WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[JollyRoger]

'Cause it pisses me off to think young americans compare Washington to some dirty terrorist. There is definitely something wrong with that and it upsets me to see it occur.

Well then maybe you should rethink how sneak attacks and terrorism tie together. Ronald Reagan retreated from Beirut. I don't think the Gipper would have been so soft if he thought he was giving in to terrorism.

 

[Cutlass]

Damn. This thread is still going? Has anything significant happened in the last 700 posts worth reading, or are we still hashing out the same points of view?

Pretty much same stuff different day. There's been nothing worth really reading.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

It's just a spam thread. If it makes it to thread 5 it's proof that CFC OT needs better moderation.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's just a spam thread. If it makes it to thread 5 it's proof that CFC OT needs better moderation.

OT's moderation is strict enough.

Though, unless anyone actually wants to give strong opposition to the mosque, not much more we can say...

 

[mariogreymist]

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.

You're the one who is backing a propaganda model here. Curtis LeMay, who commanded the bomber squadrons which firebombed Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and which dropped two nuclear bombs which were intended to instill terror in the civilian population of Japan, admitted that he, and much of his command staff would have been prosecuted as war criminals had the US lost the war. And he's right. Rather than specifically aim for factories with explosive munitions, his command switched to incendiary devices which he knew would burn entire cities to the ground, including civilian residences. Moreover, the bombing campaign was undertaken mostly at night, when people would be sleeping in their wooden houses. Almost every building in Japan was made for wood, and the US burned dozens of cities with significantly more effect on the civilian population than the military effectiveness of the Empire of Japan.

And in the end, a "war criminal" is just someone who commits acts that you would refer to as "terrorism" were they committed by a person not wearing a uniform. There were other, less destructive forms of bombing which could have been used and which were abandoned to raise the efficiency. Destroying 50% of the military targets was not as good as getting 90% of them in a city, and the US didn't care that getting 50% was having small effect on the civilian population but the method to get 90% in a single pass was killing people in the tens and even hundreds of thousands.

It was the loss of morale among the Japanese people which forced the Emperor to back down and surrender in the end. So the actual desired outcome (winning the war) of the firebombing of Japan was achieved not due to the destruction of factories (though lack of military production certainly helped); but rather because the tactics of the USA instilled TERROR in the Japanese civilian population.

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

You're missing the point. Singular acts (even those as horrific as 9/11) are not as destructive as wholesale destruction of unjustifiable levels of military aggression.

To make your "terrorism" unique requires that you forgive certain kinds of behavior which fit your definition aside from artificial limits created to excuse the powerful. You have accepted that certain perpetrators of terror are not actually terrorists.

Frankly, the term is far more pejorative than descriptive in its wide usage, and serves no practical purpose other than to incite enmity among the unwashed masses. (yes, I am talking about you)

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

Sure they're not. Burning Tokyo, Osaka, Dresden (which had no industrial base, btw) and dozens of other cities to the ground come to mind. The law of war is written by the winners of the particular war. Like LeMay said - he and his command staff would have been tried and hanged had the Japanese won.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Damn. This thread is still going? Has anything significant happened in the last 700 posts worth reading, or are we still hashing out the same points of view?

Yeah, check it out

I agree with this.

However, it is usually Islam. Its rather unfair to the moderates actually to be put in a bad light over something they have no control over and is not their fault.

Second time in 5 minuts I agree with Dom.

 

[MobBoss]

Sure. If you deliberately ignore all the rest...

Well lets analyze all the rest then:

Threats of right-wing violence have doubled in the past year. What is behind the latest upsurge in the movement to create a Christian theocratic state?

Already covered. "Threats" arent the same as 'attacks'. Not an example of terrorism.

Christian terrorism has returned to America with a vengeance. And it is not just Roeder. When members of the Hutaree militia in Michigan and Ohio recently were arrested with plans to kill a random policeman and then plant Improvised Explosive Devices in the area where the funeral would be held to kill hundreds more, this was a terrorist plot of the sort that would impress Shi’ite militia and al Qaeda activists in Iraq.

