WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[mariogreymist]

Part of MSG is a locker room, is my point.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not sure why they feel so threatened by the prayer rooms that already exist. They should really fear the swimming pool which could be used for advanced suicide dolphin training.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not sure why they feel so threatened by the prayer rooms which already exist. They should really fear the swimming pool which could be used for advanced suicide dolphin training.

@Mariogreymist- But a larger part of this is a mosque though, the mosque is the main event IIRC.

Still doesn't make it a problem, just saying.

 

[Ajidica]

If it isn't the problem, why are you still arguing?

 

[mariogreymist]

No, it's not. The prayer space is only a small portion of a large center. Were this a Christian community center, it would be called a "chapel" and not a "church" to put it into perspective.

So you recall incorrectly, and should probably go read the Park51 web site.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If it isn't the problem, why are you still arguing?

Because I still feel its silly to argue that its not a mosque that's being debated here?

 

[Ajidica]

Sense. That post makes none.

It isn't a mosque, it is a community center with a mosque in it. There will be Muslims praying there, which they have been doing for the past year or so.
I'm failing to see the point of your objections.

 

[Tee Kay]

Sense. That post makes none.

It isn't a mosque, it is a community center with a mosque in it. There will be Muslims praying there, which they have been doing for the past year or so.
I'm failing to see the point of your objections.

They've been doing it for a year?!?!?! OMFG why do we only know about it now! This just proves it! Obama is soft on terrorism! If not, then he's simply lying to us! Either way we must shut them down immediately!

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

You know, this thing is turning out to be a lot nicer than any Christian community center I've heard of.

 

[MobBoss]

ISomeone 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.

Under todays standards, sure. What you are not accounting for is that such standards change. They are indeed subjective to the times and need at hand. During the period in which those attacks occurred, they did meet the criteria for the standard of the law of war at that time. There is no arguing that. Things are different today - there is no arguing that either.

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?

As to an actual count I have never done an exhaustive study so I have no idea. I do know there were several massacres that resulted in courts martials, and also many other various crimes in which courts martials occurred that may not have been war crimes at that time, but may well be classified as such today.

In a cursory search for some information though I did find something to offer: survival rates of POWs in enemy hands. For example:

Japanese POW survival rate in american hands: .15%

American POW survival rate in japanese hands: 27%.

A rather shocking difference there dont you think, and somewhat indicative of how 'fair' such post-war warcrimes trial would be...

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.

Well, in a cursory look at what I can, I dont find any instances of american soldiers wholesale murdering children as you allege. There were indeed instances of massacres of soldiers on both sides during the war, some punished, most not. Bear in mind however, that the standards during WWII were indeed less stringent of those today concerning such warcrimes and much of the Law of War was updated after WWII.

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.

Hey, your the one that used the term 'many'....just because I show that to be false dont get mad at me...

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.

Rofl, do you exclude US targets outside the USA...like embassys? Ships? Barracks? Troops? Civilians outside US soil?

Or are you content is setting goalposts in a certain way as to be misleading of the issue at hand?

Give me a date Form. A day/month/year in which you allege since then, Christian terrorist attacks have done more attacks than Radical Islam against american targets. And I will research it without bias and report the results.

Are you up to the challenge? If so give me a date.

The murders committed by the KKK alone dwarfs the number killed on 9/11.

Proof please. But if this is part of your criteria its apparent you need to go back to civil war times to legitimize your claim?

Is that true? Seriously?

And here I would have thought at least you keep it to the last couple of decades for at least honestys sake and to at least keep it relevant.

Do you seriously think going back 100 years, even prior to the term 'terrorism' and the advent of radical Islam on the world stage indicative of whats happening in the world today? Within the last decade?

Wow. I knew you moved goalposts...but I never had any idea how far you would move them if desparate...

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.

Remember, terrorist attacks, not just simple hate crimes. There is indeed a difference if you didnt realize it...

Fanatical Christians pose exactly the same threat that fanatical Muslims do in this country

Ridiculous and laughable. I mean really bizarre and no where near factual. At all.

In fact, if you worked for NPR and made such a statement would you be fired for it?

Well, on second thought...probably not.

And the "9/11 Mosque" is the epicenter of that prejudiced attack against the peaceful religion of Islam.

I see. In order for you to justify your claim you have to call people exercising their right to free speech as a 'terrorist attack'. Very accurate.

 

[Dachs]

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?

The latter, looks like.

 

[mariogreymist]

Under todays standards, sure. What you are not accounting for is that such standards change. They are indeed subjective to the times and need at hand. During the period in which those attacks occurred, they did meet the criteria for the standard of the law of war at that time. There is no arguing that. Things are different today - there is no arguing that either.

I don't buy this. It's not that standards don't change over time, but in 60 years things don't change that much. There was a pragmatic view taken by the brass and political leadership to avoid a land invasion of the Japanese home islands. Forcing a surrender absent occupying Tokyo by force took a lot of indiscriminate (again, burning a whole city to get a factory or two is not an attack on a military target) bombing. And given the nastiness of the war, a desire to end it with fewer US casualties was certainly understandable. That does not make the bombing campaigns against Japan better than morally ambiguous - at best. That's true by 1944-5 standards as much as by 2010 standards.

As to an actual count I have never done an exhaustive study so I have no idea. I do know there were several massacres that resulted in courts martials, and also many other various crimes in which courts martials occurred that may not have been war crimes at that time, but may well be classified as such today.

In a cursory search for some information though I did find something to offer: survival rates of POWs in enemy hands. For example:

Japanese POW survival rate in american hands: .15%

American POW survival rate in japanese hands: 27%.

Hey, I'm not saying the Japanese regime was somehow a decent, humanitarian force. They were running in a dead heat for the second most reprehensible government in the world at the time, and given who was running the Soviet Union, that's saying quite a lot. And the military was doing some astoundingly nasty things.

But...

The measure of ethical behavior is not how we treat the people we like, but how we treat the people we don't.

And also: survival rates of PoWs is not really relevant. It's not the civilians in Tokyo who set up slave labor camps. It's essentially the same justification for acts against civilians that Al Qaeda used to explain the WTC attacks. The only difference being that one group wore a uniform and held loyalty to a nation while the other only holds loyalty to religious and cultural ideals. I'm not suggesting the two acts are on equal moral footing - clearly Japanese actions from 1931-1945 were far more aggressive and deadly than US policy in the ME. That doesn't make the use of mistreatment of PoW's as justification for atrocities substantially different than attacking civilians in hopes to get the US out of KSA and the rest of the ME (the stated goal of 9/11).

A rather shocking difference there dont you think, and somewhat indicative of how 'fair' such post-war warcrimes trial would be...

There's no such thing as a "fair" post war trial. There are always people tried and convicted of doing things that the winning side did with no consequence. A

Well, in a cursory look at what I can, I dont find any instances of american soldiers wholesale murdering children as you allege. There were indeed instances of massacres of soldiers on both sides during the war, some punished, most not. Bear in mind however, that the standards during WWII were indeed less stringent of those today concerning such warcrimes and much of the Law of War was updated after WWII.

I was referring to the firebombing. And even today, there is no rule specifically barring a nation at war from burning a city to the ground in such a manner. The main reason being, (in my opinion) that no one does it as well as the most powerful nations in the world, and it was those nations (USA, UK, USSR) which controlled the process of updating the Geneva accords.

"Terrorism" is a term applied to acts of destruction that are no more vile than those considered standard operating procedure for military action. It serves to eliminate any desire for empathy with our enemies. And without that empathy, peace cannot be achieved.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You know, if you want to argue about war crimes, another thread would be a great place to do it. Especially considering that you would hear from a lot of people who aren't reading this thread, since they see it as just another version of the same arguments that have been made a dozen times.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hey, your the one that used the term 'many'....just because I show that to be false dont get mad at me....

You haven't even come close to "showing" it is false by deliberately ignoring all but one of the quite numerous Christian terrorist acts committed by fanatics in the history of the US. Once again, read the Wiki article for details.

And the Christian fanatics who engage in terrorism against innocent civlians are just as evil as the incredbily small percentage of Muslims who hold essentially the same beliefs and have the same amount of hatred. You can't dismiss them merely because there have been more instances of Muslim extremist attacks recently.

I see. In order for you to justify your claim you have to call people exercising their right to free speech as a 'terrorist attack'. Very accurate.

Care to point out where I stated or insinuated anything like that? The statement you quoted certainly doesn't meet that criteria.

Still trying to create absurd strawmen of my opinions instead of addressing the issues?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Japanese POW survival rate in american hands: .15%

American POW survival rate in japanese hands: 27%.

To me, the "schocking" part is trying to defend all the Japanese executed on the spot by US soldiers, even after they had surrendered, by comparing "POW survival rates".

Does MobBoss' statistic mean that the Japanese treated their POWs better? Or was I confused by the way the info was presented?

 

[Cutlass]

Does MobBoss' statistic mean that the Japanese treated their POWs better? Or was I confused by the way the info was presented?

He presented it wrong. He may have meant the rate at which they died, not survived.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't buy this. It's not that standards don't change over time, but in 60 years things don't change that much.

Really? I simply point out the changes in precision guided munitions as compared to the hugely inaccurate method of carpet bombing during WWII as an indication that our expectations have risen by a huge magnitude in 60 years. It has greatly enabled us to abide by rules protecting structures like religious sites, hospitals and schools wheras that simply was not possible during WWII.

Sorry, but the factual evidence here is just overwhelmingly against you.

Perhaps you should also take a simple look at see how many additions to the Geneva conventions and the overall law of war occurred after the end of WWII. It may open your eyes a bit to how much has indeed changed in the past 60 years.

And also: survival rates of PoWs is not really relevant.

Or course it is. It is indicative of how people were treated when in control of the enemy....i.e. exactly who treated who as animals. There is a valid reason, for example, why surrendering Germans wanted to surrender to the Americans and not the Russians.

There's no such thing as a "fair" post war trial. There are always people tried and convicted of doing things that the winning side did with no consequence.

Of course there is. Unless you really desire to argue those sentenced to death at Nuremberg were somehow innocent of their charges...

I was referring to the firebombing. And even today, there is no rule specifically barring a nation at war from burning a city to the ground in such a manner.

Yes there is. Under the 4th Geneva conventions passed in 1949 (AFTER THE WAR) covers the protection of civilian persons during time of war. It makes it a war crime to execute such attacks as was done during WWII.

You see, this is part of those changes to the law of war I was telling you about that did indeed occur in these last 60 years.

Since you seem to be trying to discuss something you dont know a great deal about, my suggestion is to perhaps do some studying before engaging further. Up to you of course.

The main reason being, (in my opinion) that no one does it as well as the most powerful nations in the world, and it was those nations (USA, UK, USSR) which controlled the process of updating the Geneva accords.

Actually, currently, the Geneva conventions have been ratified by 194 nations.

You haven't even come close to "showing" it is false by deliberately ignoring all but one of the quite numerous Christian terrorist acts committed by fanatics in the history of the US. Once again, read the Wiki article for details.

Quite simply, your article only pointed out one valid act, that of the Tiller Killer.

You again say 'numerous'...a charge which is frankly laughable. The only way for you to even attempt it is to label many criminal acts as 'terrorism' which simply have not been factually labeled as such at all. Basically, your doing this with a wink and a nod in order to try and make a point. But people dont buy it for the simple reason its not true. In fact, its ridiculous.

You can't dismiss them merely because there have been more instances of Muslim extremist attacks recently.

And the truth..shall set you free. I dont dismiss them, but we sure can compare the two cant we?

Of course we can.

Still trying to create absurd strawmen of my opinions instead of addressing the issues?

Still crying about strawmen everytime you get bested in an argument?

Does MobBoss' statistic mean that the Japanese treated their POWs better? Or was I confused by the way the info was presented?

No, thats a fatality rate and as such is proof that the Japanese treated their POWs much worse....

 

[Formaldehyde]

Quite simply, your article only pointed out one valid act, that of the Tiller Killer.

You mean "quite simply" you continue to ignore the multitude of other cases of Christian terrorism in the US despite all the evidence to the contrary, many of which have already been mentioned, while personally claiming that only one of the incidents so far is a "valid act"?

What do you think the Olympic Park bombing was?

Or all the other bombings and killings at abortion clinics?


What do you think the execution of thousands of blacks by lynchings and other means by the KKK alone was?

You again say 'numerous'...a charge which is frankly laughable.

Apparently, you aren't the only one "laughing" here.

 

[Skwink]

You mean "quite simply" you continue to ignore the multitude of other cases of Christian terrorism in the US despite all the evidence to the contrary, many of which have already been mentioned, while personally claiming that only one of the incidents so far is a "valid act"?

What do you think the Olympic Park bombing was?

Or all the other bombings and killings at abortion clinics?


What do you think the execution of thousands of blacks by lynchings and other means by the KKK alone was?

Apparently, you aren't the only one "laughing" here.

The KKK hated Catholics too right?

 

[MobBoss]

You mean "quite simply" you continue to ignore the multitude of other cases of Christian terrorism in the US despite all the evidence to the contrary, many of which have already been mentioned, while personally claiming that only one of the incidents so far is a "valid act"?

What do you think the Olympic Park bombing was?

Or all the other bombings and killings at abortion clinics?

Rofl. Thats it? Your evidence?

Lets break it down:

Murders
In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[5]

March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

Sure its murder...but is it terrorism? Nope.

August 21, 1993 Dr. George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama, but it is uncertain whether his death was the direct result of his profession or rather a robbery.[6][7]

You count this? As terrorism? Really?

July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.

Again...murder....but rather shy on meeting the specification of terrorism dont you think?

December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International,[8] was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

Another murder....and again, was it terrorism? Was it done as a political message, or just done to stop abortions at this clinic?

January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

Considering Rudolphs statements, I would actually call this one terrorism. 1 for you.

October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

Murder...yes. Terrorism? Not so much.

May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.[9]

Again, given the Tiller Killers comments, I would be inclined to call this one terrorism as well. 2 for you.

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[10] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[16] More recent incidents have included:[5]

So, is 1977 the year you choose to make a comparison of 'christian terrorism' and that of radical islam? Even if you were to label all the instances above as 'christian terrorism' those numbers simply pale in comparison to the overall total of terrorist acts attributed to radical islam since 1977. In fact, I would go further to say that the majority of these acts you list arent even classified as 'terrorism' but simply just murder/attempted murder, etc. as they have no political motivation or message behind them at all. In fact, I offer you the best case scenario for your argument, as its not even evident that all these crimes were even done by christians, let alone attributed as terrorism.

Seriously, Form. Is that the best you can do? Seriously? That you have to move goalposts so significantly and to still come up so hugely short in comparison is just embarassing.

Drop this one Form...you're just embarassing yourself terribly in this comparison. Its not even close.