• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

It's funny, but invariably any discussion about the root causes of terrorism usually devolves into a series of postings by people eager to advance only one part of the formula while seeking to deny the other part. "Look, it's a fish because it has scales!" "No, it's a fish because it swims!!"

That's an interesting analogy because neither argument presented is what is required to make it a fish, nor does the presence of both characteristics make something a fish.

For example, sea snakes have scales and they swim, yet they are not fish.

Nor does something actualy need to have one of those charchteristics to be a fish: Catfish have no scales, for example.

As far as swimming goes, I'm not aware of any fish existing which doesn't have the ability to swim, but when you look at something like th emudskipper, it's clear that this need not be the primary means of locomotion either.

So I think your analogy is very appropriate becuse of this. It is hitting on one aspect of my arguments perfectly: by arbitrarily defining something using superficial characteristics instead of substantial characteristics, we tend to label things whatever we wish them to be without any regard for the veracity of that label.

Instead, these terms need to be defined objectively and with a primacy taken on the charactersitics that actually delineate such a thing from something else and then making sure to include all aspects into the definition.

For example, any such argument regarding definitions doesn't include the way that fish respirate is ignroing a major part of the actual definitions in favor of nonessential stuff.


In the case of modern Islamic terrorism -- at least the portion that has become international -- the hatred against us is directed against us for what we do AND for who we are, and it is important to note that much of the former is viewed through a lens influenced heavily by the latter.

I disagree with your assesment that the influence primarily one directional.

I would say it is a two-way influence i.e. what we do influences how they perceive who we are and who we are influences their perceptions of what we do. It is more cyclical than anything else, creating a snowball effect over time.

I'm not at all impressed by those who refuse to see that both contribute, so eager they are to promote a limited viewpoint.

Meh, most people promote a limited and/or simplistic view of things. I don't take the same approach myself, for example, earlier in this thread I've pointed out that who we are is definitely a factor. I think I've been one of the few peopel who have acknoeldged both aspects when discussing their motives. While you and I clearly disagree on the one-directional vs. two-directional aspects of the influence, we both agree that it is dualistic in its nature with regard to Islamic terrorism.

I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?


I have a question based on your question here Tucker: Why is it that many arguments in defense of this Mosque, and or terrorism stemming from the Islamic world today seem to be mired with certain individuals in some sort of guilt based acceptance of what they do today?

j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I have a question based on your question here Tucker: Why is it that many arguments in defense of this Mosque, and or terrorism stemming from the Islamic world today seem to be mired with certain individuals in some sort of guilt based acceptance of what they do today?

j-mac

I'm not sure I uderstand the question. What do you mean by "Guilt-based acceptance of what they do today"?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I'm not sure I uderstand the question. What do you mean by "Guilt-based acceptance of what they do today"?

Approaching the defense of terrorism being seen today because we have done something in the long ago past. Sometimes centuries before a reasonable analogy can be drawn.


j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Approaching the defense of terrorism being seen today because we have done something in the long ago past. Sometimes centuries before a reasonable analogy can be drawn.


j-mac

I have never seen any such defense of terrorism as you speak of.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

.

I do have a question though: if you are so unimpressed by refusal to acknowledge the that both contribute, why is it that you never seem to correct those who refuse to see how our own actions have contributed?


I have, albeit rarely.

The reason I confront those who act as apologists for Islamist terrorism more than I do the jingoists is the relative threat to our way of life both pose. Whereas the jingoists can be annoying, their error is one of excessive defense of our way of life, whereas the Islamist apologists only attack it. Oddly enough, as most of the more patriotic individual tend to describe themselves as "conservative", they are the ones quick to support liberalism by pointing out the deplorable lack of liberal values inherent in the Islamist viewpoint, while far too many self-described "liberals" act to deflect away from these observations, so obsessed they are with their attacks and justificatons.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I have never seen any such defense of terrorism as you speak of.

In a manner of speaking, you are not reading what you post or what?


j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

In a manner of speaking, you are not reading what you post or what?


j-mac

The only people I've seen defending terrorism are those I've been debating with. I've been pretty solidly against it in all of my posts. When asked what I felt were the reasons for the terrorists' mindset, I gave both historical and social explanations of why they think the way that they do. If you think that what I've said is a defense of terrorism, that is a flawed perspective of yours, not something inherent in my posts.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

I have, albeit rarely.

The reason I confront those who act as apologists for Islamist terrorism more than I do the jingoists is the relative threat to our way of life both pose. Whereas the jingoists can be annoying, their error is one of excessive defense of our way of life, whereas the Islamist apologists only attack it. Oddly enough, as most of the more patriotic individual tend to describe themselves as "conservative", they are the ones quick to support liberalism by pointing out the deplorable lack of liberal values inherent in the Islamist viewpoint, while far too many self-described "liberals" act to deflect away from these observations, so obsessed they are with their attacks and justificatons.

See, where you and I differ is that I don't really consider the Islamists to be a serious threat to our way of life so much as I view them as a direct threat to our physical lives by way of their actions. Overall, I think they represent a far lesser threat to our way of life, though. when you extend that to the Islamic terrorists' apologists, I feel the threat to our way of life becoems nil.

But the jingoists actually present a threat to our way of life because they are willing to compromise the very same value system that separates us from the Islamist terrorists. By acting as the Islamist terrorists do, they are a greater and more insidious threat to the American values and way of life than these terrorists can be, IMO.

It essentially boils down to my belief that in the past when we've attempted to defeat a perceived ideological threat from without, the most damage was done from within by those attempting to defeat that ideology.

I also believe that if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them. Which is why I am in favor of recognizing the historical context that has contributed to the mess in the ME. Our complicity in creating the environment where Islamists have thrived cannot be ignored. Nor can the Islamists viceral hatred of us and our way of life be ignored either.

But when it comes down to it, there's only one of those factors we can directly influence: our own actions. We can't change the past, but we can learn from it. I believe that too much of our current policy mirrors the policies that have contributed to the mess. I see our mentality shifting toward a "fight fire with fire" attitude that will eventually lead to justifications of similar tactics employed by us, thus negating our "moral high ground" in this battle. And right now, I don't think yeilding our moral high ground position will do us any good.

That being said, I can respect your position even if I disagree with which direction you place the greatest threat to be. I am doing much the same type of thing in teh direction I feel the greatest threat exists.

One thing to consider in that regard is my self-described "anti-federalist" philosophy. Because of that philosophy, I tend to be far more likely to oppose actions I disagree with "at home" than I am to oppose those actions outside of my shpere of influence. I feel that we should direct our efforts at the point where they can be most effective.
 
911 passed, so did the debates on Ground Zero musque and kolan burning topic. This is a tactic to distract public's attention on 911. Now you know how government manipulate your mind.
 
The mosque was supported by Zionist group. It is the old tactic - to monitor the muslim as close as they can - even in thier temple. You could imagine those Imam are undercover agents or informants. Don't forget those hijackers of 911, they were in government payroll too. This is a spy country.

Fox News co-owner funded ‘Ground Zero mosque’

The second largest shareholder in News Corp . -- the parent company of Fox News -- has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to causes linked to the imam planning to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, says a report from Yahoo!News.





Last week, Daily Show host Jon Stewart lambasted Fox panelist Eric Bolling's attempt to link the Cordoba Initiative to Hamas and Iran. Stewart used News Corp.'s connections to Prince Al-Waleed, and the prince's connections to the Carlyle Group and Osama bin Laden to make a tongue-in-cheek argument that Fox News may be a "terrorist command center."

Fox News shareholder funded ‘Ground Zero mosque’ imam: report | Raw Story
 
Saudi Prince Backs Moving Planned NYC Mosque - FoxNews.com
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates-- A Saudi prince who has aided the imam spearheading a proposed Islamic center near New York's ground zero is appealing for another site not associated with the "wound" of the Sept. 11 attacks, a report said Thursday.

In interview excerpts published by the Dubai-based Arabian Business magazine, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was quoted as saying that moving the planned mosque and other facilities would respect the memory of those killed in the 2001 attacks and allow American Muslims to choose a more suitable location...

Prince Alwaleed urged the backers of the proposed Islamic center not to "agitate the wound by saying, 'We need to put the mosque next to the 9/11 site."'

"Those people behind the mosque have to respect, have to appreciate and have to defer to the people of New York," the prince was quoted as saying by the magazine, which said the full interview will be published Sunday. "The wound is still there. Just because the wound is healing you can't say, 'Let's just go back to where we were pre-9/11."'

This prince guy must be a right wing nut job, and an anti-Islamic bigot, huh.
 
Back
Top Bottom