Again, operative word highlighted. 'Plans' isnt indicative of an actual attack is it? Was anyone killed? No.

Again, not much of an example of the 'many' you said were out there....

The Southern Poverty Law Center, founded by Morris Dees, which has closely watched the rise of right-wing extremism in this country for many decades, declares that threats and incidents of right-wing violence have risen 200% in this past year—unfortunately coinciding with the tenure of the first African-American president in US history.

More 'threats' but rather 'incident' lite....

When Chip Berlet, one of this country’s best monitors of right-wing extremism, warned in a perceptive essay last week on RD that the hostile right-wing political climate in this country has created the groundwork for a demonic new form of violence and terrorism, I fear that he is correct.

Rofl, your link is better at listing those that track so-called 'christian terrorism' than actually listing actual instances of 'christian terrorism'. Nice.

According to the most prolific Reconstruction writer, Gary North, it is “the moral obligation of Christians to recapture every institution for Jesus Christ." He feels this to be especially so in the United States, where secular law as construed by the Supreme Court and defended by liberal politicians is moving in what Rushdoony and others regard as a decidedly un-Christian direction; particularly in matters regarding abortion and homosexuality. What the Reconstructionists ultimately want, however, is more than the rejection of secularism. Like other theologians who utilize the biblical concept of “dominion,” they reason that Christians, as the new chosen people of God, are destined to dominate the world.

Lots of rhetoric, but not a single example of said 'christian terrorism'.

Seriously Form....is this all you got? Like I said, the only real instance is the tiller killer. Even if you counted the Hutaree militia fail, then thats a WHOPPING TWO EXAMPLES you give there of the 'many instances' of christian terrorism.

Epic own goal there Form. Best laugh I have had this week.

The only real difference are the religious texts the fanatics who engage in terrorism claim must be the gospel.

This sounds like Rosie O'Donnell, but when actually pull the crazy argument apart, bit by bit, it falls to pieces. You have given a whopping 1 real example, and 1 'plan'...yes, you have indeed provided a very strong argument that Christian Terrorism is out there and is a huge menace to society.

This isn't a sports event where only the terrorists with the most incidents count, as you seem to think. The both represent exactly the same threat for exactly the same reasons.

Wow. You have 1 abortion shooter thats killed 1 guy, and a bunch of failed rednecks who couldnt even kill a single person....and you equate that as the 'same threat' as radical islam?

Seriously?

Form, you dont need to complain about me destroying your credibility. Making an argument like that does just fine.

You're the one who is backing a propaganda model here. Curtis LeMay, who commanded the bomber squadrons which firebombed Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and which dropped two nuclear bombs which were intended to instill terror in the civilian population of Japan, admitted that he, and much of his command staff would have been prosecuted as war criminals had the US lost the war.

Do you think if we had lost the war then the victors would have been fair about such charges?

No?

Ok.

Again, the nuclear bombs were simply not dropped to 'instill terror' in the civilian population of Japan, but were indeed dropped on military production facilities guarded by military units. If there was a message there, it was to the leadership of Japan in that we have a weapon which you cannot counter, thus it was up to them to determine the cost of continuing the war upon their nation.

And he's right.

Again, this is pure assumption and delving into fantasy. He might have been right...and he might not have been.

Regardless its moot to argue points that have little to do with historical fact.

Rather than specifically aim for factories with explosive munitions, his command switched to incendiary devices which he knew would burn entire cities to the ground, including civilian residences.

It would also assuredly burn factories to the ground.

Btw, the bombing method of the day didnt allow for 'specific aiming' at anything. It often took tons upon tons of bombs, often not even achieving destruction of the target. In some cases, mass firebombing was a more sure way of destroying factory production than more conventional means.

Moreover, the bombing campaign was undertaken mostly at night, when people would be sleeping in their wooden houses.

In Japan this is true. In Europe it was not.

Besides its also true that its harder to intercept bombers at night. Duh.

Almost every building in Japan was made for wood, and the US burned dozens of cities with significantly more effect on the civilian population than the military effectiveness of the Empire of Japan.

Being 'effective' at waging war isnt a war crime.

And in the end, a "war criminal" is just someone who commits acts that you would refer to as "terrorism" were they committed by a person not wearing a uniform.

Not accurate in the least. War crimes cover myriad acts which wouldnt necessarily been seen as 'terrorism' at all. Remember, terrorism inofitself is simply a means to an end. Warcrimes can be committed just for the sake of commiting them i.e. there is no purpose to them at all. In that regard, the two are simply not the same.

There were other, less destructive forms of bombing which could have been used and which were abandoned to raise the efficiency.

How wise is it to wage a world war inefficiently?

Destroying 50% of the military targets was not as good as getting 90% of them in a city, and the US didn't care that getting 50% was having small effect on the civilian population but the method to get 90% in a single pass was killing people in the tens and even hundreds of thousands.

Except, this would mean that the civilians killed were not primary targets, as you have previously alleged, but simply collateral in effect of trying to take out enemy war production.

So you just undercut one of your main allegations. Thanks.

It was the loss of morale among the Japanese people which forced the Emperor to back down and surrender in the end.

No, it wasnt. In fact, since the State controlled the press, actual word of the atomic attacks didnt really reach your average citizen until well after the surrender. The Japanese citizens were fed a steady diet of pro-Japan propanganda that the war was still being won by Japan, albiet the obvious fallacy of that was wearing quite thin by that time.

No, what led to the emperor to surrender was the utter realzation that it was either surrender or annihilation and thats all.

So the actual desired outcome (winning the war) of the firebombing of Japan was achieved not due to the destruction of factories (though lack of military production certainly helped); but rather because the tactics of the USA instilled TERROR in the Japanese civilian population.

Sigh. Uhm. No.

To make your "terrorism" unique requires that you forgive certain kinds of behavior which fit your definition aside from artificial limits created to excuse the powerful. You have accepted that certain perpetrators of terror are not actually terrorists.

No, I actually have a rather tighter defintion of what terrorism is, although even mine is somewhat broad. Yours is so all-inclusive as to be meaningless...

Sure they're not. Burning Tokyo, Osaka, Dresden (which had no industrial base, btw

Dresden had no industrial base? The German Army High Command itself listed it as having 127 factories in the city providing war material to the German army. The US Air Force report on the city listed 110 such factories building such things as aircraft components, chemical factories, Lehman AA and field gun factories, Zeiss optics factories, along with many others making various other items. There was also listed miltary barracks, and a munitions storage depot. The RAF listed it as an industrial city of first-class importance...

So, I have no idea where you are getting your revisionist history data, but it sure is not accurate at all....in fact, it is blatently false.

and dozens of other cities to the ground come to mind. The law of war is written by the winners of the particular war. Like LeMay said - he and his command staff would have been tried and hanged had the Japanese won.

Again, thats simple opinion, and certainly not given fact, although it is entirely believable that a victorious Germany and Japan wouldnt exactly be 'nice' about those that opposed them....would they? Especially since they had such a great track record of being fair and equitable up to that point...right?

 

[mariogreymist]

.....spouts more propaganda*....

Fine, believe what you want to believe. I'll take the word of the General who ordered the bombing of Japan over yours as to whether it was a war crime. I understand you got your understanding of WWII from a high school text book (or maybe just a rah-rah USA sis-boom-bah freshman level college one) but that does not make assertions that amount to "The Japanese people didn't know they were being killed in the hundreds of thousands on a nightly basis because the state media wasn't reporting it" able to even pass the laugh test.

There is no point continuing this part of the discussion, as we're not going to come to agreement.

I get that you love war, and think it's made of fuzzy bunnies and pure intentions, but that just don't make it so.

*not actually a direct quote, just a summary.

 

[useless]

Actually "Muslim Terrorism" is a relatively new phenomenon compared to Basque, Irish and environmental terrorism.

 

[sophie]

Dear lord, come on guys. I thought the settled point is, while it may or may not be in bad taste, the fact of the matter is, they're doing it by the books, and it would be downright unAmerican to not let them go forward with it. Can we please stop engaging in this merry-go-round of spam? It's getting rather dull now.

Second time in 5 minuts I agree with Dom.

Does this mean the world shall now come to an end? Should I flee to my backyard bunker? OSHI! I haven't had time to finish preparing it, I thought I'd have at least another 2 years! Excuse me while I, uh...AAAAAHHHHHHHHH

 

[Tee Kay]

Does this mean the world shall now come to an end? Should I flee to my backyard bunker? OSHI! I haven't had time to finish preparing it, I thought I'd have at least another 2 years! Excuse me while I, uh...AAAAAHHHHHHHHH

Weren't you told to have it completed by April this year?

 

[MobBoss]

Fine, believe what you want to believe.

Its not what I want to believe, what I gave you is simply a matter of the factual historical record.

Your're the one taking the 'what if's' and trying to give them factual weight....not me.

I'll take the word of the General who ordered the bombing of Japan over yours as to whether it was a war crime.

He didnt say it was a war crime...he said they would be tried and hung for it as a war crime by the axis powers if they lost the war.

Please tell me you comprehend the difference there.

Also, like I pointed out, precisely how fair do you think such a trial by the Axis powers would be? Dont you think that maybe, given their track record, such trials wouldnt be exactly....unbiased? Some charges greatly exaggerated maybe?

I understand you got your understanding of WWII from a high school text book (or maybe just a rah-rah USA sis-boom-bah freshman level college one) but that does not make assertions that amount to "The Japanese people didn't know they were being killed in the hundreds of thousands on a nightly basis because the state media wasn't reporting it" able to even pass the laugh test.

I gurantee, given my career, interests in military history, and my age, I have by far exceeded the contents of a high school text book along these lines. In trying to allege this your simply exercising your own egos damage control to minimize the whacking I have given you in this thread. Thats ok, I can understand that. Its human. But it doesnt change the simply fact that you have been proven to be hugely in factual error in quite a few of your perceptions of military history. Just like your allegation that Dresden wasnt an industrial base by the time it was firebombed. Thats easily looked up...easily countered. Its just something you parroted because its not something you heard in a textbook, but its probably some non-factual propaganda you read off some lefty website and never bothered to actually look it up to see if it was valid or not.

Well, now you know different. And your're welcome.

There is no point continuing this part of the discussion, as we're not going to come to agreement.

Nothing to agree to. The historical record is what it is whether you agree to it or not.

I get that you love war, and think it's made of fuzzy bunnies and pure intentions, but that just don't make it so.

No, I dont love war, but I have made the military my career. Thus I have made military history a bit of a hobby. Seemed like a common sense thing to do at the time.

And where in the hell have I ever made it sound like it was full of fuzzy bunnies?

Wow, mario...you lose an argument you make some wild accusations on the retreat dont you?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I gurantee, given my career, interests in military history, and my age, I have by far exceeded the contents of a high school text book along these lines.

So why do you post like a child? Although, most children I know probably know how to spell guarantee.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[mariogreymist]

Its not what I want to believe, what I gave you is simply a matter of the factual historical record.

Your're the one taking the 'what if's' and trying to give them factual weight....not me.



He didnt say it was a war crime...he said they would be tried and hung for it as a war crime by the axis powers if they lost the war.

Please tell me you comprehend the difference there.

Also, like I pointed out, precisely how fair do you think such a trial by the Axis powers would be? Dont you think that maybe, given their track record, such trials wouldnt be exactly....unbiased? Some charges greatly exaggerated maybe?

I think you believe that one side is inherently ethically superior to another in a war. WW2 might be the singular case in history where that was actually true, and it is probable that the trials of allied soldiers would have amounted to kangaroo courts.

But...

Someone who decides that the best means to destroy the factories of Yokohama is to burn the city to the ground while children are sleeping in their beds is a war criminal. PERIOD. Given your vast knowledge of the history of WW2, please tell me how many of the 20,000,000 allied troops were tried for war crimes? I really don't know, but would be willing to bet the number is remarkably small. The reason for that is not that the Allies didn't commit atrocities (and no matter what you say about Japan, Dresden was a criminal act), but that tactics which result in unconditional victory are never going to be called war crimes. Some form of justfication will always be offered, and the soldiers performing those acts are far more likely to be awarded medals than courts martial for murdering children.

I gurantee, given my career, interests in military history, and my age, I have by far exceeded the contents of a high school text book along these lines. In trying to allege this your simply exercising your own egos damage control to minimize the whacking I have given you in this thread. Thats ok, I can understand that. Its human. But it doesnt change the simply fact that you have been proven to be hugely in factual error in quite a few of your perceptions of military history. Just like your allegation that Dresden wasnt an industrial base by the time it was firebombed. Thats easily looked up...easily countered. Its just something you parroted because its not something you heard in a textbook, but its probably some non-factual propaganda you read off some lefty website and never bothered to actually look it up to see if it was valid or not.

I have read numerous books, some written by the people who actually were part of LeMay's staff. One of those people was a man named Robert McNamara (I hope I don't need to tell you who he was) who was a statistical analysis officer for LeMay. He clearly did not believe that charging LeMay (and himself, actually) as war criminals would have been unjust. He put forth an interesting question:

What makes it immoral if you lose, but not if you win?

No, I dont love war, but I have made the military my career. Thus I have made military history a bit of a hobby. Seemed like a common sense thing to do at the time.

And where in the hell have I ever made it sound like it was full of fuzzy bunnies?

Wow, mario...you lose an argument you make some wild accusations on the retreat dont you?

Wow. You don't know a literary device when you see one. No wonder your arguments sound like a DoD press release.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually "Muslim Terrorism" is a relatively new phenomenon compared to Basque, Irish and environmental terrorism.

And those Muslims terrorists that did exist were largely Palestinian nationalists, and were part of organisations with a roughly proportional number of Palestinian Christians.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, not much of an example of the 'many' you said were out there....

Again, this isn't a sports event where the recent "score" is the sole important criteria. If it were, the Department of Hopeless Stupidity wouldn't be investigating so many Americans who aren't Muslim.

But even so, the only criteria where the "score" in terrorism which have occured in the US is in favor of the Muslims instead of the Christians is in the number of recent deaths. There have been far more abortion clinic bombings, assaults, murders, and even the bombing of an Olympics event (which fortunately only killed one but injured 111) than there have been actual terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US. The murders committed by the KKK alone dwarfs the number killed on 9/11. And if you count the cowardly attacks on Muslims and mosques since 9/11 as terrorist acts instead of hate crimes, the numbers become even more disproportionate.

Fanatical Christians pose exactly the same threat that fanatical Muslims do in this country for exactly the same reasons. And since there are far more of the former who actually reside in the US, they pose a greater potential threat in the foreseeable future. But you are trying to dismiss them as being unimportant while dwelling upon the Muslim acts alone, much as those who try to conflate terrorism with Islam for their own obvious political agendas. And the "9/11 Mosque" is the epicenter of that prejudiced attack against the peaceful religion of Islam.

 

[Karalysia]

So just checking in to see if Christian civilization has been destroyed yet?






No? Not yet?

Ok I'll check back in later.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Does this mean the world shall now come to an end? Should I flee to my backyard bunker? OSHI! I haven't had time to finish preparing it, I thought I'd have at least another 2 years! Excuse me while I, uh...AAAAAHHHHHHHHH

I may be conservative but that doesn't make me stupid. I am rational about many things, and I think a lot of conservatives are overreacting about this mosque...

 

[mariogreymist]

I may be conservative but that doesn't make me stupid. I am rational about many things, and I think a lot of conservatives are overreacting about this mosque...

The main over-reaction is that it's being called a mosque. It's a mosque like Madison Square Garden is a locker room.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The main over-reaction is that it's being called a mosque. It's a mosque like Madison Square Garden is a locker room.

Well, it IS a mosque, or part of it anyway...

And a large part of it at that...

That doesn't make it a problem, but let's get the facts straight....