mattyrm wrote:This thread has dissolved into 4 people endlessly trying to one up each other
That's what debate is. If we all just agreed with each other this would be a boring world. You make it sound like acting like a person knows something is something to be ashamed of, or at the very least hidden as not to appear to be trying to "one up each other".
Yeah, see, thats my point, an actual debate is cool (er... this one about a mosque?) but picking apart semantics after people make off hand comments like so many internet based forum chislers do is exactly that.. boring.
And i didnt "make it sounds like knowing something is something to be ashamed of or at the very least hidden" your doing THAT (see above) again
mattyrm wrote:Im a soldier not the leader of the penniless scholars debate team...
But... seriously, off hand comments get quoted needlessly and endlessly picked over and its proper boring me, alb and ahts "debate" was just..
Yeah.. it needed putting down, ive seen real debates, they are cooler than the last two.
Thats not a real debate. A real debate upon something with at least a modicum of merit, can be quite interesting. Debate's arguing esoterics are indeed as indeed as interesting as watching snails walk.
"the penniless scholar's debate team" ????
condescend much mr. soldier?
Well I guess we can't all train to shoot people for a living Mattrym, so maybe us weak little civilians should all just shut up unless we go and learn to use a gun to defend our right to speak. Either that or we could just debate our way of debating?
I would personally prefer neither, and I find the topic of religious intolerance very interesting to discuss and appreciate reading other peoples opinions about it. The personal attacks I scroll past and this is the first time I have bothered to respond to one because I took personal offense, being a "penniless scholar" myself.
I am proud of the fact that I don't have to follow orders to shoot someone, but instead struggle to get by in more creative ways. So in short... What you said was just mean and condescending. How does it feel when someone singles out your preferred supposed profession of being a 'soldier' and uses it condescendingly? Wait, you aren't under orders to answer that.
From now on, I'm back on topic... sorry guys just had to vent.
mattyrm wrote:Im a soldier not the leader of the penniless scholars debate team...
I'm not sure comparing an adult professional job to a High School or College team is a fair comparison. How about "I'm a soldier, not the leader of Britain." Really almost the leader of any major country will do. If going to far the other way seems a bit much how about "I'm a soldier, not a lawyer".
1. Nothing on this board could or should ever be interpreted as a proper debate.
2. I've not heard a proper debate, in a scholastic or largely legal context, devolve down into the semantics commonly argued on this board. As noted, that may be the case in some circles, but not the political debates I've seen (not politicians but politics).
3. I think Matty's fomenting about the arguing of minor word usage occurring now.
Frazzled wrote:
2. I've not heard a proper debate, in a scholastic or largely legal context, devolve down into the semantics commonly argued on this board. As noted, that may be the case in some circles, but not the political debates I've seen (not politicians but politics).
Generally proper debates have a sort of self-selection system whereby the participants already agree on the nature of the topic, or agree to accept a sort of fundamental premise. Compare this to say, this forum, in which the qualitative nature of something like socialism has to be argued over, or controlled for, ad nauseum.
Good point and point taken. I was not aware he was kidding. Sorry Matt. (and I had just promised to stay on topic not ten minutes ago). I lied.
Someone stated a few posts back that allowing a mosque would just be one step foreward on a long stairway. While I agree that this abstraction is true, also it can be turned around. By that same allegory, denying the mosque just increases the distance we have to climb. It is after all, just one mosque. Extremists don't need a mosque in order to congregate and make their hateful plans, but they will have yet another excuse to blow up a building that is built on the site where they wanted the mosque. When that happens, all those angry locals will be eating their words and I will be back here in nowhereland shaking my head and thinking "I told you so..."
...it's also not AT Ground Zero, but down the road from it. I'm willing to bet that there's a Starbuck's even closer, but 'STARBUCK'S BUILT AT GROUND ZERO' isn't as exciting a headline.
Guitardian wrote:Extremists don't need a mosque in order to congregate and make their hateful plans, but they will have yet another excuse to blow up a building that is built on the site where they wanted the mosque. When that happens, all those angry locals will be eating their words and I will be back here in nowhereland shaking my head and thinking "I told you so..."
Funny how stairs work. Islamic Extremists blow up a building and a mosque gets built. Looks like someone got what they wanted
Appeasement is no way to solve a problem. If the only argument for building the mosque is "The Terrorists might blow something up if we don't" then you've just let them win. Seriously. That's the whole point of terrorism.
The only issues at hand is: Does the law say they can't build a mosque? No? Okay then. Problem solved lets get lunch
There's no need to complicate the construction of a building into some massive issue.
Albatross wrote:Guitardian, I think Matty might have been kidding...
At best he was half-hearted in his jest. Having read words and sentences he has written before he tends to have a touch of anti-academic attitude about these things.
LordofHats wrote:Islamic Extremists blow up a building and a mosque gets built. Looks like someone got what they wanted
Do you not really know what Al Quaeda wants? It certainly isn't an inter-faith center and mosque populated by patriotic American Muslims.
If the Islamics want a Mosque and there's room to build it, why not let them? Yes it is, argueably bowing to the terrorists demands as just pointed out. I would say however, while that is a side effect, really it comes down to people being free and all under the same law. The standard we claim to hold ourselves to.
Ahtman wrote:Do you not really know what Al Quaeda wants? It certainly isn't an inter-faith center and mosque populated by patriotic American Muslims.
Does everyone miss the point? The point was that "Because Al-Qaeda might blow something up" isn't an excuse to build a mosque, or an excuse to build anything for that matter. Whether or not they want us to build a mosque isn't the issue.
Do people even read the entire posts or do they just nit pick the first sentence with sarcasm in it?
really it comes down to people being free and all under the same law. The standard we claim to hold ourselves to.
We build rifles, tanks, and planes in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from blowing things up. Indeed, the TSA is a whole organization founded on the premise that, if it didn't exist, Al-Qaeda would blow something up.
dogma wrote:We build rifles, tanks, and planes in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from blowing things up. Indeed, the TSA is a whole organization founded on the premise that, if it didn't exist, Al-Qaeda would blow something up.
There's a difference. One is arming yourself for your own defense. The other is akin to appeasement, arguing that by giving someone who might commit violent acts something they want that they somehow won't act violently anymore or will act less violently.
You're absolutely right, Terrorists are going to blow stuff up anyway. To act like one Mosque is going to play a role in stopping that is ridiculous. It's not the actual argument I'm opposed to it's the idea that drove it. As Ahtman already pointed out, many Muslims in the US are very fond of being here. Arguing that the mosque will somehow help the war on terror is the thing I'm opposing. It's ridiculous. Guns help kill terrorists. A single Mosque in the big apple doesn't do anything whatsoever to help or solve the problem.
No one, but perhaps you, have brought that up as a reason to build it.
Go back and read Guitardian's second to last post. Maybe I misread it.
LordofHats wrote:
There's a difference. One is arming yourself for your own defense. The other is akin to appeasement, arguing that by giving someone who might commit violent acts something they want that they somehow won't act violently anymore or will act less violently.
Was it bad to appease the people involved in the Civil Rights Movement by overturning Jim Crow laws, and granting black people the franchise?
Sure, there is no guarantee that giving in to someone's demand will end their violent tendencies, but it has worked in the past and will certainly work in the future.
LordofHats wrote:
You're absolutely right, Terrorists are going to blow stuff up anyway. To act like one Mosque is going to play a role in stopping that is ridiculous. It's not the actual argument I'm opposed to it's the idea that drove it. As Ahtman already pointed out, many Muslims in the US are very fond of being here. Arguing that the mosque will somehow help the war on terror is the thing I'm opposing. It's ridiculous. Guns help kill terrorists. A Mosque doesn't do anything whatsoever to help or solve the problem.
Clearly, and I'm not disputing that. I'm more interested in the parallel notion that appeasement is automatically bad. To my mind any action which averts, or ends, violence should be considered positive.
dogma wrote:Was it bad to appease the people involved in the Civil Rights Movement by overturning Jim Crow laws, and granting black people the franchise?
The Civil Rights Movement wasn't flying planes into buildings now was it? I don't think they were demanding death to the infidels and that everyone become black either.
Sure, there is no guarantee that giving in to someone's demand will end their violent tendencies, but it has worked in the past and will certainly work in the future.
The problem is that appeasements effects are something you can only see for certain in hindsight. In determining whether or not to use it, you need to look at the specific issue, and decide whether or not it can help. The issue of Islamic Extremism won't be solved by appeasement. Appeasement is exactly what they want, and their demands are pretty high.
dogma wrote:I'm more interested in the parallel notion that appeasement is automatically bad. To my mind any action which averts, or ends, violence should be considered positive.
I don't think appeasement is automatically bad. In this particular context I think it doesn't get us anywhere. I was attempting to point out flawed reasoning in Guitardian's post; That building the mosque will somehow change the situation concerning Extremists. I wasn't make a blanket statement about all appeasement. Granted, I look back and I see I made one (Maybe two) so maybe that's where this issue is coming from XD. The way those sentences read weren't my intention. He's already reached the conclusion I was trying to push him too. That issues like this mosque should be solved by law not by the fear that Al-Qaeda might blow something up or not.
LordofHats wrote:
The Civil Rights Movement wasn't flying planes into buildings now was it?
No, but it does show us that appeasement isn't intrinsically bad, which is what I took from your comment. If that's not what you intended, then I apologize.
LordofHats wrote:
Appeasement is exactly what they want, and their demands are pretty high.
Doesn't everyone want appeasement? I mean, it would appease me if I had a slice of Bacci's pizza right now, it would go well with the Coors Light in my hand, but no one has thus far been willing to appease me.
LordofHats wrote:
I don't think appeasement is automatically bad. In this particular context I think it doesn't get us anywhere. I was attempting to point out flawed reasoning in Guitardian's post; That building the mosque will somehow change the situation concerning Extremists. I wasn't make a blanket statement about all appeasement. Granted, I look back and I see I made one (Maybe two) so maybe that's where this issue is coming from XD. He's already reached the conclusion I was trying to push him too. That issues like this mosque should be solved by law not by the fear that Al-Qaeda might blow something up.
Alright, we agree then. Now go get me some Bacci's pizza!
Ah, well as I said to my brother today, it's different if the beer is on offer.
I drank something like 8 pints of that stuff in college when they were giving it away for free in a promotion. Worst hangover I had had at that point.
dogma wrote:Generally proper debates have a sort of self-selection system whereby the participants already agree on the nature of the topic, or agree to accept a sort of fundamental premise. Compare this to say, this forum, in which the qualitative nature of something like socialism has to be argued over, or controlled for, ad nauseum.
The issue, really, is in the expectations of the greater group. In most settings there comes a point where the facts are all given and the conclusion is clear, and the people who argued otherwise need to concede the point or modify their claim.
When that point is reached people tend to do one of two things. Sometimes they disappear from the conversation and return later to repeat the same old argument (sometimes they even claim they 'won' last time ). Sometimes they try and drag the argument away from the position they can't defend any longer, by trying to make jokes or making personal attacks.
In the real world debate generally isn't that great, but at least there's natural limits on some of the above - you can't just physically dissappear from a debate when you realise you can't hold your position, and you tend to be arguing with people you actually know so it's much harder to make personal attacks. So on-line the expectations of the community need to be that much higher... Dakka, like most places, puts no expectation on the quality of debate. Unsurprisingly, we get poor debate as a result.
That said, I think this thread's been alright. There were a couple of crazies at the start, but they disappeared when it became obvious they couldn't defend their crazy.
dogma wrote:We build rifles, tanks, and planes in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from blowing things up. Indeed, the TSA is a whole organization founded on the premise that, if it didn't exist, Al-Qaeda would blow something up.
There's a difference. One is arming yourself for your own defense. The other is akin to appeasement, arguing that by giving someone who might commit violent acts something they want that they somehow won't act violently anymore or will act less violently.
You're absolutely right, Terrorists are going to blow stuff up anyway. To act like one Mosque is going to play a role in stopping that is ridiculous. It's not the actual argument I'm opposed to it's the idea that drove it. As Ahtman already pointed out, many Muslims in the US are very fond of being here. Arguing that the mosque will somehow help the war on terror is the thing I'm opposing. It's ridiculous. Guns help kill terrorists. A single Mosque in the big apple doesn't do anything whatsoever to help or solve the problem.
No one, but perhaps you, have brought that up as a reason to build it.
Go back and read Guitardian's second to last post. Maybe I misread it.
Yes in fact. Sorry if I was obtuse. The point of having it is not for appeasment, but the point of NOT having it is a reflection of our societal values and the moral pedestal we pretend to stand upon. Having it makes no difference whatsoever. Deliberately banning it crosses every line of religious intolerance and just makes the wound fester into the next big thing, makes us all look like hippocrites to the muslim world, and encourages more hate.
Yeah I was kidding if it wasn't obvious. I was talking to dogma, and being as spending any time on dakka makes you aware of peoples life story right down to moms shoe size, I'm well aware he works in a gym and earns good money. I was merely poking fun at how long people spend picking apart other peoples posts, in that, if you are a student you tend to go on the ale lots unless you were poor at which point you might spend 4 hours on here instead. there's also the point that there is no penniless debate team?
A single Mosque in the big apple doesn't do anything whatsoever to help or solve the problem.
I dunno, I think it does more than you're allowing for.
Now, all of this assumes that the intentions on all sides are good. I worry how the mosque might be viewed by our enemies. I pretty much assume that the supporters in government are in no way wise, but exactly the sort of pandering opportunists that many assume.
But, that's life. At the end of the day, if we're going to seriously engage and defeat radical Islam, it's going to require us to get involved, make friends, build relationships, establish trust.
Somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan, there's an M-16 that a supply convoy driver has been carrying around, and has never fired in anger, and probably never will. This gun is not going to kill any terrorists.
BUT, a large mosque in NYC, with leadership that wants to help combat terrorism, has a ton of potential to provide intelligence, to provide an integration point at which Muslim immigrants can feel at home in their old traditions, but also learn to love America.
Put it this way: If one Arabic speaker attends that mosque and takes it as a reason to join the US military, that single event ALONE will be worth more than a hundred rifles laying around because nobody knows where to point them.
Baby steps. We cant get away from the fact that some people are uneducated, angry, and vengeful. What we can do is show that they don't have to hate us to get into lala land or whatever it is they want to go to with the 77 virgins and such. Yeah... that's a realistic goal to blow yourselves up for right? It would be much better if people weren't so dumb as to buy into religion in the first place, but, like I said, baby steps. The mosque is a baby step. Educating the fanatically uneducated that they don't need to be a playground bully that causes others to live in fear, they can play nice too...may take a while but every little bit can help.
Ahtman wrote:Do you not really know what Al Quaeda wants? It certainly isn't an inter-faith center and mosque populated by patriotic American Muslims.
Does everyone miss the point? The point was that "Because Al-Qaeda might blow something up" isn't an excuse to build a mosque, or an excuse to build anything for that matter. Whether or not they want us to build a mosque isn't the issue.
Do people even read the entire posts or do they just nit pick the first sentence with sarcasm in it?
really it comes down to people being free and all under the same law. The standard we claim to hold ourselves to.
There you go Now you're getting it.
Yes others get your point. Its just that arguing this topic on a board fundamentally about toy soldiers could be viewed as misplaced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:Dude, Coors Light? That's just helping the damn terrorists.
Guitardian wrote:We cant get away from the fact that some people are uneducated, angry, and vengeful.
many of the people that want to harm the West are rather well educated. Hating hypocrisy, greed, and outside political/military interference isn't a sign of being uneducated.
Your statement suggests that everything the West does in regards to the Middle East has been above board, appropriate, helpful and intelligent. Far from it...
As for Anger and vengeance: I think the West has a controlling share in those two concepts to be sure...
I haven't read the whole thread, and maybe this has been mentioned already, but once the Daily Show pointed out that there is already a Mosque six blocks from Ground Zero, and that said Mosque has been there for decades, I think this whole argument passed from "Stupid" to "My God, The Stupidity!" As in Hindenburg levels of stupidity.
Also, I think anyone who uses the "They don't have religious tolerance in some Muslim countries, therefore we shouldn't be tolerant in the US" argument needs to STFU and GTFO out of my country. How's that for some intolerance.
As for Anger and vengeance: I think the West has a controlling share in those two concepts to be sure...
I've noticed that you have a pattern of posting cliched anti-Western comments of this sort. Are you a college sophmore?
Regardless, I think you mistake lack of opportunity for morality.
The nations of the middle east don't take "revenge" on the West because they can't, not because they're too noble to do so.
The fact is, the "West" exhibits some of the most morally advanced and altruistic behavior in human history. That's not exactly saying a LOT, as the competition isn't all that stiff, but it's true nonetheless.
You're certainly not wrong to criticize the "West" for deeds of the past, but to suggest that we're inferior morally to places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. is ridiculous.
Put simply, we can certainly do better. But we're still the best.
Phryxis wrote:The nations of the middle east don't take "revenge" on the West because they can't, not because they're too noble to do so.
That and it isn't really in their best interest to outright seek our destruction. The big strength of the Middle East has always been monopoly. Throughout history, that region of the world has found itself in control of monopolies of varying degrees. Just like the silk road and spice trade, without the economic strength of the West, what will they ever do with all that oil? Just because you're in the third/developing world doesn't mean your political leaders can't notice the obvious.
I thought it had to do with not wanting to pick a fight with the guy with the nukes. Only the insane/brainwashed ones want to do that. Everybody else in world politics it seems just wants to stay in power, make a name for theirself in a good way (and all the trappings of power that are kind of an added perk) , and do their best to avoid "operation shock and awe" happening to them.
Well, right, when I say "can't" I mean, "can't given the normal human instinct for self preservation."
There are various third world states that could get off a pretty vicious attack on us. Syria has chemical weapons. Pakistan has nukes. The DPRK has nukes. Iran will eventually have nukes. Even nations without WMDs could potentially do us a lot of harm.
But, if you ever make the mistake of being a state sponsor of violence against the US, you can be sure that the payback is coming, and virtually all states, even ones as seemingly nutty as Iran or DPRK, are not going to take on that sort of repercussion.
Phryxis wrote:Well, right, when I say "can't" I mean, "can't given the normal human instinct for self preservation."
There are various third world states that could get off a pretty vicious attack on us. Syria has chemical weapons. Pakistan has nukes. The DPRK has nukes. Iran will eventually have nukes. Even nations without WMDs could potentially do us a lot of harm.
But, if you ever make the mistake of being a state sponsor of violence against the US, you can be sure that the payback is coming, and virtually all states, even ones as seemingly nutty as Iran or DPRK, are not going to take on that sort of repercussion.
Iran is supplying militants killing US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. they are still around. Thats where Bush ed up.
I think thats a passive aggressive way of saying "get out or we will keep on killing you" Something the American public continue to have a hard time justifying. If you pull out, you have the emotional war families thinking their brave children died in vain, if you don't more will die. We wouldn't let some other country police our streets we would call to arms and every milita and gun owner here would be out wanting to kill the foreign occupants who were trying to enforce their rules, in a second, if something like that happened. Maybe it's just a way of saying "get off my lawn".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Part of the problem is that we have such a high reverance for our soldiers doing their duty, when behind the scenes, a lot of the soldiers don't have reverance for what they do. Nobody is allowed to say "this is just dumb, leave it alone" without dissing the memory and sacrifice of those lost. Nobody can tell if maybe the middle eastern terrorists would just let off with crazybombers if we just leave. If we aren't there any more, who will they have left to suicide bomb but themselves? Whose roads would they line with bombs but their own? Sounds fine to me. Blow yourselves up, I just want our budget and taxes spent on a worthless effort that essentially comes down to Alexander Kerensky's policy for Russia during WWI... something along the lines of "we have already sacrificed so many, we have to commit more so that their sacrifices wont be in vain" kind of idea. Yeah... fething brilliant.
Guitardian wrote:I think thats a passive aggressive way of saying "get out or we will keep on killing you" Something the American public continue to have a hard time justifying. If you pull out, you have the emotional war families thinking their brave children died in vain, if you don't more will die. We wouldn't let some other country police our streets we would call to arms and every milita and gun owner here would be out wanting to kill the foreign occupants who were trying to enforce their rules, in a second, if something like that happened. Maybe it's just a way of saying "get off my lawn".
None of that has anything to do with Iran arming militants in other countries, nor is it accurate. The shiites in Iraq were oppressed by the ruling Iraqi regime prior to the war.
The vast majority of the Taliban are as foreign as the US troops there.
Wow an American telling somebody from another country how to do something or think. Who would have thought. Why can't you accept other peoples thoughts, name me a country with Islam as it's main religion that treats its people as well as the West.
Don't get me wrong, the group that planned and attacked the US on 9/11 were a group of criminals that should be hunted down and punished for what they did. But to I blame and wish to rob other innocent people of their human rights no. I lost two close friends of mine that I served with when the Pentagon was attacked and I am still not running around 9 years later screaming that the sky is falling because a Mosque being built. No. But your POV is your own POV and you have the right to voice it. However, do I comment on here on how your government is run or how it treats its citizens no. So before you go on your anti-west, anti-America soap box take a long deep look at yourself and see who is being the true biggot.
As for Anger and vengeance: I think the West has a controlling share in those two concepts to be sure...
