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

originally posted by: redempsh
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're a resident, and can stay here unless you also fail a sanity test, like say the mmpi

So you're in favor of doing away with the Constitution then?

Should we deport you as well?

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

It's also not an arguement to do nothing. However it is important to keep in mind we have had 30 realitively safe years for humanity which is a global first. No other time in history saw such safety for so many people. After vietnam the death tolls from plagues, diseases and wars have gone down substantially

So people get nuts not having dealt with the occasional horrors of reality.

It wasn't all that long ago people were getting there heads lopped of by the givernment in public or in the us public hangings and lynchings.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And here I thought people wanted a bigger more controlling government.

Guess I was wrong.

Only when it comes to black,scary looking boom sticks.

Then Newt critics sing a different tune.

a reply to: neo96

Not me. The guy is smart I I'll give him that.

Morally and ethically he is about a Bill Clinton level scumbag.

muslim descent??
I can't help wonder just what that means also...

I'm of germen descent, and my family roots was here for the revolutionary war. one of the hosts of coast to coast is of lebenese descent I believe. so I guess my first question would be just how would they identify those of muslim descent since it's not a nationality, but a religion that is common in many nations and races around the world.

a blast from the past:
during world war two, many japanese americans as well as german americans were interned in the US.

www.traces.org...

www.thinglink.com...

of course, this is a great way to confiscate the property of american citizens rich and poor alike..
solves many economic problems for those left alone.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Again, why should Jews be allowed self governance according to their laws? Why do Christians think it's appropriate to legislate from the Bible and display the 10 Commandments? I mean, we already have laws, right?

The missing factor for Christians and Jews is the frequency to which terrorism is committed in their name throughout the world.

Are you sure about that? Would we have gone into Iraq if GOD hasn't spoken to George Bush?

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Well yes the infrastructure damage is there, but at the same time the attacks are infrequent enough that the return to normal life doesn't take too long after the event happens.

originally posted by: redempsh
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're a resident, and can stay here unless you also fail a sanity test, like say the mmpi

And then what if you fail the sanity test?

a reply to: windword

Are you sure about that? Would we have gone into Iraq if GOD hasn't spoken to George Bush?

Quite sure. The reasons for the invasion were made explicit by the coalition, none of which included George Bush's supposed conversation with God.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: windword

Are you sure about that? Would we have gone into Iraq if GOD hasn't spoken to George Bush?

Quite sure. The reasons for the invasion were made explicit by the coalition, none of which included George Bush's supposed conversation with God.

Yeah because the only people GW spoke to was CONGRESS.

Just chalk this thread up to the Christianphobes are trying to lecture the Islamophobes.

a reply to: neo96

Even discussing Christians and Christianity in a thread about Islam and Islamic terrorism is suspect.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Well yes the infrastructure damage is there, but at the same time the attacks are infrequent enough that the return to normal life doesn't take too long after the event happens.

Overall I guess this is true so far. But an attack on the grid, which may not kill many initially, would destroy the country. Just depends I guess.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You mean the coalition of the paid?
Our wars have created the situation over there, and now we want to ignore it. We peed on there rug but ya we should ignore everyone affected by it because a small percentage are nut jobs that kill people.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: windword

Are you sure about that? Would we have gone into Iraq if GOD hasn't spoken to George Bush?

Quite sure. The reasons for the invasion were made explicit by the coalition, none of which included George Bush's supposed conversation with God.

Right, you keep telling yourself that.

God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

Donald Rumsfeld covered Iraq briefing papers with Biblical texts

Christians are just as complicit in the "terror". Remember this?

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Well yes the infrastructure damage is there, but at the same time the attacks are infrequent enough that the return to normal life doesn't take too long after the event happens.

Overall I guess this is true so far. But an attack on the grid, which may not kill many initially, would destroy the country. Just depends I guess.

Well our police forces aren't incompetent either. For every attack that is successful, there are others that are stopped. We hear about how the FBI likes to create bomb suspects through sting operations quite often. If you were to look at terrorist attacks in the west over the years you'd see that terrorist attacks in the west are on the decline. They used to happen all the time in the 70's, but increased security measures and better procedures have cracked down on a lot of that stuff. Sure we cant prevent every attack, but you do what you can. I'd rather live with a bit of danger than have rights stripped from people.

a reply to: dawnstar

muslim descent?? I can't help wonder just what that means also...

He said muslim background....not muslim descent. (The media headline was another creative use of language to fool the reading-impaired.) And, he clarified it further by specifying a belief in Sharia law which is diametrically opposed to our western laws.

“We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

Now...research Sharia law and its results when implemented and "see" what he was actually saying.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you mean rights to enforce Sharia laws? Let's hope not.

The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this? In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are. Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them. Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.

One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.

It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning.

Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.

Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative. Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

www.americanthinker.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Well yes the infrastructure damage is there, but at the same time the attacks are infrequent enough that the return to normal life doesn't take too long after the event happens.

Overall I guess this is true so far. But an attack on the grid, which may not kill many initially, would destroy the country. Just depends I guess.

Well our police forces aren't incompetent either. For every attack that is successful, there are others that are stopped. We hear about how the FBI likes to create bomb suspects through sting operations quite often. If you were to look at terrorist attacks in the west over the years you'd see that terrorist attacks in the west are on the decline. They used to happen all the time in the 70's, but increased security measures and better procedures have cracked down on a lot of that stuff. Sure we cant prevent every attack, but you do what you can. I'd rather live with a bit of danger than have rights stripped from people.

I can agree with that, but an attack planned by our very own (false flag) has little chance of being prevented I would think. But "real" terrorism by individuals, I suppose. While what Newt is calling for may be overkill, there needs to be something done.

In your opinion, what would you do that is logical that would actually work? Me myself, I don't know without really taking time to think hard. Newts plan could work but indeed at the expense of our freedom/liberties, which could be the ultimate end goal. In fact it is the end goal, just not sure if this particular instance IS, or if they are sincere.

a reply to: InTheLight

I don't know what you are trying to tell me here. Looks like you just posted some ignorant and biased rant about Sharia to me, but I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me by posting it.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You mean the coalition of the paid?
Our wars have created the situation over there, and now we want to ignore it. We peed on there rug but ya we should ignore everyone affected by it because a small percentage are nut jobs that kill people.

You spent more time pissing on Vietnamese rugs, yet you have little to fear from Vietnamese Confucianists, Taoists or Buddhists. So I disagree with that theory.

Anyways, the thread is about Newt Gingrich and his remarks.