Lincoln Jealous
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,122
- Reaction score
- 17
if that mosque was such a big deal, people would be protesting everyday, i walked by there yesterday and it was dead
Nice try fox, but you're purposely evading the point I'm making - it was the GOVERNMENT that we fought against, and it still is today. Also, your misdirection is either deliberate or out of ignorance - kamikaze dive bombers didn't appear until the end of the war - and certainly not at Pearl Harbor.Well, actually it was terrorists of sorts - the Japanese government preyed on the nationalism of young Japanese men when they revived the concept of Kamikaze.
Well it's a big deal to me, and it isn't a political issue - this is a war and we were attacked. Now they're rubbing our faces in it. I say fine, do it at your peril.It isn't a big deal to the neighbors - it is more or less a political pawn in reality.
It's also a well-established fact that after jihad-type victories, Muslim shrines pop up somewhere close by.
Make no mistake about it, the 'Ground Zero' Muslim building is simply another example of the attitude that caused the cheering in the streets all over the world that accompanied the pictures on TV of the WTC towers collapsing.
The Reactions to the September 11 attacks included condemnation from world leaders, other political and religious representatives and the international media, as well as numerous memorials and services all over the world. The attacks were denounced by the governments of countries traditionally considered hostile to the United States, such as Cuba, Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Islamic world
Reactions to the attacks in the Muslim world were mixed. Most Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks. The leaders vehemently denouncing the attacks included the Presidents of Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Syria, Iran and Pakistan.[5][15] The sole exception was Iraq, when the then-president Saddam Hussein, said of the attacks that "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity".[16] Saddam would later offer sympathy to the Americans killed in the attacks.[17]
Renowned Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi denounced the attacks and the killings of hundreds of civilians as a "heinous crime" and urged Muslims to donate blood to the victims. He did however criticise the United States' "biased policy towards Israel" and also called on Muslims to "concentrate on facing the occupying enemy directly", inside the Palestinian territories.[18] The alleged Hezbollah "spiritual mentor" and Lebanese Shia cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah condemned the attacks.
Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, said he was not interested in exporting such attacks to the United States, however he criticized the "unfair American position".[19]
Afghanistan's Taliban rulers condemned the attacks and also vehemently rejected suggestions that Osama bin Laden, who had been given asylum in Afghanistan, could be behind them.[19]
Huge crowds attended candlelit vigils in Iran, and 60,000 spectators observed a minute's silence at Tehran football stadium.[20][21]
[edit] Palestinian celebrations
The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) immediately condemned the attacks. Fox News reported that in Ein el-Hilweh, Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, revelers fired weapons in the air, with similar celebratory gunfire heard at the Rashidiyeh camp near the southern city of Tyre as well.[19]
Reports and images of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, Nablus, and Lebanon taking to the streets in celebration, were broadcast around the world.[19] with many newspapers, magazines, Web sites and wire services running photographs.[22][23] The PNA claimed such celebrations were not representative of the sentiments of the Palestinian people, and the Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said the PNA would not allow "a few kids" to "smear the real face of the Palestinians". In an attempt to quash further reporting, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, Arafat's Cabinet secretary, said the Palestinian Authority could not "guarantee the life" of an Associated Press (AP) cameraman if footage he filmed of post-9/11 celebrations in Nablus was broadcast. Rahman's statement prompted a formal protest from the AP bureau chief, Dan Perry.[24][23]
cammerfe said:Those with the kind of agenda that creates the 'in-your-face' activities inherent in the ground zero mosque need, like the mule, to have the 2X4 'up-side the head' to get their attention.
So, we have to like it when the muslims rub our faces in it?
So by your logic, the majority of the thousands of Mosques built in the US are at sites where "jihad-type victories" occurred. Got it.
Nice try fox, but you're purposely evading the point I'm making - it was the GOVERNMENT that we fought against, and it still is today. Also, your misdirection is either deliberate or out of ignorance - kamikaze dive bombers didn't appear until the end of the war - and certainly not at Pearl Harbor.
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and others constitute our enemies - whether we trade with SA or not. They are the evil that needs to be dealt with. If we would just take a page from Jefferson we'd smother the problem and set it back another 50 years.
Well it's a big deal to me, and it isn't a political issue - this is a war and we were attacked. Now they're rubbing our faces in it. I say fine, do it at your peril.
So, is the evil the country or the religion Foss
Do you ever stop to consider the implications of the false dichotomies you draw?
If, as you are insinuating, we can only go to war with nations, then we are prohibited from combating terrorism.
How would you propose that we deal with a strict theocratic ideology that preaches war against non-believes when that war takes the form of terrorist acts and attempts to incrementally subvert the culture of the countries to impose that ideology?
It is 'punishment' of a sorts - their rights are being infringed on just because of who they are. They want to build a place of worship, Americans are saying 'no, we are insulted by your church, and it shouldn't be within xxx of this hallowed ground'.
It isn't hallowed ground, it is stepping on the rights of a specific group.
You declare war on terrorists - extremists - whether they be religious extremists or political extremists or some combination of both.
This narrative is very persuasive. It is emotionally appealing and clearly lays out where the right and the wrong are on this issue. It is a very effective piece of rhetoric because it is simple and it plays on more primitive instincts by giving an "enemy" to focus on; in this case those who support "stepping on the rights of a specific group". For those who are gullible and/ rather emotional and conformist in their thinking, it is a very effective "ready-made" viewpoint to subscribe to. However, any objective critical analysis shows this narrative to be specious; a narrative based on half-truths, equivocation, distortion and misdirection.
The biggest problem with this narrative lies in the area of language. In the name of political expedience, this narrative defines down and corrupts the notions of "punishment", "tolerance", "rights" and, specifically "religious liberty".
Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group. Inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is characterized as something else.There is nothing authoritative in the majority of a society simply expressing their disagreement. So punishment can only be used metaphorically when referring to the disapproval of others. However, the implications being drawn from that "punishment" (infringement of rights) can only be logically drawn from a literal understanding of that term. In short, the idea of punishment is being implicitly redefined to include both the metaphorical and the literal.
The logical implications of this equivocation are worth noting. If metaphorical punishment, specifically of simply strong verbal disapproval, can be viewed as an infringement on rights, then what happens to the right to free speech? Whatever "right" was being infringed upon by that verbal disapproval would inherently conflict with the right to free speech. This leads to the next concept of rights.
All rights have limits. Finding where one right ends and another begins can be rather challenging and is typically a task for the courts, typically on an individual basis. However, what is being asserted here is well outside of that gray area between rights. This narrative infers that the right to religious liberty trumps the right to free speech. This is not an assertion at the individual level, but at the categorical level. Not justification is given as to why, in this instance, religious liberty should trump a right to free speech. However, most of the people asserting this see no problem with religious intolerance when it comes to Christianity.
Which brings us to religious liberty. The first amendment gives us both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause (guaranteeing that there shall be no government established religion). As originally written, these clauses were restrictions only on the Federal Legislature. However, they have been "incorporated" to the states and now serve as a restriction on every level of government. There are also implications, specifically with the Free Exercise Clause for businesses. However, the religious liberties being protected have limits which this narrative ignores. In inferring that the right to religious liberty trumps the right to free speech, the narrative is inferring that religious liberty is near absolute. This is reflected when certain politicians, like Bloomberg, explicitly claim that the people building this mosque have the right to worship whenever then want and wherever they want. As this article puts it, "If freedom of religion means anything in the United States, it means that Muslim-Americans have a right to congregate and worship wherever they please -- including places those with vivid memories of 9/11 may find distasteful.Think about that for a minute. They have the right to worship wherever they want. Does that mean that a Muslim can come into my house and worship even if I don't want him to? What about private property rights?
Considering the law in this area, the building of the Mosque cannot be prevented simply because of the condemnation of many or even most. Both sides of this issue know this and accept this. So, this is not an issue of tolerance.
But the narrative in question doesn't assume this understanding of tolerance. It is, again, implicitly redefining tolerance to include active support of what one may view as immoral behavior worthy of condemnation. This is not tolerance, but an expectation of one eschewing their own principles and viewpoints in favor of others. Subsequently, any disagreement with the Mosque is inherently intolerant.
Essentially, this narrative redefines and distorts concepts to reframe the debate into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Public sentiment is decidedly on one side of this debate and those on the losing side want to change the debate so they can win by default. While this narrative may be appealing to some, any objective critical examination shows this narrative to be a lie, cheap demagoguery and an act of desperation.
Which is precisely what we have done.
However, all political wars (which includes all modern wars) are first and foremost, wars of ideas. Refusing to acknowledge the fact that those ideas come from a religion is foolish and dangerous.
Like Nevile Chamberlain ignored the threat of Hitler even while Churchill was preaching of that threat for anyone willing to listen, ignoring the threat of Shariah law and refusing to acknowledge both how integrated Shariah law is in Islam and how ubiquitous it is in Islamic culture is to underestimate and misdiagnose the problem. How many lives could Chamberlain have saved had he (and the rest of Europe) acknowledged the threat of Hitler early and put a stop to it?
In the 21st century, where Islamic terrorists who recognize no national border are looking to get nukes, how much more dangerous is it to underestimate and misdiagnose a threat?
You want to focus on endgame, what is the endgame in that scenario?
So you didn't see the quotes around punishment - got it. I'll explain... when you use quotes around a word as I used it, they indicate that this is not how the term is usually used - as Wiki states...
Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense.
There is nothing authoritative in the majority of a society simply expressing their disagreement. So punishment can only be used metaphorically when referring to the disapproval of others. However, the implications being drawn from that "punishment" (infringement of rights) can only be logically drawn from a literal understanding of that term. In short, the idea of punishment is being implicitly redefined to include both the metaphorical and the literal.
It is 'punishment' of a sorts - their rights are being infringed on just because of who they are.
