• 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!

'Soldier beheaded' in Woolwich machete attack: latest

The majority of followers of Islam are not off killing everyone.

No, but they may support things like executing apostates and gays. Not exactly what I would define as "peaceful".
 
No, but they may support things like executing apostates and gays. Not exactly what I would define as "peaceful".

And how do they support it? Do you have proof that over 500 million followers of Islam support executing apostates and gays? Or does the government that control those countries support it?

You have no proof, yet claim as if you do. Your namesake makes me do just that....chuckle at your folly.
 
And how do they support it?

Well, Pew has done a number of interesting polls on the subject.


http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFil...ims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah | Pew Global Attitudes Project

I also think you will find both studies point to large segments of the population also supporting extremist organizations and position. Though they seem to clearly make up a minority in that instance

Do you have proof that over 500 million followers of Islam support executing apostates and gays?

Well, no, which is why I wrote "they may". Because the evidence does seem to suggest this, and at least makes clear it's a very real possibility




You have no proof, yet claim as if you do.

So you reasonably ask for proof while at the same time claiming I have no proof?


Your namesake makes me do just that....chuckle at your folly.

what are you getting worked up about? If you disagree feel free to address my data
 
I would say the Conservative agenda to turn Americans into raving lunatic haters of unions has been 100% successful. Haters of queers---About 50 % successful. Haters of little brown people-----------Maybe 45%....................

Haters of educated people- say, 30% and growing.
 
Did the Newtown shooter do his deed in the name of Jesus?

For your logic to make sense, this shooter would have attacked the Newtown school because they were not Christians. Do you have anything showing this to be a fact?[/QUOTE]

Let's say he did, would it then be representative of all Christians? Yes or no please.
 
You can keep facepalming yourself more if you want, because you just showed that you do not know what you are talking about.

The radicalization of Saudi Sunnis began in mid 20th century, long before Iraq/Afghanistan, it continued and was only amplified by anti-western rhetoric during the wars, but it began long before that.

Btw the house of Saud isn't the most radical part of Saudi Arabia, nor of the world - it doesn't mean that they are any good either.

Wanna try and come up with another theory?

Fallen.

FACEPALM. Saudi Arabia is not radical because of our intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, and nothing I said can even remotely be considered similar to your very, very poor understanding of my argument.

Iraq is radical because we overthrew their secular government and it was replaced by an Islamic "democracy." Same thing with Iran. And Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand, whose radical Wahhabist government has always been supported and propped up by the United States (like when we sent troops to defend them against Saddam -- Osamas stated reason for 9/11), is a completely separate case. How you managed to confuse them is beyond me, but it makes sense given your poor understanding of how world events are interconnected.
 
What do you mean by "innocent people"? Do you mean innocents that we are specifically targeting, like various public bombinb campaigns carried out by actual terrorist organizations, or are you talking about collateral damage, that is born out of the necessities for waging war and is clearly accepted within such documents as the geneva convention?

I'm talking about the tens of thousands of innocent people who were killed due to our imperialist foreign policy, like in Iraq for example, a completely voluntary war. Or Libya. Or the presidents terrorist drone policy.

Depends on what you are exactly talking about. You're posts seem rather vague and based on various faulty assumptions. So they are hard to address in any substantial manner.

Secondly, support for radicalism and fundamentalism (in the context of executing gays and apostates) is rather widespread in the islamic world. And while I don't think that makes islam and muslims inherently bad, there are certain trends within the religion that helps fuel those rather large bad elements. With the big one being the lack of distinction between godly and earthly law

Of course, that is not to say there isn't a reaction to foreign policy going on here, either. But as problematic as it is, the hindu nationalist movement has largely moderated, while the Deobondi school of islam is still fueling the Taliban, ideologically.

I wonder what else gives fuel to that fire we call radical Islam. Could it be that the west has been ransacking and destroying the Muslim world for the last 50 years, overthrowing governments and propping up dictators as we did in South America, SouthEast Asia, and everywhere else in the world?

It's easy to point the finger at "those people over there" and say we are so much better than them because we don't kill gays. Well, instead we just kill Muslims, by the tens of thousands.

So what? If I have a hundred people storm my home to rape my children, and kill 60 before running them off, and they don't have an opportunity to kill anyone, that doesn't make my attempt at defense any less morally right, and their attack and intentions any less morally wrong.

They use identical logic. It's ok to kill Americans because Americans are trying to kill Muslims. You don't see this because you are thoroughly indoctrinated via government propaganda, just like they are brainwashed from radical Muslim propaganda.
 
FACEPALM. Saudi Arabia is not radical because of our intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, and nothing I said can even remotely be considered similar to your very, very poor understanding of my argument.

Iraq is radical because we overthrew their secular government and it was replaced by an Islamic "democracy. Same thing with Iran. And Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand, whose radical Wahhabist government has always been supported and propped up by the United States (like when we sent troops to defend them against Saddam -- Osamas stated reason for 9/11), is a completely separate case. How you managed to confuse them is beyond me, but it makes sense given your poor understanding of how world events are interconnected.

Maybe because you have a very poor argument?

You argued few pages ago that:
You - Iran, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
Me - ....And how any of these have to do with the rise of Salafi/Wahhabi movements, for instance?
You -"They have to do with our imperialist foreign policy. That include the rise of Wahhabism in the first place via our "great ally" Saudi Arabia."

or from the post above me:
I wonder what else gives fuel to that fire we call radical Islam. Could it be that the west has been ransacking and destroying the Muslim world for the last 50 years, overthrowing governments and propping up dictators as we did in South America, SouthEast Asia, and everywhere else in the world?*

Again, Saudi Arabia was supported by the US and unfortunately still is, but it began to radicalize from within in mid 20th century before wars, interventions, etc by US.
Hence, the cause for radicalization isn't US foreign/intervention policy - at least not the original one, and again...though, I don't like the house of Saud there are more radical movements inside Saudi Arabia.

So...wanna try and come up with another theory to explain the rise of Wahhabi/Salafi movements?

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
I'm talking about the tens of thousands of innocent people who were killed due to our imperialist foreign policy, like in Iraq for example, a completely voluntary war. Or Libya. Or the presidents terrorist drone policy.

where is the imperialism in Iraq or Libya?



I wonder what else gives fuel to that fire we call radical Islam. Could it be that the west has been ransacking and destroying the Muslim world for the last 50 years, overthrowing governments and propping up dictators as we did in South America, SouthEast Asia, and everywhere else in the world?

Ignoring the simplistic view of american foreign policy, wouldn't this be ignoring that the Taliban arose in the absence of american interference?

It's easy to point the finger at "those people over there" and say we are so much better than them because we don't kill gays. Well, instead we just kill Muslims, by the tens of thousands.

Where have we killed people for being muslim?



They use identical logic. It's ok to kill Americans because Americans are trying to kill Muslims. You don't see this because you are thoroughly indoctrinated via government propaganda, just like they are brainwashed from radical Muslim propaganda.

That isn't identical logic at all. Nothing I asserted claims that it's "ok to kill muslims because they are trying to kill Americans". My argument rested on the fact that disproportionate casualties do not speak to the moral or ethical nature of a conflict.
 
Iraq is radical because we overthrew their secular government and it was replaced by an Islamic "democracy." Same thing with Iran. And Afghanistan.

didn't you just complain about propped up dictators? You're arguments seem to be all over the place here
 
Ignoring the simplistic view of american foreign policy, wouldn't this be ignoring that the Taliban arose in the absence of american interference?
Not really. The Taliban became active during the war with the USSR, at which point we propped them up, funded and supplied them. We gave them everything they needed to defeat the soviets and later assume power.

That's what we do. We pick a group in a middle eastern country, and we fund, train and equip that group, because we believe they would best support our interests in the region. While doing this we're aggrevating the other groups because we're helping their enemies.

We've done this over and over and over and over again, and have even changed sides over the course of time. We're the ultimate meddlers. Not condoning any of their actions, but I would be pretty upset too if foreign entities were consistently fiddling with our politics, invading, and dropping bombs.
 
Not really. The Taliban became active during the war with the USSR, at which point we propped them up, funded and supplied them. We gave them everything they needed to defeat the soviets and later assume power.

The taliban didn't even exist when the soviet union was operating in Afghanistan.

That's what we do. We pick a group in a middle eastern country, and we fund, train and equip that group, because we believe they would best support our interests in the region. While doing this we're aggrevating the other groups because we're helping their enemies.

Again, the Taliban didn't start operating until 1994. Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 89
 
The taliban didn't even exist when the soviet union was operating in Afghanistan.



Again, the Taliban didn't start operating until 1994. Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 89

You are completely and totally wrong. The Taliban formed in 1979 to fight the Soviet invaders.

Here's a few links for you to read up before you reply:
Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of the Taliban

Or if you don't feel like reading, you could also just watch the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War'
Charlie Wilson's War - Trailer(HD) Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts - YouTube
 
The taliban didn't even exist when the soviet union was operating in Afghanistan.



Again, the Taliban didn't start operating until 1994. Soviet troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 89

And just for good measure, here's Reagan meeting with the Taliban.

reagan_taliban_1985.jpg
 
You are completely and totally wrong. The Taliban formed in 1979 to fight the Soviet invaders.

Here's a few links for you to read up before you reply:
Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of the Taliban

Or if you don't feel like reading, you could also just watch the movie 'Charlie Wilson's War'
Charlie Wilson's War - Trailer(HD) Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts - YouTube

In 1994 a ragtag group of armed young men announced their intent to restore moral order and justice to Afghanistan, punishing robbers, adulterers, and rapistsas they spread their rule.

The taliban and the crisis of Afghanistan pg 4 Robert D Crews and Amin Tarzi.

Pro-tip: Don't believe everything you read on the internet
 
And just for good measure, here's Reagan meeting with the Taliban.

reagan_taliban_1985.jpg

you, and the person who made that picture, seem to be confusing the mujahideen with the Taliban
 
The taliban and the crisis of Afghanistan pg 4 Robert D Crews and Amin Tarzi.

Pro-tip: Don't believe everything you read on the internet

First, your quote doesn't even say the Taliban didn't form in 1979, just that they were still a ragtag group of armed men. (Actually it doesn't even mention the Taliban in the quote)

Second, I gave you a picture of Reagan meeting with the Taliban in 1985, I gave you two links, and even a movie made specifically around us supporting the Taliban in the 80's.

Jesus christ, just admit you were wrong instead of trying to claim the entire world is wrong. Unbelievably dishonest.

there are disputes over Reagan and this picture

Ronald Reagan Did Not Say Taliban Had Morals Of Our Founding Fathers


Ronald Reagan Did Not Say Taliban Had Morals Of Our Founding Fathers - YouTube

I don't really care what he did or didn't say. The question is whether the Taliban existed in the 80's. He DID meet with the Taliban in the 80's.
 
Further

This chaotic social and political environment gave rise to a vacuum of leadership and gave momentum to to the appearance of a political force that promised to stop the infighting and further destruction of the country. Led by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the initial taliban group emerged in the southern part of Kandahar province in 1994 as a local response to the former resistance and resistance forces implicated in banditry, brutality against local residents ...

same book, page 101, Neamatollah Nojumi
 
First, your quote doesn't even say the Taliban didn't form in 1979, just that they were still a ragtag group of armed men. (Actually it doesn't even mention the Taliban in the quote)

well, I didn't feel like typing out the previous five pages on context

Second, I gave you a picture of Reagan meeting with the Taliban in 1985, I gave you two links, and even a movie made specifically around us supporting the Taliban in the 80's.

So your citations are an internet meme and a hollywood movie?

But, again, the picture is of the Mujihadeen leadership. Just google "mujihadeen and reagan" and you can even see the news footage reporting it
 
Further



same book, page 101, Neamatollah Nojumi

You are incorrect, but now I know why you're making a big deal about a small detail. You wanted to avoid addressing my actual point, which was that over the past 40 years we have been regularing arming, training, and funding any group in the middle east that we think will be beneficial to us, and that this constant political meddling, invasions, and bomb dropping has been a large source of muslim distrust and disdain for Americans.

Nice smoke screen.
 
You are incorrect, but now I know why you're making a big deal about a small detail. You wanted to avoid addressing my actual point, which was that over the past 40 years we have been regularing arming, training, and funding any group in the middle east that we think will be beneficial to us, and that this constant political meddling, invasions, and bomb dropping has been a large source of muslim distrust and disdain for Americans.

1) No, I am certainly correct. hence why I am not citing internet memes and hollywood movies

2)You made specific claims about the Taliban that are factually wrong.

Not really. The Taliban became active during the war with the USSR, at which point we propped them up, funded and supplied them. We gave them everything they needed to defeat the soviets and later assume power.

3)We withdrew our involvement in Afghanistan after the soviets left. In fact, such is usually faulted for the **** hole it turned into

4) It's rather odd seeing someone try to claim an intellectual victory in the above context, but whatever
 
didn't you just complain about propped up dictators? You're arguments seem to be all over the place here

My complaint is about interventionism. How is it possible that you haven't figured that out by now?
 
where is the imperialism in Iraq or Libya?

We bombed the **** out of them, did you forget?

Ignoring the simplistic view of american foreign policy, wouldn't this be ignoring that the Taliban arose in the absence of american interference?

LMFAO! Have you heard of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen, and the resulting power vacuum that was left after Soviet troops withdrew? Is this some kind of joke? You can't be serious right now right?

Where have we killed people for being muslim?

All over the Middle East. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Nobody would have approved of the invasion of a European country after 9/11. Muslim country like Iraq? No problem!

That isn't identical logic at all. Nothing I asserted claims that it's "ok to kill muslims because they are trying to kill Americans". My argument rested on the fact that disproportionate casualties do not speak to the moral or ethical nature of a conflict.

And what is the "moral" or "ethical" argument you have for killing innocent Muslims? I guess I'm just like 3 steps ahead of you so I will try to slow it down a bit.
 
We bombed the **** out of them, did you forget?



LMFAO! Have you heard of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen, and the resulting power vacuum that was left after Soviet troops withdrew? Is this some kind of joke? You can't be serious right now right?



All over the Middle East. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Nobody would have approved of the invasion of a European country after 9/11. Muslim country like Iraq? No problem!



And what is the "moral" or "ethical" argument you have for killing innocent Muslims? I guess I'm just like 3 steps ahead of you so I will try to slow it down a bit.

Ronald Reagan had a description for people making silly claims like this. He called them "the blame America first crowd." Still fits.:cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom