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.
Sorry but that is simply meaningless nonsense. You could have least explained your reasoning ...
So my rebuttal...
the very existence of your post proves beyond doubt that your post is BS....
It's not nonsense, but might seem as much to anyone who has no historical context.
Similar to how speaking a different language sounds like nonsense to the foreigner or the uneducated.
Your logic, that holds that your lack of context makes my post "BS", is sad. And your creativity is sadder. You can at least use your own language in your responses.
My logic is self explanatory should you have any notion of the history of Pakistan. Given that you seem to not, or otherwise wish to pick an argument given your hostile disposition, here's a summary:
1. Islam gains traction in the region over the course of centuries, mostly through violent conquest, sociopolitically hostile migration, and forced conversions.
2. Islam conflicts with the pre-Islamic population, as they do all foreign populations that Islam declares to be sufficiently heretical (never mind that the pre-Islamic population was there first; Islam requires conquest).
3. Given Islam's inherent intransigence, no peace can be had until Islam dominates, is defeated, or is quarantined. Thus, Pakistan is created to quarantine the Islamists in their own nation. India sacrifices a substantial portion of their territory to pacify the Islamist threat.
In prior centuries, Islam wiped out the pre-Islamic and pre-Judaic religions of the Near East, driving them to extinction through genocide and forced conversion. We no longer have many of the populaces who practiced the now extinct Mesopotamian polytheistic religion, which is no coincidence given that the Arab's Islam variously genocided them, raped their women into group non-existence, or forced them to convert.
The history of Islam is the only lesson that anyone needs in regard to its nature. It's history is there for anyone who wishes to read it. It's not zenophobic nor fascist to protect oneself from such a long-documented historical threat. It's common sense.
Shutting down immigration from a country is not exactly the same as shutting down immigration from a certain religion which is pretty blatantly unconstitutional(and I am an atheist and in no way a fan of Islam which tends to be a highly regressive and oppressive religion). I would be all for immigration restrictions or bans from a lot of the more troubled war torn third world nations.
Shutting down immigration from a country is not exactly the same as shutting down immigration from a certain religion which is pretty blatantly unconstitutional(and I am an atheist and in no way a fan of Islam which tends to be a highly regressive and oppressive religion). I would be all for immigration restrictions or bans from a lot of the more troubled war torn third world nations.
Unconstitutional? Where in the Comsitution does it say we can't filter immigrants? To the contrary, that was our national policy up until the 60s and Ted Kennedy.
Unconstitutional? Where in the Comsitution does it say we can't filter immigrants? To the contrary, that was our national policy up until the 60s and Ted Kennedy.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
It would essentially establish Islam as a religion-non-grata for the legal purposes of immigration. If it is to be done it will need to be done on some other criteria (nationality is the best choice, IMO it allows you to control for the situations on the ground in problem areas), I really doubt the SC is going to see your side on this one.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 01-19-2017 at 02:45 PM..
It's not nonsense, but might seem as much to anyone who has no historical context.
Similar to how speaking a different language sounds like nonsense to the foreigner or the uneducated.
Your logic, that holds that your lack of context makes my post "BS", is sad. And your creativity is sadder. You can at least use your own language in your responses.
My logic is self explanatory should you have any notion of the history of Pakistan. Given that you seem to not, or otherwise wish to pick an argument given your hostile disposition, here's a summary:
1. Islam gains traction in the region over the course of centuries, mostly through violent conquest, sociopolitically hostile migration, and forced conversions.
2. Islam conflicts with the pre-Islamic population, as they do all foreign populations that Islam declares to be sufficiently heretical (never mind that the pre-Islamic population was there first; Islam requires conquest).
3. Given Islam's inherent intransigence, no peace can be had until Islam dominates, is defeated, or is quarantined. Thus, Pakistan is created to quarantine the Islamists in their own nation. India sacrifices a substantial portion of their territory to pacify the Islamist threat.
In prior centuries, Islam wiped out the pre-Islamic and pre-Judaic religions of the Near East, driving them to extinction through genocide and forced conversion. We no longer have many of the populaces who practiced the now extinct Mesopotamian polytheistic religion, which is no coincidence given that the Arab's Islam variously genocided them, raped their women into group non-existence, or forced them to convert.
The history of Islam is the only lesson that anyone needs in regard to its nature. It's history is there for anyone who wishes to read it. It's not zenophobic nor fascist to protect oneself from such a long-documented historical threat. It's common sense.
Through genocide and forced conversions, umm where have I heard that before, oh yeah every civilization except sometimes the Persian empire.
Last time I checked, the US/Mexico border was clearly defined, unless there's some Kashmir-like area in the Southwest that I'm not aware of.
Last time I checked that wasn't the point you made. You implied that Pakistan and India have mere political rivalries with a secular nature. You seem to imply India has some legitimate bias against Pakistanis because of a political rivalry. It is inaccurate to suggest its a mere border dispute given it was the cultural divide that created the border in the first place . Pakistan was created as an Islamic state with laws explicitly based on the Quran and the Sunna from a good deal of the population out of India.
Last time I checked that wasn't the point you made. You implied that Pakistan and India have mere political rivalries with a secular nature. You seem to imply India has some legitimate bias against Pakistanis because of a political rivalry. It is inaccurate to suggest its a mere border dispute given it was the cultural divide that created the border in the first place . Pakistan was created as an Islamic state with laws explicitly based on the Quran and the Sunna from a good deal of the population out of India.
Isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
Are we going to pretend that India and Pakistan aren't historical rivals with a disputed border?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
It would essentially establish Islam as a religion-non-grata for the legal purposes of immigration. If it is to be done it will need to be done on some other criteria (nationality is the best choice, IMO it allows you to control for the situations on the ground in problem areas), I really doubt the SC is going to see your side on this one.
Islam is a bad legal argument. One does not restrict Islam as a religion. You can have any religion you like except when it allows you to rape uncovered women or murder people for leaving the faith. Now I suppose some interpretations could avoid those conflicts, but I see no reason why our state needs to accommodate Islam especially from area which have known interpretations that conflict with put laws. We need well educated, secular individuals with job skills , not superstitious impoverished rabble going on welfare.
The free exercise of Religion is dependent on civil rights, not the other way around. Sharia Law cannot be legally imposed on any individual within our state.
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Washington
it's called the "Reconquista" or something to that effect and is very real. But we don't recognize it because they aren't using their Army to do it and it's happening very slowly.
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.