Again with the false choice...I've specified TWICE now that it's the GOVERNMENTS. Do you deliberately ignore things I say just so you can perpetuate your propaganda?So, is the evil the country or the religion Foss
Yes, yes, I know you love to use red herrings and then appeal to emotion mixed with appeal to ridicule. Try to stay on topic, k? Which one of those countries is training terrorists to blow themselves up? If your government trains terrorists to strike the US or her allies, you are an enemy. Period.- if we remove those, what will Egypt do? Do we destroy Egypt as well? Then, once we destroy Egypt, who next is in line...Turkey? After that Malaysia? With their Muslim majority won't they be in question as well. Wouldn't their policies dictate that if the US has destroyed countries just because of their religious affiliations they would be next in line...
You keep asserting this, but you keep failing to make even a feeble case why this is. You just cling to your appeasement strategy to the bitter end, eh? Again, Jefferson went after the muslims and won. He has laid out the blueprint - use force on the GOVERNMENTS and they will cave. When they cave, the money dries up. 50 years later, you do it all over again. The fact that few Presidents have tried this policy of direct and bold confrontation in no way undermines its effectiveness.We cannot have a religious war. That is why this has been so difficult all along, for all the administrations involved.
There you go again with the straw man and the bigot implication, fox...It's patriotic to me. You just don't understand that Islam is a complete process including the religion and the government.So, it isn't political - is it personal now foss - or religious to you? Who attacked us - Muslims - so now you retaliate against who? Muslims? Where? We didn't choose well last time - will we do better this time?
...Jefferson went after the muslims and won. He has laid out the blueprint - use force on the GOVERNMENTS and they will cave. When they cave, the money dries up. 50 years later, you do it all over again.
You imply that I'm a bigot one more time and I'll send an official complaint to Joey, since that's apparently how we're doing things these days. I'm sick of your backhanded little insults.
Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group. Inflicted unpleasantness without authority is not punishment, but is characterized as something else.There is nothing authoritative in the majority of a society simply expressing their disagreement. So punishment can only be used metaphorically when referring to the disapproval of others. However, the implications being drawn from that "punishment" (infringement of rights) can only be logically drawn from a literal understanding of that term. In short, the idea of punishment is being implicitly redefined to include both the metaphorical and the literal.
Don't read much history, fox? Hm, too bad. If you did, you would know that that was only the FIRST Barbary war - and that makes a very good point, which is that if you don't defeat your enemy, but rather negotiate with him, he will likely not cease the action that caused the war in the first place.And as far as "to the shores of Tripoli" - I believe Jefferson didn't win the first Barbary War - the sides ended up exchanging prisoners, and the US paid the Muslims not to attack our ships any longer. In fact that is how he handled the Muslims from when he was an Ambassador - pay them off.
I've stated my position. If Egypt's behavior falls under my policy, then they get dealt with too. You keep trying these straw men, and it won't work. It's actually rather pathetic watching you flail about trying to find flaws in it, given your appeasement strategy that NEVER works.So, not fighting Egypt - why not - they are Muslim, they have financed terrorists in the past, and because they are Muslim, they probably will in the future. Do you wait until the bomb is delivered or are you going to be proactive?
Don't read much history, fox? Hm, too bad. If you did, you would know that that was only the FIRST Barbary war. In the Second Barbary War, we finished them off, shelling Algiers until the Dey capitulated. Again, proof that force, and THEN diplomacy AFTER winning the war, is the way to go about defeating these people. You will also (probably VERY reluctantly) have to acknowledge that Jefferson didn't declare war on ISLAM during this conflict, but rather dealt with the GOVERNMENT that was causing the trouble - hence my policy is in accordance with Jefferson's strategy. You can quibble all you want about ransoms, but the bottom line is that we were negotiating from a position of strength, having demonstrated a willingness to take casualties and deal out damage before we ever sat down at the table. These people only understand one thing: force.
I've stated my position. If Egypt falls under my policy, then they get dealt with too. You keep trying these straw men, and it won't work. It's actually rather pathetic watching you flail about trying to find flaws in it, given your appeasement strategy that NEVER works.
Irrelevant, fox. My statement stands. Again, you strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel...I believe the second Barbary War was during Madison...
Irrelevant, fox. My statement stands. Again, you strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel...
Since you haven't been able to move me off my point - I will presume ZERO.However you made such a huge deal about Jefferson - if you get who lead the nation wrong at that time, and what war we are talking about, gosh Foss - what other 'details' could you be getting wrong.
And as usual you gloss over the details which I've already laid out in an attempt to distort my post for your own benefit. It's you that doesn't understand, and it's you that is attempting to distract from the main point I'm trying to make - presumably because you have no answer for it.Between not really understanding how Jefferson dealt with the Pirates, and then claiming his 'victory' over them is what we need to emulate, you really need to get those points correct. I thought you were advocating paying them off - like Jefferson did in the only Barbary war he was involved in.