Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Jun '16 21:554 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The idiotic troll Robbie Carrobie attempts another of his countless flagrantly dishonest distortions.
    As usual, Robbie Carrobie ignores and dismisses all the evidence showing that he's wrong.

    I already am aware that Omar Mateen claimed to have killed on behalf of ISIS.
    I have *not* disputed the fact that he made that claim. Based upon ample evidence, ...[text shortened]... motivated to kill more by personal reasons
    concerning his homosexuality than by anything else.
    There are number of theories proffered postulating that he was motivated by this or motivated by that but we cannot escape the fact that he uttered radical Islamic sentiments while on a killing spree. This is an incontrovertible fact if we uphold the veracity of the FBI transcript. Stating that he was allegedly gay or allegedly a drunkard does not nor can it negate this fact nor does it explain why he did so.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jun '16 22:162 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    There are number of theories proffered postulating that he was motivated by this or motivated by that but we cannot escape the fact that he uttered radical Islamic sentiments while on a killing spree. This is an incontrovertible fact if we uphold the veracity of the FBI transcript. Stating that he was allegedly gay or allegedly a drunkard does not nor can it negate this fact nor does it explain why he did so.
    So Robbie Carrobie apparently insists upon always taking an alleged killer's words at face value.
    Fortunately, professional law enforcement authorities tend not be as prejudiced or as stupid.

    Lee Harvey Oswald denied that he had killed JFK, insisting that he had been 'set up' by others.
    So does Robbie Carrobie accept his claim at face value and believe that Oswald must have been innocent?

    And what does Robbie Carrobie have to say about criminals apparently influenced by their Jehovah's Witness beliefs?
    In the Spirituality forum, Robbie Carrobie has a long record as a dishonest apologist
    who attempts to deny or cover up crimes committed by Jehovah's Witnesses.

    http://www.silentlambs.org/murderjwfathers.htm
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Jun '16 22:483 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    So Robbie Carrobie apparently insists upon always taking an alleged killer's words at face value.
    Fortunately, professional law enforcement authorities tend not be as prejudiced or as stupid.

    Lee Harvey Oswald denied that he had killed JFK, insisting that he had been 'set up' by others.
    So does Robbie Carrobie accept his claim at face value and believ ...[text shortened]... er up crimes committed by Jehovah's Witnesses.

    http://www.silentlambs.org/murderjwfathers.htm
    Nothing you have said explains why in the transcript he clearly identifies with radical Islam. The reference to taking something at face value is weak, real weak and does nothing to explain the transcript. As for your scurrilous attempts to make the debate personal with vain references to my religion its not working for you, sorry its neither very clever nor very subtle and is simply a reflection of the vacuous nature of your post. Have you not yet come to the realisation that your posts are a reflection of you rather than those you seek to vilify?
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    24 Jun '16 22:541 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    No1 already covered this rather predictable and banal rhetoric. Why you think your text has any relevance is known only to you because no one is defending radical Christianity or radical Judaism or anything else. These references to Judaism, Christianity etc are nothing more than a rather plastic and transparent attempt at some kind of deflection. ...[text shortened]... e acts of atrocity. Why you should have any difficulty accepting the fact is known only to you.
    There has been a war going on for some decades in the Middle East where religious conservatives ("radicals"😉 have been attempting to overthrow the established governments there mainly on the premise that those governments are insufficiently Islamic, corrupt and pro-Western. The West has intervened in these wars on the side of most of the established governments - generally the most non-Islamic, corrupt and Westernized ones - while militarily overthrowing other ones (some secular, some not). Since the West has decided to enter this war, the side they have decided to fight has decided to fight back against them in the only way if effectively can i.e. generally by terroristic attacks.

    Seeing this as some kind of war against "radical Islam" is a dangerous one mainly because most Westerners have little knowledge of Islam and so tend to equate all or most Muslims as "radicals" (thus we get Muhummad attack threads, proposals to ban ALL Muslims, etc. etc. etc.) and thus are prone to support retaliatory measures against Muslims in general. Of course, the West wants most of the fighting and dying to be done by "our" Muslims against the "radical" ones, but such domestic measures generally aid recruitment, mass support, etc. etc. for our designated "enemies".

    It is a rather known fact that terrorists generally come, not from devout Muslims, but from the most marginal ones i.e. newly religious ones, second generation immigrants to the West, etc. (Cook, Understanding Jihad, p. 151). Thus, the effectiveness of radical Islamic ideology as you call it seems increase in response to the types of measures usually proposed to combat it i.e. increased war, repressive measures against Muslims, etc. etc.
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    24 Jun '16 23:06
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Where is your evidence for this. 3000 people alone were killed in the attacks of September 11th.
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-americans-are-the-biggest-terror-threat-in-the-united-states/211608/

    not counting 9/11. if you want to count 9/11 i can also count all the blacks who died during the civil rights years.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    24 Jun '16 23:07
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Nothing you have said explains why in the transcript he clearly identifies with radical Islam. The reference to taking something at face value is weak, real weak and does nothing to explain the transcript. As for your scurrilous attempts to make the debate personal with vain references to my religion is not working for you, sorry its neither very c ...[text shortened]... to the realisation that your posts are a reflection of you rather than those you seek to vilify?
    Omar Mateen could have said anything that he wished, but rational people (unlike Robbie Carrobie)
    don't have to accept all his claims at face value. Instead, rational people look for evidence
    to corroborate his claims. And when rational people find evidence that contradicts his
    claims, they start to conclude (unlike Robbie Carrobie) that his claims are untrue.

    So Robbie Carrobie's apparently convinced that Omar Mateen was a loyal member of ISIS.
    Omar Mateen also claimed to be a member of Hezbollah. Why shouldn't Robbie Carrobie
    also accept that claim at face value? So does Robbie Carrobie believe that Omar Mateen
    was (incompatibly) loyal *both* to ISIS and Hezbollah, who are mortal enemies?

    Omar Mateen's record of actions (including his heavy drinking and relationships with
    gay men) show that he clearly was *not* serious about any professed allegiance to ISIS.
    ISIS has a record of executing gay men.

    I expect the lying troll Robbie Carrobie to ignore or deny all evidence and continue with
    his tireless agenda of inciting more Islamophobia in addition to more homophobia.
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Jun '16 23:21
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-americans-are-the-biggest-terror-threat-in-the-united-states/211608/

    not counting 9/11. if you want to count 9/11 i can also count all the blacks who died during the civil rights years.
    so no you have no credible evidence for your claim other than attempts to legitimise it with a proviso.
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Jun '16 23:23
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Omar Mateen could have said anything that he wished, but rational people (unlike Robbie Carrobie)
    don't have to accept all his claims at face value. Instead, rational people look for evidence
    to corroborate his claims. And when rational people find evidence that contradicts his
    claims, they start to conclude (unlike Robbie Carrobie) that his claims ar ...[text shortened]... continue with
    his tireless agenda of inciting more Islamophobia in addition to more homophobia.
    but he did not say anything did he, he clearly identifies with radical Islam and nothing you have proffered explains why. The issue is not about me and all other attempts to make the debate personal will be ignored.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    24 Jun '16 23:31
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Nothing you have said explains why in the transcript he clearly identifies with radical Islam. The reference to taking something at face value is weak, real weak and does nothing to explain the transcript. As for your scurrilous attempts to make the debate personal with vain references to my religion its not working for you, sorry its neither very ...[text shortened]... to the realisation that your posts are a reflection of you rather than those you seek to vilify?
    This might:

    “We don’t know the true nature of what his allegiance may or may not be. He claimed allegiance to both [Isis] and Hezbollah, even though both [Isis] and Hezbollah are fighting each other. Unless he’s of a Swiss bent, I don’t know we can just take his word for his allegiances,” said a US security official who was not cleared to speak for the record, adding that previous Mateen statements “have either been disproven or been incongruous with reality”.

    The unfolding FBI inquiry, the official said, could “go anywhere from [Mateen being] a true radical at the time he pulled the trigger to a deep sense of self-loathing at potentially being homosexual, a self-loathing which has its own dangerous effects”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/omar-mateen-911-calls-orlando-shooting-fbi-release-isis
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    25 Jun '16 09:004 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This might:

    “We don’t know the true nature of what his allegiance may or may not be. He claimed allegiance to both [Isis] and Hezbollah, even though both [Isis] and Hezbollah are fighting each other. Unless he’s of a Swiss bent, I don’t know we can just take his word for his allegiances,” said a US security official who was not cleared to speak for th ...[text shortened]... /www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/omar-mateen-911-calls-orlando-shooting-fbi-release-isis
    Ok in this particular instance there is some uncertainty as to the extent of perpetrators allegiances as he may have been motivated by other elements.

    In the case of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik they had most certainly consumed radical Islamic ideology and were affected to the extent that they prepared for and carried out an act of atrocity. Inspired by foreign terrorist groups and consuming "poison on the internet" and expressing a commitment to jihadism and martyrdom in private messages to each other - FBI.

    Other motivating factors have included, The treatment of Palestinians and US support for Israel, the horrific atrocities perpetrated against Chechnya by the Russians, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the ongoing conflict in Kashmir etc

    As you are no doubt aware Bin Laden held Americans as legitimate targets and called upon ALL Muslims to kill and plunder them.

    We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson - Second Fatwa - bin Laden, (February 1998)

    Now I am not saying for a single moment that all Muslims are potential terrorists but its exactly this kind of rhetoric which has been used to manipulate and lend a legitimacy to acts of atrocities. Its goal is to override reason, to suppress and supersede the exercise of conscience and to supplant it with another set of values which makes murder and killing not only legitimate but a religious act in which the perpetrator will be rewarded.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    25 Jun '16 19:13
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Ok in this particular instance there is some uncertainty as to the extent of perpetrators allegiances as he may have been motivated by other elements.

    In the case of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik they had most certainly consumed radical Islamic ideology and were affected to the extent that they prepared for and carried out an act of atro ...[text shortened]... r and killing not only legitimate but a religious act in which the perpetrator will be rewarded.
    The larger point is that before the West decided to aggressively intervene in the war between "radical" Islam and the rulers of Middle Eastern countries, it did not have to fear such acts of terror from that source. Given the huge disparity between the conventional military capabilities of the West and of "radical" Islam, it cannot be expected that the latter will stand in front lines and let themselves be annihilated nor that they will simply accept Western force being used against them without striking back. Admittedly such attacks violate the accepted rules of war and thus should be punished, but they are inevitable given the facts of this war the West has decided on.

    So the West should end its involvement in said wars and adopt what domestic measures it can to prevent mass murders whether for political, religious, ideological or whatever reason.
Back to Top