• 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!

Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

  • Captivate

    Votes: 6 9.4%

  • Convert

    Votes: 24 37.5%

  • Kill

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • None of the Above

    Votes: 27 42.2%

  • Other (Specify)

    Votes: 9 14.1%
  • Total voters
    64
Maximus Zeebra said:
Muslims are not being exterminated yet, but its on the plate.
Click to expand...
So then you CANT prove that the US has a plan to exterminate Muslims like the Nazi's tried with the Jewish?

Maximus Zeebra said:
Could you have proven before the Jews were exterminated that they were? No, but many things would suspect such a thing happening in the short term future..
Click to expand...
With today technologies? Yes I could.
Right now anybody who wishes to look can find evidence that Muslims are exterminating other Muslims but I guess in your book that doesn't count since its not the USA doing the killing.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Thats the American agenda anyways it seems like, judging from all the American extremists on this forum.
Click to expand...
Can I judge your country by your posts?
 
cherokee said:
Can I judge your country by your posts?
Click to expand...

As far as I know I am the only Norwegian on this forum.. But if you saw that all Norwegians(say if there was 50 on this forum) had largely the same views on the forum about something specific, yes then you should start considering the possibility of judging my country based on "our opinions". That its a very good possibility that Norwegians in general watch that issue in a certain way.

I am not judging everyone in the US based on the extremists on this forum, but when it accounts for the whole Muslim things, I believe there is a majority of Americans on this forum that basically have the same extremists stand. And I do consider this forum somewhat of a representation of "regular" Americans. Politically involved in general, or not.

I am still not saying its a majority of Americans in general that takes these views, but many indications and factors tells me that there is a large minority of Americans in general with the same stands, that at least is for certain.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
As far as I know I am the only Norwegian on this forum.. But if you saw that all Norwegians(say if there was 50 on this forum) had largely the same views on the forum about something specific, yes then you should start considering the possibility of judging my country based on "our opinions". That its a very good possibility that Norwegians in general watch that issue in a certain way.

I am not judging everyone in the US based on the extremists on this forum, but when it accounts for the whole Muslim things, I believe there is a majority of Americans on this forum that basically have the same extremists stand. And I do consider this forum somewhat of a representation of "regular" Americans. Politically involved in general, or not.

I am still not saying its a majority of Americans in general that takes these views, but many indications and factors tells me that there is a large minority of Americans in general with the same stands, that at least is for certain.
Click to expand...

You can always tell a Norwegian......you just can't tell him much.

Passengers at the Minneapolis airport were denied rides in cabs driven by muslims because they had liquor. One guy was denied a ride because he had a guide dog for the blind. That is simply wrong.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
None of this was cause enough to invade. Such views on war are a menace to domestic liberty and external security. Imagine if Russia and China started thinking they could invade places on such flimsy excuses.
Click to expand...

Say's a citizen of a country that wasn't toyed with for twelve years. You people are in a pathetic state of denial these days. You speak of domestic liberty. Who's liberty? Yours or Iraqis? You speak of external security. The thorn in the side of this region's stability was Hussein. Ater years and years of breaking UN mandates and rules (which was the deal for his presevation post Gulf War).....you people still complain about "cause."


1) January 13, 1993: More than 100 American, British, and French fighters bombed Iraqi air-defense targets. Five days later, forty-five TLAMs launched ay sea destroyed a factory that had ben a key part of Iraqi's nuclear program. These attacks were followed with further jet-fighter air strikes the next day.

2) In the fall of 1994, Hussein demanded that the UN lift sanctions, and to force the issue he deployed 80,000 troops near the Kuwaiti border. Clinton sent 50,000 American troops, including an aircraft carrier battle group and hundreds of aircrafts. (Operation Vigilant Warrior). After Hussein backed down, 5,000 American troops remained in Kuwait.

3) One year later, Hussein pulled a similar stunt. American troops once again reinforced Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. As a result of these efforts, the US maintained a sizable force in the Persian Gulf.

