Muslim hard-liners ID suspect in Lond...

Muslim hard-liners ID suspect in London attack

There are 46 comments on the Boston Herald story from May 23, 2013, titled Muslim hard-liners ID suspect in London attack. In it, Boston Herald reports that:

A man seen with bloody hands wielding a butcher knife after the killing of a British soldier on the streets of London was described as a convert to Islam who took part in demonstrations with a banned radical group, two Muslim hard-liners said Thursday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Boston Herald.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
bottlecap

Orlando, FL

#41 May 24, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to punish all muslims and deport them irrespective of whether they have any terrorist leanings or not. That's religious bigotry.
You want to do this despite the fact that the first amendment of your constitution says you aren't allowed to. That's putting your beliefs above the laws and constitution of the US.
It is a REQUIREMENT of Citizenship to obey the laws of the Constitution. When one OVERTLY declars that their particular beliefs, in the case of Muslims, Sharia law, are to be followed over the countries laws, then they are in violation of the FIRST AMENDMENT:

Some food for thought:

"In Sherbert v. Verner (1963),[23] the Supreme Court required states to meet the "strict scrutiny" standard when refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. This meant that a government needed to have a "compelling interest" regarding such a refusal. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith.[24]"

"In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.[25][26] "

"In 1993, the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006),[33] RFRA remains applicable to federal laws and so those laws must still have a "compelling interest".[34]"

"'According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006),[33] RFRA remains applicable to federal laws and so those laws must still have a 'compelling interest'."
----------
So you see, if the government has a "compelling interest", they have every right to take measures to protect those interests under the Constitution, not outside it. As a hypothetical, if my religion says speed limits are against God's will, and therfore, I, because of my beliefs can speed all I want under the 1st Amendment, there exists error.

Because the government has a "compelling interest" in protecting American citizens, they can enforce those speed laws in spite of my hyypothtical religious beliefs.
bottlecap

Orlando, FL

#42 May 24, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
If you honestly believe that then why is China the nation getting the most out of using the natural resources of Afghanistan?
Let us not forget that China also has the Inside track on Iraqi oil.

You ask a fair question. Here is where Tony Blair and George Bush and their puppet-masters made a grave miscalculation.

China, abandoning the economic formulaes of Karl Marx for those of Adam Smith, Adam Smith often being touted as the world's first free-market capitalist, have out-manuvered the International Bankers. The BANKSTERS, as they are often refered to, have sought to ruin the economies of Western Europe and the US, immiration being one of their tools.

But now, with China using "free market" principles, while keeping their communist political system, that political system in many ways conducive to creating massive profits thru providing low wages or even slave labor, have put themselves in the position of being an economic super-power.

At the same time, China has even followed the advice of America's first President, George Washington, who PLEADED with his fellow Americans, to STAY OUT of foreign entanglements, a plea that was ignored by the BANKSTER puppets, Obama, the Bushes and the Clintons, and by staying out, China has not made enemies all over the world.

With no animus against them and a strong currency besides, China has filled a vaccum created by traitors like Bush and Blair.

Afghanistan is PRIME Example of that.
See the light

El Paso, TX

#43 May 24, 2013
bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. The best solution for England, as well as the US and China and Western Europe and Africa, etc., is to deport Muslims from their country.
Why? Not because of their religious bigotry,. No, the reason is that they PUT thier own religious laws ABOVE those of the country they reside in, thereby nullifying any constitution, charter, laws of the land, that apply to EVERY OTHER Citizen.
The horrific murder of this soldier was inevitable under a dual legal system, one in which the satanic killers are considered brave warriors for god and English law which cries for justice for the murder victim.
That would be the best!!!! But unfortunately the Comforter and Aid in Chief will not let his fellow Muslims leave.
See the light

El Paso, TX

#44 May 24, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did they get the explosives for those BOMBS?
That's right, you can make excuses for why your gun culture didn't stop the Boston bombings but the fact is your gun culture actually helped to cause it.
Gun nuts helped the Tsarnev brothers.
They used "Pressure Cooker" Bombs going off are different than an individual person attacking another.
bottlecap

Orlando, FL

#45 May 24, 2013
See the light wrote:
<quoted text>That would be the best!!!! But unfortunately the Comforter and Aid in Chief will not let his fellow Muslims leave.
One is NEVER too old to learn, I'm talking abount myself here, not Uncle Tom, and what I found out was that the first amendment of the Constitution concerning religion is governed, even by advocates of freedom of religion, by the rule of "compelling interest" which provides the state the right to enforce its laws, bypassing religious beliefs IF, and only IF, they have a "Compelling Interest" to do so.

Certainly, if some satanic freak proclaims that he or she is allowed to commit murder to get benefits in the after life, the state has a "COMPELLING INTEREST" to seek legal redress for those who are the target of the sick satanic freak's threats.

Since: Jul 12

Lynn, UK

#46 May 25, 2013
sick of them wrote:
<quoted text>France are the worst cowards I know.. they let all the Imagrant afganistans ..all about 16 to 30 park their asses down and say England that way ..as long as they don't deal with it
That's why they can have them back and anyone else who doesn't like it here who a copy of their own country, which the UK isn't

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump's candidacy and presidency have been lace... 5 hr Red Crosse 71
News Being overweight may be caused by the clock in ... (Mar '17) 7 hr Let It Snow 42
Apocalypse 2018 15 hr God 1
News Iran wants U.S. to pay for 63 years of 'materia... (May '16) Jan 10 C Kersey 10
News Osama Bin Laden reportedly calls Obama 'powerle... (Sep '09) Jan 10 Wall Street Barack 81
News As Mosul falls to ISIS militants, doubts over U... (Jun '14) Jan 8 C Kersey 2
News Unimaginable cruelty in Bashar al-Assad's priso... Jan 8 Anonymous 2
More from around the web