• 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!

Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

They weren't killed by the people in the Trade Center. They were killed by our wars, coups, and blockades.

Your silly claims, aside, please explain why you consider the people in the trade center as valid targets to be murdered.

You justified the terrorism that killed them through this bizarre claim that they provoked such a response, so please establish the connection between these people and this supposed "hundreds of thousands" killed.
 
By current Islam standards he can be seen as nothing other than a moderate. Could he be even more moderate? Sure. No doubt.

Hey, by my atheist standards, he's a nutjob. All religious people are. :lol:

Yes, that's my point. By current ISLAM standards, anybody who isn't a fire breathing dragon preaching violent Jihad is called a "moderate". Unfortunately for us, we are calling those who share the same goals as the violent jihadists of ending our way of life "moderate", too, and simply for favoring a different approach to the goal.
 
I suppose, if you don't consider killing hundreds of thousands of people a provocation.

The U.S. didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims prior to 9-11.

Those are two very different assertions.

No they are one and the same.


The constitutional monarchy had evolved in a direction more monarchic than constitutional. Mossadegh dissolved the parliament not in order to rule by decree, but rather to establish a new parliament chosen through fair, open elections. It was a mistake, but arguably a legitimate move in a time of war.

Mossadeq dissolved parliament because Parliament refused him direct control over the military, upon dissolving parliament he began ruling by decree.

This is what's sometimes referred to as a "badge of ignorance," a false claim so outdated and overused that there's no excuse for it any more. Mossadegh's crime wasn't alignment with Russia.

And yet he did align with the Soviets.

It was his nationalist policy of non-alignment

No he began accepting arms from the Soviets.

and his effort to free Iran of undue influence from both Russia and the West. The idea that he was a communist is a myth created by the CIA, which engaged in false flag violence as part of its black propaganda operation against him.

I never claimed he was a Communist but that he aligned himself with Communists.

Wrong again. Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament after the first attempt to dismiss him had failed. True, he had already taken the referendum, but this was only because he'd learned of the plot against him.

He dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and started ruling by decree, and you want us to believe he supported democracy. :roll:

The Shah did not dismiss Mossadeq until AFTER he had already dissolved parliament.

This attitude toward Mossadegh in general is a good example of how Americans react to Muslim democracy when they actually see it trying to get started.

lol it was already started until Mossadeq dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and started ruling by decree.

It's a nice word and a good pretext for intervention, but it goes right out the window as soon as it conflicts with oil interests.

Dissolving parliament through a fraudulent referendum and ruling by decree =/= democracy.

Iraq is another example. Their government was established under our watch and trumpeted by us as a legitimate democracy, yet we've constantly interfered with it and even attacked some parties when they opposed our ideas on oil rights. Most of the enemies we've fought in Iraq weren't terrorists but just people who wanted to govern themselves. It would be the same way if we went into Iran now. We claim to support the reformers (even though they don't want our help), but if it came to a choice between democracy and oil, we'd do our best to crush them as well.

Iran was the most liberal democratic government in the ME until Mossadegh dissolved parliament through a fraudulent referendum and started ruling by decree causing a reactionary backlash by the royalists.

Of particular interest is The CIA station chief's report that "our boys in Ankara did it."

A) "Our boys" refers to who exactly? This in no way demonstrates that they were acting on the directives of the U.S. or that they had U.S. financial or logistical support, it could simply mean that they were a pro-American faction.

B) Again the sources listed in the wiki article is a book which can not be accessed and a youtube video.


There's also the communication from the Turkish military to the US embassy informing them when the coup would take place.

Source?



It's a factor, along with the station chief's admission and the history of American intervention in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, etc. It's very much part of a pattern.[/QUOTE]
 
By current Islam standards he can be seen as nothing other than a moderate. Could he be even more moderate? Sure. No doubt.

Hey, by my atheist standards, he's a nutjob. All religious people are. :lol:

If he is Moderate, am I like Ultra moderate Muslim?
 
Yes, that's my point. By current ISLAM standards, anybody who isn't a fire breathing dragon preaching violent Jihad is called a "moderate". Unfortunately for us, we are calling those who share the same goals as the violent jihadists of ending our way of life "moderate", too, and simply for favoring a different approach to the goal.

Well, I can't really disagree with you on that. We do label as "moderate" any Muslim who displays some Westernized way of thinking. Speaking of Tariq Ramadan he was considered a moderate too until he refused to condemn the stoning of women.
 
Ferris, I've cited references, but I can't make you understand or accept them. You're on your own with that.
 
Your silly claims, aside, please explain why you consider the people in the trade center as valid targets to be murdered.

You justified the terrorism that killed them through this bizarre claim that they provoked such a response, so please establish the connection between these people and this supposed "hundreds of thousands" killed.

No, I didn't. Provocation isn't the same as justification. The attacks weren't justified, but they were provoked by American aggression, for example the killing of over a million Iraqis with economic sanctions.
 
No, I didn't. Provocation isn't the same as justification. The attacks weren't justified, but they were provoked by American aggression, for example the killing of over a million Iraqis with economic sanctions.

The word "provocation" implies that the resultant act is a product of the first -- a direct justification.

So when a group of saudis runs a couple of airplanes into the wtc, killing 3000 Americans, it just makes perfect sense because an economic policy shared by the United States and other western countries towards the leader of Iraq somehow forced that leader to gas Kurds, restrict important supplies to political cronies and run the country just like he always ran it.

Got it.

That's just as brilliant of an analysis as justifying my killing of your dog because a neighbor girl back in 1983 snipped a few of my flowers without asking.


Yep -- It all makes such perfect sense. :roll:
 
The word "provocation" implies that the resultant act is a product of the first -- a direct justification.

So when a group of saudis runs a couple of airplanes into the wtc, killing 3000 Americans, it just makes perfect sense because an economic policy shared by the United States and other western countries towards the leader of Iraq somehow forced that leader to gas Kurds, restrict important supplies to political cronies and run the country just like he always ran it.

Got it.

That's just as brilliant of an analysis as justifying my killing of your dog because a neighbor girl back in 1983 snipped a few of my flowers without asking.


Yep -- It all makes such perfect sense. :roll:

The sanctions would have had the same effect regardless of how Saddam had ruled or what he'd done with the trickle of supplies we allowed into the country. That's what they were designed for.
 
You also have to remember that for every person willing to actually kill for a cause, there are 10 who are willing to do something slightly less, such as hire a car or rent an apartment or buy a plane ticket.

Then there are 100 who would gladly donate money to something they honestly believed was a "charity", and would be more than willing to look the other way if assertions were made that the "charity" was actually a front for raising money for terrorists.

Ooo, I just know you've got actual statistics to back up those assertions.

You can prove what you just said, right?
 
That is why they are a risk. If you truly believe your religion, then God comes before anything else. The problem is, Islam calls for the subjugation and conversion of the world, by all means, including lying, murder and terror.

So as much as you may wish to be PC tolerant, every Muslim is a potential terrorist.

So I guess every patriot, who believes country comes before anything else, is a potential terrorist?

Every parent, who believes the well-being of their children comes before everything else, is a potential terrorist?
 
Last edited:
Ferris, I've cited references, but I can't make you understand or accept them. You're on your own with that.

What references when? Where is the citation that we were engaged in a war which killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims prior to 9-11? Where is the citation for the coup that we are responsible for which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Muslims prior to 9-11? And where is the citation pointing to the blockade which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims prior to 9-11? How about any lengthy blockade that the U.S. has engaged in since the blockade of Cuba?
 
for example the killing of over a million Iraqis with economic sanctions.

How do economic sanctions kill anyone? The U.N. neither banned medical or food supplies to Iraq. The oil embargo was the direct result of the actions Saddam Hussein not the U.S. or anyone else. Apparently not conducting trade with a certain country equates to murder in your backwards world.

Oh and FYI those statistics regarding the amount of deaths resulting from the embargoe were provided by the ****ing Baathists running Iraq.
 
The sanctions would have had the same effect regardless of how Saddam had ruled or what he'd done with the trickle of supplies we allowed into the country. That's what they were designed for.

