Explosions at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Fatalities confirmed

[jamil]

This is way too squishy, jamil. You and I both know that if we had the capability to sort out the individuals who are likely to commit terrorism we would use it. In the absence of such capability, the next best thing would be a less focused approach. An attempt to keep out a larger number of people that, while containing some innocents, would have a high likelihood of also containing dangerous individuals - like say clamping down on immigration from countries which scarcely have a functioning central government or a central government that is an active supporter of jihad

On the domestic, home-grown terror front the ubiquitousness and intrusiveness of government surveillance necessary to focus on individuals is going to elicit strong resistance and is virtually guaranteed to be abused, so why not again target less precisely - perhaps at the radical mosque/imam level

18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


I do not believe this ^ has any religious exceptions

Forgive the de-tealing. It's hard to see against the green background of the editor.

I don't have a problem with restricting immigration from certain countries. I do have a problem with targeting certain religions. As I argued in the other thread, I don't believe the EO that Trump issued for the 6 countries is a "Muslim ban". It's a temporary ban on people coming from those identified countries. Also, if the authorities in the US suspect specific mosques are radicalizing people then I have no problem with authorities scrutinizing them.

 

[jamil]

And yet it remains.
How do you define a Muslim outside of the Quran?
Can any logical, objective individual see the Quran as a text as other than rooted in violence?
Can you play follow the leader with Muhammad and not resort to violence?
The best rebuttal is that there are a lot of Muslims not actively conducting suicide bombings. Interestingly, I don't think that's been disputed here.

By what individuals actually believe. I don't see why this concept is so difficult. Obviously, many Muslims don't believe in suicide bombings.

 

[ATM]

Support for violence is high. Anyone who disputes that is not being honest or is simply ignorant of the facts. But the support isn't anywhere near 100%, which is what many contend here.

Support for hate, violence and human suffering are high among Muslims specifically because they adopted Islam, a system of hate, violence and human suffering.

The "helpful guides for living" some seek to cherry pick from it were designed for the faithful army it was designed to raise up to enact the system of hate, violence and human suffering contained within.

What a clever ruse.

 

[Lelliott8]

Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites might have something to say about that.

Were they targeted for divine judgement based solely on their race? Or was there more to it? Seems like INGO has become home to both the laziest biblical interpretation and free passes to Islam.

 

[Lelliott8]

By what individuals actually believe. I don't see why this concept is so difficult. Obviously, many Muslims don't believe in suicide bombings.

So you would also argue that Bruce Jenner is ACTUALLY a woman, in spite of reality, simply because he believes he is.

 

[hog slayer]

By what individuals actually believe. I don't see why this concept is so difficult. Obviously, many Muslims don't believe in suicide bombings.

If you don't Worship Allah, and you don't believe Islamic teachings then you're a Muslim just for name
Muslim means one who submits to God (ALLAH). The Purpose of a Muslim is to worship Allah.

The concept is difficult to believe because something that cannot "not be" and "be" at the same time.

• Islam : grammatically speaking, Islam should only refer to the religion or acts done in the name of that religion, never a person who practices that religion. Islamic community and Islamic art are correct, Islamic man is not.
• Muslim should be used to describe all people of the Islamic faith but not the faith itself. You may say that you are interested in the religion of Muslims, but never in the Muslim religion.

So:
1.Islam and Muslim are both words used to describe the religion revealed to the Prophet Mohammed.
2.Islam is the act of submitting to the will of God whereas a Muslim is person who participates in the act of submission.

How does a Muslim know what to do?

The Quran, the last revealed word of God (Allah), is the primary source of every Muslim's faith and practice.

And this really gets me excited!

The Quran is one leg of two which form the basis of Islam. The second leg is the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). What makes the Quran different from the Sunnah is primarily its form. Unlike the Sunnah, the Quran is quite literally the Word of Allah, whereas the Sunnah was inspired by Allah but the wording and actions are the Prophet's. The Quran has not been expressed using any human's words. Its wording is letter for letter fixed by no one but Allah.
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the final Messenger of Allah to humanity, and therefore the Quran is the last Message which Allah has sent to us. Its predecessors such as the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels have all been superseded. It is an obligation - and blessing - for all who hear of the Quran and Islam to investigate it and evaluate it for themselves. Allah has guaranteed that He will protect the Quran from human tampering, and today's readers can find exact copies of it all over the world. The Quran of today is the same as the Quran revealed to Muhammad.

Let's not get into the Sunnah, unless you really want to have your work cut out for you.

 

[T.Lex]

New reporting from BBC says that MI5 is investigating what happened with the reports of bomber-dude's radicalism. In that reporting, it turns out bomber dude traveled with his dad when he was 16 to fight Gaddafi.
Manchester attacks: MI5 probes bomber 'warnings' - BBC News

My suspicion is that when it went up the chain, he was on a list of "ours." So, a certain amount of politicization was expected and tolerated.

 

[actaeon277]

The KKK isn't really comparable in the way you want to apply it. The KKK was an organization of terrorists. Muslims are a religion based on Islam which has some members who are terrorists. Since it is a religion, and people are free in this country to practice their religion, law enforcement could not go "after them". Targeting an entire religious group is unconstitutional. But certainly we can target individuals who conspire to commit and carry out acts of terrorism.

