Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(2nd paragraph)........you wouldn't hear me demanding those murderers receive a proper Christian burial if they were shot in the act.
Neither would I organize a "pity-party" for whites.
Diversity..........means " difference"
I am explaining "differences" in how groups react when one of their own is a mass murderer.
This was a thread about diversity in general that people want to turn into solely discussing Muslims.
Do you have any concrete evidence of this pity-party that Muslims were holding that doesn't come from right-wing fluff sites or anecdotes?
And you still haven't answered my earlier question would we be having these discussions if we didn't get involved with Muslim countries in the first place?
The constant mention of the left in this case seems stem from the desire to turn this into political discussion. If one wants to go down this route the right wants to single out Islam for starters. The big issue is the Constitution which protects the freedom of religion. If people don't want Muslims here then they would have to change that part of the Constitution. That is the crux of the issue.
It's also funny how no one talks about the hundreds of Muslim families living in this country for decades yet have no problem observing our laws and customs.
Radical Islam is an issue not Islam itself.
The problem is that, once the number of Muslims in a country becomes at or near majority, they let the radicals get behind the wheel and let them drive the rest of them.
Whether your a right winger or not constant use of the left turns this into a political discussion. And as I said before this is about the Constitution protecting freedom of religion. If Islam in itself bothers people then they should discuss striking passages related to religious freedoms from the Constitution.
The US has always, however, restricted religion as necessary for the "common good." Mormons, Jews, and Muslims are not, for instance, permitted polygamy.
With regard to practicing Islam, I'd like to point out the nation of Senegal, which is 90% Muslim. Yet, you have not heard much in the news about Senegal. Senegal gained independence from France in 1960 and immediately all those Muslims elected a Catholic president, keeping him for 20 years. They've handed power back and forth between political powers in peaceful elections since then.
Why no violence? Because they're SufiMuslims, a sect which considers jihad to be "the inner struggle to be righteous" instead of an external war in infidels.
But that has been recently changing because the Senegalese Sufis are now under the guns of radical Salafi Muslims--and it's the Salafis (aka Wahabi) who are the international terrorists of Islam.
All international Islamic terrorism in the West, all of it, every bit of it, is from Salifis. Even other Muslims will tell you that. Sufis are fine folk. Shiites aren't really bad, either. Salafis are poison.
Why doesn't the US government make that distinction? Why doesn't the Western media?
Because the primary supporter and financier of radical Salafism throughout the world is Saudi Arabia.
The US has always, however, restricted religion as necessary for the "common good." Mormons, Jews, and Muslims are not, for instance, permitted polygamy.
With regard to practicing Islam, I'd like to point out the nation of Senegal, which is 90% Muslim. Yet, you have not heard much in the news about Senegal. Senegal gained independence from France in 1960 and immediately all those Muslims elected a Catholic president, keeping him for 20 years. They've handed power back and forth between political powers in peaceful elections since then.
Why no violence? Because they're SufiMuslims, a sect which considers jihad to be "the inner struggle to be righteous" instead of an external war in infidels.
But that has been recently changing because the Senegalese Sufis are now under the guns of radical Salafi Muslims--and it's the Salafis (aka Wahabi) who are the international terrorists of Islam.
All international Islamic terrorism in the West, all of it, every bit of it, is from Salifis. Even other Muslims will tell you that. Sufis are fine folk. Shiites aren't really bad, either. Salafis are poison.
Why doesn't the US government make that distinction? Why doesn't the Western media?
Because the primary supporter and financier of radical Salafism throughout the world is Saudi Arabia.
Thank you. Though I would say only 99.8% of it is due to the Salifis.
The problem is that, once the number of Muslims in a country becomes at or near majority, they let the radicals get behind the wheel and let them drive the rest of them.
You may believe that will happen I don't. I believe a lot of this could have and still could be avoided with a policy of non-intervention in the region.
It's like I stated before, has anyone wondered why we became involved in the region? I would like an answer. Is it because we have been cutting deals with the Saudis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
The US has always, however, restricted religion as necessary for the "common good." Mormons, Jews, and Muslims are not, for instance, permitted polygamy.
With regard to practicing Islam, I'd like to point out the nation of Senegal, which is 90% Muslim. Yet, you have not heard much in the news about Senegal. Senegal gained independence from France in 1960 and immediately all those Muslims elected a Catholic president, keeping him for 20 years. They've handed power back and forth between political powers in peaceful elections since then.
Why no violence? Because they're SufiMuslims, a sect which considers jihad to be "the inner struggle to be righteous" instead of an external war in infidels.
But that has been recently changing because the Senegalese Sufis are now under the guns of radical Salafi Muslims--and it's the Salafis (aka Wahabi) who are the international terrorists of Islam.
All international Islamic terrorism in the West, all of it, every bit of it, is from Salifis. Even other Muslims will tell you that. Sufis are fine folk. Shiites aren't really bad, either. Salafis are poison.
Why doesn't the US government make that distinction? Why doesn't the Western media?
Because the primary supporter and financier of radical Salafism throughout the world is Saudi Arabia.
Right on the money.
And the current administration has yet to take a hardline stance against them. Notice how Saudi Arabia isn't on the travel ban list. Anyone who thinks this is a partisan issue is fooling themselves.
In many countries it is always said that diversity is great and that it only strengthens them. But is it really? It seems like countries that have a lot of diversity, especially speaking of racial and religious diversity have some of the biggest issues; war, poverty, divide, conflict etc. Yet look at say, Japan, for the good part when it comes to race, religion, etc it is doing very well.
Yet look at countries both past and present that were diverse and it ultimately always seems to ultimately end in ruin. The Roman Empire became diverse; destroyed from within. Austrio-Hungray was diverse; pretty much sucked at everything they did in WWI and had all kinds of issues leading to its dissolution. Then look at today where countries in the West are primarily accepting refugees and others with belief like, values, ideas etc that are far different than what the host nations are used to leading to lots of crime, and discord.
So honestly, when it comes to things such as peace, prosperity, a general sense of unity would it not ultimately be best if every country, like Japan had one race, one language, one religion, one general outlook regarding things etc etc etc?
Homogeneous nations seem to do better than those that aren't.
I am not a historian, but from the documentaries and readings I've done, the ancient Roman empire was every big of a dick as well as benevolent. Plus, their reliance on slavery, drinking lead water, over-expansion, over spending, and losing "the jugular" (the aqueduct that supplied a city of over 1 million people, before that population dwindled down to 10K) had every bit to contribute.
In the US, the Third Reich made wise-cracks how the US swept the Olympics because we relied on black athletes, but that wasn't really that far off from the truth.
Last edited by ackmondual; 04-01-2017 at 09:28 PM..
In many countries it is always said that diversity is great and that it only strengthens them. But is it really? It seems like countries that have a lot of diversity, especially speaking of racial and religious diversity have some of the biggest issues; war, poverty, divide, conflict etc. Yet look at say, Japan, for the good part when it comes to race, religion, etc it is doing very well.
Yet look at countries both past and present that were diverse and it ultimately always seems to ultimately end in ruin. The Roman Empire became diverse; destroyed from within. Austrio-Hungray was diverse; pretty much sucked at everything they did in WWI and had all kinds of issues leading to its dissolution. Then look at today where countries in the West are primarily accepting refugees and others with belief like, values, ideas etc that are far different than what the host nations are used to leading to lots of crime, and discord.
So honestly, when it comes to things such as peace, prosperity, a general sense of unity would it not ultimately be best if every country, like Japan had one race, one language, one religion, one general outlook regarding things etc etc etc?
Homogeneous nations seem to do better than those that aren't.
You are 100% correct in your facts ! I would give you a reputation but you don't have enough posts yet. What you state is a proven fact. Of course the liberal , pacifist, feel gooders will disagree. But stick with your beliefs, yours is a voice of reason !! Thank you for posting.
You are 100% correct in your facts ! I would give you a reputation but you don't have enough posts yet. What you state is a proven fact. Of course the liberal , pacifist, feel gooders will disagree. But stick with your beliefs, yours is a voice of reason !! Thank you for posting.
He's fortunate to be 50% correct actually but please keep thinking your opinion as fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