I've noticed that you have a pattern of posting cliched anti-Western comments of this sort. Are you a college sophmore?
Regardless, I think you mistake lack of opportunity for morality.
The nations of the middle east don't take "revenge" on the West because they can't, not because they're too noble to do so.
The fact is, the "West" exhibits some of the most morally advanced and altruistic behavior in human history. That's not exactly saying a LOT, as the competition isn't all that stiff, but it's true nonetheless.
You're certainly not wrong to criticize the "West" for deeds of the past, but to suggest that we're inferior morally to places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. is ridiculous.
Put simply, we can certainly do better. But we're still the best.
I'm old enough to have fought in the first gulf war thank you, but good attempt at trolling.
I don't think you have been reading very closely.
I actually stated that the Invasion of Iraq gave extremists an opportunity to fight Americans/Westerners that they would otherwise would not have had and they flocked to Iraq as a result. We created the opportunity and than said "See we told you this place was full of terrorists": self-fullfilling prophecy.
Yes the Western power base exhibits many of the same morally vacuous behaviors as those we deride. To claim otherwise is hypocrisy.
Of course we are unfortunate as Westerners in that the interests of political lobby groups, contractors, big business and certain military/political agendas decide policy and when to pull the trigger and the rest of us are held hostage and taken along for the ride. Westerners in general are not morally inferior, the power base that drags us into any conflict it deems profitable/useful to it's own political/financial agenda certainly are.
Of course they are clever enough to wrap it all in a cover of patriotism, fear mongering, and "Us vs. the other" so that any questioning of what is being done can be dismissed and marginalized.
The West does indeed do great things, but this does not dismiss the bad that it does.
Accepting the flaws and mistakes of leadership and questioning their actions is a right and obligation that goes back to the founding of the U.S.
Blindly accepting that anything your Government does is justified or acceptable is not a core Western principle nor a sign of enlightened thinking, and has far more in common with the extremism we claim to be separating ourselves from.
Frazzled wrote:
None of that has anything to do with Iran arming militants in other countries, nor is it accurate. The shiites in Iraq were oppressed by the ruling Iraqi regime prior to the war.
Wrong. Saddam's regime was secular. There was no bias regarding religiosity. The Shiite element of Islam is fundamentally revolutionary, and you will find that any individual seeking to overthrow a state will likely identify as a Shiite even if he had previously considered himself Suuni.
Frazzled wrote:
The vast majority of the Taliban are as foreign as the US troops there.
Wrong. The majority of the Taliban is composed of Pashtun Afghanis.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
1. The issue and your question are not necessarily related.
2. Non-nuclear? Nope.
Of course they aren't necessarily related. I'm using my judgment regarding my knowledge of your tendencies to validate an assumption regarding your meaning.
Also, nuclear? Seriously? Yeah, let's drop the A-bomb on a nation that may or may not be seeking them itself. Let's destroy the infrastructure that gives them an incentive to secure any possible nuclear weapons. I mean, obviously we shouldn't worry about them sending a bomb our way.
Frazzled wrote:
None of that has anything to do with Iran arming militants in other countries, nor is it accurate. The shiites in Iraq were oppressed by the ruling Iraqi regime prior to the war.
Wrong. Saddam's regime was secular.
Prima facae inaccurate. The sunni minority was the minority in power. The Kurds and Shiites were controlled with the gun, the gas, and the cattle prod. I'm shocked you'd argue that point.
Of course they aren't necessarily related. I'm using my judgment regarding my knowledge of your tendencies to validate an assumption regarding your meaning.
Also, nuclear? Seriously? Yeah, let's drop the A-bomb on a nation that may or may not be seeking them itself. Let's destroy the infrastructure that gives them an incentive to secure any possible nuclear weapons. I mean, obviously we shouldn't worry about them sending a bomb our way.
What are you on about now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Iran is supplying militants killing US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. they are still around. Thats where Bush ed up.
Please tell me that you aren't advocating a military strike on a nation that is 4 times larger than Iraq.
1. The issue and your question are not necessarily related.
2. Non-nuclear? Nope.
And what, praytell, would you nuke?
Not necessarily in this order:
1. Liechtenstein. Its still not too late to stop the tsunami of evil that is Liechtenstein
2. The set of Real Housewives
3. Tom Cruise (can you nuke a person?)
4. Cats they evil stop it TBone get off the keyboard!
Not necessarily in this order: 1. Liechtenstein. Its still not too late to stop the tsunami of evil that is Liechtenstein 2. The set of Real Housewives 3. Tom Cruise (can you nuke a person?) 4. Cats they evil stop it TBone get off the keyboard!
Don't advocate the wholesale murder of thousands to millions and then make a joke about it. It makes you out to be kind of a dick.
Frazzled wrote:
Prima facae inaccurate. The sunni minority was the minority in power. The Kurds and Shiites were controlled with the gun, the gas, and the cattle prod. I'm shocked you'd argue that point.
Kurds are not a religious group.
I'm arguing two things.
1: The disproportionally large Shiite population of Iraq is the direct result of Saddam's regime; following from an oppressive state Muslims will tend to become Shiites.
2: The Suuni Baathists did not care about religion, and we use the monikers only to ease our own issues of category; fundamentally distorting the common perception of what happened.
Not necessarily in this order:
1. Liechtenstein. Its still not too late to stop the tsunami of evil that is Liechtenstein
2. The set of Real Housewives
3. Tom Cruise (can you nuke a person?)
4. Cats they evil stop it TBone get off the keyboard!
Don't advocate the wholesale murder of thousands to millions and then make a joke about it. It makes you out to be kind of a dick.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts. You're confusing me with...someone
Unless of course you're one of those Leichtensteinian fellow travellers. Sucking up to the Leichtensteinians has proven futile in the past.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Prima facae inaccurate. The sunni minority was the minority in power. The Kurds and Shiites were controlled with the gun, the gas, and the cattle prod. I'm shocked you'd argue that point.
Kurds are not a religious group.
I'm arguing two things.
1: The disproportionally large Shiite population of Iraq is the direct result of Saddam's regime; following from an oppressive state Muslims will tend to become Shiites.
2: The Suuni Baathists did not care about religion, and we use the monikers only to ease our own issues of category; fundamentally distorting the common perception of what happened.
Frazzled wrote:
What are you on about now?
The folly inherent in a nuclear strike on Iran.
1. OK we're talking different things here on the Iraq front. I wasn't viewing them based on religion but more along tribal lines. The Shia and Kurish groups (can't say minorities when you say Shia in Iraq) have different cultures and were repressed by the dominate Sunnis under Hussein. Religious-not really. We're in agreement there.
2. Nuke strike. There's confusion here if this is directed at me. I'm not advocating a nuke strike on iran. I'm not even advocating having troops in the Middle East. I'm the nutty isolationist remember?
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.
Stop projecting your failures onto others.
Stop projecting yourlack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.
Stop projecting your failures onto others.
Stop projecting yourlack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.
You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.
Stop projecting your failures onto others.
Stop projecting yourlack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.
You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.
Stop projecting your failures onto others.
Stop projecting yourlack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.
You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.
Ditto baby. Ditto.
That might work, but I was apparently not the only one to misread what you wrote and you've advocated the exact same thing in the past.
So seriously, do you want a waaaahmbulance? Do you need a waaaahndaid for your post so that you can feel super confident in your editorial skills? I have them. They are in a box right next to me.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.
Stop projecting your failures onto others.
Stop projecting yourlack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.
You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.
Ditto baby. Ditto.
That might work, but I was apparently not the only one to misread what you wrote and you've advocated the exact same thing in the past.
So seriously, do you want a waaaahmbulance? Do you need a waaaahndaid for your post so that you can feel super confident in your editorial skills? I have them. They are in a box right next to me.
You and Dogma. I think Dogma got the clarification. You evidently less so.
Reading comprehension mustn't be your thing today Shuma. Please recheck the posts.
I just rechecked it. You stated that you advocated military action in iran, but then stated that you did not support non nuclear. Thus you are advocating nuclear.
My comprehension isn't the issue. It's your ability to use the language.
Check again. I stated that I didn't support action in Iran. "Nope" is a pretty simple word, but evidently you managed to get confused by it. Thats ok. We love you anyway.
If it's so simple, how the hell did you use it wrong? Nope wasn't even in a complete sentence. The grammar didn't work in any way and the phraseology directly implies that you advocate nothing but what was in the previous sentence.
Stop projecting your failures onto others.
Stop projecting yourlack of reading a simple post properly. if you can't take the time to think about before you go half cocked then you really should look at other things to do with your time.
You really just can't admit that you wrote an incorrect and misleading set of sentences. You are truly an adult.
Ditto baby. Ditto.
That might work, but I was apparently not the only one to misread what you wrote and you've advocated the exact same thing in the past.
So seriously, do you want a waaaahmbulance? Do you need a waaaahndaid for your post so that you can feel super confident in your editorial skills? I have them. They are in a box right next to me.
You and Dogma. I think Dogma got the clarification. You evidently less so.
Prima facae inaccurate. The sunni minority was the minority in power. The Kurds and Shiites were controlled with the gun, the gas, and the cattle prod. I'm shocked you'd argue that point.
That the Sunni minority was in power does not preclude the possibility that Saddam's Stalinist-modeled regime was secular. Saddam seemed primarily interested in promoting the worship of Saddam, and was known to be a major supporter of archeological exploration of the ruins of Babylon and Summeria, seeking to promote a new Babylonian identity that would break the power of Islam. Whatever concessions Saddam made to Islam were fairly clearly made due to the tremendous social power of the clerics, not out of any actual desire to promote Islam, which Saddam clearly saw as a threat to his own power.
Saddam's secularism was one of the primary reasons the USA originally courted him as an ally against Iran.
Frazzled wrote:
1. OK we're talking different things here on the Iraq front. I wasn't viewing them based on religion but more along tribal lines. The Shia and Kurish groups (can't say minorities when you say Shia in Iraq) have different cultures and were repressed by the dominate Sunnis under Hussein. Religious-not really. We're in agreement there.
Yeah, if you're using 'Shiite' to refer to the amalgamated tribes that weren't aligned with the Tikrit, then we agree.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Nuke strike. There's confusion here if this is directed at me. I'm not advocating a nuke strike on iran. I'm not even advocating having troops in the Middle East. I'm the nutty isolationist remember?
Your initial comment seemed like advocacy of a nuclear strike, though thinking back on it it seems more like "Nuke them, or do nothing." which is in step with your nominal all or nothing attitude. I still don't agree, for a variety of reasons, but that stance is less odious than the first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Saddam's secularism was one of the primary reasons the USA originally courted him as an ally against Iran.
Indeed, the invasion of Kuwait was conducted only after seeking either US sanction or indifference. The Iraqi state never expected the US to come down on them for it.
I dont want to wedge myself in between Shuma and Frazz, but i think we need to seriously hurt the Iranians, they have assisted AIF and Taliban forces onsuch a scale that as far as im concerned, pretty much every British and American casualty is on their heads as much as the actual triggerman.
Nuking them is harsh, and i dont want to waste our guys lives on a costly ground war, so i cant think of anything other than dropping a very small (2000lbs?) bomb on their government building when Mahmoud is busy at work!
Guitardian wrote:Well that was short-sighted wasn't it? Maybe they just didn't watch the news?
The US didn't respond to the diplomatic cable. Saddam took that as indifference, he was wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I dont want to wedge myself in between Shuma and Frazz, but i think we need to seriously hurt the Iranians, they have assisted AIF and Taliban forces onsuch a scale that as far as im concerned, pretty much every British and American casualty is on their heads as much as the actual triggerman.
Nuking them is harsh, and i dont want to waste our guys lives on a costly ground war, so i cant think of anything other than dropping a very small (2000lbs?) bomb on their government building when Mahmoud is busy at work!
Well..
Or nuking them.
We (the US) may yet end up hitting their nuclear sites. We know where most of them are, and we could very easily delay their program for 8-10 years; which may be enough time to get a decent nonpro agreement off the ground.
youbedead wrote:2/1 isreal hits the sites within a year, bet know win big
Iran is planning on activating their Bushehr site in the next few days or so with the Russian's help. Russia really has been an absolute waste of time to try to talk to.
Russia has a deal with Iran regarding off-site enrichment and technology development. That deal is sanctioned by our State Department. They've really been quite cooperative in the wake of the ABM cancellation.
mattyrm wrote:I dont want to wedge myself in between Shuma and Frazz, but i think we need to seriously hurt the Iranians, they have assisted AIF and Taliban forces onsuch a scale that as far as im concerned, pretty much every British and American casualty is on their heads as much as the actual triggerman.
I thought most casualties were from IED's? If so then it needs to be proven that the equipment to build such devices (which actually isn't that hard to gather even in tribal hilly areas) is being provided directly from Iran.
Your right mate. Most casualties are from devices, you gotta trigger them as well right? They keep eyes.on then detonate. Or put em on a timer, or.... well you know what I meant.
Aye, the Iranians make em, supply the bits, train the boyz.. the whole shebang!
Or we we could just stop getting bogged down occupying/Garrisoning Middle Eastern Countries that end up being slow drawn out meat grinders for our soldiers.
We go in all Gung Ho and blow the gak out of everything int he first few days, topple the government and wipe our asses with Iran's army, Then what?
I'll tell you what: we end up occupying a crippled country with no infrastructure for years on end with no exit strategy in sight and provide yet another terrorist training ground for every extremist who can get in-country to get hands on experience fighting guerilla wars, building/using IEDs and taking hostages.
End result: Billions spent, thousands of our soldiers dead, another wrecked country we now have to rebuild/prop up, better trained terrorists, and more evidence that the "infidel" want to defile the Holy Land.
Going to have to pass on Iran - one of the last things the US and its allies need are more combat tours in sandboxes with suicide bombers, hundreds of years of incredible hate, and small arms galore. How about spicing things up by going to the mountains in North Korea instead?
mattyrm wrote:Your right mate. Most casualties are from devices, you gotta trigger them as well right? They keep eyes.on then detonate. Or put em on a timer, or.... well you know what I meant.
Aye, the Iranians make em, supply the bits, train the boyz.. the whole shebang!
We owe them a thrashing I tell you!
Oh dear... You got your red coat and musket ready for that then? Let me get my drum and flag...
Iranian supplied bomb components seem to have been limited to the south of Iraq and their not very well concealed support of the JAM militias, including even sending over a couple of Pasdaran Commandos who promptly got captured. In short they did it poorly.
If you think it is just Iran supplying weapons, though that supply seems to have faltered to a trickle over the last two years, you may also need to turn your weapons onto Syria (RPG-29s from Syria were used in two attacks on Coalition armour in 2007 and 2008) and also Jordan who did a poor job of closing the border to 'volunteers'. Plenty of targets out there for those with a jingoistic streak.
Why not Pakistan?
Plenty of Tier One Terrys are sporting nice shiny new G3s from the Pakistan Ordanance Factory...
I think you lot need to read up a few posts, I said we owe them one ( we do) not "let's invade them"
I can't reply in full on my phone, but after invading both Iraq and ganners then going back for seconds I'm no way ignorant of who is assisting our enemies or the high casualties that another long ground war would involve (well, not so much the initial surge cos were kinda bad ass but hugely in the occupation)
I'd love to smack the Iranians, but I'm aware were in no position to do so. Please dont take me for a flag waving idiot who thinks we can march to war with no ramifications. I may not give a gak about Iranians, but I care a lot about British and American soldiers.
We could invade them with robots!
Get right on it us department of defence, you guys have a better defence budget than us.
Energon cubes are hard to get though. That's up there with depleted uranium.
It's surprising this is still going on when the answer should have been obvious. Suck it up local protesters. Religions cannot be restricted unless they violate some other law in their practice. Blowing up a building wasn't the fault of Islam, just of a bunch of angry jihadist carzy people who were probably shocked when they woke up in hell instead of surrounded by 77 virgins. Or maybe just pointlessly, stupidly, dead. Good riddance.
I gotta say I'm proud of everybody on either side of the arguement here because we have been discussing this for weeks while the news is only just picking up on it. Make's me feel smart or something talking to you guys. derr.
On a serious note, there are lots of people on here that are clearly smart.
I think wargaming might be linked to it personally.. all my more book smart chums in the marines where the only ones who showed any interest in this type of hobby, and people who like warhams generally like reading novels and such too right, and reading is fundamental, which many people dont do much of in this day and age.
Oh sorry, i meant "people that are clearly smart-arse"
I got a better idea. Lets take a world map and just throw a big splat of pizza right at the middle of it. We get Russia, China, N Korea, Iran, Iraq, a bit of Turkey (sorry turkey) all in one splat...
Maybe that's not such a good idea, but hey it wipes the slate clean, and we can do it. This way we don't have to worry about who funds who and who has god talking in their head telling them what to blow up next. Sorry Israel, you gotta go too. You argued one too many times with the parent that essentially gave you the roof you live under.
Then we can all go back to our nice, secular lives un-attacked by religious lunatics and uncaring about who is communist or not.
Obviously this is sarcastic and not a real-world-fix, any more than Frazz with his energon cubes. The only fix would be to tell the thin-skinned new yorkers who protest that, for the sake of the WORLD, not just their stupid "Yo I'm From New York" bullshite local bitchy session. I have lived there, and everyone living there has that "I', tough I'm from New York, yo!" kind of attitude. Even the photographers assistants and office gophers and wanna-be models and movie extras... they all think they are so tough and capable of dealing with life because they are New Yorkers.
That's what makes them act like jackasses. Okay then, be tough. Talk the talk, walk the walk, or be a whiney b!tch at the expense of everyone else in the WORLD's concern ("wait, the world means like over in queens or brooklyn right?") that making a shitstorm about this stupid mosque issue will lead to.
Justifiable anger I can understand, but when a local misdirected yet understandable outrage threatens our (as a Nation and beyond) way we are percieved on a world-sized scale, I think they should just tough it up, so as to put things off of religious bitching and back to international relations.
Yeah... sorry Frazz. There isn't. I hate to be the guy that told a kid that santa claus is actually their parent, and doesn't come down a chimmeny either. But someone's got to do it.
Which brings me back to the topic. This is a fundamentaly (not fundamentalist) ridiculous arguement they are all making over, whether to have this thing or not to have it. I really couldn't care less if there's a mosque or a starbucks or a hot topic store there. What I care about is the message that is sent by the supposed 'controversy' (ooooh!) surrounding it, and the larger effect it could have on our relations with our Islamic brothers out in the Arab world. Whether or not they build it, just the fight itself over whether or not it should even be an issue sends a poor message.
I think you lot need to read up a few posts, I said we owe them one ( we do) not "let's invade them"
I can't reply in full on my phone, but after invading both Iraq and ganners then going back for seconds I'm no way ignorant of who is assisting our enemies or the high casualties that another long ground war would involve (well, not so much the initial surge cos were kinda bad ass but hugely in the occupation)
I'd love to smack the Iranians, but I'm aware were in no position to do so. Please dont take me for a flag waving idiot who thinks we can march to war with no ramifications. I may not give a gak about Iranians, but I care a lot about British and American soldiers.
We could invade them with robots!
Get right on it us department of defence, you guys have a better defence budget than us.
Still not too sure what we 'owe' them for to be honest.
Yes they supplied components and equipment, so did half the Middle East in one form or another, especially if you consider human volunteers as supporting a cause.
Some would also say that perhaps the Iranians feel the same as you do and are getting their own back for the support old Saddam got from the West during the Iran-Iraq War (and yes, I know the US funded the Iranian war effort too via Israel but not too the same extent). They have long memories, especially when you consider that most of those in power were in command positions during the war. Perhaps there was a hint of 'payback' in it for them. The US will never be considered anything but the 'Great Satan' by the Iranian political powers due to their support of the Shah and subsequent backing of Iraq. Whether that sense of hatred extends down to the common people of Iran is open to debate. Certainly none of my Iraqi or Iranian colleagues seem to have anything like the vitriol that spews forth from the Iranian propaganda machine.
The problem with them is that they are a different kettle of fish to Iraq to tackle militarily, if that was an option (which as you say is not).
I dont place much value on their air assets, especially their fixed wing capability which would last all of two minutes in a shooting war, but they performed well with rotary air attacks during previous wars and have still concentrated on that. Whether they could get in the air with Coalition AA cover and air power is unlikely though.
Its on the ground that things are different with Iraq. The military, though subservient to the regime is highly motivated when having to fight on its homeland. While its resilience when fighting outside its borders is open to debate, it tends to fight hard when on home turf. Then you have the Pasdaran and the Basjei, both hardline regime paramilitaries, with the Pasdaran in reality a second army and both have their existence linked to the survival of the regime.
What is a further difference, and the hardest to overcome is the Iranian belief in their country and the santicty of their borders. Before Saddam invaded the revolution was on shaky foundations. Its wholesale slaughter of military personnel and government officials wavered peoples belief in the ideals but Saddams invasion galvanised the country to fight against the invader. Most Iranian veterans when asked what they were fighting for will tell you it was to save Iran from the invader, not to save the revolution despite what the government propaganda machine trotted out.
So while we may once again blow up their planes/tanks/APCs we would face a much more hardened and committed fightback with people willing to sacrifice themselves regardless. Casualties would be high on both sides and it would lead to a bloodbath. They also have weapons capable of dealing with our most advanced weapons systems, they too have the Vampir and that can penetrate both the Chally and the M1.
It would be a mess that is just not worth getting into, and thankfully everyone realises that. The best we can hope for is that the Iranian people opt for regime change and bring it about themselves, but with such a massive paramilitary network behind the regime, not to mention state control of the media, it seems unlikely.
Guitardian wrote:Yeah... sorry Frazz. There isn't. I hate to be the guy that told a kid that santa claus is actually their parent, and doesn't come down a chimmeny either. But someone's got to do it.
Well now I know you're off. There is a Santa. I'm freaking Santa baby.
My only comment to the actual subject.
-Legal right to be there, if meets the local codes permitting etc.
-However, they should be sensitive to the feelings of the locals and move it back a few blocks.
Problem / solution bada bing. If any side won't work in that context then there's mal intent there.
Guitardian wrote:Yeah... sorry Frazz. There isn't. I hate to be the guy that told a kid that santa claus is actually their parent, and doesn't come down a chimmeny either. But someone's got to do it.
Well now I know you're off. There is a Santa. I'm freaking Santa baby.
Somehow I knew. I've always known, really. Everything makes sense now.
Could be worse, your country could have a boat full of terrorists just float to your shore and demand refugee status, which includes monthly paycheques greater then what you give veterans.
Ravenous D wrote:Could be worse, your country could have a boat full of terrorists just float to your shore and demand refugee status, which includes monthly paycheques greater then what you give veterans.
Except outside the fantasies of Paul Froom and Co. that isn't true?
We don't know what's going on in Sri Lanka so we really can't say what they are running from. The Sri Lankan government has limited western investigation of the Tamil held areas. Trust the refugee system to sort it out. The last thing I want in my lifetime is another SSSt. Loius.
Ravenous D wrote:Could be worse, your country could have a boat full of terrorists just float to your shore and demand refugee status, which includes monthly paycheques greater then what you give veterans.
Except outside the fantasies of Paul Froom and Co. that isn't true?
We don't know what's going on in Sri Lanka so we really can't say what they are running from. The Sri Lankan government has limited western investigation of the Tamil held areas. Trust the refugee system to sort it out. The last thing I want in my lifetime is another SSSt. Loius.
Its a little different then the SSSt Louis, for it to be the same it would a boat full of nazis asking for refuge.
Most of the occupants on the ship are from the tamil tigers group, known well for using child soldiers and suicide bombers. Then there's what their supporters did here in toronto last year when they blocked major roads and when the police showed up they put children in front of them so they wouldnt be stormed or tear gased.
There are also Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples near Pearl Harbour, and there are Christian churches in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As no-one is bothered about these, it makes the storm about the proposed new mosque look like it is being whipped up out of hate and prejudice.
The difference is, of course, that the 9/11 murderers did so in the name of their religion.
Yeah, 9/11 has that. But the christian church by nagasaki has a history of hundreds of thousands of deaths, which has 9/11 pretty soundly beat and it could be argued that shinto was a part of the japanese cultural identity as well as it's religion pre WW2 and that the actions taken in the emperors name were inherently taken in the name of the religion.
Either way, it still sounds like whipped up hate and prejudice.
Its a little different then the SSSt Louis, for it to be the same it would a boat full of nazis asking for refuge.
Most of the occupants on the ship are from the tamil tigers group, known well for using child soldiers and suicide bombers. Then there's what their supporters did here in toronto last year when they blocked major roads and when the police showed up they put children in front of them so they wouldnt be stormed or tear gased.
So sorry to say but 'em, sink the ship.
.
Really? That is odd because I have not heard of a single member of the passengers or crew actually being Tigers. Tamils yes, that's an ethnic group of which there have been reports of murders by the state of Sri Lanka.
If any are proven to be members of the Tamil Tigers then let them be tried as such. Otherwise... my point stands. Let the refugee board here the case and then follow the appropriate procedures, up to an including their return. Otherwise we are no better then we were in the 1930s.
Its a little different then the SSSt Louis, for it to be the same it would a boat full of nazis asking for refuge.
Most of the occupants on the ship are from the tamil tigers group, known well for using child soldiers and suicide bombers. Then there's what their supporters did here in toronto last year when they blocked major roads and when the police showed up they put children in front of them so they wouldnt be stormed or tear gased.
So sorry to say but 'em, sink the ship.
Tamil Tigers use Child Soldiers? The things you learn on the interweb. Also, what the hell is most supposed to mean? How can you tell the difference between Sri Lankan civilians and non-civilians?
There are also Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples near Pearl Harbour, and there are Christian churches in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As no-one is bothered about these, it makes the storm about the proposed new mosque look like it is being whipped up out of hate and prejudice.
The difference is, of course, that the 9/11 murderers did so in the name of their religion.
Yeah, 9/11 has that. But the christian church by nagasaki has a history of hundreds of thousands of deaths, which has 9/11 pretty soundly beat and it could be argued that shinto was a part of the japanese cultural identity as well as it's religion pre WW2 and that the actions taken in the emperors name were inherently taken in the name of the religion.
Either way, it still sounds like whipped up hate and prejudice.
One thing to remember about the church in Nagasaki, it had been there and was blown up by the blast.
The building in Manhattan is an old warehouse, surrounded by buildings that have been declared historical locations. This exact building had landing gear from one of the planes crash into it. It's located in a commercial district with no residential area around it. I wish I could say with 100% conviction that this is for peace, but its not.
Stormrider wrote:
The building in Manhattan is an old warehouse, surrounded by buildings that have been declared historical locations. This exact building had landing gear from one of the planes crash into it. It's located in a commercial district with no residential area around it.
I don't know how much experience you have with urban religious buildings, or religious buildings in general, but they pop up everywhere from strip malls to office buildings. Hell, there's a Church of God a block away from Daley Plaza, and there isn't an ounce of residential in line of site.
Stormrider wrote: I wish I could say with 100% conviction that this is for peace, but its not.
You know that its not, or you can't say with 100% conviction that its not?
Saying it is "surrounded by buildings that have been declared historical landmarks" is a bit duplicitous. There are really no more in the area than any other area (something tells me the Burlington Coat Factory next door isn't a historical monument). The building specifically has been not chosen as a historical location so it doesn't really matter anyway. I imagine there are some fast food restaurants nearby as well that got hit with shrapnel, it was a rather large area of effect. Is the McDonald's 3 blocks away sacrosanct now?
Religious buildings have never had the residential only limit so that doesn't really mean much either.
Tamil Tigers use Child Soldiers? The things you learn on the interweb. Also, what the hell is most supposed to mean? How can you tell the difference between Sri Lankan civilians and non-civilians?
Thats why the Tamil Tigers are classified as a terrorist group by the UN, use of child soldiers is what they are known for. Thats common knowledge, nothing to do with the internet. Glad to see you didnt defend the sucide bombing though,
As for my other comment, many of the occupants are suspected to be tamil tigers. Without papers or any form of identifying themselves for all we know Mohammed Amir, is a mad arab bomber while Mohammad Amir is a nice bread maker. Without knowing you have three options, 1) sink the boat 2) Put them in lock down forever, 3) release them into refugee status, pay them monthly and hope they dont start
Considering what their followers did on the Gardiner Express Way a few months back they have zero sympathy from me.
The whole "won't rule out taking money from SA or Iran" thing is a bit confused.
Now, first off, SA is a ridiculous, backwards, awful Wahabbi state and former home of Osama bin Laden. So, in some respect associating with it is indeed shady That said, American foreign policy is to pretend that SA is TOTALLY sweet, and to pal around with them. They donate to all manner of American projects like Presidential Libraries, and whatever else they feel will endear them to American leadership. So, on some level, SA is our "friend."
Obviously Iran is not our "friend" at all...
So, the headline is sorta like saying "dude won't rule out taking money from Walmart or Satan." Nobody is going to rule out getting money from Walmart, and while some think it's evil, it's not so evil that taking money from it should upset an American. And then, obviously, Satan is Satan.
Also, what is "Iran" or "SA?" Is it the government there, or is it a resident? Iran has a considerable progressive dissident community that probably view the US favorably, and would consider this mosque the sort of thing that might improve US-Islamic relations, and thus might be a very direct contributor to progress in Iran, an Islamic Republic.
I believe you've hit on the reason that the spokesman refused to comment. If he outright said no, and it was later discovered that Saudi Arabians and Iranians did in fact fund the project, the spokesman and, by extension the project, are painted as an insidious element. If the spokesman says yes, then the assent will no doubt be twisted. Refusing to comment at the very least allows for a degree of ignorance.
Thats why the Tamil Tigers are classified as a terrorist group by the UN, use of child soldiers is what they are known for. Thats common knowledge, nothing to do with the internet. Glad to see you didnt defend the sucide bombing though,
I'm no expert on the extensive global use of Child Soldiers, but Tamil Tigers were a new one to me.
As for my other comment, many of the occupants are suspected to be tamil tigers. Without papers or any form of identifying themselves for all we know Mohammed Amir, is a mad arab bomber while Mohammad Amir is a nice bread maker. Without knowing you have three options, 1) sink the boat 2) Put them in lock down forever, 3) release them into refugee status, pay them monthly and hope they dont start
Considering what their followers did on the Gardiner Express Way a few months back they have zero sympathy from me.
So...you have to assume that every boat from Sri Lanka must be Tamil Tiger Terrorists (yay alliteration) and should be sunk? Wohoo. I hear this arguement a lot over here due to the constant paronoia concerning 'Boat People', and I'm surprised becuase you're a Canadian. I mean...how did Sri Lankans (Lankins?) get a boat chartered for Canada without any officiality?
Ravenous D wrote:
As for my other comment, many of the occupants are suspected to be tamil tigers. Without papers or any form of identifying themselves for all we know Mohammed Amir, is a mad arab bomber while Mohammad Amir is a nice bread maker. Without knowing you have three options, 1) sink the boat 2) Put them in lock down forever, 3) release them into refugee status, pay them monthly and hope they dont start
Considering what their followers did on the Gardiner Express Way a few months back they have zero sympathy from me.
Suspected was highlit because that's what separates them from the Tigers.
Without papers is wrong. Many if not all brought all their papers with them.
And option 3 ends my conversation with you. Go back to Stormfront.
They also brought all whole lot of Tuberculosis. But thats acceptable and a none issue. Really its that they tried to get into the country illegallly, we could have easily sent a ship to them with an inboard hospital and sort out this issue, but no they decided to be line for the shore and take advantage of our crap refugee laws.
Oh and thanks for the racist comment, that attitude is what is going to let this country choke itself to death. I dont give a crap what colour their skin is, or what beliefs they have, its that they are coming from a corrupt country where they can easily slip through the system and cause another 9/11.
But you know thats cool. I guess if the world pussy-fication believes that me questioning shady sources and situations involving human smuggling makes me racist, then fine.
Guess you also dont mind the $100million price tag attached to these refugees.
Ravenous D wrote:They also brought all whole lot of Tuberculosis. But thats acceptable and a none issue. Really its that they tried to get into the country illegallly, we could have easily sent a ship to them with an inboard hospital and sort out this issue, but no they decided to be line for the shore and take advantage of our crap refugee laws.
Oh and thanks for the racist comment, that attitude is what is going to let this country choke itself to death. I dont give a crap what colour their skin is, or what beliefs they have, its that they are coming from a corrupt country where they can easily slip through the system and cause another 9/11.
But you know thats cool. I guess if the world pussy-fication believes that me questioning shady sources and situations involving human smuggling makes me racist, then fine.
Guess you also dont mind the $100million price tag attached to these refugees.
Shady sources? CBC, Globe and Mail and the National Post are shady? Interesting. Who isn't then?
As to racism each of the comments you have made have shown such unbelievable ignorance I could only assume racism. Then you demonstrated it was pure and simple ignorance as you are a Sun reader. My apologies... Btw posting a link to an article which was written by a columnist (not a reporter, in other words, an opinion piece) that is already 7 days old doesn't really improve my opinion of your deliberate ignorance.
Kilkrazy wrote:There are also Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples near Pearl Harbour, and there are Christian churches in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think the difference here is that Islam has a habit of building Mosques as shrines at the scenes of major victories over the Infidel. Ever wonder why the Dome of the Rock is smack dab in the center of Jerusalem right at the site of the old Temple of Solomon?
Kilkrazy wrote:As no-one is bothered about these, it makes the storm about the proposed new mosque look like it is being whipped up out of hate and prejudice.
Or, perhaps it's an objection to a radical culture who has sworn to wipe an entire people from the face of the Earth and calls our country "The Great Satan" building a shrine to a horric mass murder? Just saying.
Ok I think this has been beaten with a stick over and over, I am not a racist or even a religious fanatic. I was and still am upset with 9/11 and all unnessesary deaths that followed. Here is the point that upsets me the most about the Muslim religion. It states in the Koran that all good Muslims must kill the outsider A.K.A. Westerners, a 15th century beleif thats still taught in Mosques today in every Islamic/Muslim country and even in the USA as we speak. Well murder is a Sin and and Holy book stating that you should go out and commit murder (just so you can goto heaven and get 100 virgin's) as a reward, well something smell a lot rotten there. So stating that these so-called religious fanatics are outta line is much more of the truth than not. In America we do not force are women to cover them selfs up (A Right we have) not do we allow the churches in are country to go about killing everyone that does not have are same religouis beleifs. Yes, we do have a few churches Catholic and Mormon making headlines about child molestation, but those are rare and few and the guilty made to pay for their actions. Take Pakistain, it harbors Osama Bin Ladin and praises him for his war on the Western countries and his murder of innocent people. Yes we are hunting him, but the only reason the US and Allied countries do not invade Pakistan is because it is a nuclear power, and such an attack would have every Muslim/Islamic country join them in an even larger war, Not a very good idea. So all this takl about building a Mosque on the 9/11 site, the very site a Cathlic church was destroyed on 9/11 is very dis-heartning to me. I served 21 years in the US Army been to Iraq 2 times and Afhganistain 1 time, and I think that what the US and Allied countries are doing to fight terrorisim is needed or others will die needlessly. If We forget the past and we are doomed to repeat it! We are not trying to change Muslim/Islamic beleifs, but tring to stop brutal murders ordered by these religious leaders and terrorists. Long Live America!!!!
Kilkrazy wrote:There are also Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples near Pearl Harbour, and there are Christian churches in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think the difference here is that Islam has a habit of building Mosques as shrines at the scenes of major victories over the Infidel. Ever wonder why the Dome of the Rock is smack dab in the center of Jerusalem right at the site of the old Temple of Solomon?
Kilkrazy wrote:As no-one is bothered about these, it makes the storm about the proposed new mosque look like it is being whipped up out of hate and prejudice.
Or, perhaps it's an objection to a radical culture who has sworn to wipe an entire people from the face of the Earth and calls our country "The Great Satan" building a shrine to a horric mass murder? Just saying.
Christianity does/did the exact same thing. Ever wonder why every major Christian holiday falls on the same date as a major pagan one? Hell, during the middle ages fortress monasteries were common. Shinto did the same, there are quite a few shrines to major battles and the western wall was a temple/fortress before it was a... Well, wall. Also the people building a "Shrine to a horric mass murder" aren't of the radical culture thats sworn to wipe an entire people from the face of the earth. Thats kind of the herp derp little timmy is special way of looking at it. That is to say it's outright wrong and stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
t states in the Koran that all good Muslims must kill the outsider A.K.A. Westerners, a 15th century beleif thats still taught in Mosques today in every Islamic/Muslim country and even in the USA as we speak.
Jews are taught the children should be put to death for cursing their fathers, and the entirety of christian anti gay sentiment comes from the old testament which they aren't even supposed to follow any more.
I'm pretty sure you have absolutely no knoweldge of the muslim religion.
Just thought that this may be relevant to the discussion it's taken from another thread about Israelis building on a old Muslim cemetery
The point I've been making, in what I thought was pretty plain English, is that it isn't a marketing effort to call it a tolerance centre. The guy behind this has put his entire public life into bridging the gap between Islam and the West. Just go look at the books he's written. He's genuine. He really wants this to be a tolerance centre. It is really that straight forward.
I don't think anyone would have a problem with just a tolerance center being built by ground zero. So why are
Yeah, it's a tolerance center with all kinds of admin and civic departments.....I know this. It's also a Mosque. I'm not questioning his intent to build a tolerance center. I'm questioning the logic of building a tolerance center where the location itself is inspiring intolerance. Granted you want to build a tolerance center where intolerance is high, i mean that's the point. But try to pic a spot where the actual location itself does not run contrary to your goals.
He can market and say whatever he wants, many people are not buying it. He may be the savior of the world, but if he is such an expert in tolerance maybe he could find a more tolerable location. OR just get rid of the mosque aspect of it and people won't have as much to cry about. The people he is trying to reach might actually come.
Look many of the 911 terrorists, had been here for years. Their neighbors didn't think they were terrorists, by many accounts they were productive and active members of their community. Not the kind of stuff you expect from terrorists. I'm not saying this guy is a terrorist, affiliated with terrorists...whatever. I'm just pointing out that people are suspicious and scared and probably really could use a place like the Cordoba house. However most of these people are not going to go if there is a Mosque in there. It's just not gonna happen. I think the Mosque aspect itself pretty much dooms this project to fail as a tolerance center.
As for the Israeli tolerance center, if there is one place that needs it, it's Israel. No matter what anybodies claims of legitimacy may say (not even trying to start the argument about who should be in possession), possession being 9/10 of the law says that they can do whatever they want. The fact that they got or even asked permission at one point is mind blowing to me, but it apparently happened...so they say, I haven't seen any proof. In any case as long as they are not desecrating the bodies I think they are good. In the video you can see them smashing caskets, but you don't see any remains, ashes, whatever, you don't see evidence that the remains are still there. (not saying its beneath Israel to desecrate Muslim graves, just in this instance it does not appear to be the case)
If they were given permission they could build anything they want there, strip mall or synagogue, they chose to build a tolerance center, which is probably the best thing they could put there. I think the intentions are sound, the execution is another question. Maybe there were better ways to excavate the land, have a Muslim contractor do it or have the process overseen by an imam, whatever.
The fact is that NYC and Israel could both really use tolerance centers. They both have to find more tolerable solutions to build them.
My question is does anybody know/think the Israelis chose this time specifically to make a political staement because of Kordoba house? It just seams too coincidental. In may ways they are completely different issues, but when emotions are inflamed they can look very similar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ever wonder why every major Christian holiday falls on the same date as a major pagan one?
Most Christian holidays actually fall on the same date as Roman holidays so that they could observe the holidays without being slaughtered.
The disproportionally large Shiite population of Iraq is the direct result of Saddam's regime; following from an oppressive state Muslims will tend to become Shiites.
I can't believe I missed this...
Oppression doesn't create Shiites. The two big sects of Islam are pretty much just familial, people are born into Shiite families or they're born into Sunni families, and that's that.
On the other hand, when it comes to extremism and extreme interpretations, that is more a side effect of environment. For example, if you take a Sunni, and you really crap on them and make them live in a pit like Afghanistan, they tend to turn into a Wahabbi, which, translated into English, basically means "lunatic retroactivist fundamentalist Sunni."
Unless I'm mistaken, Shiites have been the majority in Iraq since before Saddam was in power.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of Muslims changing sects with any great regularity. I'm sure it goes on to some extent, but I was under the impression that it's far, FAR less common than a Christian sect change might be.
Also, while it's true that Saddam was a largely secular minded pan-Arabist sort of dude, he still made a lot of appeals to Islamic solidarity, and I think as things got worse and worse for him, he got more interested in religion.
I'm pleased that Dakka's policy of allowing all Muslims to be lumped together with the violent terrorists (while shutting down any thread that looks crosseyed at christianity because "it offends beliefs") continues.
I guess as long as your bigotry is politely written, it's ok.
I grew up in a large muslim community, in Dearborn, Michigan. I played with Muslim kids, I planned a senior prank with Muslim classmates, and in general I learned that Islam, like most religions, differs in practice from theory. Just like there are rich Christians (who enter heaven harder than a camel though the eye of the needle), and there are Jews that wear cotton/poly blends, most Muslims don't see violence against non-believers as part of their religious practice. I guess when I think of Islam, I think of the people I know, and how they're pretty much the same as anybody else. I don't want them associating me with every Christian that's done something horrible in the name of religion, so I extend them the same respect.
All this debate shows is what the Islamic world fears: that America hates Islam.
By the logic of "the 9-11 hijackers did what they did in the name of religion, so all Muslims are terrorists," then any NRA member (or anybody that opposes gun control) is also a terrorist, as that's the reason for the Oklahoma City bombing.
I'd be good money nobody would care if somebody opened a gun store across from the new Federal Building in OKC.
Phryxis wrote:
Oppression doesn't create Shiites. The two big sects of Islam are pretty much just familial, people are born into Shiite families or they're born into Sunni families, and that's that.
At this point you're asking for a thesis paper, so I'll oblige the objection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:I'm pleased that Dakka's policy of allowing all Muslims to be lumped together with the violent terrorists (while shutting down any thread that looks crosseyed at christianity because "it offends beliefs") continues.
I guess as long as your bigotry is politely written, it's ok.
I grew up in a large muslim community, in Dearborn, Michigan. I played with Muslim kids, I planned a senior prank with Muslim classmates, and in general I learned that Islam, like most religions, differs in practice from theory. Just like there are rich Christians (who enter heaven harder than a camel though the eye of the needle), and there are Jews that wear cotton/poly blends, most Muslims don't see violence against non-believers as part of their religious practice. I guess when I think of Islam, I think of the people I know, and how they're pretty much the same as anybody else. I don't want them associating me with every Christian that's done something horrible in the name of religion, so I extend them the same respect.
All this debate shows is what the Islamic world fears: that America hates Islam.
By the logic of "the 9-11 hijackers did what they did in the name of religion, so all Muslims are terrorists," then any NRA member (or anybody that opposes gun control) is also a terrorist, as that's the reason for the Oklahoma City bombing.
I'd be good money nobody would care if somebody opened a gun store across from the new Federal Building in OKC.
The Green Git wrote:
I think the difference here is that Islam has a habit of building Mosques as shrines at the scenes of major victories over the Infidel. Ever wonder why the Dome of the Rock is smack dab in the center of Jerusalem right at the site of the old Temple of Solomon?
It'll be some real interesting times when Dome goes down and the Temple of Solomon gets rebuilt on that site.
Kilkrazy wrote:There are also Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples near Pearl Harbour, and there are Christian churches in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think the difference here is that Islam has a habit of building Mosques as shrines at the scenes of major victories over the Infidel. Ever wonder why the Dome of the Rock is smack dab in the center of Jerusalem right at the site of the old Temple of Solomon?
Kilkrazy wrote:As no-one is bothered about these, it makes the storm about the proposed new mosque look like it is being whipped up out of hate and prejudice.
Or, perhaps it's an objection to a radical culture who has sworn to wipe an entire people from the face of the Earth and calls our country "The Great Satan" building a shrine to a horric mass murder? Just saying.
It amazes me what can be said about Muslims on this board.
The site of the Dome is not surprisingly a holy site for both the Jewish and Muslim faiths as both are faiths that use some of the same holy books. Both faiths consider the Foundation stone at the centre a holy site. It's construction had very little to do with the conquest of the area (other then perhaps in the same way that Christian Churches not dot the surface of North America).
It should also be noted that "a radical culture who has sworn to wipe an entire people from the face of the Earth and calls our country "The Great Satan"" is fething crazy talk and seriously does not apply to the incredibly vast majority of American Muslims. Do you really believe that American, Canadian, and British Muslims as a whole want to exterminate the Jews?
Polonius wrote:I'm pleased that Dakka's policy of allowing all Muslims to be lumped together with the violent terrorists (while shutting down any thread that looks crosseyed at christianity because "it offends beliefs") continues.
Well I think this thread has laid some pretty solid ground rules on what people are allowed to say about a specific religion, regardless of it being factual, hate speech, etc.
I think that is a green light for you to start a thread on the historical and present day atrocities, crimes and questionable practices perpetrated by Christianity no?
I guess as long as your bigotry is politely written, it's ok.
Such as the stuff I've seen written against Christians, calling them loons, and Christianity, calling it a superstition and excuse to murder and plunder, on Dakka?
idk if the islamic center at ground zero should be forbidden by law.... it's a free country. Just because people don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. But I sure wish the muslims wouldn't go out of their way to piss people off all the time. Seems like alot of the world's problems, right now, get back to some guy wearing a turban.
AF
LordWynne wrote:Ok I think this has been beaten with a stick over and over, I am not a racist or even a religious fanatic. I was and still am upset with 9/11 and all unnessesary deaths that followed. Here is the point that upsets me the most about the Muslim religion. It states in the Koran that all good Muslims must kill the outsider A.K.A. Westerners, a 15th century beleif thats still taught in Mosques today in every Islamic/Muslim country and even in the USA as we speak. Well murder is a Sin and and Holy book stating that you should go out and commit murder (just so you can goto heaven and get 100 virgin's) as a reward, well something smell a lot rotten there.
So stating that these so-called religious fanatics are outta line is much more of the truth than not. In America we do not force are women to cover them selfs up (A Right we have) not do we allow the churches in are country to go about killing everyone that does not have are same religouis beleifs. Yes, we do have a few churches Catholic and Mormon making headlines about child molestation, but those are rare and few and the guilty made to pay for their actions.
Take Pakistain, it harbors Osama Bin Ladin and praises him for his war on the Western countries and his murder of innocent people. Yes we are hunting him, but the only reason the US and Allied countries do not invade Pakistan is because it is a nuclear power, and such an attack would have every Muslim/Islamic country join them in an even larger war, Not a very good idea. So all this takl about building a Mosque on the 9/11 site, the very site a Cathlic church was destroyed on 9/11 is very dis-heartning to me. I served 21 years in the US Army been to Iraq 2 times and Afhganistain 1 time, and I think that what the US and Allied countries are doing to fight terrorisim is needed or others will die needlessly. If We forget the past and we are doomed to repeat it! We are not trying to change Muslim/Islamic beleifs, but tring to stop brutal murders ordered by these religious leaders and terrorists. Long Live America!!!!
First off, thank you for your years of service in the Army.
Other than that I'd suggest reading up a little more on Islam and Islamic countries. Islam itself doesn't advocate the wholesale murder of people, only in certain cases which has to do with how Muslims view people. According to the Koran there are four kinds of people, believers (المؤمنين), Jews and Christians (أهل الكتاب lit. Family of the Book), people who have never heard the word of God, and unbelievers (الكفراء). The Koran doesn't advocate the killing of the first three categories, just those that have heard the word of God and refuse to abide by it. They think Jews and Christians are misguided but follow the same God, and they don't fault people who haven't heard the word because that's just unreasonable. And for the record Islam came to be during the 7th century BCE, not the 15th.
On the topic of martyring yourself to get into paradise for a materiel reward, that only happens in the service of God. Radical clergy and other extremists twist the meaning around to mean that if you do their bidding by strapping a bomb to yourself you will be martyring yourself and thus achieve this reward. That's part of it but a good portion of suicide bombers do it for far simpler reasons than martyrdom. We made a lot of orphans in Iraq due to our heavy-handedness during OIF I and II, and those orphans grew up hating Americans and sometimes jump at the chance to get revenge. There are also cases of people offering monetary rewards to members of poor families to blow themselves up and drugging women and children and sending them into public wearing bomb vests. It's all pretty screwed up when you think about it, martyrdom is supposed to mean you die in the service of God, not kill other people.
It's hard to judge Islam compared to Christianity because the latter has had approximately 700 more years of evolution over the former. During the 1400's Europe wasn't a dark, suspicious place
where people were regularly killed for not adhering strictly to the tenets of the Catholic Church. Shortly thereafter the Spanish Inquisition was formed and the Protestant movement started, which saw Europe plunged into a century of bloody religious war. All this in the name of a peaceful religion. Also, during that same period it was customary for women to cover most of their body out of respect, which is all the hijab (head cover) is. It's true that it is forced on them in some of the more conservative countries, but those that choose to wear it in countries like Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Morocco do it because they want to.
I am a little surprised that you're against them building the mosque two block away from Ground Zero. For starters it isn't on Ground Zero, and why would you deny American citizens the right to practice free speech and religion? I don't think there should be any controversy about if they should be allowed to build this mosque close to ground zero, just that it seems to be in incredibly poor taste. On the subject of the Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed, they're not building the mosque on the same site that the church was destroyed on. That church as not been rebuilt because apparently they have been grubbing for funds from the government and rejected a deal from the Port Authority that offered $60 million in public funds, and the city maintains that they have the right to rebuild.
Phryxis wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, Shiites have been the majority in Iraq since before Saddam was in power.
Furthermore, I'm not aware of Muslims changing sects with any great regularity. I'm sure it goes on to some extent, but I was under the impression that it's far, FAR less common than a Christian sect change might be.
You're correct Shiites have been the majority in Iraq for a long time because the cities of Najaf, Karbalah, and to a lesser extent Imarra, are holy to them and naturally they tend to congregate in the local area.
Muslims hardly ever change sects because of the tribal culture still prevalent in the Middle East, because if they did it would result in a loss of the tribe's protection and likely the tribe trying to kill them.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:idk if the islamic center at ground zero should be forbidden by law.... it's a free country. Just because people don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. But I sure wish the muslims wouldn't go out of their way to piss people off all the time. Seems like alot of the world's problems, right now, get back to some guy wearing a turban.
AF
And thank you proving the "Ignorant Moron American" stereotype.
Gwar, Dreadnote: Arabs wear turbans too. Just not the big onion turbans. That's Sikhs.
read more about turbans here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban an excerpt:
In most of the Arabian peninsula countries, they wear a form of turban that is plain or checkered scarf (called keffiyeh, ghutrah or shumagh), though the Arabic Amamah tradition is still strong in Oman(see Sultan Qaboos of Oman), Egypt, Sudan as well as some parts of the Arabian peninsula.
So basically, that checkered thing that the brown dude with the mustache is wearing... that's a turban.
Gwar: I don't know you but I really don't appreciate being insulted. Especially when I'm right. Let's just talk about the issue ok?
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:idk if the islamic center at ground zero should be forbidden by law.... it's a free country. Just because people don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. But I sure wish the muslims wouldn't go out of their way to piss people off all the time. Seems like alot of the world's problems, right now, get back to some guy wearing a turban.
AF
1. It's not at ground zero.
2. How many blocks away would be acceptable to you 5, 10, 100, 1000?
3. Give me a break. Most of the world's troubles? So the Arabs are responsible for oil spill in the gulf, American financial collapse and the ridiculous price of Empire Great Swords?
So the Arabs are responsible for oil spill in the gulf, American financial collapse and the ridiculous price of Empire Great Swords?
Not to mention that the people causing problems aren't all Arabs. A major source of instability in Iraq is Iran, and they're Persians. A major source of instability in Afghanistan is Pakistan, and they're essentialy Muslim Indians.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gwar, Dreadnote: Arabs wear turbans too. Just not the big onion turbans. That's Sikhs.
read more about turbans here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban an excerpt: In most of the Arabian peninsula countries, they wear a form of turban that is plain or checkered scarf (called keffiyeh, ghutrah or shumagh), though the Arabic Amamah tradition is still strong in Oman(see Sultan Qaboos of Oman), Egypt, Sudan as well as some parts of the Arabian peninsula. So basically, that checkered thing that the brown dude with the mustache is wearing... that's a turban.
Gwar: I don't know you but I really don't appreciate being insulted. Especially when I'm right. Let's just talk about the issue ok? AF
No, it's called a keffiyeh, ghutrah or shumagh.
I take offense that you say "most of the worlds problems" are caused by Islam. The largest pandemic in the history of mankind is currently ravaging Africa because of some dude on a throne with a pointy hat. I consider that a bit of a bigger problem.
Tell us, if they were going to build a Roman Catholic Church there, would you care? I can tell you now you wouldn't. (I would, but I am vehemently anti-religion completely, but let's not derail the thread, eh?)
2. oh.... I don't know... 100 sounds about right Like I said, I don't think it should be against the law. They can build it wherever they can buy the property and get the permits. I just think they should have the decency not to build it there. That's all. It's disrespectful.
3. I didn't say most of the world's troubles. I said alot of the world's problems. Good thing I reread my posts, since alot of people don't even read them once, but still feel entitled to comment..... Anyway yes alot of the world's problems are being caused by muslims. For whatever reason there's a fair size group of those people who just aren't happy unless they're blowing something up. That to me is a problem.
AF
AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gwar, Dreadnote: Arabs wear turbans too. Just not the big onion turbans. That's Sikhs.
read more about turbans here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban an excerpt:
In most of the Arabian peninsula countries, they wear a form of turban that is plain or checkered scarf (called keffiyeh, ghutrah or shumagh), though the Arabic Amamah tradition is still strong in Oman(see Sultan Qaboos of Oman), Egypt, Sudan as well as some parts of the Arabian peninsula.
So basically, that checkered thing that the brown dude with the mustache is wearing... that's a turban.
Gwar: I don't know you but I really don't appreciate being insulted. Especially when I'm right. Let's just talk about the issue ok?
AF
You're incorrect. The only people who wear turbans (عمامة) in Arabic society are Shiite clerics, and they wear black and white turbans. A black turban symbolizes a connection to the House of the Prophet, a white one means he's just a regular Imam.
Confusing a headdress (شماغ) with a turban (عمامة) is akin to confusing a cowboy hat with a baseball cap. They both cover the head but there are different connotations for each.
IAmTheWalrus wrote:You're incorrect. The only people who wear turbans (عمامة) in Arabic society are Shiite clerics, and they wear black and white turbans. A black turban symbolizes a connection to the House of the Prophet, a white one means he's just a regular Imam.
Confusing a headdress (شماغ) with a turban (عمامة) is akin to confusing a cowboy hat with a baseball cap. They both cover the head but there are different connotations for each.
And isn't Troubles synonymous with problems?
The funny thing is, pre-GWBush, the Middle east was rather stable. Then he went and invaded two COMPLETELY unrelated countries illegally, and THAT is what has caused all of your "problems".
Gwar
you said: No, it's called a keffiyeh, ghutrah or shumagh.
which is a type of turban. just drop it.
you all seem to be having alot of trouble quoting me right. Here's what I said:
AbaddonFidelis wrote: Seems like alot of the world's problems, right now, get back to some guy wearing a turban. AF
Does the word "most" appear anywhere in that sentence? no.
just out of curiosity, what dude on a throne with a pointy hat do you mean, specifically, is responsible for AIDS?
No, I wouldn't mind if the catholics built a cathedral next to the world trade center site. They didn't blow the thing up so why would it offend anyone?
AF
Gwar! wrote:The largest pandemic in the history of mankind is currently ravaging Africa because of some dude on a throne with a pointy hat. I consider that a bit of a bigger problem.
In a thread of dumb things being said that's right up there with the statement it's attacking. The Catholic Church isn't helping, but it's hardly the cause of Aids in Africa either.
oh.... I get it.... AIDS is caused by the pope.... because the catholics don't believe in birth control..... ok..... ummmm.... that's kind of a dumb idea, but whatever.
AF
Gwar! wrote:The largest pandemic in the history of mankind is currently ravaging Africa because of some dude on a throne with a pointy hat. I consider that a bit of a bigger problem.
In a thread of dumb things being said that's right up there with the statement it's attacking. The Catholic Church isn't helping, but it's hardly the cause of Aids in Africa either.
Did I mention the Catholic Church anywhere? You have a crazy mind.
But since you brought it up, Yes, the Catholic church isn't the "cause" of the HIV Pandemic (in that they didn't make the virus... or did they </tinfoilhat> ) but they willingly and knowingly prevent treatment and prevention. That, in any sane persons book, makes them responsible for the scale of the pandemic.
AbaddonFidelis wrote:
you said: No, it's called a keffiyeh, ghutrah or shumagh.
which is a type of turban. just drop it.
Off-topic, Scrabble players love arabs for all their crazy hat names If you haven't peaked in the 4th edition Scrabble dictionary, there were a ridiculous number of foreign words added since we don't have English equivalents. Faqir is a personal fave (17 points base and Q with no U!).
Gwar! wrote:[Did I mention the Catholic Church anywhere? You have a crazy mind.
Yeah. Right, sure.
Gwar! wrote:But since you brought it up, Yes, the Catholic church isn't the "cause" of the HIV Pandemic (in that they didn't make the virus... or did they </tinfoilhat> ) but they willingly and knowingly prevent treatment and prevention. That, in any sane persons book, makes them responsible for the scale of the pandemic.
Plenty of that sort of blame to go around. Ranging from South Africa's Health minister to American Evangicals. The Catholics are hardly the only ones.
It's only a matter of time. Considering it's exclusion from the OSPD 4 (which is practically my Bible) I suppose you're right. I'll get you next time, Gadget...
I guess as long as your bigotry is politely written, it's ok.
Such as the stuff I've seen written against Christians, calling them loons, and Christianity, calling it a superstition and excuse to murder and plunder, on Dakka?
Yeah, those threads usually get locked quickly.
THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF HIS POST. THIS MUSLIM RANT THREAD IS ALMOST AT 20 PAGES.
Ironically the above quote also describes many U.S.politicians in recent years...
Not over until this cat can get in a few more of these.
He's like the Pee Wee Herman of political commentary.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Truly, we are in the presence of a deep thinker.
Honestly, I'm just posting this because it appears that the mods have suspended Gailebreaiethe, so I can't read any more of his totally awesome art, and it's making me sad, and I'm taking it out on Mr. GAMER.
Gwar! wrote:The largest pandemic in the history of mankind is currently ravaging Africa because of some dude on a throne with a pointy hat. I consider that a bit of a bigger problem.
In a thread of dumb things being said that's right up there with the statement it's attacking. The Catholic Church isn't helping, but it's hardly the cause of Aids in Africa either.
Did I mention the Catholic Church anywhere? You have a crazy mind.
But since you brought it up, Yes, the Catholic church isn't the "cause" of the HIV Pandemic (in that they didn't make the virus... or did they </tinfoilhat> ) but they willingly and knowingly prevent treatment and prevention. That, in any sane persons book, makes them responsible for the scale of the pandemic.
Actually the Catholic stance makes more sense if taken properly.
The problem that people read 'no condoms' message and point fingers, as the actual message is 'lifelong monogamy' it all comes together you see. If people followed that message Aids would not be much of a problem. I do not agree with the condom ban, there is no scripture to back it up, its a stupid dogma, however its actually part of something better just rather hard to adhere to for much of the population.
Ironically the above quote also describes many U.S.politicians in recent years...
Not over until this cat can get in a few more of these.
He's like the Pee Wee Herman of political commentary.
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Truly, we are in the presence of a deep thinker.
Honestly, I'm just posting this because it appears that the mods have suspended Gailebreaiethe, so I can't read any more of his totally awesome art, and it's making me sad, and I'm taking it out on Mr. GAMER.
Difference is I'm commenting on the topic at hand.
Your resorting to personal attacks like a child because people disagree with you.
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:OT: It's very frustrating that alot of people consider turbans to be some only Muslim thing, not people here, but I mean general people.
I associate it much more with Sikhs.
I think turban wearing went out of style centuries ago for arabs.
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:OT: It's very frustrating that alot of people consider turbans to be some only Muslim thing, not people here, but I mean general people.
I associate it much more with Sikhs.
I think turban wearing went out of style centuries ago for arabs.
It's good some people know it's more to Sikhs. Just most anyone that's given me or others trouble for wearing a turban, seems to have not even known that Sikhs exist. Had to waste a bunch of time, just to explain to idiots that wearing a turban doesn't automatically mean you're Muslim or you follow Islam.
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:OT: It's very frustrating that alot of people consider turbans to be some only Muslim thing, not people here, but I mean general people.
I associate it much more with Sikhs.
I think turban wearing went out of style centuries ago for arabs.
It's good some people know it's more to Sikhs. Just most anyone that's given me or others trouble for wearing a turban, seems to have not even known that Sikhs exist. Had to waste a bunch of time, just to explain to idiots that wearing a turban doesn't automatically mean you're Muslim or you follow Islam.
I remember I was living on Providence, RI at the time of 9/11 and a couple of Sikhs got detained and dragged off the train for same....
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:OT: It's very frustrating that alot of people consider turbans to be some only Muslim thing, not people here, but I mean general people.
I associate it much more with Sikhs.
I think turban wearing went out of style centuries ago for arabs.
It's good some people know it's more to Sikhs. Just most anyone that's given me or others trouble for wearing a turban, seems to have not even known that Sikhs exist. Had to waste a bunch of time, just to explain to idiots that wearing a turban doesn't automatically mean you're Muslim or you follow Islam.
I remember I was living on Providence, RI at the time of 9/11 and a couple of Sikhs got detained and dragged off the train for same....
It's quite stupid and incredibly annoying that things like that happen. Getting a bunch of off-hand and snide remarks going anywhere, all because a bunch of asshats cant be bothered to actually ask about or research anything. That and there's been a few times where businesses and random idjits working at stores, would get lippy over nothing but that. It'd be nice if some outlet would just come on and say, "You're discriminating against people who have absolutely nothing to do with what you're wanting to yell about" and bring a bit of light to the subject, that a bunch of people apparently know nothing about.
As it's been at least 5 pages since I last said it: It doesn't matter because they aren't building a mosque 'at' Ground Zero (tm), as much as they're build a mosque down the road from it.
Once again, it's a non-story. Get on with your lives.
Albatross wrote:As it's been at least 5 pages since I last said it: It doesn't matter because they aren't building a mosque 'at' Ground Zero (tm), as much as they're build a mosque down the road from it.
Once again, it's a non-story. Get on with your lives.
It's also technically not a mosque, so much as a community center with a fairly large prayer space set aside within it. Sort of like St. Mary's Hospital isn't a church despite the fact they have a chapel in it.
The Green Git wrote:I think the difference here is that Islam has a habit of building Mosques as shrines at the scenes of major victories over the Infidel. Ever wonder why the Dome of the Rock is smack dab in the center of Jerusalem right at the site of the old Temple of Solomon?
Could it possibly be because the dome of the rock contains a rock (hence the name) from which mohammed is believed to have visited Heaven?
Now you're getting it.
). Sometimes they try and drag the argument away from the position they can't defend any longer, by trying to make jokes or making personal attacks.
ed up.
