DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Stray Pooch on August 22, 2010, 08:29:17 PM
-
Temecula, California, has little in common with New York City. But the debate over a new mosque in the sleepy suburban town east of Camp Pendleton echoes many of the themes expressed in the controversy surrounding the Park 51 Islamic center to be built near the World Trade Center site.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012134,00.html?xid=rss-nation-yahoo#ixzz0xNaeiSA4 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2012134,00.html?xid=rss-nation-yahoo#ixzz0xNaeiSA4)
Nor here, if you please . . .
When the congregation of Grace Baptist Church held services in its new building last month, no protesters marched outside to mark the occasion. It's doubtful that protesters will gather later this month when the church throws an all-day party to dedicate the new brick building on the corner of Bradyville Pike and Veals Road. The words "Not Welcome" will probably not be spray-painted on the new church's sign.
The same cannot be said for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, which owns the neatly mown 15-acre field next to Grace Baptist and whose plans to build a mosque for its growing community has been caught in the net of anti-Islam sentiment in the U.S. Both of the signs the Center erected at the site of its future home were vandalized; the first had "not welcome" sprayed across it; the second was simply smashed in two. Since May when the Center gained building approval from Rutherford County, local Tea Party activists have aggressively fought to stop the mosque, staging protests, claiming that it was too big (inflating it from a modest 6,800 square feet to a whopping 53,000 square feet) and making it a campaign issue in recent elections. Republican Ron Ramsey, Tennessee's lieutenant governor and a gubernatorial candidate, gained national attention — and ridicule on The Colbert Report — after opining "you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, a way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it?"
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011847,00.html#ixzz0xNbEO92P (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011847,00.html#ixzz0xNbEO92P)
and certainly not here . . . (same article as second, above)
Last February the Al-Farooq Mosque in Nashville was vandalized, with graffiti — a cross and "Muslims go home" spray painted on its facade. Earlier this year, a white supremacist was sentenced to 183 months in prison for his role in the 2008 bombing of the Islamic Center of Columbia. Attempts to build new mosques in other nearby cities, including Brentwood and Antioch, have been stopped.
Sign at anti-NY Mosque rally today
"EVERYTHING I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ISLAM I LEARNED ON 9-11"
Everything I need to know about the motivation behind this movement I learned from that sign.
-
Apples/Oranges, I'm afraid. Unless of course, the Temeculans can showcase the 2 story buidling brought down by a crop duster hijacked by Islamic terrorists, right next to where the proposed site of the new Mosque is the be built
-
These yokels probably can muster up an adequate amount of hate. What they lack is the courage to stage a suicide attack. It does take more courage to die for a cause than risk a night in the slammer for vandalism, after all.
-
What the frell?
-
How does it not take more courage to risk your life rather than risk getting a couple of days in the hoosegow for vandalism?
Hitler was quite brave in WWI. Had every German been so brave, perhaps Germany would have won WWII. That is not to say that he was a nice guy. Bravery is one thing, decency is something unrelated. Brave means one can risk one's life without fear for something one believes in, or at least that is what it means to me. You can be brave while saving a small child from a raging fire, but you can also be brave stealing peanut butter.
It would require a lesser degree of bravery to drive your Hummer (assuming that there were no bombs) into a Tennessee mosque than to fly a jetliner into the WTC, simply because the first event would have a greater possibility of survival. Defacing a sign announcing a new mosque to be built on a site would require almost no courage at all. At worst, they could arrest you for vandalism.
-
Well, apparently the 911 hijackers & Hitler are heros to Xo. All that "courage"
(and for the record, anyone caught defacing or vandalizing anything, should be locked up for a few months, and provided a permanent set of graffati on their person)
-
Well, apparently the 911 hijackers & Hitler are heros to Xo. All that "courage"
I didn't see where he said that. What he said was it takes more courage to partake in an act that will result in your own death, like kamikazi pilots did, than it does to tag a building with spray paint.
I would have to agree with that statement.
-
Yep, all that "courage"......quite a thing to admire. Especially with the results of that "courage"
-
Do you believe it takes more courage to put your life on the line than it does to do petty vandalism?
XO made a pretty straight forward statement. Did he place a positive value upon the attacks?
-
Not if the result of "putting your life on the line" is in the taking of far more innocent lives
But that's just me
-
Not if the result of "putting your life on the line" is in the taking of far more innocent lives
Most combat activity involves the chance of collateral damage, under your standards those soldiers are cowards. Is that what you meant to say?
-
What he said was it takes more courage to partake in an act that will result in your own death,
like kamikazi pilots did, than it does to tag a building with spray paint. I would have to agree with that statement.
Figures.....
So now "crazy" equals courage?
So Tim McVeigh had lots of courage blowing up the babies at the nursery
in OK City because he "partook in an act that resulted in his own death"?
So the underwear bomber that blows up an airliner full of civilians & infants has courage?
So John Wayne Gacy had courage?
So men that murder their wives/kids then blow their own brains out have "courage"?
So a whackjob that walks into a room full of infants and blows himself up has "courage"?
Quit pandering and using language that glorifies savages that are whack jobs.
-
I did not say that courageous terrorists should not be stopped or arrested or shot on sight.
One is brave if they risk their life. Whether this is the proper thing to do is a value judgment.
The Kamikaze pilots were, after all, defending fellow Japanese from having their ships sunk by US warships.
A German Nazi soldier falling on a grenade, thus saving the lives of his comrades, has performed the same act of bravery as an American soldier who does the same thing.
In the grand scheme of things, it may turn out that that one may have been a force for good and order and the other a force for evil. At the moment it occurs, both men are saving the lives of their comrades, though.
At some point, all lives are innocent, or none are. Firebombing Dresden is as vile or useful an act as firebombing Coventry. War is Hell. Everyone loses. It has meaning only to those who survive.
-
Being a wack job and being brave are not mutually exclusive: one can easily be both at the same time. Murder is insanity, The fact that one does so while in uniform may make it legal, but it does not make it sane.
-
So Tim McVeigh had lots of courage blowing up the babies at the nursery
in OK City because he "partook in an act that resulted in his own death"?
McVeigh's intent was not to kill babies. He was deranged, but he also sacrificed his life for an ideal, which was vengeance for the Waco affair. I would have been pleased had he been captured or killed before he committed his vile deed.
============================
So the underwear bomber that blows up an airliner full of civilians & infants has courage?
He was incompetent and blew up no one. I suppose he was brave, but I agree that he should have been arrested and jailed for a long, long time, if not for life. I am very glad he was so incompetent. There is something about hiding explosives in one's tighty whities that seems less than courageous.
So John Wayne Gacy had courage?
That would depend on the danger he faced. As I understand, he did not risk his own life, so I'd say, no. Gacy was a deranged sadist.
===============
So men that murder their wives/kids then blow their own brains out have "courage"?
Only if they are in danger from their wives. You do not seem to get the point: Bravery involves being threatened by someone other than one's self. One is not threatened by others when they commit suicide.
===============
So a whackjob that walks into a room full on infants and blows himself up has "courage"?
Only in the rare event that said infants are armed and in a homicidal mood and present a viable threat. Quite improbable.
Quit pandering and using language that glorifies savages that are whack jobs.
I do not have any obligation to do anything you say. Savages are brave if they risk their lives doing something that they believe in that is life-threatening to them.
As for myself, I am NOT brave. I cannot imagine myself killing anyone, unless backed into a corner with no other alternative. I have a great sense of self-preservation, which is rather the opposite of what I would call courageous. I do not get into fights. When I see trouble coming, I vanish. Members of my family have been quite successful at avoiding conflict. The last one to fire a shot in anger in my father's line fought in the Revolutionary War: my Civil War ancestors were doctors (one on each side). My grandfather was a preacher. My father was an accountant, 40 years old in 1941 and wore a truss because of a double hernia. He was given a priority job and kept books for a paint company. I successfully avoided Vietnam and am proud to have done so. I am sure that if I had gone to Vietnam, the war would still have been a disastrous loss, and I am glad that it did not make my life a disaster as well.
I do not consider bravery to be an asset.
-
CU4 you confuse courage or bravery with heroics.
Let me give you an example.
A man runs into a burning building and comes out with a baby saving its life.
Brave, courageous and heroic yes
Now suppose the man didn't know that a baby was still in the building but did know a valuable cache of diamonds was there and took the opportunity of the fire to steal the diamonds. And only after he secured the diamonds did he realize the baby was there and carried it to safety.
In my opinion the man was still brave and courageous. Heroic? not so much.
-
Not if the result of "putting your life on the line" is in the taking of far more innocent lives
Most combat activity involves the chance of collateral damage, under your standards those soldiers are cowards. Is that what you meant to say?
Nice distortion, and not even close
-
CU4 you confuse courage or bravery with heroics.
No I dont.
Let me give you an example.
A man runs into a burning building & carries with him a baby ending the baby's life and ending his life to make some lunatic point.
Brave, courageous , heroic.....NO!
IMO evil actions carried out by narcissistic whackjobs is not about courage.....more cowardly in my mind.
-
No I dont.
Sure you do. Sacrificing your life takes courage.
The reason you did it determines whether you are a hero or not.
You seem to be arguing the position that I am saying terrorists are hero's. From my side of the fence they aren't. To someone else they very well may be.
It is all about perspective.
But their hero status is one thing.
Whether it takes courage to sacrifice your life for a cause is another.
-
Sure you do. Sacrificing your life takes courage.
I disagree, BT, and by an odd coincidence, that very type of claim is the reason that I am here (in the saloon I mean) today.
I joined PIC in the aftermath of 9-11 but not as a direct result of the attack itself. It was, rather, the infamous incident of Bill Maher comparing the "courage" of the terrorists to the implicitly cowardly way US forces could bomb places from above or send missiles after someone, etc. This was on his abomination of a TV show "Politically Incorrect." As I sought out more information on the quote, I ran across the PIC and the rest is history.
But there is no courage involved in committing suicide. None. It takes no bravery to kill yourself. Since you PLAN to die and WANT to die, you have nothing to lose (and 72 virgins to gain, if you believe in that sort of thing). Contrast that with entering into a situation where you want to live, you hope to come out at the other end alive, and you have lots to live for. In spite of that, however, you enter into harm's way for a cause (whether that cause be defending your nation, protecting your property or loved ones, or conquering the world for your religion - even imposing an evil dictator's will). When you want to live, and you are willing to risk or even knowingly give your life to rescue or protect someone, that is courageous. Simply strapping on a bomb and walking into a disco is nothing more than cowardice. You haven't got the courage to risk failure AND your life. Instead, you go for the sure thing and forfeit your life before you ever go into action.
There are lots of courageous Talibani and Al Quaeda fighters. They go out and fight against real live flesh-and-blood enemies. They do hide and run and all those other things that any rational human being would do when under fire from a superior enemy, but at least they come out to put their lives on the line for their (dubious) cause. American soldiers (and any other rational people) do the same thing. Suicide bombers are not courageous. They are cowards who haven't got the courage to fight an armed enemy.
I think that people who suggest there is courage in suicide bombers confuse courage with defeatist resignation. There are courageous suicide missions. These are the missions where, for example, someone volunteers to die to protect someone else. Think of the typical Hollywood scene, like the pilot who flies into the path of the oncoming missile to save the President's plane, or the character in "A Tale of Two Cities" who dies in place of another ("tis a far, far better thing . . ."). What about real-life actions like the person who dives into the path of the oncoming car to push a child out of the way, or someone who drowns trying to rescue someone else? Or even the soldier who chooses to jump on a grenade or take out a machine gun nest to save his buddies. These are things that MUST be done. I might even give the Kamikaze a pass, since the ships they were attacking were actually a direct threat to the homeland. The Japanese were fighting a conventional war and the actions of their military men were (relative to the realities of war) honorable ones. Flying a plane into a well-armed warship filled with armed military men who could defend themselves and were a genuine direct threat was a desperate but arguably necessary act. One could almost even stretch this to include the bombers of the USS Cole (damn their souls) though the Cole was not engaged in warfare. But flying civilian aircraft filled with unarmed civilians into buildings filled with civilians was just an act of petty vandalism horribly magnified. It required no courage - just fanatical hatred.
Risk is a necessary component of courage. When one is already resigned to die in a senseless act, nothing is at risk.
-
Apples/Oranges, I'm afraid. Unless of course, the Temeculans can showcase the 2 story buidling brought down by a crop duster hijacked by Islamic terrorists, right next to where the proposed site of the new Mosque is the be built
No, apples and Big Apples. I brought these up to show that the excuse of proximity used in New York is unavailable to people throughout the country doing exactly the same thing. These were three examples I could immediately fiind. There are lots more, I have no doubt. The sign I quoted, however, was FROM the New York rally against the Park 51 Mosque. That sign is a flagrant admission of not only prejudice but gross bigotry. "I judge Islam," it says, "based on 9-11." There is no need to learn anything else about Islam, because the act of terrorism showed this protester everything he needed to know about the faith. That is exactly what this protest is about. They don't want to hear about peace-loving Muslims. They insist, as so many in this country (and some on this forum) do, that Islam is a religion of terror, and that's all there is to it.
What the terrorists want, more than anything, is to inspire the Islamic people to rise up and destroy or convert the rest of the world - and simultaneously sweep THEM into power. In order to do that, they must create a deep enmity between Islam and the rest of the world. They have succeeded quite admirably in making Americans hate Muslims. Our responses have worked beautifully in making a lot more Muslims hate Americans than already did. That is what this debate is about, and in the end, if the Mosque is forced to move - or if we allow the circumstances to become an excuse for anti-Muslim terrorism - the terrorists really do win.
-
No I dont.
Sacrificing your life takes courage.
No it doesn't......but BT we can certainly "agree to disagree".
But hey I sure hope the next time a bunch of terrorist fly planes into buildings
or a terrorist with a suicide vest walks into a daycare and kills a bunch of innocent
people that Obama comes out and proclaims the terrorist sure were "courageous"
and we can see how well that goes over with the American People and see who
they agree with....me or you!
-
Apples/Oranges, I'm afraid. Unless of course, the Temeculans can showcase the 2 story buidling brought down by a crop duster hijacked by Islamic terrorists, right next to where the proposed site of the new Mosque is to be built
No, apples and Big Apples. I brought these up to show that the excuse of proximity used in New York is unavailable to people throughout the country doing exactly the same thing.
Which ironically reinforces my point all the more......LOCATION, and prescious little to do with prejudice or bigotry. Muslims can eat, sleep, pray Islam all they want, whever they want, in the U.S. This particular location that the Imam is choosing is probably the worst possibly place to choose, if the idea was to help bring a sense of Islamic tolerance, peace, and sensitivity to the U.S. populace.
The fact is, it'll produce the polar opposite if he sticks with this location. If he moves it even just a few blocks, 98% of the country's outrage will have been dissolved, including mine, leaving just the fringe twits to argue that Islam is pure evil and has no place in America
-
Pooch,
I thought about Maher's remarks while crafting my position. I understand the visceral reactions to his remarks and how they might play into the current discussion.
Just to remind everyone of that controversy, this from the wiki:
ABC decided against renewing Maher's contract for Politically Incorrect in 2002, after he made a controversial on-air remark shortly after the September 11th attacks,[14] whereby he agreed with his guest, conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza, that the 9/11 terrorists did not act in a cowardly manner. Maher replied, "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You're right."
And further:
Rush Limbaugh, the most listened-to radio talk-show host in history, is coming to the defense of television host Bill Maher over Maher's controversial remarks suggesting U.S. military actions were "cowardly."
"In a way, he was right," Limbaugh said of the host of ABC's late-night talk program "Politically Incorrect." The topic was raised on Limbaugh's show yesterday in the wake of reports that Maher did not expect his own program to remain on ABC once his contract expires next year.
Maher's remarks comprised two parts. His agreement with D'Souza that the terrorists did not act in a cowardly manner and the US with it's high tech weaponry lobbing missiles from afar was acting in a cowardly manner.
Personally I agree with the first part and disagree with the second.
I think there is a distinction between committing suicide and undertaking a mission that entails fairly certain death. One action is selfish, the other selfless. One action involves complete disengagement from life while the other involves total engagement for a cause. We can let others judge the appropriateness of the cause. The question before us is whether it takes guts to sacrifice your life so that your peoples lives will hopefully be better.
And i think we need to keep in mind that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. That helps frame the issue in more objective, versus subjective terms.
-
No I dont.
Sacrificing your life takes courage.
No it doesn't......but BT we can certainly "agree to disagree".
But hey I sure hope the next time a bunch of terrorist fly planes into buildings
or a terrorist with a suicide vest walks into a daycare and kills a bunch of innocent
people that Obama comes out and proclaims the terrorist sure were "courageous"
and we can see how well that goes over with the American People and see who
they agree with....me or you!
Obama has little to do with the issue. Frankly neither does the target. It doesn't even matter whether the cause is valid. The issue is whether it is courageous to sacrifice your life for the advancement of a cause.
-
The issue is whether it is courageous to sacrifice your life for the advancement of a cause.
Exactly and we just disagree....as to the answer to that question.
I do not think it is "courageous" to sacrifice your life for a cause if the cause
is to kill as many infants as possible in daycare centers across the country.
-
I remember Maher's TV show and the controversy around it and agree with Maher.
It is certainly not an act of bravery to guide an unmanned missile at some guy (terrorist or not) from halfway around the Earth. It may be NECESSARY, it may be ADVANTAGEOUS for most of the human race. But is isn't brave. I can't say i would call it cowardly, as perhaps Maher would. Not every act is brave or cowardly. Most acts are neither. Today I went to Publix and bought some guava juice and a bag of spinach. No bravery or cowardice in that, I am sure everyone can agree.
If you shoot an innocent person and then yourself, I will agree, that is not bravery, either. But if you thought that you would defeat corruption and misrule in your own country by flying an airliner into the WTC, then that could be bravery in your mind. I disagree that the 9-11 attacks benefited the cause of overthrowing the Saudi royals or even ending their corruption, as there is no evidence that this is the result. In reality, 9-11 did not benefit any Muslim radicals in any concrete sense. It did serve to get their message out to many Muslims in the world that would otherwise have not gotten the message.
My point is this: it is not bravery because an act supports your cause, nor is it cowardice if it is against your cause.
Again, Hitler was quite brave in WWI and earned the Iron Cross as a result. We are all very lucky that all German soldiers were not so brave.
I like what Kurt Vonnegut said about Hitler: he once submitted a rather nice painting of a small chapel in Austria to an art contest and it won no prizes. Had it won a first prize, Herr Adolf might have become a 1930's celebrated Austrian Andy Warhol, forgotten about how he disliked Herr Cohen and Herr Levi and the world would have benefited greatly.
I would be all for shooting all the 9-11 terrorists before they gt on their planes. But that is not germane to the issue of bravery.