Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

also:

Spidermans been enjoying a little too much Bacci's pizza

Da Boss wrote:Dude, Coors Light? That's just helping the damn terrorists.

It was on sale. Also, I felt that buying beer at noon necessitated a little slumming.

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.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

Incorrect Corrs Light IS Terrorism!

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.

A tad off here, but this thread has me thinking it would be one whale of a shitstorm if something happened to Mecca or the Dome of the Rock.

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.

Pipboy101 wrote:

Colossal Donkey wrote:

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.

+1
QFT

Phryxis wrote:

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:
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.

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.

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:

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?

Iran. Weren't you listening?

dogma wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:
What are you on about now?

The folly inherent in a nuclear strike on Iran.