It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
.MASSHOLE.Because any rational being can select and choose which aspects of certain ideologies they believe in. Not all Islamists agree with a violent jihad, but do not agree with Western lifestyles.
Forgot a section. I had a feeling you would find this article. I take pleasure in seeing you try and fail to manipulate things to your advantage.
“It applies only to certain offences and this comes under the jurisdiction of the Syariah court and is only applicable to the Muslims. It has nothing to do with non-Muslims.” He added that the punishments would be limited and canings meted out under the law would not injure or draw blood."
Here you make an overreaching assumption that Islamists are rational. They'd prefer to see you dead and your female relatives (now sex slaves) producing soldiers for the caliphate.
And please man, I know you really want to try to be right (and frankly sometimes you bring up good points), but on the topic of Islam you're batting way out of your league. I've been following these motherfuckers since 2005 when these fucks tried to bomb my train in London.
There is no such thing as Sharia-light. The country you gave as an example of "moderate Islam" is leaping towards becoming another Sharia state.
CampeadorBecause he doesn't want to import hundreds of thousands of highly likely terrorists from Syria.
Any other questions?
What part of importing potential terrorists do you find so appealing?
I believe we should do everything in our power to help our fellow man. It's one of the religous values instilled in me at a young age which is still with me. I think there is a way to filter the refugees. Yes we will allow some bad apples in, but in my mind that is worth the risk.
If Hilary had a similar position on refugees as Trump does, would she be a better president?
I believe we should do everything in our power to help our fellow man. It's one of the religous values instilled in me at a young age which is still with me. I think there is a way to filter the refugees. Yes we will allow some bad apples in, but in my mind that is worth the risk.
If Hilary had a similar position on refugees as Trump does, would she be a better president?
That is truly some "Camp of the Saints" level bullshit.
“You want to destroy our world, our whole way of life. . . . There’s not one of you proud of his skin, and all that it stands for.” To which the multiculturalists answer: “Not proud . . . That’s the price we have to pay for the brotherhood of man. We’re happy to pay it.”
CampeadorRight, the so called "civilization jihad".
Please don't be so naive as to believe in Sharia-light.
Don't be so naive to believe all Islamists are the same. As I stated before, why was the Ottoman Empire a long-lasting success if Sharia is a violent and dangerous system?
CampeadorHere you make an overreaching assumption that Islamists are rational. They'd prefer to see you dead and your female relatives (now sex slaves) producing soldiers for the caliphate.
And please man, I know you really want to try to be right (and frankly sometimes you bring up good points), but on the topic of Islam you're batting way out of your league. I've been following these motherfuckers since 2005 when these fucks tried to bomb my train in London.
There is no such thing as Sharia-light. The country you gave as an example of "moderate Islam" is leaping towards becoming another Sharia state.
Islamism can be given no quarter.
Here you make an overreaching assumption they are not. Humans, for the most part, are rationale beings and this is what separates us from animals.
But you evidently are not a rationale being and are feeding and eating up the fear-mongering rhetoric that Trump spews.
Right, following since 2005 makes you an expert. Obviously you know about the writings of Qutb, al-Maqdisi, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, and the likes? How about the different strains of Salafi Islam, Sufi Islam, the roots of the takfiri doctrine, and everything else that accompanies the history of Islamism?
.MASSHOLE.Don't be so naive to believe all Islamists are the same. As I stated before, why was the Ottoman Empire a long-lasting success if Sharia is a violent and dangerous system?
Here you make an overreaching assumption they are not. Humans, for the most part, are rationale beings and this is what separates us from animals.
But you evidently are not a rationale being and are feeding and eating up the fear-mongering rhetoric that Trump spews.
Right, following since 2005 makes you an expert. Obviously you know about the writings of Qutb, al-Maqdisi, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, and the likes? How about the different strains of Salafi Islam, Sufi Islam, the roots of the takfiri doctrine, and everything else that accompanies the history of Islamism?
Christ, you try so fucking hard to look like you know what you're talking about after a few Google searches but fail every time.
Don't be so naive as to believe that all Islamists are not the same.
.MASSHOLE.Don't be so naive to believe all Islamists are the same. As I stated before, why was the Ottoman Empire a long-lasting success if Sharia is a violent and dangerous system?
I don't think you even understand what you're asking.
CampeadorChrist, you try so fucking hard to look like you know what you're talking about after a few Google searches but fail every time.
Don't be so naive as to believe that all Islamists are not the same.
Go ahead and differentiate the tactics, beliefs, and frankly driving forces behind all those characters and then tell me they are the same. I can tell you right now, Qutb would be disgusted with them all, Al-Maqdisi would align closer with Qutb than his disciple (won't tell you who it is), Bin Laden would not agree with Zarqawi, and that Zarahawi was not a fan of Zarqawi. Oh, and that the writings of Zarqawi do not exist because he was almost illiterate.
But then again, what do I know?
CampeadorI don't think you even understand what you're asking.
Or you just don't have the answer.
Explain to me how Sharia law in the Ottoman empire managed to co-exist with Judaism, Christianity, and other religions if it is so dangerous?
CampeadorThat is truly some "Camp of the Saints" level bullshit.
“You want to destroy our world, our whole way of life. . . . There’s not one of you proud of his skin, and all that it stands for.” To which the multiculturalists answer: “Not proud . . . That’s the price we have to pay for the brotherhood of man. We’re happy to pay it.”
Indeed they do pay: They are all destroyed.
Do you condone giving medical aid to wounded enemy soldiers?
CampeadorEven though we may disagree at times, I always appreciate your rational approach.
However, I will say that it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate Islam from Islamism, since they're both based on the same set of rules. Rules, I might add, that if not followed make one an apostate, with a death sentence.
Cheers. Islam is definitely the trickiest to contain as a purely religious phenomenon because its ideology obviously encompasses the political realm too. But it is possible, as we see from the millions of Muslims living in predominantly non-Muslim countries. They do not live under Sharia Law and the only way a death sentence can be "legally" imposed is if Sharia Law is actually in place (I am aware that underground Sharia courts do exist in such places though). As long as Sharia is not part of our judicial system, I'd say we (by and large) are in the clear. And the only way to truly guarantee that is with a strict separation of church and state and to root out any organization that undermines that.
BombogenesisI like how everyone's going nuts about Melania's speech now. 2 lines from a 10 minute speech that she probably barely wrote. Talk about grasping.
hardly two lines. Try an entire paragraph (roughly 10 sentences). But if Trumps team is too lazy to write a speech what makes you think they're going to magically find energy to run a fucking country?
.MASSHOLE.Go ahead and differentiate the tactics, beliefs, and frankly driving forces behind all those characters and then tell me they are the same. I can tell you right now, Qutb would be disgusted with them all, Al-Maqdisi would align closer with Qutb than his disciple (won't tell you who it is), Bin Laden would not agree with Zarqawi, and that Zarahawi was not a fan of Zarqawi. Oh, and that the writings of Zarqawi do not exist because he was almost illiterate.
But then again, what do I know?
Or you just don't have the answer.
Explain to me how Sharia law in the Ottoman empire managed to co-exist with Judaism, Christianity, and other religions if it is so dangerous?
Are there any arguments where you don't divert into the irrelevant details? They only differ in how they'd like to murder you and rape your female relatives as "captives whom your right hand possesses" (as per the Koran). If one want to cut your head off, the other wants to burn you alive, and the other wants to fly planes into your building, does it make much of a difference?
In the end, all Islamists share the same common end goal, the Sharia caliphate, they only differ in their approach to achieving that goal.
And frankly, Muslims in many cases were more civilized in the past than they are now, they have degenerated. The Ottomans had a system of Dhimmitude and slavery for the Jewish and Christian populations. One only need look at the Janissaries and the Mamelukes for proof. Hardly the kumbaya coexistence you put forth.
Lastly, the Ottoman Empire is irrelevant to the discussion. When I mention Sharia, I'm talking about the resurgent Sharia being funded by the House of Saud and the Muslim Brotherhood, which began in the 20th century.
onenerdykidCheers. Islam is definitely the trickiest to contain as a purely religious phenomenon because its ideology obviously encompasses the political realm too. But it is possible, as we see from the millions of Muslims living in predominantly non-Muslim countries. They do not live under Sharia Law and the only way a death sentence can be "legally" imposed is if Sharia Law is actually in place (I am aware that underground Sharia courts do exist in such places though). As long as Sharia is not part of our judicial system, I'd say we (by and large) are in the clear. And the only way to truly guarantee that is with a strict separation of church and state and to root out any organization that undermines that.
Sure, but we're already seeing Sharia courts springing up in the UK and other countries, they're on their way there and they're clear about what they want. Not to mention, it would be naive to believe that Sharia courts don't operate in the Muslim no-go zones.
At what Muslim population percentage does the European justice system capitulate?
californiagrownDo you condone giving medical aid to wounded enemy soldiers?
We're not fighting soldiers, we're fighting terrorists.
Terrorists deserve no medical aid, unless they can be interrogated for useful intel. If they are of no use, they deserve a bullet to the head, like the Israelis give them.
CampeadorAre there any arguments where you don't divert into the irrelevant details? They only differ in how they'd like to murder you and rape your female relatives as "captives whom your right hand possesses" (as per the Koran). If one want to cut your head off, the other wants to burn you alive, and the other wants to fly planes into your building, does it make much of a difference?
In the end, all Islamists share the same common end goal, the Sharia caliphate, they only differ in their approach to achieving that goal.
And frankly, Muslims in many cases were more civilized in the past than they are now, they have degenerated. The Ottomans had a system of Dhimmitude and slavery for the Jewish and Christian populations. One only need look at the Janissaries and the Mamelukes for proof. Hardly the kumbaya coexistence you put forth.
Lastly, the Ottoman Empire is irrelevant to the discussion. When I mention Sharia, I'm talking about the resurgent Sharia being funded by the House of Saud and the Muslim Brotherhood, which began in the 20th century.
Burning anyone is against the Koran....but I don't expect you to know that.
They differ so much more than that. One of those figures was anti-violence, another was basically seen as "too radical" for Al-Qaeda, and Al-Maqdisi was against the killings of any civilians, be it Islamic or "apostates".
Ironically, yes, they share the same end goal, but only one of those groups actually pursued it. The rest were more interested in overthrowing Islamic regimes they saw as takfiri. Al-Zarqawi hated Jordan more than he hated the US, while bin Laden hated Saudi Arabia more than he hated the US. It was only Qutb who hated America.
More civilized in the past? You do realize that these ideological chasms between moderates and extremists
started during the 12th century and then fully propagated into what we see today in the 17th century right? Ibn Taymiyyah was the driving force behind the return to literal interpretations of the Koran and Sunnah, and was a very big influence on the early House of Saud and al-Wahhab who are responsible for the Wahhabism we see today. You evidently know VERY little about the history of extremism and Islam.
As if the treatment of Muslims or any minority religion in the early European days were any better. Hell, Catholics and Protestants fought one another for years. You neglect to mention anything about the modernization of the Ottoman Empire that saw drastic changes and increase in secular policies in the country. But then again, it does not fit your narrative.
Man, for someone who seems to be "passionate" about the subject, your lack of understanding of basic history surrounding key figures is astounding. If you don't understand the history, you cannot understand the present.
.MASSHOLE.Burning anyone is against the Koran....but I don't expect you to know that.
They differ so much more than that. One of those figures was anti-violence, another was basically seen as "too radical" for Al-Qaeda, and Al-Maqdisi was against the killings of any civilians, be it Islamic or "apostates".
Ironically, yes, they share the same end goal, but only one of those groups actually pursued it. The rest were more interested in overthrowing Islamic regimes they saw as takfiri. Al-Zarqawi hated Jordan more than he hated the US, while bin Laden hated Saudi Arabia more than he hated the US. It was only Qutb who hated America.
More civilized in the past? You do realize that these ideological chasms between moderates and extremists
started during the 12th century and then fully propagated into what we see today in the 17th century right? Ibn Taymiyyah was the driving force behind the return to literal interpretations of the Koran and Sunnah, and was a very big influence on the early House of Saud and al-Wahhab who are responsible for the Wahhabism we see today. You evidently know VERY little about the history of extremism and Islam.
As if the treatment of Muslims or any minority religion in the early European days were any better. Hell, Catholics and Protestants fought one another for years. You neglect to mention anything about the modernization of the Ottoman Empire that saw drastic changes and increase in secular policies in the country. But then again, it does not fit your narrative.
Man, for someone who seems to be "passionate" about the subject, your lack of understanding of basic history surrounding key figures is astounding. If you don't understand the history, you cannot understand the present.
Christ dude, you're so damn obtuse. A Google search and a WaPo article and you think yourself an expert. I don't need a copy-and-paste from some leftist journalist or academic, but you clearly do.
But great, Bin Laden wasn't so bad, he hated Saudi Arabia more than the US. I find this ironic given that his father was a very rich contractor for the Saudi family, and most of his funding was from the Saudis.
And Zarqawi, not so bad either, he hated Jordan more than the US.
CampeadorChrist dude, you're so damn obtuse. A Google search and a WaPo article and you think yourself an expert. I don't need a copy-and-paste from some leftist journalist or academic, but you clearly do.
But great, Bin Laden wasn't so bad, he hated Saudi Arabia more than the US. I find this ironic given that his father was a very rich contractor for the Saudi family, and most of his funding was from the Saudis.
And Zarqawi, not so bad either, he hated Jordan more than the US.
Where do you get this bullshit?
How about 3 classes, one on Islamic ideology, one on Middle Eastern international relations, and another on the history of the Middle East combined with numerous books, including both autobiographies and investigative journalism pieces, and writings from some of the extremists themselves?
My point is to show you that you, by grouping all these extremists together show an incomplete picture like with everything else you write.
CampeadorTell that to the Jordanian pilot.
And it was widely condemned by both extremists and moderates alike...
Side note, anyone find it ironic that Trump walked into the RNC with a song by a gay band playing as his theme music considering his VP pick is very anti-gay marriage...
CampeadorAnd frankly, your moral and cultural relativism borders on insanity.
do you not understand that your perception is your reality? we know you are dumb. but if you have never SEEN something else or dont KNOW of it, it does not EXIST in your world. this is relevant because what you are saying is moral and cultural relativism is actually just an understanding of how the human mind works.
coolflash8do you not understand that your perception is your reality? we know you are dumb. but if you have never SEEN something else or dont KNOW of it, it does not EXIST in your world. this is relevant because what you are saying is moral and cultural relativism is actually just an understanding of how the human mind works.
.MASSHOLE.My point is to show you that you, by grouping all these extremists together show an incomplete picture like with everything else you write.
.
Right, as opposed to the spin you like to put it.
The fact that their are differences between the various Sharia jihadists, somehow makes Sharia no big deal, and as such, believing in Sharia law should not be barrier for Muslim immigration to the US.
CampeadorI'm willing to roll the dice on that one.
Not to mention it will be great watching your head explode.
dude you are "willing to roll the dice" on everything you say. you have no fuckin facts, no education, and no sources. you got the republican bait an switch on lock though!
CampeadorRight, as opposed to the spin you like to put it.
The fact that their are differences between the various Sharia jihadists, somehow makes Sharia no big deal, and as such, believing in Sharia law should not be barrier for Muslim immigration to the US.
There, I've encapsulated your entire argument.
I have no problem with Islamists who personally follow Sharia law. I have an issue with those ones who attempt to impose it on others. However, I have that issue with Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, or any other religion as well.
Therefore, to ban Islamists because they personally follow Sharia laws and beliefs is impinging upon their 1st Amendment Rights. You cannot selectively choose which groups Amendments and Constitutional Rights do and do not apply to.
But since you see all jihadists as those following the lesser jihad, it is a moot point to expect you to understand that.
Your social justice friends will be very disappointed in you.
coolflash8dude you are "willing to roll the dice" on everything you say. you have no fuckin facts, no education, and no sources. you got the republican bait an switch on lock though!
Besides the news link near the top of this page, and that's just this page, there are plenty more on previous pages.
Also, it's bad form to talk about education when you write like a retard.
CampeadorWhen women are being beaten, raped, and forced into submission, then yes, I care.
Don't you?
Yes, I do care. But I also know in the United States and other countries around the world spousal rape and beatings are A. not unique to Muslims, B. illegal in almost every country, and C. a problem worldwide.
You have an agenda against Muslims of any kind, and will do anything and say anything to support it.
.MASSHOLE.Yes, I do care. But I also know in the United States and other countries around the world spousal rape and beatings are A. not unique to Muslims, B. illegal in almost every country, and C. a problem worldwide.
You have an agenda against Muslims of any kind, and will do anything and say anything to support it.
Sure, but only one group interprets it as a religious duty.
Would you want any of your female relatives to marry an Islamist and live in a Sharia household, where she had to accept that she was inferior to her husband or face his wrath?
CampeadorSure, but only one group interprets it as a religious duty.
Would you want any of your female relatives to marry an Islamist and live in a Sharia household, where she had to accept that she was inferior to her husband or face his wrath?
And not every member of that group adheres to that religious duty.
Want? No. Would I accept them if they followed that choice? Yes. Would I step in if they needed help? Yes.
Again, you're looking at these people the same way some of them look at us, pure evil. Humans are not black and white, they do not all conform to the same standards, follow the same beliefs, or adhere to the same principles.
CampeadorHonestly man, you couldn't even figure out how the NS quoting system works.
sorry ive been doing things with my life for the past few years and just now am at a place where i can get back into NS and i dont remember how all the mechanics work? read your reviews, look at your life, and please leave this place forever. k thanks bye
CampeadorWe're not fighting soldiers, we're fighting terrorists.
Terrorists deserve no medical aid, unless they can be interrogated for useful intel. If they are of no use, they deserve a bullet to the head, like the Israelis give them.
So you encourage war crimes... But we should look to you as a moral authority and expert on foreign policy?
You sound an awful lot like an extremist. I prefer to not become what I despise.
.MASSHOLE.And not every member of that group adheres to that religious duty.
Want? No. Would I accept them if they followed that choice? Yes. Would I step in if they needed help? Yes.
Again, you're looking at these people the same way some of them look at us, pure evil. Humans are not black and white, they do not all conform to the same standards, follow the same beliefs, or adhere to the same principles.
Whether every member adheres completely is irrelevant, it forms a core part of the Islamic value system, and has the danger of caring religious authority.
.MASSHOLE.And not every member of that group adheres to that religious duty.
Want? No. Would I accept them if they followed that choice? Yes. Would I step in if they needed help? Yes.
Again, you're looking at these people the same way some of them look at us, pure evil. Humans are not black and white, they do not all conform to the same standards, follow the same beliefs, or adhere to the same principles.
You're a weakling not to stand up for Western culture in the face of an Islamic onslaught, an onslaught that seeks to change the very way we live our lives.
