• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American Who Recently Visited Pakistan Eyed in Times Square Bomb Plot

Wow, I wish all you wonderfully even minded people showed up in the thread where the speculation was made he could be a white supremisist, KKK, or tea party type based on nothing else than the FBI looking at a "white guy".

Funny, no one rushed in there batting an eye about the stereotyping there and jumping to accusation.

Had I seen that thread, I would have posted the exact same thing. Whoever did such a thing is a terrorist, period. If he acted in the name of Islam, we can call him an Islamic terrorist. Christianity? Christian terrorist. Or if he was acting in the name of Hello Kitty, hey, he's a Hello Kitty terrorist. Regardless of ideology, terrorism is still terrorism, and no sane individual is gonna defend it.
 
It seems like Islamic extremists kill much more indiscriminately than a right wing extremist would. Any American will suffice for Al-Qaeda, where a right-winger would rather make a statement such as hitting a federal building or killing Supreme Court justices, etc.

So a right winger will kill an innocent judge or innocent people in a federal building to prove a point and that is different from a Islamic jihadist attacking an innocent American how? The way I see it both are attacking innocent people.

Gee, I wonder why people would jump to the conclusion that it was a Muslim. How many terrorist attacks/plots have taken place or been foiled by Islamic terrorists in the past 10 years as opposed to right-wingers and or left-wingers?

It's like not profiling people in the airport, but wait, how many hijackings have occurred since the 1980s by individuals who weren't Muslim?. Not very many.

My point was people shouldn't jump to conclusions until an investigation is complete. Mayor Bloomberg shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion he did, just as others shouldn't jump to the conclusion it was a Islamic terrorist until more information is known.

And why you even brought up hijackings I don't know because this wasn't a hijacking case. This was a bomb was put in a public area case.

Your 3rd point has been addressed by others.

No. I said you generalized by saying the left. Others have found a specific person, but that does not resemble the whole left.
 
Google could be your friend, too, if you let it:

Type in "Contessa Brewer" and "tea party", and take your choice.

Oh. Did BKHad use a mainstream source? Looked to me like his source was freerepublic's blog section. Of course, I'm just basing this on the exact text he posted and the link in his post.

Silly me.
 
Last edited:
Oh. Did BKHad use a mainstream source? Looked to me like his source was freerepublic's blog section. Of course, I'm just basing this on the exact text he posted and the link in his post.

Silly me.

Some of us worry more about whether or not the information is truthful and accurate than who delivered it.

Silly us.
 
Oh. Did BKHad use a mainstream source? Looked to me like his source was freerepublic's blog section. Of course, I'm just basing this on the exact text he posted and the link in his post.

Silly me.

Sillier still when you disregard a source out of hand before checking it's veracity.
 
Sillier still when you disregard a source out of hand before checking it's veracity.

When you start providing unbiased mainstream sources, I'll take them more seriously.

Freeper sources deserve laughter as a response, and nothing more.
 
When you start providing unbiased mainstream sources, I'll take them more seriously.

Freeper sources deserve laughter as a response, and nothing more.

Don't worry I listened to the audio and she never once even said the words Tea Partier. In fact here is the transcript.

I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.

And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Haitari militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror.

That’s what they were planning to do and they were doing so from far different backgrounds then what this guy is coming from. So, the threat is not just coming from people who decide that America is the place to be and you know come here and want to become citizens. Obviously this guy did.
 
And I said generalize. I have no doubt that there are people on the left that wanted it to be a Tea Partier. But I do not think that the majority of the left wanted it to a a Tea Partier.
That's not exactly what "generalize" means, but I get your position. I don't think anyone is claiming that a majority of democrats have that desire.
 
That's not exactly what "generalize" means, but I get your position. I don't think anyone is claiming that a majority of democrats have that desire.

Agreed studying for finals has killed my ability to use the correct words sometimes. But he did say the left. And all I was trying to point out to him was majority of the left doesn't want that. A few maybe, but not the majority.
 
I agree with half of that.

Hoping that a terrorist is a certain type of person is ridiculous. Leave it alone.

However, its really a shame that the suspect is a Muslim originally from Pakistan (although to be fair he is an American citizen), because of course many Americans will wrongly use this to fuel their fear.

Humans are really messed up.
 
I don't know of anyone on the forum "hoping" he was white. There was some confusion because the FBI was said to have been looking at a suspect that was seen at the scene of the crime that was white and there was a mix up in thinking that this was the guy that it referenced and he was only assumed to be white because he was light skinned.
There might have been confusion, but a couple dolts in the media were openly hoping it wasn't another Shamizzle Foulizzle. With the bias, you know many were hoping it was a Tea Party member. You could sense their "Hope" for "Change"... that it would be a political opponent of Obi instead of another Islamofascist pig.

Then the second bomb went off and reality set in for the media cheerleaders, with a certain case of depression. It was another Shamizzle Foulizzle Akhbar.

Obi's administration adds another terror attack on the homeland under his watch.
3 in 16 months.

Bush had 7-years, and he and the dept.'s pitched a no hitter post 911.

Hoping that a terrorist is a certain type of person is ridiculous. Leave it alone.

However, its really a shame that the suspect is a Muslim originally from Pakistan (although to be fair he is an American citizen), because of course many Americans will wrongly use this to fuel their fear.

Humans are really messed up.
Wrongly use this to fuel fear?
Did you hatch only yesterday?

If you haven't noticed these Muslim ********ers have been busy killing and maiming people for quite some time, or have been trying. Bali, Tunesia, Egypt, London, Madrid, NY, Berlin, Ft. Hood, shoe bomber, diaper bomber to name a few of the Islamofascists handiworks.

I don't see Jews or Roman Catholic's doing this.

Wrongly use fear...
(oh boy)

.
 
Last edited:
Obi's administration adds another terror attack on the homeland under his watch.
3 in 16 months.

Bush had 7-years, and he and the dept.'s pitched a no hitter post 911.

Okay, just want to clarify your statement so I know if you're absolutely either ignorant about the subject, just flat out lying, or borderline truth.

Are you talking about:

1. Attacks that have successfull occured
2. Attacks that got to the action stage but didn't conclude
3. Attacks that were being planned
 
Amazing how this guy managed to actually get on the plane. Yeah, our airports are secure.
 
So a right winger will kill an innocent judge or innocent people in a federal building to prove a point and that is different from a Islamic jihadist attacking an innocent American how? The way I see it both are attacking innocent people.



My point was people shouldn't jump to conclusions until an investigation is complete. Mayor Bloomberg shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion he did, just as others shouldn't jump to the conclusion it was a Islamic terrorist until more information is known.

And why you even brought up hijackings I don't know because this wasn't a hijacking case. This was a bomb was put in a public area case.



No. I said you generalized by saying the left. Others have found a specific person, but that does not resemble the whole left.


I said Islamic terrorists will kill much more indiscriminately than right-wing terrorists would. Al-Qaeda and most terrorist organizations view any American, regardless of occupation, race or age as an acceptable target. A right-wing organization for the most part views federal employees as legitimate targets. Yes, they are both innocent, I said this, but one is much more selective than the other. Which brings me back to my point that it would be very unusual, and hurt their cause, for a right-wing organization to plant a bomb in Times Square.


I agree that no conclusions should be made until the facts present themselves. But based on recent history, it is MUCH more likely that an Islamic terrorist is behind an attempted attack than a Tea Partier or right-wing extremist. Hell, based on passed history in the United States, it is more likely to be a left-wing organization.

Hijackings is relative to the point I was making because it highlights the absurdity of not profiling at airports, or in general. How many hijackings since the 1980s have been carried out by non-Muslim males? Not very many. So if I was a betting man, I would say that the next hijacking is going to be a Muslim-male..
 
Obi's administration adds another terror attack on the homeland under his watch.
3 in 16 months.

Bush had 7-years, and he and the dept.'s pitched a no hitter post 911.

Conservative revisions to history are hilarious.

Okay, just want to clarify your statement so I know if you're absolutely either ignorant about the subject, just flat out lying, or borderline truth.

Are you talking about:

1. Attacks that have successfull occured
2. Attacks that got to the action stage but didn't conclude
3. Attacks that were being planned

It doesn't really matter because there is no way to measure that makes his statement true.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom