ISIS destroys Mar Elian

[cmdrjones]

Are you an idiot? It wouldn't 'disentangle' anything; it would provoke the Jihad to end all Jihads. Right now, most Muslims - like most people, funnily enough - are basically good people just trying to get along, but if you deliberately destroy one of the holiest sites in Islam the radical fringe will become the average center.

Whay would that be? IS there something inherent in Islam that makes them more likely to take such an action?

[cmdrjones]

Well, I suppose a factor to be considered is the NATURE of the historical monument. If the Norks collapse would you argue to keep all the monuments to "dear glorious leader"?

We should probably take down any that post a risk to health and safety, if any, given that a lot of them are in inhabited cities... but yes, keeping them for historical reasons might not be a bad idea. I expect the Norks could make some money using them as tourist attractions, which they'll need to rebuild their economy if such a regime change comes to pass.

I agree, assuming you can limit them to JUST tourist attractions. 3rd Reich monuments in 1946 or so when the Werewolves were still active aren't going to get much support due to their supposed future "touristy value" to them, the war had just happened. If we lost say, 50,000 people taking the Norks down, and the south Koreans lose, say 2 million, (minus metahive, of course) then they may not see it the same way as you for about 3 generations.

[Ahriman238]

Are you an idiot? It wouldn't 'disentangle' anything; it would provoke the Jihad to end all Jihads. Right now, most Muslims - like most people, funnily enough - are basically good people just trying to get along, but if you deliberately destroy one of the holiest sites in Islam the radical fringe will become the average center.

Whay would that be? IS there something inherent in Islam that makes them more likely to take such an action?

In a word, no.

People tend to get upset when you blow up places (and people!) that are special to them. Imagine that.

[cmdrjones]

There's a reason you can still find old Soviet monuments in former Warsaw Pact cities and such. The loose stuff you can junk-- there are places where there's absolute heaps of Lenin busts and such-- but the bigger memorials you leave up because, well, it's part of your history. Kinda-sorta like why some parts of the US have memorials commemorating the Civil War and what not. It's not particularly a part of history that you *like* remembering, but you *should* remember it.

Bingo!

[Elheru Aran]

There's a reason you can still find old Soviet monuments in former Warsaw Pact cities and such. The loose stuff you can junk-- there are places where there's absolute heaps of Lenin busts and such-- but the bigger memorials you leave up because, well, it's part of your history. Kinda-sorta like why some parts of the US have memorials commemorating the Civil War and what not. It's not particularly a part of history that you *like* remembering, but you *should* remember it.

Bingo!

Bingo what? There's no 'bingo'. There's no context whatsoever in your post to indicate what you're saying 'bingo' about. If you're agreeing, say 'I agree'. More to the point, contribute something besides a single word. Are you attempting to prolong the discussion? Expand upon the quoted statement. Are you trying to support something you've said? Quote it for context.

But if all you're doing is shitposting, kindly do me the favor of leaving me out of it.

A last thought: It's better to create a long post with several different people quoted rather than replying to individual quotes in individual posts. Not only does that rather uselessly pad your post-count, people have to trudge through the quantity in order to see what bollocks you're saying to them specifically. You should be able to see a 'quote' button by each post in the Topic Review at the bottom of the 'full editor' reply page. If you're quoting a specific statement rather than a full post, it's acceptable to edit the quoted post for length. If you're capable of operating a computer competently enough to post on a BBS, you can understand basic posting etiquette.

[Grumman]

Are you an idiot? It wouldn't 'disentangle' anything; it would provoke the Jihad to end all Jihads. Right now, most Muslims - like most people, funnily enough - are basically good people just trying to get along, but if you deliberately destroy one of the holiest sites in Islam the radical fringe will become the average center.

Whay would that be? IS there something inherent in Islam that makes them more likely to take such an action?

Here's a hypothetical for you: you're in a dispute with your neighbours and to deescalate the situation, somebody shoots your dog. Does it work?

[cmdrjones]

Are you an idiot? It wouldn't 'disentangle' anything; it would provoke the Jihad to end all Jihads. Right now, most Muslims - like most people, funnily enough - are basically good people just trying to get along, but if you deliberately destroy one of the holiest sites in Islam the radical fringe will become the average center.

Whay would that be? IS there something inherent in Islam that makes them more likely to take such an action?

In a word, no.

People tend to get upset when you blow up places (and people!) that are special to them. Imagine that.

I get that, but he was insinuating that Muslims, who are largely good people, would suddenly choose to embrace the radical wing of Islamic terror due to thier holy site being blasted. I was asking for clarification due to, for example the giant non-response of buddhists around the world when the taliban dynamited those large statues in Afghanistan. It seems there is something else at play here than just "people get mad when you blow up things they value"

[Purple]

I get that, but he was insinuating that Muslims, who are largely good people, would suddenly choose to embrace the radical wing of Islamic terror due to thier holy site being blasted. I was asking for clarification due to, for example the giant non-response of buddhists around the world when the taliban dynamited those large statues in Afghanistan. It seems there is something else at play here than just "people get mad when you blow up things they value"

It goes beyond just someone randomly blasting a Muslim site though. Such an action would essentially be a massive message of "take that you dirty Muslim". It is an intentional and deliberate attack not on the site it self but on the entire religion indiscriminately. The site is just a proxy.

[cmdrjones]

I get that, but he was insinuating that Muslims, who are largely good people, would suddenly choose to embrace the radical wing of Islamic terror due to thier holy site being blasted. I was asking for clarification due to, for example the giant non-response of buddhists around the world when the taliban dynamited those large statues in Afghanistan. It seems there is something else at play here than just "people get mad when you blow up things they value"

It goes beyond just someone randomly blasting a Muslim site though. Such an action would essentially be a massive message of "take that you dirty Muslim". It is an intentional and deliberate attack not on the site it self but on the entire religion indiscriminately. The site is just a proxy.

Again, true of what I said about the buddhist statues.

Elheru Aran: Noted. I usually prefer to respond to one person at a time, i find it more congenial, But if its a thang here, i'll reply en masse from now on.

[Ahriman238]

Whay would that be? IS there something inherent in Islam that makes them more likely to take such an action?

In a word, no.

People tend to get upset when you blow up places (and people!) that are special to them. Imagine that.

I get that, but he was insinuating that Muslims, who are largely good people, would suddenly choose to embrace the radical wing of Islamic terror due to thier holy site being blasted. I was asking for clarification due to, for example the giant non-response of buddhists around the world when the taliban dynamited those large statues in Afghanistan. It seems there is something else at play here than just "people get mad when you blow up things they value"

Buddhists are hardly representative samples, they're pretty chill as a general rule.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain this in a context you'll get, and I'm having a lot of trouble because mainstream America just doesn't care about it's important or iconic sites all that much. Burn down the White House? Meh. It's been done. Vatican? Sure it'd piss of Catholics, but a healthy Protestant section would be dancing. Congress? It'd be a novelty to see universal agreement and action on the point of getting out.

So let me turn it around. Tomorrow will mark the 14th anniversary of the time a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists struck out at four highly visible U.S. sites, killing thousands of people, and we launched a war of retribution that killed the square of the original victims in uninvolved brown people. Is there something in America that makes us more prone to violent overreaction in these cases? Certainly England hasn't leveled Ireland despite the existence of the IRA and a number of high-profile, high-casualty attacks. What more is at play here than a dislike of being attacked?

The Dome is a special place to all Muslims, world-wide. Aside from the damage to history and culture, and the human toll of destroying it, it would be massively disproportionate retribution against people who had nothing to do with the original incident. It'd be like shelling downtown L.A. in response to the Charleston church shooting, if we're accepting human lives in place of religious/cultural meaning.

[Iroscato]

Are you an idiot? It wouldn't 'disentangle' anything; it would provoke the Jihad to end all Jihads. Right now, most Muslims - like most people, funnily enough - are basically good people just trying to get along, but if you deliberately destroy one of the holiest sites in Islam the radical fringe will become the average center.

Whay would that be? IS there something inherent in Islam that makes them more likely to take such an action?

Jones, what happened almost exactly 14 years ago today? Now extrapolate to Islam and multiply by an order of magnitude.

[Metahive]

Y'know it's funny Jonesy's feigning ignorance when he was the one who predicted terror and mayhem should people not leave the confederate traitor flag alone. So yeah, he does understand the issue of attacking holy cows but is blatantly trolling about it now anyway.

Don't bother.

[Darmalus]

So let me turn it around. Tomorrow will mark the 14th anniversary of the time a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists struck out at four highly visible U.S. sites, killing thousands of people, and we launched a war of retribution that killed the square of the original victims in uninvolved brown people. Is there something in America that makes us more prone to violent overreaction in these cases? Certainly England hasn't leveled Ireland despite the existence of the IRA and a number of high-profile, high-casualty attacks. What more is at play here than a dislike of being attacked?

There are 2 broad methods of national defense. There's force matching, you push me I push you, and massive retaliation, you push me I kill you and burn your house down and salt the earth. The current era of peace is largely ensured by the policy of massive retaliation, since if anyone starts a major fight we all die in nuclear fire. It's fairly logical that the USA would thus have a cultural streak of massive retaliation, being one of the major holders of said nuclear fire.

[Broomstick]

Are you an idiot? It wouldn't 'disentangle' anything; it would provoke the Jihad to end all Jihads. Right now, most Muslims - like most people, funnily enough - are basically good people just trying to get along, but if you deliberately destroy one of the holiest sites in Islam the radical fringe will become the average center.

Whay would that be? IS there something inherent in Islam that makes them more likely to take such an action?

Excuse me, are you a human being and regardless do you actually know any people or are you in an isolated cell somewhere?

Fuck with something people care deeply about and they get enraged, and a non-trivial will consider and/or actually perform violence.

[Purple]

Again, true of what I said about the buddhist statues.

Not really. There is a difference between having a barbaric army somewhere else destroy your holy sites and having the country or power block you live in and fight for do so. It's not just the clerics of Iran throwing a fit that we are talking about (since you might not care about those) but the common Muslim man living in Europe and the western world. Suddenly every single Muslim in the west will wake up to the realization that we are in fact NOT BETTER THAN ISIS. And that maybe ISIS has the right idea. After all, they are not destroying Muslim sites now are they?

[Grumman]

After all, they are not destroying Muslim sites now are they?

Yes, they are.

[Purple]

After all, they are not destroying Muslim sites now are they?

Yes, they are.

I stand corrected. Still, I think my point is clear enough.

[Broomstick]

You know, when Purple is telling you that you're tone deaf to human motivations and emotions... you are really fucking tone-deaf.

[Simon_Jester]

There are 2 broad methods of national defense. There's force matching, you push me I push you, and massive retaliation, you push me I kill you and burn your house down and salt the earth. The current era of peace is largely ensured by the policy of massive retaliation, since if anyone starts a major fight we all die in nuclear fire. It's fairly logical that the USA would thus have a cultural streak of massive retaliation, being one of the major holders of said nuclear fire.

The catch is that the US does not hold the monopoly rights to thinking in this mindset.

And also that if we provoke some bunch of foreigners who lack the ability to do massive retaliation against us now... that doesn't mean they won't become a serious threat later. If we've given them a reason to put us on an eternal enemies list, they're going to keep trying to screw us over.

I mean, there are Muslims who are still mad about the Reconquista. Not many, but some- and the Reconquista took over a relatively peripheral Muslim territory. And hell, Spain has eaten a few terrorist bombings in the past decade or two that are arguably related to that.

How long are we prepared to have for our enemies a religion that has hundreds of millions of followers?

Hit ordinary Muslims in a sacred place where they live, and they will react as if we'd just hit them with a great many 9/11s. In other words, with "never forget" posters and children being brought up to despise and fear us and a constant effort to find some way to win the War on Infidels just like we keep trying to win the War on Terror.

[Metahive]

If you destroy islamic holy sites in reaction to ISIS' shenanigans, you do the following:

1.Acknowledge ISIS to be representative of Islam
2.Admit that it is a holy war between religions
3.Acknowledge cultural vandalism as a valid instrument in this war

These are all things that would go in ISIS' favor and legitimize whatever they are doing, do you really want that?

[Darmalus]

There are 2 broad methods of national defense. There's force matching, you push me I push you, and massive retaliation, you push me I kill you and burn your house down and salt the earth. The current era of peace is largely ensured by the policy of massive retaliation, since if anyone starts a major fight we all die in nuclear fire. It's fairly logical that the USA would thus have a cultural streak of massive retaliation, being one of the major holders of said nuclear fire.

