|
On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
|
On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
(and @ the above guy)
The difference is we wouldn't morally support ANY kind of Neo Nazi monument. Because Neo-Nazism is fucking awful. I'd hope your fine with Mosques in generally.
Building a Neo-Nazi monument in Auschwitz would be just as reprehensible as building a Neo Nazi monument anywhere. The fact that they're building it on Auchswitz is just insult to injury so to speak.
Building a Mosque is not an insult. So building one near a site of "injury" is not adding "insult", because building a Mosque for a conservative Muslim group is not an Insult anyway.
The entire analogy is bs.
|
On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
Yes, what is giving you trouble? Imam Rauf and Al Qaida share the same ideology with different interpretation and exercise of it, much like two people can believe that all animals have the right to be free while only one of them actually bombs animal shelters to free them. They have the same basic ideology, but they are not the same. It is the religion they have in common, the belief in Allah, that is praised by placing a mosque on ground zero. The plane crashing was done in the name of Allah. Allah is within the realm of what Imam Rauf and the Al Qaida plane crashers have in common, even if they are different in how they actually go about their beliefs and how much of it they accept, and that is why it is inappropriate that Imam Rauf builds a mosque to praise Allah on Ground Zero.
If that didn't explain it to you then I am done.
|
On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
So are you in favor of banning any churches that might be built near kids because some priests were pedophiles protected by the Catholic Church?
It's pretty damn insensitive to all caring and protective parents. Who knows what the local priest might do to our kids?
|
On September 13 2010 09:00 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. (and @ the above guy) The difference is we wouldn't morally support ANY kind of Neo Nazi monument. Because Neo-Nazism is fucking awful. I'd hope your fine with Mosques in generally. Building a Neo-Nazi monument in Auschwitz would be just as reprehensible as building a Neo Nazi monument anywhere.
How bad neo-nazi's are is irrelevant. It was an example. We could compare it to setting up a gold-layered fucking fruitwagon at the scene where an entire family was violently sodomized and killed by a banana-wielding maniac acting in the name of fruitvendors everywhere, if that makes you more comfortable. He killed them in the name of fruitvendors. Don't set up a golden fruitwagon to praise fruitvendors right where they died.
|
I typically stay away from inflammatory threads like these, but after discussing this with my family over the weekend, I've come to this conclusion.
1st and foremost: This is America. Muslims have the right to build this mosque. Blocking it politically would be a very bad thing.
That being said, I don't think there's any denying the sensitive nature of this mosque's location. Whether the mosque is meant to be a staunch reminder of 9/11 or not is irrelevant. Because of the nature of the attacks, and because of the religion of the people who carried out those attacks, Americans will always associate Islam with what happened that day. You can call it ignorance if you want, (I don't think it is) but the fact of the matter is constructing a temple to the thing that incited these attacks is going to leave a lot of Americans with a bad taste in their mouth. Period.
So, with that in mind, if the Imam of this mosque really wants to impress upon Americans that his people are peaceful, understanding, and sympathetic to what happened that day, why doesn't he just come out and say "You know what? I understand why Americans are so sensitive about this, and out of respect to them, I'm going to relocate my mosque".
To me, that's the course of action that a true holy-man would take.
|
On September 13 2010 09:04 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by So are you in favor of banning any churches that might be built near kids because some priests were pedophiles protected by the Catholic Church? It's pretty damn insensitive to all caring and protective parents. Who knows what the local priest might do to our kids?
I am not in favor of banning anything. I've only been saying that it is reasonable to be offended by it. Discussing in threads like this is hopeless because people like you always show up and give me opinions I never had.
But to use your example, the answer is no. If a pedophile priest raped you, and then the catholic church decided to build a church right next to your house, you'd have good reason to be offended. That's a direct translation of what i've been saying to your scenario. I have never mentioned bans of any kind. Do you really disagree with this?
|
On September 13 2010 09:14 Keyser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 09:04 Adila wrote:On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by So are you in favor of banning any churches that might be built near kids because some priests were pedophiles protected by the Catholic Church? It's pretty damn insensitive to all caring and protective parents. Who knows what the local priest might do to our kids? I am not in favor of banning anything. I've only been saying that it is reasonable to be offended by it. Discussing in threads like this is hopeless because people like you always show up and give me opinions I never had.
Its almost like hes offended of what he thinks your position is and isnt really considering how you really feel. Hes kinda just lumping you in with another group of people.
How unfair...
|
On September 13 2010 07:34 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 07:31 Floophead_III wrote:On September 13 2010 07:29 Jibba wrote:
Alright, so you've just disproven your own theory that it's an unsolvable ideological war. Is this directed at me? Yes, you began with the Huntington idea that Islam and the West are ideologically incompatible, and then you immediately moved to how moderate Muslims should help bridge relations between the two sides. Obviously it's on a moving scale and not separate poles like you seemed to be claiming earlier.
Yes but what I said is that moderate muslims do not actually follow the pure ideology of Islam. These ideas are therefore not in conflict.
The West IS in an ideological war. Islamic ideals and western ideals do NOT work together. They are incompatible.
Islam itself needs a moderate reform, to show that it can be compatible with modern western ideals. There are plenty of moderate muslims, but they need to showcase their affirmation that radical Islam is wrong and bad.
|
On September 13 2010 09:02 Keyser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by Yes, what is giving you trouble? Imam Rauf and Al Qaida share the same ideology with different interpretation and exercise of it, much like two people can believe that all animals have the right to be free while only one of them actually bombs animal shelters to free them. They have the same basic ideology, but they are not the same. It is the religion they have in common, the belief in Allah, that is praised by placing a mosque on ground zero. The plane crashing was done in the name of Allah. Allah is within the realm of what Imam Rauf and the Al Qaida plane crashers have in common, even if they are different in how they actually go about their beliefs and how much of it they accept, and that is why it is inappropriate that Imam Rauf builds a mosque to praise Allah on Ground Zero. If that didn't explain it to you then I am done.
And again in your explanation you return to the misconception (now a deliberate lie rather than a mistake on your part since you have been informed) that Allah is a uniquely Islamic deity.
|
On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
whats insane is violation of free fall and constant acceleration, violation of melting point, ignoring the evidence of nanothermate done by prof steven jones, skyscrapers falling on their imprint from an assymetrical blow. buildings falling in the exact same manner without being hit by planes... and still believing that the planes caused bulidings to fall.... the government said it, it must be true.
|
On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by
i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
|
On September 13 2010 09:56 warrior6 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:54 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:49 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane. Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by i think your gravely confused. i dont think imam rauf adheres to al qaeda's idealogy. yes thats right the idealogy of al qaeda is not the same as most muslims. those who share al qaeda's idealogy are terrorist groups. to say that imam rauf follows the idealogy of al qaeda is very stupid. now your saying that they both follow the "idealogy of islam" but this is a huuuuuge simplification of the issue. ask muslims what an "islamic idealogy" is and you will get very different answers from them. ask any terrorist group what an islamic idealogy is and you will still get different answers. very very few people will adhere to al qaeda's idealogy of armed global war in the name of religion
I was actually quoting another poster because he claimed he never said anything crazy.
|
Nothing wrong with building a mosque near ground zero .... no one seems alarmed about the other 100s of mosques in nyc ... so why this one.
|
You simply cannot say that you dislike a mosque being built near ground zero and simultaneously say that you aren't being intolerant of Islam. Forty pages in I would have thought we'd have that at least clear. Almost no Muslims are part of Al-Qaeda.
And that people would even equate Islam as a whole with Neo-Nazis is abhorrent.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 13 2010 08:03 Keyser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 07:46 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:43 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:38 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:36 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:32 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:28 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:23 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 05:50 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote:
Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself. Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology. No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name. In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way. You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing. Do you know what this is? ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Serbian_Cross1.svg/150px-Serbian_Cross1.svg.png) What does the serbian cross have to do with what Islam represents today? Because 15 years ago a sect of Christianity "represented" something far worse than even what we see from Islam in Saudi Arabia today. I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there. How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame? In the case of Islam, I believe the ideology has not changed very much. Instead, the political landscape has changed, and Islam is now being "more fully utilized" by prominent leader figures. I feel like Islam lends itself better to extremism than other religions. For example, you won't find examples of suicide bombings within other mainstream religions(at least not on any significant scale). As for Japan, it would just be speculation. I don't really think Japanese culture at its core has changed that much, they are just behaving differently in a different situation. Give them the emperor and their old situation back and they would be willing to die for him all over again. Suicide bombing is a relatively recent tactic, only really becoming a mainstream terrorism tactic in the 1970s used by Palestinians.
You make statements like "I believe" or "I feel like" but on what weight does your judgment actually carry? Have you done/studied religious studies or international relations or international security? The experts' findings contradict your beliefs.
|
Nothing should be built near ground zero imo. It should be declared holy ground like the Native burial grounds. There's nothing racist about it, it's just that an unfortunate event took place there and over 2000 people were killed.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Jibba,
You mean suicide bombing of civilians, right? Suicide missions has always had a place in military traditions. Once there were bombs, suicide missions started using them, too. And as far as commit suicide by explosion, European commanders have always been trained to detonated artillery stores on themselves rather than let the ammunition fall into enemy hands.
Japanese people are proud and can be somewhat xenophobia, but they've learned their lesson from global trade. Their people are wealthier now than they could ever be under an imperialistic political-economic model.
|
United States22883 Posts
Yes, the modern version of it. There's been some forms of suicide bombing from Tamils and other small groups for a much longer period of time.
|
This thread is not even about the construction anymore....the past couple pages have been about the "religious" stuff.
People are not even arguing about their views on the construction anymore --;
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
