• 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

What if it was actually aliens? What if it was aliens that were committing a hate crime?! :roll:

If it were muslims that torched the equipment to make a point then it wouldnt be a hate crime now would it? If it was a construction worker collecting money it wouldnt be a hate crime now would it? And until we know we dont know and thats why the FBI (unlike you) has refused to call it a hate crime. They figure...what the heck...lets...oh...I dont know...investigate first.
 
One last time...

You have NO EVEIDENCE of ANYTHING about this incident so you dont KNOW if it is a hate crime or not. By CALLING it a hate crime you imply one group was specifically targeted by another for their religous standing.
Now this is just trolling.


I clearly said I do not KNOW if this was a hate crime or not.

I clearly did say that there was evidence TO SUGGEST that this may have been a hate crime.

Stop confusing the two and personally attacking me. You are making yourself look more and more childish.

PS - Your political lean is laughable.
 
What if it was actually aliens? What if it was aliens that were committing a hate crime?! :roll:

No, no....Hold up....I understand you are saying the same as the rest of us that we don't know who committed this crime, but I am just asking...What if it was a Muslim, misguided or not, would that make a difference in the story? Would it still be a hate crime? or would everyone all of the sudden disappear from the thread faster than MSNBC's coverage of James Jay Lee?

j-mac

BTW, just to be clear myself, What evidence suggests that it was a hate crime?
 
Last edited:
No, no....Hold up....I understand you are saying the same as the rest of us that we don't know who committed this crime, but I am just asking...What if it was a Muslim, misguided or not, would that make a difference in the story?
Yes... the story would have changed. The current story is a mosque was burned down by unknown. The new story would be that a mosque was burned down by a Muslim.
Would it still be a hate crime? or would everyone all of the sudden disappear from the thread faster than MSNBC's coverage of James Jay Lee?
That would depend on why he or she burned down the mosque and if that reason accurately fits the definition of a hate crime according to the Penal Law of Tennessee.
 
Now this is just trolling.


I clearly said I do not KNOW if this was a hate crime or not.

I clearly did say that there was evidence TO SUGGEST that this may have been a hate crime.

Stop confusing the two and personally attacking me. You are making yourself look more and more childish.

PS - Your political lean is laughable.

Please..by all means...show us your dramatic proof that THIS INCIDENT was a hate crime. Until you can...you have been full of **** on every post. WHEN you can...immediately go to the FBI and present them with your evidence.
 
For the record...there is NO evidence regarding THIS incident. You may have evidence of other actions or behaviors...but you havent got **** about THIS crime.

but good lord...dont I have a TON of evidence pointing to the fact that this is preCISELy the kind of thing Muslims do around the globe. Debating...I think the pictures of the villages burned to the ground and bloody beheaded bodies of Christian schoolgirls might be a BIT over the top...

Seriously, can you guys just start up a thread in the 'Conspiracy Theories' section if you want to keep throwing out speculations?

There is absolutely NO POINT in you people arguing over who you think did this act of violence. I am getting sick of reading all of these arguments going back and fourth when no one knows at this point who did it.

This insane act of violence is clearly hate driven... any act of violence is hate driven. And who ever committed this crime, when found, will have done nothing but destroyed their own cause.
 
Yes... the story would have changed. The current story is a mosque was burned down by unknown. The new story would be that a mosque was burned down by a Muslim.

That would depend on why he or she burned down the mosque and if that reason accurately fits the definition of a hate crime according to the Penal Law of Tennessee.

Actually...it was some equipment...and if it is unknown...then how is it a hate crime again?
 
Please..by all means...show us your dramatic proof that THIS INCIDENT was a hate crime. Until you can...you have been full of **** on every post. WHEN you can...immediately go to the FBI and present them with your evidence.

HOLY ****ING ****!

Degreez said:
I clearly said I do not KNOW if this was a hate crime or not.

I clearly did say that there was evidence TO SUGGEST that this may have been a hate crime.
Degreez said:
I clearly said I do not KNOW if this was a hate crime or not.

I clearly did say that there was evidence TO SUGGEST that this may have been a hate crime.
Degreez said:
I clearly said I do not KNOW if this was a hate crime or not.

I clearly did say that there was evidence TO SUGGEST that this may have been a hate crime.
Degreez said:
I clearly said I do not KNOW if this was a hate crime or not.

I clearly did say that there was evidence TO SUGGEST that this may have been a hate crime.
Degreez said:
I clearly said I do not KNOW if this was a hate crime or not.

I clearly did say that there was evidence TO SUGGEST that this may have been a hate crime.

Please understand the difference between the two.
 
Seriously, can you guys just start up a thread in the 'Conspiracy Theories' section if you want to keep throwing out speculations?

There is absolutely NO POINT in you people arguing over who you think did this act of violence. I am getting sick of reading all of these arguments going back and fourth when no one knows at this point who did it.

This insane act of violence is clearly hate driven... any act of violence is hate driven. And who ever committed this crime, when found, will have done nothing but destroyed their own cause.

Then stop reading it.

I am not CLAIMING Muslims did it. I have said from the beginning that no one KNOWS. Until it is KNOWN...it isnt a hate crime. Labelling it a hate crime states bias. And as long as the label hate crime gets bantied about with no evidence then it is just as viable to assume a people that have a HISTORY of slaughtering children and blowing up property would certainly not be above burning some equipment to make others look bad. And since there has been no 'proof' offered of anything regarding THIS crime as hate crime, well...then I guess I'll have to offer more 'evidence' of what 'Muslims' are like. Sicne everyoen likes 'evidence'.
 
HOLY ****ING ****!

Please understand the difference between the two.

Rather than freaking out at him for not understanding what you're saying, why don't you try to understand what he's saying?

Vance Mack said:
For the record...there is NO evidence regarding THIS incident. You may have evidence of other actions or behaviors...but you havent got **** about THIS crime.

You two are just talking past each other.
 
Yes... the story would have changed. The current story is a mosque was burned down by unknown. The new story would be that a mosque was burned down by a Muslim.

Ok, then why? See I just googled it, and the facts I posted tonight were from AP, but Huff Post has a story on it being ruled arson also, written totally different, suggesting that right wing loons were behind it. I'm just sayin, we could re read the entire thread and see the same thing in here. None of us knows who torched the equipment, but the sides predictably fell along the lines that the GZ mosque story is headed.

That would depend on why he or she burned down the mosque and if that reason accurately fits the definition of a hate crime according to the Penal Law of Tennessee.

What is the definition of a hate crime, it seems to float depending on the group being assailed doesn't it?

Anyway, I'll check in the morning, just got in from a trip back from Indy so I am kind of tired...C ya'll in the AM.

j-mac
 
Rather than freaking out at him for not understanding what you're saying, why don't you try to understand what he's saying?

Yes, I even said I agreed with him (that there was no evidence of who/why this crime was committed). I merely said that there was evidence to SUGGEST why this crime was committed. I clearly said that over the course of two pages. He repeatedly misinterpreted that into "there is evidence that this was a hate crime".

No, I never said that.
 
HOLY ****ING ****!
Please understand the difference between the two.

And I say again...please...by all means...produce your evidence to suggest that this was a hate crime.
 
Yes, I even said I agreed with him (that there was no evidence of who/why this crime was committed). I merely said that there was evidence to SUGGEST why this crime was committed. I clearly said that over the course of two pages. He repeatedly misinterpreted that into "there is evidence that this was a hate crime".

No, I never said that.

I have said repeatedly...produce your evidence that THIS was a hate crime...or that even SUGGESTS it was a hate crime. And get it to the FBI right away...because they seem to have missed it.
 
And I say again...please...by all means...produce your evidence to suggest that this was a hate crime.

Let's see, how about the fact that their older mosque was vandalised with hate speech?
 
Yes, I even said I agreed with him (that there was no evidence of who/why this crime was committed). I merely said that there was evidence to SUGGEST why this crime was committed. I clearly said that over the course of two pages. He repeatedly misinterpreted that into "there is evidence that this was a hate crime".

No, I never said that.

You, just a few hours ago:

The facts on the ground support that this was most likely a hate crime.

A plain reading of this statement indicates that you're claiming there is evidence this was a hate crime. He's asked you for it for a dozen posts.
 
You, just a few hours ago:

A plain reading of this statement indicates that you're claiming there is evidence this was a hate crime. He's asked you for it for a dozen posts.

Key words: most, likely

There is evidence to support the claim that this was a hate crime. Do you agree or disagree?
 
Key words: most, likely

There is evidence to support the claim that this was a hate crime. Do you agree or disagree?

You spent the past 20 posts arguing about how there was a difference between "there's evidence that this was a hate crime" and "there's evidence to support the claim that this was a hate crime."

I point out that you said the former and you respond by asking me if I agree with the latter.

It sounds like you're conflating the two, which is exactly what you angrily accused him of doing.
 
Last edited:
You spent the past 20 posts arguing about how there was a difference between "there's evidence that this was a hate crime" and "there's evidence to support the claim that this was a hate crime."

I point out that you said the former and you respond by asking me if I agree with the latter.
Except I did not say it exactly like you have it quoted above. I clearly said most likely. There is no point in trying to be disingenuous.
 
Except I did not say it exactly like you have it quoted above. I clearly said most likely. There is no point in trying to be disingenuous.

I don't think I'm the one being disingenuous.

You said: "The facts on the ground support that this was most likely a hate crime." The inclusion of "most likely" doesn't change the fact that you're saying there is evidence that this was (most likely) a hate crime. That's what he's asking about.

Personally, I don't think there's a real difference between the two statements. I already stated my position, which is probably close to yours on this. I just don't know why you're so adamant about there being a distinction.
 
Are conservatives really this desperate to keep this arson from coming across as a hate crime?
 
Are conservatives really this desperate to keep this arson from coming across as a hate crime?

Without even a shred of evidence as to who was behind this or why it happened, it's far too early to start pointing fingers or offering thinly-veiled "suggestions" about who's to blame. It's particularly inflammatory where the people making those "suggestions" are dyed-in-the-wool partisans who see this as little more than an opportunity to claim that their positions have been vindicated.

As to the insinuation that the conservatives in the thread are acting disingenuously, I took the same position when people were rushing to label the Fort Hood incident a terrorist attack. I doubt that everyone in this thread can say the same.
 
Let's see, how about the fact that their older mosque was vandalised with hate speech?

Gotcha...past bad acts by unknown assailants are proof of this act...by...who exactly? SO...it IS legit to judge all Muslims by past actions of other Muslims.
 
Are conservatives really this desperate to keep this arson from coming across as a hate crime?

I dont know...a 'critical thinker' MIGHT recognize that wothout evidence or proof we dont HAVE a hate crime. WHich has been the point all along. Investigate first. Find who did what. Of course...a 'critical thinker' would also recognize that there are other possible answers and wouldnt jump to any conclusions until after the police have investigated and found who did what. You know...if you were actualy a 'critical thinker'.
 
Back
Top Bottom