• 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!

Is radical Islam compatible with a free society?

Is radical Islam compatible with a free society?

  • Total voters
    55
johndylan1 said:
That isn't Christianity. That is evil perpetrated by those who profess to be Christians. A distinction I'm not sure is appropriate to equally claim for radical vs moderate Islam. No pedophile declares that it is a correct part of their Christian religion to engage in pedophilia, while the radical Islamist does indeed attribute his acts to his submission to God.
Click to expand...

Well stated,

But Muslims tend to deny that the perpetrators of Charlie Hebdo killings are not the word of God, and that the writings are only a matter of interpretations. Either way the deed gets done and you have religious people distancing themselves from it, just like politicians do.
 
US Conservative said:
Chil mos aint safe. Nor should they be. Do you disagree? Whats the view there?
Click to expand...

Chil mos are not safe? Is "Chil mos" the latest slang for pedo's?

Also, what exactly do you want to know about my disagreement? Whether I disagree and disapprove pedophilia activity? Whether I disagree that they are safe in prison? Whether I disagree with liberals and how they (according to your post) try to liberate pedo's asap? Or whether I disagree with the severety of the penalties issued to them?
 
DDD said:
Chil mos are not safe? Is "Chil mos" the latest slang for pedo's?

Also, what exactly do you want to know about my disagreement? Whether I disagree and disapprove pedophilia activity? Whether I disagree that they are safe in prison? Whether I disagree with liberals and how they (according to your post) try to liberate pedo's asap? Or whether I disagree with the severety of the penalties issued to them?
Click to expand...

chil mo=child molester. Do you disagree? And on the severity of punishment?
 
US Conservative said:
chil mo=child molester. Do you disagree? And on the severity of punishment?
Click to expand...

No, I do not disagree about them being unsafe anywhere, and I am glad that is so. Further, I am not satisfied with the severity of the punishment neither. It should be the death penalty for them.
 
US Conservative said:
Its being implemented on private citizens who have nothing to do with sharia law.

They didn't consent-own it.
Click to expand...

It sounds like, from the little reading I did, that the actions are illegal. It's a law enforcement issue. If local LE isn't dealing with it it becomes a Federal issue. What's your point? None of this is legal. It's not like Sharia law applies in Dearborne.
 
Gaius46 said:
Part of the problem of course is what does radical mean. I've seen the term defines so broadly as to encompass a large number of non violent Muslims. The OP seemed to be doing just that.
Click to expand...

No way of avoiding that, but broadly speaking, I think most people should be able to agree on a definition of radicals encompassnig people who want their ideology forced on other people regardless of consent.
 
HK.227 said:
No way of avoiding that, but broadly speaking, I think most people should be able to agree on a definition of radicals encompassnig people who want their ideology forced on other people regardless of consent.
Click to expand...

That works and since doing that legally in the United States is seemingly impossible it really devolves to use of violence.
 
Amadeus said:
Oh, no. History doesn't begin in 2011.
Click to expand...
You're the only one who has referenced that.
ISIS arose after America decided to topple a dictatorship that they facilitated in the first place (you know, by arming Saddam in order to create havoc for Iran).
Click to expand...
ISIS was formed in 2006 once they knew Coalition troops would eventually withdrawn from Iraq.
The people who orchestrated the invasion knew it would be a quagmire, and that after Saddam was defeated that Iraq would splinter into pieces without almost indefinite American presence.
Click to expand...
Yes, without a base in Iraq the results could be predicted, but few at that time knew that an obscure BHO would one day determine US foreign policy.
BHO Obama pulled out, sure, but Malaki was under the Iranians' thumb from the very beginning (way before Obama). They explicitly stated that there was to be NO American presence. Where do you think Malaki was living for the past few decades?
Click to expand...
Malaki was unimportant. The key is that Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, which was certainly misleading. Of course the war in Iraq, and the subsequent slaughter, still continues while creating ever larger problems.
He said kill all the terrorists, and if more arise from bombing inevitably bombing many innocents, kill them too. Sounds like something approaching genocide to me.
Click to expand...
Killing those who are at war with you is not "Genocide" no matter what it sounds like to you. Is killing terrorists is a problem for you? You might be in the minority with this opinion, outside of the Muslim community.
I'm saying that bombing terrorists indefinitely is stupid, since it perpetuates the problem it seeks to solve. America doesn't have enough bombs to solve the problems of the Middle East.
Click to expand...
Certainly they do and using them should be one of the alternatives in dealing with terrorists and those who harbor them. Those who do allow terrorists in their countries also have a decision to make.
 
Grant said:
ISIS was formed in 2006 once they knew Coalition troops would eventually withdrawn from Iraq.
Click to expand...

So its Obama's fault for not keeping troops there illegally and in perpetuity.

Malaki was unimportant.
Click to expand...

He was the leader of Iraq. I guess that's unimportant from a neoconservative prospective.

Killing those who are at war with you is not "Genocide" no matter what it sounds like to you. Is killing terrorists is a problem for you?
Click to expand...

Killing terrorists is a big problem for me when it also causes the deaths of vast number of innocents. Violence begets violence.
 
Amadeus said:
So its Obama's fault for not keeping troops there illegally and in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
They were not there illegally and the troops could remain indefinitely, just as elsewhere in the world. Certainly withdrawing the troops against all military advice was Obama's fault. Who else?
He was the leader of Iraq. I guess that's unimportant from a neoconservative prospective.
Click to expand...
He was unimportant from a security perspective. The welfare of the Iraqi people and the containment of terrorism should have been the priority.
Killing terrorists is a big problem for me when it also causes the deaths of vast number of innocents.
Click to expand...
Killing terrorists may be a personal problem for you but having them free to move around can be very harmful to those who only want to live their lives in peace, and that includes the majority of Muslims.
Violence begets violence.
Click to expand...
Well certainly, which is why those countries harboring terrorists should consider their positions. Hitler and Mussolini, as just two examples, committed acts of violence and paid for it, as should those who support terrorism. And they will pay as soon as the US and other democracies elect strong leaders. ISIS and the like should enjoy their position while they can.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Not export, but force upon.
Click to expand...
Yes, imposing third world beliefs on first world democracies, no matter how 'tolerant' or willfully blind these democracies might be, will not do well over the long term.
 
Gaius46 said:
It sounds like, from the little reading I did, that the actions are illegal. It's a law enforcement issue. If local LE isn't dealing with it it becomes a Federal issue. What's your point? None of this is legal. It's not like Sharia law applies in Dearborne.
Click to expand...

The point is that its happening in American cities as well as european. And its being imposed unilaterally.

As for being a law enforcement issue-this is about much more.
 
US Conservative said:
The point is that its happening in American cities as well as european. And its being imposed unilaterally.

As for being a law enforcement issue-this is about much more.
Click to expand...

Why? Why isn't thus simply a LE issue? What is it if it isn't?
 
Grant said:
They were not there illegally and the troops could remain indefinitely...
Click to expand...

The troops would be there illegally if Malaki wanted them out. And he did, because his allegiance was and is to Iran.

He was unimportant from a security perspective. The welfare of the Iraqi people and the containment of terrorism should have been the priority.
Click to expand...

What America should have done is installed another dictator. Then they wouldn't have to acknowledge SOFA.

Killing terrorists may be a personal problem for you but having them free to move around can be very harmful to those who only want to live their lives in peace, and that includes the majority of Muslims.
Click to expand...

America can be part of the solution, but the solution itself must come from the Middle East. America cannot choose sides in an Islamic war and cannot plug the leaking holes in failed states. Not successfully, anyway.
 
I haven't read this entire thread so I may have missed this. The problem with this question is that there is no definition of what is "radical Islam." Where does regular old plain Jane Islam end and "radical Islam" begin?
 
Assuming that such a thing as radical religion exists, is any radical religion compatible with a free society? Are the religious right's attempts to ban gay marriage compatible with a free society? On the other hand are liberal attempts to force gay marriage on society compatible with a free society?

Very complicated questions.

Over and above that, exactly what is a free society? Does such a thing exist in reality? How can society be called free when there are so many constraints imposed on it's members?
 
Amadeus said:
The troops would be there illegally if Malaki wanted them out. And he did, because his allegiance was and is to Iran.
Click to expand...
Again, Malaki doesn't matter. Do you really think Maliki can tell the US Military and its Commander in Chief that they have to leave??
What America should have done is installed another dictator. Then they wouldn't have to acknowledge SOFA.
Click to expand...
That was an option but SOFA could have been easily negotiated, just as they are all over the world, in over 80 countries.
America can be part of the solution, but the solution itself must come from the Middle East. America cannot choose sides in an Islamic war and cannot plug the leaking holes in failed states. Not successfully, anyway.
Click to expand...
It depends on the State but most are religious and dictatorial screw-ups and don't have much to teach anyone. What they are good at is protecting their turf and not allowing anyone to effect their culture, religion or power structures.. Their hatreds, suspicions and infighting will eventually do them in.
 
Gaius46 said:
That works and since doing that legally in the United States is seemingly impossible it really devolves to use of violence.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. To me your definition seems to be de jure, rather than de facto.
The Nazi's provide a good lithmus test for radicalism, so we should ask ourselves if only those Nazi's who committed crimes against humanity were radicals, or if those who thought non-aryans should be butchered, but didn't actually participate in the atrocities, should also be considered radicals. Being a radical isn't a crime in and of itself, but I certainly do consider those individuals radicals.
 
HK.227 said:
I have to disagree. To me your definition seems to be de jure, rather than de facto.
The Nazi's provide a good lithmus test for radicalism, so we should ask ourselves if only those Nazi's who committed crimes against humanity were radicals, or if those who thought non-aryans should be butchered, but didn't actually participate in the atrocities, should also be considered radicals. Being a radical isn't a crime in and of itself, but I certainly do consider those individuals radicals.
Click to expand...

You also have to remember that there were a lot of people who went along with it out of fear and didn't really buy into the whole Nazi nonsense. I suspect there's plenty of that in the "radical Islam" crowd as well.
 
Cephus said:
You also have to remember that there were a lot of people who went along with it out of fear and didn't really buy into the whole Nazi nonsense. I suspect there's plenty of that in the "radical Islam" crowd as well.
Click to expand...

Sure. And some who truly believed were not evil, but merely misguided, having been raised and brainwashed from infancy under a totalitarian regime.
All in all it's probably a very good thing that civilized societies only prosecute people for the crimes they actually commit. Not that radicals aren't a problem, but one should use different tools for different tasks.
 
HK.227 said:
I have to disagree. To me your definition seems to be de jure, rather than de facto.
The Nazi's provide a good lithmus test for radicalism, so we should ask ourselves if only those Nazi's who committed crimes against humanity were radicals, or if those who thought non-aryans should be butchered, but didn't actually participate in the atrocities, should also be considered radicals. Being a radical isn't a crime in and of itself, but I certainly do consider those individuals radicals.
Click to expand...

You're right. Without an operable definition of what "radical Islam" is you can't speak about what to do about it, which is where the OP pretty clearly really wants to go, so I've been drawing trying to draw the distinction legally. I completely agree with your assessment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom