iraq but I always viewed the "pull out of Iraq altogether" approach as one of the most short-sighted views that could be promoted. The surge was a far, far better response to the mistakes made early on with the insurgency and it actually took into consideration the long-term ramifications of abandoning the effort. If there was any chance for Iraq to have been a long-term success, teh mission could not be abandoned once it had begun.

IMO, the abandonment would have been the ultimate error in the war on terror. Whether or not one agred with the intiial decision to invade, the truth is that once that decision was made it had to be followed through to it's conclusion. And it's not over yet, even though the "combat missions" have ended. There's still a ****load of work ahead of us in Iraq and I support continuing to work there as long as it will take.

I also agree that a commitment to winning is of absolute importance. I'm not saying that we should take an isolationist stance (although an argument can be made that we should take a little bit less of an interventionist role than what we currently have had over the past 50+ years in many respects, I don't think we should do so after we've let the interventionsit cat out of the bag, so to speak. In other words, we need to follow through on th einterventios that we have already begun. It would be taking a less actively interventionist role in the future that I might support in certain cases)

To realize that Islam has been at war with any that do not believe the same as they do, since their inception is naive. To think that terrorists can be coddled, or negotiated with in some pre 9/11 mindset is also equally naive.

I'm not talking about the terrorists being coddled or negotiated with. I'm talking about taking actions designed as preventatives for recruitment.

You should in the future think through before you just attack someone for not believing the same things that you believe. Your approach at present is an invite to get American's killed.

I have not attacked anyone. I simply pointed out fallacies inherent within argumetns.

For example, "Your approach at present is an invite to get American's killed." is both a strawman and hyperbole. It's a strawman because it presumes things about my approach that are nto true and it's hyperblole because, even if it was the argumetn you seem to think it is, it would not be an invite to get Americans killed.

Pointing out the fallacies in arguements is not an attack.

j-mac[/QUOTE]

j-mac · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
Pointing out the fallacies in arguements is not an attack.

So by using terms like hypocrisy, and calling someone not only a hypocrite, but suggesting that their arguments are "simplistic" are both meant as complements....I see.

j-mac

Tucker Case · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
.

All terrorists are "civilians". Do you think they follow the Geneva conventions?

A terrorist is a combatant. Combatant status does newgate civilian status. Rhetoric is not combat.

I wasn't discussing his "civilian" status. Osamma bin laden is a "civilian".

See above.

It's not just "rhetoric I disagree with". He is advocating and supporting the idea of 'one brave man' who should murder 300,000 Americans. Do you agree with this "rhetoric"? This has to stop.

I disagree wit his rhetoric and I agree that it has to stop, or even more important, it has to stop being an effective means of recruiting those who woudl actually carry out these types of actions. I believe martyring him will act in the opposite direction.

Perhaps you should point out this "fallacy".

I just decribed one of them (moving the goalposts) and your response was "whatever". You also equivocate on what a civilian and what a terrorist is.

Tucker Case · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

j-mac said:
So by using terms like hypocrisy, and calling someone not only a hypocrite, but suggesting that their arguments are "simplistic" are both meant as complements....I see.

j-mac

Those comments were not directed at the person. Instead they were directed at the arguments presented by a person. The arugmetns presented were both simplistic (based on the false dichotomy and strawman) and hypocritical (based on the equivocations and moving of the goal posts).

Also, it's important to note that I can even cite instances when I have acknowledged the hypocricy inherent in my own arguements on certain subjects (a specific instance would be regarding my failure to denounce the SC decision against the Chicago gun laws despite my anti-federalist ideology. By supporting that SC decision, the postion I took was hypocritical when viewed ideologically).

If someone is willing to acknowledge the hypocritical nature fo their arguments and then provide a justification for that hypocricy which they can live with, then they are of the belief that the hypocricy is not a detriment to their argument.

j-mac · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
Those comments were not directed at the person. Instead they were directed at the arguments presented by a person. The arugmetns presented were both simplistic (based on the false dichotomy and strawman) and hypocritical (based on the equivocations and moving of the goal posts).

