One of the "features" of Islam is that young Muslims are not being held very much to the tenets of Islam. They are tacidly allowed to drink and eat pork, among other frivolities. They are allowed to date outside of Islam. Likewise, Muslims can follow the early peaceful verses of the Koran. But just as eventually every Muslim must accept the later, more important militant verses, their inter-cultural dating stops and the women marry Muslims and the men, if they marry non-Muslims, end the gentlemanly romance with the marriage ceremony and treat their wives as a horse that has already been bought and paid for. Perhaps there are exceptions, but I think that you will find the above to be quite typical.
Ok. So I'm reading most of the posts here and that is quite confusing. Sunny is a comedian. This was satire. She basically said that there are no moderate muslims. That they can all turn into Farook Syed and come back in body armor and kill all their colleagues.
Geez louise. Sometimes I think I'd trade Heinlein's definition of man (through Mike the Martian) as the animal that laughs for Rand's of man as the animal that reasons. But I see no reason why the two can't co-exist. Well - here on this forum I see lots of reasons but still think it's doable. :)
Fair questions, as there is no easy solution. I see Islam as a dangerous, potentially lethal virus. When a body is infected with such, wishing it to go away just doesn't work and the medicine has its pains and consequences. Nevertheless, Islam is wholly incompatible with Western civilization and values; they cannot coexist on equal terms. One or the other must take dominance. For the sake of political correctness or false humanity we can allow Islam to succeed in its stated goal of world dominance, and we will then either submit to it or die, or we need to ascend to control and either eliminate Islam as a religion (in our country) or live with ourselves knowing that we hold other people under strict control (like Israel does). Unfortunately, peaceful coexistence of the two fundamentally opposed cultures is just not possible. But however we deal with the issue of those Muslims that are US citizens, importing "refugees" that are obviously Islamic fighters and putting them on Welfare so that they have more time and resources to do their deeds is pure suicide. Just as electing a Muslim president, infesting the highest echelons of government with C.A.I.R. people, calling Islam "the religion of peace" and supporting jihadists throughout the world (Egypt, Lybia, Tunisia, Syria, Bosnia and, originally, Afghanistan).
No, I didn't take a point. I don't disagree with Dale at all. My comment was meant just to express some of my uncertainty with her Youtube points and to get me thinking.
That is rue with most people, more and more, it appears that Muslims are turning to Sharia in order to feel holy and justified. If you lined up 10 Muslims and were asked which one you thought was the terrorist, you'd probably pick out the young bearded fellow. Now, it could be anyone from the army colonel to the pregnant woman.
I cannot disagree with what you state as it appears that you are talking about anyone that has come into the country as a refugee in recent months/years, not people who have been here for a long period of time. I did not get that from your first comment.
If I am not taking it correctly and you mean any and every Muslim in the country then I have to ask how we can do that without the government declaring that right-wing extremist be included in the list? As you say, they are already doing it to some extent but IMHO it is unconstitutional. Make it legal and see how much worse it gets. Anyone or any group could be added to the list for any reason at all, Christians, Atheists or someone who gave money to the wrong political candidate. I think in that case Ben's quote is valid.
I would also question how it would be accomplished. Would they need to were an armband to be identified? Will we all be required to show our papers in public? Just asking.
I sort of dated a very pretty and nice muslim when in college. I don't think most muslims have seriously looked at what it means to muslim anymore than christians do. It is more about following tradition within their family. Challenging this complacency is part of winning the battle against Islam.
I think the Irish civil war is a good analogy and the IRA could not have existed without help from other "moderate" Irish. The solution in major part was to get the economy growing. Most people are interested in having a good life, not dying for a fanatical cause.
