• 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

Why, you thanked one of them who reacted to the news piece with innuendo that people were motivated by hatred of Muslims.

Is the man in question not Muslim? Did he not go to Pakistan? Is Pakistan not a foreign country?

No one insinuated people were motivated by hatred of muslims. Someone insinuated that there are people who love to use incidents like these for political reasons and those people are going to be excited now that there's enough evidence to begin making semi-reasonable assumptions about the guys intent.

Which I agree with him, at the same time I do think its a likely good possability this was islamic terrorism. I'm just not claiming it as fact yet based on assumptions. But obviously, as evident in this thread, there are many who love information like this coming out specifically so they can make their assumptions out as fact and use it as a political tool in regards to their agenda regarding islam.
 
When did your moratorium start.. 10 minutes ago ??? You actually think putting quotes around the term makes it OK??

Yup !! If I am quoting someone who used the it is fine as long as I have not used it while the moritorium was on. For example let's say ou used ther term " in a bad way such as like this " the was elected seriff ". If I went after you for using that term and put it in quotes that is fine. That is how I used the term in those quotes.

You know language is a living thing and at one time gay meant happy, but now many Gays are not happy since they cannot get happily married in most states.

So " is not just for employees of Lipton anymore.
 
Last edited:
I agree 100% with this.

My issue, not specifically with you but in general, is people seem far more likely to try and push the "don't jump to conclussions" suggestion in a stronger way when its being aimed at people suggesting someone is an islamic terrorist than when someone is suggested as being an christian extremist or KKK member or whatever else. It seems much more acceptable to openly talk about and discuss assumptions when the assumption isn't Islamic.

When it comes to law enforcement, I absolutely agree. They shouldn't say anything that isn't defintive fact, and I'd go one step further and say they shouldn't say initially more than is absolutely necessary not to cause excessive panic.

I think that if you review the census taker case in Tennessee, you will find that I responded in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. And in that case, I was defending tea partiers from the aspersions being cast their way by the far left idiots. I would encourage you to look at that thread if you have any doubts, whatsoever.

I feel the same way about rushing to judgement in ANY criminal case, whether the issue is gangs, politics, race, or religion.

I was once involved in a gang-related shooting. The NAACP, with very few facts, decided immediately because one of the victims was ostensibly black, that a gang-shooting was a race-related homicide. They rushed to the media, calling it a hate crime.

Within hours, it was determined that the victim was Latino, the shooter was white, and both were gang-involved. The incident wasn't racial, it was gang-related. IN other words, it was no more a hate crime than any other homicide.

Direct experience with that case has made me extremely careful about spreading misinformation. Not because I did so, but because I saw the longterm effects of that misinformation in the community. People remembered it as a "hate crime," and it fed fears of white on black racial crime in our community. But, it never happened...not like it was spun.

And, at some point, later in my career, a member of the community accused me of "covering up" that hate crime. the hate crime that never was.

tres annoying.
 
Last edited:
I was once involved in a gang-related shooting. The NAACP, with very few facts, decided immediately because one of the victims was ostensibly black, that a gang-shooting was a race-related homicide. They rushed to the media, calling it a hate crime.

Was Al Sharpton involved? That guy made his fame on the Twana Brawley fiasco. It turned out Brawley made her story up about being raped by a gang of white guys.
 
No one insinuated people were motivated by hatred of muslims. .

Oh, Really.

Then what was post #6 in this thread all about?
 
I think that if you review the census taker case in Tennessee, you will find that I responded in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. And in that case, I was defending tea partiers from the aspersions being cast their way by the far left idiots. I would encourage you to look at that thread if you have any doubts, whatsoever.

And I remember that one, and you doing that. Sadly you were one of the few that I remember, along with redress, doing such. Which again, is my larger point. Many people were very happy and apt to leap to conclussions with that one that would otherwise condemn someone for doing it with a case possibly leaning towards a Muslim, and vise versa. However the opposition to those jumping to conclussions seemed much more tacit or lacking then it does in, say, the Fort Hood shooting. I guess that's a bit what bothers me, the hypocrisy in some (again, not saying you) that will complain about it on one side and then do the very act the next, and more than that simply the different levels and intensity involved in the ridiculing of making assumptions.
 
Oh, Really.

Then what was post #6 in this thread all about?

I just told you? Did you really just quote a post of mine but apparently read only like the first line?

It was someone commenting on the fact that multiple people on this board love situations like this because they can use it to push thier political agenda regarding their views on Islam.

That is not suggesting they are motivated by their hatred for islam, he was suggesting they are excited by the news because they can use it to push their hatred/dislike/mistrust for Islam (be it all of islam or portions of it depending on the person).

He's absolutely right.
 
I just told you? Did you really just quote a post of mine but apparently read only like the first line?

It was someone commenting on the fact that multiple people on this board love situations like this because they can use it to push thier political agenda regarding their views on Islam.

That is not suggesting they are motivated by their hatred for islam, he was suggesting they are excited by the news because they can use it to push their hatred/dislike/mistrust for Islam (be it all of islam or portions of it depending on the person).

He's absolutely right.



I did read your entire spin, but I rejected it due to the very specious nature of the rhetoric. I discounted such sophistry since the actual posting said "Ah finally, now you guys can take out your "death to Islam" signs.", which not only paints all with the same brush (you guys), but accuses them of wanting the death of an entire religion -- hardly subtle despite your apologia.
 
Sorry, maybe I'm crazy for not taking an obviously sarcastic in nature comment as literal
 
So I guess Bloomberg was wrong. It wasn't one of us tea party folk. :ssst:
 
Sorry, maybe I'm crazy for not taking an obviously sarcastic in nature comment as literal

I suppose it all depends on whether or not you agree with it.
 
Basis for this claim? Feel free to link to evidence that I ignored the obvious in the Ft. Hood shooting.

We had several incidents when I was working for a police agency that were potentially terrorist situations. We had (potentially multiple) gunmen involved in a shooting incident in a television station in our area. We had a gunman (but at the time, we weren't sure how many people were involved) walk into a geneology library and shoot several people. We had several animal rights terroristic bombings in our community along with acts terrorism committed by a polygamist sect.

You never really know until you've had the suspect in hand for a few hours what their exact motivations were.

Law enforcement is never going to classify motives for a crime like these without having some time with the suspect(s). And, that's how it should be.

I said you ignored the obvious when it came to that attack.

Please quote me accurately.

And you wanted evidence? No problem. From the fort hood thread:

Oh, really? Is he part of a larger political movement who committed this crime to shift public policy? Or did he just go postal on his co-workers because he's nuts (*and his religion played a role in his insanity)?

And another:

Jonah Goldberg (another bleeding heart liberal):

Again, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that I might sound like I'm trying to diminish the guy's crimes. He committed treason and murder. It was a cowardly act. If we are at war, then it was a war crime.

But I think the reader's definition of terrorism might move us into dangerous territory. In Pakistan, we launch missiles at people's homes with civilians in or around them to take out al-Qaeda leadership. The attacks are — hopefully — always intended to be something of a surprise. But I wouldn't call that terrorism. I'm just uncomfortable with the word terrorism metastasizing into "anything the bad guys do to us." Why not call what Hasan did a war crime? Terrorism is a war crime but not all war crimes are terrorism.

Of course, the fact that Jihadis reject all of the rules of war makes it very difficult to figure out how to even talk about the rules. (Just out of curiosity, what would the legal definition be of, say, a Japanese officer turning on fellow Japanese troops during World War Two in the apparent hope of aiding the Allies?)

As I said before, if terrorism is now the catchall for dastardly acts committed by Jihadis, then calling this attack terrorism works fine for me. But if this is really a war — and I think it is — then I think we could spend some more time thinking a bit more rigorously about our vocabulary. For those interested, this is a longstanding interest of mine.


Re: Was It Terrorism? - Jonah Goldberg - The Corner on National Review Online

More questions:

Can attacks on a military base constitute "terrorism"? - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

If attacks on soldiers now qualify, how is it possible to exclude many American actions?

p.s. These articles highlight the perils of indiscriminate usage of the term, and require nuanced thinking skills, I'm sure many of you will self-disqualify from reading them.

And another

What new information suggests he was a "sleeper agent"?

And another:

I also have seen no evidence that, if he contacted AQ, they responded and coordinated his activities. A sleeper agent implies that he was working for an organization larger than himself, and I'm not sure he was.

