Spring RTS Engine

bobthedinosaur wrote:I could care less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCUsPnKD1gk

I am aware of the word mis-use, since my wife is an English teacher at a college and lectures me every time I say it in her presence.

Never the less, I do appreciate John Cleese.

Gota wrote:

fc14159 wrote:Americans (and obviously bigots from other countries as well) just cannot dissociate the 9/11 attacks from Muslims in general. You have to remember that this is a mosque they're building. And if the previous projected name sounded invasive, so what? What the hell is being invaded? There are already over 1,000 mosques in the U.S. and they are all made for Muslim Americans. What is making this one extra one going to do? It might have been made near ground zero for a reason-to gain more social acceptance in the area for Muslims. These Muslims are in no way, shape, or form related to the terrorists that attacked the U.S. Too many people just view the Muslim community as a whole, that is they think that every Muslim in the world thinks and does the same thing, that they are just a hivemind and Muslim Americans are spawns of the "central terrorist Islamic community in the Middle East." With the same stupid thinking, I could say that since there have been cases of children being molested by Catholic priests, all Christians rape little boys. And I think I don't even have to talk about Jews.

I just really think that people have to stop being so ignorant and discriminatory. If this continues on, anything Islam-related will be criticized and existing Islam-related things will be attacked. In the end, Muslims will be the only second-class citizen group in the U.S., just like the Christians and Jews in Cordoba, according to Gota.

Ok let me ask you something.
do you think it would have been appropriate if the center was called by the name of one of the terrorists who bombed the WTC??
It is the founders right to call that center in whatever way he wants but would that be nice towards the family's of the victims?
of course it owuldnt be and it would obviously spark critisicm.

now is it legal to call an islamic center cordoba?sure it is.I never said that right should be taken away from them.But is it not allowed to criticize that decision?
Where in this entire thread did I claim that the construction should be forcible stopped or muslim rights in the us trampled upon?

But there is a place for critisicm!
What you are doing is actually marginalizing a huge group of people and say that if some feel this center is stepping on toes and is disrespectful(and yes it is very clear how this connection between islam and the terror acts perpetrated in the name of Islam and the new muslim center can raise eyebrows) than they are immidietly al lracists that see muslims as one block when its obvious that only the very extreme and ignorant people do so.
It is like saying that all conservatives in America are fascists and all liberals in America are extreme left anarchists.

If the builders are completely naive about this, and did mean peaceful coexistence, even though, cordoba can easily be viewed as a symbol of muslim superiority, some can still see how this center will symbolize victory for those muslims who are extreme...
It is by no means some crazy connection that is hard to catch.
There IS definately room for criticism and claiming those that do criticize and feel offended are racist is wrong.

Those who criticize aren't necessarily racist, just terribly ignorant. I can't blame them though. It's amazing what the media can do to people. But criticizing this mosque alongside the ignorant people is still just plain wrong. The people who are insensitive are not the Muslim Americans who the mosque will be made for, but the ones who are making the connection between Islam in America and Islamic terrorism. There would be no problem at all if people didn't make this connection, and it's not hard to not do so. A symbol is just what you think it is; it may not be what you think, and in this case, it's most likely not what you think. I'm just saying that unless it is proven and sure that the ones naming the mosque did so to convey Muslim superiority, which I think is very unlikely, criticizing is ignorant and intolerant.

fc14159 wrote:

Gota wrote:

fc14159 wrote:Americans (and obviously bigots from other countries as well) just cannot dissociate the 9/11 attacks from Muslims in general. You have to remember that this is a mosque they're building. And if the previous projected name sounded invasive, so what? What the hell is being invaded? There are already over 1,000 mosques in the U.S. and they are all made for Muslim Americans. What is making this one extra one going to do? It might have been made near ground zero for a reason-to gain more social acceptance in the area for Muslims. These Muslims are in no way, shape, or form related to the terrorists that attacked the U.S. Too many people just view the Muslim community as a whole, that is they think that every Muslim in the world thinks and does the same thing, that they are just a hivemind and Muslim Americans are spawns of the "central terrorist Islamic community in the Middle East." With the same stupid thinking, I could say that since there have been cases of children being molested by Catholic priests, all Christians rape little boys. And I think I don't even have to talk about Jews.

I just really think that people have to stop being so ignorant and discriminatory. If this continues on, anything Islam-related will be criticized and existing Islam-related things will be attacked. In the end, Muslims will be the only second-class citizen group in the U.S., just like the Christians and Jews in Cordoba, according to Gota.

Ok let me ask you something.
do you think it would have been appropriate if the center was called by the name of one of the terrorists who bombed the WTC??
It is the founders right to call that center in whatever way he wants but would that be nice towards the family's of the victims?
of course it owuldnt be and it would obviously spark critisicm.

now is it legal to call an islamic center cordoba?sure it is.I never said that right should be taken away from them.But is it not allowed to criticize that decision?
Where in this entire thread did I claim that the construction should be forcible stopped or muslim rights in the us trampled upon?

But there is a place for critisicm!
What you are doing is actually marginalizing a huge group of people and say that if some feel this center is stepping on toes and is disrespectful(and yes it is very clear how this connection between islam and the terror acts perpetrated in the name of Islam and the new muslim center can raise eyebrows) than they are immidietly al lracists that see muslims as one block when its obvious that only the very extreme and ignorant people do so.
It is like saying that all conservatives in America are fascists and all liberals in America are extreme left anarchists.

If the builders are completely naive about this, and did mean peaceful coexistence, even though, cordoba can easily be viewed as a symbol of muslim superiority, some can still see how this center will symbolize victory for those muslims who are extreme...
It is by no means some crazy connection that is hard to catch.
There IS definately room for criticism and claiming those that do criticize and feel offended are racist is wrong.

Those who criticize aren't necessarily racist, just terribly ignorant. I can't blame them though. It's amazing what the media can do to people. But criticizing this mosque alongside the ignorant people is still just plain wrong. The people who are insensitive are not the Muslim Americans who the mosque will be made for, but the ones who are making the connection between Islam in America and Islamic terrorism. There would be no problem at all if people didn't make this connection, and it's not hard to not do so. A symbol is just what you think it is; it may not be what you think, and in this case, it's most likely not what you think. I'm just saying that unless it is proven and sure that the ones naming the mosque did so to convey Muslim superiority, which I think is very unlikely, criticizing is ignorant and intolerant.

First off criticizing the construction of the center has nothing to do with Islam in america.
The fact one criticizes the construction of the center in no way means he is also criticizing all American Muslims.
The problem is in the symbolism of it all.There might not be a direct logical correlation to support getting butthurt but people dont need that in most cases.
Sure after an in depth analysis you can say that american islam is moderate and peacfull while the attackers represented radical islam but on the surface it is just "radical muslims attacked the WTC and now a muslim related building is being built there".

Imagine if some christian lunatic would have blown himself up in mecca and than the christian church would construct a christian church near by and say it is to celebrate peaceful coexistence.
what would have happened?

My critisims is that it was obvious some people would still think of ground zero as an open wound yet the builders decided to focus attention on it all again.
What for?was it absoultely nessesary to build there?
Sure they have a right to build there and they have a right to ignore the more emotional people but doesnt it also defeat their own purpose of trying to bridge americans and islam?
was this the right time?especially with the 10 anniversary coming up?

Not to derail this ignorant rant or anything but this whole notion of the mosque being offensive is based around a single questionable claim - that muslims attacked America.

I've yet to see any credible proof of this questionable "fact". Instead Americans claim to believe that:

* That 9/11 was masterminded by men hiding in caves on the opposite site of the planet.

* That anything the size of a passenger jet can move through American airspace undetected just by turning off a transponder.

* That the president just happened to be in the middle of an innocent photo op which he couldn't leave to address the crisis - and that anybody in the defense department with any authority to protect American airspace was too busy to give shootdown orders or send fighters to the right place.

* That NOT being able to fly a Cesna somehow enables you to fly a jumbo jet in complex and highly accurate manuevers.

* That a terrorist passport was found intact at ground zero.

* That the CIA's long involvement in / founding of Al Queada isn't relevant to this event.

* That Osama Bin Laden being a Haliburton/Bush business partner isn't related either.

* That having men is suits removing debris from the crime scenes before the investigation was in the public interest.

* That you can insert a jumbo jet, wings and all, in a hole the size of a bus.

* That blocking Bush and other senior ministers from being examined at the 9/11 commission was in the public interest.

* That flying wealthy Saudis out of the country before the investigation (and during the no-fly period) isn't suspicious.

* That despite Bush and Rumsfeld being serial liars, warmongers and all-round bad guys we should take their word for who did what.

* That despite the official story changing multiple times the most recent version must always be true.

If you believe 9/11 was a muslim terror attack you'll believe Saddam Hussein was involved too... oh wait, you DO believe that!

You'll believe anything. If Bush told you it was Santa Clause you'd be out bombing Antarctica right now.

But everybody knows Santa lives in Finland, no matter how brainwashed anyone should see the penguins are innocent

Who is "you" spliff?
Seems you are the one ranting and talking like a madmen.
I was never a bush supporter(as much as i can be a supporter or detractor,living in a completely different country and not having US citizenship) nor did i ever think the Iraq war was a good decision.
So you are claiming that the WTC was orchestrated by the bush administration?
That is a serious claim but where are any real evidance to support this?
All the points you mentioned cannot not even be called circumstantial evidence.

The biggest, i think, point against this pretty far out hypothesis was that it would be extremely hard to prevent such a major operation from leaking outside.
in any case I dont think there is anything even close to support this.
feel free to correct me though.
I never felt too interested in getting more details about this conspiracy theory just like I dont usualy bother with other conspiracy theories.
I trust the US news agencies that were all against Bush to have been able to find any evidence if indeed there was a conpiracy and the bush administration was responsible, but you can keep ranting and shouting slogans and throwing personal attacks if you think its gonna somehow bring everyone closer to some hidden truth or new realization.

I didn't say Bush "did it".

I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of unbelievable things about the events on 9/11 and one of the most ridiculous is that it's a "muslim conspiracy". There are plenty of more rational theories such as the biggest crime in recent history being the work of people with the most resources and influence to get away with it.

Also it's self-evident to historians that the number 1 cause of 20th century wars isn't religion, it's power and wealth. If you want a motive for 9/11 why pick the motive with the least plausibility?

you do not care for conspiracy theories...
why just do i have problems believing that?

reminder that the adl opposes this

i guess equal rights and tolerance are ok when they're for jews

Gota wrote:I never felt too interested in getting more details about this conspiracy theory just like I dont usualy bother with other conspiracy theories.

You do realize the official story is a conspiracy theory as well?

Holy crap! Ignorance galore. I don't know where you got your information but whoever told you this garbage is, well, uninformed to say the least. My first reaction is that this was a troll post but then I remember that some people really do believe this garbage.

SpliFF wrote:I've yet to see any credible proof of this questionable "fact". Instead Americans claim to believe that:

* That 9/11 was masterminded by men hiding in caves on the opposite site of the planet.

Sure, no evidence unless you take their own word for it...and the spies which told us it was coming...and ignore all the other attacks leading up to 9/11, and the endless amount of other evidence which indicates it was him.

In other words, a huge body of evidence proves it was them.

SpliFF wrote: * That anything the size of a passenger jet can move through American airspace undetected just by turning off a transponder.

I'm a pilot. This is mostly true, with a few exceptions. Just the same, I have no idea what bearing this has on anything topical. If you have aviation related questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

SpliFF wrote: * That the president just happened to be in the middle of an innocent photo op which he couldn't leave to address the crisis - and that anybody in the defense department with any authority to protect American airspace was too busy to give shootdown orders or send fighters to the right place.

What??! There is actually a documentary of Bush being whisked away on Air Force One. And because of difficulties in communication, the entire A/V/data/com systems were upgraded nationwide. Can you be more specific?

SpliFF wrote:* That NOT being able to fly a Cesna somehow enables you to fly a jumbo jet in complex and highly accurate manuevers.

Backwards logic. They didn't complete their training. They learned to fly. They didn't learn to land. I think we can all agree, they didn't land.

SpliFF wrote:* That a terrorist passport was found intact at ground zero.

I've not heard that but there is nothing unreasonable about it.

...Some garbage just simply deleted....

SpliFF wrote:* That you can insert a jumbo jet, wings and all, in a hole the size of a bus.

Its called wing sheer against heavily re-enforced concrete. ALL physics simulations accurately recreate the fall of the towers and the penetration of the pentagon. No conspiracies and other whacky conclusions required. Not in the least.

...Lots of other ignorant garbage deleted...

There are plenty of more rational theories

Agreed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

furthermore:

only click if you don't feel like typing.

FireStorm_ wrote:

There are plenty of more rational theories

Agreed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

furthermore:

only click if you don't feel like typing.

Occum's razor cannot be applied all the time though especially if there are evidence for some more complex chain of events but in this case there obviously isnt any evidence so indeed it does apply.

As for your second link the most popular explanation i.e. googl's first results is not nessesary correct and supported by fact.
When it comes to deciding about some historical time frame we need to first rely on the historical evidence and than from that make conclusions while taking into mind occams razor.

google many times skips the part about taking evidence into account and better represents the prevailing opinion as ooppose to the simplest or more evidence backed hypothesis.
in cordoba's case it seems one of the first explanations is pretty accurate.

When it comes to deciding about some historical time frame we need to first rely on the historical evidence and than from that make conclusions while taking into mind occams razor.

Fair enough, agreed.

but...

in cordoba's case it seems one of the first explanations is pretty accurate.

The first isn't always the best, so before drawing conclusions one should keep searching until some the etymological history is tract down.

But I often think a broad view is better then a deep one, although not everyone might agree.

Maybe someone can enlighten us as to the people who are behind the construction of the center and own the land.
that would be an interesting piece of information.

the theory says, it is the US (gov) that planned the twin tower attacks.
how much of the huge body of evidence you talk about was not collected/touched by the US gov/agencies?
what have we got?
"NOTHING!"

tombom wrote:reminder that the adl opposes this

i guess equal rights and tolerance are ok when they're for jews

Decided to look into this.

The ADL came out against the Ground Zero mosque last week:

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right.

By the way the ADL's position is its own.If you mentioned them because you think thy somehow represent me as well you are mistaken.
In fact the ADL is almsot unknown in Israel and i am sure that it is not a spokesmen of the entire jewish community in the US.

A somehwat similar situation :

In the 1980s, Carmelite nuns moved into an abandoned building on the edge of the former Nazi death camp to pray for the souls taken there. As with the dispute over the mosque near Ground Zero, the convent's presence escalated into a clash not only between different faiths but between competing historical narratives. As with today's clash too, it seemed intractable until the Polish pope stepped in.

For Jews, Auschwitz is a symbol of the Shoah, and the presence of a convent looked like an effort to Christianize a place of Jewish suffering. Suspicions were further aroused by a fundraising brochure from an outside Catholic group, which referred to the convent as a "guarantee of the conversion of strayed brothers." The protests mounted over the course of several years and various interfaith agreements, and pointed to the real strains that remained between Poles and Jews over a shared history with very different perspectives.

Many Catholics, not just in Poland, could not understand how nuns begging God's forgiveness and praying for the souls of the departed could possibly offend anyone. There was also a nationalist element. Many members of the Polish resistance had also been murdered at Auschwitz. And again like our present controversy at Ground Zero, intemperate reactions and statements from both sides only inflamed passions.

So what did Pope John Paul II do? He waited, and he counseled. And when he saw that the nuns were not budgingÔÇöand that their presence was doing more harm than goodÔÇöhe asked the Carmelites to move. He acknowledged that his letter would probably be a trial to each of the sisters, but asked them to accept it while continuing to pursue their mission in that same city at another convent that had been built for them.