• 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

Well, we were surprised on 911.

Which is sad in its own right. 1993 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole. We SHOULDN'T have been surprised.
 
So... an intersting question is how exactly they were able to tie Shahzad to a disposable cell phone. Bush/Obama "warrantless wiretapping"?

I know if I were running such a program, I'd be keeping notes on anyone using a disposable cell phone to call Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
So... an intersting question is how exactly they were able to tie Shahzad to a disposable cell phone. Bush/Obama "warrantless wiretapping"?

This comment makes me wonder if you know what the latter words mean.
 
I said you ignored the obvious when it came to that attack.

There are others but I don't want to be found guilty of child abuse so I'll stop.

If you would like to further embarrass yourself Catz, please let me know :2wave:

What was it that you believe I ignored, Tex?

I don't believe that the Fort Hood attack qualifies as "terrorism." What is the definition of terrorism?

It's politically motivated attacks on civilians with the goal of creating terror and shifting policy.

Was the attack on Fort Hood an attack on civilians?

I really find it humorous that you think I'm the stupid one here.
 
Re: I'm still not seeing where you've been consistent

Maybe you just had a change of heart?

05-02-10, 03:31 PM
Catz Speculating


05-02-10, 05:26 PM
Catz Against Speculating

Yep. I had a change of heart. Throwing out possible ideas is interesting as long as everyone understands that we're just brainstorming.

Unfortunately, that isn't possible to do here because of the rabid partisans who will seize onto whatever explanation will make the other party look the worst.

I forgot for a second that I wasn't amongst peers. Happens. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Re: I'm still not seeing where you've been consistent

Yep. I had a change of heart. Throwing out possible ideas is interesting as long as everyone understands that we're just brainstorming.

Unfortunately, that isn't possible to do here because of the rabid partisans who will seize onto whatever explanation will make the other party look the worst.

I forgot for a second that I wasn't amongst peers. Happens. :shrug:






I must interject, when one the Greatness that is the Good Reverend is at large, you are among your betters....... :ssst:
 
Second, the difference between the Tea Parties and groups like ALF or ELF is that ALF and ELF have a HISTORY of terrorist activity so its reasonable to possible look their way. The Tea Parties on the other hand do NOT have a history of terrorist activity. So again, your attempt to equate the Tea Partiers to those kind of movements is incorrect.

In my opinion, a domestic teror attack is unlikely to come out of tea party circles. However, it is possible that fringe anti-government elements might attach themselves to the movement, or that whackadoo individuals might go off half-cocked and do something stupid.

But, in those cases, the individuals involved should be defined as "anti-government" terrorists or "mentally ill perpetrator," not identified as representatives of the tea party movement. It needs to be clear that they represent a small fringe element, and they should not be used unfairly to tar the entire movement.

Having said that, I think it's highly unlikely that the average tea partier is going to engage in domestic terror. EVER. They're disaffected politically, and trying to change the political system, but they are still invested in changing the system through peaceful means. Terrorists rarely try to work politically or have become so disenfrancised that they no longer believe in the system at all. That's WHY they turn to terror.

Frankly, in my experience with ALF members in my community, one thing we could have done was to work with some of them to show them how to work WITHIN the political system and empower them in that realm, which might have defused their need to commit direct action. I wish I had.
 
Last edited:
Re: I'm still not seeing where you've been consistent

I must interject, when one the Greatness that is the Good Reverend is at large, you are among your betters....... :ssst:

This is true. Sadly, most posters here are not at all equal to the Rev. Or Zyph, for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Re: I'm still not seeing where you've been consistent

LOL yikes. Damn you research! :rofl

It doesn't take mad research skills when I linked to my own posts IN THIS THREAD and quoted them. :rofl

Gosh, Taylor uncovered a HUGE CONTROVERSY.
 
Last edited:
What was it that you believe I ignored, Tex?

I don't believe that the Fort Hood attack qualifies as "terrorism." What is the definition of terrorism?

It's politically motivated attacks on civilians with the goal of creating terror and shifting policy.

Was the attack on Fort Hood an attack on civilians?

I really find it humorous that you think I'm the stupid one here.

Not stupid, just busted.

What I said:

I said you ignored the obvious when it came to that attack.

What you did which is easily seen from those quotes was ignore the real reason behind the attack. Islamic terrorism. You went from defending those who denied it to claiming he was just "nuts" and once again ignoring the clear Islamic terrorist links. You even linked to stories of others who questioned the Islamic terrorism link.

Its amazing even after your quotes are put in front of you, you still deny what you said and "thanked"

But go ahead and keep digging that hole if you like. Far be it from me to stop you. :2wave:
 
What you did easily decipred from those quotes was ignore the real reason behind the attack. Islamic terrorism. You went from defending those who denied it to claiming he was just "nuts" and once again ignoring the clear Islamic terrorist links. You even linked to stories of others who questioned the Islamic terrorism link.

I'm not sure I can help you, man. People need to have a basic level of literacy to be able to discuss complex subjects.

At the time that the discussion you posted was had, it did not appear that there were links between the perpetrator and a wider Islamic network. The evidence suggested that he acted ALONE, for personal/religious reasons related to his own ambivalent situation as a psychiatrist for military personnel engaging in a war that he felt was unholy. Thus, to call him an Islamic terrorist was to ignore the basic facts of the case AT THAT TIME.

Further, as the attack was targeted at military personnel on a military base, it does not fit the definition of terrorism. That is a STANDARD MILITARY TACTIC.

Thus, calling it Islamic Terrorism is wrong on two levels. First, it is unclear that he was part of a larger political movement targeted at civilians. Second, the attack was targeted against military personnel, thus making it a MILITARY attack, and not a terror attack.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I can help you, man. People need to have a basic level of literacy to be able to discuss complex subjects.

Another dodge.

I love your inexhaustible desire to embarrass yourself Catz.

You get completely busted on your own quotes and your only defense is to call the person who embarrassed you stupid then proclaim victory based on a fantasy self serving delusion of a superior intelligence.

Thanks for staying predictable. :2wave:
 
Who thought he was white?

Didn't witnesses on the scene refer to a white man in connection with the vehicle? I thought I read that early on. That's one of the reasons that anti-government/domestic terrorist/white supremacist was tossed into the mix as possible motives for the attack.
 
Last edited:
Didn't witnesses on the scene refer to a white man in connection with the vehicle? I thought I read that early on.
I thought the whole "white guy" slant came from the "furtive" guy in the video taking off his sweatshirt - totally different person? To my knowledge nobody witnessed Shahzad at the scene.
 
I thought the whole "white guy" slant came from the "furtive" guy in the video taking off his sweatshirt - totally different person? To my knowledge nobody witnessed Shahzad at the scene.

Nonetheless, Shahzad looks white to me. ;)
 
Nonetheless, Shahzad looks white to me. ;)

Does he look 40 and white, as it was reported?

Yesterday, the media was utterly distraught that this wasn't a 40-year-old white guy, which they would have certainly mentioned in the same breath as "tea party" ad nauseum. It would have been the n-word that never happened all over again.
 
Who thought he was white?

Who hoped he was white?
Republican?
Enjoyed tea parties?
Was Hoping with the press for Change... that it wasn't a Foulizzle Shamizzle ?
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, Pakistan is arresting people.

Pakistan makes arrests over Times Square bomb
And he's admitted to receiving bomb-making training in Waziristan:

Times Square Terrorist Got Bomb Training - May 4, 2010

It's a good thing he was as bad a student over there as he was over here:
He was at best a mediocre student, with his transcript peppered with Cs and Ds, and even an F in one class, Basic Statistics.
Exclusive: Documents found near bomb suspect's former Shelton home - Connecticut Post

Another interesting tidbit:
The copy of his Pakistani passport shows a picture of a serious-looking young man dressed in a suit and tie. It lists his occupation as a student and his religion as Muslim.
 
Who hoped he was white?
Republican?
Enjoyed tea parties?
Was Hoping with the press for Change... that it wasn't a Foulizzle Shamizzle ?
The "never let a serious crisis to go to waste" crowd who hoped a bombing could help Obama's reelection bid. ;)
 
The "never let a serious crisis to go to waste" crowd who hoped a bombing could help Obama's reelection bid. ;)

Who hoped he was white?
Republican?
Enjoyed tea parties?
Was Hoping with the press for Change... that it wasn't a Foulizzle Shamizzle ?

I don't know of anyone on the forum "hoping" he was white. There was some confusion because the FBI was said to have been looking at a suspect that was seen at the scene of the crime that was white and there was a mix up in thinking that this was the guy that it referenced and he was only assumed to be white because he was light skinned.
 
The "never let a serious crisis to go to waste" crowd who hoped a bombing could help Obama's reelection bid. ;)

Who is this, exactly, that HOPED (your word) a bombing would occur, killing innocent Americans? Please feel free to name names.

Your comment is revolting.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom