no convent at Auschwitz

[Atencio 43]

Anyone ever heard of the Battle of Arras ? On average, 4,200 British soldiers died there every day for a full 6 weeks in the spring of 1917

It was the deadliest battle in British history but nobody remembers it and it isn't even hallowed ground. My granddad is there - somewhere.

The 3,000 in New York would have just been a busy morning at Arras

Hope that puts it into context

Respect your Grandfathers service. The Battle of the Somme was another blood bath with 95,000 British soldiers killed or missing.

I think one difference though is that the Battle of Arras was not fought in England and it was fought by soldiers in a war.

Ground Zero is where U.S. civilians died in a U.S. city. Not to compare human life but 3,000 deaths in New York City and 230,000 soldiers killed in 2 1/2 weeks in Kursk is not going to garner the same shock value response.

[Atencio 43]

So 9/11 was not about killing as many Americans as possible? Then what was it about?

It was meant to install fear in the population. There can be confusion in the terms but they are two different terms.

[Captain Oates 910]

Respect your Grandfathers service. The Battle of the Somme was another blood bath with 95,000 British soldiers killed or missing.

I think one difference though is that the Battle of Arras was not fought in England and it was fought by soldiers in a war.

Ground Zero is where U.S. civilians died in a U.S. city. Not to compare human life but 3,000 deaths in New York City and 230,000 soldiers killed in 2 1/2 weeks in Kursk is not going to garner the same shock value response.

230,00 non-americans being killed outside the US means zero to Americans. Somebody throwing a dog on the middle rail in the New York subway would cause a bigger stir.

That's why 9/11 was done.

But on an objective basis, 9/11 was a tiny loss of life.

Of course in our world of today, objective and quantitative comparisons don't have any value. It's all about television and politics.

Couple of hundred thousand people get killed in a tsunami and we shrug and say what a pity and send a check for $20

3,000 people get killed in the US and it's a shock to last everyone's lifetimes.

That's just how it is and that's why bin laden achieved his objective. He is currently adding to that success by the US setting up to go against a billion Muslims over the mosque etc The US should get clever and play him at his own game but that would involve getting the public to get clever too - and no public anywhere, can do that.

That is why we need leaders to be clever on our behalf and why they will always have to lie to us and we should accept that

George Bush was as thick as pig muck. Tony Blair was clever except he had zero ethics. O is a liar but I don't know if he is effective yet. I suspect not. I think he is a plodder and expedient and nothing of any consequence will be his legacy.. He reminds me of an accountant I used to have working for me - steady, unflappable, dependable, a safe pair of hands - but if I came back in 40 years to see how he had changed things for the better - zero result.

Bin laden set a fire which has been providing it's own fuel - when it starts to die down he will stoke it again. O thinks he is clever with his drones but a massive effort to get Muslims on his side would be much more effective - that doesn't mean soldiers handing out chewing gum to kids in Kandahar - they aren't stupid you know...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So 9/11 was not about killing as many Americans as possible? Then what was it about?

Oh dear.

[thongd4me 69]

It was meant to install fear in the population. There can be confusion in the terms but they are two different terms.

Wow. Genocide is now friendly persuasion.

Sounds almost Biblical.

...and ye shall know the fear of God, blah blah blah blah blah.

So the death penalty doesn't result in death but in fear...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Justashooter...

Unfortunately none of your comparisons are relevent. They did not ban the building of a church near Gettysburg. In this country we have freedom of religion, and the government cannot restrict religion on private property. The government cannot deny the building of a mosque on private property. Zoning laws cannot deny the building of a mosque on private property. What they do in Germany or Poland has no bearing. Unless you want our courts to start using foreign law as precendent. Do you? I didn't think so.

You are just going to have to deal with the fact that rights extend to everyone and sometimes some of those people are going to do things you don't like. Oh well. It is the price you pay for having YOUR religion, YOUR guns, YOUR right to speak against the mosque.

[Atencio 43]

Wow. Genocide is now friendly persuasion.

