PDA

View Full Version : Mosque on Ground Zero; Requested Split Topic



strrrng
08-21-2010, 03:56 AM
"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
08-21-2010, 08:03 AM
indeed

Yeah, great idea, precipitate more kamikaze violence.

strrrng
08-21-2010, 05:16 PM
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
08-21-2010, 05:59 PM
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
08-21-2010, 06:02 PM
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
08-21-2010, 07:02 PM
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.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 12:43 AM
Thread split as per request.

Gilly
08-24-2010, 12:46 AM
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
08-24-2010, 12:52 AM
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.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 01:07 AM
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
08-24-2010, 01:13 AM
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.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 01:22 AM
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
08-24-2010, 01:26 AM
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
08-24-2010, 01:35 AM
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
08-24-2010, 01:49 AM
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.

male
08-24-2010, 02:27 AM
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
08-24-2010, 04:27 AM
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.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 04:48 AM
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
08-24-2010, 04:55 AM
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.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 05:12 AM
Thanks Captain Obvious :P

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.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 05:37 AM
I don't think unconditional surrender is really that easy without giving them some benevolence, or a deal.

ilikesex
08-24-2010, 06:01 AM
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
08-24-2010, 06:04 AM
ALSO OMG LETS NUKE ISRAEL AND PALESTINE SO NOBODY CAN HAVE IT OMG IT WILL BE SO MUCH FUN

Jarno
08-24-2010, 07:08 AM
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
08-24-2010, 09:31 AM
We should set up scheduled bombings, one every week, and give them the schedule and some pamphlets.

male
08-24-2010, 10:55 AM
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.

male
08-24-2010, 10:57 AM
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

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 11:10 AM
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.

male
08-24-2010, 11:28 AM
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
08-24-2010, 11:58 AM
I love how people keep calling it a mosque when it's actually just a community center.

Gilly
08-24-2010, 12:07 PM
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.

male
08-24-2010, 12:29 PM
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.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 12:42 PM
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.

male
08-24-2010, 12:51 PM
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.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 12:53 PM
:p well religion is wrong anyway

male
08-24-2010, 01:06 PM
:p 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.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 01:28 PM
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.

male
08-24-2010, 01:41 PM
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
08-24-2010, 02:22 PM
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
08-24-2010, 02:23 PM
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

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 02:25 PM
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.

:) lol, I know...at least you don't seem to want to kill me.

redbaron
08-24-2010, 02:27 PM
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.

that's like the biggest loophole ever.

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 02:28 PM
Seriously think about this. On one end of it, why would someone build some Islamic center on or near Ground Zero? The only reason why this is considered being built and the news media is reporting on it is so that 1.) they get a news story and 2.) is to p!ss people off.

redbaron
08-24-2010, 02:35 PM
Seriously think about this. On one end of it, why would someone build some Islamic center on or near Ground Zero? The only reason why this is considered being built and the news media is reporting on it is so that 1.) they get a news story and 2.) is to p!ss people off.

it makes no sense to me.

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 02:39 PM
it makes no sense to me.

Why would you build something that would give you bad media attention and potentially vandalized?

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 02:40 PM
that's like the biggest loophole ever.

:) not really. I merely mean that if we truly exist, I don't think a supernatural being can exist as well, except as a figment of the human imagination made real.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 02:41 PM
Why would you build something that would give you bad media attention and potentially vandalized?

Why defend your freedom if...oh right, yeah...

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 02:41 PM
To whom does this situation benefit?

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 02:42 PM
Why defend your freedom if...oh right, yeah...

I don't understand. what do you mean?

redbaron
08-24-2010, 02:42 PM
:) not really. I merely mean that if we truly exist, I don't think a supernatural being can exist as well, except as a figment of the human imagination made real.

well I was totally arguing semantics there. you said they don't exist in the same sense that we do and I would agree with that. but that doesn't mean they don't exist in a different form or way of being. Besides, I think the human imagination does have limits and can't necessarily understand everything that is.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 02:44 PM
To whom does this situation benefit?

The people who will use the facility, possibly?
Intercommunal relations, maybe?
The national psyche's sense of feelgoodness?

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 02:47 PM
well I was totally arguing semantics there. you said they don't exist in the same sense that we do and I would agree with that. but that doesn't mean they don't exist in a different form or way of being. Besides, I think the human imagination does have limits and can't necessarily understand everything that is.

:lol: eh. A supernatural being would have to be outside the laws of our universe, which would be impossible if that "supernatural being" was to have any impact on use whatsoever, or even have any religions based on it. If the supernatural being somehow made itself part of the universe, or locked itself out, then our universe would also be applicable to whatever uberverse the "supernatural being" was part of - we'd be a local subset. And so ultimately...the supernatural being wouldn't be supernatural at all.

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 02:48 PM
The people who will use the facility, possibly?
So why build it there?


Intercommunal relations, maybe?
Not in that location.


The national psyche's sense of feelgoodness?
Remember, this is a source of conflict for many people. For those who feel good about politically fighting Muslims, who wants them to feel good about it?

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 02:50 PM
Remember, this is a source of conflict for many people. For those who feel good about politically fighting Muslims, who wants them to feel good about it?

Remember, this is the same media that hyped up the whole WMD's in Iraq and pushing for the whole clash of civilizations between the West and the Arab world. Don't tell me that there is at least some form of mild conspiracy going on here. But then again, maybe I am wrong, maybe this is all random.

redbaron
08-24-2010, 02:52 PM
read this book review:

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (http://www.aina.org/news/20090303082725.htm)

The Muslim treatment of women alone should be enough to discourage this. I can't understand why anybody supports it.

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 02:56 PM
I'll come back to this later.

redbaron
08-24-2010, 02:57 PM
:lol: eh. A supernatural being would have to be outside the laws of our universe, which would be impossible if that "supernatural being" was to have any impact on use whatsoever, or even have any religions based on it. If the supernatural being somehow made itself part of the universe, or locked itself out, then our universe would also be applicable to whatever uberverse the "supernatural being" was part of - we'd be a local subset. And so ultimately...the supernatural being wouldn't be supernatural at all.

I don't understand why a supernatural being couldn't make itself part of our universe while also being larger than that. Why does that make the supernatural being not supernatural?

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 03:00 PM
I'll repost what I had originally said (w/ a few minor tweaks), which got lost in the other thread:

There's a reason imagery like this is so evocative:

http://gallery.socionix.com/d/52218-2/flag-raising-on-iwo-jima.jpghttp://gallery.socionix.com/d/52216-2/May+2_+1945_+Red+Army+on+the+Reichstag.jpg

Victorious U.S. Marines on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima. Victorious Red Army soldiers on the ruins of the Reichstag, Berlin. Nothing else strikes such a clear and decisive message through the heart of history, "We came. We saw. We conquered."

So it is with a mosque (or whatever petty word games a person wants to call it) constructed on ground zero. One can say "it's just a building." Well, yeah. It's 'just a building' to me too. But that's not what gets communicated to an radical-Islamic jihad mentality which has a nasty habit of interpreting every landmark and historical site within a warped context of epic religious symbolism. In all lands they've put to the sword, they build mosques over important cultural and religious grounds of the previous owners. Naturally, they'll see this as nothing less than an act of the most humiliating and disgraceful submission on part of the United States. A glorious day the tide finally turned against the infidels. What sworn enemy wouldn't see it that way?

Being dedicated to tolerance only works when both sides buy into the ideal. It's suicidal to treat others with the same values who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat, and laugh as you gurgle on your own blood with all your naive gestures of mutual peace and respect.

Okay, so taking this from the "jihadist" side of things, What you are saying is that they are doing this to invoke conquest? Possibly even to symbolize that Americans are weak and to destroy them in asymmetrical warfare?

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 03:05 PM
So why build it there?

Why build it a mile away, or 500 metres away or...? New York's a pretty big place you know, with people of many nationalities and religions etc. etc.

I personally may object to some aspects of Islam, but I appreciate that people should be allowed to practice their religion as long as it's within the law, and that "these people" may not actually be infidel killers, because there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of what a Muslim is. I know what is meant by "incitement to murder" though.

If "these people" have a religion which is acceptable by your state, even one that might be good for the local community, I don't know why you are so fast to ask why "these people"...presumably not the same people who flew planes into the Twin Towers...can't have this facility.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 03:07 PM
I don't understand why a supernatural being couldn't make itself part of our universe while also being larger than that. Why does that make the supernatural being not supernatural?

Because if it was supernatural, it wouldn't be part of natural law. You can't contravene natural law!

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 03:23 PM
Why build it a mile away, or 500 metres away or...? New York's a pretty big place you know, with people of many nationalities and religions etc. etc.

I personally may object to some aspects of Islam, but I appreciate that people should be allowed to practice their religion as long as it's within the law, and that "these people" may not actually be infidel killers, because there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of what a Muslim is. I know what is meant by "incitement to murder" though.

If "these people" have a religion which is acceptable by your state, even one that might be good for the local community, I don't know why you are so fast to ask why "these people"...presumably not the same people who flew planes into the Twin Towers...can't have this facility.

I ask the question on not the part of the local government, but on the part of the local Muslim leaders.

In the United States, the First Amendment does protect religion, and the Fifth Amendment protects property. If I were there, I would politely ask them to relocate. I would also warn them that vandalization is likely form the locals.

Edit:

the only two logical reasons for building it there is to assert radical Islamic dominance or to incite a culture clash.

redbaron
08-24-2010, 03:25 PM
Because if it was supernatural, it wouldn't be part of natural law. You can't contravene natural law!

I agree! but isn't a supernatural being, by very definition, above natural law?

redbaron
08-24-2010, 03:27 PM
I personally may object to some aspects of Islam, but I appreciate that people should be allowed to practice their religion as long as it's within the law, and that "these people" may not actually be infidel killers, because there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of what a Muslim is. I know what is meant by "incitement to murder" though.
that's the problem though. So many of their practices are against the law. Like raping and abusing the women. Read that article.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 03:32 PM
I ask the question on not the part of the local government, but on the part of the local Muslim leaders.

In the United States, the First Amendment does protect religion, and the Fifth Amendment protects property. If I were there, I would politely ask them to relocate. I would also warn them that vandalization is likely form the locals.

Edit:

the only two logical reasons for building it there is to assert radical Islamic dominance or to incite a culture clash.

Until there's evidence to suggest that the facility is to be used as a means to incite or provoke, I'm not sure they really have to explain themselves.

Why do you think vandalisation is likely, except perhaps because of the media stirring everything up?

I'm sure there are more than those two reasons btw.

Skeptic
08-24-2010, 03:37 PM
that's the problem though. So many of their practices are against the law. Like raping and abusing the women. Read that article.

What

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 03:37 PM
that's the problem though. So many of their practices are against the law. Like raping and abusing the women. Read that article.

:? I fear what I might read in that article, and I don't need to. I get your point. I know that ancient texts can be followed to the book, reintrepreted, rewritten, etc. ...and that people can cherry pick what they like. I find it easier to take issue with the acts themselves then whatever branch of whatever religion a person follows.

Subteigh
08-24-2010, 03:38 PM
I agree! but isn't a supernatural being, by very definition, above natural law?

Yes exactly! Therefore they don't exist!

redbaron
08-24-2010, 03:50 PM
Yes exactly! Therefore they don't exist!

:lol:

Words
08-24-2010, 03:52 PM
I haven't followed this conversation from the beginning. I see it is a split thread so I haven't looked at the initial post/article/news report, however I am hoping that the title of this thread, aluding to bulding a 'Mosque on Ground Zero' and why would it be built is enough of a summary to answer somewhat.

I have happened to note that Jimbeam mentioned that a logical conclusion would be to encite a culture clash.

I am no expert in religion, but i'm aware of the Christian motto, to turn the other cheek. As far as I know, such a thing is more or less spoke of in other religions also.

I would hyposit, from a Christian perspective, that building a Mosque (or some sort of Islam community centre, which Vero mentioned), that it is quite a symbol of peace and reconciliation, and that from a Christian perspective, it would show such Christ like qualities in action. Although, in reality, it would be somewhat bizarre if for instance Christians would vandalise the said building in the name of Christianity, if that were to occur of course.

It's no major suprise to see religion being used as an excuse for perpetuating acts of aggression, hostility and unforgivingness, if such a thing where to occur here. Of course not all potential vandals would call themself Christians, but they would be attacking something religious based, as a rejection to that religion, and the innocent people who work/go there, so where does it end?

I guess *what* to build there is the problem. I suppose *something* has to go there. Usually such things end up with a statue of some sort of artistic design, which actually is what's there just now. It's neutral to people and clever enough to seem 'cultured' :) Or are they just building a new WTC? About the WTC || World Trade Center || (http://www.wtc.com/about/) Gee, I dunno.

Edit: Visiting the WTC || About the WTC || World Trade Center || (http://www.wtc.com/about/visiting-the-wtc) - In just a few years, Downtown will become a showcase for the latest innovations in architecture, design and urban planning. At the World Trade Center site, renowned international architects have unveiled critically acclaimed plans for three new skyscrapers to complement the Freedom Tower and the Memorial. When all of these momentous projects are fully realized in 2015, they will stand as magnificent symbols of renewal."
-State of Lower Manhattan 2006, Alliance for Downtown New York

Ahh, yeah, artistic and innovative architecture and such, let's be peaceful and optimistic through art! Although I wonder if such a thing is sort of Ni with Fe, symbolic, sort of emotional but difficult to define it's purpose.

Sorry for rambling, I mean no offense, just thoughts :)

redbaron
08-24-2010, 03:52 PM
:? I fear what I might read in that article, and I don't need to. I get your point. I know that ancient texts can be followed to the book, reintrepreted, rewritten, etc. ...and that people can cherry pick what they like. I find it easier to take issue with the acts themselves then whatever branch of whatever religion a person follows.

yeah okay, I'm not saying drive the muslims out of the country, but for a government to kind of support the religion that practices those things by building something like this is questionable, imo.

Cyrano
08-24-2010, 04:03 PM
Lol, apparently somebody has real plans to build a gay bar next to it.

There is already a "gentlemen's club" nearby, on this "sacred, hallowed ground."

Sorry to see the Burrlington Coat Factory go. And the nearby taco restaraunt is a symbol of our reverence for this special American soil.

strrrng
08-24-2010, 05:36 PM
I don't think unconditional surrender is really that easy without giving them some benevolence, or a deal.

the important thing to note, is that these generous acts are the most effective after some form of surrender has been obtained. this is because it forces the enemy to honestly acknowledge defeat, knowing they have been granted the ability to continue living. if you just concede and pander to them, they will never respect you, and will most likely nod their head with a smile, basking in what you've given them until they're prepared to launch another attack.


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.

yeah, that's why I mentioned unconventional warfare. it sucks that it took a handful of fails in the other department for people to see the superiority of this method. but either way, an overt front is an overt front; thus I fail to see how a gradual offensive with diplomatic intentions inspires any less hate than an honest pillage.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 06:37 PM
the important thing to note, is that these generous acts are the most effective after some form of surrender has been obtained. this is because it forces the enemy to honestly acknowledge defeat, knowing they have been granted the ability to continue living. if you just concede and pander to them, they will never respect you, and will most likely nod their head with a smile, basking in what you've given them until they're prepared to launch another attack.

I completely agree with you in theory, but things aren't so simple in this case.

Just like the common view in America is that the terrorists are the aggressors, the common view in the Middle East is that America is the aggressor. America set up and supported dictatorships, supports corrupt elites, gives a blank check to Israel who then oppresses Palestinians and starts wars with neighboring Arab states, and so on as the argument goes.

It's funny how people try to pawn this off on religion, when even among the Christian Arab elite in Lebanon, the sentiment is that America is the enemy. Only 8 years ago, Saddam Hussein was loathed by everyone in the middle east, but because he "stood up to America" he's become a noble martyr overnight.

It's not possible to manufacture a watershed moment, like the fall of Berlin, that would teach those Arabs humility. They've been learning humility for the past 200 years of American, British and French imperialism. 99% of them have accepted this reality and don't even fight it.

But, otoh, the terrorists who imprinted a radicalized version of the above sentiments into their psyches really don't have anything to lose. They're reacting precisely against having been beaten so often. And if they were willing to commit suicide, chances are they'll also fight to the last breath.

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 06:52 PM
I'm sure there are more than those two reasons btw.

No there is not. Those are the only two reasons. There is no other reason.

Either it is a:

1.) Racial Islamic symbol of dominance

or

2.) some kind of provocateur to create conflict within the American people.

That's it!

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 06:59 PM
Btw, either way you look at it, it is a conspiracy too. So don't anyone give me this "lolz there's like, no conspiracy dude lolz"

strrrng
08-24-2010, 07:02 PM
I completely agree with you in theory, but things aren't so simple in this case.

Just like the common view in America is that the terrorists are the aggressors, the common view in the Middle East is that America is the aggressor. America set up and supported dictatorships, supports corrupt elites, gives a blank check to Israel who then oppresses Palestinians and starts wars with neighboring Arab states, and so on as the argument goes.

It's funny how people try to pawn this off on religion, when even among the Christian Arab elite in Lebanon, the sentiment is that America is the enemy. Only 8 years ago, Saddam Hussein was loathed by everyone in the middle east, but because he "stood up to America" he's become a noble martyr overnight.

It's not possible to manufacture a watershed moment, like the fall of Berlin, that would teach those Arabs humility. They've been learning humility for the past 200 years of American, British and French imperialism. 99% of them have accepted this reality and don't even fight it.

But, otoh, the terrorists who imprinted a radicalized version of the above sentiments into their psyches really don't have anything to lose. They're reacting precisely against having been beaten so often. And if they were willing to commit suicide, chances are they'll also fight to the last breath.

yeah, that makes sense. but this only reaffirms my aversion to the diplomatic intrusion. people repressed to the point of self-destruction will never respond to "help," and so it is ultimately better to let the blight ruin itself, or aid the process, if necessary. otherwise, you'll only have a defective collective psyche producing the same viruses over and over.

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 07:08 PM
No there is not. Those are the only two reasons. There is no other reason.

Either it is a:

1.) Racial Islamic symbol of dominance

or

2.) some kind of provocateur to create conflict within the American people.

That's it!

In case #1, it is simple. It is just a matter of people's general awareness of what radical Islam is and how they feel about it.

In case #2, it is more complicated. I think I am going to spend some time detailing what this could in fact be.

Mediator Kam
08-24-2010, 07:29 PM
I completely agree with you in theory, but things aren't so simple in this case.

Just like the common view in America is that the terrorists are the aggressors, the common view in the Middle East is that America is the aggressor. America set up and supported dictatorships, supports corrupt elites, gives a blank check to Israel who then oppresses Palestinians and starts wars with neighboring Arab states, and so on as the argument goes.

It's funny how people try to pawn this off on religion, when even among the Christian Arab elite in Lebanon, the sentiment is that America is the enemy. Only 8 years ago, Saddam Hussein was loathed by everyone in the middle east, but because he "stood up to America" he's become a noble martyr overnight.

It's not possible to manufacture a watershed moment, like the fall of Berlin, that would teach those Arabs humility. They've been learning humility for the past 200 years of American, British and French imperialism. 99% of them have accepted this reality and don't even fight it.

But, otoh, the terrorists who imprinted a radicalized version of the above sentiments into their psyches really don't have anything to lose. They're reacting precisely against having been beaten so often. And if they were willing to commit suicide, chances are they'll also fight to the last breath.


This.

xerxe
08-24-2010, 07:47 PM
yeah, that makes sense. but this only reaffirms my aversion to the diplomatic intrusion. people repressed to the point of self-destruction will never respond to "help," and so it is ultimately better to let the blight ruin itself, or aid the process, if necessary. otherwise, you'll only have a defective collective psyche producing the same viruses over and over.

I think most just want justice to be done and to gain independence for their countries, and will stop once they get it, but you're free to disagree.

Even in the case of really Islamist organizations like Hamas, it's not a clear cut case of religious fanaticism and wanting to wipe out Israel. Most soldiers in Hamas are kids, about our age, who aren't able to get jobs because of the occupation, who just want a better life for themselves and their families. They become more hard-line because they believe they're facing a relentless enemy. And they couch their radical rhetoric in religion because it's the most prominent part of their cultural identity and something that belongs to them. But the underlying reason is economics.

There will always be absolute nuts willing to do anything out of sinister psychological motives, don't get me wrong. Terrorists like that I agree are repressed to the point of self-destruction. But people like that exist in any society (See: Timothy Mcveigh).

mu4
08-24-2010, 08:19 PM
Mmm, I always thought the economic relationship between the Middle East and the western world to be the source of conflict renewal between them. As long as the economic relationship exists, it's difficult for either side to disengage.

It's like a bad marriage, but you still have to live in the same house.

In this particular case, there is no cold-war policy that can be adopted to isolate the Middle East, rather there is only a conflicted engagement over resources.

The kind of war being fought in the middle east is prohibitively expensive and it is also no longer morally supported in the US. I think as long as our dependency on oil is reduced in the coming generations, the problem will solve themselves. It's likely civil conflict will occur in the middle east without western money and funding simply because of the atrocious management of the governments. However, these corrupt reigmes are being funded by the western world's demand for oil.

As far as the Mosque, if it's legal, I don't think there is anything should be done about it. It certainly is contentious and I think it's a sensitive issue, I think the people building the Mosque probably aren't that fond of America and the people who don't want to the Mosque have no real reason to like Muslims, but it's a conflict both sides seem willing to engage in.

As far as Jimbean's comment, it's meaningless, America operate under the rule of law and as long as they stay within the rule of law, they have the freedom to build the mosque. It's pointless to speculate on the reasons, you can protest, picket, try to keep people from entering the mosque.

See segregation for example.
http://godhatesprotesters.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/integrationmob.jpg?w=500&h=350

http://godhatesprotesters.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cooper1.jpg?w=205&h=245

http://godhatesprotesters.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/slideshow_556419_white_protest_554421.jpg?w=500&h=355

Look at all the nice people. Don't they seem so friendly in the sunday best.

America isn't a utilitarian society, because it views the protection of some freedom and diversity as being a higher priority then more measurable utility, and this is why we get to own guns, have religious freedom, thump our noses at authority, piss people off with words/mosques/varying level of offensive behavior, and many others protections to non-utilitarian principles.

Jimbean
08-24-2010, 08:44 PM
Mmm, I always thought the economic relationship between the Middle East and the western world to be the source of conflict renewal between them. As long as the economic relationship exists, it's difficult for either side to disengage.

It's like a bad marriage, but you still have to live in the same house.

In this particular case, there is no cold-war policy that can be adopted to isolate the Middle East, rather there is only a conflicted engagement over resources.

The kind of war being fought in the middle east is prohibitively expensive and it is also no longer morally supported in the US. I think as long as our dependency on oil is reduced in the coming generations, the problem will solve themselves. It's likely civil conflict will occur in the middle east without western money and funding simply because of the atrocious management of the governments. However, these corrupt reigmes are being funded by the western world's demand for oil.

As far as the Mosque, if it's legal, I don't think there is anything should be done about it. It certainly is contentious and I think it's a sensitive issue, I think the people building the Mosque probably aren't that fond of America and the people who don't want to the Mosque have no real reason to like Muslims, but it's a conflict both sides seem willing to engage in.

As far as Jimbean's comment, it's meaningless, America operate under the rule of law and as long as they stay within the rule of law, they have the freedom to build the mosque. It's pointless to speculate on the reasons, you can protest, picket, try to keep people from entering the mosque.

See segregation for example.
http://godhatesprotesters.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/integrationmob.jpg?w=500&h=350

http://godhatesprotesters.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cooper1.jpg?w=205&h=245

http://godhatesprotesters.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/slideshow_556419_white_protest_554421.jpg?w=500&h=355

Look at all the nice people. Don't they seem so friendly in the sunday best.

America isn't a utilitarian society, because it views the protection of some freedom and diversity as being a higher priority then more measurable utility, and this is why we get to own guns, have religious freedom, thump our noses at authority, piss people off with words/mosques/varying level of offensive behavior, and many others protections to non-utilitarian principles.

No offense hkkmr, but you are the last person that I want to get into an argument with. I just don't want to go there.

male
08-25-2010, 01:31 AM
:) lol, I know...at least you don't seem to want to kill me.

Of course not, and even if I disagreed with you, killing you wouldn't solve anything, I wouldn't have anyone to discuss things with.... which is why I see ideologically motivated violence as senseless and civil debate/deliberation as being far superior.

male
08-25-2010, 01:36 AM
Seriously think about this. On one end of it, why would someone build some Islamic center on or near Ground Zero? The only reason why this is considered being built and the news media is reporting on it is so that 1.) they get a news story and 2.) is to p!ss people off.

Nah I think its the message people see in it.... it shows tolerance.... it could be considered a bit of a flamboyant show of self-righteous tolerance though. Lol I actually prefer people just being sensible and not over-dramatic about it..... lol sell the land and let people decide what to do with it.... that way it doesn't become a symbolic battleground for conflicting ideologies. If someone really wants to memorialize the land, they will accumulate enough money to move forward with the project.

male
08-25-2010, 01:51 AM
I'll repost what I had originally said (w/ a few minor tweaks), which got lost in the other thread:

There's a reason imagery like this is so evocative:

http://gallery.socionix.com/d/52218-2/flag-raising-on-iwo-jima.jpghttp://gallery.socionix.com/d/52216-2/May+2_+1945_+Red+Army+on+the+Reichstag.jpg

Victorious U.S. Marines on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima. Victorious Red Army soldiers on the ruins of the Reichstag, Berlin. Nothing else strikes such a clear and decisive message through the heart of history, "We came. We saw. We conquered."

So it is with a mosque (or whatever petty word games a person wants to call it) constructed on ground zero. One can say "it's just a building." Well, yeah. It's 'just a building' to me too. But that's not what gets communicated to a radical-Islamic jihad mentality which has a nasty habit of interpreting every landmark and historical site within a warped context of epic religious symbolism. In all lands they've put to the sword, they build mosques over important cultural and religious grounds of the previous owners. Naturally, they'll see this as nothing less than an act of the most humiliating and disgraceful submission on part of the United States. A glorious day the tide finally turned against the infidels. What sworn enemy wouldn't see it that way?

Being dedicated to tolerance only works when both sides buy into the ideal. It's suicidal to treat others with the same values who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat, and laugh as you gurgle on your own blood with all your naive gestures of mutual peace and respect.


OK that makes complete sense.... but to me I think its possible to let them build their mosque but deny them of any feelings of having been victorious.... its like giving a person a gold star then when they start to get arrogant tell them its nothing special you just give gold stars to everyone.... then the symbol becomes nothing more than a symbol of mediocrity.

Something like the medal of honor..... is a great award.... but how would you feel if someone threw you in a prison, interrogated you, then gave you the medal of honor (they aqquired from a dead soldier) and told everyone it was for breaking sooner than any other prisoner (whether it was true or not). Easily the person could twist the symbol into a different meaning.

Basically I'm saying symbolism is mallable.

Gilly
08-25-2010, 06:11 PM
I'll repost what I had originally said (w/ a few minor tweaks), which got lost in the other thread:

There's a reason imagery like this is so evocative:

http://gallery.socionix.com/d/52218-2/flag-raising-on-iwo-jima.jpghttp://gallery.socionix.com/d/52216-2/May+2_+1945_+Red+Army+on+the+Reichstag.jpg

Victorious U.S. Marines on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima. Victorious Red Army soldiers on the ruins of the Reichstag, Berlin. Nothing else strikes such a clear and decisive message through the heart of history, "We came. We saw. We conquered."

So it is with a mosque (or whatever petty word games a person wants to call it) constructed on ground zero. One can say "it's just a building." Well, yeah. It's 'just a building' to me too. But that's not what gets communicated to a radical-Islamic jihad mentality which has a nasty habit of interpreting every landmark and historical site within a warped context of epic religious symbolism. In all lands they've put to the sword, they build mosques over important cultural and religious grounds of the previous owners. Naturally, they'll see this as nothing less than an act of the most humiliating and disgraceful submission on part of the United States. A glorious day the tide finally turned against the infidels. What sworn enemy wouldn't see it that way?

Being dedicated to tolerance only works when both sides buy into the ideal. It's suicidal to treat others with the same values who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat, and laugh as you gurgle on your own blood with all your naive gestures of mutual peace and respect.

This is some hilariously paranoid and insecure bullshit.

First off, they haven't conquered SHIT. We're the ones slaughtering them by the thousands, in their homelands; therefore any symbolic gesture signifying that they have conquered us is both laughably uncalled for and entirely inaffective. If a football player does a touchdown dance in the endzone, it's humiliating to the other team; if he does one after dropping the ball, or while his team is losing 42-7, he just looks like a comedic spectacle.

You think it's going to bring down troop moral, to know that there's a mosque in New York City? Do they have any kind of strategic advantage? Are they going to stash rocket launchers there? Where does this actually have an effect on people, or do ANYTHING AT ALL? Mind games only work, if they work.

heath
08-25-2010, 07:24 PM
http://www.nationalpaving.com/photos/Mcdonalds.jpg

we came, we saw, we conquered.