I have to disagree with the use of this quote in this case. Franklin meant this for citizens of an essentially homogeneous society. In this case, we have an outside viral infection. America, both in Franklin's time and for over 100 years afterwards, grew and prospered on the basis of one most important, homogeneous trait - people came here from all over the world with a desire to join the nation and make the most of themselves. Muslims, on the other hand, have been and continue to come here in order to establish Muslim communities, Muslim majorities and to replace the Constitution with Sharia. They do not come here to individually better themselves; they come here to promote Islam. I feel confident that old Ben would not be referring that quote towards people that vowed to subvert and destroy the Constitution that he helped write. As to Muslim intentions in the US, look up data and court records on the Holly Land Foundation (an affiliate of CAIR that was established to channel money to Hamas). CAIR records also show very clear intent of Islamic leadership to achieve local (for now) majorities and to push for Sharia. This is a virus. And a virus cannot be destroyed partially.
Her presentation was tinged with humor, but the subject is such a serious one, mainly because of out horrid president, that it didn't quite make it. She has an exuberant personality and I can see her potential, but maybe the subject is too heavy for humor.
When growing up, I lived in an area that was on the border of a Muslim enclave in Detroit. I had a Muslim friend. He came to my house, I came to his.I ate at his home. We fooled around and got into trouble together. When I became an adult, his dad treated me like a cousin. They weren't all that observant, but then I didn't do religion even then. Today, I don't trust any Muslim. I don't want to know them or be their friend. I don't trust them whether they are "moderate" or not. She said if you join the club be prepared for the consequences or words to that effect. I say, if you're a member of the club, go reside in an area where you won't impinging on the 21st century with your 7th century beliefs, and justification for violence in the name of Allah. If that sounds racist, too bad. If what I say will alleviate the necessity of using even one American one body bag, then I feel justified.
You are either a true muslim to the detriment of the world and if you happen to say you are moderate that makes you an infidel and will be killed. I am waiting to see one of us go into the muslim community and start killing them here in the USA. That might get their attention, especially if it happens in more than one community. I can't believe it isn't far off.
Last night I caught the tail end of some moderate Muslims apologizing for the massacre on the Fox News channel.. I kinda appreciated the gesture but wondered if deep down they all prefer to live under the Shariah Law of a worldwide caliphate.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 7.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfRes...
Geez louise. Sometimes I think I'd trade Heinlein's definition of man (through Mike the Martian) as the animal that laughs for Rand's of man as the animal that reasons. But I see no reason why the two can't co-exist. Well - here on this forum I see lots of reasons but still think it's doable. :)
But however we deal with the issue of those Muslims that are US citizens, importing "refugees" that are obviously Islamic fighters and putting them on Welfare so that they have more time and resources to do their deeds is pure suicide. Just as electing a Muslim president, infesting the highest echelons of government with C.A.I.R. people, calling Islam "the religion of peace" and supporting jihadists throughout the world (Egypt, Lybia, Tunisia, Syria, Bosnia and, originally, Afghanistan).
I will not compare her to euda-their styles are different-but somewhat the same concept
If I am not taking it correctly and you mean any and every Muslim in the country then I have to ask how we can do that without the government declaring that right-wing extremist be included in the list? As you say, they are already doing it to some extent but IMHO it is unconstitutional. Make it legal and see how much worse it gets. Anyone or any group could be added to the list for any reason at all, Christians, Atheists or someone who gave money to the wrong political candidate. I think in that case Ben's quote is valid.
I would also question how it would be accomplished. Would they need to were an armband to be identified? Will we all be required to show our papers in public? Just asking.
All things are possible, right and Just when performed in the name of one's God! Whether it is God, Allah or Corporate Lobbyist.
You are either a true muslim to the detriment of the world and if you happen to say you are moderate that makes you an infidel and will be killed. I am waiting to see one of us go into the muslim community and start killing them here in the USA. That might get their attention, especially if it happens in more than one community. I can't believe it isn't far off.
I kinda appreciated the gesture but wondered if deep down they all prefer to live under the Shariah Law of a worldwide caliphate.
Load more comments...