anyways... how 'bout that border huh?
Why do America(ns) always have to be the good guys ?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
So just because someone reads up on conspiracy theories and believes the conclusions drawn from paranoid "informers" who jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence, that makes them well-informed? Well in that case am I well informed to state that I think the Church of Scientology is using the "facts and laws" of science in order to control the majority of the population just as the various religions before it did? That may very well be the case, but with no solid and conclusive evidence to back it up, it's just theory. Am I also well informed to say that the only reason Obama got into office was because the war in Iraq wasn't gaining the popularity that the US thought it would so they needed to instate a Muslim president in order to quell animosities between American patriots and the Muslims before pulling out of the war? Am I also well informed to say that I think the 9/11 attacks were entirely a setup by the US government to give them an excuse to invade the middle east because their oil reserves were running dry and they had everything to gain by bringing down the world trade center? And finally am I well informed to say that I think that Area 51 is not a top secret Air Force base but that it's actually a site where the government is using to experiment on and reverse engineer extraterrestrials and their technology? Hell there's a lot of evidence supporting each of the claims but, as I said earlier, they all come up as inconclusive. They could all be a part of what Adolf Hitler referred to as "The Big Lie" (a lie so huge and incredible that none of the population would believe that anyone could distort the truth to that extent and would accept it as true) but we don't know that for sure. Saying someone is well informed because they read up on conspiracy theories that may just be a string of events that just so happened to be strung together in a way that made it seem suspicious is no different than thinking someone is well informed for believing everything that tabloid magazines put out.
mauiboynokaoi
You're not reading what Click said correctly. What Click said has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, they are the facts of the situation. There is no paranoia in what Click said. In fact, the post begins with about as fair a statement as can be made, that "Perhaps (he's) giving too much credit" to the group funding the construction of a mosque in NYC, but that they are not being completely up-front about the project which sort of contradicts their stated mission to promote cross-cultural understanding.
If they can prove their intentions are not funded by groups with nefarious agendas, and if they are not sympathetic to terrorist groups but instead are only interested in the true meaning of the Koran, then there is no harm in the concept. If the projected head of the facility has outwardly condemned the Democratic way of life, and insists on persocution of Muslims who "side" with religious freedom, then we have a problem.
Trying to distract the facts by dredging up Area 51 is not germain to the conversation. We're talking about documented, factual information here concerning extremist religious & political affiliations, not flying saucers and little green men from Mars.
[QUOTE="TJSAGE"]As we fight terrorists in their country, they are bombing ours and buliding what they want in that War zone.....Building a 13ft mega mosque in the graveyard of 3,000 Americans at ground Zero???They are not fighting us with guns, but with money and the ignorance of our leaders....supa_badmanHooray for ignorant Muslim stereotypes and xenophobia. >_> 'OMG! I SAW A MAN WITH A TURBAN TODAY, I THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BOMB EVERYONE!' Ugh... How is that ignorant, stereotypical, or xenophobic? He's right to connect the mega mosque in NY with the terrorists, or at least their brand of religious supremacism. The Cordoba Initiative spent 4 million dollars to purchase a plot of land containing a historic, 150-year-old building standing 2 blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center. Then demolish that building. Then build a mosque at the cost of 100 million dollars. And the Cordoba Initiative's stated goal is to "promote cross-cultural understanding between Islam and the West." Maybe I give them credit - maybe they really were that idiotic that they really didn't anticipate that people would be outraged by an Islamic organisation destroying buildings and building a mega mosque right near the place where another Islamic organisation destroyed buildings - and 3000 people in those buildings. But at this point, it is readily apparent that people are outraged. So what would an organisation that is dedicated to promoting cross-cultural understanding do in such a situation? Well, they would put a stop to their plans once they noticed that their plans were having the opposite effect and actually inflaming tensions. That would demonstrate good faith on their part. But that's not what the Cordoba Initiative did. They pressed forward with their plans, all in the name of promoting cross-cultural understanding and friendship. Now why would an organisation supposedly dedicated to this spend $104 million on a plan that obviously only promoting tensions? The imam of this projected mega-mosque is one who promotes Sharia - Islamic law - in the USA and thinks all countries should be under Islamic law, even democratic ones. And of course, the imam refused to sign a pledge issued by former Muslims who were under death threats, to promise that he would repudiate the threat of sharia to the religious freedom of those who choose to leave Islam. This is an imam who calls for restrictions on freedom of speech and criticises the USA for not being like the Middle-East in this respect. Who refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. The same imam who was quoted by the Cairo University as saying (in Arabic, of course): "I do not believe in religious dialogue." The same imam who said, on CBS News, that Americans are an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks. There's also a question of finances. Where is this money coming from? Afaik, the Cordoba Initiative has refused to reveal their financial records. Presumably also to promote cross-cultural understanding. But I do think it is a valid question, considering their imam praised the Saudi Wahhabi school of Islam for rejuvenating religious spirit. He praised its founder, al-Wahhab, his inspiration, Ibn Taymiyyah, and its defenders and promoters, al-Dinal-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. Ibn Taymiyyah issued fatwas about imposing Islamic law on non-Muslim populations, among the other intolerant things he said and did. So yes, I would say it was quite fair of TJSAGE to be critical of the new mega-mosque. Not at all. It's a violation of the amendments. Enough said. Are people going to get butt hurt? Yes, but it's not fair to the muslims when people think that muslims will use the community center to promote anti-America propaganda. And it's not even a mosque, it's a community center with a mosque. That other people can use who are not muslim. But people are most likely going to deface this community center out of ignorance and stereotype. And like Americans, Muslims don't deserve the stereotype they get.
[QUOTE="mauiboynokaoi"]
So just because someone reads up on conspiracy theories and believes the conclusions drawn from paranoid "informers" who jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence, that makes them well-informed? Well in that case am I well informed to state that I think the Church of Scientology is using the "facts and laws" of science in order to control the majority of the population just as the various religions before it did? That may very well be the case, but with no solid and conclusive evidence to back it up, it's just theory. Am I also well informed to say that the only reason Obama got into office was because the war in Iraq wasn't gaining the popularity that the US thought it would so they needed to instate a Muslim president in order to quell animosities between American patriots and the Muslims before pulling out of the war? Am I also well informed to say that I think the 9/11 attacks were entirely a setup by the US government to give them an excuse to invade the middle east because their oil reserves were running dry and they had everything to gain by bringing down the world trade center? And finally am I well informed to say that I think that Area 51 is not a top secret Air Force base but that it's actually a site where the government is using to experiment on and reverse engineer extraterrestrials and their technology? Hell there's a lot of evidence supporting each of the claims but, as I said earlier, they all come up as inconclusive. They could all be a part of what Adolf Hitler referred to as "The Big Lie" (a lie so huge and incredible that none of the population would believe that anyone could distort the truth to that extent and would accept it as true) but we don't know that for sure. Saying someone is well informed because they read up on conspiracy theories that may just be a string of events that just so happened to be strung together in a way that made it seem suspicious is no different than thinking someone is well informed for believing everything that tabloid magazines put out.
MonkeySpot
You're not reading what Click said correctly. What Click said has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, they are the facts of the situation. There is no paranoia in what Click said. In fact, the post begins with about as fair a statement as can be made, that "Perhaps (he's) giving too much credit" to the group funding the construction of a mosque in NYC, but that they are not being completely up-front about the project which sort of contradicts their stated mission to promote cross-cultural understanding.
If they can prove their intentions are not funded by groups with nefarious agendas, and if they are not sympathetic to terrorist groups but instead are only interested in the true meaning of the Koran, then there is no harm in the concept. If the projected head of the facility has outwardly condemned the Democratic way of life, and insists on persocution of Muslims who "side" with religious freedom, then we have a problem.
Trying to distract the facts by dredging up Area 51 is not germain to the conversation. We're talking about documented, factual information here concerning extremist religious & political affiliations, not flying saucers and little green men from Mars.
They have to prove whether or not they're sympathizing with terrorists? What is this, the 40's? Didn't you say in post before you hated the idea of the patriot act?They have to prove whether or not they're sympathizing with terrorists? What is this, the 40's? Didn't you say in post before you hated the idea of the patriot act?
supa_badman
No, Supa... whatI meant by that was simply to reinforce the facts as Click laid them out... The leaders of this project have already gone on record with their views, opinions, and convictions. I certainly don't want a return to the days of Macarthyism, and to be clear, I don't like the abuses of the Patriot Act (which, of course, started with good & honorable intentions and is now being used for the wrong purposes).
I have been in rather depthy conversations about this subject with others I know who're not members of this website, and who roundly condemn the project. I maintain that there is nothing wrong with the building of a mosque on American soil as this is the place people came to get away from persecution for their religious beliefs, andI believe my Muslim friends when they tell me that the teachings of the Koran are peaceful in nature. So is the Christian Bible. But the Bible was used and twisted with spin for the purpose of the Crusades... I believe (as do my Muslim friends), that the Koran is being used and twisted to suit the purposes of a minority extremist faction to whip the masses into a froth about the Infidels (Democracy-driven Nations).
There is nothing wrong with Muslims or the Nation of Islam, America or Americans inherently... it's the whack-jobs which are the danger. On our side, AND theirs.
:)
I did not intend to confuse. You know I got love for ya.
The game that annoyed me most was Resistance....Why does an American have to come in and Save Britian?
MattDistillery
:|
You must not have been paying attention to the game. It is obviously a team effort in Resistance. In fact, I'm pretty sure Hale is the only American still alive by the end of the game.
*************************SPOILERS*********************
They are the bad guys In Modern Warfare 2 lol
[QUOTE="dante5395"][QUOTE="Laser_Hunter"] The Taliban is comparable to the Vietcong. They are villagers defending they're land from foreigners. (Albeit with a more religious drive) They do not have the resource to do that. I think you have Al-Qaeda and the Taliban mixed up.MethodManFTW
i can't remember what terrorist group it was but there was one that was more powerful than al-qaeda anybody know?
the cia But but but, the IRS strikes more fear into the hearts of everyone. Even fictional characters like The Joker are more affraid of the IRS than even Batman.... And most games are either made in Asian countries or in the United States, so the ones in the US know to sell they have to portray Americans as heroes and they probably have the viewpoints on conflicts of the average American. It would be interesting to see a game, based on war and then when one of the solidiers sees that niether side is fully in the right and then goes on his own mission to just END the war. Not sure if it would be fun, but it would be interesting.(and unplausable if it has a good ending, but they are called "games" for a reason) Though I don't think many countries mind since the USA is still living off of the reputation of helping rebuild Europe after WWII. But who knows really. Sadly, probably 30%-50% of Americans are drones believing what ever the media tells them. And Probably most of those drones wouldn't want to play as anyone other than an American in a war game if they weren't playing as a character of bassically thier own fictional country trying to capture the world.
I'm glad this thread is still active.
This site for the most part, specifically the forums have made me lose faith in the future of humanity. Try as I may to avoid it, the majority of what I see are uneducated, spoiled whiners complaining and trolling each other or making polls to know which lace to tie first.
This...this is an intelligent debate. This is where the adults are. This is my new favorite thread.
[QUOTE="mauiboynokaoi"]OK so you have circumstancial evidence and a motive. The lack of hard evidence or witnesses still makes it just as credible as the tabloids from my perspective. You've also (implicitly) uncovered that their stated intentions cannot be true, but without a proper investigation, it makes no sense to base a conclusion off of something that is so vague.clicketyclick
Witnesses? Why do you need witnesses when their own words and actions testify against them? I think the key thing you're missing here is the basic logic to take you from premises to conclusion. It only takes the most basic logic to conclude from the observation of people who are aware that their actions are inflammatory and persist with those actions that these people aren't concerned with easing tensions and creating friendships. If someone beats you up, do you need a witness and fingerprints to determine whether or not that was a friendly overture meant to ease tensions?
If you think that even implementing such basic logic as that is somehow suspect, I wonder how you manage to cross the street in the morning. The reasoning that takes you from the observation of an oncoming car, the comprehension of its mass, speed, and momentum, compared to your mass, to the natural consequences of such a collision is far more demanding on logical reasoning than merely concluding that someone who acts like a douche, is aware that people think he's acting like a douche, but continues to act like a douche, is in fact a troll and dgaf.
But all that aside, I'm not trying to convict anyone in a court of law of anything. I'm merely trying to show why it perfectly reasonable - and not xenophobic or stereotyping of muslims - to be critical of the new mega mosque, and its imam's words and their actions are certainly enough for that.
In fact, the only xenophobic things in this are the fatwas issued by the Islamic jurist this imam praises, and the only one casting a negative stereotype on Muslims is the imam himself: ah yes, another Muslim religious leader who refuses to condemn terrorist organisations, blames americans for 9/11, wants to introduce Sharia into the USA because apparently the secular law isn't good enough for his religious community and the separation between church and state doesn't seem very important to him, wants to restrict freedom of speech, and is quite enamoured with Wahhabi Islam.
And then the Cordoba Initiative turns around and criticises a man who wants to build a gay bar near their mosque for offending muslim sensibilities saying this does not build dialog, whilst apparently remaining unconcerned about how their building of that very mosque near ground zero offends new yorkers' sensibilities and does not build dialog. But I guess that's not too hypocritical, considering their imam said he doesn't believe in religious dialog in the first place!
Ah yes, nothing wrong with this picture. Move along folks, nothing to see here. And if you raise an eyebrow it's obviously because you're xenophobic!
OK let's assume that everyone follows your logic for a while. Well let's look at other things that have happened in the past. Early releases of PS3s and X360s were very prone to failing (RRoD/YLoD) and considering all the hype about such a "great" generation of consoles, many consumers did not bother to buy the extended warranty. After these failures, there were many returns/refurbishments that needed to be made at the cost of the consumer. Needless to say future users would be discouraged by this and either not buy the console altogether or get an extended warranty to cover their ass. Both ways Sony and Microsoft win in terms of import:export ratios. Then when all the big spending market willing to get a warranty subsides, they come out with a new improved system that wouldn't fall victim to these problems (as much). It can only be logical to say that the gaming console OEMs are deliberately manufacturing faulty hardware in order to maximize the profit they turn with each sale at the cost and expense of the consumers they know they will always have (teenagers).This makes sense right? Well there's a much simpler counter-theory to this that could explain everything:
The PS3 was the first console to feature a blu-ray drive as its primary optical drive. Blu-rays naturally siphon more power than DVD drives and thus are more prone to overheating. The controlled tests that Sony had conducted did not prepare the PS3 for long-term abuse (I'm talking months) due to pressure to release their console before their microsoft counterpart could dominate the market and thus many PS3s would fail after a pretty long while.
As for the X360, it was designed as a powerful, cheap, "next generation" console. It was important for them to produce a powerful "futuristic" gaming console in preparation for their developing new operating system Windows Vista. It was all part of Microsoft's plan to try to overtake and crush Apple with their OSX by pioneering the way into the "new age of technology". They wanted to get this as soon as possible due to the promise Apple's iPod series of portable media players and the development of their new iPod video which would be able to play full movies on a pocket device.
See both of these implied theories make sense logically which is why some genuinely hard evidence is needed before any conclusions can be drawn. Not everything is a conspiracy (though most things are) so you can't tell someone they're wrong just because you have a gut feeling that you're right.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment