|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted August 04, 2010 10:38 PM |
|
|
I don't think you are getting my point.
As you very well know, there are different levels of being ashamed, or feeling guilty about something. As I said, as a human, I do feel ashamed, precisely because that uneasiness and wistful head-shaking comes out of rejection. As a greek, and you as a german, I don't see any reason what-so-ever to feel ashamed.
And OhForf, nobody is limited by emotions. That's non-sense. As I said above, if this was a governmental initiative to bring people together, I would fully support it. But it is not. So, my answer to such (provocative for me) requests, now becomes a big NO.
mvass, office buildings the World Trade Center ? hahahahahahahaha. Man, sometimes I don't know if you are more dangerous than Elodin.
____________
The empty set
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 10:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
First of all, that's not what I claim. This something that I heard and I find it amusing, because the whole discussion of building a mosque at ground zero is at least hilarious the way I see it.
But if you want to elaborate there, there are answers.
First of all, the church does not have to be in the most central location in Mecca, but somewhere in Mecca. That goes for "adjacent to it".
There are churches in Saudi Arabia, which in its entirely is perceived as a sanctified area due to the abundance of historic tombs and the fact that it's the homeland of their prophet.
Quote:
Second, the guys who guided the planes on the towers were muslims. So, even though the vast majority of the muslims are against those criminals, well ... , they share the same religion with them. So, if they want to do something as a step of good will, why not let Christians build a church in Mecca, and then ask for a mosque at ground zero.
The 9/11 retaliation and the US retaliation was not a battle of Christendom against Islam. That may be an underlying factor, but it is not at all the prime motivation, so I don't see such an exchange as being very meaningful. It is part of an older conflict based primarily on the US military bases in Saudi Arabia (again, which is perceived as a holy land).
Quote:
Besides, the statement "Ground zero is an an open site that's not afiliated with any specific ideologies" is non-sense and you know it. It is part of the american land, in the center of America's top city, and this is precisely the reason that the Twins were selected as targets. It is funny to claim otherwise.
It is not affiliated with any specific ideologies. Mecca is explicitly a Muslim place of worship and gathering. The towers were places of business and a scene for tourists. "It's American" is brutally vague. "American" is not an ideology. And actually, considering its fame through tourism, it was in fact an international icon, not merely an American one.
Quote:
In other words blizz, if you were a muslim, would you ever ask to build a mosque at ground zero within a decade after the attack ? For me, asking something like that is arrogance and humanity at its worst. It is disgusting. However, it would have been different, if that was an arrangement between governments as an act of good-will and understanding among different parties, that criminals are criminals, regardless of their religion. In other words, if the US government made that proposal as an act of good will and in conjunction with some further arrangement. But guess how likely is such a thing only a decade after the attack ...
Of course if you want a mosque at ground zero ... well ... I can't help you; it's your land.
Many people, I'm assuming you included, immediately suspect insolent intentions, and that is unavoidable, but that motive is extremely doubtful based on the person who is heading the project. He's an outgoing, bridge-building Muslim, not an Islamic version of Moonlith. I believe the goal of this is that people visiting the area of ground zero will see this mega-mosque and have the opportunity to explore it and see a (relatively) more benevolent face of Islam. And to be frank, though it will initially create anger, he is probably correct in believing that in the long term. It's just a matter of pushing through some of the public's gut reactions.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 10:43 PM |
|
|
blizz,
there are also churches in Guadeloupe, so what ?
You are not answering the questions. And claiming that the WTC is just a bunch of offices, like mvass does, well ... everyone can have his/her own conclusions.
____________
The empty set
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 10:56 PM |
|
|
Umm, I don't know, you tell me? You're the one that talked about how "Muslims" should let a church be built on Mecca, even though a church doesn't even relate to American government, which is Al Qaeda's main target.
And you're the one sidestepping instead of being a man and admitting you incorrectly defined the WTC. It was a center of commerce and an international icon. I don't see how you can tag an ideology to it. You can't.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 11:05 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 23:06, 04 Aug 2010.
|
I placed the comment for Mecca initially there, because as I said, I found it amusing. Apparently, stupidity knows no limits.
What is Al-Qaeda's main target, blizz ? How do you know this information ?
When did I define the WTC ? Quote.
As of the ideological tag, apparently you are ignorant.
____________
The empty set
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And OhForf, nobody is limited by emotions.
Thanks for your reply and I admit I may have misunderstood you and in that case, please correct me. I understand what you wrote as you disaprove the building due to emotional reasons, that is, you feel provocated on the behalf of the victims and would expect people, who were not involved in any other way than they're of same religion to be shameful.
Since it can't hurt anyone to build such a building (unless someone choose to hurt others directly, at which it's an entire different matter), I can't see how the reasoning can be anything, but emotional.
As I understand you saying "No they should not be allowed to do so", and since my guess is that you'd like the majority to share your belief, then in that case, people who had nothing to do with the incident, except that the criminals said they were part of the same group (they could just as well had said they were part of a soccer team), would be limited by emotions.
Anyway, if the feeling shame topic is not relevant to your reasoning behind why it should not be allowed, [as shame certainly is an emotion] why then discuss it in this thread?
Quote:
What is Al-Qaeda's main target, blizz ? How do you know this information ?
In principle, we of course can't know, but at least in medias in general it is as well my impression they're having a "war" with the US, which I'd guess would mean the US government.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 11:13 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 23:14, 04 Aug 2010.
|
OhForf, I have written everything clearly if you read them slowly.
In any case, I do not really care what's gonna happen. I am entitled to laughing though if I want to. End of story.
____________
The empty set
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 11:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When did I define the WTC ? Quote.
Quote:
Besides, the statement "Ground zero is an an open site that's not affiliated with any specific ideologies" is non-sense and you know it. It is part of the american land, in the center of America's top city, and this is precisely the reason that the Twins were selected as targets.
The reason the WTC was the chosen target was because it is:
A) A well-known site
B) Of high commercial value
C) surrounded by other metropolitan buildings with a high potential for casualties
It was a means to an end.
I know with reasonable certainty what Al Qaeda's goal was as of 2001 because that's what they said their goal was. They made a statement that they are engaging in America because of their vile occupation of the Islamic holy land (i.e. they don't want military bases in Saudi Arabia). The attack landed a terrible blow to the American public and would hopefully incite what Al Qaeda desperately wanted: for the Americans to come back over to their own sandbox. They succeeded outstandingly.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 11:27 PM |
|
|
What you quote, is not an attempt to define the WTC. It explains in a few words, just like you do (and I don't see big differences there as a result of phrasing), why the towers were selected.
That's my last comment, unless of course someone puts again words on my mouth. End of story.
____________
The empty set
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 04, 2010 11:44 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
I mean, there ARE radical "Christians" who make assassination attempts on abortion hospitals and docs, quoting the Bible. Now what? Would people be pissed, if Christian institutions were build near the asassination places?
False statements.
First, the cleric has ties to radical Muslim organizations, has said America is partially responsible for 9/11, and financially supportd the terrorist flotilla that tried to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza and who attacked Israeli soldiers. He also refuses to say HAMAS is a terrorist organization.
Second, for, your false statments, no, there are no Christians who bomb abortion clinics or who murder abortion doctors. The Bible quite clearly states that no person who hates or murders knows God. The fact that I have quoted many verses that prove you wrong many times in the past and yet you continue to make such claims is sad indeed.
Quote:
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
So we see that no one who does such things is a Christian. Furthur, when someone commits such an action and falsely makdes the claim he is a Christian all Christain denominations disavow the action because such actinos go against the teachings of the New Testament.
Conversely, as mentioned before, the Islami cleric who wants to build the mosque at ground zero supports terrorist groups.
Now, according to the FBI at least 10% of all mosques in the US preach jihad. The percentage is undoubtedly higher in other nations.
Quote:
I repeat - it was NO RELIGIOUS attack, but a POLITICAL ONE.
Wrong again. It was jihad. The terrorsts took the actions in the name of Allah and fully expected their 72 virgins to be awaiting them when they died.
____________
Revelation
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:03 AM |
|
|
dimis:
What? The Twin Towers had offices, a relatively well-known restaurant, and some radio equipment.
As for defining the WTC - it was a complex of seven buildings in Lower Manhattan.
Elodin:
Actually, if they're true mosques, 100% of them should preach jihad. Of course, to a Muslim, "crusade against unbelievers" isn't the first thing they think of when they hear "jihad".
Quote:
Wrong again. It was jihad.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Second, for, your false statments, no, there are no Christians who bomb abortion clinics or who murder abortion doctors. The Bible quite clearly states that no person who hates or murders knows God. The fact that I have quoted many verses that prove you wrong many times in the past and yet you continue to make such claims is sad indeed.
I think this is an irrelevant point, because as soon as the media calls someone fanatic christians, they'll be so in the eyes of the world in general. Then the people who'd be asked the exact same question [just with a church in stead of] for that given area would likewise feel offended on behalf of the victims eventhough the people trying to make a church in the area had nothing to do with the attack at all.
This probably requires as well for the region not to view itself as christian.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 12:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
False statements.
First, the cleric has ties to radical Muslim organizations, has said America is partially responsible for 9/11, and financially supportd the terrorist flotilla that tried to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza and who attacked Israeli soldiers. He also refuses to say HAMAS is a terrorist organization.
I.E. you don't give a flying **** about freedom of speech.
The man has a completely clean record. That is all. The state has zero place in conducting a witch-hunt based on suspicions that are unmerited, or, at best, very weak.
Also, his stances are definitely not from a radical Muslim. Radical Muslims shoot stuff.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 01:30 AM |
|
|
In this spot belongs the post that I spent close to an hour writing when the computer suddenly shut down. TWICE!
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 02:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, what I said was common sense. What you said is typical intellectualism and is a perfect example of why I'm against intellectualism. It's not the use of intelligence, it's the use intelligence at the expense of common sense. It's over-analyzing things that shouldn't even require any thought.
The reasons for my view shouldn't even need explaining, which I why I didn't explain it. Your response is exactly the response I expected.
well, most people seem to not like to think and prefer others to do it for them.
of course, it doesn't need explaining, both because it is obvious, and because you have nothing to say yourself, only following what you think the majority think. (or at least, it's how it looks)
Quote:
Let me ask a question. Why is a swastika illegal in Germany? It's just a symbol after all.
See, when I first heard about that I just looked at it for a second and kind of shrugged my shoulders and thought, "yea it makes sense". And I didn't think anything more of it. I didn't need to think hard about it or intellectualize it. It just made sense to me and there was nothing more to think about. I still don't know for sure the real reason, but it doesn't really matter, it just somehow makes sense.
it makes no sense at all. you gave the only reason why it makes sense : you didn't put any thought in it and just decided to follow the general belief.
and talking about the human side, is thinking through the ideas and beliefs of other people being human?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 02:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
See, when I first heard about that I just looked at it for a second and kind of shrugged my shoulders and thought, "yea it makes sense". And I didn't think anything more of it. I didn't need to think hard about it or intellectualize it. It just made sense to me and there was nothing more to think about. I still don't know for sure the real reason, but it doesn't really matter, it just somehow makes sense.
I'm sorry, judge, it just somehow made sense that I killed everyone in the house.
Okay, ironical, (only slighty) nonsensical statements aside, I don't think arguments of opinions and emotions don't hold water, because everyone holds different opinions and emotions and the ones that are shared by a majority could happen to be wrong and then it would be impossible to change and then bad things à la twilight novels or national socialism might happen.
Sorry, if this had already been said.
Not that this matters anyway.
And of course, there's a difference between snobs and scholars. I would agree that snobs are bad, but then again, snobs are but pseudo-intellectuals and oooh, boy, nevermind this side note, it's going nowhere!
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 03:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I.E. you don't give a flying **** about freedom of speech.
Wrong. I believe in free speech with certain limitations.
I don't think anyone has the right to stand up in the middle pf a movie theatre and yell "Fire!" or "Bomb!" when there is no such thing.
I don't think anyone has the right to say false things about another person deliberately.
I don't think a cleric has the right to preach, "Americans are evil. You shoud strap a bomb on yourself and go to a place crowded with Americans and explode the bomb. Allah will reward you for dieing in such a way. Now, let me tell you have to make a bomb."
I believe the cleric would have the right to claim Americans are evil but not the right to tell others to go kill Americans.
Also, the cleric of the mosque in question was a major funder of the terrorist flotilla that tried to run the Isreali blockade. Hiring a hit man is no better than killin a person yourself.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 03:53 AM |
|
|
What happened to that blockade anyway? (blockade? I was under the impression that Israel blocked them, not the other way around)
Atleast here the media forgot about it in like one or two weeks and the major focus seemed to be because one of the people on those ships was a renowned author from here...
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 05:22 AM |
|
|
The only thing he's guilty of is condoning the blockade runner, and whether you agree with it or not, you're in a minority among those that consider them terrorists. If they were terrorists, then they can be documented in red ink as the first mentally handicapped terrorists in history, because any terrorist wouldn't have done what they did. I wouldn't call them anymore than overzealous.
Let us break it down:
Screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is punishable because it's the equivalent of running off with a chunk of somebody's candy bar. People are paying money to see a movie and you cause a huge interruption in it with your antics. You are violating people's rights.
Civil disobedience is not a violation of free speech, and he is not directly violating anybody with his views, nor has he shown any inclination of violence. If he did, he never would have been hired from the government to reach out to Muslims abroad.
Basically, you're taking a peaceful, law-abiding, and albeit controversial man, and pushing an investigation on him and his financiers simply because his views aren't popular among statists. I don't see the point of only protecting people's speech, privacy, and property rights if you're only going to protect the ones that do universally practiced things. Such activities have no need of protection in the first place.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted August 05, 2010 07:34 AM |
|
|
blizz,
From your tone in the initial post - since you never asked anything in this thread, but a rhetorical question to me in this page; check for question marks - you have answers to everything related to this matter and you are interested in whether or not an investigation towards this guy is a good or bad thing. You are against the investigation; this is what you imply at least, although you never made the statement. What you didn't tell us, is your stance on the mosque. Does it matter at all to you how this construction is lanced ? Do you have a question at all about anything related to this matter ? Oh, can you please remind me what NSA stands for and what do people do there ?
____________
The empty set
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