Sounds almost Biblical.

...and ye shall know the fear of God, blah blah blah blah blah.

So the death penalty doesn't result in death but in fear...

How you came up with that from what I wrote is beyond me. But if you wish to disagree with the definitions be my guess.

Now if you meant to say terrorism is now friendly persuasion in a satirical way you are kind of correct.

Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)defines terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The United Nations defines terrorism as "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Now you can wade into the argument if the perpetrators of terror are terrorists. freedom fighters, or militants and that can lead to an endless discussion. For the sake of brevity I gave a simple answer to explain the difference in terrorism and genocide.

As a point of interest I have made myself very well studied on the topic of genocide if you ever care to have a discussion on it.

[thongd4me 69]

How you came up with that from what I wrote is beyond me. But if you wish to disagree with the definitions be my guess.

Now if you meant to say terrorism is now friendly persuasion in a satirical way you are kind of correct.

Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)defines terrorism as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The United Nations defines terrorism as "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Now you can wade into the argument if the perpetrators of terror are terrorists. freedom fighters, or militants and that can lead to an endless discussion. For the sake of brevity I gave a simple answer to explain the difference in terrorism and genocide.

As a point of interest I have made myself very well studied on the topic of genocide if you ever care to have a discussion on it.

So 9/11 was not about killing as many Americans as possible? Then what was it about?

It was meant to install fear in the population. There can be confusion in the terms but they are two different terms.

Again, these were your words that I was responding to.

Killing as many Americans as possible, which you interpreted as only fear, seems to me like genocide.

Why is it when Americans are the victims it seems so trivial to you?

[Atencio 43]

So 9/11 was not about killing as many Americans as possible? Then what was it about?

Again, these were your words that I was responding to.

Killing as many Americans as possible, which you interpreted as only fear, seems to me like genocide.

Why is it when Americans are the victims it seems so trivial to you?

Where did I trivialize the deaths of the people of 9-11? Kind of pompous response coming from you. So you have trouble with definitions and comprehension. I blame your school system for that.

You are free to believe whatever you want.

[Atencio 43]

As President Bush said after 9-11:

Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.

The victims were in airplanes or in their offices -- secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers. Moms and dads. Friends and neighbors.

Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/bush.speech.text/index.html

But go ahead thongd4me, feel free to review the rest of President Bushes speech or any speech from a prominent leader discussing 9-11 in which they refer to the event as genocide.

As far as the actual topic goes our democracy dictates that everyone is treated equal. If the zoning laws forbade a Mosque near 9-11 that as fine as long as a Catholic Church could also not be zoned there. That is why American Nazi's were allowed to have their parade in Skokie. That is the price we pay for our democracy.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Atencio

[thongd4me 69]

Where did I trivialize the deaths of the people of 9-11? Kind of pompous response coming from you. So you have trouble with definitions and comprehension. I blame your school system for that.

You are free to believe whatever you want.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Very weak.

[Atencio 43]

Very weak.

Yes but keep studying. I have faith in you

[Sofiyya 1,687]

"Islamism" [as VERY distinct from "the religion of Islam"] refers to a political movement which seeks to create a theological political hegemony [only incidentally Muslim in character] over a particular region.

"Islamist" means "pertaining to Islamism". As dictinct from "Muslim", which means "pertaining to the religion of Islam."

"Orthodoxy" means the set of widely affirmed beliefs and principles within a particular intellectual or theological tradition.

"Islamist orthodoxy" would therefore refer to the set of widely affirmed political and theological beliefs and principles within the Islamist movement. Note that this may be, and in fact is very different from "Muslim orthodoxy".

Thanks for the effort, seriously, but this is #######. Some non-Muslim with no clue makes this sh!t up. It's been really disgusting how much of the discourse about Islam and terrorism plays into the lexicon of perpetrators and ignorant commentators. One reason why there is so little understanding is that most of the discussion has been between non-Muslims lead by non-Muslims who have no clue. That's why so much of the speculation makes no sense to Muslims. It's quite anthropological.