• 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!

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson

winston53660 said:
Well when the FBI investigates what starting do you recommend for them?
Click to expand...

Apparently Democrats that are non-White and non-Christian is where they believe a perfect place to start investigating.

:roll:
 
RightinNYC said:
You appear to be mistaken about what "arson" means. The police have determined that this was arson, which means that it was a deliberate act. What they have not determined (because they have not arrested anyone) is why that act was committed. It was most likely someone opposed to the mosque (as I noted pages ago), but it's remains possible that it was someone acting for another purpose.

I don't understand why people are so angry at the observation that there is still some uncertainty here.
Click to expand...
The part I made bold is what I have said numerous times in this thread.

It's possible the arson was committed for another purpose. Is it probable? No. The facts on the ground support that this was most likely a hate crime.
 
Degreez said:
Where did I make the claim boy genius?

I said one claim was grounded with reality while the other claim was merely baseless speculation.

The facts are:
- it WAS arson
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high
- vandalism against the same mosque has already occurred

This makes it more reasonable to assume one claim over another that has no facts to support it.
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence. Got it.

Thanks for staying predicable.
 
The thought that it was self started may not be that far out there. Many Pakistanis believe the CIA and Israel were behind the attacks on the Twin Towers.


These sort of self attacks seem to be more and more pervasive. Makes you kind of wonder about Pearl Harbor now.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Well when the FBI investigates what starting point do you recommend for them?
Click to expand...

Being a novice investigator with my crackerjack supercop decoder ring, Id start accumulating...you know...EVIDENCE...look at the crime scene...check videos of surrounding areas...vehicles in the area, eyewitness accounts...you know...cop type stuff.
 
Degreez said:
Show where I said one specific group committed the arson. Otherwise, you are full of ****. I clearly said one claim (the claim that this was a hate crime) has more evidence to support it than the claim that this was used as a diversion technique (which, in case you haven't noticed, no evidence for it has been provided).
Click to expand...

Unless you have evidence of this as a hate crime you are talking out of your ass. The mere claim that this is a hate crime shows your bias. you dont know WHAT it is. And THATS what makes you 'that' guy.
 
VanceMack said:
Unless you have evidence of this as a hate crime you are talking out of your ass. The mere claim that this is a hate crime shows your bias. you dont know WHAT it is. And THATS what makes you 'that' guy.
Click to expand...

Let's see:
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high in America right now
- the same mosque was vandalised with hate words
- the Muslims in that city have had no problems until the Ground Zero mosque controversy

This is all evidence that supports the claim that this is a hate crime.

Now let's see your evidence that this was actually a diversion technique to make those protesting the mosque become defensive. C'mon, you've been stating for numerous pages that this is just as probable a cause for the arson. Where's the evidence to support it? Oh that's right, it's completely nonexistent.
 
Degreez said:
Let's see:
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high in America right now
- the same mosque was vandalised with hate words
- the Muslims in that city have had no problems until the Ground Zero mosque controversy

This is all evidence that supports the claim that this is a hate crime.

Now let's see your evidence that this was actually a diversion technique to make those protesting the mosque become defensive. C'mon, you've been stating for numerous pages that this is just as probable a cause for the arson. Where's the evidence to support it? Oh that's right, it's completely nonexistent.
Click to expand...

Lets see..Muslims raping children and beheading them...yep...that proves Muslims are murderous scumbags that cant be trusted. Id say that makes them guilty of burning their own equipment.

You presented NOTHING concerning THE criminal act. Unless you have evidence that those are the people that did it you are talking out of your ass. Again.
 
Degreez said:
Let's see:
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high in America right now
- the same mosque was vandalised with hate words
- the Muslims in that city have had no problems until the Ground Zero mosque controversy

This is all evidence that supports the claim that this is a hate crime.

Now let's see your evidence that this was actually a diversion technique to make those protesting the mosque become defensive. C'mon, you've been stating for numerous pages that this is just as probable a cause for the arson. Where's the evidence to support it? Oh that's right, it's completely nonexistent.
Click to expand...

The fact is...I have just as much evidence that YOU committed the crime that YOU have of ANYONE committing the crime. You get that...right?
 
Degreez said:
The part I made bold is what I have said numerous times in this thread.

It's possible the arson was committed for another purpose. Is it probable? No. The facts on the ground support that this was most likely a hate crime.
Click to expand...

Someone really hated that Caterpillar.
 
VanceMack said:
The fact is...I have just as much evidence that YOU committed the crime that YOU have of ANYONE committing the crime. You get that...right?
Click to expand...

... :roll: It is evidence to SUPPORT A CLAIM, not evidence of who actually did this crime. Apparently it takes you 5+ posts to understand a simple concept.

There is evidence to support the claim that this was a hate crime.

There is no evidence to support the claim that this was purposefully committed to put anti-Muslim protesters on the defensive.

No where did I say there was evidence that this was a hate crime. There is evidence to suggest that it may have been a hate crime. If you can't tell the difference, please stop posting for your own sake.
 
Degreez said:
... :roll: It is evidence to SUPPORT A CLAIM, not evidence of who actually did this crime. Apparently it takes you 5+ posts to understand a simple concept.

There is evidence to support the claim that this was a hate crime.

There is no evidence to support the claim that this was purposefully committed to put anti-Muslim protesters on the defensive.

No where did I say there was evidence that this was a hate crime. There is evidence to suggest that it may have been a hate crime. If you can't tell the difference, please stop posting for your own sake.
Click to expand...

I have LOTS of evidence that Muslims are low life no moral having murderous scumbags that will do anything to further their glorious causes including slaughtering their own people to make a point. So based on that, my evidence of such a pathetic disgusting people backs MY claim it was a muslim that burned the equipment.

Isnt this FUN?

You have NOTHING with regard to THIS CASE...do you? ANd until you do you are making biased speculation. Well...Ive got about 600 terrorist attacks by Muslims annually, Ive got death threats over ****ingt cartoons (good God what a sick bunch of twists), Ive got slaughtered children in fields, Ive got evidence for DAYS that Muslims are scum...and since You seem to want to use others acts to justify your claim that this is a hate crime, it seems perfectly legit for me to roll out one by one with gruesome details the scumbag Muslims and why THEY are everybit as viable a candidate for guilt. Hey...terror is a TRADEMARK of Muslims...
 
VanceMack said:
I have LOTS of evidence that Muslims are low life no moral having murderous scumbags that will do anything to further their glorious causes including slaughtering their own people to make a point. So based on that, my evidence of such a pathetic disgusting people backs MY claim it was a muslim that burned the equipment.
Click to expand...
No, what you have is a hasty generalization. A red herring is a weak argument that defeats itself.
VanceMack said:
Isnt this FUN?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think arson is fun or funny. If you do, good for you. Your future is bleek.
VanceMack said:
You have NOTHING with regard to THIS CASE...do you? ANd until you do you are making biased speculation. Well...Ive got about 600 terrorist attacks by Muslims annually, Ive got death threats over ****ingt cartoons (good God what a sick bunch of twists), Ive got slaughtered children in fields, Ive got evidence for DAYS that Muslims are scum...and since You seem to want to use others acts to justify your claim that this is a hate crime, it seems perfectly legit for me to roll out one by one with gruesome details the scumbag Muslims and why THEY are everybit as viable a candidate for guilt. Hey...terror is a TRADEMARK of Muslims...
Click to expand...
Again, you cannot even tell the difference between evidence to support a claim and evidence to prove someone's guilt. I am not saying I know who committed this arson. No where have I said that. Can you get that through your skull or do you need another three pages for me to explain my position yet again? I clearly said there is evidence to suggest that this was a hate crime. The only thing you have done to even attempt to counter that is use your hatred of Muslims to create some ridiculous fantasy that Muslims did this to deceive you.

This is like debating with a toddler...
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
No, what you have is a hasty generalization. A red herring is a weak argument that defeats itself.

No, I don't think arson is fun or funny. If you do, good for you. Your future is bleek.

Again, you cannot even tell the difference between evidence to support a claim and evidence to prove someone's guilt. I am not saying I know who committed this arson. No where have I said that. Can you get that through your skull or do you need another three pages for me to explain my position yet again? I clearly said there is evidence to suggest that this was a hate crime. The only thing you have done to even attempt to counter that is use your hatred of Muslims to create some ridiculous fantasy that Muslims did this to deceive you.

This is like debating with a toddler...
Click to expand...

What we have has NOTHING to do with the fire or the investigation. What we HAVE is people making bigoted generalizations. You dont know **** about who started the fire or their motivation. Oh...you have your inbred bigotry that tells you you are pretty sure you 'know'...but you know NOTHING.

From the get-go I have said as have many others...investigate...and whoever is guilty should be punished to the full extent of the law. As the FBI said...you cant label something a 'hate crime' until you know what actually happened. But since you have no problem pressing YOUR bigotry...obviously MY evidence of Muslims around the globe as murderous scum that will slaughter anyone or anything to make their cause and point will have just as much relevance as YOURS.

So lets start with the bombings in souks where Muslims plant bombs on retarded children and detonate them...killing innocent and unarmed men women and children (and destroying property) all to 'make a point'. Yep...THATS evidence that Muslims would do JUST this kind of thing.



Muslims would ABSOLUTELY burn a few pieces of equipment to make a point if they would do this kind of horrendous act.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Officials said they had not determined whether the Aug. 28 fire is a hate crime but they said an accelerant was used to burn excavating

snip

Investigators said they would not be able to determine whether the arson constitutes a hate crime until there is a suspect.

Tennessee mosque site fire ruled arson - UPI.com
Click to expand...

Just thought some facts were in order.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Just thought some facts were in order.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Facts will not deter him...

As has been said...MAYBE...MAYBE this was an act of bigotry. But when you have people making baseless accusations about things whioch they have NO knowledge of, then CERTAINLY we have demonstrations of bigotry. Theirs.
 
VanceMack said:
What we have has NOTHING to do with the fire or the investigation. What we HAVE is people making bigoted generalizations.
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
I have LOTS of evidence that Muslims are low life no moral having murderous scumbags that will do anything to further their glorious causes including slaughtering their own people to make a point. So based on that, my evidence of such a pathetic disgusting people backs MY claim it was a muslim that burned the equipment.
Click to expand...

Bigoted generalizations, indeed...
 
For the record (since VanceMack does not care to even read my posts coherently):

I am merely saying that there is evidence TO SUGGEST that this was a hate crime. I am not saying that it is outright a hate crime because the place that burned down is a mosque or anything of that nature (although VanceMack repeatedly interprets my argument as such). I just believe the evidence makes it more plausible that this was a hate crime than say... Muslims trying to deceive VanceMack.
 
Degreez said:
For the record (since VanceMack does not care to even read my posts coherently):

I am merely saying that there is evidence TO SUGGEST that this was a hate crime. I am not saying that it is outright a hate crime because the place that burned down is a mosque or anything of that nature (although VanceMack repeatedly interprets my argument as such). I just believe the evidence makes it more plausible that this was a hate crime than say... Muslims trying to deceive VanceMack.
Click to expand...

For the record...there is NO evidence regarding THIS incident. You may have evidence of other actions or behaviors...but you havent got **** about THIS crime.

but good lord...dont I have a TON of evidence pointing to the fact that this is preCISELy the kind of thing Muslims do around the globe. Debating...I think the pictures of the villages burned to the ground and bloody beheaded bodies of Christian schoolgirls might be a BIT over the top...
 
Degreez said:
For the record (since VanceMack does not care to even read my posts coherently):

I am merely saying that there is evidence TO SUGGEST that this was a hate crime. I am not saying that it is outright a hate crime because the place that burned down is a mosque or anything of that nature (although VanceMack repeatedly interprets my argument as such). I just believe the evidence makes it more plausible that this was a hate crime than say... Muslims trying to deceive VanceMack.
Click to expand...

Well, KC makes me think of a good question. Since we don't know who is behind it yet, what if it was a Muslim that was involved? Would that change any of the conclusions that this and other threads are ripe with?

j-mac
 
VanceMack said:
For the record...there is NO evidence regarding THIS incident. You may have evidence of other actions or behaviors...but you havent got **** about THIS crime.
Click to expand...
No ****? That's what I've said for the past 3 pages, but you are simply misinterpreting it. If you were not being purposefully obtuse, than I feel sorry for you. There is evidence TO SUGGEST (DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN) that this was a hate crime. That is not the equivalent of me saying there is evidence that this was a hate crime, which has already been reported as such by the authorities. Now please, you are only making yourself look more foolish.
 
j-mac said:
Well, KC makes me think of a good question. Since we don't know who is behind it yet, what if it was a Muslim that was involved? Would that change any of the conclusions that this and other threads are ripe with?

j-mac
Click to expand...

What if it was actually aliens? What if it was aliens that were committing a hate crime?! :roll:
 
Degreez said:
No ****? That's what I've said for the past 3 pages, but you are simply misinterpreting it. If you were not being purposefully obtuse, than I feel sorry for you. There is evidence TO SUGGEST (DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN) that this was a hate crime. That is not the equivalent of me saying there is evidence that this was a hate crime, which has already been reported as such by the authorities. Now please, you are only making yourself look more foolish.
Click to expand...

One last time...

You have NO EVIDENCE of ANYTHING about this incident so you dont KNOW if it is a hate crime or not. By CALLING it a hate crime you imply one group was specifically targeted by another for their religious standing.

Now...Those Indonesian children...THEY were targeted by Muslims because of their Christian faith. More evidence that this is JUST the type of things Muslims would do...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom