Topic: Are ALL Muslims a threat to the West?
+Anonymous A — 11.7 years ago #39,781
Or just a small number of crazed fanatics who do not represent the majority?
+Anonymous B — 11.7 years ago, 15 minutes later[T] [B] #437,018
Go to them and pump your fist in the air chanting USA USA USA
Let us know what happened
Let us know what happened
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 11.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #437,020
+Anonymous D — 11.7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #437,024
@OP
Muslims aren't the threat. Religious fanaticism is the threat and it comes in many forms... especially Muslims though.
Muslims aren't the threat. Religious fanaticism is the threat and it comes in many forms... especially Muslims though.
+Anonymous E — 11.7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #437,027
I'd say all. Even the most moderate admit they'd like to see sharia be the law of the land. The biggest difference between the more fanatical muslims, and more liberal ones, is that the latter are patient and believe they'll end up ruling by higher birth rates and immigration, not violence.
+Anonymous F — 11.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #437,031
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #437,035
@437,027 (E)
> they'll end up ruling by higher birth rates and immigration, not violence.
In what way does this pose a threat to the West? Do you believe they have developed a specific agenda to assume control through superior numbers and a bloodless coup?
> they'll end up ruling by higher birth rates and immigration, not violence.
In what way does this pose a threat to the West? Do you believe they have developed a specific agenda to assume control through superior numbers and a bloodless coup?
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
+Anonymous G — 11.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #437,036
+Anonymous H — 11.7 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #437,047
·Anonymous E — 11.7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,057
@437,035 (A)
> In what way does this pose a threat to the West?
More specifically, to individual western nations, and at different rates. It's pretty cliche to hear this repeated all the time, but Muhammad is the most popular name for newborns in England. They're 10% of France's population, and while in the US they're relative peaceful, and a small percentage of the population, few individuals still constantly attempt acts of terror. Fortunately most have been stopped before they happen. I can go on and on about the rape of English girls, by muslim gangs, or the murder of jews in France by Muslims. But I'm sure you've already heard it all before.
That's how they're a threat to the west. Not by some massive invasion or an all out attack, but by slowly overwhelming secular western nations with sheer numbers, then demanding that laws and traditions be changed to accommodate their beliefs.
> Do you believe they have developed a specific agenda to assume control through superior numbers and a bloodless coup?
Not really. People are immigrating mainly for economical reasons. Taking over individual towns is just a consequence of that.
> In what way does this pose a threat to the West?
More specifically, to individual western nations, and at different rates. It's pretty cliche to hear this repeated all the time, but Muhammad is the most popular name for newborns in England. They're 10% of France's population, and while in the US they're relative peaceful, and a small percentage of the population, few individuals still constantly attempt acts of terror. Fortunately most have been stopped before they happen. I can go on and on about the rape of English girls, by muslim gangs, or the murder of jews in France by Muslims. But I'm sure you've already heard it all before.
That's how they're a threat to the west. Not by some massive invasion or an all out attack, but by slowly overwhelming secular western nations with sheer numbers, then demanding that laws and traditions be changed to accommodate their beliefs.
> Do you believe they have developed a specific agenda to assume control through superior numbers and a bloodless coup?
Not really. People are immigrating mainly for economical reasons. Taking over individual towns is just a consequence of that.
·Anonymous D — 11.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,062
@previous (E)
I think that the idea of Muslims out breeding Christians isn't really a threat to the West, I know they love to use the "fastest growing religion in the world" slogan but I don't think that's actually the case, Muslim parents do not essentially mean Muslim children, especially in the first world. We just need to bring euphoria and fedoras to the sand peoples instead of drone strikes and security contractors. We must not compromise our already broken judicial systems in the first world with the addition of sharia law. We also cannot abide sharia law zones in the first world, whether they're official or not.
@437,047 (H)
Nevar 4get 7-11.
I think that the idea of Muslims out breeding Christians isn't really a threat to the West, I know they love to use the "fastest growing religion in the world" slogan but I don't think that's actually the case, Muslim parents do not essentially mean Muslim children, especially in the first world. We just need to bring euphoria and fedoras to the sand peoples instead of drone strikes and security contractors. We must not compromise our already broken judicial systems in the first world with the addition of sharia law. We also cannot abide sharia law zones in the first world, whether they're official or not.
@437,047 (H)
Nevar 4get 7-11.
+Auntie Em — 11.7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,069
You're a bore. You're welcome.
+Pope Francis — 11.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,072
Mike Tyson is a gently soul who loves pigeons and cares for them
·Pope Francis — 11.7 years ago, 57 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,073
·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 11.7 years ago, 36 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,078
@437,062 (D)
> We just need to bring euphoria and fedoras to the sand peoples instead of drone strikes and security contractors.
This seems like the option with the most potential to succeed.
> We just need to bring euphoria and fedoras to the sand peoples instead of drone strikes and security contractors.
This seems like the option with the most potential to succeed.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 40 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,085
@437,057 (E)
@437,062 (D)
> slowly overwhelming secular western nations with sheer numbers, then demanding that laws and traditions be changed to accommodate their beliefs.
It will interesting to see if they could succeed in having the US Constitution changed, a document which essentially established a separation of religion and state in perpetuity.
@437,062 (D)
> slowly overwhelming secular western nations with sheer numbers, then demanding that laws and traditions be changed to accommodate their beliefs.
It will interesting to see if they could succeed in having the US Constitution changed, a document which essentially established a separation of religion and state in perpetuity.
·Anonymous G — 11.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,086
@previous (A)
> a document which essentially established a separation of religion and state in perpetuity.
that's not what republicans believe...
> a document which essentially established a separation of religion and state in perpetuity.
that's not what republicans believe...
·Anonymous D — 11.7 years ago, 36 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,088
@437,078 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
I keep writing Obama, Biden, and Kerry, about my grate ideas on foreign policy... but all I ever get are empty automated responses from their underlings.
I don't think we can save the world while these people are in office, violent overthrow of the old paradigm may become necessary to keep peace at home, in the middle East, and abroad.
@437,085 (A)
You would think so and it seems much less likely to happen in the US... but it hasn't kept Muslims from trying, although some states are actively trying to ban sharia law somewhat preemptively. The ACLU decries these as misguided and discriminatory but if sharia law was passed in a state, they would fight that as well, so it seems like a waste of resources for them to try and balk or fight the bans. The only way it could happen would be on the state level through the tenth amendment but I don't think it would even get that far tbh.
The possibility of it becoming a reality in the UK seem much grater. I know it's been over hyped by the media, but concessions for any religious courts, whether Jewish or Sharia law, even if all parties must opt in, still sets a bad precedent.
I keep writing Obama, Biden, and Kerry, about my grate ideas on foreign policy... but all I ever get are empty automated responses from their underlings.
I don't think we can save the world while these people are in office, violent overthrow of the old paradigm may become necessary to keep peace at home, in the middle East, and abroad.
@437,085 (A)
You would think so and it seems much less likely to happen in the US... but it hasn't kept Muslims from trying, although some states are actively trying to ban sharia law somewhat preemptively. The ACLU decries these as misguided and discriminatory but if sharia law was passed in a state, they would fight that as well, so it seems like a waste of resources for them to try and balk or fight the bans. The only way it could happen would be on the state level through the tenth amendment but I don't think it would even get that far tbh.
The possibility of it becoming a reality in the UK seem much grater. I know it's been over hyped by the media, but concessions for any religious courts, whether Jewish or Sharia law, even if all parties must opt in, still sets a bad precedent.
+Anonymous K — 11.7 years ago, 7 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,102
Ducky is the biggest threat
·Anonymous F — 11.7 years ago, 45 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,107
+Anonymous L — 11.7 years ago, 45 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[T] [B] #437,108
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,156
·Anonymous G — 11.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,158
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,164
·Pope Francis — 11.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,179
@previous (A)
It made world news that they tried to crash the fucking bus out of spite (bullshit over refusing to pay US debts)
It made world news that they tried to crash the fucking bus out of spite (bullshit over refusing to pay US debts)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,192
@previous (Pope Francis )
I'm unaware of the headline you're talking about, but it prompts two questions:
1. Does crashing a bus mean that Republicans are a greater threat to the US than Muslims?
2. If yes, are ALL Republicans a threat to the US, or just a small number of crazed fanatics who do not represent the majority?
I'm unaware of the headline you're talking about, but it prompts two questions:
1. Does crashing a bus mean that Republicans are a greater threat to the US than Muslims?
2. If yes, are ALL Republicans a threat to the US, or just a small number of crazed fanatics who do not represent the majority?
·Anonymous F — 11.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,196
·Pope Francis — 11.7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,201
@437,192 (A)
You know, that debt ceiling game of chicken bullshit --- Rome notices. Republicans actually have real power, so yeah, you don't have hundreds of millions of citizens supporting some crazy muslim party. Individually most are of little consequence, apart from a few billionaires. It's the fact that they have power in aggregate that matters. Individually particular members of other parties are corruptive also, so whatever
You know, that debt ceiling game of chicken bullshit --- Rome notices. Republicans actually have real power, so yeah, you don't have hundreds of millions of citizens supporting some crazy muslim party. Individually most are of little consequence, apart from a few billionaires. It's the fact that they have power in aggregate that matters. Individually particular members of other parties are corruptive also, so whatever
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,203
@previous (Pope Francis )
Simple "yes" or "no" answers will suffice.
1. Does crashing a bus mean that Republicans are a greater threat to the US than Muslims?
2. If yes, are ALL Republicans a threat to the US, or just a small number of crazed fanatics who do not represent the majority?
Simple "yes" or "no" answers will suffice.
1. Does crashing a bus mean that Republicans are a greater threat to the US than Muslims?
2. If yes, are ALL Republicans a threat to the US, or just a small number of crazed fanatics who do not represent the majority?
·Pope Francis — 11.7 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,204
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,208
@previous (Pope Francis )
Why not? Neither question requires more than a yes or no response, as I'm not asking anybody to justify their answers.
Why not? Neither question requires more than a yes or no response, as I'm not asking anybody to justify their answers.
·Anonymous G — 11.7 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,233
·Anonymous F — 11.7 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,234
·Pope Francis — 11.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #437,245
@437,208 (A)
To not offer a nuanced answer would permit, even promote, unjustified inferences, and would violate commandment against bearing false witness.
To not offer a nuanced answer would permit, even promote, unjustified inferences, and would violate commandment against bearing false witness.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #437,266
·Anonymous A (OP) — 11.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #437,267
@437,245 (Pope Francis )
> violate commandment against bearing false witness.
I don't follow religious commandments.
> violate commandment against bearing false witness.
I don't follow religious commandments.
·Pope Francis — 11.7 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #437,288
+Anonymous M — 11.7 years ago, 13 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #437,355
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.