Quote:Just think by banning the religion of Islam you legitimize extremists in the eyes of moderates and perhaps turn normally passive muslims more extreme. Especially with the way the religion of Islam is. Compared to other religions it is ,in my opinion, taken more seriously by people who practice it and its more invasive in every day life.
For instance Ireland doesn't appear to have many extreme muslims but it does have some very strong muslim community's that don't really make any attempt to mesh with the locals. A ban on their religion would be seen as a direct attack on these communities , they wouldn't just accept the ruling and practice in secret.
Thank you and fair points. Personally I don't believe Islam is the problem. Sharia law is the issue.
Quote:I agree you can't just detain people off the street for suspicion. That's not Constitutional.
Instead, you apply stronger penalties after the fact. You make their actions cost more than they are willing to pay. If they are willing to pay with their lives, you have make the penalty even greater.
In the case of an Islamic jihadist don't just kill/execute the terrorist, burn down his favorite mosque and bury him under a Cross or Star of David in a coffin full of pigs blood. A non-Islamic terrorist will have a different weaknesses in his background, maybe you just burn down his favorite bowling alley. For an eco-terrorist kill ten elephants and let the eco-freaks who want to follow in his footsteps know they will be responsible for another ten elephants being killed.
If that doesn't stop every future mass murderer, it will stop some. At the very least it will create a huge incentive for friends, gang members, or co-worshipers to stop him before a proxy for their favorite cause is destroyed.
You really think burning down a Mosque is Constitutional? You really think it's wise to kill 10 elephants to punish an eco-terrorist?
In Israel, they bulldoze houses and make the families of terrorists homeless. From watching what's happening there, doing that sort of thing doesn't seem to have much of an effect, except for making people hate the government even more.
What about Dylan Roof? If he belonged to a church, would you burn down the church?
Quote:You really think burning down a Mosque is Constitutional? You really think it's wise to kill 10 elephants to punish an eco-terrorist?
In Israel, they bulldoze houses and make the families of terrorists homeless. From watching what's happening there, doing that sort of thing doesn't seem to have much of an effect, except for making people hate the government even more.
What about Dylan Roof? If he belonged to a church, would you burn down the church?
Lol, so Dylan joined the church he shot up. Malabar would help him out by finishing what he started.
Quote:Yes I think it's Constitutional. The government is not targeting a specific religion since the policy would apply to any religion, and even a group of atheists if one of their members committed an anti--religious terrorist act.
Dylan Roof was not acting on a religious belief, he was acting on racism. Assuming he was part of a white supremacist group I'd burn down their meeting hall and bury him under a black panther flag.
You cannot seriously think such acts by the government would be constitutional. You seriously think the government can and should take someone's property because of someone else's crime? Seriously? You seem to think the government has the right to do whatever they want, and the citizens have no Constitutional protection whatsoever. Seriously. Am I getting whooshed again?
You're saying the government can come in and take my property to punish someone else that I don't even know for a crime they committed. They can burn down my church, burn down my meeting hall, take my property, whatever they want, in order to punish someone else. That's okay with you?
Someone in your church commits a crime, so then the government can burn down your church in response to that. That's your solution to terrorism? I think I much rather keep the terrorists.
Quote:Only in pretend arguments like this can your failed ideology survive.
Ideology? What are you babbling about? Did you learn a new word?
Quote:They let them in, and it will happen here if we keep letting them in......
The Westminster attacker, Khalid Masood, was born Adrian Russell Ajao to a Christian mother in Great Britain. Unless you're suggesting building a wall around wombs, I'm not sure how you would prevent letting "them" in.
Quote:Yes. If the congregation doesn't want their church (mosque, temple, gym, bowling alley) closed, then the congregation better do something about it before he goes on his killing spree.
In the case of a religious institute, the head clergy can make it very clear that killing is a sure way to eternal damnation (I'm not sure about the head pinsetter 
).
Having to find another place to worship is not a very severe punishment for breeding someone who commits mass murder.
True, but sometimes people don't even know the evil in their own group. Look at the friends and families of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and others. I mean, Bundy was always described in the best possible way by everyone who knew him. I don't remember now the details of his downfall and eventual arrest, I was young, but no one ever suspected a thing. You don't always see what is right in front of you.
How a place like Westboro is even allowed to exist is beyond me. They preach all sorts of hate and discontent.
Quote:True, but sometimes people don't even know the evil in their own group. Look at the friends and families of Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and others. I mean, Bundy was always described in the best possible way by everyone who knew him. I don't remember now the details of his downfall and eventual arrest, I was young, but no one ever suspected a thing. You don't always see what is right in front of you.
How a place like Westboro is even allowed to exist is beyond me. They preach all sorts of hate and discontent.
My idea was about dealing with those who commit mass murder for a cause. It wouldn't apply to serial killers. As far as I know Bundy and Dahmer had no underlying creed, and nothing they held dear. Nothing can be done about people like that except to catch them before they murder again.
Quote:My idea was about dealing with those who commit mass murder for a cause. It wouldn't apply to serial killers. As far as I know Bundy and Dahmer had no underlying creed, and nothing they held dear. Nothing can be done about people like that except to catch them before they murder again.
I know they're not the same. I was just pointing out that you don't always know the motives/motivations of the people around you. You can have a handful of folks in a large group who are radicalized and the group doesn't even know it. The handful of folks just seem "off" or "different" but not enough to suspect anything extreme. I saw it with my own eyes in the church I was in as a kid, just not on a jihadist let's kill all infidels level. Radicals are radicals no matter the group and can be very disruptive and dangerous in their own way.
Quote:In my opinion, it's the radicals within our own country that are the biggest problem. I say if you are on a "watch list", you should be taken in for interrogation...if you haven't or aren't planning to do something wrong, you should have nothing to worry about. But if you have or are planning terrorist plots...well then, you are going to have problems.
As for the terrorist organizations outside of our country, I don't really know what else we can do, other that what we're already doing and trying to do.
This sounds an awful lot like thought police in 1984.
And liberals want to make them our friends and neighbors.
That is literally how stupid they are.
They should keep rattlesnakes and black mambas as pets because they need love too......
Quote:And liberals want to make them our friends and neighbors.
That is literally how stupid they are.
They should keep rattlesnakes and black mambas as pets because they need love too......
You need to change your meds pal