• 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!

Expressions of an angry Muslim[W:48]

Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

If you sift through all this left wing nonsense, you' see the soultion that is espoused by the left. Be nicer!

Frightening like people like this are in charge of national security.

What happens is that attacks by the enemy are seen as a gun control problem.( Groan)

Scarey stupid.

Yea I get it. Its a lot easier to blame "the left" and instead just keep going down the road of the status quo.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

I wouldn't say that I agree with everything the fellow says (the claim of 500 children killed by Israel in a single summer sounds pretty dubious!). On the other hand, this kind of "But they started it!" response seems rather lazy and childish, and more importantly, it's precisely what groups like ISIS themselves say.

I mean let's face facts here: One of the biggest catalysts for the rise of ISIS came from the aftermath of events in 2003, the unprovoked, illegal invasion by the US and allies of a sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world! Even if we pretend (stretching credulity to the limit) that Bush, Blair and Howard really believed in their hearts that Iraq had WMDs, it wouldn't change the fact that they ignored international protocol and invaded against the wishes of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and even of most of Iraq's neighbours.

So who started the violence? Throughout the 12 years before that, economic sanctions maintained by US and UK veto resulted in excess deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, half of them children, due largely to lack of medical supplies and poorer water quality. Who are the good guys here? Before that, there was an invasion because - get this - Iraq made an unprovoked illegal attack on another sovereign nation! But before that, Saddam Hussein was considered one of the West's important allies in the region... all while he was invading Iran and using WMDs on his own population.

How far back do you go with the "They started it" game?



Some evidence of that would be nice. Regardless, I'd bet you a shiny dollar that US weapons are used in 100% of those conflicts, since it is the #1 arms dealer in the world. As the video suggested, the private manufacturers of those arms do inevitably bribe 'donate' to government officials, and they certainly are not throwing money away out of the goodness of their hearts. Do you need see any kind of problem here?

Other governments are similarly culpable, of course: The five permanent UN Security Council members - the countries which have arrogated to themselves the role of arbitrating world peace - all rank within the top seven arms dealing nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

If you know or believe that someone is a violent killer, would you sell them an automatic rifle with a clear conscience? Surely on this point at least you must agree that the video raises an important issue? The worse you think that Muslims are, so much the worse America and other countries are for providing a ready supply of cheap, quality weapons!

In August of 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. A broad coalition of European and Middle Eastern joined with the US to restore Kuwait to its own people and drive Iraq back within its own borders. The coalition didn't occupy anything and didn't even oust Saddam. For the next 10+ years Iraq violated damned near every international sanction imposed on it due to its prior belligerence. By the time 2003 rolled around it was well past time to take Saddam to task whether WMDs were involved or not.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

I think the point of this video went right over the heads of many of the posters who have already posted in this thread.

You appear to use this "over the heads" trope every time you don't have a good response. No, homeslice. We understand, we just don't agree.

I think videos points are (which I think are valid):
1.)The "war on terror" has only created more and more terrorists

I don't think you can make that conclusion about the war until we have actually tried to win it.

2.)The "war on terror" has created more terrorists because our tactics have been playing right into the terrorists propaganda goals. We have and continue to kill many innocent civilians, lock individuals up in CIA black sites and GITMO and torture them, invade and occupy other countries lands. And in return terrorist organizations use this for propaganda purposes and recruitment purposes, all of which is very well documented.

Islamists are good at making their propaganda points mesh with Western "progressive" propaganda.

3.)Just because there is terrorism done in the name of Islam does not mean all Muslims are to blame

Yes, I think most of us agree with that. It's why I use the term "Islamist" rather than "Muslim". "Islamist" points to the violent radicals.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

You appear to use this "over the heads" trope every time you don't have a good response. No, homeslice. We understand, we just don't agree.
Ahhh yes. How could I be so silly?

I don't think you can make that conclusion about the war until we have actually tried to win it.
How does one "win" a war on a tactic?



Islamists are good at making their propaganda points mesh with Western "progressive" propaganda.
Going with this one eh? But hey, as I stated earlier, It's a lot easier to simply blame "the left" and or "progressives" and instead just keep going down the road of the status quo.