Not all KKK members were terrorist.
Not all muslims are terrorist.
They are both groups.

I'm not saying to pull out every muslim and blame them for the actions of some.
I am saying, maybe someone enforcing the laws, might pay their group a little more attention. till things calm down.
You don't see the KKK out as in much force as they used to.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Were they targeted for divine judgement based solely on their race? Or was there more to it? Seems like INGO has become home to both the laziest biblical interpretation and free passes to Islam.

In my case, I tie the two together at the point where I am willing to accept that there are plenty of Moslems who are no more diligent in their doctrine than most Christians, which allows both of your criticisms to feed on each other.

So you would also argue that Bruce Jenner is ACTUALLY a woman, in spite of reality, simply because he believes he is.

Once again, objective reality, particularly in the eyes of one who takes text literally, and the reality of what is actually believed by devout or nominal practitioners can vary significantly, especially when you account for the fact that every religion has self-described practitioners whose personal beliefs and any understanding you can discern from their book, whatever book that may be, are extremely difficult to connect as being supposedly the same thing.

I also have to add that within the realm of Islam, this problem is compounded by the fact that in most Islamic countries, if you are a male and your father is a Moslem, you are legally automatically a Moslem and cannot legally convert to anything else, in some cases with legal penalties up to and including death. This virtually begs for 'believers' who have greatly varying beliefs and pay lip service to what it takes to prevent prosecution and/or persecution.

I will also share that, as one who takes texts literally, it was difficult for me to grasp this without some assistance. My initial stance was to take the position that 'this is what the book says, therefore this is what it is' without considering the above factors.

 

[Route 45]

What separates a Muslim from a real Muslim?

Usually plastic explosives and nails.

 

[IndyDave1776]

See, this notion has become so common that it is used as though it is fact, without a second thought. I have yet to see proof of this. Could someone please direct me to sources of data that support the notion that most people fleeing from broken countries are dangerous.

I would point out that your argument is based on a false premise, supposedly that foreign nationals have a right to be admitted into the United States unless we have a compelling reason not to.

 

[Route 45]

I see that someone doesn't know the difference between fear and due caution. I hope you don't roll your eyes at the officer safety bulletins at roll call as well.

180 offences on women and children refugees in just Stuttgart, Germany | World | News | Express.co.uk

Nothing to see here.

 

[BugI02]

See, this notion has become so common that it is used as though it is fact, without a second thought. I have yet to see proof of this. Could someone please direct me to sources of data that support the notion that most people fleeing from broken countries are dangerous.

Germany, France, Sweden, Britain ... how many do you need. Too much is made of the idea that nothing has happened to us perpetrated by immigrants from those areas

 

[Lelliott8]

In my case, I tie the two together at the point where I am willing to accept that there are plenty of Moslems who are no more diligent in their doctrine than most Christians, which allows both of your criticisms to feed on each other.



Once again, objective reality, particularly in the eyes of one who takes text literally, and the reality of what is actually believed by devout or nominal practitioners can vary significantly, especially when you account for the fact that every religion has self-described practitioners whose personal beliefs and any understanding you can discern from their book, whatever book that may be, are extremely difficult to connect as being supposedly the same thing.

I also have to add that within the realm of Islam, this problem is compounded by the fact that in most Islamic countries, if you are a male and your father is a Moslem, you are legally automatically a Moslem and cannot legally convert to anything else, in some cases with legal penalties up to and including death. This virtually begs for 'believers' who have greatly varying beliefs and pay lip service to what it takes to prevent prosecution and/or persecution.

I will also share that, as one who takes texts literally, it was difficult for me to grasp this without some assistance. My initial stance was to take the position that 'this is what the book says, therefore this is what it is' without considering the above factors.

I will reiterate my main point differently, and hopefully my meaning will be very clear. What happens when a devout Muslim acts upon his faith earnestly with a literal interpretation of the Muslim doctrine? The result is violent jihad, financial support of jihad, subversion of their enemies societies, drinking camel urine for stomach aches... etc. So there isn't a real problem... until someone actually believes in Islam and follows its teachings.

 

[BugI02]

"If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened." - George S. Patton

.

 

[ATM]

."If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened." - George S. Patton

Bravery is not the absence of fear, it is overcoming fear. The more intelligent they are, the more they have to overcome.

Brave intelligent men are the rarity.

Most fools seem brave.

 

[Denny347]

I would point out that your argument is based on a false premise, supposedly that foreign nationals have a right to be admitted into the United States unless we have a compelling reason not to.

No, no right. But historically we have been quite open for refugees no matter where they were from.

 

[Denny347]

Germany, France, Sweden, Britain ... how many do you need. Too much is made of the idea that nothing has happened to us perpetrated by immigrants from those areas

What are the underlying causes of the issues these countries are having? Why are they having issues? Are they as rampant as the media sources I've read like us to believe?

 

[oldpink]

I'll keep searching for the constitutional basis for unfettered immigration...maybe if I hold the Constitution sideways and squint my eyes just right.

 

[oldpink]

No, no right. But historically we have been quite open for refugees no matter where they were from.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that Jefferson ever opened the floodgates to people from the Barbary Coast, home of the original terrorists and now Libya.
Strange how some things never change.