John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the World Trade Centers

Based on the results of this poll, it appears that people who believe in one goverment claim are statistically likely to believe in other goverment claims

 

Based on the results of this poll, it appears that republicans don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"

 

Is being "uncapable" a lot like being "incapable?"

The majority of us believe George Bush when he says Osama did it. Alternatively, if you aren't willing to believe George, you probably are willing to believe Osama. Osama has, on multiple occassions, claimed credit for the 9/11 attack.

 

I sure know every time a terrorist tells me something, I believe it! Who wouldn't trust a terorrist not to lie? I mean come on...

 

If he didn't do it, then is he a even a terrorist?

If he is not a terrorist, then why not believe he did it, but then that would make him a terrorist and hard to believe.... golly beav, this is too hard to figure out

 

How well known did "Bin Laden" become for taking the blame? That's motivation for a lie.

What actual evidence is there that "he did it" or had any direct involvement? George Bush's word?

Look at how looney you republicans sound.. your the first one to put the blame of 9/11 on Bin Laden himself, then when questions are asked as to why he hasn't been captured, you come up with this crap like "what's it going to do? he's just one guy in a cave?" blah blah blah.... so you think HE IS RESPONSIBLE for masterminding the worst attack ever, but don't think it's important to capture him..... COMPLETE LUNACY!!!!

 

7) No. No. No.

8) Yes. All one has to do is see video clips of a woman in a burkha being shot to death by a circle of men, in a stadium filled with cheering men, all under the Taliban regime, to know the nature and intent of the Islamic Fundamentalist.

Historically, I would argue, no different from any other fundamentalist. But nefarious nevertheless. How to end such a thing is where I and my conservative friends usually part ways (which leads me to answer "No," Iraqis don't like us). But we are agreed as to the intent of the resurgent Fundamentalism currently on the rise.

 

Down with "isms!"

 

Why is it probable and what does it have to do with each other? He says the same thing as Dubya, it could be as well that they share the same scriptwriter. I'm 30 years old and never seen a terrorist in my life. As far as I am concerned they may (or may not) be as real as Santa Claus. If it wasn't for corporate media, how would you know terrorists exist?
The real 9/11 masterminds don't want you to know who they are. For those who believe what they are told, they gave you Osama. For those who don't believe what they are told, they gave you Dubya. This way everyone has something to believe in, and no one knows who the masterminds are. At least it would explain why we are not hunting Osama.
I don't know who the masterminds are, but they scare hell outa me and the future of this planet doesn't look good, even worse than present

 

I'm Irish and my wife is Arabic. Some people call them terrorists, we call them the in-laws.

Both the potato heads and the sheet heads have been senselessly murdering innocent people for decades.

You may choose not to believe any of it. You may choose to believe that the Munich Olympics themselves never happened. Hell, you may choose to believe that the moon landing was fakes on a Holloywood studio stage.

However, it takes much more faith to believe in a vast conspiracy than it does to believe that there really are people on this planet who are willing to murder total strangers in the name of some political or religious cause.

Heck, we have Islamic posters right here at DP who have stated that they agree that people who defect from Islam should be murdered.

Of course, I can't prove to you that the person who posted that wasn't really George Bush operating from behind a proxy-network run by the CIA...

 

Will, can you point out who here on DP holds to this/where it was said? (This is not an opening round - I mean it sincerely, I'd like to see who/where it was said).

Paul

 

as usual, i have a very unpopular opinion

but i wonder how much people have already been in middle east and talked to the average (!!!) people, and how much just watch tv and see guys with ak47s running amok between burning cars. i mean i could also let everybody think that they have no citys in sweden just by taking only pictures of woods and mountains, you know what i mean?!

 

It was umm... ummm... umm... that one guy... argghghhgh... I had it in my signature for about a week and now I can't remember it at all.

 

He will gladly tell you who said it, but you will never get the proof you're looking for.

 

Whoever RacerWeek is, thanks for adding another vote to option number 3

 

ccole, if you're so interested, look it up.

 

You are in a theater. What you see on stage is a live performance, so genuine that even most performers think it's for real, let alone the public.
When you are leaving, check your wallet. In fact, by the time you are leaving you may be handcuffed. So check your wallet right now. You'll be surprised what's missing.

 

I think Will meant Lordo. You can read the kill comments here:forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=60785&page=5&highlight=Lordo

(If you are interested)

 

I believe that the burden of proof should fall on the prosecution.

 

Thanks. I did read the thread. Unless I missed something, while Lordo did not come out and say "they agree that people who defect from Islam should be murdered," he did say that it is the Sheikh's/imam's role to declare islamic judgment on matters concerning Islam; and such judgment includes murdering Islamic apostates.

While I am an atheist, and view all religions as dangerous myths, generally, I think it is important to take in what Lordo is saying with respect to the differences between Islam, Christianity, and their theological union with civil and criminal law. He says, quite rightly, that in Christianity, there is no union, but in Islam, there is.

From the start, Islam was set up as a theocracy, which prescibes rules and codes for all manner of conduct in society - it is intended to be a complete "system" of Muslim conduct and jurisprudence, and I think his comparing the ulamic authority to what we know of civil judgeships is, in my limited understanding, a correct comparison. While I wholly disagree with anyone having the right to murder anyone else - taken in this light, it certainly does not differ from Judaism in its Mosaic prescriptions on crime and punishment; and it does not differ from our own right, in the United States at least, to murder a human being over a capital transgression of the law.

We can go into other things, like early Islamic History and the exigency under which the religion was born, to explain why Islam, a religion, penetrates so deeply into areas reserved for secular authority in other cultures. But that is probably another thread. The fact is, from the beginning, Islam and civil codes of conduct, crime and punishment and the like, were structurally intertwined.

Now, we can argue about what constitutes a capital offense. Substantively, Will and those who agree with him would say that becoming an apostate ain't one of them (and I am in whole agreement here);* while a Muslim, because of the structure of Islamic theocracy and jurisprudence, would understand and agree with the imam-imposed death sentence - whether of an apostate, or a terrorist, in transgression of the prohibition against killing innocents.** Doesn't excuse it (god knows, a good deal of sharia has resulted in torture, murder, and misery for countless innocents, within Islamic societies), but I think it is important to understand this issue in light of the structural origins of the birth and early promulgation of Islam.

*But then, I don't think there is a justification for capital punishment, my personal desire for revenge notwithstanding.

**We shouldn't confuse this with the skewed version of fundamentalism which construes the West generally as "attacking Islam" and so rightfully subject - men, women, and children, civilian or military alike - to jihadist "protection."