Newt Gingrich Says We Should ‘Test Every Person’ Of Muslim Descent

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well it is because Islam is very tied into the way which you carry yourself. Same reason even the secular government here took so long to abandon stereotypes founded in superstions. The voting public needs to come to terms with what the philosophies mean that created the free market and secular enlightenment system of governance.

Then apparently the need to forget about them and make people angry enough to throw them out of office and form a new government


The turd ideas are just stacked too high to find out who's crap is where and how to get it out without toppling the turd skyscraper onto everything.

Thats the name of a new book I am working on

Turd Skyscraper:

The story of American politics from Nixon to Clinton/Trump

the slippery slope about Islam, to me, is albeit the terrorist factions only represent a tiny, infinitesimal make up and abide by their own nonsense; the problem is at any given Friday, the good ones may become radicalized.

meaning radicalization is not some learned behavior adopted by watching people get terrorized, because I know many Muslims who cringe at even hearing the word terrorist, its almost detested.
on the other hand, radicalization is rather a nurtured state of mind. radicalization can be slowly and slowly implanted in the most peaceful and docile followers of Islam over time. its a process not an event. its impossible thus, to say in immediacy that one person is a potential terrorist.

how can something like that be combatted?


when a religion is so deeply intertwined with politics, how can we separate sacred laws from state laws, which law have prevalence over the other... in case of Islam, its their holy Quran.

I don't want to sound more ill-informed. but yesterday I said some pretty nasty things about Muslims as a whole, which I'm not proud of.
I'm just racking my brain, because this behavior trumps logics.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So more of "since this happened then it invalidates anything else", gotcha. We totally didn't destabilize the nation's where these radical groups have laid their foundations, you're right.

a reply to: luthier

Should we compare the level of Muslim culture in the Middle Ages with that of Western Europe?

Do you know why we know Plato and Aristotle today? How about advances in science, medicine, mathematics picking up where the Greeks and Romans left off?

The European West would be 400 years farther behind developmentally without the knowledge gained (and stolen from) Islamic Medieval culture.

a reply to: odzeandennz

You know how you do it? Stop using words like "radicalized" and use words/phrases like "mentally ill" or "criminal". The fact of the matter is radicalization can happen to anyone of any religion. It isn't something that is unique to Muslims. Like the wrong things just have to be said and a trigger flips in any Muslim to make him a terrorist. No. It's just the result of a person (in this case Muslims) living in a situation that causes them to lash out. Just because we don't approve of the reasons for them lashing out, doesn't make their reaction any different than say the Bundy's taking over that wild life refuge.

This is why we struggle so hard to define what is and isn't a terrorist. How we label certain actions that Muslims do as terrorist in nature, but just call the same things done domestically by an American as just a crime. Words like "radicalization", "terrorist", "extremist", etc give power to their message. But if you were to just call them what they really are, criminals. Then it takes all the sting out of what they are doing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am just going by what muslim women activists are telling us because they know best as to the real scoop.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This last question is fairly complicated. There are many representing Greek philosophy thought the Catholic Church from the beginning of the Byzantines through saint Basil into the apologists of Aquinas and Anselm.

Math, and generally evolutionary psychology in general came from the totality of human progress and idea exchanges over a much longer time line than any current major religion.

The reason we advanced so fast in the west over such a short time has a large part to do with the secular government and philosophies of the regions.

If we want o talk about ancient advancements we can go further into Asia with India being a huge meeting place for several cultures and religions similar to the US in terms of communicating ideas from different regions.
Like even fish hooks from say turkey may have been better than China but india where the silk road was at its middle these cultures exchanged ideas and excellerated the psychological evolution by collaboration.

I am aware Muslims had emense empires though they were also fairly brutal like the Christians of the time.

a reply to: Sremmos80

So more of "since this happened then it invalidates anything else", gotcha. We totally didn't destabilize the nation's where these radical groups have laid their foundations, you're right.

I appreciate your sarcasm, but given that most of these terrorists come from places like Saudia Arabia, or are often home grown, maybe radicalized over the internet, I find it specious at best. "Gotcha"

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
To be fair, few members of those groups are committing atrocities and crimes against humanity with such a high frequency.

Most of the religious retards are committing crimes against common sense so they can pack their s*** up and go. Fair is fair.

Or, we can try to adhere to the Constitution.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Sharia Law is man-made lunacy not divine revelation in any sense.

There are plenty of Christian loons in this country that would love to impose a theocracy and have said so.

Deport their mental assess too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I disagree.
and my rebuttal is beyond the scope of this thread.

(below is not it just a reply)



radicalization in Islam is very real. most terrorists, or as you pointed the the wild refuge ranch take over, had specific realistic demands in order to come to a conclusion.
I'm not sure what the end game for muslim terrorists is, and its not the spread of Islam, if it was its the wrong way about spreading it. this is logic less, baseless, mindless.
when you use a single doctrine to justify every act of violence, then no you're not just a criminal. you're clinging to something.
if experiments over long period of time or case studies would be conducted then this would be more clear.

but if you have to study criminals who seem to commit the same crime over and over, you have to consider the impetus for criminal activity. I think in this case, its their very religion. Islam.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am just going by what muslim women activists are telling us because they know best as to the real scoop.

No you are going by whatever source you can find to agree with your opinion says. I can easily find a source of Muslim women saying the exact opposite, but you wouldn't post that because it doesn't agree with your biases.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Most of the religious retards are committing crimes against common sense so they can pack their s*** up and go. Fair is fair.

Or, we can try to adhere to the Constitution.

Being stupid or lacking common sense isn't a crime. Blowing people up, driving trucks into crowds of people, or gunning them down in the name of their religion is.

a reply to: pryed -eyed-one

Does anyone here really want sharia in the USA?? Even if only implemented in majority Muslim communities??

So what if they did? You do know that Sharia only applies to Muslims right? Besides other groups such as Jews and Gypsies have their own court systems so why not Muslims.

Read the goddamn Quran and tell me it's even remotely comparable anywhere in the Western Hemisphere and then make your argument.

Perhaps you should read it yourself because you don't know what you are talking about.
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It

a reply to: odzeandennz

We didn't treat the Democratic Underground any different with their terrorist activities. We just arrested them when they broke the law or committed terrorist actions. Like I said, you are giving them power by acknowledging them as terrorists. Stop doing that. Just arrest them when they act up. Stop fearing them, and they'll go away. Terrorism is just a cry for attention.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Being stupid or lacking common sense isn't a crime.

And religious qualification tests are un-effing-Constitutional. You take the bad with the mostly good.

Blowing people up, driving trucks into crowds of people, or gunning them down in the name of their religion is.

What was the religious persuasion of the douche nozzle that shot up the black church in South Carolina? There are s***bags in every bunch.

a reply to: buster2010

Let me get this straight. You think it is perfectly fine to have a separate legal system outside our system but within our country?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like I said, you are giving them power by acknowledging them as terrorists. Stop doing that. Just arrest them when they act up. Stop fearing them, and they'll go away. Terrorism is just a cry for attention.

Stop fearing terrorists and they'll go away? Terrorism is just a cry for attention?

I had such high hopes for you , friend.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am just going by what muslim women activists are telling us because they know best as to the real scoop.

No you are going by whatever source you can find to agree with your opinion says. I can easily find a source of Muslim women saying the exact opposite, but you wouldn't post that because it doesn't agree with your biases.

I am reading what Muslim women are saying and wanting in regards to the law of the land vs. sharia law, I am not sure what you are reading.

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women (CCMW) has concerns about such a move. We see no compelling reason to live under any other form of law. We want the same laws to apply to us as to other Canadian women. We prefer to live under Canadian laws, governed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which safeguard and protect our rights. Although the judicial system is not perfect, we know that there are mechanisms for change. Because some believe that Shariah is sanctified by divine authority, it is not as easily subject to change. We are also concerned that, in deference to their religious beliefs, some Canadian Muslim women may be persuaded to use the Shariah option rather than seeking protection under the law of the land. In 2003, Women Living Under Muslim Law (WLUML) completed a research study entitled "Knowing Our Rights: Women, family, laws and customs in the Muslim World." The study looks at 15 countries that apply Shariah law and demonstrates the various understandings and implementations of Shariah and how these affect women. There is no agreement among Muslims on the laws of Shariah. For example, some countries where Muslim law is applied, such as Tunisia, have interpreted the law as limiting marriage to monogamy, while others, such as Pakistan, allow polygamy if the first wife agrees. In some Shariah schools of jurisprudence, inheritance laws favour males, a husband can divorce his wife leaving her without legal recourse, financial support for wives can be for a limited time period, granting of alimony is questionable, division of property can ignore women's interests, and child custody can be given to fathers according to the age of the child. There is also ongoing debate about the static or evolving nature of the jurisprudence and its adaptations to the realities of today's world. Sharia is not divine law. Although it is based on divine text, the Quran, the injunctions were interpreted more than 100 years after the death of the Prophet Mohammad by jurists in different countries who themselves insisted that these were but interpretations. Shariah is a vast, complex system of jurisprudence; it is interpreted differentially in different countries and we question how, why and by whom it will be implemented in Canada. What will be the role of the arbiters and what will their training be in a complex and variant system of law, and who will ensure the competence of the individuals who serve as jurists?

www.nawl.ca...

Where do you deport somebody to if they were born in and have lived in America all of their life?

Where should the line be drawn as to what a “terrorist organisation” is and whether or not a particular website supports their cause? For groups like Al Qaeda and ISIL it’s more straight forward to just label them, but “other groups” could include Hamas for example who are not widely regarded as terrorists.

I’d sure hate to think that somebody could be sent to jail for reading a news report from the Middle East which happened to place Hamas in a more favourable light than, say, the IDF. That would be a terrible precedent.