The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
9/11/01
I am just letting all of you know that on the 11th of next month is coming up soon meaning 9/11/01. I will never forget that day and my prayers goes out to those who died on that horific day. Also Firefighter angels watches over them every day and night. I again pray for our troops who are fighting over there every day.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Jack and Luke, the Okinawa issue is clearly apples and oranges in this debate, because the Americans didn't start the war that led to the U.S. base being on Okinawa in the first place.
That's clearly a different proposition than conducting a sneak attack in the first place - the similarity between Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attack, yanno?
Why is it different? Is it not insensitive?
-
-
Ben, just wondering if you could expand on this from page 7, especially your second quote.
First, show me where I've said that all Muslims are terrorists. You can't, because I haven't said that anywhere, nor do I believe it.
I've clearly said that not all Muslims are extremists, just as not all of the Japanese were supporters of the Pearl Harbor attacks
I stated because of the analogy you are using, you are basically then saying all Muslims are terrorist. The fact remains Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are seperate incidents. Your analogy of Japan wanting to erect some type of shrine, memorial, etc at Pearl doesn't fit. Japan is a seperate country and has NO rights to do anything here in America. However, this mosque and group ARE Americans, and thus do have those rights. That is clearly the difference.
You keep insisting on this analogy of Japan with Pearl Harbor and this. There IS a difference. The difference is Japan was a seperate country which attacked us. 9/11 was radical Islamic terrorists. Problem with the analogy is that the mosque here is being built by Americans who happen to be Muslim. It is that simple.
You further go on and say this:
the Japanese and the Muslims have cultures that are different than the cultures of 1941 Honolulu or 2010 NYC. In terms of cultural differences, once again, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 share several commonalities. Sneak attacks, intent to kill lots of Americans, intent to disable parts of our national security and economy, intent to increase the power of that cultural group at the expense of American power, a perceived victory of the attacker's cultural values over American cultural values - all are commonalities
The Muslims Ben, Really, the Muslims....how did you just state that you never said all Muslims are terrorists? Seems to me as you stated it right there, in your own words.
Problem is Ben, there are many Americans who happen to be Muslim, yet do not subscribe to the ideals as you have stated here. How will you now defend as never saying this? How is this not lumping all Muslims together?
Now, I'm sure it wasn't your intention to state as such nor to imply ALL Muslims share these sentiments, but you did state it.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Ben, LOL You really can be overbearing. You have clearly stated that for 'you' the issue is about sensitivity. One which you hadn't a clue about until mccain et al. brought it up and now you wave it about like it was your own idea. BS.
My refutation was easy, I think it's a non/wedge issue that it being used to for political agendas. There, that's me refuting you. How simpler can it be? That you don't agree, fine, but you keep pounding on your keyboard that I haven't refuted your argument. for crying out loud, it's only a matter of opinon and so there is no right or wrong answer, only opinions. Oh yeah, opinions. Yours trumps everyone else.
Why do you respond to Christians with so much hate that you characterize them as "self-righteous, sanctimonious blowhards who think the only thing that matters is their particular superstition." So if I call someone a name or two it's categorized as "hate". Sorry that you see it that way. Clearly your christian leanings are offended by my comments and so you see it as "hate". According to that line of thinking, if I strongly disagreed with the president you'd see that as a call for anarchy. Really ben, get down off the high horse before you break it's legs from the weight of you super-ego.
Nothing has ever been posted here in support of christianity, as you claim, that wasn't done to support some far fetched or far right position. So you'll have to pull quotes to prove your false accusation (or should I say, persecution) about how christians are treated.
Not to worry I'm not going to get sensitive. But wait, if I were, how would THAT be a sham for my hidden agenda? Wait, what hidden agenda? I've been very clear, I think religion has no place in government or politics. It should be personal and not forced on anyone. Go back smart ass and look at what I've written in the past. I don't "attack" christians, (although it's easier and easier to see your agenda now) I only respond to them. If a jew or muslim were in here pushing their religion as though it were the ONLY right one I'd respond the same to them.
Sorry Ben it's not about christians, even though you want to make it so. It's about christian intolerance (and sometimes hatred) of things that aren't christian. My agenda has been clear all along, to keep christians (because they are pernicious) from trying to take over everything in this country and turn it into a christian nation. I'm rather happy with the constitution, the way our government was designed and I resent any effort to fiddle with it for the sake of ANY religion. I have to think that that is clear enough.
When christians that can't even understand evolution decide that they want not only to teach their biblical nonsense in every classroom, but then want to monkey around with laws and politics in a way that suits only them, I have to call shenanigans. So that Ben is MY agenda. I've pointed this out in past discussions, look at my profile for christ sake, what do you think venganza.org is? or the pictures are about?
Finally, if you thought I was attacking christians then I'd be in one of their groups harassing them. I don't do that. I have no interest in picking on anyone about their beliefs. But when they make it a public issue then it's fair. YOU may not think it is but guess what Ben, outside of your little island paradise, things won't always run the way you think they should.
You're old enough to know that, why are you so upset about it?
It's amusing that you (in this reply) now over use the phrase 'ad hominem'. It's amusing because it is exactly what I've been saying the sensitivity issue is:
–1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
Ben, everytime we've clashed it's been an issue that had religious overtones. So don't accuse me of attacking christians when you come in like a crusader on your high white horse, swinging your sword of supposed righteousness. I am neither more or less agendized that you are, only that I admit (have admitted and will continue to admit) my motivations (go back and read my comments about xmas signs) while you argue your purity of spirit and the letter of the law.
My motivations are very clear, I've admitted them. Now how about you be the man you were and actually put into words what your motivations are. And not the usual syrupy crap you pull about letter of the law, constitutional rights, freedom of religion not from religion...oh sorry, those were your arguments in support of xmas signs and decoration. So come on Ben, what is your motivation here? Uh? Hmmmmmmmm?
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
Ashely says, "To me, a mosque at Ground Zero would be a slap in our faces to praise their act "
Kevin Allen says, " the last place a moscue belongs is anywhere near the sight it is sacred and those type of people are just trying to make it about them so go ahead and bite me"
Ben Waller says, "As Sen. McCain said, it's not a question of intolerance on the part of the people who don't want a mosque next door to Ground Zero, it's insensitivity on the part of the people who want to put it there.
Not all Japanese were militaristic or committed war crimes, but you don't see ANY Japanese lobbying for a memorial to their WW II dead or a Shinto Shrine at Pearl Harbor. The same applies to the issue under discussion."
Ben Waller says, "However, the rest of us have the right to ask them for some sensitivity - the same sensitivity that they expect from us."
Ben Waller says, "The point is that Christians frequently and publically get taken to task for alleged insensitivity to people with other beliefs whether by other religions or by the irreligous. There are plenty of examples on FFN, for example.
Asking for that to be a two-way street is not only NOT specious, it should be expected by anyone with a basic sense of fairness."
Ben Waller says, "I just said that it is insensitive, which it clearly is.
The Japanese have enough sensitivity to avoid a similar controversy at Pearl Harbor."
Ben Waller says, "Why should I stop saying it's about sensitivity, when that's exactly what the issue is for me?"
Ben Waller says, "I've clearly said that the issue with me is insensitivity, not rights."
Ben Waller says, "They have chosen to avoid that because it is insensitive. The Muslims who want to build overlooking Ground Zero have not displayed the saem sensitivity."
Ben Waller says, "I also noticed that at least four FFN members including you refuse to discuss the lack of sensitivity on the part of the mosque's proponents and try to insist that the issue is really about something else.
Why can't you just debate the sensitivity issue on the merits? Is it because it is likely that the merits do indeed indicate insensitivity on the part of the mosque's builders?"
Michael Meadows says, "Same thing as here it's called common sense and respect for your neighbors."
Ben Waller says, "My comments about sensitivity were not about the sensitivity of the people who don't want the mosque at Ground Zero, it was about the insensitivity of those who propose putting it there. When you discuss anything else, you're missing the point."
Ben Waller says, "As for Christians, when people who are practicing Christians conduct a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and then people who practice that same faith want to build a Christian church overlooking the attack site, then I'll discuss how insensitive that is. "
Ben Waller says, "Apparently, in JackWorld, insensitivity can only be displayed by Christians, not by Muslims, atheists, or anyone else. That's hogwash, and I'm not afraid to point it out."
Ben Waller says, "I don't think that the Muslims should build a mosque, community center, or whatever at Ground Zero because it displays insensitivity on their part. PERIOD. There's nothing ulterior in that."
If I'm not mistaken, the recurring theme with these responses is about sensitivities. Me thinks my link to the US Military base is very relevant to this discussion. It too is about sensitivities....
Ben Waller summed it up beautifully when he said, "Sensitivity, like freedom, is a two-way street. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD do that thing."
I wonder if the US will rename their military base out of respect for the Japanese?
-
-
"He [Jack] also doesn't like it, because it shows insensitivity on the part of people who attacked the Charleston, SC fire department for their Christmas and memorial cross displays - even when the Christmas display was on the private property of a next-door neigbor. Jack kept bringing the Charleston issues up,
Ben I can not believe you will now stoop to lying. The charleston FD issue was about displays ON their firehouse. I believe the original issue may have been that a private property display was mistaken to have been on public property, but in no instance have I ever had an issue with ANYONE having a display on private property, to say or imply otherwise is bullshit on your part and a bald faced lie.
I am absolutely astonished that you are making me out to have attacked private property xmas displays and then to use that lie to dismiss anything I have to say. And I bet you consider yourself to be a good christian, too.
-
-
http://www.prayandact.org/?page_id=2
we call on all faithful Christians to join us in the fight to defend life, protect and revitalize marriage, and preserve religious liberty and the rights of conscience. We must work tireless in all the “seven spheres of cultural influence:” (1) the home, (2) the church, (3) civil government / law / military, (4) business / technology, (5) education, (6) media, and finally (7) arts / entertainment / professional sports.
They must become a guiding force in every local, state and national election – year after year – including this year’s election. In fact, they need to be supported in everything we do and say, and in the way we live.
Reads like they want everyone else to be required to adhere to their own, narrow, ignorant, superstitious beliefs. Oh wait, they're just conspiracy theories. What utter nonsense.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Jack,
If you're posting the continued personal attack as a way to get me to stop responding so you can buff your ego by having the last word, think again.
You're still ducking the issue, so I'll be as plain as possible.
Do YOU think that it is sensitive of Muslims to build their mosque/community center/whatever overlooking Ground Zero?
BTW, Jack, a yes/no answer is all that's needed. Anything else is obsfucation.
As for Sen. McCain and sensitivity, I hadn't commented on anything to do with the mosque/Ground Zero issue al all until this post came up here, so your accusations of timing in that regard are specious.
"My motivations are very clear, I've admitted them. Now how about you be the man you were and actually put into words what your motivations are." Equine feces, Jack. I've clearly stated my motivation here more than once and I've pointed it out to you more than once. Since apparently you can read English, then I can only assume that you don't really want honest debate about this issue. In fact, you've made that crystal clear by your continued obsfucation, ad hominem attacks, and refusal to debate what I've actually said.
Here's an example "Ben, everytime we've clashed it's been an issue that had religious overtones. So don't accuse me of attacking christians when you come in like a crusader on your high white horse, swinging your sword of supposed righteousness." Let's see, Jack, first, that's a false dilemma. Your attacks on Christians and anyhing they support are completely independent of my opinions, so when you act as if they are linked that's a specious statement. Second, I don't have a horse, and if I did, it wouldn't be white. Third, I haven't swung any sword and I certainly haven't either stated or implied righteousness. You're invoking a double standard there, too, Jack. When you debate on the facts you USED to debate on the facts) you claim that you are just discussing the law and social issues. When I do the same, suddenly you apply bogus "righteousness" connotations.
Jack, I haven't done anything but comment on things you've actually said and positions that you've actually taken. The fact that you have continuously ducked the actual issues, manufactured things that I haven't said and then tried to debate them as if I had, and conducted a litany of ad hominem personal attacks indicates that your personal biases are all that matters to you in this topic.
"...while you argue your purity of spirit and the letter of the law." Completely false on the first count - that's another one of your long list of straw men logical fallacies - you just flatly made that up.
The "letter of the law" - for once in this debate, you actually got something right.
I'll repeat something that I've said before on this topic - "The Muslims have the right to build a mosque or community center on their property." and... "That doesn't MAKE IT RIGHT."(emphasis supplied)
In fact, Jack, it makes it extremely insensitive. Dance around it and obsfucate all you wish, but that won't change that basic fact, no matter how much wishful thinking you apply to it.
-
-
I've already explained it. The side that conducted the sneak attack gives up their claim on sensitivity when they kill a few thousand of the other side.
That's pretty insensitive, don't you think?
-
-
No, Jack, you're not right.
The insensitivity was the Japanese killing a few thousand Americans at Pearl Harbor.
Your sense of proportion is completely lacking.
-
-
John,
My comment was specific to the people that conducted the two sneak attacks.
They were representatives of their cultures at the time that they conducted their attacks, and their stated intent was to do what they did.
Please re-read what I said, and this time take those comments in context.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
I think I'll just jump right in and see what happens.
Building a community center/mosque in the very shadows once cast by the Twin Towers is a terrible idea - the link between Islam and the events of 9/11 being at once undeniable and indelible. Having said that, the right of American Muslims to construct that center at that location is indisputable, as is the right of the people to voice their opposition to it.
Naming military bases in honor of U.S. servicemen located on soil payed for with their blood is wholly appropriate and logical.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
Ben, got to disagree with you again, imagine me disagreeing with a Chief (who of course should be right). But I believe that your mind is closed and sealed. You insensitivity argument is moot it has nothing to do with the situation, the political right is trying to make hay, as always, by waving the flag, bringing up religion and and using emotion to get what they want instead of following the Constitution that they do not seem to like or support. Just my view, remember I am not a Chief and therefore my opinion does not mean that much.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