And another:

Who put him in the wings? For what terrorist group was he acting as a "sleeper agent"? These terms have meanings. You clearly don't understand them.

And another:

How can there be "no question"??

All I've seen was a bunch of people scared of muslims ranting on and on about what flavour of muslim he was and why he was out to kill americans??

The reality of the situation is that IF this was the case :
- He became a citizen
- joined the millitary
- became a psychiatrist
- and then waited to be deployed
BEFORE going out, grabbing some guns and starting to shoot up the base...

I hate to break it to you, but the reality is that this situation most closely resembles the MO of a psychiatrist that was depressed, self-diagnosed himself a prescription of some SSRI drug that created in him a psychotic episode where he simply grabbed his guns and started shooting

Oh, so this guys guilty of being a muslim, therefore it's not a simple mass shooting, but a 'terrorist attack'... come on... seriously?

You thanked the guy above for his post.

And another

He said flat out that not all muslims are terrorists. And he is correct in that it is difficult to identify those who have the capacity to commit a terrorist act, and those who would NEVER do so. In essence, our current law enforcement strategy is EXACTLY as you describe, Lerxst. To let them show, through their actions, whether they are terrorists or not. We've made arrests in cases where individuals have engaged with undercover operatives and taken responsibility for attempting to blow something up *(though they were set up, and no explosion actually occurred).

For example: Jordanian accused in Dallas bomb plot goes to court - CNN.com

So, yeah. The ones who try to blow up a skyscraper are terrorists.


and another

This guy was a career Army officer. Do you think he enlisted with the idea of committing sabotage and terror against the U.S. Government? Please.

And then this:

There were even more warning signs that might have alerted the Army in recent months:

— In the days and weeks before the shooting, Hasan voiced his objections to Muslims fighting the war on terror to members of his mosque, the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen. Congregants at the mosque said he voiced his objections to Muslims serving in the U.S. military and to his impending deployment to Afghanistan.

— Over the summer, Hasan's comments led Osman Danquah, co-founder of the mosque, to recommend that it deny Hasan's request to become a lay Muslim leader at Fort Hood, the Associated Press reported.

And you "thanked" him for that post

There are others but I don't want to be found guilty of child abuse so I'll stop.

If you would like to further embarrass yourself Catz, please let me know :2wave:
 
Last edited:
I highlighted above how silly this sounds. :ssst:

Yeah I guess so because the tea party is as pure as a fresh snow......job.

Face it Rev there are nuts in every party even the tea party.
 
NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane
By TOM HAYS and COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writers Tom Hays And Colleen Long, Associated Press Writers 1 hr 15 mins ago

NEW YORK – A U.S. citizen who had recently returned from a five-month trip to his native Pakistan, where he had a wife, was arrested at a New York airport on charges that he drove a bomb-laden SUV meant to cause a fireball in Times Square, federal authorities said.

Faisal Shahzad was on board a Dubai-bound flight at Kennedy Airport when FBI agents and New York Police Department detectives took him into custody late Monday, law enforcement officials said. One official said he claimed to have acted alone.

U.S. authorities "will not rest until we have brought everyone responsible to justice," Attorney Eric Holder said early Tuesday, suggesting additional suspects are being sought.

Shahzad, 30, is a naturalized U.S. citizen and had recently returned from a five-month trip to Pakistan, where he had a wife, according to law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation into the failed car bombing.

Print Story: NYC bomb suspect nabbed aboard Dubai-bound plane - Yahoo! News
 
Yeah I guess so because the tea party is as pure as a fresh snow......job.

Face it Rev there are nuts in every party even the tea party.

No one is saying that the Tea Party is fresh as pure snow.

What they are saying is that the vast, vast majority of the Tea Partiers are sane individuals with no history or penchant for terrorist attacks and that jumping to the conclussion its a "tea partier" based on absolutely nothing...no history of terrorist attacks, no prevelance of terrorist attacks, etc....is idiotic.

Sure, any large group is going to have some nut balls in it on the fringes. That doesn't mean that you should rush to judgement that its that group's member that did something when that kind of person would be the exception, not the rule for the group.

"This must've been a McDonald's worker! What? You don't agree? What do you think ALL McDonald workers are clean as the wind driven snow? No, then it must have been a McDonald's worker".

Suggestions that "OMG it was a tea partier" is just ab out as ridiculous as the above.

No one is saying that the Tea Party, or any group, is absolutely pure. What they are saying is its incredibly to jump to a conclussion that its even likely or plausible that it was a Tea Partier when there's been no history or basis to even make such a suggestion.
 
I'm still not seeing where you've been consistent

Maybe you just had a change of heart?

05-02-10, 03:31 PM
Catz Speculating
I would not be surprised if these were not Pakistanis at all, but locals who were ideologically sympathetic. In that case, it isn't Pakistanis slipping into New York, but locals buying into their mentality...much harder to fight.

05-02-10, 05:26 PM
Catz Against Speculating

I think it's ridiculous to make speculative guesses without evidence. It leads to stupidity and panic.
 
Re: I'm still not seeing where you've been consistent

Maybe you just had a change of heart?

05-02-10, 03:31 PM
Catz Speculating


05-02-10, 05:26 PM
Catz Against Speculating

LOL yikes. Damn you research! :rofl
 
No one is saying that the Tea Party is fresh as pure snow.

What they are saying is that the vast, vast majority of the Tea Partiers are sane individuals with no history or penchant for terrorist attacks and that jumping to the conclussion its a "tea partier" based on absolutely nothing...no history of terrorist attacks, no prevelance of terrorist attacks, etc....is idiotic.

I think the vast majority of tea partiers are sane and the nutwads don't represent them anymore than I think the Unabomber represents the left. Also I do not think it unreasonable at this point in time to suspect a disgruntled tea partier with a political agenda pissed about Obama to pull something like this. Just like in cases of ecoterrorism I would look towards left leaning groups.
 
I think the vast majority of tea partiers are sane and the nutwads don't represent them anymore than I think the Unabomber represents the left. Also I do not think it unreasonable at this point in time to suspect a disgruntled tea partier with a political agenda pissed about Obama to pull something like this. Just like in cases of ecoterrorism I would look towards left leaning groups.





Why? Do you have previous examples of violence by tea party folk? Or are you buying into the anti-tea party rhetoric....


It is no more likley a tea part person would have done this than a liberal would fly an airplane into the pentegon. :shrug:
 
Also I do not think it unreasonable at this point in time to suspect a disgruntled tea partier with a political agenda pissed about Obama to pull something like this. Just like in cases of ecoterrorism I would look towards left leaning groups.

Wow, where to begin.

First, there was no evidence this bomb was anywhere near a government building. So unless you're taking the stance that Tea Parties are apparently instilling "anti-america as a whole" ideals rather than "anti-government" ideas I'm not sure how you can equate this to looking at environmental groups when an ecoterrorism attack is done. I would still think its a reach if this bomb was at a government building, but at least then you could have SOME way to tie it to Tea Party sentiment taken to the extreme. This was just in the middle of NYC

Second, the difference between the Tea Parties and groups like ALF or ELF is that ALF and ELF have a HISTORY of terrorist activity so its reasonable to possible look their way. The Tea Parties on the other hand do NOT have a history of terrorist activity. So again, your attempt to equate the Tea Partiers to those kind of movements is incorrect.

There is absolutely zero legitimate reason otehr than baseless speculation fueled by bias and prejudice against that movement to think they would've done this. If you take their rhetoric to the extreme it still doesn't account for a bomb in the middle of NYC. If you take their history into account there is no pattern of terrorism. There is absolutely ZERO substantial reason on which to base a claim at the start of this of "It was a Tea Partier". Nothing.
 
Also I do not think it unreasonable at this point in time to suspect a disgruntled tea partier with a political agenda pissed about Obama to pull something like this.

Yes, but you have to look at where the bomb was placed. If this was a vehicle parked near a federal government building, then you might be correct in saying it wouldn't be unreasonable for it to be a tea partier.

However, with the placement of the vehicle, I didn't suspect it to be a tea partier that would be involved with this.
 
Why? Do you have previous examples of violence by tea party folk? Or are you buying into the anti-tea party rhetoric....


It is no more likley a tea part person would have done this than a liberal would fly an airplane into the pentegon. :shrug:

So what is it Rev every one that joins the tea party is issued a pair of wings after a purity test and cleansing?
 
Back
Top Bottom