We disagree. Once you have a warrant to search a location, device or other item, law enforcement should have access to search that item. The distinction between knowledge and a physical key is one without a difference with today's technology.
The court disagrees with you, thankfully. I'd rather not see the US become the PRC.
The court disagrees with you, thankfully. I'd rather not see the US become the PRC.
First, I don't care what the court says. I am stating my opinion. I disagree with many court decisions. Among them are King v. Burwell, Kelo v. New London and for that matter, Roe v. Wade.
Thankfully? Come on. It doesn't matter whether it's a thumb print or a four digit pass code. It's the same thing. They are getting a court order to access your device. They are not forcing you to incriminate yourself by testifying or admitting anything. They (law enforcement) are looking for evidence. We have court orders so law enforcement can do that. Think about the implications of your position. By this logic, a house could have a voice activated lock which would prevent law enforcement access to your residence even with a valid search warrant. You can't possibly support this.
Either provide evidence of your claims or stop spamming them. The Quran explicitly states what I have said it states.
I know what it states. My point is that the Bible states a lot of things people don't believe, too.
So you’re admitting to having no argument.
Because I interpret the Bible differently than you do?
I’ve read the Quran. They all believe the Quran. That might be it.
Some do. Some don't. Some believe it but interpret it differently.
Quote:
Yes.
It is absolutely, demonstrably false to claim all Christians condemn homosexuality.
Quote:
Taqiyya.
One of these days you’ll actually look up what the word means.
I did look it up, genius. It doesn't mean what you're claiming. Do I need to post it here for you?
Quote:
Sure can, if you read what I write.
Gee. How about that. Almost as though said events are proscribed by their book or something.
I hope you're enjoying being a condescending $%^!
Quote:
Zero refugees. Deport all illegals. Repeal the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Zero refugees...for how long? From anywhere?
Deport Illegals: Lots of people support this. I'm not sure I'm one of them. First, I don't think it's realistically possible with the laws we have. I also don't necessarily think it's right, as the vast majority of illegals have committed no other crime than entry. I am for securing the border by any means necessary, going after employers who act as illegal magnets, and creating a process by which those who are already here can be legal guest workers.
Repeal the Immigration Act: Repealing this will not stop immigration, visas, etc...you realize that, correct? What is the point of repealing it. Do you have a replacement in mind?
YUSUFALI: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
YUSUFALI: A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!
YUSUFALI: And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.
Scheme: v, make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
I hope you're enjoying being a condescending $%^!
ALL I WANT is for you to provide evidence of your claims or a disproof of mine. If the three stages don’t exist for all mussulmen, prove so. If the chain of events was not directly related to the rise in mussulman population (here’s another word for you: hijrah), prove so.
Zero refugees...for how long? From anywhere?
Yep.
Lots of people support this.
The fact that everyone does not is the problem.
First, I don't think it's realistically possible with the laws we have.
Of course it is. Our laws already explicitly state what to do with illegals, and they have since the beginning. The laws on the books already are sufficient. If anything, we need FEWER laws, combined, which say the same thing. We don’t need another law on top of the laws to explain why the laws that were laws but oughtn’t be laws are now no longer laws and how this law is the new law... etc.
One law. “If you’re here illegally and found, you’re deported. End of story. If you hire illegals, here’s the fine you’ll receive. If you hire illegals over citizens, here’s the bigger fine you’ll receive. If you house illegals, here’s the fine you’ll receive. If you transport or harbor illegals...” Et cetera. This is all already said; it just needs to be all in one place.
I also don't necessarily think it's right
Then you’re wrong.
...as the vast majority of illegals have committed no other crime than entry.
You yourself have admitted that they have committed a crime, and therefore you are in favor of our laws not being enforced. Your beliefs on the matter are completely irrelevant now, as you have no comprehension of what crime is, much less the magnitude of this specific crime. What is a country but its borders and people? Destroy the borders and destroy the people and what have you left? What good are laws if not enforced?
Repealing this will not stop immigration, visas, etc...you realize that, correct?
Your claim is that mussulmen don’t believe the Quran. We don’t have any evidence of that.
Because you refuse to provide evidence of your claim and instead move to a different topic.
I didn't make that claim. I said that some Muslims don't interpret the Quran as others do, and you do. You are the one making the claim that all Muslims are somehow jihadists in waiting.
Quote:
Then they’re not followers of Islam.
According to whom? You?
Quote:
Enjoy being wrong. Read the Bible.
I see. I'm wrong because of your interpretation of the Bible. Not only am I wrong, but "all" Christians condemn homosexuality. Of course, it doesn't seem to matter to you that literally millions don't consider homosexuality a sin because they interpret the Bible differently. It doesn't matter to you that the Bible contradicts itself all over the place, or that many believe it is not the literal word of God, but the word as passed through man. After all, it is historical fact that man has altered the Bible time and time again.
YUSUFALI: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
YUSUFALI: A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!
YUSUFALI: And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.
Scheme: v, make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
This practice was emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[4] Taqiyya was developed to protect Shi'ites who were usually in the minority and under pressure from the majority Sunni Muslims, and Shi'a Muslims as the persecuted minority have taken recourse to dissimulation from the time of the mihna(persecution) under Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century, while the politically dominant Sunnites rarely found it necessary to resort to dissimulation.[5]
In Sunni jurisprudence, denying faith under duress or other permissible reasons as per Islamic law is viewed "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory".[7]
In the Shi'a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[1] Taqiyya has also been legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shia, in order to maintain Muslim unity and fraternity.[8][9]
Since the 2000s, taqiyya has become a frequently invoked concept in debates surrounding criticism of Islam and especially Islamic extremism. Islamic scholars tend to emphasize that taqiyya is only permissible under duress, and that the inflationary use of the term qualifies as "a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America" (Mohammad Fadel2013), or "Taqiyya libel against Muslims"[43] while their critics accuse them of practicing "taqiyya about taqiyya" (Raymond Ibrahim, 2014).[44]
It is only recently that ISIS has suggested using it to their terrorist ends. Does ISIS represent all Muslims?
Quote:
ALL I WANT is for you to provide evidence of your claims or a disproof of mine. If the three stages don’t exist for all mussulmen, prove so. If the chain of events was not directly related to the rise in mussulman population (here’s another word for you: hijrah), prove so.
You are the one making the claim, and asking me to prove a negative. Ridiculous.
Quote:
Yep.
The fact that everyone does not is the problem.
Why? Reasonable people can differ on whether we should deport all illegals.
Quote:
Of course it is. Our laws already explicitly state what to do with illegals, and they have since the beginning. The laws on the books already are sufficient. If anything, we need FEWER laws, combined, which say the same thing. We don’t need another law on top of the laws to explain why the laws that were laws but oughtn’t be laws are now no longer laws and how this law is the new law... etc.
The courts have ruled that each deportee is entitled to a hearing. It would take years to deport them. Years.
Quote:
One law. “If you’re here illegally and found, you’re deported. End of story. If you hire illegals, here’s the fine you’ll receive. If you hire illegals over citizens, here’s the bigger fine you’ll receive. If you house illegals, here’s the fine you’ll receive. If you transport or harbor illegals...” Et cetera. This is all already said; it just needs to be all in one place.
I am in agreement with all of that, except that after we secure the border and go after businesses and what have you, we should address the people who are already here. You can ignore it if you want, pretending we'll actually be able to deport all of them. But we'll still have millions here who aren't on the grid, so to speak. I think the best way to is create a guest worker program where people have a certain time period to register and be vetted. After that time, I'm all for taking a hard line on deportation if you're found without a permit.
Quote:
Then you’re wrong.
Again, thanks for sharing your opinion.
Quote:
You yourself have admitted that they have committed a crime, and therefore you are in favor of our laws not being enforced.
They have committed a crime. I am saying I think there is a better solution than deporting millions of people. I absolutely want our laws enforced. In this case, following the law to the letter would make it very difficult to do what you are proposing.
Quote:
Your beliefs on the matter are completely irrelevant now, as you have no comprehension of what crime is, much less the magnitude of this specific crime.
Wow, you're really an arrogant one, aren't you? I know what crime is. I just said that it was a crime to enter as they have. As for the magnitude, I think it's you who are off base there. The vast majority of these people came to work hard and make a better life. The vast majority have committed no other crime. It is my opinion that so long as real border and employment reform happens, it would be better for everyone (citizens and illegals) to find a way to have many stay here legally. The benefits are enormous if done properly. First, you end up knowing who these people are (and you deport everyone else). They pay taxes. They don't vote. They don't get assistance. They get to work here and live here if they register and have not committed other crimes. Those who have committed other crimes or are found to be here unregistered after the deadline get deported. We go after employers hard. And we secure the border, even it means using active-duty military.
Quote:
What is a country but its borders and people? Destroy the borders and destroy the people and what have you left? What good are laws if not enforced?
I agree. I am not for open borders. Preferring not to deport millions of illegals so long as other reforms happen doesn't make me for open borders.
I said that some Muslims don't interpret the Quran as others do, and you do. You are the one making the claim that all Muslims are somehow jihadists in waiting.
The problem is that these aren’t things which are a matter of interpretation. This is explicitly defined doctrine.
According to whom? You?
According to the Quran.
I'm wrong because of your interpretation of the Bible.
Okay, apparently I need to ask this question before we can go any further. Do you believe in the existence of objective truth?
It doesn't matter to you that the Bible contradicts itself all over the place
I’m to understand that this is the result of inaccurate translations. Read a KJV.
Does ISIS represent all Muslims?
Yes, as the Islamic State is the culmination of the third stage of Islamic doctrine, and as their actions are supported by mussulmen the world over.
You are the one making the claim, and asking me to prove a negative.
Complete and utter nonsense. If my claim is false, you can provide evidence thereof. You have not. YOUR claim–that some mussulmen are peaceful–is ALSO contingent on evidence. Except I have already shown that their ‘peaceful’ nature is a facade, as specifically ordained by the book to which they subscribe.
Why? Reasonable people can differ on whether we should deport all illegals.
Reasonable people can differ on whether the laws on the books should or should not exist. Reasonable people cannot differ on whether those who have entered the country illegally should be deported, as the laws explicitly state they have 1. BROKEN A LAW and 2. THAT THEY SHOULD BE DEPORTED. Only one side of that discussion is reasonable.
Either laws have meaning or they don’t. Either laws have force or they don’t. Either borders exist or they don’t.
The courts have ruled that each deportee is entitled to a hearing.
Bullshit. Not the statement you’re making–the statement they’re making. The laws say otherwise.
It would take years to deport them. Years.
THEN IT WILL TAKE YEARS. Most of our problems come from not thinking in the long enough term. I don’t care how long it takes. Close the borders and deport them all.
...pretending we’ll actually be able to deport all of them.
The only one pretending here is you pretending we can’t. You act as though it’s physically or financially impossible. It certainly isn’t.
I think the best way to is create a guest worker program where people have a certain time period to register and be vetted.
I’d be in favor of that as a matter of baiting to root them out for deportation, sure.
Again, thanks for sharing your opinion.
Your problem is in thinking that I have very many opinions. My ‘beliefs’ are 1:1 with objective truth where it exists and based on it where it does not. ‘Beliefs’ only singled out because truth is not a matter of belief.
I am saying I think there is a better solution than deporting millions of people. I absolutely want our laws enforced.
If you want the laws enforced, you want them deported.
In this case, following the law to the letter would make it very difficult to do what you are proposing.
It would certainly not be easy, but the measure of difficulty is meaningless compared to the damage done if it doesn’t happen.
I just said that it was a crime to enter as they have.
Right! That’s... it. That’s where the discussion ends. It’s a crime, as there is a law on the books regarding it. The law also says what the punishment is. End of story. The only discussion can be on whether the law should be changed (it shouldn’t). It is the obligation of the federal government–executive branch specifically–to enforce existing law.
...it would be better for everyone (citizens and illegals) to find a way to have many stay here legally.
Leave, apply, return legally. Can’t be nearly as hard as coming here illegally.
They don't get assistance.
Of course they do.
(video’s an hour long; I haven’t even seen the whole thing, but I saw an earlier one he did with more data. Here’s text for a quickie)
I have. So? It’s a far, FAR better system than the one we have now. There’s literally nothing wrong with standardized, universal quotas and cutoffs.
The present plan in Germany–20 million invaders–will result in the suicide of the nation. OF COURSE THERE MUST BE QUOTAS. You can’t just let anyone in from anywhere, always, even if they’re all capable of going through the process legally.
EDIT: Oh, I like that “related” link at the bottom. That’s cute, wikipedia.
The problem is that these aren’t things which are a matter of interpretation. This is explicitly defined doctrine.
According to the Quran.
Okay, apparently I need to ask this question before we can go any further. Do you believe in the existence of objective truth?
Everything is a matter of interpretation. Just stop.
Quote:
I’m to understand that this is the result of inaccurate translations. Read a KJV.
That's laughable. Millions of Christians think homosexuality is a sin. And millions don't. And yes, the Bible does contradict itself in multiple versions. What the Bible means has been studied for centuries (theology).
Quote:
Yes, as the Islamic State is the culmination of the third stage of Islamic doctrine, and as their actions are supported by mussulmen the world over.
This is a good time to point out that you insist on using the derogatory "mussulmen" term instead of "Muslims." Interesting.
Quote:
Complete and utter nonsense. If my claim is false, you can provide evidence thereof. You have not. YOUR claim–that some mussulmen are peaceful–is ALSO contingent on evidence. Except I have already shown that their ‘peaceful’ nature is a facade, as specifically ordained by the book to which they subscribe.
Let me just say this: Your claim is fucking ridiculous. "All Muslims" are not terrorists or would-be terrorists. It's a racist assertion. Period.
Quote:
Reasonable people can differ on whether the laws on the books should or should not exist. Reasonable people cannot differ on whether those who have entered the country illegally should be deported, as the laws explicitly state they have 1. BROKEN A LAW and 2. THAT THEY SHOULD BE DEPORTED. Only one side of that discussion is reasonable.
The law doesn't say that. The law is that illegals get due process. And you can't look at this in a vacuum by stating "this is what should happen" as if reality does not apply. You first have to find them. Then you have to go through the hearings. Then you have to transport them over the border. Given that your policy would surely be made quite public, they are not exactly going to be motivated to be found by authorities. Putting aside any humanitarian considerations for a moment, the reality of deporting millions of illegal immigrants is much more complicated than your policy intentions. When we add the humanitarian considerations, it doesn't seem to me that it's the best thing to do. Obviously you're free to disagree.
Quote:
Either laws have meaning or they don’t. Either laws have force or they don’t. Either borders exist or they don’t.
So there should never be exceptions to any law or criminal penalty. Ever. Got it.
Quote:
Bullshit. Not the statement you’re making–the statement they’re making. The laws say otherwise.
You don't know shit about what the laws say. I actually know a former ICE lawyer very, very well. The issue is far more complicated than you're making it out to be.
Quote:
THEN IT WILL TAKE YEARS. Most of our problems come from not thinking in the long enough term. I don’t care how long it takes. Close the borders and deport them all.
A perfectly valid opinion. I simply think there is a better option. Close the borders, yes. Deport them all? I'd prefer another solution.
Quote:
The only one pretending here is you pretending we can’t. You act as though it’s physically or financially impossible. It certainly isn’t.
I didn't say that. I simply prefer another solution, one that is actually not that far off from your position.
Quote:
I’d be in favor of that as a matter of baiting to root them out for deportation, sure.
Wow.
Quote:
Your problem is in thinking that I have very many opinions. My ‘beliefs’ are 1:1 with objective truth where it exists and based on it where it does not. ‘Beliefs’ only singled out because truth is not a matter of belief.
You have many opinions. You just don't know it. Thinking your opinions are facts is a sign of arrogance and possible narcissism.
Quote:
If you want the laws enforced, you want them deported.
Which laws? All of them, or just immigration law?
Quote:
It would certainly not be easy, but the measure of difficulty is meaningless compared to the damage done if it doesn’t happen.
There would be a lot of damage done by attempting to deport them, too.
Quote:
Right! That’s... it. That’s where the discussion ends. It’s a crime, as there is a law on the books regarding it. The law also says what the punishment is. End of story. The only discussion can be on whether the law should be changed (it shouldn’t). It is the obligation of the federal government–executive branch specifically–to enforce existing law.
OK. I partially agree. Notice that I'm not fully opposed to deportation. It's simply that I think there is a better option.
Quote:
Leave, apply, return legally. Can’t be nearly as hard as coming here illegally.
