NYC Mosque Gets the go! [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

View Full Version : NYC Mosque Gets the go!

Zachstar

08-03-10, 11:34 AM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gieR_gNwrCUCH2jR03xjTCoEp4qgD9HC2OM80

NEW YORK — A city commission on Tuesday denied landmark status to a building near the World Trade Center site, freeing a group to convert the property into an Islamic community center and mosque that has drawn national opposition.

HAHA! Idiot racists did not manage to get a single vote to stop the construction. I could not believe my ears when I heard some idiot caller to a talk show claim he thinks the new mosque was being built to house and train terrorists :doh:...

Normally I would not even care but in the past few days the rabbid of the right have been going ape over the concept and I am glad to see them get another pie to the face.

Sailor Steve

08-03-10, 11:40 AM

Argue about the reasons this is bad all you want, we can't say we live by 'Rule Of Law' and then turn that on its head when the rules allow something that offends us. There is no legal reason why this should not take place.

On the other hand......the rabbid of the right...
I would have more respect if you had equal disdain for the rabid of the left. It's not your comments that offend me - it's their one-sidedness.

Oberon

08-03-10, 11:44 AM

Both sides have their rabid dogs, that's politics for you, some people get more excited about it than others. :|\\

mookiemookie

08-03-10, 11:55 AM

Argue about the reasons this is bad all you want, we can't say we live by 'Rule Of Law' and then turn that on its head when the rules allow something that offends us. There is no legal reason why this should not take place.

Exactly how I see it. I'm no fan of this, but if you want freedom of religion this is what you get. If you want no holds barred capitalism, then you pretty much can't tell people who can buy what and what they can build there unless you're a dirty gubmint type/fascist/socialist/whatever -ist you want to call it.

AVGWarhawk

08-03-10, 12:11 PM

To be sure the building will be a target by the nuts. If there are those that are so passionate about abortion clinics and bombing them this new building in NY will become a passion of someone who just does not agree with it's construction and what it represents. If it is drawing this much attention already I believe we are looking at problem waiting to happen.

Edit for spelling. Thank you Steve!

Sailor Steve

08-03-10, 12:23 PM

...compassionate...
I'm sure you meant "passionate"? Most compassionate people don't do bad things ever.

AVGWarhawk

08-03-10, 12:32 PM

I'm sure you meant "passionate"? Most compassionate people don't do bad things ever.

Sorry, yes. :salute:

mookiemookie

08-03-10, 12:33 PM

To be sure the building will be a target by the nuts. If there are those that are so compassionate about abortion clinics and bombing them this new building in NY will become a compassion of someone who just does not agree with it's construction and what it represents. If it is drawing this much attention already I believe we are looking at problem waiting to happen.

I'm not so sure. If someone was that fired up about it, they would have already done something to the other mosque near ground zero. (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=20+warren+street+new+york&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=20+Warren+St,+New+York,+NY+10007&gl=us&ei=zlJYTJjHNMn6nAfEzKm-CQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ8gEwAA)

antikristuseke

08-03-10, 12:44 PM

AVGWarhawk

08-03-10, 01:29 PM

I'm not so sure. If someone was that fired up about it, they would have already done something to the other mosque near ground zero. (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=20+warren+street+new+york&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=20+Warren+St,+New+York,+NY+10007&gl=us&ei=zlJYTJjHNMn6nAfEzKm-CQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ8gEwAA)

If someone is willing to shoot a president to show his devoted love to of all people, Jody Foster,...someone will be around the way before long and attempt to do something to this mosque. Just a matter of time. Even today in Baltimore Jewish synoguagues still get vandalized wth swastikas. Beside, this is in the media and people are tuned in. Would it be smart to go do something right now? This will be a hate crime in the news. Just a matter of time.

Weiss Pinguin

08-03-10, 02:03 PM

mookiemookie

08-03-10, 02:20 PM

How long has that one been there? :hmmm:

40 years. (http://www.masjidmanhattan.com/)

SteamWake

08-03-10, 03:04 PM

HAHA! Idiot racists did not manage to get a single vote to stop the construction.

Not supprising really consider whom was doing the 'voting' besides this was just a side trip. I dont think any panel would say the site was of any historical signifigance.

I wont waste your time with the ties to the radical cleric proposing the site.

This is just one of those things that when you hear it you think to yourself "This isnt going to end well".

antikristuseke

08-03-10, 03:16 PM

It is religion and politics, how could that cluster**** ever end well?

Skybird

08-03-10, 03:20 PM

Appeasement and self-deception was what was wanted, and that goal defined the outcome of the voting since the beginning of the debate. It is no surprise, nor is it a sign of reason. It simply is ideologically motivated calculation in action. and this ideology says: we must befriend with Islam and embrace it, no matter what people feel and say about that - we MUST!

it's also a small illustration of where it leads you if you accept that there are no limits to freedom and tolerance: you end up by tolerating what does not tolerate you, and giving freedom to what wants to take away freedom from you.

to throw in some advise from Karl Popper:

On the pursuit of happiness:
Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle — the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative.

On tolerance:
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

On mutual communication:
There are many difficulties impeding the rapid spread of reasonableness. One of the main difficulties is that it always takes two to make a discussion reasonable. Each of the parties must be ready to learn from the other. You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you.

On freedom:
It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it.

And finally, once again, consider the background of those people hiding in the background who are behind erecting this mosque at Ground Zero - and then tell me that they really mean it well.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmNhNTg0ZmY1NzA4NWJmMjM0YjI1MzAwNzljYjFiNDM= (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MmNhNTg0ZmY1NzA4NWJmMjM0YjI1MzAwNzljYjFiNDM)

Platapus

08-03-10, 05:47 PM

40 years. (http://www.masjidmanhattan.com/)

It is obviously a sleeper cell for them moooslims. Just like em to build a mosque 40 years before the "big moooslim uprising". :har:

Can I get a rakish feather for my tin foil hat? I am feeling a bit sporty.

frau kaleun

08-03-10, 05:59 PM

Can I get a rakish feather for my tin foil hat? I am feeling a bit sporty.

I'm not sure these are feathers, but I'm sure you'll look just fabulous.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_a_NEemuS1i0/S2MobpbJjWI/AAAAAAAAA6I/aRRez8KELFU/s400/foil+hats+on+the+bookcase++della.jpg

TarJak

08-03-10, 06:31 PM

Platapus

08-03-10, 06:33 PM

I'm not sure these are feathers, but I'm sure you'll look just fabulous.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_a_NEemuS1i0/S2MobpbJjWI/AAAAAAAAA6I/aRRez8KELFU/s400/foil+hats+on+the+bookcase++della.jpg
I have a silver lame evening frock that this will look stunning with. Thanks!

razark

08-03-10, 07:11 PM

Platapus

08-03-10, 07:17 PM

AVGWarhawk

08-03-10, 07:37 PM

I was reading some of the CNN forums on this issue. I was dismayed at the number of postings threatening or encouraging acts of terrorism against this community center after it is built.

threatening fire bombing community centers and burning books. :nope:

We have strayed so far.

And I rest my case. People will say build it so we may fly aircraft into it. Have we strayed so far or has the world assisted in the straying?

Ducimus

08-03-10, 07:58 PM

Have we strayed so far or has the world assisted in the straying?

Our perceptions of Muslims had a lot outside assistance. Beheadings, bombings, honor killings, stonings, hangings, rioting, subjugation of women, parking aircraft into skyscrappers.... the list goes on and on. Who said this was the religion of peace anyway? Was that honestly said or was that something someone made up to make people more accepting?

tater

08-03-10, 08:29 PM

It was made up.

Islam means "submission."

To them, submission (to god) leads to peace. Just like submission to dear leader doesn't get you killed in NK (least not as fast).

This is sad, since they could have been denied on entirely legit grounds. If I own any building the same age or older in NYC, and wanted to trash it, I'd expect an identical ruling or I'd sue.

That's the question here now, BTW, did they get special treatment, or could I wreak an 18-whatever building to build a titty bar in NYC?

Actually, they might let me wreck an 18-something era building for a titty bar. How about to build Republican National Headquarters? Nope, application denied ;)

Platapus

08-03-10, 08:35 PM

Ducimus

08-03-10, 09:15 PM

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

.

I'm not a big fan of evangelical movements (which is a masterstroke of understatement), but even I have to acknowledge that at least Christianity has progressed into the 20th and 21st century. Hipocritical as they are, at least they don't commit violence like, or to the scale in frequency, that Islam does. ( Exception being abortion clinics, then they go jihad and start shooting doctors. :shifty: )

edit: And yes, i realize im using the word, "They" very loosely.

Biggles

08-03-10, 09:41 PM

tater

08-03-10, 11:49 PM

Sgt_Raa

08-03-10, 11:55 PM

some white suppremicist will blow it up!... any money...

The Third Man

08-03-10, 11:56 PM

It is hard to get the image of Muslims cheering when the towers came down out of my head.

joegrundman

08-04-10, 03:16 AM

Moeceefus

08-04-10, 03:20 AM

People tend to ignore the fact that although many of our enemies are Muslims, not all Muslims are our enemies.

Skybird

08-04-10, 05:08 AM

I don't see why this site would be any more a target than the other mosques in NYC (http://maps.google.com.au/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=mosques+in+NYC&fb=1&gl=au&hq=mosques&hnear=New+York,+NY,+USA&view=text&ei=X6ZYTP_7K47fceKq3OcI&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=6&ved=0CDQQtQMwBQ) that have been there for years.
You really won't see it, yeah? GZ means nothing to you, and the symbolism behind the action and the nature of that extremely fundamenlist organisation behind the mosque, that totally openly speaks about the Islamization, does not interest you one bit, right? sure then, then you do not see, if you ignore all this.

I've linked one of several available texts explaining who they are three times now, in the other threat on the same issue, and here, and I set up the text in full once for those who do not know what to do with a link and how it works.

But you must not cnsider all this. You are free to not see.

Skybird

08-04-10, 05:15 AM

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is a religion of love and tolerance.

In both there are factions that do the opposite of what the religion dictates. These individuals are called apostates and should not be used as a representation of the entire religion.
Islam does not dictate peace . It dictates conquest and subjugation. This is not voluntary, it is mandatory.

Jesus did not preach like this, and it is malicious of you if you think you must claim both are the same kind of teaching. That is like comparing Ghandi to Gengis Khan and claiming both are equally peaceful. The truth about Jesus and muhammad is more like that both are antagonistic to each other.

An apostate in islam is the one refusing to discriminate other cultures/religion and refusing to claim his own superiority due to the fact that he is islamic, and refuses the enslaving of women. the one followng the dogmatic teaching of islam is the one who does not tolerate anyone but Islamic people, who thinks it is Islam'S natural right to rule the world and that he is just helping evolution's natural cause if assisting islamization with force, lie and violence, who treats women as lifestock and think all girls and women need to be the possession of their fathers or a husband, and who follows Muhammad'S order, laid down int he Quran, to not accept seize-firing for longer time than necessary to gain superiority about non-Islamic facitons, and then crush them, in this way creating "peace" by extinction of differences and victory of the others. Which is the peace of a uniform, monocultural, totalitarian society.

Disclaimer: I am not Christian. I am no member of any sect. I am hostile to the church AND Islam.

Skybird

08-04-10, 05:31 AM

People tend to ignore the fact that although many of our enemies are Muslims, not all Muslims are our enemies.
More precise:
people ignore the fact that if Muslimhood is taken serious, the muslim must be our enemy because we are not Muslim (the Quran demands all males to stand united against those who refuse to submit, and claims refusing submission to Islam is an attack on Islam against which must be defended: that way the victim of an attack becomes labelled the attacker; Muhammad also demanded that men should be happy to even give theirmlives in such "defensive" attacks against the enemy

(=suicide attacks against infidels, and that men only may fear this becasue the fail to see the logic in what Muhammad said by this explanation: in that passage of the Quran he indeed mocked his own followers hesistating to kill the enemy and accept their own death over it),

and that there are people who - for whatever their reasons are - label themselves as muslim, but indeed are not hostile to us, by that unexcusably violating basic dogma of the Quranic ideology and in principle risking their lives, because in principle they already are apostates who refuse to admit they are. Apostacy in Islam is under death penalty.

One cannot understand this if one bases on thw wrong and unfounded legend of Muhammad having preached a peaceful religion and that muhammad and Jesus in rpirnciple taught the same peaceful things. This nonsense simply is right this: an unfounded legend without any grain of truth in it. the quran shows that it is a legend, and muhammad's life shows that it is a legend.

Tribesman

08-04-10, 05:33 AM

You really won't see it, yeah? GZ means nothing to you,
:doh:

I've linked one of several available texts explaining who they are three times now
It amazing what you can link to isn't it, at the moment its just McCarthy peddling the usual spiel for NRO Sky is fixated with, the other week it was how Blacks and Muslims ruin football.
Next week its gonna be Vanguard News Network with "Jews or Muslims which ones have to be got rid of first?"

tater

08-04-10, 08:31 AM

PEW shows substantial (usually significant majority) support for Islamists in the Muslim community worldwide at large.

This is unsurprising as Islamist theology is not really controversial—it's mainstream Islam.

Tribesman

08-04-10, 09:07 AM

PEW shows substantial (usually significant majority) support for Islamists in the Muslim community worldwide at large.

Same as you have said before, so again which of the dozens of PEW surveys and what are the specific questions and responses.

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 10:15 AM

it's also a small illustration of where it leads you if you accept that there are no limits to freedom and tolerance: you end up by tolerating what does not tolerate you, and giving freedom to what wants to take away freedom from you.
Very true. The problem is that the opposite is also true: If you deny those freedoms to someone just because you are convinced they want to take away yours, you run the risk of becoming them. No one knows exactly where to draw that line, and to err on once side is just as bad as erring on the other.

I'm old enough to remember the McCarthy era and the "Godless Communists." Soviet Russia really did subjugate most of their neighbors, and that government was a threat, but the witchhunt for Communists in America destroyed the careers and lives of many good people.

Skybird

08-04-10, 10:32 AM

Very true. The problem is that the opposite is also true: If you deny those freedoms to someone just because you are convinced they want to take away yours, you run the risk of becoming them. No one knows exactly where to draw that line, and to err on once side is just as bad as erring on the other.
If you have no trust in your ability to judge that :) , ask me. I am confident that I can tell the difference between this and that side of the thin red line. In case of Islam, for example, I can tell for sure. It is not a guessing game, but a question of reading islam's own scripture black on white. That was different with for example McCarthy.

Caution is a virtue if used with reasonable care. :) Means: do not exaggerate it. One can also crucify oneself with it. Then one ends with total inabilty to act, to decide, and to project any influence.

In the end, I just need to refer to Islam's own message and statements. Islam leaves no doubt in it's scritpoures what it is about. Why should we assume we must "interprete" these statements different, and why should we assume we know Islam better than Islam says about itself?

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 10:55 AM

If you have no trust in your ability to judge that :) , ask me. I am confident that I can tell the difference between this and that side of the thin red line. In case of Islam, for example, I can tell for sure. It is not a guessing game, but a question of reading islam's own scripture black on white. That was different with for example McCarthy.
But I don't trust you, as I have no means to judge how much of your antagonism is real and how much is in your own head. When I said "no one" I was reiterating my own philosophy: The scariest people I can think of are the ones who absolutely "know" that they are right, because what if they aren't? I don't know any answers for sure, but I don't believe you do either (the "you" here applying to everyone, not just you personally).

As I said long ago in the 'Gay Marriage' thread, either you have freedom or you don't. There is no middle ground.

Tribesman

08-04-10, 11:21 AM

Means: do not exaggerate it.
Like demographic timebomb, non existant laws, global conspiracy theories, all muslims are fundamentalists, Islamic takeover of europe, the EU being part of a jihadist plot, blacks and muslims ruining soccer sort of exaggeration.

Very true. The problem is that the opposite is also true:
Does that suggest that Skys phobia and intolerance makes him the very paradox he keeps going on about avoiding?

tater

08-04-10, 11:44 AM

Same as you have said before, so again which of the dozens of PEW surveys and what are the specific questions and responses.

Read them.

There are not dozens, only a handfull.

The questions typically ask for support of bin laden, for example. A substantial majority either support bin laden at some level, or answer that they don't have an opinion (having no opinion is tantamount to a "support" in the west, anyway).

Note that when PEW puts things together they:
No Confidence combines "not too much confidence" and "no confidence at all."

Which of courser is wrong. No confidence should be ONLY no confidence. "not too much" should be added with the confidence numbers. When you do that, it looks far worse of course---which is not PEW's own PC take.

For example, ask "regular" americans on Main Street how much confidence they have in OBL to do the right thing in international relations/terrorism.

AVGWarhawk

08-04-10, 12:05 PM

Anyway....back to the issue at hand. I see nothing but trouble building this structure two blocks from the area that supported the World Trade Centers.

Tribesman

08-04-10, 12:23 PM

Read them.
Which ones?

The questions typically ask
Deal with specifics not vague "typicals" as you are making specific claims.

Which of courser is wrong.
So you cite something in a general manner about your specific claim and then say its wrong anyway:doh:

So for example from the pile of surveys do you mean the 9% who like al-qaida or the 10% who like the Taliban?

Or why not try the 2006 question about the islamic extremists. Are you concerned about the rise in the Islamic extremists in the world or not concerned? Are you a liitle bit concerned or a little bit not concerned?
Where would you place each of those answers?

Anyway....back to the issue at hand. I see nothing but trouble building this structure two blocks from the area that supported the World Trade Centers.

Do you think they should be evicted from the current mosque?
If not then why is putting a new mosque in the same location such an issue?

Skybird

08-04-10, 12:40 PM

As I said long ago in the 'Gay Marriage' thread, either you have freedom or you don't. There is no middle ground.

And I and Popper say that freedom and toleranc needs limits else they extinct themselves be becoming the cause of their own destruction. You are crucifying yourself over too much philosophical principal abstractions. when the allied troops launched Operation Overlord, the leaders in the West hardly had any doubts about the enemy - the Nazis - being the correctly identified evil of the earth of that time. When you read reports about the Gulags in the Soviet Union, you hardly can debate the ammount of moral selfjustification that Stalinist system may or may not have as an inherent quality - it was evil: basta and period. And when you work yourself into the scripture of Islam and secondary literature about it, you hardly can miss the totalitarian, inhumane nature of the material, and the political intention that has driven Muhammad. It is the programmatic self-justification of a violent conquerer and murderous supressor, a racist and defender of slavery.

Our senses of humour seem to mismatch quite often, yours and mine, you took literal in my earlier reply what I meant as an ironic reply. Well, do not trust me indeed, but also do not trust islamophile idiots running our societies today and dominating public opinion by nuking any critical thought about Islam by labelling that as racism and "like they did with the Jews" and hatespeach and whatever, and do not trust spokesman of Islam and Imams and such people as well, for by definition they have an interest to not tell you grim truths, but to deceive you by telling you lies, half-truths, and leaving out things and contexts. If you want an objective opinion about catholicism and it's history, you would be stupid if you ask the pope, thinking that he must know it best because he is the pope. Being balanced and objective on the church is not part of the job description for popes. But unfortunately, exactly this absurd behavior is common habit when it comes to Islam, linked with a tremendous ammount of selective attention: all positve claism about Islam get believed blindly, all critical statements, even if proven in Islam'S own basis, get systematically denied, refused, ignored.

I admit, though, that it takes much time and plenty of reading effort to get an overview on Islam that is not biased towards glossing over it. There is a reason why it took me over 30 books over ten years or so. But can you be sure that you/we can afford to take this as an excuse to give it the benefit of doubt anymore - after all the troubles it is causing all over the world, day in, day out, since decades, since centuries, since over one millenia?

Your freedom gets taken away from you right now that we speak, day by day, a tiny bit every day that you lose and will not get back. think twice before accepting this to go on for too long - at some time you will have lost something like a critical ammount, and then you are beyon d the point of no return. Absolute concerns of philosophical nature easily lead tpo nothing but fataolism and endless passivity. While you are hesitating - powerful islamic powers work hard to create irreversible political facts that are not any abstract at all, but are solid and real. And they are to your and mine and our children's disadvantage.

Or in short: philosphically excused passivity can be exaggerated. ;)

tater

08-04-10, 01:07 PM

The data is clear at PEW. Even under optimistic conditions (calling "little" support equal to NO support), places like Gaza have a 54% support level (obviously higher when you add in the "little" support level).

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1338-2.gif
Note that "not too much" is removed from that confidence stat.

They refuse to release the raw numbers as far as I can tell.

The complete report on US muslims (pretty progressive as the world goes):
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

They have a 42% approval for AQ. (answering "don't know" here in the US is tantamount to "i support AQ."). Of that 42%, 27% was "don't know" or "refuse to answer." That's a multiple of 1.55 times the rest of the approval.

So we take the confidence above, say the Egypt number of 23%, and multiply by 1.55 to get almost 36% confidence.

I wouldn't have to do this if they published the other numbers, but they prefer to lump two opposite opinions to make it look better than it is.

Regardless, the world view is on the order of 25% full bore approval. That's 300,000,000 muslims.

Regardless, my point about historical buildings is the real issue. NYC better well not protect ANY buildings of a similar age, ever again.

Task Force

08-04-10, 01:17 PM

I can see this Mosque causeing alot of issues in the future... I know it wont be able to sit there in peace... (I myself am against it.)

AVGWarhawk

08-04-10, 01:21 PM

I can see this Mosque causeing alot of issues in the future... I know it wont be able to sit there in peace... (I myself am against it.)

I am as well. To me it feels like a nose if being thumbed and it is in poor taste. But hey, that is just me.

Sgt_Raa

08-04-10, 01:24 PM

I can see this Mosque causeing alot of issues in the future... I know it wont be able to sit there in peace... (I myself am against it.)
:sign_yeah:

The Third Man

08-04-10, 04:05 PM

Is this what you are talking about Sky Bird?

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems.

1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.
Under Kagan’s direction, her chief staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Shariah law – fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.” In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools (inaugural panel audio here).

2. PRO-SHARIAH MONEY: When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the middle east were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack. Guiliani stated flatly, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But – when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law. As Newt Gingrich has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.
In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal’s blood money; In 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.

Read more:
http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/04/shariah-comes-to-the-supreme-court-elena-kagans-decisions/

Skybird

08-04-10, 04:39 PM

Some quickly searched arguments why we should show a deep appreciation for Sharia law:

<graphic images removed> NeonSamurai

So noble. So humane. So superior. So civilised. The shine and glory of human history.

Show your tolerance! show how reasonably you weigh the pro and con of it! do not be quick in your judgement, maybe you are racist and just do not know it! Take care you do not see it out of the ennobling cultural context! You must be sensible to their needs! Their basic goodness! And blah! And blah! Blablablablah!

Tribesman

08-04-10, 04:51 PM

They have a 42% approval for AQ.
So you take a 5% and turn it into 42%:rotfl2:

So we take the confidence above, say the Egypt number of 23%, and multiply by 1.55 to get almost 36% confidence.

So you are making up numbers yourself.

I wouldn't have to do this if they published the other numbers
So you are making up numbers yet claimed they were numbers given in a survey.

Regardless, the world view is on the order of 25% full bore approval.
Regardless?????? Come on Tater you were making up numbers and have then gone and given a made up 25% again.
But anyway , on that last thing you made up numbers abouit , did anyone specify what they thought "the right thing" meant?

Regardless, my point about historical buildings is the real issue. NYC better well not protect ANY buildings of a similar age, ever again.
So leaving aside the made up numbers do you understand anything about preservation of buildings for their cultural, historical or achitectural importance?
As this building didn't fi tinto any of those categories just like many other older downtown buildings wouldn't while many newer ones would be top of the list for preservation.
So what you are doing there is aiming to alter a very specific legal criteria because you do not like a ruling on that issue due to your views on a completely unrelated subject.

AngusJS

08-04-10, 04:59 PM

The complete report on US muslims (pretty progressive as the world goes):
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

They have a 42% approval for AQ. (answering "don't know" here in the US is tantamount to "i support AQ.") Of that 42%, 27% was "don't know" or "refuse to answer."Shoot, now I'm regretting all the times I've given answers like that in Republican robocall polls.

Really, since when does a refusal to answer equal "I love Al Qaeda"? Because it sounds like you've done some juggling to get the 42% approval figure - like somehow interpreting the "somewhat unfavorable" 10% as "favorable" and adding that to the 5% who actually do favor Al Qaeda and the 27% who didn't know/refused (referring to the chart on page 5).

krashkart

08-04-10, 04:59 PM

They chose a place that would stir up controversy in the middle of a war.

The Third Man

08-04-10, 05:12 PM

Some quickly searched arguments why we should show a deep appreciation for Sharia law:

So noble. So humane. So superior. So civilised. The shine and glory of human history.

Show your tolerance! show how reasonably you weigh the pro and con of it! do not be quick in your judgement, maybe you are racist and just do not know it! Take care you do not see it out of the ennobling cultural context! You must be sensible to their needs! Their basic goodness! And blah! And blah! Blablablablah!

So that is what you were talking about. :salute::yeah:

krashkart

08-04-10, 05:19 PM

The Third Man

08-04-10, 05:32 PM

No doubt that Sharia law is behind the curve when it comes to human rights. I remember reading something about stoning in the Bible years ago, so does that mean that Christians once practiced that form of punishment?

No. It means the Jews practiced stoning. The new testament chronicles the early Christians (maybe). Crusades were more to Christian liking.

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 05:33 PM

And I and Popper say that freedom and toleranc needs limits else they extinct themselves be becoming the cause of their own destruction.
And who do you set up as the autocratic arbiter of these limits? Yourself?

And then you ask if I don't trust you? Sorry, sounds like a dictatorship to me. "It's for your own good", and all that.

You are crucifying yourself over too much philosophical principal abstractions.
Abstractions? Either you have freedom or you don't. That's not an abstraction at all.

when the allied troops launched Operation Overlord, the leaders in the West hardly had any doubts about the enemy - the Nazis - being the correctly identified evil of the earth of that time. When you read reports about the Gulags in the Soviet Union, you hardly can debate the ammount of moral selfjustification that Stalinist system may or may not have as an inherent quality - it was evil: basta and period. And when you work yourself into the scripture of Islam and secondary literature about it, you hardly can miss the totalitarian, inhumane nature of the material, and the political intention that has driven Muhammad. It is the programmatic self-justification of a violent conquerer and murderous supressor, a racist and defender of slavery.
You cite multiple instances of tyrannical oppression of freedom to justify your claim that freedom is its own enemy? Those folks didn't support freedom, they took it away.

but also do not trust islamophile idiots running our societies today and dominating public opinion by nuking any critical thought about Islam by labelling that as racism and "like they did with the Jews" and hatespeach and whatever,
When did I ever do that? I despise racism in all forms. I believe in freedom. Period.

As to the rest, I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, since if you don't you have no freedom at all. If they want to peacefully build a mosque, let 'em. It's not my place to say yea or nay. If they start trouble, then do something about it. Otherwise you don't trust anybody.

The Third Man

08-04-10, 05:38 PM

With freedom comes responsibility. I think that is the part that many people miss in their arguments. When I say responsibility I mean it as not only for themselves but for their neighbors and for future generations of neighbors.

Stop being so selfish.

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 05:43 PM

With freedom comes responsibility. I think that is the part that many people miss in their arguments.
And that is the argument used by so many who want to take it away. Decades of experience hearing that one.

When I say responsibility I mean it as not only for themselves but for their neighbors and for future generations of neighbors.
I have the natural (or God-given, if you please) right to do anything I want. As long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. I fought, and will continue to fight, for your right to do the same.

Stop being so selfish.
How am I being selfish by supporting freedom?

krashkart

08-04-10, 05:43 PM

No. It means the Jews practiced stoning. The new testament chronicles the early Christians (maybe). Crusades were more to Christian liking.

Thank you. :salute:

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 05:55 PM

Anyway....back to the issue at hand. I see nothing but trouble building this structure two blocks from the area that supported the World Trade Centers.
As do I. But is that a reason (either moral or legal) to prevent it's being built? Obviously the people with that authority didn't think so.

Skybird

08-04-10, 06:07 PM

As do I. But is that a reason (either moral or legal) to prevent it's being built? Obviously the people with that authority didn't think so.
you should not take them literal, maybe. They maybe just thought abiut the outcry from Muslims if they would not allow that mosque beeing build. Or they dreamed the dream of the cinvincing shiny Westa gain, that they would have the moral obligation to noance again give something in advance to islamis interest, this oh so precious endlöess chain of tiny olttle gesture and signlas of how good willing one - is that good will not the best reason to expect that our good will be answered on equal terms by islam - with good will in return, and churches being build in Muslim countries?

The Third Man

08-04-10, 06:13 PM

And that is the argument used by so many who want to take it away. Decades of experience hearing that one.

I have never seen people who have taken personal responsibility for their actions try to take away the same from others. if you have decades of such experience, perhaps you can profer a few examples. I'm willing to learn.

I have the natural (or God-given, if you please) right to do anything I want. As long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. I fought, and will continue to fight, for your right to do the same.

I feel no desire to infringe upon your rights or liberty. I come to that position because I take personal responsibility for my actions and wouldn't deny you the opportunity to do the same, as it pertains to my rights and liberty.

How am I being selfish by supporting freedom?

You are being selfish by not allowing the freedom for others not to extend you the same freedom.

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 06:14 PM

you should not take them literal, maybe. They maybe just thought abiut the outcry from Muslims if they would not allow that mosque beeing build. Or they dreamed the dream of the cinvincing shiny Westa gain, that they would have the moral obligation to noance again give something in advance to islamis interest, this oh so precious endlöess chain of tiny olttle gesture and signlas of how good willing one - is that good will not the best reason to expect that our good will be answered on equal terms by islam - with good will in return, and churches being build in Muslim countries?
Maybe. Or maybe we believe that the purpose of law is to keep everyone equal, so we don't use the law to enforce our morals or opinions on others. Until a certain group of people (and I don't mean Muslims in general, I mean the group who want to purchase the land and build the mosque) actually break the law, they have the same rights as everyone else. If you believe differently, I see you as the greater danger. (Again not meaning you personally, but anyone who claims that moral prerogative or percieved threat is more important than equality for all).

The Third Man

08-04-10, 06:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Third Man http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1459964#post1459964)
No. It means the Jews practiced stoning. The new testament chronicles the early Christians (maybe). Crusades were more to Christian liking.

Thank you. :salute:

Don't be mistaken. Stoning was practiced by many cultures. Romans, Egyptians, bedoins, many others. It was a punishment which required no treasure, like rope, blade or militia, to execute. The very rock at ones feet was enough.

The Third Man

08-04-10, 06:23 PM

The Third Man;1460005
Originally Posted by The Third Man http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1459964#post1459964)
No. It means the Jews practiced stoning. The new testament chronicles the early Christians (maybe). Crusades were more to Christian liking.

Thank you. :salute:

Don't be mistaken. Stoning was practiced by many cultures. Romans, Egyptians, bedoins, many others. It was a punishment which required no treasure, like rope, blade or militia, to execute. The very rock at ones feet was enough.[/QUOTE]

Platapus

08-04-10, 06:41 PM

It is hard to get the image of Muslims cheering when the towers came down out of my head.

As it is hard for me to get the image of American cheering when missile strikes in Iraq and AF are shown on the news as "entertainment".

Skybird

08-04-10, 06:42 PM

And who do you set up as the autocratic arbiter of these limits? Yourself?

What's wrong with using reason? isn't it that obvious to you when i slap pyu in the face, that I do not mean you well? When I steal your mmoney, that I do not mean well? when I mock you when you fall, that I do not mean you well? when I preach you defeat, that I do not mean you well? If you get pricked, do you not bleed? If you get tickeld, do you not laugh? If you get poisened, do you not die?

Do you have any problem with what Popper said in "The Free Society"?

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Sounds like very healthy reason to me.

And then you ask if I don't trust you? Sorry, sounds like a dictatorship to me. "It's for your own good", and all that.

What is wrong with you that you want to see the defending of our freedom being prevented becasue only when you get you idea of absolute, total, unlimited freedom then it is freedom, else oyu do not care if the others are taking freedom away from you? Have you so little to lose? The relative ammount of freedom oyu have, is more than they have in most other coutries - and you carelessly give it up? You still give me the benefit of doubt when I would kick you, beat you, betray you, lie to you, take what you give volunaterily for granted, and never trade back to you on your wellmeaning, oh so noble terms? you know whwere this will lead you? you will lose freedom. Youj will get ovberwhelemed by those who do not care for your diea of freedom. Who do not value your wanted absolute freedom. Who obey their ideological education of you idea not being freedom.
It will lead you to stay aside and doing nothing, while the free world around you gets ruined. You will stay aside when an ieology of totaltiarin control and lack of freedom takes over, gains influence. And by your passivity you will have heölped to create the oppoortunity for this destruction of freedom taking place. Becasu you had too much thinkling stuff on your mind - just getting and educate insight into islamic idelogy, it's content and scripturte -´that for some reason you do not have on your mind. Yiu take it'S porimnicpal gioodness for granted - but you have no clue whether you are right or wrong.

Im other words: you gamble, claim that to be philosophical concerns of yours, and our freedom you out at stake.

