CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Transcripts of two telephone conversations between the two leaders which took place on February 25, 2011, are made public
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued a 'prophetic' warning to Tony Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse, phone conversations reveal.
Gaddafi's dire prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Mr Blair on February 25, 2011 - as civil war was engulfing Libya.
In the first call at 11.15am, Gaddafi said: "They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe."
(Excerpt from Col Gaddafi's 2011 phone conversations with Tony Blair)
In the call, lasting half an hour, Gaddafi insisted he was trying to defend Libya from al-Qaeda fighters. The presence of al-Qaedas would later be superceded by the rise of the so-called Islamic State.
Many countries are! The U.S. highly included. But "the rise of the Islamic state started in 2004 under Bush. The disillusion of Sadaam's Army (with their weapons and no chance of earning a living), plus the loss of $Billions that disappeared from the Baghdad Airport (also under Bush), drop kicked the ISIL. You CAN'T blame it on the Brits as much as you can Bush. MANY had a part in it!
Bush mixed with Islamic eschatology created the apes. Obama let them out of the cage. Of course both were globalist cultists. That's why you see them snuggling like buddies all of the time.
Bush mixed with Islamic eschatology created the apes.
It happened way before Bush, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Here, get your silly nose out of the online thesaurus and educate yourself. It's free:-
"In the Summer of 1979, a group of powerful elites from various countries gathered at an international conference in Jerusalem to promote and exploit the idea of "international terrorism." The forum, officially known as the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT), was organised by Benjamin Netanyahu, currently Israeli Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Jonathan Institute." (Ahmed 2005, p3)
"As early as June 1979, and perhaps earlier, the United States had already commenced a series of covert operations in Afghanistan designed to exploit the potential for social conflict." (Ahmed 2005, p7)
"Agence France Press reported that the United States launched a covert operation to bolster anti-communist guerrillas in Afghanistan at least six months prior to the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country." (Ahmed 2005, p7)
"Central to the US-sponsored operation was the attempt to manufacture an extremist religious ideology by amalgamating local Afghan feudal traditions with Islamic rhetoric." (Ahmed 2005, p8)
(AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.)
In September 2004 the United States lifted economic sanctions leveled against the Gaddafi regime in response to its most egregious act of terror — the destruction of Pan 103 in December 1988. The Bush administration restored full diplomatic relations two years later. It is hard, looking at the bloodshed in Libya today, to reconcile the Bush administration’s rapprochement with Gaddafi with American values.
Pan Am 103 was not Gaddafi’s only act of terror: his intelligence service was behind the destruction of a TWA flight in 1974 and sponsored the Abu Nidal organizations acts of terrorism well into the 1980s — acts that included the slaughter of American children in airports in Vienna and Rome. President Reagan quite rightly called Gaddafi the “mad dog of the Middle East”.
The Bush administration cited Gaddafi’s shrewd decision to dismantle a crude nuclear weapons program and its payment of reparations to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 to justify the opening of an American embassy in Tripoli. Neither of these empty gestures translated into a fundamental change in the nature of the Gaddafi tyranny. Gaddafi cunningly suspended the foreign terror operations but continued to terrorize the Libyan people with the confidence of a tyrant with a new lease on life. President Bush never openly condemned the repression in Libya, despite his lofty rhetoric about America’s commitment to democracy in the Middle East at the onset of the war in Iraq. The appeasement with Libya was always about petroleum, never about principle.
September 11 deepened the Bush administration’s disturbing relationship with Gaddafi. The administration secretly reached out to Libyan intelligence to cooperate in the global war on terrorism. In their memoirs, former CIA officials describe surreal meetings with Libyan intelligence chieftains whom they suspected of involvement in the destruction of Pan Am 103.
Libyan officials were only too pleased to identify, detain and torture Libyans who gravitated to Al Qaeda at the behest of the CIA. Perhaps the collaboration with Libyan intelligence seemed like a morally acceptable compromise after the slaughter of Americans on 9/11, but the secret partnership with Gaddafi served emboldened him in his secret campaign to ratchet up the repression in Libya.
If rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God, then surely compromise with tyrants smacks of a pact with the devil.
The challenge of reconciling U.S. economic and security interests with American values has always vexed Americans in high office. But Libya under Gaddafi was a simple case of moral and political discernment. The United States failed that test badly. America gained nothing of lasting value from its relationship with Gaddafi. It only bought a tyrant more time, and cost more Libyan lives.
Photo: A Libyan rebel fighter walks past graffiti depicting Muammar Gaddafi at a checkpoint near Yafran in western Libya August 5, 2011. REUTERS/Bob Strong
I agree. I think Bush planted the seed, and Obama watered it.
I also think we need to stop listening to Europe because they have no idea as to what the hell they are doing concerning well...anything. They just yap and yap. We need to ignore and ignore.
I used to argue that we should never go back to the Middle East, but now that we've mindlessly ignored that request and poked and prodded the bear, it almost forces you to police it to watch over the mess you've created.
The fact is, the dictators that policed the area are gone, which just led to voids that were filled by entities that were much worse than Sadaam Hussein, Mobarek, and Gadaffi. They used brutal force to control those areas. ISIS and the like use means that are beyond brutal and are rogue agents with no oversight or anyone to answer to.
ISIL was near to defeat when Trump was elected! Trump literally GAVE his boss Putin, Syria on a gold platter (Trump LOVES gold).He hasn't met an authoritarian dictator that complemented him that he didn't admire. That's how HE would love to "run" America ... as the BOSS, not a servant of the people!
That's how HE would love to "run" America ... as the BOSS, not a servant of the people!
And yet we never see your claims manifest in actions. If he were as you say, he'd have used force to shut down liberal protests, and his voters would cause mass violence, but alas, we never see it.
It's only been a year. It took Hitler longer than that, and Stalin, and Mussolini, etc. First you have to get powers and some form of "police" or military or a large portion of the citizenship aligned with you, the NRA can help there. Hopefully, our democracy is stronger than those other places. Have you not noticed the group of "dicktators" he is having a love affair with?? His problem is, he is being manipulated by a much more clever dictator who compliments him and his stupidity, he LOVES that!
a large portion of the citizenship aligned with you, the NRA can help there
Hitler wanted the citizens gunless. Trump touts the 2nd Amendment. It's funny that He and Hitler have the same stance on almost nothing and do opposite things. Oh screw it. Let's use liberal logic. Obama is Hitler.
His problem is, he is being manipulated by a much more clever dictator
The Democrats make shady deals with the Russians, you have no concern.
You have no dirt on Trump or proof of anything, so you lose your mind...
And let's just blindly ignore the DNC for creating a fake dossier through Fusion GPS and giving weapon grade uranium to the Russians in mass. Nothing fishy there.
Creating a void that manifests ISIS all across the Middle East by ousting Mobarek and Gadaffi and blindly pulling out of Iraq, then claiming a "near defeat"of them like an accomplishment is rather disingenuous.
Creating a void that manifests ISIS all across the Middle East by ousting Mobarek and Gadaffi and blindly pulling out of Iraq, then claiming a "near defeat"of them like an accomplishment is rather disingenuous.
Not half as disingenuous as declaring victory in Iraq after 6 months but then staying there (and losing soldiers) for the next ten years.
That said, I do not agree with the claim that ISIS was near defeat when Trump was elected. I would bet good money that ISIS has already been infiltrated by Israeli intelligence and is being controlled with the purpose of affecting global policy. This is what the Israelis do. They have a long history of it.
All politicians just yap and yap American politicians are just the very same as European , different country but more or less the same tired bullshit ; I’ve given up on all politicians a long time ago as I’ve yet to meet one that didn’t want to own the world and everything in it
Dermot, you're clearly an intelligent fella. Why don't you do yourself a favour, put your bias aside, and actually do some research into 9/11? I'm going to link you to a couple of sites. When you get a spare half an hour, have a look at them.
Thank you for that Nom you and I have disagreed in the past and at times it got rather nasty which I don’t take pride in , I know you’re passionate about what you believe and you are a good debater with a good knowledge of many subjects .
Thank you for the links , believe it or not I’ve studied your links in the past along with others , I post below a critique from rational wiki which addressses in depth the many points brought up have a read and tell me why you dispute the findings ?
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer- crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to just ask questions. Some high-profile Truthers like David Ray Griffin have written articles for the journal. Ironically, in their attempt to appear "credible" and "serious," they've run a number of articles debunking the egregiously unhinged theories like Judy Wood's "space beams"[1] and stuff they've run in their own journal, like the "elephant plane" theory.[2] The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.[3]
In 2011, they ran out of "peer-reviewers" and sent out a request for someone to review two papers defending the "official" account of a plane hitting the Pentagon. The Screw Loose Change blog remarked:
“”Great, so after 10 years of cutting edge research and truthseeking they finally figured out what the rest of us knew that Tuesday morning. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously?
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer- crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to just ask questions.
I am very familiar with this claim buddy, but I believe it to be a guilt-by-association smear attack. The scientists who authored the papers hosted on the site are expertly well-qualified, have decades of experience in their respective fields of study, and clearly are very intelligent people. The American far right made precisely the same allegations against Bentham when Professor Harrit published his 2009 study about the nanothermite he found in five out of five samples of WTC dust. This is in fact one of the reasons I know who is correct, since your response is political (i.e. it is a sweeping smear attack against the credibility of the journal and by association everybody who has published work in it) and swerves completely the matter of (many of) these authors being highly qualified experts. Moreover, the work appearing in these journals is being scrutinised through the peer review process in exactly the same way as in more conventional journals. One of the peer reviewers of the Harrit et al paper, Professor Griscom, was in fact compelled to step forward and identify himself precisely because of these smear attacks from the right against anybody associated with 9/11 research.
The fact of the matter is that these papers represent genuine academic research, and political attacks in the style of the Nazis against those who write them are every bit as alarming as when the same people do it against climate scientists. The very first analysis of the WTC steel, conducted by Professor Barnett for FEMA, evidences that something very unusual had happened and so the research you are slandering simply expands upon something which was proven immediately and then subsequently covered up with simple mockery of anybody who even mentioned it. Look:-
It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
The well-respected journal, WPI, published this shortly after the FEMA examination:-
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
Slandering the publishers of peer reviewed scientific work simply does not cut it in terms of discrediting that work. Harrit's paper was published in 2009, caused absolute outrage among the American far right, and yet here we are nearly a decade later and no scientist has published anything which even remotely debunks it.
Hi X , thank you for that 👌 I’ve done a load of research into 9 / 11 in the past and never found anything remotely convincing that the accepted accounts are more or less factual and accurate
A new report accuses the State Department of staggering lapses in its visa program that gave Sept. 11 hijackers entry into the United States.
The political journal National Review obtained the visa applications for 15 of the 19 hijackers — and evidence that all of them should have been denied entry to the country.
Do you expect intelligent people to believe that all 15 of their "illegible" VISA applications got through the State Department system because of some blind coincidence?
Hi X , thank you for that 👌 I’ve done a load of research into 9 / 11 in the past and never found anything remotely convincing that the accepted accounts are more or less factual and accurate
Dermot, are you aware that research involves looking at both sides of the argument? Forgive me, but I am not sure that you do. You are attempting to discredit the research of dozens of qualified academics with sweeping appeals to mockery and derision. That is the opposite of research. It's politics. A direct appeal has been made to your ego not to question 9/11 for fear of being ridiculed and mocked and you have bought into it. For more on this you should read about The Emperor Has No Clothes.
I just gave you proof from Appendix C of the FEMA metallurgy report that samples of WTC steel were discovered to have been melted, while others were eroded and riddled with holes. Professor Barnett concluded that the WTC steel had been attacked by a chemical containing large quantities of sulphur, the source of which has never been discovered.
Frankly, there is something critically wrong with your thinking if I share with you the fact that no tests were ever conducted on the WTC buildings for traces of explosives residue and you still believe nothing is wrong. There were literally close to a hundred reports of explosions, explosives, secondary devices and bombs, yet not one test was ever conducted to rule out the presence of any of these things.
Now , yes I’m perfectly aware of this why would you assume otherwise ?
I’m mocking no one I merely posted up sources which dispute the claims you put forward , I’m not concerned with my ego you seem to think any criticism of your strongly held views are a personal attack on you they’re not , no offence but this is of an example of egoism in action the very thing you’re accusing me off
You haven’t given conclusive proof you’ve presented your evidence which I will evaluate
Claiming there’s something wrong with my critical thinking if I disagree with your assertions is hardly fair surely I’m entitled to offer a counter ?
On a side note why are you re-visiting this whole debate again as last time it ended unpleasantly , I’ve no desire for a repetition of our previous enconuter regarding this topic and if it starts to get snarky I’m out
I’m mocking no one I merely posted up sources which dispute the claims you put forward
Which claims? I linked you to a peer-reviewed journal full of 9/11 research and you responded by fobbing it off with one grandiose sweeping motion as if it were some sort of afterschool club. Then you posted up the work of Judy Wood, who was thrown out of the 9/11 truth movement for trying to discredit it. She refused to acknowledge the staggering amount of evidence supporting controlled demolition and instead began propagating bizarre theories about direct energy weapons. She has no scientific evidence to support her claims outside of photographs of scorched cars which she claims (without proof) were taken near the WTC towers.
I’m not concerned with my ego you seem to think any criticism of your strongly held views are a personal attack on you they’re not
This is a cynical misrepresentation. I made the reference to your ego because it is the only explanation for why anyone would arbitrarily dismiss the research of qualified scientists because of a pre-existing bias.
So you didn’t read the link in the article under 9 / 11 truthers ?
I fobbed nothing off i studied what you linked me too there is a reference to a Judy Wood article at the end of the piece that I didn’t even read it why are you focusing on that ?
Also you failed to acknowledge the the staggering amount of evidence supporting my position in my second link( which you ignored ) also all peer reviewed papers thus doing exactly what you accuse Wood off , why’s that ?
It is , what you state is incorrect I dismiss the “ research “ because of evidence which disputes your narrative because of your bias you refuse to even look at as you demonstrated by not reading what I asked of you
No wonder the left seeks to avoid political debate at all costs. Why bother? Members of the left are not interested in having a debate about policy. They are not interested in debating what is right or wrong for the country. They are interested in debating you personally. They are interested in castigating you as a nasty human being or as stupid because you happen to disagree. This is what makes leftists leftists: an unearned sense of moral superiority over you. And if they can instill that sense of moral superiority in others by making you the bad guy, they will, because they are too weak and stupid to take your claims head on.
journalof911studies.com is a "legitimate academic journal" however the journal Science which is one of the two most prestigious science journals alongside Nature is unsound/invalid.. Got it. Thanks for the "information"..
journalof911studies.com is a "legitimate academic journal" however the journal Science which is one of the two most prestigious science journals alongside Nature is unsound/invalid.. Got it.
Lmao. Even by your own spectacularly pathetic standards that's a spectacularly pathetic straw man argument. I have made no claims about the validity or non-validity of either Science or Nature and therefore you are a lying, infantile halfwit.
No wonder the left seeks to avoid political debate at all costs. Why bother? Members of the left are not interested in having a debate about policy. They are not interested in debating what is right or wrong for the country. They are interested in debating you personally. They are interested in castigating you as a nasty human being because you happen to disagree. This is what makes leftists leftists: an unearned sense of moral superiority over you. And if they can instill that sense of moral superiority in others by making you the bad guy, they will, because they are too weak and stupid to take your claims head on.
Even by your own spectacularly pathetic standards that's a spectacularly pathetic straw man argument.
Note, you are falling victim to the "narcissism which provokes this kind of literary peacock display" in the excerpt above. In my experience, "nine out of ten times in online debates there is an inverse square relationship between the complexity of a person's language and their understanding of the subject they are writing about. I figure this is because some people like to bullshit, and hide their ignorance behind a wall of pseudo-language. Whatever the reason, it is the rule which is important...I strongly encourage you to question my logic the next time you see it happen (and to reconsider your own use of such narcissistic peacocking through language')."
I'm pointing out in very simple language that you are lying about the things I have said because you are pathetic and stupid
"I'm pointing out in very simple language that you are lying about the things I have said" and are failing to recognize the narcissism which provokes this kind of literary peacock display. Furthermore, this narcissistic peacocking has been definitively modeled which you refuse to acknowledge (reproduced below for your benefit):
"Nine out of ten times in online debates there there an inverse square relationship between the complexity of a person's language and their understanding of the subject they are writing about. I figure this is because some people like to bullshit, and hide their ignorance behind a wall of pseudo-language. Whatever the reason, it is the rule which is important...I strongly encourage you to question my logic the next time you see it happen (and to reconsider your own use of such narcissistic peacocking through language')."
Actually halfwit, I mocked your absurd claim that everybody who plays American football receives brain damage. Don't blame me if you've misinterpreted a neurology article you stupid twit.
Actually halfwit, I mocked your absurd claim that everybody who plays American football receives brain damage. Don't blame me if you've misinterpreted a neurology article you stupid twit.
You managed to not comprehend my very elementary statement.. Please go back and re-read it with this in mind..
Oh, it goes back waaaaay farther than that. I mean, The UK's involvement in the region. Anyone looking at Saudi-Arabia?
Oh, a great deal more than that up north too.
Really though, there is a greater force behind these masks. There is a universal empire at work under the scenes. It can look like Spain, it can look like England, it can look like The Roman Catholic Church. It can look like China, it can even look like The United States or The Soviet Union.
People talk about The New World Order, but if such a thing were to come about, it would only be the revealing of what already was.
It'll all fall together, and all things will be revealed in God's time.
The disaster we see in many middle eastern countries is the sole responsibility of the affected countries themselves.
In their naive attempt to oust the dictatorships of such dung holes as Libya, and Iraq, America and the U.K. exacerbated the crisis and turned it into a modern day holocaust.
In Putin's case he committed Russia to retaining the brutal Syrian dictator al-Assad ( who is responsible for the slaughter of 10s of 1000s of his own people and displaced millions) whilst in the process causing the biggest refugee crisis since WW2.
The bloated egos of Blair, Bush and Putin along with a clash of east-west political ideologies ensured that as a result of the 'silent majority staying too quiet for too long, these gung-ho cowboys were able to use the middle east as their own real life military playground and testing site for the effectiveness of their most modern weapons.
If the Arab countries had solved their leadership problems through fair means or foul, by peaceful or bloody revolution then foreign powers would have had no excuse to wage war on the soil of politically stable sovereign nations.
Look at what Gandhi achieved peacefully and the Vietnamese through determined and united military resistance.
Due to their inertia the Arabs are the architects of their own plight.