Pages: 1 2 3 … 7

 

2008-03-02 08:44:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina
I watched a Dispatches episode that went undercover at Green Lane Mosque in the U.K. and saw how extremism is infecting mainstream Islam, and I couldn't help but wonder what exactly is going on in the Muslim community here.  Saudi Arabia has an insidious influence on Islam through its promotion of Wahhabism that I now believe makes it necessary for the government to observe and apprehend certain Muslims for the safety of our country.

I only wish that the U.K. would be more aggressive in its attitude toward Muslims, since what appears to be a good portion of them is preaching intolerance, hate, and the overthrow of secular democracy.  I now also believe that it may be necessary to restrict the flow of Muslims into this country.

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act would now appear to be a necessity in dealing with this subtle issue.  I never thought I'd actually side with this atrocious piece of legislation, but I guess we don't have much choice....

What do you guys think?
2008-03-02 08:47:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Turquoise wrote:

I watched a Dispatches episode that went undercover at Green Lane Mosque in the U.K. and saw how extremism is infecting mainstream Islam, and I couldn't help but wonder what exactly is going on in the Muslim community here.  Saudi Arabia has an insidious influence on Islam through its promotion of Wahhabism that I now believe makes it necessary for the government to observe and apprehend certain Muslims for the safety of our country.

I only wish that the U.K. would be more aggressive in its attitude toward Muslims, since what appears to be a good portion of them is preaching intolerance, hate, and the overthrow of secular democracy.  I now also believe that it may be necessary to restrict the flow of Muslims into this country.

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act would now appear to be a necessity in dealing with this subtle issue.  I never thought I'd actually side with this atrocious piece of legislation, but I guess we don't have much choice....

What do you guys think?
Wow, he finally gets it, and all it took was an piano to fall on his head.
2008-03-02 08:49:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina
I had a feeling you'd say that, lowing, but what got me is video evidence.  Until I saw that episode, I had never actually seen any evidence that Muslims with any true governmental ties were connected to Wahhabism.  Once that became apparent, all of your accusations actually had some material evidence to them.

That's essentially "all it took."

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-02 08:50:30)

2008-03-02 08:51:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6942|USA

Turquoise wrote:

I had a feeling you'd say that, lowing, but what got me is video evidence.  Until I saw that episode, I had never actually seen any evidence that Muslims with any true governmental ties were connected to Wahhabism.  Once that became apparent, all of your accusations actually had some material evidence to them.

That's essentially "all it took."
LOL, so I didn't actually need to drop a piano on you??......Sorry 'bout that
2008-03-02 08:53:14
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina
Shouldn't the Patriot Act include the US ally Saudi Arabia?  And how can you support a law that violates a lot of your civil liberties?
2008-03-02 08:59:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina
Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
2008-03-02 09:00:59
KylieTastic
Games, Girls, Guinness
+85|6743|Cambridge, UK

BBC wrote:

The police investigation was extended to include looking at issues relating to the editing of the programme.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer Bethan David scrutinised 56 hours of media footage, only some of which was used in the broadcast.

She said: "The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.

"The CPS has demonstrated it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement.

"But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."

Police asked the CPS to consider a prosecution of Channel 4 under the Public Order Act 1986 for showing material likely to stir up racial hatred, but they were advised there was insufficient evidence.
Yes there are some hate filled idiots in this country: some extremist Muslims but also the 'anti-Muslims'.... just like on this forum
2008-03-02 09:01:14
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
2008-03-02 09:04:40
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina

KylieTastic wrote:

BBC wrote:

The police investigation was extended to include looking at issues relating to the editing of the programme.

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer Bethan David scrutinised 56 hours of media footage, only some of which was used in the broadcast.

She said: "The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.

"The CPS has demonstrated it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement.

"But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."

Police asked the CPS to consider a prosecution of Channel 4 under the Public Order Act 1986 for showing material likely to stir up racial hatred, but they were advised there was insufficient evidence.
Yes there are some hate filled idiots in this country: some extremist Muslims but also the 'anti-Muslims'.... just like on this forum
Given the connections your government has to Wahhabism and the pervading sense of political correctness involved, I really can't trust any of your government's investigations on this matter.  I'm sure Dispatches was going for a controversial angle on this, but I also really cannot say that what I saw could be interpreted as sane or respectful in any context.
2008-03-02 09:06:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Restricting immigration of Muslims into America would be a good start.
2008-03-02 09:07:55
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6738|Chicago, IL

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Restricting immigration of Muslims into America would be a good start.
Restricting immigration into America would be a good start.
2008-03-02 09:08:19
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Restricting immigration of Muslims into America would be a good start.
Restricting immigration.  Period.
2008-03-02 09:38:46
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6816|South Florida

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Restricting immigration of Muslims into America would be a good start.
Restricting immigration.  Period.
EDIT:

Actually i take back the quote of serge and replace it with just a quote of Turquiose. Just restrict immigration of Muslims into America.

Muslims say: Not fair!
US says: You are a threat to the good of our country and we cannot risk your people here. You are not welcome by the majority of the community. While this is not fair to honest innocent Muslims, until you sort your own country out, you aren't welcome in America.


End. Of. Fucking. Story.

Last edited by Mitch (2008-03-02 09:43:08)

15 more years! 15 more years!
2008-03-02 09:46:51
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6912|London, England
Yeah I watched that, one of the main preachers was an American. Heh, where's Lowing when you need him.
2008-03-02 09:51:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Yeah I watched that, one of the main preachers was an American. Heh, where's Lowing when you need him.
Yeah, I'm glad that fucker doesn't live here anymore.  I'm sorry he chose to infect your country.
2008-03-02 09:51:27
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6702|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Exactly what civil liberties of law-abiding American citizens have been "taken away"?

Additionally, the Patriot Act isn't country-specific when it comes to terrorists, so your comment about including Saudi Arabia is moot. If a terrorist is from Saudi Arabia, they are no different under the law than a terrorist from Iran or Germany or Botswana.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-03-02 09:53:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Exactly what civil liberties of law-abiding American citizens have been "taken away"?

Additionally, the Patriot Act isn't country-specific when it comes to terrorists, so your comment about including Saudi Arabia is moot. If a terrorist is from Saudi Arabia, they are no different under the law than a terrorist from Iran or Germany or Botswana.
The thing about Saudi Arabia is that Wahhabism is most dominant in that country.  We must crush Wahhabism until it ceases to exist.  Islam isn't the enemy -- Wahhabism is.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-02 09:54:17)

2008-03-02 09:56:19
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6981|Tampa Bay Florida

Turquoise wrote:

What do you guys think?
I think the Turqoise I know and love is locked up in a closet somewhere.

What have you done with him?
2008-03-02 09:56:55
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6892|132 and Bush

sergeriver wrote:

Shouldn't the Patriot Act include the US ally Saudi Arabia?  And how can you support a law that violates a lot of your civil liberties?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_In … llance_Act

According to a report floating around Capitol Hill, the Democratic House leadership may have made a deal with Republicans to get the FISA reform bill passed — with telecom immunity intact. Instead of bringing the bipartisan Senate deal to the floor in one piece, Nancy Pelosi will schedule votes on its component parts. Both will pass, but it will allow some members to cast nays against the immunity to protect themselves from the netroots activists opposed to the immunity.
To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill’s second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles.

In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP. It remains to be seen if such a move will placate liberal Democrats who adamantly oppose giving in to the Bush administration on the immunity issue.

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Get a court involved. We are actually moving more towards that direction. Judges need to rule on some actions.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-03-02 09:58:27
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6696|North Carolina

Spearhead wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

What do you guys think?
I think the Turqoise I know and love is locked up in a closet somewhere.

What have you done with him?
Spear, the only views I've changed involve the Patriot Act and terrorism.  I'm sorry if that puts us at odds, but I have a tendency to change my views over time.

How would you suggest dealing with Wahhabism?
2008-03-02 10:00:17
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7048|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Serge, this was not a decision I made easily.  I realize the implications this has, but again, I don't really see any other way around this.

We're dealing with an enemy that exploits our sense of fairness.  They keep up a front of tolerance, but what they actually preach is the exact opposite.  If anything, what I now know suggests that we should immediately pressure the Saudi Arabian government to crush Wahhabism.  If they aren't willing to do that, we must do it ourselves, even if it means declaring war on a good portion of Islam.   Wahhabism cannot be allowed to exist in the modern world.  It certainly should not be allowed to exist in America.
There must be a way to deal with that problem without taking civil liberties away.
Exactly what civil liberties of law-abiding American citizens have been "taken away"?

Additionally, the Patriot Act isn't country-specific when it comes to terrorists, so your comment about including Saudi Arabia is moot. If a terrorist is from Saudi Arabia, they are no different under the law than a terrorist from Iran or Germany or Botswana.
My comment is relevant coz you can't support this law and a country that violates Human Rights like Saudi Arabia at the same time.  Double standards.
2008-03-02 10:00:50
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6935
lets get rid of due process!
2008-03-02 10:01:17
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6981|Tampa Bay Florida
Its possible to deal with it without removing civil liberties.  Its just a lot harder.

But the only places worth visiting are hard to reach.  *inserts Ben Franklin quote, yeah, you know the one I'm talking about*
2008-03-02 10:01:25
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7053

sergeriver wrote:

My comment is relevant coz you can't support this law and a country that violates Human Rights like Saudi Arabia at the same time.  Double standards.
The whole world is a double standard.  get real serge
2008-03-02 10:02:25
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6981|Tampa Bay Florida

usmarine wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

My comment is relevant coz you can't support this law and a country that violates Human Rights like Saudi Arabia at the same time.  Double standards.
The whole world is a double standard.  get real serge
your moms a double standard

oh snap

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard