WTC Mosque Part Four!!!

[warpus]

Maybe not, but ensuring that moderate muslims are at least heard when they oppose terrorism should be important, since the prevailing perception is that they are rather apathetic to begin with.

So it seems to me like your issue has shifted from "moderate muslims" to "the media"

 

[Traitorfish]

They arent just the particular tactics of islamic terrorists, but of terrorists of all stripes. You just equate them with Islamic terrorism because thats the most common kind in the world today...

Actually, it's pretty characteristic of Islamists. Most groups don't have quite the same obsession with martyrdom- the R.I.R.A or the Shining Path, for example, are careful to place themselves well outside the area of the area of the bomb (often by over a day!) before any damage is done.

All I have done is simply and truthfully given examples of the kind of terrorist acts condoned and executed by Hezbollah. Thats simply a matter of the record. You choose to ignore these facts regarding terrorist acts and refuse to label them as a terrorist organization despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. /shrug.

But you brought up these acts in an attempt to refute accusations of Israeli state terrorism, falsely framing the particular form of terrorism engaged in by Hezbollah as a universal definition. That simply doesn't follow.

And, for the record, I'm on board with labelling Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. I simply don't see why we should spare the State of Israel similar recognition.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually, it's pretty characteristic of Islamists. Most groups don't have quite the same obsession with martyrdom- the R.I.R.A or the Shining Path, for example, are careful to place themselves well outside the area of the area of the bomb (often by over a day!) before any damage is done.

Only in the use of suicide bombers....car bombs, IEDs, kidnappings, hijackings, indirect fire weapons like mortars and rockets, etc. (you know I mentioned those as well) are indeed used by terrorists across the spectrum.

But you brought up these acts in an attempt to refute accusations of Israeli state terrorism, falsely framing the particular form of terrorism engaged in by Hezbollah as a universal definition. That simply doesn't follow.

Of course it does.

Does the IDF utilize suicide bombers? No.

Does the IDF untilize car bombs? No.

Does the IDF utilize terror weapons? No.

And so forth and so on.

It may be arguable that the IDF does toe the line of possible war crime accusation (pretty much any nation involved in a conflict does to some degree), however, war crimes and terrorism are not necessarily the same thing.

And, for the record, I'm on board with labelling Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. I simply don't see why we should spare the State of Israel similar recognition.

How many nations officially recognize Israel as a terrorist state?

But the real answer is, you should spare Israel for the simple reason they dont use terrorist tactics, doctrine or weapons in what they do. Like I said, warcrimes....at least arguable.....terrorists? Not so much.

 

[Traitorfish]

Only in the use of suicide bombers....car bombs, IEDs, kidnappings, hijackings, indirect fire weapons like mortars and rockets, etc. (you know I mentioned those as well) are indeed used by terrorists across the spectrum.

Then why the repeated referencing of suicide bombers? If you are prepared, quite rightly, to acknowledge that terrorism is found in the intent, not in the mechanical nature of the activity, then that's hardly relevant, is it?

How many nations officially recognize Israel as a terrorist state?

How many recognised the Soviet Union as a terrorist state? Yet I'm sure we'd both agree that it engaged in the use of terror tactics. Which, of course, leads us to...

But the real answer is, you should spare Israel for the simple reason they dont use terrorist tactics, doctrine or weapons in what they do. Like I said, warcrimes....at least arguable.....terrorists? Not so much.

Well, that's the debate, isn't it? Not one which I think we'll settle here...

 

[Formaldehyde]

So terrorism doesn't actually exist unless a hypocritical government like the US claims it does? How convenient for the non-terrorists who only advocate and support "freedom fighters".

 

[MobBoss]

Then why the repeated referencing of suicide bombers? If you are prepared, quite rightly, to acknowledge that terrorism is found in the intent, not in the mechanical nature of the activity, then that's hardly relevant, is it?

Terrorism is identified by more factors than just intent, unless you are endowed with some type of mind reading powers...

Like I said, most definitions of terrorism include intent, but also include methods, weapons, tactics, and group affliations as well. Without including the various facets of what terrorism is, it would be an error to try to simply identify using only a single part of that.

How many recognised the Soviet Union as a terrorist state?

Nice dodge, but your not going to get off that easy. Answer my question please.

Well, that's the debate, isn't it? Not one which I think we'll settle here...

Especially if you find yourself unable to answer the questions I am asking...

So terrorism doesn't actually exist unless a hypocritical government like the US claims it does? How convenient for the non-terrorists who only support "freedom fighters".

As opposed to your own personal definition?

Given your recognized error in other such areas....i.e. defining execution for example, I think I will go with a more reliable standard...

 

[Traitorfish]

Terrorism is identified by more factors than just intent, unless you are endowed with some type of mind reading powers...

Like I said, most definitions of terrorism include intent, but also include methods, weapons, tactics, and group affliations as well. Without including the various facets of what terrorism is, it would be an error to try to simply identify using only a single part of that.

There are certain methods that are characteristic of terrorism, but that does not define terrorism. They are means to an end, the end being the causing of fear as a tool of political action. Anything more is rationalisation.

Nice dodge, but your not going to get off that easy. Answer my question please.

Well, if you insist: none, of which we are both fully aware. I simply don't see why this constitutes a definitive dismissal, which was the point I was masking.

 

[JollyRoger]

You've really got to look at the details. Someone yelling "Allahu Akhbar" while killing people is probably a terrorist, but someone yelling "God is Great" is likely not. Yelling "Yabba Dabba Doo" is borderline - we would need to check skin pigmentation before determining if it was Flintstonian or Wifestoningian in nature.

 

[civver_764]

Actually...YES. When christians do bad things, it makes all christians look bad. The same thing goes with any group, or religion, etc.

It really doesn't. Unless someone supports their actions I don't affiliate the two at all.

And Hezbollah/Hamas have nothing to do with NYC either. Double irrelevant.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As opposed to your own personal definition?

You mean as opposed to your own "personal definition"? There is obviously no requirement that the US, or some other country, must label someone as being a "terrorist" instead of a "freedom fighter" before it is actually true.

Given your recognized error in other such areas....i.e. defining execution for example, I think I will go with a more reliable standard...

The only "error" which is "recognized" by me is the usual one even understanding my actual opinions.

And the definition of "execution" is quite straightforward. Take the Israeli coward who recently executed 6 civilians at extremely close range, for instance:

UN Fact-Finding Mission: Israeli Killing Of U.S. Citizen Was 'Execution'

Got any governmental body, other than the Israelis of course, who actually question this obviously true statement? Or does that supposed requirement only apply to "terrorists"?

 

[MobBoss]

And Hezbollah/Hamas have nothing to do with NYC either. Double irrelevant.

Except we are fighting all terrorism, not just that targeted at buildings in NYC.

But Hezbollah, in particular, has a history of attacking american targets. Didnt you know?

You mean as opposed to your own "personal definition"?

I dont use a personal definition in defining either terrorism or execution.

There is obviously no requirement that the US, or some other country, must label someone as being a "terrorist" instead of a "freedom fighter" before it is actually true.

So you doubt whether a group llike Hezbollah actually engages in terrorism at all?

The only "error" which is "recognized" by me is the usual one even understanding my actual opinions.

Easy to claim, far more difficult to prove. Why not just drop the red herring since the accusation itself is one?

And the definition of "execution" is quite straightforward. Take the Israeli coward who recently executed 6 civilians at extremely close range, for instance:

I am. Those simply werent executions. At all. The word is merely being used as a catchphrase in that situation meant to illicit a response (given where it came from: a political one), its not a factual description of what occurred on the ship.

Got any governmental body, other than the Israelis of course, who actually question this obviously true statement?

Well, once again, it helps to read your own link closely:

The administration has not volunteered any comment on the fact-finding mission report and was not asked to do so by any news organization. In response to a query from Truthout, a State Department official, who could not speak on the record, read a statement that did not explicitly acknowledge the report's conclusion about the Israeli executions.

The statement said the fact-finding mission's report's "tone and conclusions are unbalanced." It went on to state, "We urge that this report not be used for actions that could disrupt direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine that are now underway or actions that would make it not possible for Israel and Turkey to move beyond the recent strains in their traditional strong relationship."

Obviously true? Seriously? The opinion came after interviewing a boatload of people that hate Israel. Do you think maybe, just maybe, their testimony might have been a bit biased?

Wow.

 

[JollyRoger]

Obviously true? Seriously? The opinion came after interviewing a boatload of people that hate Israel. Do you think maybe, just maybe, their testimony might have been a bit biased?

Wow.

People have a strong bias against terrorists. Just look at the topic of the thread . . . a terrorist act from 9 years ago has caused a good portion of the population to harbor strong bias against those that share the religion of the attackers to the point of trying to negatively influence a fairly conventional use of property rights and freedom of religion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So you doubt whether a group llike Hezbollah actually engages in terrorism at all?

Care to show where I stated, or even insinuated anything of the sort? Or where I have even mentioned the Hezbollah in months?

And, ironically, you just called my statement referring to the episodes in the past where you created similar strawmen of my actual opinions a "red herring". The use of the word "execution" in this context is obviously not a "recognized error" as you just alleged in your own red herring. It is the official position of a UN body which investigated the incident.

Well, once again, it helps to read your own link closely...

Actually, I suggest you read the section you just posted above:

a State Department official, who could not speak on the record, read a statement that did not explicitly acknowledge the report's conclusion about the Israeli executions.

This unnamed State Department official speaking on his own volition then goes on to explain that he is worried about the effect it might have on the peace talks, not that the claim is actually false!

Get back to me when you have an actual governmental body who are officially questioning the results of this official UN investigation, other than the Israelis of course.

 

[Masada]

Actually, it's pretty characteristic of Islamists. Most groups don't have quite the same obsession with martyrdom- the R.I.R.A or the Shining Path, for example, are careful to place themselves well outside the area of the area of the bomb (often by over a day!) before any damage is done.

It was Hindu first. Suck on that Islamists.

 

[MobBoss]

Get back to me when you have an actual governmental body who are officially questioning the results of this official UN investigation, other than the Israelis of course.

So you choose to utterly ignore your link when it says:

The statement said the fact-finding mission's report's "tone and conclusions are unbalanced

Tell me. How do you define 'unbalanced'?

 

[Dachs]

Tell me. How do you define 'unbalanced'?

As an aside, this is the best critique of the failed concept of the balance of power in geopolitics and international relations.

Carry on.

 

[civver_764]

Except we are fighting all terrorism, not just that targeted at buildings in NYC.

Well then you are straying from your original point that it would offend people. Why should being "soft" on a group that never attacked NYC necessarily offend anyone?

But Hezbollah, in particular, has a history of attacking american targets. Didnt you know?

Yeah, in their own effing country.

 

[Newbunkle]

The situation might improve if the aggressive protesters try coming to the table for a reasonable discussion. Maybe instead of frothing at the mouth and making signs covered in blatant lies and offensive comments, they can come up with realistic suggestions. Obviously "GTFO" isn't realistic, but if they can think of something that would make the presence of the mosque more tolerable they should suggest it.

 

[warpus]

The situation might improve if the aggressive protesters try coming to the table for a reasonable discussion. Maybe instead of frothing at the mouth and making signs covered in blatant lies and offensive comments, they can come up with realistic suggestions. Obviously "GTFO" isn't realistic, but if they can think of something that would make the presence of the mosque more tolerable they should suggest it.

"How about if you make the whole building a community centre with a prayer room inside, instead of the whole building being a mosque instead?"

 

[Formaldehyde]

Tell me. How do you define 'unbalanced'?

That is obviously the opinion of whomever wrote that statement, which the unnamed government offical stated off the record. It is not an official denouncement, or even questioning, in any manner, shape, or form.

Still haven't been able to find an actual governmental body, other than the Israelis, who officially question the findings of the UN organization tasked with investigating the incident?

As opposed to your own personal definition?

Given your recognized error in other such areas....i.e. defining execution for example, I think I will go with a more reliable standard...

Your "more reliable standard" of my "recognized error" in your red herring above appears to be your own "personal definition" while my opinion is shared by prominent judges and prosecutors who actually investigated the incident. From the same article:

The fact-finding mission was chaired by Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired judge of the International Criminal Court and former attorney general of Trinidad and Tobago, and included Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former chief prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the board of directors of the International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific.

Link to video.