Abstractions? Either you have freedom or you don't. That's not an abstraction at all.
Ypou claim unlimited freedom by that. Freedom absolute - or it is no freedom. Popper says and me says that that abslute claim of yours guarantees your self-destrucxtion by the ehnad of those giving a rat'S azz about your freedom.

You simply ignore that your approach depends on reciprocity. If the other side does not react to your approach on the same level, on the sam terms, than you are screwed. Pretty high risk you take there, Sir. wouldn't be my business if only your own fate and freedom is at vstake. But you will to put mine at stake as well, and that of all of us, and of our children and chidren'S children. And that I cannot and will not accept. Go into voluntary slavery, if you want. But leave all of us others out of it.

You cite multiple instances of tyrannical oppression of freedom to justify your claim that freedom is its own enemy? Those folks didn't support freedom, they took it away.

So does islam - it does not want the Western, American idea of freedom (or better: it does not know this type of freedom, nor does it know our concept of tolerance as a mutual deal). It only wants to abuse that idea of freedom to estavblish itself, and when it is stro9ng enough that it does not need our good will anymore, it can skip it and estavblish the freedom idea of sharia. islamic freedom and Wetsern freedom are two totally different things.

And on you remark that I say freedom is its own enbemy, you shorten and by that distort it. For the fourth time in ten days now I quote the paradoxon of tolerance and the paradoxon of freedom as it was formulated by Popper, will you please coinsider it and think aboit it and then try to argue with it and show that Popper was wrong when he said that - if you can:

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

When did I ever do that? I despise racism in all forms.
still you give racism the opportunity to grow in strength and to establish itself in society, in education, in policy-making, in communal influence, in laws. Islam is racist and discriminating towards all other cultures and non-Muslim people, especially Jews. Islam is deeply antisemitic, and always was. Muhammad HATED the Jews since they showed him his intellectual deficits when he met them for theological talks at Medina. A deep narcissistic offence to his ego! His reaction was not to say to himself "I must learn more and do better, then they cannot argue me down anymore", his reaction was to try to annihilate them. And he did. Two trivbes got driven away, the third got wiped put, the males got massacred, the girls led into sexual slavery. Genocide, we call that today: the attempt to completely extinct and wipe out existence, history and future of another culture or people. islam is very forgiving on genciide, if it is in the name of Islam. Archealogical exmainations in and around Medina until today are fobidden by death penalty. the evidence for the massacre shall be forgotten until the end of time.

That'S the kind of thinking you want to give the benefit of doubt about it's intentions and moral motives, Steve. Islam does like this until today. You occasionally hear it in the news when unwanted monuments showing the eixtence of ealrier cultures in Arabia get destroyed, or historic evidence for a history that opposes islam's description of things getting rejected, forged, or deleted. Compared to how islam does it, creationists are amateurs when rewriting man's history to fit into just 6000 years.

I believe in freedom. Period.
That just is not good enough. Believe what you weant, but you allow the opportunity of freedom getting abused to destroy freedom. deciding you still must, no matter your belief. and the consequences you must bear, no matter how good or bad your intentions before have been. You cannot escape the need to choose.

See Popper above. his remark is most logical. Simply ignoring him, is no solution, no answer, ignoring it will only cause your defeat - and ours.

As to the rest, I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, since if you don't you have no freedom at all. If they want to peacefully build a mosque, let 'em. It's not my place to say yea or nay. If they start trouble, then do something about it. Otherwise you don't trust anybody.
that naivety is breathtaking. That is no idelaism anymore, that is ignoring the message, the content, the goal, the ideal, the aim of islam.

Let Nazis build a Nazi culture centre at Auschwitz - as long as they are peaceful, let them?

You must be stoned if you don't see the problem with your attitude here.

Too bad you are not German. I have read many books about islam, but the best ones I know are in German. Else i would go into town tomorrow and pack you three or four books and send them as a parcel to you. Because I think you only give Islam the benefit of doubt because you do not know it, and thus your willingness to interprete just about anything into it, since you do not know it better. Or are you also giving the benfit of doubt to the KKK? the Nazis? Stalin? I assume you do not, and I assuje your iknowledge about these thing sis much better - that'S why you probably do not ngive it the benefit of doubt anymore.

At least I hope you do not.

You left me both a bit upset and quite angry here. I simply cannot believe that one can choose to just close one's eyes and label that "freedom" or "tolerance" - that leaves me speechless, and yes, it makes me angry. I do not want to get into a personal mudwrestling here, so I will not answer here anymore. At least not for the time being. Anger is no good basis for talking.

The Third Man

08-04-10, 06:57 PM

As it is hard for me to get the image of American cheering when missile strikes in Iraq and AF are shown on the news as "entertainment".

Then call your news channel and voice your displeasure. It doesn't change any fact but you won't have to see it.

Skybird

08-04-10, 07:08 PM

By Platapus' logic, I am tempted to conclude that law enforcement by the police is of the same moral value - or lack of - like committing the crime that triggered law enforcement.

However, I agree with that war should not be made an evening entertainment show, and that the way the media reprot about it, lacks bothg journalistic quality and compoetence, and reasonable presentational style. I also find the onesided, extremely enthusiastic military docus on docu channels extremely bad. The uncritical attitude of these, the lacking reflection on the background of wars, borders intentional mass manipulation. I find the typical relation of America to weapons, violence and war extremely troubling. In this alienating manner and fashion, it seems to be unique in the Western world.

tater

08-04-10, 07:36 PM

BTW, as I said in the other thread on this subject, I cannot see how to ban it without going against the 1st Amendment.

Instead, I maintain that strict separation should apply.

In this latest case, the simple question is this:

did the mosque, or would ANY OTHER religious building get precedence over landmark status vs other possible uses? This unelected group decides what building of XXX age happen to be architecturally important enough to be preserved—others of the same age, based on their subjective view, DO merit protection.

This is a case where what is being built, even who owns a structure should be 100% unknown to the committee for any sort of fairness. It's hard to believe that they'd reach the same conclusion—given the fact they they get to arbitrarily decide what people can do with their own property—if the structure to be built was something they were single-mindedly against.

I'm against this mosque, but I don't think there is any "american" reason to not permit it—landmark status committees are wrong, period, IMHO, everywhere (an objective standard a computer could render (like any building over a certain age, made of a certain material, or nothing at all). Better would be strict separation to make sure that they get ZERO special treatment down the road. No breaks in property taxes, no special zoning rules, NOTHING.

Platapus

08-04-10, 07:56 PM

Concerning the construction of the community center, I truly believe that any person has the right to be "offended" by it; and the rest of the people have a right not to be concerned who it "offends".

As I have posted in multiple other threads, just because someone or some group is "offended" does not mandate any action/inaction on the part of other people/groups. :nope:

Tribesman

08-04-10, 08:49 PM

This unelected group decides what building of XXX age happen to be architecturally important enough to be preserved—others of the same age, based on their subjective view, DO merit protection.

This enelected group was chosen by the objectors as a last ditch attempt to block the building, since you support the objections you can't complain about the actions of a group of people that the objectors invited into the issue.
If that run down dump was such a wonderful historic piece of outstanding architecture that needed preserving for the sake of the city then why hadn't anyone bothered trying to get it listed before?

This is a case where what is being built, even who owns a structure should be 100% unknown to the committee for any sort of fairness.
Are you trying to say that the historians and architects unanimously rejected the application for preservation of this dump for some reason other than it was simply an unimportant structure?

krashkart

08-04-10, 09:00 PM

It is hard to get the image of Muslims cheering when the towers came down out of my head.

I was meaning to quote/reply to this one earlier but I got sidetracked. I remember the news clips of some of those naughty little celebrations they were having over there, and the resentment that welled up inside as I watched. At the same time I felt sorry for those people. Why is it that humans are so easily twisted to such fervent displays of lunacy, by the whims and ambitions of so very few?

I also remember this treasure:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/03/27/image546457g.jpg

This was a painting that was hanging in an Iraqi barbershop. Note the lack of destruction and aircraft. I wonder why the shop keeper would risk his neck by putting it on the wall, when it would have been much more fashionable to display a work similar to this one from Nasiriya:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/vert.911.mural.jpg

Charming ain't it? :DL

Source articles below for anyone interested.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/iraq/scene/main546437.shtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html

Sorry to dogleg back into the topic like this. But for every bad, there is at least one good. That is the thrust of my post.

Aramike

08-04-10, 09:37 PM

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 11:44 PM

I have never seen people who have taken personal responsibility for their actions try to take away the same from others. if you have decades of such experience, perhaps you can profer a few examples. I'm willing to learn.
The first time I was ever told "With freedom comes responsibility" it was a WW2 vet who was also in the habit of saying "I didn't fight and watch my buddies die so you could protest against this great country of ours!" It took a trip to Vietnam to make me realize that that's exactly what I was fighting for - so others could say what they wanted, including the negative.

It's true, freedom does require responsible use, just like any other weapon. The responsibility to guarantee it for everyone. As Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his own enemy against oppression."

I feel no desire to infringe upon your rights or liberty. I come to that position because I take personal responsibility for my actions and wouldn't deny you the opportunity to do the same, as it pertains to my rights and liberty.
Glad to hear it. How do you define the "responsibility" part then?

You are being selfish by not allowing the freedom for others not to extend you the same freedom.
Not sure exactly what you mean by that. Please elaborate.

Sailor Steve

08-04-10, 11:59 PM

What's wrong with using reason?
Nothing at all. Does "using reason" include preemptive elimination of people just because they advocate my demise. Yes I'm convinced that some are capable and willing to bring that about, but reason dictates to me that I don't become them. Not all of them feel that way, and it's not my place to limit what people say.

What is wrong with you that you want to see the defending of our freedom being prevented becasue only when you get you idea of absolute, total, unlimited freedom then it is freedom, else oyu do not care if the others are taking freedom away from you? Have you so little to lose? The relative ammount of freedom oyu have, is more than they have in most other coutries - and you carelessly give it up?
I would defend it against those who would take it away. But not because you say they would take it away, or even because they say they would take it away. Only when they actually make the attempt do I have the right to prevent them. Otherwise I'm taking away the very freedoms I cherish.

You still give me the benefit of doubt when I would kick you, beat you, betray you, lie to you, take what you give volunaterily for granted, and never trade back to you on your wellmeaning, oh so noble terms?
No, as soon as you kick me you relinquish your right for me not to hurt you. But saying you would like to kick me is not the same thing, and never can be.

you know whwere this will lead you? you will lose freedom. Youj will get ovberwhelemed by those who do not care for your diea of freedom. Who do not value your wanted absolute freedom. Who obey their ideological education of you idea not being freedom.
And you would destroy the very meaning of freedom by removing it from those who offend or frighten you. As I said, it's a fine line that must be walked carefully. Our rights are equal, in that I cannot maintain mine without maintaining yours.

It will lead you to stay aside and doing nothing, while the free world around you gets ruined. You will stay aside when an ieology of totaltiarin control and lack of freedom takes over, gains influence. And by your passivity you will have heölped to create the oppoortunity for this destruction of freedom taking place. Becasu you had too much thinkling stuff on your mind - just getting and educate insight into islamic idelogy, it's content and scripturte -´that for some reason you do not have on your mind. Yiu take it'S porimnicpal gioodness for granted - but you have no clue whether you are right or wrong.
No, I will defend the right of anyone to say what they believe. If they attempt to put that belief into practice, then it's time to fight. And no, I don't know whether I'm right or wrong, as I've said a great many times. But neither do you, which is why I refuse to go down your road of hatred.

The rest of your overly-long speech I can sum up in one brief sentence:

I understand your worry about those who would take away my freedom, but if you advocate silencing them then you are exactly the same as them. Perhaps you don't see it that way because you don't believe in domination by violence, and in that you are different from them, but to deny freedom is to destroy it, pure and simple

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 12:04 AM

I wonder what everyone's reaction would be if this were, say, a rundown KKK meeting building in Memphis across the street from the Lorraine Motel, and they decided they wanted to raze it and build newer, state of the art digs.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my reaction would be exactly the same. They have the same right to purchase property and erect a building as everyone else.

Remember Skokie?

Skybird

08-05-10, 03:21 AM

First, I must conclude that you are unable or unwilling to counter the inherent logic in Popper'S analysis, or that you do not care for freedom allowing it's own destruction by not defending freedom. that alone already says a lot about the rational inconstency of your understanding of freedom. It is idealism-driven, I think, but it ignores unwanted hard aspects of life in the real world.

Nothing at all. Does "using reason" include preemptive elimination of people just because they advocate my demise. Yes I'm convinced that some are capable and willing to bring that about, but reason dictates to me that I don't become them. Not all of them feel that way, and it's not my place to limit what people say.
I did not advocate the preemptive elimination of Muslims in Europe or America or New York. In fact I did not even talk of the people, I talked of the content of an ideology whose content you either carelessly ignore, or do not know. And this ideology explciitly seeks the destruction of that freedom of yours - both as a conception, and a practical living cindition that oyu enjoy. But you say:

I would defend it against those who would take it away. But not because you say they would take it away, or even because they say they would take it away. Only when they actually make the attempt do I have the right to prevent them. Otherwise I'm taking away the very freedoms I cherish.

which means that you are unaware of that they do not just say they want to take away your freeddom, but that Muslim organisations silently and by the use of deception, by "dawa" and "taquyia", try to foster the basis for Islam growing, influencing society, education and laws more and more, by raising false imporession about itk, giving it a sympathetic face, by hiding and lying about it's real brutal nature. islam lslam knows that it cannot take over Europpe or the US by the use of force, this was learned after several attempts of military conquest in Eruope, that failed. Now demography gets used, and cultural infiltration. Over the mponths and years I have quoted many Muslim politicians and spokesman and clerics and representatives of their major theological institutions who explicitly said that this is what they are doing. They dare to be so bluntly becasue they know there are so many usefulidiots in the West who mean it oh so well, that nobody will believe them anyway - a truth so hrsh cannot be true because such a harsh truth should not be true. So they risk nothing when telling us the truth. Or a smart guy like you comes along and says: they just tell they do like this, but that is not the same like actually doing it.

Needless to say that islamic scripture - which you need to know in order to know it, ain't that a surprise - also propagates the seeking of world dominance. In a theolgoical view of Islam, the uslim man is the goal of Got-wanted evolution, and is a natural inherent trend of human life unfolding. Islam is the goal of all human developement and nature anyway, this is what Allah has made nature to be like. So, from Islam'S perspective, Islam pressing by any means for the Islamisation of other places is nothing unnatural and thus nothing unethical becasue it only supports the natural drive of creation anyway. One is helping nature in what nature is doing anyway. And this relativises all violence or malice that possibly gets used in the process of taking over. Not to mention that in the quran you have passages were Muhammad not only authorises but mandatorily demands male Muslims to discriminate and supress infidels, and to even sacrifice their own life in order to bring peace to the world by killinf infidels (because their presence is threatening the house of peace=Islam). You must be aware, always, that Islam defines "being attacked" as "not submitting to Islam".

No, as soon as you kick me you relinquish your right for me not to hurt you. But saying you would like to kick me is not the same thing, and never can be.
See above. See Popper.

And you would destroy the very meaning of freedom by removing it from those who offend or frighten you. As I said, it's a fine line that must be walked carefully. Our rights are equal, in that I cannot maintain mine without maintaining yours.
You do not care one bit for the question whether the other is maintainign your rights in order to maitain his own. That is the problöem with your thinking: you ignore, compeltely, the aggressoive nature of this ideology and that it does not care one bit for your noble interpretation of islam. Your nobless depends on the opther answering it on equal terms. It equals to the necessity in war, that the kilitary enemy, olike oneself, is willing to obey the Hague Landwarfare convention. But Islam does not reocgnise this Convention, neither do those fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan and Nigeria, somalia and Malaysia. And for the army fighting against them and trying to ovbey the Hague Cionvention oneself, this is a biog problem that necessarily must lead to its own defeat. You can now idelaistically again argue in absputes and say "we must nevertheless ensure victor AND obey the convention", but you demand the impossible, and your absolute by which you argue are not worth much - by refering to them you make sure that they do not get implemented even in parts.

Same it is with freedom and tolerance, as I said, and as Popper said: if you will Islamic idelogy the freedom to spread and to grow in your place, it will abuse this freedom to reach a critical mass byiond which it then can destroy freedom and replace it with Islam and Shariah law in full. You may doubt this, if you do not know islam. But then your doubt is basing on lacking education only. Ane ducatio that, I admit, public debators and Islamic lobbyists try to prevent as best as they can, and censor and manipulate as best as they can. Islam in the West does not need to be violent and martial - why should it if the Western soeities all by themselves willingly fall for it, allow to get manipulated, and believe in every half-truth and even straight lies, refusing to listen to its own long academic tradition of oriental studies and examination of Islam? The US and europe is falling into islam'S hands, slowly, but with constant pace. t will take another generation or two or three - it doesn't matter - that it will happen has been promised in Islam since one millenia - what matters another couple of decades, then?

The freedom you will to Islam - gets used to erode the fundament of your precious freedom from within.and you refuse to do anything about that. you even refuse to understand your enemy. And as an ex-soldier you shoild know that this is the worst mistake one can make in a conflict.

No, I will defend the right of anyone to say what they believe. If they attempt to put that belief into practice, then it's time to fight. And no, I don't know whether I'm right or wrong, as I've said a great many times. But neither do you, which is why I refuse to go down your road of hatred.
Wrong, I know whether I am right or wrong in my assessement of Islam, at least I know it a hiundred times better than you do. That is becasue I spend quite long time to study and to read it - and years ago I had books defending Islam as well as those seeing it more objective and realistically, basing on it's history and on analysis of it's scripture. Like many islamophiles, you call islami-critical assessements a symptom of "hate" (and somewhere above I think you also mentioned "fear") becasue of your own lacking understanding of islam, and you then imply that others miust know as little about it as you do. Well, that is your problem, and yours alone.

The rest of your overly-long speech I can sum up in one brief sentence:

I understand your worry about those who would take away my freedom, but if you advocate silencing them then you are exactly the same as them.
That compares to saying "fighting against the Nazis made the Allies the same like the Nazis".

Perhaps you don't see it that way because you don't believe in domination by violence,

I beolieve in that - that'S why I am so unforgivingly opposing to Islam.

and in that you are different from them, but to deny freedom is to destroy it, pure and simpleAgain: argue that with Popper. He already has proven that you are wrong. You demand a freedom in terms of an unconditional absolute - and this is what makes YOU destroying freedom, not them. In the end, this islamic enemy of freedom is just what it is, like a scorpion has a sting and a snake has poisenous teeth. It is you refusing to pull your arm out of their reach or refusing to get them out of the house so that they cannot do harm to your family. And that is, saiyng that in all politeness, simply totally stupid.

And to soembody else in the above discussions you said that Bietnam made you relaise that you were fighting for freedom. I took that as a comment on that you were taught your understanding of freedom by fighting in Vietnam. to this, I only give again this quote on freedom, which I already have given in a short excerpt on page 1:

It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it. Poland fought for freedom as no other country did. The Czech nation was prepared to fight for its freedom in 1938; it was not lack of courage that sealed its fate. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 — the work of young people with nothing to lose but their chains — triumphed and then ended in failure. ... Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves.
(...)
Although I consider our political world to be the best of which we have any historical knowledge, we should beware of attributing this fact to democracy or to freedom. Freedom is not a supplier who delivers goods to our door. Democracy does not ensure that anything is accomplished — certainly not an economic miracle. It is wrong and dangerous to extol freedom by telling people that they will certainly be all right once they are free. How someone fares in life is largely a matter of luck or grace, and to a comparatively small degree perhaps also of competence, diligence, and other virtues. The most we can say of democracy or freedom is that they give our personal abilities a little more influence on our well-being.

Tribesman

08-05-10, 03:53 AM

I understand your worry about those who would take away my freedom, but if you advocate silencing them then you are exactly the same as them.
:up:

First, I must conclude that you are unable or unwilling to counter the inherent logic in Popper'S analysis
Sky doesn't realise he has become the very thing his philosopher friend warns of:har::har::har:

Again: argue that with Popper. He already has proven that you are wrong.
Wow.

I did not advocate the preemptive elimination of Muslims in Europe or America or New York.
Yet Sky always talks of how they must be got rid of and how decadent europe is too rotten to do it and the need for new strong leaders who are not part of a global muslim conspiracy so are willing to take the "right" descision to bring a final resolution to fight the invading horde.
Which is why he sounds so like the neo nazis he says he protests with but doesn't like protesting with:hmmm:

joegrundman

08-05-10, 04:17 AM

I think that the name "Cordoba Initiative" is worthy of examination. For i think it is a carefully chosen name that can mean different things depending on your initial position.

I dare say many may be unaware that Cordoba is a city in Spain, and for them the name is meaningless, but at least the phonemes don't seem alien, and thus more friendly and benign than eg. Huzb ut Tahir or some such..

Many more may be unaware that Cordoba was a thriving city in Muslim-controlled Spain in the medieval period. For them, the name is similarly less threatening, although perhaps mystifying why they may choose to call themselves after a Spanish city.

There was a time in the medieval period when Muslim society was at the forefront of human civilization, and none exemplified this more so than the city of Cordoba. Averroes was from Cordoba at that period and he had a significant philosophical impact on the wider world. Muslim Spain in the early - mid medieval period is considered a kind of golden age among many Muslims, an era of prosperity, development, and tolerance (although the nature of tolerance is of course disputed today).

So for people cognizant of this, and as the Cordoba Initiative website makes plain, the allusion here is to a semi-mythical era of religious harmony and enlightenment under Muslim rule. Emphasis, i think, on a hopeful era of religious tolerance, coupled with lovely architecture and philosophical, scientific, artistic and economic advancements. (And to complete the image, the scenery and climate are fantastic too)

Yet, even so, it is clear that they are harking back to a perceived golden age of muslim domination, where everyone's a winner. Furthermore, it is still a sore point among some (reference AQs repeated calls for a re-reconquest of Spain) that the Catholics eventually reconquered Spain, and in the narrative, permanently destroyed the greatness that al-Andalus (Muslim Spain) had achieved. So for these the name is implicitly saying it was all better for everyone under enlightened Muslim rule, and so it could be again in a rebuilding of a new Cordoba.

Skybird

08-05-10, 04:42 AM

Yes, Joe, and to add a bit to what you said:

The era of islam in Spain gets mystified in that while there was a stalemate in Spain after the Muslim armies were thrown back in the heart of France, this stalemate still was the dead end of a state of war between Christian and muslim kingdoms. And it even was the case that occasionally Chriszians kingdoms helped out in regional clashes between muslim regions - becaseu that ws the price to keep them from uniting again, forming a no longer sctatered but united front against the Christianbs kingdoms again.

In Cordoba, which orginally was Christian with a huge Jewish population too, indeed there was cultural blossomiung in that welath and cultural education and science were spreading to some remarkable degree, for the standards of that time. However: it is also a fact that Christains and Jews lived as second class citizens and were object of systemtic discirmination. They were banned from higher social classes and jobs with the exception of some Jewish doctors which were accepted to be experts in their field by muslim leaderhship. legal protection of Christians of Jews was such that when Muslim kids stoned to death a Jew for fun, they would have gotten away witzh it, and under the reign of some leaders, murder of chroiszians and Jews was not considered a crime. the often rferred to saving of Greek scripotures by muslim leaders also gets misinteroreted. Fact is that the Muslims accepted the presence of the already submissive christikans and Jews, becaseu they maintained superior trade relation and a rich cultural heritage - from which the muslim society also massively benefitted. It was better to let them live and take the profit of their presence, then to kill them or to drive them away. It were the Jews asking the Muslims whether or not they would be allowedc to copy in writing old greek scriptures that further contributed to the scientifc and cultural blossoming of Cordoba, while these documents were put at risk and to a huge part were destroyed in their orfinal places. The Muslim leaders allowed this, and let the Jews do the work, and the Chrostians, becaseu they saw that their own society also would benefit from the knowledge hidden in these scriptures. To claim, like islam does, that Islam contributed to western culture by essentially saving much of it's most basic philosphical Greek heritage in Cordoba, is an absurd overstatement and in fact a distortion of history. Alöso is it not true, that the soceity of Cordoba was peaceful and baöanced and fair. As I said, Jews and Chrioszians were secodn class citizens with massively reduced legal rights, and they were object of opression and discrimination, like ordered in the Quran. In the seocnd half of the Cordoba era, when the Almohades had taken over the control in Spain, they became the target of frequent progroms and genocides when the Almohades focussed on the Quranic demands in greater completeness and wanted to purifymuslim society from the infestation with the infidel's contribution to the culture in cordoba.

The era in Cordoba was as much an era of mutal respect and tolerance and peaceful coexistence as was the paradise ghetto in Warsaw a "paradise". For Islam, of course it was a great arrangement. Understamdable that they praise it so much. But as long as you are no Muslim you hardly would have liked to live in that arrangement, infidel that you are.

Telling this by mind basing on several different books on Islamic history.

Tribesman

08-05-10, 07:11 AM

Yes, Joe, and to add a bit to what you said:

Yet avoiding entirely any history that doesn't fit Skys little phobias.

It were the Jews asking the Muslims whether or not they would be allowedc to copy in writing old greek scriptures
Compared to the get out now decrees they faced from the civilised europeans or the convert or die mentality of the reconquista...or quite funnily the convert and die as conversion saved your soul before you had to die for being a horrible Jew or Muslim in the first place.

Telling this by mind basing on several different books on Islamic history.
Telling this as fits your mind as in finding crap that fits your views....like black people ruining soccer:yeah:
By your words you are known and by the neo nazis you have on your protests you are associated. No amount of referal to well known philosophers can change that or claims about "rational" papers as the old Nazis had exactly the same bloody arguements as the neo nazis whose views by his own admission Sky espouses.

joegrundman

08-05-10, 07:16 AM

Well, to nitpick a little, when you say Cordoba was originally Christian, what you really mean is that it was previously Christian, a fact acknowledged in the name reconquista.

The city itself was named by the Carthaginians, as with so many Spanish coastal cities, before this world of ours was blessed with either Christianity or Islam.

As for the issue of tolerance, obviously Muslims like to talk up the level of tolerance, and for many people today they like to point out its probable/possible limitations.

It is rarely wise to judge the past by the standards of today, but it is still worth noting that significant numbers of Jews, and even Christians, found life tolerable enough living in medieval Muslim Spain, Egypt and North Africa. Perhaps more so than was the case for Muslims and Jews living in medieval Christendom. They didn't vote with their feet and those Jews living in the Muslim dominated areas were still there in numbers until the establishment of Israel. At which point, they largely left for Israel and elsewhere.

I put it to you that this indicates that for most of the pre-modern period, for Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule, life was at least not significantly worse than other options available at the time.

Tribesman

08-05-10, 07:24 AM

I put it to you that this indicates that for most of the pre-modern period, Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule was at least not significantly worse than other options available at the time.
Stop right now, Muslims are evil , they have always been evil.
The modern pair of fundamentalist schools with extremist views on the interpretation of scripture are the only true versions and they are the only versions to have ever existed. Anyone today or throughout history who isn't or wasn't of one of those modern schools never was and never could be a Muslim as there is only extremist interpretations as the koran is written in such a manner that it is black and white and there cannot have been 1500 years of theoogical debate about what the words really mean.......the gospel according to Skybird:rotfl2:

Aramike

08-05-10, 08:13 AM

I can't speak for anyone else, but my reaction would be exactly the same. They have the same right to purchase property and erect a building as everyone else.

Remember Skokie?First off, I don't see this "right" you're referring to. By that notion, please explain to me how communities consistantly block Walmarts from building.

Secondly, what WOULD you find too inappropriate? How about a group which advocates violence and subversion of the US Constitution? What if, say, neo-nazis wanted to build a facility for militant training? Or what if they wanted a laboratory for bio weapons research?

Is there anything you wouldn't allow?

mookiemookie

08-05-10, 08:20 AM

What if, say, neo-nazis wanted to build a facility for militant training? Or what if they wanted a laboratory for bio weapons research?

Is there anything you wouldn't allow?

You went down that slippery slope quick.

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 11:15 AM

Skybird

08-05-10, 01:53 PM

Or perhaps what you see as "inherent logic" is only logical to you. Like all 'true believers' you have a sacred scripture and it 'proves' you are right.
And again you evade from the obvious logic in the statement, because you insist even the destroyer of freedom being given the freedom to destroy freedom. That is too kind of you. And very suicidal. But kind.

Then what exactly do you advocate? Please tell us your solution, in plain language, not what the problem is (believe it or not I not only understand but I actually agree with you that they are dangerous). Saying that they are dangerous solves nothing. What do you want us to do about it?
First, please see that I am leavong out the debate of what person is kidner than another competely - I most of the time talk of Islam, not people. Second, do not evade by trying to open a sidetrack in the discussion and distract attention to it. You used the term of "premeptively eliminating Muslims" and gave an impression as if I said that or hinted at that. I have not mentioned such a form of genocide anywhere. what I have indicated in other debates is that we should stop being uncritical on migration being used as a demogapohic weapj to overthrow Western social ordery by demographic pressure and social pressure, and that we should not accept any further muslim migration into the west, and that we should stop to accept all the time foul compromises over special status and special rights for the followers of the precious relgion of peace in order not to offend them. I said that when a stranger comes to a foreign nation, he has no right to demand beign accepted, he has only a right to ask if he would be accepted, and that the hosting people that are the owners of the plce and call it their historic home have any right one could imagine to say No, or to ask what he hs to offer in skills, and to demand him that he obeys local habits, rules, values and laws. I said that the foriegner has nor ight that the natives must adapt to himn, but that integration mans the newcomer adapots to the locals, and I said the differenc ebetween migration and colisation is tzhat a migrant adapts to the circumstance of the new place he goes to, and the colonist tries to make the new place like the one he comes from, and demands the native to accept. I migrants do not like needing to adapt to the place instead of the place adapting to them, then they should pack their things and go back to where they came from. That too is freedom. And a right. And both for the locals, and for the newcomers.

Of preemptive elmination of Muslims I never spoke of, anywhere. maybe you must just fall back to such an extreme statement because else your arguments are too weak to make a point.

But what do you want us to actually do about it? I do understand. What you fail to see is what I pointed out - that you walk a very fine line when you want to fight those who would take away freedom by taking away the freedom yourself.
I see this line, but you talk of freedom in absolutes - all or nothing at all. and absolutely agree with Popper's logic that this means to allow freedom even to those who explcitly use freedom to destroy freedom. And this I do not accept. The german constititiuon for example explcitly prohibits this, too, even goes so far that the guaranteed rights of the constitution get lost by a person if it used these rights to destroy the good if the constitutional guarantees, or tries to destroy the constitutional order. that is not tyranny. that is not an acceptable reduction of freedom. that is simply healthy, reaosnably, vital self-defemnce and self-protection. That is to safeguard againstt he destruction of freedom. Your idea of absolute freedom - simply does not work. It can't because you are not alone on this planet. You are object of limitations to your wanted abslute freedom all day long.

I'm sure you do, but where you are wrong is in the lack of understanding of just how dangerous your own argument is. You don't defeat your enemy by becoming him.
Absurd, and another extreme quote because you have no reasonable arugment that would be realistic. I am not becoming like my enemy because I do not will him the space and opportunity and time to destroy me. With the above quote you just have rejected every cause for self-defence. If I take you by your word, nobody has the right to defend himself or his freedom because by that he limits the freedom of the other.

Two years ago, longer ago, i was all of a sudden attacked on open street by a junkey, unprovoked. He tried to slam a knife in my stomach, and only my earlier training and some reflxes saved me. I have told the story before. I got his knife in the right hip, while taking him out of action with two or three very brutal strikes that injured him severly. If I would follow your logic, I have hindred this fellas freedom (to kill me), and I had no right to do so. If I woul follow your logic I should have accepted to get killed. but I must disagree with you. not only do I claim the right to limit his freedom becasue he took action - also woudl have cliamed the very same right if he postioned himself in a threatening posture and making it clear that he was about to strike at me - I would have moved heaven and hell to take him out first, like I made sure i took him out while he did what he did - and i payed a price for it, I got injured (and that s.o.a.b. even tried to sue me for using unproportional violence while he tried to kill me because he was toned - bastard).

Sorry, i claim the right to limit the freedom of those who want to use this freedom to destryo this very freedom. It is elemental self-defence, and it is a very vital and very reasonable and morally totally valid interest to do so. And I absolutely agree with Popper's view of things.

Or in plain english: I tolerate the other if he tolerates me on equal terms. I give him the peace and freedom that he accepts to give to me. I insist on both terms, freedom and tolerance, being understood as qualities that only can work and must be demanded to base on reciprocity. this Christian mess of holding the other cheek as well, or referring to Ghandi, isnot my thing. Ghandi was lucky becasue he dealt with a relatively civilised opponent. If he would have faced the Nzis, or Saddam, he would have shot on the first day of his engagement, and we would not know of his name.

Ah, now you're getting personal. Where did I ever say I supported Islam, or even liked it? I disagree with the belief, and the extremists do indeed scare me. This is about building a building, and the freedom to do so. Stick to the subject, please.

I juudge you by what you say here, and what you say here puts you into the same camp of inbterest that supports the islamophile group. This is not about just a building, if it were, they would evade and build a Muslim bookshop in some place that does not raise any concerns and does not offend the victim'S families. this is about a mosque, which is the centre of communal islamic life and a temple at the same time, with towers that traditionally both in the orient and the occident serve as symbols of claims formpower (please save me to discuss this cultural meaning of towers that play a role in practivally all era of history of ther past 3000 years). This is not just about any building, this is about an islamic symbol, an Islamic claim - every mosque is. And once again I link to this article about the nature of those muslim fnaatics that are behind the mosque at GZ - i am not surprised that although I brought this four or five times in two threads now nobody refers to it, becasue it leaves little space for allowing these people going on.

Rauf’s Dawa from the World Trade Center Rubble
Meet the Ground Zero Mosque imam’s Muslim Brotherhood friends.

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam behind the “Cordoba Initiative” that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11. He is also the author of a book called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.But the book hasn’t always been called that. It was called quite something else (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2549148/posts) for non-English-speaking audiences. In Malaysia, it was published as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11 (http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/images/RaufWTCcover.jpg).

Now it emerges that a “special, non-commercial edition” of this book was later produced, with Feisal’s cooperation, by two American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought. The book’s copyright page tells the tale.

Both ISNA and IIIT have been up to their necks in the promotion of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch, which is pledged by charter to the destruction of Israel. In fact, both ISNA and IIIT were cited by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.

Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. As explained in my recent book, The Grand Jihad (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1594033773), dawa is proselytism, but not involving only spiritual elements — for Islam is not merely a religion, and spiritual elements are just a small part of its doctrine. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life.

This framework rejects core tenets of American constitutional republicanism: for example, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, equality of men and women, equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and economic liberty, including the uses of private property (in Islam, owners hold property only as a custodians for the umma, the universal Muslim nation, and are beholden to the Islamic state regarding its use). Sharia prohibits the preaching of creeds other than Islam, the renunciation of Islam, any actions that divide the umma, and homosexuality. Its penalties are draconian, including savagely executed death sentences for apostates, homosexuals, and adulterers.

The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia. Scholar Robert Spencer incisively refers to dawa practices as “stealth jihad (http://www.amazon.com/Stealth-Jihad-Radical-Subverting-America/dp/1596985569/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1279900646&sr=1-5),” the advancement of the sharia agenda through means other than violence and agents other than terrorists. These include extortion, cultivation of sympathizers in the media and the universities, exploitation of our legal system and tradition of religious liberty, infiltration of our political system, and fundraising. This is why Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, boldly promises that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through dawa.

In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/12/us/nation-challenged-religious-opinion-muslim-scholars-back-fight-against.html?scp=6&sq=Imam%20feisal%20abdul%20rauf&st=cse) to him in 2001 as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” And indeed he is: a prominent, Qatar-based scholar whose weekly Al Jazeera program on the subject of sharia is viewed by millions and whose cyber-venture, Islam Online, is accessed by millions more, including Muslims in the United States. Not surprisingly, his rabble-rousing was a prime cause of the deadly global rioting by Muslims when an obscure Danish newspaper published cartoon depictions of Mohammed.

Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” In 2004, he issued a fatwa (an edict based on sharia) calling for Muslims to kill Americans in Iraq. A leading champion of Hamas, he has issued similar approvals of suicide bombings in Israel. Moreover, as recounted in Matthew Levitt’s history of Hamas (http://www.amazon.com/Hamas-Politics-Charity-Terrorism-Service/dp/0300122586/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1279905704&sr=1-1), Qaradawi has decreed that Muslims must donate money to “support Palestinians fighting occupation. . . . If we can’t carry out acts of jihad ourselves, we at least should support and prop up the mujahideen financially and morally.”

Qaradawi’s support for Hamas is only natural. Since that organization’s 1987 founding, it has been the top Muslim Brotherhood priority to underwrite Hamas’s jihadist onslaught against the Jewish state. Toward that end, the Muslim Brotherhood mobilized the Islamist infrastructure in the United States.

The original building block of that infrastructure was the Muslim Students Association (MSA), established in the early Sixties to groom young Muslims in the Brotherhood’s ideology — promoting sharia, Islamic supremacism, and a worldwide caliphate. As Andrew Bostom elaborated in a [I]New York Post op-ed (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_the_mosque_yXUJDCpszRLF9dG1heLU1H) on Friday, Imam Rauf, too, is steeped in this ideology.

In 1981, after two decades of churning out activists from its North American chapters (which now number over 600), the Brotherhood merged the MSA into ISNA. In its own words, ISNA was conceived as an umbrella organization “to advance the cause of Islam and service Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.” That same year, the Brotherhood created IIIT as a Washington-area Islamic think tank dedicated to what it describes as “the Islamicization of knowledge.”

After Hamas was created, the top Brotherhood operative in the United States, Mousa Abu Marzook — who actually ran Hamas from his Virginia home for several years in the early Nineties — founded the Islamic Association for Palestine to boost Hamas’s support. One of his co-founders was Sami al-Arian, then a student and Muslim Brotherhood member, later a top U.S. operative of the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which he helped guide from his perch as a professor at the University of South Florida. In 2006, al-Arian was convicted on terrorism charges.

Marzook and other Brotherhood figures established the Occupied Land Fund, eventually renamed the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), to be Hamas’s American fundraising arm. The HLF was headquartered in ISNA’s Indiana office. As the Justice Department explained in a memorandum (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/623.pdf) submitted in the HLF case:
During the early years of HLF’s operation, HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA. . . . Indeed, HLF (under its former name, OLF) operated from within ISNA, in Plainfield, Illinois. . . . ISNA checks deposited into the ISNA/[North American Islamic Trust] account for the HLF were often made payable to “the Palestinian Mujahideen,” the original name for the Hamas military wing. . . . From the ISNA/NAIT account, the HLF sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook . . . and a number of other individuals associated with Hamas.
Ultimately, the HLF raised over $36 million for Hamas. At the height of the intifada, this was not about the social-welfare activities Hamas touts to camouflage its barbarism. As the journalist Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism has observed, “Ordinary Americans should be shocked and outraged to learn that Hamas was running its terror campaign from a sanctuary in the U.S.” In addition, prosecutors showed that ISNA was central to a 1993 meeting of top Brotherhood operatives, who were wiretapped “discussing using ISNA as an official cover for their activities.”

Meantime, in 1992, the IIIT contributed $50,000 to underwrite an al-Arian venture, the World & Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a front for Palestinian Islamic Jihad that ostensibly employed several members of the PIJ governing board. IIIT has been under federal investigation since 2002 — and after his terrorism conviction, al-Arian went into contempt of court rather than honor a grand-jury subpoena in the probe.

In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood’s American leadership prepared an internal memorandum for the organization’s global leadership in Egypt. It was written principally by Mohamed Akram, a close associate of Sheikh Qaradawi. As Akram put it, the Brotherhood
must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
The memorandum included a list described by Akram as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” working together to implement this sabotage strategy. Prominently included in that list were ISNA and IIIT.

The Ground Zero project to erect a monument to sharia overlooking the crater where the World Trade Center once stood, and where thousands were slaughtered, is not a test of America’s commitment to religious liberty. America already has thousands of mosques and Islamic centers, including scores in the New York area — though Islam does not allow non-Muslims even to enter its crown-jewel cities of Mecca and Medina, much less to build churches or synagogues.

The Ground Zero project is a test of America’s resolve to face down a civilizational jihad that aims, in the words of its leaders, to destroy us from within.

If you have a problem with the site or the author, it does not matter, what he says has been revealed by others as well. I choose this one because it was the first I had at hand back then. I could as well dig out one of the others as well - in English AND in German, if wanted.

No, I called your ongoing extremist ranting "hate", and nothing else. I agree that they are dangerous, and I agree that we must keep an eye on them. But you apparently don't see how frightening your own diatribes can be sometimes.

Yes, I am totally aware that the islamophile basic climate in the West results from fear, I have said that before - the fear of needing to make a stand, to be found by a conflict one does not want to fight becasue that is to stressful and too uncivilised and oes not match one's own thinking of hopw shining and cin vining one is so that all enemies of ours fall to us just becaseu our mere glory cinvinces them that they should want to be like us. Also, there is great fear of freedom these days, becasue defending it in word woiuld mean to also be ready to defend it in deed, which maybe could cause uncomfrotable consequences. The top prioirty for many people is to avoid conflict at vall cost - no matter how hight the costs become. My priority is to prevent freedom getting detsrtoy completely, and to fight back Islam like in the past it was a necessity to fight back fascism and nazism. To avoid conflict, is secondary to me only. I want as little conflict as possible - but will as much conflict as is needed to assure this priority - pro freedom, anti Islam - becomes real. Maybe it is a family thing. The brother of my mom's father got executed by the SS while serving in the Wehrmacht. My grandfather only mentione that once. He indicated that he refused to carry out SS orders for this certain kinds of special operatons behind the frontlines. He did not need to describe the details, I understood it all by myself.

As opposed to fighting the Nazis before they actually did anything.
If only they would have done! Would have saved many lives, would have saved the world from plenty of misery. Chamberlain was no wise man. He was a fool, driven by wishful thinking that maybe can be explained by the memories of WWI - but not excused.

Again, exactly what do you advocate we do?
See above wzhen I replkied the second time to you "elimnination" thing. I would also list social issues here, but the damn search function with that string code does not work for me anymore, I cannot search and find the link to the thread I have on mind. 3-4 weeks ago, about the fianncial costs of ongoing lower class migration from Muslimc out nries into Germany, and how it effects future tax burdens, debt levels, and the balance between academical families and social wellfare cases massively shifting towards the latter. This is also a form of jihad that even has been called that and indentified as that by several Muslim leaders and clerics: piutting nations uner stress and bringing them to collapse by overloading their social security nets.

Only in your own mind.
And once again you show your inability or unwillingness to prove him wrong by logical terms. If he is so wrong, it should be so easy for you to prove it in argument. But you can't, you only can say "Total freedom or no freedom", and beyond that: ignore him when he shows right this statement of yours to be suicidal. You did it not back then, not now, and I do not expect you do it in the future. Conclusion? He's right, you're wrong.

How so? I support freedom of speech. They can say what they want, and do what they want as long as they don't break any laws.
Hitler also did not brake the constitution or the laws. Instead, he legally changed them in his favour. And that is what Muslim organisation try to do all over the Wetsern world.

You keep talking, but you haven't yet said one particular thing: WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO?
I'm really getting tired of it. Take Islam by its own scruipture, and its own history, and draw the consequences. Understand that it is hostile to your constitutional order and known cultural values. Do not give it any more ground. Insist and enforce muslim communtiies to integrate in full, to fully adapt - like all other migration communities we have at least over here are doing), and if they do not accept that and instead demand special status for Islam and chnages ot the laws in the name of Sharia, and Islam getting a word in oublic schools educaiton: kick them out. You are not dealing with migrants then, but with colinists. Hosile colonsts who have no intention to integrate.

I am aware that in the US you are lacking ebhind in developemnt of Muslim migrtation, comparedmto europe.But the probelsm in europe, in Germnany are alraedy frightening.where we are now - you will be in two or three decades at the latest. Don 't waste the time. I do not think that Europe will make it, even more so since we have the EU on our heels. Even in
poland they have sztarted to give ground to Islam. If america does not manage to protect it's non-Muslim identity, nobody will be left who could be able to restore the humanistic culture and pre-Islam order in the West again. russia will not do it, has different interests.China, india and Brazil also walk on other ways.

Then you took it completely wrong. I simply came to recognize that the right to protest against your own country when you believe it is wrong is one of the greatest rights we have. Dissent is vital to a free society, and any attempt to quell that dissent, even in the name of patriotism, goes against everything America stands for.

I do not disagree, id critise Germany myself very often, over it's foreign policies and EU obedience for example.
But the debate is not about protestiong against your country when you disagree with the government, the debate is about freedom being used to destroy freedom and replace it with Shariah. And that, Steve, is something totally and completely different.

Nice quote. Please show one thing I have said that disagrees with it. And please show one thing in that quote that justifies your desire to deny freedom in order to preserve it.
Alsmost all, that's why I have given it. You ignore that your concept of total freedom will destroy freedom, and that by insistong on your cocnept you helped to make this possible. And Popper illustrates here that only having a desire of freedom, like you or me have, does not guarantee things will end well automatically.

You indicated,like many before you, that you think I am hateful and fearful, maybe you think I am phobic or irrational.

I am not - i am detemined because I have good and solid reason to beoieve that I have a solid understanding of at least the basis of Islamic ideology, in fact I think that i know much more abiout it that most people in theWest who may have an opinionl, but who never took the time to read even a signle book about the issue. I also have had experience at location. And I was, and since some months again: I am engaged in civil right movement work against islam. I have faced death threats in letters two years ago from Muslims, and now again - from people using a leftist slang. This only confirms me views oif how the tide of thr times are shifting, and it makes me even more detmerined to defend freedom in the ways it is available to me to help in the fight. Because: a fight it already is.

Maybe we all lose, I think this is what the signs are telling, and I would not even say that it is undeserved, because those who do not appreciate their freedom do not deserve freedom, i think. but I will fall while having done my part to deliver a fight. Yyou will have created the opprtunity for the other side to win. And this is why your closed eyes on the issue make me so angry. even more so sine I consider you to be a far more intelligent guy. You should not be satisfied with your view of things.

plenty of typos here, I know, but I am already out of time and need to go NOW.

AVGWarhawk

08-05-10, 02:25 PM

So anyway, besides Skybird and Tribesman.....this project two blocks from ground zero will cause ongoing issues. It is in poor taste to construct such a building IMO.

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 03:09 PM

And again you evade from the obvious logic in the statement, because you insist even the destroyer of freedom being given the freedom to destroy freedom. That is too kind of you. And very suicidal. But kind.
Wrong on both counts. It seems logical to you because you already believe it. Please show exactly how what you said follows the correct rules of logic.

Secondly, I don't insist the "destroyer of freedom be given the freedom to destroy freedom". You're making that up yourself - putting the words you want to hear into my mouth. What I insist on is freedom of speech, nothing else. Actually not even that. What I have insisted on in this thread is the legal right to build a building. Kindness has nothing to do with it.

Can you possibly stick to the actual subject, rather than derail the thread into your pet hobby horse?

And quote what I actually said, not what you want me to have said so your can make your point, however off-topic it may be?

Second, do not evade by trying to open a sidetrack in the discussion and distract attention to it.
:rotfl2:

The subject is whether a group of people have the legal right to erect a building. Nothing more. You are the one who sidetracked it into your favorite tirade.

As for preemptive elimination of anybody? Okay, you win. So tell me: Exactly what are you talking about all the time, and what do you propose we do about it? You haven't actually given us a hint about that one.

Absurd, and another extreme quote because you have no reasonable arugment that would be realistic.
Always easy to dismiss an argument by calling it "unreasonable" or "unrealistic". You are only reading my argument in the light of what you think I've said, not what I've actually said.

I'm not becoming like my enemy because I do not will him the space and opportunity and time to destroy me. With the above quote you just have rejected every cause for self-defence.
You don't give him the space and time? How exactly to accomplish that prevention?

And I've never rejected any cause for self-defence. You're making that one up as well. I've supported free speech, not freedom of attack. I fully support self-defence. Do you support free speech?

If I take you by your word, nobody has the right to defend himself or his freedom because by that he limits the freedom of the other.
When have I once denied the right to self-defence? Please show quotes. You keep making this up as you go along.

If I would follow your logic, I have hindred this fellas freedom (to kill me), and I had no right to do so. If I woul follow your logic I should have accepted to get killed.
Show everyone here where I have once said anything of that kind. That's not my logic at all, and you know it. You are either resorting to putting words in my mouth or you truly have no clue what I'm talking about.

This is not about just a building, if it were, they would evade and build a Muslim bookshop in some place that does not raise any concerns and does not offend the victim'S families.
Yes, it is. Or rather not about the building itself, but the legal right to build it.

Once again you build a huge wall-of-text argument, challenging me to dispute the logic of your newest prophet. I'm not even going to bother, because you have steadfastly refused to answer the simplest of questions, and one that you need to answer now:

You say you don't advocate preemptive elimination. You say I feel a need to let them take away my freedom before I'll listen. You say I have no logic.

Okay, so quit dodging the question and tell me:

WHAT? EXACTLY? DO? YOU (not Popper, but YOU)? WANT? ME? TO? DO?

mookiemookie

08-05-10, 03:14 PM

http://images.whatport80.com/images/6/6d/CostanzaPopcorn.gif

Bubblehead1980

08-05-10, 04:13 PM

Platapus

08-05-10, 04:21 PM

Very much a "**** You" to the US to build this so close to ground Zero.The Imam heading this is a radical and should not even be allowed in America.Clear example of Liberal "tolerance" being used against us.

Yup, because radical thought has no place in the United States!

So how exactly is this Islamic community center a F You to the United States while a mosque that is 3 1/2 blocks away is ok?

Or are you for retroactively tearing down religious buildings?

Aramike

08-05-10, 04:23 PM

You went down that slippery slope quick.Where's the slippery slope? If one is suggesting that one organization has the right to, in bad taste, erect a building of some kind, why then can't any organization do it?

Or are you conceding that there are indeed some organizations should be disallowed from erecting facilities (if not, explain Walmart...)?

If you are indeed conceding the latter, please justify how you would permit this organization under this particular leadership while not allow another extreme organization under extremist leadership.

As an aside, I love how Bloomberg repeatedly refers to "tolerence" on this issue. So wait - we're supposed to tolerate those who wish us and our way of life destroyed?

Perhaps America stands for tolerence, but shouldn't there be pragmatic limits to that?

PS: Here's another one - should NAMBLA be allowed to build a facility across the street from an all-boys elementary school? If you were the a parent of a student there would you attempt to block that? (If not, what the hell is wrong with you?)

Aramike

08-05-10, 04:25 PM

Or are you for retroactively tearing down religious buildings? Are you suggesting that, simply because something is already there, it makes no sense to oppose something new?

I tend to believe in the principle of "control what you can control". Just because one can't do anything about the preexisting mosque doesn't mean that one is therefore disqualified to prevent another one.

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 05:24 PM

Very much a "**** You" to the US to build this so close to ground Zero.
Whether it is or not, you need to read the rules on swearing in these forums; even pseudo-swearing.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language

TheSatyr

08-05-10, 05:38 PM

I am feeling more and more that it is Skybird and those who think like him that are the real threat here. His views towards the Muslims is frightingly similar to Hitler's views towards the Jews. He may not say it out loud,but he seems to hint at wanting some kind of "final solution" when it comes to Muslims.

It's obvious that there are some segments of the German population that have learned NOTHING from history.

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 05:48 PM

I wouldn't go that far, but I am curious to find out what his actual "solution" is.

Aramike

08-05-10, 06:04 PM

I am feeling more and more that it is Skybird and those who think like him that are the real threat here. His views towards the Muslims is frightingly similar to Hitler's views towards the Jews.This statement tells me that you either have no clue what Skybird's views on Islam are or you have no clue what Hitler's views on Jews were.

The former is easily remedied by reading without a predetermined repulsion.

The latter, well, I just find it intriguing how it seems that, every time someone disagrees with something strongly, Hitler and his facism finds a way to creep into the discussion, despite the merits.

razark

08-05-10, 06:12 PM

PS: Here's another one - should NAMBLA be allowed to build a facility across the street from an all-boys elementary school? If you were the a parent of a student there would you attempt to block that? (If not, what the hell is wrong with you?)
Well, then we shouldn't allow any Catholic churches to be across the street from schools. After all, I've heard in the news that they do some pretty nasty things with children in those places.

The difference is that NAMBLA is an organization dedicated to a certain wrong behavior, while the Catholic Church is an organization with some members who have engaged in a wrong behavior.

If someone wants to build a mosque on their property, that's fine. If someone want to open a branch office for Al Quida, that's not fine.

(No offense to any Catholics)

Skybird

08-05-10, 06:15 PM

Wrong on both counts. It seems logical to you because you already believe it. Please show exactly how what you said follows the correct rules of logic.

And another time you evade to indicate why Popper is wrong in his warning. Instead you want me to start running around in circles, to the rythm of your drum.

Secondly, I don't insist the "destroyer of freedom be given the freedom to destroy freedom".
Imn the context discussed here, that is the inevitable consequence of your demand for absooliute freedom.

You're making that up yourself - putting the words you want to hear into my mouth.
No I draw the ob vious logical conclusion from what you say. you say it is either absolkute freedom, or no freedom, and you said that there is no inbbetween, whioch can only be understood as exactly what you said: either total freedom, or it is no freedom at all.

What I insist on is freedom of speech, nothing else.
I insist on freedom of speech not beeing abused to propagate the destruction of freedom of speech. i am in total agreement with the German constitution here -w hcih was desogned under massive influence and pressure by the United staes, France and Britain, btw.

Actually not even that. What I have insisted on in this thread is the legal right to build a building. Kindness has nothing to do with it.
And you totally ignore the cultural implication, the symbolic implication, the claim for power that is symbolised by not just any building but a mosque. you ignore that löand.taking dimension that the erection of towers traditonally has in both the orient and the - dman, I already explained that in my last reply and you did not bother, so why should you now. i take from your reply that it is just any building then you have no püroblem with a nazi culture centre beeing erected near the gate of the auschwitz memorial. It is just a building, after all. with even less cultural meanign for Nazis than a mosque has for Islam.

Do you know that islam claims that every country where ever a muslim'S foot touched the arth shall be seen as property oif Islam, that can never be given up, never become another culture's property again, and must be defended to be Islamic until the end of all time? ;) You do not cionvince me when you tell me that you do not like Islam. You are worried enough by it that you accept to give it the opportunity to strengthen it's options to finally overcome your oh so free society - to mock he victims of 9/11 that got killed due to the motivating power and teachings of islamic ideology, and to spread its seed even further in your free country with every damn mosque that gets build. That relatives your statement of how much you despise islam quite clearly. To me, in this question you are just like any other "Mitläufer".

Can you possibly stick to the actual subject, rather than derail the thread into your pet hobby horse?
I stick to the obnject of olur collison all the time. you just do not like to be reminded of the implications of what you say. Where as the solutiojn to your problem would be so simple: if you wish to imply something different than what you do, maybe chose your argument accordingly.

And quote what I actually said, not what you want me to have said so your can make your point, however off-topic it may be?
Oh, I am almost fixiated on what you say and by that imply, thats why refer on both your quotes, and the implications of your quotes. And you just do not like to be exposed to such unwavering ammount of attention.

The subject is whether a group of people have the legal right to erect a building. Nothing more. You are the one who sidetracked it into your favorite tirade.
A mosque is not just any building, nor is the motivation behind wanting to build one just like any other. Intersting that you also must compeltey ignore the background described in that essay I linked (no, last time I think I quoted it in full again, didn't I). Once again i refer to the historical symbolic meaning of such special buildings ( a church also is not just any building, you see, or a palace, or a tower in the heart of an opposing peope'S land). I refuse your claim - it's just your claim - that this is jst about any building being erected. You want to refuse that there is more, because seeing that would put your passive posture on the question of Islamci advance into question.

As for preemptive elimination of anybody? Okay, you win. So tell me: Exactly what are you talking about all the time, and what do you propose we do about it? You haven't actually given us a hint about that one.
I have, three times in my last reply alone. and in one of the immediate replies before that reply I also did. (Not to mention many threads in the past, but these do not count here, okay). Must I really do it once again ?

I do not, since you can already read it by yourwself, I just add another one to the list: our constitutions should be changed, so that any ideology, no matter what, that does not strictly obey and accept the strict difference between religion and state, religuous practicing and an public interest and politics, can no longer demand to benefit from the guarantee of free religious practicing in order to make its pltial gioals untouchable. Any ideology being practiced in a relgious group or a poltical party has to fully submit to the secular basic order of wetswrn states like Germany and the United states. Else we leave our constitutional order completely defenseless to islam, because Islam does not separate between relgion and polltics, and claims religious prtection when aggressively pushing anti-constitutional politcal goals.

And I add another point that I forgot earlier, just for you. We shoudl stop crucifying ourselöves over our laws if these laws get constantly and massively abused by islamic interest groups to serve against our communal interest, the identity of our nations and people. we should stop allowing our freedom and our tolerance and our laws being turned against us to destroy these freedoms and laws and to propagate shariah. Propagating shariah law should be banned as a threat to the constitutional order. Integration should become a mandatory duty by law for any immoigrant coming into our nations - without compromise. Migrants have to adapt to their new home nation, not th eother way around. Oh wait - i already had that the last time. That last time you claim I did not adress your question.

And you, personally, should be doing what is possible in america to oppose planned polktics and decisions: civil disobedience, protest marczhes if that is your cup of tea, joining "Bürgerinitiatven" against islam, joining information movements about islam, blocking thre constuction site, sending angry letters to associated compoanies, boycottying them - man oh man, there is so much you can do. Years ago I joined a civil rights mvoement that successfully prevented the extension of a mosque becaysue the addito0nal ground was bought on the basis of fraud. Since some months I am engaged again, in a less civil, more official context linked to monitoring Islamic networks and local organisations, I also help out another local movement in information campaigns again since some weeks.

And you ask what you can do? Precidntion for that is that you even want to do somethign agsimnt Islam, or that mosque. And both obviously is not the case.

Always easy to dismiss an argument by calling it "unreasonable" or "unrealistic". You are only reading my argument in the light of what you think I've said, not what I've actually said.
Says somebody who at that point just had to refer to an extreme to make his point. You declared the victim to be the same like the perpetrator when the victim claims the right of self-defence. If that is not extreme, or again aguing according to "all or nothign at all for me, please".

You don't give him the space and time? How exactly to accomplish that prevention?
Rethoric question, you lready know the answer. By not allowjng freedom of speech being absued for destroiyjg freedom of speech. By not allowing fereedom being used to plan for the destruction of freedom. By not allwoing any more special status and special rights that Islam alraedy enjoys in wetsern culture, media, legislation, public attention. It already is the religion No 1, if you consider the ammount of media time spend on Islam issues, and how much time we need to spend with dealing with it in our daily perception. And by doing all the things I just have listed two or three paragraphs before, and the reply before: migration and integration, etc etc etc.

And I've never rejected any cause for self-defence. You're making that one up as well.
Wrong, you reject the right of self defence by insisting that freedom must accept the other the freedom to destroy oneself, and one's freedom. that is self-defence, and you reject it.

I've supported free speech, not freedom of attack.
You give the other the freedom of attack by refusing to limit hi9s freedom when he used that freedom to attack you in order to destroy your freedom.

Yes I do - as long as it is not used for propagarting and attemtping the destruction of free speech. The constitution of my country sees it exaclty hte same way, in case you have forgotten by now that I already have mentioned that twice. Your memory seems to work a bit selective today. I think your country does not work much different, i think. you call it not "activities that are a threat to the constitution", like in Germany, you call it "national security". Which by your logic already means that there is no freedom in your country. :lol:

[quote]
When have I once denied the right to self-defence? Please show quotes. You keep making this up as you go along.
I just confront you woith the implication of what you say. and I do so as often as you bring it up.

Show everyone here where I have once said anything of that kind. That's not my logic at all, and you know it. You are either resorting to putting words in my mouth or you truly have no clue what I'm talking about.
Yoi insist on freedom needing to be total and absolute., else it is not freedom. while I hindred that guy to kill me as he intended, I was limiting his freedom. which in your argument is not acceptable, because you insist in absolute, total freedom. Which implies that I just even will to get stabbed to death, else the other guy diod not enjoy this total freedom you want to give to everybody - even to those abusing it, as you insist.

Yes, it is. Or rather not about the building itself, but the legal right to build it.
Oh, it is only and exclsuievly and was from the beginning on about the cultural and symbolic meaning of that building, do not be mistaken in your intentional naivety. The plan to put it there and nowhere else, pushed by this orthodox, djihad-driven Muslim group that in other parts of the world (that are not as free as your freedom definition, btw) released publications on how the event of 9/11 and the destruction site can be used for Islamic propaganda and to drive the teeth of Islam even deeper into american legislation and media acceptance, is not just any random coincidence. Like the Gaza convoy incidcent, the controversy is wanted, and was aimed for, followed by victory and raisjng the flag of the perpetrator over the masgrave of the victims.

you maybe have no problem with that. But I have. I would sshove them their damn plan into the one ear, and out of the other.

Once again you build a huge wall-of-text argument, challenging me to dispute the logic of your newest prophet. I'm not even going to bother, because you have steadfastly refused to answer the simplest of questions, and one that you need to answer now:

You say you don't advocate preemptive elimination. You say I feel a need to let them take away my freedom before I'll listen. You say I have no logic.

Okay, so quit dodging the question and tell me:

WHAT? EXACTLY? DO? YOU (not Popper, but YOU)? WANT? ME? TO? DO?
What - AGAIN...? :o:o:o

I have a befgame for you. Instead og counting sheep this night, try to correctly count how often I have now said that I agree with Popper on these mentioned quotes by him. BTW, on tolerance I have said like that quote by Popper since I estimate three years so. I had at least two full threads just explainign why tolerance needs limits else it leads to its own destruction and or anarchy and the law odf the strongest. Just to make that clear: I do not just parrot Popper. Maybe you mistake me with Letum. i remember that he was a great fan and reader of Popper. I have on book, in the free society, but do not think i know it in and out and can quote from it at will, without preparation. I meanwhile forgot most of it.

Skybird

08-05-10, 06:18 PM

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 06:37 PM

I refuse to waste breath for just another round around the house - the grass already is flat like asphalt, so I am out of this thread. Either you get it now, after numerous repetitions of mine, or you don't.
Okay, then I'll get to basics.

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

Please answer all three questions, without saying "I've already done so" or "You know the answer to that", because I can't see that you've already done so and I don't know the answers.

And I'm certainly not going to presume to give the answers for you, because I don't build straw men.

Aramike

08-05-10, 06:50 PM

Well, then we shouldn't allow any Catholic churches to be across the street from schools. After all, I've heard in the news that they do some pretty nasty things with children in those places.

The difference is that NAMBLA is an organization dedicated to a certain wrong behavior, while the Catholic Church is an organization with some members who have engaged in a wrong behavior.

If someone wants to build a mosque on their property, that's fine. If someone want to open a branch office for Al Quida, that's not fine.

(No offense to any Catholics)Okay, I'll bite. I believe that the Muslim faith is by nature dedicated to the destruction those of other faiths, a certain "wrong behavior" as you put it. There are many examples of why I believe so in this thread.

Now, care to show me how I'm wrong in that belief with actual facts?

Webster

08-05-10, 06:52 PM

Okay, then I'll get to basics.

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

IMO no it should never be built at that site because it is tantamount to spitting on the dead bodies from the WTC

so many completely miss the fact that that site as it was originally zoned wouldnt allow a mosque to be built there (i believe historic or something) but they bent over backwards changing local zoning laws and ordinences so a religeous building could be built there so lets not forget how major changes were made specifically to create a situation where a mosque could be built in the first place. this isnt simply a completely legally normal situation where they came in and wanted to build something that is normally allowed but people dont want to allow it because its muslums.

the law as it previously was written said the mosque could not be built there before it was changed so unchange it to how it was and the law states the mosque cant be built for zoning reasons and then first amendment and religeon have nothing to do with it.

this religeous freedom first amendment crap is all BS smokescreen to avoid the fact that this mosque is intended as a monument to the great victory over america and to memorialize and honor the terrorists who blew it up.

the whole arab world is laughing at how stupid the americans are and like sheep to be lead around in the name of tollerance and understanding.

Schroeder

08-05-10, 07:00 PM

Okay, then I'll get to basics.

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

By making it illegal and sending everyone abusing it back home.

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?
See above, plus stopping mass immigration of Muslims into our countries.

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?
Within current laws? Difficult. I don't know about petitions in the US maybe something like that could work.

I answered number one and two according to what Skybird has written now a few times in this thread.;)

Task Force

08-05-10, 07:01 PM

hmm, Someone should open a pork store next to/ accrost the street!:yep:

Aramike

08-05-10, 07:01 PM

Let me take a crack at your questions, Steve:1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?It's the same principle as not being able to shout "FIRE" in a movie theatre. There is a difference between saying that "the infidel is wrong" and saying that the "infidel must be destroyed". If your speech and reasonably be taken as that which is inciteful enough to possibly limit the speech of others, than it ALREADY is restricted. Such is why large assemblies need permits - those are a step in assuring that one group's speech don't infringe upon another's.2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?Not giving them the unrestricted ability to promulgate their anti-American propaganda within our borders is a start.3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?The same way communities stop Walmarts - withhold the building permits.

Biggles

08-05-10, 07:03 PM

this religeous freedom first amendment crap is all BS smokescreen to avoid the fact that this mosque is intended as a monument to the great victory over america and to memorialize and honor the terrorists who blew it up.

the whole arab world is laughing at how stupid the americans are and like sheep to be lead around in the name of tollerance and understanding.

I'm quite literally speechless. And not in a good way, mind you.

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 07:10 PM

By making it illegal and sending everyone abusing it back home.
Making it illegal to abuse the right to speak freely. Possibly, but it's going to have some definition problems.

See above, plus stopping mass immigration of Muslims into our countries.
That's difficult where I live. Country founded by immigrants and all that.

Within current laws? Difficult. I don't know about petitions in the US maybe something like that could work.
There have been petitions. Didn't work. My question in all of this has been the one of legality vs freedom vs protection.

