|
|
|
|
|
| | John McCain Slams Michele Bachmann's 'Unfounded' Attacks On Huma Abedin, Muslim-AmericansPage 9 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) |
Given the questions posed, you seem to be saying that this "plot to take-over western legal systems and replace them with Sharia law to be imposed on everyone" is a "big problem in Europe right now"...
You then mention a lot of stuff that offers no rational basis to support a suspicion of any "plot to take-over western legal systems and replace them with Sharia law to be imposed on everyone"...
You then acknowledge that you have no way to prove any such "plot to take-over western legal systems and replace them with Sharia law to be imposed on everyone"... I believe your words were:
I already proved that they are intent on expanding and gaining control over Western legal systems. I'll quote what I already copied from the Muslim Brotherhood. How is this not a rational basis?
-keep the infidels ignorant of the true nature and progress of Sharia
-phohibit blasphemy and slander
-demand concessions
-utilize educational vehicles
-interfaith dialogue
-Sharia-compliant finance
-insinuate Sharia into US courts
-place Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence
This, taken with your comments about "trends" in immigration, lead me to believe that your actual objection is based more on a personal dislike of Islam...
I don't really need to hear it at this point, your position is generally pretty clear now... but I would be curious to know just what you include in "unwillingness of Muslims to assimilate"... Does that include stuff like headcoverings and veils...? Wanting to follow Islam's prayer schedule...? Not learning English to your satisfaction...? Willfully choosing to follow Islam, marital relationships and all...? What is your 'cut-off' for "unwillingness ... to assimilate"...?
Of course choosing to live by the ideals of Islam would be incompatible with Western culture and cause a problem with assimilation. Refusing to learn the language and demanding to live by your own religious laws instead of abiding by the country's legal system robs a country of its identity. People are free to practice their own religion, but introducting Sharia law to a new country is pointless, at it is diametrically opposed to Western values. You can call it a personal dislike if you want. I have no problem with the spiritual side of Islam, but I have a problem with the fascist ideology that it's attached to. I've already proven that they are overtly against free speech. | |
|
| John McCain Slams Michele Bachmann's 'Unfounded' Attacks On Huma Abedin, Muslim-Americans
Posted: 8/3/2012 3:20:56 AM | Given the questions posed, you seem to be saying that this "plot to take-over western legal systems and replace them with Sharia law to be imposed on everyone" is a "big problem in Europe right now"...
You then mention a lot of stuff that offers no rational basis to support a suspicion of any "plot to take-over western legal systems and replace them with Sharia law to be imposed on everyone"...
You then acknowledge that you have no way to prove any such "plot to take-over western legal systems and replace them with Sharia law to be imposed on everyone"... I believe your words were: I already proved that they are intent on expanding and gaining control over Western legal systems. I'll quote what I already copied from the Muslim Brotherhood. How is this not a rational basis?
Ah, I see we're back to attempting the games... First point,we, and anyone else who can read, knows that the point you quoted about "no rational basis" was in response to this comment from you...
I don't know what will happen in America, but this is a big problem in Europe right now. If you look at the trends, they favour Muslim population growth due to low European birth rates and immigration. The political landscape is already changing and politicians are afraid to speak out about Islam because they could become "marked for death" like Geert Wilders and end up under 24 hour police protection. In America, CNN did not show the cartoons made by Kurt Westergaard because of similar fears. I don't have any proof that Islam will take over America or any other country. No one can know the future. But the growing minority is a problem because of the fascist nature of Islamic ideology and the unwillingness of Muslims to assimilate into other cultures.
Which does not demonstrate a "rational basis"...Be that as it may... In regard to your question about your list of points... I have already pointed out that you can't show:
"any instance of Sharia law being forcefully imposed on the general population of any western country replacing the national civil law... The national civil laws of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US are still based on common law tradition, the national civil laws of France are still based on Napoleonic tradition, not a one of them is even close to adopting Sharia as the national legal tradition nor is there any rational basis to believe they will..."
Can you show me any instance of enacted legislation that specifically prescribes Shariah based criminal/civil liabilities or penalties to replace the civil laws (e.g. cutting off hands for theft) in the western democracies...? How about a law that exclusively exempts Muslims from the ordinary criminal/civil liabilities or penalties (e.g. exempting muslims from criminally liability for theft under the ordinary laws of the nation) in the western democracies ...?
Until you can show that this is happening, all you've got with your list is an episode of Pinky and the Brain at best and the Readers' Digest version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion at worst... Nothing more than imagined "monsters under the bed"...
And just to drive this point a bit closer to home... Let's just have a look at some of the other evidence you first presented with your list in msg 215...
"The State Department has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to Sharia proscriptions against criticism of Islam." (Andrew McCarthy)
Here is a link to the actual document he is talking about:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G11/121/55/PDF/G1112155.pdf?OpenElement
Show me where it says or does what this lying, psychopathic, sack of sh!t McCarthy is claiming it does..."restrict American free-speech rights in deference to Sharia proscriptions against criticism of Islam" my ass... This is just another fine example of the irrational inner workings of the paranoid, delusional "counter jihadi" whackjob "mind"... | |
|
| John McCain Slams Michele Bachmann's 'Unfounded' Attacks On Huma Abedin, Muslim-Americans
Posted: 8/3/2012 11:45:53 AM | Here is a link to the actual document he is talking about:
He is? I don't see where either the poster or Mr. McCarthy mentioned that or any other document.
Show me where it says or does what this lying, psychopathic, sack of sh!t McCarthy is claiming it does.
Someone reading your posts might think that sort of vicious name-calling and barnyard language is a telltale sign you can't make your case. Andy McCarthy is the former federal prosecutor who led the prosecution of the Muslim jihadists who conspired to plant the 1,200-lb. bomb that nearly brought down the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993--more than eight years before their pals used airliners to finish the job.
(Ramzi Yousef, who made the truck bomb and drove it to the target, conspired with the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in another terrorist plot in the Philippines in 1994. KSM credits Yousef with giving him the idea of destroying large buildings by flying passenger jets into them.)
The men McCarthy helped prosecute included Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh," a prominent Muslim Brotherhood cleric. Rahman is serving a life sentence for leading the conspiracy in the 1993 bombing, but Mohamed Morsi, Egypt's new President and also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is asking the Obama administration to release him. After all, isn't he harmless? Lynne Stewart, Rahman's radical leftist lawyer, was sentenced to ten years in prison for getting coded instructions for terrorist attacks from him during jail visits and then passing them on to jihadists overseas in the statements she made at news conferences.
What Mr. McCarthy is referring to is the so-called "Istanbul Process," and what he said is true. At the heart of this is a resolution on speech critical of Islam known as "resolution 16/18." The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group of Islamists representing 57 nations and devoted to shariah, sponsored this resolution, which the UN Human Rights Council adopted in March, 2011. In July, the process was kicked off at a meeting in Istanbul co-chaired by our distinguished Secretary of State and the OIC's secretary-general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. In December, 2011, the State Dept. sponsored three days of closed-door meetings on this subject in Washington with the OIC and other international groups. We don't know if Ms. Abedin advised in favor of these meetings.
This administration has been careful to pay lip service to freedom of speech in all this, but the whole purpose of these efforts is to chill that freedom. In Istanbul last year, Mrs. Clinton suggested several ways to counter actions and speech Islamists consider blasphemy: Interfaith education; more laws against religious discrimination; and the use of “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.” Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and their kindred spirits in this administration disdain the U.S. Constitution. They are not about to let that fusty old First Amendment get in the way of their efforts to appease Muslim jihadists. | |
|
| John McCain Slams Michele Bachmann's 'Unfounded' Attacks On Huma Abedin, Muslim-Americans
Posted: 8/3/2012 12:37:40 PM | He is? I don't see where either the poster or Mr. McCarthy mentioned that or any other document.
That is (or at least was) the link to the draft of resolution 16/18... Here is another link to the same document...
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,RESOLUTION,,,4db960f92,0.html
You contradict yourself here when you acknowledge that he was referring to 16/18... but there is nothing unusual about that... You constantly contradict your own arguments (see example in msg 231)... and I seem to be the one who always catches you doing it (and, of course, point it out)
What Mr. McCarthy is referring to is the so-called "Istanbul Process," and what he said is true. At the heart of this is a resolution on speech critical of Islam known as "resolution 16/18."
Andy McCarthy is the former federal prosecutor who led the prosecution...
And that means he is not a pychopathic liar, in what way...?
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group of Islamists representing 57 nations and devoted to shariah, sponsored this resolution, which the UN Human Rights Council adopted in March, 2011. In July, the process was kicked off at a meeting in Istanbul co-chaired by our distinguished Secretary of State and the OIC's secretary-general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. In December, 2011, the State Dept. sponsored three days of closed-door meetings on this subject in Washington with the OIC and other international groups. We don't know if Ms. Abedin advised in favor of these meetings.
This administration has been careful to pay lip service to freedom of speech in all this, but the whole purpose of these efforts is to chill that freedom. In Istanbul last year, Mrs. Clinton suggested several ways to counter actions and speech Islamists consider blasphemy: Interfaith education; more laws against religious discrimination; and the use of “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.” Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and their kindred spirits in this administration disdain the U.S. Constitution. They are not about to let that fusty old First Amendment get in the way of their efforts to appease Muslim jihadists.
What he said is not true and you haven't shown one paragraph even that demonstrates the document says what the psychopathic liar says it does... Once again you have contradicted yourself, this is really getting to be a habit with you (and I always seem to be the one catching you)...
You haven't shown it because you can't... You can't show even one paragraph in that document that says what the psychopathic liar asserts...
That's the problem with paranoid, psychopathic "counter jihadi" whackjob delusions... They aren't real and so they can never be proven... that is why you constantly contradict yourself, you are trying to support something which is unprovable...From the way you defend them one might begin to think that you actually believed the psychotic, bigoted delusions these paranoid, psychopathic "counter jihadi" whackjobs are peddling...
Not that any of that matters... You've already proven the entire delusion untenable with your own words as pointed out in msg 231... You can't honestly and accurately dispute that fact and only make a fool of yourself when you try to evade it... | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
