Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Panda any deal with usa is bad deal again one has to ask why any country has to answer to usa to begin with if i was Iran i would tell USA to go fuck them self
Do you support or oppose the Iran nuclear deal?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
He supports it based on his religious beliefs. I'm not religious so I don't share his same agenda. I didn't think you were either.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There are international agreements in place that prevent terrorist nations or those that support or harbor terrorists from obtaining or building WMD's enforced by the UN, not just the US.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why he supports it is irrelevant, he's the one being held hostage in Iran. You don't have to be religious to see it's a good deal for everyone involved.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Why does everyone think that this deal was done between the US and Iran alone? It wasn't. Go read the news a little harder if you think it was. It's the P5+1 and Iran, P5 being the five members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty recognized as being nuclear weapon states ( the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China a.k.a. the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) and the +1 being Germany.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
funny what is classification of a terrorist ??? this can be taken as ok one or 2 bad apples in usa deems every person in usa a bad apple ..
should we think like this ...
terrorist to put fear ok lets look
Are you a conservative, a libertarian, a Christian or a gun owner? Are you opposed to abortion, globalism, Communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations or the New World Order? Do you believe in conspiracy theories, do you believe that we are living in the “end times” or do you ever visit alternative news websites (such as this one)? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are a “potential terrorist” according to official U.S. government documents. At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens. And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay. So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke. The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.
Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union'”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
There fore your are deemed a terrorist
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Everyone involved....
Is that based on fact or your assumptions?
Why he supports it is very relevant btw. If he supports it because he thinks it's divine intervention from the spaghetti monster then it matters. If he supports it because he wants Iran to have nukes, then it's probably relevant. If he supports it because he doesn't want the hostages released so he can be a martyr for his God then it's relevant.
Not one of your brighter moments. You of all people justifying religion because it fits your argument is kind of ironic wouldn't you say?
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
This is somewhat incorrect, and a very interesting take on the law. If you're a terrorist, you do still maintain rights: If you're a domestic terrorist then you're going to get tried under US domestic law. If you're a foreign terrorist: By most agreements that the US has signed and ratified you will get tried under US domestic law. Now here's where it get/got interesting. When Bush put out the military order of 'Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism,' it pretty much changed the game. After this the Bush Administration then made up this term "illegal enemy combatants," which was pretty interesting.
In IHL (international humanitarian law) there is a term unlawful enemy combatant, but that's a long story, but unlawful enemy combatants must be treated as POWs. A couple of lawyers in the DoJ and Alberto Gonzales (White House counsel) advised Bush that he didn't need to treat Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters as unlawful enemy combatants because Afghanistan technically was a "failed" state, and thus the Geneva Conventions did not apply. So like I said they made up the term illegal enemy combatant and they didn't have to technically hold anyone who was labeled this as a Prisoner of War. Then the reason why GITMO was chosen was because in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) it was ruled that Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, while being under de facto control of the United States was not a sovereign territory of the United States. U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over enemy aliens held outside of the United States, but this would be largely overturned though in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) where it was decided on a 6-3 decision that the U.S. court system had the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
In theory. Alawaki nor his son received any trial. Both citizens, both killed as terrorists by the US gov based on no trial. In fact, we used Alawaki's correspondence with the Ft Hood shooter to prove Alawaki was a terrorist, but the Ft. Hood shooter was labeled as NOT terrorist, work-place violence.
So while what you said SHOULD be true, when it comes down to it, our leadership is pretty much able to do whatever they want and can count on half the citizens to turn a blind eye or wave pom poms.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I should've been more clear from the get go. In all reality though we should try terrorists under domestic law because it sends the signal that they're not fighting a war but committing crimes.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I can get on board with that. As it stands presently, you can be labelled a terrorist and taken out. Yes, I want domestic terrorists to be dealt with, but I don't like the arbitrary label being the end all be all.
Kinda hurts that whole slogan thing though. "War on terror" has a nice ring to it. "War on domestic crime" just doesn't have the same boogeyman affect.
Bill Ayers; one man's terrorist is another man's political adviser. This is why trials should be mandatory.
Last edited:
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
truth is
Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”
But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.
Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!
The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.
The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)
The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.
Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”
But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.
Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist!
The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.
The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)
The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
• Who started the First World War, which killed 37 million and injured 22, 379, 053 that includes 7 million civilians? Muslims?
• Who started the Second World War, which killed over 60 million, which was over 2.5% of the world population? Muslims?
• Who killed about 20 million of Aborigines in Australia? Muslims?
• Who drop the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed 166,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki? Muslims?
• Who killed more than 100 million Red Indians in North America? Muslims?
• Who killed more than 50 million Indian in South America? Muslims?
• Who took about 180 million African people as slaves and when 88% of them died, threw them into the Atlantic Ocean? Muslims?
NO
They weren’t Muslims! First of all, you have to define terrorism properly…. If a non-Muslim does something bad… it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same, he is a terrorist. So first remove the double standard… then come to the point.
*** Just for your information ***
• Who started the Second World War, which killed over 60 million, which was over 2.5% of the world population? Muslims?
• Who killed about 20 million of Aborigines in Australia? Muslims?
• Who drop the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed 166,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki? Muslims?
• Who killed more than 100 million Red Indians in North America? Muslims?
• Who killed more than 50 million Indian in South America? Muslims?
• Who took about 180 million African people as slaves and when 88% of them died, threw them into the Atlantic Ocean? Muslims?
NO
They weren’t Muslims! First of all, you have to define terrorism properly…. If a non-Muslim does something bad… it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same, he is a terrorist. So first remove the double standard… then come to the point.
*** Just for your information ***
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
If Texas had its way, the answer to all of your questions would be: Yes, Muslims did all of that. /sarcasm
Sorry couldn't help it.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Who built themselves a bad name for all of their religion ?
What`s the punishment for murder when they cut heads off live people in the name of their religion.
What in your list is done in the name of a God ?
That`s all they have to do in the name of their god to be labeled and cast out.
Why do people of this day use the past to excuse actions of today Darth,....??
If you kill in the name of a God, you will be hated by the world. So, who is still killing in the name of Gods ?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Things people like Darth wont tell you are things like America was not involved in WWII and it`s people did not want to get involved,..Did we mop it up when it finally came our way,.....we sure did, and did it commandingly. So. Who wouldn`t.
The question is really, not define a terrorist,...but define a Muslim.
The question is really, not define a terrorist,...but define a Muslim.
I have long said I don't understand how it is that the U.S. can have nuclear weapons and nuclear programs yet deny any other country from the same priveleges. The moment the U.S. rids itself of nuclear devices, than they have the higher ground to start demanding other countries give up theirs.
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Here, I`ll simplify it for you,....
... We invented it, we used it first, everyone else has stolen it from the US. We should be the only Country with it,...but that didn`t work out so well.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
How well does Putin obey ? Xi just rolls over for us. You can`t be serious there legend............
Similar threads
