Jump to content


Photo

Ground Zero Mosque


  • Please log in to reply
706 replies to this topic

#321 disco

disco

    Ice Age

  • Mortals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts

Posted 03 September 2010 - 11:54 PM

For fucks sake. I didn't even call my made up numbers Islamic.

The point was completely lost, you took the fake numbers and assumed shit about them rather than understanding the concept of a support column for terrorism. You can thumb your nose all you want at the idea that not too many of the 1.6 billion muslims are suicide bombers for their religion, but you certainly can't thumb your nose at the notion that a much larger portion support these actions. You cry "Extremists extremists! They are not true Muslims!" Well what about those who support their actions in some shape or way?

The point stands.

Read it again, insert your favorite color, letter, number for whatever percent was there.

You know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Just because .1% or .05% or .01% blow themselves up, there are still the silent group of people supporting their actions.

This silent group of people are the same people who show up and cheer on the likes of the al Megrahi when his plane touches down in Libya.

And you have to know that if there are crowds of people forming at the airport for his arrival, there are magnitudes more watching on TV feeling happy about a mass murderer coming home.


I assumed you meant Islam, and weren't throwing out made-up statistics on a made-up and unnamed group of people. But my point remains - you accept that terrorists and their supporters are a vast minority of Muslims, so why should we expect the 90%+ of normal Muslims (even higher in America, I might add) to act apologetically for the 10% who are crazy? And Bergz's points still haven't been answered by you, Nate.

Also Libyan government arranged the meeting when he landed. And his fame is not solely due to Islam, to Libyans he is seen as fighting back against Western oppression and expansion - a pretty similar rallying point for bin Laden, too. His actions, like all terrorist actions, were primarily political, not religious. Which goes back to my point all along.

#322 CmdrNate

CmdrNate

    Avalanche

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 01:52 AM

I assumed you meant Islam, and weren't throwing out made-up statistics on a made-up and unnamed group of people. But my point remains - you accept that terrorists and their supporters are a vast minority of Muslims, so why should we expect the 90%+ of normal Muslims (even higher in America, I might add) to act apologetically for the 10% who are crazy? And Bergz's points still haven't been answered by you, Nate.

Also Libyan government arranged the meeting when he landed. And his fame is not solely due to Islam, to Libyans he is seen as fighting back against Western oppression and expansion - a pretty similar rallying point for bin Laden, too. His actions, like all terrorist actions, were primarily political, not religious. Which goes back to my point all along.


You just grabbed 90% out of thin air, even after using your own numbers (.1%, 10%, 20-30%).

I don't accept that terrorists and their supporters are a "vast minority of Muslims." I accept that actual terrorists are a vast minority, but I stated that there is a column of support much much larger than the actual terrorists themselves.

I'm not going to make estimates, like how you just said 90%+ don't support terrorists, because you can alter the definition of support to meet your claim.

What I'm saying is that terrorism in Islam exists because there are multiple layers of varying support for their actions. It's not clear cut either. Some lend support through direct means (money, planning, assistance), some lend support through indirect actions, some support through inaction, etc.

Either way, it's not a small number. The support column is vast, terrorism isn't denounced amongst the Islamic faith nearly enough.

And honestly, you keep trying to describe terrorist acts with DIRECT ties to Islam as 'political' and not religious? C'mon, that's just completely uniformed.

At least do us the favor and google this shit before you spew it from your mouth. Wiki FTW

#323 disco

disco

    Ice Age

  • Mortals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 03:11 AM

You just grabbed 90% out of thin air, even after using your own numbers (.1%, 10%, 20-30%).


So you're upset that I made up numbers, because you already made up numbers?

I don't accept that terrorists and their supporters are a "vast minority of Muslims." I accept that actual terrorists are a vast minority, but I stated that there is a column of support much much larger than the actual terrorists themselves.


Sure. Taking .01% of Muslims as terrorists, that means that if 5-10% of Muslims support them that's 500-1000 times more people. But you dont know those figures, and neither do I. My opinion is based on a belief that the majority of Islam is comprised of reasonable, non-western-hating people. Yours is apparently based on a belief that huge numbers of Muslims have secret terrorist-supporting agendas. And it still doesn't matter with regards to this mosque, because this mosque is headed by one of the most moderate imams anyone can think of and has never been associated with terrorism in any way. It is unfair to judge these people by the actions of others.

And honestly, you keep trying to describe terrorist acts with DIRECT ties to Islam as 'political' and not religious? C'mon, that's just completely uniformed.

At least do us the favor and google this shit before you spew it from your mouth. Wiki FTW


Quoting from your quote, sir. You'll notice how there is no mention at all about Islam in the motivations section, and in fact they have this crazy theory that I've also been saying which is that the motive is political:

The motive that is generally attributed to Libya can be traced back to a series of military confrontations with the US Navy that took place in the 1980s in the Gulf of Sidra, the whole of which Libya claimed as its territorial waters. First, there was the Gulf of Sidra incident (1981) when two Libyan fighter aircraft were shot down. Then, two Libyan radio ships were sunk in the Gulf of Sidra. Later, on 23 March 1986 a Libyan Navy patrol boat was sunk in the Gulf of Sidra,[68] followed by the sinking of another Libyan vessel on 25 March 1986.[69] The Libyan leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, was accused of retaliating to these sinkings by ordering the 5 April 1986 bombing of West Berlin nightclub, La Belle, that was frequented by U.S. soldiers and which killed three and injured 230.[70]
The U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) alleged interception of an incriminatory message from Libya to its embassy in East Berlin provided U.S. president Ronald Reagan with the justification for USAF warplanes to launch Operation El Dorado Canyon on 15 April 1986 from British bases[71][72] —the first U.S. military strikes from Britain since World War II—against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya. Among dozens of Libyan military and civilian casualties, the air strikes killed Hanna Gaddafi, a baby girl Gaddafi said he adopted. To avenge his daughter's death, Gaddafi is said to have sponsored the September 1986 hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan.


Yep, political. Just like 9/11. Just like the Cole. I'm not going to outline that because it should be obvious enough, although I recall us clashing heads in a thread a while ago where I argued that terrorists had political motivations and anger at US policy as their reasons, and you preferred something along the lines of "they just hate us because Islam." Not going into that again.

#324 MoP

MoP

    Earthquake

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,293 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 05:11 AM

You forgot to add in there that its also what a LOT of Muslims would do as well. As this current action is not a way they feel represents the compassion and core beliefs of their religion. I quoted an article earlier where a Muslim was opposed to it and also found this one: http://blogs.dailyma.../archives/19041



and another one: http://bigpeace.com/...nd-zero-mosque/








You're putting extreme and crude limits on your rationale to call all those who oppose the mosque bigots. Your broad generalizations do your intellect no favor.

Sometimes, (believe it or not!) it shows depth of thought and deeper understanding when you can respect those who hold a different viewpoint than your own.

Are you really trying to argue with a troll?

Shows how intellectual you are...


Don't worry, I'm sure none of the people organizing the activist protests against the Mosque are anything like those depicted in the Glenn Beck Rally video, they are actually intelligent and much more deep. They are probably people who actually spent more than 5 seconds in their brain rather than emotionally scapegoating an entire faith.

Have you ever thought of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country right now? Or are you simply trying to defend one side without showing any sort of compassion for the other, while trying to google any pro-your-side Muslim to help your viewpoint? Oh wait sorry, Muslims are "others" they aren't Americans. They can't be considered at all. Do you realize how hypocritical you are?

#325 SurrealSight

SurrealSight

    Granite

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:48 AM

I like the way this thread is going...

Red herrings, straw men, amazing familiarity, bad analogies...

/sarcasm off

IGNs
EHJ-SG: CHeWyX / Merceta

SC2: SurrealSight #261


#326 CmdrNate

CmdrNate

    Avalanche

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 02:19 PM

So you're upset that I made up numbers, because you already made up numbers?



Sure. Taking .01% of Muslims as terrorists, that means that if 5-10% of Muslims support them that's 500-1000 times more people. But you dont know those figures, and neither do I. My opinion is based on a belief that the majority of Islam is comprised of reasonable, non-western-hating people. Yours is apparently based on a belief that huge numbers of Muslims have secret terrorist-supporting agendas. And it still doesn't matter with regards to this mosque, because this mosque is headed by one of the most moderate imams anyone can think of and has never been associated with terrorism in any way. It is unfair to judge these people by the actions of others.



Quoting from your quote, sir. You'll notice how there is no mention at all about Islam in the motivations section, and in fact they have this crazy theory that I've also been saying which is that the motive is political:



Yep, political. Just like 9/11. Just like the Cole. I'm not going to outline that because it should be obvious enough, although I recall us clashing heads in a thread a while ago where I argued that terrorists had political motivations and anger at US policy as their reasons, and you preferred something along the lines of "they just hate us because Islam." Not going into that again.


1) I purposely didn't apply any numbers to the Muslim religion, because I said I don't know the numbers. The situation where I actually used numbers was completely hypothetical, I wanted to illustrate how you don't need a large number of terrorists, but you need a larger amount of supporters. Disco and some others inserted "MUSLIM" before each percent, I tried to keep the point separate from the rest of the post as it was using a fictional religion with fictional numbers. Disco replied with a post using fictional numbers for a non-fictional religion. I hope you can see the difference.

2) Is it simply enough that a majority of Islam is non-terrorist? As disco says repeatedly, it's not just about the majority.

3) Read the Wiki article again.

A male caller claimed that a group called the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution had destroyed the plane in retaliation for the U.S. shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 in the Persian Gulf the previous July.


I would say that a group called "The Guardians of the Islamic Revolution" (IRG) is fairly rooted in the Islamic religion, I could be mistaken, they could be completely unrelated. But I'm willing to bet that it is.

And finally, MoP, I think the only person trolling in this thread at the moment is yourself.

Your turn, 'Sir'.

#327 CmdrNate

CmdrNate

    Avalanche

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 02:26 PM

Are you really trying to argue with a troll?

Shows how intellectual you are...


Don't worry, I'm sure none of the people organizing the activist protests against the Mosque are anything like those depicted in the Glenn Beck Rally video, they are actually intelligent and much more deep. They are probably people who actually spent more than 5 seconds in their brain rather than emotionally scapegoating an entire faith.

Have you ever thought of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country right now? Or are you simply trying to defend one side without showing any sort of compassion for the other, while trying to google any pro-your-side Muslim to help your viewpoint? Oh wait sorry, Muslims are "others" they aren't Americans. They can't be considered at all. Do you realize how hypocritical you are?


I agree, there are bigots who protest the mosque for the wrong reasons. But trying to pretend that everyone who protests the community center/mosque/whatever is flat out bullshit. Even going as far as to say the majority of protesters are bigoted is also without fact. 60% of the US population oppose the building of the mosque. From your argument, you are trying to paint anyone opposed as an idiot who hasn't thought about this.

Not true.

#328 Catwalker

Catwalker

    What... this again?

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • LocationTrashcanistan

Posted 04 September 2010 - 04:00 PM

I like the way this thread is going...

Red herrings, straw men, amazing familiarity, bad analogies...

/sarcasm off


This thread started that way. I don't know why you think it would change direction. Even after nine pages. :rolleyes:

#329 SurrealSight

SurrealSight

    Granite

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 05:43 PM

This thread started that way. I don't know why you think it would change direction. Even after nine pages. :rolleyes:

Aww. :lol:

IGNs
EHJ-SG: CHeWyX / Merceta

SC2: SurrealSight #261


#330 Fahrenheit

Fahrenheit

    Heartless Libertarian

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 07:44 PM

So...

I'm not opposed to a mosque/islamic cultural center* within two blocks of ground zero, but I'm pretty much opposed to it being built on the site of a building that was severely damaged on 9/11 in the attack (IIRC, a set of landing gear crashed through the building).

I wonder if the cultural center would go forward if they were granted a permit, but the permit was modified to a shorter building so the top-floor glass-enclosed prayer room could no longer look down directly on Ground Zero?


* - say... that kind of sounds familiar. Doesn't Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, build cultural centers, schools, and such, in the Occupied Territories, in an effort to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinians?

#331 disco

disco

    Ice Age

  • Mortals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 08:15 PM

1) I purposely didn't apply any numbers to the Muslim religion, because I said I don't know the numbers. The situation where I actually used numbers was completely hypothetical, I wanted to illustrate how you don't need a large number of terrorists, but you need a larger amount of supporters. Disco and some others inserted "MUSLIM" before each percent, I tried to keep the point separate from the rest of the post as it was using a fictional religion with fictional numbers. Disco replied with a post using fictional numbers for a non-fictional religion. I hope you can see the difference.


Well then I thank you for your valuable addition of arbitrary statistics about a non-existent group of people. It really helped illustrate your point.

2) Is it simply enough that a majority of Islam is non-terrorist? As disco says repeatedly, it's not just about the majority.


Why, yes, yes it is. I do not accept that we should stereotype 1.6 billion people based on what .01% of them have done.

I would say that a group called "The Guardians of the Islamic Revolution" (IRG) is fairly rooted in the Islamic religion, I could be mistaken, they could be completely unrelated. But I'm willing to bet that it is.


Did you even read the quote? They retaliated for US shooting down an airliner - political reasons. But I'm guessing you want to attribute it to religious extremism because their name has "Islam" in it. It's clearly political. I don't understand why that is contentious.

I look forward to your reply, kind sir.


I'm not opposed to a mosque/islamic cultural center* within two blocks of ground zero, but I'm pretty much opposed to it being built on the site of a building that was severely damaged on 9/11 in the attack (IIRC, a set of landing gear crashed through the building).


Yes, landing gear did crash through. I guess you could argue that the building should be preserved as some kind of monument, but if that were the case the city wouldn't have granted the permit already and a lot of the new WTC site is going to be monument, too. Furthermore, its a privately-owned building, so the city would have had to buy it via imminent domain and then somehow made something out of it to indicate that landing gear once resided there.

* - say... that kind of sounds familiar. Doesn't Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, build cultural centers, schools, and such, in the Occupied Territories, in an effort to win the hearts and minds of the Palestinians?


Yep, you're right. The mosque is probably part of a secret conspiracy by terrorists to win American hearts and minds over to Sharia law by building controversial structures which become political debates. They're so f'ing smart, how did I not see it before?

#332 Catwalker

Catwalker

    What... this again?

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • LocationTrashcanistan

Posted 04 September 2010 - 08:42 PM

Disco, I dub thee: King of the Straw Man!

#333 disco

disco

    Ice Age

  • Mortals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts

Posted 04 September 2010 - 11:07 PM

Disco, I dub thee: King of the Straw Man!


I am so honored. I would like to take the time to thank my manager for getting me this gig, my parents for raising me and always saying "You should be a lawyer because you argue about anything," my friends for supporting me as I struggled creating straw men, the supplier of straw without whom said men would be impossible to construct, and Don Quixote who, of course, needs no introduction. I'd also like to add that this award is like giving citizen of the year award to a serial rapist - do you really want to be supporting serial rapists?

#334 PanRouge

PanRouge

    Avalanche

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,952 posts
  • LocationKnoxville, TN

Posted 04 September 2010 - 11:23 PM

Disco, I dub thee: King of the Straw Man!

Should it be "King of the Straw Men"?
Posted Image

#335 xPsYcHoTiKx

xPsYcHoTiKx

    Lava

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 761 posts

Posted 05 September 2010 - 01:43 AM

On a related note, I went to the MN state fair today, and there were several Muslims handing out little slips of paper, to help teach people about the real Islam or some such, (I glanced/browsed it, nothing outside the ordinary - Islam isn't a violent religion, it's about devoting one self to our god, yadda yadda, the same stuff any other religion would hand out). Thinking of this thread in particular, I asked one what he thought about all of the fuss being raised over the construction of the NY community center by 9/11 and he said that (not quoting because I don't remember word for word exactly, I'm not a reporter :P ) that the community center is only bringing more negative light to Islam, and wishes they had chosen a more neutral location rather than stir the pot by building it so close to ground zero. After which I thanked him and wished him well.

Just found that interesting.


#336 Catwalker

Catwalker

    What... this again?

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,816 posts
  • LocationTrashcanistan

Posted 05 September 2010 - 01:48 AM

Those Muslims are clearly bigoted and should watch less Fox News.

#337 boots

boots

    Scoria

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 05 September 2010 - 02:58 AM

Are you really trying to argue with a troll?

Shows how intellectual you are...


ah...the ever popular e-comeback after posting something idiotic: "I'm just trolling, I didn't really mean that, I'm not actually as stupid as I sound but you're stupid for believing me!"

:rollseyes:

duly noted that you won't take credit for your stupidity because you're being stupid on purpose. Like the people on games who are like "I meant to lose, therefore I win by losing! And you lose for winning! hahahahaha!"

no fuckwit, I actually won and you're being an idiot. The only pleasure you stole from me is by showing what dimwit you are so I get no pleasure from beating you because you made it too easy.


As for how the Muslims feel in this country right now, I dunno ask them? Psychotik did. That mosque isn't what their religion represents to them. They feel misrepresented by that arsehole who is pushing it. And also, that arsehole isn't really a liberal forward-thinking Muslim apparently. The one article I read said this:

Rauf is no moderate. He says the United States is worse than al Qaeda.


http://bigpeace.com/jmwaller/2010/08/24/more-muslims-speak-out-against-ground-zero-mosque/




Why, yes, yes it is. I do not accept that we should stereotype 1.6 billion people based on what .01% of them have done.


look dimsco, no one is "stereotyping" anyone. This isn't about stereotyping or bigotry, you're MISSING THE POINT! Its about being considerate and respectful to people who LIVE THERE who don't think its appropriate. You've completely misjudged the entire issue and the entire group of people who don't want it there. You've place broad generalizations and assumed you understand them when in fact you are clueless at best about their perspectives. The bigger failing here is that despite several people showing you evidence to the contrary you refuse to give it any time, merit or consideration about what the real issue is. Calling them all a name and getting self-righteously "infuriated" suits you and your limited understanding much better than learning and understanding the truth and respecting them despite you disagreeing with them.

But even though you're completely wrong with your conclusions about this situation, you fail to hold even an inkling of respect for people who's opinions differ from your own on the issue, and in doing so you've completely lost any respect I personally held for you before this thread. Showing that you lack the emotional and intellectual capacity to accurately assess and understand the opposition and coming down so strong and judgmental on them is not something I expected out of you previously. But hey, I've only been reading your posts on here a few months now, apparently my first assessment that you had might have had a brain and heart was a faulty assumption on my part that you've done excellent in proving me wrong. Instead of a brain capable of critical thought and understanding you possess an unwavering rulebook with your own set of personal moral and social codes which you hold everyone accountable to by the letter of the law. And instead of a heart you possess nothing capable of understanding or empathizing or mercy to anyone who doesn't agree with you personally.

Your opinions have now fallen to the level Conqidiots (see I came up with one just for you conq <3 ask and you shall receive!). May you both have many self-ego stroking self-righteous threads in the future with mutual dick sucking.

#338 CmdrNate

CmdrNate

    Avalanche

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:19 AM

On a related note, I went to the MN state fair today, and there were several Muslims handing out little slips of paper, to help teach people about the real Islam or some such, (I glanced/browsed it, nothing outside the ordinary - Islam isn't a violent religion, it's about devoting one self to our god, yadda yadda, the same stuff any other religion would hand out). Thinking of this thread in particular, I asked one what he thought about all of the fuss being raised over the construction of the NY community center by 9/11 and he said that (not quoting because I don't remember word for word exactly, I'm not a reporter :P ) that the community center is only bringing more negative light to Islam, and wishes they had chosen a more neutral location rather than stir the pot by building it so close to ground zero. After which I thanked him and wished him well.

Just found that interesting.


Damn those Muslim bigots for trying to legally sue the community center builders out of their constitutional right to build near a site of politically motivated extremist activity.

..... Wait for it..... waaaaait!

Yeah, pretty much the exact opposite. But they have to be bigoted towards Islam! They are denying their constitutional right to build their huge building anyfuckingwheretheywant! Because that's the ONLY thing that matters, following the constitution.

Anyway, disco, since you take everything I say out of context and mash it around and regurgitate it in your own ugly, straw man inducing way...

I just want to clarify one point I was making, that you misconstrued badly.


2) Is it simply enough that a majority of Islam is non-terrorist? As disco says repeatedly, it's not just about the majority.


Why, yes, yes it is. I do not accept that we should stereotype 1.6 billion people based on what .01% of them have done.


If 51% of Muslims weren't terrorists, would Islam still be ok? I said a majority, not .01% (again, you are moving the bar further, you said .1% before, now its .01%).

My entire point I was making throughout my last 3 posts was that there was more than just the terrorists who bomb people. There is a significant support column for terrorists. There is no way I can put a % on it, but it's not something you can simply overlook and say "oh because they aren't actually blowing anyone up, it's not a problem! Only .01% of Muslims are actual terrorists."

And your point about the IRG not being religious based is a crock of shit. Go read up about the IRG, they exist entirely because of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. They are a highly religious based group, so trying to pretend this wasn't anything short of religious in nature is a joke. You're buying into the propaganda machine. Every terrorist who's ever bombed, killed, whatever... They have a specific cause, event, or reason for their bombing. Just because the IRG said this was in response to another flight that was shot down, it doesn't mean it isn't religiously motivated.

When you say "It's political" you are trying to ignore the politics of religion as well. You can have a political issue that is religious. You can have an Islamic Extremist group start a jihad on the US.

If you tried to use the same logic of "it's political, not religious" because they had a specific cause (the flight that was shot down) you could (falsely) argue that 9/11 was 'just political' because they were responding to the presence of the US in the Middle East.

*eagerly awaits a straw man, a completely falsified statistic, or reply to a very small portion of my post pointing out how wrong it is*

#339 disco

disco

    Ice Age

  • Mortals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,578 posts

Posted 05 September 2010 - 03:44 AM

Boots, if you'd actually looked up Rauf, you'd notice that he's been an American-Muslim ambassador hired by the state department for years, and if you actually read what he said (instead of the stupid "america worse than Islam" statement) you'd see that what he actually said was extremely reasonable, and said in something called context - which you lack completely with that headline quote. He was pointing out terrorist-extremist motivations, one of which is America's foreign military presence, civilian casualties, etc. Do some actual research next time. And I think I posted that same stuff a few pages back.

If 51% of Muslims weren't terrorists, would Islam still be ok? I said a majority, not .01% (again, you are moving the bar further, you said .1% before, now its .01%).


Yes. At what percentage would you consider the mosque non-offensive? Or does it have to be zero?

Just because the IRG said this was in response to another flight that was shot down, it doesn't mean it isn't religiously motivated.


Actually, when they say "We shot down this plane because the US shot down that plane" I find that a pretty reasonable argument. Apparently you prefer "We shot down the plane because Allah" as a motivator, so I can't help you. One must recognize that the politics of their actions comes first in most cases. They may say "we did this, Allah be praised" but they're throwing in the last bit to fit in with their constituents and gain approval for their actions - kind of like how the President always says he prays for the country all the time, and he actually might not. It's a political maneuver.

Here's a better question, since you don't seem to accept politics as the prime motivator for terrorists. What is their motivation? And why do they keep, in your mind, lying about the factors by always naming practical, political responses?

When you say "It's political" you are trying to ignore the politics of religion as well. You can have a political issue that is religious. You can have an Islamic Extremist group start a jihad on the US.


I agree, political issues can be religious. Abortion is a great example. But I see terrorists as reactionaries against Western power for a long list of reasons which I detailed in another thread some time ago. Islam might be in there, but if it is its one of the lesser motivations.

If you tried to use the same logic of "it's political, not religious" because they had a specific cause (the flight that was shot down) you could (falsely) argue that 9/11 was 'just political' because they were responding to the presence of the US in the Middle East.


Why yes, I do think 9/11 is political. They struck two extremely political buildings with symbolic meaning - the WTC represents US economic dominance and therefore US interests at large. By blowing it up they saw themselves as attacking the US economic system and globalization, which they see as a primary contributor to the shittiness of the Middle East and the badness of their countries. They could have flown those planes into any building - NYC isn't exactly short of targets - but they chose a completely secular, political building to take down because they were sending a political message. Then they attacked the Pentagon as well. This one's pretty obvious, I would think - Pentagon represents the American military, attacking it is meant to "get back" at the US for our military interventions in the area. You should also remember that the Pentagon is about 2 minutes via airplane from the Mall. If they were actually mounting a religious assault on everything American, why wouldn't they just go blow up our national monuments and cultural centers instead of the Pentagon? They also have blown up US embassies - again, a symbol of American foreign presence. Why hit those if their goal is purely religious? Why wouldn't they be hitting churches, attacking all of Europe and every other western country they can get access to who is also not Muslim?

I assume due to your (falsely) you believe the attacks on WTC and Pentagon were not political. What kind of action was it then, and why were those two locations chosen over many, many others?

*eagerly awaits a straw man, a completely falsified statistic, or reply to a very small portion of my post pointing out how wrong it is*


Nope, that's what you do :P And 94% of everyone I've talked to today agrees completely with everything i said, so I win.

Also, to avoid 3 pages of yelling which is what happened last time I posted the apparently-controversial view that terrorists have fairly understandable motivations, I do not in any way think they are justified in doing so. I'm simply trying to show what their thought process is - there is no value in being ignorant.

#340 CmdrNate

CmdrNate

    Avalanche

  • Einherjar
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,940 posts

Posted 05 September 2010 - 04:04 AM

You did it again Disco.

You changed my argument.

You've created something new here, "Purely religious." Where was that stated?

1) You claimed that many terrorist actions were "political" "primarily political" or "political, not religious"

2) I said there was a strong religious aspect.

3) You disagreed that these were religiously motivated, pushing it away as if it was an afterthought "similar to how the president says he 'prays'".

4) You then shrugged off my assertion that there is politics in religion and many religious extremists do name politic events as their cause for terrorism.

5) You then create a new line of reasoning, "Why hit those if their goal is purely religious?"

Do you SEE the straw man? I mean honestly? Can you possibly consider a topic with some analytical skills? This is a terrible form of debate.

All, Most, Some, Few, None.

Understand that when you apply "All" or "None" you are VASTLY changing an idea. You just turned Most Religious into All Religious. If you wanted to have a reasonable debate, we would be talking about Most Religious+Some Political versus Some Religious+Most Political. Instead you turn it into this...

Disco's side: Most Political+Almost None Religious.
Nate's side: All Religious+No Political (<--- This is NOT my side, this is what you assigned to my side and then replied against it!)

The very basis of a straw man! You assign me a viewpoint that we both know has no reasonable defensible merit. Stop it. Try, really, honestly, try to improve your debate skills.

You're stuck in a mud hole, spinning your tires repeatedly. If you keep hitting the gas, you're going to be stuck there for good. Try going in reverse sometimes, instead of always hitting the gas.

Edit:

In reply to the WTC idea. It wasn't just political. It wasn't just religious. It was both. Trying to argue what % political and what % religious is very difficult. But when someone asks you "why did 9/11 happen" and you reply with "it was political" you are going to meet a very strong reply. You are implying that it wasn't religiously motivated, or that religion had *almost no* impact.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users