PDA

View Full Version : The islam menace.



Pages : [1] 2

Panzerknacker
04-06-2008, 08:03 PM
I was going to put this film in the other topic, but after a second tough I think the name "The muslim caliphate and jewish conspiray.." is just too silly to have a real decent discussion, So I decided to open a new one.

A movie that everybody should see.

http://video.google.es/videohosted?docid=3441733802750675167

Panzerknacker
04-06-2008, 08:07 PM
More info about the short film.

http://fitna-koran.blogspot.com/

Nickdfresh
04-06-2008, 08:43 PM
Or you can download and watch the following videos and find out why most of the conspiratorial stuff is bullshit (each is a 70MB WMV file):

Baby it's Cold Outside (http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc1.wmv)

The Phantom Victory (http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc2.wmv)

The Shadows in the Cave (http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc3.wmv)

From: http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000753.html

Despite the fact that "The Power of Nightmares" is one of the most successful documentaries the BBC ever produced, they have not been publicly aired in the USA...

Watch and make up you own mind...

Note: better, lossless versions can be bit torrented...

Chevan
04-07-2008, 12:52 AM
I was going to put this film in the other topic, but after a second tough I think the name "The muslim caliphate and jewish conspiray.." is just too silly to have a real decent discussion, So I decided to open a new one.

A movie that everybody should see.

http://video.google.es/videohosted?docid=3441733802750675167

Yea as the sily everything that Nick has wrote about "Conspirasy theories" :)
Althoutgh the Muslim Threat is the actual thing - but say honestly - do we not threat them TOO?
Who does support the Israel in its Inner regime of race-apparteid and agressive external policy ?
The lunatic Muslims?

Panzerknacker
04-07-2008, 08:09 AM
Conspirational bullshit ? :shock:

Unfortunately that already surpassed that level and is a reality, man you have more than 3000 dead in your country and still talking about "conspiration" ?

This is a remarkable picture, protestors not in El ryad or Teheran but in...London. quite nice people there. :cool:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg

Egorka
04-07-2008, 08:14 AM
The threat is real.
The movie seem to be a provocation.
Danish Prime Minister (the one who is "responsible" for the egnition of the caricature scandal) says that he thinks that the film "Fitna" is a provocation towards muslims.

Panzerknacker
04-07-2008, 10:26 AM
I believe that is more like a public awareness announce, Geert Wilders must be one of the most brave man in Europe, he had already several death treaths of the "tolerants" muslims.

Of course the signs with "Behead those who insult islam" is not a provocation according to your view. :rolleyes:

What will be left of Europe with people like that ? One just can avoid to wonder.

Egorka
04-07-2008, 10:51 AM
The extremists are the menace. Who argues?

pdf27
04-07-2008, 01:15 PM
Thsi is a remarkable picture, protestos noyt in El ryad or Teheram but in...London. quite nice people there. :cool:
To be fair, at least half of the morons in that demonstration are currently residing in jail as guests of Her Majesty... Placards like "behead those who insult Islam" are not a terribly bright idea...

mike M.
04-07-2008, 02:01 PM
Or you can download and watch the following videos and find out why most of the conspiratorial stuff is bullshit (each is a 70MB WMV file):

Baby it's Cold Outside (http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc1.wmv)

The Phantom Victory (http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc2.wmv)

The Shadows in the Cave (http://bulk.ctyme.com/bbc3.wmv)





Speaking of a load of simplistic shiite!

Nickdfresh
04-07-2008, 02:53 PM
Conspirational bullshit ? :shock:

Unfortunately that already surpassed that level and is a reality, man you have more than 3000 dead in your country and still talking about "conspiration" ?

Thsi is a remarkable picture, protestos noyt in El ryad or Teheram but in...London. quite nice people there. :cool:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg

And around 50,000 died due to traffic accidents the same year.

And the you're producing the same tired stuff that fundamentally ignores the actual, central problems and you're also giving way too much credit to a small gang of thugs that has not pulled off a successful terror attack in the Americas since 9.11.01, nor did they have any substantial cells ready to go...


Again, you're perpetrating the "they're all the same" myth when in fact religious, sectarian Islamic groups are far more prone to kill each other than they are westerners...

And secondly, assholes carrying placards with such statements do not necessarily represent a deep movement. Just like the Klu Klux Klan and various Neo-Nazi groups do not represent ALL Americans or Europeans...

Nickdfresh
04-07-2008, 02:54 PM
Speaking of a load of simplistic shiite!


Specifically in regards to what?

I don't agree with everything stated in the three videos, but many of the points are dead on! Such as painting al Qaeda as a villainous James Bond organization living is a super-secret subterranean lair is not the "truth." If they were, there would have been follow on attacks. Yet, no real terror cells with money, weapons, and operational plans were found. They are a fragmented coalition that are as prone to competing against and killing each other as they are Westerners, not to mention the many schisms in Islam prevent any real unification under the Caliphate BS often stated as their endgame...

And the two major terror attacks on Spain and Britain were freelancers that volunteered largely out of the outrage over the occupation of Iraq, not some deeply rooted "Stepford" Muslim, cylon-like preprogramming...

Anyone who goes on about that clearly is ignorant of history and the the fall of the Ottoman Empire around WWI, when binds of nationalism was far more potent that the Muslim religion and the various Arabic nations rebelled against the Turks...

"Islam" is not the "menace." Poverty, dictatorships, and floundering economies are the "menace."

Drake
04-07-2008, 04:16 PM
Nick, the point you are missing is that it's not only about violent islamists, but just as much about the indifferent or supporting crowd that refuses to adopt to our style of living here. There's a problem that's pretty unique in europe since we are no classical immigration states with a rather homogenuous indigenous culture since a couple of hundret years. We are no melting pot and we don't want to become one. Immigration to europe is like spice in a soup, it needs to come in the right dosis and if it does it adds to the flavor. We have very healthy communities of all sorts of people here in germany (I f.e. have very close ties to the korean community) and there isn't an immigration problem with them (as they actually integrate and keep their personal stuff like religion personal and don't shove it under others peoples noses with mosks deliberatly built bigger than 500 year old churches next door, and I'm atheist).
But when it comes to muslims we mostly didn't get the ones well educated and willing to work hard to make the american dream etc. We got a lot of the "hey, there's money for free in europe" type, who doesn't even try to speak the language and contributes something like 30% of all crimes commited with only 5% of the population. If you are wandering around in certain corners of big european cities they start to look like the maghreb and I simply refuse to accept that since this means no longer immigration but colonization.
This is bound to get ugly in the long run and all those (as if we wouldn't know it's politicians) who willingly ignore all the problems and shout keep em coming are the ones ultimatly responsible when the shit hits the fan. It's not far fetched to expect the balkans reloaded all over europe in a couple of decades. I know I will start to get violent (under §20 / 4 german basic law) if I ever realize sharia law to be applied with the knowledge and indulgence of the german authorities and unfortunatly this is not as far fetched as it sounds.

Nickdfresh
04-07-2008, 04:58 PM
Nick, the point you are missing is that it's not only about violent islamists, but just as much about the indifferent or supporting crowd that refuses to adopt to our style of living here. There's a problem that's pretty unique in europe since we are no classical immigration states with a rather homogenuous indigenous culture since a couple of hundret years. We are no melting pot and we don't want to become one....


That may be. But because the USA IS a melting pot, that's why we have no major problems with Muslim extremists here and haven't since the early 1990s. The 9/11 attacks do not count as they were planned abroad, largely by a guy that refuses the term "al Qaeda," Khalid Sheik Mohammad, and he also seems to dislike Bin Laden and almost seems to be in a rivalry with him from what I've read.

I wasn't commenting with immigration policies in mind (which are valid concerns that must be addressed), but more to the notion that it is the religion itself. The truth is that I am fan of no religion, but those that often harp on the "Islamofascists" ignore that there are so many other factors at work than just religion -- a lot of it is culture and a profoundly unfair social caste system that exists in say -- Egypt. People don't become violent simply because they're Muslims, they become violent because they lose all hope and stake in the current societies and religion becomes the means of revolutionary change...

I'm not sure anyone can in anyway prove that Islam is any more inherently violent that Christianity or Judaism. Perhaps it is less advanced and more regressive with having no equivalent to the Protestant Reformation or the Second Vatican...

redcoat
04-07-2008, 06:22 PM
Conspirational bullshit ? :shock:

Unfortunately that already surpassed that level and is a reality, man you have more than 3000 dead in your country and still talking about "conspiration" ?

Thsi is a remarkable picture, protestos noyt in El ryad or Teheram but in...London. quite nice people there. :cool:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/muslim220806_600x400.jpg
If you think we are going to be scared of a small bunch of 'rent a crowd' demonstrators...think again :rolleyes:

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me :cool:(Carry On Cleo )

redcoat
04-07-2008, 06:25 PM
The extremists are the menace. Who argues?
The question is...who are the extremists ?????

Drake
04-07-2008, 06:32 PM
The question is...who are the extremists ?????

To me that would be people who, if push came to shove, would say their religious stuff goes before the law of the community they reside in and that crowd is fairly big in a certain religion.

redcoat
04-07-2008, 06:38 PM
To me that would be people who, if push came to shove, would say their religious stuff goes before the law of the community they reside in and that crowd is fairly big in a certain religion.
But in that certain religion they have also a commandment which states 'thou shall not kill'

Panzerknacker
04-07-2008, 06:46 PM
To be fair, at least half of the morons in that demonstration are currently residing in jail as guests of Her Majesty... Placards like "behead those who insult Islam" are not a terribly bright idea


Is nice to hear that.



To me that would be people who, if push came to shove, would say their religious stuff goes before the law of the community they reside in and that crowd is fairly big in a certain religion.


Wich I believe is pretty much the case in western Europe, the muslim extremist take advantage of the free spech in those countries but they have no plans to respect that in case they reach power.

Now this following videos are probably the most sick, lunatic and perverted materiel I ever seen...to poison the children with this kind of extremist garbage from early age, there is no name to qualify that.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=oGc2NJf_QYo

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=b0U2ce-LmA4

If somebody tell me after seen this stuff that there is no extremism or there is no menace is because is too blind...or too stupid.

Drake
04-07-2008, 06:59 PM
But in that certain religion they have also a commandment which states 'thou shall not kill'

Are you sure we're talking about the same religion? There are no commandments like the dekalog in Islam.
It does include them in paraphrases scattered through the book and when it comes to that particular commandment also with "slight" limitations. Indeed so slight that it only applies to "inviolable people" (which are only muslims, how convenient). But even for them there are exceptions to the rule, given the right reasons like getting raped.
On the other hand there are over 220 passages which call for diverse forms of violence against basically everyone else. I am a science geek more or less and like maths and statistics. And that maths tells me a lot about the structure of the "religion of peace".

Rising Sun*
04-07-2008, 10:15 PM
Nick, the point you are missing is that it's not only about violent islamists, but just as much about the indifferent or supporting crowd that refuses to adopt to our style of living here. There's a problem that's pretty unique in europe since we are no classical immigration states with a rather homogenuous indigenous culture since a couple of hundret years. We are no melting pot and we don't want to become one. Immigration to europe is like spice in a soup, it needs to come in the right dosis and if it does it adds to the flavor. We have very healthy communities of all sorts of people here in germany (I f.e. have very close ties to the korean community) and there isn't an immigration problem with them (as they actually integrate and keep their personal stuff like religion personal and don't shove it under others peoples noses with mosks deliberatly built bigger than 500 year old churches next door, and I'm atheist).
But when it comes to muslims we mostly didn't get the ones well educated and willing to work hard to make the american dream etc. We got a lot of the "hey, there's money for free in europe" type, who doesn't even try to speak the language and contributes something like 30% of all crimes commited with only 5% of the population. If you are wandering around in certain corners of big european cities they start to look like the maghreb and I simply refuse to accept that since this means no longer immigration but colonization.
This is bound to get ugly in the long run and all those (as if we wouldn't know it's politicians) who willingly ignore all the problems and shout keep em coming are the ones ultimatly responsible when the shit hits the fan. It's not far fetched to expect the balkans reloaded all over europe in a couple of decades. I know I will start to get violent (under §20 / 4 german basic law) if I ever realize sharia law to be applied with the knowledge and indulgence of the german authorities and unfortunatly this is not as far fetched as it sounds.

We have a similar problem in certain enclaves here, but I think it's important to separate things done by people who happen to be Muslims from things done by people because they are Muslims.

We have a significant group of Lebanese scum in Sydney who are on their third generation living on welfare and crime and not afraid to shoot up police stations and otherwise display their complete contempt for the society and laws which support them. They are Muslims, and sometimes aggressively so, but in reality they're scum because that's their background from Lebanon and they've been transplanted here without the restraint of whatever controls existed in Lebanon, which operated in a rather less benevolent fashion than Australia. Similar problem to wildlife issues where we've introduced foreign animals with no natural predators and they just run wild.

Their Islamic identity is not the source of their bad conduct, nor for that matter is their Lebanese identity as not all Lebanese are like them, so it's mistaken to identify them as part of an Islamic, or Lebanese, problem. It's a problem with some people who happen to be, in this case, Lebanese and Muslim. But we get maintstream news reports like


So now we know the facts, straight from the Supreme Court, that a group of Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124700.html

There is nothing in that or similar reports to demonstrate that the crimes occurred because the offenders were Muslim, but it still gets mentioned where you don't see a report about an Italian Catholic or a Greek Orthodox or Lebanese Maronite offender.

One of the major problems in the West is well intentioned but misguided immigration policies which give refuge to people whose backgrounds and experiences make them incapable of living in an entirely different society. The difficulty is that that applies only to some of the people who are allowed in under such policies. Others will adapt to the new society, without necessarily abandoning their own culture but without demanding that the dominant society adapt itself to theirs. If they behave themselves they're entitled to refuge, but if they don't they forfeit the right to further consideration.

And I don't give a stuff about how terrible their experiences were elsewhere if it leads to bad behaviour in their new country, like this.


A SUDANESE refugee who embarked on a three-day rape spree and sliced an elderly woman’s throat a month after reaching Australia will serve at least the next 17 years in jail.

Hakeem Hakeem, 21, was yesterday sentenced to 24 years’ jail, with a non-parole period of 17 years, for a string of depraved sexual attacks in Melbourne’s southeast in March 2005.

The Supreme Court heard that, just one month after arriving in Australia, Hakeem set out on a drug and alcohol-fuelled campaign of terror on the streets of Dandenong.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/our_sudanese_question/ (Don't pay too much attention to what Bolt says about other things. He tends to be a bit right wing and selective in his evidence and views.)

Contrast that with an Aussie woman who saw a Sudanese woman she knew weeping in a supermarket. The Sudanese came here as refugee after a very hard time in Sudan and refugee camps. The Aussie asked her what was wrong. She replied.

'Nothing. I'm crying because I'm so happy. I'm surrounded by all this food.'

She was so grateful to be here. And she wasn't going to cause trouble.

That doesn't get reported in the press, nor does anything else positive about communities that are targeted as problems.

Even supposedly factual reporting plays the race card.


Fears our crime being imported

Liam Houlihan

March 09, 2008


PEOPLE born overseas committed one in seven of crimes in Victoria last financial year, including a quarter of rapes and one in five murders.

Exclusive police statistics also show immigrants were behind a quarter of robberies, a fifth of sex assaults, abductions and kidnappings, and 3792 assaults.

But the 2006 Census shows that 1.17 million people, or 26 per cent of Victoria's population, were born overseas.

The anatomy of crime in Victoria, obtained by the Sunday Herald Sun, shows those born in Somalia, Lebanon and New Zealand had the highest crime-per-population rates in Victoria.

They are followed by Turkish, Vietnamese and then Australian-born criminals.

An analysis of the police statistics and 2006 Census figures shows on average one in nine Victorians born in Somalia committed a crime in the state last year.

One in 20 Lebanon-born Victorians were offenders compared with one in 31 born in Australia. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23342911-2862,00.html

If 26% of the population is born overseas, why highlight in the opening paragraph that they committed 25% of rapes and 20% of murders? Their rape offences are proportionate to their percentage in the community (subject to an absence of data about relative age distributions in local and overseas born communities) and below average for murder. The same applies to the other specified offences, in none of which are they over represented. But the clear import of the opening paragraph and the hysterical headline is that those born overseas commit more crimes than locals. (The figures might be rather different if children born of overseas born parents were included on that side of the ledger, as they tend to be a lot worse than their parents.)

The crime problem isn't so much with any given national or racial or religious group but with immigration policies which fail to deport problem migrants at the first sign of trouble. Every nation has enough of its own criminals without importing more. My inclination is that migrants, from anywhere, who commit anything more serious than traffic offences should be candidates for deportation and should automatically be deported for any offence involving violence or substantial dishonesty. Get rid of a few for such things and the rest of them will have to choose between staying and behaving themselves in a country that's a lot better than the one they left or going back to it. But we won't do it because it might be sending them back to persecution or death, so our concern ensures that they stay here to re-create the shitholes they fled and that we're too weak to send them back to for doing it.

Panzerknacker
04-17-2008, 11:07 AM
Theo van Gogh assasination, silencing the free spech in Holland

By Ronald Rovers


In the Morning Nov 2 in a busy street in east Amsterdam, a 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan named Mohammed Bouyeri pulled out a gun and shot controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was riding a bike to his office. Van Gogh hit the ground and stumbled across the street to a nearby building. He didn't make it. As the Moroccan strode toward him, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don't do it! Don't do it." But the Moroccan didn't stop. He shot him again, slit van Gogh's throat and stuck a letter to his chest with a knife. He was slaughtered like an animal, witnesses said. "Cut like a tire," said one. Van Gogh, the Dutch master's great-grand-nephew, was 47 years old.
After shooting van Gogh, Bouyeri fled to a nearby park, where he was arrested after a gunfight with the police. One police officer was wounded and Bouyeri himself was shot in the leg and taken to a police hospital.

http://aussie_news_views.typepad.com/aussie_news_views/images/van_gogh_dead_on_foot_path_1.jpg


The letter pinned to van Gogh's chest contained accusations aimed not at him but at Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee and liberal parliamentarian, who for years has been fighting for women's rights in the Netherlands' widespread Islamic community. Earlier this year, Hirsi Ali and van Gogh had made "Submission," a short fiction film that was shown on Dutch public television. In the film, a Muslim woman is forced into an arranged marriage, abused by her husband, raped by her uncle and then brutally punished for adultery. Her body, visible through transparent garments, shows painted verses from the Koran. The film, van Gogh said in a TV interview, was "intended to provoke discussion on the position of enslaved Muslim women. It's directed at the fanatics, the fundamentalists.

Written in Dutch, the bloody letter called Hirsi Ali an "infidel fundamentalist" who "terrorizes Islam" and "marches with the soldiers of evil." With her "hostilities," she "unleashed a boomerang and it's just a matter of time before this boomerang will seal your destiny." In capital letters it said: "AYAAN HIRSI ALI, YOU WILL SMASH YOURSELF ON ISLAM!" The letter ended with a kind of chant: "I know for sure that you, O America, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Holland, are going to meet with disaster."
Hirsi Ali fled into hiding the day of van Gogh's murder and the next day published a reaction in the Rotterdam daily, NRC Handelsblad. "I am sad because Holland has lost its innocence," she wrote. "Theo's naiveté wasn't that it [murder] couldn't happen here, but that it couldn't happen to him. He said: 'I am the village idiot, they won't hurt me.'"

But they did. As part of his fearless bravado, van Gogh underestimated the wrath of his enemies -- and perhaps the cultural storm at the core of Dutch society.

The rage directed at van Gogh stems from the uneasy coexistence between the liberal Netherlands and Islamic fundamentalism. For decades, the country has had an open-door policy; it is now home to more than 1 million immigrants, mainly from Islamic countries. In the process of ensuring that Muslim immigrants are treated as equal citizens, the Dutch government has allowed mosques to flourish, some of which preach a radical brand of Islam that runs counter to the Netherlands' liberal values. It's this climate of "politically correct" tolerance that incited van Gogh and spurred him to strike back in his writings and films.


In fact, the big-bellied, chain-smoking director had just completed another bomb-throwing film, "06-05."


It concerns the murder of right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn, a writer, professor and outspoken opinion leader who opposed the Dutch government's investment in a new fighter jet, the Joint Strike Fighter. Like van Gogh, who called Fortuyn "the divine bald one," Fortuyn detested the politically correct atmosphere that he said pervaded the country. In the spring of 2002, the flamboyant gay libertarian won Rotterdam local elections by an overwhelming majority, and it looked like he'd do the same in national parliament a few months later. But just before election day, Fortuyn was murdered.
On his Web site, the Healthy Smoker, van Gogh had predicted the assassination: "I suspect Fortuyn will be the first in a line of politically incorrect heretics to be eliminated," he wrote. "This is what our multicultural society has brought us: a climate of intimidation in which all sorts of goat****ers can issue their threats freely." Fortuyn, however, was not shot by a Muslim extremist but by an animal-rights activist for "using Muslims as scapegoats," as the murderer, a quiet, earnest-looking man, later explained in court.

Notably, van Gogh was murdered exactly 911 days after Fortuyn. Anger toward him had certainly been rising to a boiling point all year. In May, he was slated to act as chairman of a public debate called "Happy Chaos" at the Amsterdam City Theatre. Dyab Abou Jahjah, (http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/14/panther/) the leader of a relatively small but provocative Belgian Islamic organization, refused to sit at the table with van Gogh.

One of the organizers claimed Jahjah said, "We're not taking any more of that pig." When Jahjah left the stage, van Gogh took the microphone and said: "So this is what some Muslims think of democracy!" After Jahjah left, he said to the crowd: "Why would he be afraid to talk to me? After all, he's the prophet's pimp and he has bodyguards." The debate was canceled.

Needless to say, this didn't enhance van Gogh's standing with Dutch Muslims. Nor is the filmmaker's posthumous reputation likely to improve with the Dutch government and military when "06-05" is released next month. As van Gogh said when he was making the film, "I'll do my best to seriously insult quite a few people."


Full story here:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/11/24/vangogh/index2.html

Rising Sun*
04-18-2008, 06:48 AM
PK

Your posted article does no more than confirm the well known fact that the world has an endless supply of religious and other nuts, some of whom are Muslims, prepared to kill people they disagree with.

Does that say anything about the attitudes and likely actions of the millions of others who share the same nominal religion?

Is every Muslim like Bouyeri?

Not in my experience, and I work in an area where I pass hundreds of Muslims every day among their community of thousands, and I deal with some of them and they observe and uphold high standards of personal conduct which shame many Westerners. And some of them are crooks, just like every other community and religion.

It's just as easy to post articles which show that Christians are murdering bastards about to engage in a worldwide slaughter of, say, homosexuals, not to mention inflaming the 'immigrants are ruining the country' sentiments. But what does that prove, that matters beyond the individual case?


Christian extremism raises alarm

A trial resumes today for a Slavic man charged with killing a gay man in Sacramento, Calif.

By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the January 4, 2008 edition

Sacramento, Calif. - A hate-crime trial reconvenes Friday in a case that's dividing Sacramento and drawing attention from organizations that monitor extremists.

Alex Shevchenko has been arraigned for a hate crime tied to the assault and eventual death of Satender Singh in July. According to prosecutors, Mr. Shevchenko and Andrey Vusik taunted Mr. Singh in a park because they thought he was gay. Mr. Vusik eventually threw a punch that toppled Singh, dashing his head, they charge.

Gay leaders in Sacramento say the incident followed several years of escalating tensions with some Slavic immigrants.

"The gut feeling of the [gay] community is that preaching among the local Russian evangelical community is breeding hate and that something would happen. And Satender was the something that happened," says Ed Bennett, a gay Democratic activist.

While Slavic leaders say their community is being unfairly scapegoated for legitimate political protests and deeply held religious beliefs, some monitors warn that an emerging group called the Watchmen on the Walls may be fomenting a dangerous atmosphere within the ranks of Slavic immigrants here.

"This group has engaged in extremely vicious antigay propaganda, and oftentimes it is that kind of propaganda that is taken by hate criminals as permission to go ahead and attack," says Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Intelligence Report," which tracks hate crimes nationwide.

The international Watchman on the Walls emerged within the past couple of years, forged by two longtime antigay activists – Scott Lively and Kenneth Hutcherson of the US – and two newer Slavic leaders, one in Sacramento and one in the Baltic nation of Latvia.

Mr. Lively has a following among some Slavic protesters here with his controversial book, "The Pink Swastika," which argues that homosexuals played a formative role in Nazism.

The Watchmen is a Christian movement that doesn't teach hate or seek out violent followers, says Mr. Hutcherson, who is a pastor in Washington State. "God's word does not allow us to hate. It tells us to stand up for righteousness and call a sin a sin," he says. He rejects, however, the idea of loving the sinner while hating the sin. "The Bible says when a sinner will not separate himself from a sin then he is condemned with it. The one thing I'm trying to do is get heterosexuals out of the closet. We are the majority," he says.

Videos of Watchmen conferences abroad suggest some leaders are less modulated, and their audience less against violence. One video shows Lively giving a version of Singh's killing different from reported facts, including the notion that Singh was undressing in front of children. The audience cheered twice as Lively recounted the punch and the death of Singh – a reaction Lively rebuked, saying: "We don't want homosexuals to be killed. We want them to be saved."

"What sets them apart is the rhetoric that they use," says Jim Burroway, editor of the Box Turtle Bulletin, which monitors gay hate groups. "They use the imagery of war, of us being in a war against them, of militancy. They really do speak the rhetoric of theocracy," he says.

Monitors like Mr. Burroway and Mr. Potok claim no direct connection between the Watchmen and Singh's death.

"As things stand right now, we certainly aren't contending that the Watchmen on the Walls are behind the killing," says Potok. But talk can have consequences, he adds, and Watchmen views are spread in Sacramento by two founders: Alexey Ledyaev, a pastor from Latvia, and Vlad Kusakin, host of a Russian-language radio show.

Confrontations between the gay and Slavic communities have erupted only within the past few years. Some menacing protesters now wear Watchmen T-shirts, says Nate Feldman, a gay activist who's gathering film footage of the protesters. Mr. Feldman says that during the 2006 pride parade in Sacramento he was spat on and shoved by a group of antigay demonstrators.

Other gays and lesbians tell of protests held outside private homes or protesters recognizing them and rattling off their names and addresses. This holiday season, protesters sang Christmas carols outside major retailers while displaying and handing out antigay messages.

Slavic leaders estimate that their Sacramento community numbers around 100,000. They are mainly ethnic Ukranians, Moldovans, and Russians – many of whom gained entrance to the US as Christian asylum seekers after the Soviet Union collapsed. The Russians tend to be Baptist, the Ukranians, Pentecostal.

Many grew up persecuted in the Soviet Union, watching as school officials slighted their children's progress. Some now feel that US educators look down on their Christian children, say Slavic leaders.

Several Slavic leaders including Roman Romaso, executive director of the Slavic Assistance Center, say the street protesters are a small minority.

"As much as I know Watchmen on the Walls I don't agree with them because they call out people in the street and some are not acting adequately," says Mr. Romaso. "My understanding of how to fight is to work with the legislature and build coalitions."

One gay Russian-speaker – who requests anonymity for personal safety – expresses dismay that the death of Singh hasn't galvanized more moderate Slavic voices. The "mythologizing" of gays as the enemy continues in the local Russian-language media, he says.

"It's all about gays and their agenda. Gays are some evil group that is so organized. I didn't know that I belonged to this very powerful group of people," he says. He acknowledges that having Russian-speakers come out of the closet would help change views. "But who is going to do that? I would expose myself to so much hate from people who don't know me." http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0104/p03s01-ussc.html

Nickdfresh
04-18-2008, 08:33 AM
Well, here's some lovely "Christians." You see, these people from the Fred Phelps and his gaggle of white trash Baptist Church of idiots protest at US military funerals to CELEBRATE the death of US servicemen in the War in Iraq as some sort of God's punishment of the US for being a "homosexually tolerant" country...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/04/04/wswed04.jpg

(No, I am not making this up!) Does this have a wider implication on Christianity then?

Rising Sun*
04-18-2008, 09:19 AM
Does this have a wider implication on Christianity then?

Well, it suggests that Christians, apart from being unfeeling bastards exulting at others' deaths and misery as if someone had just flown a plane into a big building as a great victory against their enemy, the Great American Satan:

- Support God's hatred of the USA (So much for 'in God in we trust'.)
- And therefore are traitors to the USA.
- Thank God for dead US soldiers.
- And therefore are traitors to the USA

- See God as the enemy.
- Therefore God is the enemy of the USA
- Know God supports the NRA and has a celestial scope aimed at Uncle Sam.
- Thereofore God is the enemy of the USA. (But not the NRA?)
- Know that God hates lots of things, especially tears of dead US soldiers' loved ones.
- Therefore God is the enemy of the USA.

- Are a bit confused about exactly what God supports and hates and about what He and they think, assuming they think. Or even have brains.

- Are stupid enough to stand in a roadway, where some of God's American enemies might show them what a well driven American V8 can do, never mind IED's.

- Overall, are just plain ****ing stupid. And dangerous. Like Muslim and other religious nutcases who don't represent the mainstream in any religion.

Drake
04-18-2008, 11:10 AM
Our tolerance will bite us in the *** in case of the muslims. Name just a single muslim country that is tolerant towards anything from our jewish/christian western civilization besides technogadgets and allows for example freedom of religion or speech. And this is not a coincidental correlation, their culture is based on their faith and thus their societies with everything that comes with it. Christianity is the most persecuted religion on earth, guess who does most of that.
It's a grave mistake to import and tolerate that culture as long as those societies haven't developed a similar intrinsic level of tolerance themselves. The matter of fact is that Islam is the most violent and intolerant religion on earth both by definition in their holy book and in the practical reality of it, there is simply no way to ignore that.

A nice little anecdote would be one from around where I live. The city of Wiesbaden helped muslims build a mosque if they signed a contract in which they promised to abide by the basic law of germany (which is outrageous enough for me that this isn't automatically a given). So they partially financed the thing and helped with permissions etc. and guess what happens as soon as the thing is finished: They import a preacher of hate and now the mosk needs being observed by the federal office for protection of the constitution. And unfortunatly that isn't just a single coincident. If I were in charge I would have demolished the place immediatly for breaking the contract and shipped the 300 members of the society that built the mosque and invited the priest back to where they belong.

And btw. comparing christian nutjobs to muslim nutjobs is comparing apples to violent, genocidal, suicide bombing zucchinis.

Panzerknacker
04-18-2008, 11:14 AM
Our tolerance will bite us in the *** in case of the muslims.

Already did it.

The rage and the pride, reflections about western society and radical Islam.

By Oriana Fallaci ( La Rabbia e l’Orgoglio in Italian originally published in "Il corriere della sera" the newspaper of the evening, Milano )

You ask me to speak, this time. You ask me to break, at least on this occasion, my self imposed silence. Which I have imposed on myself for years in order not to be sucked into the fray. And I am doing it. Because I have heard that even in Italy some are rejoicing, like I saw the Palestinians rejoice on TV the other night. “Victory, Victory!”. Men, women, children. Admitting that one who is capable of such an act can be defined a Man, Woman or Child. I have heard that some fat cats, politicians or so-called politicians, intellectuals or so-called intellectuals, and other individuals that do not deserve the classification of being a citizen, have been acting substantially in the same manner as those in Gaza. They say: “Good, the Americans deserve it!”. And I am very, very, very angry. With a cold furious anger, lucid and rational.

An anger that eliminates every obstacle, every indulgence. That compels me to respond to them and above all to spit on them. I spit on them. As angry as I, the American poet Maya Angelou yesterday roared: “Be angry. It’s good to be angry, it’s healthy.” I don’t know if it is healthy for me to be angry, but I know it is not going to be healthy for them, the admirers of Osama Bin Laden, and for those who express understanding or sympathy or solidarity for him. You have lit a fuse which for too long has been harboring the desire to explode. You will see. You also ask me to tell how I have lived this Apocalypse. To give my story. I will therefore start with that.

Full article here (a must read):

http://www.borg.com/~paperina/fallaci/fallaci_1.html

Nickdfresh
04-18-2008, 04:43 PM
Our tolerance will bite us in the *** in case of the muslims. Name just a single muslim country that is tolerant towards anything from our jewish/christian western civilization besides technogadgets and allows for example freedom of religion or speech...

Um, if you go back to the crusades, you'll find examples of Muslim tolerance of Christians and Jews in the "Holy Lands," until the Christian hordes came in and massacred entire cities...

BTW, that's how the West regained much of its scientific knowledge, art and culture after the fall of the Roman Empires...

And I think Christians, or at least those raised under the pretensions of it, can be just as fine of a bunch of killers as Islamics are...

We need look no further that the Holocaust, the (Atheist and rational) Red terror on Stalin's purges, those killed by bombing and Western led sanctions, and McVeigh's destruction of the Oklahoma Federal Building for that...

And I think your debate is devolving into separate subjects here. Bad immigration policies and the overall beliefs of Islam. But please don't tye the latter into some hegemonic conspiracy of the former...

Drake
04-18-2008, 06:13 PM
Um, if you go back to the crusades, you'll find examples of Muslim tolerance of Christians and Jews in the "Holy Lands," until the Christian hordes came in and massacred entire cities...


That was a thousand years ago and after the territory was conquered by muslims in the first place. The significance for today is exactly 0, like the amount of muslim tolerance towards anyone of different faith today in the Dar al-Islam. And you should really read more about the period prior to the crusades if you believe in the muslim tolerance and christian aggression theory.



BTW, that's how the West regained much of its scientific knowledge, art and culture after the fall of the Roman Empires...


The "lost" knowledge was preserved by scholars from the eastern christian churches in byzantium long before the muslims conquered the region and they would have continued to do so even if the muslims hadn't conquered (rather violently) the region.
It were also mostly those orthodox christians who translated the stuff into arabic. That's a part of the story that's often conveniently left out. So the overall achievement of the arabs was to carry the translated texts to spain where other christian translated it back. Much like the "arabic" numbers, which happen to come from india.



And I think your debate is devolving into separate subjects here. Bad immigration policies and the overall beliefs of Islam. But please don't tye the latter into some hegemonic conspiracy of the former...


It isn't devolving since I pointed out that you cannot separate the subjects. The overall beliefs of Islam are the very foundation for those societies and everything that happens today whether in africa, europe, the middle east or asia. We import guaranteed future trouble since islam cannot be integrated into western societies without abandoning much of what defines the latter and thus ultimatly destroying it.
I have btw. the impression that you hardly know anything about the "overall beliefs of Islam" and simply defend it because it is being critizised.

Rising Sun*
04-18-2008, 08:59 PM
Our tolerance will bite us in the *** in case of the muslims. Name just a single muslim country that is tolerant towards anything from our jewish/christian western civilization besides technogadgets and allows for example freedom of religion or speech. And this is not a coincidental correlation, their culture is based on their faith and thus their societies with everything that comes with it. Christianity is the most persecuted religion on earth, guess who does most of that.
It's a grave mistake to import and tolerate that culture as long as those societies haven't developed a similar intrinsic level of tolerance themselves. The matter of fact is that Islam is the most violent and intolerant religion on earth both by definition in their holy book and in the practical reality of it, there is simply no way to ignore that.

A nice little anecdote would be one from around where I live. The city of Wiesbaden helped muslims build a mosque if they signed a contract in which they promised to abide by the basic law of germany (which is outrageous enough for me that this isn't automatically a given). So they partially financed the thing and helped with permissions etc. and guess what happens as soon as the thing is finished: They import a preacher of hate and now the mosk needs being observed by the federal office for protection of the constitution. And unfortunatly that isn't just a single coincident. If I were in charge I would have demolished the place immediatly for breaking the contract and shipped the 300 members of the society that built the mosque and invited the priest back to where they belong.

Assuming that you've correctly identified the problem, what's the solution?


And btw. comparing christian nutjobs to muslim nutjobs is comparing apples to violent, genocidal, suicide bombing zucchinis.

The Incas might have a different view, if the Spanish had left any after their Christian crusade.

Drake
04-19-2008, 04:43 AM
Assuming that you've correctly identified the problem, what's the solution?


Get the people with the dangerous attitudes back to their country of origin.
We have the technical means to identify them and the rest is a 30$ airplane ticket away.
It makes no sense to allow a culture with an inherent pretence for domination to form small but growing enclaves in our society if you want long term peace and stability for everyone. Do you believe it is coincidental that 95% of the violent hotspots on earth are in the frontier areas of the Dar-al Islam. Well I don't and I honestly don't understand how other hobbyhistorians who like me should be used to think in larger timeframes can't smell the trouble there.



The Incas might have a different view, if the Spanish had left any after their Christian crusade.

That's a couple of hundret years ago and like the crusades bears no significance for today. And the inca religion would be another classical example of a not so suitable religion for a democracy, with all the human sacrifice and stuff.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2008, 05:45 AM
Get the people with the dangerous attitudes back to their country of origin.

I'm more or less in favour of that in theory, but in practice how do we identify people with 'dangerous attitudes'?

How do we define 'dangerous attitudes'?

I'd say it includes putting out the sort of arrogant Islamic (and predominantly Arab, which is another part of the problem) 'Aussie girls deserve to be raped because they're sluts and infiedels so, nudge nudge wink wink, it's alright for Lebanese Muslim boys to rape them' shit which is routinely preached in certain mosques here, e.g.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_backing_a_bigot/ and enthusiastically practised by some of their adherents http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s699823.htm

I don't know anyone, including me, who isn't prepared to contribute to a plane ticket to anywhere that's not here for those so called sheikhs, and to put a bullet in the neck of the bastards who gave practical effect to their contempt for women outside their own religion.

But what about the thousands in their communities who endorse their views? I reckon they're by far the bigger threat. Deporting their idiot leaders will just reinforce that community's antipathy towards the non-Islamic community and confirm their paranoid belief that they're somehow being victimised by the wider community they chose to join for reasons which defy understanding if it's so alien to their primitive attitudes and conduct. So just getting rid of a few prominent ****heads will make things worse rather than better.

Where are the objective grounds to get rid of their supporters?

Once we start making attitudes and expressing offensive opinions a deportable crime, it's a short step to further political thought control and assaults on freedom of speech for what governments see as risks to them. We end up with McCarthyism writ large.

The reasons for getting rid of these clowns are also reasons for eroding our democratic rights, while the reasons for not getting rid of them are the reasons that ensure that people who are opposed to our democratic rights will be able to continue as a cancer in our societies.

As I've often said, the problem with democracy is that it has the seeds of its own destruction in the values it upholds and practises. So what do we want to do? Start undermining our democratic rights ourselves to get rid of these clowns, or sit back and let them undermine our democracy while we uphold their right to do it? Seems to me that we're buggered whatever we do. Unless our democracies are strong enough to accommodate and resist such threats, which we'll be able to judge in about a century, or less.

Drake
04-19-2008, 05:51 AM
Practical implementation is of course open for debate, but that's the point, it isn't even being debated, it's simply ignored.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2008, 08:09 AM
Practical implementation is of course open for debate, but that's the point, it isn't even being debated, it's simply ignored.

A fair point.

And guess why?

Here, anyway. Because it suits each of our own political parties able to form a government to curry favour (no pun intended) with certain ethnic groups because their leaders can deliver the community votes that swing a seat.

Once elected by that community, no politician is going to go against it.

Most politicians are craven when it comes to risking their electoral success and they're all unwilling to risk upsetting a minority which might deliver them electoral success. So they shut up.

So, again, democracy works against its own interests in maintaining a democracy.

Also, add in bullshit like religious and racial tolerance legislation which takes political correctness to strasopherically stupid levels and provides religious zealots with a new playground to beat each other over the head about religious disputes which have no place in the courts or anywhere but churches and among whoever chooses to follow a religion.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Church-found-to-have-vilified-Muslims/2004/12/17/1102787256016.html
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5362

We end up with politicians and news media cowed by the extreme reactions to, say, the Danish cartoons so that very few politicians and people in public life are willing to make a stand on what, privately, just about everyone sees as an important issue that needs some clear and decisive action.

Still, what can you expect in a legislatively prescribed pluralistic, non-discriminatory, equal opportunity, multi-cultural, religiously and racial tolerant society like mine?

This: I know of a teacher (Anglo) in a government school with a large Islamic / Arab enrolment who ended up facing disciplinary proceedings after remonstrating strongly with Arab boys who were loudly exultant in the school yard and classrooms on the day of 9/11 (She objected to their joy and dancing and so on at innocent people being killed.). Their parents complained to the school about her being racist and the headmaster (Anglo) initiated disciplinary proceedings. Makes sense, doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Who do we blame for that? Primitive Arabs / Muslims who prefer to see their problems as caused by the West rather than the corrupt medieval regimes which run their nations, or supposedly educated and rational and balanced Westerners? I blame the latter, at the school level and at every level of government where people need to wake up to themselves and say in some cases: No. This is unacceptable behaviour. If you don't like it, **** off to some country where you'll fit in.

And, guess what? They don't fit in to those countries either. Some of our biggest advocates for bin Laden etc actually migrated here because we gave them much more freedom to practise their version of Islam than in their home countries, such as this tool, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/arrested-a-man-apart-who-fought-to-stay-in-australia/2005/11/08/1131407637648.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Nacer_Benbrika

However, this gets back to the point Nick made about immigration policies being the problem.

We should never have let that ***** in (Abu Bakr / Benbrika, not Nick :D).

Which raises a wider issue about why it is that the West takes in people who are refugees from specific conflicts when they should be accommodated in nations with similar cultures in the region. Then again, if you look at the way most of those places in those regions treat their own people (e.g. Sudan, Zimbabwe, Algeria. Burma, Pakistan) you can understand why anyone with a bit of dash would want to get out.

What I don't understand is why they want to turn the place they've come to for refuge into a new version of the shithole they fled for a better life.

Nickdfresh
04-19-2008, 08:31 AM
That was a thousand years ago and after the territory was conquered by muslims in the first place. The significance for today is exactly 0, like the amount of muslim tolerance towards anyone of different faith today in the Dar al-Islam. And you should really read more about the period prior to the crusades if you believe in the muslim tolerance and christian aggression theory.

Actually, there are small Christian and even Jewish communities throughout the Muslim world even today. They are harassed in Iran and such places, but generally tolerated. And why should I read more about the period of before the Crusades if it has "0" significance today? Will I find more information how on inherently evil all Muslims are?

As far as your "theory" statement, there is no "theory" being forwarded. Both sides were intolerant and aggressive once the fighting began. But one can hardly contrast the moral codes of either army, nor the political and economic actions that drove them, as in any way holy. After all, it was Christian Europeans that gathered an army of children, and had the Pope consecrate them, as they were sent to the Middle East again, in order to get rid of them and enrich slave traders?

The Crusades are very much present in this debate, because it is often sited as justification for Islamic terror. If you think that there is no bearing on today's situation, then I guessed you missed the political fallout when George Bush proclaimed a "crusade" against al Qaeda, which is widely seen as a very poor choice of words. The truth is that when the few extremist groups like al Qaeda or The Muslim Brotherhood refer back to this "golden age" as the prime mover of their movements, they are often fabricating a past that never really existed to begin with. They are masking their stated goals of returning to traditional Islam with what is radical, revisionist Islam...


The "lost" knowledge was preserved by scholars from the eastern christian churches in byzantium long before the muslims conquered the region and they would have continued to do so even if the muslims hadn't conquered (rather violently) the region.

But the Muslims used the knowledge and were inherently superior in mathematics and knowledge. That's why they were bandaging their wounded while the Crusaders cauterized their wounds...


It were also mostly those orthodox christians who translated the stuff into arabic. That's a part of the story that's often conveniently left out. So the overall achievement of the arabs was to carry the translated texts to spain where other christian translated it back. Much like the "arabic" numbers, which happen to come from india.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that there were no Muslim scholars, nor does it mean that they didn't appreciate knowledge...Certainly more than many of the illiterates populating Europe at the time...


It isn't devolving since I pointed out that you cannot separate the subjects. The overall beliefs of Islam are the very foundation for those societies and everything that happens today whether in africa, europe, the middle east or asia.

How in any way are Muslim societies in Africa similar to the ones in say the Pacific rim. That's a pretty silly, conspiratorial statement actually. You're denying that culture, economics, history, etc. There is no essential bind that Islam provides. If anything, the religion is rather divisive. Do I really have to explain the history or how Western colonialists essentially redrew the map of the Middle East in nation-states that have created basket cases like Iraq? The Shiite-Sunni-Druze schisms etc.? Or that Muslim societies are much more likely to go to war against each other and the the vast majority of victims in Islamic inspired terrorism are actually other Muslims (one of the reasons that the US gov't stopped reported the numbers killed worldwide in terror attacks - because they skyrocketed after the breakdown [post-Invasion] of Iraq)....


We import guaranteed future trouble since islam cannot be integrated into western societies without abandoning much of what defines the latter and thus ultimatly destroying it.

But it is! In the US, and Canada to an extent. We simply do not have the cultural problems you have...


I have btw. the impression that you hardly know anything about the "overall beliefs of Islam" and simply defend it because it is being critizised.

LOL Well, I'm no scholar, as I have little use for organized religion in general. But between the two of us, I think we know who has referred to the "Prophet" Mohammad as a pedophile, and have pointed out irrationalities and contradictions or the Koran. But, can't we say much the same thing about the Bible? You know as well as I do that one can cherrypick passages of the Koran in order to make Muslims look twisted and inherently evil, or post photos at protests. We can do that with most religious texts actually. The fundamental ignorance here is Western, you see, what you often attribute as religiously inspired idiocy of Muslims is actually cultural. The burka for instance was around before Mohammad, and is more a cultural item than a religious one (there's nothing about it in the Koran, and a passage basically instructing women not to flash their tits seems to be the basis of it). And suicide bombing is actually prohibited by the Koran, which has in itself become a twisted ruthless vision. We can even talk about the 72-virgins waiting for the martyred, and how that is actually based on 72-raisins waiting for the "martyrs."

Rising Sun*
04-19-2008, 09:26 AM
How in any way are Muslim societies in Africa similar to the ones in say the Pacific rim. That's a pretty silly, conspiratorial statement actually.

Yes, and no.

Indonesia is the largest, by population, Islamic nation in the world and also the most moderate.

However, extremist elements are doing their best to change that, such as Abu Bakar Bashir (wiki will do for a summary on this slimy vicious little **** who has been up to his neck in a war against everyone who doesn't share his version of Islam) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakar_Bashir

The common feature outside a few places like Pakistan or Afghanistan where Islam is endemically linked to local forms of primitivism is that Arab influence generates extremism.

Generally from Saudi Arabia and its Wahabbi version of Islam and the endless stream of dollars which flow from it.

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is supported by the US, among others, because it's chockers with oil.

While Hamas in its current form is largely a Frankenstein's monster unintentionally created by Israel trying to be clever.

So, in the end, who is really underwriting the export of virulent forms of Islam while supposedly fighting a war against Islamic terror?

Drake
04-19-2008, 10:54 AM
Actually, there are small Christian and even Jewish communities throughout the Muslim world even today. They are harassed in Iran and such places, but generally tolerated.


Well then check the stats how the minorities developed in the last decades in those areas. An example would be turkey, 20% of the population was christian in 1920 (even after the armenian genocide) today it's less than 0.2%. Religious minorities are being harassed in every imaginable way in every single country with a muslim majority. The radicalisation up to violence level might be a rather new development (though it's more a wave pattern throughout history) but that's how the islamic world present itself today.



As far as your "theory" statement, there is no "theory" being forwarded. Both sides were intolerant and aggressive once the fighting began. But one can hardly contrast the moral codes of either army, nor the political and economic actions that drove them, as in any way holy. After all, it was Christian Europeans that gathered an army of children, and had the Pope consecrate them, as they were sent to the Middle East again, in order to get rid of them and enrich slave traders?


But there was only a one sided aggressiveness before the fighting in the crusades began. I'll give you the intolerant and immoral on both sides though.



The Crusades are very much present in this debate, because it is often sited as justification for Islamic terror. If you think that there is no bearing on today's situation, then I guessed you missed the political fallout when George Bush proclaimed a "crusade" against al Qaeda, which is widely seen as a very poor choice of words. The truth is that when the few extremist groups like al Qaeda or The Muslim Brotherhood refer back to this "golden age" as the prime mover of their movements, they are often fabricating a past that never really existed to begin with. They are masking their stated goals of returning to traditional Islam with what is radical, revisionist Islam...


Ok, it is present in the general debate, but that doesn't really make it a valid point.



But the Muslims used the knowledge and were inherently superior in mathematics and knowledge. That's why they were bandaging their wounded while the Crusaders cauterized their wounds...

Of course, but that doesn't mean that there were no Muslim scholars, nor does it mean that they didn't appreciate knowledge...Certainly more than many of the illiterates populating Europe at the time...


Didn't say there weren't smart and educated people who also happened to be muslims back then, but eversince they pretty much fell back to stoneage levels compared to the western world.
The point is this "muslims saved ancient knowledge otherwise lost forever" is simply stupid propaganda. There was a general downward gradient in knowledge from persia and the eastern mediterranean to the northwest of europe and the muslims stumbled upon those gems while swinging the sword to spread their faith. All those areas of knowledge were christian btw. and didn't really choose to become islamic territory.



How in any way are Muslim societies in Africa similar to the ones in say the Pacific rim. That's a pretty silly, conspiratorial statement actually. You're denying that culture, economics, history, etc. There is no essential bind that Islam provides. If anything, the religion is rather divisive. Do I really have to explain the history or how Western colonialists essentially redrew the map of the Middle East in nation-states that have created basket cases like Iraq? The Shiite-Sunni-Druze schisms etc.? Or that Muslim societies are much more likely to go to war against each other and the the vast majority of victims in Islamic inspired terrorism are actually other Muslims (one of the reasons that the US gov't stopped reported the numbers killed worldwide in terror attacks - because they skyrocketed after the breakdown [post-Invasion] of Iraq)....


I don't deny other factors, they are of course also contributing to certain developments but since you asked, the similarities are based in the hadits, the koran and the sharia. And how does the fact that the different denominations even fight each other help us? As you might have noticed in iraq for example, the common enemy there is the christian minority. While they might not agree on certain aspects of their own religion they do agree on that with overwhelming majority.



But it is! In the US, and Canada to an extent. We simply do not have the cultural problems you have...


That's your current perception with a population of about half a percent. And Canada already starts experiencing quite the same "cultural problem" as we do in europe since the muslims there already accumulated enough numbers.

Did you know that the koran gives explicit instructions how to behave in minority situations. They're supposed to behave as long as they're a distant minority but under no circumstance allow the social system of the non islamic majority population to ever really become their own.



LOL Well, I'm no scholar, as I have little use for organized religion in general. But, can't we say much the same thing about the Bible? You know as well as I do that one can cherrypick passages of the Koran in order to make Muslims look twisted and inherently evil, or post photos at protests. We can do that with most religious texts actually. The fundamental ignorance here is Western, you see, what you often attribute as religiously inspired idiocy of Muslims is actually cultural. The burka for instance was around before Mohammad, and is more a cultural item than a religious one (there's nothing about it in the Koran, and a passage basically instructing women not to flash their tits seems to be the basis of it). And suicide bombing is actually prohibited by the Koran, which has in itself become a twisted ruthless vision. We can even talk about the 72-virgins waiting for the martyred, and how that is actually based on 72-raisins waiting for the "martyrs."

I am no scholar either and I share your general approach when it comes to religion. I only started reading on the topic a few months back and I did and do so with as much objectivity as possible like I do it with historical documents. But what I found so far is that much of the views held by westerners about the generally peaceful attitude of that religion is wishful thinking. You don't need to cherrypick either. 200 out of 6000 Verses are a direct call to violence against mostly people of other faiths, preferably jews. That's more than three percent. And the koran doesn't use allegories, quite contrary to the bible. The violent parts of the old testaments are usually exactly that.
You'll have a hard time to find that many violent parts in the old testament anyway which is not even the crucial part for christianity. And you won't find a single call for violence in the new testament since jesus preached the exact opposite. Christianity and Islam are not even remotely comparable on a theoretical theological basis. And todays reality is a reflection of that fact. That wouldn't even be a problem to me if Islam would inherently restrict itself to the spiritual world like every other religion. But Islam has explicit and unalterable social and political ambitions which makes it quite different from any other religion still practiced today.

Now I don't say that all or even a majority of muslims are bad people. But to me that isn't a because of but more of an in spite of thing. Particularly here in europe, where the good people I know (those who actually integrated into our society) are as much muslim as I am christian, meaning not practicing any religion, more born into the background, but that's it.




But between the two of us, I think we know who has referred to the "Prophet" Mohammad as a pedophile, and have pointed out irrationalities and contradictions or the Koran.


But Mohammed was a pedophile, he married a six year old and f****** her when she was nine, that's a historic fact.

Rising Sun*
04-19-2008, 11:45 AM
Just as a general consideration, how much of what Islam is accused of is more related to ethnic customs and practices, whether it be 'honour killings' (there's a joke!) or female genital mutilation (the male form being standard in Islam and Judaism and therefore not a problem, least of all in the West where rabid child protection laws still exempt Jews, and by default Muslims, from this barbaric religious mutilation :rolleyes:) or arranged marriages with under age children (which isn't uncommon in societies that have never heard of Islam http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192182.htm?site=nt , not to mention various Indian and Pakistani Middle Eastern cultures or, apparently, even in the good old USA http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192182.htm?site=nt ).

I'm putting this forward because a lot of the Western hostility to Muslims springs from what are seen in the West as the quite primitive attitudes and practices they have to various things, but it's always debatable whether those attitudes and practices spring from Islam or from ethnic cultures. There's endless debate about it from both Koranic scholars and ethnic scholars, which always leads to the conclusion that you can argue to any result if it suits your purpose.

I'm old enough to remember similar hostility to Italians, Balts, dagoes, reffos and so on who came to Australia after WWII and who were held in contempt by most Aussies for their strange cuisine and crazy protection of their daughters from the ever present threat of rape, but they've all settled down and we're on the third or fourth generation of those people who in general have fitted in to, and in various ways modified for its benefit, the wider community.

So, while I'm all in favour of getting rid of dangerous scum, I think it's always dangerous to do to it on the basis of religion or whatever.

Drake
04-19-2008, 12:16 PM
So, while I'm all in favour of getting rid of dangerous scum, I think it's always dangerous to do to it on the basis of religion or whatever.

Now, just theoretically speaking, what do you do if a hypothetical religion would pose a threat to you and your way of living by completely negating its right of existence?

Rising Sun*
04-19-2008, 12:27 PM
Now, just theoretically speaking, what do you do if a hypothetical religion would pose a threat to you and your way of living by completely negating its right of existence?


It depends upon the level of threat.

I think that, so far, the level of hostilty to Islam in many Western societies is a confused mix of understandable concerns about, first, 9/11 type attacks ably assisted by some moronic Islamic preachers and advocates and the Muslims who would do it and, second, the age old problem of fear of immigrants who are different.

My impression is that most of the concern arises from the latter problem, which is a problem of perception by the host community rather than a problem with anything the immigrant community is doing.

I still think that trying to build bridges with such communities is a lot better than trying to build moats around them, regardless of which side is perceived as building the moat.

Drake
04-19-2008, 12:57 PM
Still hypothetically speaking. The threat is obviously diffuse since it wouldn't make much sense to reveal it until it is too late. And it is diffuse because it arises from a mindset of its followers more than from anything material, much like enlightenment was a threat to the power of the christian churches.
The hypothetical religion also explicitly forbids reformation or interpretation of its written teachings and coerces its followers to lie and submit to superior powers until there is a power shift. After said power shift the hypothetical religion demands submission from everyone else with an explicit death threat in case of refusal.

Nickdfresh
04-20-2008, 05:24 PM
Well then check the stats how the minorities developed in the last decades in those areas. An example would be turkey, 20% of the population was christian in 1920 (even after the armenian genocide) today it's less than 0.2%. Religious minorities are being harassed in every imaginable way in every single country with a muslim majority. The radicalisation up to violence level might be a rather new development (though it's more a wave pattern throughout history) but that's how the islamic world present itself today.

Of course, but when not even Muslims really want to live in the majority of those areas, what do you expect. Also, if you look at Lebanon, it's the higher birthrates of Muslims that have tipped the balance from the Christian communities....

And much of the remaining Christian population in Turkey fled to Russia, did they not?

And a lot of the "radicalization and violence" has as much to do with the third world liberation movements than it did with any religious zeal. Much of "violence" is again directed against other Islamic states...


But there was only a one sided aggressiveness before the fighting in the crusades began. I'll give you the intolerant and immoral on both sides though.

Ok, it is present in the general debate, but that doesn't really make it a valid point.

Sometimes we forget that they have a much longer memory of history than Westerners do. But then again, that also applies to the Baltic areas...


Didn't say there weren't smart and educated people who also happened to be muslims back then, but eversince they pretty much fell back to stoneage levels compared to the western world.

Because again, these states have only been independent of Western colonialism for something like sixty years for the most part. Most states in the Middle East are hardly "stongeage" wonders...

What keeps them down is their own shitty gov'ts of despots that continually try to direct the national anxieities outward, mostly towards Israel...


The point is this "muslims saved ancient knowledge otherwise lost forever" is simply stupid propaganda. There was a general downward gradient in knowledge from persia and the eastern mediterranean to the northwest of europe and the muslims stumbled upon those gems while swinging the sword to spread their faith. All those areas of knowledge were christian btw. and didn't really choose to become islamic territory.

But can you call the "Christians" at the time, save for a few scholar monks, any different? The Spanish inquasition? Conquest of the America's? European and American slave traders? Were they really much behind us? Really?


I don't deny other factors, they are of course also contributing to certain developments but since you asked, the similarities are based in the hadits, the koran and the sharia. And how does the fact that the different denominations even fight each other help us? As you might have noticed in iraq for example, the common enemy there is the christian minority. While they might not agree on certain aspects of their own religion they do agree on that with overwhelming majority.

Yet the Christians were piously protected under Saddam's Baathist Pan-Arab Nationalist movement. A movement that was far more akin to Western secular values than say the neighboring Iranians. Whose theocratic gov't, one that is relatively unpopular by all accounts, came to power in response to a Westernized secular leader the US helped install and who was a torturing, murdering ****. This is often the Muslim association of Western secular values in the Middle East, perpetually unfair societies where the elites keep themselves in power through the use of despotism. This is at least part of the problem in places like Iran and Egypt.

The Iraqi Christians have become the de facto whipping boys because they share the religion of the occupiers on a superficial level at least...And it's hard to specifically point out how badly the Christians have it there when millions of mostly Sunni Iraqis have fled to countries such as Syria to escape Shiite death squads, who in turn, sought vengeance for the al Qaeda led tactics of mass violence. The same tactics that Islamists employed in Algeria, and failed. And these tactics fail for a reason, because vast majority of Muslims do not "awaken" when they see large scale market bombings and in most ways reject them...


That's your current perception with a population of about half a percent. And Canada already starts experiencing quite the same "cultural problem" as we do in europe since the muslims there already accumulated enough numbers.

I grew up near a large Muslim community in Lackawanna, New York (basically a part of Buffalo). They historically have caused little problem and even helped revitalize the community, including lowering the crime rate and expanded the dwindling tax base -- and most have become Americanized to some extent...

The cultural problems of lack of Muslim assimilation are simply not a universal problem. There are many factors involved...


Did you know that the koran gives explicit instructions how to behave in minority situations. They're supposed to behave as long as they're a distant minority but under no circumstance allow the social system of the non islamic majority population to ever really become their own.

Whatever. I'd have to see the "special instructions." Then, we'd have to assume that all Muslims read their Korans. The many I've known, most didn't. And the ones who did drank alcohol, dated women, and generally become quite fond of Western culture...

But then again, this is something quite different from the European ghettos were the Muslim communities shut themselves off and turn inward...



I am no scholar either and I share your general approach when it comes to religion. I only started reading on the topic a few months back and I did and do so with as much objectivity as possible like I do it with historical documents. But what I found so far is that much of the views held by westerners about the generally peaceful attitude of that religion is wishful thinking. You don't need to cherrypick either. 200 out of 6000 Verses are a direct call to violence against mostly people of other faiths, preferably jews. That's more than three percent. And the koran doesn't use allegories, quite contrary to the bible. The violent parts of the old testaments are usually exactly that.
You'll have a hard time to find that many violent parts in the old testament anyway which is not even the crucial part for christianity. And you won't find a single call for violence in the new testament since jesus preached the exact opposite. Christianity and Islam are not even remotely comparable on a theoretical theological basis. And todays reality is a reflection of that fact. That wouldn't even be a problem to me if Islam would inherently restrict itself to the spiritual world like every other religion. But Islam has explicit and unalterable social and political ambitions which makes it quite different from any other religion still practiced today.

The only real advantage that Christianity has over Islam as far as irrationality and intolerance is that mainstream Christianity has had both the Protestant reformation and the Second Vatican, which somewhat moderated the often violent tendencies of competition somewhat early on. There has been no such updating of the Islamic faith to reconcile it with the modern world which is the basic problem. Passages have little to to with anything. The Bible was used to justify slavery, and antisemitism has been encoded into all the Christian western societies for centuries, and propagated by both religious (of most Christian sects if not all of them) and gov't authorities from Russian to Great Britain to varying extents. And it wasn't all that long ago. Only since the Holocaust have Jews been given full citizenship rights in their European and American places of birth. And even with the religious reforms enacted largely in response to the Enlightenment, there still is the echo of sectarianism in places like Northern Ireland and Croatia/Bosnia. And there are still fringe sects of Christians and polygamist Mormons in my country that use the Bible to rationalize the setting up of what are little more than statutory rape cults...


Now I don't say that all or even a majority of muslims are bad people. But to me that isn't a because of but more of an in spite of thing. Particularly here in europe, where the good people I know (those who actually integrated into our society) are as much muslim as I am christian, meaning not practicing any religion, more born into the background, but that's it.

The problem seems to be more a question of immigration policy more than of just religion though...


But Mohammed was a pedophile, he married a six year old and f****** her when she was nine, that's a historic fact.

I know. That's what I said!

Drake
04-21-2008, 05:03 PM
Of course, but when not even Muslims really want to live in the majority of those areas, what do you expect. Also, if you look at Lebanon, it's the higher birthrates of Muslims that have tipped the balance from the Christian communities....


Why should muslims in third world countries get more children than christians?



And much of the remaining Christian population in Turkey fled to Russia, did they not?

And what does that tell you about the majority population?



Sometimes we forget that they have a much longer memory of history than Westerners do. But then again, that also applies to the Baltic areas...


But conveniently that historic memory is selective and reaches exactly only back to the crusades and not a second further.



Because again, these states have only been independent of Western colonialism for something like sixty years for the most part. Most states in the Middle East are hardly "stongeage" wonders...


Oh please. This might be the case for east asia, but hardly the middle east. They had been under muslim rule for 1000 years and only after 1900 and ww1 that changed for a very short period, historically speaking.
And they are stoneage wonders. They could buy all the fancy stuff they have now with petrodollars, but if it wasn't for that ...



What keeps them down is their own shitty gov'ts of despots that continually try to direct the national anxieities outward, mostly towards Israel...


We had the same shitty governments in europe during the enlightenment and industrial revolution, that's hardly an excuse. It's their inflexible mindset which keeps them down and always will if they don't get rid of it the same way christianity did.



But can you call the "Christians" at the time, save for a few scholar monks, any different? The Spanish inquasition? Conquest of the America's? European and American slave traders? Were they really much behind us? Really?


Never said we europeans hadn't been bitches in the past and particularly during the age of colonialism, but early christianity didn't conquer anything, quite the opposite. That started out only a few hundret years later (I'd say around 400 AD) and then mostly for political reasons and it was definatly a perversion of jesus' teachings and it took more than thousand years to remedy that. Contrary to that violence is the birth defect of islam, mohammed himself already led 66 mostly aggressive wars against non believers. That's how it is and there is no quibbling around that.
Btw. slave trade is still up and running in muslim cultures. You should read what Churchill had to say about islam in that regard in his first or second book.



I grew up near a large Muslim community in Lackawanna, New York (basically a part of Buffalo). They historically have caused little problem and even helped revitalize the community, including lowering the crime rate and expanded the dwindling tax base -- and most have become Americanized to some extent...


That's good for you but personal experience is hardly representative. That "to some extent" only lasts for so long, this is very evident in europe.



The cultural problems of lack of Muslim assimilation are simply not a universal problem. There are many factors involved...

The problem seems to be more a question of immigration policy more than of just religion though...


The fact that it is a worldwide phenomenon with muslims vs. any other culture/religion indicates otherwise. Indians and Pakistanis in GB would be quite a good example, they are basically the same people, had been under one rule for a long time but the ones causing the integration problems are the latter.
Concerning the immigration and integration policies I would agree, if it was only germany who had the problems, since we essentially didn't have that in the past. But Belgium and Holland for example are well known liberal countries with very similar laws as the US etc. and what happens there is just sickening.



The only real advantage that Christianity has over Islam as far as irrationality and intolerance is that mainstream Christianity has had both the Protestant reformation and the Second Vatican, which somewhat moderated the often violent tendencies of competition somewhat early on. There has been no such updating of the Islamic faith to reconcile it with the modern world which is the basic problem. Passages have little to to with anything. The Bible was used to justify slavery, and antisemitism has been encoded into all the Christian western societies for centuries, and propagated by both religious (of most Christian sects if not all of them) and gov't authorities from Russian to Great Britain to varying extents. And it wasn't all that long ago. Only since the Holocaust have Jews been given full citizenship rights in their European and American places of birth. And even with the religious reforms enacted largely in response to the Enlightenment, there still is the echo of sectarianism in places like Northern Ireland and Croatia/Bosnia. And there are still fringe sects of Christians and polygamist Mormons in my country that use the Bible to rationalize the setting up of what are little more than statutory rape cults...


But that's the point, Islam didn't reform and is thus not suitable for our modern western world. And while the fringe sects of christianity are polygamist mormons, the fringe sects of islam are the more secular modern ones.
And do you really compare the european antisemitism with the violent ranting of the koran. There is a profound difference there. While the church had to interpret quite a lot into the bible to justify and propagate hate vs. jews the koran is very very very explicit in that regard.

Rising Sun*
04-22-2008, 07:56 AM
1. If Europe is in such a parlous state because of the Muslims living there, what is the solution?

Mass deportations?

Mass executions?

If neither is acceptable or possible, then what is / are the other solution(s)?

2. It's all very well claiming that Muslims persecute Christians and are trying to take over the world, but (a) name two Islamic nations which have invaded a Christian or Western nation in the past couple of decades and (b) name the number of Christian or Western nations which have invaded Islamic nations during the same period, with or without the relative invader / Muslim death tolls.

Isn't it possible that Muslims have rather more evidence to support their belief that they are being attacked by Christian or Western nations than the reverse?

Drake
04-22-2008, 08:46 AM
1. If Europe is in such a parlous state because of the Muslims living there, what is the solution?

Mass deportations?

Mass executions?

If neither is acceptable or possible, then what is / are the other solution(s)?


B should never ever be an option, but the decision loop will be ignore option A until B becomes one.
Judging it from a historical perspective I'd assume it will most likely boil down to a balkans style civil war on a pretty large scale in a couple of decades. I don't see a different outcome to be honest. There will be blood. Just like in Chechnya and in the Kosovo since the hardcore muslims won't change habits and grow in numbers and the indigenous population will react violently sooner or later on a perceived threat. The innocent victims will probably be the ones who actually were willing and able to integrate.



2. It's all very well claiming that Muslims persecute Christians and are trying to take over the world, but (a) name two Islamic nations which have invaded a Christian or Western nation in the past couple of decades and (b) name the number of Christian or Western nations which have invaded Islamic nations during the same period, with or without the relative invader / Muslim death tolls.


Huh, I'll take Syria and Egypt vs. Israel. The fact that muslim nations are to weak to threaten anyone doesn't really prove their peaceful attitude. Btw. the often used excuse: muslims mostly kill/attack muslims works just as fine for the western world. We europeans killed a lot more other europeans than anyone else. And when it comes to western nations invading islamic nations, hmm I'd say that makes 2001 afghanistan and 2003 iraq, but that's it and at least one attack wasn't really unprovoked.



Isn't it possible that Muslims have rather more evidence to support their belief that they are being attacked by Christian or Western nations than the reverse?

In short: Nope.

Rising Sun*
04-22-2008, 09:37 AM
Huh, I'll take Syria and Egypt vs. Israel.

I don't think Israel qualifies as Christian. Or Western. It has a way to go before it even reaches the Enlightenment. Let alone the elements one might expect of a mature nation which forever relies upon UN resolutions etc, except when, as so often happens, the UN resolutions etc don't support its aims and actions.

Nor would I characterise Egypt as a Muslim nation when it was engaged in conflict with Israel, or now. Egypt is a fairly secular nation, which is precisely why radical Muslim minority elements like the Muslim Brotherhood exist to try to turn Egypt into a sectarian nation. Iraq was a secular nation too, before the idiotic Westerners decided to invade it and convert it into a sectarian quagmire.

Israel is just as intransigent in its religious obsessions and agressions as any Muslim nation, and rather more so than most Muslim nations and at least as vigorous and devious as, say, Saudi Arabia in exporting its own forms of propaganda to other nations where it is at least as cancerous to the host nation as anything emanating from places like Saudi Arabia.

I think Israel and the Zionists are vastly more cancerous in most Western societies because, unlike the Muslims, they are in or have access to those in power. No Muslim has distorted my nation's foreign policy to support some crazily selfish Muslim nation that insists on shitting on everyone around it, but the Zionists have been succeeding in it for decades so far as Israel is concerned.

I don't mind Jews in my community but I object to Zionists getting their hands on government policy to support Israeli violence towards Palestinians and anyone else who stands in their way.

In the same way that I don't mind Muslims in my community but I object to their radical elements promoting local or distant violence against anyone

Drake
04-22-2008, 02:14 PM
Israel is not christian, but definatly western. Anyhow, the real point was anyway, that the fact that they can't stand up against the west doesn't mean they would be peaceful if the situation would be the opposite.

Nickdfresh
04-22-2008, 03:54 PM
Why should muslims in third world countries get more children than christians?

I'm not sure I follow...


And what does that tell you about the majority population?

That they were *****s. But they were secular *****s that actually stamped out many of the old order religious and cultural traditions deemed backward...

And if we're talking about death tolls, genocide, and population reductions, we hardly have to look at the Muslim world for that...


But conveniently that historic memory is selective and reaches exactly only back to the crusades and not a second further.

What about WWI and WWII, the Nazi Holocaust, and the Communist purges of Joe Stalin's gang? I think if we're talking about history in general, I still fail to see how Muslims are in any way inherently more violent based on their religion...


Oh please. This might be the case for east asia, but hardly the middle east. They had been under muslim rule for 1000 years and only after 1900 and ww1 that changed for a very short period, historically speaking.
And they are stoneage wonders. They could buy all the fancy stuff they have now with petrodollars, but if it wasn't for that ...

Well then, that makes them much less effective at killing then, doesn't it?


We had the same shitty governments in europe during the enlightenment and industrial revolution, that's hardly an excuse. It's their inflexible mindset which keeps them down and always will if they don't get rid of it the same way christianity did.

Of course. But what makes any of this relevant is the fact that we need their oil to keep our fragile, technology based world afloat. If that were not the case, then no one would give a shit about the "Islamofascists." Would they?


Never said we europeans hadn't been bitches in the past and particularly during the age of colonialism, but early christianity didn't conquer anything, quite the opposite. That started out only a few hundret years later (I'd say around 400 AD) and then mostly for political reasons and it was definatly a perversion of jesus' teachings and it took more than thousand years to remedy that. Contrary to that violence is the birth defect of islam, mohammed himself already led 66 mostly aggressive wars against non believers. That's how it is and there is no quibbling around that.

But what is the point? Why would we even care if they were violent? If they're crude and primitive, then what threats can they pose against Europeans and North Americans, that have killed far more people in the last 400 years than any Islamic culture has in recorded time?


Btw. slave trade is still up and running in muslim cultures. You should read what Churchill had to say about islam in that regard in his first or second book.

Yes, and so are genocides. But the victims are mostly other Muslims in Darfur, so nobody cares that much since we don't want to piss off the Sudanese benefactors, the Chinese.

BTW, there is also a slave trade that exists in Western and Eastern Europe. It's mainly a sexual one where girls are forced into servitude and prostitution. And rings of illegal immigrants used as indentured servants exist in the United States as well....


That's good for you but personal experience is hardly representative. That "to some extent" only lasts for so long, this is very evident in europe.

It's at least just as "representative" as posting signs of Muslim lunatics with "kill whitey" written on them!


The fact that it is a worldwide phenomenon with muslims vs. any other culture/religion indicates otherwise. Indians and Pakistanis in GB would be quite a good example, they are basically the same people, had been under one rule for a long time but the ones causing the integration problems are the latter.
Concerning the immigration and integration policies I would agree, if it was only germany who had the problems, since we essentially didn't have that in the past. But Belgium and Holland for example are well known liberal countries with very similar laws as the US etc. and what happens there is just sickening.

You cannot simply lay all of the blame for the Kashmir problem on just the Pakistanis. India is far from a utopia and that area is still largely fighting the last battles of their civil war. Of course Hindus and Sikhs tend to be more pro-Western. I guess their immigrants tend to be more passive, but then again, I think they have actually resettled on a much smaller scale in most parts of the world, and they were often in the first wave of post-colonial immigration. But then, the United States and much of Europe has underwritten a series of shitty gov'ts in Pakistan, even as they were playing both sides and factions of their intelligence agency, the ISI, were still assisting the Taliban that they largely created to kill NATO troops...


But that's the point, Islam didn't reform and is thus not suitable for our modern western world.

But that's clearly not true. There are in fact advanced states such as Turkey, Egypt, and Bahrain. The problems these societies have faced are far from being based solely on religion. The political despotism is ingrained. Even Iraq was in many ways an advanced state until Saddam made the mistake of trying to secure Kuwait's oil. Up until then, he was merely mimicking his heroes in the West --Stalin and Churchill-- in his ruthless purges and remorseless suppression of the ethnic majorities that comprised his fragile multi-ethnic state. What in anyway do these polices have to do with Islam? They often killed and suppressed Islamic clerics in fact!

But, in denouncing Saddam, Hosni Mubarak, Ataturk, the Shah, or the Algerian military: can you really claim that the sources of the inherent corruption, ethnic pogroms, class stratification had any thing to do with religious extremism? Their tyrannies are what popularized it, but had there been more pluralistic political representation in these countries and the Islamics had not been forced underground, they may well have been far more moderate and not turned into the ****ing Taliban.

There are those that theorize that the reason why Islamic "extremists" seek to destroy "democracy" is because in the two or three elections they have won, the gov'ts (usually by way of the Army) have prevented them from taking political power in every nation save one: Turkey (and that's only recently). And in Turkey, the religious parties have been forced to put on business suits and to moderate their political goals because they've had to become technocrats working WITHIN the system. Not violent radicals trying to overthrow it, or warlords trying to extinguish all resistance to their rule in a multi-ethic tribal nightmare, which is a big difference. This is essentially the way to moderation, to pragmatism..


And while the fringe sects of christianity are polygamist mormons, the fringe sects of islam are the more secular modern ones.

Yet the vast majority of Muslims are practicing moderates...


And do you really compare the european antisemitism with the violent ranting of the koran. There is a profound difference there. While the church had to interpret quite a lot into the bible to justify and propagate hate vs. jews the koran is very very very explicit in that regard.

Yeah, the difference is that Jews were allowed to live in the Middle East, interestingly. Though often in the same conditions as social outcasts looking inward..

Secondly, out of all the claims of the "evil" Koran I've seen, most have been severally quoted out of context and much of it propagandized into a much more insidious document than it actually is. The Koran also condemns the murder of women and children, and should be interpreted to condemn suicide bombing and the murder or any sort of innocence. You can pretty much find passages to justify whatever you want in most obscure religious texts, and the sheep will follow..

Nickdfresh
04-22-2008, 04:01 PM
I don't think Israel qualifies as Christian. Or Western. It has a way to go before it even reaches the Enlightenment. Let alone the elements one might expect of a mature nation which forever relies upon UN resolutions etc, except when, as so often happens, the UN resolutions etc don't support its aims and actions.

Nor would I characterise Egypt as a Muslim nation when it was engaged in conflict with Israel, or now. Egypt is a fairly secular nation, which is precisely why radical Muslim minority elements like the Muslim Brotherhood exist to try to turn Egypt into a sectarian nation. Iraq was a secular nation too, before the idiotic Westerners decided to invade it and convert it into a sectarian quagmire.

Israel is just as intransigent in its religious obsessions and agressions as any Muslim nation, and rather more so than most Muslim nations and at least as vigorous and devious as, say, Saudi Arabia in exporting its own forms of propaganda to other nations where it is at least as cancerous to the host nation as anything emanating from places like Saudi Arabia.

I think Israel and the Zionists are vastly more cancerous in most Western societies because, unlike the Muslims, they are in or have access to those in power. No Muslim has distorted my nation's foreign policy to support some crazily selfish Muslim nation that insists on shitting on everyone around it, but the Zionists have been succeeding in it for decades so far as Israel is concerned.

I don't mind Jews in my community but I object to Zionists getting their hands on government policy to support Israeli violence towards Palestinians and anyone else who stands in their way.

In the same way that I don't mind Muslims in my community but I object to their radical elements promoting local or distant violence against anyone


Very well said!

Drake
04-22-2008, 06:41 PM
That they were *****s. But they were secular *****s that actually stamped out many of the old order religious and cultural traditions deemed backward...


And yet islam and islamic fundamentalism is still up and running in turkey whereas the christians are .. not.



And if we're talking about death tolls, genocide, and population reductions, we hardly have to look at the Muslim world for that...

What about WWI and WWII, the Nazi Holocaust, and the Communist purges of Joe Stalin's gang? I think if we're talking about history in general, I still fail to see how Muslims are in any way inherently more violent based on their religion...


Never said we couldn't be just as violent. But we cannot use the christian religion as an excuse or reason.



Of course. But what makes any of this relevant is the fact that we need their oil to keep our fragile, technology based world afloat. If that were not the case, then no one would give a shit about the "Islamofascists." Would they?

But what is the point? Why would we even care if they were violent? If they're crude and primitive, then what threats can they pose against Europeans and North Americans, that have killed far more people in the last 400 years than any Islamic culture has in recorded time?


What makes it relevant is that we imported huge amounts of those people with their inflexible mindsets. I couldn't care less about islam if there weren't 3.5 million muslims in germany, more than 60% with a medium to large distance to the values of our basic law, 300000 of them symphatetic and supportive to islamic extremism and 30000 willing to plant bombs or whatever.



BTW, there is also a slave trade that exists in Western and Eastern Europe. It's mainly a sexual one where girls are forced into servitude and prostitution. And rings of illegal immigrants used as indentured servants exist in the United States as well....


But it's not tolerated by the authorities. The sexual version is in place all through the muslim world as well. It usually applies to female children who are being sold to their husbands.



It's at least just as "representative" as posting signs of Muslim lunatics with "kill whitey" written on them!

You're right, but I don't draw my conclusions based on those either.



You cannot simply lay all of the blame for the Kashmir problem on just the Pakistanis. India is far from a utopia and that area is still largely fighting the last battles of their civil war. Of course Hindus and Sikhs tend to be more pro-Western. I guess their immigrants tend to be more passive, but then again, I think they have actually resettled on a much smaller scale in most parts of the world, and they were often in the first wave of post-colonial immigration. But then, the United States and much of Europe has underwritten a series of shitty gov'ts in Pakistan, even as they were playing both sides and factions of their intelligence agency, the ISI, were still assisting the Taliban that they largely created to kill NATO troops...


I didn't even mean Kashmir, I meant the immigrants to the UK, where the indian hindus do very well integration wise while the pakistani muslims don't.



Yet the vast majority of Muslims are practicing moderates...


Depends on what you define as vast and moderate. See my comments on the german muslims above. None of the 60% would qualify as moderate to me.



Yeah, the difference is that Jews were allowed to live in the Middle East, interestingly. Though often in the same conditions as social outcasts looking inward..


And what's the difference to their situation in europe? In the past millenium there have been just as many encroachments on jews in the muslim world as in the christian world. The holocaust can hardly be attributed to christianity or the western world in general.



Secondly, out of all the claims of the "evil" Koran I've seen, most have been severally quoted out of context and much of it propagandized into a much more insidious document than it actually is. The Koran also condemns the murder of women and children, and should be interpreted to condemn suicide bombing and the murder or any sort of innocence.

You are very misinformed, that's pretty much all I can say. The koran condemns the murder of women and children IF THEY ARE MUSLIMS. Thought we had already been there. There are three classes of humans in the koran and only one gets the benefits.
You fell for the "good" parts of the koran that have been quoted out of context for obvious reasons. For example the prominent case "Islam is/means peace". This is shortened as the actual vers says something like when the whole world belongs to the dar al islam there will be peace. You seem to be under the false impression that religion is per se a positive force in the universe, which is imho generally wrong and particularly in this case.

And you are constantly repeating that you can find passages to justify anything in any religious text, which is simply wrong. You won't for example find a single call for violence in the new testament, which is the binding authority for christianity.

Rising Sun*
04-22-2008, 07:07 PM
You won't for example find a single call for violence in the new testament, which is the binding authority for christianity.

Jesus doesn't sound too conciliatory and full of love of mankind here.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." Matthew 10:34-36

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence." Luke 19:26-27

The problem with the bible, koran and torah is that they're like Shakespeare. If you can't find a quote to support any position, including both sides of an argument, you're not looking hard enough.

George Eller
04-23-2008, 01:06 AM
-

Maybe much of western Europe's dilemma concerning the "Islamic Menace" came about as a result of low birth rates in Europe. The importation of guest workers from predominantly muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Low birth rate of Europeans + high birth rate of Muslims = long term demographic change in Europe.

Below is a partial quote from a previous post (taken from an email I received in early April 2007):

FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107721&postcount=19
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107722&postcount=20
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107723&postcount=21

-

PARTIAL QUOTE FROM ABOVE:


http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107721&postcount=19
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107722&postcount=20

Global Intelligence Briefing For CEO's

by Herbert Meyer

Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping political, economic and world events.

These transformations have profound implications for American business owners, our culture and our way of life...



...3. Shifting Demographics of Western Civilization

Most countries in the Western world have stopped breeding. For a
civilization obsessed with sex, this is remarkable. Maintaining a
steady population requires a birth rate of 2.1. In Western Europe, the birth
rate currently stands at 1.5, or 30 percent below replacement. In 30 years
there will be 70 to 80 million fewer Europeans than there are today. The
current birth rate in Germany is 1.3. Italy and Spain are even lower at 1.2. At
that rate, the working age population declines by 30 percent in 20
years, which has a huge impact on the economy.

When you don't have young workers to replace the older ones, you have
to import them. The European countries are currently importing Muslims.
Today, the Muslims comprise 10 percent of France and Germany, and the
percentage is rising rapidly because they have higher birthrates.
However, the Muslim populations are not being integrated into the cultures of
their host countries, which is a political catastrophe. One reason Germany
and France don't support the Iraq war is they fear their Muslim
populations will explode on them. By 2020, more than half of all births in the
Netherlands will be non-European.

The huge design flaw in the post-modern secular state is that you need
a traditional religious society birth rate to sustain it. The Europeans
simply don't wish to have children, so they are dying.

In Japan, the birthrate is 1.3. As a result, Japan will lose up to 60
million people over the next 30 years. Because Japan has a very
different society than Europe, they refuse to import workers. Instead, they are
just shutting down. Japan has already closed 2000 schools, and is closing
them down at the rate of 300 per year. Japan is also aging very rapidly. By
2020, one out of every five Japanese will be at least 70 years old.
Nobody has any idea about how to run an economy with those demographics.

Europe and Japan, which comprise two of the world's major economic
engines, aren't merely in recession, they're shutting down. This
will have a huge impact on the world economy, and it is already beginning to
happen.

Why are the birthrates so low? There is a direct correlation between
abandonment of traditional religious society and a drop in birth rate,
and Christianity in Europe is becoming irrelevant. The second reason is
economic. When the birth rate drops below replacement, the population
ages.

With fewer working people to support more retired people, it puts a
crushing tax burden on the smaller group of working age people. As a result,
young people delay marriage and having a family. Once this trend starts, the
downward spiral only gets worse. These countries have abandoned all the
traditions they formerly held in regards to having families and raising
children.

The U.S. birth rate is 2.0, just below replacement. We have an increase
in population because of immigration. When broken down by ethnicity,
the Anglo birth rate is 1.6 (same as France) while the Hispanic birth rate
is 2.7. In the U.S., the baby boomers are starting to retire in massive
numbers. This will push the "elder dependency" ratio from 19 to 38
over the next 10 to 15 years. This is not as bad as Europe, but still represents
the same kind of trend.

Western civilization seems to have forgotten what every primitive
society understands, you need kids to have a healthy society. Children
are huge consumers. Then they grow up to become taxpayers. That's how a
society works, but the post-modern secular state seems to have
forgotten that. If U.S. birth rates of the past 20 to 30 years had been the same
as post-World War II, there would be no Social Security or Medicare
problems.

The world's most effective birth control device is money. As society
creates a middle class and women move into the workforce, birth rates
drop. Having large families is incompatible with middle class living. The
quickest way to drop the birth rate is through rapid economic development.
After World War II, the U.S. instituted a $600 tax credit per child.
The idea was to enable mom and dad to have four children without being
troubled by taxes. This led to a baby boom of 22 million kids, which was a huge
consumer market that turned into a huge tax base. However, to match
that incentive in today's dollars would cost $12,000 per child.

China and India do not have declining populations. However, in both
countries, there is a preference for boys over girls, and we now have
the technology to know which is which before they are born. In China and
India, many families are aborting the girls. As a result, in each of these
countries there are 70 million boys growing up who will never find
wives. When left alone, nature produces 103 boys for every 100 girls. In some
provinces, however, the ratio is 128 boys to every 100 girls.

The birth rate in Russia is so low that by 2050 their population will
be smaller than that of Yemen. Russia has one-sixth of the earth's land
surface and much of its oil. You can't control that much area with
such a small population. Immediately to the south, you have China with 70
million unmarried men – a real potential nightmare scenario for Russia.

-

Herb Meyer served during the Reagan administration as special assistant to the
Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence
Council. In these positions, he managed production of the U.S. National Intelligence
Estimates and other top-secret projections for the President and his national security advisers.
Meyer is widely credited with being the first senior U.S. Government official to forecast the
Soviet Union's collapse, for which he later was awarded the U.S. National Intelligence
Distinguished Service Medal, the intelligence community's highest honor. Formerly an associate
editor of FORTUNE, he is also the author of several books.

Herbert Meyer
P.O. Box 2089
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

-

Drake
04-23-2008, 08:27 AM
-

Maybe much of western Europe's dilemma concerning the "Islamic Menace" came about as a result of low birth rates in Europe. The importation of guest workers from predominantly muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Low birth rate of Europeans + high birth rate of Muslims = long term demographic change in Europe.

-

Exactly. But the "shutting down" of Japan is only a problem if you believe in the nonsensical doctrine of steady growth. There is no reason, why germany shouldn't work with only 40 Million people. It's stupid beyond recovery to import immigrants, ultimatly resulting in the elimination of the very existance of your own culture, just to maintain a status quo. There is nothing wrong with a shrinking population, quite the opposite, given the general shape of our little planet.

George Eller
04-23-2008, 08:45 AM
-
Maybe much of western Europe's dilemma concerning the "Islamic Menace" came about as a result of low birth rates in Europe. The importation of guest workers from predominantly muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Low birth rate of Europeans + high birth rate of Muslims = long term demographic change in Europe.
-


Exactly. But the "shutting down" of Japan is only a problem if you believe in the nonsensical doctrine of steady growth. There is no reason, why germany shouldn't work with only 40 Million people. It's stupid beyond recovery to import immigrants, ultimatly resulting in the elimination of the very existance of your own culture, just to maintain a status quo. There is nothing wrong with a shrinking population, quite the opposite, given the general shape of our little planet.
-

Funny you should mention that - I was thinking the same thing on my way to work this morning :)

Maybe the Japanese are on the right track. We all had smaller populations at some time during our histories. During WWII, the United States had a population in the neighborhood of 130 million. It seems that eventually, if trends change and people start having more children, the pendulum will swing the other way.

-

Nickdfresh
04-23-2008, 10:37 AM
And yet islam and islamic fundamentalism is still up and running in turkey whereas the christians are .. not.

Yes well, there are a variety of reasons for that. Most of which are largely irrelevant now. And if you really want to call the parties controlling Turkey "fundamentalists." Well, okay...

Again, most of their insidious recent actions have been directed against the Kurds...


Never said we couldn't be just as violent. But we cannot use the christian religion as an excuse or reason.

But it doesn't really stop violence, does it?


What makes it relevant is that we imported huge amounts of those people with their inflexible mindsets. I couldn't care less about islam if there weren't 3.5 million muslims in germany,

I could be wrong, but aren't most of them Kurds that fled their fellow Muslims in Turkey?


..more than 60% with a medium to large distance to the values of our basic law, 300000 of them symphatetic and supportive to islamic extremism and 30000 willing to plant bombs or whatever.

I don't know about the statistics. But I also recall a resurgence if Neo-fascism in Germany around the time of unification. Much of it centered in the east, and much of it the direct result of economic hardships imposed by the reunification as East German factories resulting in unemployment and difficulties adapting.


But it's not tolerated by the authorities. The sexual version is in place all through the muslim world as well. It usually applies to female children who are being sold to their husbands.

It's not tolerated openly. But it does exist unfortunately. The Muslim states that are stable and fixed do not generally allow open slavery and forcing women into prostitution. And again, many of the restrictions on female behavior is pre-Islam..



I didn't even mean Kashmir, I meant the immigrants to the UK, where the indian hindus do very well integration wise while the pakistani muslims don't.

I think the Indian Hindus are generally working in the tech sector these days whereas many of the Pakistanis are there for more menial work. Again, I don't know specifics, but I do believe that Indian immigration has tapered off as India becomes more of a hub technology..


And what's the difference to their situation in europe? In the past millenium there have been just as many encroachments on jews in the muslim world as in the christian world. The holocaust can hardly be attributed to christianity or the western world in general.

Yet, the peaceful and serene teachings of Jesus failed to stop the above, didn't it?


You are very misinformed, that's pretty much all I can say. The koran condemns the murder of women and children IF THEY ARE MUSLIMS. Thought we had already been there. There are three classes of humans in the koran and only one gets the benefits.
You fell for the "good" parts of the koran that have been quoted out of context for obvious reasons. For example the prominent case "Islam is/means peace". This is shortened as the actual vers says something like when the whole world belongs to the dar al islam there will be peace. You seem to be under the false impression that religion is per se a positive force in the universe, which is imho generally wrong and particularly in this case.

Um, the Bible does all that too...There are passages justifying killing infidels as well. Mostly in the Old Testament. But, apparently religious texts are largely irrelevant when it comes to war..


And you are constantly repeating that you can find passages to justify anything in any religious text, which is simply wrong. You won't for example find a single call for violence in the new testament, which is the binding authority for christianity.

Um, there are calls for violence, and we can argue about the meanings of Jesus all day, as the Bible is a very heavily selectively edited document, one that is often largely filled with internal contradictions because it is clearly written and translated by different people with different agendas, designed to enable those in power...

Nickdfresh
04-23-2008, 10:42 AM
Exactly. But the "shutting down" of Japan is only a problem if you believe in the nonsensical doctrine of steady growth. There is no reason, why germany shouldn't work with only 40 Million people. It's stupid beyond recovery to import immigrants, ultimatly resulting in the elimination of the very existance of your own culture, just to maintain a status quo. There is nothing wrong with a shrinking population, quite the opposite, given the general shape of our little planet.


This is where you and I may agree a bit. I have no problem with immigrants per se, but when the whole thing is run by special interest groups with little planning, and not for the public good, there's a problem...

Rising Sun*
04-23-2008, 11:07 AM
Maybe the Japanese are on the right track. We all had smaller populations at some time during our histories. During WWII, the United States had a population in the neighborhood of 130 million. It seems that eventually, if trends change and people start having more children, the pendulum will swing the other way.

Maybe a shrinking population works in a totally self-reliant frontier population like some parts of the US in the 1800's, but it ain't gonna work in a modern society where the tax base funds social security for the aged and the various passengers on the tax gravy train and where almost all of the population don't and couldn't produce even enough vegetables, let alone even poultry never mind beef, to support themselves because they don't have the land, never mind the lack of skills. Not to mention other passengers on the tax gravy train like the various defence contractors who deliver everything five times later than contracted at ten times the price.

If we want to get serious we should get rid of (i.e. deport or exterminate) the far too many passengers on the social and economic train, which would wipe out most of the non-aged and non-sick or non-disabled welfare budget and also wipe out much of the social welfare departments, child welfare departments, women's refuge, prison, parole, police and so on budgets because we'd get rid of most of the most visibly worst elements at the bottom of society who represent a few per cent of society and absorb maybe 80 or 90% of such budgets.

Of course, we'd still be left with the scum at the top of society, but they're quality scum who don't affect welfare budgets or police etc because they're the sort of patriots who run companies like Halliburton and rip-off defence contractors while carefully paying bugger all tax to fund the free loaders on the tax system.

Which leads me to the common argument that Muslims in Europe are freeloaders on the local tax system and therefore are worthless people who should be ...........? What? Deported? Exterminated?

Who brought them in? Why? For what reason?

Did West Germany bring in swags of 'guest workers' from the 1970s from places like Turkey for the workers' benefit? Or to bolster West Germany's booming economy?

Why does Holland have a problem with Muslims? Could it be because it imported labour from Turkey and Morocco, not to mention the former Dutch colony in Surinam in South America, where the locals might have felt that the Dutch were overwhelming their nation?

As for France, is there a connection between its Muslim population and French colonialism in North Africa?

Is it possible that the European nations which are worried about 'the Islam menace' are just being bitten in the arse by teeth they created?

If so, is it fair for those nations to blame 'the Islam menace' for a problem those nations created?

After all, it's not like Muslims invaded Germany or France or Holland to take them over. They were invited in, and needed visas from the host countries to enter. So whose fault is that, and who should bear the consequences?

Drake
04-23-2008, 11:33 AM
I could be wrong, but aren't most of them Kurds that fled their fellow Muslims in Turkey?


No, most are Turks and Maroccans. We also have Kurds, that's true and thanks to that a lot of violence on our streets if either side has a demo.




I don't know about the statistics. But I also recall a resurgence if Neo-fascism in Germany around the time of unification. Much of it centered in the east, and much of it the direct result of economic hardships imposed by the reunification as East German factories resulting in unemployment and difficulties adapting.


The statistics are from our equivalent of the FBI, the Bundeskriminalamt. There was a resurgence but much like the terror from the red army faction which is also often used as a comparison it's not even remotly close to that numbers. We have a statistic here in germany specifically about that kind of crime and according to it last year 4400 neonazi related crimes were commited. Painting a swastika on a wall counts into that statistic or wearing SS runes or symbols like that. The left wing extremists are actually more of a problem, though it comes natural here that we're more into taking care of the right wing extremists.
They actually tried to forbid the NPD few years ago, which is probably the most national socialist style right wing party and that didn't work out cause every other guy there was an informant for the Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) and thus the evidence was slightly soiled, it was a great embarrasment for those involved. :rolleyes:
But generally the political extremism is extremely small here, close to nonexitent.

Drake
04-23-2008, 12:07 PM
Who brought them in? Why? For what reason?

That's actually a good question



Or to bolster West Germany's booming economy?

That was the case with the italians and other europeans, but when the great influx of turkish people started in the seventies the party was already over. According to some sources I read the guest workers agreement with turkey was a political guesture of some sorts and was not motivated by economic needs. Effectively, turkey dumped a huge chunk of its social and economic problems in our backyard.
And originally they were intended to be guest workers, they just never left, instead tptb made a law allowing them to get their entire families over here.



So whose fault is that, and who should bear the consequences?

The german politicians of the seventies and eighties. The consequences will as always in history be carried by other shoulders. I'd beat the crap out of them if I had a time machine, not just for that but for example for completely ignoring the birthrate drop caused by oral contraceptives. They actually cut funding institutes researching the topic and the consequences upon society, thus effectively silencing them, so they wouldn't have to deal with the problem.

All the questions you raised about shrinking societies could have been tackled in a manner where no one would be left behind if they had started changing the system early enough. But that would actually require a farsightedness which I think democracies are simply not capable of.

Drake
04-23-2008, 12:21 PM
Oh btw. Nick, I just read an interview of Remi Brague with a german newspaper. According to him, not a single translation of the ancient greek and roman texts was made by a muslim.
And also something I didn't know. The muslim world had COMPLETELY forgotten about the crusades until in the nineteenth century when a french guy named Joseph François Michaud had his story from the crusades translated into arabic. The translator had to invent the words crusade and crusader in that language.
So far for your "historic memory" theory.

http://diepresse.com/home/kultur/news/378506/index.do?_vl_backlink=/home/index.do

I know it's in german, but maybe you can babelfish it or sth. It's an interesting read.

George Eller
04-23-2008, 12:21 PM
Maybe a shrinking population works in a totally self-reliant frontier population like some parts of the US in the 1800's, but it ain't gonna work in a modern society where the tax base funds social security for the aged and the various passengers on the tax gravy train and where almost all of the population don't and couldn't produce even enough vegetables, let alone even poultry never mind beef, to support themselves because they don't have the land, never mind the lack of skills. Not to mention other passengers on the tax gravy train like the various defence contractors who deliver everything five times later than contracted at ten times the price.

If we want to get serious we should get rid of (i.e. deport or exterminate) the far too many passengers on the social and economic train, which would wipe out most of the non-aged and non-sick or non-disabled welfare budget and also wipe out much of the social welfare departments, child welfare departments, women's refuge, prison, parole, police and so on budgets because we'd get rid of most of the most visibly worst elements at the bottom of society who represent a few per cent of society and absorb maybe 80 or 90% of such budgets.

Of course, we'd still be left with the scum at the top of society, but they're quality scum who don't affect welfare budgets or police etc because they're the sort of patriots who run companies like Halliburton and rip-off defence contractors while carefully paying bugger all tax to fund the free loaders on the tax system.

Which leads me to the common argument that Muslims in Europe are freeloaders on the local tax system and therefore are worthless people who should be ...........? What? Deported? Exterminated?

Who brought them in? Why? For what reason?

Did West Germany bring in swags of 'guest workers' from the 1970s from places like Turkey for the workers' benefit? Or to bolster West Germany's booming economy?

Why does Holland have a problem with Muslims? Could it be because it imported labour from Turkey and Morocco, not to mention the former Dutch colony in Surinam in South America, where the locals might have felt that the Dutch were overwhelming their nation?

As for France, is there a connection between its Muslim population and French colonialism in North Africa?

Is it possible that the European nations which are worried about 'the Islam menace' are just being bitten in the arse by teeth they created?

If so, is it fair for those nations to blame 'the Islam menace' for a problem those nations created?

After all, it's not like Muslims invaded Germany or France or Holland to take them over. They were invited in, and needed visas from the host countries to enter. So whose fault is that, and who should bear the consequences?

-

Just shooting from the hip, but food production here in the United States shouldn't be a problem with a shrinking population (and fewer mouths to feed). The actual percentage of the population involved in agriculture has been on the decline for decades as farms became larger (with many being absorbed by large commercial enterprises).

Social Security is another issue. IIRC, taxes paid by illegal workers from Mexico is floating it to some extent. But how much of that is offset by the increased strain on social services by those same illegal workers (welfare, hospitals, jails, etc.). The large and aging "baby boomer" generation will eventually go the way of the "greatest" (WWII) generation and die out. (Again, I'm just shooting from the hip).

On taxes:

(posted March 9th, 2006 at 1:12 am)
http://patrick.net/wp/?page_id=92

Here are stats from IRS.gov

The top 1 percent of tax payers paid, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues.

The top 10 percent of tax payers paid 65.84 percent, or 2/3 of all taxes

The top 25 percent pay 83.5% of all taxes

The next 25 percent share 12.5% of the total tax burden for a total of 96%

The bottom half of America (the poor and disadvantaged that you refer to Patrick) how much of the tax burden do they share? (they make less then 26,000 a year)

3.5%

also: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113403.html
-

I seem to remember a French plan in the works that would offer cash incentives to Muslim immigrants to return to their countries of origin.

-

I think you have a point with your last statement:




After all, it's not like Muslims invaded Germany or France or Holland to take them over. They were invited in, and needed visas from the host countries to enter. So whose fault is that, and who should bear the consequences?

-

Rising Sun*
04-25-2008, 06:45 AM
Today is Anzac Day, the day Australians remember our men and women who served and died in many wars.

I saw a Muslim woman, probably from the Horn of Africa, in the semi-full gear of flowing black robes and hijab covering everything except her face and hands.

She had what was obviously her daughter with her, a girl about seven or eight in a pink tracksuit who was largely indistinguishable from any other Aussie kid.

The girl was happily waving our national flag, as many people do on this day.

Her mother looked on approvingly, with a big smile.

I didn't see anything menacing, Islamic or otherwise, in any of that. Judged on that brief moment, the mother looked like about the ideal migrant to me, making an enormous leap to allow her daughter to participate in a culture entirely alien to hers in a country nothing like the one she came from. I don't see why we can't try to take a few steps to meet her. I don't care if her daughter follows her into ritual dress when she's older, or if they build and attend mosques, or do anything else that isn't part of our dominant Anglo culture (which has been steadily diluted and broadened and generally improved by various waves of non-Anglo migration) as long as they accept my nation's basic values.

One of which is the right to practise any religion you like, or to be agnostic or athetist. The facts that I think Islam is a stupid and primitive religion and even more stupid and primitive than most major religions (Here comes a ****ing fatwa from some arsehole imam sentencing me to death, which proves my point!), and that I despise among other things the way it treats women and the way most of its women remain servile and that the hijab is an intellectual red rag to me, is irrelevant.

The moral purpose of the last world war, and the Cold War, was to preserve the right to be as stupid and primitive as you like as long as it's not a criminal offence. Without that, we couln't have had Woodstock and the Age of Aquarius, not to mention the Sex Pistols. If we could accommodate that, we can acccommodate the bulk of Muslims who pose rather less of a threat to the established order than Joan Baez and Sid Vicious

We should embrace people like the mother I saw today and make them welcome while allowing them the right to practise their own religion. Doing so can only reinforce their acceptance of their new land.

If we don't, and if we lump them all under the meaningless label of 'Muslim' which supposedly equals a threat to our society, in the same way it's been done with negroes and Jews and various others whose supposed inferiority allowed the dominant society to treat them badly in various countries, we shall create a much bigger Islamic menace in our own communities by demonising and discriminating against them.

But when that menace is created whose fault will that be? And who deserves to bear the consequences of treating other human beings as lesser people when they've done nothing wrong and want nothing more than to live in peace in a tolerant community?

Panzerknacker
04-25-2008, 09:28 AM
One of which is the right to practise any religion you like, or to be agnostic or athetist. The facts that I think Islam is a stupid and primitive religion and even more stupid and primitive than most major religions (Here comes a ****ing fatwa from some arsehole imam sentencing me to death, which proves my point!), and that I despise among other things the way it treats women and the way most of its women remain servile and that the hijab is an intellectual red rag to me, is irrelevant


Clap, clap , well said man, at last a phrase in wich I can 100 % fully agreed.

And the mother thing is a good example, but unfortunately in Europe, the most sensitive continent of this new "sarracen" invation, cases like that are very rare.

Rising Sun*
04-25-2008, 10:27 AM
Clap, clap , well said man, at last a phrase in wich I can 100 % fully agreed.

I'll try not to let that happen again. :D

I take it that you're agreeing with my opening sentence in the quote that everyone should be free to practise their own form of what I regard as religious delusion, including Islam, in a free society?


And the mother thing is a good example, but unfortunately in Europe, the most sensitive continent of this new "sarracen" invation, cases like that are very rare.

I don't know about Europe, but I could find dozens of Aussies among people I know who'd share your view that Muslims here are as 'bad' as Muslims in Europe in that almost none want to become part of the host society and are even a threat to it. There's many more here who'd have the same view. Unlike me who has almost daily contact with Muslims, most of them get their information about Muslims from the conservative news media which never let an opportunity pass for a sensationalist news story and which never, never, never would present the mother / daughter with the flag story I posted even if it happened in their bloody newsrooms or television studios.

The people here who see all Muslims as 'bad' are also the sort of people whose response to what I described would often be that the little girl had no right to be waving the flag because she wasn't one of 'us'. Or they'd see it as some sort of deceit. Because they are just prejudiced against Muslims and won't allow that there are millions of decent people among them as there are among all other religions and races.

But at the same time we have had for some years a Turkish component in our national returned servicemen's organisation and they march with our people on Anzac Day which commemorates the assault on Gallipoli in Turkey in 1915 http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.htm .

Kemal Ataturk, a Muslim who commanded the Turks brilliantly at Gallipoli, wrote in the mid 1930's of our dead buried on his shore:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land. They have become our sons as well."

And since then Turkey has cared for our war dead and every Anzac Day Turkey, an Islamic nation in the same way that Italy and Ireland and Spain used to be Catholic (courtesy of Ataturk making it a secular Islamic nation after WWI) hosts a memorial service attended by thousands of Australians as both a personal and national tribute http://youtube.com/watch?v=feKy9pth7hg .

I can't think of a corresponding example of a Christian / Western nation to Muslim war dead, nor is there any prospect of it in Iraq or Afghanistan.

EDIT: Nor in Israel, which Drake earlier said was a Western nation.

If so, it's the Western nation with the longest history of knocking off Muslims since WWII, with no sign of an apology to or even a modicum of respect for the Muslims it's killed.

Drake
04-25-2008, 02:15 PM
I don't care if ... they build and attend mosques, or do anything else that isn't part of our dominant ... culture as long as they accept my nation's basic values.


I would sign this, the problem is, a huge part of the muslim immigrants here doesn't do that (like I said more than 60% here). And not only here. Muslims refuse to acknowledge that the basic law (here in germany) and the human rights charta reigns supreme over the koran.
And therein lies the fundamental problem. Even the freest of societies cannot tolerate intolerance if it wishes to survive. Are you aware, that National Socialism included quite a lot elements from the ancient norse mythology. If I revived national socialism, called it a religion like scientology does call itself in the US and prayed the necessity of the masterrace to rule the earth and the other blabla you'd be OK with it???

Nickdfresh
04-25-2008, 05:40 PM
Exactly where are you getting the 60% figure is I may ask?

Panzerknacker
04-25-2008, 06:13 PM
I take it that you're agreeing with my opening sentence in the quote




Yea, the word "phrase" is not correct, I mean I agree with the whole statement.


that everyone should be free to practise their own form of what I regard as religious delusion, including Islam, in a free society?

If is a very light variant of the Quran I have no problem, there is thousand of muslims in Argentina and we have zero problem with them, but of course is people that drink alcohol, there is no cover women in the streets, completely diferent kind.

Drake
04-25-2008, 06:21 PM
Exactly where are you getting the 60% figure is I may ask?

It was an inquiry made here in germany some time ago. They asked questions related to human rights, womens rights etc in the muslim community and the survey showed that ~15% had a very large distance and some 45% what they called medium distance to our basic law, meaning the 15% pretty much couldn't care less about it and the ~45% cherrypicked what they liked and thought the rest shouldn't apply to them.

Panzerknacker
04-25-2008, 09:48 PM
Good article in regard of Drake s post 65:

Multiculturalism 'drives young Muslims to shun British values'

The doctrine of multi-culturalism has alienated an entire generation of young Muslims and made them increasingly radical, a report has found. In stark contrast with their parents, growing numbers sympathise with extreme teachings of Islam, with almost four in ten wanting to live under Sharia law in Britain.

The study identifies significant support for wearing the veil in public, Islamic schools and even punishment by death for Muslims who convert to another religion.

Most alarmingly, 13 per cent of young Muslims said they "admired" organisations such as Al Qaeda which are prepared to "fight the West".

(And those little ****ers are sucking the big west tits like nobody else, Note of P.K )

The poll exposes a fracture between the attitudes of Muslims aged 16 to 24, most of whom were born in Britain, and those of their parents’ generation, who are more likely to have been immigrants. A report published alongside the poll, commissioned by the Right-wing think tank Policy Exchange and carried out by Populus, said the doctrine of multi-culturalism was at least partly responsible.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01_wk4/easternfem280107_228x322.jpg


Full article here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=432075&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Rising Sun*
04-25-2008, 10:43 PM
Are you aware, that National Socialism included quite a lot elements from the ancient norse mythology. If I revived national socialism, called it a religion like scientology does call itself in the US and prayed the necessity of the masterrace to rule the earth and the other blabla you'd be OK with it???

No.

I think the difference between national socialism and a religion is that the former was obviously a political rather than religious movement with bits of ancient mythology added in. But don't ask me how to defne the difference between a political and a religious movement where the political movement has a religious base in a recognised religion, like evangelical Christian politcal parties, because I can't.

As for scientology, we effectively banned it here in the 1960's by outlawing e-meters and all that rubbish, but it's crept back.

Your question raises the issue of how do we define a religion. I don't know. Scientology believes in aliens but so does Christianity, and what's more the original and oldest continuing form of Christianity, Catholicism, believes in an alien sending his son to earth as a human after another alien impregnated his mother and then the son died as a human and went back to the extra-terrestial base where he's one of three people in one. So while I think Christianity is a religion and scientology is nuts, it can be argued that scientology has the essential basis of Christianity in believing in aliens playing a role in human affairs so it must be a religion.

Similarly, by comparison with your national socialist example, Islam could be portrayed as a political movement and certainly in countries like Saudi Arabia where there is no distinction between the religion and government. Then again, the same was true of Christianity in the Holy Roman Empire until the Reformation, and of England until and after Henry VIII who replaced the Pope with the King of England as the head of the Christian church and ultimate head of government.

One difference between Christianity / the West and Islam is that Islam hasn't had its reformation yet so for its rigid adherents it's still stuck in the seventh century. Hence the inability to adapt to the West. Whether Islam is capable of a reformation is debatable, but given the various strands of Islam it's a long way from being a fixed thing since its inception so a reformation to bring it into the modern era, in some branches at least, is possible.

But that then requires things like recognition of women as having equal rights with men (which after all wasn't converted into action in the West until the last forty years or so) and so on. I don't see that happening any time soon, although that's perhaps more bound up in the ethnic traditions in the various Islamic societies where it's hard to distinguish between what is Islamic and what is cultural, such as with so called honour killings which in places like Pakistan seem to be a popular male pasttime, but not as popular as so-called honour rapes (that must be the ultimate oxymoron). Oddly enough, I think one source for a reformation could be extraordinarily courageous Muslim women, such as those in Pakistan who are challenging honour killings and demanding proper justice be applied to offenders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtaran_Bibi

mike M.
04-25-2008, 11:55 PM
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country
to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to
‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also
get the other components under the table.Here’s how it works
(percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given
country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a
threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films,
stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

China — Muslim 1%-2%

Italy — Muslim 1.5%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities
and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among
street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2. 7%

Spain — Muslim 4%

Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic
standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.
They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on
their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United
States).

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — Muslim 5%

Sweden — Muslim 5%

Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate
goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law
over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris —
car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in
uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Kenya — Muslim 10%

Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia
formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks
and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and
other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia
Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Gaza — Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Jordan — Muslim 92%

Morocco — Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Palestine — Muslim 99%

Syria — Muslim 90%

Tajikistan — Muslim 90%

Turkey — Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Isla mic House
of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims
then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France,
the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their
ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large.
Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would
indicate.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:
The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.. www.frontline.org.za/bo
oks_videos/sti.htm

Rising Sun*
04-26-2008, 07:54 AM
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:
The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.. [url]www.frontline.org.za/bo
/url]
oks_videos/sti.htm

He's hardly a disinterested academic giving a balanced analysis.

He strikes me as just as much a religious warrior as the supposedly aggressive Muslims he pretends to analyse from his evangelical Christian narrowness.

I'd rank him and his type as about as dangerous to me and the tolerant society I support as the Muslim menace he reduces to meaningless percentages.

He also deserves nomination for the award for the most patently ****ing ridiculous statement in the history of the planet:


When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris —
car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in
uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).

Israel — Muslim 16%

Gee! If only the Muslims in Israel didn't get above 10%, there'd be no trouble there. :rolleyes: Well, the Zionists have been doing their best since 1948, and before, to make bloody sure that there weren't any Muslims in Israel, so I guess that the (asserted by Hammond) fact that they still comprise 16% of the population shows that the Israel problem is all the fault of those Muslims who weren't killed and driven out of Israel by the Zionists or coralled in the Gaza strip etc.

If Hammond's figures are right, they also show that once a population reaches 84% Jews, then the Muslims are going to get the shit kicked out of them by the Jews.

His figures mean nothing. They are a statistical and intellectual farce. They tell us nothing about the reality of the different practices and experiences of Muslims in different non-Islamic societies. They reflect a Christian arrogance and intolerance that mirrors the Islamic arrogance and intolerance Hammond opposes from his evangelical Christian bunker.

Christians like him want to get a grip on themselves before slagging off other religions as aggressive or demanding or proselytising.

I've never had a Muslim, or Jew, knock on my door or accost me in the street trying to convert me to their form of temporal and eternal idiocy, but Christians of various arrogant forms think they have the right to do things like leaving Utah and barging up to my front door on the other side of the planet to try to convert me to their delusions, as do Jehovah's Witnesses who'd force me to let my children die rather than have a blood transfusion and sundry other bible bashing, God bothering zealots who could learn a thing or two about courtesy and tolerance from Muslims, and Jews, I know.

Here's a statistic Hammond didn't include in his argument.

Number of nominally Christian nations attacked or invaded by Islamic nations since WWII: Nil

Number of Islamic nations attacked or invaded by nominally Christian nations since WWII:
Hard to say, given various post-WWII post-colonial exercises such as Algeria. Some clear attacks or invasions include Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan.

Applying Hammond's intellecutal rigour and statistical method, that shows that nominally Christian nations are at least 300% more likely to attack Islamic nations than the other way around. Reversing those figures, Muslim nations pose no threat to nominal Christian nations. Which buggers up Hammond's nonsensical statistical arguments.


INTRODUCING PETER HAMMOND

Peter was born in Cape Town (in 1960) and brought up in Bulawayo (in what was then war-torn Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe). He was converted to Christ in 1977, worked in Scripture Union and Hospital Christian Fellowship, served in the South African Defence Force and studied at Baptist Theological College, Cape Town. He also earned a Doctorate in Missiology and has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Divinity. Peter is married to Lenora, whose missionary parents Rev. Bill and Harriett Bathman have pioneered missionary work, mostly into Eastern Europe for over 55 years. Peter and Lenora have been blessed with 4 children: Andrea, Daniela, Christopher and Calvin.

For over 25 years, Dr. Peter Hammond has pioneered missionary outreaches, including into the war zones of Mozambique, Angola and Sudan. Often travelling by off road motorbike, Peter has travelled hundreds of thousands of kilometres to deliver Bibles to persecuted Christians in Africa and Eastern Europe. In the course of his missionary activities, Peter has been ambushed, come under aerial and artillery bombardments, been stabbed, shot at, beaten by mobs, arrested and imprisoned. In some mission trips he has flown far behind enemy lines to the Nuba Mountains in central Sudan with tons of Bibles, books and relief aid. He has walked throughout the war devastated Nuba Mountains showing the Jesus film in Arabic, proclaiming the Gospel, training pastors and evading enemy patrols.

Rev. Peter Hammond is the Founder and Director of Frontline Fellowship, the Founder and Chairman of Africa Christian Action, the Director of the Christian Action Network and Chairman of The Reformation Society. He is the author of Faith Under Fire In Sudan, Holocaust In Rwanda, In the Killing Fields of Mozambique, The Great Commission Manual, The Biblical Worldview Manual, Putting Feet To Your Faith, The Greatest Century of Missions, Biblical Principles For Africa, the Discipleship Handbook, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam - The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat and The Greatest Century of Reformation. He is also the Editor of both Frontline Fellowship News and the Christian Action magazine. He is also a Contributing-editor of JOY Magazine.

Peter has developed the Biblical Worldview Seminar and Great Commission Course to mobilise churches to comprehensively apply the Lordship of Christ to all areas of life.

Peter has a great love for history and for wildlife. He enjoys reading, particularly history and primary resource documents on the Reformation and missions. At the moment Peter is engaged in intensive research for a long-term project: A Christian History of Africa.

Along with his family, Peter enjoys hiking and mountain climbing and he's involved in various animal welfare groups. He has been involved in rescuing and caring for a wide variety of wild and domestic animals including penguins.

Since 1995 Peter co-hosts a weekly radio programme, Salt and Light, on Radio Tygerberg in Cape Town. In his desire to apply the Lordship of Christ to all areas of life, Peter has been actively involved in numerous social issues. Since 1991 he has been vigorously promoting the Pro-Life cause in South Africa, initiating and mobilising the annual Life Chains, Sanctity Life Sunday and National Day of Repentance. He has mobilised numerous of marches to Parliament, including the Christian Voice marches in 1995 and 1996 which mobilised over 30 000 Christians in protest against the planned new secular state and its constitutional approval of abortion, pornography and other social evils. Peter has regularly been called upon to present submissions to various sub-committees at Parliament. He has co-authored, or contributed to, various books dealing with social issues in South Africa including: Fight For Life - A Pro-life Handbook for Southern Africa; Make a Difference - A Christian Action Handbook For Southern Africa; South Africa - Renaissance or Reformation?; Finding Freedom From The Pornography Plague and The Pink Agenda - Sexual Revolution and the Ruin of the Family In South Africa and Character Assassins - Dealing with Ecclesiastical Tyrants and Terrorists.

These books and campaigns have lead to numerous opportunities to present Biblical principles through newspaper articles and on national radio and television programmes.

Peter has a strong commitment to Christian education, having helped to promote Christian education and home schooling in South Africa for over 15 years. He and his wife Lenora home school their four children and help provide Christian school textbooks through their Christian Liberty Books ministry. Through his Textbooks For Teachers programme Peter has been providing thousands of Christian school textbooks to community Christian schools in Zambia and Sudan. Peter has also helped sponsor Bible colleges and Christian schools in Zambia and Sudan. He is involved in mobilising support for Christians suffering in Zimbabwe, and in providing tons of relief aid for the victims of communism in Zimbabwe.

Peter is regularly involved in personal and literature evangelism in the streets and in the townships. Since he was converted 30 years ago, Peter has maintained a regular practice of going in to some of the busiest, poorest and most neglected areas to conduct mass literature distribution, film evangelism and personal one-on-one evangelism and discipleship. In squatter camps, shanty towns, inner city ghettos, in bus and train stations, in prisons, military bases and hospitals, he has continued to engage in evangelism and discipleship.

He is a missionary member of Livingstone Fellowship. He is also a minister of the Episcopal Church of Sudan and Chairman of The Reformation Society. http://www.frontline.org.za/about%20us/intro_peterh.htm

Rising Sun*
04-26-2008, 10:12 AM
It was an inquiry made here in germany some time ago. They asked questions related to human rights, womens rights etc in the muslim community and the survey showed that ~15% had a very large distance and some 45% what they called medium distance to our basic law, meaning the 15% pretty much couldn't care less about it and the ~45% cherrypicked what they liked and thought the rest shouldn't apply to them.

To what extent do you think that that related to Islam or to their ethnic background?

If we asked Muslim men from the Sudan what they thought of Western men cooking meals for themselves, let alone their families, and they replied that cooking is women's business and beneath men (as happened here when Sudanese men were expected to feed themselves http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/food-for-more-than-thought/2007/01/31/1169919344527.html# ), does that reflect an Islamic or ethnic viewpoint?

What percentage of the non-Muslim community cherry picks local laws, such as various moronic traffic laws here which dictate 20 km/p.h. below normal speed limits in school zones 24/7 all year round and nobody observes it because we all know it's a bullshit law? I and almost every non-Muslim cherry pick there.

What percentage of the non-Muslim community really has attitudes that aren't much different to the Muslim community's in the German survey?

I'm wary of 'surveys'. There was one run through a newspaper here about a dozen years ago by a neo-con state government attorney general. One question related to penalties for rape and gave florid examples of supposedly weak sentences. Nobody bothered to tell the semi-literate respondents who read that rag that rape had been re-defined by the legislature several years ealier to include penetration of any orifice by anything in an act of a sexual nature. So that what used to be called 'fingering' and happily engaged in by yours truly at the pictures on a Friday or Saturday night with various sheilas was equated to full penile intercourse, which I have to say from my continually frustrated experience at the time was a very, very long way short of the **** I was desperately seeking. Nonetheless, the ill-informed and outraged responses to the newspaper survey was regarded as a sound basis for law reform by the government.

Drake
04-26-2008, 11:20 AM
To what extent do you think that that related to Islam or to their ethnic background?

100% Islam, since the answers they expressed correspond to the teachings of the koran. And I already said, that you cannot simply draw a line between those two issues. Islam has been a part of those societies for a very long time and just as much as Christianity has shaped our western world and culture, Islam has shaped theirs.



... does that reflect an Islamic or ethnic viewpoint?

Well, I don't know much about sudanese people, so I can't really tell whether it's typically sudanese, but it is definatly a typically islamic viewpoint.



What percentage of the non-Muslim community cherry picks local laws, such as various moronic traffic laws here which dictate 20 km/p.h. below normal speed limits in school zones 24/7 all year round and nobody observes it because we all know it's a bullshit law? I and almost every non-Muslim cherry pick there.

I'm sorry, but where did you get the impression I was talking about cooking or traffic laws? We're talking about the most basic human rights which the muslim community as a whole and also those in germany refuse to acknowledge.
You didn't happen to read something about what happened in the UN human rights conference in the past months?

http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/islamische_staaten_zerstoeren_allgemeine_menschenr echte/



What percentage of the non-Muslim community really has attitudes that aren't much different to the Muslim community's in the German survey?

Possibly a factor of 10 to the power of 5 less.



I'm wary of 'surveys'...

And you should be, as they're just one piece of information and highly open for manipulation, with leading questions and such.
But they fit into the overall picture here.

Nickdfresh
04-26-2008, 12:13 PM
LOL Peter Hammond is a conspiracist and sectarian racist whose writings on Islam have all the authority and expertise of Goebbels on the Jews...

He makes idiotic statements that are unprovable and are nothing but baseless opinions masked as fact, such as: "To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons..."

Again, the "Stormfront.org" mentality that people are innately prone to violence based on their race and that there is some "Stepford Wife" like conspiracy that is subliminal and automatic...

His notions are patently absurd and he is mocked in any sort of academic circles...

He also has "jihad envy," sort of the Christian fundamentalist version of penis envy when it comes to the Islamic extremists...

Nickdfresh
04-26-2008, 12:18 PM
...National Socialism included quite a lot elements from the ancient norse mythology. If I revived national socialism, called it a religion like scientology does call itself in the US and prayed the necessity of the masterrace to rule the earth and the other blabla you'd be OK with it???

National Socialism also successfully coopted the Vatican and the Lutheran church, and began to deemphasize the Nordic crap, which was mostly allegorical anyways as Hitler was probably an atheist (I think), or that HE was god...

http://liberalslikechrist.org/NaziPriestsSaluteHitler.jpg

Nickdfresh
04-26-2008, 12:24 PM
...
Well, I don't know much about sudanese people, so I can't really tell whether it's typically sudanese, but it is definatly a typically islamic viewpoint.

...

But which "Islamic viewpoint" give the fact that the primarily Arabic-Muslim dominated Sudanese gov't is killing black African Muslims in what amounts to a cross between genocide and ethnic cleansing. It's a War that has nothing to do with religion as I believe both follow the Sunni branch of Islam. It's pretty blatantly about skin color and tribal relations and dynasties...

So, again, what is the religious connotation of the War again?

BTW, they've supposedly made peace with the Christian and Animist tribes they were fighting in the North and they now supposedly have a voice in the government...

Drake
04-26-2008, 02:04 PM
National Socialism also successfully coopted the Vatican and the Lutheran church, and began to deemphasize the Nordic crap, which was mostly allegorical anyways as Hitler was probably an atheist (I think), or that HE was god...



The point was anyhow not about the nazis, more about a political agenda hidden behind the convenient facade of religion and how to deal with it.
The problem I see with Islam is that it actually has a political agenda written down in its very core, the koran. And don't come up with this "You can interpret anything into anything" argument. It's simply missing the point, since you don't need to interpret anything into the koran in that context.
I know that Christianity, Buddhism etc. had and have people who misuse religion for personal or political purposes, but imho there is a difference in quality if you have to bend over backwards to prove whether your religion justifies or demands this and that or if it is written down literally and unalterably.
All the things the islamic world is being critizised for is in the koran in plain letters and it mustnot be changed or interpreted, that's probably the actual problem. If it wasn't for that order we probably wouldn't have this conversation, but we should face the possibility that the wahhabist Islam like in KSA is exactly how Mohammed wanted it to be (forever) and that a lot of people within this religious community worldwide see it that way (and these are far far more than the ones willing to blow themselves up on a crowded place). It's just stupid and extremely dangerous to ignore this possibility because it's inconvenient.
Assuming this was the case, the question would be, what do we do with the people within Islam, who think that way. Imho the western world cannot tolerate them within its sphere of influence since they have the tendency not to change their views and breed like rats, so the future is actually not that hard to predict.

That's the point you are missing the whole time. The problem is not only the terrorists, the problem is just as much the underlying ideology, and this ideology is far far more widespread than you are willing to admit, Nick.
And its influence is growing. So we are actually in a dilemma. We have the option to not grant them the freedoms we enjoy and thus effectively sink to their level (and hopefully kick them out) or wait for them to dismantle these freedoms for us (which is a certainty). Freedom is the loser either way, but I'd rather sink to their level than wait and hope for the best.

gumalangi
04-26-2008, 08:02 PM
i was thought i found a good forum,..

Kato
04-26-2008, 09:20 PM
The islam menace is the by-product of European the US policy aimed at the elimination of white race via letting the non-whites into our areals, encouraging race-mixing, destroying local values. The present political and economic system in white countries are incompatible with the nature of white race, as the source of changes and development. The self-preservation of these system is possible only in case of the elimination of whites.

Kato
04-26-2008, 09:48 PM
1. If Europe is in such a parlous state because of the Muslims living there, what is the solution?

Mass deportations?

Mass executions?

If neither is acceptable or possible, then what is / are the other solution(s)?

Don't entertain illusions. The mass deportations and mass murders will be possible in case the governments of white states organize them. It is clear that it is incompatible with their policy, besides take into consideration the number of non-white emigrants who tend to become the majority in lots of regions plus the number of degenerated whites who support race-mixing, multi-culturalism and similar crap.

In future crisis the most probable targets for mass executions and deportations to concentration camps will be whites resisting to their own governments and non-white expansion encouraged by these governments.

Of course, these people will be branded as nazis, racists, terrorists, satanists that deserve no mercy.
A significant part of whites will be supporting their governments in eradicating the resistance.

Kato
04-26-2008, 10:17 PM
Somebody mentioned Albanians in Kosovo as an example of Islamic aggression though you forgot to mention the fact that Albanians are not able to confront Serbs, the US forced Serbian units to leave the area and brought Albanians to power in Kosovo. The western governments do not care that it has always been the ethnical Serbian territory, that UCK is tied to Albanian gangs of drug dealers, that the number of Albanians in Kosovo after the "genocide" held by Serbs is even larger than before the arrival of NATO forces, that the 90% of local Serbs escaped or got killed as a result of ethnic cleansing with full conniving on behalf of the NATO troops.

So the Islamic menace was turned into aggression by the US, EU, NATO.

Kosovo like scenario aimed against the original white population can be realised in any the EU states as well.

Drake
04-27-2008, 03:35 AM
i was thought i found a good forum,..

You have, that's why you are allowed to express your thoughts freely and not being stoned to death for it. If your opinion differs feel free to join the discussion, I'd like to hear your point of view.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 05:00 AM
So we are actually in a dilemma. We have the option to not grant them the freedoms we enjoy and thus effectively sink to their level (and hopefully kick them out) or wait for them to dismantle these freedoms for us (which is a certainty). Freedom is the loser either way, but I'd rather sink to their level than wait and hope for the best.

Let's assume for the purpose of debate that you're right and the solution is to kick them out.

How do we identify 'them'?

All Muslims? If so, we're going to harm a lot of innocent people.

Muslims convicted of terror-related offences, including inciting others to violence? I don't have a problem with that, any more than I do with deporting any other immigrant convicted of serious violent crimes.

But what about those who are citizens, having been born in the deporting nation? If we start dismantling their rights because they're Muslims, doesn't that confirm the view in parts of the Islamic world that the West treats Muslims differently and oppresses them? Also, once we've established that principle, what's to stop it being extended to other religious, ethnic or political groups feared or disliked by the dominant population or its government?

Add in a McCarthyism type hysteria about any issue and every citizen is fair game for being kicked out, just for expressing unpopular views or supporting unpopular opinions and without being convicted of, or even having done, anything.

You'd be struggling to find many non-Muslim Australians, including me, who don't reckon that the so-called Mufti of Australia, Sheik al-Hilaly, should be deported for expressing views like those in the following quote, along with his more radical pro-bin Laden views.

But nobody calls for the deportation of Catholic priests and Christian Brothers who have been engaged in child sexual abuse for generations nor does anybody talk about the 'Catholic menace' when it is demonstrable that the abuse and, worse, the cover up by the Church hierarchy has done far more harm to countless Australians than anything a little worm like al Hilaly has done.

So, isn't there a risk of double standards and the possibility of an over-reaction to people who are significantly different to the dominant culture because they're different, rather than an objective assessment of what they've actually done?

The attitude of many Australians to Muslims at the moment is little different to the attitude of many Anglo - Protestant Australian descendants, who were the dominant class at the time, to Irish - Catholic Australian descendants right up to the 1960's. Much of it was formed out of ignorance, suspicion and fear of a religious group regarded as dumb, criminal, treacherous, violent (opinions supported by, for example, the Irish rebellion in 1916 and essentially Irish Catholic clergy's opposition in Australia to conscription around the same time), and controlled by the Pope to undermine a solid Protestant nation.

That's all past now. I don't see why the same isn't possible with similar attitudes to Muslims, depending upon how future events play out.



What Sheik al-Hilaly said
October 27, 2006 01:00am

This is an edited transcript, by SBS translator Dalia Mattar, of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali's speech.

"Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?

"Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God's creation.

"Who commits the crimes of theft? The man or the woman? The man. That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft because his responsibility is providing.

"But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs).

"Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.

"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it."

"If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen.

"That's why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.

"Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You're my messenger to achieve my needs. Satan tells women you're my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you're the best of my weapons.

"The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20652824-2,00.html

Drake
04-27-2008, 06:37 AM
How do we identify 'them'?


Brainscans :D
Hmm, when I think of it, this could actually work, though it would be highly Orwellian and hardly ever legal in germany.

Honestly, I don't have all the answers, but that's why we need to discuss the issue on a broad scale. But as you mentioned, spreading hate should be a punishable crime. It actually is in germany, but as it seems only for ethnic germans. Just yesterday a judge sentenced a turkish-german fellow to a fine of several hundret euros. He was judged for insult. He said: I **** all german women, I **** all germans, We will gas you all to death.
In the verdict the judge even said that if a bio-german would have said the same about another nationality he would have served at least 18 months without parole, judged not for insult but what is called Volksverhetzung (incitement of the people). So it would probably be a good start to level the ground there and clarify that law applies to all.
It should also be a superior law to the freedom of religion, after all, it already is superior to the freedom of speech, and rightfully so.
It's actually quite amusing to see how stupid and vile the legal system sometimes is. The reason why you cannot apply that law there seems to be, that a majority population cannot be the target of such a crime, at least that's what the judges reasoned based on the phrasing of the law. I have read that law and found nothing which would indicate that, but that's how it is handled.
And cases of political correctness like that are actually the reason why I think this will get ugly in the long run.
This is obviously not the mistake of the immigrant muslim population but of stupid politicians and judges, but this all adds up to a lot of bad blood and not just in germany. We're actually behind the developments in other countries.
A well known jewish author recently said, that if he was a muslim he'd seriously consider leaving europe asap, seeing the writings on the wall. And this is really worrisome to me.



All Muslims? If so, we're going to harm a lot of innocent people.


This could only be the very last resort, but if the choice would be between deporting all muslims or tolerating an evergrowing radical, non integrating part within that community that ultimatly threatens the very existence of germany, I'd weigh the needs of the many over the needs of the few.



But what about those who are citizens, having been born in the deporting nation?


Since most of them refer to and think of themselves as turks or maroks (particularly in the now third generation) and not as germans, I don't see a problem. Until 9 years ago you had to have a german mother or father to get a german citizienship anyway and I'd have prefered it to stay that way. In the long run, it would have meant that those who mix up with the biogermans would get their citizenship and those who don't want to integrate and live in their ghettos don't. I mean there are 3.5 Million Muslims here and 77 Million others. For every muslim woman, you have 20 german women, same for the men. If they'd actually integrate it statistically shouldn't take more than 2 generations until 90% of the newborns have german citizenship. But only, if they don't insist on segregation and forbid things like muslim daughter has a german boyfriend / husband etc and that's exactly what we as the majority population don't want.



If we start dismantling their rights because they're Muslims, doesn't that confirm the view in parts of the Islamic world that the West treats Muslims differently and oppresses them? Also, once we've established that principle, what's to stop it being extended to other religious, ethnic or political groups feared or disliked by the dominant population or its government?


So what? Up until now the only ones treating anyone different is the muslim world.



But nobody calls for the deportation of Catholic priests and Christian Brothers who have been engaged in child sexual abuse for generations nor does anybody talk about the 'Catholic menace' when it is demonstrable that the abuse and, worse, the cover up by the Church hierarchy has done far more harm to countless Australians than anything a little worm like al Hilaly has done.


That's because the christian priests are our problem. Reforming the muslim world isn't. This is their problem, one that I think they have to tackle, before we can actually live together.



So, isn't there a risk of double standards and the possibility of an over-reaction to people who are significantly different to the dominant culture because they're different, rather than an objective assessment of what they've actually done?


Yes, that risk is always there and it needs to be constantly looked after. But as you might get from my example above, double standards are already in place.



The attitude of many Australians to Muslims at the moment is little different to the attitude of many Anglo - Protestant Australian descendants, who were the dominant class at the time, to Irish - Catholic Australian descendants right up to the 1960's. Much of it was formed out of ignorance, suspicion and fear of a religious group regarded as dumb, criminal, treacherous, violent (opinions supported by, for example, the Irish rebellion in 1916 and essentially Irish Catholic clergy's opposition in Australia to conscription around the same time), and controlled by the Pope to undermine a solid Protestant nation.

That's all past now. I don't see why the same isn't possible with similar attitudes to Muslims, depending upon how future events play out.


Maybe, because the differences between protestant and catholic europeans aren't that big after all compared to the differences to muslims.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 09:09 AM
Brainscans :D

That assumes the presence of a brain. :D


It's actually quite amusing to see how stupid and vile the legal system sometimes is. The reason why you cannot apply that law there seems to be, that a majority population cannot be the target of such a crime, at least that's what the judges reasoned based on the phrasing of the law. I have read that law and found nothing which would indicate that, but that's how it is handled.
And cases of political correctness like that are actually the reason why I think this will get ugly in the long run.
This is obviously not the mistake of the immigrant muslim population but of stupid politicians and judges, but this all adds up to a lot of bad blood and not just in germany.

It's often been observed here that it's alright for, say, a Turk to slag a Greek because that's part of their culture, but it's discrimination if an Anglo says the same thing to either of them.

The uneven laws and their application are problems of democracy and some commendable attitudes that underlie it, but which unfortunately are corrupted by political reality.

The democratic problem and the political corruption spring from the need for politicians to get elected. That means they do what's necessary to get votes, not what's best for the electorate. So,for example, in my city we have a serious problem with drunken thugs bashing people senseless in the nightclub districts but politicians don't do much more than join in the handwringing when with a few million dollars taken from a huge surplus budget and a bit of spine and some vigorous policing the problem could be reduced dramatically. Meanwhile we have bullshit legislation like racial and religious tolerance laws and anti-discrimination laws which pander to minorities. That's where the commendable attitudes, being concern for the underdog, gets corrupted by political reality. If the underdog can deliver votes, its interests get addressed in legislation and grants and so on. Straight white males don't figure in politicians' thinking but, for example, lesbians demanding state funded IVF so they don't have to endure the yucky traditional method of getting up the duff get a lot of attention and funding and legislation protecting their rights. When you get a community like the Turks or the Lebanese or Greeks whose leaders can deliver the votes to swing critical seats, their voices are heard loud and clear. So a politician will support funding a Turkish or Lebanese or Greek enterprise, such as a gymnasium where they can indulge their macho obsession with body building and kick boxing, but not fund police to deal with these morons using that training to bash people for fun in the nightclub district.

It makes sense to politicians. :rolleyes:


But only, if they don't insist on segregation and forbid things like muslim daughter has a german boyfriend / husband etc and that's exactly what we as the majority population don't want.

But is that unique to Muslims?

Southern Europeans who migrated here after WWII were often ridiculed for their obsession with chaperoning their daughters and marrying within their own group, but several generations on that has diluted to the point that it's not an issue for them. The same process is repeating itself with current migrants, including Islamic ones.


So what? Up until now the only ones treating anyone different is the muslim world.

I don't agree. Try to migrate to Japan and become a Japanese citizen.


That's because the christian priests are our problem.

No, they're the Catholic Church's problem. That Church is just as alien to a secular Western society as Islam is, but because Western society has absorbed Christianity into so much of what it thinks is a secular society which separates Church and State (but doesn't, e.g. opening our parliamentary sessions with Christian prayers), it allows many people to think that the Christian churches are part of 'us' and Islam isn't.


Reforming the muslim world isn't. This is their problem, one that I think they have to tackle, before we can actually live together.

On that, we are in complete agreement.

Moreover, it's Islam's problem to rein in the nut jobs like bin Laden and sundry violent elements in the various streams of Islam.

But there I think we hit one of the real problems underlying bin Laden etc, which is that much of the Islamic world conceives of itself as a victim of the West rather than of the many failings of its own leaders and governments and the cultures in which they exist. It's not my fault that the House of Saud controls Mecca and it's stupid beyond all reason for bin Laden to fly planes into the twin towers to redress his hostility to the Sauds as unworthy custodians of Mecca, and doubly unworthy for allowing the infidel Americans onto Saudi soil to repel an attack by one secular but still Islamic nation on another Islamic nation.

It's a sad fact that rationality is absent from the violence which motivates radical Islamic elements to attack the West, and other Muslims. The simple fact is that they're just self-appointed custodians of the true word of the Prophet and consumed with rabid hatred for anyone who doesn't accept that appointment and their view of Islam.

And correcting that is entirely Islam's problem, not least because it is a problem which springs entirely from Islam.

Until they deal with that, they can't complain about the West's responses to their aggression and stupidity. But they will.

Kato
04-27-2008, 10:15 AM
Originally Posted by Drake
But only, if they don't insist on segregation and forbid things like muslim daughter has a german boyfriend / husband etc and that's exactly what we as the majority population don't want.

German boyfriend / husband can convert to Islam and there will be no problem then. In fact, Islam approves inter-racial marriages. Islam is fully tolerant and liberal in this issue.
Let's turn Germany into racially mixed cesspool under the flag of modern atheistic EU bureucracy. It is a real solution.

Though one shouldn't forget that whatever atheistic, Islamic or Christian flag one raises over such a cesspool, it will be only cesspool with all the consequences.

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 10:49 AM
The islam menace is the by-product of European the US policy aimed at the elimination of white race via letting the non-whites into our areals, encouraging race-mixing, destroying local values....

Seriously, where do you get this shit? Which explicit US "policy" is that? Please find the legislation for me...

You're way the **** out there in la la land of white supremacism...

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 10:54 AM
Somebody mentioned Albanians in Kosovo as an example of Islamic aggression though you forgot to mention the fact that Albanians are not able to confront Serbs, the US forced Serbian units to leave the area and brought Albanians to power in Kosovo. The western governments do not care that it has always been the ethnical Serbian territory, that UCK is tied to Albanian gangs of drug dealers, that the number of Albanians in Kosovo after the "genocide" held by Serbs is even larger than before the arrival of NATO forces, that the 90% of local Serbs escaped or got killed as a result of ethnic cleansing with full conniving on behalf of the NATO troops.

So the Islamic menace was turned into aggression by the US, EU, NATO.

Kosovo like scenario aimed against the original white population can be realised in any the EU states as well.

You mean an area that is predominately Kosovars will be able to elect their own leaders now to represent their interests? How dare anyone have rights!

Maybe if the Serbs hadn't let a fascist, corrupt baby-killing nationalist ******* be their dictator, then much of this would never have happened...

By the way, Serbian paramilitary organizations in Bosnia were also tied to drug dealers and gangsters...

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 10:55 AM
Don't entertain illusions. The mass deportations and mass murders will be possible in case the governments of white states organize them. It is clear that it is incompatible with their policy, besides take into consideration the number of non-white emigrants who tend to become the majority in lots of regions plus the number of degenerated whites who support race-mixing, multi-culturalism and similar crap.

In future crisis the most probable targets for mass executions and deportations to concentration camps will be whites resisting to their own governments and non-white expansion encouraged by these governments.

Of course, these people will be branded as nazis, racists, terrorists, satanists that deserve no mercy.
A significant part of whites will be supporting their governments in eradicating the resistance.

Well, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then...

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 11:00 AM
Don't entertain illusions. The mass deportations and mass murders will be possible in case the governments of white states organize them. It is clear that it is incompatible with their policy, besides take into consideration the number of non-white emigrants who tend to become the majority in lots of regions plus the number of degenerated whites who support race-mixing, multi-culturalism and similar crap.

In future crisis the most probable targets for mass executions and deportations to concentration camps will be whites resisting to their own governments and non-white expansion encouraged by these governments.

Of course, these people will be branded as nazis, racists, terrorists, satanists that deserve no mercy.
A significant part of whites will be supporting their governments in eradicating the resistance.




http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/1238/racistqn1.png

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 11:08 AM
Well, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then...

... it's a witch, which is consistent with Kato's world view of deep conspiracies and incomprehensible logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 11:18 AM
Seriously, where do you get this shit? Which explicit US "policy" is that? Please find the legislation for me...

You're way the **** out there in la la land of white supremacism...

That's what you think.

Deep in the crypto-fascist Negroid crypts deep beneath the mountain which wouldn't come to Mohammed high atop a mountain deep within America's heart at the bottom of the Grand Canyon above Mount Rushmore lurk the people pulling the strings at Disneyland where fantasy and reality collide and produce the ineluctable and eternal racial truths expressed by Kato, for Kato is the Messiah, or just a very naughty boy.

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 11:22 AM
The point was anyhow not about the nazis, more about a political agenda hidden behind the convenient facade of religion and how to deal with it.

No, you see an organized and centrally controlled movement where none really exists. Even the Islamic extremists that actually wish to incite or carry out acts of violence are disparate groups often competing against one another...


The problem I see with Islam is that it actually has a political agenda written down in its very core, the koran. And don't come up with this "You can interpret anything into anything" argument. It's simply missing the point, since you don't need to interpret anything into the koran in that context.

The problem I see is that your painting a wide swath with a brush, without acknowledging basic "facts." Like that Muslims are far more likely to kill one another than they are "Christians" on some "holy" jihad...

Even the 9/11 attacks were followed up by ---nothing! There were no further attacks in the US after that because the "movement" is one led, organized, and carried out by a small number of ****wits that are wanted dead even by their own "Islamic" countries...


I know that Christianity, Buddhism etc. had and have people who misuse religion for personal or political purposes, but imho there is a difference in quality if you have to bend over backwards to prove whether your religion justifies or demands this and that or if it is written down literally and unalterably.
All the things the islamic world is being critizised for is in the koran in plain letters and it mustnot be changed or interpreted, that's probably the actual problem. If it wasn't for that order we probably wouldn't have this conversation, but we should face the possibility that the wahhabist Islam like in KSA is exactly how Mohammed wanted it to be (forever) and that a lot of people within this religious community worldwide see it that way (and these are far far more than the ones willing to blow themselves up on a crowded place). It's just stupid and extremely dangerous to ignore this possibility because it's inconvenient.
Assuming this was the case, the question would be, what do we do with the people within Islam, who think that way. Imho the western world cannot tolerate them within its sphere of influence since they have the tendency not to change their views and breed like rats, so the future is actually not that hard to predict.

That last line of that tirade can be corresponded directly to something Nazi propaganda said about the Jews prior to WWII. I recall watching a film in class that directly morphed images of rats over Jews... :rolleyes:

The truth is that Islamacists have not been able to take no countries save for Iran, and ever there, there is significant opposition to the Shiite clerical rule in the form of Westernized middle class of the younger, urban generation and even in various acts of armed resistance/terrorism by disparate groups --some directly supported by the US gov't...

The only reason why the hard-line, reactionary idiots like Ahmadenejad won their elections (Iran is semi-democratic despite being a theological state) can be directly attributed to bellicose US rhetoric right before the elections. Indeed, the whole lousy fundamentalist regimes since 1979 can be traced to cynical US CIA and MI6 supported coup to install that torture *****, the Shah, in 1953. In order to get rid of a democratically elected, socialist leader that espoused largely Western values. But as he threatened to partially nationalize the oil industry there, we can't have that now! Can we?

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html


That's the point you are missing the whole time. The problem is not only the terrorists, the problem is just as much the underlying ideology, and this ideology is far far more widespread than you are willing to admit, Nick.

Except again, the Islamicists lost in Algeria, Egypt, and Iraq and in most every other place where they tried to takeover the gov't. Even in places where they won an election (Algeria). Their methods of mass violence to prod a mass, spontaneous uprising are just farcical and only serve to alienate the populations they seek to gain support from and control of.

It is the reason why al Qaeda of Iraq have largely failed. Because despite how criminally incompetent the US invasion and occupation were, and the resulting three years of Keystone Cop-like waffling and indecisiveness, the AQI were even more a study of self-defeating idiotic incompetence, successfully disgusting and alienating the entire population with their mass civilian casualty and murder bombings that were sectarian in nature (against other Muslims). This was the prime mover, along with substantial US bribe money under the "Surge," of the Sunni "awakening." A movement that largely exposes the secular language of the Pan-Arab Nationalist ideologues such as those in Saddam's Baath Party...


And its influence is growing. So we are actually in a dilemma. We have the option to not grant them the freedoms we enjoy and thus effectively sink to their level (and hopefully kick them out) or wait for them to dismantle these freedoms for us (which is a certainty). Freedom is the loser either way, but I'd rather sink to their level than wait and hope for the best.

Growing where? Are they closer to seizing the Reichstag or something?


And what are you saying? That we deny them basic freedom and democracy in order to preserve it? Is that what you're eluding too?

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 11:27 AM
That's what you think.

Deep in the crypto-fascist Negroid crypts deep beneath the mountain which wouldn't come to Mohammed high atop a mountain deep within America's heart at the bottom of the Grand Canyon above Mount Rushmore lurk the people pulling the strings at Disneyland where fantasy and reality collide and produce the ineluctable and eternal racial truths expressed by Kato, for Kato is the Messiah, or just a very naughty boy.


Oh of course! It was actually the Jews, using Negroes as their "muscle" that pulled off 9/11 as an inside job! Why do you think the American Neonazis were celebrating this great wake-up call to arms against the race-traitors and and the Jewy-Jews?! (who of course cleared the Twin towers of all Jews using their super-Jew technology of Window's Zionist Messager! It all makes perfect sense now!

http://www.englishrussia.com/images/horugve/1.jpg

People like Kato will save us!

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 11:32 AM
No, you see an organized and centrally controlled movement where none really exists. Even the Islamic extremists that actually wish to incite or carry out acts of violence are disparate groups often competing against one another...



The problem I see is that your painting a wide swath with a brush, without acknowledging basic "facts." Like that Muslims are far more likely to kill one another than they are "Christians" on some "holy" jihad...

Even the 9/11 attacks were followed up by ---nothing! There were no further attacks in the US after that because the "movement" is one led, organized, and carried out by a small number of ****wits that are wanted dead even by their own "Islamic" countries...



That last line of that tirade can be corresponded directly to something Nazi propaganda said about the Jews prior to WWII. I recall watching a film in class that directly morphed images of rats over Jews... :rolleyes:

The truth is that Islamacists have not been able to take no countries save for Iran, and ever there, there is significant opposition to the Shiite clerical rule in the form of Westernized middle class of the younger, urban generation and even in various acts of armed resistance/terrorism by disparate groups --some directly supported by the US gov't...

The only reason why the hard-line, reactionary idiots like Ahmadenejad won their elections (Iran is semi-democratic despite being a theological state) can be directly attributed to bellicose US rhetoric right before the elections. Indeed, the whole lousy fundamentalist regimes since 1979 can be traced to cynical US CIA and MI6 supported coup to install that torture *****, the Shah, in 1958. In order to get rid of a democratically elected, socialist leader that espoused largely Western values. But as he threatened to partially nationalize the oil industry there, we can't have that now! Can we?



Except again, the Islamicists lost in Algeria, Egypt, and Iraq and in most every other place where they tried to takeover the gov't. Even in places where they won an election (Algeria). Their methods of mass violence to prod a mass, spontaneous uprising are just farcical and only serve to alienate the populations they seek to gain support from and control of.

It is the reason why al Qaeda of Iraq have largely failed. Because despite how criminally incompetent the US invasion and occupation were, and the resulting three years of Keystone Cop-like waffling and indecisiveness, the AQI were even more a study of self-defeating idiotic incompetence, successfully disgusting and alienating the entire population with their mass civilian casualty and murder bombings that were sectarian in nature (against other Muslims). This was the prime mover, along with substantial US bribe money under the "Surge," of the Sunni "awakening." A movement that largely exposes the secular language of the Pan-Arab Nationalist ideologues such as those in Saddam's Baath Party...



Growing where? Are they closer to seizing the Reichstag or something?


And what are you saying? That we deny them basic freedom and democracy in order to preserve it? Is that what you're eluding too?

Oh, dear!

So many facts.

So little hostility to Islam.

Where does that leave the Islam menace? ;)

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 11:36 AM
People like Kato will save us!

Perhaps, but from what?

I'd rather be saved from people like him, on the days the fool farm lets him out.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 11:41 AM
http://www.englishrussia.com/images/horugve/1.jpg


Are these characters a non-ageist Russian bikie gang or do their individual uniforms and badges etc refer to military service?

Assuming they're not in the Balkans?

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 11:50 AM
Oh, dear!

So many facts.

So little hostility to Islam.

Where does that leave the Islam menace? ;)


I'm not saying that there are not significant problems. Efforts by extremists to fan the flames and kill Dutch filmmakers are serious problems. But no one is going to solve it by believing hefty bags of conspiratorial bullshit. That isn't going to do it.

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 11:52 AM
Perhaps, but from what?

I'd rather be saved from people like him, on the days the fool farm lets him out.


I think he's worn out his welcome here...

Rising Sun*
04-27-2008, 12:03 PM
I'm not saying that there are not significant problems. Efforts by extremists to fan the flames and kill Dutch filmmakers are serious problems. But no one is going to solve it by believing hefty bags of conspiratorial bullshit. That isn't going to do it.

Agreed.

There is a clear desire for violence among some Muslims, but there's an even clearer desire for much larger violence among Dubya's administration and the nations, like mine, which have hung off its ill-conceived political and military adventures.

Like all wars, there will be casualties and then both sides will settle down and get on with trade etc, leaving the widows and orphans on both sides to wonder whether it was worth it.

Nickdfresh
04-27-2008, 12:23 PM
As much as I hate locking threads down, I'm going too for a bit after someone finishes their reply...

Nickdfresh
04-28-2008, 01:09 PM
Posted via PM by Drake:

Omitted


No, you see an organized and centrally controlled movement where none really exists.


No I don't. It doesn't need to be controlled, since the problem I see is nothing corporeal like a terrorist attack, but rather a mindset dangerous to our western society as a whole, as I explained before. It's like the enlightenment in reverse, this one wasn't centrally orchestrated either. And this mindset is hardwired to the teachings of the koran, so if you are looking for the center of my "conspiracy theory" it would be there. This doesn't even mean, that every muslim understands koran like that, but a significant (two digit percentage) amount of them does and that is a problem for our societies. And it always will be, since those who do understand it like that cannot be persuaded to change that view and accept our values, since it is explicitly forbidden. I didn't make that one up, there actually is this order to follow the rules, but only as long as they can't be removed and replaced with sharia.



The problem I see is that your painting a wide swath with a brush, without acknowledging.... "Islamic" countries...


And again, I can only repeat what I said several times before: It's not just about terrorists, I'd even say they are the minor problem in the long run. Like you said, centrally controlled plots are being uncovered by our intelligence agencies and police forces regularly.



That last line of that tirade ... of rats over Jews... :rolleyes:


It is a rude picture (though I didn't tirade) , but as a matter of fact the "hardcore" muslims have a significantly higher birthrate, even compared to moderate muslims. Btw, the nazis used the rat comparison not for their breeding habit but for other attributes, but you're right, it's inappropriate.



The truth is that Islamacists have not been able to take no countries save for Iran, ... the Sunni "awakening." A movement that largely exposes the secular language of the Pan-Arab Nationalist ideologues such as those in Saddam's Baath Party...


Wow, you're mixing up a whole bunch of things there. If I paint with a wide brush, you do just the same.
And do you really think those states are remotly comparable to europe? I don't care if the radicals couldn't seize power there for the moment. The fact that this was even a possibility should ring your alarm bells as it does mine.
Because this means they are around in numbers, maybe not yet a majority, but not that far off. And we have imported smaller versions of those societies, thank you very much.
And most, if not all of those states are factual dictatorships, sometimes with a democratic facade.
The one state within the muslim world we consider nearly western is turkey. And the last elections have been won by, guess who, religious fundamentalists.

You know that I feel a little like Churchill here (I know, sometimes a bastard of his own right, and pretty presumptuous of me :mrgreen:) who warned of the Nazis and no one took him serious. I don't express those thoughts heedlessly, since I am well aware of the similarities of some of them with nazi propaganda and the high potential for abuse. I might be wrong, but if I am not, then we're in deep trouble over here.



Growing where? Are they closer to seizing the Reichstag or something?


Growing within the muslim community in europe, of course. And the muslim community in europe is growing as well.



And what are you saying? That we deny them basic freedom and democracy in order to preserve it? Is that what you're eluding too?

More to preserve ourselves and our culture.

Nickdfresh
04-28-2008, 01:20 PM
Reopened. Please do not get into the race war stuff here...

Kato
04-28-2008, 02:11 PM
Seriously, where do you get this shit? Which explicit US "policy" is that? Please find the legislation for me...

You're way the **** out there in la la land of white supremacism...

The proportion of white population in the US and the EU, Slavic states declines the proportion of non-white quickly grows. The legislation is one of the means that creates necessary conditions for this.

Panzerknacker
04-28-2008, 08:30 PM
More politically correct bullshit.

Sharia Law: A Canadian Controversy
by Kumkum Ramchandani


Canada’s approximately 700,000 Muslims, half of whom live in the province of Ontario, are sharply divided over the province’s endorsement of Sharia tribunals to arbitrate civil matters like inheritance, marriage, custody, divorce and family disputes. A 1991 Arbitration Law in Ontario has already allowed arbitration according to religious principles for some of the communities living here including Jews, Ismaili Muslims and Christians.

Not surprisingly, many Muslim women’s organizations are expressing their displeasure stating that they have not been consulted and that Sharia will create an unnecessary two tier legal system resulting in marginalization of the Muslim community. Some Muslim women, on the other hand, feel that an Islamic legal system will recognize their Islamic beliefs more clearly than a Canadian court. Fierce debates are being held in the media and within homes and public meetings.

A staunch crusader against the new law is social activist Homa Arjomand who fled Iran in 1989 with her husband and two toddlers after being tipped off that her life was in danger. She has set up an International Campaign Against Setting Up Sharia Court in Canada which has already been signed up by thousands of women. The petition states that the proposed Sharia tribunals are anti-freedom, anti-women, misogynist, anti-modernist and racist. It calls for religion to be declared the private affair of the individual and complete separation of religion from education for children under age 16 as well as prohibition of inhuman religious ceremonies and practice of religion that is incompatible with people’s civil rights and liberties.

The petition states, “We believe that all people who live in Canada are citizens with equal rights and should live according to same social laws and norms. We do not divide society into cultural, religious, national and racial majorities and minorities. We stand for equal and universal laws and freedoms for all humanity, which should embrace all, irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity.”

