Half of Americans want to ban all Muslims from the US, poll shows

How many West Boro Baptists have murdered gays because their religion and their religious leaders told them to?

 

Quit whining about Christians and deal with the REAL issue at hand. Do you really feel comfortable about having people come into the country who think for example it's OK to kill someone who leaves Islam (people who have absolutely no respect for freedom of religion)? To kill someone for mere Adultery or homosexuality (people who are truly intolerant)? How they treat women (people who truly sexist)? Do we really want large numbers of people who have those attitudes come into the country? That is the real question.

Churchill had an interesting take on Islam. Emphasis in the quote is mine.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War

As a sovereign nation, we have the right to determine who is allowed to immigrate to this country for whatever reason we deem appropriate. Immigration restrictions have changed over time. We have been much more restrictive in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws

 

You have just activated my trap card!

I play news article with facts!


"KKK and Racist Groups Have Killed More People Than Islamist Terrorists in the U.S. Since 9/11"
http://guardianlv.com/2015/06/kkk-a...han-islamist-terrorists-in-the-u-s-since-911/


Your biases and false accusations mean nothing now!

 

Much as I appreciate your post, the article compares ALL non-Jihadist extrimists to attributed Jihadist extremists.

It's a rather silly thing to measure by.

It's like cutting a slice of pie and saying: "see? Look! This slice of the pie isn't the majority of the pie!"

Mmm... pie...


Anyway... that article is also now sadly out of date, as ignoring anything else between the article and now, the number of Jihadist caused has sadly nearly tripled thanks to that a-hole in Orlando, and thus exceeded the racists, anti-government, different flavors of racists, and non-Islamic religious nuts (barring any string of attacks I've since missed by such groups).

It also doesn't directly address the question that was posed of specifically WBC. Though, personally, I don't think this particularly matters.


The overall point, it seemed, you were going for was rather to mock the idea that a specific religion or racial group has a "majority share" on extremist-based violence. But I could be wrong I suppose. Probably SHOULD have been your point if it wasn't

 

The difference between Christianity and Islam is glaring. Every mosque is a sharia court and it's Imam a sharia judge. Islamic states like Iran have 0 separation between church and state. The commandments set forth in the Quran and Hadiths are being enforced as government law at a state level. Women have 0 freedom under this type of government. The Quran in Surah 4 strictly lays out the guidelines that women are second hand citizens and worth 1/2 of what a man is worth. Males are the authoritarian guardians over all females. If a female removes her hajib she can be punished with 70 lashes or in some cases if a Imam sponsors a fatwa honor killing it can be made legal for any male member close to her to murder her and get away with it. Under this type of govt. arranged marriages are enforced with the threat of lashings or honor killings. Majority of women living under this disgusting ideology are terrified to speak out and silently obey as slaves for fear of death or lashing. Islam is slavery, or death. This is the ideology you have allowed to flourish in Europe the last decade because of the pathetic decisions made by the last two US administration resulting in the destabilization of Iraq, and Libya. Islam must be reformed if it is allowed in America.

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/political_islam/punishmnt.html

 

Interesting. Though I'm not sure how that adds up considering Iraq, Libya, and other places where refugees are coming from. But if the Christian sects in Syria are supporting/being protected better by Assad (and I guess Russia?) it'd make sense for them to be so few. Still, the numbers are heavily scewed in terms of groupings (again, I think it's less than 20 Christians vs. several hundred [mostly Sunni] Islamic refugees, but my numbers might be out of date), but that could certainly explain it, on top of the added difficulty that minorities might face in such places (even with Assad's "help?").

I also find it interesting that it's mentioned that most of the refugees tend to support the rebels, when it's been stated (I believe after this book was published) that the US military had a particularly hard time finding actual moderate rebels to support, with most of them joining or being subsumed by ISIS or similar salafist groups.

 

That was supposed to be implied, I guess I didn't do a good enough job doing so

 

id like to just ban isis terrorists from ... well life. but at least from crossing the border. what is the best way to achieve that goal?

 

Invading Iraq sounds like a great plan

 

So no answer.

 

Oh dunno, I thought we were just doing the same stuff over and over and expecting different results. We could try Iran as well. Firk the ayatollah right up.

 

So still no answer from you.

I can understand being flippant to a stupid statement or question, but to an earnest and real one?

All you're accomplishing is making ragic even more set in his ways, and setting up further conflict between you. All for a momentary cheap-shot?

 

I suppose there are the other two options: Pretend to show support and use ISIS resources to get you to one of their "targets" and Pretend to be hiding/running but actually be a "sleeper cell" of sorts to spread their presence/influence.

I, of course, prefer they'd take the fifth option. Fight them. But that's not a choice I can (or should even try to) force people to make.

On an intersecting point, I had posted a while ago that many citizens of Iraq were thinking of ISIS as supported by/a puppet of the US and other Western interests. I just remembered a while ago that ISIS was itself complaining about this perception, since it was making it more difficult to recruit people as a result.

 

some misinformation going on here by Washington Institute. they are right about Sunni being the majority. but regarding the "Syrian sunnis have been subject to ethnic cleansing at the hands of the alawite minority"... if anything it is the sunnis who are doing the "ethnic cleansing"

and why use the term "ethnic cleansing" in the first place? as if they are deliberately trying to demonize alawites and bashar.
Washington institute - fine title indeed. but I question its credibility and objectivity.

 

only USA is not a sovereign nation. see federal reserve act of 1913. a sovereign nation should not be indebted to a privately owned financial institution. it is supposed to own and rule itself. can we seriously say that the American people rule America? no. atleast not when the american people dont control their own money. explains why immigration laws are Bane Shift. an example of a current sovereign nation would be Russia.