Mosque on Ground Zero; Requested Split Topic

[strrrng]

"No, we need to be sober realists about this. Posh airy-fairy idealist fantasies like this will never work, and indeed have never worked in all the history of man vs. man. They only get a lot of good people killed. We'd do well with more chest-beating and sabre-rattling. Give them a show of force; it's the only language these barbarians actually understand, and the only way they'll ever be effectively dealt with. They must be taught restraint by any means necessary, just as you'd condition rational fear into a wild animal that doesn't know its place in the food chain. Blast their cities and all their holy sites asunder one by one, turn Mecca into a glass parking lot if thats what it takes. Tear a scar so deep into their collective memory that they don't dare raise a finger in anger against us for 1000 years."

indeed

[Gilly]

indeed

Yeah, great idea, precipitate more kamikaze violence.

[strrrng]

Yeah, great idea, precipitate more kamikaze violence.

how about, instead of blindly posturing liberal "ideals," feigning to take the high road -- you defeat the enemy with the most efficient means. there is no convincing a kamikaze of anything other than what "allah" tells him; if muslim sanctity can only be maintained by killing americans, then it is so, for him. this attitude you express is petty playground nonsense, as if someone shouldn't punch a bully in his nose because it might promote more violence, but instead should turn the other cheek, or tell the teacher. if it concerns life and death, you must resist with all possible force for the survival of yourself and people as a whole, period.

[Gilly]

That's why you kill them all before they have a chance to get upset about it and kill you. Duh.

Alright, Mr. Ape, so let's put a giant hole in the middle east and hope the rest of the world has nothing to say about it, even while we risk that there are thousands of sympathizers, still willing to attempt something along the lines of 9/11, still able to get their hands on a virus or enough bombs or, fuck, MAKE enough bombs; I made bombs when I was 14; you think anyone with enough anger, and little enough to lose, and, oh let's say, the fuel of religious dogmatism, persecution, and revenge, couldn't do it themselves and cause way more mayhem than 9/11? You want to risk all of that? You underestimate what one person is capable of, let alone a group.

I'm sorry, but you're a fool. If you want to hear stories about making martyrs and vengeance and all that good stuff, go read Greek mythology.

[Gilly]

how about, instead of blindly posturing liberal "ideals," feigning to take the high road -- you defeat the enemy with the most efficient means. there is no convincing a kamikaze of anything other than what "allah" tells him; if muslim sanctity can only be maintained by killing americans, then it is so, for him. this attitude you express is petty playground nonsense, as if someone shouldn't punch a bully in his nose because it might promote more violence, but instead should turn the other cheek, or tell the teacher. if it concerns life and death, you must resist with all possible force for the survival of yourself and people as a whole, period.

This isn't a playground fight. If you can't eliminate your enemy totally, which, with this one, we can't, then it's better to not provoke him to violence.

[strrrng]

This isn't a playground fight. If you can't eliminate your enemy totally, which, with this one, we can't, then it's better to not provoke him to violence.

yeah, I realize there may be broader social and political repercussions. I just think it's right in principle, when you're dealing with war. in these circumstances, it wouldn't be necessary to turn the middle east into rubble, but christ, still pursuing the "high road" with such liberal arrogance is just detrimental to everyone. at least when you strike back, the enemy has something to fear; memorializing a cultural icon of theirs merely gives them a sense of superiority and causes more animosity.

[xerx]

Thread split as per request.

[Gilly]

yeah, I realize there may be broader social and political repercussions. I just think it's right in principle, when you're dealing with war. in these circumstances, it wouldn't be necessary to turn the middle east into rubble, but christ, still pursuing the "high road" with such liberal arrogance is just detrimental to everyone. at least when you strike back, the enemy has something to fear; memorializing a cultural icon of theirs merely gives them a sense of superiority and causes more animosity.

In principle, sure. Doesn't make it an effective tactic.

[Gilly]

Kick your enemy's teeth in until you break their will to resist. It's ruthlessly simple and direct, but it does work. What else is it do you think wins (and prevents) wars? Idealistic overtures of peace and tolerance don't. These surely didn't stop ******'s panzers from tear-assing across Poland, France, and onwards into the Russian steppes. Not until Berlin was a smoldering inferno of horrors and the German will was shattered, did they finally grind to a permanent halt. So you see, it does work.

To be perfectly honest, I think what we're doing right now is actually a pretty damn good plan: take the war to them, so it doesn't come to us. As long as there are "Western," ie American, Canadian, and British troops in Iraq, they will probably direct all of their efforts at stopping us there, and as long as we grind them away with our superior firepower and resources, they will throw their kamikaze asses into the line of fire and keep getting slaughtered until there's none of them left. The only thing we can't rule out is an attack of desperation when it becomes obvious that they are bunk, but they are probably more concerned with protecting and attempting to re-secure their "Holy Land" than with making any strikes against us, so the best we can do is hope that we run them into the ground before they wise up and realize that we've run them out of guns, money, and troops. Any attempt at annihilating them totally would only trigger a faster, more desperate, and very likely more destructive, response.

Fortunately, I do think there are better ways to handle this. My honest belief is that globalization and free trade will inevitably wipe out radical Islam as a viable threat to the world. They'll lose the war of culture for failing to offer a better way of life. Why blow yourself up for Allah on orders of some fat smelly power-hungry mullah, when you can instead lead a productive life, own property, raise a family, etc.? Granted, there will still be outliers… but for most people, this is a powerful deterrent against giving yourself to an ideology of annihilation. People who have their own lives to lead and worry about are far less likely to get sucked up into ideological BS, especially of a violent nature, and tend to see it as a nuisance more than anything else. The overwhelming majority of Muslims who just want to get on peaceably and productively with their lives, will put an end to the radicals.

Quite frankly I think that as long as there is religion, there will be radicals. Shit, as long as there are people with IQs below 140, there will be psychos willing to blow themselves up and do all kinds of crazy shit for Allah. All I can honestly say is this: hopefully the retards don't screw it up before we turn this planet into a paradise.

[xerx]

Kick your enemy's teeth in until you break their will to resist. It's ruthlessly simple and direct, but it does work.

I'm genuinely curious about something, not arguing against you, because this is a pretty common argument.

With all your talk of breaking the enemy's will, how would you react to someone trying to break yours? Do you surrender or do you try even harder? It seems from your hard-line posts that, if the situation were reversed and you were the terrorist, you would never give up and, even in defeat, make life as miserable for your enemy as humanly possible.

[Mediator Kam]

Kick your enemy's teeth in until you break their will to resist. It's ruthlessly simple and direct, but it does work.

It's an incredibly common argument, but an incredibly mediocre one as well. Islam is not Nazi Germany, radicalized or not. They will never give up. The German people had no special connection to ****** or Nazism. You know as well as I that this is not the case for Muslims.

[xerx]

You are absolutely right I would. If it's kill or be killed, what else do you do?

So why do you expect the terrorists to ever surrender? I mean when some of them have even been doing this for 30 years.

[strrrng]

In principle, sure. Doesn't make it an effective tactic.

it's not like we're talking philosophy. the "principle" has been described countless times, and directly relates to a method of war with a psychological basis. sheer destruction carried out efficiently is the strategy, not pointless attrition. did you not indicate this here:

To be perfectly honest, I think what we're doing right now is actually a pretty damn good plan: take the war to them, so it doesn't come to us.

only, an offensive taken to prevent one from your enemy is often less effective, and really serves as a defense. a consistent front isn't enough to extinguish an enemy who despises everything you embody. and there are other means than a napalm shower; unconventional warfare carried out by specialized groups off the radar is much more efficient.

[Mediator Kam]

Do you feel a connection to the radicals? Most Muslims I've met and spoken with are kind and decent people who don't feel any connection to those who abuse the religion as an excuse to kill.

I have nothing to do with the radicals. However, your original post would deeply offend any of the Muslims you speak these kind words about.

They must be taught restraint by any means necessary, just as you'd condition rational fear into a wild animal that doesn't know its place in the food chain. Blast their cities and all their holy sites asunder one by one, turn Mecca into a glass parking lot if thats what it takes. Tear a scar so deep into their collective memory that they don't dare raise a finger in anger against us for 1000 years."

Who are you talking about here? The radicals? Those who support them? Why do you mention Mecca? Any connection you make with Mecca and radical Islam is spurious. I would have sounded like an idiot telling people to blow up Vatican City because of Timothy Mcveigh. But this is what you are purporting. Destroying Islamic holy sites to attempt to hurt radical Islam. Then you will indeed be the Devil for them.

The reason for my original post was your assumption that in order for American to protect its interests, we must attack "somewhere" and crush the radicals until they cry out for mercy. You cannot push any sort of crushing pressure on an entity that can blend into the shadows so easily. And I hope you are not asserting to start a ground war in any more Islamic countries. That would be a big mistake.

[Jimbean]

On the Issue of the Mosque on Ground Zero. My initial take is that it is a distraction; remember, the media likes to do that.

[Creepy-male]

That's why you kill them all before they have a chance to get upset about it and kill you. Duh.

Then another country criticizes you for lack of humanitarian policies and invades you and your country and turns you into a smoldering crater, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth.

The ultimate strategy (philosophically) of any war should be founded in an ideal, otherwise it's just mindless fighting, and you become exactly what your trying to defeat, which is animals who need to learn self-restraint.

If it's all subordinated down to a certain achievable ideal that is manifested in a physical goal, then it's sensible.... because people will either agree or disagree with that ideal. And if the sum of your allies is great enough to overcome your enemies then you win, inherit the physical goal, and the ideal is achieved which is shared by all your allies. Then you are on stable ground, however it can get worse.... as people have a pesky habit of allying up with leaders under stress and duress, then after things settle down they complain and want more and more, and then everyone which was united as per the demands of the original threat becomes fractured into small subfactions, which then vye for power.

So basically, if your talking about fairy land ideals..... what your talking about is fairly high on the list, it only works when the souls of every member of an alliance are commited to the goal, or else they just end up detangling into more conflict at the end.

[ilikesex]

i think that ashton is right and that we should bomb the shit out of mecca. not because it is a good idea internationally actually it is a disaster but it is a good idea because islam is a stupid religion. i mean seriously it says there's a god and people go to like this place in the sky when they die if they perform all these convoluted rules like the pilgrimage to this city in the desert where its like a thousand degrees.

we should be nuking mecca not because muslims are terrorists but because the islamic religion is totally stupid and if we destroy mecca in a humanitarian effort maybe those stupid dipshits in uganda will stop wasting their lives.


oh and no disrespect to kam of course, your religion is totally stupid though.

[xerx]

They won't die before causing massive damage. It doesn't take much to set off bombs in downtown New York or Chicago.

Some would fight to the death, no doubt about it. And they would surely die. Just as many Japanese did under Bushido code in WW2. But it's always the case that a sufficient number of people won't go to those lengths, either out of cowardice or rationality. Ultimately this brings conflicts to an end, and it's been doing so for the last 6,000 odd years of recorded history. There's no reason to expect this would be any different. They are humans just like everyone else.

The Japanese surrendered (and stayed that way) because their emperor chose to surrender, and because promises were made to them. The Japanese got to keep their emperor as a figurehead, they got to keep their independence (mostly), they got American aid to rebuild their economy, American experts, and democratic reforms. Yeah, because an olive branch was handed to them, believe it or not. Which retard would surrender to a force completely intent on destroying him?

It's rarely the case that one side completely breaks the enemy's will without massive ethnic cleansing. Any other scenario is basically wanking.

[Mediator Kam]

i think that ashton is right and that we should bomb the shit out of mecca. not because it is a good idea internationally actually it is a disaster but it is a good idea because islam is a stupid religion. i mean seriously it says there's a god and people go to like this place in the sky when they die if they perform all these convoluted rules like the pilgrimage to this city in the desert where its like a thousand degrees.

we should be nuking mecca not because muslims are terrorists but because the islamic religion is totally stupid and if we destroy mecca in a humanitarian effort maybe those stupid dipshits in uganda will stop wasting their lives.


oh and no disrespect to kam of course, your religion is totally stupid though.

Good idea, and let's nuke anything that holds any meaning to anyone.

[xerx]

Thanks Captain Obvious

Durrrr.

No shit.

Funny that something so obvious would pass you by, unless you only meant this in jest:

Kick your enemy's teeth in until you break their will to resist. It's ruthlessly simple and direct, but it does work.

The Japanese had to be defeated militarily, which they were, before they were willing to come to the peace table. What are you even going on about?

Thanks? For telling me something every five year old knows? My point was that it's not the whole picture.

Hey, maybe you can move up to big boy books now.

[xerx]

I don't think unconditional surrender is really that easy without giving them some benevolence, or a deal.

[ilikesex]

Good idea, and let's nuke anything that holds any meaning to anyone.

yes yes lets do it it sounds fun nuke my house i dare you

[ilikesex]

ALSO OMG LETS NUKE ISRAEL AND PALESTINE SO NOBODY CAN HAVE IT OMG IT WILL BE SO MUCH FUN

[Jarno]

I heared they wanted to build a gay bar next to the mosque.

Since the mosque on ground zero stands for tolerance, a gay bar would fit that picture too. Let's see how the muslims react to that!

[717495]

We should set up scheduled bombings, one every week, and give them the schedule and some pamphlets.

[Creepy-male]

i think that ashton is right and that we should bomb the shit out of mecca. not because it is a good idea internationally actually it is a disaster but it is a good idea because islam is a stupid religion. i mean seriously it says there's a god and people go to like this place in the sky when they die if they perform all these convoluted rules like the pilgrimage to this city in the desert where its like a thousand degrees.

we should be nuking mecca not because muslims are terrorists but because the islamic religion is totally stupid and if we destroy mecca in a humanitarian effort maybe those stupid dipshits in uganda will stop wasting their lives.


oh and no disrespect to kam of course, your religion is totally stupid though.

Imho religion isn't the problem, it's how its used. Everyone has "holy beliefs" and "core ideals"..... whether they acknowledge them or not, religion is people attempting to find harmony among these "core ideals".

Now I can understand what you mean about all the rules.... but personally I think that is a retarded way to look at spirituality. Most people flock to strict rules in religion because they feel lacking in their moral confidence so they require a solid rulebook foundation to trust in. Usually this wouldn't be a problem, but it leads to moral fanaticism and indoctrination, which in my opinion are the real problems for organized religion.

[Creepy-male]

I heared they wanted to build a gay bar next to the mosque.

Since the mosque on ground zero stands for tolerance, a gay bar would fit that picture too. Let's see how the muslims react to that!

haha yea

[Not A Communist Shill]

If religion (or anything else) tells you to kill infidels and that sort of thing, then in my view, it is a problem to me.

[Creepy-male]

If religion (or anything else) tells you to kill infidels and that sort of thing, then in my view, it is a problem to me.

lol then don't be a member of a group that tells you to kill infidels, if thats not your thing....

you do have free will to choose what you feel is right for you, do you not?

[Wynch]

I love how people keep calling it a mosque when it's actually just a community center.

[Gilly]

it's not like we're talking philosophy. the "principle" has been described countless times, and directly relates to a method of war with a psychological basis. sheer destruction carried out efficiently is the strategy, not pointless attrition. did you not indicate this here:

only, an offensive taken to prevent one from your enemy is often less effective, and really serves as a defense. a consistent front isn't enough to extinguish an enemy who despises everything you embody. and there are other means than a napalm shower; unconventional warfare carried out by specialized groups off the radar is much more efficient.

The thing is, our enemy isn't in the open, we don't know where they're hiding, etc. If they were all holed up in one building, I'd say sure, bomb it, but when they're hiding in thousands of caves and countries all across the globe, making a huge display is only going to provoke, that's right, an equal and opposite reaction.

[Creepy-male]

Only if other nations have the means and the will to do so. Most don't. Even more, most nations won't actually stand up for others unless they themselves have something to gain by doing so. If there's nothing to gain, the victim is SOL.

Historically, many protagonists have pursued outright belligerent ends and nobody held them accountable for it. Either because no one could and/or because no one cared.

Every war is rooted in an ideological imperative—societies don't just engage in warfare senselessly. Even the most bellicose madmen were pursuing rational ends in the wars they initiated. They start them because they feel they have something to gain and because they're confident enough they can actually beat their opponents.

My point about the ideology thing was this: some nations fight over ideological ground. You've agreed on this... ideological imperative. This would mean that if someone is ideologically sympathetic to your opponent even if this sympathy was develop post facto, that could lead to aggression against you on ideological grounds.

You can't just kill a person and that's the end of their cause... other people may pick up the cause, and now you have to deal with them. You can't put an end to a "cause" or ideology you dislike through shear brute physical force, you can only block its physical manifestation.

Most people don't 'flock to religion', most people are brought up and raised with religion. It's usually not a voluntary choice.

Oh really then why has mankind been plagued by the very creation of religion then if its all so awful and about nothing beyond indoctrination.

Uh, it's not that simple. If someone's religion dictates to kill Subterranean and someone chooses to act upon that, then the only recourse Subterranean's free will has at that point is to defend himself by any means necessary.

Of course... but my point was I think it would be more direct and sensible to connect the negative association with the experience itself, instead of intertwine it with the religion.

The difference can be seen in the two quotes "I hate religion, because religions tell people to kill infidels" and "I hate it when religion tells people to kill infidels". Their is a difference.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The difference can be seen in the two quotes "I hate religion, because religions tell people to kill infidels" and "I hate it when religion tells people to kill infidels". Their is a difference.

You said before that "Imho religion isn't the problem, it's how its used" ...

But I would object to a person who believed that people he considered infidels should be killed, even if he didn't kill infidels.

[Creepy-male]

You said before that "Imho religion isn't the problem, it's how its used" ...

But I would object to a person who believed that people he considered infidels should be killed, even if he didn't kill infidels.

I could understand you rejecting the idea... but the person, that's different, the person may change their mind before they actually manifest this ideal. People are dynamic, they can change.

Also what I was referring to when I said religion isn't the problem, it's how its used was more applicable like "if religion is being used to promote killing infidels, then that not the necessarily the religions fault but the message".... I find that religion is multi-faceted, there is obviously more to it than just killing infidels.

[Not A Communist Shill]

well religion is wrong anyway

[Creepy-male]

well religion is wrong anyway

Well.... its semantics, your intertwining religion with it's message.... I personally draw a line between the two. I see a religion as the hardware and it's message as the software.... a religion is like a unformatted harddrive until someone gets a hold of the harddrive and formats it.

Religion to me is netural, its a phenomena of human culture to me.... and calling it wrong just seems senseless like calling grass wrong.... its just something in nature. A bad message/ideology I find that offensive.

I'm assuming your intertwining the two, which is a total different sense from what I do, so its likely then semantical in nature.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I know that supernatural beings don't exist in the same sense that we do, so in that sense I think that religion is wrong. I'm not so bothered if people decide to have a 'religion' though - I just wish they'd see their efforts as futile.

[Creepy-male]

I know that supernatural beings don't exist in the same sense that we do, so in that sense I think that religion is wrong. I'm not so bothered if people decide to have a 'religion' though - I just wish they'd see their efforts as futile.

Alright alright, well that's not even my concern, your obviously free to believe whatever you want, I'm not concerned about it.... I don't remember my point now.... but it wasn't to convert you or anything.

[Skeptic]

On the Issue of the Mosque on Ground Zero. My initial take is that it is a distraction; remember, the media likes to do that.

I agree completely if I understand you right. The press will release just enough convoluted information to serve their agenda, which often has a political bent and the agenda of politics is always to have people will run their heads around this and more and never get anywhere but back where they started.

[Jimbean]

I heared they wanted to build a gay bar next to the mosque.

Since the mosque on ground zero stands for tolerance, a gay bar would fit that picture too. Let's see how the muslims react to that!

LOL