Arjomand cites a case to bring home the fact that Muslim law and secular law can be at odds. “I have a client in Toronto,” she states, “who was taken out of school by her parents at the age of 15 and was pushed to marry a 29 year old man under the Sharia law. According to the eyes of the Sharia they are married but according to the Canadian legal system they are not. At the age of 16 this young pregnant girl is going through separation because of abuse (verbal, mental, financial and sexual). In a secular court, the fact that she was forced to marry at a young age is considered a crime and her husband will be charged for assault and child abuse. As for her parents, they too will be charged…..however, in the eyes of the Sharia tribunal no crime has taken place and the matter is civil and can be resolved.”


Full article here

http://www.kumkumramchandani.com/sharia_law.htm

Just try to implement an westerner system of justice in any Muslim country...and you ll see. :neutral:

Rising Sun*
04-29-2008, 03:08 AM
More politically correct bullshit.

My understanding is that it is not part of the law of Canada but a voluntary system to which Muslims can submit.

There's nothing remarkable about such a situation.

The Catholic Church has its own legal and court system for dealing with divorce etc under Catholic law. That system exists in every Catholic diocese around the world, under the control of the local bishop who is the supreme judge in his own diocese, subject to appeal to the Vatican courts in certain circumstances. Catholics can choose to use that system or the state system, or both to satisfy the legal requirements of both. http://www.wagga.catholic.org.au/Organisations/MarriageTribunal.aspx

If Muslims are a creeping menace because they have their own divorce tribunals operating according to their own religious law, then the Catholics are just as bad. Worse, really, because there's an awful lot more of them and their dioceses in the West and they've been at it a lot longer. So far, there's no sign that that has destroyed Western civilisation, or infringed the separation of Church and state (outside a few places like Ireland, Italy and Spain where the dominant Catholic religion has been mirrored in much of the secular law.)


Just try to implement an westerner system of justice in any Muslim country...and you ll see. :neutral:

Every Catholic diocese in a Muslim country has implemented its own legal system under its own tribunals, because those tribunals and that system are part of the law of every diocese under the Code of Canon Law administered by every Catholic bishop.

So it applies, for example, in these dioceses in Pakistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Pakistan

In any event, there may be no real need for a Sharia tribunal, at least under some streams of Islam. I know of several cases where Muslims here divorced under their own religious law and it was done through the local imam in pursuance of pre-marital agreements which were part of the marriage process.

Drake
04-29-2008, 04:52 AM
My understanding is that it is not yet part of the law of Canada but soon; a nonvoluntary system to which even nonmuslims have to submit.


This changes I made on your statements are the demands I'd expect to appear within a few decades after implementation of the version from your statement.

There definatly is no such thing as a code of canon court in germany, you can only divorce before a federal german court. The only case where this court might exist here is within the churchs structure if a priest f.e. does something "wrong" in the context of that law, but that's pretty much an employer employee thing anyway and you get disciplinary punishment like demotion or transfer etc. in any civil company as well. If the priest does something really wrong like child abuse, the federal court system gets him anyway.

Nickdfresh
04-29-2008, 08:25 AM
Posted via PM by Drake:

Omitted



No I don't. It doesn't need to be controlled, since the problem I see is nothing corporeal like a terrorist attack, but rather a mindset dangerous to our western society as a whole, as I explained before. It's like the enlightenment in reverse, this one wasn't centrally orchestrated either. And this mindset is hardwired to the teachings of the koran, so if you are looking for the center of my "conspiracy theory" it would be there. This doesn't even mean, that every muslim understands koran like that, but a significant (two digit percentage) amount of them does and that is a problem for our societies. And it always will be, since those who do understand it like that cannot be persuaded to change that view and accept our values, since it is explicitly forbidden. I didn't make that one up, there actually is this order to follow the rules, but only as long as they can't be removed and replaced with sharia.

Exactly how are they the "threat?" What is their total population percentage in Germany? How do second and third generation Muslims differ from new immigrants? Do they not become 'Germanized?' More secular?


Again, you're assuming the Koran is taken literally by everyone. It simply is not!


And again, I can only repeat what I said several times before: It's not just about terrorists, I'd even say they are the minor problem in the long run. Like you said, centrally controlled plots are being uncovered by our intelligence agencies and police forces regularly.

I fail to see any long term threat with tightly controlled immigration policies and security forces designed to monitor and quash radicals.




It is a rude picture (though I didn't tirade) , but as a matter of fact the "hardcore" muslims have a significantly higher birthrate, even compared to moderate muslims. Btw, the nazis used the rat comparison not for their breeding habit but for other attributes, but you're right, it's inappropriate.

The Muslim birthrates are also subject to many factors. Many children is largely a third world mindset and are subject to many factors.

For instance, While Germany (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate&int=-1&id=gm) has a dismal population net loss of -.033%. Turkey (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate&int=-1&id=tu) has a net population growth of 1.4%, The United States (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate&int=-1&id=us) is at .894%. Iran's (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/peo_pop_gro_rat-people-population-growth-rate&int=-1&id=ir) population is actually growing less than the US's at .663% a year...

The more developed, the more the population growth begins to decline, and the US' net population growth is actually significantly higher than that cornerstone of the Axis of Evil, Iran's, is...


Wow, you're mixing up a whole bunch of things there. If I paint with a wide brush, you do just the same.
And do you really think those states are remotly comparable to europe? I don't care if the radicals couldn't seize power there for the moment. The fact that this was even a possibility should ring your alarm bells as it does mine.
Because this means they are around in numbers, maybe not yet a majority, but not that far off. And we have imported smaller versions of those societies, thank you very much.
And most, if not all of those states are factual dictatorships, sometimes with a democratic facade.
The one state within the muslim world we consider nearly western is turkey. And the last elections have been won by, guess who, religious fundamentalists.

Most of those dictatorships you speak of vary widely. In fact, we can talk about the pan-Arab nationalists types like Saddam. I was driving last night and heard an NPR story (US public radio news) on the status of Christians in the middle east. Not surprisingly, they are under pressure and now being forced out of Iraq. But in the days of Saddam, or in Nasser's/Sadat's Egypt, Christians were actively supported by these dictatorships (Saddam had churches built) because they were part of a constituency against Islamic fundamentalism, the main threat to the Westward looking dictators. Again, many of these dictatorships ruled with the belief that sometime later that their nations would achieve partial democracy (after they were gone of course ;)). And some of these dictatorships resulted as a direct military (secular) response to Islamic fundamentalism as happened in Algeria. Yet, Turkey and, to a limited extent, Iran are both democratic to varying extents. Democracy has also been forced on Iraq, but the problems there have much more to do with ethnicity than actual Islam. Along with the Christians being forced out, hundreds of thousands of Sunnis had to flee the country to Syria and Jordan as well. One could argue that in Europe, the security and structure that the secular, Pan-Arab-Nationalist dictatorship has been replaced by the structure of the democratic state that offers the carrot of political participation and the 'stick' of security forces under the Napoleonic Code and stable organs of bureaucracy ..


You know that I feel a little like Churchill here (I know, sometimes a bastard of his own right, and pretty presumptuous of me :mrgreen:) who warned of the Nazis and no one took him serious. I don't express those thoughts heedlessly, since I am well aware of the similarities of some of them with nazi propaganda and the high potential for abuse. I might be wrong, but if I am not, then we're in deep trouble over here.

Churchill was speaking in specific terms of an organized, hegemonic movement taking shape in an archrival at a time when some dismissed it as a bunch of incompetents or a positive "bulkwark against Bolshevism." Not some amorphous confluence of a religion that doesn't really exist...

BTW, Chamberlain is much maligned. He spoke of "peace in our time," but actually stalled the Germans and began preparing the British for the inevitable War. If he hadn't, and had things happened as they did earlier, the RAF would have had no Spitfires at the Battle of Britain...


Growing within the muslim community in europe, of course. And the muslim community in europe is growing as well.

Yes, but this varies. The population growth begins to plummet relative to how advanced the society becomes...


More to preserve ourselves and our culture.

They will be assimilated, provided there are limitations on how many come in. There's a big difference, I am certain, of a Muslim Kurd that immigrated to Germany, and one that was born there and attended German schools...

Nickdfresh
04-29-2008, 08:28 AM
The proportion of white population in the US and the EU, Slavic states declines the proportion of non-white quickly grows. The legislation is one of the means that creates necessary conditions for this.

Really? What is the "white" population in the US? Hispanics are "white," are they not?

And what exactly does this mean? What specific legislation? Slavery in the US which brought Africans here to begin with?

Rising Sun*
04-29-2008, 08:35 AM
This changes I made on your statements are the demands I'd expect to appear within a few decades after implementation of the version from your statement.

Perhaps.

But it will require some heavy support in a Western democracy, which I doubt is or will be present in the current climate of suspicion of Islam.

Anyway, haven't Canadians already surrendered themselves to a much greater sort of separatism demanded by the French in Quebec, which is just about as alien to their Anglo society as Islam? Given a choice between succumbing to Islam or the French, Islam doesn't look too bad. :D

These changes happen in all societies, in various ways with various demands and accommodations.

It's not that that long ago here that Catholics had trouble getting public service jobs. Not least because there were the same phobic and hostile attitudes to them in the dominant Anglo-Anglican community as we are seeing in many respects now with Western attitudes to Muslims.

In my lifetime I've seen it here with immigrant groups since WWII from various parts of northern and southern Europe, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Vietnam, and so on. I've also seen the earlier migrant groups have similar phobias about and hostility towards the later migrant groups.

We've pretty much accommodated most of them, although we would have done a lot better with better immigration screening; better assimilation rather than multi-cultural policies; and more vigorous deportation of proved problems early in their local anti-social and criminal careers. If we'd done that, we wouldn't be stuck with some of the Italian Mafia, Greek arsehole, Lebanese shit, and Asian triads, and Russians and their ilk who are even worse than the triads.

I don't see any reason why we can't accommodate Muslims, whose religion requires them to observe the host community's laws as long as it doesn't prevent them practising their religion, which our laws don't.

The fears of a Muslim takeover aren't any different to the same fears that existed here about Catholics until about half a century ago.

A lot of it is just fear of difference, born of ignorance and fear of change.


There definatly is no such thing as a code of canon court in germany, you can only divorce before a federal german court.

If you have a Catholic diocese, you have a canon law tribunal (or court). It's prescribed by the Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Catholics can be divorced by state law but that's not recognised in Church law, and vice versa.

A Catholic who wants to remarry after being divorced under state law must obtain an annulment under Church law if he or she wants the second marriage to be recognised, and not be sinful, under Church law.

Nickdfresh
04-29-2008, 09:04 AM
Yeah, you're right. Kato is banned from this thread at least. I hate deletions, but I'm no longer getting into his philosophical rantings on Eugenics...

Rising Sun*
04-29-2008, 09:17 AM
Yeah, you're right. Kato is banned from this thread at least. I hate deletions, but I'm no longer getting into his philosophical rantings on Eugenics...

I think you've responded to a post that I thought I'd deleted before anyone saw it.

I deleted it shortly after posting because I felt like I was telling you what to do.

And then I thought I wouldn't mind seeing you and Kato go at it. :D

Nickdfresh
04-29-2008, 09:19 AM
I've "gone at it" with him enough previously...

We've had these gratuitous, nature-vs.-nurture arguments before...

Rising Sun*
04-29-2008, 09:22 AM
I've "gone at it" with him enough previously...

We've had these gratuitous, nature-vs.-nurture arguments before...

True, but I've never been able to work out whether his views condemn nature or nurture. :D

Rising Sun*
04-29-2008, 09:50 PM
I am a messiah actually!

How about using your godly powers to split the Balkan Menace / Slavic Blood Feud Festival etc from this thread? :D

It's all a bit esoteric for those of us whose only interest in the Balkans is chevapccichi and spit roasts, while in the Ukraine it's limited to that spunky blonde prime minister sheila with the braided hair.

Nickdfresh
04-29-2008, 10:03 PM
How about using your godly powers to split the Balkan Menace / Slavic Blood Feud Festival etc from this thread? :D

It's all a bit esoteric for those of us whose only interest in the Balkans is chevapccichi and spit roasts, while in the Ukraine it's limited to that spunky blonde prime minister sheila with the braided hair.


Perhaps later. When the talisman to my powers, beer, has worn off...

Rising Sun*
04-29-2008, 10:10 PM
Perhaps later. When the talisman to my powers, beer, has worn off...

I don't like the sound of that.

It's a bad policy to let beer wear off.

We need a steady infusion of beer to make life bearable. Or beerable. :D

Nickdfresh
04-29-2008, 10:27 PM
I don't like the sound of that.

It's a bad policy to let beer wear off.

We need a steady infusion of beer to make life bearable. Or beerable. :D


I like to let the BAC level drop between major decisions, then ramp things up again!

gumalangi
04-29-2008, 11:36 PM
I don't like the sound of that.

It's a bad policy to let beer wear off.

We need a steady infusion of beer to make life bearable. Or beerable. :D

wisemen said,.. " beauty is in the eye of beerholder"

Rising Sun*
04-30-2008, 08:02 AM
wisemen said,.. " beauty is in the eye of beerholder"

Or the one wearing beer goggles. :D

Mate, Drake invited you a while back to contribute your views to this topic and I'd like to see them too.

What's lacking from this thread is informed opinions from any stream of Islam.

On a separate point, is that a youngish Soekarno in your new avatar?

Nickdfresh
04-30-2008, 11:23 AM
Mod Note*

Discussions regarding Kosovo have been split off into this thread. (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6855)

Please continue the discussion there...

Reopened, STAY ON TOPIC!*

gumalangi
05-01-2008, 07:58 PM
Or the one wearing beer goggles. :D

Mate, Drake invited you a while back to contribute your views to this topic and I'd like to see them too.

What's lacking from this thread is informed opinions from any stream of Islam.

On a separate point, is that a youngish Soekarno in your new avatar?

To be honest man,.. i dont want to be honest here,..

but i guess just to add color in this discussion,...
Islam is not a religion by just a birth to me,.. I earned it,. i think george eller knows,. ppl from my region are christian majority (menado),.. i can learn peace from islam.,. as we are thought to be patient (pasrah) to God's Will,. and accept His will,.. it is correct that we are subject to defend ourselves from any aggressions,..

i really hope people able to see,. that there are extremists in any form of society,. as a moslem myself,..i love peace to the max,.. why,.. so i could perform my pray peacefully,. can visit my friends and collegues during ramadhan,.. and go to Mecca when my time is right,.. and all with peace of mind,.. I used to learn to read Koran where the preacher speaks nothing but how important it is to tolerate others,. and to respect others ,.. as we want to be tolerated and respected,,..

THIS is non political statement from me,. this just my simple explanation with regards to my religion and the Messenger that i love so,..

btw,. The guy is Grand General Soedirman,. the very first Indonesian Military Leader,. Guerilla master,.. despite his power over army,. he choosed to stay out political rings,.. very proffesional soldier,.. sadly,. he died young,.. not even reached 40 yrs oldf

Cheers
G

Utora
05-02-2008, 05:18 AM
I've read several posts in this thread...and I watch the news and do my best to read and educate myself because only a fool assumes he knows everything.

"Anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day should speak with goodness, or otherwise hold his peace." [Saheeh Muslim]


Umm..not seeing much of that, but to each his own?
I have a Muslim "comrade", as in we exchange thoughts, via the internet. I rarely talk to him, but I find the best way to really hear people is to treat them like a human being, so as long as he does that, and I do that...we seem to be fine.

He pointed something out to me, similar to this statement;

"That belief should be based on knowledge and clear proofs, rather than on blind faith and it should also not contradict our reasoning, for why would God create reason and religion that fundamentally contradict each other?"

Ok, something just..really..didn't make sense to me which sure if I reduced my brain power it might work out. But I over analyze, so I looked at the first part.

"That belief should be based on knowledge and clear proofs -"

Believe:
1) to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
2) to suppose or assume; understand

Belief:
1) something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2) confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3) confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

Therefore it is a belief, not -the- belief everyone else has to endure.

"- it should also not contradict our reasoning, -"

Our reasoning? The truth is not limited to man's lack of understanding or reason.

"- for why would God create reason and religion that fundamentally contradict each other?"

I'll advert to my statement prior to the quote above. It's more like "Why would MAN create reason and religion that fundamentally contradict each other?" because apparently if anyone asks questions we behead them. That's why "God" doesn't.

I also hear a lot of this "I'm not an extremist." stuff. That's really good, why don't we see more of them on TV bringing home a little R&R for the rest of the Islam radicals? The radicals are those who take the religion to the fullest extent. They illustrate what the religion is truly about. I mean, they've only been doing this "Kill the infidel." act for over 1000+ years. But Isure, we can go ahead and rest on the possibility they're just radicals and, it's worth over looking that to find those 'nice guys'.

:roll:

Guide to Missionary Tactics (http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=251)

Check it out...and the site too. Jeeze, they sound pretty threatened to me. If someone came to me trying to convert me to Buddhism, Christian, Muslim - I'd at least listen. The truth is the truth, always has and always will be, and we're all human, doesn't mean I'll buy what you're selling but I'm not going to lie and hide from you. Of course unless, you'd like to behead me.

:D

They are a threat, and people just love to pacify themselves. During WW2, most countries either didn't believe, or pursued life as it was...obviously those countries who were engaged are exempt. We ignore it until it costs -us-, the -individual- something. So until you're actually threatened it means little.

The theory is that the Koran was written by God through Mohamed and is therefore without error and infallible.

Then...why didn't their God write it, like...[thinks] the Ten Commandments? Come on, we all make up our religions, make it perfect!

People want to avoid religion when this whole flop is a religious war.

There's a lot that goes through my minds. I feel we wait much longer we'll be at war. World war...that is if it just keeps going. You don't hear anybody else doing suicide bombings their "God"...yes he gave you this wonderful life, strap some Composition B to yourself and have fun.


I don't know everything, but I know they make a wonderful name for themselves and it's written in the blood and guts of everyone who "turned away" from the Islam people. I'm not really interested anymore in "non extremists"...they'd better convert because they really don't stand out from the extremists.

That's my 2 cents and a wooden Reich's Mark.

Rising Sun*
05-02-2008, 06:09 AM
To be honest man,.. i dont want to be honest here,..

but i guess just to add color in this discussion,...
Islam is not a religion by just a birth to me,.. I earned it,. i think george eller knows,. ppl from my region are christian majority (menado),.. i can learn peace from islam.,. as we are thought to be patient (pasrah) to God's Will,. and accept His will,.. it is correct that we are subject to defend ourselves from any aggressions,..

i really hope people able to see,. that there are extremists in any form of society,. as a moslem myself,..i love peace to the max,.. why,.. so i could perform my pray peacefully,. can visit my friends and collegues during ramadhan,.. and go to Mecca when my time is right,.. and all with peace of mind,.. I used to learn to read Koran where the preacher speaks nothing but how important it is to tolerate others,. and to respect others ,.. as we want to be tolerated and respected,,..

THIS is non political statement from me,. this just my simple explanation with regards to my religion and the Messenger that i love so,..



And that, I think, represents the attitude of a very large part of the Islamic world.

It would have been a bigger part before the Western invasion of Iraq polarised many Muslims.

Rising Sun*
05-02-2008, 06:19 AM
Bahrain challenges the notion that all Islamic countries are now intolerant of other religions and rabidly anti-Jewish and anti-Christian.


Nono is the first Jewish woman in the Shura Council, which includes a Christian woman among its 11 female legislators. All its members are appointed by the king. The elected 40-member lower house has only one woman lawmaker. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/30/africa/ME-GEN-Bahrain-US-Ambassador.php

However, Bahrain's history also demonstrates the damage done by the establishment and conduct of Israel to a community previously tolerant of Jews, although Bahrainis themselves seem to have remained tolerant. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/bahrain.html

Panzerknacker
05-02-2008, 10:20 AM
I've read several posts in this thread...and I watch the news and do my best to read and educate myself because only a fool assumes he knows everything


Is the thing that everyone should do, first read, then answer.

Thanks for your post. ;)

Rising Sun*
05-02-2008, 11:47 AM
"That belief should be based on knowledge and clear proofs -"

All religions have beliefs and proofs, that satisfy them.

Islam accepts the prophets in the old and new testaments. If you discount the beliefs and proofs in Islam, you also discount those for Judaism and Christianity.


""- for why would God create reason and religion that fundamentally contradict each other?"

Because so far as people like me are concerned, the concept of a god who loves his creation of man and who can do such things or allow the Holocaust or Rwanda or Kampuchea or Darfur is utter bullshit.

People who want to barrack for a particular religious team have a different view, bound up in Jesuitical intellectual abstractions about free will and so on, or just zealous and irrational adherence to a given creed. If that makes them happy or helps them to accept all the evil in the world which their god allows to happen, good luck to them.




"I'll advert to my statement prior to the quote above. It's more like "Why would MAN create reason and religion that fundamentally contradict each other?" because apparently if anyone asks questions we behead them. That's why "God" doesn't.

Ever heard of Joan of Arc? The Spanish Inquisitions? Galileo?

Not a lot of acceptance of contradiction by the Christians in those cases.



The radicals are those who take the religion to the fullest extent. They illustrate what the religion is truly about. I mean, they've only been doing this "Kill the infidel." act for over 1000+ years. But Isure, we can go ahead and rest on the possibility they're just radicals and, it's worth over looking that to find those 'nice guys'.

Current prejudice towards Muslims often results in overlooking the many attempts many of them make to engage with the non-Islamic community. I've accepted the invitation of Muslims like those in the article below to hear their explanation of their religion in their prayer rooms. They're a bloody sight more welcoming and tolerant than the Catholic lay people and clergy who tried, unsuccessfully for the first fifteen years of my life, to institute my religious formation.


"I also hear a lot of this "I'm not an extremist." stuff. That's really good, why don't we see more of them on TV bringing home a little R&R for the rest of the Islam radicals?

The same reason that you don't turn on your TV and see news reports of traffic flowing smoothly or people living happily and co-operatively.

The only cars you'll see have been crashed and the people will be the tiny proportion in the community who are criminals or other anti-social ratbags, like politicians.

Nothing like this article ever appears in the national press, nor are the sentiments expressed in it accepted by those who want to believe that all Muslims are intent on taking over the West and subjugating us to Islam.


Muslims reach out on Australia Day
By Roderick Shaw 15 January 2008

Local Muslims will celebrate Australia Day with a special service and invitations to Marsden Park's Baitul Huda Mosque which means House of Guidance.

The program's co-ordinator, Mirza Sharif, said Muslims would celebrate their Australian identity while reaching out to the broader community.

"Islam teaches us to have a love of our nation," Mr Sharif said.

"Islam teaches us we should reach out to every individual in the nation.

"As residents of Australia, we want to instil that in our children."

The Ahmadiyya Muslim community is hosting the Australia Day celebration.

The Ahmadiyya movement teaches that no religion has a monopoly of truth and that no single religion offers spiritual salvation.

"We like to say: `Love for all, hatred for none'," Mr Sharif said.

The Baitul Huda imam, Mahmood Ahmad, said worshippers would also pray for Australia's well-being.

"We find Australia to be a good country with fairly tolerant people," Mr Ahmad said.

"If some individuals do bad things, we cannot blame everybody and no one should condemn all Australians."

He said Islam had no place for terrorism and should not be judged because of a few extremist individuals.

Mr Sharif said anti-Muslim feelings in Australia were not as strong as in some other countries and there is a growing understanding of Islam in Australia, with relations between the communities improving.

"We've had inter-faith meetings and visitors' excursions here," Mr Sharif said.

"Some Catholic school students visited the mosque one day and left knowing more about Islam than when they came in.

"We've also had humanitarian programs for the Red Cross and the Salvation Army."

The Baitul Huda Mosque Australia Day program starts at 2pm on January 26.

The mosque is located at 20 Hollinsworth Road, Marsden Park. http://rousehill.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/muslims-reach-out-on-australia-day/1162532.html


If someone came to me trying to convert me to Buddhism, Christian, Muslim - I'd at least listen.

I wouldn't.

They can all **** off as far as I'm concerned.

There's a world of difference between someone explaining their religion to me and trying to force me to join it.

It's remarkable that we have laws controlling door to door sales of consumer items and telemarketers but nothing regulating self-appointed god botherers peddling their preferred brand of celestial bullshit in the belief that they have the right to convert me to their form of delusion.


They are a threat,

Does gumalangi's post at #123 sound like a threat?

I’d rather live among tolerant and good people like him than people who type him just because of his religion as a threat to peace.

Events in recent years indicate that people like Dubya are a much bigger threat to peace, and to people like gumalangi, than he and most Muslims are to them.


The theory is that the Koran was written by God through Mohamed and is therefore without error and infallible.

Then...why didn't their God write it, like...[thinks] the Ten Commandments? Come on, we all make up our religions, make it perfect!

Probably the same reason that God was too busy to write it for the Catholics, who among other things are required to believe in the infallibility of the Pope, an office which, to use an unfortunate but apposite phrase, has covered itself in shit over the clerical child sexual abuse scandal.


There's a lot that goes through my minds. I feel we wait much longer we'll be at war. World war...that is if it just keeps going. You don't hear anybody else doing suicide bombings their "God"...yes he gave you this wonderful life, strap some Composition B to yourself and have fun.

Gott mit uns?

In God we trust?

Defender of the Faith?

A rather horrifying amount of violence perpetrated from those sources.



I don't know everything, but I know they make a wonderful name for themselves and it's written in the blood and guts of everyone who "turned away" from the Islam people. I'm not really interested anymore in "non extremists"...they'd better convert because they really don't stand out from the extremists.

They’d better convert, to what?

Christianity? With its long history of tolerance, peace and love of mankind as expressed in centuries of religiously based warfare and persecution of non-believers?

Or the sort of tolerant Islam which gumalangi expressed, which is exactly the sort of Islam, and general human attitude, with which we should all engage to avoid the viciousness of crazy Islamists beheading people and crazy neo-cons blundering into countries they have no right to be in and causing more problems than they solve.

Drake
05-02-2008, 12:17 PM
Ever heard of Joan of Arc? The Spanish Inquisitions? Galileo?

Not a lot of acceptance of contradiction by the Christians in those cases.


Might be helpful to add dates to those cases, as time seems to be a critical and overlooked component here. But europeans like me are anyhow more from a third faction today called atheists or agnostics. Never really understood why you and Nick jumped at this "but the christians also did.." train, it lacks significance for todays situation. But since we are talking in a historic context here, it were also christians who dismantled the stranglehold of the church through reformation and led the world to and through the area of enlightenment. Since particularly my fellow german ancestors paid a high price for the first feat I am not to inclined to allow anything to grow on our soil that could reverse those achievements.

Nickdfresh
05-02-2008, 12:23 PM
I'm still waiting for the answer to one simple question I've posed:

What are the cumulative numbers of deaths due to wars, genocides, ethnic cleanings, pogroms, murders, and overall crime rates broken down by the religious majorities of the countries of origin over the last 200 years?

Then tell me, who has more of the above strife: Islamic countries, or Christian countries?

Stop beating around the bush! Because I simply cannot recall anything approaching the Holocaust of of WWII in terms of deaths of say Soviet civilians or Jews that can even be called comparable to one conducted by a Muslim society...

Drake
05-02-2008, 12:26 PM
You call that a simple question??
And where do you see the significance? In ww1 and ww2 europeans mostly battled other europeans, they weren't religious conflicts, not even ostensibly.
A crime like the holocaust always needs an element of opportunity. A lion in a zoo lacks the opportunity to kill you, that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it if the bars were removed.

Rising Sun*
05-02-2008, 12:57 PM
Might be helpful to add dates to those cases, as time seems to be a critical and overlooked component here.

Yes and no.

Europe in 1950 was probably closer to Europe in 1550 in social attitudes than Europe in 1950, or even 1960, is to today's very liberal attitudes.

England's last prosecution under the Witchcraft Act of 1735 was in 1944. It's debatable that it was based on a genuine prosecution belief that the defendant was a witch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/modern/oddities_modern.shtml Still, England was using laws against witches during WWII, which hardly suggests that England was a highly developed rational and secular society even then.


But europeans like me are anyhow more from a third faction today called atheists or agnostics.

As am I.


Never really understood why you and Nick jumped at this "but the christians also did.." train, it lacks significance for todays situation.

Yes, unlike me, Nick can be hard to understand. :D

The significance is that Westerners aren’t that long out of the religious trees that they can label others as religious monkeys because they’re still in the religious trees.

There is also no shortage of evangelical Christians who are still further up the tree than most of their ancestors.


But since we are talking in a historic context here, it were also christians who dismantled the stranglehold of the church through reformation and led the world to and through the area of enlightenment. Since particularly my fellow german ancestors paid a high price for the first feat I am not to inclined to allow anything to grow on our soil that could reverse those achievements.

Is that a German nationalist or a German Lutheran / Christian view?

Drake
05-02-2008, 01:58 PM
Yes and no.
Europe in 1950 was probably closer to Europe in 1550 in social attitudes than Europe in 1950, or even 1960, is to today's very liberal attitudes.


That may very well be true. All the more reason to be observant, it could very well go in the other direction in the same amount of time.





Yes, unlike me, Nick can be hard to understand. :D


:mrgreen:



The significance is that Westerners aren’t that long out of the religious trees that they can label others as religious monkeys because they’re still in the religious trees.

There is also no shortage of evangelical Christians who are still further up the tree than most of their ancestors.


Hrhr, nice picture. We shouldn't label those who make an effort to climb down, but what about those climbing up, christian, muslim or otherwise? To be honest, I don't even understand why the US f.e. allows the christian right to teach creationist biology. There are definatly obvious flaws in certain aspects of that particular democracy and religion. I wouldn't want 3 Million of those christian nutjobs here either, that has to be said in all fairness towards muslims. I wouldn't want a jehovas witness as a health minister here. If I were in charge they wouldn't get the choice to let their sick child die because they think medicine is evil and a prayer will help. They would face the same opposition from me, if I would currently consider them anywhere on the same threat level to civilization as the backward and possibly violent parts of the muslims. But the simple thruth is they aren't.



Is that a German nationalist or a German Lutheran / Christian view?

A german historians' view on german lutheran history. I was thinking about the thirty years war there, probably the bloodiest civil war ever, in terms of percentage killed. And those were just catholic and lutheran christians (together with half of europeans monarchs power politics). It all started out nice after luther, there was coexistence until there wasn't.

Rising Sun*
05-02-2008, 03:10 PM
To be honest, I don't even understand why the US f.e. allows the christian right to teach creationist biology. There are definatly obvious flaws in certain aspects of that particular democracy and religion. I wouldn't want 3 Million of those christian nutjobs here either, that has to be said in all fairness towards muslims. I wouldn't want a jehovas witness as a health minister here. If I were in charge they wouldn't get the choice to let their sick child die because they think medicine is evil and a prayer will help. They would face the same opposition from me, if I would currently consider them anywhere on the same threat level to civilization as the backward and possibly violent parts of the muslims.

Something else we agree on completely.

I think that many of us agree that extremism or fundamentalism or religious fascism or whatever you want to call it, whether bin Laden in his Islamic cave or Koresh in Christian Waco, is bad and incompatible with Western society.

I think the debates revolve around what that generalisation means and how we deal with them in ways compatible with our traditions of religious and other freedoms without allowing those extremisms etc to overwhelm and destroy the system that allows them to exist and even flourish in ways they can't in their homelands.

Sorry, I can identify the problem but I don't have the solution. :(

Chevan
05-02-2008, 04:39 PM
Sorry, I can identify the problem but I don't have the solution. :(
And nobody have...
Therefore the best way for us for the while is to prevent the spread of Muslim religion at all.
As the favorable soil of religion extremism.
At least via the supportion of Chistian religion.
I don't wish to say among the Chistians there are no maniacs.. But this is our matter, to the contrast with Radical Islam.

gumalangi
05-02-2008, 05:27 PM
And nobody have...
Therefore the best way for us for the while is to prevent the spread of Muslim religion at all.
.


it's abit late i'm supposed, my children from my catholic wife's womb are moslem, and they happy with it,.. it was their choice between the two,. islam and catholic,. and they choose the former.

And somehow,. your method on how to create a better world is no different to the what Osama has said on his own version of better world,.. preventing the spread of west culture to the moslem world,..

i still a strong believer of,.. it is not grant you to do wrongdoing things to the wrongdoers,... it just makes you the same to the wrongdoers,..

Cheers
G

tankgeezer
05-03-2008, 01:39 PM
This may not be totally germain, but last night at my favorite donut shop, a car pulled in bearing the license plate "ISLAM4U" what if I dont want islam4me? or doesnt that matter I wonder?

gumalangi
05-03-2008, 04:35 PM
This may not be totally germain, but last night at my favorite donut shop, a car pulled in bearing the license plate "ISLAM4U" what if I dont want islam4me? or doesnt that matter I wonder?

consider that as advert.,.. like vote for Hillary,.. or vote for whoever.,..
if you dont want to vote at all,. supposed,.. does it really matter?

or JesusLovesu,.. but i dont love him,.. does it matter?

Cheers

redcoat
05-03-2008, 04:56 PM
England's last prosecution under the Witchcraft Act of 1735 was in 1944. It's debatable that it was based on a genuine prosecution belief that the defendant was a witch. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/modern/oddities_modern.shtml Still, England was using laws against witches during WWII, which hardly suggests that England was a highly developed rational and secular society even then.

Actually, the Witchcraft Act of 1735 was an act which stated that witchcraft didn't exist and therefore anyone claiming to be a witch was a fake, so if somebody claimed to be a witch and charged money for it, they could be prosecuted for fraud.

ps, The women already had a previous conviction for fraud in the 1930's

Digger
05-03-2008, 11:47 PM
Some very interesting points of view here, but the thing I've always found as soon as ism becomes a part of a movement, extremism begins.

Is Islam a threat to the west? No.

Is radical Islamic facism a threat? Yes, but probably more so to moderate Muslims.

I wish more Muslims would take part in this debate, but they're probably scared off by some comments here.

tankgeezer
05-04-2008, 10:02 AM
consider that as advert.,.. like vote for Hillary,.. or vote for whoever.,..
if you dont want to vote at all,. supposed,.. does it really matter?

or JesusLovesu,.. but i dont love him,.. does it matter?

Cheers

I have equal contempt for any "ist" or "ism" they are all inherently suspect. I would care no more for a sign saying christianity4U, or humanism 4U, or whatever 4U. The motivating thought is that whatever I may be, is needing to be changed, because it is faulty, or perhaps perceived to be lesser than what the sign promotes. I consider any such manipulation a slap in the face.
The upshot of all this is that it will engender resentment towards the promoted ist or ism, and the people promoting it. The forgoing is just my opinion, if it bothers anyone,,,, too bad.

Rising Sun*
05-05-2008, 07:43 AM
Actually, the Witchcraft Act of 1735 was an act which stated that witchcraft didn't exist and therefore anyone claiming to be a witch was a fake, so if somebody claimed to be a witch and charged money for it, they could be prosecuted for fraud.


Thanks.

Interesting.

That's what I get for not reading the bloody Act and just making the obvious assmption. :(

gumalangi
05-05-2008, 08:46 AM
Some very interesting points of view here, but the thing I've always found as soon as ism becomes a part of a movement, extremism begins.

Is Islam a threat to the west? No.

Is radical Islamic facism a threat? Yes, but probably more so to moderate Muslims.

I wish more Muslims would take part in this debate, but they're probably scared off by some comments here.

You are very correct sir,. i was at the beginning was trying to back myself,.
but likewise you said,.. thst would be better should all color are presents in any form of discussions,. so people able to see what is red,.. or blue,. instead of heard what is the color of red or blue,.

however,.. this regret me seeing people saying,.. islam is menacing,.. as i am a moslem myslef,.. in my entire almost 40 years of living,. i had a brawl only for couple of time,.. it was during my primary school (not even a teen) time,.. and that was over minor things,.. What made me afraid was,..
"Allah will punish you in the later days,. if you harm other people,..."

Regards
G

Rising Sun*
05-05-2008, 09:00 AM
You are very correct sir,. i was at the beginning was trying to back myself,.
but likewise you said,.. thst would be better should all color are presents in any form of discussions,. so people able to see what is red,.. or blue,. instead of heard what is the color of red or blue,.

however,.. this regret me seeing people saying,.. islam is menacing,.. as i am a moslem myslef,.. in my entire almost 40 years of living,. i had a brawl only for couple of time,.. it was during my primary school (not even a teen) time,.. and that was over minor things,.. What made me afraid was,..
"Allah will punish you in the later days,. if you harm other people,..."

Regards
G

As I said in response to one of your earlier posts. I suspect that much of the Islamic world has a similar view.

As do many people of other faiths or no faiths all around the world, who want only a decent and happy life for themselves and their children.

Rising Sun*
05-05-2008, 09:17 AM
Is Islam a threat to the west? No.

Is the West a threat to Islam? Judging by recent ill-judged and rather unsuccessful military adventures and related political comment, significant parts of the West are.

Chicken and the egg, but it's easy to see why Islamo-fascists (about whom I care nothing) but, more worringly, many more Muslims feel threatened.


Is radical Islamic facism a threat? Yes, but probably more so to moderate Muslims.

Or just Muslims who don't agree with whichever Muslims have the guns in certain parts of world, a lot of which is just sectarian and tribal bullshit.

But when it gets down to control of Mecca etc, Muslims are definitely at the greatest risk from other Muslims. Which is rather odd given the reasonably radical or fundamentalist form of Islam relentlessly exported by Saudi Arabia with huge petrodollars, while bin Laden regards them as about equal with the US as his enemy for not being worthy as custodians of Mecca etc.

Rising Sun*
05-05-2008, 11:14 AM
The solution is simple. Gather up all them people, hire a big ship and load them all up and send them all to Austraila. Rather there, than here. The Brittish did this many centuries with their undesireables so it should be ok to do it again. I mean why should they stay here if they don't asimilate. Simply send them all to the Kangaroo island where they can preach their beliefs to one another far away from here.

And, my dear little boy, they'd be received here with rather more consideration than you've managed to display, as have thousands of Muslims who've migrated here for a better life and settled in well.

Our migration policies are so liberal that we'd even admit a ****wit like you. Which I expect upon your departure would cause sighs of relief across several provinces, if not outright joy and nationally funded fireworks, in Canada.

Now, sonny boy, how about stopping your pre-pubesecent (it means you ain't got hair around your numb nuts and wouldn't know what a stiffy is or how to use it) trolling and make some sensible contributions apart from solving everything with half a dozen nukes that weren't available to slaughter Germany and Japan after they surrendered?

Nickdfresh
05-05-2008, 05:17 PM
You call that a simple question??
And where do you see the significance? In ww1 and ww2 europeans mostly battled other europeans, they weren't religious conflicts, not even ostensibly.
A crime like the holocaust always needs an element of opportunity. A lion in a zoo lacks the opportunity to kill you, that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it if the bars were removed.

But, what societies are the most violent then?

Why is Islam more of a "threat" to societies whose supposed Christianity, state sanctioned or otherwise, was unable to restrain the largest death tolls in history?

Nickdfresh
05-05-2008, 05:19 PM
...
Yes, unlike me, Nick can be hard to understand. :D

....

I know. My impenetrable, complex thoughts are hard to decipher with mere language...

Nickdfresh
05-05-2008, 05:22 PM
And nobody have...
Therefore the best way for us for the while is to prevent the spread of Muslim religion at all.
As the favorable soil of religion extremism.
At least via the supportion of Chistian religion.
I don't wish to say among the Chistians there are no maniacs.. But this is our matter, to the contrast with Radical Islam.


How in the world would you go about this?

And the only way Islam is really spreading is by the birth of new little Muslims...

Nickdfresh
05-05-2008, 05:55 PM
This may not be totally germain, but last night at my favorite donut shop, a car pulled in bearing the license plate "ISLAM4U" what if I dont want islam4me? or doesnt that matter I wonder?

But how many "Got Jesus?" bumper stickers and the like have you seen?

Or "abortion is murder!"?

On a side note:

One of the stranger religious incidents in my life took place while attending college in Buffalo, NY. I used to pass through the Student Union there for two reasons: Mainly, it was an easy short cut to numerous buildings. Secondly, there were a cabal of young hotties hanging out there in their short skirts and tight jeans on their way to a meal or the one of the booths or the book store to be overcharged for an edition they could have bought used.

In any case, once while I was in a hurry to walk back to my car after class in an effort to get closer to a cold beer and watch a hockey game, a bearded, black clad and fedora adorned man was passing out some sort of literature in the form of brochures. As I approached I noticed that his beard was rangy and he was in his mid to late twenties, and seemed to take a peculiar interest in me among the throng of masses floating about. For a split second, noticing his attention, I thought of turning about and hitting the ATM machine or a shop, but it was too late, I neared him --doing so would have been unduly awkward. He approached me as I was about to pass by and addressed me with "Shalom" as if I were Jewish.

I've been told that I look slightly Jewish and may well have Jewish ancestry. But I have never been informed of it and was raised (in vain) as Catholic and as far as I know, my father's side was Episcopal (Anglican) before converting to marry my very Catholic mother. The man, who I realized was probably a Hasidic Jew from New York City doing some sort of of religious duty, asked me something to the affect of when the last time I was "to temple?" I felt a slight bit of discomfort and just said, "well, never. I'm Catholic. And I don't go to church either"..."My brother in law is Jewish though." I smiled to ease any tension, and he gave me this disapproving look --as if I had just denied my maker to his face. He just said "oh."

I said something to the affect of, "hey man, it's good you feel strongly about your faith" but he just gave me this stern, disapproving look like I was just another undercover, or nonobservant, Jew trying to get out of my piety or something, and I felt really uncomfortable. So I walked on without saying anything other than "I have to go."

I saw him in the Union for a time afterward, and every time I walked by he would make this eye contact and shake his head. After a while, I got so annoyed that I walked right by him one day and screamed out "MASHUGANA!" and smiled as I brushed past. He never looked at me again after that...

Rising Sun*
05-07-2008, 08:55 AM
I ran into a Muslim woman I know today, who with a few female Muslim friends spends Wednesday lunchtimes outside a library handing out information they prepare about the Koran and Islam, to inform people about her religion to try to improve understanding of it in a hostile environment as distinct from trying to convert anyone to it.

She is a delightful, highly intelligent, and tolerant yet devout woman who has overcome a great deal of adversity after fleeing Afghanistan as a child with her family.

During our conversation I asked her if she got much hostility from people.

Not much.

Apart from the very rare individual, it all came from constant attacks by a Christian evangelical group who seem to think they have the sole right to peddle their religion to people entering the library. The evangelists are trying to convert people, not just inform them.

This woman and her friends are not an Islamic or any other threat to anyone. They are doing their best to try to explain that to everyone. They are outstanding examples of devout Muslims who practise their religion in a nominally Christian country as one of tolerance and concern for others.

Which is exactly the opposite of the Christian evangelists who want them removed.

Sure, little anecdotes like this prove nothing. Except what happens at the grass roots levels rather than the sensationalist rubbish broadcast by the news media, politicians, and bigots who lump all Muslims into the bin Laden camp.

Drake
05-07-2008, 12:24 PM
I'd love to see what would happen to a delightful, highly intelligent, and tolerant yet devout woman who only explains the christian or buddhist or hinduist faith and doesn't want to convert people on the street in any nominally islamic country.

gumalangi
05-12-2008, 01:51 PM
I'd love to see what would happen to a delightful, highly intelligent, and tolerant yet devout woman who only explains the christian or buddhist or hinduist faith and doesn't want to convert people on the street in any nominally islamic country.

I think you're being too much washed by media over freedom of religious over moslem countries,..

do you know,. Indonesia is the biggest moslem countries in the world,.. the census in 1990 was above 90% of the population were moslem,. in 2000,. it was 86.1% and closing to 2010,.. it steadily decreased to almost 80%,..

if freedom of religion are so bad in Indonesia (which one of moslem countries,. why the numbers of moslems are declining??)

Drake
05-12-2008, 02:53 PM
Indonesia has a muslim population majority, it is however not an islamic country. The province of Aceh would probably qualify for that and I wouldn't try the described feat there.

gumalangi
05-12-2008, 03:42 PM
Indonesia has a muslim population majority, it is however not an islamic country.

You may say that as formally we were never claimed ourself as a moslem country and to be honest, i am happy for that,.

however facts explained other wise,. Indonesia is a member of International Muslim countries organizations (OIC), western powers somehow regards Indonesia as one of Muslim countries.

quote:
With the Israel-PLO agreement in place, first Arafat and then Rabin visited Jakarta and talked with Suharto. One year later Abdurrahman Wahid, the moderate leader of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the thirty-million-strong, traditionalist Islamic organiza*tion, and Djohan Effendi, a leading Islamic intellectual in interfaith dialogue and private speech writer for Suharto, visited Jerusalem at the invitation of Prime Minister Rabin to witness the signing of the peace accord with Jordan.

Israelis,. in order to smoothen their way for the peace process,. one of the step was to approach Indonesia,. the largest muslim state

moreover., the daily activities in Indonesia still very much influenced by the activities of muslims as a whole,.(every friday,. all male workers/students have their right to perform friday pray which took about 1-1.5hrs with no disputes from their bosses/schools),. you will hear Adzan in every time of praying from all over the places in Indonesia,. and many other things that can I assured you that we are indeed a muslim country.

Cheers
G

Drake
05-12-2008, 04:03 PM
however facts explained other wise,. Indonesia is a member of International Muslim countries organizations (OIC), western powers somehow regards Indonesia as one of Muslim countries.


Lol, so is Cameroon, with barely 20% muslims (who discriminate other beliefs in their territories), so a membership to that club hardly proofs anything.

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 07:58 AM
Indonesia has a muslim population majority, it is however not an islamic country.

I think it is. In the same way that Ireland and Italy used to be overtly Catholic and most Western nations are still essentially Christian, except we don't see it because we don't notice those elements in our culture (Easter; Christmas; Christian prayers in Parliament; God Bless you if you sneeze; Christian churches all over the place; bishops with mitres and croziers blessing things on important occasions or commenting on moral issues in the news media; evangelical Christian pastors on television; crucifixes on chains around people's necks; fish symbols and smug 'Christians aren't perfect but they're saved' bumper stickers on cars; etc, etc). But we notice a hijab or mosque because they're different, and made much more so courtesy of bin Laden and Co who have about as much to do with mainstream Islam as David Koresh or polygamous Mormons have to do with mainstream Christianity

I also think that Indonesia is a model of an Islamic nation which manages about as well as one opposed relgiously based culture can to engage with another opposed religiously based culture, not to mention rather more significant cultural differences between East and West.

The West is just as much rooted in Christianity in general as Indonesia is in Islam, except we see in them what we can't recognise in ourselves. And no doubt vice versa.

There have been significant tensions, included armed conflict, between Indonesia and Australia at various points since WWII and there has been mutual suspicion and hostility between us, and there still is at some levels and will be in future and maybe we'll eventually have a full on war, but the conflicts so far have all been at the usual political levels rather than anything to do with conflict with Islam. Despite the purely cultural and religious-culture differences, we have got on with Indonesia after some extraordinarily difficult periods much better than the West has managed with many Islamic nations so far as outright conflict is concerned.

As the smallest Western population in the world outside Europe and North America and living next door to the largest Muslim population in the world, that suggests that Indonesia as a Muslim / Asian nation isn't a Muslim menace intent on taking over a Christian / Western nation.

Indonesia is very much more an Islamic country than America is a Christian country judged by numbers of followers of a religion, despite the government and officialdom of the United States of America routinely invoking Christianity to support their actions, e.g. In God we trust http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html and endless imprecations of God Bless America. Where the motto of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia is 'Unity in Diversity'. While 'e pluribus unum', which had a similar meaning (out of many, one) was the motto of the United States of America until it abandoned the non-religious one and went for the God version in 1956 during the same era that Indonesia went for a non-religious one.

Indonesia is, however, a very moderate Islamic nation even though it has some worrying elements of radical Islam such as Jemaah Islamiya which are part of that region http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ji.htm

While not free of internal divisions at times, just like every other government, the Indonesian government and particularly the current one under President Yudhoyono has been considerably more active and effective in dealing with such radical elements than, say Pakistan or the eternally duplicitous Saudis who foment Islamic radicalism everywhere they can. Not least because in Indonesia, as in every other Islamic nation, the radical elements are a bigger threat to the established order than anyone else.

Just like crazy fundamentalist Christians in America who want America to support Israel as a pre-condition to the second coming of Christ are just as mad and violent, indirectly by supporting adventures like Iraq if not directly by much smaller adventures like suicide bombing on a bus, and dangerous as Islamic fundamentalists.

32Bravo
05-13-2008, 08:35 AM
Women IN Black


I caught the latter part of this episode when it was aired last week. It was both enlightening and entertaining (and the babes were rather nice), so much so, that I regretted not having caught all of it. However, the series continues this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b94wq

gumalangi
05-13-2008, 08:43 AM
Lol, so is Cameroon, with barely 20% muslims (who discriminate other beliefs in their territories), so a membership to that club hardly proofs anything.

All right,. you may win over OIC thing,.

how you win over Rabin's opinion?,.. he might be killed,. however,. he was considered one of the most succesful israelis leaders that should able to lead his country to peace deal,. and his moved on approaching Indonesia was a right one,..

You go to indonesia,. than you know how muslim Indonesia is,..
as i went to Germany years back, to see how octoberfest effecting the germans,.. and to found out that germans are not warmonger huns as used to be pictured decades ago,..

cheers

Drake
05-13-2008, 09:07 AM
Of course indonesia is a muslim country, but it's not islamic. This picture from wiki might give you an idea of what I was talking about, look for the bright green spots.

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 09:18 AM
Of course indonesia is a muslim country, but it's not islamic. This picture from wiki might give you an idea of what I was talking about, look for the bright green spots.

What distinguishes a Muslim country from an Islamic one?

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 09:24 AM
as i went to Germany years back, to see how octoberfest effecting the germans,.. and to found out that germans are not warmonger huns as used to be pictured decades ago,..

True, but the Germans are all drunk at Oktoberfest.

They couldn't write their names then, never mind make war. :D

gumalangi
05-13-2008, 09:34 AM
True, but the Germans are all drunk at Oktoberfest.

They couldn't write their names then, never mind make war. :D

:D this new one to me,. :D

however make sense,. this explained on their so called 'plan orient'
or ultra secret weapon that so secret as it never make appearance,..
or perhaps.. SS divisions that was so created to be consisted of germans best sons,. however number of Hindus, Maoris, balkan Muslims and even russians were among them.

gumalangi
05-13-2008, 09:35 AM
Women IN Black


I caught the latter part of this episode when it was aired last week. It was both enlightening and entertaining (and the babes were rather nice), so much so, that I regretted not having caught all of it. However, the series continues this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00b94wq

i can't get into the link,. is it wbout a yemen woman? if so,. yes it is very interesting,.. she went to meet a Dutch rapper as well

Drake
05-13-2008, 10:04 AM
What distinguishes a Muslim country from an Islamic one?

The role of their religion within the structure of the state.

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 10:10 AM
The role of their religion within the structure of the state.

Details?

What role does Islam play in the structure of an Islamic state that it doesn't play in a Muslim state?

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 10:13 AM
i can't get into the link,.

Link says for British only.

So poor old gumalangi and I down at the bottom of the planet don't qualify. :( :( :(

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 10:19 AM
:D this new one to me,. :D

however make sense,. this explained on their so called 'plan orient'
or ultra secret weapon that so secret as it never make appearance,..
or perhaps.. SS divisions that was so created to be consisted of germans best sons,. however number of Hindus, Maoris, balkan Muslims and even russians were among them.

Mate, leave the Maoris out of it. ;)

They are seriously wild boys, as we know from the way they have colonised parts of Australia, and are best not upset. :D

At best they eat their young. At worst, they'll eat you. :D

gumalangi
05-13-2008, 10:20 AM
The role of their religion within the structure of the state.

Sir,.

I am not trying to teach you on how my country doing their business,.. however the government of Indonesia is so Javanese in style,.. everything is so covered up, you must not believe whatever it is at the surface.. as a non-javanese,.. i was teach not to trust the javanese even when they offering a present,.

Indonesia was never intended to be military led country as myanmar, and military should stay out of politics,. that is why we called ourselves a republic,.. but on the actual basis,. if you ever been a military leader before,.. most likely your path to governmental leadership is easier,.. military still in a strong grip of indonesia political aparatus,.. in most of many aspects,. and this untill now still being fight for by reformers,.. one of them was Munir,. and he was killed few years back,.. and if military is not supporting the current government,. it is almost certain,. that the present government will collapsed,..

and this applied exactly the same to 'islam' country of Indonesia,..
Many indonesian chinese tycoons convert themselves into muslim,.. eg. lim sio liong,. became mohamad salim,. and one rainforest drestroyer, an illegal logger,. changed his name into bob hasan, and he infact went to mecca with Mr Soeharto (former indonesia President),. they did this was definetely not becouse of their sincere enlightment of Islam as a religion,.. however purely business motivated in a country where islam as religion is highly effected the country as a whole,..

I guess we have to stop here with regards to Indonesia,. otherwise,. this will have its own threads,. and am not interested in continuing this arguments,.. this getting out of topic,.

Cheers

gumalangi
05-13-2008, 10:24 AM
Mate, leave the Maoris out of it. ;)

They are seriously wild boys, as we know from the way they have colonised parts of Australia, and are best not upset. :D

At best they eat their young. At worst, they'll eat you. :D

All blacks is my all time favourite rugby team,.. i like their haka before the match,. man!,. they're awesome,..

i watched the handbag all blacks made by aussies,.. so hillarious,. :D

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 10:32 AM
All blacks is my all time favourite rugby team,.. i like their haka before the match,. man!,. they're awesome,..

i watched the handbag all blacks made by aussies,.. so hillarious,. :D

Mate, I will put this as delicately as I can (for I am known on this forum as the soul of delicacy ;)) but WTF are you doing up there watching rugby?

Most of Australia isn't interested in it!

Admittedly, most of New Zealand is, but that's only seven people and six million sheep. :D

Drake
05-13-2008, 10:35 AM
Details?

What role does Islam play in the structure of an Islamic state that it doesn't play in a Muslim state?

It is at least the state religion and religious leaders have significant direct influence on all aspects of the political and social life of the countries inhabitants.

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 10:43 AM
It is at least the state religion and religious leaders have significant direct influence on all aspects of the political and social life of the countries inhabitants.

So why is that a problem when the English monarch is the head of the Church of England, which is the state religion; the Head of State; the ultimate power in government; and has direct influence on all aspects of the political and social life in her country?

What's sauce for Lizzie has to be sauce for the mullahs in Iran.

Doesn't it?

Not to mention the Vatican State.

gumalangi
05-13-2008, 10:44 AM
It is at least the state religion and religious leaders have significant direct influence on all aspects of the political and social life of the countries inhabitants.

we are NOT a formal religious state,. HOWEVER indeed,. religious leaders have significant direct influence on most aspects of all you mentioned,..

please sir,.. i know my country,. as you do with yours,..
and to be frank,. I am not too happy with those goverment cover up over actual facts,.

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 11:05 AM
Christianity in our national parliament. http://www.australiavotes.org/policies/index.php?topic_ids=6

As someone who doesn't subscribe to that form of mumbo jumbo, I don't see why my tax dollars should be paying for it under a constitution which carefully avoids any religious obligation by anyone.

Yet the clowns who run my parliament assure me that this is the system I voted for under the constitution which authorises them to act as my representative in my parliament.

Yeah.

Right!

Why can't I have Muslim or Scientology or Buddhist or anyone else's prayers?

Or just no prayers?

Drake
05-13-2008, 12:06 PM
So why is that a problem when the English monarch is the head of the Church of England, which is the state religion; the Head of State; the ultimate power in government; and has direct influence on all aspects of the political and social life in her country?

What's sauce for Lizzie has to be sauce for the mullahs in Iran.

Doesn't it?

Not to mention the Vatican State.

Hrhr, Vatican state, you're funny, half a square kilometer in size and 800 inhabitants, all within the city limits of rome. It's basically a house with a square owned by the catholic church which has state rights as a remnant from the past.
And where do you see the actual influence of the british monarch on anything besides tabloid headlines? All of her rights are only theoretical in nature and can be revoked by the parliament, she's a mere representative figure. And the difference is, that the state religion in western states, if existent at all, doesn't discriminate nonchristian faiths or atheists, quite contrary to the islamic states.

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 07:41 PM
And where do you see the actual influence of the british monarch on anything besides tabloid headlines? All of her rights are only theoretical in nature and can be revoked by the parliament, she's a mere representative figure.

That is a common perception, but she still holds substantial power, not least being commander in chief of Britain's military forces and being the only person in Britain with the power to declare war.

In practice these powers are exercised on advice from her government, but if it comes to a test she's the one who makes the final decision.


THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE

A WHAT IS THE PREROGATIVE?

1. This note seeks to describe as fully as possible the extent of the prerogative. However, as will become clear, the exact limits of the prerogative cannot be categorically defined. The note goes on to describe the way in which the exercise of prerogative power is controlled by Parliament and the Courts.

2. There is no single accepted definition of the prerogative. It is sometimes defined to mean all the common law, ie non-statutory powers, of the Crown. An alternative definition is that the prerogative consists of those common law powers and immunities which are peculiar to the Crown and go beyond the powers of a private individual eg the power to declare war as opposed to the normal common law power to enter a contract.

3. Whichever definition is used there is no exhaustive list of prerogative powers. Some have fallen out of use altogether, probably forever - such as the power to press men into the Navy. It may be of more practical assistance to identify those powers which have been consistently recognised by the courts in the past, mindful of the encroachment into the prerogative as a result of the control exercised by Parliament and the courts.

Domestic Affairs

4. Although this is the area in which legislation has increasingly been introduced thereby limiting the extent of the prerogative, some significant aspects of the prerogative survive in the area of domestic affairs. These include:

• the appointment and dismissal of Ministers;

• the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;

• royal assent to Bills;

• the appointment and regulation of the civil service;

• the commissioning of officers in the armed forces;

• directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;

• the appointment of Queen's Counsel;

• the prerogative of mercy. (This no longer saves condemned men from the scaffold but it is still used eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation) ;

• the issue and withdrawal of UK passports;

• the granting of honours;

• the creation of corporations by Charter;

• the King (and Queen) can do no wrong (for example the Queen cannot be prosecuted in her own courts)


Foreign Affairs

5. The conduct of foreign affairs remains very reliant on the exercise of prerogative powers. Parliament and the courts have perhaps tended to accept that this is an area where the Crown needs flexibility in order to act effectively and handle novel situations.

6. The main prerogative powers in this area include:

• the making of treaties;

• the declaration of war;

• the deployment of the armed forces on operations overseas;

• the recognition of foreign states;

• the accreditation and reception of diplomats. http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_19.cfm


Just because there are no public ripples doesn't mean nothing is happening beneath the surface. British prime ministers have to consult with the monarch, who may attempt to influence them or, in extreme cases, threaten to exercise monarchical power, as happened during WWII.


It was during the last few days before the launching of Overlord th4 the King and his Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, were involved in a clash of wills. Usually the relationship between the two men was excellent. The King recognized and admired Churchill's great leadership qualities, while the Prime Minister, who was an ardent monarchist, always treated the King with great reverence and respect. "The war, "Churchill once wrote to the King, "has drawn the Throne and the people more closely together than was ever before recorded."

On 30 May 1944 Churchill, in the course of his usual Tuesday lunchtime audience with the King at Buckingham Palace, glibly informed the monarch that he intended to watch the invasion of Normandy from HMS Belfast. When the King announced his intention of accompanying Churchill, the Prime Minister was all in agreement.

Sir Alan Lascelles, the King's Private Secretary, was appalled. For both the sovereign and the Prime Minister to risk their lives in this fashion seemed foolish in the extreme.

By the following morning George VI realized how foolhardy it would be for the King and Prime Minister to proceed, so he wrote to Churchill suggesting that he, too, reconsider the plan.

Churchill was not so easily dissuaded. Not even when the King backed up his letter by seeing Churchill personally the next day could he talk the Prime Minister round. When it was pointed out that no minister of the Crown could go abroad without the Sovereign's consent, the Prime Minister answered that he would not be going abroad, since he would be on a British warship and therefore on British territory.

The King became alarmed at Churchill's continuing obstinacy. "I am very worried about the PM's seemingly selfish way of looking at the matter," he confided to his diary. "He doesn't seem to care about the future, or how much depends on him."

Churchill received a second appeal from the King just three days before the invasion and just as he was setting out for Portsmouth to see General Eisenhower. He did not immediately reply to the letter so the King, by now very worried indeed, decided that there was only one thing left for him to do, he would have to drive to Portsmouth at dawn the following morning to ensure that the Prime Minister did not embark with the invasion force.

In the end, this proved unnecessary. The monarch's latest pleas had proved successful. In deference to his sovereign's wishes, the Prime Minister had given way. Not until six days after the successful D-Day landings did Churchill visit Normandy, and not until four days after that was the King able to follow him. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=694


The British Parliament cannot make laws affecting the monarch's powers unless the monarch consents.


There is a situation, however, in which a more direct monarchical assent is required for a bill. This is not Royal Assent, but is termed "Queen's Consent". In order for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues —including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia— or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament, the monarch must first consent to its hearing. On rare occasions, such as for the House of Lords Act 1999, the consent of the Prince of Wales, as Prince and Steward of Scotland, or as Duke of Cornwall, must also be obtained where a Bill affects his interests. This is known as Prince's Consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent#cite_note-12

Rising Sun*
05-13-2008, 09:33 PM
Hrhr, Vatican state, you're funny, half a square kilometer in size and 800 inhabitants, all within the city limits of rome.

And how many millions of adherents all over the world, with its own primary, secondary and tertiary educational systems and hospitals in Western countries where it persistently interferes in secular politics to get the state to conform with its religious views, such as on contraception and abortion?

It's all controlled from the Vatican State, which is just as bad as Saudi Arabia in exporting its religious views but a bloody sight more effective in the West.

We could just as easily demonstrate that there is a Catholic menace as an Islamic one, and there hasn't been any shortage of people who have believed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States

One brilliantly stupid current example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

Just in case you think Hagee's views are limited to religious nuts, they're not. They could well be accepted by the next president of the United States of America. Although I suppose there's no reason he couldn't be a religious nut too. Which strikes me as another sort of religious menace.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php

Nickdfresh
05-14-2008, 01:30 AM
Hrhr, Vatican state, you're funny, half a square kilometer in size and 800 inhabitants, all within the city limits of rome. It's basically a house with a square owned by the catholic church which has state rights as a remnant from the past.
And where do you see the actual influence of the british monarch on anything besides tabloid headlines? All of her rights are only theoretical in nature and can be revoked by the parliament, she's a mere representative figure. And the difference is, that the state religion in western states, if existent at all, doesn't discriminate nonchristian faiths or atheists, quite contrary to the islamic states.

Um, that house of The Vatican is also a concern with enormous wealth a good deal of international influence --over areas of the Latin developing world especially...

Rising Sun*
05-14-2008, 08:43 AM
Not the best panel show ever created by a long shot, but it achieves what it sets out to do which is to show that a lot of Muslims in Australia are just as Aussie as anyone else AND ARE NOT A BLOODY MENACE!

http://www.sbs.com.au/salamcafe/

gumalangi
05-14-2008, 12:28 PM
Mate, I will put this as delicately as I can (for I am known on this forum as the soul of delicacy ;)) but WTF are you doing up there watching rugby?

Most of Australia isn't interested in it!

Admittedly, most of New Zealand is, but that's only seven people and six million sheep. :D

rugby cool man,.. its like some prehistoric sport,..
some of my gay friends like the sport as they able to see some muscle rubs each other,.

when i was in Bali,. saw some aussie rugby team jogged along the beach,.

your comment on kiwis really proof that you are indeed an aussie mate,.. ;)

Panzerknacker
05-14-2008, 07:35 PM
Not the best panel show ever created by a long shot, but it achieves what it sets out to do which is to show that a lot of Muslims in Australia are just as Aussie as anyone else AND ARE NOT A BLOODY MENACE!

http://www.sbs.com.au/salamcafe/


Jesus...how I hate scarved women. they are a menace, at list to the good taste in dressing.

Rising Sun*
05-16-2008, 09:50 AM
Jesus...how I hate scarved women. they are a menace, at list to the good taste in dressing.


Notably Our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. :D


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44220000/jpg/_44220903_scarf.body.416.jpg

Digger
05-16-2008, 10:02 AM
Strewth! When did the Queen convert to Islam?:shock:;)

Panzerknacker
05-16-2008, 10:08 AM
Well, the royalty seems to be always in trouble finding the correct headgear, beggining with crowns.

Panzerknacker
05-16-2008, 10:18 AM
Strewth! When did the Queen convert to Islam


Maybe she should...it seems than soon there willl be more muslim subdits than protestant ones.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2008/03/mosque-goers-se.html

Rising Sun*
05-16-2008, 10:26 AM
It ain't all sweetness and light within the Islamic world, which in some respects is about where the Christian world was a few centuries ago, or maybe in the 1950s, tearing at each other for being untrue to the faith.


Indonesian sect members seek Australian asylum

Updated May 16, 2008 16:59:59

Six members of the Ahmadiya Islamic sect in Indonesia are seeking asylum in Australia, saying they can no longer live safely in Indonesia after being declared heretics and threatened with a government ban.

In July of 2005, Indonesia's highest council of Muslim scholars issued a fatwa declaring the Ahmadiya sect of Islam heretical because they said the sect's beliefs challenged Mohammad's status as the last prophet.

Since then attacks against Ahmadis have increased.

In 2006 their mosques and houses were destroyed on the island of Lombok, and now six members of the group displaced by that violence have approached the Australian Consulate in Bali seeking asylum in Australia.

They were told to direct their enquires to the Australian Embassy in Jakarta.

An influential Indonesian intergovernmental agency recently recommended the Ahmadiya sect be formally banned by the Indonesian government.

Adherents driven from homes

The group had travelled from Lombok, where they were part of a group of more than 100 people living in temporary shelters in the island's capital, Mataram.

Members of the sect have been living in shelters since being driven from their homes by the 2006 mob attacks.

One of the six who sought asylum in Bali, Sulhaen, says the group was too frightened to return home.

"We've been living in terror, [and] it will get worse if the government officially bans Ahmadiyah," he said.

"We are here to demand political asylum cause we don't feel safe living in our own country."

Sulahen says the six Ahmadis were unable to meet officials from either consulate, and planned to approach other countries, including the United States, for asylum.

The group is understood to have around 200,000 followers in Indonesia and has been in the country since the 1920s. http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/ra/news/stories/200805/s2246232.htm


I can't say I'm hugely in favour of granting them asylum, but that's partly because some of the last exercises in humanity towards Islamic nutcases who are freer to practise their religion here than in Islamic countries haven't turned out too well.

Not to mention the Irish Catholics we've been importing since the first convict shipment, and anyone can see how that's turned out. ;)



Arrested: a man apart who fought to stay in AustraliaBy Ian Munro with Barney Zwartz
November 9, 2005

Abdul Nacer Benbrika fought hard to remain in Australia and, having succeeded, has fought just as hard to remain apart from it.

The Melbourne resident arrived in Australia from his native Algeria in May 1989 on a one-month visitor's permit and extended this twice, and was allowed to stay a total of six months, after which he became a prohibited non-citizen.

Six years after his arrival he was still fighting, through the Immigration Review Tribunal appeals process, for the right to stay. According to tribunal records, among his reasons for seeking residency was his "love of the Australian lifestyle".

Yet Benbrika, who has praised Osama bin Laden and defended the right of Australian Muslims to fight coalition troops in Iraq, is fixed in his view that Muslims like him should not disappear into the broader Australian community. He has one God, one law - sharia, laid down 1400 years ago - and for him, even fundamentalist clerics such as the controversial Sheik Mohammed Omran are too liberal.

The Islamic Council of Victoria board member Waleed Aly said Benbrika's place in the Muslim community was hard to define because it was so marginal. His group is "a splinter of a splinter of a splinter". "Most Muslims had never heard of him until he appeared on the ABC (7.30 Report)," Mr Aly said.

"You have got Mohammed Omran's group - he found that was not radical enough. So he formed his own group with a handful of young men who he calls his students.

"As far as I am concerned, he has no more sway over the Muslim community in Victoria than any cult leader would have over the religious communities from which they are splintered."

Benbrika told the Immigration Tribunal that he would be endangered if he returned to Algeria, a view he still holds. He has gathered around him a group of followers, at least some of whom were arrested yesterday. Some have trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban. They are united by their commitment to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

Among those who spoke out for him in his bid to remain here was Fehmi Naji El-Imam from the Preston Mosque. Sheik Fehmi and Benbrika have since parted ways. "I knew nothing at that time, but he is hot-headed and has a mind of his own," Sheik Fehmi said.

In 1992 Benbrika married a Lebanese woman who had become an Australian citizen and who tried to sponsor him. But the tribunal ruled he would have to leave Australia and reapply for entry. Earlier this year they were expecting their seventh child.

Until four years ago, Benbrika, also known as Abu Bakr, taught at Sheik Omran's centre. "I attended his classes for a while, and there were only three or four people there," a spokesman for Sheik Omran said.

He was identified by police as a key figure in the 16-month investigation that climaxed in yesterday's arrests. But for Benbrika hardship and adversity are part of Allah's way: the more you face hard times, the more you practise Islam. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/arrested-a-man-apart-who-fought-to-stay-in-australia/2005/11/08/1131407637648.html#


And here we are three years later. :rolleyes:


Terror trial witness heard voices
Gary Hughes
April 17, 2008

THE star prosecution witness in Australia's largest terrorism trial, who heard voices in his head and communicated with birds, was living the high life on the proceeds of credit card fraud at the time an Islamic terror attack was being planned.

A day after revealing he was privy to a plot by a group of Melbourne Muslim associates to attack a packed MCG on Grand Final day in 2005, Izzydeen Atik admitted employing a butler, driving a luxury car, renting a three-storey beachfront property and making repeated calls to a telephone sex line.

Mr Atik told the Victorian Supreme Court yesterday that he was receiving a $500 a fortnight disability pension at the same time the authorities were paying his brother an allowance to be his full-time carer.

Mr Atik, 27, said he used stolen credit card numbers and expiry dates purchased from taxi drivers to commit a large number of frauds, including obtaining airline tickets, mobile telephone SIM cards and a variety of other goods, which he sold.

In his second day on the witness stand, Mr Atik said he told people that he could obtain cheap airline tickets and charged $100 for a return economy class flight and $200 for a return business class ticket to anywhere in Australia.

He used the stolen credit card numbers to book the flights, he told the court.

He resold other illegally obtained goods and SIM cards purchased with the stolen credit card numbers.

Mr Atik testified on Tuesday that the alleged leader of a Melbourne Muslim terrorist group, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, had told him of plans to mount a terrorist attack on the 2005 AFL Grand Final at the MCG.

Alternative targets were Melbourne's Crown Casino during Grand Prix week or the NAB Cup AFL football final in 2006.

During cross-examination yesterday by Mr Benbrika's lawyer, Remy van de Wiel QC, Mr Atik said that in 2004 and 2005 he was making repayments of $500 a month on a three-year-old silver BMW 320 sedan, paying $450 a week rent for a beachfront townhouse in Williamstown and employing a $500-a-week butler.

Mr Atik said his brother was paid about $100 extra on top of unemployment benefits by the authorities to act as his carer, even though he was not physically disabled and was able to take care of himself.

Asked if he used the name "Eddie" to make 1900 telephone sex line calls during which he got excited and masturbated, Mr Atik replied: "That's normally what a sex call is."

The jury then heard a call Mr Atik made to a sex telephone chat line hostess in which he offered to fly her and her girlfriend to Melbourne business class "as long as you look after me".

Mr Atik could be heard telling the woman he made a lot of money from property investments and owning McDonald's restaurants and claiming that he always told the truth.

He told Mr van de Wiel that if you wanted someone to believe you when you were "talking a lot of crap", you told them you always tell the truth.

Earlier, the hearing was told that Mr Atik had told psychiatrists that birds spoke to him and that he heard voices in his head from a man named Andrew and a female devil who loved him.

But Mr Atik said he could not recall telling a court hearing in September last year that Andrew talked to him regularly and told him to do "bad things" and commit credit card fraud.

Mr Van de Wiel read a 2002 psychiatric report to the court in which Mr Atik claimed birds often told him their problems.

Mr Benbrika and 11 Melbourne Muslim men have pleaded not guilty to a range of terrorism charges, including belonging to a terrorist organisation.

Mr Atik is due to continue giving evidence when the trial before Justice Bernard Bongiorno resumes today. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23552292-2702,00.html



It's so much fun living here, a mere thread in life's rich tapestry.

Rising Sun*
05-16-2008, 10:28 AM
Strewth! When did the Queen convert to Islam?:shock:;)

When she realised that Chuck was going to be the next head of the Church of England. :D

Rising Sun*
05-16-2008, 10:32 AM
Well, the royalty seems to be always in trouble finding the correct headgear, beggining with crowns.

Only in recent times.

In earlier times some of them couldn't even keep their heads.

Rising Sun*
05-16-2008, 10:33 AM
Mayse she should...it seems than sooon there willl be more muslim subdits than protestant ones.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2008/03/mosque-goers-se.html

Where do they get these figures?

Panzerknacker
05-16-2008, 10:44 AM
That figure is repeated in several sources:


Practising Muslims 'will outnumber Christians by 2035'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1936418/Practising-Muslims-%27will-outnumber-Christians-by-2035%27.html

Rising Sun*
05-16-2008, 10:54 AM
That figure is repeated in several sources:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1936418/Practising-Muslims-%27will-outnumber-Christians-by-2035%27.html


That source actually casts as much doubt on the reliability of figures about the numbers engaged in formal religious worship as are put forward in the 'Christian think tank' report.

Which reinforces my question about where they get these figures.

It's similar to a fire where police confidently assert that damage is about one million dollars. Like they'd know.

Panzerknacker
05-16-2008, 11:45 AM
The figure might vary, but my point was that the general sensation in UK is that eventually churchs goers will be overwhelmed by Mosque goers, and like in every sensation there is a part of truth.

Drake
07-10-2008, 03:01 PM
http://video.google.de/videosearch?q=what+the+west+needs+to+know&sitesearch=#

B5N2KATE
07-10-2008, 04:45 PM
Folks....if you honestly think Islam is a force for evil, think again...

If we don't do something about the resource shortfall, a lot of people are going to die.

Another global conflict may make World War 2 look tame....we are so much more efficient at killing people now...

Get set for a resource based conflict that begins with demand outstripping supply by a country mile.....as governments struggle to meet the needs of ordinary people, industrialists panic, prices increase further, until Western military steps in to guarantee supply. Outraged Second and Third World governments then form a co-alition....and you have the makings of a conflict that may even cost as many as 2 billion lives...

I'm glad I'll be off this ridiculous planet before the "poo" hits the fan....give it another forty or fifty years....when the oil runs out....

Drake
07-10-2008, 05:22 PM
I actually believe it will be a combination of huntingtons scenario and ressource wars that will set the stage for the actually hot ww3.
Btw. if you think Islam is a force of peace, watch the movie, that's why I posted it, it's a 90 minute documentary. I am always stunned about people who actually know zilch about Islam and claim it's a peaceful religion, just because it's a convenient delusion.

Panzerknacker
07-10-2008, 06:16 PM
Folks....if you honestly think Islam is a force for evil, think again...

It is right now, in the dark ages the extremist were the christians but now there is an world army of little Hitlers , all of them hidding behind the shade of the half moon and the Coran.

32Bravo
07-11-2008, 07:31 AM
Don’t believe the Lord Chief Justice any more than the Archbishop of Canterbury, say Stephen Schwartz and Irfan Al-AlawiA senior establishment figure has once more raised the question of whether sharia law should be introduced as a parallel system of justice for British Muslims. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, was following in the footsteps of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who in February suggested that the institutionalisation of unspecified aspects of sharia law is ‘unavoidable’.

Rowan Williams gave the appearance of mere cluelessness; discussing sharia in a vague, multiculturalist manner apparently intended to project warm feelings toward British Muslims. But Lord Phillips, in attempting to move from nebulous clichés to specifics, has done far more damage than the Archbishop.
For non-Muslim authorities to propose the introduction of sharia as a legal standard for Muslims in any non-Muslim land is not only absurdly patronising and discriminatory, but also violates the canons of traditional sharia law. Sharia has always held that Muslims emigrating to non-Muslim lands are obliged to accept the laws and customs of their new homes, and must not attempt to change them in an Islamic direction. Precedent for this goes back to the counsel of the Prophet Mohammed himself, when his followers, persecuted in Mecca, sought a temporary refuge in the nearby Christian kingdom of Ethiopia.

Iraqi Shia Ayatollah Ali Sistani, one of the world’s preeminent sharia authorities, teaches that, ‘If [a Muslim] has given [a non-Muslim government] a commitment — even if indirectly (as is implied in the immigration documents) — to abide by the laws of that country, it is necessary for him to fulfil his commitment.’ If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory.
|
Soon after Archbishop Williams’s gaffe the Centre for Islamic Pluralism conducted a field survey of attitudes towards sharia in the main Muslim communities in Britain. We visited Birmingham, Manchester, Bolton, Bradford, Sheffield and Leicester, in addition to ongoing and extensive investigations in London’s East End. Interviewees included imams, muftis (legal authorities), spiritual shaykhs, British Muslim barristers and solicitors, social workers and rank-and-file mosque attendees. The full results will be published, with similar data from Germany, Holland, France and Spain, next year.

Our survey was made easier by Muslim debate over the Williams affair. The overwhelming majority of our sample — we estimate a minimum of 65 per cent — brusquely repudiated the imposition of sharia in Britain and even expressed resentment at the interference of individuals like the Archbishop in British Muslim affairs. Unfortunately, the real beliefs of British Muslims are unlikely to get sufficient attention either from non-Muslim leaders or from most of the British media. For the elite, multiculturalism is the order of the day, and sharia must be offered, notwithstanding the utter ignorance of it among the non-Muslims who advocate it. In the tabloids, sharia is identified with such punishments as the stoning of adulterers — an issue Lord Phillips ineptly tried to address. Little sensible commentary may be expected from the public prints.

At the Madina Mosque in Bolton it was pointed out to us that tens of thousands of British Muslims practise as solicitors and barristers, and have no interest in surrendering their positions to sharia advocates. A parallel system of sharia law would be a disaster for the British Muslim community, producing legal chaos, according to the barrister Aseid Malik. British Muslim legal professionals observe that Islamist radicals prefer to enter the scientific and medical professions, because there they can avoid participation in the British ‘unbeliever’ state required of solicitors and barristers.
Maulana Mufti Ayoob Ashrafi, a leading British Muslim traditional jurist, opposed the introduction of sharia, asking why Islamic law must be introduced in non-Muslim societies when it does not function in the majority of Muslim countries. At present, only Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and some remote areas of Africa and south-east Asia grant precedence to sharia over European-originated civil law — another surprise, no doubt, to most non-Muslims.

We conducted a significant part of our survey in Bradford, the city widely known as ‘Little Pakistan’. Sayyid Irfan Shah, a jurist known as ‘the Lion of Bradford’, who maintains a girls’ school, also rejected the intrusion of sharia in Britain. He declared that Muslim opponents of the introduction of sharia are much more sophisticated in their understanding of the distinctions between private and public law than many non-Muslim critics of Islam in Britain.
Tasleem Ahmed, a Muslim woman employed at the Bradford Advice Centre, administers community programmes to assist Muslim women with economic and social problems. She observed that women seldom attend mosque services or apply at mosques for help with their problems, and that, failing to gain support in their families, homes, and local communities, they may go to informal sharia courts for assistance in marriage and divorce cases, even though the latter tribunals — the most notorious functioning in east London — charge thousands of pounds for decisions that are almost always improvised and may not even conform to traditional Islamic law. Ms Ahmed said that because British Muslim women do not know their British civil rights, they have an incentive to turn to sharia.

Lord Phillips sought to mitigate the fear of the British non-Muslim public regarding sharia punishment for moral and criminal offences by arguing that it would be limited to the financial and marital areas. But the experience of British Muslim women with the sharia divorce courts demonstrates just how dangerous this seemingly anodyne proposal is. The sharia divorce courts are in the hands of radicals who use them to promote extremist ideology while making money. The same outcome would be likely if sharia courts were granted authority for mediation of financial disputes.

Nearly everywhere we went, Muslims rejected the idea of incorporating sharia into British law. In Sheffield, Muhammad Islam Qadri, a prominent religious activist, declared ‘the demand for sharia is a political slogan from which the Sunnis will not benefit’. In Leicester, Britain’s main centre of radical Islam, local leader Mohammed Ramzan asked, ‘Who is Rowan Williams? His comments were unimportant; he is not a political leader like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.’ He also criticised the British authorities for supporting ‘dialogue’ with Islamic fundamentalists and stated that the problem facing British Muslims is terrorism, not a lack of sharia. According to our findings, Lord Phillips’s speech will be seen by most British Muslims in a similarly disapproving light.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/

Walther
10-04-2008, 09:10 AM
Sorry for bumping this up, but I've been reading more or less all of the 14 pages of this thread.
Concerning the discussions between Drake and Nickfresh, I think I know where the discrepancy lays.
Most Muslims in the US are either fairly educated people, who are ready to adapt to local laws and rules or they are homegrown "black" Muslims, who, for all of their rebellious poses, are culturally firmly rooted in the American system.

The problem in Germany (explaining the perceptions of Drake) is that the biggest number of our Muslims were originally "Gastarbeiter" from Turkey, hired in the 1950-1960s to do the dirty manual jobs no German wanted to do anymore during the economic miracle post WW2.
These people were mostly barely literate peasants from the feudalist areas of rural Anatolia, who were firmly rooted in their extremely conservative village traditions and due to a lack of education, also often not very willing to adapt. Instead they tended to enclose themselves in cultural islands in quasi ghettoes, where they tried to organise life in similar ways as in their home villages (often coming into conflict with German laws) and often developed a laager mentality against the "sinfull" influences from outside.
That they appeared strange to the Germans didn't help either, as did not a simplicistic "tolerance" given by authorities and courts of justice, who often let e.g. the perpetrators of "honour killings" get away, arguing that such behaviour was customary in the villages the immigrants came from and therefore they couln't know better.
Another thing is that, e.g. unlike East Asian immigrants, they don't seem to put much emphasis on the education of their children.

BTW, similar to what Rising Sun* mentioned, we had similar problems with staunch Roman-Catholic Gastarbeiters from rural southern Italy in the 1960s.
The groups which best adapted were either East Asians (Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians), who readily mixed with the local population and made sure that their children would improve through education, or the Spanish, who in the 1960s were for most part refugees from Franco's fascist regime and knew that as long as Franco was alive, they could not return to Spain. Unlike the Turkish or Italians, they didn't have a back door open to return to their original country, so they decided to make the best of their life in Germany (even actively petitioning the German state ministers of education NOT to introduce Spanish language schooling for their children in German schools, for them their children should learn perfect German to fit into Germany). The results can e.g. be seen in the statistics about higher education, where the percentage of students with Spanish origin with university degrees is equal to their German counterparts, while the Turkish and Italians lag behind.

BTW, I'm an atheist, but my first wife was a Catholic from the Phiulippines, my second one was originally a moderate Muslim from West Africa, who later converted to fundamentalist evangelical christianity (one reason for our divoces, besides I'm working in aviation and we invented a new meaning for the word "AIDS", Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrom, due to long shift hours and absence from home (often overseas work)), while my present fiancee is a non-practicing Catholic from the Chinese minority in the Philippines.
For myself, I'm originally a Berliner and have lived for many years in a predominantly Turkish neighbourhood in the district of Neukoelln in West Berlin.

Jan

Rising Sun*
10-04-2008, 10:25 AM
Sorry for bumping this up, but I've been reading more or less all of the 14 pages of this thread.
Concerning the discussions between Drake and Nickfresh, I think I know where the discrepancy lays.
Most Muslims in the US are either fairly educated people, who are ready to adapt to local laws and rules or they are homgrown "black" Muslims, who, for all of their rebellious poses, are culturally firmly rooted in the Amarican system.

The problem in Germany (explaining the perceptions of Drake) is that the biggest number of our Muslims were originally "Gastarbeiter" from Turkey, hired in the 1950-1960s to do the dirty manual jobs no German wanted to do anymore during the economic miracle post WW2.
These people were mostly barely literate peasants from the feudalist areas of rural Anatolia, who were firmly rooted in their extremely conservative village traditions and due to a lack of education, also often not very willing to adapt. Instead they tended to enclose themselves in cultural islands in quasi ghettoes, where they tried to organise life in similar ways as in their home villages (often coming into conflict with German laws) and often developed a laager mentality against the "sinfull" influences from outside.
That they appeared strange to the Germans didn't help either, as did not a simplicistic "tolerance" given by authorities and courts of justice, who often let e.g. the perpetrators of "honour killings" get away, arguing that such behaviour was customary in the villages the immigrants came from and therefore they couln't know better.
Another thing is that, e.g. unlike East Asian immigrants, they don't seem to put much emphasis on the education of their children.

BTW, similar to what Rising Sun* mentioned, we had similar problems with staunch Roman-Catholic Gastarbeiters from rural southern Italy in the 1960s.
The groups which best adapted were either East Asians (Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians), who readily mixed with the local population and made sure that their children would improve through education, or the Spanish, who in the 1960s were for most part refugees from Franco's fascist regime and knew that as long as Franco was alive, they could not return to Spain. Unlike the Turkish or Italians, they didn't have a back door open to return to their original country, so they decided to make the best of their life in Germany (even actively petitioning the German state ministers of education NOT to introduce Spanish language schooling for their children in German schools, for them their children should learn perfect German to fit into Germany). The results can e.g. be seen in the statistics about higher education, where the percentage of students with Spanish origin with university degrees is equal to their German counterparts, while the Turkish and Italians lag behind.

Mate, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Your perceptive analysis explains a dichotomy in my own thinking. On one hand I'm what is (usually contemptuously) called a civil libertarian who resists Islamophobic opinions and laws. On the other hand, like many Australians, I have huge gut contempt for several groups of scum and criminal elements here, which happen to be Islamic and flaunt it, but this doesn't sit well with my more intellectual civil libertarian attitude.

The Islamic groups for which I, and most other Australians and not necessarily just those of Anglo-Celtic descent, have contempt need not be identified, but they sure as hell didn't come here to work as they're on their third and fourth generations of existing on social security which often is supplemented by crime. Although many are from Turkey most are not, but your comments otherwise describe our lot correctly:


These people were mostly barely literate peasants from the feudalist areas of rural Anatolia, who were firmly rooted in their extremely conservative village traditions and due to a lack of education, also often not very willing to adapt. Instead they tended to enclose themselves in cultural islands in quasi ghettoes, where they tried to organise life in similar ways as in their home villages (often coming into conflict with German laws) and often developed a laager mentality against the "sinfull" influences from outside.

Conversely, I deal with a lot of educated people from Asia and the Middle East, who happen to be Muslims, and they are very different groups, in every respect.

The problem is much less to do with religious affiliation than with, politically incorrect though it may be to say it, introducing a relatively, in social and economic terms, primitive community into a much more sophisticated one where the new arrivals lack the background to adapt to a very different way of life.

A large part of the problem is that these migrants come from backgrounds where there is no police or legal system even vaguely like Western ones, nor many of the other institutions we take for granted in the West. Instead, there are various forms of what amounts to tribal punishment and compensation allied with ways of trying to defeat or deceive corrupt elements above them in societies based on clan and tribal obligations and feuds and primitive notions of family honour, bride price, male surpremacy, and so on.


BTW, I'm an atheist, but my first wife was a Catholic from the Phiulippines, my second one was originally a moderate Muslim from West Africa, who later converted to fundamentalist evangelical christianity (one reason for our divoces, besides I'm working in aviation and we invented a new meaning for the word "AIDS", Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrom, due to long shift hours and absence from home (often overseas work)), while my present fiancee is a non-practicing Catholic from the Chinese minority in the Philippines.
For myself, I'm originally a Berliner and have lived for many years in a predominantly Turkish neighbourhood in the district of Neukoelln in West Berlin.

Have you thought of trying a more conventional path, or are you a committed marital and social adventurer? :D

Adrian Wainer
10-04-2008, 11:33 AM
Yea as the sily everything that Nick has wrote about "Conspirasy theories" :)
Althoutgh the Muslim Threat is the actual thing - but say honestly - do we not threat them TOO?
Who does support the Israel in its Inner regime of race-apparteid and agressive external policy ?
The lunatic Muslims?

Yes, you're right about Israel just like those bloody Jews murdered all those poor school kids in Beslan.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=TwqYRAtyc0c

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Walther
10-04-2008, 12:17 PM
Mate, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

Conversely, I deal with a lot of educated people from Asia and the Middle East, who happen to be Muslims, and they are very different groups, in every respect.

The problem is much less to do with religious affiliation than with, politically incorrect though it may be to say it, introducing a relatively, in social and economic terms, primitive community into a much more sophisticated one where the new arrivals lack the background to adapt to a very different way of life.

A large part of the problem is that these migrants come from backgrounds where there is no police or legal system even vaguely like Western ones, nor many of the other institutions we take for granted in the West. Instead, there are various forms of what amounts to tribal punishment and compensation allied with ways of trying to defeat or deceive corrupt elements above them in societies based on clan and tribal obligations and feuds and primitive notions of family honour, bride price, male surpremacy, and so on.



Same as you, I never had problerms with Muslims from a similar educational background as myself (e.g. university classmates) or those of more secular branches of this belief (like the Turkish Alevits, a breakaway Shi'ite group, who believe that religion is a personal matter which needs no outside display, who believe in seperation of government and religion, who don't have mosques to pray in and where men and women are equal, . This group is being persecuted by mainsream Sunni Muslims in Turkey, even though they are the strongest supporters of the Turkish constitution).
I took the Turkish as an example, because they are by far the biggest group of immigrants into Germany and also the biggest Muslim group.

I have heard urbanised, educated Turks criticize the rural Turks as "backwards" and that we in the West would get a totally wrong impression of Turkey by being confronted with those country yokels.

I also never had problems with people from these regions (Middle East), who rebelled themselves against the restrictive practices and customs.

One thing I've noticed as well is that emigrants over the years develop an idealistic picture of their country of origin. E.g. the Turkish Gastarbeiter who came here in the 1960s, forget about how hard life was in a remote mountain village, trying to grow some crops on a stony field, no electricity, no water (except from the well), freezing cold in winter, being watched and controlled by the whole village population as a teenager etc..
Now in their memories it is an idyllic scene, where everything was predictable and tidy, everybody knew his place etc., completely forgetting that their country of origin has changed over the last 40 years as well.
So e.g. many modern Turks coming to visit Germany now are aghast about the cultural backwardness they find in the Turkish ghettoes in Germany.

BTW, slowly the groups of population are mixing. E.g. one of my subordinates, a young, very good and promising aircraft mechanic, is happily married to a Turkish woman. I think he (he looks like an SS recruiting poster, athletic, tall, blue eyed, blond) is just as exotic to his wife as she is to us (she is petite, dark haired and slightly tanned). They have two children, who funnily take after their dad (normally the dark hair and dark eyes are the stronger genes).

I know that for my fiancee and her family I'm pretty exotic.

Jan

Adrian Wainer
10-04-2008, 01:06 PM
Same as you, I never had problerms with Muslims from a similar educational background as myself (e.g. university classmates) or those of more secular branches of this belief (like the Turkish Alevits, a breakaway Shi'ite group, who believe that religion is a personal matter which needs no outside display, who believe in seperation of government and religion, who don't have mosques to pray in and where men and women are equal, . This group is being persecuted by mainsream Sunni Muslims in Turkey, even though they are the strongest supporters of the Turkish constitution).
I took the Turkish as an example, because they are by far the biggest group of immigrants into Germany and also the biggest Muslim group.

I have heard urbanised, educated Turks criticize the rural Turks as "backwards" and that we in the West would get a totally wrong impression of Turkey by being confronted with those country yokels.

I also never had problems with people from these regions (Middle East), who rebelled themselves against the restrictive practices and customs.

One thing I've noticed as well is that emigrants over the years develop an idealistic picture of their country of origin. E.g. the Turkish Gastarbeiter who came here in the 1960s, forget about how hard life was in a remote mountain village, trying to grow some crops on a stony field, no electricity, no water (except from the well), freezing cold in winter, being watched and controlled by the whole village population as a teenager etc..
Now in their memories it is an idyllic scene, where everything was predictable and tidy, everybody knew his place etc., completely forgetting that their country of origin has changed over the last 40 years as well.
So e.g. many modern Turks coming to visit Germany now are aghast about the cultural backwardness they find in the Turkish ghettoes in Germany.

BTW, slowly the groups of population are mixing. E.g. one of my subordinates, a young, very good and promising aircraft mechanic, is happily married to a Turkish woman. I think he (he looks like an SS recruiting poster, athletic, tall, blue eyed, blond) is just as exotic to his wife as she is to us (she is petite, dark haired and slightly tanned). They have two children, who funnily take after their dad (normally the dark hair and dark eyes are the stronger genes).

I know that for my fiancee and her family I'm pretty exotic.

Jan

There is something in what you say, although I feel that it would generate a false sense of security amongst people i.e. that uneducated peasant Muslims would be a problem but that the urbane upper class city types would be okay. Funnily enough, I didn't notice any Turkish Muslim peasants flying aircraft in to tall buildings on 9/11. Yes, for sure there is a problem that many of the Muslims who have immigrated in to Europe have come from a background of peasant small holders or the urban poor and unfortunately the political correct policies of European Governments have encouraged these people not to intergrate in to European society and to maintain such practices as honour killings. At the same time, many of the most educated people in the Middel East are the most extremist fanatical haters of the West, I would leave Turkey out of the equation in that Turkey has had both a Westernizeing influence in the person of Kemal Ataturk and also at the same time many Turks well realize that they are not Arabs and in a Europe in which Arabist ideology and culture would obtain primacy, the Turkish communities in Europe would come to a quick and bloody end.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Drake
10-04-2008, 02:19 PM
I'd agree with Walthers analysis on my perspective (*), the problem is however not limited to germany, that is why all the explanations about the particular situation of a specific immigrant group in germany fall short. The dutch, the belgians, the french, the british, the danes, the swedes, the norwegians, the italians, the spanish, every single one of those diverse societies have the same set of problems with a specific group of immigrants and it gets worse every day.

(*)Though I think the whole turkish gastarbeiter story told to the germans is one of the greatest lies in our history. It was a purely political decision (thanks SPD), never an economical one, not asked for from the economy and particularly the population. We've been badly screwed over and then again in the 80ies when nobody was willing to send them back. I guess in a couple of hundred years this will be quite an interesting story for the historians, they'll get insights we don't.

Ah, just the most recent example of how muslims understand human dignity:
The worst human rights violations aren't mutilated girls, stoned women, raped children forced to marry old pedophiles, killed apostats and critics, no the problem is obviously youtube and criticism of the aforementioned.
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/client/pagesdetails.asp?nid=22943&ccid=22
“uttering profanities against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the worst form of human rights violation in the world. Attacks on the values and tenets of Islam are extremely dangerous and unacceptable.” What a joke.

Walther
10-04-2008, 02:38 PM
Ok, I typed a reply to your post (it took me more than 30 minutes), but them my 'puter crashed and I lost everything :-(

Now,

Regarding your post about the well educated people killing themselves and others in the 9/11 terror attacks or the attempted attack on Galsgow airport last year:

It makes sense if you regard these groups not as political movements, but as cults similar to the Mooneys, Jim Jones's "People's Temple" cult (were the members committed mass suicide in 1978), Dave Koresh's groups in Waco, Texas or the Japanese Aun sect, which poisoned lots of people with Tabun nerve gas in the Tokyo underground system a few years ago.
All of these groups used psychological brainwashing methods to make their members suicidically obedient to their leader and to make them feel as THE chosen elite. They deliberately target people with low selfesteem, who are easily influenced and don't have a group, where they feel at home. Often these people also are not able to make descisions for themselves and want strict guidelines on how to run their daily life (my African ex-wife e.g. came from a moderate and secular Muslim family, but she could not cope with the freedom of living in modern Germany, so she joined a strict evangelical church and basically read the bible and talked to her pastor before making even the smallest decisions).
IMO, the Salafi and Wahabi radicals operate in the same pattern

An example:
At the moment German police is hunting for a young German man, who a few years ago converted to Islam, joined a militant group and was last seen in a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. He has posted Youtube videos, where he announced that, together with his equally wanted, Lebanese friend he intends to carry out a suicide attack in Germany against the "infidels" (with which he means everybody living in Germany, who doesn't support his Wahabi or Salafi belief).
According to his sister, he was an instable, introvert, but intelligent young man, without many friends, who was very impressionable. According to her, if he hadn't joined the radical Muslims, he would have as well joined the neo-Nazis or a cult (or maybe, 35 years ago, the communist Baader-Meinhof-gang).
Anything, which would give him the impression that he belonged to an "elite" group and makes him feel "important", would give him some "sense" in life, even if it would be just the few minutes before he blows himself up.

From what I've read about him, he started up normally, in a regular smalltown German family, he started an apprenticeship and then met this Lebanese guy.
This Lebanese introduced him to his mosque community, where everything was done to make him feel welcome (I had similar experiences once, when I met a nice Japanee girl, who belonged to Moon cult).
Slowly the indoctrination began. Affter a while he started to change. He had himself circumcised and converted to Islam. Then he changed outwardly as well. He grew a beard and started to dress in Arab style. He also dumped his previous friends and even shunned his own family as "infidels". By and by his only contacts were the men from his mosque.
Eventually he was sent to Pakistan for training.

I have read similar stories about the 9/11 terrorists, how they started as normal young men and then, possibly under the influence of Atta, who seemed to have been the most radical of them (I actually suspect that he was a closet homosexual, if you have read his last will, he was extremely obsessesed that no women should touch his dead body and nobody should touch his todger, as if much would be leftover after the crash), they started to behave oddly, at least for the people, who knew them closely.

Jan

Walther
10-04-2008, 03:07 PM
(*)Though I think the whole turkish gastarbeiter story told to the germans is one of the greatest lies in our history. It was a purely political decision (thanks SPD), never an economical one, not asked for from the economy and particularly the population. We've been badly screwed over and then again in the 80ies when nobody was willing to send them back. I guess in a couple of hundred years this will be quite an interesting story for the historians, they'll get insights we don't.


Nope, the problem lays in the fact that for decades various German government, for different reasions, have ignored the fact that Germany has developed from a n EMIGRANT country into an IMMIGRANT one.
As a result, until the Schroeder government attempted it (a motion, which was shot down by the rightwing conservatives, remember Stoiber "Ich bin gegen ein durchrasstes und durchmischtes Deutschland" "I'm against a racially mixed Germany") , there was never immigration legislation in Germany.
The Gastarbeiter were hired by the Adenauer government, followed by the Kiessinger government (both conservative), since there WAS a shortage of workers in post WW2 Germany. Hiring only stopped in 1974 under the SPD Brandt government after the oil crisis caused an economical slump.
It was back then expected that the Gastarbeiter would leave again, but obviously they didn't (who wants to go back to unemployment or sharecropping in the mountain village if he has a regular job over here, and the first generation of Gastarbeiter worked their @rses off).

The problem came afterwards:
First, there was no immigration law introduced. The conservatives still dreamed about an ethnically homogenous Germany as hundred years before and didn't want ANY immigration, while the leftwing dreamers took over the SPD, for whom the world was an ideal of multiculturqal cloud cuckoo land. Anybody should be welcome.

Now, with Germany being a rich country, obviously people wanted to come here, and immigrants ARE needed for certain positions.
But while the lack of immigration legislation made it almost impossible to get the people here, who would make a valuable contribution to the country, there were many loopholes (e.g. in the family reunion laws and the asylum seeker laws), which could be exploited by unscrupelous people and social parasites.
At the same time the lack of legislation made it very difficult to get rid of those who have missbehaved here.

An exmple: My fiancee is a nurse with a college degree. Currently she is working as the assistant matron in a posh nursing home in Ireland (this means she is the number two in this nursing home, the deputy boss). But she is not an EU citizen. She has a residency in Ireland, which allows her to stay unlimited in Ireland, she has a job, she pays her taxes and she has never in her life been on social welfare.
She has been contributing to Ireland and the Irish economy.
She would do this in Germany as well (ok, she would have to go to school and study German first), but the only way she can move here is by marrying me. The is no other way.

This law is also one reason for the many forced marriages. Somebody e.g. from Turkey wants to come here to live here, he has to find a woman with German citizenship or at least a residence visa for Germany to marry. This is why so many young women grown up in Germany get forced to marry distant relatives (like cousins) or friends of the parents to enable them to come to Germany.

The loophole is the asylum act. Based on the experiences during the Nazi reign, wheremany Germans had to flee toother countries, Germany's constitution states that Germany has to give asylum to anybody who is politically persecuted.
Now, the processing of an asylum application takes years (especially the proff of persecution). During this time the applicant is not permitted to work, but instead draws social welfare.
Many applications a fraudulent anyway. Many of these applicants add to their welfare money by carrying out criminal acts (like drug trading, or registering in several welfare offices under different names, though AFAIK this was stopped after mandatory fingerprinting was introduced to have a positive ID). Compared to what they would earn back home, e.g. in Africa, it is a lot, they send money back and even if they eventually get deported, they still made a profit.
This, obviously hurts the small number of genuinely persecuted people.

Jan

Drake
10-04-2008, 04:06 PM
Nope, the problem lays in the fact that for decades various German government, for different reasions, have ignored the fact that Germany has developed from a n EMIGRANT country into an IMMIGRANT one.


True, but that wasn't my point, I talked about how that development started and this story was nothing else but high treason.
Germany is also still an emigrant country btw.
Over 100000 germans, mostly key players, flee from this mess here every year.

Walther
10-04-2008, 04:34 PM
True, but that wasn't my point, I talked about how that development started and this story was nothing else but high treason.
Germany is also still an emigrant country btw.
Over 100000 germans, mostly key players, flee from this mess here every year.

Then how comes that the first Turkish Gastarbeiter were hired under the Adenauer CDU government in 1961? IIRC, the SPD were in opposition without chance to participate in government back then.

BTW, the Ottoman Empire and Prussia (and later Turkey and Germany) were since the 18th century closely allied.

Jan

Adrian Wainer
10-04-2008, 04:36 PM
I think the brainwashing methapor is a dangerous one, in that implicit in it one will make the assumption that Islamofascists can only recruit a small cadre to their cause. Really Hitler had huge support in Germany and whilst it is true that he was a very skillful showman in respect of e.g. the rallies which the Nazis organized but I don't think one could say he brainwashed the German people. What he essential did was to strike a bargain with the German people that they given him their uncondtional loyalty and he will deliver X, Y and Z. Now if Germany had been a very different place he would have got nowhere, e.g. without an economic slump the Nazis would have remained a fringe party. At the same time, had Germany been a different society even with an economic problem, the Nazis would still have got nowhere, like e.g. the almost holiday camp atmosphere that Hitler enjoyed during his so called prison sentence. So the society had to be receptive to what Hitler wanted and had to offer, the problem is for many Muslims they do not need to be "brainwashed", they are receptive to Islamofascist ideas just as the Germans were receptive to Nazi ideas in the 1930s.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Drake
10-04-2008, 04:52 PM
Then how comes that the first Turkish Gastarbeiter were hired under the Adenauer CDU government in 1961? IIRC, the SPD were in opposition without chance to participate in government back then.

BTW, the Ottoman Empire and Prussia (and later Turkey and Germany) were since the 18th century closely allied.

Jan

True, initially it was the CDU. SPD merely really kickstarted it in the late sixties. Both are guilty of treason. Even Helmut Schmidt has realized it was a mistake of epic proportions.

The relations were always good in the past 200 years, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to export 3 million people from one country to another.

Walther
10-04-2008, 04:52 PM
I think the brainwashing methapor is a dangerous one, in that implicit in it one will make the assumption that Islamofascists can only recruit a small cadre to their cause. Really Hitler had huge support in Germany and whilst it is true that he was a very skillful showman in respect of e.g. the rallies which the Nazis organized but I don't think one could say he brainwashed the German people. What he essential did was to strike a bargain with the German people that they given him their uncondtional loyalty and he will deliver X, Y and Z. Now if Germany had been a very different place he would have got nowhere, e.g. without an economic slump the Nazis would have remained a fringe party. At the same time had Germany been a different society even with an economic problem, the Nazis would still have got nowhere, like e.g. the almost holiday camp atmosphere that Hitler enjoyed during his so called prison sentence. So the society had to be receptive to what Hitler wanted and had to offer, the problem is for many Muslims they do not need to "brainwashed", they are receptive to Islamofascist ideas just as the Germans were receptive to Nazi ideas in the 1930s.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer


I think there is a big difference betwenn three groups of people:

1) Plain supporters, who might turn up at a demonstarion and shout slogans, but not actually undergoing a physical risk for themselves (except maybe getting hit by a police baton)

2) Those willing to commit crimes of violence for the cause, but without intentionally sacrificing themselves getting shot while e.g. trying to get away from a bank robbery committed to gain funds for the organisation is bad luck, but not intentional). This would e.g. include somebody who deposits a bomb in some populated place and then walks away.

and
3) Those sacrificing themselves fully concious of what they are doing.

While I think that 1) is the typical "Mitlaeufer" and supporter, who might provide infrastructure, hide explosives or propaganda material, I think 2) probably and 3) definitely ARE brainwashed.
The instinct to stay alive is one of the most powerfull ones in any animal. If people loose this instinct and willfully give up their physical existence, then there must be something wrong in their heads.

I read some material about the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. There similar psychological tricks were used to get them to kill themselves.
Another example would be Hannah Reitsch, a German test pilot and Nazi supporter. After her fiancee, another pilot, was killed by British fighters, she pushed on having a squadron of manned V1 missiles set up (she actually flew a prototype) to carry out suicide attacks against the Allied bombers. She actually wanted to go herself.

Jan

Drake
10-04-2008, 04:53 PM
...So the society had to be receptive to what Hitler wanted and had to offer, the problem is for many Muslims they do not need to "brainwashed", they are receptive to Islamofascist ideas just as the Germans were receptive to Nazi ideas in the 1930s....

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

You hit the nail on the head.

Adrian Wainer
10-04-2008, 06:18 PM
I think there is a big difference betwenn three groups of people:

1) Plain supporters, who might turn up at a demonstarion and shout slogans, but not actually undergoing a physical risk for themselves (except maybe getting hit by a police baton)

2) Those willing to commit crimes of violence for the cause, but without intentionally sacrificing themselves getting shot while e.g. trying to get away from a bank robbery committed to gain funds for the organisation is bad luck, but not intentional). This would e.g. include somebody who deposits a bomb in some populated place and then walks away.

and
3) Those sacrificing themselves fully concious of what they are doing.

While I think that 1) is the typical "Mitlaeufer" and supporter, who might provide infrastructure, hide explosives or propaganda material, I think 2) probably and 3) definitely ARE brainwashed.
The instinct to stay alive is one of the most powerfull ones in any animal. If people loose this instinct and willfully give up their physical existence, then there must be something wrong in their heads.

Hi Jan, I don't want to get in to the issue of the Japanese Pilots because it is a totally different culture. As for Hannah Reitsch, I don't know very much about the lady. As for those involved in 9/11 for the majority of them, I would be confident that there was psychologically condtioning involved, in that there was such a long period between when the attack would have been carried out and when they would have needed to have been told that they would be engaging in a suicide mission. But for other suicide bombers they really do not need this psychological condtioning, because it does not require much training to get on a bus or train with an explosive and detonate it, and therefor it is possible to get them to blow themselves up, before they have had a lot of time to think about it. All that said, your 3 definitions are good and I agree with your analysis and whilst the number 3s will always be a tiny minority, the politically correct policies of Western Governments are an encouragement to the 1s and 2s to think they can overthrow the Western European Nation States and establish an Islamofascist ruleing regime in Europe.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Walther
10-04-2008, 06:48 PM
Hi Jan, I don't want to get in to the issue of the Japanese Pilots because it is a totally different culture. As for Hannah Reitsch, I don't know very much about the lady. As for those involved in 9/11 for the majority of them, I would be confident that there was psychologically condtioning involved, in that there was such a long period between when the attack would have been carried out and when they would have needed to have been told that they would be engaging in a suicide mission. But for other suicide bombers they really do not need this psychological condtioning, because it does not require much training to get on a bus or train with an explosive and detonate it, and therefor it is possible to get them to blow themselves up, before they have had a lot of time to think about it. All that said, your 3 definitions are good and I agree with your analysis and whilst the number 3s will always be a tiny minority, the politically correct policies of Western Governments are an encouragement to the 1s and 2s to think they can overthrow the Western European Nation States and establish an Islamofascist ruleing regime in Europe.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer


I doubt that it will work.
first, Muslims are less than ten percent of the population of ANY European country (with the exception of Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia (and Turkey, if you include them into Europe), where the Muslims are native and not imported.
Secondly, the radicals themselves are a minority within this minority.
Then you'll have sectarian differences, e.g. the Wahabis and Salafists see the Shi'ites as dangerous heretics, who need to be killed (similar to the fights between the Catholics and Protestants in Europe 400 years ago).
I also suspect that groups like the Alevits would join the forces of those who'll defend secularism, not to speak about the many Turkish Kemalists.
And then, most people here would not accept enforced religious convertion.
They'd rebel first (me for instance and, with the training I had, could be quite dangerous if I wanted to).

The danger are the minority of the No.3 group. While they can't really change the country (unless we let ourselves to be scared), they still can cause damage.

Concerning the Japanese Kamikaze pilots (and sailors), I'd suggest that you read the following book: Japan at War, an oral history by Haruko Taya Cook and Theodore F. Cook, ISBN 184212238 X
The authors interviewed several surviving kamikaze pilots and relatives of others.
Also, the Austrian TV had an extensive documentary about them a few years ago.

The pattern is very similar: the young guys get coaxed into a situation where they cannozt pull back without giving themselves up completely and loosing all support they have within their community (like feeling that they are letting down their comrades, religion or nation).
One thing which is ALWAYS present, is an older guy in the background, who doesn't risk his own life, but gives the orders.

the few, who kill themselves without any connections, I compare them to the nutters, who commit school massacres because they feel slighted.

Jan

Adrian Wainer
10-04-2008, 07:31 PM
The danger are the minority of the No.3 group. While they can't really change the country (unless we let ourselves to be scared), they still can cause damage.

Concerning the Japanese Kamikaze pilots (and sailors), I'd suggest that you read the following book: Japan at War, an oral history by Haruko Taya Cook and Theodore F. Cook, ISBN 184212238 X
The authors interviewed several surviving kamikaze pilots and relatives of others.
Also, the Austrian TV had an extensive documentary about them a few years ago.

The pattern is very similar: the young guys get coaxed into a situation where they cannozt pull back without giving themselves up completely and loosing all support they have within their community (like feeling that they are letting down their comrades, religion or nation).
One thing which is ALWAYS present, is an older guy in the background, who doesn't risk his own life, but gives the orders.

the few, who kill themselves without any connections, I compare them to the nutters, who commit school massacres because they feel slighted.

Jan

Hi Jan, it goes further than the Number 3s, because Muslims or more specifically Islamofascists are allready censoring what people can say in Europe and really whilst certain Muslims no doubt believe that they can overthrow Western European Nation States and replace them with a pan European Islamist State through military action that is not a practical possibility with the population numbers Muslims currently have in Europe. What they do have the power to do is to establish a special position for themselves, so that the non-Muslim majority essentially become second class citizens in their own countries in respect of any area were the asperations of the majority community and Islamofascist activists would conflict and once they have achieved that, if they open the door to unlimited immigration, then Europe is finished.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=9DMHBKSPG9g

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=ImdNLRqZ8SU

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=pxQZm2zyMfY

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=xR-J8cXYVIo

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
10-04-2008, 08:25 PM
One thing I've noticed as well is that emigrants over the years develop an idealistic picture of their country of origin. E.g. the Turkish Gastarbeiter who came here in the 1960s, forget about how hard life was in a remote mountain village, trying to grow some crops on a stony field, no electricity, no water (except from the well), freezing cold in winter, being watched and controlled by the whole village population as a teenager etc..
Now in their memories it is an idyllic scene, where everything was predictable and tidy, everybody knew his place etc., completely forgetting that their country of origin has changed over the last 40 years as well.


That produced an interesting problem here, starting around the late 1970s, where migrants, predominantly from Italy at that stage but later from Greece and Turkey as those groups came later, returned to their villages to retire after working in Australia since the 1940s and 1950s.

The idealised life they remembered, and the family and social practices of which they had kept alive in Australia, was gone. For example, young women were getting around in mini skirts and going out with young men unchaperoned.

A lot of these migrants returned to Australia after a few months or years, caught in a confusing cultural no man's land after spending all their adult lives maintaining a culture that was steadily disappearing in their country of origin while they were doing it.

I don't know that the same situation applies to all Islamic countries as, as far as I can see, the remote parts of Pakistan and various Middle Eastern countries don't seem to be adapting to the modern world. This is probably irrelevant to the present discussion as people who migrate from those countries to the West are generally from the better educated and more urbane groups, not that that necessarily means that they aren't the group from which the dangerous fanatics will be drawn.

I think there may be a strong element of resentment and vengeance motivating some of these characters, such as the London bombers, who come from groups long resident in the host country. Their, and in some cases their parents', experience or perception of discrimination by the dominant community and their contempt for the standards and customs of the dominant community may fuse conveniently with current extremist Islamic jihadi views to justify vengeful acts against the dominant community.

Walther
10-04-2008, 10:33 PM
That produced an interesting problem here, starting around the late 1970s, where migrants, predominantly from Italy at that stage but later from Greece and Turkey as those groups came later, returned to their villages to retire after working in Australia since the 1940s and 1950s.

The idealised life they remembered, and the family and social practices of which they had kept alive in Australia, was gone. For example, young women were getting around in mini skirts and going out with young men unchaperoned.

A lot of these migrants returned to Australia after a few months or years, caught in a confusing cultural no man's land after spending all their adult lives maintaining a culture that was steadily disappearing in their country of origin while they were doing it.

This exactly happened to many first generationTurkish immigrants here, they always planned to return someday, first they were living in portacabins shared with many other young men, just saving their money to eventually buy this village shop or garage back home, but then they got fed up of living with a bunch of blokes and stared missing their wives, they brought the wife over and moved into a cheap flat in the less desiable districts of town (old, pre WW1 buildings, with outside toilets and coal stoves for heating), then the children came and every time the return was postponed, until one day they realised that they don't know anybody in their old village anymore. All their childhood friends went abroad as well, also their children grew up in Germany and know the village in Turkey only from holidays and have all their friends over here.



I don't know that the same situation applies to all Islamic countries as, as far as I can see, the remote parts of Pakistan and various Middle Eastern countries don't seem to be adapting to the modern world. This is probably irrelevant to the present discussion as people who migrate from those countries to the West are generally from the better educated and more urbane groups, not that that necessarily means that they aren't the group from which the dangerous fanatics will be drawn.

I think there may be a strong element of resentment and vengeance motivating some of these characters, such as the London bombers, who come from groups long resident in the host country. Their, and in some cases their parents', experience or perception of discrimination by the dominant community and their contempt for the standards and customs of the dominant community may fuse conveniently with current extremist Islamic jihadi views to justify vengeful acts against the dominant community.

I think it is both side's fault. I can't speak about the UK, but I'm quite familar with the German situation (and unlike most Germans, through my ex-wives I'm also quite familiar with immigration procedures, which normally only affect foreigners).
On one hand, by simply denying that immigration exists over almost 40 years, the various governments (both left wing and conservative are at fault) failed to provide proper integration infrastructures, like e.g. German language courses. Only a few years ago was it made mandatory to pass a simple spoken German language test to get a citizenship!
Now minimum language skills are mandatory even for a residence visa (due to the fact that many of the more conservative members of especially the Muslim comunities refused to let their wives learn German, out of fear that they might interact alone with the "sinfull" German surroundings). For a citizenship, the applicant has to prove basic knowledge about Germany's history, political system and constitution.
Also, a closer look is being taken at marriages, to see if they have been voluntary or not (e.g. in the Berlin district of Neukoelln, years ago I translated when a friend was marrying his Filipino bride, who at this time didn't speak German. Nowadays the translating must be done by a sworn court translator, because apparently people with connections to organised crime have been translating falsely, so that women got married who didn't even know what was going on!).

Schools also failed to provide special help to make sure that the children of immigrants would get the education they'd need to find a job later. In some cases you can't rely on the parents doing the job, especially if the parents are barely literate and understand very little German, and due to their hard manual work are not able to spend much time in educating their children.
This way we have two generations of young people, who are going straight from school to the dole line.

On the other hand I have noticed that many Muslim families (both Arab and Turkish) treat their first born sons (but also the other sons) like little princes. Once I installed a lighting system in a second hand furniture shop owned by a Lebanese businessman. During the week I was working there, I could observe much about how the family interacted. The father was a devout Muslim, observing his prayers etc., but the way he permitted his oldest (teenage) son to talk to the mother, well if I would have acted towards my mother this way, I would have gotten a major walloping from my dad.
On the other hand I have a high respect for the girls. From a very young age they have to take over responsibilities and to work.
This makes them usually much more mature than their brothers.
The problem is now, no matter how the boy treats his mum or his sisters, but if he challenges his dad (who is basically the clan leader and has to uphold the image of the guy who controls everything) he'll get a major beating.

Now imagine a boy like this in a public school, where most teachers are female. He got taught at home that he has to act the tough, supermacho, who readily will use violence if something doesn't go his way, but at the same he has been taught that he doesn't have to take orders from women (this doesn't apply just to school, at the airport I'm working at on a few occasion I had to step in, getting ready to get physical, because some Arab young macho in his late teens or early 20s on a Morrocco flight was getting agressive towards one of our stewardesses, because he didn't like to take orders from a woman. On one occasion, it looked as if two guy were about to beat one of the girls. I was outside, just starting with my walk around inspection and had therefore my MagLite in my hand. I just shouted to the captain (through the open cockpit window) that there was trouble in the cabin and stormed up the airstairs. If the guys would have hit the girl I would have wacked them, I was fully ready to get torn in. But my presence and the presence of the captain coming out of the cockpit at the same time cooled the guys down. Apparently they got up, while the plane was still taxying and the purserette told them to sit down again, upon which they became agressive. They tried to appeal to some male solidarity with us, but the captain ordered the first officer to radio for police, so they got arrested.).

This is exactly the problem, a very agressive attitude, considering any criticism as an attack on some kind of honour, while on the other hand being a failure in modern life, which requires education for success, but still demanding status symbols and plenty of money in the pocket.

This is exactly the group the religious fanatics try to recruit. Either they fall for the fanatics or just become criminals.

Jan

pdf27
10-05-2008, 05:08 AM
Hi Jan, it goes further than the Number 3s, because Muslims or more specifically Islamofascists are allready censoring what people can say in Europe
Total Boll***s

Drake
10-05-2008, 07:05 AM
Total Boll***s

Right, it's not the muslims who try to censor, they don't have that power yet. It's our own corrupt politically correct ruling elite that pulls stunts like relocating a D.A. and a police officer after they stated correct numbers on crime rates in an interview. Or majors preventing citizens from executing their civil rights, like freedom of assembly or speech.

Rising Sun*
10-05-2008, 07:13 AM
I think it is both side's fault. I can't speak about the UK, but I'm quite familar with the German situation (and unlike most Germans, through my ex-wives I'm also quite familiar with immigration procedures, which normally only affect foreigners).
On one hand, by simply denying that immigration exists over almost 40 years, the various governments (both left wing and conservative are at fault) failed to provide proper integration infrastructures, like e.g. German language courses. Only a few years ago was it made mandatory to pass a simple spoken German language test to get a citizenship!
Now minimum language skills are mandatory even for a residence visa (due to the fact that many of the more conservative members of especially the Muslim comunities refused to let their wives learn German, out of fear that they might interact alone with the "sinfull" German surroundings). For a citizenship, the applicant has to prove basic knowledge about Germany's history, political system and constitution.

We took a different path by implementing something called 'multiculturalism'. Precisely what that term means depends upon the commentator's standpoint. At one extreme are those who regard it as the worst thing that ever happened to Australia (naturally, none of these people are Aborigines, who might have a rather different view of what was the worst thing to happen to Australia on the immigration front) because the government funded and encouraged separate identities based on migrants' homelands rather than encouraging assimilation. At the other exteme are people who think it's a great idea to value and support and encourage people to maintain their foreign cultural heritage in a new country and that the taxpayers in the dominant community should support this mild form of cultural apartheid. Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

And, like a lot of well-intentioned ideas that came out of the sixties and seventies, there was probably more cuddly feely sentiment than sound research to support the program.


On the other hand I have noticed that many Muslim families (both Arab and Turkish) treat their first born sons (but also the other sons) like little princes. Once I installed a lighting system in a second hand furniture shop owned by a Lebanese businessman. During the week I was working there, I could observe much about how the family interacted. The father was a devout Muslim, observing his prayers etc., but the way he permitted his oldest (teenage) son to talk to the mother, well if I would have acted towards my mother this way, I would have gotten a major walloping from my dad.

Here, most of the wogs do it, starting at Greece and moving clockwise around the Mediterranean.

It used to drive my feminist wife nuts in the 1970s and early 1980s when she taught in a slum school here to see little Greek boys in the first few years of primary school walking to school followed by mum or grandma lugging their schoolbags, and mum or grandma turning up at school at lunchtime to feed the little princes, to the extent of placing food in their mouths, and mum or grandma treated by these kids as if they were servants, which they were.

And as you indicated, these attitudes spilled over into contemptuous attitudes by these little princes towards female teachers, which provoked some interesting confrontations with Anglo-Celtic Aussie sheilas who weren't prepared to be treated that way. Which of course then provoked the arrogant dads to turn up at the school and try to bully the female teachers, because they were just as incapable of handling women in positions of authority and, worse, women who were substantially better educated than them.

By the time they're in their mid-teens, a lot of these boys are strutting little (and not so little with the body building and steroids) shits obsessed with proving their manhood by violent conduct, into kickboxing and martial arts and street gangs before the clever ones graduate to being nightclub bouncers and drug dealers while the dumb ones just create havoc on trains and streets. Some are Muslims, but there is a fair sprinkling of Lebanese Christians, Greek Orhtodox and sundry other religions among them.

I don't know what causes such conduct to be so common across so many racial, ethnic, and religious groups, but I suspect that part of it is the migrant experience for the first generation born or arrived very young in a new country because they're the ones who behave like that when, at least publicly, most of their fathers don't. I think there is an element of trying to be the top dog in a foreign environment. What goes with it is an exaggerated sense of identity with their parents' culture and perhaps religion to anchor them in the foreign environment. Magnify those aspects in some vulnerable Muslim individuals and that's probably half way to a suicide bomber.

I think also that there is a fundamental divide between the modern West and much of the rest of the world that revolves around a different attitude to the place of women in society. As long as a society automatically makes half of the population subservient to the other half, members of that society who agree with such a position are incapable of thinking and acting in ways consistent with modern Western ways. Worse, they see our ways as decadent and think that this decadence entitles them to treat us as less worthy. Rather like the reverse often happens with Westerners looking at those societies. Unfortunately, I doubt that there is any middle ground which can be reached to allow both sides to respect the other's beliefs and practices. It sure as hell ain't gonna happen in my case as long as so-called 'honour killings' and other forms of male-dominated rubbish are acceptable in certain cultures.

Rising Sun*
10-05-2008, 07:28 AM
Right, it's not the muslims who try to censor, they don't have that power yet. It's our own corrupt politically correct ruling elite that pulls stunts like relocating a D.A. and a police officer after they stated correct numbers on crime rates in an interview. Or majors preventing citizens from executing their civil rights, like freedom of assembly or speech.

Or, as happened in one our states some years ago (might still be in for all I know), police were banned from issuing descriptions of suspects as of Asian / Middle Eastern / African / Southern European / or whatever appearance as that was a form of racial profiling or stereotyping. So, if there was a major bombing by a crew of X ethnic appearance, police would just have to say that they are looking for two males about 1.75cm tall of average build, rather than adding the helpful identification information that they were a couple of blokes of X appearance. :rolleyes:

But that's not to be laid at the feet of Muslims or anyone other than the politically correct zombies who have got their hands on the levers of power, or to whom those who have their hands on those levers are beholden.

It's the same sort of rubbish that says children shouldn't have books in school which have mum and dad in a family because this is discriminatory towards lesbians where there are two mums in the family, or kindergartens shouldn't celebrate Xmas or children shouldn't have ham sandwiches because it might offend Muslims. :rolleyes:

In my experience, the people being 'protected' from these things by the self-appointed guardians of the social conscience (who almost invariably come from the dominant Anglo-Celtic culture) are considerably more robust than, and often embarrassed by, such pedantic attempts to ensure that minorities are respected.

Drake
10-05-2008, 07:31 AM
Here, that's what you get if you hand them the little finger (freedom of religion):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html

Rising Sun*
10-05-2008, 08:00 AM
Here, that's what you get if you hand them the little finger (freedom of religion):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html

I don't have a problem with the pharmacist's action, any more than I do with a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to stock pork or a Catholic doctor refusing to prescribe the contraceptive pill or perform an abortion.

We currently have a parliamentary debate here about legalising abortion which is about a bill (draft legislation) which requires a doctor with a conscientious objection to abortion (up to 24 weeks, which despite my willingness to decriminalise abortion is way too late for me) to give an 'effective referral' (i.e. to a doctor who will perform the abortion) to the woman. I don't see why the doctor should have to compromise his or her conscience to participate in what is, to the doctor, a grave moral crime. The Yellow Pages is widely available and it's not hard for the woman to find other doctors.

Just because someone wants something that might be acceptable to the community in general doesn't mean that everyone is obliged to supply it.

Although I did them in first half of my career, as a practising lawyer for 30 years I won't act for people, almost invariably men, accused of sex crimes against children. This is partly because one case (in which I would have happily pulled the lever on the gallows to drop my client and his mongrel wife into eternity) put me off doing any more, and partly because having children of my own gave me a new perspective. I subscribe to the principle that everyone is entitled to a lawyer to defend them, regardless of the enormity of the crime with which they are charged, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to provide that defence.

I am entitled to my freedom of choice just as much as a pharmacist or doctor or anyone else providing goods or services is entitled to theirs, and just as much as a woman is entitled to choose the contraceptive or morning after pills or an abortion.

The problem with some noisy proponents of freedom of choice, not a few of whom I've had a bit to do with in radical political circles, is that their view of freedom of choice is that everybody else is free to agree with them. I think everybody is entitled make their own choices and that nobody's exercise of choice should override someone else's right to choose their own actions.

Drake
10-05-2008, 09:43 AM
I don't have a problem with the pharmacist's action, any more than I do with a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to stock pork or a Catholic doctor refusing to prescribe the contraceptive pill or perform an abortion.

We currently have a parliamentary debate here about legalising abortion which is about a bill (draft legislation) which requires a doctor with a conscientious objection to abortion (up to 24 weeks, which despite my willingness to decriminalise abortion is way too late for me) to give an 'effective referral' (i.e. to a doctor who will perform the abortion) to the woman. I don't see why the doctor should have to compromise his or her conscience to participate in what is, to the doctor, a grave moral crime. The Yellow Pages is widely available and it's not hard for the woman to find other doctors.

Just because someone wants something that might be acceptable to the community in general doesn't mean that everyone is obliged to supply it.

Although I did them in first half of my career, as a practising lawyer for 30 years I won't act for people, almost invariably men, accused of sex crimes against children. This is partly because one case (in which I would have happily pulled the lever on the gallows to drop my client and his mongrel wife into eternity) put me off doing any more, and partly because having children of my own gave me a new perspective. I subscribe to the principle that everyone is entitled to a lawyer to defend them, regardless of the enormity of the crime with which they are charged, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to provide that defence.

I am entitled to my freedom of choice just as much as a pharmacist or doctor or anyone else providing goods or services is entitled to theirs, and just as much as a woman is entitled to choose the contraceptive or morning after pills or an abortion.

The problem with some noisy proponents of freedom of choice, not a few of whom I've had a bit to do with in radical political circles, is that their view of freedom of choice is that everybody else is free to agree with them. I think everybody is entitled make their own choices and that nobody's exercise of choice should override someone else's right to choose their own actions.

Isn't Tesco a chain of some sort? That dude was an employee and whether that woman takes the pill or not is none of his business. The store sells the pills, so he has to sell them or he should quit. Same goes for alcohol or pork. Who do those religious nerds, be it muslim, jew or christian think they are. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion and I am slowly but surely fed up with their annoying demands for special treatment and it's not just me.
Isn't there a saying: Be careful what you wish for ....

Adrian Wainer
10-05-2008, 09:56 AM
I don't have a problem with the pharmacist's action, any more than I do with a Muslim or Jewish butcher refusing to stock pork or a Catholic doctor refusing to prescribe the contraceptive pill or perform an abortion.

You are mixing up several different things there. In respect of the Muslim or Jewish butcher not providing pork one you might as well defend your position by saying that you would support the right of the pharmacist, in the same way you would defend the right of a vegetarian organic healthyfood shop not to sell Mars Bars fried in animal fat. If a retail organization has a stated policy that it merchandizes certain products that it basically just a fact of how it operates. The issue as I understand it, is that the product was carried by the pharmacy but the pharmacist refused to supply it, that is an entirely different matter. If the Pharmacist knew that the Pharmacy retailed such products and they were contrary to his moral beliefs why did he not seek employment with a pharmacy where such products are not retailed.



We currently have a parliamentary debate here about legalising abortion which is about a bill (draft legislation) which requires a doctor with a conscientious objection to abortion (up to 24 weeks, which despite my willingness to decriminalise abortion is way too late for me) to give an 'effective referral' (i.e. to a doctor who will perform the abortion) to the woman. I don't see why the doctor should have to compromise his or her conscience to participate in what is, to the doctor, a grave moral crime. The Yellow Pages is widely available and it's not hard for the woman to find other doctors.
Even if a doctor does not wish to perform an abortion under any circumstances, I do not have a problem with that.



Just because someone wants something that might be acceptable to the community in general doesn't mean that everyone is obliged to supply it.


In the way you have presented things, it looks like to me that you may be suggesting that a Wahabi Muslim in Australia could get a job at a state municipal swimming pool knowing that it was a mixed pool and it was his responsibility to provide lifeguard protection to both men and women bathers and then say it was not his responsibility that a woman drowned because he did not wish to pollute his mind by looking at women in bathing costumes and stayed in his office rather than being beside the pool, because that way he was sure not to seem any females in bathing costumes and you would regard his position as legitimate.



Although I did them in first half of my career, as a practising lawyer for 30 years I won't act for people, almost invariably men, accused of sex crimes against children. This is partly because one case (in which I would have happily pulled the lever on the gallows to drop my client and his mongrel wife into eternity) put me off doing any more, and partly because having children of my own gave me a new perspective. I subscribe to the principle that everyone is entitled to a lawyer to defend them, regardless of the enormity of the crime with which they are charged, but that doesn't mean I should be compelled to provide that defence.

If you did not wish to act on behalf of people accused of sex crimes against children, that is your own personal choice, however under the British, Australian and American legal system people accused of a crime are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Furthermore with cases of sexual abuse of children, society is operating to a double standard in that the likes of insurgents who plant bombs in busy streets and murder children are often regarded as heroes by the exact same people who would be most vociferous in condemning child sexual abuse.



I am entitled to my freedom of choice just as much as a pharmacist or doctor or anyone else providing goods or services is entitled to theirs, and just as much as a woman is entitled to choose the contraceptive or morning after pills or an abortion.
Well not if you were running a solictor's practice and you were advertiseing a service, that you then refused to provide to a client, for the reason it was the policy of the practice not to provide that service.



The problem with some noisy proponents of freedom of choice, not a few of whom I've had a bit to do with in radical political circles, is that their view of freedom of choice is that everybody else is free to agree with them. I think everybody is entitled make their own choices and that nobody's exercise of choice should override someone else's right to choose their own actions.

Your argument would be fair and reasonable had the lady in question went to a pharmacy that did not supply the morning afterpill because it was operated according to "Islamic" principles, it is my impression she did not.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Rising Sun*
10-05-2008, 10:00 AM
Isn't Tesco a chain of some sort? That dude was an employee and whether that woman takes the pill or not is none of his business. The store sells the pills, so he has to sell them or he should quit. Same goes for alcohol or pork.

Fair point.

I missed the chain store aspect and was treating it as if it was an independent dispensary.

Yeah, if someone doesn't agree with what their employer does then they shouldn't be there.

There is also a degree of hypocrisy, and stupidity, in working for someone who offends your moral principles and expecting them to change their business for your convenience. Not unlike people who buy cheap houses near airports and main roads and then want to shut down the airport or road because it interferes with their enjoyment of the property.

In our last national government we had a nasty turd of a health minister who is a rabid Catholic (although he fathered a bastard with whom he had no contact) and is opposed to abortion, but it didn't stop him presiding over a ministry and department which funds tens of thousands of abortions every year. Because that was the price of him having his position of power. *****!


Who do those religious nerds, be it muslim, jew or christian think they are. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion and I am slowly but surely fed up with their annoying demands for special treatment and it's not just me.

Many of us feel the same way.

We have a bunch of Christian fundamentalists here called the Exclusive Brethren. Their 'religion' prevents them voting (which is an offence under our laws but they don't get prosecuted) yet their elders seek political favours to bend secular laws to their demands. And with some success. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/showdown-looms-for-secretive-sect/2007/02/23/1171734021132.html

Rising Sun*
10-05-2008, 10:10 AM
In the spin you have put on things, it looks like a Wahabi Muslim in Australia could get a job at a state municipal swimming pool and then say it was not his responsibility that a woman drowned because he did not wish to pollute his mind by looking at women in bathing costumes and stayed in his office rather than being beside the pool, because that way he was sure not to seem any females in bathing costumes.

Could you elucidate on (a) the spin I have put on things and (b) how it produces that result?


If you did not wish to act on behalf of people accused of sex crimes against children, that is your own personal choice, however under the British, Australian and American legal people accused of a crime are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

So? Did I say anything to the contrary?


Well not if you were running a solictor's practice and you were advertiseing a service, that you then refused to provide to a client, for the reason it was the policy of the practice not to provide that service.

I'm not, and I don't. And what sort of idiot would run a practice spending money on advertising for clients for a particular type of work and then tell those responding to the advertisements that it was the policy of the practice not to provide the service?

Maybe it happens in Dublin, but not where I am. The cost of advertising alone militates against it.

Adrian Wainer
10-05-2008, 10:24 AM
Right, it's not the muslims who try to censor, they don't have that power yet. It's our own corrupt politically correct ruling elite that pulls stunts like relocating a D.A. and a police officer after they stated correct numbers on crime rates in an interview. Or majors preventing citizens from executing their civil rights, like freedom of assembly or speech.

Hi Drake I have lost the logic of your argument, if the Islamofascists want something and the ruleing elite gives the Islamofascists what they want it e.g. censorship, even if it is the case the Islamofascists are not sufficently strong to achieve the desired result without the co-operation of the ruleing elite, the Islamofascists are still engageing in censorship.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Walther
10-05-2008, 10:27 AM
Here, that's what you get if you hand them the little finger (freedom of religion):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3129625/Mother-is-denied-pill-by-Muslim-pharmacist.html

About ten years ago I had exactly the same problem in rural Ireland (County Sligo)with Catholic pharmacists, when I was on a trip with my then girlfriend (now fiancee), who refused to sell me condoms (one said clearly that contraceptives were against his belief, so he doesn't sell them).

Similarly, when I was living in Shannon, Ireland, I met a German couple who already had three children and decided it was enough. At this time they were living in Clifden, Connemara, Co. Galway, also a beautiful, but very rural region. The woman went to the only gynaecologist within 30 km, who told her that she wouldn't prescribe contraceptives due to her religion and, anyway, three children were by no way enough. She should come back when she is again pregnant.

No wonder that Ireland has one of the highest numbers of teenage pregnancies in Europe. The attitude I mentioned above clearly sucks when you are livng in a rural area with the next pharmacy / gynaecologist 30-50 km away and you don't own a car yet.

BTW, I never encountered this attitude in the bigger Irish cities, like Limerick, Galway or Dublin. I have been living in Ireland for 2 1/2 years and, isince my missus still lives there, I'm regularly visiting there.

Jan

pdf27
10-05-2008, 10:33 AM
Fair point.

I missed the chain store aspect and was treating it as if it was an independent dispensary.

Yeah, if someone doesn't agree with what their employer does then they shouldn't be there.
The article also states that he was a locum, therefore it wasn't his normal place of work. If he was upfront with Tescos and stated that he would not be willing to sell certain medication for reasons of conscience (which seems entirely plausible from the reaction of the manager) then I can find no objection to his behaviour. Indeed, it is quite likely that Tescos had the option of a pharmacist unwilling to sell the morning after pill, or no pharmacist at all.
Frankly, I think the woman in the article doesn't have a leg to stand on...

Adrian Wainer
10-05-2008, 10:33 AM
Could you elucidate on (a) the spin I have put on things and (b) how it produces that result?

I think that should be self evident.



So? Did I say anything to the contrary?

No you didn't, but I wished to make that point?



I'm not, and I don't. And what sort of idiot would run a practice spending money on advertising for clients for a particular type of work and then tell those responding to the advertisements that it was the policy of the practice not to provide the service?

Well that would of course be idiotic, but no less idiotic than your apparent position that Tesco offer products to the public which they would then refuse to sell to the public.



Maybe it happens in Dublin, but not where I am. The cost of advertising alone militates against it.

Well probably does happen if a Leprauchan would be running the practice.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Walther
10-05-2008, 10:45 AM
We took a different path by implementing something called 'multiculturalism'. Precisely what that term means depends upon the commentator's standpoint. At one extreme are those who regard it as the worst thing that ever happened to Australia (naturally, none of these people are Aborigines, who might have a rather different view of what was the worst thing to happen to Australia on the immigration front) because the government funded and encouraged separate identities based on migrants' homelands rather than encouraging assimilation. At the other exteme are people who think it's a great idea to value and support and encourage people to maintain their foreign cultural heritage in a new country and that the taxpayers in the dominant community should support this mild form of cultural apartheid. Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

And, like a lot of well-intentioned ideas that came out of the sixties and seventies, there was probably more cuddly feely sentiment than sound research to support the program.


This is exactly what happened here. The whole immigration issue got caught in between the "keep Germany white and Christian" crowd from the conservative side and the cuddly, let's- sing-Kumbayah-people-everybody-is-welcome from the leftwing side. As a result NOTHING was done.
To make it clear: We need immigration, but it needs to be regulated. Regulated in as far as our economy can digest it and to get people, who'll contribute to the country, and not social freeloaders.
Regulation means NOT in accordance with ethniticy, religion or country of origin. Obviously it should be expected from applicants to respect the local legal system, especially the rights and dutiers written down in the constitution.




Here, most of the wogs do it, starting at Greece and moving clockwise around the Mediterranean.

It used to drive my feminist wife nuts in the 1970s and early 1980s when she taught in a slum school here to see little Greek boys in the first few years of primary school walking to school followed by mum or grandma lugging their schoolbags, and mum or grandma turning up at school at lunchtime to feed the little princes, to the extent of placing food in their mouths, and mum or grandma treated by these kids as if they were servants, which they were.

And as you indicated, these attitudes spilled over into contemptuous attitudes by these little princes towards female teachers, which provoked some interesting confrontations with Anglo-Celtic Aussie sheilas who weren't prepared to be treated that way. Which of course then provoked the arrogant dads to turn up at the school and try to bully the female teachers, because they were just as incapable of handling women in positions of authority and, worse, women who were substantially better educated than them.

By the time they're in their mid-teens, a lot of these boys are strutting little (and not so little with the body building and steroids) shits obsessed with proving their manhood by violent conduct, into kickboxing and martial arts and street gangs before the clever ones graduate to being nightclub bouncers and drug dealers while the dumb ones just create havoc on trains and streets. Some are Muslims, but there is a fair sprinkling of Lebanese Christians, Greek Orhtodox and sundry other religions among them.

I don't know what causes such conduct to be so common across so many racial, ethnic, and religious groups, but I suspect that part of it is the migrant experience for the first generation born or arrived very young in a new country because they're the ones who behave like that when, at least publicly, most of their fathers don't. I think there is an element of trying to be the top dog in a foreign environment. What goes with it is an exaggerated sense of identity with their parents' culture and perhaps religion to anchor them in the foreign environment. Magnify those aspects in some vulnerable Muslim individuals and that's probably half way to a suicide bomber.

I think also that there is a fundamental divide between the modern West and much of the rest of the world that revolves around a different attitude to the place of women in society. As long as a society automatically makes half of the population subservient to the other half, members of that society who agree with such a position are incapable of thinking and acting in ways consistent with modern Western ways. Worse, they see our ways as decadent and think that this decadence entitles them to treat us as less worthy. Rather like the reverse often happens with Westerners looking at those societies. Unfortunately, I doubt that there is any middle ground which can be reached to allow both sides to respect the other's beliefs and practices. It sure as hell ain't gonna happen in my case as long as so-called 'honour killings' and other forms of male-dominated rubbish are acceptable in certain cultures.

Maybe we should just call it a Mediterranen attitude (though many western mediterranean countries, like Spain and Italy, have modernised by now, but I remember similar attitudes from there 30-40 years ago).
IMO, these attitudes stem from countries, where traditionally life was organised in family, clan or tribal groups, with a patriarch at the top who had absolute power. The government was eitherb weak or corrupt, so differences betwee the clans were regulated internally (hey, up to a few decades ago vendettas in Sicily and Sardenia were legendary).

In Germany, the different groups of immigrants settled in different regions, mainly due to faith. The Roman-Catholic and Greek orthodox immigrants mainly settled in Catholic southern and western Germany, while the majority of Turks settled in former Prussian Berlin (due to historical links). Later they got augmented by Arabs, mostly Lebanese. The oldest Muslim cemetary (and mosque) in Berlin (right beside Tempelhof Airport) is almost 300 years old. The land was given to the Muslim community by the Prussian king Frederik II after the Ottoman ambassador unexpectetely died while being in Berlin. According to Muslim customs he needed to be buried within one day, so the king donated the land. Today there is no more space for additional graves on this cemetary, but the mosque is still being used.

The refugees we had form Iran after the Islamist revolution actually fitted themselves in very nicely, probably since most of them came from the educated middle to upper class.


Jan

Adrian Wainer
10-05-2008, 10:52 AM
About ten years ago I had exactly the same problem in rural Ireland (County Sligo)with Catholic pharmacists, when I was on a trip with my then girlfriend (now fiancee), who refused to sell me condoms (one said clearly that contraceptives were against his belief, so he doesn't sell them).

Similarly, when I was living in Shannon, Ireland, I met a German couple who already had three children and decided it was enough. At this time they were living in Clifden, Connemara, Co. Galway, also a beautiful, but very rural region. The woman went to the only gynaecologist within 30 km, who told her that she wouldn't prescribe contraceptives due to her religion and, anyway, three children were by no way enough. She should come back when she is again pregnant.

That is people exercising their rights and if you want to enjoy living in the beautiful scenery of Connemara rather than in the Ruhr valley don't expect that everybody is going to be right on liberals and or that the nearest doctor will for sure not think anybody who would have an abortion should not be consigned to the lowest depths of hell anymore than one would expect to live in the Ruhr and expect it be an unspoiled oasis of nature.



No wonder that Ireland has one of the highest numbers of teenage pregnancies in Europe. The attitude I mentioned above clearly sucks when you are livng in a rural area with the next pharmacy / gynaecologist 30-50 km away and you don't own a car yet.

BTW, I never encountered this attitude in the bigger Irish cities, like Limerick, Galway or Dublin. I have been living in Ireland for 2 1/2 years and, isince my missus still lives there, I'm regularly visiting there.

Jan

I would rather think the high level of teenage pregnancies in the Irish Republic would have a lot less to do with any perceived lack of contraceptives and the common practice of female Irish teenagers to consume so much alcohol that, they can not remember the events of the previous night, the morning after and whilst intoxicated are in no position to make rational decisions.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
10-05-2008, 11:28 AM
In fairness to the individual pharmacist concerned. I have had a personal experience of being in a Tesco store in which they were selling products which were unfit for consumption or use by human beings. They had a tinned product in which the tin was extensively bashed, a cereal product in which the package was open and a packet of plasters in which the package was open. As these goods were being offered at lower price than the undamaged goods, they had been specifically selected as damaged goods, so it was not just an oversight that the store had damaged goods for sale and had not realized the fact. When I brought this matter to the attention of the Tesco store manager he refused to remove the goods from sale and fetched the store security with the implication I was some sort of crazy and dangerous person and that is despite pointing out to him that all of the goods were unsafe to be used by the public and in the case of tin food goods in which the tin has been damaged, this risks poisoning with botulism toxin which is one of the most potent poisons in the natural world. I also sent an e-mail to the then chief executive of Tesco about that matter and received no response. So in the circumstance, I would have to allow for the possibility that the pharmacist told Tesco that he could not supply certain products and Tesco told him the issue would not arise since e.g. he would be working with another pharmacist and they would supply such products.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Panzerknacker
10-06-2008, 08:30 AM
Boys you drifting the topic very badly, the menace of a pharmacist not selling contraceptives is not comparative with the menace of a large group tovel heads blewing to pieces women, children and men alike in name of a perverse faith and with a smile of their dirty faces, there is no point of comparison so... please men, get a grip.:rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
10-06-2008, 09:20 AM
Boys you drifting the topic very badly, the menace of a pharmacist not selling contraceptives is not comparative with the menace of a large group tovel heads

Is it a large group of towel heads?

Given the number of Muslims on the planet, if it was a large group there wouldn't be a plane, bus or train left standing on the planet.


blewing to pieces women, children and men alike

And the West didn't do that to them in Iraq? Twice?

In unprovoked attacks, in the sense that the nations which attacked Iraq hadn't been attacked by Iraq nor were at any risk of attack by Iraq?


in name of a perverse faith

How is it a 'perverse faith'?

Islam largely accepts the old and new testaments, which are the basis of Judaism (the adherents of which have been persecuted by Christians for millennia) and Christianity (the adherents of various versions of which have been persecuted by the adherents of other versions of Christianity for at least one millennium).


and with a smile of their dirty faces,

What's wrong with a martyr having a smile on his dirty face as he performs his act of martyrdom? For example, the Christian martyr Lawrence's face was black by the time he laughed at his tormentors.


The Prefect of Rome, a greedy pagan, thought the Church had a great fortune hidden away. So he ordered Lawrence to bring the Church's treasure to him. The Saint said he would, in three days. Then he went through the city and gathered together all the poor and sick people supported by the Church. When he showed them to the Prefect, he said: "This is the Church's treasure!"

In great anger, the Prefect condemned Lawrence to a slow, cruel death. The Saint was tied on top of an iron grill over a slow fire that roasted his flesh little by little, but Lawrence was burning with so much love of God that he almost did not feel the flames. In fact, God gave him so much strength and joy that he even joked. "Turn me over," he said to the judge. "I'm done on this side!" And just before he died, he said, "It's cooked enough now." Then he prayed that the city of Rome might be converted to Jesus and that the Catholic Faith might spread all over the world. http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=366


there is no point of comparison so... please men, get a grip

I think there is.

One point of comparison is that each side had the arrogant belief that the other is sub-human or primitive or naturally violent, when there is plenty of evidence that they both are.

Adrian Wainer
10-06-2008, 10:31 AM
Boys you drifting the topic very badly, the menace of a pharmacist not selling contraceptives is not comparative with the menace of a large group tovel heads blewing to pieces women, children and men alike in name of a perverse faith and with a smile of their dirty faces, there is no point of comparison so... please men, get a grip.:rolleyes:

Well leaving aside the specific case of what happened in the Tesco store, because I think we have got about as much out of it as can be got with the limited amount of information that we have about this particular incident. Why, such incidents raise concern, is that there is a growing feeling that Muslims are seeking to impose their religious and cultural practices on the entire British nation. Now, I would argue that it is only a minority of Muslims who are seeking to achieve this but achieving it they are, because they have allied themselves to the turbo capitalist right who see advantages in supporting this in order to curry favour with Arab petrodollar rich oil states and they [ ie such Muslims ] have also allied themselves to the extreme Left who see advancing the Islamization of the UK, as a way to turn British society in to a tribalist warground, so the Left can take power once democracy has collapsed. As for your other comments, I will take it you were refering to the relative minority of Islamofascists, rather than the greater majority of ordinary decent Muslims.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Panzerknacker
10-06-2008, 07:26 PM
is that there is a growing feeling that Muslims are seeking to impose their religious and cultural practices on the entire British nation


Not only in the british nation, is in the entire Europe, and is not a feeling, is a fact, the problem for britain is that in there the muslims got the major advances like the special courts and so. Spain in way the of submision too, other was Italy but fortunately in there there is some politicians with balls.

Really sad for a nation wich is so rich in history and culture like England.


Is it a large group of towel heads?

Yes


And the West didn't do that to them in Iraq? Twice?

As far I remember the attack in Iraq was made in the name of political questions and not for religious ones.



How is it a 'perverse faith'?


I made a mistake, is not perverse, is maniatically perverse.




What's wrong with a martyr having a smile on his dirty face as he performs his act of martyrdom? For example, the Christian martyr Lawrence's face was black by the time he laughed at his tormentors.


I was trying to make a racist comment there but seems I failed.

pdf27
10-06-2008, 07:36 PM
is a fact, the problem for britain is that in there the muslims got the major advances like the special courts and so.
Yeah right. You realise they're only now being allowed to have what the Jews have had for a century? That really is a great big step towards Dhimmitude!

Drake
10-07-2008, 04:53 PM
It is, the right step would have been to dismantle the jewish extrawurst and make them obey the same laws as everyone else. Basically everything in sharia (even the family law parts) violates our grundgesetz, isn't there something similar in britain?
So many laws hurt my personal feelings (no parking zones for example :D), how are religious feelings anything special?

Adrian Wainer
10-07-2008, 05:17 PM
It is, the right step would have been to dismantle the jewish extrawurst and make them obey the same laws as everyone else. Basically everything in sharia (even the family law parts) violates our grundgesetz, isn't there something similar in britain?
So many laws hurt my personal feelings (no parking zones for example :D), how are religious feelings anything special?

What's a jewish extrawurst? As for a constitution the United Kingdom does not have one.

Best and warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Panzerknacker
10-07-2008, 06:30 PM
Yeah right. You realise they're only now being allowed to have what the Jews have had for a century? That really is a great big step towards Dhimmitude!


Maybe I have amnesia for the cheap chardonnay but I dont remember the jewish blewing apart british citizens in a terrorist attack or trying to set ablaze half Europe because some cartoons.

My point is that granting special privileges to a minority wich already proven to be dangerous for the national security is not wise, moreover is stupid.

pdf27
10-07-2008, 06:48 PM
Maybe I have amnesia for the cheap chardonnay but I dont remember the jewish blewing apart british citizens in a terrorist attack
That's because you've got rather a short memory.
Example 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)
Example 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_disaster)
Example 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Moyne)
Example 4 (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm)
Of these, Examples 3 and 4 really stand out - Example 3 because the perpetrators (who murdered a senior British official while WW2 was still raging) were given a state funeral by Israel, and Example 4 which includes an attack on unarmed paratroopers who had previously been involved in liberating concentratino camps - a month before VE day.
Put in order by religion, the ranking of total casualties caused to the United Kingdom by terrorism in the last century is very clear:

1) Christianity (by a mile)
2) Judaism
3) Islam


My point is that granting special privileges to a minority wich already proven to be dangerous for the national security is not wise, moreover is stupid.
Not as stupid as being unable to understand the concept that they are merely exercising a right that every individual in the UK has had for more than a century - the right to agree an arbitrator as an alternative to taking a dispute to the courts. This has been pointed out loads of times in this thread, yet still you persist in ignoring the fact that you're talking tripe.

Panzerknacker
10-07-2008, 07:01 PM
Well, that is a good example but I was meaning in britain in the last years in UK, no terrorist attacks in asia some 50 years ago.

And maybe yes, maybe is just me, maybe I am stupid, maybe the muslims after are after all simply peace loving gillete hater and bad comic reviewer people.

I sincerely wish that the problem only lays on me or is only my invention, I really do because that kind of people when angry is by far more violent and bloodthirsty than me.

http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2006/09/italian-nun-shot-dead-by-somali-gunmen.html

Adrian Wainer
10-07-2008, 07:27 PM
Put in order by religion, the ranking of total casualties caused to the United Kingdom by terrorism in the last century is very clear:

1) Christianity (by a mile)
2) Judaism
3) Islam

Well Arabs were getting pretty much what they wanted from the British in the last century, so it would hardly make much sense to go around blowing themup.



Not as stupid as being unable to understand the concept that they are merely exercising a right that every individual in the UK has had for more than a century - the right to agree an arbitrator as an alternative to taking a dispute to the courts. This has been pointed out loads of times in this thread, yet still you persist in ignoring the fact that you're talking tripe.

Well then they will not need Sharia law to be introduced as a parallel legal system as they already have a facility to utilize Sharia. So why are so called Islamic community leaders asking for a parallel legal system under Sharia, is it that they want sharia moved from the sphere of an agreement voluntarily entered in to under the rules of civil arbitration, to its embodyment in the corpus of British criminal law?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Nickdfresh
10-07-2008, 07:51 PM
Hi Jan, I don't want to get in to the issue of the Japanese Pilots because it is a totally different culture. As for Hannah Reitsch, I don't know very much about the lady. As for those involved in 9/11 for the majority of them, I would be confident that there was psychologically condtioning involved, in that there was such a long period between when the attack would have been carried out and when they would have needed to have been told that they would be engaging in a suicide mission. But for other suicide bombers they really do not need this psychological condtioning, because it does not require much training to get on a bus or train with an explosive and detonate it, and therefor it is possible to get them to blow themselves up, before they have had a lot of time to think about it. All that said, your 3 definitions are good and I agree with your analysis and whilst the number 3s will always be a tiny minority, the politically correct policies of Western Governments are an encouragement to the 1s and 2s to think they can overthrow the Western European Nation States and establish an Islamofascist ruleing regime in Europe.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer


Um, actually, there has been study on this, and an example, even allegory, that has emerged is from a town in Morocco. In that town, there is/was a charismatic young Iman that told his young congregation that they were going to fight the American infidel "Crusaders" Iraq as small unit, guerrilla infantry as mujaheddin had done in Afghanistan against the Red Army. When they got there, they were told that they were now "martyrs," and told they had no choice but to become suicide bombers or be killed in a much more ignominious and painful fashion...

I put little faith in the "psychological" nor "conditioning" arguments. Young people are very pliable and can be intimidated to do some very dark things using common persuasion and cult methods. They are already psychologically conditioned!

Nickdfresh
10-07-2008, 08:14 PM
..There is also a degree of hypocrisy, and stupidity, in working for someone who offends your moral principles and expecting them to change their business for your convenience. Not unlike people who buy cheap houses near airports and main roads and then want to shut down the airport or road because it interferes with their enjoyment of the property.

...


I find it fascinating there are very Catholic pharmacists in the US that would never, ever issue birth control to women, but are very much obligated to give Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs...

Nickdfresh
10-07-2008, 08:19 PM
...
I would rather think the high level of teenage pregnancies in the Irish Republic would have a lot less to do with any perceived lack of contraceptives and the common practice of female Irish teenagers to consume so much alcohol that, they can not remember the events of the previous night, the morning after and whilst intoxicated are in no position to make rational decisions.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer


Well, I guess they're deprived of the basic knowledge to make good decisions, aren't they?

And what about the boys? Is it okay for them to date rape drunk Irish lasses or something?

Adrian Wainer
10-08-2008, 07:29 AM
I find it fascinating there are very Catholic pharmacists in the US that would never, ever issue birth control to women, but are very much obligated to give Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs...

I do not quite understand what you are trying to say there, but from a religious perspective I do not think Catholic pharmacists would have a generalized objection to issuing Viagra for the reason that sex between a man and a woman who are married is permitted by the Catholic religion as long as both partners do not enjoy it, feel guilty about it and engage in it for the purpose of creating children. :D

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
10-08-2008, 07:35 AM
Well, I guess they're deprived of the basic knowledge to make good decisions, aren't they?

Well no they are not, maybe in the 1960s but not today when there are so many sources of information.



And what about the boys? Is it okay for them to date rape drunk Irish lasses or something?

In my book, if a girl is drunk and voluntarily has sex with a guy, that does not constitute "date rape".

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer