• 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!

Fire at Tenn. Mosque Building Site Ruled Arson

Orion said:
The racism in America continues to be a source of astonishment.
Click to expand...

ORLY?

I would think, as a Canadian, that you'd be used to it by now.

Canada’s First Nations: The Legacy of Institutional Racism

Anyway, it's a huge assumption--on your part--that this crime is racially/religiously based, particularly since the law enforcement investigating it have made zero announcements about the motives.

Talk about getting the cart before the horse.
 
Last edited:
These threads make me chuckle.

The people that like to jump to conclusions with things like the Hollocaust museum shooting or Foot Hood and other type of things immedietely going "Bet its a Muslim!" jump on the "Lets wait and get an investigation" bandwagon.

The people that like to criticize those that jump to conclusions in the above cases are the ones on things like this or the census worker who like to go "Bet its someone inspired by those right wing radical personalities!" bandwagon.

Seriously, is it not possible for people across the board in these instances to say "Hey, I think something and something may be likely due to x, y, z but until we get some more tangible information I'm not going to start throwing around condemnations and making wild statements as if its near fact"
 
Zyphlin said:
Seriously, is it not possible for people across the board in these instances to say "Hey, I think something and something may be likely due to x, y, z but until we get some more tangible information I'm not going to start throwing around condemnations and making wild statements as if its near fact"
Click to expand...

I think that there are a few of us who have consistently said these things, but we tend to get drowned out by the rampaging partisan mouth-frothers.
 
I definitely have a sixth sense on what threads to avoid
At least no one was hurt
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
So you are assuming this is anti-muslim backlash? Tell me detective, did you rule out insurance fraud, a personal feud, disgruntled members of said mosque? Or are you simple doing the same thing you are accusing who you are speculating about of, :shrug:
Click to expand...

I guess you and Vicchio didn't read the article. The police seem convinced. But I suppose you two know better -- had to be 'Jewish Lightening' right, what a nice thought.:roll::roll::roll:
 
hazlnut said:
I guess you and Vicchio didn't read the article. The police seem convinced. But I suppose you two know better -- had to be 'Jewish Lightening' right, what a nice thought.:roll::roll::roll:
Click to expand...




They do? I missed that in the article. Care to make anything else up as you go along?
 
hazlnut said:
I guess you and Vicchio didn't read the article. The police seem convinced. But I suppose you two know better -- had to be 'Jewish Lightening' right, what a nice thought.:roll::roll::roll:
Click to expand...

Care to show us the part where the "Police seemed convinced" part?

I mean, it's obvious the police are convinced there was a fire, and it was located on the grounds were a new mosque is being built. But that's it.
 
hazlnut said:
I guess you and Vicchio didn't read the article. The police seem convinced. But I suppose you two know better -- had to be 'Jewish Lightening' right, what a nice thought.:roll::roll::roll:
Click to expand...

Seriously, mind pointing out specifically what gives you the idea the police seem "convinced" it was a a hateful burning of the place by someone that dislikes muslims? You know you don't get to just make wild and factless claims without backing it up. I read the article, I see no such comments to even suggest that the police firmly believe what or who did this outside of it being arson. Please, enlighten us to what so many of us are misreading apparently.
 
apdst said:
Compared to what?

I can't seem to say this enough: Islam is a religion, not a race. No matter how much you say it, Islam will never be a race.
Click to expand...

You're right about that. However, it's religious bigotry and it's no better.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So you are assuming this is anti-muslim backlash? Tell me detective, did you rule out insurance fraud, a personal feud, disgruntled members of said mosque? Or are you simple doing the same thing you are accusing who you are speculating about of, :shrug:
Click to expand...

Islamic_Center_Murfreesboro.jpg


Again, the only ones who could collect insurance would be the construction company. Not the mosque. They would have no motive.

But I'm glad that YOUR first suspicion is blaming the victim.

"Well, she was wearing a short skirt."
 
FilmFestGuy said:
But I'm glad that YOUR first suspicion is blaming the victim.

"Well, she was wearing a short skirt."
Click to expand...

Any evidence he was blaming the victim or anyone FIRST or are you just making an emotional plea because you have no real argument and you were hoping it would hide your obvious hyperbole and blatantly dishonest accusation. Reverends statement was asking how people came to a singular conclusion by ruling out every other situation. That is not the same as his "first" suspicion being to blame the victim but rather to state that there are multiple possibilities so declaring or implying one and one alone without anything to refute other possibilities is rather foolish.

But you know, taking what he said and actually responding to it wouldn't have let you put in your worthless emotional rape analogy that was horrendously flawed
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Again, the only ones who could collect insurance would be the construction company. Not the mosque. They would have no motive.
Click to expand...

Who said that insurance was the only possible motive? When that chick slashed a "B" into her face, it wasn't for the insurance money.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Care to show us the part where the "Police seemed convinced" part?

I mean, it's obvious the police are convinced there was a fire, and it was located on the grounds were a new mosque is being built. But that's it.
Click to expand...

Um... "Ruled Arson"...

Um... right there at the top of the thread...

Not sure what else to say... Did you not see "ruled arson"...???:confused::confused:
 
hazlnut said:
Um... "Ruled Arson"...

Um... right there at the top of the thread...

Not sure what else to say... Did you not see "ruled arson"...???:confused::confused:
Click to expand...

You're missing the point - it's possible for this to be an arson, yet be committed for a reason other than "anti-muslim backlash," which is what you claimed.
 
RightinNYC said:
You're missing the point - it's possible for this to be an arson, yet be committed for a reason other than "anti-muslim backlash," which is what you claimed.
Click to expand...

It's possible, but is it probable? No. The time is too coincidental when anti-Muslim sentiment is taking off in America, especially with the Ground Zero mosque.

And you're saying it's "possible" it's arson, when they already ruled it to be arson, and will charge whoever the suspect of doing it with arson.
 
Degreez said:
It's possible, but is it probable? No. The time is too coincidental when anti-Muslim sentiment is taking off in America, especially with the Ground Zero mosque.

And you're saying it's "possible" it's arson, when they already ruled it to be arson, and will charge whoever the suspect of doing it with arson.
Click to expand...

or...looked at another way...the timing could be seen as almost TOO coincidental. Almost like someone was TRYING to get attention shifted to those evil bad protesters...put them on the defensive. Kind of like what the democrats have done with flashing the race card whenever they look like ****.

Perspective is everything.
 
VanceMack said:
or...looked at another way...the timing could be seen as almost TOO coincidental. Almost like someone was TRYING to get attention shifted to those evil bad protesters...put them on the defensive. Kind of like what the democrats have done with flashing the race card whenever they look like ****.

Perspective is everything.
Click to expand...

This is baseless speculation while the other is speculation based on reality. There is a difference, and if you can't tell the difference, just stop posting.
 
Degreez said:
This is baseless speculation while the other is speculation based on reality. There is a difference, and if you can't tell the difference, just stop posting.
Click to expand...

Take your own advice. Until a Perp is caught, the REASON for the fire is just wild speculation. Was it "hate", was it punks, was it a scam for $$, was it a fake hate crime?

We don't know. Yo claim that YOU know that it HAD to hate is extreme arrogance. No one is claiming that isn't probable, we're saying quit rushing to judgment without evidence.
 
MrVicchio said:
Take your own advice. Until a Perp is caught, the REASON for the fire is just wild speculation. Was it "hate", was it punks, was it a scam for $$, was it a fake hate crime?

We don't know. Yo claim that YOU know that it HAD to hate is extreme arrogance. No one is claiming that isn't probable, we're saying quit rushing to judgment without evidence.
Click to expand...

Where did I make the claim boy genius?

I said one claim was grounded with reality while the other claim was merely baseless speculation.

The facts are:
- it WAS arson
- anti-Muslim sentiment is high
- vandalism against the same mosque has already occurred

This makes it more reasonable to assume one claim over another that has no facts to support it.
 
Degreez said:
This is baseless speculation while the other is speculation based on reality. There is a difference, and if you can't tell the difference, just stop posting.
Click to expand...

How is it any more useless speculation than some moron pretending they have a pretty good hunch it was those evil Christians? Oh...thats right...because it isnt convenient for your belief system.

The fact is that until they have investigated NO ONE knows. So...you willing to stop posting yourself there, slick? A little put up or shut time...
 
VanceMack said:
How is it any more useless speculation than some moron pretending they have a pretty good hunch it was those evil Christians? Oh...thats right...because it isnt convenient for your belief system.

The fact is that until they have investigated NO ONE knows. So...you willing to stop posting yourself there, slick? A little put up or shut time...
Click to expand...

Are you really that slow?

ONE CLAIM ACTUALLY HAS FACTS ON THE GROUND TO SUPPORT IT. THE OTHER DOES NOT.
 
Degreez said:
Are you really that slow?

ONE CLAIM ACTUALLY HAS FACTS ON THE GROUND TO SUPPORT IT. THE OTHER DOES NOT.
Click to expand...

Oh really? You have grounds to support that a specific group actually committed the act of arson? Please...do share. Otherwise, you are full of ****.

I have said from the beginning. The police and FBI should nivestigate. And IF it turns out to be a crime motivated by hatred towards muslims the individual or individuals should be prosecuted. And if it turns out to be a cheap ploy to divert peoples attention or to put the protesters on the defensive, those individuals should ALSO be prosecuted. Until then it is speculation.

But if you would like I CAN post examples of the democrat playbook where they have done this kind of **** in the past. I dont know that is what has happened any more than you know it didnt. YOU seem to have no problem casting aspersions without facts. And then you piss yourself when it is pointed out thats what you are doing???
 
VanceMack said:
Oh really? You have grounds to support that a specific group actually committed the act of arson? Please...do share. Otherwise, you are full of ****.

I have said from the beginning. The police and FBI should nivestigate. And IF it turns out to be a crime motivated by hatred towards muslims the individual or individuals should be prosecuted. And if it turns out to be a cheap ploy to divert peoples attention or to put the protesters on the defensive, those individuals should ALSO be prosecuted. Until then it is speculation.

But if you would like I CAN post examples of the democrat playbook where they have done this kind of **** in the past. I dont know that is what has happened any more than you know it didnt. YOU seem to have no problem casting aspersions without facts. And then you piss yourself when it is pointed out thats what you are doing???
Click to expand...

Well when the FBI investigates what starting point do you recommend for them?
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Oh really? You have grounds to support that a specific group actually committed the act of arson? Please...do share. Otherwise, you are full of ****.
Click to expand...
Show where I said one specific group committed the arson. Otherwise, you are full of ****. I clearly said one claim (the claim that this was a hate crime) has more evidence to support it than the claim that this was used as a diversion technique (which, in case you haven't noticed, no evidence for it has been provided).
 
Degreez said:
It's possible, but is it probable? No. The time is too coincidental when anti-Muslim sentiment is taking off in America, especially with the Ground Zero mosque.

And you're saying it's "possible" it's arson, when they already ruled it to be arson, and will charge whoever the suspect of doing it with arson.
Click to expand...

You appear to be mistaken about what "arson" means. The police have determined that this was arson, which means that it was a deliberate act. What they have not determined (because they have not arrested anyone) is why that act was committed. It was most likely someone opposed to the mosque (as I noted pages ago), but it's remains possible that it was someone acting for another purpose.

I don't understand why people are so angry at the observation that there is still some uncertainty here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom