That is a perfectly good question from your point of view.
Eh I found it. I didn’t expect much so I wasn’t super let down. He just states that Muslims are 5000x more likely to commit terror, but in no way explains what he considers a “terror” attack.
C’est la vie.
2 Likes
But you have said over and over that Islam is inherently dangerous - “it’s holy book demands killing of non-believers!” - if is truly that dangerous, don’t we have to do something about its practitioners in America?
If we truly need to stop the evils of Islam from hurting America, how is restricting a few thousand Muslims a year going to do any good when we have millions here already?
Isn’t that the equivalent of forbidding a person afflicted with lung cancer from smoking but doing nothing about the cancer that already exists inside the body?
This is a source read by people who hate Trump, NRO is considered a credible source here
Which is awesome (sorta). That doesn’t make it credible to me. For example, does the author consider [insert crazy guy shooting up a school here] an act of terror? How about [white guy shoots up black church]?
The problem with citing stats on “terror attacks” is usually that if a white person does it, they went crazy (regardless of their religion or political leanings), but when a brown guy with a Quran does it, we call it terror.
Edit: the author of the article is the head of a conservative organization that openly wants to lower immigration, hence my questions
1 Like
More Muslims = more terrorist attacks
Do you have any interest in leaving behind a safe country for your future descendants or is everything about the here and now for you?
I suppose it is not impossible to figure out why billions of people who have lived under political systems that could imprison, torture, or execute the citizenry, would live ‘peaceably’. I suspect most people will do whatever they have to, in order to live - whatever personal convictions they may claim to hold.
But I would think this would be of interest to someone in the legal profession.
or these comments Taken from zero hedge article and then looked up myself
These aren’t fringe players. These are the top officials representing the Muslim establishment
in America today.
Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”
Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time… What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”…
You’re evading my question - if we are truly in the civilizational fight of our lives against irredeemable Muslims, shouldn’t we do something about the millions here (who will also procreate new Muslims far faster than Muslims will immigrate)?
Yes? Or no?
Unfortunately it’s too late to do anything if their already citizens. If they’re green card or visa holders deport them immediately
Not to mention any attempt at Nation building in the middle east has been a disaster
Oh no, there are options. We could amend the Constitution to outlaw practice of Islam and strip citizenship. Would you personally support such an amendment?
Not yet.
If conditions get to the way they are in Germany or France it may come to that.
Edit : the banning mosques and practicing Islam part not stripping citizenship
From the same article:
The majority of the countries surveyed thought Sharia should only apply to Muslims. Only 5 of 21 broke the 50%+ barrier (24%)
The vast majority oppose extremism:
Not feasible. If you ban mosques and practice of Islam but do NOT strip citizenship then you have just made the “guerrilla war” monumentally worse and created millions of partisans. That’s abominably dumb. If you ban mosque and practice then you must be default–if not by letter of the amended law–strip citizenship so that they may be deported and/or jailed without due process. To do otherwise would be extremely naive.
That’s what this leads to, and that’s one of a 1000 reasons your position is terrible.
2 Likes
How many lynchings occurred last year? How many racially motivated cop killings?
So if we boil “race relations” down to “racially motivated murder”. Then race relations are infinitely better than the late 1960’s or earlier. Now are people nice to each other all the time? No. But they never were.
3 Likes
You might very well be right.
There may be no solution
Anyways this thread isn’t supposed to be about Islam this is a thread about the biology of race.
Some races of women start puberty earlier than others
https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/genetics-puberty-and-african-american-girls/
Most Muslim-majority countries incorporate sharia at some level in their legal framework, with many calling it the highest law or the source of law of the land in their constitution.[61][62] Most use sharia for personal law (marriage, divorce, domestic violence, child support, family law, inheritance and such matters).[63][64] Elements of sharia are present, to varying extents, in the criminal justice system of many Muslim-majority countries.[65] Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Brunei, Qatar, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and Mauritania apply the code predominantly or entirely while it applies in some parts of Indonesia.
Since the 1970s, most Muslim-majority countries have faced vociferous demands from their religious groups and political parties for immediate adoption of sharia as the sole, or at least primary, legal framework
Wiki ^^^
Do you think it will work for the US to potentially have a parallel legal system?
Racially motivated stats are difficult to track.
But race is a major fault line in society. As societies become increasingly diverse, the incidence of racially motivated crimes increase
No, because the first amendment would have to be changed in order for this to happen and that ain’t gonna happen.