I answered number one and two according to what Skybird has written now a few times in this thread.;)
Thank you. That's what I was looking for. I like Skybird, but sometimes he likes to get on his high horse and talk down to people. That's what always gets me going "I'm right and you're stupid", as I like to say.

I'm not stupid, but I don't pretend I'm always right either. If someone wants to argue with what I say, or with what I believe, fine. Just don't tell me I have to agree with you or I'm blind or ignorant, or can't see the truth. That's not argument, that's arrogance.

Sailor Steve

08-05-10, 07:17 PM

Let me take a crack at your questions, Steve:It's the same principle as not being able to shout "FIRE" in a movie theatre. There is a difference between saying that "the infidel is wrong" and saying that the "infidel must be destroyed". If your speech and reasonably be taken as that which is inciteful enough to possibly limit the speech of others, than it ALREADY is restricted. Such is why large assemblies need permits - those are a step in assuring that one group's speech don't infringe upon another's.
Good points. But it must be done carefully. I was a big fan of the 'deportation' argument in 1979. While certain people compared it to the incarceration of American citizens in 1942 based on national origin, in fact we didn't threaten to lock up Iranians who protested here at all - we merely offered them a free ticket home.

What you say is a good start.

Not giving them the unrestricted ability to promulgate their anti-American propaganda within our borders is a start.
A good idea on the face of it, but I think we must tread very carefully when defining how that will be implemented.

The same way communities stop Walmarts - withhold the building permits.
Again a good idea. The only problem I see is what happened in this case - the community decided to give the permits. Criticize their motives all we want, it was still their decision to make.

Skybird

08-05-10, 07:53 PM

Okay, then I'll get to basics.

1) How do you propose we limit freedom of speech in order to save it?

I already asnwered that, amongst others by referring to the German constitution. Here is the explicit detail
Consider this:
Article 4 [Freedom of faith, conscience, and creed]

(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed, shall be inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed.
(3) No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms. Details shall be regulated by a federal law.
Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

and limit it by this:

Article 18 [Forfeiture of basic rights]

Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Article 20 [Basic institutional principles; defense of the constitutional order]

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

That is in principla the same what I have said over and over again now.

( I do not wish to say by that reference that things are being handled like these basic articles express. Much deformation and distortion to existing laws and even the basic law is existing and is being tolerated in Germany. We have too many laws, the one getting quoted to nullify the other, because the contradictions between existing laws are legions and can no longer be overwatched. And often it is rightout simple resignation not to follow a law (the police refusing to follow it's duties in certain parts of major cities, for example, quoting its unability to protect itself when not going in by the hundreds and officers are too initmidated and scared - and right they are - of the chnace to get bullied or beaten up by whole family clans and residents of all the street), or ignoring of such laws because it is en vogue in the current cultural climate. From the surrounding of the constitutional high court it is to be heared that some judges refuse to accept that article 20 section 4 indeed means "resistence" when it claims the right of resistence. so, refering to these articles is how things could and very much should be - but they are no matching the practical reality in their implementing, which is much more miserable. It gets worse by massive infringement by the EU. I tend to think of the legal landscape to be a total chaos where bureaucrats, predators and opportunists of all colours have the say. I have no faith and no trust in it - not only in context with battling Islam, but in almost every other as well. Relying on the law these days is nothing else but playing roulette. You may be lucky - or not. And on another day it could have been the other way around. what kind of respectable law should that be...?)

And also consider a chnage to the constitution like I suggested: that idoelogy that refuse to strictly differ between poltics and relgion, that do not fully submit to the principle of strict secularism, shall loose the constitutional portection for free religious practicing so that this freedom can no longer be abused to push politics that are against the constitution, but claim relgious untouchability. This point is not just cosmetics, but i cosnider it to be one of the most important steps to protect the constitution and the German law against Islam. The very confused sentences we have gotten in germany in masses on Islamic issues in the past years show the dramatic urgency to strengthen the constitution and the law against Islam and Shariah.

You want the protection of the secular society? than you need to be secular yourself, too. give and take. Benefit and duty. Reciprocity. That's the deal.

2) What exactly do you suggest we to to stop these people from destroying our freedoms?
Stopping Islamic migration. making their active integration legally binding and mandatory, not leaving them the freedom to refuse integration, like the overhwelming majority of Turks for example do. Learning the nation's language is mandatory. Compliance with local rites and nhabits, values and cultural rules must be mandatory (no more girls banned from school sports, biologx classes, etc). Prohibition of the burqua, and headscarf, both are politivcal combat symbols of Islam. Banning of very many islamic organisation that belong to the terror-supporting spectrum, to foeign nationalistic branches (Milli Görus), the muslim brotherhood, and other orthodox organisations. Full stop to further mosque building. no islamic party formation in politics allowed, since islam is not secular and does not differ between politics and religion, In germany: banning Turkey'S influence via the turkish ministry of religion, which has a tremendous and practically uncontrolled influence in German inner poltics. Full stop to mosque building. First they have to buiold as man culture centres and chruches and synagoes in Muslim ****ries like we have allowed them to build Muslim houses in europe and america. Get independent from oil - and then kick ass to the Saudis and several others, expropriation of their shares they hold in western corporations. No further support to the EU policy of pro-islamisation, and the UN.

The deal is clear: our house - our rules. Like it, or leave.

3) Do you say this mosque should not be built? How do you propose we do that (within the law)?

Don't care for the laws that much anymore since European courts foudn so amny highly hilaroious rulings to please islam, and since the Islamic group we battled in court told us afterwards into the face (after they lost): "of course we lied to you - else you would not have sold the property to us." (they lost because of fraud and betraying over the identity of theirs, in later weeks and months they harassed the initiave's president's wife on open street and threateend his family until the finally left the city. That was the time when I received the first set of death threats, too. Two other people got beaten up). For Islam, our laws mean not so much, they are inferior to Shariah law. My priority is not necessarily legality, because the law already has been tailored by the EU to support islam and make opposition to Islamisation a crime, my priority is to stop islam, make Islamic communities in Europe change themselves so that they are no longer Islamic (I do not believe in this insane idea of a tamed "euro-islam" that suddenly is compatible with western values), or in the long run give them strong motivations and incentives to voluntarily leave again (like the vast majority of former German guestworkers already did all by themselves: the spnaish, the itlaians, the Greek, The yugoslavs - most of them went back after some time, and those who stayed, stayed for love of Germany, and for the very, very most integrated them perfectly. Just turks and Albanians, Afghans and Lebanese do not do that). If all that is possible legally - okay. If legality must be breached to stop it - I'm all for it. Stopping islam is more imprtant than our laws, becaseu if we fail in stopping Islam. islam will make our laws system obsolete and sooner or later enforce shariah.

I indeed reject any further mosques being built, at GZ, and elsewhere. And as i also said earlier, the courts decision was found in a climate where our courts already bow to the favour of Islamic interests, in order to not disturb the "consensus" and not to disturb poltival correctness. I even would say that the court under no circumstances would have had the courage to stop that mosque at GZ. the political pressure was immense, too.

Aramike

08-06-10, 01:41 AM

Good points. But it must be done carefully. I was a big fan of the 'deportation' argument in 1979. While certain people compared it to the incarceration of American citizens in 1942 based on national origin, in fact we didn't threaten to lock up Iranians who protested here at all - we merely offered them a free ticket home.

What you say is a good start.

A good idea on the face of it, but I think we must tread very carefully when defining how that will be implemented.

Again a good idea. The only problem I see is what happened in this case - the community decided to give the permits. Criticize their motives all we want, it was still their decision to make.I do agree with you that these ideas are very difficult to implement safely. By and large our system is supposed to allow for impartial judicial review but political leanings, interpretations, and the overuse of precedent is quickly corrupting our judiciary.

As for this case, I wouldn't say that the community has approved of the permits, but rather that the community bureaucracy has. This seems to be yet another case of elected officials ignoring the objections of their constituents. While they are certainly allowed to do so, the frequency of this type of defiance from elected officials is alarming to me.

Tribesman

08-06-10, 02:15 AM

The deal is clear: our house - our rules. Like it, or leave.

So forced deportations, I wonder how that works with citizens.
Oh yeah Sky addresed that too, stripping citizenship because of their religion.
Wow its the Fourth Reich.
Anyone notice that Skys ideas on legislation makes him directly in violation of the basic law he cites as justification.

Schroeder
By making it illegal and sending everyone abusing it back home.

How does that work with citizens? Are you proposing sending Germans to Germany to get them out of Germany?

so many completely miss the fact that that site as it was originally zoned wouldnt allow a mosque to be built there (i believe historic or something)
Thats strange, can you find any zoning laws covering that area which specificly ban a Muslim place of worship?
After all if it is a "fact" that so many have completely missed you really should enlighten us with the factual zoning laws.
Though I think what you refer to is the original ban on anything apart from mainstream protestant worship anywhere which was done away with in the second half of the 1700s which meant Catholics could finally build a church in NY and Quakers could have meetings.

As for this case, I wouldn't say that the community has approved of the permits
If you look at the recent surveys the locals didn't object.

What I find funny about those who are upset that the dump didn't get preservation status is that such status wouldn't prevent it from being used as a mosque or prevent it from being redeveloped as a bigger mosque.

Schroeder

08-06-10, 04:57 AM

Dowly

08-06-10, 05:00 AM

Tribesman

08-06-10, 07:23 AM

Oh for crying out loud...
Indeed, how does Schroeder manage to change "integration" to "immigration"?
So its integration supporting language not immigration supporting language, which is exactly what people are calling for or has their islamaphobia simply blinded them?
Likewise the crucifix ban mentioned in that article, a ban on religious symbols in State schools for example crucifixes and head scarfs....which is in line with the german courts isn't it, hey wasn't a pile of people here in favour of banning head scarfs entirely not just in State schools.

So when Schroeder writes "In other words" it means he is simply talking rubbish s he is changing words to try to get towards the meaning he wants and then just making more crap up about what he just made up.

Schroeder

08-06-10, 08:26 AM

O.K. I indeed have made the mistake of writing immigration instead of integration and it was rightfully pointed out.
The rest of my statement however remains.

Skybird

08-06-10, 08:45 AM

BTW since we are talking about free speech. The newly assigned minister for social affairs of Lower Saxony, Mrs Özkan, a German born Muslim of Turkish decent, wanted to get representatives of the German media to sign a so called "Media Charter". This charter included that all the media should only use "integration supporting language" in their articles. In other words, if a crime has been committed by a member of the religion of peace then don't mention to what ethnic group he belongs. Another blatant attempt to gloss over the real situation here. Thank god that she failed.
Here is an article about it from a Turkish source: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=germany8217s-ozkan-sparks-uproar-over-media-offer-2010-08-02
I do not know what devil has ridden Wulf to give her that post. He probbaly wanted to create a pro-Turkish Obama-effect at all cost. The woman Mrs. Özkan is a known close and trusted buddy of Vulgar Öger, former owner and chief of holiday flyer Öger tours. Mr. Öger himself is closely attached to the fundamentalist Mili Görus movement, he tries to deceive the public over his attempt to make Mili Görus cooperate even closer with the radical Muslim Brotherhood, and some also link him to the Turkish ultranationalistic Grey Wolves. He is also said to have good links to fundamentalist Turkish premier Erdoghan, who encourages Turks in Germany to not integrate, and called such demands by Germans to Turks that they should integrate, a "crime again humanity". So, Öger means you get four hits with just one name! To make a close adviser and friend of a highly suspicious activist like Öger a minister for social affairs in Germany, illustrates the discouraging ammount of lacking sense of realism and naivety in the political landscape in Germany when it comes to Muslim and especially Turkish migration and integration.

Sailor Steve

08-06-10, 10:41 AM

Please answer all three questions, without saying "I've already done so"...

I already asnwered that,
:rotfl2:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The reason you get so much resistance from me is not that you disagree, but that you come across as 'preachy'. In fact in my own head I see you as a religious fanatic, talking down to people because you "know" that you're right.

I say that not to insult you, because I don't know you at all or what you are actually like. But that's how you come across, at least to me.

I, on the other hand, "know" that I'm wrong, or at least that there's a good chance I am. My absolutism on freedom is nowhere near as absolute as you might think, but the people I deal with daily are the ones who want to take away freedom from a different angle. They would erode our freedoms in the name of "saving our country", i.e. take away freedom in the name of preserving it. I see this not in you personally, but in some of the things you've said. It really is a fine line, and to me some of your ideas seem to be of the nature I fight against the most. I really do see some of your ideas as just as dangerous as those you oppose.

That said, I won't address the answers you gave, not because I dismiss them, but because they were reasonable and certainly have some merit, so I have to think about them for awhile. Thanks for actually laying all that out for me. :sunny:

Tribesman

08-06-10, 11:06 AM

The rest of my statement however remains
How can the rest of the statement remain when it is based on a false premise?
As was pointed out in the Spiegel article once you cut through the "outrage" she was calling for something in the media that Saxony journalists already have themselves as part of their own charter, and her other "contraversial" thing was about the preservation of a secular state.
So since she was argueing for integration which you want, and against a religious state which you don't want then how can your statement remain when she is in agreement with you and you are objecting to the very things you are calling for???????

Though its not as funny as Skys attempt to link her to people who link to groups who want completely different things and paint it as part of his united jihadi conspiracy theory.

Schroeder

08-06-10, 12:03 PM

How can the rest of the statement remain when it is based on a false premise?

Does it? I guess all the media outcry and that she was called back by her own party was also based on a false premise?

As was pointed out in the Spiegel article once you cut through the "outrage"
What Spiegel article?

she was calling for something in the media that Saxony journalists already have themselves as part of their own charter,
What has Saxony to do with it?
As a matter of fact the representatives of the media in Lower Saxony felt that they were supposed to sign a self censor agreement.

So since she was argueing for integration which you want, and against a religious state which you don't want then how can your statement remain when she is in agreement with you and you are objecting to the very things you are calling for???????First of all, who brought that crucifix issue into this debate? I did not. So why are you referring to this now? I never even mentioned it.
Second arguing for integration is one thing. To make the media write only positively about a certain ethnic group is not arguing but simply glossing over realities. Why should a newspaper whitewash things just because immigrants have been involved? Again extra rights for them? Being untouchable for the media while they can write what they want about every native German? This is not integration! It's censorship and whitewashing of realities.
Maybe we should ask ourselves why there is supposedly a need to do so? Is it that certain people appear more often in the negative news than they should according to their numbers?

Tribesman

08-06-10, 01:27 PM

Does it? I guess all the media outcry and that she was called back by her own party was also based on a false premise?

Media outcry is media outcry, it doesn't need any basis for it to occur, as for her party making it an issue that means nothing as thats what politicians do when the media spout as an issue. Look at the American example recently with Breitbart creating a huge story which outraged the public and got the white house to step in decisively to tackle the issue ....before it emerged it was all just bull cooked up by a wingnut with an agenda.

What Spiegel article?

Sorry I didn't realise views on an issue had to be limited to one source.

What has Saxony to do with it?

It was for the state of Lower Saxony.

As a matter of fact the representatives of the media in Lower Saxony felt that they were supposed to sign a self censor agreement.

Hmmmmm.....
"A representative of the German Journalists' Association in the state described Özkan's initiative as superfluous, noting that similar language was already contained in the journalists' code of conduct in the state."
Damn that German media for reporting that eh.:up:

First of all, who brought that crucifix issue into this debate? I did not. So why are you referring to this now? I never even mentioned it.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you don't want people to read the links you post.
So if you don't want to bring it into the debate Schroeder then don't link to a story its in.:know:
It does nicely illustrate the media outrage angle though doesn't it, as they got all flusterd about banning crucifixes as thats popular outrage the muppets can really hate, while ignoring banning the headscarves as they don't want them damn muslims stealing their thunder on popular outrage that they are selling the muppets.:rotfl2:

The Third Man

08-06-10, 01:34 PM

The first time I was ever told "With freedom comes responsibility" it was a WW2 vet who was also in the habit of saying "I didn't fight and watch my buddies die so you could protest against this great country of ours!" It took a trip to Vietnam to make me realize that that's exactly what I was fighting for - so others could say what they wanted, including the negative.

It's true, freedom does require responsible use, just like any other weapon. The responsibility to guarantee it for everyone. As Thomas Paine said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his own enemy against oppression."

Glad to hear it. How do you define the "responsibility" part then?

Not sure exactly what you mean by that. Please elaborate.

Sorry for taking so long SS. I had a bit of trouble finding the thread. I hope you understand.

let me address your queries.

It all comes down to; the liberty one enjoys must be accompanied by the threat of giving it up for the current fad; and fighting that fad, even if it means ones life, to allow others to enjoy the possibility. In my mind that is the responsibility of which I am speaking.

It may sound trite and easy to say, but I believe it and am willing to procede on that course.

Sailor Steve

08-06-10, 01:51 PM

Sorry for taking so long SS. I had a bit of trouble finding the thread. I hope you understand.
Of course. Communication by any means other than speech always takes time. No problem.

It all comes down to; the liberty one enjoys must be accompanied by the threat of giving it up for the current fad; and fighting that fad, even if it means ones life, to allow others to enjoy the possibility. In my mind that is the responsibility of which I am speaking.
That parallels what Jefferson wrote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
I agree that the responsibility, the duty and the necessity to defend it is there. As I say, I've just had too many encounters with people who used similar words as a cover for the very opposite. Makes me paranoid sometimes.

But beware. Liberty itself is sometimes considered "the current fad".

The Third Man

08-06-10, 02:05 PM

I agree that the responsibility, the duty and the necessity to defend it is there. As I say, I've just had too many encounters with people who used similar words as a cover for the very opposite. Makes me paranoid sometimes.

I have matured enough to both understand and know the meanings of my words. I also know that to believe in anything less is to surrender to the tyrany which is omni-present. A quick look at what we used to call Europe reveals the danger of government.

But I am happy to see we are on the same path. :salute:

Skybird

08-06-10, 02:28 PM

Whatever, Steve. As I said, I see myself as determined - not fearful, phobic, irrational, hatefilled, or missionary, and I consoder myself to be reasonably well-informed about Islam both by academic input and literature, and experience in Muslim countries, and in fact I see myself as much better informed than the average person in this country. At least I am not more fearful, phobic, irrational, hateful about Islam than were resistance thinkers, -doers and - fighters in Nazi Germany. I only say that to indicate that to me and others Islam is as much a "clear and present danger" as this term can indicate, a twin in mind of fascism, Stalinism, Nazism, all these three are totalitarian systems. Nor do I tell people that they should take over my own ideology - I present none, and I do not hold one, at least if you do not claim freedom to be an ideoloigy (to me it is not). This I say not to compare myself with resistance fighters of the past, or to claim their courage and determination for myself, in no way - I do not know for sure if I would have the courage to go as far as many of them did, and I have no reason - by own example - to take for granted that I would. Such things you cannot answer in advance, you only know it for sure once you are in a situation where you must make a decision and cannot escape it - before that, you only know what you hope you would do in such a situation. But my level of alertness about Islam is why I even accept consideration of means that no longer are covered by "civilisational" or "legal" consensus. Getting rid of this monster Islam that already has done more damage in human history than any other ideology or empirial claim ever had made mankind to suffer from, to free and save as many people from it as possible within our home countries - this is the ultimate priority. Formal or abstract concerns are of secondary importance only. As i say all the time: use of as liottle force as possible - but as much as is needed to acchieve the priority objective. Sticking to legal rules that to significant degree already got tailored to make islam unavailable for criticism and attack, is no priority I accept, even more so if the cultural climate (the "mood" of a society) in which these rules get implemented already is extremely islamophile and in favour of interpreting the law in favour of islamic interests, and sometimes even manipulating it, ignoring parts of it where that is opportune, and bending it.

I have told the story before of how the policer greeted me two years ago when I showed them the letters with death threats from obviously muslim persons that I had gotten. They warned me to stay silent on it, else the Bundeskriminalamt may want to question me on the possibility of me being a threat to the constitution by having worked in a civil rights movement against islam. To say I was pissed, was an understatement. It was not the first time the legal system in Germany has let me or my family down. I put no trust into it anymore - and with the EU grabbing more and more powers, I do trust it even less.

I have no family of my own, but I know two cute little ladies 5 and 7 years old, I am their "Pate" (=godfather?) and I know the mother since almost half my life now, and thus am a very close friend of the family. It's as close to an own family as I will ever get. I can not embrace the perspective that they will spend a good part of their adult life in a society and country that I once called my "home" but then forces people to live under quite a bit of influence by an evil ideology like Islam. I would also fight against Christian fundamentalists turning over the country, or scientology, or Judaic orthodox. Or Nazis. and that is why I want people to stand up and fight for what is ours: freedom, home, historic identity, cultural identity and tradition - all of which islam has not and shall never have any word in. If that means confrontation, conflict and fight - okay, bring it on. The traits i listed, are worth it to me.

My replies match the questions - and their format context - of yours. Before the last exchange, as well as before. Your last questioning was different, that's why I came in again. Else I would not have answered anymore.

Schroeder

08-06-10, 02:35 PM

Media outcry is media outcry, it doesn't need any basis for it to occur, as for her party making it an issue that means nothing as thats what politicians do when the media spout as an issue.
Maybe, maybe not. I've actually never heard our media respond like this. So this was a special occasion, besides politicians have no call in how journalists should have to work, so the entire charter thing was uncalled for.

Sorry I didn't realise views on an issue had to be limited to one source.
I ask again, what Spiegel article?
Do you have a link?
If you claim some source, then provide it.

Hmmmmm.....
"A representative of the German Journalists' Association in the state described Özkan's initiative as superfluous, noting that similar language was already contained in the journalists' code of conduct in the state."
Damn that German media for reporting that eh.:up:
First off, why would anybody see the need to hand out charters if everything was already going as they wished? The media charter could have been the beginning of more and more demands to be "friendly to integration". Let's see with what we can get away with and push it to the max.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise you don't want people to read the links you post.
So if you don't want to bring it into the debate Schroeder then don't link to a story its in.:know:
I made pretty clear what my initial post was about and it didn't contain anything about crucifixes. You brought it up. My post was about the media charter. If there had been a recipe for apple pie below the article, would you have assumed I was talking about baking something?

The Third Man

08-06-10, 02:37 PM

Whatever, Steve. As I said, I see myself as determined - not fearful, phobic, irrational, hatefilled, or missionary. At least not more fearful, phobic, irrational, hateful than were resistance thinkers, -doers and - fighters in Nazi Germany. I only say it to indicate that to me and others Islam is as much a "clear and present danger" as this term can indicate, a twin in mind of fascism, Stalinism, Nazism. Nor do I tell people that they should take over my own ideology - I present none, and I do not hold one, at least if you do not claim freedom to be an ideoloigy (to me it is not). This I say not to compare myself with resistance fighters of the past, or to claim their courage and determination for myself, in no way - I do not know for sure if I would have the courage to go as far as many of them did, and I have no reason - byown example - to take for granted that I would. But my level of alarmness about Islam is why I even accept to stray into consideration of means that no longer are covered by "civilisational" consensus. Getting rid of this monster Islam that already has done more damage in human history than any other ideology or empirial claim ever had made mankind to suffer from, is the ultimate priority.

I have noi family of my own, but I know two cute little ladies 5 and 7 years old, I am their "Pate" (=godfather?) and I know the mother since almost half my life now. I can not emvbrace the perspective that they will spenad a good part of their life in a society and country that I once called my "home" but then forces them to live unbder quiote a bit of influence by an eviol ideology like Islam. I would also fight against Christian fundamentalists turning over the country, or scientology, or Judaic orthodox. Or Nazis.

My replies match the questions - and their format context - of yours. Before the last exchange, as well as before. Your last questioning was different, that's why I came in again. Else I would not have answered anymore.

If you think your neighbors are of an evil start why don't you use your political power as an individual to stop the march of islam?

The Third Man

08-06-10, 02:49 PM

This would be a 'victory' mosque, much like many distributed through out the mid-east, designed to show muslim dominence.

AVGWarhawk

08-06-10, 02:59 PM

You mean more crap like this also:

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/06/honor-killing-dad-secretly-taped-girls/

If Yaser Said killed his daughters, what was his motive? His American wife Tissy claims he did so because their girls were dating boys that weren’t Muslim.

Lovely...........

The building is nothing but a slap in the face for those closely involved with those towers.

Skybird

08-06-10, 03:06 PM

If you think your neighbors are of an evil start why don't you use your political power as an individual to stop the march of islam?
None of my neighbours in this house or street is a threat to me; I have been active in a local civil rights movement against a mosque and now am engaged in another, more official way again, I have confronted muslim info desks in the pedestrian zone years ago and anaged them in loud and confronting arguments that at two times even made them withdrwing their desks; and the political system is such that you cannot climb in any party's hierarchy if you are violating it's usual ways and rules (not all of them are in favour of democarcy, but own oarty power); and finally there are regional movements against Islam all of which either accepted to collaborate with Nazis claiming to also fight for freedom and against Islam (hahaha, the latest report by the German Verfassungsschutz frokm just some weeks ago show a massive increase in cooperations between Muslim groups and Nazi groups, because both want the destruction of the constitutional order) , or allowed to get hijacked in their public perception by rightwing fanatics - I am neither right-wing, nor am I a Nazi; I am anti-totalitarian, anti-institutionalised-religions, anti-EU and anti-islam and anti-fascism, I am pro-freedom-with-responsibility, i am "away from the nations and supranations, back to the local regions", and personally I am a secularist and atheist.

I have been in a party for short time, after school, the CDU. It was terrible. I stayed long eough to relaise that from inside the parties you cannot do anything. even less now with the EU lying in constant ambush for earning more powers and eroding democracy and freedom in europe even more.

Or to put it a bit more provokative: if Bin Laden would have flown his damn hijacked planes not into the WTO, but into party headquarters or EU commission buildings, I would remain silent and think he should be given a medal for freeing us from these almost criminal, conspirating vultures that rip our home and cultures to pieces.

That'S why I do not found a party. Not only do I lack thre support, last but not least financially, and the knpowledge on adminstration anyhow, but in this climate it would have no chance anyhow.

no, you must fight the battle one-on-one: meet, engage, make thinking the individual person; or help to collect info that maybe one day will help to send juristically relevant blows to Islam in Germany in such quality and/or numbers that people wake up and start marching in the streets and confront the government with massive waves of civil disobedience - or chasing them away, while we are already at it. It must be like an epidemy that grows by skin contact from one to another person. And then you hope to gain a crtical mass in number of individuals. If you play by the established political rules, your chances to acchieve anything outside the established and officially wanted aims are worse than 1:99. Chances for my views are not big either - but they are slightly better, I hope. And "slightly better" is more than "almost nothing". lastly, do you rerally think the majority of people is reasonable, and interested? They look as far as to the end of their nose for the most: job security, money, pensions. what will be in thirty years already demands too much energy from most voters. voting does not mean that the qulaified gain power, or those with the best character. the ancient Athens were so depsarte about the constant corruption in their democracy, that they even tried lotteries for distrubuting offices. Which did not help against corruption, too, because most people were simply not potent anoth and comoetent enough to fulfill the duties this meant, so they sold their authorities, and what this kind of trade led to, you can imagine: a new caste of professional ursupators who payed money to come into power. sound familiar, doesn't it. no, i am no great admirer of democracy, imo it always necessarily leads to corruption taking over, forming oligarchic and/or plutocratic structures and turning it all into an elitist, tyrannic mess. the only way for democracies to function is to dratsicalöly limit the soze of communities and all their supportive services and structures. and this in a world that imo holds 5-6 times as many peiople as the planet can bear. Boy, we are really screwed, it seems.

Or to put it all short: I do not share your optimism for the individual's political rights in our queer societies anymore.

The Third Man

08-06-10, 03:24 PM

None of my neighbours in this house or street is a threat to me; I have been active in a local civil rights movement against a mosque and now am engaged in another, more official way again, I have confronted muslim info desks in the pedestrian zone years ago and anaged them in loud and confronting arguments that at two times even made them withdrwing their desks; and the political system is such that you cannot climb in any party's hierarchy if you are violating it's usual ways and rules (not all of them are in favour of democarcy, but own oarty power); and finally there are regional movements against Islam all of which either accepted to collaborate with Nazis claiming to also fight for freedoma nd against Islam, or allowed to get hijacked in their public perception by rightwing fanatics - I am neither right-wing, nor am I a Nazi; I am anti-totalitarian, anti-institutionalised-religions, anti-EU and anti-islam, I am pro-freedom, i am "awqay from the nations and supranations, back to the regions, and personally I am a secularist and atheist.

I have been in a party for short time, after school, the CDU. It was terrible. I stayed long eough to relaise that from inside the parties you cannot do anything. even less now with the EU lying in constant ambush for earning more powers and eroding democracy and freedom in europe even more.

Or to put it a bit more provokative: if Bin Laden would have flown his damn hijacked planes not into the WTO, but into party headquarters or EU commission buildings, I would remain silent and think he should be given a medal for freeing us from these almost criminal, conspirating vultures that rip our home and cultures to pieces.

That'S why I do not found a party. Not only do I lack thre support, last but not least financially, and the knpowledge on adminstration anyhow, but in this climate it would have no chance anyhow.

no, you must fight the battle one-on-one: meet, engage, make thinking the individual person; or collect info that maybe one day will help to send juristically relevant blows to Islam in Germany in such quality and/or numbers that people wake up and start marching in the streets and confront the government with massive waves of civil disobedience - or chasing them away, while we are already at it. If you play by the established political rules, your chances to acchieve anything outside the established and officially wanted aims are worse than 1:99. chances for my views are not big either - but they are slightly better, I hope. And "slightly better" is more than "almost nothing".

Or to put it short: I do not share your optimism for the individual's political rights in our queer societies anymore.

So you continue to fight for what you beleive....I salute you.

Tribesman

08-06-10, 04:22 PM

If there had been a recipe for apple pie below the article, would you have assumed I was talking about baking something?
If the link was about a politician proposals and the article in the link had the politician proposing to bake an apple pie then it would, if it was an unrelated advert for pies on the bottom then it wouldn't.
Since the article was about proposals by a politician and contained two proposals by that politician then its relevant...especially as both are really non stories and both concern concern things you support yet are somehow objecting to.

I have been active in a local civil rights movement
:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Skys civil rights movement is to take away others rights, he is on the same page as the fundys:down:

The building is nothing but a slap in the face for those closely involved with those towers.
You don't speak for those people so if you don't mind please don't try to speak for them.

Sailor Steve

08-06-10, 07:12 PM

Whatever, Steve. As I said, I see myself as determined - not fearful, phobic, irrational, hatefilled, or missionary,
As I tried to say, and poorly, that's how you come across to me, sometimes, and why I sometimes react the way I do. I just want to apologize if my words were wrong in this case, and make sure you understand I'm not trying to intimate that you really are that way.

Ducimus

08-12-10, 10:03 PM

Im not one who normally bumps recently dead topics, but I can find no better place to say this.

I am not a big fan of a mosque at ground zero. I really don't think Islam is a religion of peace. But you know......

These people are no better.
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Angry-protesters-descend-on-mosque-606515.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsw_L5dPlqc#t=51s

If this crap catch's on, the idea of a "crystal night" happening at some point doesn't sound all that far fetched. The idea of that happening in the US is more revolting to me, then a mosque at ground zero.

August

08-12-10, 10:10 PM

If this crap catch's on, the idea of a "crystal night" happening at some point doesn't sound all that far fetched. The idea of that happening in the US is more revolting to me, then a mosque at ground zero.

They had to go as far as Texas to get just 12 protesters. Doesn't sound like much of a movement to me...

krashkart

08-12-10, 10:29 PM

^^ Werd. Let's hope it stays at twelve. :yep:

"Jesus hates Muslims," they screamed at worshippers arriving at the Masjid An-Noor mosque to prepare for the holy week of Ramadan.

Sooo... everything I learned at vacation bible school years ago amounts to "God/Jesus Hates <whatever>". No... way. I would have so much fun tearing them a new one.

Task Force

08-12-10, 10:49 PM

I say we open up a pork and ham shop at ground zero also! Have its smell go right into there! and we could pipe funny music from the middle east (or india,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAN7Ts0xBo&feature=related)

frau kaleun

08-13-10, 10:02 AM

Doesn't sound like much of a movement to me...

That's funny, to me it sounds exactly like a movement. Of a particular kind. ;)

krashkart

08-13-10, 01:17 PM

Ah yes, classical music is a wonderful thing... hey, wait a minute! :doh:

frau kaleun

08-13-10, 01:28 PM

Ah yes, classical music is a wonderful thing... hey, wait a minute! :doh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUNWz6a5UcE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUNWz6a5UcE&feature=player_embedded)

SteamWake

08-14-10, 09:06 AM

WASHINGTON -- After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/obama-backs-mosque-near-ground-zero/

Platapus

08-14-10, 12:34 PM

I think it is bad form for the President to opine on this matter. The President, any president, does not need to comment on every single issue popularized by the media.

This issue has nothing to do with the executive branch or the federal government at all. At its highest it is a New York State issue and even that is stretching it. This is a local municipality zoning issue.

The President, frankly, needs to stay out of this. By taking a position, any position, he is only making this issue worse.

SteamWake

08-14-10, 01:02 PM

I agree but dont you see the compulsion to be the center focus of all things?

By the way dont think that this comming out on a Saturday is just a coincidence.

Skybird

08-14-10, 02:37 PM

Obama at least is consistent in his policy of appeasing Islam.