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.
Oh, for Chrissakes. Most Muslim countries aren't even "under Sharia law". I keep hearing about Sharia from the right wing. Probably some radio blowhard used the term once and now it's their newest drum to beat, especially since calling everything they don't like "socialist" has been a flop lately. They don't use this term correctly either.
If what you say is true maybe you could explain to me why Muslims in the UK are trying to push Sharia Law on the British. Huh?
If what you say is true maybe you could explain to me why Muslims in the UK are trying to push Sharia Law on the British. Huh?
Last time I checked, some Muslims in the UK wanted Sharia courts within their own communities, for handling civil matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance law. They are very unlikely to get even that, and I don't think they should. That is patently not the same as flogging infidels in Leicester Square, which is the sort of image I think you wanted to invoke.
If they manage to get Sharia in Turkey or Algeria or Lebanon, we'll start talking about the UK or France.
Last time I checked, some Muslims in the UK wanted Sharia courts within their own communities, for handling civil matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance law. They are very unlikely to get even that, and I don't think they should. That is patently not the same as flogging infidels in Leicester Square, which is the sort of image I think you wanted to invoke.
If they manage to get Sharia in Turkey or Algeria or Lebanon, we'll start talking about the UK or France.
Sharia law has been legal in England for about 7 months now:
I don't disagree with what you say until you say they have everything to gain by not fighting. They will gain Muslim control and Sharia Law by not fighting and I don't think many of them really want that. They have just become used to having the good old Americans fight their battles for them and we have come to the end of the ability to do that, because of the attitude of so many of our own people.
By not fighting Europe will be controlled Islam and Sharia Law? What fight are you talking about? I'm talking about the sending troops to Afghanistan, isn't that how the thread started.....isn't that what Buchanan article was referencing?
The attitude of Americans hasn't diminished our ability to fight any one when the fight involves us as well....there's no choice in that situation. What may have changed is our desire to willingly get involved fighting another country's battles that critical of us for doing so. It's desire to do it willingly, not our ability to do it or when it includes us as well.
Just out of curiousity, what are all the people in Europe that are not Muslim going to do when Sharia Law is put in place (if it was even remotely possible in the first place)....convert to Islam? All of them?
Excellent article by Pat Buchanan on anti-war.com.
Why won’t Europe fight?
"Because Europe sees no threat from Afghanistan and no vital interest in a faraway country where NATO Europeans have not fought since the British Empire folded its tent long ago.
Al-Qaeda did not attack Europe out of Afghanistan. America was attacked. Because, said Osama bin Laden in his "declaration of war," America was occupying the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, choking Muslim Iraq to death and providing Israel with the weapons to repress the Palestinians.
As Europe has no troops in Saudi Arabia, is exiting Iraq and backs a Palestinian state, Europeans figure, they are less likely to be attacked than if they are fighting and killing Muslims in Afghanistan."
Always liked Pat, paleocons always get a bad rap from the neocons, but they are the only conservatives that many of us libertarians can get along with.
War is ultimately a socialist institution. It has none of the controls that occur within a market economy. In its very makeup it is the ultimate subsidized and nationalized mechanism.
Bravo of the intelligent Europeans to understand that the greatest threat to our liberties isn't Muslims under the mattresses, it's (in my best Bill Clinton voice) 'the economy stupid'.
Last edited by mcmastersteve; 04-11-2009 at 01:22 AM..
Wow. OK, I missed it. I remember everyone being so up in arms about the Archbishop of Canterbury that I thought it must be some sort of wacky fringe position.
Well, it sets a bad precedent, but it has little effect on non-Muslims. "Pushing it on the British" is certainly an inapt description.
The truth is so obvious. They have millions of Muslims living there. They are simply scared. And secondly, they will let the Us fight the battles as they always have done.
Until their population is >50% Muslim and Sharia law is enacted. Their religion calls for the total domination of the world what other outcome did you think they were shooting for? It's quiet simple why civilized nations are war weary, a people free to choose will always choose peace. However in that thinking giving up your beliefs for freedom doesn't count as free. One message of freedom is clear the other has no freedoms at all, in fact it's a society where half the people in the society have no say at all, feminists should be most worried.
Excellent article by Pat Buchanan on anti-war.com.
Why won’t Europe fight?
"Because Europe sees no threat from Afghanistan and no vital interest in a faraway country where NATO Europeans have not fought since the British Empire folded its tent long ago.
Al-Qaeda did not attack Europe out of Afghanistan. America was attacked. Because, said Osama bin Laden in his "declaration of war," America was occupying the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, choking Muslim Iraq to death and providing Israel with the weapons to repress the Palestinians.
As Europe has no troops in Saudi Arabia, is exiting Iraq and backs a Palestinian state, Europeans figure, they are less likely to be attacked than if they are fighting and killing Muslims in Afghanistan."
Always liked Pat, paleocons always get a bad rap from the neocons, but they are the only conservatives that many of us libertarians can get along with.
War is ultimately a socialist institution. It has none of the controls that occur within a market economy. In its very makeup it is the ultimate subsidized and nationalized mechanism.
Bravo of the intelligent Europeans to understand that the greatest threat to our liberties isn't Muslims under the mattresses, it's (in my best Bill Clinton voice) 'the economy stupid'.
That would be true if you can totally forget majority rules.
I will try to explain to you after you tell me what you think Islamist means. Ok?
The term Islamist is normally used to describe an advocate of the total supremacy of Islam in the political realm, i.e. a union of religion and state. There are other characteristics common to Islamists, but that is the defining one.
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.