Um Saddam found the money to build himself lavish palaces, it's not our fault Saddam cared about himself more than he cared about the welfare of his own people, the sanctions blocked neither food or medical supplies. Furthermore; if Saddam had complied with the U.N. the sanctions would not have been imposed in the first place. Seriously place blame where blame is due IE on the shoulders of the man who ignored international law and enaged in a war of conquest against Kuwait and refused to abide with the terms of the armistice.
 
Last edited:
And you, as a member of the male species are a potential rapist.

Now, shoo. I'm busy talking to interesting people.

None are so blind, as those who cannot see...
 
Talk about self-diagnosis... :lol:

If anyone thinks that this is not a religious fight to the death they are kidding themselves. I'm all for separation of church and state. IsLAM finds this incomprehensible and another reason to wipe us off the planet. We can argue all we want amongst ourselves and they will see it as weakness while we say its our right to free speech. They don't care about our rights; its part of what they want to see destroyed.

And it's not just Islam, it is the cultures around the world that are Islamic. Sunni, Shi'a, and the differences in Sunni Islam itself...Schools of Islamic jurisprudence, plus cults like the Wahabis , it appears that the Koran and Hadith provide ample latitude for an interpretation that Jihad against unbelievers is a continuing duty for all Muslims.
 
IsLAM finds this incomprehensible and another reason to wipe us off the planet.

Of course it does. No doubt it will begin in the streets of Switzerland. I'm sure that those very secular Muslims were just lulling us into a false sense of security.

We can argue all we want amongst ourselves and they will see it as weakness while we say its our right to free speech. They don't care about our rights; its part of what they want to see destroyed.

You know, it's funny, but we've survived war after war after war with actual enemies, then a whole great big stinking cold war that almost ended in a nuclear holocaust a couple of times . . . Call me crazy, but I think we'll be just fine.

And it's not just Islam, it is the cultures around the world that are Islamic. Sunni, Shi'a, and the differences in Sunni Islam itself...Schools of Islamic jurisprudence, plus cults like the Wahabis , it appears that the Koran and Hadith provide ample latitude for an interpretation that Jihad against unbelievers is a continuing duty for all Muslims.

Do you check behind the closet door and under the bed, too, before you go to sleep?
 
You know, it's funny, but we've survived war after war after war with actual enemies, then a whole great big stinking cold war that almost ended in a nuclear holocaust a couple of times . . . Call me crazy, but I think we'll be just fine.

Perpetual warfare will inevitably lead to use of nuclear weapons by one side or another, which would eventually result in nuclear retaliation. It is only a matter of time - maybe a decade, maybe a dozen decades, but inevitable either way - before nuclear terrorism occurs on US soil, and depending on circumstances, We may very well retaliate against the muslim world
Do you check behind the closet door and under the bed, too, before you go to sleep?

I really don't see a solution less than fight to the end until one side is wiped out.
 
I really don't see a solution less than fight to the end until one side is wiped out.

Why do we have to fight at all?

But anyway. I see our usual islamophobe programming is still working. As you were.
 
Why do we have to fight at all?

But anyway. I see our usual islamophobe programming is still working. As you were.

If Muslims were able to compete economically with the West, and the resultant wealth spread through the population, then you might reach a point where they would say life is good, "Allah has blessed me", we must be doing good, ya'll... Then they might not be as willing to upset the applecart by declaring jihad.

Can they ever get there? Will they ever get there?
 
Perpetual warfare will inevitably lead to use of nuclear weapons by one side or another, which would eventually result in nuclear retaliation. It is only a matter of time - maybe a decade, maybe a dozen decades, but inevitable either way - before nuclear terrorism occurs on US soil, and depending on circumstances, We may very well retaliate against the muslim world

Really?

We've had exactly two nukes set off in a combat situation in the history of the world -- both of which were brought to you by the United States, not even 70 years ago.

I'm sure the talking head from which you took that sharp little quippety quip quip looked great on TV, but it's complete bull**** without any reliable evidence to back it up since no such data exists.

I really don't see a solution less than fight to the end until one side is wiped out.

That would be your ignorance joining forces with your favorite talking head.
 
Back
Top Bottom