English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Everyone knows that muslims are the only real terror threat, whether its air travel or anything else.

If we refuse to ban such a caustic and cancerous religion in our midst, why cant we at least profile them?

Australia has a new measure that uses the doctrinal cause of terror against itself. Their new law now makes Muslim immigrents swear an oath thats contrary to their religious beliefs.

Muslims see Islam as a nationality with supreme loyalty, and by forcing them to swear otherwise, you weed out most of them, and all of the literalists (which is most of them).

I know, the pathetic and weak leftists of America dont have the backbone and practical good sense of the Aussies, but an American can dream cant he?

2006-12-20 13:41:45 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

All I know is that I absolutely love your avatar! I'm 29 and I've loved the doors since I was 13. I actually grew up listening to that kind of music and when I was 13 I heard Light My Fire and fell in love with them. Jim Morrison is by far the best singer and poet that I've ever heard. It's so nice to see that someone else likes them as much as I do.

2006-12-20 13:52:35 · answer #1 · answered by booellis 5 · 1 0

Are you (quite) realy so (vulnerable) week minded and pathetic that in case you probably did have some (imprecise) abscure (thought) beliefe to stipulate your (existence) exsistance or character your existence may be without (meaning) meening or (COMMONALITY) comonality? Why do no longer you already know that there are different (non secular) religoius (opportunities) posibilities besides your guy or woman? There are (thousands) houndreds of alternative option religions interior the international. are you able to (relatively) truley be so (conceited) arogent as to assert that with an over 99p.c.possibility that (you're) your'e faith is badly justified, that your the fewer then a million% it relatively is robust? If that may not undesirable sufficient you attempt to impose your "rules" via utilising (non secular) reilgius. And with those corrections I say - get a existence, carry on with the books, discover ways to style, write, spell, and study - then ask us a question!

2016-10-15 08:32:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Of course..If it were old Jewish ladies between 70 and 80 years old that did all of the things that Muslims between 18 and 35 did we should profile them too. But that is not the case is it young AFFAN.Yes we did we put the Japanese in a camp for most of the war.. You defend at any cost.you are a true muslim. You should be a citizen of your country first or go to a muslim country.

2006-12-20 13:57:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Riders, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Australian Pledge of Allegiance reads:

"From this time forward, under God, *
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey."

* All new citizens have the choice of making the pledge with or without the words 'under God'.

How does this conflict with the religion of Islam, or any other religion for that matter? I've lived in Australia all my life, and I've never heard of any "new measure" like you describe.

Thanks for the "good sense" compliment, though.

2006-12-20 14:28:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Unfortunately, you are right. Because of a few fanatics every Muslim is looked at with suspicion. I know it is wrong to do that, but a necessary evil.

What does swearing on an oath prove? The fanatics are not following true Islam anyway. Do you think that they would have a problem swearing this oath and then breaking it?

Next time we elect a president lets make him swear that he is not a fantical fundamentalist.

2006-12-20 13:51:10 · answer #5 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 1 1

There are some decent people who call themselves muslims, and their lives are at risk to terrorism just like the rest of us, and they know that when muslims are screened more closely than others it protects them from the evil muslims just like it protects the rest of us. Only a fool or a terrorist would object to profiling.

2006-12-20 13:56:15 · answer #6 · answered by jesuscuresislam 3 · 0 0

Arooooo! It's Jim Morrison! Pant! Pant! Pant!

Oops! sorry, got carried away there.

Interesting stuff you listed. No, I don't know if it would work in the US. How does this work (obviously not immigrants) if you are an Australian born Muslim? Is that loyalty there also, or different?

2006-12-20 13:51:16 · answer #7 · answered by <><><> 6 · 1 0

As a Christian, Charlemagne had a better way of getting rid of his muslim enemies. He told them to either be baptized into Christianity or have their heads removed, which made them violate their oath to Allah. But I think I'll keep our weak leftist politians over your practical good sense if that's what it takes.

2006-12-20 13:49:48 · answer #8 · answered by Turnhog 5 · 1 0

I agree, I don't think it is right to ban the religion in general since that is against the American way but I don't see a problem being suspicious of someone praying to Ala on an airplane or something. We just need to keep them checked up on to make sure they stay in line.

2006-12-20 13:46:23 · answer #9 · answered by Colter B 5 · 3 3

Can we also profile people who might bomb abortion clinics, advocate assassination of political leaders, or are suspected of plots to help hurry the Second Coming along?

2006-12-20 14:26:32 · answer #10 · answered by February Rain 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers