It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ahmad Khan Rahami wanted in connection to NYC bombings

page: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66




So Radical Islamic Terrorists™ are attacking Muslims too?

Geez, it's almost like terrorism is a political act rather than a religious one.


So your argument is that people can not be fighting over religion if they belong to the same overarching one. Shiites cannot fight sunnis for religious reasons? I mean, lets ignore over 1000 years of evidence to the contrary, right?

Wow you are stretching. How do you explain that many of these attacks have the attackers asking the religion of their victims, and sometimes even letting Muslims go. It must be political, right?

According to an ISIS spokes person,


"The greatest answer to this question is in the Qur'an, where Allah speaks about the nearby enemy - those Muslims who have become infidels - as they are more dangerous than those which were already infidels,” the spokesman tweeted, according to Channel 2 News.


www.israelnationalnews.com...

Get that. His religious text tells him to kill Muslim disbelievers first.

And many Muslims hate and fear ISIS for this. Yet you are the one that wants to lump them altogether, by refusing to allow people to call out when terrorists act out of their interpretation of their religion. You would lump all Muslims together, and say they cant fight each other over religious reasons, only political ones.

Tell that tho the thousands of Muslims killed by ISIS. Tell them that they may not criticize the religious motivations behind their attacks, because that would make them bigots.


edit on 19-9-2016 by Grambler because: formatting




posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

My argument is that we shouldn't attack a religion or attack people because their religion.

Simple, straightforward, clear.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

like I said yesterday, the right cries attack when they have nothing else. thanks for proving my point.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

MUSLIM.... Nooooooo way?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

as is his dad...and his brother.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: UnBreakable

like I said yesterday, the right cries attack when they have nothing else. thanks for proving my point.



Uh, I wasn't even responding to you. How much does that member pay you to shill for them and wash their dirty underwear?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

My argument is that we shouldn't attack a religion or attack people because their religion.

Simple, straightforward, clear.


What if the religion is violent, and its followers commit violent acts because of it? (taking Islam out of the equation for a moment)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs


The First Amendment states you can freely practice your religion.This is correct....unless you are Christian in America. Then you are told what you can and cannot apply your religion to. The same is not said for Islam. After both recent terror attacks we were told to be more tolerant and 'hate speech' would lead to an arrest. This can from our own Attorney General. Does no one see anything wrong there?


Christians are 70%+ of the country's population with 99% of the representation in government. Muslims aren't being given any more right to practice their religion than Christians.


So, just maybe, I am starting to be a bit worried that the conspiracies of wanting to bring Islamic Fundamentalism mainstream are true. Why is that? Because it never ends well for the Non Muslims throughout history.


Does that even make sense? How do terrorist attacks in any way shape or form "bring Islamic Fundamentalism mainstream?" Serious question.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable


Man up, snowflake.


Again, as I said yesterday, you libs resort to personal attacks when you have nothing else. Thanks for once again proving my point.


And as I said to you before, you sure do like to whine when someone points-out your weak arguments.


And so you can't point out "weak" arguments without resorting to name calling? Time to leave the third grade.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


You have no idea what the motives of this man in this thread were, yet you assume it is just about the US bombing.


No I don't I never said anything of the sort, I brought up the fact that this suspect (you too seem to assume suspicion equals guilt), that he is from Afghanistan, where America is one of several countries where civilians were killed without too much discrimination. I think you will find that a large amount of people on this thread have already decided this person is guilty, they have tied that to his religion and at least one has said he should be murdered (slowly) and another has talked about killing his close relatives - but yeah, I guess that's different.


In fact, can you show me any recent terror attacks done in gthe name of Christianity?


That depends on how you define George W Bush's use of the word 'Crusade', doesn't it?

As it happens, I only joined into this thread because I knew exactly what comments would be thrown around and sadly, I wasn't disappointed. Something about me wants to question people who make assumptions based on nothing but their own prejudice, but then some people already know their enemy and have decided what needs to be done.
edit on 19-9-2016 by uncommitted because: slight grammar issue



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

My argument is that we shouldn't attack a religion or attack people because their religion.

Simple, straightforward, clear.


What if the religion is violent, and its followers commit violent acts because of it? (taking Islam out of the equation for a moment)


See the First Amendment.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildapache
a reply to: DBCowboy

Dick Bimbo,PI I get where you are coming from,but killing them this way will just make them martyrs and will no doubt be use as a recruitment tool....




Like they really need a recruitment tool, right?

They are ALL waiting for that certain something to just turn them all into murderous jihadis.

One minute they are peace loving good time charlie's and the next minute, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAllah AKbar!!

At least they have the martyr thing going for them. They'll give up the ghost in a heartbeat to get to heaven because they suck at being a good muslim.

Send em off, a piece at a time if need be. Every time that chump wakes up, something would be missing.

See, a Christian can't get away with something like that. Blow up an abortion clinic or pedo some kids and you ain't going nowhere but hell.

And that kid shouldn't be hard to find. 5'6" and 200 lbs, musta been all that American Fried Chicken. Waterbed with a head.





Obama to make a statement at 11:30. in 25 mins from now.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

MUSLIM.... Nooooooo way?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

as is his dad...and his brother.


Who could have known? This stuff is so hard to figure out! Brilliant people like Introvert were stumped, so how can we expect your average joe blow to make any sense of motivations?
edit on 19-9-2016 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

My argument is that we shouldn't attack a religion or attack people because their religion.

Simple, straightforward, clear.


But you are changing your stance. You originally said we can't let this be about him being a Muslim or from a Muslim country.

Where are people suggesting to attack this man or anyone because they are Muslim? I haven't seen any of that on this thread. But if evidence arises that he claims to have done this in the name of his religion, you think we should ignore this. This is dangerous and disingenuous.

You are suggesting that we can not let this story be that he carried out these attacks because of his faith. You also say it is your opinion that he must be a lone wolf. You say this without having any idea of his motivation or other facts.

You are trying to spin the story to fit your narrative without any facts, which is ironically the very thing you are criticizing other for.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No, I'm not changing my stance; my stance is not your rhetorical re-enactment of it.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thats reasonable.

I think you are confusing "attacking" with profiling.

If you come from a war torn area of the world with several states sponsoring terrorism,

belong to a religious group that currently is being radicalized in an effort to carry out said terrorism, .......

then perhaps that criteria merits a more concerted effort to make sure you arent a potential terrorist.

If england has mad cow disease, we check all imports of beef from there.

If apples from Mexico have disease carrying worms we check all fruits from Mexico or all at least apples from there.

If most terrorists are coming from ME backgrounds which includes Islam as a cultural practice then guess what....


edit on 9 19 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

MUSLIM.... Nooooooo way?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

as is his dad...and his brother.


There ya go. Now you have evidence that he is a Muslim.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

it would be better to punish his family in some way...wherever they may be.

Even the most evil terrorists care about their family.



That's why Israel blows up their family home.

Not a bad idea in a way.

No one gets hurt.





posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I would settle for deportation if they are sympathetic in any way to him or his ideas.


edit on 9 19 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Why should we leave Islam out of it? That would be censorship and violating freedom of speech right? Telling someone they cannot describe something in truth?


Then you don't have any problems with my statement about Christian Child Molesters then?

You sure seemed to.


Keep yappin about that if it makes ya feel good.

We all know muslims NEVER play with children, it's against their religion, right?






posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I did not say terrorism is bringing Islamic Fundamentalism mainstream. I was implying that the current administration as well as others would like to see that. Mainstream.




top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join