• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan 'said Muslims should rise up'

EpicDude86 said:
Yeah, there are some neighborhoods the police can't go into unless they are welcomed (haha) or heavily armed. Check ALL sources, liberal and conservative. These neighborhoods exist, and guess who lives there. It's not the English Defense League, brother.
Click to expand...

I asked you to show me a single one of these. You haven't. All you've done is show me hyperbolic rubbish. Where are these neighborhoods that are run by Sharia law? Please understand the difference between what is actually happening and what you are portraying it as.
 
some very disturbing developments from this week with stephanopoulos

general casey, questioned about fort hood

(paraphrasing, from notes)

casey---he acted alone, that's our determination, for now, it may evolve

stephy---reports early there were 2 or 3

casey---they were running from police, they were released

stephy---weren't there warning signs, hasan's anti american "rants," the internet activity of a person who used the same name?

stephy---his fellow student, val finell, said, "i'm not surprised he did it, i had real questions about what his priorities were, what his beliefs were, fear of appearing discriminatory against a muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint"

Some saw trouble ahead for Fort Hood suspect | National News | Comcast.net

(the link copied mentions military investigators looking into the trajectory of bullets fired, as if they're examining the possibility of more than one shooter)

me: i don't believe, as of now, hasan had friends, it doesn't sound right, hopefully we won't later learn different

casey---the investigation must take its course, i have no comment on the possibility of fellow conspirators

stephy---so you can't rule out anything?

me: the msm has tried very hard this week NOT to examine hasan's obvious motives, but they can't ignore them, the shooter's particular brand of hate is just too loud and obvious to overlook

me: the msm has tried to turn this story, instead, in its more favored directions---ptsd (even tho hasan was never overseas), where he got his guns

stephy---3000 muslims in the US military, a challenge? this isn't the first incident of fratricide by a disaffected muslim

casey---any speculation could heighten an anti-muslim backlash, our army and our society are very diverse, it's our strength

stephy---stress, repeated deployments, our troops?

casey---we will do whatever it takes to ensure the mental well being of our force, our new $125 million Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, resilience skills taught at the U of PN

etc

please don't jump to conclusions

patience
 
Hatuey said:
In other words, these courts only have power if you decide to go to them. How this equates to Sharia law running the neighborhoods of British citizens is beyond me. Hyperbolic much?
Click to expand...

Read much?

Please try and think about what you are saying. These courts are being used in marital disputes. Sharia law is extremely clear that the favor goes toward the man. Women cannot divorce without their husband's conscent, etc. In the UK, it even costs more for women

The Islamic Sharia Council is listed as a charity but people seeking a divorce, or talaq, must fill in a form and pay a fee. For a man it is £100; for women, it is £250 because the imams say it takes more work to process a woman's application as her word has to be corroborated.

Under Muslim law, a man can divorce his wife simply by uttering the word 'talaq', yet a woman cannot be granted a divorce without the consent of her husband or winning a dissolution of the marriage from the imam. Even if the couple are divorced under British law, they remain married under Islam until divorced under the religious law, too.

So, you are allowing a court to rule on divorce and other martial disputes that not only favors the man but persecutes the woman and you have the gall to pretend a woman in that kind of repressive society would actually have the understanding or choice that there are other courts open to her besides the one of her religion?

Please tell me you aren't that naive. This is a brutal attack on women's rights and you should know that before defending such a despicable and draconian practice.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I asked you to show me a single one of these. You haven't. All you've done is show me hyperbolic rubbish. Where are these neighborhoods that are run by Sharia law? Please understand the difference between what is actually happening and what you are portraying it as.
Click to expand...

I've gathered some British news and international news papers, but you're probably going to claim they've all got conservative bias, so I guess you've foiled me. I'll try and find some objective (or at the very least liberal) publications to support my outrageous claims.
 
Last edited:
bhkad said:
What is the danger, what are the dangers, of having parallel systems of government in America?
Click to expand...

i'm not into the abstruse

i do politics

if you think an adviser at foggy bottom pushing sharia is good for the party, more power to you

for all i know, you're right

but i'd guess different
 
Lieberman just said there were all manner of hints this ass was nutso... and should have been gonzo from the military.

Why wasn't he?

My take... the fear of being smacked as "profiling".

And with that more Americans die.

Profiling should be used.

.
 
The Prof said:
i'm not into the abstruse

i do politics

if you think an adviser at foggy bottom pushing sharia is good for the party, more power to you

for all i know, you're right

but i'd guess different
Click to expand...

I'm merely asking the question. How can I be right when I'm not advocating anything?
 
bhkad said:
I'm merely asking the question. How can I be right when I'm not advocating anything?
Click to expand...

good point, i withdraw my comments

keep kicking obama's butt, friend

cliff
 
texmaster said:
Read much?

Please try and think about what you are saying. These courts are being used in marital disputes.
Click to expand...

If both parties agree. No different then two parties deciding the terms of the divorce in private.

Sharia law is extremely clear that the favor goes toward the man. Women cannot divorce without their husband's conscent, etc. In the UK, it even costs more for women
Click to expand...

And this is if both parties agree. If they do not then I do not see how this does not equate to Sharia law 'running' the neighborhoods of British citizens, I can not help what is at best your clear lack of reading comprehension or at worst a distortion of the matter.

The Islamic Sharia Council is listed as a charity but people seeking a divorce, or talaq, must fill in a form and pay a fee. For a man it is £100; for women, it is £250 because the imams say it takes more work to process a woman's application as her word has to be corroborated.

Under Muslim law, a man can divorce his wife simply by uttering the word 'talaq', yet a woman cannot be granted a divorce without the consent of her husband or winning a dissolution of the marriage from the imam. Even if the couple are divorced under British law, they remain married under Islam until divorced under the religious law, too.

So, you are allowing a court to rule on divorce and other martial disputes that not only favors the man but persecutes the woman and you have the gall to pretend a woman in that kind of repressive society would actually have the understanding or choice that there are other courts open to her besides the one of her religion?

Please tell me you aren't that naive. This is a brutal attack on women's rights and you should know that before defending such a despicable and draconian practice.

Sharia law UK... How Islam is dispensing its own justice side-by-side with British courts | Mail Online
Click to expand...

Again my friend with a clear inability to the difference between what he is saying, what his conservative source is distorting and what the reality is, the source makes it clear that BOTH parties must agree to using Sharia law in order for it to have any power. Any talk of Sharia law being a violation of women's right is rubbish. If a Muslim chooses to divorce through it, that's HER prerogative. I'm still waiting for any evidence of Sharia law running the neighborhoods of British citizens. But since all you can do is provide rhetoric, hyperbolic and clearly deceiving 'news sources' I guess I'll just have to hold my breath.
 
tjinta ibis said:
So far my theory that he was mentally disturbed first, then due to this went down that slippery slope that exacerbated his belief system, is holding out. There are plenty of American muslims who are angry about our occupations of muslim lands, but they aren't killing Americans because of it. This guy was disturbed, a religious fanatic, and surrounded by people who were involved in doing what he saw as a crusade against his religion. A very dangerous combination.
Click to expand...

Your narrative explains why Hasan acted. Your narrative doesn't explain why the Army failed to remove him after it was discovered he repeatedly expressed extremist views inimical to the organization of which he was a part. Nor does your narrative explain why was selected to attend Homeland Security conferences last year and early this year. We will never win a conflict when we can't bring ourselves to express the name of our enemy.

The guy had Sudden Jihad Syndrome. Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Jews, Christians, Animists, Atheists and Agnostics don't suffer from this malady. What are the causes of Sudden Jihad Syndrome?
 
Hatuey said:
If both parties agree. No different then two parties deciding the terms of the divorce in private.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Still looking through Western Value eyeglasses. When are you going to understand that Islamic culture does not view women and men equal?

And this is if both parties agree. If they do not then I do not see how this does not equate to Sharia law 'running' the neighborhoods of British citizens, I can not help what is at best your clear lack of reading comprehension or at worst a distortion of the matter.
Click to expand...

How many times must you be reminded of how women are treated in Islamic households? They don't have rights. They dont have the ability to speak up and you think just because they are now living in a Western society all of those oppressive laws they live through at home will disappear? You can't be serious. You really believe because a Western government says both parties have to agree that means that women in Islamic households are going to suddenly realize they do have the power to be equal to men because a piece of paper says so?

I see you completly ducked the fact that women have to pay more for a divorce. Why is that? Are you afraid to admit you were wrong about the equal treatment even under the "law"?

Again my friend with a clear inability to the difference between what he is saying, what his conservative source is distorting and what the reality is, the source makes it clear that BOTH parties must agree to using Sharia law in order for it to have any power. Any talk of Sharia law being a violation of women's right is rubbish. If a Muslim chooses to divorce through it, that's HER prerogative. I'm still waiting for any evidence of Sharia law running the neighborhoods of British citizens. But since all you can do is provide rhetoric, hyperbolic and clearly deceiving 'news sources' I guess I'll just have to hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Since you have domonstrated you either have no ability to look beyond pretending all women around the world understand the western culture just because they live in a western state or you simply lack the understanding of how Islam views women as a whole, it doesn't matter. You simply cannot fathom that the vast majority of these women have no rights in their own home. Forget Sharia. Islamic households do not treat women equally with men. Until you can understand that you cannot begin to understand how trapped they are and no piece of paper is going to help you understand that the equality of women in the West is not shared in Islamic households or in Islamic law.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
If someone in the army was saying that muslims should rise up and kill americans, and that he wanted people to strap on bombs and go to times square, and that he was giddy about US soldiers being killed, don't you think someone would have mentioned this before this incident?
Click to expand...



Answer:

"fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint"
General Casey, U.S. Army

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...muslims-should-rise-up-11.html#post1058352400


The same disease that is on this board, fear of appearing discriminatory against Muslims.

It's gross and pathetic.

American lives have been lost due to political correctness.

Instead of policy revisions to screen out risks to the military, such as Muslims who have close ties to the Middle East conflict, who wear Muslim garb, who shout anti-American rhetoric and cheer the enemy, the reverse is more likely to occur: More hate crime legislation, more push to have open mindedness concerning objections to the mission, etc.
 
Hatuey said:
If both parties agree. No different then two parties deciding the terms of the divorce in private.



And this is if both parties agree. If they do not then I do not see how this does not equate to Sharia law 'running' the neighborhoods of British citizens, I can not help what is at best your clear lack of reading comprehension or at worst a distortion of the matter.



Again my friend with a clear inability to the difference between what he is saying, what his conservative source is distorting and what the reality is, the source makes it clear that BOTH parties must agree to using Sharia law in order for it to have any power. Any talk of Sharia law being a violation of women's right is rubbish. If a Muslim chooses to divorce through it, that's HER prerogative. I'm still waiting for any evidence of Sharia law running the neighborhoods of British citizens. But since all you can do is provide rhetoric, hyperbolic and clearly deceiving 'news sources' I guess I'll just have to hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Ild also like to see evidence that police need guns to go into muslim areas. As i non-muslim ive never had any trouble entering these places.
 
texmaster said:
Sigh. Still looking through Western Value eyeglasses. When are you going to understand that Islamic culture does not view women and men equal?



How many times must you be reminded of how women are treated in Islamic households? They don't have rights. They dont have the ability to speak up and you think just because they are now living in a Western society all of those oppressive laws they live through at home will disappear? You can't be serious. You really believe because a Western government says both parties have to agree that means that women in Islamic households are going to suddenly realize they do have the power to be equal to men because a piece of paper says so?

I see you completly ducked the fact that women have to pay more for a divorce. Why is that? Are you afraid to admit you were wrong about the equal treatment even under the "law"?



Since you have domonstrated you either have no ability to look beyond pretending all women around the world understand the western culture just because they live in a western state or you simply lack the understanding of how Islam views women as a whole, it doesn't matter. You simply cannot fathom that the vast majority of these women have no rights in their own home. Forget Sharia. Islamic households do not treat women equally with men. Until you can understand that you cannot begin to understand how trapped they are and no piece of paper is going to help you understand that the equality of women in the West is not shared in Islamic households or in Islamic law.
Click to expand...

sure, both parties must agree

mrs abdullah and mr abdullah

christine and pete

LOL!

SJS---sudden jihad syndrome

PMS---post mohammedan stress
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
If both parties agree. No different then two parties deciding the terms of the divorce in private.



And this is if both parties agree. If they do not then I do not see how this does not equate to Sharia law 'running' the neighborhoods of British citizens, I can not help what is at best your clear lack of reading comprehension or at worst a distortion of the matter.



Again my friend with a clear inability to the difference between what he is saying, what his conservative source is distorting and what the reality is, the source makes it clear that BOTH parties must agree to using Sharia law in order for it to have any power. Any talk of Sharia law being a violation of women's right is rubbish. If a Muslim chooses to divorce through it, that's HER prerogative. I'm still waiting for any evidence of Sharia law running the neighborhoods of British citizens. But since all you can do is provide rhetoric, hyperbolic and clearly deceiving 'news sources' I guess I'll just have to hold my breath.
Click to expand...

UK: Sharia law superseding British law - Jihad Watch
 
texmaster said:
Sigh. Still looking through Western Value eyeglasses. When are you going to understand that Islamic culture does not view women and men equal?

How many times must you be reminded of how women are treated in Islamic households? They don't have rights. They dont have the ability to speak up and you think just because they are now living in a Western society all of those oppressive laws they live through at home will disappear? You can't be serious. You really believe because a Western government says both parties have to agree that means that women in Islamic households are going to suddenly realize they do have the power to be equal to men because a piece of paper says so?

I see you completly ducked the fact that women have to pay more for a divorce. Why is that? Are you afraid to admit you were wrong about the equal treatment even under the "law"?

Since you have domonstrated you either have no ability to look beyond pretending all women around the world understand the western culture just because they live in a western state or you simply lack the understanding of how Islam views women as a whole, it doesn't matter. You simply cannot fathom that the vast majority of these women have no rights in their own home. Forget Sharia. Islamic households do not treat women equally with men. Until you can understand that you cannot begin to understand how trapped they are and no piece of paper is going to help you understand that the equality of women in the West is not shared in Islamic households or in Islamic law.
Click to expand...


This is tedious. Are your parents home? Because I don't see how a grown adult can keep arguing against the same simple facts over and over again and not understand what they are being told.

Yes, Islamic culture in some aspects treats it's women bellow women. And what? The Muslim women that live in Western society have the choice to go through the courts of their religion OR those of the country they live in. Either way it's their prerogative regardless of whether you accept it or not.

It is not any different then two secular parties agreeing to divorce terms in closed quarters and with little outside input. I keep reading your post and it does nothing to support the assessment that Sharia law is now running British neighborhoods. This is the third time I ask for such information.

Aside from the fact that your post is a gross generalization of Islamic culture, you can't seem to comprehend that at the end of the day it is their prerogative if they want a 3rd party to help them solve their marital dispute regardless of what your beliefs are. What makes you think they wouldn't come to the same terms under British divorce law? Your argument ignores that at the end of the day:

1) it's none of your silly business how these people decide to divorce.

and

2) the outcome would still be the same if the women are as brainwashed as you seem to think they are.
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
lol, you used Jihad Watch as an example? As much as I love JW, They're gonna tear that reference up.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in blanket disqualifying of most well known sources.
 
American said:
Liberals think Rather and Olberman are the best journalists whoever lived.
Click to expand...


lol, well the truth of the matter is Stossel is the best journalist. ever. Just look at his mustache. You cannot deny it.
 
EpicDude86 said:
lol, well the truth of the matter is Stossel is the best journalist. ever. Just look at his mustache. You cannot deny it.
Click to expand...
You heathen, you'd make a lousy liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom