• 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!

Britain's Lord Nazir Ahmed Offers £10 Million Bounty for Obama, Bush

Wiggen said:
Well, they tolerate Islamic exremists like this 'Lord' in their Party. How did he actually become a member of the House of Lords anyway? I know you have a fine tradition of appointing all sorts of moral degenerates into the House of Lords, but having an actual honest to god terrorist sympathizer takes it one step further.

Still, he and Galloway can at least have somebody of a like mind to talk to.
Click to expand...

Wiggen try and get your facts correct. Ahmed is not an islamist extremist. The fact you say he is suggests you believe that anyone who is a Muslim is an extremist. That makes you yourself unstable and extremist.

Secondly Galloway is not a member of the Labour Party.
 
Red_Dave said:
Suspending an investigating him his hardly tolerating, and Galloway was kicked out of the party long ago for the very reasons i described.
Click to expand...

But the great unwashed electorate of Bradford still love him, don't they? I'm guessing the Labour Party got the message. Expect George back in their good graces sooner rather than later.
 
alexa said:
Wiggen try and get your facts correct. Ahmed is not an islamist extremist. The fact you say he is suggests you believe that anyone who is a Muslim is an extremist. That makes you yourself unstable and extremist.

Secondly Galloway is not a member of the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

Ahmed is most definitely an extremist. Anybody who goes to the hellhole that is Pakistan and puts a bounty on two American Presidents is an extremist. I realize that's not extremist to you, its just good policy.

And Galloway was a member of the Labour Party and probably will be again. Labour wants that Muslim extremist vote.
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
Ahmed is most definitely an extremist.
Click to expand...

So you believe all Muslims are extremist. There really isn't anything to say to you.

Wiggen said:
And Galloway was a member of the Labour Party and probably will be again.
Click to expand...

He was a member but he was expelled and is now a member of a different party.

Wiggen said:
Labour wants that Muslim extremist vote.
Click to expand...

You clearly just make things up as you go along. As it bears no relationship to reality, there is nothing to be said. It is impossible to debate if someone is just living fantasies.
 
Wiggen said:
Listen, if you want to actually believe that the United States is bound by the Charter of the United Nations, then be my guest. No President, no politician would survive for a minute if they publicly announced they were surrendering the soverignty of the United States to a pack of barely literate, anti American foreigners.

But believe what you like.
Click to expand...

So you are not bound by things like the NATO treaty or UN Charter but demand that the rest of us are? A tad arrogant no?
 
Dayum,
What a nasty turn of events. I had to wipe the rabid spittle off the screen from some of those posts.

It is amazing to me how some who ranted against CNN and MSNBC for the Zimmerman tapes and belittle any 'leftie' who thought the first report was true.

But when a 'news' report, some 'conservatives' want to be true, surfaces it is jumped on like Gospel. All the pompass posturing quickly forgotten. :roll:

It seems there is little if any supporting evidence Lord Ahmed put a bounty out on anyone. It seems the traffic accident didn't involve texting and the other driver was a drunk and had crashed his car right infront of Ahmed at night.

it seems this thread has turned into a rather idiotic string of chest puffing and thumping to cover the fact some 'quick to judge' 'conservatives' are just as bad as those they decry...

sad really...
 
alexa said:
Just been listening to Lord Ahmed on News 24. He said he never had an interview with that paper and there were plenty of other papers there and none of them suggested he said the OP. Further he said there is a tape of what he said so tough luck he can show he did not say this. He is quite gobsmacked at the way people have chosen to believe this without checking it was correct first.
Click to expand...

Well, then let's see the tape. :shrug:

By the way, it's not MEMRI which is the source of this. It's a "centre-left" Pakistani paper.

It still baffles me that so many simply refuse to believe he could have said it. I'll be watching for this kind of skepticism in the future, when the subject of the piece is not so sympathetic to you guys. (And why he is, I still don't quite get.)
 
PeteEU said:
So you are not bound by things like the NATO treaty or UN Charter but demand that the rest of us are? A tad arrogant no?
Click to expand...

I've noticed you Europeans are a tad selective when it comes to things like the NATO treaty. You tend to support it when it suits your national interests.
 
notquiteright said:
Dayum,
What a nasty turn of events. I had to wipe the rabid spittle off the screen from some of those posts.