The catch is that the US does not hold the monopoly rights to thinking in this mindset.

And also that if we provoke some bunch of foreigners who lack the ability to do massive retaliation against us now... that doesn't mean they won't become a serious threat later. If we've given them a reason to put us on an eternal enemies list, they're going to keep trying to screw us over.

I mean, there are Muslims who are still mad about the Reconquista. Not many, but some- and the Reconquista took over a relatively peripheral Muslim territory. And hell, Spain has eaten a few terrorist bombings in the past decade or two that are arguably related to that.

How long are we prepared to have for our enemies a religion that has hundreds of millions of followers?

Hit ordinary Muslims in a sacred place where they live, and they will react as if we'd just hit them with a great many 9/11s. In other words, with "never forget" posters and children being brought up to despise and fear us and a constant effort to find some way to win the War on Infidels just like we keep trying to win the War on Terror.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I think randomly blowing up religious icons is a bad idea. I was simply stating that I think that living with the modern representation of massive retaliation (nuclear weapons) and the accompanying military policies for 70 years has caused that mindset to creep into everyday thought. So even if Americans, as a whole, don't care much about our national icons, we still go berserk when attacked.

[Broomstick]

Americans have always gone berserk when attacked.

[Raw Shark]

Hey, it worked for me when I was a fat kid in grade school.

[cmdrjones]

Buddhists are hardly representative samples, they're pretty chill as a general rule.

I'm trying to think of a way to explain this in a context you'll get, and I'm having a lot of trouble because mainstream America just doesn't care about it's important or iconic sites all that much. Burn down the White House? Meh. It's been done. Vatican? Sure it'd piss of Catholics, but a healthy Protestant section would be dancing. Congress? It'd be a novelty to see universal agreement and action on the point of getting out.

So let me turn it around. Tomorrow will mark the 14th anniversary of the time a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists struck out at four highly visible U.S. sites, killing thousands of people, and we launched a war of retribution that killed the square of the original victims in uninvolved brown people. Is there something in America that makes us more prone to violent overreaction in these cases? Certainly England hasn't leveled Ireland despite the existence of the IRA and a number of high-profile, high-casualty attacks. What more is at play here than a dislike of being attacked?

The Dome is a special place to all Muslims, world-wide. Aside from the damage to history and culture, and the human toll of destroying it, it would be massively disproportionate retribution against people who had nothing to do with the original incident. It'd be like shelling downtown L.A. in response to the Charleston church shooting, if we're accepting human lives in place of religious/cultural meaning.

Yes, there is something different about Americans: jingiosm combined with 'churchianity'

="Chimera"] Jones, what happened almost exactly 14 years ago today? Now extrapolate to Islam and multiply by an order of magnitude.

I'm well aware of that. There aren't an order of magnitude more Muslims than Westerners.

And Re: Broomstick and Metahive
I am not feigning ignorance, but thanks for asking, I'm TRYING a simplified form of a Socratic question and answer thing. I think enough of us are AWARE that there is SOME difference between Muslims and Buddhists... it is as if many can't quite put their fingers on it.... huh, wierd.

No one else seems to be willing to say it: The difference is the multiple and explicit calls for violence within the Koran.

When Americans (to be fair about 70% of them) flip out and go on wars of revenge we are failures as Christians. When Muslims do the same they are succeeding as Muslims.

Now, also as to your last statement about shelling LA in response to the Charleston Church shootings, if there were an African power with the ability to do so perhaps I wouldn't be all that surprised if they did. Now, if it was in defense of black Christians, then I'd be surprised.

[cmdrjones]

Again, true of what I said about the buddhist statues.

Not really. There is a difference between having a barbaric army somewhere else destroy your holy sites and having the country or power block you live in and fight for do so. It's not just the clerics of Iran throwing a fit that we are talking about (since you might not care about those) but the common Muslim man living in Europe and the western world. Suddenly every single Muslim in the west will wake up to the realization that we are in fact NOT BETTER THAN ISIS. And that maybe ISIS has the right idea. After all, they are not destroying Muslim sites now are they?

This I would agree with more if Muslim immigrants were fighting in appreciable numbers in western armies AGAINST ISIS