• 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!

Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

The Ijma of the Ulama in all five major schools of Islamic Fiqh is that apostasy, adultery, sodomy, and/or premarital sex are to punished with death and/or beatings. Those are the only accepted views in mainstream Islam.

Are you saying that is never going to change? Other religions have evolved and reformed. Islam will too. And even if the core doctrine never changes, average people will eventually reject it. It happens to every religion eventually. It's already starting to happen to Islam. Especially in the West. You'd have to be quite obtuse not to see the trend already happening.
 
I don't fault him for his political opinions regarding the reasons for 9/11.

You mean his justification. No shock you don't condemn him for it.

Other prominent people who aren't Muslim, nor truthers have come to similar conclusions.

Terrorist supporters? yes.

That said I do find his reluctance to admit that Hamas engages in terrorist activities quite worrisome.

Worrisome? He's an Islamic terrorist supporter. Jesus dude call it for what it is.
 
Please, understand the difference between international terrorist groups and actual legal residents and citizens. The latter has next to nothing to do with the former.

Yes, in some cases it does. Here's an update

Alaska terrorism: Terrorism case shocks remote Alaska town - latimes.com

"Obviously we take it very seriously when somebody starts talking about building bombs and component parts and killing citizens because of a hatred that is fueled by violent Internet sites," said Karen L. Loeffler, U.S. attorney for Alaska.

Loeffler, who would not elaborate on how the FBI became aware of the Rockwoods, said the investigation does not involve any other terrorism suspects, and no additional charges are expected.

The plea agreements the couple signed said Paul Rockwood converted to Islam in late 2001 or early 2002 while living in Virginia and became a follower of radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar Awlaki, now believed to be living in Yemen.

You also have to remember that for every person willing to actually kill for a cause, there are 10 who are willing to do something slightly less, such as hire a car or rent an apartment or buy a plane ticket.

Then there are 100 who would gladly donate money to something they honestly believed was a "charity", and would be more than willing to look the other way if assertions were made that the "charity" was actually a front for raising money for terrorists.
 
Are you saying that is never going to change?

I'm saying that it hasn't changed yet and considering that not even one of the five schools has a moderate stance it is unlikely to change in the forseable future.

Other religions have evolved and reformed. Islam will too. And even if the core doctrine never changes, average people will eventually reject it. It happens to every religion eventually. It's already starting to happen to Islam. Especially in the West. You'd have to be quite obtuse not to see the trend already happening.

Even if he argued for changing the punishments, there is no way he could change the fact that non-crimes are criminilzed under Sharia; such as, homosexuality and premarital sex since those things are explicitly outlawed by the Koran. The reason why Sharia is incompatible with a free society is because it is based on the assumption that it comes from the irrevocable and unchangeable word of god for all times and all places where as secular legislation can be repealed or amended because it is recognized that it comes not from god but by fallible men who could not possibly forsee the future.
 
Last edited:
You mean his justification. No shock you don't condemn him for it.

Did he say that 9/11 was a good thing? Did he actually condone the attack? If he did, I want to see it. Thank you.

As for my not condemning someone else's political opinions, it's just how I am. You of all people should be glad for that. :lol:



Terrorist supporters? yes.

I don't know, I don't really interact with their lot. I was talking about international political analysts.




Worrisome? He's an Islamic terrorist supporter. Jesus dude call it for what it is.

I'll call him that when I'm actually convinced that he is one. You're perfectly welcome to jump to conclusions. It's not my style, however.
 
I'm not a fan of anti-drug legislation but to try to compare trafficking in Schedule II and higher narcotics (which is the only conceivable way you could get a life sentence for it) to consensual sexual intercourse is laughable and just goes to show how desperate you are to defend a barbaric ideology.

You're one of those people who doesn't see the difference between forcing women to wear the burka in public and forcing women to wear a top in public huh?

I can understand why you'd think the comparison was a stretch, but it all has to do with what we're brought up to see as normal. I think you can make a reasonable argument that, if you're going to prohibit victimless crimes, it makes more sense to prohibit adultery. And who's really more fanatical about it? Do Muslim countries have multi-billion dollar bureaucracies dedicated to fighting a War on Sodomy? Do they have helicopters full of armored men with machine guns rapelling through people's skylights to catch them in flagrante delicto? If the police stop you in your car, do you have to submit to a team of dogs sniffing your fingers to make sure you haven't been up to anything naughty? We do all these things in the War on Drugs, and many more that are equally crazy. If you look at it objectively, our society is pathologically fixated on it.

Agent Ferris said:
The last time I checked John Locke wasn't a puritan. Furthermore; laws that existed before the formation of the United States prove nothing about the United States.

Sure they do. We're talking about the same states. They just didn't happen to be united yet.

Agent Ferris said:
Quakers had more of an influence than the Puritans and Quakers were socially liberal.

LOL.
 
Absolutely and gladly. If you think this is the first time someone has pulled that old article on me, you're quite mistaken.

The people referred to by the Swiss police in the article are not residents, nor citizens of this country. They are using our country as a platform for terrorism, like they use other European countries like the UK or Spain. Up until recently, given the peaceful nature and the ethnicity of our Muslim population, we thought we were immune to this sort of activity. It turns out that no country is immune to the presence of international terrorists on their soil. Not even our neutral little country.

These people are ethnically and culturally different from the majority of actual Swiss Muslims. As I pointed out previously, our Muslim population is primarily comprised of people from the Balkans. They are well integrated, hard working people who have been making great efforts to become citizens of this country. Anyone who's tried to gain citizenship here knows what a long, expensive and demanding process it is. Is everything roses and fairy tales? Of course not! Like all immigrant populations, they bring with them their share of issues. The problems we have with this particular group of people have absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism and everything to do with the deep psychological scars some of them still harbor because of what happened to them in Kosovo. Some turn to a life of petty crime. Nothing really major.

Please, understand the difference between international terrorist groups and actual legal residents and citizens. The latter has next to nothing to do with the former.


How can you be so sure?


j-mac
 
I'm saying that it hasn't changed yet and considering that not even one of the five schools has a moderate stance it is unlikely to change in the forseable future.



Even if he argued for changing the punishments, there is no way he could change the fact that non-crimes are criminilzed under Sharia; such as, homosexuality and premarital sex since those things are explicitly outlawed by the Koran. The reason why Sharia is incompatible with a free society is because it is based on the assumption that it comes from the irrevocable and unchangeable word of god for all times and all places where as secular legislation can be repealed or amended because it is recognized that it comes not from god but by fallible men who could not possibly forsee the future.

So how do you explain his willingness to actually modernize and adapt Sharia Law to the secular law of the land he lives in?
 
When he pulls a Tariq Ramadan and actually tries to justify the stoning of women and the cutting of hands, then I'll start worrying about this guy. He seems to be against all of that from what I can gather. He sounds quite moderate to me.

Isn't Tariq Ramadan a Swiss citizen? One of those 'peaceful, hard working' Muslims you laud to me and others?


j-mac
 
How can you be so sure?


j-mac

As sure as anyone can be of the goings on inside their own country. These are the results of a Swiss police investigation. I trust they're doing their job right. I'm not saying that we'll never have a homegrown terrorist in this country. That would be naive in the extreme. But so far, so good.
 
Did he say that 9/11 was a good thing? Did he actually condone the attack? If he did, I want to see it. Thank you.

No he didn't outright condone the attack, he did the next best thing and what Islamists always do, he blamed the victim.

It's the stock "yes terrorism is really really bad but your treatment of Muslims is even worse," that we here from them every time an incident like this occurs.
 
So how do you explain his willingness to actually modernize and adapt Sharia Law to the secular law of the land he lives in?

Like I said all he suggested was changing the penal code, he never suggested changing the law itself only the punishements under the law.
 
As sure as anyone can be of the goings on inside their own country. These are the results of a Swiss police investigation. I trust they're doing their job right. I'm not saying that we'll never have a homegrown terrorist in this country. That would be naive in the extreme. But so far, so good.


Now wait a minute here....You specifically said:

These people are ethnically and culturally different from the majority of actual Swiss Muslims. As I pointed out previously, our Muslim population is primarily comprised of people from the Balkans. They are well integrated, hard working people who have been making great efforts to become citizens of this country. Anyone who's tried to gain citizenship here knows what a long, expensive and demanding process it is. Is everything roses and fairy tales? Of course not! Like all immigrant populations, they bring with them their share of issues. The problems we have with this particular group of people have absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism and everything to do with the deep psychological scars some of them still harbor because of what happened to them in Kosovo. Some turn to a life of petty crime. Nothing really major.

Then you posted:

When he pulls a Tariq Ramadan and actually tries to justify the stoning of women and the cutting of hands, then I'll start worrying about this guy.


The two don't square Maam.


j-mac
 
9-11 was a completely unprovoked attack.

I suppose, if you don't consider killing hundreds of thousands of people a provocation.

Agent Ferris said:
Islam has been at war with us since nearly our founding. The Barbary pirates were attacking us and using Islam as their justification.

Those are two very different assertions.

Agent Ferris said:
Ah the hero Mossadeq who overthrew the Iranian Constitutional Monarchy by dissolving parliament through a fraudulent referendum in which he garnered a 99.9% yay vote.

The constitutional monarchy had evolved in a direction more monarchic than constitutional. Mossadegh dissolved the parliament not in order to rule by decree, but rather to establish a new parliament chosen through fair, open elections. It was a mistake, but arguably a legitimate move in a time of war.

Agent Ferris said:
As he aligned with the Soviets and the Soviet Tudeh party formed in Northern Iran during the Soviet occupation which was only brought to an end through U.S. intervention on Iran's behalf.

This is what's sometimes referred to as a "badge of ignorance," a false claim so outdated and overused that there's no excuse for it any more. Mossadegh's crime wasn't alignment with Russia. It was his nationalist policy of non-alignment and his effort to free Iran of undue influence from both Russia and the West. The idea that he was a communist is a myth created by the CIA, which engaged in false flag violence as part of its black propaganda operation against him.

Agent Ferris said:
What Parliament? There was no Parliament to have consent, because Mossadeq unconstitutionally dissolved Parliament and granted himself the power to make law by decree through a fraudulent referendum in which he garnered a 99.9% yay vote. It was only after Mossadeq dissolved Parliament that the Shah ordered his dismissal.

Wrong again. Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament after the first attempt to dismiss him had failed. True, he had already taken the referendum, but this was only because he'd learned of the plot against him.

Agent Ferris said:
Ya Mossadeq supported democracy by helping to destroy it.

This attitude toward Mossadegh in general is a good example of how Americans react to Muslim democracy when they actually see it trying to get started. It's a nice word and a good pretext for intervention, but it goes right out the window as soon as it conflicts with oil interests.

Iraq is another example. Their government was established under our watch and trumpeted by us as a legitimate democracy, yet we've constantly interfered with it and even attacked some parties when they opposed our ideas on oil rights. Most of the enemies we've fought in Iraq weren't terrorists but just people who wanted to govern themselves. It would be the same way if we went into Iran now. We claim to support the reformers (even though they don't want our help), but if it came to a choice between democracy and oil, we'd do our best to crush them as well.

Agent Ferris said:
What communications? I see no communications listing in that link.

Of particular interest is The CIA station chief's report that "our boys in Ankara did it." There's also the communication from the Turkish military to the US embassy informing them when the coup would take place.

Agent Ferris said:
So an alleged NATO war game that allegedly took place on Turkish soil with troops who took no part in the coup which the only citation for is a wiki article that cites back to a none reviewable journal published by a leftist Alternative Türkeihilfe somehow equates to evidence of U.S. complicity in the coup?

It's a factor, along with the station chief's admission and the history of American intervention in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, etc. It's very much part of a pattern.
 
Last edited:
As sure as anyone can be of the goings on inside their own country. These are the results of a Swiss police investigation. I trust they're doing their job right. I'm not saying that we'll never have a homegrown terrorist in this country. That would be naive in the extreme. But so far, so good.

It's only a matter of time, really.

Sure, some of them may be stupid. And some of them may be inexperienced. But I believe that they'll keep trying - and eventually, some of them will succeed in doing something.

Think about all the "tries" before 9/11. Mixed bag of success and failure. They are adapting and learning.

No matter how vigilant, the Swiss police are, or how much surveillance, the Swiss conduct, sooner or later some of them will succeed.

That is why they are a risk. If you truly believe your religion, then God comes before anything else. The problem is, Islam calls for the subjugation and conversion of the world, by all means, including lying, murder and terror.

So as much as you may wish to be PC tolerant, every Muslim is a potential terrorist.
 
So how do you explain his willingness to actually modernize and adapt Sharia Law to the secular law of the land he lives in?

He wants secular law written in accordance with sharia, not the other way around.

I find it interesting how you use the term "moderate" when describing him, for like many others, what you refer to as moderate is reserved only for Muslims, and not used as you would use the term for anybody else. A Christian preacher wanting to impose the Noahide laws is not a "moderate", yet a Muslim who seeks to impose Sharia is "moderate" simply because he offers some vague mumbo jumbo. It is the fact that the bar is set in such a different place for Muslims than it is for anybody else that reveals one of the aspects of political correctness, this bending over backwards to avoid a consistancy of approach. People SO much want to avoid being considered prejudiced that they define as "moderate" that which is not really moderate in any way, shape or form, otherwise.
 
Isn't Tariq Ramadan a Swiss citizen? One of those 'peaceful, hard working' Muslims you laud to me and others?


j-mac

Yes, he is Swiss. That's why I'm familiar with his rhetoric. He's very closely watched by the authorities, too. And no, he's not one of those "peaceful, hard working Muslims" I was referring to, for the very simple reason that he's not culturally nor ethnically part of that majority I was speaking of. Muslims of Arabic origin are a tiny minority here. Due to quite discriminating Swiss immigration laws it's extremely difficult for them to get a working visa, let alone citizenship.
 
Now wait a minute here....You specifically said:



Then you posted:




The two don't square Maam.


j-mac

Why are you focusing on the exception and not the rule? I don't understand this mindset. It's prevalent throughout this thread. This idea that all Swiss Muslims are Tariq Ramadans is absurd. You do see that, right?

Oh, and in case you're confused about this, Tariq Ramadan is not originally from Kosovo. He doesn't really fit in with the majority of Swiss Muslims.
 
Last edited:
I suppose, if you don't consider killing hundreds of thousands of people a provocation.

So which hundreds of thousands would those be, son and which people in the trade center killed them??

If you are going to justify terrorism like this, at least provide some documentation.
 
Why are you focusing on the exception and not the rule? I don't understand this mindset. It's prevalent throughout this thread. This idea that all Swiss Muslims are Tariq Ramadans is absurd. You do see that, right?

Oh, and in case you're confused about this, Tariq Ramadan is not originally from Kosovo. He doesn't really fit in with the majority of Swiss Muslims.

lol....Political correctness and appeasement is leading you there.

Bottom line - Muslims first, Swiss second. Get your facts straight.
 
He wants secular law written in accordance with sharia, not the other way around.

I find it interesting how you use the term "moderate" when describing him, for like many others, what you refer to as moderate is reserved only for Muslims, and not used as you would use the term for anybody else. A Christian preacher wanting to impose the Noahide laws is not a "moderate", yet a Muslim who seeks to impose Sharia is "moderate" simply because he offers some vague mumbo jumbo. It is the fact that the bar is set in such a different place for Muslims than it is for anybody else that reveals one of the aspects of political correctness, this bending over backwards to avoid a consistancy of approach. People SO much want to avoid being considered prejudiced that they define as "moderate" that which is not really moderate in any way, shape or form, otherwise.

By current Islam standards he can be seen as nothing other than a moderate. Could he be even more moderate? Sure. No doubt.

Hey, by my atheist standards, he's a nutjob. All religious people are. :lol:
 
So which hundreds of thousands would those be, son and which people in the trade center killed them??

If you are going to justify terrorism like this, at least provide some documentation.

They weren't killed by the people in the Trade Center. They were killed by our wars, coups, and blockades.
 
I can understand why you'd think the comparison was a stretch, but it all has to do with what we're brought up to see as normal. I think you can make a reasonable argument that, if you're going to prohibit victimless crimes, it makes more sense to prohibit adultery. And who's really more fanatical about it? Do Muslim countries have multi-billion dollar bureaucracies dedicated to fighting a War on Sodomy? Do they have helicopters full of armored men with machine guns rapelling through people's skylights to catch them in flagrante delicto? If the police stop you in your car, do you have to submit to a team of dogs sniffing your fingers to make sure you haven't been up to anything naughty? We do all these things in the War on Drugs, and many more that are equally crazy. If you look at it objectively, our society is pathologically fixated on it.

A) The anti-drug legislation is far more severe in the Muslim world.

B) Again there is no moral equivocation between the death penalty for consensual sexual relations between adults and anti-drug legislation, your attempts to do so only go to prove that you'll try anything to justify the unjustifiable.

Sure they do. We're talking about the same states. They just didn't happen to be united yet.

Really? Which state Constitutions were written before 1776?


They were and still are socially liberal, not all Quakers are even Christians.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom