Truck kills 30 in France

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

That is one of Isis, Al Qaeda, The Taliban etc. stated goal-a caliphate governed by Shariah/submission for everyone else. Their interpretation may be extreme,, and they have combed the Koran and Hadith and Shariah for excused to commit atrocities, such as sell and rape 'infidels' and 'devil worshippers' likethe Yazidi women and girls. Many theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are governed by Shariah law which is incompatible with western values. They may seem more moderate compared to the above, but life is pretty bleak under their Shariah law for most everybody I'd say - including men who get to grow up with a distorted understanding of half of humanity. It only works out for the rich who hypocritically party off shore and on their compounds. Wherever extremsist Muslims expand to globally, like the territory they hold in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, then the imposition of Shariah law is not a danger its a reality. Try telling the Yazidi women it's a "danger". If Newt was saying people who don't like Western civil codes and values and would like to see them replaced with codes and values like these (not live and let live, but actively work to replace) - if he's saying they should exit stage right--not sure I have a problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Just to give an example:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-justification-slavery/index.html


"In a new publication, ISIS justifies its kidnapping of women as sex slaves citing Islamic theology, an interpretation that is rejected by the Muslim world at large as a perversion of Islam.

"One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law," the group says in an online magazine published Sunday. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

Now we are getting somewhere. I couldn't agree more with you that we shouldn't be discussing Sharia. It wasn't me or the posters here who share my views that introduced that into the discussion. Historically, immigrants have come to the US from countries where things were much worse. That is why they immigrated. Historically, those who were already here feared that the negative aspects of those countries would come with the immigrants. Historically, large immigrant groups faced significant prejudice and discrimination and found challenges to assimilation. In all these respects, Muslim immigrants are no different. None of us wants the negative aspects of Middle East countries -- and I would include Israel in that -- to be adopted by the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I bet most of us strongly oppose the governments of most Middle Eastern countries or accept them only as the least bad option. Focusing on those particularly aspects that we find negative is much more productive than generalizing about entire religions or people.

Ugh, i wish life were this simple. I wish people were only afraid of Muslims because they are the newest to arrive and cooked odd food, instead of being afraid because a small minority of Muslims around the globe are vowing to bring violence here and elsewhere. If only it were that easy.

How did this country win the cold war is a wonder? The threat faced by US during the cold war was MUCH bigger than the threat from muslims. These are not state actors. They dont have army,AF or navy. They are barely 1% of US population. According to FBI the bigger threat is actually from White Supremacists. BUT I GET THE DIFFERENCE NOW. White Supremacists dont threaten the whites but only Minorities and Jews. So Whites think they dont have to worry about White Racists. But being a minority, I worry about White racists killing me and my family because thats what they have done through out "Minority" history, if not US history. But You guys do realize Minorities live in the US and are part of US history right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

That is one of Isis, Al Qaeda, The Taliban etc. stated goal-a caliphate governed by Shariah/submission for everyone else. Their interpretation may be extreme,, and they have combed the Koran and Hadith and Shariah for excused to commit atrocities, such as sell and rape 'infidels' and 'devil worshippers' likethe Yazidi women and girls. Many theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are governed by Shariah law which is incompatible with western values. They may seem more moderate compared to the above, but life is pretty bleak under their Shariah law for most everybody I'd say - including men who get to grow up with a distorted understanding of half of humanity. It only works out for the rich who hypocritically party off shore and on their compounds. Wherever extremsist Muslims expand to globally, like the territory they hold in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, then the imposition of Shariah law is not a danger its a reality. Try telling the Yazidi women it's a "danger". If Newt was saying people who don't like Western civil codes and values and would like to see them replaced with codes and values like these (not live and let live, but actively work to replace) - if he's saying they should exit stage right--not sure I have a problem with that.

Do you think if they say that, they can get it done in the US or China or India or Russia or Europe? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A CHICKEN LITTLE?Heck they cant even get it done in Turkey or Indonesia, muslim majority countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

Now we are getting somewhere. I couldn't agree more with you that we shouldn't be discussing Sharia. It wasn't me or the posters here who share my views that introduced that into the discussion. Historically, immigrants have come to the US from countries where things were much worse. That is why they immigrated. Historically, those who were already here feared that the negative aspects of those countries would come with the immigrants. Historically, large immigrant groups faced significant prejudice and discrimination and found challenges to assimilation. In all these respects, Muslim immigrants are no different. None of us wants the negative aspects of Middle East countries -- and I would include Israel in that -- to be adopted by the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I bet most of us strongly oppose the governments of most Middle Eastern countries or accept them only as the least bad option. Focusing on those particularly aspects that we find negative is much more productive than generalizing about entire religions or people.

Ugh, i wish life were this simple. I wish people were only afraid of Muslims because they are the newest to arrive and cooked odd food, instead of being afraid because a small minority of Muslims around the globe are vowing to bring violence here and elsewhere. If only it were that easy.

How did this country win the cold war is a wonder? The threat faced by US during the cold war was MUCH bigger than the threat from muslims. These are not state actors. They dont have army,AF or navy. They are barely 1% of US population. According to FBI the bigger threat is actually from White Supremacists. BUT I GET THE DIFFERENCE NOW. White Supremacists dont threaten the whites but only Minorities and Jews. So Whites think they dont have to worry about White Racists. But being a minority, I worry about White racists killing me and my family because thats what they have done through out "Minority" history, if not US history. But You guys do realize Minorities live in the US and are part of US history right?

I can't even go on. This is just repetition from earlier posts, without my responses making any difference in your thinking.

You are wrong about what I feel and think. Sorry you don't understand. You can continue thinking there are Americans out there that are like the ones you describe above -- and I'm sure there are because it's a big country -- but not me. It's true that people interpret everything around them just to reenforce what they already think. Sad. I give up.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP obviously had a view that Shariah means beheadings and amputations and that is the rule of the land in Muslim countries.

Clearly, he or she never thought of it simply in terms of marriage, divorce etc, nor aware that that is the extent of Shariah law in the vast majority of Muslim countries, which have civil codes for criminal offenses. Just like--gosh!--we do.

It will take a while for PP to processes this information, which contradicts all of his or her priors...

It doesn't matter what I know or think about Sharia law. All that matters is that a small minority of crazy Muslims wants to impose it on others. The beheading lashing and amputation part. All the rest, the part normal people are going about their personal business following, that's great and all but that's not what I'm talking about.

It's like saying "Hey, i'm white and I'm not a white supremacist, therefore white supremacists are fine." They're not fine either. We speak up against them. And if white supremacists started telling their followers to start blowing up malls and plowing trucks into crowds it would be a problem. They're not doing that now are they.

Do you know how something is passed into law in this country? Just because a groups wants doesn't make it a law. Do not be the chicken little and be afraid of the 1% of the US population.

I'm not afraid of Muslims. But you just keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. I embrace normal people of all religious backgrounds and I reject violence and hatred from any and all religious groups. I hope you do, too -- even if it means rejecting a tiny minority of radical Muslims.

Do you have the impression that anyone here supports radical Muslims? I'm just confused about what radical Muslims have to do with Sharia.

It's sort of like saying you are opposed to Motherhood. We ask, "why are you opposed to motherhood?" and you point out that Joan Crawford was a terrible mother. You should oppose terrible mothers, not motherhood. All of us here oppose those who have interpreted Islam in violent and oppressive ways.

I think it's legit to say that many Muslim nations, dictators, democratically elected officials, governments, tribal leaders, etc. have used "sharia" as cover to do bad things...so it's not just ISIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

That is one of Isis, Al Qaeda, The Taliban etc. stated goal-a caliphate governed by Shariah/submission for everyone else. Their interpretation may be extreme,, and they have combed the Koran and Hadith and Shariah for excused to commit atrocities, such as sell and rape 'infidels' and 'devil worshippers' likethe Yazidi women and girls. Many theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are governed by Shariah law which is incompatible with western values. They may seem more moderate compared to the above, but life is pretty bleak under their Shariah law for most everybody I'd say - including men who get to grow up with a distorted understanding of half of humanity. It only works out for the rich who hypocritically party off shore and on their compounds. Wherever extremsist Muslims expand to globally, like the territory they hold in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, then the imposition of Shariah law is not a danger its a reality. Try telling the Yazidi women it's a "danger". If Newt was saying people who don't like Western civil codes and values and would like to see them replaced with codes and values like these (not live and let live, but actively work to replace) - if he's saying they should exit stage right--not sure I have a problem with that.

Do you think if they say that, they can get it done in the US or China or India or Russia or Europe? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A CHICKEN LITTLE?Heck they cant even get it done in Turkey or Indonesia, muslim majority countries.

No, I don't think they are going to win -- but they are going to fight. THAT is the problem. They will lose, and people will be hurt in the process. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

Now we are getting somewhere. I couldn't agree more with you that we shouldn't be discussing Sharia. It wasn't me or the posters here who share my views that introduced that into the discussion. Historically, immigrants have come to the US from countries where things were much worse. That is why they immigrated. Historically, those who were already here feared that the negative aspects of those countries would come with the immigrants. Historically, large immigrant groups faced significant prejudice and discrimination and found challenges to assimilation. In all these respects, Muslim immigrants are no different. None of us wants the negative aspects of Middle East countries -- and I would include Israel in that -- to be adopted by the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I bet most of us strongly oppose the governments of most Middle Eastern countries or accept them only as the least bad option. Focusing on those particularly aspects that we find negative is much more productive than generalizing about entire religions or people.

Ugh, i wish life were this simple. I wish people were only afraid of Muslims because they are the newest to arrive and cooked odd food, instead of being afraid because a small minority of Muslims around the globe are vowing to bring violence here and elsewhere. If only it were that easy.

How did this country win the cold war is a wonder? The threat faced by US during the cold war was MUCH bigger than the threat from muslims. These are not state actors. They dont have army,AF or navy. They are barely 1% of US population. According to FBI the bigger threat is actually from White Supremacists. BUT I GET THE DIFFERENCE NOW. White Supremacists dont threaten the whites but only Minorities and Jews. So Whites think they dont have to worry about White Racists. But being a minority, I worry about White racists killing me and my family because thats what they have done through out "Minority" history, if not US history. But You guys do realize Minorities live in the US and are part of US history right?

I can't even go on. This is just repetition from earlier posts, without my responses making any difference in your thinking.

You are wrong about what I feel and think. Sorry you don't understand. You can continue thinking there are Americans out there that are like the ones you describe above -- and I'm sure there are because it's a big country -- but not me. It's true that people interpret everything around them just to reenforce what they already think. Sad. I give up.

I didn't even know it was you. But I feel the same way you feel when you talk about the fear of 1% of the US population. I dont fear the white supremacists are a threat to the minorities today, not at all, neither are the small segment of a small 1%muslims to American citizens of whatever race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

That is one of Isis, Al Qaeda, The Taliban etc. stated goal-a caliphate governed by Shariah/submission for everyone else. Their interpretation may be extreme,, and they have combed the Koran and Hadith and Shariah for excused to commit atrocities, such as sell and rape 'infidels' and 'devil worshippers' likethe Yazidi women and girls. Many theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are governed by Shariah law which is incompatible with western values. They may seem more moderate compared to the above, but life is pretty bleak under their Shariah law for most everybody I'd say - including men who get to grow up with a distorted understanding of half of humanity. It only works out for the rich who hypocritically party off shore and on their compounds. Wherever extremsist Muslims expand to globally, like the territory they hold in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, then the imposition of Shariah law is not a danger its a reality. Try telling the Yazidi women it's a "danger". If Newt was saying people who don't like Western civil codes and values and would like to see them replaced with codes and values like these (not live and let live, but actively work to replace) - if he's saying they should exit stage right--not sure I have a problem with that.

Do you think if they say that, they can get it done in the US or China or India or Russia or Europe? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A CHICKEN LITTLE?Heck they cant even get it done in Turkey or Indonesia, muslim majority countries.

No, I don't think they are going to win -- but they are going to fight. THAT is the problem. They will lose, and people will be hurt in the process. Get it?

But you feel you have the right to KEEP the massive US military in their countries for OIL or whatever reason and kill millions. BUT you dont want ANY loss to America? Thats like keeping Chinese military in TX to suck off our oil and them killing millions of Americans. But you think Americans wont fight the chinese in whatever way possible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP obviously had a view that Shariah means beheadings and amputations and that is the rule of the land in Muslim countries.

Clearly, he or she never thought of it simply in terms of marriage, divorce etc, nor aware that that is the extent of Shariah law in the vast majority of Muslim countries, which have civil codes for criminal offenses. Just like--gosh!--we do.

It will take a while for PP to processes this information, which contradicts all of his or her priors...

It doesn't matter what I know or think about Sharia law. All that matters is that a small minority of crazy Muslims wants to impose it on others. The beheading lashing and amputation part. All the rest, the part normal people are going about their personal business following, that's great and all but that's not what I'm talking about.

It's like saying "Hey, i'm white and I'm not a white supremacist, therefore white supremacists are fine." They're not fine either. We speak up against them. And if white supremacists started telling their followers to start blowing up malls and plowing trucks into crowds it would be a problem. They're not doing that now are they.

Do you know how something is passed into law in this country? Just because a groups wants doesn't make it a law. Do not be the chicken little and be afraid of the 1% of the US population.

I'm not afraid of Muslims. But you just keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. I embrace normal people of all religious backgrounds and I reject violence and hatred from any and all religious groups. I hope you do, too -- even if it means rejecting a tiny minority of radical Muslims.

Do you have the impression that anyone here supports radical Muslims? I'm just confused about what radical Muslims have to do with Sharia.

It's sort of like saying you are opposed to Motherhood. We ask, "why are you opposed to motherhood?" and you point out that Joan Crawford was a terrible mother. You should oppose terrible mothers, not motherhood. All of us here oppose those who have interpreted Islam in violent and oppressive ways.

I think it's legit to say that many Muslim nations, dictators, democratically elected officials, governments, tribal leaders, etc. have used "sharia" as cover to do bad things...so it's not just ISIS.

Yes they have, so now you want to be World police and push US laws on them. Its bad enough we are suffering for keeping our military in their territory for decades and killing them in millions. Now you want to push US constitution on them by FORCE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

Now we are getting somewhere. I couldn't agree more with you that we shouldn't be discussing Sharia. It wasn't me or the posters here who share my views that introduced that into the discussion. Historically, immigrants have come to the US from countries where things were much worse. That is why they immigrated. Historically, those who were already here feared that the negative aspects of those countries would come with the immigrants. Historically, large immigrant groups faced significant prejudice and discrimination and found challenges to assimilation. In all these respects, Muslim immigrants are no different. None of us wants the negative aspects of Middle East countries -- and I would include Israel in that -- to be adopted by the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I bet most of us strongly oppose the governments of most Middle Eastern countries or accept them only as the least bad option. Focusing on those particularly aspects that we find negative is much more productive than generalizing about entire religions or people.

Ugh, i wish life were this simple. I wish people were only afraid of Muslims because they are the newest to arrive and cooked odd food, instead of being afraid because a small minority of Muslims around the globe are vowing to bring violence here and elsewhere. If only it were that easy.

How did this country win the cold war is a wonder? The threat faced by US during the cold war was MUCH bigger than the threat from muslims. These are not state actors. They dont have army,AF or navy. They are barely 1% of US population. According to FBI the bigger threat is actually from White Supremacists. BUT I GET THE DIFFERENCE NOW. White Supremacists dont threaten the whites but only Minorities and Jews. So Whites think they dont have to worry about White Racists. But being a minority, I worry about White racists killing me and my family because thats what they have done through out "Minority" history, if not US history. But You guys do realize Minorities live in the US and are part of US history right?

I can't even go on. This is just repetition from earlier posts, without my responses making any difference in your thinking.

You are wrong about what I feel and think. Sorry you don't understand. You can continue thinking there are Americans out there that are like the ones you describe above -- and I'm sure there are because it's a big country -- but not me. It's true that people interpret everything around them just to reenforce what they already think. Sad. I give up.

I didn't even know it was you. But I feel the same way you feel when you talk about the fear of 1% of the US population. I dont fear the white supremacists are a threat to the minorities today, not at all, neither are the small segment of a small 1%muslims to American citizens of whatever race.

OMG, I can't even.... I'm not going to bother repeating that I am not afraid of American Muslims -- I am afraid of radical Muslims. And yes, they are a threat today, in the U.S. What in the world do you call San Bernadino?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP obviously had a view that Shariah means beheadings and amputations and that is the rule of the land in Muslim countries.

Clearly, he or she never thought of it simply in terms of marriage, divorce etc, nor aware that that is the extent of Shariah law in the vast majority of Muslim countries, which have civil codes for criminal offenses. Just like--gosh!--we do.

It will take a while for PP to processes this information, which contradicts all of his or her priors...

It doesn't matter what I know or think about Sharia law. All that matters is that a small minority of crazy Muslims wants to impose it on others. The beheading lashing and amputation part. All the rest, the part normal people are going about their personal business following, that's great and all but that's not what I'm talking about.

It's like saying "Hey, i'm white and I'm not a white supremacist, therefore white supremacists are fine." They're not fine either. We speak up against them. And if white supremacists started telling their followers to start blowing up malls and plowing trucks into crowds it would be a problem. They're not doing that now are they.

Do you know how something is passed into law in this country? Just because a groups wants doesn't make it a law. Do not be the chicken little and be afraid of the 1% of the US population.

I'm not afraid of Muslims. But you just keep repeating that if it makes you feel better. I embrace normal people of all religious backgrounds and I reject violence and hatred from any and all religious groups. I hope you do, too -- even if it means rejecting a tiny minority of radical Muslims.

Do you have the impression that anyone here supports radical Muslims? I'm just confused about what radical Muslims have to do with Sharia.

It's sort of like saying you are opposed to Motherhood. We ask, "why are you opposed to motherhood?" and you point out that Joan Crawford was a terrible mother. You should oppose terrible mothers, not motherhood. All of us here oppose those who have interpreted Islam in violent and oppressive ways.

I think it's legit to say that many Muslim nations, dictators, democratically elected officials, governments, tribal leaders, etc. have used "sharia" as cover to do bad things...so it's not just ISIS.

Yes they have, so now you want to be World police and push US laws on them. Its bad enough we are suffering for keeping our military in their territory for decades and killing them in millions. Now you want to push US constitution on them by FORCE.

Huh? We do? We defeated Saddam Hussein and then just left. We should have pushed the US constitution on them while we had the chance. I'm sure they would have appreciated it. But -- we didn't. We don't roll that way for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

That is one of Isis, Al Qaeda, The Taliban etc. stated goal-a caliphate governed by Shariah/submission for everyone else. Their interpretation may be extreme,, and they have combed the Koran and Hadith and Shariah for excused to commit atrocities, such as sell and rape 'infidels' and 'devil worshippers' likethe Yazidi women and girls. Many theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are governed by Shariah law which is incompatible with western values. They may seem more moderate compared to the above, but life is pretty bleak under their Shariah law for most everybody I'd say - including men who get to grow up with a distorted understanding of half of humanity. It only works out for the rich who hypocritically party off shore and on their compounds. Wherever extremsist Muslims expand to globally, like the territory they hold in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, then the imposition of Shariah law is not a danger its a reality. Try telling the Yazidi women it's a "danger". If Newt was saying people who don't like Western civil codes and values and would like to see them replaced with codes and values like these (not live and let live, but actively work to replace) - if he's saying they should exit stage right--not sure I have a problem with that.

Do you think if they say that, they can get it done in the US or China or India or Russia or Europe? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A CHICKEN LITTLE?Heck they cant even get it done in Turkey or Indonesia, muslim majority countries.

No, I don't think they are going to win -- but they are going to fight. THAT is the problem. They will lose, and people will be hurt in the process. Get it?

But you feel you have the right to KEEP the massive US military in their countries for OIL or whatever reason and kill millions. BUT you dont want ANY loss to America? Thats like keeping Chinese military in TX to suck off our oil and them killing millions of Americans. But you think Americans wont fight the chinese in whatever way possible?

when did I say that? I abhor violence in any form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

The sharia bit is a red herring. Stupid Newt made a ridiculous comment, and everyone is focusing on the narrow issue of sharia. Have you read Noah Feldman's opinion piece in the NY Times? He makes an excruciating argument that sharia is a beautiful thing which some have twisted and which pretty much all Muslims can't agree on what it actually means. Okay. Whatever. The bottom line is that you can call it whatever you like: sharia, Islamic law, political Islam, yabba dabba Doo. We don't care, and it doesn't matter...because that's not the real issue. The real issue is that *some* Muslim countries (or communities) do crazy things that we don't like under the auspices of religious law or custom. I'm not just talking about ISIS or Al Queda. Generally speaking, the civilized world doesn't think any middle eastern government has a model rule of law that protects basic human rights. And we recognize those governments impose laws tied to religious beliefs and cultural norms.

Now we are getting somewhere. I couldn't agree more with you that we shouldn't be discussing Sharia. It wasn't me or the posters here who share my views that introduced that into the discussion. Historically, immigrants have come to the US from countries where things were much worse. That is why they immigrated. Historically, those who were already here feared that the negative aspects of those countries would come with the immigrants. Historically, large immigrant groups faced significant prejudice and discrimination and found challenges to assimilation. In all these respects, Muslim immigrants are no different. None of us wants the negative aspects of Middle East countries -- and I would include Israel in that -- to be adopted by the US. I can't speak for everyone, but I bet most of us strongly oppose the governments of most Middle Eastern countries or accept them only as the least bad option. Focusing on those particularly aspects that we find negative is much more productive than generalizing about entire religions or people.

Ugh, i wish life were this simple. I wish people were only afraid of Muslims because they are the newest to arrive and cooked odd food, instead of being afraid because a small minority of Muslims around the globe are vowing to bring violence here and elsewhere. If only it were that easy.

How did this country win the cold war is a wonder? The threat faced by US during the cold war was MUCH bigger than the threat from muslims. These are not state actors. They dont have army,AF or navy. They are barely 1% of US population. According to FBI the bigger threat is actually from White Supremacists. BUT I GET THE DIFFERENCE NOW. White Supremacists dont threaten the whites but only Minorities and Jews. So Whites think they dont have to worry about White Racists. But being a minority, I worry about White racists killing me and my family because thats what they have done through out "Minority" history, if not US history. But You guys do realize Minorities live in the US and are part of US history right?

I can't even go on. This is just repetition from earlier posts, without my responses making any difference in your thinking.

You are wrong about what I feel and think. Sorry you don't understand. You can continue thinking there are Americans out there that are like the ones you describe above -- and I'm sure there are because it's a big country -- but not me. It's true that people interpret everything around them just to reenforce what they already think. Sad. I give up.

I didn't even know it was you. But I feel the same way you feel when you talk about the fear of 1% of the US population. I dont fear the white supremacists are a threat to the minorities today, not at all, neither are the small segment of a small 1%muslims to American citizens of whatever race.

OMG, I can't even.... I'm not going to bother repeating that I am not afraid of American Muslims -- I am afraid of radical Muslims. And yes, they are a threat today, in the U.S. What in the world do you call San Bernadino?

You are the one who doesn't get it. They are no more radical than the white supremacists. or Christian Fundamentalist like Robert Dear. So you need to be just as fearful of EVERY radical, or NOT fearful of any radical. Because every live no matter who they kill are equal and they are all american lives. So you saying you are afraid of RADICAL MUSLIMS, is indicating you are not afraid of WHITE SUPREMACISTS coz they dont kill you. But they kill other Americans, unless those americans dont matter to you.

TAKE THIS PARAGRAPH OF WHAT YOU POSTED AND WHAT i POSTED TO A REASONABLE WHITE PERSON or a minority AND THEY WILL GET WHAT i AM SAYING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely agree there is no connection between Shariah and violence wreaked by radical Islamists.

It should be enough to say you are concerned about random acts of terrorism by these radicals. Fair enough. But it is a huge leap to say the real danger is that they will impose Shariah globally; it undermines any other arguments you may have.

That is one of Isis, Al Qaeda, The Taliban etc. stated goal-a caliphate governed by Shariah/submission for everyone else. Their interpretation may be extreme,, and they have combed the Koran and Hadith and Shariah for excused to commit atrocities, such as sell and rape 'infidels' and 'devil worshippers' likethe Yazidi women and girls. Many theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are governed by Shariah law which is incompatible with western values. They may seem more moderate compared to the above, but life is pretty bleak under their Shariah law for most everybody I'd say - including men who get to grow up with a distorted understanding of half of humanity. It only works out for the rich who hypocritically party off shore and on their compounds. Wherever extremsist Muslims expand to globally, like the territory they hold in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, then the imposition of Shariah law is not a danger its a reality. Try telling the Yazidi women it's a "danger". If Newt was saying people who don't like Western civil codes and values and would like to see them replaced with codes and values like these (not live and let live, but actively work to replace) - if he's saying they should exit stage right--not sure I have a problem with that.

Do you think if they say that, they can get it done in the US or China or India or Russia or Europe? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A CHICKEN LITTLE?Heck they cant even get it done in Turkey or Indonesia, muslim majority countries.

No, I don't think they are going to win -- but they are going to fight. THAT is the problem. They will lose, and people will be hurt in the process. Get it?

But you feel you have the right to KEEP the massive US military in their countries for OIL or whatever reason and kill millions. BUT you dont want ANY loss to America? Thats like keeping Chinese military in TX to suck off our oil and them killing millions of Americans. But you think Americans wont fight the chinese in whatever way possible?

when did I say that? I abhor violence in any form.

So fight for renewable energy and for bringing the US military back to our shores. Thats the answer for relief from fear of muslim terror however small it maybe, historically speaking.