4) August 1996: Two months after the Khobar Towers bombing, Hussein launched another offensive inside Iraq that forced his fourth confrontation with Clinton in less than four years. He attacked the Kurds in the north. They were under the protection of the no-fly zone, imposed in 1991 by Operation Provide Comfort; Hussein's action also violated the U.N. Security Council Resolution prohibiting him form repressing his people. Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike, sending forty-four TLAMs against air defense targets in southern Iraq.

5) Autumn 1997: Hussein began placing restrictions again on UN inspectors and demanded that all American be kicked off the teams. Clinton ordered another buildup of U.S. military forces in the Gulf. Hussein backed off.

6) 1998: Hussein once again prevented the UN inspectors from working.

7) Mid year 1998: Congress passes and Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, codifying the aim of regime change into U.S. law and authorizing nearly $100 million in Pentagon funds to support the Iraqi opposition. One month later, Hussein started playing games with UN inspectors again and Operation Desert Fox commenced.

8) As late as 2002, Hussein flies military jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia's airspace to further taunt American action.


Cause or no cause...it happened. But Europe would have preferred that America continue to deal with this thorn until the end of time. Did Europe have to spend billions dealing with this creep for twelve years? Did Europe's militaries jump back and forth to play the Hussein game? Hell no. But Europe has the nerve to complain about America's actions to topple what was largely not their problem.

Despite the bunglings of Rumsfeld, Iraq today is what many of us have been defending for years. If the critic had it his way, America's forces would have abandoned Iraqis years ago and Al-Queda would have Iraq instead of the wastelands of Afghanistan. But it seems even the French government is striving to take advantage of the free Iraq and vast potential on the horizen these days. Toppling Hussein was the best thing for this region and for the world...at least for those who were actively dealing with the bastard since we paved the path back to his throne post Gulf War.

But what's the point on "imagining" about Russia or China? Being the model of oppression for their own people, you think some dictator in the world has a reason to be cautious about them? You think either one would be caught trying to uphold unprecedented UN interference upon a soveriegn nation for twelve years (Ironic how the critics only complained about Hussein's soveriegnty in 2003.)? And with America's history and record for leaving every single nation it ever entered to the local people, you actually have the nerve to place America upon the same shelf as China and Russia?

This is why you critics have such a hard time with this. You pretend to protest over a lack of "cause," but the truth is that you merely argued for the status quo....at America's expense. Always, at America's expense.
 
GySgt said:
Say's a citizen of a country that wasn't toyed with for twelve years. You people are in a pathetic state of denial these days. You speak of domestic liberty. Who's liberty? Yours or Iraqis?
Click to expand...
Mine of course. It is not for us to risk our domestic and external security for those of another nation unless there is likely to be something like a genocide going on. Such a practice will likely backfire as such liberal, interventionist humanitarianism usually does. Creating more problems, as it did in Iraq and destabilising things further by encouraging increased flouting of national sovereignty. We are lucky that Russia and China haven't quite taken it up yet.

When will you liberals learn that interventionist, humanitarianism usually backfires.

You speak of external security. The thorn in the side of this region's stability was Hussein. Ater years and years of breaking UN mandates and rules (which was the deal for his presevation post Gulf War).....you people still complain about "cause."
Click to expand...
Saddam was not a threat to Britain or my region, he was barely doing much to upset his own region. External security in the region seems little better now than it did before the war but that is not particularly my worry unless it threatens my own region. I'm no liberal univsersalist, I don't wish to try and sort out the world's problems, that usually causes more trouble than it cures.
 
walleye said:
You can always tell a Norwegian......you just can't tell him much.

Passengers at the Minneapolis airport were denied rides in cabs driven by muslims because they had liquor. One guy was denied a ride because he had a guide dog for the blind. That is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Ah, so that means that all Muslims suck. Got it. :roll:
 
walleye said:
If the guy isn't a muslim then he's obviously as insane as the muslim beheaders and Mohammed.
Click to expand...

Killing is killing in anyway. beheading, shooting, .... that makes your debate "useless"
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
If Iran is a theocracy than the US is certainly a two party corporate mediaocracy. Italy is just mediaocracy, the president elect is the owner of almost all media in the country..
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Well done, Max.
 
GySgt said:
Cause or no cause...it happened. But Europe would have preferred that America continue to deal with this thorn until the end of time. Did Europe have to spend billions dealing with this creep for twelve years? Did Europe's militaries jump back and forth to play the Hussein game? Hell no. But Europe has the nerve to complain about America's actions to topple what was largely not their problem.

Despite the bunglings of Rumsfeld, Iraq today is what many of us have been defending for years. If the critic had it his way, America's forces would have abandoned Iraqis years ago and Al-Queda would have Iraq instead of the wastelands of Afghanistan. But it seems even the French government is striving to take advantage of the free Iraq and vast potential on the horizen these days. Toppling Hussein was the best thing for this region and for the world...at least for those who were actively dealing with the bastard since we paved the path back to his throne post Gulf War.

But what's the point on "imagining" about Russia or China? Being the model of oppression for their own people, you think some dictator in the world has a reason to be cautious about them? You think either one would be caught trying to uphold unprecedented UN interference upon a soveriegn nation for twelve years (Ironic how the critics only complained about Hussein's soveriegnty in 2003.)? And with America's history and record for leaving every single nation it ever entered to the local people, you actually have the nerve to place America upon the same shelf as China and Russia?

This is why you critics have such a hard time with this. You pretend to protest over a lack of "cause," but the truth is that you merely argued for the status quo....at America's expense. Always, at America's expense.
Click to expand...

You can try all you want at justifying Iraq and regime change to yourself as valid reasons and so fourth. This doesnt change anything, nor that its basically programmed into you that such is an ok excuse, overlooking all the lies, break of international norms and such over Iraq. But then again, the UN sucks, has also been programmed into you, because it doesnt do what you want. And yes, the food for oil program, its just so much worse than anything, especially all the corruption in US politics. The food for oil scandal that you invented is just a reason for abolish the UN in your minds isnt it? Because in "reality" the UN is controled by a bunch of dictators and Muslims, of course it is, in the security council. All the Muslims and the dictators..

Its funny how you people change your views all the time, and just dont see reality but rather what is washed into you. Big bad UN for being there to prevent wars, to be there to have peace in the world. That would just suck.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Because in "reality" the UN is controled by a bunch of dictators and Muslims, of course it is, in the security council. All the Muslims and the dictators..
Click to expand...

"Need Backup"
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Sorry for not including the :roll:...

I was just trying to give a sarcastic statement about what HIS opinion is and Americans opinion is about the UN.. They think its controlled by Muslims.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the UN is controlled by muslims. I do think, however, that the UN is very corrupt and fails to do the work it was designed to do very often.
 
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The government agreed to impose Islamic law and suspend a military offensive across a large swath of northwest Pakistan on Monday in concessions aimed at pacifying a spreading Taliban insurgency there.

The announcement came after talks with local Islamists, including one closely linked to the Taliban.

The move will likely concern the United States, which has warned Pakistan that such peace agreements allow Al Qaeda and Taliban militants operating near the Afghan border time to rearm and regroup.

Amir Haider Khan Hoti, the chief minister for the North West Frontier Province, said authorities would impose Islamic law in Malakand region, which includes the Swat Valley. Swat is a one-time tourist haven in the northwest where extremists have gained sway through brutal tactics including beheading residents, burning girls schools and attacking security forces.

FOXNews.com - Islamic Law to Be Imposed in Parts of Pakistan - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News
 
Last edited:
Maximus Zeebra said:
Sorry for not including the :roll:...

I was just trying to give a sarcastic statement about what HIS opinion is and Americans opinion is about the UN.. They think its controlled by Muslims.
Click to expand...

Who thinks this? Stop being obtuse.

The UN is a failure. It is an organization full of dictators. China and Russia sit upon the Security Council and has veto powers. Two nations, who's governments don't even represent their own people have a say about how this world should be conducted? People shed crocodile tears for Tibet during the Olypmics and criticize China's oppression over it, yet defend a UN where China has a say? Hypocricy is a European artform. It always makes me laugh how you people defend this garbage. Is there any reason why the UN took so long to open the door to Darfur? Could it be that China and others didn't wish it? And now that it's open, where are America's critics who stated that Africa needs help too?

The UN has its uses. Beyond those uses, it is useless. Why else did Clinton conduct Bosnia with the UN sitting on the outside? Because after waiting long enough while the UN did nothing, CLinton chose to unilaterally deal with it with a minimum of help from NATO.

Two grand events in the 20th century saw the creation of global organizations. The end of WWI saw the League of Nations, which failed. The end of WWII saw the creation of the UN, which stop serving its purpose in 1989. Since the Wall came down, it has proven to be extremely limited in its uses. Funny how a 40+ year Cold War saw no reinvention. No sense of freedom or democracy. B Ut just a continuation of the status quo. The same UN decision making that chose to prescribe oppression and terror upon a region in the Middle East during an entire Cold War decided that Hussein was the guy to bring the world "peace."

The UN's mission of stability often merely prescribed terror and oppression for the locals. Only fools continue to celebrate it's existence as if it's anything more than what it is.
 
Last edited:
walleye said:
No, I don't think the UN is controlled by muslims. I do think, however, that the UN is very corrupt and fails to do the work it was designed to do very often.
Click to expand...
Which is why I voted for Ron Paul.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Big bad UN for being there to prevent wars, to be there to have peace in the world. That would just suck.
Click to expand...

And Hussein was the definition of that "peace" to people like you who need international laws to define your morality. Instead of the typical BS, try some honesty. What you really mean is that the UN serves the West (except when it serves Russia and China) and as long as the dictators and the monsters are prescribed to far away distant lands, "peace" is in good order.

It's a joke how you all confuse "stability" for "peace." Oppressive stability and Euro peace seem to have gone hand in hand for centuries. It's nothing more than Cold War status quo.
 
walleye said:
No, I don't think the UN is controlled by muslims. I do think, however, that the UN is very corrupt and fails to do the work it was designed to do very often.
Click to expand...

The UN is a bunch of international agreements.. How can that be corrupt?
 
GySgt said:
Who thinks this? Stop being obtuse.

The UN is a failure. It is an organization full of dictators.
Click to expand...

And the US is an organization full of morons.. All organizations are bad by your definitions.. the UN is just a bunch of charters, an the dictators doesnt really carry a meaningful voice in the UN.

GySgt said:
China and Russia sit upon the Security Council and has veto powers. Two nations, who's governments don't even represent their own people have a say about how this world should be conducted?
Click to expand...

And so does the US, does the moron government and failed politics of the US represent the people anymore than the government of the PEOPLES Republic of China?
You view is so skewed that I am too lazy to correct it.. So in your opinion only democratic retard nations with joke democracy, money election and white teeth should be allowed to be members of the UN security council?

GySgt said:
People shed crocodile tears for Tibet during the Olypmics and criticize China's oppression over it, yet defend a UN where China has a say?
Click to expand...

Tibet is a Chinese regions. So what if they want to stamp down on rebellion in their own country. As far as I have seen the US is far more of a police state than China. People in the US have to seek approval just to demonstrate.


GySgt said:
Hypocricy is a European artform.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. The US is the hypocrites and the jokers.


GySgt said:
The UN has its uses. Beyond those uses, it is useless. Why else did Clinton conduct Bosnia with the UN sitting on the outside? Because after waiting long enough while the UN did nothing, CLinton chose to unilaterally deal with it with a minimum of help from NATO.
Click to expand...

Thats all you can do, think in a military sense. The UN is international agreements and international norms. Nothing more than that, its up to its nations, its most powerful nations to enforce those regulations not break them.



GySgt said:
The UN's mission of stability often merely prescribed terror and oppression for the locals. Only fools continue to celebrate it's existence as if it's anything more than what it is.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous assertion. In your world everyone is cowboys and do not adhere to any international norms? Thats what you want, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom