Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bomb explosion in New York.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Or not. It's only the mass of refugees that we're concerned about. You offer another red herring argument here.



    The Torah doesn't preclude a non-Jewish government, a secular government, nor does it conflict with most modern legal systems in general. Instead, it is an add on that practicing Jews follow in addition to the laws of a nation.

    Sharia is different. It imposes a Islamic based set of laws on the land and government. Even then, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Non-Muslim and Muslim are treated differently. Men and women get radically different treatment too. It replaces modern systems of law with one based solely on religious principles.

    Some examples:

    Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
    Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
    Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
    A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
    A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
    A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
    A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
    Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
    A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
    A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
    A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
    A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
    Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
    A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
    A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries the weight of a man's.
    A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
    A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
    A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
    Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
    Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.



    The problem here is that Jewish law and Catholic canon don't conflict with secular sets of laws whereas Sharia is in stark contrast, and often criminally in conflict with, secular Western law sets.
    Practicing Sharia in the West to the full extent of the rules will land whoever does it in prison in pretty short order, particularly with regard to treatment of women.



    But, they too wouldn't have stood for imposition of Sharia on Americans, not for a minute. Sure, they'd say "Practice Islam all you like, but the second you kill a non-Muslim under Sharia for something like getting a Muslim friend to convert to to Christianity you're going to hang for it."

    Sharia is completely incompatible with the modern world. It's a brutal set of 14th Century rules that should be burned to the last copy. It has no more place in the world today than readopting the Aztec or Mayan legal system.
    And he wonders why some of us consider him another "Jihad John".

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
    Most Syrians have remained in Syria..and many Syrians are fighting ISIL...those points ought to be entertained.
    Or not. It's only the mass of refugees that we're concerned about. You offer another red herring argument here.

    If practiced correctly, Torah Law, Canon Law and Sharia law treat everyone equally. Now this approach is so good that it not only disagrees with your points on Sharia, but most important it is yet another weapon to be used against the preachers of ISIL.
    The Torah doesn't preclude a non-Jewish government, a secular government, nor does it conflict with most modern legal systems in general. Instead, it is an add on that practicing Jews follow in addition to the laws of a nation.

    Sharia is different. It imposes a Islamic based set of laws on the land and government. Even then, it doesn't treat everyone equally. Non-Muslim and Muslim are treated differently. Men and women get radically different treatment too. It replaces modern systems of law with one based solely on religious principles.

    Some examples:

    Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
    Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
    Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
    A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
    A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
    A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
    A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
    Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
    A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
    A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
    A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
    A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
    Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
    A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
    A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries the weight of a man's.
    A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
    A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
    A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
    Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
    Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

    But If Muslims have to answer if they support Sharia law, then Jews must answer if they support Torah Law. Catholics must answer if they support Canon law. Any religious person must be asked if they want to impose their religious laws onto others
    The problem here is that Jewish law and Catholic canon don't conflict with secular sets of laws whereas Sharia is in stark contrast, and often criminally in conflict with, secular Western law sets.
    Practicing Sharia in the West to the full extent of the rules will land whoever does it in prison in pretty short order, particularly with regard to treatment of women.

    The founding fathers and common Americans alike stood for religious freedom for Muslims, Jews, Christians and Polytheists.. I posted documentation of this in other threads.
    But, they too wouldn't have stood for imposition of Sharia on Americans, not for a minute. Sure, they'd say "Practice Islam all you like, but the second you kill a non-Muslim under Sharia for something like getting a Muslim friend to convert to to Christianity you're going to hang for it."

    Sharia is completely incompatible with the modern world. It's a brutal set of 14th Century rules that should be burned to the last copy. It has no more place in the world today than readopting the Aztec or Mayan legal system.

    Leave a comment:


  • VinceW
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Then why were they excluded?



    I live within walking distance of many thousands of Muslims, from a wide variety of countries. The overwhelming majority of them do nothing more offensive than bad driving and BO. Some minute share of Muslims commit acts of terror. That's a fact. It's also a fact that they represent only a tiny share of Muslims as a whole. Just like all Canadians are not hockey players, not all Muslims are terrorists. Indeed, some are fighting the terrorists tooth and nail. So before we hit the panic button and start excluding Muslims the way we did Chinese, I'd think it would behoove us to try to find out who our allies are, who our enemies are, and how to undermine those who'd seek to do us harm, while not hampering those who just want to lead normal lives.

    The operative word here should not be Muslim, but terrorist. Somehow, however, after listening to all the Archie Bunkers here, I'm led to believe that injuring Muslims is more important, and more desirable, than effectively combating and hampering terrorists. Say what you want about Muslim, but terrorist is decidedly a matter of choice, and a matter of action. Those actually involved with crime and violence should be far higher priorities than some schmuck dressed like a tent.

    Unless, of course, you're suggesting that dressing like a tent should now be classified as a crime.
    The Chinese didn't have any terrorists attacking Americans so that was done solely on racism.
    There's no good reason to allow more of a group of people that have members that will kill innocent people (4000 in America so far) that the country is at war with and it doesn't matter much which countries they come from Muslim terrorists have come from many different Muslim countries they shouldn't be coming here under the current circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by VinceW View Post
    Were there any Chinese carrying out terrorist attacks against your country?
    Then why were they excluded?

    Originally posted by VinceW View Post
    In the case of Muslims these days you're all so aloof that you don't see what threat letting in even more Muslims will do they've killed over 4000 Americans in the last 20 years and it's going to keep on going until the hostilities end which isn't going to be any time soon.
    I live within walking distance of many thousands of Muslims, from a wide variety of countries. The overwhelming majority of them do nothing more offensive than bad driving and BO. Some minute share of Muslims commit acts of terror. That's a fact. It's also a fact that they represent only a tiny share of Muslims as a whole. Just like all Canadians are not hockey players, not all Muslims are terrorists. Indeed, some are fighting the terrorists tooth and nail. So before we hit the panic button and start excluding Muslims the way we did Chinese, I'd think it would behoove us to try to find out who our allies are, who our enemies are, and how to undermine those who'd seek to do us harm, while not hampering those who just want to lead normal lives.

    The operative word here should not be Muslim, but terrorist. Somehow, however, after listening to all the Archie Bunkers here, I'm led to believe that injuring Muslims is more important, and more desirable, than effectively combating and hampering terrorists. Say what you want about Muslim, but terrorist is decidedly a matter of choice, and a matter of action. Those actually involved with crime and violence should be far higher priorities than some schmuck dressed like a tent.

    Unless, of course, you're suggesting that dressing like a tent should now be classified as a crime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Winston Churchill said something to the effect of,
    "Americans will always do the right thing after they exhaust all other options"
    We are watching his predictions of the 1930s being replayed.
    Of course the samething can be said of all Western countries.
    The greatest challenge facing nations who (once upon a time) cherished Liberty is our unwillingness to commit to any long term commitment or challenges.
    Radical Islamist have shown a willingness to carry out a long term multigenerational commitment to thier ideals.
    Our change with every election, this is true of European democracies and our country.
    China also takes long range planning very seriously. We on the other hand are very short term oriented, we want fast solutions, even if the result fails to resolve any problem we just want someone to tell us they fixed everything so we can go back to our 30 min, sitcoms, and bad beer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Actually, no, someone who is declared anarchist is not going to be allowed to immigrate on the basis of politics. Those that are home grown are usually put on law enforcement watch lists.
    Since Sharia law is a political / legal system based on religion it is fair game as a test for immigration. It doesn't ask so much if you're Muslim, but rather do you as a Muslim want to impose religious laws and government on the country you want to live in. The later is a political views test. Too bad for the Muslim that their religion mixes politics into it intimately.



    So, if in WW 2 Japanese and German citizens were fleeing their countries because we were bombing the holy $h!+ out of them we have some duty to take them?
    I call complete BS on that. We have no duty or obligation to take those in Syria fleeing from a civil war. Why should we be obligated in any way to sort out the supposed "innocents" from terrorists, insurgents, and others actively fighting that war?
    Tell you what. You want them here? How about you sponsor a family. Let them live with you. You can pay their Obamacare policy and support them too.
    Me? They ain't got nothin' comin'. Next time maybe they won't tolerate a brutal dictatorship in their own country.
    Most Syrians have remained in Syria..and many Syrians are fighting ISIL...those points ought to be entertained.

    If practiced correctly, Torah Law, Canon Law and Sharia law treat everyone equally. Now this approach is so good that it not only disagrees with your points on Sharia, but most important it is yet another weapon to be used against the preachers of ISIL.

    But If Muslims have to answer if they support Sharia law, then Jews must answer if they support Torah Law. Catholics must answer if they support Canon law. Any religious person must be asked if they want to impose their religious laws onto others.



    The founding fathers and common Americans alike stood for religious freedom for Muslims, Jews, Christians and Polytheists.. I posted documentation of this in other threads.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    There, fixed it for you.
    -Its a fact that Muslims have committed the most casualties against ISIL.

    -Also a # of reports have suggested that American Muslims are most responsible for informing the authorities about terrorist Muslims.

    These two points must absolutely be answered to by everyone involved in the discussion just as we all must address the fact that ISIL exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • TactiKill J.
    replied
    Poverty and racism is far more rampant in the south than it is in the north. So there probably are a few things they need to take note of in order to catch up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Actually I have watched my biases as an adult. I have known many minorities and a few Muslims over the years. I treated them all as individuals. I think this definitely places me in the minority here in the South. There are many contradictions in what other regions perceive of the South.

    When my ex loaded up a rental truck to flee to Pennsylvania, my daughter's two Black Personal Care attendants helped with the packing and loading. The guy she was going to move in with stood there and "supervised". While watching, he was heard to make remarks about how he would not allow a Black person to care for any of his kids. He also used the word "N-----r" a lot! He would have fit right in with a number of David Duke's friends in Louisiana, but he was worse, he was a Yankee and talked funny!

    I can't rant too hard about Yankees because one of my Great Great Great Grandfathers was a Union Civil War veteran from New York!

    I try and treat Yankees with courtesy, even when they show terrible manners to tell me how the South should be doing things different. They should spend some time and effort getting their own place in order. Once they get things right up there, then they can share what worked for them and what did not work.

    Pruitt
    Last edited by Pruitt; 20 Sep 16, 18:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • VinceW
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Does any one think that we can bring back the Chinese Exclusion Act? We can really use one of those right about now.
    Were there any Chinese carrying out terrorist attacks against your country?
    In the case of Muslims these days you're all so aloof that you don't see what threat letting in even more Muslims will do they've killed over 4000 Americans in the last 20 years and it's going to keep on going until the hostilities end which isn't going to be any time soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I think most posters here at this forum could care less of what a Muslim thought of us. Muslims can be as bad a bigot as any Redneck Southerner. Why should I watch my biases if they don't watch their's?

    Pruitt
    As a Southerner you should know better: too many years of not watching your biases led to a whole lot of needless pain and suffering. Certainly there's no need to repeat that crap, on any one's part.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    I think most posters here at this forum could care less of what a Muslim thought of us. Muslims can be as bad a bigot as any Redneck Southerner. Why should I watch my biases if they don't watch their's?

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Does any one think that we can bring back the Chinese Exclusion Act? We can really use one of those right about now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
    I don't think it's racism per se, rather many people are just frightened of the unknown, and of things that are not familiar to them. Many people 'over yonder', well ... they live in very homogeneous small towns and they don't have much if any contact with ethnic minorities so all they know about Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc is what they see on the internet.

    This resentment is natural, eventually we'll all learn to live side by side in peace. How long will it take? Who knows, but I am confident of it. I think we as a society has made enormous strides since the Civil Rights movement and we can only go forward from here.
    Maybe some of these folks have never meant a Muslim....but with the advent of social media surely the anti Muslims are aware that there are peaceful Muslims.

    Let me also say many folks do call out ISIL as "radical Islam", we know that terms like moderate Muslim have been used. Now this type of approach is not offensive to me. But I find my approach of saying that what ISIL does goes against Islam is the same thing as how during WW2 many Christians were saying that what the Third Reich Christians did went against Christianity.

    The whole thing is of course that Muslims commit a tiny # of terror attacks in the USA...thats fact. Since 9/11 Muslims have commited a tiny # of terror attacks in the USA. There have been white Christians who shot up Churches, shot up schools. Going by the anti Muslim logic, all white people should be monitored due to the school shootings.

    Finally, how can anyone interested in Empires and history dislike Muslims. Muslims and Christians built some of the greatest empires the world has seen. Imagine folks out there who hate everything Roman, or who hate everything Greek.....you just wonder how does this happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Just do as you're told! Believe what Blasio and the Administrations talking heads are saying, this was just an explosive device, not a bomb. The victim who set it off was harassed by racism and forced to take action that any reasonable person would have resorted to.
    He was radicalized because of the actions of uniformed anti Muslim racist, there is no such thing as a Islamic Terror, there is not such thing as a War on Terror, we are not being attacked by radical Muslims, just disenfranchised victims of white predjudice.
    Any suffering we witness is justifiable and we should be grateful that these brave men and women are willing to risk their lives to expose our traditional beliefs for what they are, Racist.
    It because we cling to our Bibles and our Guns and that silly out dated Construction and obsolete Bill of Rights that these poor refugees suffer.

    Now place your head on the chopping block and shut up, it's your turn..
    The white Americans who believe blacks should get reparations are a minority. Whats amazing here is that your almost at the level that Americans were at during the WW2 era. Now you must move on and support Jihad...go on facebook and say things like " ISIL what you do is not Jihad, and I will crush you ISIL at every step" You ought say this instead of pointing to the few Americans who believe whites owe everything to blacks. <--- This is absolutely a golden way...its by far the best way to address this issue because it makes sure America is strong and tolerant. With this approach, no Muslim can ever accuse you of bigotry, no non Muslim can ever accuse you of anti Muslim biases

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X