• 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
What a weird poll is that?

Of course, radical Islam is NOT compatible with a free society.

The much more interesting questions are:

- how "moderate" is mainstream Islam?
- is mainstream Islam compatible with a free society?
- how large is the share of radical vs. mainstream vs. moderate Muslims among all Muslims?

How would we define a 'moderate' Muslim?
 
How would we define a 'moderate' Muslim?

I'd say a moderate is someone who balances religion with other aspects of their life, such as work and family.
 
How would we define a 'moderate' Muslim?

I'd say, when he's not any more opposed to constitutional values than a "moderate Christian" or "moderate Jew", that's fine.

There are Christians who are more than a bit nutty, and it's their right to be, as long as they respect the law and constitution and strictly oppose violence in the name of their religion. The same should apply to Muslims, IMO.
 
I'd say a moderate is someone who balances religion with other aspects of their life, such as work and family.
that's not such a bad definition. The kind you find more at home and less on the streets. Would the male head of the household feel his wife has to wear a head covering, be allowed to drive, go outdoors without an escort? And how easy is it to be a 'moderate' in a Muslim dominated country?

I found it interesting what some Muslims are going through when they are conflicted with Islam, and there are many such sites. Most are anonymous but it rings true. How did it feel to leave Islam? - Quora
 
I'd say, when he's not any more opposed to constitutional values than a "moderate Christian" or "moderate Jew", that's fine.

There are Christians who are more than a bit nutty, and it's their right to be, as long as they respect the law and constitution and strictly oppose violence in the name of their religion. The same should apply to Muslims, IMO.
There are many Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Agnostics who are nutty as well, so every time Islam is mentioned it's not a requirement to also mention Christianity.

The reason Islam is mentioned is because it's in the news a great deal and the term 'moderate' Muslim is often used without much discussion about what that means. Amadeus had a pretty good response. Perhaps it also involves a live and let live, do unto others, philosophy. I find that 'moderate' Muslims, as well as many others, still feel the need to mention US flaws or Christian shortcomings when defending Islam. Of course this religion or the United States is not related to Islam at all.
 
that's not such a bad definition. The kind you find more at home and less on the streets. Would the male head of the household feel his wife has to wear a head covering, be allowed to drive, go outdoors without an escort? And how easy is it to be a 'moderate' in a Muslim dominated country?

Even within moderation there's going to be a range from conservative to liberal, and it's going to vary greatly from country to country. Regarding head coverings and such, some Muslim women wear them out of choice -- even liberal ones. Just as some Indians wear head coverings.

Malala Yousif is very progressive in her views (such that she was/is targeted by the Taliban), and she still chooses to cover her head.

Malala-Yousafzai1.jpg
 
To answer the original question, NO. Absolutely not. These are thoroughly evil supremacists, and there is no living in the world with them. They are part of a cult of blood, cruelty and death. We should send them all to hell, as soon as possible, and we should not hesitate to use very powerful weapons to do it. That will unavoidably mean the deaths of many innocent people, but that is a part of modern war. War criminals cannot be allowed to survive by sheltering among other people, and whoever refuses to turn them out, in whatever country, should expect to share their fate.

The notion that we can't fight a billion and a half people is mindless slop. Of course that's the last think any sane person wants, and it is not necessary. I am sure most of the world's Muslims are amenable to sharing the world with other people. But before that can happen, I think many of them will need to be taught a very hard lesson they will never forget. They need to see just what happens to the savages among them who choose to wage war on the United States.

Let a couple hundred thousand jihadists be killed, let it be done without much apparent effort, so that they and their dreams of glory are exposed as weak and foolish--and all the rest, all over the world, who might secretly have been applauding them in their war against our way of life will quickly start being very careful to condemn them. No better way to make a movement an object of scorn, in a culture of shame like theirs, than to absolutely crush its followers without seeming even to try very hard.

Them, or us. It's that simple, in the end. People here should stop wringing their hands and trying to deny the obvious, and resolve to go after these vermin, hammer and tongs, with whatever it takes.
 
To answer the original question, NO. Absolutely not. These are thoroughly evil supremacists, and there is no living in the world with them. They are part of a cult of blood, cruelty and death. We should send them all to hell, as soon as possible, and we should not hesitate to use very powerful weapons to do it. That will unavoidably mean the deaths of many innocent people, but that is a part of modern war. War criminals cannot be allowed to survive by sheltering among other people, and whoever refuses to turn them out, in whatever country, should expect to share their fate.

The notion that we can't fight a billion and a half people is mindless slop. Of course that's the last think any sane person wants, and it is not necessary. I am sure most of the world's Muslims are amenable to sharing the world with other people. But before that can happen, I think many of them will need to be taught a very hard lesson they will never forget. They need to see just what happens to the savages among them who choose to wage war on the United States.

Let a couple hundred thousand jihadists be killed, let it be done without much apparent effort, so that they and their dreams of glory are exposed as weak and foolish--and all the rest, all over the world, who might secretly have been applauding them in their war against our way of life will quickly start being very careful to condemn them. No better way to make a movement an object of scorn, in a culture of shame like theirs, than to absolutely crush its followers without seeming even to try very hard.

Them, or us. It's that simple, in the end. People here should stop wringing their hands and trying to deny the obvious, and resolve to go after these vermin, hammer and tongs, with whatever it takes.

Good lord. The real danger is that someone like you gain a position of power in the world.

Playing wack-a-mole with Muslim extremists is playing right into their hands. For every one you kill, ten will emerge. Especially if you bomb 'many innocent people', which you admit is unavoidable.

You're a neocon's wet dream on steroids.
 
Good lord. The real danger is that someone like you gain a position of power in the world.

Playing wack-a-mole with Muslim extremists is playing right into their hands. For every one you kill, ten will emerge. Especially if you bomb 'many innocent people', which you admit is unavoidable.

You're a neocon's wet dream on steroids.


What the hell is a neocon? And whose wet dream do you imagine you are? I've seen that kind of personally insulting drivel directed at other posters enough times to know the likes of you use it as a mindless substitute for the reasoned arguments you don't have game enough to make. If those other ten bastards you claim will come out for each one that's killed actually do, I'm sure the U.S. has more than enough bombs to kill them too.

By your lights, bombing the Germans and Japanese in WWII was playing right into their hands. For every one we killed, ten more emerged. We should just have talked nicely to them and tried to understand their point of view, because it's always wrong to make any other human feel invalidated and yucky. And violence never solves anything. And an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And arms are for hugging . . .
 
What the hell is a neocon?

A neocon (in this context) is someone who thinks that the military should be used aggressively, rather than defensively -- to promote change in other regions in order to secure America's interests. Neocons were responsible for the Iraq invasion, which amplified terrorism and extremism in the region to an unprecedented degree.

I've seen that kind of personally insulting drivel directed at other posters enough times to know the likes of you use it as a mindless substitute for the reasoned arguments you don't have game enough to make. If those other ten bastards you claim will come out for each one that's killed actually do, I'm sure the U.S. has more than enough bombs to kill them too.

Your argument boils down to, 'Kill 'em all'. Do you think that is a reasoned position?
 
What the hell is a neocon? And whose wet dream do you imagine you are? I've seen that kind of personally insulting drivel directed at other posters enough times to know the likes of you use it as a mindless substitute for the reasoned arguments you don't have game enough to make. If those other ten bastards you claim will come out for each one that's killed actually do, I'm sure the U.S. has more than enough bombs to kill them too.

By your lights, bombing the Germans and Japanese in WWII was playing right into their hands. For every one we killed, ten more emerged. We should just have talked nicely to them and tried to understand their point of view, because it's always wrong to make any other human feel invalidated and yucky. And violence never solves anything. And an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. And arms are for hugging . . .

Agreed. And those terrorists have a target for propaganda in the US-and its not American conservatives.
 
Neocons were responsible for the Iraq invasion, which amplified terrorism and extremism in the region to an unprecedented degree.
Extremism in Iraq was always Muslims murdering other Muslims. The Americans and other democracies actually introduced democracy to the country for the first time in its history. ISIS arose only after the American and Coalition forces withdrew, with BHO calling the country 'stable' at that time.
Your argument boils down to, 'Kill 'em all'. Do you think that is a reasoned position?
He did not say "kill 'em all". That is false. The only number mentioned was "a couple of hundred thousand", which is a very modest guess at the number of terrorists and their sympathizers..

Are you making the argument that Islamic terrorists should be allowed to run free?
 
Is radical Islam compatible with a free society?

Since radical Islam considers itself at war with the rest of the world, including non-radicalized muslims, I think the question pretty much answers itself.
 
Extremism in Iraq was always Muslims murdering other Muslims. The Americans and other democracies actually introduced democracy to the country for the first time in its history. ISIS arose only after the American and Coalition forces withdrew, with BHO calling the country 'stable' at that time.

Oh, no. History doesn't begin in 2011. 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). 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. 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?

He did not say "kill 'em all". That is false.

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.

Are you making the argument that Islamic terrorists should be allowed to run free?

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.
 
We are seeing restriction on a free and open society even in the US from islamists.

Presumably this is Muslims being restricted because their following a law that is more restrictive than US law? If it's voluntary so what? Is US being violated?
And if so are the violators not being arrested on a large scale?
 
Since radical Islam considers itself at war with the rest of the world, including non-radicalized muslims, I think the question pretty much answers itself.

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.
 
Presumably this is Muslims being restricted because their following a law that is more restrictive than US law? If it's voluntary so what? Is US being violated?
And if so are the violators not being arrested on a large scale?

Its being implemented on private citizens who have nothing to do with sharia law.

They didn't consent-own it.
 
This is not a wargame for me to "concede."

"concession" is a debate term where you concede that the other's position is the correct one.

Weak-o-pedia is not worth my time, and it never works in debates with me.


It's a list of conflicts and the deaths as a result of them. If the truth and facts are not "worth your time" then what is?

here are some not wiki...

Highest death toll from wars | Guinness World Records
American War Deaths Through History
World War II death toll of all nations


Would you like to tell me how these don't count either?
 
"concession" is a debate term where you concede that the other's position is the correct one.




It's a list of conflicts and the deaths as a result of them. If the truth and facts are not "worth your time" then what is?

here are some not wiki...

Highest death toll from wars | Guinness World Records
American War Deaths Through History
World War II death toll of all nations


Would you like to tell me how these don't count either?

Agreed. Nevermind that up to the level of medicine (where data is critical to living) wiki is almost always correct. He's being intellectually lazy.
 
Agreed. Nevermind that up to the level of medicine (where data is critical to living) wiki is almost always correct. He's being intellectually lazy.




It's not like I'm asking him to accept the goofy "left libertarian" premise on wiki. lol
 
2000 nigerians are believed killed today after a Boko Haram attack. Yesterday many died in Paris by local muslims. In france on new years day alone, nearly 1000 cars were burned by islamic "protestors". ISIS continues to flourish.

islammap2.jpg


World wide, the death toll continues to climb-whats clear is that the presence of islam often leads to violence, in fact many of the worlds current military conflicts involve islam in a significant way. We live in an international world, where relations between nations matter, and where many value a free society.

Is radical Islam compatible with a free society?

Probably not. I'm not an expert on Islam but from what I think I understand, their society places the greatest focus on "the collective," which manifests itself in a diminishing of individual rights. A free society means individuals are free to live as they choose; speak, worship, learn, etc. provided no other person is harmed. From my gathering, it seems the only individual rights allowed in Islam are the rights men have over women and the right to honor, which can result in death if violated in certain circumstances. I apologize if I have misunderstood.
 
"concession" is a debate term where you concede that the other's position is the correct one.

I do not prescribe to such military terms.

It's a list of conflicts and the deaths as a result of them. If the truth and facts are not "worth your time" then what is?

here are some not wiki...

Highest death toll from wars | Guinness World Records
American War Deaths Through History
World War II death toll of all nations

Would you like to tell me how these don't count either?

Yes, they do not count because they do not cover all the historical world wars that were not done in the name of religion. It is just WW1, WW2, and USA civil war. There is more than that in military exchanges.

The convincing non-Weaky references would have to put all the wars that were not done in the name of religion in one side, and put all the wars that were done in the name of religion on the other side. The death tolls from both should then be compared.
 
I do not prescribe to such military terms.

/facepalm



Yes, they do not count because they do not cover all the historical world wars that were not done in the name of religion. It is just WW1, WW2, and USA civil war. There is more than that in military exchanges.


You didn't look at the links.


The convincing non-Weaky references would have to put all the wars that were not done in the name of religion in one side, and put all the wars that were done in the name of religion on the other side. The death tolls from both should then be compared.


I've proven my case, your argument is a childish "nuh uh". I think we are done here.
 
Pedophilia is almost universally lothed, at least here-though leftists try to let them out of jail asap.
Even amongst prisoners-pedophiles are unsafe.

I heard that it is especially unsafe in prison, and that they are put in special confinement areas for that?
 
Back
Top Bottom