@no1marauder saidMuslims who threaten the lives of others Yes!! Muslims in many parts of the world are killing Christians, Apostates, unbelievers, Iran is killing protesters, raping women, same in Afganistan. Yes, get rid of these regimes by whatever means necessary. Get rid of all Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Houthis.
So liquidate all Muslims + liquidate anyone who doesn't support the liquidation of all Muslims.
Got it.
You want to wait until one specific Muslims kill, and then get rid of that one Muslim. You are a damn fool. You are one of them waiting for Islam to take over the world.
@sh76 saidEuropean and left wing Americans have been curiously slow to wake up to the threat Zionist extremism poses. From the link below:
Indeed.
European and left wing Americans have been curiously slow to wake up to the threat Islamic extremism poses.
"The reader may be dumbfounded by my calling Shamir part of a pro-Nazi gang, but it's literally true. Lehi was fascist in form and practice, admired Nazi Germany right into 1942, and attempted to make a military alliance with Adolph Hitler.
Lehi was commonly referred to by Palestinian Jews as "the Stern Gang" after its top leader Avraham Stern. Lenni Brenner has written extensively about its attempt to link with the Nazis. Documents found after the Second World War showed that in January and again in December of 1941, the group sent representatives to meet with Nazi officials to establish a military alliance. The Nazis weren't interested.
Now, the full dimensions of the Holocaust were not known in 1941, but the atrocities had certainly begun. After all, on "Kristallnacht" back in 1938, the Nazis murdered a hundred German Jews and put 30,000 in concentration camps. How in blazes could a Jewish group in 1941 want to ally with Nazi Germany?
Avnery explains things this way: "Stern was a logical person. The aim was to set up a Jewish state in all of Palestine. The enemy was the British empire. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Therefore, we must cooperate with the Nazis." Avnery writes that in 1940, he himself was "tempted," but in the end, he rejected Stern's "atrocious logic."
As Stern explained it at the time, there were "persecutors" and there were "enemies." The Nazis, he said, were "persecutors," just like many others through the ages. Worse, though, were the "enemies" who ruled over the land that belonged to the Jews, the British. So according to this mad logic, the British were worse than the Nazis.'
https://socialistworker.org/2012/07/23/tell-the-truth-about-shamir
When the Israeli people voted this known terrorist and Nazi collaborator to be their prime minister were they aware of it? Because if they were aware of it Israel Zionist are terrorists. Right? And Israel has to be considered a terrorist state, Right?
Who is extreme? Your psychological projection is off the charts. Zionists like you put a Nazi sympathizer into power in Israel. A nutjob terrorist who turned against the very people that encouraged Zionism in the first place and killed the British. It doesn't get more extreme than that.
@no1marauder saidNo, I mean that Islamic extremists who end up in Europe or North America often have zero interest in assimilating, and their ultimate goal is to force western culture to adapt to Islamist principles. They really don't make much of a secret about it, even though people like you insist on ignoring it or pretending it's not happening.
You mean they've been reluctant to support military excursions in the Middle East or to get on board Rajk's crusade to exterminate all Muslims?
I have no interst in exterminating anyone. What I do think is a good idea is to carefully vet all potential immigrants, and allow them in only if they're most likely willing to at least tolerate our culture.
@sh76 saidAs long as they're peaceful and productive, I don't care what the religious beliefs of immigrants are.
No, I mean that Islamic extremists who end up in Europe or North America often have zero interest in assimilating, and their ultimate goal is to force western culture to adapt to Islamist principles. They really don't make much of a secret about it, even though people like you insist on ignoring it or pretending it's not happening.
I have no interst in exterminating anyone. W ...[text shortened]... immigrants, and allow them in only if they're most likely willing to at least tolerate our culture.
Neither should you.
@no1marauder saidYou are a Muslim, and that is why you dont care if Muslims religious beliefs include that they should ...
As long as they're peaceful and productive, I don't care what the religious beliefs of immigrants are.
Neither should you.
- kill unbelievers or Christians,
- rape women,
- practice their pedophalia,
which is what they are in fact doing in many parts of the world.
But .... some people do care what their religious beliefs are.
Muslims should be stopped at the border and returned to their Islamic nation.
@no1marauder saidIf a prospective immigrant's sincerely held religious belief is that he's entering a Dar al-Harb ("territory of war" - the counterpart to Dar al-Islam, which is ruled under Islamic law), it is unlikely that the person will be peaceful and productive in the long run.
As long as they're peaceful and productive, I don't care what the religious beliefs of immigrants are.
Neither should you.
https://www.learnreligions.com/dar-al-harb-vs-dar-al-islam-250224
We've always screened immigrants based on likelihood that they would cooperate with our culture. I see no reason to stop doing that now.
@Rajk999 saidI don't agree with that.
You are a Muslim, and that is why you dont care if Muslims religious beliefs include that they should ...
- kill unbelievers or Christians,
- rape women,
- practice their pedophalia,
which is what they are in fact doing in many parts of the world.
But .... some people do care what their religious beliefs are.
Muslims should be stopped at the border and returned to their Islamic nation.
There are moderate Muslims who believe in living in peace and obeying the law of whatever society they're in. I have no problem admitting them (within the other immigration laws structure, of course).
I only would categorically refuse to admit people who will not sincerely commit to living at peace with the society they are entering and whose background is consistent with that belief.
1 edit
@sh76 saidMaybe like Bill the Butcher's idea of what constitutes acceptable "cooperation with our culture"?
If a prospective immigrant's sincerely held religious belief is that he's entering a Dar al-Harb ("territory of war" - the counterpart to Dar al-Islam, which is ruled under Islamic law), it is unlikely that the person will be peaceful and productive in the long run.
https://www.learnreligions.com/dar-al-harb-vs-dar-al-islam-250224
We've always screened immigrants based on likelihood that they would cooperate with our culture. I see no reason to stop doing that now.
Or Heinrich Himmler's?
Too much arbitrary power to the State IMO.
Of course, "our culture" is a misnomer; there are many cultures in the US.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidMulticultural is not the same thing as no culture.
Maybe like Bill the Butcher's idea of what constitutes acceptable "cooperation with our culture"?
Or Heinrich Himmler's?
Too much arbitrary power to the State IMO.
Of course, "our culture" is a misnomer; there are many cultures in the US.
A common denominator is that most of us believe in democracy and freedom of speech, religion, and expression. We believe in limited government and that government should not force religion on people. Obviously, there are nuances, but that common denominator is pretty broadly agreed to.
Allowing in immigrants who firmly believe in theocracy, forced religion and in, for example, making blashpemy a capital crime, or discriminating based on religion or lack thereof, is bound to lead to problems.
1 edit
@Rajk999 saidIt doesn't work because they're not really doing it.
Oh ... that.
Background checks are carried out on all immigrants applying for residence or citizenship, by all major western nations .. EU, plus Australia and NZ.
Somehow I dont think that works.
If you put in safeguards to ensure that only people whose record indicates that they share our values on freedom may not be foolproof, but it would work the vast majority of the time.
Between social media and public records, you can tell an awful lot about someone in today's day and age. Of course, as part of the immigration application, immigrants should be required to disclose their social media info. Just as there's no right to privacy in terms of the contents of your luggage at a custom's point, by applying for immigration, you temporarily give up your right to privacy so that you can be examined by immigration authorities.
@sh76 saidI thought what with Christian Nationalists trying to take over, your description of immigrants makes them perfectly assimilated to the burgeoning home faith based crowd.
Allowing in immigrants who firmly believe in theocracy, forced religion and in, for example, making blashpemy a capital crime, or discriminating based on religion or lack thereof, is bound to lead to problems.
@kmax87 saidPoke fun if you like, but this country used to be far more religious than it is now, and freedom of religion and expression has been a fundamental principle in the history of the US, and of most democracies.
I thought what with Christian Nationalists trying to take over, your description of immigrants makes them perfectly assimilated to the burgeoning home faith based crowd.