Of course they do.
I didn't mean currently. I meant in what I was proposing. It's a problem of the tense in which I wrote.
Quote:
I have. So? It’s a far, FAR better system than the one we have now. There’s literally nothing wrong with standardized, universal quotas and cutoffs.
The present plan in Germany–20 million invaders–will result in the suicide of the nation. OF COURSE THERE MUST BE QUOTAS. You can’t just let anyone in from anywhere, always, even if they’re all capable of going through the process legally.
EDIT: Oh, I like that “related” link at the bottom. That’s cute, wikipedia.
(emphasis added in first line).
That is an opinion. I don't think I agree with it.
Everything is a matter of interpretation. Just stop.
Okay, you have deluded yourself into a fundamental lie of comprehension, and as such any further discussion with you will be worthless, as you are physically incapable of comprehending the truth when it is presented to you.
This is literally THE fundamental point of understanding in any argument, and it’s the question that should be asked first before any debate. If you don’t comprehend that universal truth exists–regardless of the scope thereof–you have no reason. You cannot be reasoned with. Honestly, it ought to be classified as mental illness.
And millions don't.
What part of what I said was confusing? I know you don’t comprehend that objective truth exists (and that is why you have this confusion), but the book literally says that it’s a sin. So it’s a sin if you believe the book. If you do not believe it is a sin, you do not believe the book, and are therefore NOT A CHRISTIAN.
And yes, the Bible does contradict itself in multiple versions.
Multiple versions that are heresies, yes.
This is a good time to point out that you insist on using the derogatory "mussulmen" term instead of "Muslims." Interesting.
There’s nothing derogatory about it. Interesting. If I wanted to be derogatory, you’d know.
Let me just say this: Your claim is fucking ridiculous. "All Muslims" are not terrorists or would-be terrorists. It's a racist assertion. Period.
Your words are meaningless. You have zero comprehension of the discussion. You have zero evidence for your claims. You have zero disproof of my claims. Islam is not a race. You don’t seem to get it at all.
The law is that illegals get due process.
They’re not citizens. They’re not bound to the rights thereof.
You first have to find them. Then you have to go through the hearings. Then you have to transport them over the border. Given that your policy would surely be made quite public, they are not exactly going to be motivated to be found by authorities.
No way. Really? Huh. But guess what? They can’t hide forever. Nor can they be hidden forever by accomplices.
When we add the humanitarian considerations, it doesn't seem to me that it's the best thing to do.
Humanitarianism doesn’t even apply here. They’re felons.
So there should never be exceptions to any law or criminal penalty. Ever. Got it.
Laws either exist or they don’t. This is your incapability of comprehending objectivity coming through again. If an exception exists, it would be written into law in the first place.
I'd prefer another solution.
Fair enough.
I simply prefer another solution, one that is actually not that far off from your position.
It’s literally diametrically opposed.
Wow.
Yeah, cops never do that!
You have many opinions. You just don't know it. Thinking your opinions are facts is a sign of arrogance and possible narcissism.
Sure thing. You know more than I what I know. When you want to get around to refuting these facts, go right ahead.
Which laws? All of them, or just immigration law?
If there are contradictory laws, you take one step up the chain of legal precedent and go with whatever law supersedes them.
There would be a lot of damage done by attempting to deport them, too.
Far less than keeping them.
Notice that I'm not fully opposed to deportation.
Oh yes; you mentioned–and I agree–that anyone after a given date would be deported. I just want the ‘given date’ to be in the past.
That is an opinion. I don't think I agree with it.
I’m certain that I’ve seen data which proves otherwise, but I’ll have to collect it again...
Here’s that other video I mentioned; feel free to just scrub through it, as you can skim the graphs that comprise it and see at a glance part of the damage done.
Okay, you have deluded yourself into a fundamental lie of comprehension, and as such any further discussion with you will be worthless, as you are physically incapable of comprehending the truth when it is presented to you.
And you've deluded yourself into thinking that what you are posting is factual and is "truth." Much of it is your opinion.
Quote:
This is literally THE fundamental point of understanding in any argument, and it’s the question that should be asked first before any debate. If you don’t comprehend that universal truth exists–regardless of the scope thereof–you have no reason. You cannot be reasoned with. Honestly, it ought to be classified as mental illness.
What should be classified as mental illness is the inability to recognize that different interpretations of religious texts exist, as well as the failure to recognize that you have a point of view. You are not the arbiter of truth.
Quote:
What part of what I said was confusing? I know you don’t comprehend that objective truth exists (and that is why you have this confusion), but the book literally says that it’s a sin. So it’s a sin if you believe the book. If you do not believe it is a sin, you do not believe the book, and are therefore NOT A CHRISTIAN.
The fact that you cannot acknowledge much debate about the meaning of the Bible exists (even among generations of theologians) is truly remarkable. I understand you believe that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexuality. Yes, believe, not "know." How you can actually say that every Biblical scholar who disagrees with you and every Christian who disagrees with you is full of shit is some First Class Narcissism.
Quote:
Multiple versions that are heresies, yes.
Heresies...according to you.
Quote:
There’s nothing derogatory about it. Interesting. If I wanted to be derogatory, you’d know.
It has a derogatory historical context. Look it up.
Quote:
Your words are meaningless. You have zero comprehension of the discussion. You have zero evidence for your claims. You have zero disproof of my claims. Islam is not a race. You don’t seem to get it at all.
Then why keep responding? If you cannot even accept that you are stating opinions instead of facts and truth, you're right...this is meaningless. As for the discussion, I completely and fully comprehend the arguments you are making. I have pointed out where I disagree and why. You, on the other hand, are taking your own interpretation of what Islam is and making sweeping statements about what "all" Muslims believe.
Quote:
They’re not citizens. They’re not bound to the rights thereof.
Wrong. The USSC has ruled that hearings are required. You don't want that to be true, but it is. You want the law to be different. But it's not. How's that for some objective truth?
Quote:
No way. Really? Huh. But guess what? They can’t hide forever. Nor can they be hidden forever by accomplices.
How many are "they?" You'll still have millions here.
Quote:
Humanitarianism doesn’t even apply here. They’re felons.
First, you're wrong. Entering illegally is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor. Secondly, the humanitarian situation doesn't just go away because they are criminals.
Quote:
Laws either exist or they don’t. This is your incapability of comprehending objectivity coming through again. If an exception exists, it would be written into law in the first place.
Once again, I comprehend exactly what you're saying, and in principal, I agree. All I am saying is that in this case, it is better not stick to the letter of the law, for a host of reasons.
Quote:
Fair enough.
It’s literally diametrically opposed.
The only difference is that I wouldn't deport most of the people already here. I'd still secure the border, go after employers, etc.
Quote:
Yeah, cops never do that!
Sure thing. You know more than I what I know. When you want to get around to refuting these facts, go right ahead.
But then you state this:
Quote:
Far less than keeping them.
That is an OPINION. It's an opinion with which I disagree, provided we have the right policy when "keeping" them.
Quote:
Oh yes; you mentioned–and I agree–that anyone after a given date would be deported. I just want the ‘given date’ to be in the past.
So we're not so diametrically opposed after all. To elaborate, if Trump gets elected (for example) and he actually gets deportation done? Fine with me.
Quote:
I’m certain that I’ve seen data which proves otherwise, but I’ll have to collect it again...
Quote:
Here’s that other video I mentioned; feel free to just scrub through it, as you can skim the graphs that comprise it and see at a glance part of the damage done.
Thanks. Let me be clear: I oppose illegal immigration completely, and consider it a MAJOR problem in our country. It's a security problem. It's a financial problem. It's a cultural problem. It drains our public institutions and coffers. It drives down wages. It's one of the great challenges and threats we face, and I want to see it addressed. What I am saying is that I don't think that deporting all illegal immigrants en masse is actually the best way to address it. I can elaborate more as to why I think this, but I'm not sure you'll be interested.
...you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that what you are posting is factual and is “truth."
So give evidence to the contrary. You’ve still failed to do that for anything you’ve said.
What should be classified as mental illness is the inability to recognize that different interpretations of religious texts exist
You fail to understand that I don’t disbelieve in multiple interpretations. Just that THIS is not UP to interpretation.
You are not the arbiter of truth.
Yes, you don’t understand what is being said at all.
The fact that you cannot acknowledge much debate about the meaning of the Bible exists (even among generations of theologians) is truly remarkable.
I didn’t acknowledge it because it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
I understand you believe that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexuality.
I believe this because it does. That goes back to the point you didn’t understand earlier about why I believe what I believe in regard to objective truth.
How you can actually say that every Biblical scholar who disagrees with you and every Christian who disagrees with you is full of shit is some First Class Narcissism.
“2+2=4.”
“Not under every interpretation, you narcissist!”
“Says so right here. Literally written down. Provable through every single means.”
“BELIEF BELIEF BELIEF!”
Heresies...according to you.
Stop being a child. Honestly, that’s all you have. You have absolutely no comprehension of the topic at hand and are fundamentally flawed in your thinking, by your own admission. There is nothing you can say which disproves me because you can’t comprehend that you could ever be wrong or that objective truth exists. How on Earth are you even alive? How can anyone so much as go about his day believing that at any second reality could magically change and that he would have to be forced to go along with it?
It has a derogatory historical context. Look it up.
And yet it’s not derogatory nor am I using it thus.
Then why keep responding?
People being wrong is a bad thing.
If you cannot even accept that you are stating opinions instead of facts and truth
So post “facts” and “truth” that contradicts me.
I completely and fully comprehend the arguments you are making.
Blatantly false, as evidenced by your previous replies.
You, on the other hand, are taking your own interpretation of what Islam is and making sweeping statements about what "all" Muslims believe.
And yet you’ve no evidence to the contrary.
The USSC has ruled that hearings are required.
And that’s malarkey. The ruling is bad.
How many are "they?"
Doesn’t matter. They all need to go.
Entering illegally is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor.
Disgusting, really. Thanks for the correction, though.
Secondly, the humanitarian situation doesn't just go away because they are criminals.
I don’t propose killing or harming them in any way, of course. I propose dealing with them humanely. Kicking someone out is humane.
All I am saying is that in this case, it is better not stick to the letter of the law, for a host of reasons.
Which are?
That is an OPINION.
Not according to the economics of the situation.
I oppose illegal immigration completely, and consider it a MAJOR problem in our country. It's a security problem. It's a financial problem. It's a cultural problem. It drains our public institutions and coffers. It drives down wages. It's one of the great challenges and threats we face, and I want to see it addressed. What I am saying is that I don't think that deporting all illegal immigrants en masse is actually the best way to address it.
Where we differ, then, is that you feel that rewarding those who break our laws is acceptable.
So give evidence to the contrary. You’ve still failed to do that for anything you’ve said.
That's because most of what I'm saying is my opinion and conclusions, supported by what I observe, read, etc. I've known Muslims personally. From my experience, I've met two types: Secular Muslims who aren't necessarily devout (perhaps comparable to "C&E Christians") and those who are more devout. The ones in the latter group are disgusted by the jihadists. They will explain to you that they don't believe jihad means what the terrorist jihadis believe. They are dismayed that their religion is being hijacked by these maniacs. They are some of the most peaceful and patriotic people I've met. Now, I realize you're just going to respond with "taqiyya." The problem with your assertion is that taqiyya does not mean the same thing to all Muslims. Some use it to justify hiding in plain sight, as you describe. Some believe it is to be used when Muslims are directly persecuted for their beliefs. Making the claim that all Muslims believe it means the former is just that...a CLAIM. You cannot support this claim. Going through the three stages of what happens when the Muslim population rises does not support your claim.
Quote:
You fail to understand that I don’t disbelieve in multiple interpretations. Just that THIS is not UP to interpretation.
I understand that's your opinion, yes.
Quote:
Yes, you don’t understand what is being said at all.
I didn’t acknowledge it because it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
I believe this because it does. That goes back to the point you didn’t understand earlier about why I believe what I believe in regard to objective truth.
“2+2=4.”
“Not under every interpretation, you narcissist!”
“Says so right here. Literally written down. Provable through every single means.”
“BELIEF BELIEF BELIEF!”
Stop being a child. Honestly, that’s all you have. You have absolutely no comprehension of the topic at hand and are fundamentally flawed in your thinking, by your own admission. There is nothing you can say which disproves me because you can’t comprehend that you could ever be wrong or that objective truth exists. How on Earth are you even alive? How can anyone so much as go about his day believing that at any second reality could magically change and that he would have to be forced to go along with it?
I am not trying to disprove what you're saying, because proving the negative ("all Muslims are jihadists or soon-to-be jihadists") is not my responsibility. Anyone claiming something is true for everyone has the burden of proving that assertion. Your explanation of the three phases of Islam and notation of what happens as Muslim populations rise are not proof of the assertion.
Quote:
And yet it’s not derogatory nor am I using it thus.
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering about that.
Quote:
People being wrong is a bad thing.
People being morally wrong is bad. People being factually wrong may or may not be bad, depending. Regardless, your assertion is that I'm wrong (factually) about not all Muslims being jihadis. Yet, you've simply not convinced me. You have done a good job showing why many Muslims can lie about their intentions, and what happens when Islam spreads as the majority faith. But you've not done enough to override my personal experiences and observations.
Quote:
So post “facts” and “truth” that contradicts me.
I have done so. You simply won't accept it.
Quote:
Blatantly false, as evidenced by your previous replies.
And yet you’ve no evidence to the contrary.
There is your opinion of my understanding, again. Tiresome.
Quote:
And that’s malarkey. The ruling is bad.
I don't disagree. But it still exists.
Quote:
Doesn’t matter. They all need to go.
As a practical consideration, it definitely matters.
Quote:
Disgusting, really. Thanks for the correction, though.
It's disgusting? I don't think I'd use that term. It's not surprising that many people would try to get out of Mexico and Honduras and Equador and wherever to get to the U.S. to improve their lives.
Quote:
I don’t propose killing or harming them in any way, of course. I propose dealing with them humanely. Kicking someone out is humane.
That's Trumps position. Again, it's not my preferred solution, but I don't necessarily oppose it. Something has to be done, and I'd rather have that than the status quo or anything come up with by current Democrats.
Quote:
Which are?
I've been through many of them. There are many challenges associated with deporting millions of illegal immigrants.
We have to find them, which will be harder once they know they are getting booted
Hearings will take forever
Families with U.S. citizen children will be broken up or deported together
There will be a negative economic impact in the sectors of agriculture and construction, among others.
There will be a massive amount of political opposition, making the process slow or stagnant
The net result will still be millions of illegals living here, but even more in the shadows than the are now.
Deportations really can't start in earnest until the border is secure, which will take a while
On the other hand, doing what I'm proposing has many advantages. First, you secure the border by any means necessary. You then simultaneously go after employers who hire illegals, and go after disgusting sanctuary city laws. After the bleeding has stopped, you create a guest worker program that incentivizes immigrants to register. They get this deal: Free registration for a guest worker ID card, which allows a person to live and work in the United States for a period of time, subject to renewal. Committing a crime of any kind (other than a summary violation/traffic law infringement) results in immediate revocation of said card, and deportation. No fines or back taxes. No requirement to learn English. As long as they have not committed a crime and do not commit crimes, they can stay. They must register within the first year of the program. Anyone found to be here illegally (unregistered) after that time gets immediately deported. They must pay federal, state and local taxes and are ineligible for welfare, medicare/medicaid and SS (though they must pay into it).
This all depends on a truly secure border and real future enforcement. It is a better way than just shipping everyone out.
Quote:
Not according to the economics of the situation.
I'm not sure you've fully considered that, actually.
Quote:
Where we differ, then, is that you feel that rewarding those who break our laws is acceptable.
No, so please put that straw man away. I do, however, think that the best solution for this one issue is as I described. Where you view this as a "reward," I view it as a more practical way to know who is here.
That's because most of what I'm saying is my opinion and conclusions, supported by what I observe, read, etc.
And that’s fine! It’s just wrong, is all, on this count.
Making the claim that all Muslims believe it means the former is just that...a CLAIM. You cannot support this claim. Going through the three stages of what happens when the Muslim population rises does not support your claim.
Can so.
1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified (13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified (25% overall).
2. ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers.
3. NOP Research: 25% of British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified.
4. FSIS: 18% of Muslim students in Britain would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
5. ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
6. Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified.
7. CSC: 33% of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
8. Policy Exchange: 33% of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed.
9. GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.
10. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
11. Policy Exchange: 51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian's consent.
12. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech. Only 3% adopt a "consistently pro freedom of speech line.”
13. Parisian Muslims: 75% of women wear their masks out of fear–including fear of violence.
Note, of course, that these are the people who will even openly admit to it. This doesn’t even include taqiyya. I can provide a broader range of data, if you like.
I understand that's your opinion, yes.
Once again, you are incapable of comprehending the concept of objective truth.
People being factually wrong may or may not be bad, depending.
I’d love to hear your explanation for that; I’m bemused at your conclusion.
But you've not done enough to override my personal experiences and observations.
I’ll do what you need, then. I’ll find more stats than the above if they’re not enough.
I don't disagree. But it still exists.
Do you happen to know who put that in place?
It's not surprising that many people would try to get out of Mexico and Honduras and Equador and wherever to get to the U.S. to improve their lives.
Oh, certainly not. Best country on Earth? Heck yeah we are. But it shows a disrespect for that country and the claimed goals by doing it wrong. Never mind how the idea was instigated–I don’t care if our government was advertising illegal travel or not–it’s not acceptable.
We have to find them, which will be harder once they know they are getting booted
They’ll eventually run out of food, currency for utilities, and be kicked out of their housing. They’ll have nowhere to go but south.
Hearings will take forever
If we can do mass initiations of new citizens, we can do mass deportations of illegals. All of the naturalized Americans submitted papers before their pledge on official citizenship day. All of the illegals will have individual papers served ABOUT their lack of citizenship before a single hearing that kicks 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 of them out at once. Do it in a stadium, even.
Families with U.S. citizen children will be broken up or deported together
Good. We did it before.
There will be a negative economic impact in the sectors of agriculture and construction, among others.
There will be a positive economic impact among real Americans.
There will be a massive amount of political opposition
Traitors, all of them. Screw what they think. Anyone found to not be enforcing the law will be subject to punishment. Anyone found to be harboring illegals will be subject to punishment, as well.
The net result will still be millions of illegals living here, but even more in the shadows than the are now.
Good. Let them live in fear of what they’ve done.
Deportations really can't start in earnest until the border is secure, which will take a while
We’ve waited this long. We can wait a bit more.
First, you secure the border by any means necessary.
I like the sound of that.
You then simultaneously go after employers who hire illegals, and go after disgusting sanctuary city laws.
Preach it.
After the bleeding has stopped, you create a guest worker program that incentivizes immigrants to register.
I’m actually not opposed to illegals submitting the legal paperwork, if they so choose, in advance of being thrown out. I’m fine with immigrants, just not their chosen behavior. It may take a while, but they can come back in. Legally.
And that’s fine! It’s just wrong, is all, on this count.
Can so.
1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
Looking at the report, that's an inflammatory description of the data. 15% say often/sometimes justified, 11% say rarely justified. So 26% say it's possible for it to be justified, not 26% believe they are justified. The IRA has justified civilian bombings too, so this is not a problem of any one religion. The suicide component could be attributed to religion, as there's an interpretation that would provide reward for this method.
Comments
The court disagrees with you, thankfully. I'd rather not see the US become the PRC.
Either provide evidence of your claims or stop spamming them. The Quran explicitly states what I have said it states.
So you’re admitting to having no argument.
I’ve read the Quran. They all believe the Quran. That might be it.
Yes.
Taqiyya.
One of these days you’ll actually look up what the word means.
Sure can, if you read what I write.
Gee. How about that. Almost as though said events are proscribed by their book or something.
We weren’t discussing that, but since you asked: Zero refugees. Deport all illegals. Repeal the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
The court disagrees with you, thankfully. I'd rather not see the US become the PRC.
First, I don't care what the court says. I am stating my opinion. I disagree with many court decisions. Among them are King v. Burwell, Kelo v. New London and for that matter, Roe v. Wade.
Thankfully? Come on. It doesn't matter whether it's a thumb print or a four digit pass code. It's the same thing. They are getting a court order to access your device. They are not forcing you to incriminate yourself by testifying or admitting anything. They (law enforcement) are looking for evidence. We have court orders so law enforcement can do that. Think about the implications of your position. By this logic, a house could have a voice activated lock which would prevent law enforcement access to your residence even with a valid search warrant. You can't possibly support this.
Either provide evidence of your claims or stop spamming them. The Quran explicitly states what I have said it states.
I know what it states. My point is that the Bible states a lot of things people don't believe, too.
So you’re admitting to having no argument.
Because I interpret the Bible differently than you do?
I’ve read the Quran. They all believe the Quran. That might be it.
Some do. Some don't. Some believe it but interpret it differently.
It is absolutely, demonstrably false to claim all Christians condemn homosexuality.
Taqiyya.
One of these days you’ll actually look up what the word means.
I did look it up, genius. It doesn't mean what you're claiming. Do I need to post it here for you?
Sure can, if you read what I write.
Gee. How about that. Almost as though said events are proscribed by their book or something.
I hope you're enjoying being a condescending $%^!
Zero refugees...for how long? From anywhere?
Deport Illegals: Lots of people support this. I'm not sure I'm one of them. First, I don't think it's realistically possible with the laws we have. I also don't necessarily think it's right, as the vast majority of illegals have committed no other crime than entry. I am for securing the border by any means necessary, going after employers who act as illegal magnets, and creating a process by which those who are already here can be legal guest workers.
Repeal the Immigration Act: Repealing this will not stop immigration, visas, etc...you realize that, correct? What is the point of repealing it. Do you have a replacement in mind?
My point is that the Bible states a lot of things people don't believe, too.
Your claim is that mussulmen don’t believe the Quran. We don’t have any evidence of that.
Because you refuse to provide evidence of your claim and instead move to a different topic.
Then they’re not followers of Islam.
Enjoy being wrong. Read the Bible.
016.106
YUSUFALI: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.
003.028
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
009.003
YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
040.028
YUSUFALI: A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!
003.054
YUSUFALI: And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.
Scheme: v, make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
I hope you're enjoying being a condescending $%^!
ALL I WANT is for you to provide evidence of your claims or a disproof of mine. If the three stages don’t exist for all mussulmen, prove so. If the chain of events was not directly related to the rise in mussulman population (here’s another word for you: hijrah), prove so.
Yep.
The fact that everyone does not is the problem.
Of course it is. Our laws already explicitly state what to do with illegals, and they have since the beginning. The laws on the books already are sufficient. If anything, we need FEWER laws, combined, which say the same thing. We don’t need another law on top of the laws to explain why the laws that were laws but oughtn’t be laws are now no longer laws and how this law is the new law... etc.
One law. “If you’re here illegally and found, you’re deported. End of story. If you hire illegals, here’s the fine you’ll receive. If you hire illegals over citizens, here’s the bigger fine you’ll receive. If you house illegals, here’s the fine you’ll receive. If you transport or harbor illegals...” Et cetera. This is all already said; it just needs to be all in one place.
Then you’re wrong.
You yourself have admitted that they have committed a crime, and therefore you are in favor of our laws not being enforced. Your beliefs on the matter are completely irrelevant now, as you have no comprehension of what crime is, much less the magnitude of this specific crime. What is a country but its borders and people? Destroy the borders and destroy the people and what have you left? What good are laws if not enforced?
Repealing this will not stop immigration, visas, etc...you realize that, correct?
Correct.
Do you have a replacement in mind?
The immigration laws that preceded it.
Your claim is that mussulmen don’t believe the Quran. We don’t have any evidence of that.
Because you refuse to provide evidence of your claim and instead move to a different topic.
I didn't make that claim. I said that some Muslims don't interpret the Quran as others do, and you do. You are the one making the claim that all Muslims are somehow jihadists in waiting.
According to whom? You?
I see. I'm wrong because of your interpretation of the Bible. Not only am I wrong, but "all" Christians condemn homosexuality. Of course, it doesn't seem to matter to you that literally millions don't consider homosexuality a sin because they interpret the Bible differently. It doesn't matter to you that the Bible contradicts itself all over the place, or that many believe it is not the literal word of God, but the word as passed through man. After all, it is historical fact that man has altered the Bible time and time again.
016.106
YUSUFALI: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.
003.028
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
009.003
YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
040.028
YUSUFALI: A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!
003.054
YUSUFALI: And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.
PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.
Scheme: v, make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
This practice was emphasized in Shi'a Islam whereby adherents may conceal their religion when they are under threat, persecution, or compulsion.[4] Taqiyya was developed to protect Shi'ites who were usually in the minority and under pressure from the majority Sunni Muslims, and Shi'a Muslims as the persecuted minority have taken recourse to dissimulation from the time of the mihna(persecution) under Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century, while the politically dominant Sunnites rarely found it necessary to resort to dissimulation.[5]
In Sunni jurisprudence, denying faith under duress or other permissible reasons as per Islamic law is viewed "only at most permitted and not under all circumstances obligatory".[7]
In the Shi'a view, taqiyya is lawful in situations where there is overwhelming danger of loss of life or property and where no danger to religion would occur thereby.[1] Taqiyya has also been legitimised, particularly among Twelver Shia, in order to maintain Muslim unity and fraternity.[8][9]
Since the 2000s, taqiyya has become a frequently invoked concept in debates surrounding criticism of Islam and especially Islamic extremism. Islamic scholars tend to emphasize that taqiyya is only permissible under duress, and that the inflationary use of the term qualifies as "a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America" (Mohammad Fadel2013), or "Taqiyya libel against Muslims"[43] while their critics accuse them of practicing "taqiyya about taqiyya" (Raymond Ibrahim, 2014).[44]
It is only recently that ISIS has suggested using it to their terrorist ends. Does ISIS represent all Muslims?
You are the one making the claim, and asking me to prove a negative. Ridiculous.
Yep.
The fact that everyone does not is the problem.
Why? Reasonable people can differ on whether we should deport all illegals.
Of course it is. Our laws already explicitly state what to do with illegals, and they have since the beginning. The laws on the books already are sufficient. If anything, we need FEWER laws, combined, which say the same thing. We don’t need another law on top of the laws to explain why the laws that were laws but oughtn’t be laws are now no longer laws and how this law is the new law... etc.
The courts have ruled that each deportee is entitled to a hearing. It would take years to deport them. Years.
I am in agreement with all of that, except that after we secure the border and go after businesses and what have you, we should address the people who are already here. You can ignore it if you want, pretending we'll actually be able to deport all of them. But we'll still have millions here who aren't on the grid, so to speak. I think the best way to is create a guest worker program where people have a certain time period to register and be vetted. After that time, I'm all for taking a hard line on deportation if you're found without a permit.
Again, thanks for sharing your opinion.
They have committed a crime. I am saying I think there is a better solution than deporting millions of people. I absolutely want our laws enforced. In this case, following the law to the letter would make it very difficult to do what you are proposing.
Wow, you're really an arrogant one, aren't you? I know what crime is. I just said that it was a crime to enter as they have. As for the magnitude, I think it's you who are off base there. The vast majority of these people came to work hard and make a better life. The vast majority have committed no other crime. It is my opinion that so long as real border and employment reform happens, it would be better for everyone (citizens and illegals) to find a way to have many stay here legally. The benefits are enormous if done properly. First, you end up knowing who these people are (and you deport everyone else). They pay taxes. They don't vote. They don't get assistance. They get to work here and live here if they register and have not committed other crimes. Those who have committed other crimes or are found to be here unregistered after the deadline get deported. We go after employers hard. And we secure the border, even it means using active-duty military.
I agree. I am not for open borders. Preferring not to deport millions of illegals so long as other reforms happen doesn't make me for open borders.
Correct.
The immigration laws that preceded it.
So, quotas? You should probably read about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula
I said that some Muslims don't interpret the Quran as others do, and you do. You are the one making the claim that all Muslims are somehow jihadists in waiting.
The problem is that these aren’t things which are a matter of interpretation. This is explicitly defined doctrine.
According to the Quran.
Okay, apparently I need to ask this question before we can go any further. Do you believe in the existence of objective truth?
I’m to understand that this is the result of inaccurate translations. Read a KJV.
Does ISIS represent all Muslims?
Yes, as the Islamic State is the culmination of the third stage of Islamic doctrine, and as their actions are supported by mussulmen the world over.
Complete and utter nonsense. If my claim is false, you can provide evidence thereof. You have not. YOUR claim–that some mussulmen are peaceful–is ALSO contingent on evidence. Except I have already shown that their ‘peaceful’ nature is a facade, as specifically ordained by the book to which they subscribe.
Why? Reasonable people can differ on whether we should deport all illegals.
Reasonable people can differ on whether the laws on the books should or should not exist. Reasonable people cannot differ on whether those who have entered the country illegally should be deported, as the laws explicitly state they have 1. BROKEN A LAW and 2. THAT THEY SHOULD BE DEPORTED. Only one side of that discussion is reasonable.
Either laws have meaning or they don’t. Either laws have force or they don’t. Either borders exist or they don’t.
Bullshit. Not the statement you’re making–the statement they’re making. The laws say otherwise.
THEN IT WILL TAKE YEARS. Most of our problems come from not thinking in the long enough term. I don’t care how long it takes. Close the borders and deport them all.
The only one pretending here is you pretending we can’t. You act as though it’s physically or financially impossible. It certainly isn’t.
I’d be in favor of that as a matter of baiting to root them out for deportation, sure.
Again, thanks for sharing your opinion.
Your problem is in thinking that I have very many opinions. My ‘beliefs’ are 1:1 with objective truth where it exists and based on it where it does not. ‘Beliefs’ only singled out because truth is not a matter of belief.
If you want the laws enforced, you want them deported.
It would certainly not be easy, but the measure of difficulty is meaningless compared to the damage done if it doesn’t happen.
Right! That’s... it. That’s where the discussion ends. It’s a crime, as there is a law on the books regarding it. The law also says what the punishment is. End of story. The only discussion can be on whether the law should be changed (it shouldn’t). It is the obligation of the federal government–executive branch specifically–to enforce existing law.
Leave, apply, return legally. Can’t be nearly as hard as coming here illegally.
Of course they do.
(video’s an hour long; I haven’t even seen the whole thing, but I saw an earlier one he did with more data. Here’s text for a quickie)
So, quotas? You should probably read about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula ;
I have. So? It’s a far, FAR better system than the one we have now. There’s literally nothing wrong with standardized, universal quotas and cutoffs.
The present plan in Germany–20 million invaders–will result in the suicide of the nation. OF COURSE THERE MUST BE QUOTAS. You can’t just let anyone in from anywhere, always, even if they’re all capable of going through the process legally.
EDIT: Oh, I like that “related” link at the bottom. That’s cute, wikipedia.
The problem is that these aren’t things which are a matter of interpretation. This is explicitly defined doctrine.
According to the Quran.
Okay, apparently I need to ask this question before we can go any further. Do you believe in the existence of objective truth?
Everything is a matter of interpretation. Just stop.
I’m to understand that this is the result of inaccurate translations. Read a KJV.
That's laughable. Millions of Christians think homosexuality is a sin. And millions don't. And yes, the Bible does contradict itself in multiple versions. What the Bible means has been studied for centuries (theology).
This is a good time to point out that you insist on using the derogatory "mussulmen" term instead of "Muslims." Interesting.
Let me just say this: Your claim is fucking ridiculous. "All Muslims" are not terrorists or would-be terrorists. It's a racist assertion. Period.
The law doesn't say that. The law is that illegals get due process. And you can't look at this in a vacuum by stating "this is what should happen" as if reality does not apply. You first have to find them. Then you have to go through the hearings. Then you have to transport them over the border. Given that your policy would surely be made quite public, they are not exactly going to be motivated to be found by authorities. Putting aside any humanitarian considerations for a moment, the reality of deporting millions of illegal immigrants is much more complicated than your policy intentions. When we add the humanitarian considerations, it doesn't seem to me that it's the best thing to do. Obviously you're free to disagree.
Either laws have meaning or they don’t. Either laws have force or they don’t. Either borders exist or they don’t.
So there should never be exceptions to any law or criminal penalty. Ever. Got it.
Bullshit. Not the statement you’re making–the statement they’re making. The laws say otherwise.
You don't know shit about what the laws say. I actually know a former ICE lawyer very, very well. The issue is far more complicated than you're making it out to be.
A perfectly valid opinion. I simply think there is a better option. Close the borders, yes. Deport them all? I'd prefer another solution.
The only one pretending here is you pretending we can’t. You act as though it’s physically or financially impossible. It certainly isn’t.
I didn't say that. I simply prefer another solution, one that is actually not that far off from your position.
I’d be in favor of that as a matter of baiting to root them out for deportation, sure.
Wow.
You have many opinions. You just don't know it. Thinking your opinions are facts is a sign of arrogance and possible narcissism.
Which laws? All of them, or just immigration law?
It would certainly not be easy, but the measure of difficulty is meaningless compared to the damage done if it doesn’t happen.
There would be a lot of damage done by attempting to deport them, too.
OK. I partially agree. Notice that I'm not fully opposed to deportation. It's simply that I think there is a better option.
Leave, apply, return legally. Can’t be nearly as hard as coming here illegally.
Of course they do.
I didn't mean currently. I meant in what I was proposing. It's a problem of the tense in which I wrote.
I have. So? It’s a far, FAR better system than the one we have now. There’s literally nothing wrong with standardized, universal quotas and cutoffs.
The present plan in Germany–20 million invaders–will result in the suicide of the nation. OF COURSE THERE MUST BE QUOTAS. You can’t just let anyone in from anywhere, always, even if they’re all capable of going through the process legally.
EDIT: Oh, I like that “related” link at the bottom. That’s cute, wikipedia.
(emphasis added in first line).
That is an opinion. I don't think I agree with it.
Everything is a matter of interpretation. Just stop.
Okay, you have deluded yourself into a fundamental lie of comprehension, and as such any further discussion with you will be worthless, as you are physically incapable of comprehending the truth when it is presented to you.
This is literally THE fundamental point of understanding in any argument, and it’s the question that should be asked first before any debate. If you don’t comprehend that universal truth exists–regardless of the scope thereof–you have no reason. You cannot be reasoned with. Honestly, it ought to be classified as mental illness.
What part of what I said was confusing? I know you don’t comprehend that objective truth exists (and that is why you have this confusion), but the book literally says that it’s a sin. So it’s a sin if you believe the book. If you do not believe it is a sin, you do not believe the book, and are therefore NOT A CHRISTIAN.
Multiple versions that are heresies, yes.
This is a good time to point out that you insist on using the derogatory "mussulmen" term instead of "Muslims." Interesting.
There’s nothing derogatory about it. Interesting. If I wanted to be derogatory, you’d know.
Your words are meaningless. You have zero comprehension of the discussion. You have zero evidence for your claims. You have zero disproof of my claims. Islam is not a race. You don’t seem to get it at all.
The law is that illegals get due process.
They’re not citizens. They’re not bound to the rights thereof.
No way. Really? Huh. But guess what? They can’t hide forever. Nor can they be hidden forever by accomplices.
Humanitarianism doesn’t even apply here. They’re felons.
So there should never be exceptions to any law or criminal penalty. Ever. Got it.
Laws either exist or they don’t. This is your incapability of comprehending objectivity coming through again. If an exception exists, it would be written into law in the first place.
I'd prefer another solution.
Fair enough.
It’s literally diametrically opposed.
Yeah, cops never do that!
Sure thing. You know more than I what I know. When you want to get around to refuting these facts, go right ahead.
If there are contradictory laws, you take one step up the chain of legal precedent and go with whatever law supersedes them.
There would be a lot of damage done by attempting to deport them, too.
Far less than keeping them.
Oh yes; you mentioned–and I agree–that anyone after a given date would be deported. I just want the ‘given date’ to be in the past.
That is an opinion. I don't think I agree with it.
I’m certain that I’ve seen data which proves otherwise, but I’ll have to collect it again...
Here’s that other video I mentioned; feel free to just scrub through it, as you can skim the graphs that comprise it and see at a glance part of the damage done.
Okay, you have deluded yourself into a fundamental lie of comprehension, and as such any further discussion with you will be worthless, as you are physically incapable of comprehending the truth when it is presented to you.
And you've deluded yourself into thinking that what you are posting is factual and is "truth." Much of it is your opinion.
What should be classified as mental illness is the inability to recognize that different interpretations of religious texts exist, as well as the failure to recognize that you have a point of view. You are not the arbiter of truth.
The fact that you cannot acknowledge much debate about the meaning of the Bible exists (even among generations of theologians) is truly remarkable. I understand you believe that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexuality. Yes, believe, not "know." How you can actually say that every Biblical scholar who disagrees with you and every Christian who disagrees with you is full of shit is some First Class Narcissism.
Heresies...according to you.
There’s nothing derogatory about it. Interesting. If I wanted to be derogatory, you’d know.
It has a derogatory historical context. Look it up.
Then why keep responding? If you cannot even accept that you are stating opinions instead of facts and truth, you're right...this is meaningless. As for the discussion, I completely and fully comprehend the arguments you are making. I have pointed out where I disagree and why. You, on the other hand, are taking your own interpretation of what Islam is and making sweeping statements about what "all" Muslims believe.
They’re not citizens. They’re not bound to the rights thereof.
Wrong. The USSC has ruled that hearings are required. You don't want that to be true, but it is. You want the law to be different. But it's not. How's that for some objective truth?
How many are "they?" You'll still have millions here.
Humanitarianism doesn’t even apply here. They’re felons.
First, you're wrong. Entering illegally is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor. Secondly, the humanitarian situation doesn't just go away because they are criminals.
Once again, I comprehend exactly what you're saying, and in principal, I agree. All I am saying is that in this case, it is better not stick to the letter of the law, for a host of reasons.
Fair enough.
It’s literally diametrically opposed.
The only difference is that I wouldn't deport most of the people already here. I'd still secure the border, go after employers, etc.
Yeah, cops never do that!
Sure thing. You know more than I what I know. When you want to get around to refuting these facts, go right ahead.
But then you state this:
That is an OPINION. It's an opinion with which I disagree, provided we have the right policy when "keeping" them.
So we're not so diametrically opposed after all. To elaborate, if Trump gets elected (for example) and he actually gets deportation done? Fine with me.
I’m certain that I’ve seen data which proves otherwise, but I’ll have to collect it again...
Thanks. Let me be clear: I oppose illegal immigration completely, and consider it a MAJOR problem in our country. It's a security problem. It's a financial problem. It's a cultural problem. It drains our public institutions and coffers. It drives down wages. It's one of the great challenges and threats we face, and I want to see it addressed. What I am saying is that I don't think that deporting all illegal immigrants en masse is actually the best way to address it. I can elaborate more as to why I think this, but I'm not sure you'll be interested.
...you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that what you are posting is factual and is “truth."
So give evidence to the contrary. You’ve still failed to do that for anything you’ve said.
You fail to understand that I don’t disbelieve in multiple interpretations. Just that THIS is not UP to interpretation.
Yes, you don’t understand what is being said at all.
I didn’t acknowledge it because it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
I believe this because it does. That goes back to the point you didn’t understand earlier about why I believe what I believe in regard to objective truth.
“2+2=4.”
“Not under every interpretation, you narcissist!”
“Says so right here. Literally written down. Provable through every single means.”
“BELIEF BELIEF BELIEF!”
Heresies...according to you.
Stop being a child. Honestly, that’s all you have. You have absolutely no comprehension of the topic at hand and are fundamentally flawed in your thinking, by your own admission. There is nothing you can say which disproves me because you can’t comprehend that you could ever be wrong or that objective truth exists. How on Earth are you even alive? How can anyone so much as go about his day believing that at any second reality could magically change and that he would have to be forced to go along with it?
And yet it’s not derogatory nor am I using it thus.
People being wrong is a bad thing.
So post “facts” and “truth” that contradicts me.
Blatantly false, as evidenced by your previous replies.
And yet you’ve no evidence to the contrary.
The USSC has ruled that hearings are required.
And that’s malarkey. The ruling is bad.
How many are "they?"
Doesn’t matter. They all need to go.
Entering illegally is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor.
Disgusting, really. Thanks for the correction, though.
I don’t propose killing or harming them in any way, of course. I propose dealing with them humanely. Kicking someone out is humane.
All I am saying is that in this case, it is better not stick to the letter of the law, for a host of reasons.
Which are?
Not according to the economics of the situation.
I oppose illegal immigration completely, and consider it a MAJOR problem in our country. It's a security problem. It's a financial problem. It's a cultural problem. It drains our public institutions and coffers. It drives down wages. It's one of the great challenges and threats we face, and I want to see it addressed. What I am saying is that I don't think that deporting all illegal immigrants en masse is actually the best way to address it.
Where we differ, then, is that you feel that rewarding those who break our laws is acceptable.
So give evidence to the contrary. You’ve still failed to do that for anything you’ve said.
That's because most of what I'm saying is my opinion and conclusions, supported by what I observe, read, etc. I've known Muslims personally. From my experience, I've met two types: Secular Muslims who aren't necessarily devout (perhaps comparable to "C&E Christians") and those who are more devout. The ones in the latter group are disgusted by the jihadists. They will explain to you that they don't believe jihad means what the terrorist jihadis believe. They are dismayed that their religion is being hijacked by these maniacs. They are some of the most peaceful and patriotic people I've met. Now, I realize you're just going to respond with "taqiyya." The problem with your assertion is that taqiyya does not mean the same thing to all Muslims. Some use it to justify hiding in plain sight, as you describe. Some believe it is to be used when Muslims are directly persecuted for their beliefs. Making the claim that all Muslims believe it means the former is just that...a CLAIM. You cannot support this claim. Going through the three stages of what happens when the Muslim population rises does not support your claim.
You fail to understand that I don’t disbelieve in multiple interpretations. Just that THIS is not UP to interpretation.
I understand that's your opinion, yes.
Yes, you don’t understand what is being said at all.
I didn’t acknowledge it because it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
I believe this because it does. That goes back to the point you didn’t understand earlier about why I believe what I believe in regard to objective truth.
“2+2=4.”
“Not under every interpretation, you narcissist!”
“Says so right here. Literally written down. Provable through every single means.”
“BELIEF BELIEF BELIEF!”
Stop being a child. Honestly, that’s all you have. You have absolutely no comprehension of the topic at hand and are fundamentally flawed in your thinking, by your own admission. There is nothing you can say which disproves me because you can’t comprehend that you could ever be wrong or that objective truth exists. How on Earth are you even alive? How can anyone so much as go about his day believing that at any second reality could magically change and that he would have to be forced to go along with it?
I am not trying to disprove what you're saying, because proving the negative ("all Muslims are jihadists or soon-to-be jihadists") is not my responsibility. Anyone claiming something is true for everyone has the burden of proving that assertion. Your explanation of the three phases of Islam and notation of what happens as Muslim populations rise are not proof of the assertion.
And yet it’s not derogatory nor am I using it thus.
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering about that.
People being wrong is a bad thing.
People being morally wrong is bad. People being factually wrong may or may not be bad, depending. Regardless, your assertion is that I'm wrong (factually) about not all Muslims being jihadis. Yet, you've simply not convinced me. You have done a good job showing why many Muslims can lie about their intentions, and what happens when Islam spreads as the majority faith. But you've not done enough to override my personal experiences and observations.
So post “facts” and “truth” that contradicts me.
I have done so. You simply won't accept it.
Blatantly false, as evidenced by your previous replies.
And yet you’ve no evidence to the contrary.
There is your opinion of my understanding, again. Tiresome.
I don't disagree. But it still exists.
Doesn’t matter. They all need to go.
As a practical consideration, it definitely matters.
Disgusting, really. Thanks for the correction, though.
It's disgusting? I don't think I'd use that term. It's not surprising that many people would try to get out of Mexico and Honduras and Equador and wherever to get to the U.S. to improve their lives.
I don’t propose killing or harming them in any way, of course. I propose dealing with them humanely. Kicking someone out is humane.
That's Trumps position. Again, it's not my preferred solution, but I don't necessarily oppose it. Something has to be done, and I'd rather have that than the status quo or anything come up with by current Democrats.
I've been through many of them. There are many challenges associated with deporting millions of illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, doing what I'm proposing has many advantages. First, you secure the border by any means necessary. You then simultaneously go after employers who hire illegals, and go after disgusting sanctuary city laws. After the bleeding has stopped, you create a guest worker program that incentivizes immigrants to register. They get this deal: Free registration for a guest worker ID card, which allows a person to live and work in the United States for a period of time, subject to renewal. Committing a crime of any kind (other than a summary violation/traffic law infringement) results in immediate revocation of said card, and deportation. No fines or back taxes. No requirement to learn English. As long as they have not committed a crime and do not commit crimes, they can stay. They must register within the first year of the program. Anyone found to be here illegally (unregistered) after that time gets immediately deported. They must pay federal, state and local taxes and are ineligible for welfare, medicare/medicaid and SS (though they must pay into it).
This all depends on a truly secure border and real future enforcement. It is a better way than just shipping everyone out.
I'm not sure you've fully considered that, actually.
Where we differ, then, is that you feel that rewarding those who break our laws is acceptable.
No, so please put that straw man away. I do, however, think that the best solution for this one issue is as I described. Where you view this as a "reward," I view it as a more practical way to know who is here.
That's because most of what I'm saying is my opinion and conclusions, supported by what I observe, read, etc.
And that’s fine! It’s just wrong, is all, on this count.
Can so.
1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified (13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified (25% overall).
2. ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers.
3. NOP Research: 25% of British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified.
4. FSIS: 18% of Muslim students in Britain would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
5. ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
6. Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified.
7. CSC: 33% of British Muslim students support killing for Islam.
8. Policy Exchange: 33% of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed.
9. GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.
10. NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.
11. Policy Exchange: 51% of British Muslims believe a woman cannot marry a non-Muslim. Only 51% believe a Muslim woman may marry without a guardian's consent.
12. NOP Research: 62% of British Muslims do not believe in the protection of free speech. Only 3% adopt a "consistently pro freedom of speech line.”
13. Parisian Muslims: 75% of women wear their masks out of fear–including fear of violence.
1 & 6. http://www.pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll reveals 40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879. shtml&date=2011-04-06
4. http://www.fosis.org uk/sac/FullReport.pdf and danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
5. http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2004_november_guardian_muslims_poll.pdf
7. http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1231525079_1.pdf (if site is down - mirror: conservativehome.blogs.com/files/1292336866_1-1.pdf)
8, 9, & 11. http://www.civifas.org/uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
10 & 12. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
13. http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3402230
FSIS: Federation of Student Islamic Societies
CSC: Center for Social Cohesion
Note, of course, that these are the people who will even openly admit to it. This doesn’t even include taqiyya. I can provide a broader range of data, if you like.
I understand that's your opinion, yes.
Once again, you are incapable of comprehending the concept of objective truth.
People being factually wrong may or may not be bad, depending.
I’d love to hear your explanation for that; I’m bemused at your conclusion.
I’ll do what you need, then. I’ll find more stats than the above if they’re not enough.
Do you happen to know who put that in place?
It's not surprising that many people would try to get out of Mexico and Honduras and Equador and wherever to get to the U.S. to improve their lives.
Oh, certainly not. Best country on Earth? Heck yeah we are. But it shows a disrespect for that country and the claimed goals by doing it wrong. Never mind how the idea was instigated–I don’t care if our government was advertising illegal travel or not–it’s not acceptable.
We have to find them, which will be harder once they know they are getting booted
They’ll eventually run out of food, currency for utilities, and be kicked out of their housing. They’ll have nowhere to go but south.
If we can do mass initiations of new citizens, we can do mass deportations of illegals. All of the naturalized Americans submitted papers before their pledge on official citizenship day. All of the illegals will have individual papers served ABOUT their lack of citizenship before a single hearing that kicks 1, 2, 3, 4, 500 of them out at once. Do it in a stadium, even.
Good. We did it before.
There will be a positive economic impact among real Americans.
Traitors, all of them. Screw what they think. Anyone found to not be enforcing the law will be subject to punishment. Anyone found to be harboring illegals will be subject to punishment, as well.
Good. Let them live in fear of what they’ve done.
We’ve waited this long. We can wait a bit more.
I like the sound of that.
Preach it.
I’m actually not opposed to illegals submitting the legal paperwork, if they so choose, in advance of being thrown out. I’m fine with immigrants, just not their chosen behavior. It may take a while, but they can come back in. Legally.
Utter nonsense.
And that’s fine! It’s just wrong, is all, on this count.
Can so.
1. Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
Looking at the report, that's an inflammatory description of the data. 15% say often/sometimes justified, 11% say rarely justified. So 26% say it's possible for it to be justified, not 26% believe they are justified. The IRA has justified civilian bombings too, so this is not a problem of any one religion. The suicide component could be attributed to religion, as there's an interpretation that would provide reward for this method.