• 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!

Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?

Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
Someone has to off guys like this and it should be someone from within the Muslim community. Otherwise it will become easier to say that indeed, all Muslims are terrorists.
Click to expand...

So your answer to terrorism is terrorism?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
It seems you are unclear on the meaning of terrorism.
Click to expand...

No, I got it right. Admittedly, I am assuming that the person who would "take out" this professor was part of some sub-national orginization. Thats the only technical requirement necessary to make what you suggest definitively an act of terrorism. Granted, if it was a lone gunman, it would just be politically motivated murder.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
The ignorant Leftists probably won't watch this all the way through but will instead contnue with their "Not all Muslims are terrorists" mantra.

But of course not all Muslims need be terrorists in order to see their ambitions through.

Someone has to off guys like this and it should be someone from within the Muslim community. Otherwise it will become easier to say that indeed, all Muslims are terrorists.
Click to expand...
With a US population of only 300 million and with 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, if they were all terrorists don't you think we would know it by now? Think, Grant, think.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
No, I got it right. Admittedly, I am assuming that the person who would "take out" this professor was part of some sub-national orginization. Thats the only technical requirement necessary to make what you suggest definitively an act of terrorism. Granted, if it was a lone gunman, it would just be politically motivated murder.
Click to expand...

No you didn;t get it right.

Your later guess would be more to the point, which would be 'a lone gunman, a politically motivated murder'.

You do understand that this religious leader is advocating the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, right? That is terrorism. not the murder of one terrorist.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Moot said:
With a US population of only 300 million and with 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, if they were all terrorists don't you think we would know it by now? Think, Grant, think.
Click to expand...

Quote, Maroon! Quote! Read, Man! Read! Comprehend, Lefty, Comprehend!

You didn't watch the tape either, right???
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Moot said:
Read for yourself, ric.....

Frequently Asked Questions | Cordoba
Click to expand...

From your link...

Why Cordoba?
The name Cordoba was chosen carefully to reflect a period of time during which Islam played a monumental role in the enrichment of human civilization and knowledge. A thousand years ago Muslims, Jews, and Christians coexisted and created a prosperous center of intellectual, spiritual, cultural and commercial life in Cordoba, Spain.
Click to expand...

There are many inaccuracies...

1 Muslims were there because they invaded (murdering/pillaging/burning) and conquered most of the Iberian Peninsula.

2 Christians and Jews were dhimmi and had to pay a tax

3 Christians and Jews were NOT given equal rights by their Muslim conquerors

So, Cordoba is being cited, erroneously or incorrectly, as a distinction/condition of a time when Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together and flourished.

Not true
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
Here's a poll taken a few years ago in Britain.

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph
Click to expand...
That is a poll that says 40% of Muslims in Britain support applying Sharia law to predominantly Muslim areas of Britain. That is not a poll that shows that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide (150 to 225 million) are actively engaged in terrorism. Otherwise, the claim was fabricated just as I stated numerous times. Supporting Sharia law is not the equivalent of engaging in terrorism.

Now here's some things you didn't bother reading from your Google'd link:

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it.

Now your own link defeated your argument. And the funny thing is that "poll" was a sample size of 500 instead of 1,000. That already creates a bigger margin of error.

Grant said:
If we were to extrapolate from this poll, and using 1.6 billion as the niumber of Muslims in the world, then 40% of Muslims who are sympathetic to terrorism is a great many, And if one percent of them support terrorism in Britan, that's about 30,000 Islamic terrorists there.
Click to expand...
Where did you deduce the part I made bold from the poll you cited? You are misinterpreting the statistics. Mind sharing the twisted logic you are using to come up with these asinine numbers?


One percent of 1.6 billion is a great many people who think terorism is right. And most Muslims haven't had the softening that the 'multiculturalism philosophy' in the UK is thought to bring bring.[/QUOTE]
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Degreez said:
That is a poll that says 40% of Muslims in Britain support applying Sharia law to predominantly Muslim areas of Britain. That is not a poll that shows that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide (150 to 225 million) are actively engaged in terrorism. Otherwise, the claim was fabricated just as I stated numerous times. Supporting Sharia law is not the equivalent of engaging in terrorism.

Now here's some things you didn't bother reading from your Google'd link:

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it.

Now your own link defeated your argument. And the funny thing is that "poll" was a sample size of 500 instead of 1,000. That already creates a bigger margin of error.


Where did you deduce the part I made bold from the poll you cited? You are misinterpreting the statistics. Mind sharing the twisted logic you are using to come up with these asinine numbers?


One percent of 1.6 billion is a great many people who think terorism is right. And most Muslims haven't had the softening that the 'multiculturalism philosophy' in the UK is thought to bring bring.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Yes, i realize that supporting Shariia is not engaging in terrorism.....

"The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity".

I'm obviously talking of the other one percent.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
So your answer to terrorism is terrorism?
Click to expand...

1 By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant..

2 Putting hard core terrorists in jail accomplishes jack****. There is no deterrent factor and they win by being allowed to speak at trial...and

3 There is only one solution - shoot him dead while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
Quote, Maroon! Quote! Read, Man! Read! Comprehend, Lefty, Comprehend!

You didn't watch the tape either, right???
Click to expand...
Selective Memri. I am well aware of Memri's cherry picking out the fanatics from the Arab world and broadcasting it to the world, but I would not put any more importance on them than I would Pat Robertson....

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department


Memri oozes with bias.....
Middle East Media Research Institute - SourceWatch

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

Again, if 1.5 billion Muslims were all terrorists you can be sure we would know by now. Comprende, Grant?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Moot said:
Selective Memri. I am well aware of Memri's cherry picking out the fanatics from the Arab world and broadcasting it to the world, but I would not put any more importance on them than I would Pat Robertson....
Click to expand...

So you think MEMRI faked that video?

You believe that Pat Robertson would also discuss murdering, and approving of, the murder of 300,000 people?

Do you feel this should be kept secret and not "broadcast to the world". Why do you suppose his listeners laughed and applauded?
"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department
Click to expand...

And you feel that Pat Robertson was serious?

Have you watched this video? Do you think this Muslim leader is joking also?

Memri oozes with bias.....
Middle East Media Research Institute - SourceWatch
Click to expand...
So you think MEMRI is "biased" in showing this video. if you were to watch the video I think you'd see that it is the Muslim fanatic who is "Biased".

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."
Click to expand...

CAIR??? Are you familiar with them? As you can see by their response, they are only interested in covering for Islamic craziness.

Can you explain why they are attacking MEMRI instead of this religious freak?

Again, if 1.5 billion Muslims were all terrorists you can be sure we would know by now. Comprende, Grant?
Click to expand...

If all Muslims were terrorists there would be no problem in pointing them put, would it Maroon? Do you comprende that?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

ric27 said:
1
3 There is only one solution - shoot him dead while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.
Click to expand...

So the next time a Muslim is putting a battery in their cell phone you are going to shoot them, very good to know.

Hey Mods, does this constitute violence yet against a person that follows the Muslim religion?
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

TheNextEra said:
So the next time a Muslim is putting a battery in their cell phone you are going to shoot them, very good to know.

Hey Mods, does this constitute violence yet against a person that follows the Muslim religion?
Click to expand...

It matters little what the chances are of the caliphate rising if they are willing to kill 3k citizens to make it so. The only thing that matters is what they believe and what we are willing to do to defend ourselves.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

ric27 said:
From your link...

There are many inaccuracies...

1 Muslims were there because they invaded (murdering/pillaging/burning) and conquered most of the Iberian Peninsula.
Click to expand...
So what, the Christians were there because they invaded and conquered too.

2 Christians and Jews were dhimmi and had to pay a tax
Click to expand...
So what, when the Christians were in control the Muslims and Jews had to pay tax. After the Christians had complete control there was the Inquisition and the Spaniards along with the Europeans were the most brutal people in all history.

3 Christians and Jews were NOT given equal rights by their Muslim conquerors
Click to expand...
So what, the Muslims and Jews were not given equal rights when the Christians conquered.

So, Cordoba is being cited, erroneously or incorrectly, as a distinction/condition of a time when Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together and flourished.
Click to expand...
Really?....

...In the 10th-11th centuries Córdoba was one of the most advanced cities in the world, as well as a great cultural, political, financial and economic centre. The Great Mosque of Córdoba dates back to this time; under caliph Al-Hakam II Córdoba received what was then the largest library in the world, housing from 400,000 to 1,000,000 volumes.....read

Al-Hakam II succeeded to the Caliphate after the death of his father Abd ar-Rahman III in 961. He secured peace with the Christian kingdoms of northern Iberia, and made use of the stability to develop agriculture through the construction of irrigation works. Economical development was also encouraged through the widening of streets and the building of markets....edit....During his reign, a massive translation effort was undertaken, and many books were translated from Latin and Greek into Arabic. He formed a joint committee of Arab Muslims and Iberian Mozarab Christians for this task.....read

Córdoba, Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al-Hakam II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Not true
Click to expand...
Yes true.
 
Last edited:
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

ric27 said:
The only thing that matters is what they believe and what we are willing to do to defend ourselves.
Click to expand...

So yet again, if a Muslim is putting a battery in their cell phone you will commit murder. That's good to know and hopefully the cops will be there to arrest you and you will be put in jail for a very long time when it is found that the person just was wanting to call their family.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

j-mac said:
Apologist. Pure and simple


j-mac
Click to expand...

You support terrorism against Muslims, plain and simple.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

TheNextEra said:
You support terrorism against Muslims, plain and simple.
Click to expand...


No, I couldn't care less about Muslims, unless they are in a world wide quest for domination, and caliphate. In that case it is they who commit the acts of war. Unless you are saying that we should just lay prostrate before them and bow to their will?

j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

TheNextEra said:
So yet again, if a Muslim is putting a battery in their cell phone you will commit murder. That's good to know and hopefully the cops will be there to arrest you and you will be put in jail for a very long time when it is found that the person just was wanting to call their family.
Click to expand...

This is a very dishonest way of debating someone.


j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

j-mac said:
This is a very dishonest way of debating someone.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Noit really, when ric is claiming that all Muslims are a threat and talks about how he will shoot a Muslim. But then you not only support that notion, but thank him for it.
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

TheNextEra said:
Noit really, when ric is claiming that all Muslims are a threat and talks about how he will shoot a Muslim. But then you not only support that notion, but thank him for it.
Click to expand...


Come on, be real for just one moment in your life. I don't apologize for my thanks, because what ric was saying is right on. Left to yours, and other liberal mindsets, this land would turn into what we see happening around the world today, do you know why?

I can remember some years back having a debate with a liberal about the causation of terrorism against the West where the liberal stance was that we should do nothing, and ignore the attacks against us. My point was that how many Americans should have to die before liberals would say enough? Would my opponent in that debate think differently if it were his/her family member that was killed? Let's just say that my opponent was no more genuine than you are here with the conflation of what was said. Thing is, what you are doing with ric's words is BS, and it is weak, and you know it.

If you have a point, why not make it honestly, instead of twisting another's words to make your point?


j-mac
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Grant said:
No you didn;t get it right.

Your later guess would be more to the point, which would be 'a lone gunman, a politically motivated murder'.

You do understand that this religious leader is advocating the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, right? That is terrorism. not the murder of one terrorist.
Click to expand...


And you thought I had an inaccurate definition of terrorism. :lol:


Advocating for the murder of thousands of people is not terrorism.

You and everyone else who takes a hard line stance on terrorism advocates for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. By your own definition, you would be a terrorist.

I don't use that flawed definition though because that flawed definition is ripe with double standards. I consider terrorism to be the premeditated killing (or attempts to kill) civilians for political gain.

Regardless of his rhetoric, if he isn't involved in the actual acts or planning of the acts, he is still just a civilian. Killing him for political reasons would be an act of terrorism.

The only reason to alter the definition I've presented is to pretend to have moral superiority to the enemy for not engaging in the same tactics (but it's a false sense of superiority because the tactics are identical, the only real difference is the equivocation used to rename the behavior when employed by 'the good guys').

Personally, I'd take a different approach. If I was in favor of this guy being killed for his rhetoric, I would be in favor of terrorism being used against my enemies. Thus, in order to claim the moral high ground, I would have to create a moral basis for my advocacy of terrorism. It's an honest approach.

Thankfully for me, my moral standards aren't that flexible. If I oppose terrorism, I oppose it regardless of the ideology it is promoting, even if it's my own.



ric27 said:
1 By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant..

2 Putting hard core terrorists in jail accomplishes jack****. There is no deterrent factor and they win by being allowed to speak at trial...and

3 There is only one solution - shoot him dead while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this. It appears that you are advocating terrorism, but only when it used to promote your ideology. Is this correct?
 
Re: Mosque in new york to possibly move!

Tucker Case said:
And you thought I had an inaccurate definition of terrorism. :lol:


Advocating for the murder of thousands of people is not terrorism.

You and everyone else who takes a hard line stance on terrorism advocates for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people. By your own definition, you would be a terrorist.

I don't use that flawed definition though because that flawed definition is ripe with double standards. I consider terrorism to be the premeditated killing (or attempts to kill) civilians for political gain.

Regardless of his rhetoric, if he isn't involved in the actual acts or planning of the acts, he is still just a civilian. Killing him for political reasons would be an act of terrorism.

The only reason to alter the definition I've presented is to pretend to have moral superiority to the enemy for not engaging in the same tactics (but it's a false sense of superiority because the tactics are identical, the only real difference is the equivocation used to rename the behavior when employed by 'the good guys').

Personally, I'd take a different approach. If I was in favor of this guy being killed for his rhetoric, I would be in favor of terrorism being used against my enemies. Thus, in order to claim the moral high ground, I would have to create a moral basis for my advocacy of terrorism. It's an honest approach.

Thankfully for me, my moral standards aren't that flexible. If I oppose terrorism, I oppose it regardless of the ideology it is promoting, even if it's my own.





Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this. It appears that you are advocating terrorism, but only when it used to promote your ideology. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

You are failing to acknowledge one key element in your rationalization here, namely, that the targets of terrorism are random civilians chosen for the fact they are ordinary citizens, whereas your scenario here is played out with a person chosen for their contribution TO the terrorism. It is a targeted assasination rather than an act of terrorism, itself.

By your rationalizations, had Goebels not commited suicide and was brought to trial at Nurenberg, you would have found him innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom