More news on the mosque---you ain't gonna like it.

simmonsjoe said:

bullshit. You lie.

Click to expand...

I always try to leave these out of my posts. I've found they just antagonize the recipient; and, generally paint me as crude or simplistic to other readers.

I prefer everybody to have to work to figure out how simplistic I really am.

Citizen said:

I prefer everybody to have to work to figure out how simplistic I really am.

Click to expand...

Never even break a sweat on that one.

eye95 said:

SNIP Disclaimer: If you read my words carefully, you will notice that this is an analysis and projects no hate on Islam.

Click to expand...

Yes, but does your horse hate Islam? I mean, they wouldn't let him drink, you know.


PS: We have to be a little careful how we use "moderates not denouncing" argument. As an argumentative tactic, it can be pointed back at us for not effectively demanding Congress stop the CIA meddling overseas, Yankee imperialism (such as it is), etc., and so on, and so forth.

Grapeshot said:

Never even break a sweat on that one.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Where have you been lurking? Haven't heard from you for a while.

Citizen said:

LOL!

Where have you been lurking? Haven't heard from you for a while.

Click to expand...

Caught the newest and latest PC virus/malware out there - just got it back on steroids.

Suspect it was beamed from one of the anti, terrorist enclaves with their secret laboratories masquerading as cultural centers.

Citizen said:

I always try to leave these out of my posts. I've found they just antagonize the recipient; and, generally paint me as crude or simplistic to other readers.

Click to expand...

+1.

One can bluntly point out that a post lacks credibility without the name-calling or the vulgarity.

______________________________________________________

Excellent advice - Rule Reminder from your friendly hall monitor

(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

simmonsjoe said:

19Daniel91 said:

At least it's not coming out of my pocket.

Click to expand...

*facepalm*

Click to expand...

I think he was refering to the fact he lives in Illinois and the money monkey-business is occurring in New York.

It is an interesting concept, the financing scheme. I wonder how many other governments across the country get away with the same non-taxable debt scheme? Lots of smart money-men around to figure out how to game the system abusively against taxpayers, you know.

Citizen said:

Yes, but does your horse hate Islam? I mean, they wouldn't let him drink, you know.


PS: We have to be a little careful how we use "moderates not denouncing" argument. As an argumentative tactic, it can be pointed back at us for not effectively demanding Congress stop the CIA meddling overseas, Yankee imperialism (such as it is), etc., and so on, and so forth.

Click to expand...

The evil of the Islamic terrorists flying planes into the Towers is undeniable. The initial gut reaction of someone who is not an apologist for such horrific behavior would be denunciation. Those who do not react immediately with horror give away their true feelings.

Such cannot be said for nebulous charges such as you cited. Specific acts by Americans that should be denounced generally are by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

eye95 said:

SNIP Such cannot be said for nebulous charges such as you cited. Specific acts by Americans that should be denounced generally are by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Click to expand...

You have a good point about gut-reactions.

I don't want to go far off on a tangent; but I do want to clarify just a bit.

The nebulous charges are only nebulous because I did not cite or give examples. The history and current situation exist nonetheless. CIA meddling in the middle east goes back to the Shah of Iran, at least. There is all the reports of CIA meddling in South and Central America during the 80's and 90's. The list is extensive.

In re: American Imperialism, no one really argues that America is imperialistic in the same way as Britain when achieving the condition that "the sun never sets on the British Empire." However, those critics are talking about something. We have a military presence in something like, what? 150 countries around the world? Our government has a policy of interventionism, sold to us on the basis of security for ourselves. George Washington's farewell address advice to avoid foreign entanglements is certainly being ignored.

Citizen said:

You have a good point about gut-reactions.

I don't want to go far off on a tangent; but I do want to clarify just a bit.

The nebulous charges are only nebulous because I did not cite or give examples. The history and current situation exist nonetheless. CIA meddling in the middle east goes back to the Shah of Iran, at least. There is all the reports of CIA meddling in South and Central America during the 80's and 90's. The list is extensive.