Yes, I think most of us agree with that. It's why I use the term "Islamist" rather than "Muslim". "Islamist" points to the violent radicals.
Also, simply "Islamism" is not to blame. Islamism is a political sect. Almost all political organizations/parties/leaders who can be described or they describe themselves as "Islamists" are against ISIS and many other terrorist organizations, hell many of them are openly fighting against ISIS. And hell, many countries governed by "Islamist" parties or regimes are our allies in the fight against ISIS.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

I wouldn't say that I agree with everything the fellow says (the claim of 500 children killed by Israel in a single summer sounds pretty dubious!). On the other hand, this kind of "But they started it!" response seems rather lazy and childish, and more importantly it's precisely what groups like ISIS themselves say.

I mean let's face facts here: One of the biggest catalysts for the rise of ISIS came from the aftermath of events in 2003, the unprovoked, illegal invasion by the US and allies of a sovereign nation on the opposite side of the world! Even if we pretend (stretching credulity to the limit) that Bush, Blair and Howard really believed in their hearts that Iraq had WMDs, it wouldn't change the fact that they ignored international protocol and invaded against the wishes of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and even of most of Iraq's neighbours.

Bush invaded on the authority of several UN resolutions, especially 1441, which stated that Iraq had to be disarmed.
one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.
(Wikipedia).

So who started the violence? Throughout the 12 years before that, economic sanctions maintained by US and UK veto resulted in excess deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, half of them children, due largely to lack of medical supplies and poorer water quality. Who are the good guys here? Before that, there was an invasion because - get this - Iraq made an unprovoked illegal attack on another sovereign nation! But before that, Saddam Hussein was considered one of the West's important allies in the region... all while he was invading Iran and using WMDs on his own population.

How far back do you go with the "They started it" game?

Saddam could have halted his belligerence at any point, and he'd have had peace and prosperity for his people. That is assuming they didn't tear each other apart, of course.

Some evidence of that would be nice. Regardless, I'd bet you a shiny dollar that US weapons are used in 100% of those conflicts, since it is the #1 arms dealer in the world. As the video suggested, the private manufacturers of those arms do inevitably bribe 'donate' to government officials, and they certainly are not throwing money away out of the goodness of their hearts. Do you really not see any kind of problem here?

It's very clever the way our Muslim friend used "progressive" anti-corporate propaganda against the West. Such is the value of bringing people to the US to be educated in our universities -- that they can used that sort of information against us. I'll be you a shiny dollar that Islamists don't give a fig about or even know where arms come from as long as they can get them. The don't really care about our little ideological disagreements, they don't care about any of the stuff that Western progressives care about, like whether corporations profit from war; all of the connections they make for our benefit are back formed in the service of their propaganda efforts. Their true motivations are elsewhere. They have fatter fish to fry.

Other governments are similarly culpable, of course: The five permanent UN Security Council members - the countries which have arrogated to themselves the role of arbitrating world peace - all rank within the top seven arms dealing nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

If you know or believe that someone is a violent killer, would you sell them an automatic rifle with a clear conscience? Surely on this point at least you must agree that the video raises an important issue? The worse you think that Muslims are, so much the worse America and other countries are for providing a ready supply of cheap, quality weapons!

Not so much anti-corporate or anti-American as just on the other side. Or so it seems.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

It's not accurate at all. It's garbage.

It must be accurate. The leftists normally don't react like this when something is false.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Post #3 is an example of the worst sort of brainless partisan bilge. The kind of crapola that usually comes from vapid, emptyheaded sources who haven't had an original thought in this century.

Partisan bilge? This is a political forum, is it not? BTW, you've been reported. No need to get nasty. :)
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Lulz. Please educate yourself and spare yourself further embarrassment.

I'm not a leftist rioter. Nice try tho. :)
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

In August of 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. A broad coalition of European and Middle Eastern joined with the US to restore Kuwait to its own people and drive Iraq back within its own borders. The coalition didn't occupy anything and didn't even oust Saddam. For the next 10+ years Iraq violated damned near every international sanction imposed on it due to its prior belligerence. By the time 2003 rolled around it was well past time to take Saddam to task whether WMDs were involved or not.

Certainly the Hussein regime couldn't continue forever. But two wrongs don't make a right. That's the not-so-subtle point of the video in the OP: We can't fairly condemn in others what we condone in ourselves, and in this case we're talking about an invasion by countries on opposite sides of the world which was unprovoked, against international law and not even supported by most of the victims' neighbours. And as we've seen, has not had particularly great outcomes so far. I'm sure there probably is such a thing as a 'just war' at times, or at least a necessary one like stopping Hitler in WW2, but I think the fellow in the video makes a solid point that with arms industries lobbying politicians and the selective focus of major media outlets guiding a warped public perspective, we really have set a pretty low bar for ourselves.


Ironically - and very disturbingly - that Muslim's call towards peace and the sanctity of all life, not just American or Western life, has made at least one poster on the forum express a desire for his death!

That guy isn't an "artist" he's the enemy, and needs a bullet to the head.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

It's OK that you can't accept reality. I hope your safe space is comfy w/no sharp edges.

Whatever floats your boat, you people are hilarious!
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Bush invaded on the authority of several UN resolutions, especially 1441, which stated that Iraq had to be disarmed. (Wikipedia).

Try reading it :roll:
UN press release and 1441 full text
"“Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States, . . . .


“4.Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; . . . .


“11.Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

“12.Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

“13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

“14.Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
"​

Not so much anti-corporate or anti-American as just on the other side. Or so it seems.

I don't even know what you think you're thinking here. Are you pretending that there's no conflict of interest between the five veto-wielding members of the UNSC being the world's biggest arms dealers? Are you pretending that there's no conflict of interest if those countries' politicians receive sizeable 'donations' from arms manufacturers? Are you pretending that these circumstances don't contribute to, or perhaps even actively encourage a less peaceful world?
 
Last edited:
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Ironically - and very disturbingly - that Muslim's call towards peace and the sanctity of all life, not just American or Western life, has made at least one poster on the forum express a desire for his death!

Wow.

Are you really so profoundly ignorant of the Syrian civil war that you actually believe what this idiot is saying?

The problem with his position is that it pretends that ISIS some sort of grass roots organization, or something, that sprang up out of nowhere for the express purpose of liberating the Syrian people from the al-Assad government.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

ISIS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda and is only in Syria because the failed state nature of the country allows them an opportunity to grow their Islamist caliphate.

Note that I said Islamist, not Islamic.

They don't want to free the people of Syria from Assad's brutal yoke out of some kindness of the heart, and then turn the country back over to the people of Syria to establish some rule-of-law government of, by, and for the people.

They want to conquer it and rule it according to the most barbaric and brutal form of Islam imaginable.

Syria is only one stop on their tour of global conquest - they spring up anywhere that instability will allow them to gain a toe-hold and then start killing people in order to expand and dominate.

And for the record, the REAL Syrian opposition to the al-Assad government - meaning the Syrians who are fighting for a free Syria - the al-Jaysh as-Suri al-Ḥurr (Free Syrian Army) are also fighting ISIS and the other Islamist movements that are trying to take control of their country.

By the way, ISIS is also waging a covert campaign to radicalize and incite "conflicted" Muslims here in the United States, and over in Europe, to commit terror attacks on our homeland, like in Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, Paris, Brussels, London, and Copenhagen.

Part of that radicalization effort is to convince those "conflicted" Muslims that ISIS are the good guys, the defenders of the Islamic faith, and that we, through our efforts to combat them, and those like them, are the evil empire.

95% of that guy's video was a castigation of the United States, in to which he'd occasionally intersperse the claim that he doesn't really excuse what ISIS is doing, quickly followed by an allusion that they're only doing it because of us.

This guy, and other guys who carry a similar message online, are the reason that Omar Mateen killed 50 people in Orlando over the weekend.

It's not the gun's fault, it's his fault.

He's the kind of guy who put the snakes in Mateen's head.

And his message is subtle enough that useful idiots will actually defend it as being a "call towards peace and the sanctity of all life" as you're doing here.

Congratulations, consider yourself a dupe, you've been PSYOPed.

I'll restate my claim - this guy is the enemy and should be treated as any other enemy combatant.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Now just omit the word "Islamist," and replace it with leftist. You'll notice it essentially the same thing. :)

I'm beginning to wonder if someone omitted your brain and replaced it with a bowl of oatmeal. When you respond to Low Down's ignorant post and say that the words "Islamist" and "leftist" are interchangeable, you must mean except for the fact that Israel, Palestine, Syria and most of the middle east are dominated by religious extremists who happen to be CONSERVATIVE, not at all liberal.

Do you even know what a leftist is? How do you conflate liberalism with what is happening in all of these middle eastern theocracies and authoritarian "republics"? Maybe you could get a ventriloquist gig, only instead of using a dummy, you can talk out your ass.

What is it about being conservative that you feel entitled to redefine the world according to your own bigotries? I'm beginning to think that American conservatives no longer care about facts and just spew invective and bigotry as a response to any question.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

I'm beginning to wonder if someone omitted your brain and replaced it with a bowl of oatmeal. When you respond to Low Down's ignorant post and say that the words "Islamist" and "leftist" are interchangeable, you must mean except for the fact that Israel, Palestine, Syria and most of the middle east are dominated by religious extremists who happen to be CONSERVATIVE, not at all liberal.

Do you even know what a leftist is? How do you conflate liberalism with what is happening in all of these middle eastern theocracies and authoritarian "republics"? Maybe you could get a ventriloquist gig, only instead of using a dummy, you can talk out your ass.

What is it about being conservative that you feel entitled to redefine the world according to your own bigotries? I'm beginning to think that American conservatives no longer care about facts and just spew invective and bigotry as a response to any question.

Yes believe it or not. Normal Americans watch as a registered dem Islamic terrorist attacks a gay bar. And then they see leftists resorting to violence, hurting people and essentially using terror tactics on Trump supporters.

And all you can do is falsely accuse others as bigots? LMAO how weird is that?
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Post #3 is an example of the worst sort of brainless partisan bilge. The kind of crapola that usually comes from vapid, emptyheaded sources who haven't had an original thought in this century.

Donald Trump says Muslims are bad, don't ya know? DamnYankee and the others are merely his disciples, spreading the word of The Donald to the infidels.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Possibly, depends. It is accurate however. Haven't you seen leftist rioters lately hurting people? You really ought to be yelling at leftists for being violent.

You mean like this......

74221-120-93CB883E.jpg
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

You mean like this......

74221-120-93CB883E.jpg

Every time I bring up Oklahoma City I get met with a virtual blank stare. In their exuberance over The Donald feeding their fear and anger of Muslims they always seems to forget about that corn fed white Irish-American boy who blew a few dozen little children to bits.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

This kind of radicalizing bull**** is why conflicted homosexuals are becoming Islamic terrorists.

That guy isn't an "artist" he's the enemy, and needs a bullet to the head.

Moderator's Warning:
The violent rhetoric needs to stop now. Suggestions of violence like this are not permitted at DP.

To the rest of you, the topic is not each other. The baiting/flaming/trolling needs to stop now, including telling other posters they've been reported.

Please refocus and return to discussing the OP.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Partisan bilge? This is a political forum, is it not? BTW, you've been reported. No need to get nasty. :)

Yeah, partisan bilge. That's not political debate and once you open that door you deal with what walks in. As for getting nasty, you really don't see that equating millions of Americans of a different political philosophy from yours with Muslims extremists is nasty? Do you really consider any badmouthing of the left fair game but any quid pro quo is nastiness?
You might be too thin-skinned to be beaking off like you do. There might be more quid pro quo in your future.

edit-after reading the in-thread warning, I retract anything that could be considered personal.
 
Re: Expressions of an angry Muslim

Donald Trump says Muslims are bad, don't ya know? DamnYankee and the others are merely his disciples, spreading the word of The Donald to the infidels.

DamnYankee needs to uderstand that whoever he supports will abandon him first, bail on all those low-functioning drones like him who exhausted their relevance once their votes are registered.
 
Back
Top Bottom