Also, it's important to note that I can even cite instances when I have acknowledged the hypocricy inherent in my own arguements on certain subjects (a specific instance would be regarding my failure to denounce the SC decision against the Chicago gun laws despite my anti-federalist ideology. By supporting that SC decision, the postion I took was hypocritical when viewed ideologically).

If someone is willing to acknowledge the hypocritical nature fo their arguments and then provide a justification for that hypocricy which they can live with, then they are of the belief that the hypocricy is not a detriment to their argument.

Well, I don't know what you meant, I'd have to know your heart to know that, and I think that is impossible for anyone to know about someone else. However, I do know that on boards like these, your purely cerebral explanation as to why you use some of the phrasing like you do, can, and does very easily fall flat.

I don't know your education, or what you do for a living, but when you start throwing around terminology like hypocrisy, and simplistic, it can all too easily be misinterpreted.

that's all.

j-mac

Tucker Case · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

j-mac said:
Well, I don't know what you meant, I'd have to know your heart to know that, and I think that is impossible for anyone to know about someone else. However, I do know that on boards like these, your purely cerebral explanation as to why you use some of the phrasing like you do, can, and does very easily fall flat.

I don't know your education, or what you do for a living, but when you start throwing around terminology like hypocrisy, and simplistic, it can all too easily be misinterpreted.

that's all.

j-mac

I cannot control how others perceive my statements, but I know of no other efficient way to discuss the hypocriocy inhrent within an argument or the simplicity of the "black and white" perspective that is presented in a false diochotomy without using those terms.

If such an instance where offense is taken, such as this instance with you, I try to explain my use of these terms, which are entirely based on the arguments presented, not some sort of personal animosity. I can't help it if these explanations ring hollow to you, because I cannot control your perceptions. All I can do is respond with honesty. If the honest answer is not accepted, then I am unfortunately unable to present anything else to explain the situation.

As I mentioned, I have called my own positions hypocritical in the past. So even if my explanation rings hollow to you, at least they are verifiable: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...owner-rights-nationwide-5.html#post1058829234

Grant · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case;1059007962]A terrorist is a combatant. Combatant status does newgate civilian status. Rhetoric is not combat.

I've never heard of a terrorist described as a "combatant" before but if that's what this guy is, then you'd surely agree he is fair game.

I disagree wit his rhetoric and I agree that it has to stop,

It "has" to stop? Just how are you going to make him stop? He and his supporters would laugh at you before they disembowel you!

or even more important, it has to stop being an effective means of recruiting those who woudl actually carry out these types of actions. I believe martyring him will act in the opposite direction.

But it is an effective means and sooner or later some "brave" Muslim is going to try and kill 300,000 Americans in the way he described, at which point you will again say "This has to stop"! You attempt to appear as though you are taking a strong stand but this is what you probably meant by "rhetoric", another word about which you only have casual acquaintance.

And martyring him? We have as many bullets as they have potential martyrs. Not as many of them are wanting the possibility of virgins as you might think. I wouldn't proscribe inaction because there might be "martyrs".

I just decribed one of them (moving the goalposts) and your response was "whatever".

You were running all over the place and it was dull and meaningless.

You also equivocate on what a civilian and what a terrorist is.

Another pointless remark. A terrorist is anyone who carries out, supports or advocates terrorism. That will explain it all if you genuinely understand the definition of terrorism, and it is not to be confused with combatism. It is still you who doesn't understand the difference between a terrorist and a combatant. It''s as though English isn't your first language. Say so and I'll cut you some slack.

Tucker Case · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
I've never heard of a terrorist described as a "combatant" before but if that's what this guy is, then you'd surely agree he is fair game.

You never heard the term "unlawful combatants" used in relation to terrorists?

And this guy isn't a combatant. When one actually engages in some sort of violence, they become a combatant. If he was a combatant, I would agree that he would be fair game.

But while he's just a citizen espousing an ideology I disagree with, he is not fair game.

It "has" to stop? Just how are you going to make him stop? He and his supporters would laugh at you before they disembowel you!

It has been explained in my discussion with j-mac.

But it is an effective means and sooner or later some "brave" Muslim is going to try and kill 300,000 Americans in the way he described, at which point you will again say "This has to stop"! You attempt to appear as though you are taking a strong stand but this is what you probably meant by "rhetoric", another word about which you only have casual acquaintance.

I don't think you have really understood my positions thus far. My apologies for failing to portray them in a way that you would understand. I would absolutely support lethal force in a preemptive sense towards a person who was actually attempting to carry out an attack designed to kill 300,000 Americans in the way this guy described.

If someone was gathering the specific materials necessary to carry out the attack, for example, they would become a legitimate military target.

And martyring him? We have as many bullets as they have potential martyrs. Not as many of them are wanting the possibility of virgins as you might think. I wouldn't proscribe inaction because there might be "martyrs".

You seem to think that taking different actions means inaction. That is fallacious.

You were running all over the place and it was dull and meaningless.

That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but it doesn't change the fact that your arguments are fallacious and that this has been pointed out to you. I cannot make you present a logically valid argument, I can only point out the illogical nature of the arguments you have presented. It's ultimately your choice to repair that or accept the illogical nature of your arguments or not.

Another pointless remark. A terrorist is anyone who carries out, supports or advocates terrorism. That will explain it all if you genuinely understand the definition of terrorism, and it is not to be confused with combatism. It is still you who doesn't understand the difference between a terrorist and a combatant.

How can it be a "pointless" comment when you actually prove it to be accurate with your response to it?

It''s as though English isn't your first language. Say so and I'll cut you some slack.

English is my first language. I know the definitions of the words we have been using. It's how I can recognize your equivocations and fallacies.

And what would you need to "cut me some slack" from? It's not like you've actually presented any evidence that I'm using words incorrectly.

Grant · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
Tucker Case said:

You never heard the term "unlawful combatants" used in relation to terrorists?

Click to expand...

Only from their apologists. But whether you want to call him a combatant or an unlawful combatant, he's still a combatant and thus fair game.

And this guy isn't a combatant. When one actually engages in some sort of violence, they become a combatant. If he was a combatant, I would agree that he would be fair game.

Click to expand...

Ooops. But isn't he encouraging combatism by wanting a 'brave Muslim' to murder 300,000 Americans? It seems in common law those who aid, abet and encourage criminal behaviour, especially on such a grand scale (even if it is just Americans) are also equally guilty of a crime. Have you not heard of this?

But while he's just a citizen espousing an ideology I disagree with, he is not fair game.

Click to expand...

Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is an ideology?

Well at least you give the appearance of some disapprove anyway.

It has been explained in my discussion with j-mac.

Click to expand...

Oh, Thanks. I'll have to follow that more closely.

I don't think you have really understood my positions thus far. My apologies for failing to portray them in a way that you would understand. I would absolutely support lethal force in a preemptive sense towards a person who was actually attempting to carry out an attack designed to kill 300,000 Americans in the way this guy described.

Click to expand...

So we let him continue his search for a brave Muslims and then hope to discover who it might be before he/she kills 300,000 Americans. Is that your plan? You want to catch him/her in the act? I hope they don't think to hide it under a burka or we'll never catch them.

I find this a little risky for some reason. For example, what if we don't catch him with the anthrax and 300,000 Americans die? What's your follow-up plan?

If someone was gathering the specific materials necessary to carry out the attack, for example, they would become a legitimate military target.

Click to expand...

If we find him, or her. Do you think that will be easy? You seems to be making up some very strict rules for the Americans that the unlawful combatants don't have to follow at all. Is that fair?

You seem to think that taking different actions means inaction. That is fallacious.

Click to expand...

But you want to wait until a combatant has enough anthrax to kill 300,000 Americans and then they should make their move, right? I think I've sufficiently outlined the flaws in this plan.

That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it

Click to expand...

Thanks

but it doesn't change the fact that your arguments are fallacious and that this has been pointed out to you. I cannot make you present a logically valid argument, I can only point out the illogical nature of the arguments you have presented. It's ultimately your choice to repair that or accept the illogical nature of your arguments or not.

Click to expand...

Gee, I want to say "whatever" again but I'll just accept what you said.

How can it be a "pointless" comment when you actually prove it to be accurate with your response to it?

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're responding to the right post??

English is my first language. I know the definitions of the words we have been using. It's how I can recognize your equivocations and fallacies.

Click to expand...

Okay. Thanks for that.

And what would you need to "cut me some slack" from? It's not like you've actually presented any evidence that I'm using words incorrectly.

Click to expand...

No, of course not. Words can mean exactly what you want them to mean. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tucker Case · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
Only from their apologists.

President Bush was one of their "apologists"?

But whether you want to call him a combatant or an unlawful combatant, he's still a combatant and thus fair game.

He isn't a combatant.

Ooops. But isn't he encouraging combatism by wanting a 'brave Muslim' to murder 300,000 Americans? It seems in common law those who aid, abet and encourage criminal behaviour, especially on such a grand scale (even if it is just Americans) are also equally guilty of a crime. Have you not heard of this?

Guilty of a crime =/= terrorism. Terrorism has a specific definition.

Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is an ideology?

Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is a goal realted to an ideology.

Oh, Thanks. I'll have to follow that more closely.

No problem.

So we let him continue his search for a brave Muslims and then hope to discover who it might be before he/she kills 300,000 Americans. Is that your plan? You want to catch him/her in the act? I hope they don't think to hide it under a burka or we'll never catch them.

We can negate the effectiveness of his rhetoric by incorporating counter-measures. As far as catching terrorists prior to an attack happening, there is ample evidence to suggest this is possible.

I find this a little risky for some reason. For example, what if we don't catch him with the anthrax and 300,000 Americans die? What's your follow-up plan?

It seems as though you think killing the professor in will magically prevent anyone form carrying out such an attack. I don't think that there is any reason to assume this is true. Even if this professor is dead, the things I'm talking about must occur to try and prevent such an attack because there is the video of the speech that we are discussing. Him being dead cannot possibly prevent anything.

What's very risky, IMO is assuming that killing him would magically prevent someone from carrying out the type of attacks he described. It's veryrisky to treat killing him as though it is a preventative measure because it lets the guard down after such a fruitless action is engaged in.

If we find him, or her. Do you think that will be easy?

rof It isn't going to be any easier with him dead.

You seems to be making up some very strict rules for the Americans that the unlawful combatants don't have to follow at all.

I'm not making them up. And the reason they are called "unlawful"combatants is pretty much because they don't follow the same types of rules.

Is that fair?

What could fairness possibly have to do with it?

But you want to wait until a combatant has enough anthrax to kill 300,000 Americans and then they should make their move, right?

No. they don't even have to get it. The attempt to get anthrax at any quantity alone is enough.

I think I've sufficiently outlined the flaws in this plan.

You haven't outlined any flaws at all. You've comitted quite a few, though.

Thanks

No need to thank me for stating that which is obvious.

Are you sure you're responding to the right post??

Quite sure.

No, of course not. Words can mean exactly what you want them to mean. Nothing more and nothing less.

Words mean what they are defined to mean. Perhaps the fact that you think you can have them mean whatever you would like them to mean is why your argumetns have so many equivocations.

ptif219 · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

TheNextEra said:
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.

Just like Pearl Harbor

ric27 · Sep 27, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

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

Ummm....Our motivation for area and firebombing? Sure, why not...

1- We took the war to the people of Japan to cripple, the industrial capacity of the Japanese to wage war...not because, we wanted to personally incinerate 800,000 Japanese civilians. We have to be very clear and serious about this

2- We tried to use the same tactics against Japan as the AAF did against Germany...namely daylight precision bombing against industrial and transportation type targets. This was the doctrine espoused by the ACTS and pretty much was the accepted doctrine of the AAF during the majority of WWII.

But due to a number of issues, including weather, altitude and the jet stream, precision bombing was mostly unsuccessful, the US noted some key differences between Japan and Germany. While Japan did have "industrial" sections of cities, generally speaking, the Japanese had less separation and zoning of residential, commercial and industrial sectors than European cities. In addition, the Japanese had done a pretty good job of dispersing much of their industrial capabilities into the urban sections of cities. Finally, the construction of Japanese cities was much more flammable and susceptible to firebombing....and lastly

3 - Civ deaths have occurred when the enemy deliberately places military equipment/troop/hardware among civilians so as to produce the civilian casualties.

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?

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.

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.

1- I don't know about you, but I am an advocate of pre-emptive operations in the right circumstances. A dead jihadi is a good jihadi. He won't kill civilians or our troops or set off anymore bombs, and (if he's correct, which I don't believe) he's in heaven with his 72 virgins. Sounds like a win/win result to me.

2- IMO, we should have gone to a war footing after the 93 bombing at the very latest. The very idea that we are going to arrest and try these assholes is ridiculous beyond all belief. Locking these sons of bitches up is a complete waste of time. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood's history in Egyptian jails. 10-15-20-25 years doesn't even phase them...

3 Again, it is a marksmanship issue, there should never be any such thing as a "wounded" tango. Shoot them right the first time and you don't have to worry about shooting them again.

Tucker Case · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

ric27 said:
Ummm....Our motivation for area and firebombing? Sure, why not...

1- We took the war to the people of Japan to cripple, the industrial capacity of the Japanese to wage war...not because, we wanted to personally incinerate 800,000 Japanese civilians. We have to be very clear and serious about this

2- We tried to use the same tactics against Japan as the AAF did against Germany...namely daylight precision bombing against industrial and transportation type targets. This was the doctrine espoused by the ACTS and pretty much was the accepted doctrine of the AAF during the majority of WWII.

But due to a number of issues, including weather, altitude and the jet stream, precision bombing was mostly unsuccessful, the US noted some key differences between Japan and Germany. While Japan did have "industrial" sections of cities, generally speaking, the Japanese had less separation and zoning of residential, commercial and industrial sectors than European cities. In addition, the Japanese had done a pretty good job of dispersing much of their industrial capabilities into the urban sections of cities. Finally, the construction of Japanese cities was much more flammable and susceptible to firebombing....and lastly

3 - Civ deaths have occurred when the enemy deliberately places military equipment/troop/hardware among civilians so as to produce the civilian casualties.

Then that makes your statement of "I would never 'off' an "innocent" especially kids. Thats the difference " absolutely false. :shrug:

1- I don't know about you, but I am an advocate of pre-emptive operations in the right circumstances. A dead jihadi is a good jihadi. He won't kill civilians or our troops or set off anymore bombs, and (if he's correct, which I don't believe) he's in heaven with his 72 virgins. Sounds like a win/win result to me.

2- IMO, we should have gone to a war footing after the 93 bombing at the very latest. The very idea that we are going to arrest and try these assholes is ridiculous beyond all belief. Locking these sons of bitches up is a complete waste of time. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood's history in Egyptian jails. 10-15-20-25 years doesn't even phase them...

3 Again, it is a marksmanship issue, there should never be any such thing as a "wounded" tango. Shoot them right the first time and you don't have to worry about shooting them again.

This is interesting and all, but it doesn't really address what was beign talked about with my post.

Grant · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
President Bush was one of their "apologists"?

On occasion, certainly.

He isn't a combatant.

Click to expand...

Of course he is. He's a recruiter. He serves a function in terrorism just as the moneymen or their Imam issuing Fatwas. You don't actually have to be the person placing the bomb under the bus seat or the one shooting a little girl though the head, or the ones spraying bullets through an airport lounge in order to e involved in terrorism. There is no reason why the American people, or anyone, should allow him to continue his search for that 'one brave Muslim' who will kill 300,000 Americans.

In any war you have to changing tactics according to the terrain, and not making those changes have usually spelled defeat. The Western Democracies therefore have to begin using terrorist tactics and begin issuing fatwas of their own.

They can put a reward of $1 million on this guys head, for example, and anyone else who makes threats to the American people. The British, French, Dutch, Canadians, Australians and anyone else can do the same. Fatwas don't just have to work in one direction. Of course the push against Al-`Qaeda and any terrorist organization would continue. But eliminating the preachers of hate would go a long way in bringing down the recruitment program.

Guilty of a crime =/= terrorism. Terrorism has a specific definition.

Click to expand...

Crime has specific definitions. One of them is called aiding and abetting. Masterminding the crime is another. There are many levels of involvement.

Wanting to murder 300,000 Americans is a goal realted to an ideology.

Click to expand...

Right, and not an ideology in itself as you previously stated. This ideology must be stopped as well as the consequent murdering of innocent people.

We can negate the effectiveness of his rhetoric by incorporating counter-measures. As far as catching terrorists prior to an attack happening, there is ample evidence to suggest this is possible.

Click to expand...

Certainly it is possible, but I want more assurance that "it is possible" to stop them if my family was being threatened. If they were actually carry out these mass killings what do you think would happen next?

The West has become so disgustingly weak.

A formerly unknown preacher from Florida becomes internationally famous for threatening to burn pages of the Koran. he gets a phone call from the US President, military heads, and even movies stars. He is vilified to the point where they called in the mortgage to his Church, cut off his Internet page and made him a non person.

Meanwhile, a Muslim who wants to kill 300,000 Americans, not just burn the Bible, gets no attention at all. In fact you claim, and there are many like you, who say he is not a terrorist, he is a combatant, unlawful combatant, etc. hoping to find the right euphemism that will make this guy appear as non threatening as possible and reminding others to watch over his legal rights, while the rights of the preacher in Florida have been trampled upon. First Amendment figuratively set ablaze.

It seems as though you think killing the professor in will magically prevent anyone form carrying out such an attack.

Click to expand...

Forget the "it seems" silliness and go with what I say. This is old left wing response is always used when they are stuck for any meaningful response, which is why I often have to ask them for quotes.

I don't think that there is any reason to assume this is true. Even if this professor is dead, the things I'm talking about must occur to try and prevent such an attack because there is the video of the speech that we are discussing. Him being dead cannot possibly prevent anything.

Click to expand...

I'm saying we issue a fataw on all those who advocate violence against the West. $1 Million a pop. That should slow down the recruitment process a great deal.

What's very risky, IMO is assuming that killing him would magically prevent someone from carrying out the type of attacks he described. It's veryrisky to treat killing him as though it is a preventative measure because it lets the guard down after such a fruitless action is engaged in.

Click to expand...

This is war and of course it is risky. But relying on the good will of terrorists with hopes of appeasing them somehow only makes you appear more weak and leads to them becoming more bold.

It isn't going to be any easier with him dead.

Click to expand...

It won't just be him. Just as they concentrating on the Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan, rather than killing a lot of innocent people, so should we concentrate on these recruiters, and anyone who makes similar threats..

I'm not making them up. And the reason they are called "unlawful"combatants is pretty much because they don't follow the same types of rules.

Click to expand...

Well you can continue your struggle to find the right euphemism while these guys are planning on the murders of hundreds of thousands of people. You'll be on the back lines of defense, just as are most Lefties. continuing to seek out words that will cause terrorists as little offense as possible.

What could fairness possibly have to do with it?

Click to expand...

Do you think that fighting fire with fire is fair? That if the West adopts the tactics of the Islamic terrorists you'd be cool with that?

No. they don't even have to get it. The attempt to get anthrax at any quantity alone is enough.

Click to expand...

And it's at that point that you hope to catch them? But according to you they are still "non combatants" They haven't really done anything yet. Only when they are caught dumping the stuff, as described in the instructions in the video, can they be held accountable. Right?

Tucker Case · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
The Western Democracies therefore have to begin using terrorist tactics and begin issuing fatwas of their own.

Then I was right and you do support terrorism. Thank you for at least admitting it.

ric27 · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
Then that makes your statement of "I would never 'off' an "innocent" especially kids. Thats the difference " absolutely false. :shrug:

Hmmmm......Only one problem with your "reasoned" approach. There are almost no innocents other than small children. 99% of the population may not actively attack us, but they won't help us because we're infidels and the terrorist are muslim. That's just the way it is.