In re: American Imperialism, no one really argues that America is imperialistic in the same way as Britain when achieving the condition that "the sun never sets on the British Empire." However, those critics are talking about something. We have a military presence in something like, what? 150 countries around the world? Our government has a policy of interventionism, sold to us on the basis of security for ourselves. George Washington's farewell address advice to avoid foreign entanglements is certainly being ignored.

Click to expand...

In the overwhelming number of countries, we have troops because we are welcomed, sometimes because we fought with those nations as allies, sometimes because we won wars we fought with those nations and remain with the consent of that nation's government. We don't leave huge armies in subjugated nations for extended periods of time. Even for Germany and Japan, which truly had occupying American armies, those armies only remain, as a fraction of the occupying army, at the pleasure of the current governments. We are no longer in the Philippines because they they no longer wanted us. We are leaving Iraq, according to President Bush's plan, which has been adopted by President Obama, because we are done there. A very small force will remain behind, but only as long as the Iraqi government will allow them.

George Washington was not right about all things. Some degree of foreign entanglement is necessary in today's world. We should always strive to be the "good guys" in such relationships--and we do, not always with perfection, but better than any other nation on Earth.

Your CIA examples are still a heckuva lot vaguer than planes crashing into Towers.

Citizen said:

You have a good point about gut-reactions.

I don't want to go far off on a tangent; but I do want to clarify just a bit.

The nebulous charges are only nebulous because I did not cite or give examples. The history and current situation exist nonetheless. CIA meddling in the middle east goes back to the Shah of Iran, at least. There is all the reports of CIA meddling in South and Central America during the 80's and 90's. The list is extensive.

In re: American Imperialism, no one really argues that America is imperialistic in the same way as Britain when achieving the condition that "the sun never sets on the British Empire." However, those critics are talking about something. We have a military presence in something like, what? 150 countries around the world? Our government has a policy of interventionism, sold to us on the basis of security for ourselves. George Washington's farewell address advice to avoid foreign entanglements is certainly being ignored.

Click to expand...

We all know they make valid points about the US. The difference is they fly planes into buildings, and blow up buses. Not exactly a constructive solution to the problem.

It doesn't really matter how true the stuff your spouting is. When you use that info to justify mass murder of innocents, you lose all credibility. Just more proof terrorist don't believe, or at least understand, what they espouse.

simmonsjoe said:

We all know they make valid points about the US. The difference is they fly planes into buildings, and blow up buses. Not exactly a constructive solution to the problem.

It doesn't really matter how true the stuff your spouting is. When you use that info to justify mass murder of innocents, you lose all credibility. Just more proof terrorist don't believe what they espouse.

Click to expand...

Good heavens, Joe. We all know that. Eye95 and I were having a side discussion. It started with me commenting about the usefulness of a particular argumentative tactic, as compared to justification for terrorism.

Eye95 seems to think there is no American Imperialism, or nothing sufficiently similar to justify the label. I've discussed with him before and know his talent for staying attached to his existing ideas, so I think I'll let it end here. No point in getting into an argument about it.

simmonsjoe said:

SNIP You never heard that in a masjid. You may have heard it at a 'Nation of Islam' temple.

Click to expand...

You know, I've seen a video on the internet of an anti-US sermon in a foreign mosque. If the sub-title translation was accurate, the yapper was advocating terrorism. If such "preaching" was planned for the New York mosque, then I would be opposed.

eye95 said:

gsx1138 said:

Meh, I'm over it. While I don't think it's very classy of them to put a mosque there I can't say they don't have that right. That's the price of Liberty.

Click to expand...

There's that strawman. NO ONE is saying that they do not have the right. EVERY ONE agrees that they have the right. That is not the point. :banghead:

Click to expand...

That is a distinction without a difference, Eye. If the critics really believed the Muslims had the right, they wouldn't be criticizing it.

I suspect the angle about calling the Muslims insensitive is just a ploy to get around the property rights and religious intolerance problem.

It is too obvious that the critics in fact do not believe the Muslims have the right. Just as you mentioned about the absence of a gut reaction showed support for extremism by moderate Muslims, the presence of the gut reaction here proves the story.

[edited to remove the offending quote. Citizen showed class by removing it from his post. Would that more folks show that kind of character.]

Wow. That was just a tad insulting. How disappointing. I have always expected better from you--because we almost always get it.

eye95 said:

Wow. That was just a tad insulting. How disappointing. I have always expected better from you--because we almost always get it.

Click to expand...

Sorry. You are right. I should have omitted that. I apologize.

Citizen said:

That is a distinction without a difference, Eye. If the critics really believed the Muslims had the right, they wouldn't be criticizing it. That something is a right does not make it immune from criticism. Saying that another way: Just because doing something is a Right doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I suspect the angle about calling the Muslims insensitive is just a ploy to get around the property rights and religious intolerance problem. No, it is because they are being insensitive. We can hope for one of two things: This Imam decides to do the moral thing and respect the survivors of 9/11 and build the mosque elsewhere, or the mosque is built at Ground Zero and the myth that this Muslim is a moderate is totally busted.

It is too obvious that the critics in fact do not believe the Muslims have the right. Only to people who will not listen to what the critics are actually saying. Just as you mentioned about the absence of a gut reaction showed support for extremism by moderate Muslims, the presence of the gut reaction here proves the story. What about the presence of rational posts explaining the opposition? Please do not ignore what folks are actually saying to refute what is easier to refute but not being argued. That is called a strawman.

Click to expand...

My responses are in blue.

eye95 said:

My responses are in blue.

Click to expand...

I admit I have not followed the arguments closely. The whole thing seemed well overblown. Very well overblown. An F5 or Cat5.

Nonetheless, one cannot really believe another has a certain right and yet work against them exercising it. Not in this arena anyway.

We can call the Muslims insensitive all day long, legitimately; but as soon as it is directed at preventing the mosque's erection, or ginning up support to prevent its erection, it really is nothing more than camoflage, talking out of both sides of one's mouth.

We've seen this aplenty from police, journalists, etc. directed at open carry. All kinds of criticism aimed at dissuading us from exercising a right, or ginning up support against us, while acknowledging the 2A. Anti-OC CCers seem particularly talented at this talking out both sides of their mouth.

Its just lip service to make the speaker seem nobler, to aquire or maintain some sort of credibility.

Citizen said:

Nonetheless, one cannot really believe another has a certain right and yet work against them exercising it. Not in this arena anyway.

Click to expand...

Of course you can. It is this very axiom that keeps some from seeing the other side of this issue.

That one has a right to do something does not mean that others cannot (or even should not) try to motivate him not to do it. Every transaction in history involves parties either agreeing to do something they have a right not to do or not to do something they have a right to do. One of our rights is to enter into such transactions or to convince others to do so!

eye95 said:

Of course you can. It is this very axiom that keeps some from seeing the other side of this issue.

That one has a right to do something does not mean that others cannot (or even should not) try to motivate him not to do it. Every transaction in history involves parties either agreeing to do something they have a right not to do or not to do something they have a right to do. One of our rights is to enter into such transactions or to convince others to do so!

Click to expand...

This is why I said, "in this arena anyway." The commercial transaction was exactly what I had in mind.

However, the mosque arguments/criticisms are not about a commercial transaction. Nor, is anyone telling the mosque builders not to build because there is so much animosity that the new mosque is likely to be burned to the ground--looking out for the builders. It is not like the critics are trying to prevent the builders from getting into a car lease they cannot afford, or cautioning them against purchasing sky-diving lessons out of an over-abundance of caution.

In fact the measured criticisms that I have heard sound suspiciously like some directed at OCers. "Sure its your right, but think how it scares others. You should think about how they feel." As though feelings trump rights. As though the inability of the "offended" to differentiate between the flyer terrorist Muslims and other Muslims trumps the rights of the other Muslims to build their mosque.

The whole point of a right is that it trumps feelings, attitudes, personal interests, prejudice, etc.