• 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!

American Who Recently Visited Pakistan Eyed in Times Square Bomb Plot

SgtRock said:
Yes it matters because islamic terrorist have declared war on the United States. They are our enemy whom we are at war with. We must identify them as the enemy or we can never win the war. Islamic jihadist declared holy war against the United States. How can we expect to defeat them if we refuse to identify them as who THEY claim to be and who THEY are. Simple enough for you. Years of military service and a propensity for plain speak have made it easy for me. I hope you find this post useful.
Click to expand...

oh ok so if we called the Japanese Japanese instead of JAPS we would not have won WW II ? Look it is far more important to actually go and fight the gang of terrorists than to just have an emotional high from being able to call them some name.

The Bush II / Cheney gang was really good at having names to call the Muslin terrorists but when push came to shove Bush II / Cheney spent the majority of our human and finacial resources playing wack a mole in Iraq while the missions went UN-ACCOMPLISHED in Afghanisan and Pakistan !!!

And all of the chicken hawks spent their time sunning their iseless mouths spitting out islamo-fascio-terro-Muslimo-bado and all kinds of names and labels and the got less than nothing acocmplished.


You don't wn a war with bumper stickers you will a war with action..
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Says the person who jumps at every opportunity to call law-abiding protesters "teabaggers". :roll:
Click to expand...

That's it. Lets make sure we call this person a misguided tea partier! Chris matthews threw out the theory that it was some type of right wing nut yesterday. When I first heard of the bomb, it was reported that the car was parked near comedy central, so it " could be" some type of protest.
 
Gill said:
Says the person who jumps at every opportunity to call law-abiding protesters "teabaggers". :roll:
Click to expand...


I think that you better read the posts before you make such a false accusation again. I unlike some people am intelligent and once I was aware that there is a perverted meaning to the term "teabaggers" I put a moritorium on it. Wouldn't it be nice if we had intelligent people on the other side who learned what Socialism really is and how to use the term ?

So instead of making false accusations why don't you go and find yourself a recent post where I used the term teabaggers without quotes!!! HAVE FUN!!
 
Last edited:
So what is bothering you guys who claim that Obama administration does nothing to fight terrorism ? Is it the fact that in this case at least the prime suspect was arrested within 72 hours and now you cannot blame this on BO ?
 
Cilogy said:
Ah finally, now you guys can take out your "death to Islam" signs.
Click to expand...

Catz Part Deux said:
At this point, we don't know his motives, so it would be premature to call him an Islamic terrorist.
Click to expand...

Singularity said:
A terrorist is a terrorist. Does it really matter what their particular brand of motivational ideology is?
Click to expand...

Wow, I wish all you wonderfully even minded people showed up in the thread where the speculation was made he could be a white supremisist, KKK, or tea party type based on nothing else than the FBI looking at a "white guy".

Funny, no one rushed in there batting an eye about the stereotyping there and jumping to accusation.

So I'll do as I did there. Its still a bit to early to say anything for definite. While things are pointing towards the potential for it being islamic terrorism I'd hold off on saying it as a definite. That said the recent trip, his descent, and the taliban's claiming of the attack all lean heavily to that (far more than "white guy = tea partier) but right now the only definite fact is likely attempted terorrist act.

However, when all the information comes out and if it does turn out to be Islamic Terror I do hope it is properly labeled.

But to be upset people aren't making definitive statements prior to finding out the majority of the facts is a bit ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Wow, I wish all you wonderfully even minded people showed up in the thread where the speculation was made he could be a white supremisist, KKK, or tea party type based on nothing else than the FBI looking at a "white guy".
Click to expand...

I said, in that thread, that it was too early to predict any of the above. And I've said this in several places.

Catz Part Deux said:
Actually, up until 9/11, the most dangerous terror attacks WERE homegrown terrorists. We have a lot of nutjobs here, from whackadoo polygamists in the southwest to the sig heilers in the northwest to who knows what in Maine.

At this point, it's anyone's guess. And, a guess of white supremacists or homegrown militia types isn't any less likely to be accurate than a guess of Islamists.
Click to expand...

Catz Part Deux said:
I think it's ridiculous to make speculative guesses without evidence. It leads to stupidity and panic.
Click to expand...

I want to draw your attention to this one, in particular:

Catz Part Deux said:
The same people who killed the census worker in Tennessee.

By the way, MOD, this is one of your dumbest surveys, to date.
Click to expand...

The reason I used this specific example is because of the ridiculousness of some leftist posters, including Golden Dog, who automatically assumed when the census worker died in Tennessee that it was some kind of anti-gummint plot by tea-partiers, inspired by Glenn Beck. And were repeatedly making that claim when there was ZERO evidence that this was the case. I smacked those people in exactly the same way that I'm now chastizing the far right for getting on the case of law enforcement when these folks are just doing their jobs, and doing it publicly.

Of course, as we all know, the man committed suicide for financial reasons. But of course, those who made these claims NEVER recanted publicly.

You also seem a little tense about all of this.

Maybe you should switch to chamomile and cut down your caffeine intake.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
It's completely irresponsible for law enforcement sources to speak to the motivation of the terrorist until they've had an oppportunity to interview/interrogate him. This is not a matter of being afraid to label someone what he is, but a matter of professional standards dictating how information is shared with the media.

This guy could be many things. He could be mentally ill. He could be acting politically in regards to the disputed territory between India and Pakistan. He could be religiously motivated. At this point, you're operating off of his last name and country of origin to make statements that could have zero basis in fact. Unlike you guys, law enforcement officers and the media have a professional obligation to handle information properly.

Don't let their job requirements get in the way of your preconceived notions about how we're dhimmis cowering to the Islamic menace, though.

Carry on with the ridiculousness, you have it well-covered.
Click to expand...

True...or we could pull our head out of our ass and recognize the obvious.

Good lord.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I said, in that thread, that it was too early to predict any of the above. And I've said this in several places. Save it.
Click to expand...

Yep, I did look at that Catz. You didn't bother to say a damn thing about stereotyping or jumping to conclusions until someone made one about Islamic extremism. Your response wasn't to Dana's implications of a militant group or KKK or white supremisists. It wans't to Queen's suggestion it was a Tea Partier. It was to Sir Loin's suggestion that the most dangerous terrorists are arab/muslims.

It was only when it started getting pointed to Islamic Extremism did the "its to early to tell" card get pulled by you, and even then it was to argue that the accusations at the begining of the thread were just as legitimate.

Where as in this thread you ridicule the "yuck yuck" crowd, even though now there is even more evidence to lean one way then the other (still not enough to say as fact, but enough to make a slightly more educated prediction).

Its kind of my point. When it is someone with a middle eastern name or from a muslim country or is a muslim and people assume Islamic Terror people come out of the woodwork, in full force, without fail to go "Don't assume, don't assume! It could be a white guy or something!" But when the accusations are that its a militant or a tea partier or a white supremisist the response, if there is any, is weak at best. Yours wasn't even spurred, based on what you quoted and when you posted it, to be about the fact they were accusing those groups but because it went back to the Muslim thing.

We need to stop jumping to conclussions as a society on this. Stop acting like the 24/7 news cycle starved people that so many of us are and realize that things take more than a few hours or even a few days before definitive facts can be stated. At the same time, to have this, we need to fight the jumps to conclussion equally be they "OMG He's white it must be a tea partier!" or "OMG! He's pakistani, islamic extremism"!
 
Several quick things:

1. The arrest of the terrorist suspect has been made.
2. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Pakistan.
3. The investigation will yield his motives and other useful information.

Such questions, among others will be covered by the investigation:

1. Did he act alone?
2. Was he a sympathizer with Pakistan's Taliban or another terrorist entity?
3. Was he actually a member of Pakistan's Taliban or another terrorist entity?
4. Was he a radical Islamist and did his ideology influence his actions?
5. At what point in time did he turn against the U.S. e.g., were his views fairly recent or were they longstanding?
6. If his views were fairly recent, did some other event in his life change his views to the extent that he took the extreme course of seeking to carry out a terrorist attack?

At this time, it is still early in the investigation. One cannot automatically assume, for example, that the suspect was a member of Pakistan's Taliban, even if it turns out that he met with them at one time or another when in Pakistan. One should wait for the facts to be established, even if it takes time. Once the facts have been obtained, law enforcement and counterterrorism officials will be in a better position to try to reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks. Depending on the actual facts of this case, perhaps they will be in a better position afterward to make it more difficult for overseas terrorist organizations to "recruit" U.S. citizens/residents, to limit the appeal of radical ideologies among those who might readily be influenced by such ideologies, among other possible measures.

IMO, the U.S. remains safe. Although the probability of such attacks will likely never be zero, I remain confident that law enforcement, counterterrorism, and Intelligence officials' efforts, bolstered by lessons learned from attacks/attempted attacks in the U.S., not to mention those from the UK, Israel, Spain, Russia, among other places, has kept the probability of major attacks in the U.S. very low. People should not succumb to exaggerated fears. For example, even as the suspect was born in Pakistan, one should not become suspicious of all Pakistanis.

One should also be careful not to overgeneralize and "mix" issues e.g., claim that the issue of undocumented immigrants is directly related to the risk of terrorism. It isn't. The former is largely a phenomenon of economic migration. That a relatively porous border could be exploited by others does not change the reality associated with undocumented immigrants. The latter has been the result largely of ideology and/or specific personal circumstances/perceived grievances (Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, plane crash in the Austin IRS building, etc.).
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Wow, Orlando. bearing a grudge, are we, for previous spankings? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:lol:

No grudge here. Clearly, you're no deep-thinker and to call anyone else "stupid" is analogous to the pot calling the kettle "black" and, besides, it's uncalled for. Of course, there are two sets of rules in this forum. One set is for the clique establishment here and the other is for everyone else. Now, where's Captain Coward?
 
Erod said:
True...or we could pull our head out of our ass and recognize the obvious.

Good lord.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between going "I personally believe that this was islamic jihad" and "I think the cops are just trying to spare the muslims feelings by not saying Islamic Jihad".

No, the cops shouldn't "pull their head out of their ass" to paraphrase you (which is a very poor way to term it) on this for a public statement. Why? Because police officers should not be presenting ASSUMPTIONS as FACT and calling it Islamic Terrorism at this time when they're not sure of it is an ASSUMPTION.

Our police and investigative individuals should not be putting assumptions out as fact to the public because it causes information errors and creates significant issues if the assumption ends up turning out to be false.

Police, when speaking to the public, should stick to the facts and only the facts.

While I disagree with people jumping to conclussions and immedietely calling this Islamic Extremism, I have no problem really with them doing it. However I do have a problem with them suggesting that the cops or even the administration is weak for doing intelligent, reasonable, adult police and investigative work and communication. Those in charge of our security should not be making statements of fact based off nothing but loose assumption.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Please ignore Mr. Gringo. Apparently a warning wasn't enough to set him straight so he is now on a 2 day vacation. Please return to your regularly scheduled topic
 
donsutherland1 said:
Several quick things:

1. The arrest of the terrorist suspect has been made.
2. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Pakistan.
3. The investigation will yield his motives and other useful information.

Such questions, among others will be covered by the investigation:

1. Did he act alone?
2. Was he a sympathizer with Pakistan's Taliban or another terrorist entity?
3. Was he actually a member of Pakistan's Taliban or another terrorist entity?
4. Was he a radical Islamist and did his ideology influence his actions?
5. At what point in time did he turn against the U.S. e.g., were his views fairly recent or were they longstanding?
6. If his views were fairly recent, did some other event in his life change his views to the extent that he took the extreme course of seeking to carry out a terrorist attack?

At this time, it is still early in the investigation. One cannot automatically assume, for example, that the suspect was a member of Pakistan's Taliban, even if it turns out that he met with them at one time or another when in Pakistan. One should wait for the facts to be established, even if it takes time. Once the facts have been obtained, law enforcement and counterterrorism officials will be in a better position to try to reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks. Depending on the actual facts of this case, perhaps they will be in a better position afterward to make it more difficult for overseas terrorist organizations to "recruit" U.S. citizens/residents, to limit the appeal of radical ideologies among those who might readily be influenced by such ideologies, among other possible measures.

IMO, the U.S. remains safe. Although the probability of such attacks will likely never be zero, I remain confident that law enforcement, counterterrorism, and Intelligence officials' efforts, bolstered by lessons learned from attacks/attempted attacks in the U.S., not to mention those from the UK, Israel, Spain, Russia, among other places, has kept the probability of major attacks in the U.S. very low. People should not succumb to exaggerated fears. For example, even as the suspect was born in Pakistan, one should not become suspicious of all Pakistanis.

One should also be careful not to overgeneralize and "mix" issues e.g., claim that the issue of undocumented immigrants is directly related to the risk of terrorism. It isn't. The former is largely a phenomenon of economic migration. That a relatively porous border could be exploited by others does not change the reality associated with undocumented immigrants. The latter has been the result largely of ideology and/or specific personal circumstances/perceived grievances (Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, plane crash in the Austin IRS building, etc.).
Click to expand...

You have one hell of a nerve making such intelligent, responsible, non partisan, and fair and balanced points. You have now confused the living hell out of the Obama haters and have sent them into a tailspin seeking a fresh bag of crap that they can throw.

Really - nice job !!!!!
 
Zyphlin said:
There's a difference between going "I personally believe that this was islamic jihad" and "I think the cops are just trying to spare the muslims feelings by not saying Islamic Jihad".

No, the cops shouldn't "pull their head out of their ass" to paraphrase you (which is a very poor way to term it) on this for a public statement. Why? Because police officers should not be presenting ASSUMPTIONS as FACT and calling it Islamic Terrorism at this time when they're not sure of it is an ASSUMPTION.

Our police and investigative individuals should not be putting assumptions out as fact to the public because it causes information errors and creates significant issues if the assumption ends up turning out to be false.

Police, when speaking to the public, should stick to the facts and only the facts.

While I disagree with people jumping to conclussions and immedietely calling this Islamic Extremism, I have no problem really with them doing it. However I do have a problem with them suggesting that the cops or even the administration is weak for doing intelligent, reasonable, adult police and investigative work and communication. Those in charge of our security should not be making statements of fact based off nothing but loose assumption.
Click to expand...

That was the entire point of my post. I earlier posted that I strongly suspect that this act was committed by homegrown ISLAMIC terrorists, and that like ALF, they are using a leaderless resistance concept where the locals share common ideology but have their own organizational structure (cell) completely separate from the international organization.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ms-nyc-car-bomb-attempt-2.html#post1058725453 Note the date and time stamp.

However, it is not law enforcement's role to share this information UNTIL THEY HAVE MADE A FIRM DETERMINATION OF THE MOTIVES AND PEOPLE INVOLVED, IN CONSULTATION WITH PROSECUTORS.

:roll:

You mistakenly interpreted my comments as being Islamist sympathizing, when in reality, I was criticizing the fact that several posters on this thread were criticizing law enforcement and the media for not acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Ya sure thing. I swear the lengths some people are willing to go to defend lunatic theists never ceases to amaze me.
Click to expand...

and truth be damned while they are at it.
 
The single most important thing is that he isn't a very good terrorist, regardless of what kind of terrorist he is.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
I think that you better read the posts before you make such a false accusation again. I unlike some people am intelligent and once I was aware that there is a perverted meaning to the term "teabaggers" I put a moritorium on it. Wouldn't it be nice if we had intelligent people on the other side who learned what Socialism really is and how to use the term ?

So instead of making false accusations why don't you go and find yourself a recent post where I used the term teabaggers without quotes!!! HAVE FUN!!
Click to expand...

When did your moratorium start.. 10 minutes ago ??? You actually think putting quotes around the term makes it OK??

F107HyperSabr said:
HAZ, Were your 'teabaggers' wearing shirts from this company ?

Bagger T-shirts - CafePressBagger T-shirts

I am confused now. I though that the term 'teabagger' was "offensive to TP 'S but look atT his : There is a company that sells Bagger T-shirts

Bagger Women's Dark T-Shirt $24 and on same page Tea Party 2010
White T-Shirt $22$15
Click to expand...

F107HyperSabr said:
Hey Prof !! I thought that you Republicans did not call those who travel on LIPTON Lane "teabagger " ? Isn't that supposed to be some form of sexual perversion ?
Click to expand...
 
Moderator's Warning:
The thread is not about the term "Tea baggers". Take it to another thread
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Who, in your estimation, is defending lunatic theists and covering up "the truth" on this thread, exactly? I'd really like to hear this.
Click to expand...

Why, you thanked one of them who reacted to the news piece with innuendo that people were motivated by hatred of Muslims.

Is the man in question not Muslim? Did he not go to Pakistan? Is Pakistan not a foreign country?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
However, it is not law enforcement's role to share this information UNTIL THEY HAVE MADE A FIRM DETERMINATION OF THE MOTIVES AND PEOPLE INVOLVED, IN CONSULTATION WITH PROSECUTORS.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this.

My issue, not specifically with you but in general, is people seem far more likely to try and push the "don't jump to conclussions" suggestion in a stronger way when its being aimed at people suggesting someone is an islamic terrorist than when someone is suggested as being an christian extremist or KKK member or whatever else. It seems much more acceptable to openly talk about and discuss assumptions when the assumption isn't Islamic.

When it comes to law enforcement, I absolutely agree. They shouldn't say anything that isn't defintive fact, and I'd go one step further and say they shouldn't say initially more than is absolutely necessary not to cause excessive panic.
 
Gardener said:
Why, you thanked one of them who reacted to the news piece with innuendo that people were motivated by hatred of Muslims.
Click to expand...

Some of them quite clearly are. They automatically assume that there is no possible alternative motivation for this individual than his religion.

I am never going to leap to that sort of conclusion without evidence from the law enforcement agencies investigating the case, nor am I going to call out the law enforcement agencies to "get their heads out of their asses" when to this point, the law enforcement agencies involved in this case have served us all swiftly, professionally, and well.

Was this case related to Islam? Possibly. That would be my first guess. But I understand completely why law enforcement hasn't phrased it like that. They are not going to call him an Islamic terrorist until they've established his motive for this crime. As unprofessionally as the bomb was assembled, the guy could very well be mentally ill.

Is the man in question not Muslim? Did he not go to Pakistan? Is Pakistan not a foreign country?
Click to expand...

Is every muslim a terrorist? Is every Pakistani a terrorist? Is every foreigner a terrorist?

I don't like religion. I personally find fundamentalists of all types distasteful, and as I've shared numerous times on this board, I find the fundamentalist islamics the most distasteful of all.

However, law enforcement involved in this case has a professional obligation to handle information related to the case responsibly.

Those who want to rush to judgement without evidence are idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom