Dutch Parliament Member: We Must Close All Mosques & Ban Islam

a reply to: musicismagic

It's like Buddhism, are they violent, no, not that I know of.

Well there is something you could learn.

Buddhists can be just as violent as any other faith or religious belief.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

Exactly how many countries have been fundamentally changed by a minority population of Muslims entering into it?

Well see.....your word there....."minority". Really doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: DeathSlayer

No. But I wonder if the day is coming when ALL religion will be made a completely private matter. No public acknowledgement or display of any religion whatsoever. Can't even talk about it in public. All religious structures must look like any other building. No church bells, no chanting No Burka's, no crosses, no turbans, nothing. Nuns only wear habits within the convent. That sort of thing.

This might be on the horizon. (Just brainstorming), but ban Islam altogether? No.

(Just read the updates, this actually does sound fake. Besides with ISIL as active as it is, this opinion piece would be an invitation for trouble)

That'll never happen. Misery loves company. People want to share their "pain" with you and make sure you believe it too.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Note to readers and those adding their support for this far-right mentality: radicalization is not just what happens to young Muslims wanting to attack others, it's also happening to young nationalists in our countries who preach fascism.

You, OP, and those supporting this view, are expressing Fascist views.

If you believe that a certain religion should be "banned" and those practicing that faith should be "dealt with", you are being a fascist.

I know you'll all now claim otherwise and that somehow this label doesn't apply to you because... because... (you're struggling to find an excuse) but that is exactly what you are supporting.

Religious freedom is a vital pillar of any democratic nation, if you want to attack that principle of personal liberty and freedom selectively to attack a certain group then you are a fascist.

a reply to: Logarock

Weeell the only countries that I can think of that have a Muslim majority have always been Muslim, so in order for your narrative to be true in the modern era, there would have to be a minority Muslim population entering a country and successfully changing it from within. Simple logic there. That is unless you can think of an instance of a majority population of Muslims entering a non-Muslim country and changing it from within.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: DeathSlayer

No. But I wonder if the day is coming when ALL religion will be made a completely private matter. No public acknowledgement or display of any religion whatsoever. Can't even talk about it in public. All religious structures must look like any other building. No church bells, no chanting No Burka's, no crosses, no turbans, nothing. Nuns only wear habits within the convent. That sort of thing.

This might be on the horizon. (Just brainstorming), but ban Islam altogether? No.

(Just read the updates, this actually does sound fake. Besides with ISIL as active as it is, this opinion piece would be an invitation for trouble)

Well heres a thought for you. Islam will if it grows strong enough in any country fundamentally change that country. They really care little about how they would ultimately effect constitutional principles in the US for example. Saudi Arabia really is a good picture of what happens in one school and Iran is another. What more do we need to know?

Ok. Well heres a thought for you. Christianity will if it grows strong enough in any country fundamentally change that country. They really care little about how they would ultimately effect constitutional principles in the US for example.

The same can be said for any religion that sees itself as the "only way to god", and with a mandate to spread itself throughout the earth.

Christianity in this country, as far as talking about constitutional alignment, is not even potentially in the same camp with Islam. You want to see stifling religion in a society the exemplars would be Iran and Saudi Arabia. Neither would dream about allowing christianity free run in their boarders. And yet who is on trial in the tolerance parade? Western constitutional democracies/republics with strong foundations of Christianity.

Its a garbage argument when we look at place that Islam has sway. No comparison.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

Exactly how many countries have been fundamentally changed by a minority population of Muslims entering into it?

But a minority of a certain percent is a tipping point for Jihadist apparently by historic accounts. The problem clearly is not peace loving people of all religions. The problem is of those of evil intent. They are not shy or holding back but some here appear willing to bend over for the situation rather than apply logic. Logic says we go there and kill ISIS and establish safe places for these "refugees, widow's and children". Someplace they can stay until their homes are livable again.

Not sure how many have been affected by jihadist of low numbers. The question should be, who can defend ISIS? Now for me it appears to be the same Western Governments who have also been promoting the PC discussion. I loathe this day that Putin of KGB communistic world order origins looks more stately than most of our leaders and most especially our POTUS now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

Exactly how many countries have been fundamentally changed by a minority population of Muslims entering into it?

well...to be fair...on 9/11 a handful of muslims entered the US...and changed it forever.

at least that's what the OS says.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Note to readers and those adding their support for this far-right mentality: radicalization is not just what happens to young Muslims wanting to attack others, it's also happening to young nationalists in our countries who preach fascism.

You, OP, and those supporting this view, are expressing Fascist views.

If you believe that a certain religion should be "banned" and those practicing that faith should be "dealt with", you are being a fascist.

I know you'll all now claim otherwise and that somehow this label doesn't apply to you because... because... (you're struggling to find an excuse) but that is exactly what you are supporting.

Religious freedom is a vital pillar of any democratic nation, if you want to attack that principle of personal liberty and freedom selectively to attack a certain group then you are a fascist.

I agree about not banning religion but i don't see how we can ignore the wolves in sheep's clothing who use the verses in the Koran like a KKK Lunatic attempts to use the old Testement? We sure don't give the KKK a pass if they violate peoples freedoms and even their right to LIFE just like ISIS eh?

One more thought, do we allow rabid animals to live among the population?

a reply to: Justoneman

Go there and kill ISIS? You make it sound so simple. How do you tell a moderate Muslim apart from an extremist? If we all argue that it is so hard to do here, what makes it so much simpler over there? Because they are firing at you? What if they aren't firing at you? Maybe it's when they are holding guns? Oh wait, gun culture is celebrated just as fiercely over there as it is here and even moderates own guns.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

Go there and kill ISIS? You make it sound so simple. How do you tell a moderate Muslim apart from an extremist? If we all argue that it is so hard to do here, what makes it so much simpler over there? Because they are firing at you? What if they aren't firing at you? Maybe it's when they are holding guns? Oh wait, gun culture is celebrated just as fiercely over there as it is here and even moderates own guns.

We have their deeds as Martin Luther King suggested we should use character as opposed to skin color or ethnicity.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Not really. Our reaction, our response, our rhetoric, our patriotism, everything was par the course of how we usually react upon such actions. America has always been globalist, so that didn't change. America has always hunted for whatever bogeyman it can demonize to create an us vs them mentality. America has had a bigotry problem since its inception. Really, the only thing that changed is the actors. It's just Muslims this time.

It's not like the Muslims made us all into Muslims or had us dismantle our government or dismantle our infrastructure. America is STILL in the Middle East despite AQ's demands that we get out. So what exactly do you think is different?

a reply to: Justoneman

I'm PRETTY sure that MLK wouldn't be demanding we go and shoot the people we don't like though. I mean, you seriously just quoted MLK while trying to push a pro-war rhetoric? Wow!

To further clarify we figure out who are the slave master rapists and murderous bastards. We then have it out Wild West style cause that is all those people who do this possibly understand. Power is the name of their game not moral high ground. We have the moral high ground plain as the nose on your face, if I may. Yes save God, we might have some more innocents getting hurt or worse, but it would be a finite number as opposed to hundreds of years of this being played out over and over. We have to face the facts, they are like a band of wild murderous thieves that have proven their worth to the entire planet. The moderate Islamist sure need to point them out or suffer the possibility the world thinks they support slavery and rape cults. Because, we simply can not allow the ISIS genes in the gene pool for much longer.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Justoneman

I'm PRETTY sure that MLK wouldn't be demanding we go and shoot the people we don't like though. I mean, you seriously just quoted MLK while trying to push a pro-war rhetoric? Wow!

Then you don't understand Black Southern Ministers of Baptist Churches. They don't like slavery and they stand up for the downtrodden of the world.

MLK was for not using violence to get the people their rights. They had freedom from slavery at that time and I know he would not ever approve of tolerating the type of violence being presented now. He was using temperance to obtain the rightful place of the people of color of that day. We can't properly temper a response to those with hate who behead, burn, horrifically torture and rape their victims can we?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Truly think about this people, and don't just think this is freedom or religion talking, it isn't. There should be a plan already in effect that says: 'If you use religion to wage war here, or you kill someone because they are different than you, and you keep it up for decades, and many of our sons, daughter, fathers and mothers have died because of it, we are finally going to get upset about this and BAN you from the country, and we don't listen to any BS that religion makes it okay. Screw that, you are out the door and never coming back.
Plus they should also keep a closer watch and Sharia law infiltration which they might not have done much about it before.

Freedom of religion does not fly when you use it to kill people. It is time to drop the PC sentimental mental constipation along with it, which our own US government is using against all the rest of us. Treason is a real crime, although our current and past leaders are such pompous asses and lift themselves above the law, so now we have a imbecile for a president who actually thinks he is really the best in history. A classic case all the way.

This issue is global, and needs to be reckoned with on a global scale.

This is NOT ANTI ISLAM!, it is ANTI MURDER. No real religion condones killing and never did, anyone saying they are authorized by God to kill people, and think they are helping him, are bat shet crazy and need to be put down fast anyway.

a reply to: Justoneman

Find me a quote from MLK where he EVER endorsed violence to solve any problem.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He did not advocate violence to win the "blacks are equal" debate, you are right. I am saying, his position was NOT dealing with beheadings, torturous rapes and murders. But with the KKK I saw a recording many years back i can't find now of Dr King asking the FBI to get involved, as they should have without being asked i might add. FBI head J. Edgar Hoover hated Dr. King. So, I will have to admit i am giving you something that amounts to second hand testimony. I do recall seeing a journalist question him on the KKK assassinations after the one where his friend Edgar Meaver's was tortured and murdered and he Dr King was asking for justice to the fullest and that time and today it was the Death Penalty in Mississippi. The old fart who was convited for the crime Bryan Della Beckwith, died in prison in the 90's. He in fact got life which was largely viewed as white privilege.

a reply to: Logarock

Christianity in this country, as far as talking about constitutional alignment, is not even potentially in the same camp with Islam. You want to see stifling religion in a society the exemplars would be Iran and Saudi Arabia. Neither would dream about allowing christianity free run in their boarders. And yet who is on trial in the tolerance parade? Western constitutional democracies/republics with strong foundations of Christianity.

Understood, but I was addressing your actual statement. Nevertheless...
Iran and Arabia are theocracies, and have been for centuries. Obviously, they are not going to tolerate a competitor with the same mandate they have, even if their tactics are more..."peaceful". In America, Christianity has enjoyed a long run of privilege and entitlement that still exists today. We have never been an official theocracy, but at some periods in history, we may as well have been. People feared for their life if they were atheist, gay, witches, and so on. The vestiges of which are still alive. Is it any wonder that Christian American citizens fear and loathe the thought of Islam getting a solid footing in this country? Islam is a competitor with the same mandate as Christianity. Spread.

Its a garbage argument when we look at place that Islam has sway. No comparison.

Repsectfully, I don't think it is a garbage argument. I see the pot calling the kettle black. Understand though, I am not politically correct in this debate. I see all Abrahamic religions the same. They are conquerors. They always have been since their roots, though tactics have changed/evolved over time.