It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 12
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



No it's more to it than that. You have to actually prosecute the ones that act up as criminals.


But to say one shouldn't fear it and it will go away is hilarious. This isn't a bed time story. The folks revelling in Bastille Day weren't busy fearing terrorism.



PS: I don't recall being your friend.


Of course you are, like everyone else on this board.




posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

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


Oh, America has a place for that. It's called Guantanamo.

The Brits used to have Australia. But, that's now a whole new nation.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
The progressive updating of the good (debateable) book and relaxing certain prejudices, which shows some promise of reason taking hold. With Sharia Law considered a divine revelation, there isn't any room for reasonable humane changes.


Sorry, Ted Cruz and his supporters are not 'progressive', they are regressive with their desire to implement a theocracy. Read up on the Dominioists.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: InTheLight
The progressive updating of the good (debateable) book and relaxing certain prejudices, which shows some promise of reason taking hold. With Sharia Law considered a divine revelation, there isn't any room for reasonable humane changes.


Sorry, Ted Cruz and his supporters are not 'progressive', they are regressive with their desire to implement a theocracy. Read up on the Dominioists.


I will if they ever are handed any power. For now...inconsequential.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: queenofswords
You think it is perfectly fine to have a separate legal system outside our system but within our country?


Were you not ware of the large Christian and Jewish communities that in effect have their own systems that they appeal to before our own legal system?


Would their "laws" supercede our country's laws though? All religions have a set of punishments and chastisements for going outside their boundaries, but they do not supercede the laws of our nation.

In other words, would we turn a blind eye to them cutting someone's hand off for stealing? Would it be okay to beat a wife or daughter for some minor disobedience? Would our domestic abuse laws supercede their internal "laws", or would we say, "she's a muslim and allow her to be beaten"?

How about the one where you get the muslim death penalty if you spit on Islam and turn against them? Would we as a nation allow the Islamic Sharia Law system to handle it themselves?

The answer should be 'NO' and anybody that advocates this type of internal law, should have to live under it....elsewhere.

He said nothing about superseding the constitution I did. The punishments such as cutting off a hand or executing someone would supersede the constitution so those cases would have to go through the American court system. You know something this basic you should have learned in grade school.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Would their "laws" supercede our country's laws though? All religions have a set of punishments and chastisements for going outside their boundaries, but they do not supercede the laws of our nation.


Of course these Christian and Jewish community's laws do not supersede the laws of the United Sates in the eyes of the justice system but do you think they give a rats ass? They function with their own micro-societies now.


In other words, would we turn a blind eye to them cutting someone's hand off for stealing? Would it be okay to beat a wife or daughter for some minor disobedience? Would our domestic abuse laws supercede their internal "laws", or would we say, "she's a muslim and allow her to be beaten"?


I do not think anyone in this thread feels those actions are acceptable. however I am pointing out that non-Muslim groups already exist that have some of the same practices you outlined above.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I didn't say they were fake women, but an anecdote is still an anecdote. It will NEVER give you an accurate representation of the total. It's just the opinion of the person talking. That's it. Stop giving more weight to anecdotes then they deserve.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
But to say one shouldn't fear it and it will go away is hilarious. This isn't a bed time story. The folks revelling in Bastille Day weren't busy fearing terrorism.

Bad things happen. It's a way of life. I could walk down the street and get mugged and murdered FAR easier than walking down the street and getting killed by a terrorist, but I'm not scared of leaving my house every day lest I get mugged and murdered. We can't get rid of all terrorism, but we can CERTAINLY stop entertaining it and giving it the power it is craving. Giving into fear like America is doing is letting the terrorists win. We are changing our way of life for them. THAT'S what they want.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
I will if they ever are handed any power. For now...inconsequential.


So why are you concerned about Sharia here? They are far more Dominionists than Shariaists.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

I didn't say they were fake women, but an anecdote is still an anecdote. It will NEVER give you an accurate representation of the total. It's just the opinion of the person talking. That's it. Stop giving more weight to anecdotes then they deserve.


Providing articles profiling Muslim women's legal preferences is not anecdotal, it is the opinions of the people directly affected, therefore not anecdotal, but rather insightful for those who want to know the truth.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This is part of the list of Islamic terror attacks maintained by TheReligionofPeace.com.

During this time period, there were 1272 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 11772 people were killed and 14303 injured.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think the existing law of the land (hard won by some) should prevail and any outside laws that are unjust should not be readily accepted. As in the article I posted above, where Canadian Muslim women see no need for Sharia Law when Canadian law will serve them very well, in their estimation.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t
But to say one shouldn't fear it and it will go away is hilarious. This isn't a bed time story. The folks revelling in Bastille Day weren't busy fearing terrorism.

Bad things happen. It's a way of life. I could walk down the street and get mugged and murdered FAR easier than walking down the street and getting killed by a terrorist, but I'm not scared of leaving my house every day lest I get mugged and murdered. We can't get rid of all terrorism, but we can CERTAINLY stop entertaining it and giving it the power it is craving. Giving into fear like America is doing is letting the terrorists win. We are changing our way of life for them. THAT'S what they want.


Right. And we can also work to eliminate the causes of terrorism. People don't just hate and kill other people because they're bored -- they have reasons.

The Rebel Alliance in Star Wars had a reason to fight the Empire.

The American Colonists had a reason to fight Great Britain.

We can greatly curb terrorism by attacking the root causes of terrorism.

You don't cure brain cancer by taking pain medication for the headaches. You defeat it by removing the cause of the headaches themselves.

Fighting terrorism with guns, bombs, planes, drones ect is like taking a pain medicine to help ease a symptom. What we are doing globally does nothing to remedy the underlying motivations and causes for these people.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
I think the existing law of the land (hard won by some) should prevail and any outside laws that are unjust should not be readily accepted.


As I already pointed out earlier there are already large Christian and Jewish communities with their own supplemental systems.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




No it's more to it than that. You have to actually prosecute the ones that act up as criminals.


How do you prosecute people that blow themselves up, and end their lives themselves?



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: InTheLight

I didn't say they were fake women, but an anecdote is still an anecdote. It will NEVER give you an accurate representation of the total. It's just the opinion of the person talking. That's it. Stop giving more weight to anecdotes then they deserve.


Providing articles profiling Muslim women's legal preferences is not anecdotal, it is the opinions of the people directly affected, therefore not anecdotal, but rather insightful for those who want to know the truth.

Opinion = anecdote. There is no way to get around that. You are arguing with reality but it won't work against me I'm well versed in identifying propaganda techniques.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

You bring them in for interrogation, and if investigators think everything is okay, then they are out. And this applies to everyone, not just journalists.

Better safe than sorry


And when the next attack happens or some politician wants to talk tough and a zero tolerance policy is adopted? Go to an extremist URL and you're deported. What then?



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Attacking terrorism just creates new terrorists. If we want to reduce the causes of radicalization, we need to come up better solutions than to just attack everything in sight.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: bender151I've mentioned this before, and all I get are blank stares. I mean, not even an argument or anything! Why not take these threats down like we did Capone? We could stop him either, and he was basically a terrorist.


Is the price worth it? We took Capone down by elevating the status of tax evasion as a crime. Something that was rampant in those days. Do we want to make stuff we currently take for granted a harsh law that lets us lock people up? Isn't that removing freedoms for the sake of security?



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: InTheLight
I think the existing law of the land (hard won by some) should prevail and any outside laws that are unjust should not be readily accepted.


As I already pointed out earlier there are already large Christian and Jewish communities with their own supplemental systems.


Do those systems include death penalties, polygamy, forced marriage, etc?




top topics



 
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join