It is amazing to me how some who ranted against CNN and MSNBC for the Zimmerman tapes and belittle any 'leftie' who thought the first report was true.

But when a 'news' report, some 'conservatives' want to be true, surfaces it is jumped on like Gospel. All the pompass posturing quickly forgotten. :roll:

It seems there is little if any supporting evidence Lord Ahmed put a bounty out on anyone. It seems the traffic accident didn't involve texting and the other driver was a drunk and had crashed his car right infront of Ahmed at night.

it seems this thread has turned into a rather idiotic string of chest puffing and thumping to cover the fact some 'quick to judge' 'conservatives' are just as bad as those they decry...

sad really...
Click to expand...

Jt as amazing are the number of Islamic extremist apologists who just naturally assume that this couldn't possibly be true. Of course, the other possible explanation is that they agree with bounties being placed on the heads of american Presidents. In fact, we've had at least one of these posters state exactly that.
 
Harshaw said:
Well, then let's see the tape. :shrug:

By the way, it's not MEMRI which is the source of this. It's a "centre-left" Pakistani paper.

It still baffles me that so many simply refuse to believe he could have said it. I'll be watching for this kind of skepticism in the future, when the subject of the piece is not so sympathetic to you guys. (And why he is, I still don't quite get.)
Click to expand...

Sories like this always tend to draw out the Far Left - especially the European type - who see it as just another opportunity to bash the United States. That they have to ally themselves with Muslim extremists doesn't bother them in the slightest.
 
Wiggen-
Perhaps it is even more amazing that when someone disagrees with certain radical right wing rantings, those someones who dared voice an objection get hammered with the usual slurs and knee jerk attacks that certainly don't help any dis-CUSS-ion.

I suppose a certain amount of penis waving is bound to happen, but most the attacks leveled against those who wonder just how true a report of bounty issuing can be are ignorant. It isn't as if this Lord Ahmed has a long history of anti-American attacks. It isn't as if a slew of papers/reporters/ bloggers were witness to this. no tape, no vid, no nuttin

For all some on the radical right puff and posture over Zimmerman THIS 'report' would have been a most excellent chance to show some walking the walk instead of shrill attacks on other countries because a few 'furiners' see our actions overseas as possible war crimes, especially when compared to who all we drug into the Hague.

As far as the NATO and when they 'choose' to help, I recall them wanting to help after 9-11 and a haughty Rumsfeld declared their help would be a hindrance, what with wanting to obey the rules of war and all.

But that goes against the right wing rant of USA uber alles.
 
Red_Dave said:
No Bush is a war criminal for launching a war of aggression. Gitmo is certainly against U.S law though (and even the lowest standards of human decency)
Click to expand...
You prove my point. YOU believe he is a war criminal (so do a LOT of mindless morons out there). Many would say that Clinton was a war criminal for going to war against the Serbs. Obama qualifies because he authorized military force against Libya. Its all relative.
 
VanceMack said:
You prove my point. YOU believe he is a war criminal (so do a LOT of mindless morons out there). Many would say that Clinton was a war criminal for going to war against the Serbs. Obama qualifies because he authorized military force against Libya. Its all relative.
Click to expand...

The intervention is Serbia was mandated by the UN and NATO (though funding the extremist groups that broke the country up was certainly wrong), and was Libya, but if it makes you any happier critics of Obama may well have a point legally regarding drone attacks. Not to mention that Clinton's attack on Sudan was certainly illegal.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
The intervention is Serbia was mandated by the UN and NATO (though funding the extremist groups that broke the country up was certainly wrong), and was Libya, but if it makes you any happier critics of Obama may well have a point legally regarding drone attacks. Not to mention that Clinton's attack on Sudan was certainly illegal.
Click to expand...
Perspective. It is illegal 'to you'. WHich means it is illegal to no one of relevance
 
Red_Dave said:
No its illegal according to the UN charter and the Nuremberg conventions
Click to expand...
From your perspective. Obviously you are what we call in the real world...'wrong'
 
alexa said:
I would not know that Wiggen but you said the source was important and the link i gave you was to the source. Not 'the Jews' but yes, Israel. You were the person who said the source was important and I agree with you. Do not now try to pull the antisemitism card.
Click to expand...

You are one of the very lowest of the low when it comes to your hatred of Jews, having resorted to the promotion of neoNazi and Islamist hate sites in the past.




You are an antisemite beyond any shadow of a doubt.
 
notquiteright said:
Dayum,
What a nasty turn of events. I had to wipe the rabid spittle off the screen from some of those posts.

It is amazing to me how some who ranted against CNN and MSNBC for the Zimmerman tapes and belittle any 'leftie' who thought the first report was true.

But when a 'news' report, some 'conservatives' want to be true, surfaces it is jumped on like Gospel. All the pompass posturing quickly forgotten. :roll:

It seems there is little if any supporting evidence Lord Ahmed put a bounty out on anyone. It seems the traffic accident didn't involve texting and the other driver was a drunk and had crashed his car right infront of Ahmed at night.

it seems this thread has turned into a rather idiotic string of chest puffing and thumping to cover the fact some 'quick to judge' 'conservatives' are just as bad as those they decry...

sad really...
Click to expand...



Because the Islamist in question SAID he didn't?

You are awfully ignorant if you think Islamism is a liberal ideology.
 
VanceMack said:
From your perspective. Obviously you are what we call in the real world...'wrong'
Click to expand...

Both forbid acts of aggression ("The supreme international crime"). What do you call destroying a pharmaceutical factory that posed no threat if not aggression?
 
Red_Dave said:
Both forbid acts of aggression ("The supreme international crime"). What do you call destroying a pharmaceutical factory that posed no threat if not aggression?
Click to expand...
Apparently in the 90's they called it a preemptive strike and the world agreed. And while an unknown blogger disagrees, the fact is that unknown blogger is at best (and by his own admission) a partisan ideologue. The relevance placed behind such a persons opinion is...well..nil.
 
alexa said:
Considering the source it looks like a deliberate attempt to degrade Lord Ahmed for political purposes. He did mentioned he expressed his opinion of Gaza.



Middle East Media Research Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This time it appears Lord Ahmed is confident he can easily show he is being libelled. What surprised him was that people, even initially the BBC believed it.

Looks like we are going to have to watch his back.
Click to expand...


What do you mean "we", and why are you going to watch this particular man's back? Whom are you expecting to attack him... the BBC? Because quite frankly beyond the BBC article and this forum, I've heard absolutely nothing about this from American news media. It may have been picked up from the BBC by a few outlets, but none that I've seen.

So who do you believe is out to get this man, and why?
 
VanceMack said:
Apparently in the 90's they called it a preemptive strike and the world agreed. And while an unknown blogger disagrees, the fact is that unknown blogger is at best (and by his own admission) a partisan ideologue. The relevance placed behind such a persons opinion is...well..nil.
Click to expand...

Which unknown blogger would that be?
 
notquiteright said:
Wiggen-
Perhaps it is even more amazing that when someone disagrees with certain radical right wing rantings, those someones who dared voice an objection get hammered with the usual slurs and knee jerk attacks that certainly don't help any dis-CUSS-ion.

I suppose a certain amount of penis waving is bound to happen, but most the attacks leveled against those who wonder just how true a report of bounty issuing can be are ignorant. It isn't as if this Lord Ahmed has a long history of anti-American attacks. It isn't as if a slew of papers/reporters/ bloggers were witness to this. no tape, no vid, no nuttin

For all some on the radical right puff and posture over Zimmerman THIS 'report' would have been a most excellent chance to show some walking the walk instead of shrill attacks on other countries because a few 'furiners' see our actions overseas as possible war crimes, especially when compared to who all we drug into the Hague.

As far as the NATO and when they 'choose' to help, I recall them wanting to help after 9-11 and a haughty Rumsfeld declared their help would be a hindrance, what with wanting to obey the rules of war and all.

But that goes against the right wing rant of USA uber alles.
Click to expand...

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I recall no offer of any substantial help by NATO when 9-11 occurred. NATO hasn't exactly been chomping at the bit to help out when the United States needs it, but they are never hesitant about asking America to shoulder the burden in Europe. The unpleasantness in the balkans being the most recent example. Still, I suppose if you agree with those progressive Europeans that George Bush was a war criminal and that he and Obama are worthy of bounties being put on them, you don't see much wrong with this Muslim extremist position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom