Japan's top court has approved blanket surveillance of the country's Muslims

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: abe froman

The vast majority of Muslims that aren't physically perpetrating the acts are supporting them monetarily and philosophically and refuse to condemn them.

What an ignorant statement. The majority of peaceful Muslims (which are a majority of Muslims) condemn ISIS and what they are doing.

In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS

Please stop stating lies and assumptions as if they are fact.

Do you have any proof that they aren't?

a reply to: JoeLowUSA

lol

any loss or rights for a muslim US citizen will just lead to loss of rights for the rest of us

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter that it is terror or not related. It is constitutional as far as they are concerned (or so it seems from this information), and they probably don't even care to have a debate about it.

Unless some here are saying their constitution is wrong...because Islam?

a reply to: awareness10

Did you competely ignore the link I provided? Because there's no reason you should even be asking that question if you clicked it and read it.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

only if the insane Govt makes it so.

Otherwise no, only the loss of rights for Illegal Aliens, and so it should be.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: awareness10

Did you competely ignore the link I provided? Because there's no reason you should even be asking that question if you clicked it and read it.

Completely.. and no.I don't actually care what your link says. but yes i did take a look.

why should i care? Because you posted it?

Who do you thInk created ISIS? The pict fairies from the land of gnomeo?

Your own Govt had a hand it its creation and based on the commentary people are sick of it. Unless they're telling people why there's a threat and who created it, i don't give a sh't.

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
any loss or rights for a muslim US citizen will just lead to loss of rights for the rest of us

And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic which was bout what Japan does.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Whatever.

The ones that don't like ISIS back Hezbollah.

The ones that don't like Hezbollah like Al Queida.

The ones that don't like Al Queida like the Taliban.

You seriously expected me to believe the ISIS supporters are stupid enough to proclaim it outside of the Caliphate?

Also what pecentage of these countries were actually polled?

I can ask 10 people at an AA meeting if they drink alcohol on a regular basis and if they say no, my headline can read " US polls show 100% of Americans don't drink"

I find it suspicious that this poll doesn't give the number of participants.

Good job Japan.

I guess Trump was right, at least about Japan's leaders being smarter than ours. Our next president wants to bring in as many Syrian refugees in her first year as Japan has Muslims total. Not a big deal I guess for the people that believe Islam is peace or really believe the 96 year old grandma on the airport security line should receive equal scrutiny to Abdul Mubdee behind her yelling in Arabic. I know anything less then viewing them as an equal threat would be insensitive, but I secretly hope Abdul is the one who gets pulled off line for screening.

a reply to: awareness10

I have no doubt my government had a hand in their creation, I never denied that did I?

I thought that since you asked whether I had proof the majority of Muslims don't support ISIS that you'd be interested in the proof that I posted. I guess I was wrong, you choose to ignore the proof you asked for.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: awareness10

Did you competely ignore the link I provided? Because there's no reason you should even be asking that question if you clicked it and read it.

I did and it's biased and garbage.

Let's ask these people if they think Sharia Law should be established worldwide and see what answer we get.

Also- AND THIS IS IMPORTANT- Muslims are encouraged to lie about Islam to "infidels".

That's where the whole "religion of peace" lie came from.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I mentioned 'proof' because you were drilling another member here without giving your own.

a reply to: abe froman

So your philosophy is "guilty until proven innocent"? How very just of you.

I wonder how you'd feel if the same philosophy was applied to gun owners. You'd probably be calling for the heads of those believed such a thing.

Your belief is irrational fear manifesting as authoritarianism.

This is a good example of how the leftists have little perspective while pretending the US is one of the more racist and bigoted countries and as if tolerance were an issue here.

Places like Japan are heavily nationalistic and they make no apologies for it. Yet I doubt you'll hear a single leftist complaining about how racist Japan is for doing this. Then again, leftist feminists defend and ignore the treatment of women within Islam.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So your philosophy is "guilty until proven innocent"? How very just of you.

Well that is the very reasoning behind the background check.

Why is it a different story when it comes to muslims ?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: CaticusMaximus

The thing that links them all together is that they own guns, I think that's enough of a link to surveil them. I'm sure they all share the ideology that they deserve to own a gun.

Also, not all Muslims share the ideology that infidels should die and have their heads cut off, just as not all gun owners believe they should kill a whole bunch of random people in a mass shooting, yet we want to surveil all Muslims but not all gun owners?

Why are we setting a double standard here? There has never been a shooting that didn't involve a gun owner, with the logic of Muslim surveillance supporters that should be reason enough to surveil all gun owners as well.

Your argument is getting silly here.

Lets broaden your logic out to its natural bounds: all humans who kill humans are humans themselves. Thus all humans should be monitored. Their link to one another is that they are human.

At that logical boundary, we can see the logic being used here is ridiculous.

Capacity =/= probability.

To your second paragraph that not all Muslims are the same. Granted that is true. But the poisonous ideology of Islam is still subscribed to by them, and is actively being passed on to their offspring. Killing the infidel is praised, subjugating all who oppose Islam is demanded, and well we all know what Islam really wants them to do. If they choose to not do those things, out of fear of non-Islamic law not tolerating it, or simply out of not believing in it, it doesnt change the ideology itself, and what it commands. As is clear, there are more than enough Muslims who believe in the "extreme" forms of it, and are willing to kill and rape in its name.

There is no double standard here, "enlightened 1". Your argument is logically very poor and draws only illusory correlates between Muslims (an ideology) and white males (widely shared genetic trait) who are gun (widely owned tool not exclusive to prior genetic trait) owners.

People prone to committing terrorism should be monitored. Muslims are prone to terrorism in this day and age given world politics as they are right now. NOT all Muslims are terrorists. However, they are much, much more LIKELY TO BE terrorists than any other group currently extant in much of the world.

There is nothing logical about the argument that Muslims should NOT monitored based only on the fact they are Muslim. Quite the opposite. It is entirely logical and reasonable to monitor any and all Muslims given the facts.

a reply to: awareness10

Yet you completely ignored the proof I posted. I don't understand your logic here. Either you want the proof or you want to ignore it.