• 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!

Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim, Survey Shows

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tucker Case said:
Funding the mujahideen,
Click to expand...

We funded the mujahs that would become our allies in 2002, in our fight against the Taliban. They were known as The Northern Alliance and led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, who had been fighting the Afghan Communists, before the Soviets invaded. The rest is revisionist history.

operation ajax,
Click to expand...

Mosadeg was getting too chummy with the Soviets. Even with the unintended concequences, it was a good idea to keep Iran from becoming a Soviet satelite.

our support of the Saudis
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
apdst said:
We funded the mujahs that would become our allies in 2002, in our fight against the Taliban. They were known as The Northern Alliance and led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, who had been fighting the Afghan Communists, before the Soviets invaded. The rest is revisionist history.
Click to expand...

Do you know what "mujahideen" means?

Mosadeg was getting too chummy with the Soviets. Even with the unintended concequences, it was a good idea to keep Iran from becoming a Soviet satelite.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with my point, but nice try.

Huh?
Click to expand...

Our previous relationships with the Saudis only increased teh power of fundamentalism in Islam.
 
Tucker Case said:
Do you know what "mujahideen" means?
Click to expand...

Sure do. like that has anything to do with the conversation.



Which has nothing to do with my point, but nice try.
Click to expand...

What was your point? Was it the same ole lame line about how, "America bad, everybody else good"?



Our previous relationships with the Saudis only increased teh power of fundamentalism in Islam.
Click to expand...

So, no matter how many historical facts you're presented, it's America's fault?
 
apdst said:
Sure do. like that has anything to do with the conversation.
Click to expand...

If you know what it means, then you should realize what it has to do with the conversation.

What was your point? Was it the same ole lame line about how, "America bad, everybody else good"?
Click to expand...

Of course not. My point was presented in the post which you asked me to expand on.


So, no matter how many historical facts you're presented, it's America's fault?
Click to expand...

So no matter how much evidence is presented that our involvement has affected the current state of affairs, you still think it's all the evul muslims fault?

Much of the **** we did came back and bit us on the ass. That's a fact. We've had a shortsighted foreign policy for decades. Always thinking about the "enemy at hand" and never looking at how our actions today will lead to future problems. **** it, we can just push that off on the next generation, right?
 
Tucker Case said:
I agree.



The problem is that we helped those extremists gain power, both advertently and inadvertently. A lot of what exists today is a result of cold war era interference.
Click to expand...



I won't deny that you have a point, but that does not change the situation as it exists today: On top of terrorism like 9/11, Islamic extremism is starting to look like the cause for the next exchange of nuclear warheads.
 
Goshin said:
I won't deny that you have a point, but that does not change the situation as it exists today: On top of terrorism like 9/11, Islamic extremism is starting to look like the cause for the next exchange of nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.
 
Jetboogieman said:
When was the first exchange? :confused:

And which country do you think you're gonna trade nukes with?

Since terrorists don't own countries...
Click to expand...



Iran is a terrorist state, that is working on a nuke.
 
Tucker Case said:
So no matter how much evidence is presented that our involvement has affected the current state of affairs, you still think it's all the evul muslims fault?

Much of the **** we did came back and bit us on the ass. That's a fact. We've had a shortsighted foreign policy for decades. Always thinking about the "enemy at hand" and never looking at how our actions today will lead to future problems. **** it, we can just push that off on the next generation, right?
Click to expand...

WE should have done nothing, while The Soviets slowly made there way to the Persian Gulf? There's no way anyone could have foreseen that al-Qaeda would be gorn out of the ashes of that war. AQ isn't a creation of the United States, nor our foreign policy. It's the creation of a bunch of twisted ********ers, hell bent on pushing their evil agenda.
 
apdst said:
Iran is a terrorist state
Click to expand...

They fund terrorists. They are an Islamic Republic. Not defending their murderous regime, but they're not technically a "terrorist country"

that is working on a nuke.
Click to expand...

Yep. But I seriously doubt they'd ever use it. They got one to ten nukes, and you think they'll attack you...

All in all, it's a detterance, they know you haven't taken military action off the table. If they develop the nuke first, then you can't attack them.
 
Jetboogieman said:
They fund terrorists. They are an Islamic Republic. Not defending their murderous regime, but they're not technically a "terrorist country"
Click to expand...

They fund terrorists. That purdy much makes them a terrorist state.



Yep. But I seriously doubt they'd ever use it.
Click to expand...

What if you're wrong? Wouldn't be good, would it?


They got one to ten nukes, and you think they'll attack you...
Click to expand...

It will be really dangerous, when they think we won't retaliate.

All in all, it's a detterance, they know you haven't taken military action off the table. If they develop the nuke first, then you can't attack them.
Click to expand...

Now, you sound like you're defending the regime.
 
apdst said:
WE should have done nothing, while The Soviets slowly made there way to the Persian Gulf?
Click to expand...

:lol: So you think that our options were "Have shortsighted foreign policy" or "Do nothing"?

There's no way anyone could have foreseen that al-Qaeda would be gorn out of the ashes of that war.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. They knew the calibur of people they were dealing with at that time. They failed to anticipate the after effects becuase their policy was, wait for it...... short-sighted!
 
j-mac said:
Does the "Christian Right" kill homosexuals?


j-mac
Click to expand...

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Liberals are for people getting married that can't conceive kids, but if one of them steps out and conceives a kid, you can kill it before it become an inconvenient nuisance to the homo-marriage. But dont' even think about killing a serial killer.....that's "inhumane".

You've got to mortally twisted to live with those contradictions in your mind, and believe in them.
 
apdst said:
They fund terrorists. That purdy much makes them a terrorist state.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, your opinion.

What if you're wrong? Wouldn't be good, would it?
Click to expand...

If I'm wrong, you will wipe them from the face of the Earth.



It will be really dangerous, when they think we won't retaliate.
Click to expand...

They know you'll retaliate, that's why they won't attack you.

Now, you sound like you're defending the regime.
Click to expand...

I'm explaining their reasoning, not defending it. It's not as simple as "They're crazy terrorists that want nukes"

That's like 1/100th of the reason. They wanna make sure you won't invade them, having a nuke garuntee's them safety. It's a reason, not a defence of them apdst, nice baiting though.
 
Tucker Case said:
:lol: So you think that our options were "Have shortsighted foreign policy" or "Do nothing"?
Click to expand...

Granted, as Charlie Wilson said, "We ****ed up the end game", but aside from that, what should have been done?
 
Jetboogieman said:
If I'm wrong, you will wipe them from the face of the Earth.
Click to expand...

Why take that chance? Why not prevent Iran from building a nuke and taking that option off the table?





They know you'll retaliate, that's why they won't attack you.
Click to expand...

Not if we have a president that has stated that he won't meet a nuke with a nuke.



I'm explaining their reasoning, not defending it. It's not as simple as "They're crazy terrorists that want nukes"

That's like 1/100th of the reason. They wanna make sure you won't invade them, having a nuke garuntee's them safety. It's a reason, not a defence of them apdst, nice baiting though.
Click to expand...

They're increasing the odds that we will invade them. It doesn't make any sense. Hence, they are crazy terrorists that want nukes.
 
apdst said:
Why take that chance? Why not prevent Iran from building a nuke and taking that option off the table?
Click to expand...

I never commented on that. But yes, that is a viable option.

Not if we have a president that has stated that he won't meet a nuke with a nuke.
Click to expand...

/Facepalm

That's not what happened apdst, don't misrepresent his nuclear policy.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy makes just about every non-nuclear state immune from any threat of nuclear retaliation by the United States. But it carves out an exception for Iran and North Korea, labeled “outliers”.
Click to expand...


They're increasing the odds that we will invade them. It doesn't make any sense. Hence, they are crazy terrorists that want nukes.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, they saw what happened with North Korea, and how you did basically nothing to stop them besides sanctions (this was under Clinton and Bush) They know your military is tired (not weak) and the American public has no stomach for another war. They're taking their chances. Not all that crazy of a gamble. And Israel does not have the manpower to attack Iran.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Not exactly, they saw what happened with North Korea, and how you did basically nothing to stop them besides sanctions (this was under Clinton and Bush) They know your military is tired (not weak) and the American public has no stomach for another war. They're taking their chances. Not all that crazy of a gamble. And Israel does not have the manpower to attack Iran.
Click to expand...


Yea! So their dream of wiping Israel off the face of the earth will become a reality....Ain't it great!


j-mac
 
BDBoop said:
Don't be silly. Even I know that Snopes leans to the left. I have read it online.

/nod
Click to expand...

actually they don't. you can find just as many "debunkings" regarding bush.
 
j-mac said:
Yea! So their dream of wiping Israel off the face of the earth will become a reality....Ain't it great!


j-mac
Click to expand...

Saying one thing and doing it are different gigs, you should know that.

Israel has nukes, Iran knows this, they're leaders, they wanna stay in power, if they sent a nuke to israel, Israel and the US obliterates their country therefore no one to hold power over...

See how that works.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Saying one thing and doing it are different gigs, you should know that.

Israel has nukes, Iran knows this, they're leaders, they wanna stay in power, if they sent a nuke to israel, Israel and the US obliterates their country therefore no one to hold power over...

See how that works.
Click to expand...


That would be all well and good, and I might even be inclined to agree with you, if it weren't for the Iranian President being a vocal subscriber to the theory of the 12th Imam.

j-mac
 
The polls aren't getting better regarding those who beleive Obama is perhaps a secret muslim. Here is the latest from TIME:

"Do you personally believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Christian?"

24% Muslim
47% Christian
24% Unsure
05% Other

The thread refers to the [earlier] much publicized Pew poll which indicated 18% think he's muslim and only 34% of americans believe he's christian. I wonder if the new poll is trending and if so... would it be good or bad for america?

The president's religion is irrelevant to his job performance but important to his electability. I agree with Mitch Mconnell who said if he says he's a christian... "I'll take him on his word". However, many others don't beleive him and think he's some kinda secret or closet muslim. It doesn't help that he carries a foreign, even Muslim-sounding name, his father was muslim, and attended a muslim school during childhood in Indonesia.

Obama has essentially brought this debate on himself because of his inconsistancy between his christian faith and some of his actions. On one hand he says he supports the ground zero mosque... then later says "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there... Then later on says he stands by his statement... which one??

Some also feel he spends more time appeasing muslims then showing support for christians which could feed into the confusion. According to one poll 60 percent of those who are convinced Obama is Muslim say they learned that from the media. These people are misinformed based on what they see on the news... not uninformed. He's been shown worshipping with Muslims with his shoes off, he's bowed to Muslim leaders including the king of Saudi Arabia... and since becoming president, no longer attends a Christian church. He makes the excuse he doesn't want to interfere with services for other christians on sunday. However, he's seen quite frequently playing sunday golf and apparently has no problem disrupting others on the course. He spent Christmas in Hawai and didn't attend any service celebrating the birth of Christ. Those things don't go unnoticed by the leader of the free world. No wonder only 34% of americans take him at his word....
 
I'm not sure about the significance of people being silly and inaccurate things?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom