Bombing in Manchester Suspect identified

Sarah wrote:

"

Would you change if you migrated to a different country? I doubt it.

I can't speak for Ray but yeah, I have lived in other countries and did assimilate while I was there. It is the duty of the guest to fit in, not for the host. Sorry, but that has always been the custom.

"When in Rome ..."

That's an oldie but still true.

Four islamist extremist asylants from Iraq and Syria arrested in Berlin

Manchester bomber Salman Abedi ‘trained in Syria’

"

morbo wrote:

Manchester bomber Salman Abedi ‘trained in Syria’

Short reminder that Trump's travel ban would've prevented the massacre.

"

bwam wrote:

The desire to assimilate: should it be requisite for becoming an American? In the sense that you espouse liberty and justice and the Constitution of the United States, yes. In the sense that you forfeit a primary identity? Absolutely not.

The United States was established with the right to assemble for worship in mind, were we not? If you truly worship your God, your relationship with your God supersedes earthly citizenship. At least this is the case with Christians. Remember what US Vice President Pence said (repeatedly)? Something like, "I'm a Christian first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third. In that order." For Christians, being Christian always comes first. Christians are followers of Christ before they are citizens of the United States.

US citizens should feel free to pursue God first, and be a citizen of the United States second. Just because you disagree with Islam doesn't mean that American Muslims, who fail to assimilate into secular culture, are somehow falling short of being American. There are Muslim Americans who serve the United States in all sorts of roles -- including in the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines.

And even in the Marines, there's a motto: "God, Country, Corps." Note "Country" doesn't come first.

If one moves to and becomes a citizen of another nation, one ostensibly shows intent to adopt the values, laws, and mores of that country. Otherwise, one is nothing more than a colonizer and a usurper. If your "primary identity" is and remains one which runs counter to that of the country whose nationality you have adopted, any oath you have taken (assuming such an oath is required) is at best a shallow, ceremonial formality; at worst, a lie.

Islam is as much a nationality (in aspiration to a "Global Caliphate") as it is a religion. More than that, it is a nationality with a history of conquest, whose sacred texts explicitly describe the manner in which its citizens are required to conduct such conquests, and those commands, as have been posted often enough that no one should be claiming ignorance of them, are neither holy nor humane.

Murder as an act of religious zealotry, institutionalized misogyny, FGM, honor killings, and all the trappings of Sharia law run counter to what it is to be an American. We don't need that, and neither do Europe, Canada, or the rest of the world. Don't defend that to me as "freedom of religion," because a Muslim killing someone for being gay has already happened in the US, and it won't stop there. We should no more protect this "religion" than we would one which included human sacrifice, because what is killing another human to appease one's deity BUT human sacrifice? ='[.]'=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

The desire to assimilate: should it be requisite for becoming an American? In the sense that you espouse liberty and justice and the Constitution of the United States, yes. In the sense that you forfeit a primary identity? Absolutely not.

[...]

If one moves to and becomes a citizen of another nation, one ostensibly shows intent to adopt the values, laws, and mores of that country. Otherwise, one is nothing more than a colonizer and a usurper. If your "primary identity" is and remains one which runs counter to that of the country whose nationality you have adopted, any oath you have taken (assuming such an oath is required) is at best a shallow, ceremonial formality; at worst, a lie.

Right, that's why (as I said) you need to espouse the Constitution of the United States. That's all the assimilation necessary. (Note I didn't say "appear to espouse," but espouse.)

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Islam is as much a nationality (in aspiration to a "Global Caliphate") as it is a religion. More than that, it is a nationality with a history of conquest, whose sacred texts explicitly describe the manner in which its citizens are required to conduct such conquests, and those commands, as have been posted often enough that no one should be claiming ignorance of them, are neither holy nor humane.

If someone wanted to establish a "Global Caliphate," I doubt very much they'd make it into our country. And I don't care if "Islam" is hell-bent on conquest; as long as the American Muslims are not, I'm fine with them.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Murder as an act of religious zealotry, institutionalized misogyny, FGM, honor killings, and all the trappings of Sharia law run counter to what it is to be an American. We don't need that, and neither do Europe, Canada, or the rest of the world. Don't defend that to me as "freedom of religion," because a Muslim killing someone for being gay has already happened in the US, and it won't stop there. We should no more protect this "religion" than we would one which included human sacrifice, because what is killing another human to appease one's deity BUT human sacrifice? ='[.]'=

"Sharia law is counter to what it is to be an American": Absolutely. And, as it happens, it is contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

BodyHammer01 wrote:

Nice. Britain did Manchester is the new Bush did 9/11. Everyone get your tinfoil hats on.

Therefore, we must conclude that our governments are either stupid — like, mindbogglingly windowlicking stupid — or they wanted it to happen. Or a mix of both, like some kind of Neapolitan ice cream of fuckery.

A corrupt Gouverment wants to first and foremost, insure it´s very own existence.
The best method in doing that is, to turn evryone against eachother,
""Look they are the bad guy, and we are the good guys"".

The west is particulary good in, causing the issue and then offering/enforcing the solution.
How long did it took Trump to bomb Syria, after the supposed Gas-attack?
The U.s. Gouvernment suprisingly knew quickly were the suiced pilot´s came from, and who sent them. We bring the evil immigrants in and then proced to protect you from them.
Anyway´s, I´m rather insane than retardet.

"

bwam wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

If one moves to and becomes a citizen of another nation, one ostensibly shows intent to adopt the values, laws, and mores of that country. Otherwise, one is nothing more than a colonizer and a usurper. If your "primary identity" is and remains one which runs counter to that of the country whose nationality you have adopted, any oath you have taken (assuming such an oath is required) is at best a shallow, ceremonial formality; at worst, a lie.

Right, that's why (as I said) you need to espouse the Constitution of the United States. That's all the assimilation necessary. (Note I didn't say "appear to espouse," but espouse.)

Unless the immigrants' religion happens to have no disagreements with the Constitution of the United States (ex: Sharia or Mosaic law), then a necessary precondition for this is; one must be an American first and a religious person second. If not, then wherever religion contradicts the Constitution, religious law will win in the heart of that person.

I like to refer to the dangerous forms of religious fundamentalism as extralegal fundamentalism. That's because​ the danger is very precisely in the prioritization of religion over the law of the land. Naturally, I'm not expecting everyone to love every law, but relogious fundamentalism in accordance with the law seeks to change the law within the given framework for legislation, as is everyone's right to pursue, rather than​ criminality.

But but but Pence well fuck Pence if he's not an America first, Jesus second.

We could and should screen for extralegal fundamentalists (and extralegal expatriot nationalists, etc) regardless of which ideologies harbor them, and refuse them entry.

I'm just gonna reiterate this point: If we wouldn't tolerate a culture which practices human sacrifice, we shouldn't tolerate a culture whose religious code actively prescribes homicide to appease it's deity, either. ='[.]'=

Mosque of Manchester Bomber Refuses to Take Responsibility


“Sure, we harbored him with no attempt to warn the security services, and we failed to expel him when we knew he backed the Islamic State. But how dare you say we paid him! This murderous terrorist came here voluntarily, and that should make all the difference.”


but as the press statement was read, it became depressingly clear what they were angry about: Islamophobia and the media.

condemn Islamophobia in the strongest terms, but this often feels like a one-way street. Why didn’t Didsbury Mosque condemn Salman Abedi when he told them he loved the Islamic State? Why didn’t they condemn him for visiting Syria to train with them? Why didn’t they condemn his father for being part of an al Qaeda affiliate?

Given they did none of these things and 22 young people are dead, I find it hard to be anything other than disgusted by the way they jumped on their moral high horse....


Here is my message to Manchester Mosque: Kick off the extremists before you expect an apology from me for anything that has happened.

http://observer.com/2017/05/manchester-mosque-statement-condemns-islamophobia/

Lord of the Rings in 2017: