The only place that sharia law is trying to be implemented in the west, is in the minds of faux news and the other pundits of their ilk.

Be careful of the koolaid your drinking.

And go back and look at what Christianity was doing when it was the same age as Islam.

Islam is six centuries younger than Christianity. However, their common connection is Abraham.

As far as religious laws superseding federal, state, or local laws ... they should NOT.

Freedom of religion means the government does not form a Church of the United States, you are free to worship as you wish.

Let's say a religious law states it's ok for a man to have sex with minors. In most states, that would constitute a rape. Are you preventing that man from practicing his religion if you prosecute him for rape? Take a sip of your koolaid before answering.

On edit: Corrected error pointed out by cmartinez.

 

Islam is six centuries OLDER than Christianity. However, their common connection

I'm sure you meant to say that Islam is six centuries YOUNGER than Christianity.... right?

 

I'm sure you meant to say that Islam is six centuries YOUNGER than Christianity.... right?

I stand corrected.

I do find it "interesting" that Judism, Islam, and Christianity share a common lineage.

 

I stand corrected.

I do find it "interesting" that Judism, Islam, and Christianity share a common lineage.

Only trouble is, The Koran has many historical mistakes and inconsistencies in it that make me think that Islam is a "made-up" religion. Also, it does not recognize many facts mentioned in the Old Testament, nor the New, for that matter.

 

Only trouble is, The Koran has many historical mistakes and inconsistencies in it that make me think that Islam is a "made-up" religion. Also, it does not recognize many facts mentioned in the Old Testament, nor the New, for that matter.

Like the various versions of the Bible, there are humans interpreting. Christianity has a lot of variations, some follow the King James Version of the bible and others follow the one used by Catholics. A theologian would know the differences, but it would take some research time for me to locate the differences. I don't see why the Quran would be free from human "biases".

Martin Luther departed ways from the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is different than the Greek Orthodox Church, yet both are Christian organizations. The Church of England is also different.

People are free to practice whatever religion they choose. Personally, if a cactus is their higher power, that's their choice. I have no say in the matter until they try to convert me to believe in the same manner as they.

Sure, one can hold a spirited intercourse in one of these forums concerning religious beliefs, and it should be respected by all who participate. I still support and defend the Constitution of the United States even though it's been 22 years since my last day in uniform. I believed in that oath long before I first took it.

 

And the beat goes on.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-saudi-insight-idUSKCN0SR1LG20151102

 

The Yemen conflict is another creation of the cold-war proxy fights where we both armed Islamic groups to fight over a dry piece of dirt. I remember reading Intel reports of Soviet activity and our counter-actions to them in the late 70's, early 80's while deployed on a ship (we had a supply base in Oman) near the gulf of Aden watching Soviet air/naval activity. Saudi Arabia is just the latest fool to try to tame that place.

http://www.coldwarstudies.com/2015/03/23/cold-war-yemen-some-things-you-need-to-know/

Perceptions of external interference in Yemen distract attention from the internal factors driving the brutal stop-start violence in the country. Looting, drug smuggling, gunrunning, people trafficking, and tribal feuds also contribute to the violence in some sectors of the country. Terrorist networks are, of course, a contributing factor.

Hopefully, the above recounting of Yemen’s turbulent history helps to put today’s happenings in context. It seems clear to me that Yemen could never be a stable “ally” of the United States — or anyone else for that matter. Internal schisms, the intrusion of terrorist networks, and external pressures have resulted, instead, in a country plagued by political and social instability and poverty.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-iran-gulf/yemen.aspx

 

Christmas in Damascus, Syria - 2015

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...christmas-for-syrian-refugees-in-lebanon.html

 

Well, your pretty close to Pakistan. But, I think they are a little more moderate. They seemed to easily push the Taliban back into the northwest when they got to frisky.
What do you fell? Do you feel safe?

I don't know army is doing there work.
anyway they bring money from abroad according to people and settle in every country...
Why the attach anyway??
how they make technology without it they can't do anything i think.

 

When you have nothing to loose but your life, some give it. Thats where many Muslims are.

That's the Obama administration's answer to the radicalization of islam: you will need to provide jobs to those guys so they will not fight. I think the 911 hijackers have proven that wrong quite convincingly but there are still lots of people refusing to see that and continuing to see the radicalization as rooted outside of Islam / current teaching of Islam.

As long as that kind of thinking continues, we will continue to have the radicalization.

As far as only Muslims being fanatic, what about the different "christian" groups (used uncapitalized on purpose)?

There will always be extremists among any group of people. The existence of extremists in any religious group, however, does not absolve Islam of its own radicalization: there are simply too many radical islamists too willing to do too extreme things to too many other people on too little / trival matters. It is their wide-spreadness and their volatility that set them apart from extremists in other religions.

For a group practicing the religion of peace, that seems to be too paradoxical.

This country was started on freedom of religion, that means all religions, not just the ones deemed to be "correct".

Freedom of religions is less about your ability to practice your religion than others' inability to force you to practice their religion. Unless Christians / Jews / Buddists / Atheists / etc. can openly practice their religion (or lack of) in predominantly Muslim countries, there is no hope for Islam.

And go back and look at what Christianity was doing when it was the same age as Islam.

The fact that someone believes in a new religion created yesterday doesn't justify his practicing christian / jewish / islamic beheadings on you today.

As peoples, we have advanced far away from our dark past, with the exception of Islam. The fact that someone is late to the party does not mean a different hurdle for civil behaviors should be used for him.

That's just basic fairness.

 

That's the Obama administration's answer to the radicalization of islam: you will need to provide jobs to those guys so they will not fight. I think the 911 hijackers have proven that wrong quite convincingly

I don't think carrer jihadists is the kind of job the administration was talking about. Certainly, lack of opportunity plays a role.

 

Funny thing is, everybody seems to forget that the invaders were the muslims, and that the defenders were the Cursaders. This is my source. There are more sources like that one out there, Hilaire Belloc, for instance, and many others.

Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks, but the crusaders entered the city on 15 July 1099. They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and also pillaged or destroyed mosques or the city itself.[71] In his Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem, Raymond D'Aguilers exalted actions which would be considered atrocities from a modern viewpoint.[72] As a result of the First Crusade, four primary crusader states were created: Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli, and Jerusalem.[73] On a popular level, the First Crusade unleashed a wave of impassioned, pious Catholic fury which was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the crusades[74] and the violent treatment of the "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east.[75]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

Personally, if a cactus is their higher power, that's their choice.

No argument there... it is a very personal thing, indeed.

 

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Back then, all Christianity was affected by antisemitism to one degree or the other. Even today that awful poison runs in many branches of western culture. But the story was a little more complicated than what the Wikipedia mentions:

"Jewish communities existed throughout Christendom at the beginning of the Crusading movement. Christian attitudes towards the Jews differed from region to region, but papal policy centered on toleration and protection—indeed, the Jews were the only non-Christian community officially protected in medieval society. Regardless, some of those who took the cross used the Crusades as an excuse to harass Jews for their wealth; this was especially evident in the Rhineland. One individual unworthy to be called or even considered a Crusader was Count Emich of Flonheim. A Jewish chronicler named Solomon ben Simson described Emich and the havoc he wreaked on the Jewish population of the Rhineland:

Count Emich was the enemy of all the Jews—may his bones be crushed to pieces in millstones of iron. He was known as a man who had no mercy on the old, or on young women, who took no pity on babies or sucklings or the sick, who pulverized God’s people like the dust in threshing, who slew their young men with the sword.127​

Emich and his followers marched down the Rhine plundering and massacring Jews in the cities of Speyer, Worms, Mainz, Trier, and Cologne. He attacked the Jews of Speyer on May 3, 1096, killing twelve. The death toll would have been much higher had John, the bishop of Speyer, not intervened and given shelter to the Jews, earning him praise from a contemporary Jewish chronicler as a “pious one among the nations.”128 Bishop John not only saved the Jews in his community, he also sought out and prosecuted those who had participated in the pogrom. Those caught were tried and when found guilty they were punished by losing a hand.129

******
Bernard was certainly the most well-known preacher of the Second Crusade, but he was not the only one. Other preachers, some approved and others not, traveled throughout Christendom to dispense exhortations, some of which deviated from the official message and instead promoted persecution and harassment of the Jews. Bernard heard of such preaching and made it known that the Jews were not to be harmed: “We have heard with joy that zeal for God burns in you, but wisdom must not be lacking from this zeal. The Jews are not to be persecuted, nor killed, nor even forced to flee.”242 A fellow French Cistercian monk named Radulf failed to heed the words of Bernard. Traveling to the Rhineland, Radulf incited anti-Semitic fervor in the same cities of Count Emich’s pogroms during the time of the First Crusade.243 Radulf’s message against the Jews was the same as the one used by Emich a generation previously: why risk life to travel far from home when enemies of Christ were near at hand? Although Radulf’s preaching led to outbreaks of violence against certain German Jewish communities, such pogroms were “isolated incidents . . . not systematic slaughter.”244 Bernard was greatly upset when news of his fellow Cistercian’s preaching reached him. He expressed his holy anger at Radulf when he wrote, “I find three things most reprehensible in him: unauthorized preaching, contempt for episcopal authority, and incitation to murder.”245 Bernard was so disgusted that he traveled to Mainz in November 1146, confronted and rebuked Radulf, and ordered him to return to his monastery."

 

The Yemen conflict is another creation of the cold-war proxy fights where we both armed Islamic groups to fight over a dry piece of dirt. I remember reading Intel reports of Soviet activity and our counter-actions to them in the late 70's, early 80's while deployed on a ship (we had a supply base in Oman) near the gulf of Aden watching Soviet air/naval activity. Saudi Arabia is just the latest fool to try to tame that place.

http://www.coldwarstudies.com/2015/03/23/cold-war-yemen-some-things-you-need-to-know/

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-iran-gulf/yemen.aspx

Some tough dudes, that's for sure.
Funny the Gulf states can find some boots for that war.

 

Some tough dudes, that's for sure.
Funny the Gulf states can find some boots for that war.

A lot of weapons and oil passes near the straits. We watched massive lines of tankers and freighters moving in and out of the area at Gonzo Station.

The gulf states are buying help for the dirty jobs as usual. The guys who actually have been successful in killing ISIS in Yemen is the side the UAE is fighting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/w...mbian-mercenaries-to-fight-in-yemen.html?_r=1

“Mercenaries are an attractive option for rich countries who wish to wage war yet whose citizens may not want to fight,” said Sean McFate, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of “The Modern Mercenary.”

http://colombiareports.com/the-arabian-dream-colombians-taking-part-in-yemen-war/

 

A lot of weapons and oil passes near the straits. We watched massive lines of tankers and freighters moving in and out of the area at Gonzo Station.

The gulf states are buying help for the dirty jobs as usual. The guys who actually have been successful in killing ISIS in Yemen is the side the UAE is fighting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/w...mbian-mercenaries-to-fight-in-yemen.html?_r=1

http://colombiareports.com/the-arabian-dream-colombians-taking-part-in-yemen-war/

Any idea what Iran is up to there?

 

That's the Obama administration's answer to the radicalization of islam: you will need to provide jobs to those guys so they will not fight. I think the 911 hijackers have proven that wrong quite convincingly but there are still lots of people refusing to see that and continuing to see the radicalization as rooted outside of Islam / current teaching of Islam.

As long as that kind of thinking continues, we will continue to have the radicalization.



There will always be extremists among any group of people. The existence of extremists in any religious group, however, does not absolve Islam of its own radicalization: there are simply too many radical islamists too willing to do too extreme things to too many other people on too little / trival matters. It is their wide-spreadness and their volatility that set them apart from extremists in other religions.

For a group practicing the religion of peace, that seems to be too paradoxical.



Freedom of religions is less about your ability to practice your religion than others' inability to force you to practice their religion. Unless Christians / Jews / Buddists / Atheists / etc. can openly practice their religion (or lack of) in predominantly Muslim countries, there is no hope for Islam.



The fact that someone believes in a new religion created yesterday doesn't justify his practicing christian / jewish / islamic beheadings on you today.

As peoples, we have advanced far away from our dark past, with the exception of Islam. The fact that someone is late to the party does not mean a different hurdle for civil behaviors should be used for him.

That's just basic fairness.

So, you would do what??

 

Any idea what Iran is up to there?

Hard to tell, Iran has a split personality. They are not Arabs, are hated by most Arabs and have only been a true Islamic State for a short time so the military/political leadership still operates somewhat independently from the religious leadership. We trained with Iranian military personal in the 70's stateside before the revolution so I suspect some are still in positions of power. They are loyal to Iran but maybe haven't been completely brainwashed into really believing that we in the West are the "Great Satan" yet. The best way to handle Iran IMO is to slowly normalize relations and allow the people there to see they no longer need the Islamic revolutionary government to survive.

 

Hard to tell, Iran has a split personality. They are not Arabs, are hated by most Arabs and have only been a true Islamic State for a short time so the military/political leadership still operates somewhat independently from the religious leadership. We trained with Iranian military personal in the 70's stateside before the revolution so I suspect some are still in positions of power. They are loyal to Iran but maybe haven't been completely brainwashed into really believing that we in the West are the "Great Satan" yet. The best way to handle Iran IMO is to slowly normalize relations and allow the people there to see they no longer need the Islamic revolutionary government to survive.

Gotta be getting a little expensive for them as well. Busy in at least 3 countries and worried about their own boarders at the same time.
Of course they at least have more money now. Amazing!