WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[Traitorfish]

*snip*

 

[mariogreymist]

The account was written during the lifetime of eyewitnesses.



Maybe in the logical realm it isn't, but in the practical world it is (NOTE: I am not supporting banning the mosque. I think banning the mosque would be silly and would not be a fair use of zoning law at all, therefore it would be a mild form of religious persecution.)

In the real world, Terrorists are Muslim for the most part. If I reversed the statement, it wouldn't be true anymore, because most Muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. And somehow, though unfairly, people get the feeling that Islam is symbolic of terrorism. In the Middle East, they will see it as a victory monument to radical Islam (Though Taillesskangaru's quote: "If we allow the mosque, the terrorists will think they won, if we don't, the terrorists will win," is valid here.)

In short, life isn't being fair to the Sufi, however, life isn't fair to anyone. Zoning laws have gotten so out of hand that the New York Government is actually able to ban the mosque. THEY are the problem, not random protesters who believe its a bad idea and would like them to voluntarily change the location, not even those who think they should be forced to move, but the people that can and may very well actually make them move, they are the problem. The common public is not the problem. Their rights to freedom of speech, like the mosque builder's rights to freedom of religion, are both equally protected. And, while not totally fair, it is offensive to a lot of people that the mosque is being built there. It doesn't offend me personally, but something like 60% of those polled think it is. If I were the Sufi, I would move it due to the offense it is causing, though he is within his rights not to if he doesn't see fit to.

The real problem is people who think most terrorists are muslims. It's only true if you use a definition of "terrorism" which excludes most political violence intended to instill terror - most of which is perpetrated by secular states, the USA being a prime offender.

so if your definition of "terrorism" is the perpetration of political violence with the intent to instill terror while yelling "Allah Akbar!" then you're right about most terrorism being Islamic. Any objective (as in one that doesn't give democratically elected governments a free pass) definition of the term will indicate that most of the terrorism in the world is perpetrated by capitalists, and their government stooges.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The real problem is people who think most terrorists are muslims. It's only true if you use a definition of "terrorism" which excludes most political violence intended to instill terror - most of which is perpetrated by secular states, the USA being a prime offender.

so if your definition of "terrorism" is the perpetration of political violence with the intent to instill terror while yelling "Allah Akbar!" then you're right about most terrorism being Islamic. Any objective (as in one that doesn't give democratically elected governments a free pass) definition of the term will indicate that most of the terrorism in the world is perpetrated by capitalists, and their government stooges.

I would define terrorism the same way this link does http://markhumphrys.com/terrorism.html

I would use the argument that you CAN'T be a terrorist against a nonfree nation, because then you are freedom fighting, not terrorizing (Unless you attack civilian targets, but then its not just the country you are attacking.)

That would probably be my most basic definition, attacking civilian targets. Also included would be non-military forces attacking someone else's government (Sometimes you have to revolt against your own, that's not terrorism.) By the above definition, terrorism is mostly Islamic. Of course, whenever more liberal and moderate Muslims are included in this, its unfair.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would use the argument that you CAN'T be a terrorist against a nonfree nation, because then you are freedom fighting, not terrorizing (Unless you attack civilian targets, but then its not just the country you are attacking.)

Even if we assume that you're ignoring a conflict between non-free and non-free nations... That is just stupid. "Terrorism" is defined in terms of action, not in terms of ideological end. If the police threaten a criminal with violence in pursuit of another criminal, that is still intimidation, whether or not they meant well.

If you do not hold yourself to a higher standard than your enemies, then why should we believe that you are any better than them?

 

[civver_764]

I would define terrorism the same way this link does http://markhumphrys.com/terrorism.html

You know a site is biased when the Palestinians are only "sort of" justified but Israel gets a full "YES".

And Hezbollah's case isn't even worth addressing? WAT

edit: Same for Al-Qaeda. I'm no fan of either but they definitely have grievances beyond "WORLDWIDE ISLAM FOR YOU".

 

[GhostWriter16]

Even if we assume that you're ignoring a conflict between non-free and non-free nations... That is just stupid. "Terrorism" is defined in terms of action, not in terms of ideological end. If the police threaten a criminal with violence in pursuit of another criminal, that is still intimidation, whether or not they meant well.

If you do not hold yourself to a higher standard than your enemies, then why should we believe that you are any better than them?

Well, I guess we should use the term "Justified terrorism then." I would consider someone who commits terrorism against the DPRK "Justified" by your definiton. However, unless they were attacking citizens, I would consider them fairly revolting, not committing terrorism.

If I go up to the White House and shoot the president, I am technically committing small scale terrorism, NOT freedom fighting because we already have freedom by legal standards.

I really don't think the word is worth defining though. I would simply say "Terrorists attack civilians, legitimate freedom fighters don't" and leave it at that.

You know a site is biased when the Palestinians are only "sort of" justified but Israel gets a full "YES".

And Hezbollah's case isn't even worth addressing? WAT

Read what he says about Israel in his other comments first. He's not biased at all. FreedomHouse gave Israel a rating of like 2 in their political rights from 1-7 (With one being the best) and a 1 in Civil Liberties, or vice versa. The Palestinian Territories got a six in both. Israel is freer. That alone is reason enough to support them.

As for Al-Queda- Yes its more than "Islam for you" its "Radical, Fundamentalist Shariah Islam for you." As I said earlier, its not fair to the moderates to not differentiate between the two.

 

[MobBoss]

The real problem is people who think most terrorists are muslims. It's only true if you use a definition of "terrorism" which excludes most political violence intended to instill terror - most of which is perpetrated by secular states, the USA being a prime offender.

Ah...so radial muslims are no longer the impetus behind most terrorism the world over if we adequately water down the meaning of terrorism enough...

Got it.

Any objective (as in one that doesn't give democratically elected governments a free pass) definition of the term will indicate that most of the terrorism in the world is perpetrated by capitalists, and their government stooges.

Ah well, and we were having such a nice conversation too, then you had to go all ultra-leftwing....

 

[civver_764]

He's not biased at all.

This is what it says at the top of his site:

"Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-American. Pro-Israel. "

As for Al-Queda- Yes its more than "Islam for you" its "Radical, Fundamentalist Shariah Islam for you." As I said earlier, its not fair to the moderates to not differentiate between the two.

It's more like "gtfo America, you're literally killing us".

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, I guess we should use the term "Justified terrorism then." I would consider someone who commits terrorism against the DPRK "Justified" by your definiton. However, unless they were attacking citizens, I would consider them fairly revolting, not committing terrorism.

Well that opens the door to some seriously ugly business.

If I go up to the White House and shoot the president, I am technically committing small scale terrorism, NOT freedom fighting because we already have freedom by legal standards.

You seem to be conflating terrorism with the mere illegitimate use of violence; while the former is necessarily the latter, the same is not true of the reverse. If the assassination in question is not intended to cause fear, then it is not terrorism, merely murder.

I really don't think the word is worth defining though. I would simply say "Terrorists attack civilians, legitimate freedom fighters don't" and leave it at that.

The latter part is true, but the former part is over-simplistic; terrorism is not simply irregular warfare, but action carried out with the intent of achieving political change through fear. Most of the terrorist attacks carried out by the Republican paramilitaries during the Troubles, for example, were primarily aimed at British military personal and loyalist paramilitaries, and most civilian deaths were collateral.

 

[mariogreymist]

Ah...so radial muslims are no longer the impetus behind most terrorism the world over if we adequately water down the meaning of terrorism enough...

Got it.

There is no functional definition of terrorist which does not include the phrase "non-government actor" or some such thinly veiled exception to allow the prosecutors of terrorism to go after the threat as they perceive it. You are a product of a culture where the terror-inducing political violence targeted at your psyche is mostly perpetrated by Islamic men. That's a subjective perception. If you really think the average person in the world is more "terrified" (to use the same root as "terrorism") of being targeted for violence by Islamic extremists than by some government out to enforce its own trade agenda, you're just not paying attention.

Ah well, and we were having such a nice conversation too, then you had to go all ultra-leftwing....

Call it ultra-left wing if you like, but it happens to be factually accurate.

 

[mariogreymist]

I would define terrorism the same way this link does http://markhumphrys.com/terrorism.html

I would use the argument that you CAN'T be a terrorist against a nonfree nation, because then you are freedom fighting, not terrorizing (Unless you attack civilian targets, but then its not just the country you are attacking.)

That would probably be my most basic definition, attacking civilian targets. Also included would be non-military forces attacking someone else's government (Sometimes you have to revolt against your own, that's not terrorism.) By the above definition, terrorism is mostly Islamic. Of course, whenever more liberal and moderate Muslims are included in this, its unfair.

Who gets to be the arbitrator of whether a country is "free"?
Who gets to define whether a target was civilian?
Who decides whether their cause was "just"?

Terrorism is a loaded term, used to apply subjective standards to call violence by outliers criminal, while similar actions taken by governments (or politically sypathetic movements) only cause "collateral damage." I won't get to far into this, because the mods here are notoriously "nonfree" when it comes to expressing this kind of idea, but your definition is based on circular logic and subjective standards.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who gets to be the arbitrator of whether a country is "free"?
Who gets to define whether a target was civilian?
Who decides whether their cause was "just"?

Terrorism is a loaded term, used to apply subjective standards to call violence by outliers criminal, while similar actions taken by governments (or politically sypathetic movements) only cause "collateral damage." I won't get to far into this, because the mods here are notoriously "nonfree" when it comes to expressing this kind of idea, but your definition is based on circular logic and subjective standards.

This isn't totally untrue, there are fuzzy areas. However, I would consider the following as "Definitely terrorism."

1. Attacks are committted by a Non-legitimate government.

2. Attacks are targeting civilians.

If these two are NOT true, you'd be hard pressed to call them terrorists. They may be just as wrong, but I wouldn't say you are a terrorist. Note, that its not this OR that, its this AND that, because revolt against your own government is sometimes justified, and #2, while never good, sometimes happens as collateral damage during bombings. Bombing a city isn't a war crime.

So, let's measure Al Queda:

1. They are not a government

2. They are targeting citizens

Let's measure Afghanistan's Taliban

1. They are not a legitimate government anymore and

2. They are attacking citizens

Let's measure Palestine

1. Gray area, they are not considered a government by most nations, particularly the ones that matter. I can't objectively and conclusively say they are not a state, but I don't believe they are.

2. Yes they are attacking citizens

And let's try Israel (Since they were accused.)

1. They are a legitimate government

2. They attempt to aim at military targets.

So:

Al Queda are terrorists

The Taliban are Terrorists

The Palestinian Government, while a gray area, seems to have the evidence stacked towards them being terrorists

Israel is a legitimate government.

 

[JollyRoger]

Al Queda are not terrorists under your rule set since they are not a non legitimate government.

 

[PiMan]

This isn't totally untrue, there are fuzzy areas. However, I would consider the following as "Definitely terrorism."

1. Attacks are committted by a Non-legitimate government.

2. Attacks are targeting civilians.

If these two are NOT true, you'd be hard pressed to call them terrorists. They may be just as wrong, but I wouldn't say you are a terrorist. Note, that its not this OR that, its this AND that, because revolt against your own government is sometimes justified, and #2, while never good, sometimes happens as collateral damage during bombings. Bombing a city isn't a war crime.

So, let's measure Al Queda:

1. They are not a government

2. They are targeting citizens

Let's measure Afghanistan's Taliban

1. They are not a legitimate government anymore and

2. They are attacking citizens

Let's measure Palestine

1. Gray area, they are not considered a government by most nations, particularly the ones that matter. I can't objectively and conclusively say they are not a state, but I don't believe they are.

2. Yes they are attacking citizens

And let's try Israel (Since they were accused.)

1. They are a legitimate government

2. They attempt to aim at military targets.

So:

Al Queda are terrorists

The Taliban are Terrorists

The Palestinian Government, while a gray area, seems to have the evidence stacked towards them being terrorists

Israel is a legitimate government.

By your definition, the plane that hit the Pentagon was not terrorism. That's not a civilian target.

 

[Tee Kay]

1. Attacks are committted by a Non-legitimate government.

2. Attacks are targeting civilians.

Under this definition all criminals are terrorists.

 

[MobBoss]

There is no functional definition of terrorist which does not include the phrase "non-government actor" or some such thinly veiled exception to allow the prosecutors of terrorism to go after the threat as they perceive it.

Actually, you are quite wrong. 'State sponsored terrorism' is indeed a phrase used in defining certain aspects or facets of terrorism.

Seriously, if you have never heard that term used, how knowledgable of terrorism and its aspects can you be?

You are a product of a culture where the terror-inducing political violence targeted at your psyche is mostly perpetrated by Islamic men. That's a subjective perception. If you really think the average person in the world is more "terrified" (to use the same root as "terrorism") of being targeted for violence by Islamic extremists than by some government out to enforce its own trade agenda, you're just not paying attention.

Really? So, India, the UK, Spain, Indonesia, Australia, and other nations that have experienced Islamic terrorism (yes, even middle eastern ones as Islamlic terrorism often attacks muslims as well) must be imagining things.

So, is an Afghani woman, who has acid thrown in her face for attending a school experiencing a 'subjective perception' then?

Really?

Call it ultra-left wing if you like, but it happens to be factually accurate.

Rofl, its not even close. Hell, its not even informed.

 

[mariogreymist]

Actually, you are quite wrong. 'State sponsored terrorism' is indeed a phrase used in defining certain aspects or facets of terrorism.

Seriously, if you have never heard that term used, how knowledgable of terrorism and its aspects can you be?

Way to read half a sentence. You'll note that killing hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians with indiscriminate bombing campaigns in the 1940's is not referred to as "state sponsored terrorism" even though it was done to effect a political ends (end WW2) and targeted primarily civilians. Definitions of terrorism are all carefully crafted to end with the basic conclusion of: terrorism is what they do to us. (or the more finely nuanced: terrorism is what they do to either us, or people we like.)

Really? So, India, the UK, Spain, Indonesia, Australia, and other nations that have experienced Islamic terrorism (yes, even middle eastern ones as Islamlic terrorism often attacks muslims as well) must be imagining things.

So, is an Afghani woman, who has acid thrown in her face for attending a school experiencing a 'subjective perception' then?

Really?

Wow. An instance of an islamic man doing something despicable to an islamic woman. You must be right. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of people in Western Asia killed by the American military over the past decade. The one lady with the acid on her face is what should instill terror.

Your definition is subjective, and assumes legitimacy for acts of governments. (assuming the governments are run by people who think like you do)

Rofl, its not even close. Hell, its not even informed.

Thanks for the in depth analysis.

With opinions as nuanced and well thought out as yours, you should do FoxNews.

 

[MobBoss]

Way to read half a sentence. You'll note that killing hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians with indiscriminate bombing campaigns in the 1940's is not referred to as "state sponsored terrorism" even though it was done to effect a political ends (end WW2) and targeted primarily civilians.

Actually, your still rather wrong on that. Rules for Allied bombing campaigns dictated that cities targeted still had to have been pertinent to the war effort in some way, and also guarded by military units (i.e. protected in some means). They just didnt bomb civilians willy nilly to 'cause terror (a couple of instances are arguable sure, but as a policy, it wasnt done), but rather to destroy various factories and plants producing war material.

It never targeted primarily civilians, but war production and material. However, not having 'smart' bombs often meant huge amounts of collateral damage in the offing. If civilians had been targeted as primary targets the death tolls for the war would have been much, much higher.

Again, your trying to maintain this simply non-factual point shows your own level of hype and propaganda your're trying to push. Thats all.

Wow. An instance of an islamic man doing something despicable to an islamic woman. You must be right. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of people in Western Asia killed by the American military over the past decade. The one lady with the acid on her face is what should instill terror.

No, its an instance of a terror act that directly disproves your point. Nor is it singular in occurance.

Your definition is subjective, and assumes legitimacy for acts of governments. (assuming the governments are run by people who think like you do)

Its called the Law of War. Maybe you have heard of it. Not all government acts are legimate.

With opinions as nuanced and well thought out as yours, you should do FoxNews.

Thanks! I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Under this definition all criminals are terrorists.

This is a valid point, but not all criminals are a part of a group doing these things.

As for the one that hit the Pentagon, Its still terrorism because it was also a suicidal attack intended to kill without cause.

 

[dosed150]

Actually, you are quite wrong. 'State sponsored terrorism' is indeed a phrase used in defining certain aspects or facets of terrorism.

Seriously, if you have never heard that term used, how knowledgable of terrorism and its aspects can you be?



Really? So, India, the UK, Spain, Indonesia, Australia, and other nations that have experienced Islamic terrorism (yes, even middle eastern ones as Islamlic terrorism often attacks muslims as well) must be imagining things.

So, is an Afghani woman, who has acid thrown in her face for attending a school experiencing a 'subjective perception' then?

Really?


Rofl, its not even close. Hell, its not even informed.

the IRA carried out a lot more terrorist attacks in the uk than muslims have, same with ETA in spain so obviously we should be scared of the irish and basques