I say, if you sleep with the dogs, you wake up with fleas. If they want to support the terrorists, actively or passively, then they deserve what happens. I'm in favor of a 5000 degree response. Teach them what a real crispy critter is.

This is interesting and all, but it doesn't really address what was beign talked about with my post.

Take a step back. Terrorists have figured out the rules better than we have. As long as play by the "rules", their tactic will win. We cannot defeat this mindset unless we change the rules by which we play.

Now, take a look at history. How long has it taken them to come to this mindset? A generation. They weren't blowing themselves up in 1948. They weren't blowing themselves up in the 60's. It wasn't really until the '80s that intentionally suicidal tactics started to appear. I haven't done any kind of a historical search, but I'm thinking of the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut. While the Battle of Mogadishu wasn't deliberately "suicidal", they didn't really care about the casualties they took.

So if you look at the timeline, that is how long it has taken to get to this "worship of death". The question is, how widespread will it get? Mothers having children just to be suicide killers seems to be limited mainly to Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. When you see it being widely taught in the other Muslim countries, then we'll know that the problem is REALLY big. I don't think that is the case however.

I don't think you'll see a shift in our rules until the attacks start happening in the US on a regular basis. Right now, the pacifist left can continue their misguided rhetoric that if we only pulled out of the ME, if we only stopped our support of Israel, we wouldn't have a problem. Until there is no longer any physical avenue of retreat, the national mindset can't be changed.

It will probably be another 8-14 years before we start to see suicide attacks in the US, increasing until they are occurring on a regular basis. It will be 25 years before the national mindset will change to the point that collateral damages merit a shrug or less.

Tucker Case · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

ric27 said:
Hmmmm......Only one problem with your "reasoned" approach. There are almost no innocents other than small children. 99% of the population may not actively attack us, but they won't help us because we're infidels and the terrorist are muslim. That's just the way it is.

So, using your logic from before, you would therefore be OK with offing 99% of their population as long as it doesn't involve the small children? Is that correct?

Grant · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
Then I was right and you do support terrorism. Thank you for at least admitting it.

You still don't understand the meaning of terrorism, do you?

Please look it up in the dictionary before you contribute any further posts on the subject.

Tucker Case · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
You still don't understand the meaning of terrorism, do you?

Please look it up in the dictionary before you contribute any further posts on the subject.

Please look up the definition of "terrorist tactics" before you pretend that I don't know the definition.

Grant · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

It will probably be another 8-14 years before we start to see suicide attacks in the US, increasing until they are occurring on a regular basis. It will be 25 years before the national mindset will change to the point that collateral damages merit a shrug or less.

Another excellent post but I'm not sure iit will take that long to respond once the real war begins, with another mini 9/11 setting it off.

What will save the American people is their Second Amendment, a right Europeans lack but one they might soon hope they had. Unless the "moderates" respond to the terrorism in their midst they will be considered byy many as part of the problem, and then all Hell will break loose.

MKULTRABOY · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I thought the apocalyptic NRA stuff was funny, but this.....

Grant · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

SE102 said:
I thought the apocalyptic NRA stuff was funny, but this.....

Perhaps it is apocalyptic. Who can say? It is certainly one scenario.

Do you feel Islamism will just die down, that they will soon come to their senses and that if we offer them some sensitivity and understanding it will all just go away?

Tucker Case · Sep 28, 2010

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
Perhaps it is apocalyptic. Who can say? It is certainly one scenario.

Do you feel Islamism will just die down, that they will soon come to their senses and that if we offer them some sensitivity and understanding it will all just go away?

Why do you continue to present it as though the only options available are two equally asinine choices?

Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

j-mac

Grant

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

j-mac

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

j-mac

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Grant

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Grant

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

ptif219

ric27

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Grant

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

ric27

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Grant

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Grant

MKULTRABOY

Grant

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3