• 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!

France- Imminent Terror Attack Twarted, 4 Arrested

coldjoint said:
I said it was. So yes.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You actually believe that the terrorism in the UK and Ireland was because Christianity sanctioned terrorism and that The Bible espoused terrorism as a solution.

How can you support that?
 
jet57 said:
Interesting. You actually believe that the terrorism in the UK and Ireland was because Christianity sanctioned terrorism and that The Bible espoused terrorism as a solution.

How can you support that?
Click to expand...

Did not say that.
 
coldjoint said:
Did not say that.
Click to expand...

That has to be your position dude. If Catholicism and Protestantism were terrorism, then their religion and the Vatican were the support structure.
 
jet57 said:
That has to be your position dude. If Catholicism and Protestantism were terrorism, then their religion and the Vatican were the support structure.
Click to expand...

You are saying that, not me. The doctrine of Christianity does not sanction terror.
 
coldjoint said:
You are saying that, not me. The doctrine of Christianity does not sanction terror.
Click to expand...

Nope: if terrorism and Christianity are inexplicably linked - as you assert, then Christianity espouses and supports terrorist activity.

Hey, it's your assertion. So the question is, how do you support such an assertion?
 
jet57 said:
Nope: if terrorism and Christianity are inexplicably linked - as you assert, then Christianity espouses and supports terrorist activity.

Hey, it's your assertion. So the question is, how do you support such an assertion?
Click to expand...

It is not my assertion. Christianity was hijacked for nefarious purposes. Islam was not. If you cannot understand the difference we are finished.
 
jet57 said:
Nope: if terrorism and Christianity are inexplicably linked - as you assert, then Christianity espouses and supports terrorist activity.

Hey, it's your assertion. So the question is, how do you support such an assertion?
Click to expand...

Stop trolling him.
 
Mac77 said:
True to liberal political correctness the report makes no mention of Islam or how these terrorists got into France
Click to expand...

Can you name a single terrorist attack - ever, in the history of the world - where Islamic extremism was the motivation and people never knew about it.

Good luck.
 
coldjoint said:
It is not my assertion. Christianity was hijacked for nefarious purposes. Islam was not. If you cannot understand the difference we are finished.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways man. Your assertion is that both religions support terrorism.

So, if you can't support your assertion, then your entire argument is discredited.
 
Mustachio said:
Can you name a single terrorist attack - ever, in the history of the world - where Islamic extremism was the motivation and people never knew about it.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Arcan Cetin is a pretty good example. You'll of course now say that he wasn't an Islamic terrorist, and then my point is proven.

The Nice lorry attacker was painted as having nothing to do with Islam. Of course the media knows that people tire quickly of reading about tragedy, so they constructed a narrative that said he was a lone wolf with no ties to radical Islam. That was later proven to be complete rubbish, but by then only a handful of people were still following the story, and the damage was done.
 
Chagos said:
Yeah, it's really annoying how these news sources wont go speculating about what investigations will probably confirm, but would rather wait for official findings.
Click to expand...

Or wait until after the spring elections.
 
I don't buy ANYTHING the authorities say until they prove it.

So...they say they averted an attack. Fine...prove it in court and then I might believe them.

This is the same crap American authorities tried to pass off a few years ago and it turned out to be nonsense.

I am not saying they did not avert an attack. But until they prove it - I ain't believing it.
 
DA60 said:
I don't buy ANYTHING the authorities say until they prove it.

So...they say they averted an attack. Fine...prove it in court and then I might believe them.

This is the same crap American authorities tried to pass off a few years ago and it turned out to be nonsense.

I am not saying they did not avert an attack. But until they prove it - I ain't believing it.
Click to expand...

Then you need more bodies to believe it. You will get your wish.
 
coldjoint said:
Then you need more bodies to believe it. You will get your wish.
Click to expand...

I never said I wanted more bodies...don't put words in my mouth.

'Reading Comprehension' and you are not on a first name basis are you?

:roll:

Be careful, your IQ is showing.

We are done here.

Bu bye.
 
DA60 said:
I never said I wanted more bodies...don't put words in my mouth.

'Reading Comprehension' and you are not on a first name basis are you?

:roll:

Be careful, your IQ is showing.

We are done here.

Bu bye.
Click to expand...
You need to accept, if you accept Islam, these things are going to happen and there is no reason to think they had any other intentions. What will it take for you to get that is all I was saying.
 
jet57 said:
So, it is "correct" that Islam is a terrorist religion...

It shocks me that you think that way.
Click to expand...
I think you may have to read back (maybe as far as #35 or even before) to see how this exchange came to be. And when, in that context, someone makes the pitiful attempt to lure
me or anybody else towards sharing into his or her simplistic world view, I don't bite. Especially not when that attempt consists of a question that already holds the foregone conclusion and offers, in hilarious attempt of being dictatorial, only two options.

It isn't much different from asking you (or me) when you (or I) stopped beating the wife.

That coldjoint doesn't get it does not surprise me. That you interpret my answer as being an affirmative does, however.
 
truthatallcost said:
Arcan Cetin is a pretty good example. You'll of course now say that he wasn't an Islamic terrorist, and then my point is proven
Click to expand...

Actually I would say he was a crazy wife beater. When a person's mind isn't right, they cannot execute a well thought out plan to harm our nation. Secondly, I won't say that Islamic terrorism was the motivation. Because the authorities said it wasn't. Do you want round two? When did authorities lie about the motivation of a terrorist attack?
 
Mustachio said:
Actually I would say he was a crazy wife beater. When a person's mind isn't right, they cannot execute a well thought out plan to harm our nation. Secondly, I won't say that Islamic terrorism was the motivation. Because the authorities said it wasn't.
Click to expand...

1) Cetin was never married.
2) Sloppy journalism missed Cetin's social media that was full of pictures of Isis leaders, and praises for these men. Oh, but its normal for people to have Isis porn on their Facebook, right?
3) The authorities said Faisal Mohammed wasn't connected to Islamic terrorism too. Then his story was overshadowed by the San Bernardino terrorists, which pushed it out of mind. Later, the FBI concluded that his only motivation for the attack was Islamic extremism.


Do you want round two? When did authorities lie about the motivation of a terrorist attack?
Click to expand...

Faisal Mohammed, beat ya to it :mrgreen:
 
Chagos said:
I think you may have to read back (maybe as far as #35 or even before) to see how this exchange came to be. And when, in that context, someone makes the pitiful attempt to lure
me or anybody else towards sharing into his or her simplistic world view, I don't bite. Especially not when that attempt consists of a question that already holds the foregone conclusion and offers, in hilarious attempt of being dictatorial, only two options.

It isn't much different from asking you (or me) when you (or I) stopped beating the wife.

That coldjoint doesn't get it does not surprise me. That you interpret my answer as being an affirmative does, however.
Click to expand...

I'm just reading what's on the page and note that I was shocked by it. Perhaps you can clarify your position.
 
jet57 said:
I'm just reading what's on the page and note that I was shocked by it. Perhaps you can clarify your position.
Click to expand...

1) that I don't discuss the nature or fabric of Islam with the poster in question. Ever. On account of his blatant ignorance on the matter itself, its history, history in general and his single minded insistence on not only staying in his information bubble, but wanting to impose it onto everybody else.

2) that the whole issue cannot be answered with either yes or no, no matter how much he thinks that his so doing should have everybody else following suit.
 
Chagos said:
1) that I don't discuss the nature or fabric of Islam with the poster in question. Ever. On account of his blatant ignorance on the matter itself, its history, history in general and his single minded insistence on not only staying in his information bubble, but wanting to impose it onto everybody else.

2) that the whole issue cannot be answered with either yes or no, no matter how much he thinks that his so doing should have everybody else following suit.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you on both counts.

But what really did you mean by "correct"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom