After Nice, Newt Gingrich wants to ‘test’ every Muslim in the U.S. and deport sharia believers

He neg repped me rather than answer the question if he hates muslims or not. :rolleyes:

I suspect we won't get an answer. But if he does or not, it's fine by me if he does but wrong to use the fed to enforce his hate.

Since you are another poster that cannot debate the facts and are again stooping to repeated insults with accusations of intolerance.
 
Exactly. Which is why I included the last part of the paragraph you snipped. This thread is about Ginrich, who wants all Muslims in the U.S. interrogated. Do you not see the difference?

I did not comment about that aspect of Gingrich's comments.
 
Since you are another poster that cannot debate the facts and are again stooping to repeated insults with accusations of intolerance.

How can we debate facts if you refuse to answer the question?

I will answer on my end, it's easy to be honest with yourself. I don't hate them. I admit I am suspicious of them. I think their religion predisposes them to terrorism. But I do not want my government to discriminate against them. I'm also sure there are many decent ones who cause no trouble and would be unfairly persecuted if something like what Gingrich proposed was enacted.
 
I did not comment about that aspect of Gingrich's comments.

O.K. I see. So you do not agree with Gingrich that every American Muslim should be questioned and deported if necessary even though you believe, based on an online survey of 600 individuals who claim to be Muslim out of a nation of perhaps 2-4 million, that over half believe in Sharia law being instituted?
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uslim-and-deport-those-who-believe-in-sharia/

Following the attack in Nice that killed at least 84 people, former House speaker Newt Gingrich has called for deporting everyone in America with a Muslim background who believes in sharia law.


“Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in sharia they should be deported,” Gingrich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Seems like Newt's policy would be dumb, ineffective looking at details about suspected terrorists behind Nice, 9/11 WTC1/2/7 :


France, Nice, Suspected Terrorist:
Originally Posted by 69360
Stories coming out from neighbors and relatives say this guy drank, smoked dope, chased women, ate pork and never went to mosque. That doesn't seem like a jihadi to me.



Before September 11, 2001: 9/11 Hijackers Drink Alcohol and Watch Strip Shows


992_cheetahs_2050081722-8442.jpg


Cheetah’s nude bar in San Diego. [Source: Cheetah's]A number of the 9/11 hijackers apparently drink alcohol heavily in bars, sleep with prostitutes, and watch strip shows in the US in the months and especially the days leading up to 9/11.
In late February 2001, hijacker Ziad Jarrah frequents a strip club in Jacksonville, Florida (see February 25-March 4, 2001).
In July 2001, hijackers Hamza Alghamdi and Marwan Alshehhi make two purchases of “pornographic video and sex toys” from a Florida store (see July 4-27, 2001).
Some hijackers, including possibly Satam Al Suqami and Waleed and Wail Alshehri, sleep with prostitutes in the days before 9/11 (see September 7-11, 2001).
On September 10, three hijacker associates spend $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks in the Pink Pony, a Daytona Beach, Florida, strip club. While the hijackers have left Florida by this time, Mohamed Atta is reported to have visited the same strip club, and these men appear to have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks (see September 10, 2001). [Boston Herald, 10/10/2001]
Alshehhi and Atta are seen entering the Hollywood, Florida, sports bar Shuckums already drunk. They proceed to drink even more hard alcohol there (see September 7, 2001).
Atta and Alshehhi are seen at Sunrise 251, a bar in Palm Beach, Florida. They spend $1,000 in 45 minutes on Krug and Perrier-Jouet champagne. Atta is with a tall busty brunette in her late twenties; Alshehhi is with a shortish blonde. Both women are known locally as regular companions of high-rollers. [Daily Mail, 9/16/2001]
A stripper at the Olympic Garden Topless Cabaret in Las Vegas, Nevada, will later recall Alshehhi being “cheap,” paying only $20 for a lap dance. [Cox News Service, 10/16/2001]
Several hijackers reportedly patronize the Nardone’s Go-Go Bar in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They are even seen there on the weekend before 9/11. [Boston Herald, 10/10/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001]
Majed Moqed visits a porn shop on three occasions and rents a porn video. The mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, will later say of the six hijackers who stay there, “Nobody ever saw them at mosques, but they liked the go-go clubs.” [Newsday, 9/23/2001; Newsweek, 10/15/2001]
Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar often frequent Cheetah’s, a nude bar in San Diego. [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/2002]
Alshehhi is possibly seen in the Cheetah nightclub in Pompado Beach, Florida, on July 1, 2001. Six dancers who work there will later claim to have seen him. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10/2001, pp. 173 ]
Hamza Alghamdi watches a porn video on either the afternoon of September 9 or on September 10. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10/2001, pp. 272 ; Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001]
Temple University, Philadelphia, professor Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub will later comment: “It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam.… People who would kill themselves for their faith would come from very strict Islamic ideology. Something here does not add up.” [South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/16/2001]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101beforepinkpony#a091101beforepinkpony
 
Now you are going make like you do not know what that is. Race card, intolerance card, no difference. Besides insults and condescension, when someone cannot debate on facts your behavior is what they stoop as demonstrated in your last few replies.

You accuse me of intolerance then make the claim that I am "attributing things to me never typed" when it is all there including what you bolded.

Are there specific "facts" you'd care to debate?

I've addressed everything of relevance already, far as I can tell, have I missed something?

And.............Not only is your use of the phrases "Race card, intolerance card" politically correct it's downright offensive...

I didn't in any way accuse you of anything, grow the fuck up, speak plainly and express yourself clearly.

If you want Muslims "banned" then ban 'em in your town/county or state, same with Joos, Niqquers or Hillbillies, Catholics Satanists or Buddhists, life'd be lots easier if folks weren't forced by Fed-Gov to co-exist with people who have diametrically opposed viewpoints..

Fed-Gov isn't the answer to anything inside the border.

And the above is my viewpoint not an "accusation"...
 
I posted the Muslim support for Sharia both within the US and outside the US in this thread several times and in replies to you. They overwhelming support it and in the US believe it should supersede or used in combination with the Constitution. Sharia would in fact soon be applied to all if Muslims dominate any geo-political boundary within the US.

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America
Global Research, June 13, 2016
Washington's Blog and Global Research 1 May 2013
Region: USA
Theme: 9/11 & 'War on Terrorism', Religion

This article was first published May 1, 2013.

Terrorism Is a Real Threat … But the Threat to the U.S. from Muslim Terrorists Has Been Exaggerated

An FBI report shows that only a small percentage of terrorist attacks carried out on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 were perpetrated by Muslims.

Princeton University’s Loon Watch compiled the following chart from the FBI’s data:

According to FBI Database Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

U.S. News and World Report noted in February of this year:

Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Muslim-American suspects or perpetrators in these or other attempted attacks fit no demographic profile—only 51 of more than 200 are of Arabic ethnicity. In 2012, all but one of the nine Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered were halted in early stages. That one, an attempted bombing of a Social Security office in Arizona, caused no casualties.

Wired reported the same month:

Since 9/11, Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security, and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team.

Law enforcement, including “informants and undercover agents,” were involved in “almost all of the Muslim-American terrorism plots uncovered in 2012,” the Triangle team finds. That’s in keeping with the FBI’s recent practice of using undercover or double agents to encourage would-be terrorists to act on their violent desires and arresting them when they do — a practice critics say comes perilously close to entrapment. A difference in 2012 observed by Triangle: with the exception of the Arizona attack, all the alleged plots involving U.S. Muslims were “discovered and disrupted at an early stage,” while in the past three years, law enforcement often observed the incubating terror initiatives “after weapons or explosives had already been gathered.”

The sample of Muslim Americans turning to terror is “vanishingly small,” Kurzman tells Danger Room. Measuring the U.S. Muslim population is a famously inexact science, since census data don’t track religion, but rather “country of origin,” which researchers attempt to use as a proxy. There are somewhere between 1.7 million and seven million American Muslims, by most estimates, and Kurzman says he operates off a model that presumes the lower end, a bit over 2 million. That’s less a rate of involvement in terrorism of less than 10 per million, down from a 2003 high of 40 per million, as detailed in the chart above.

Yet the scrutiny by law enforcement and homeland security on American Muslims has not similarly abated. The FBI tracks “geomaps” of areas where Muslims live and work, regardless of their involvement in any crime. The Patriot Act and other post-9/11 restrictions on government surveillance remain in place. The Department of Homeland Security just celebrated its 10th anniversary. In 2011, President Obama ordered the entire federal national-security apparatus to get rid of counterterrorism training material that instructed agents to focus on Islam itself, rather than specific terrorist groups.

Kurzman doesn’t deny that law enforcement plays a role in disrupting and deterring homegrown U.S. Muslim terrorism. His research holds it out as a possible explanation for the decline. But he remains surprised by the disconnect between the scale of the terrorism problem and the scale — and expense — of the government’s response.

“Until public opinion starts to recognize the scale of the problem has been lower than we feared, my sense is that public officials are not going to change their policies,” Kurzman says. “Counterterrorism policies have involved surveillance — not just of Muslim-Americans, but of all Americans, and the fear of terrorism has justified intrusions on American privacy and civil liberties all over the internet and other aspects of our lives. I think the implications here are not just for how we treat a religious minority in the U.S., but also how we treat the rights & liberties of everyone.”

We agree. And so do most Americans. Indeed – as we’ve previously documented – you’re more likely to die from brain-eating parasites, alcoholism, obesity, medical errors, risky sexual behavior or just about anything other than terrorism.

Kurzman told the Young Turks in February that Islamic terrorism “doesn’t even count for 1 percent” of the 180,000 murders in the US since 9/11.

While the Boston marathon bombings were horrific, a top terrorism expert says that the Boston attack was more like Columbine than 9/11, and that the bombers are “murderers not terrorists”. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings were by non-Muslims. (This is true in Europe, as well as in the U.S.)

However you classify them – murder or terrorism – the Boston bombings occurred after all of the statistical analysis set forth above. Moreover, different groups have different agendas about how to classify the perpetrators (For example, liberal Mother Jones and conservative Breitbart disagree on how many of the perpetrators of terror attacks can properly be classified as right wing extremists.)

So we decided to look at the most current statistics for ourselves, to do an objective numerical count not driven by any agenda.

Specifically, we reviewed all of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil as documented by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). (2012). Global Terrorism Database, as retrieved from http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd.

The START Global Terrorism Database spans from 1970 through 2012 (and will be updated from year-to-year), and – as of this writing – includes 104,000 terrorist incidents. As such, it is the most comprehensive open-source database open to the public.

We counted up the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims. We excluded attacks by groups which are obviously not Muslims, such as the Ku Klux Klan, Medellin Drug Cartel, Irish Republican Army, Anti-Castro Group, Mormon extremists, Vietnamese Organization to Exterminate Communists and Restore the Nation, Jewish Defense League, May 19 Communist Order, Chicano Liberation Front, Jewish Armed Resistance, American Indian Movement, Gay Liberation Front, Aryan Nation, Jewish Action Movement, National Front for the Liberation of Cuba, or Fourth Reich Skinheads.

We counted attacks by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Black American Moslems, or anyone who even remotely sounded Muslim … for example anyone from Palestine, Lebanon or any other Arab or Muslim country, or any name including anything sounding remotely Arabic or Indonesian (like “Al” anything or “Jamaat” anything).

If we weren’t sure what the person’s affiliation was, we looked up the name of the group to determine whether it could in any way be connected to Muslims.

Based on our review of the approximately 2,400 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil contained within the START database, we determined that approximately 60 were carried out by Muslims.

In other words, approximately 2.5% of all terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1970 and 2012 were carried out by Muslims.* This is a tiny proportion of all attacks.

(We determined that approximately 118 of the terror attacks – or 4.9% – were carried out by Jewish groups such as Jewish Armed Resistance, the Jewish Defense League, Jewish Action Movement, United Jewish Underground and Thunder of Zion. This is almost twice the percentage of Islamic attacks within the United States. If we look at worldwide attacks – instead of just attacks on U.S. soil – Sunni Muslims are the main perpetrators of terrorism. However: 1. Muslims are also the main victims of terror attacks worldwide; and 2. the U.S. backs the most radical types of Sunnis over more moderate Muslims and Arab secularists.)

Moreover, another study undertaken by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism – called ”Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States” – found:

Between 1970 and 2011, 32 percent of the perpetrator groups were motivated by ethnonationalist/separatist agendas, 28 percent were motivated by single issues, such as animal rights or opposition to war, and seven percent were motivated by religious beliefs. In addition, 11 percent of the perpetrator groups were classified as extreme right-wing, and 22 percent were categorized as extreme left-wing.

Preliminary findings from PPT-US data between 1970 and 2011 also illustrate a distinct shift in the dominant ideologies of these terrorist groups over time, with the proportion of emerging ethnonationalist/separatist terrorist groups declining and the proportion of religious terrorist groups increasing. However, while terrorist groups with religious ideologies represent 40 percent of all emergent groups from 2000-2011 (two out of five), they only account for seven percent of groups over time.

Similarly, a third study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism Religion found that religion alone is not a key factor in determining which terrorists want to use weapons of mass destruction:

The available empirical data show that there is not a significant relationship between terrorist organizations’ pursuit of CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear) weapons and the mere possession of a religious ideology, according to a new quantitative study by START researchers Victor Asal, Gary Ackerman and Karl Rethemeyer.

Therefore, Muslims are not more likely than other groups to want to use WMDs.

* The Boston marathon bombing was not included in this analysis, as START has not yet updated its database to include 2013 terrorist attacks. 3 people died in the Boston attack. While tragic, we are confident that non-Musliims killed more than 3 during this same period.

We are not experts in terrorism analysis. We would therefore defer to people like Kurzman on the exact number. However, every quantitative analysis of terrorism in the U.S. we have read shows that the percent of terror attacks carried out by Muslims is far less than 10%.

Postscript: State-sponsored terrorism is beyond the scope of this discussion, and was not included in our statistical analysis. Specifically, the following arguments are beyond the scope of this discussion, as we are focusing solely on non-state terrorism:

Arguments by University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole that deaths from 20th century wars could be labeled Christian terrorism

Arguments that our recent use of torture and double tap drone strikes are terrorism

The original source of this article is Washington's Blog and Global Research
Copyright © Washington's Blog, Washington's Blog and Global Research, 2016
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mu...0-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
 
I wonder how many people wouldn't buy a lottery ticket thinking it was a waste of money based on the odds but have no problem throwing billions at the "Muslim scourge?"

Yep.

Also, notice how any "killer" of possible ME heritage is called a Muslim by politicians and the MSM; in any other killings, no religion is mentioned.

Agenda, maybe?
 
Yep.

Also, notice how any "killer" of possible ME heritage is called a Muslim by politicians and the MSM; in any other killings, no religion is mentioned.

Agenda, maybe?

You mean like your agenda to continue to place all Muslims on a pedestal? This regardless that majority are opposed to individual liberty and if gain majority status in any geo-political district will implement Sharia?

I am doubtful you and a few others here are (mod edit) with your ardent quest to open borders for people that oppose individual liberty. This as well as your opposition to Constitutional surveillance that even Rand supports.
 
You mean like your agenda to continue to place all Muslims on a pedestal. This regardless that majority are opposed to individual liberty and if gain majority status in any geo-political district will implement Sharia.

I am doubtful you and a few others here are really Paul supporters with your ardent quest to open borders for people that oppose individual liberty. This as well as your opposition to Constitutional surveillance that even Rand supports.

YOU are the one that keeps bringing up open-borders. I don't think I have once on this thread. YOU love to call names and insults when you have no substantial evidence to back your claims.

Any true Ron Paul supporter would absolutely object to surveillance of any religion and the unconstitutional demise of the 1st Amendment.

TRY addressing the REAL issue, just once, instead of your hatred. I'm sure you can do it if you try REEEAAALLY HARD.
 
YOU are the one that keeps bringing up open-borders. I don't think I have once on this thread. YOU love to call names and insults when you have no substantial evidence to back your claims.

Any true Ron Paul supporter would absolutely object to surveillance of any religion and the unconstitutional demise of the 1st Amendment.

TRY addressing the REAL issue, just once, instead of your hatred. I'm sure you can do it if you try REEEAAALLY HARD.

What you describe is really the the other way around. You and a few other people are putting words in my mouth and then lobbying insults, condescension, blatantly changing the aspect of the topic I was discussing or referring to my positions as intolerance. Now you and a few others have now switched to the tactic of burying the facts that I and others have posted in this thread with false accusations.

I have gone as far as to list poll data, the facts regarding Constitutional law, direct links to Rand's immigration policy as well as direct quotes from Rand. On several aspects I brought up it would appear you and some others oppose the policies of the Pauls and the Constitution.
 
So ironic that you would preface all that by saying "I used to think people here were like me, Paul supporters..." It's like you live in an alternate universe where Ron Paul's words get twisted and have the exact opposite meaning to you than they mean to the rest of us.... because you can't possibly be here, support him, and have heard what the rest of us have heard for the last 9+ years and still believe the things you do.

I challenge you or anyone to show me a post in this thread that I am misrepresenting the Pauls. I posted his damn policy right from his website and direct quotes. Regardless this is not same exact aspect of the topic as the OP listed but that is where the discussion went at some point.
 
Last edited:
What you describe is really the the other way around. You and a few other people are putting words in my mouth and then lobbying insults, condescension, blatantly changing the aspect of the topic I was discussing or referring to my positions as intolerance. Now you and a few others have now switched to the tactic of burying the facts that I and others have posted in this thread with false accusations.

I have gone as far as to list poll data, the facts regarding Constitutional law, direct links to Rand's immigration policy as well as direct quotes from Rand. On several aspects I brought up it would appear you and some others oppose the policies of the Pauls and the Constitution.

So do you or don't you agree with Newt that American Muslims should all be questioned and if the wrong answer given be deported since you believe that half of American Muslims believe in Sharia law?
 
What you describe is really the the other way around. You and a few other people are putting words in my mouth and then lobbying insults, condescension, blatantly changing the aspect of the topic I was discussing or referring to my positions as intolerance. Now you and a few others have now switched to the tactic of burying the facts that I and others have posted in this thread with false accusations.

I have gone as far as to list poll data, the facts regarding Constitutional law, direct links to Rand's immigration policy as well as direct quotes from Rand. On several aspects I brought up it would appear you and some others oppose the policies of the Pauls and the Constitution.

I clarified Rand's policy for you and nowhere have I seen you post any Constitutional law that would justify killing the 1st Amendment.
 
I clarified Rand's policy for you and nowhere have I seen you post any Constitutional law that would justify killing the 1st Amendment.

You did not clarify anything. I posted Rand's policies off his Senate website and direct quotes from him. All you did was change the aspect of the topic to distort my position which is all you seem to do in this forum.

Also, I never posted anything that would violate the 1st amendment. You continue to misrepresent everything that was posted to bury the facts in this thread with nonsense. You are spamming since your whole game here is to promote Muslim immigration at all costs and thwart Constitutional law enforcement to police terrorist threats in the Muslim community.
 
You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.
You are not alone.
 
Last edited:
You are not alone.



What part of the following has given you pause?



Well fuck yeah!

If you or anybody else supports government surveillance of anybody within the US borders you're wrong!

I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

What you and others here support defies logic if you are truly American citizens looking out for the best interests of people in this country. Like I said, I have my doubts some here are who they say they are.

I DO NOT support federalized surveillance or federalized equality/tolerance/acceptance in any way shape or form.

Don't even try to twist that into being "un-American" or some such bullshit.

Everything the federal government gets involved in it fucks up, everything!

And you're calling on granting them more authority? Are you fucking nuts?

You are basically saying they can come here on visa and even announce they are going to kill Americans, overthrow their government, demand Sharia but we cannot use surveillance against them or round them up to send them back.

No!

I very clearly said;

I'll back you 100% if you want to get off your ass and run the evil Muslims out of your town/county or state but I'll damn sure fight you tooth-n-nail if you want to excuse or empower government surveillance of anyone, including known "terrorists"...


How in the Sam-Hell can you twist that into what you typed?

Stop crying for government to pick up your mantle...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top