Terrorist attack in Paris on French magazine [Archive] - Page 2

Oberon

01-11-15, 10:35 AM

Ok, dokey, I read you loud and clear.:salute:

There is...just one thing...

You see, if Skybird is correct in that in following and agreeing upon a certain persons viewpoints makes you aligned to that person, in so much that if a person agrees with Hitler they are a Nazi, or if a person agrees with the Qu'ran they are a Muslim.

Well...I have a confession to make. But first, a recap:

:hmmm:

“If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Muslim family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Muslim boy survives without any Islamic education, with no mosque and no Islamic school, it is in his soul. Even if there had never been a mosque or an Islamic school or an Qu'ran, the Muslim spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Muslim, not a single one, who does not personify it.”

Once becoming its property - it's property for life. At least so Islam claims.

Disagreeing on this is forbidden by threat of death penalty. ;) For life means: for life for sure.

At least so islam thinks/claims/ticks. Apostates may disagree at their own risk.

“The internal expurgation of the Islamic spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Islamic spirit is the product of the Muslim person. Unless we expel the Islamic people. Unless we expel the Islamic people soon, they will have islamized our people within a very short time.”

The intolerant will overwhelm the tolerant if the tolerant even tolerate the intolerant, yes, and with the tolerant their tolerance will be destroyed as well. Popper, anyone? :D

You may now see why I refuse to actively help the state to enforce its pro-Muslim migration policies, why I refuse to help it, and why I avoid to make devout Muslims loyal to the Quran feel welcomed and tolerated. They are neither welcomed, and tolerance that is enforced (by the state), is no tolerance, but pressure and blackmailing.

So...basically you believe that there should be a "systematic legal combating and elimination of the privileges of Muslims, that which distinguishes the Muslims from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law)." but that "The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Muslims in general." :hmmm:

I see no reason why any migrant group should be given special rights and treatments that neither any home group nor other migrant group is allowed nor demands. I also see no reason why any relgious lineage shoukld be given the right to be elcuded from secular state order'S rules and laws.

As far as "Muslims" staying here, obviously I differ between "Muslims" being real Muslims, which means they have all that Quran and satuff in theirm luggae and are loyal to it, whith the impolkicaiton that they will not inegrate, becaseu the Quran leave sno doubt on where their loyalty hgas to be: not with antinality and state law,. but with shariah.That is not negotiable, and beleivers of such a dogma will not be missed if they would lose the country and bvr come back. And then there are Muslims who call themselves Muslim by habit only but already have abandoned major parts of relgious demands and rulkes for their way of living. These are no real Muslims anymore, from an Islamic/Quranic POV. These should be seen and assessed fro pemritting to stay by the standards used for other miogrant groups: needed qualification, perspective for integration, language skill, and so on. Or something like the Canadian system.

So obviously I will not do anything that encourages the "real" Muslims to stay, or to come to this place in the first. [I]Why should that be desirable? They will mean nothing but trouble, an they will not integrate. We SEE that they do not integrate, and instead form subcultural colonies and self-chosen isolation in parallel societies. Thy even often frankly admit that they do not want that, and that they do not want to approach Germany and the Germans. And that means nothing but trouble. I want them as much as I want a huge Scientology community, or a blossoming Nazism, or a healthy Moon sect, or the KKK. We must not want everybody. And we have the natural right to say No.

And consider this: the more migration you impose on the Germans that they do not want, the more their ressentiments, their hostility, their anger will grow, and the more radicalisation and tolerance for extremists on German side you will get. Social dynamics should not be ignored. You will reap the conflict that you have sown.

Haven't I just explained AfD and Pegida and the growing number of violent incidents against mosques?

We need migration. And many migrant groups are welcomed, and integrate, and bring skills we need on the labour market. But some migrant grouops bring us nothing of that, but trouble. And these we should sort out. That is the reasonable thing to do. And it is morally perfectly legal.

Ooops, its late. I'm out.

Well, exactly, I mean who would want Nazism? I mean people with the same views as Adolf Hitler are quite clearly deranged. :yep:

Deranged or not, before anything else they are first and foremost not Nazizists, terrorist Nazissis, fundamentalist Nazizobies or radical Nazizerros, but mainstream Nazis. Simply good ol' fashioned Nazis by the definition of the book. No further attribution of adjectives needed. Simply: Nazis.

Some people wondered what I was quoting, I think Neal may have realised it...Dowly possibly too...maybe even Skybird himself.
I was quoting Adolf Hitler, only replacing the word Jew with Muslim and Judaism with Islam.
You may see the original quotes here:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/hitler-quotes/

and here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Adolf_Hitler%27s_First_Antisemitic_Writing.html

Thus, if one is to use the logic, which has already been put forward, that someone who agrees with the Qu'ran is a Muslim, then someone who agrees with Adolf Hitlers sentiments, even if they are against a different religious group...what must they be? :hmmm:

Tchocky

01-11-15, 10:36 AM

It's good to see people marching, but marches won't matter if people don't start dealing with the issues....worldwide jihad...

Vive La France

I think "worldwide jihad" is an incredibly overblown phrase to describe the ultraviolent actions of some overly sensitive morons.

A problem, yes. A problem of top-level severity for the entire world? Not even close in my opinion.

I mean look what this has accomplished. The intent was retribution against Charlie Hebdo publishing some cartoons. The magazine had a rough circulation of 30,000 copies.

This weekend Hebdo's print run will be on the order of one million copies.

The idiots who shot up the offices and massacred staff have succeeded in making this the single most famous magazine on the planet.

Top minds, eh?

Skybird

01-11-15, 10:51 AM

Well, to be honest I only have time to skim your longer posts. I don't usually read really large posts by anyone, don't have time.

Ok, that's pretty much what you have been saying for months. I will salute you for being thorough, you back up your opinions with research. I get it. I disagree, I think you are wrong, and I have previously voiced my reasons why, but you are entitled to your opinion. Just be mindful of others who post here.

Ok, dokey, I read you loud and clear.:salute:
As I've said to Sky, both the Jewish and Christian religions have there homicidal teachings--most Jews and Christian ignore them. Only small sects of Christians take the part about handling snakes seriously. I think it's pretty clear that millions of good Muslims ignore the crazy parts of the Koran as well. It's the fringe that take the bad parts and act on them. Anyway, that's MY opinion.:sunny:
Neal,

okay, forget priests and dogmas, forget historic examples and the course of history, forget sectarian diversity, ignore the debate whether the church really holds up the teachings of the so-called Christ, forget all and everything, ignore it all for a moment.

What lies at the very bottom, at the most profound basis, is this, Neal, and it really cannot be put in any more essential format, I think:

Take the teachings of the Christ, and show me where he called for the violant submission of others, where he asked his followers for assassinating critics of his, where he taught the blind obedience to a cult or to himself, where he taught that the church shoud be founded and its representatives should be obeyed, show me where he taught that martyrdom in the killing of infidels is a virtue, and where he mocked his followers if they were not willing to sacrifice themselves, show me were he ordered for wears of attack and genocide of opposing tribes and different cults.

I do not talk about archaic Judaism and pre-Christian times, I do not talk about church dogmata and churchian powerpolitics - I only refer to the person of Jesus nicknamed the Christ himself. That is the one and only Christ that served as a name-giver for the term: "Christianity" (we do not call it "Biblianism" or "Churchianism" for no reason, don'T we).

You will not find such references in Christ's teachings.

Now take the teachings of another great visionary, who maybe (some say even probably) served as a mentor and teacher, as an example for Jesus: this Indian prince named Siddharta, nicknamed "Buddha the enlightened". Scan the Buddhist canon and find passages where this Indian guru - he himself - called for any of the points I listed above.

You will not find them in the Buddhist canon either - instead you will find what I call until today the most complete intellectual model of the human mind I have ever seen described in psychological literature.

On the other hand, for every single point I listed above - and more could be listed, easily! - I can look up for you the according reference in the Quran: that is the one and only Quran that is so to speak the glad tidings in islamic interpretation, the words all coming from Muhammad himself, having been collected from his mouth when Allah spoke through him. I can show you all the above mentioned points being legitimised by Muhammad.

What does this tell you about comparing Jesus and Siddharta onj the one hand, and Muhammad on the other hand? QAnd what are your conclusions regarding the teachings those three elft behind, and the kind of effect they wanted to motivate people for?

Could it be illustrated any more obvious, any easier? :hmmm: I honestly do not know how.

Anything else - is just consequences from these elemental differences between the three. And like churchian dogma all too often showed and still shows to be a perverting of Christ's teachings for opportunistic political reasons of the clerus, "moderate" views in islam are a perverting of Muhammad's teachings. The perveting thing in the Christian religion works for the bad of it, for it leads to intolerance, suppression and violence and fear . The perverting thing in the Muhammedan religion works for the better of it, for it leads to leaving behind intolerance, suppression, violence, racism and hate.

The socalled moderate Muslim is not humanist and liberal due to the Quranic teaching - but despite the the Quranic teaching. That shows the force of goodness and the influence it nevertheless can have in humans. And that is th ebhgitter truth that Muslims worldwide must learn to face. It is a bitter pill, but there is no shortcut to it, and no escape. They must look that bitter truth in its face and understand what this means in conclusions about the cult they insist to be called members of.

A big, bitter, painful pill that is - I would not like needing to swallow it. But as the saying goes: bitter medicine is medicine that helps.

Tchocky

01-11-15, 10:57 AM

There's no such thing as a true Scotsman either. Thousands of years of canon and scripture prove this.

Armistead

01-11-15, 11:06 AM

I think "worldwide jihad" is an incredibly overblown phrase to describe the ultraviolent actions of some overly sensitive morons.

A problem, yes. A problem of top-level severity for the entire world? Not even close in my opinion.

I mean look what this has accomplished. The intent was retribution against Charlie Hebdo publishing some cartoons. The magazine had a rough circulation of 30,000 copies.

This weekend Hebdo's print run will be on the order of one million copies.

The idiots who shot up the offices and massacred staff have succeeded in making this the single most famous magazine on the planet.

Top minds, eh?

Overblown.... Do you know how many are killed, tortured, raped throughout the world daily from radical Islam throughout the world daily? Radical cells continue to grow, but the issue is all the support behind it. Millions suffer from political Islam itself, because it's a religion of economic poverty.

Now, what you might mean, it's not a major problem for the modern world, but it is...but it's a terrible problem for the third world and the radicals recruit from such....

Overblown....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2014

and that doesn't include the millions that suffer from political Islamic law...

Skybird

01-11-15, 11:24 AM

"Overblown".

In the light of the numbers, such comments speak for themselves, no further comment needed.

Again, this, from a Turkish author:

"The magic formula "This has nothing to do with Islam" does not work anymore: A call for more honesty, thoughtfulness and self-criticism among Muslims" - Hit the translate button:
https://translate.google.de/translat...ehr&edit-text= (https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.achgut.com%2Fdadgdx%2Findex.php %2Fdadgd%2Farticle%2Fdie_zauberformel_das_hat_doch _nichts_mit_dem_islam_zu_tun_zieht_nicht_mehr&edit-text=)

German original:
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.p...eht_nicht_mehr (http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/die_zauberformel_das_hat_doch_nichts_mit_dem_islam _zu_tun_zieht_nicht_mehr)

And as Hirsi-Ali had put it: "We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them." - Thats what I am saying all the time - its the ideology, man.

Oberon

01-11-15, 11:37 AM

There's certainly a lot of ideology going around... :hmmm:

Tchocky

01-11-15, 11:48 AM

Overblown.... Do you know how many are killed, tortured, raped throughout the world daily from radical Islam throughout the world daily?
Yeah, I am informed. You're the one who thinks that one of two EU countries to ban the hijab is doing "everything possible" to appease Muslims. So be careful.

I'm saying that "worldwide jihad" isn't an appropriate way to phrase the issue. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, I'm saying it's not a worldwide problem.

Look at North & South America, Australia, China/Japan, Russia, SE Asia, Southern Africa, Europe. Incidents yes. Constant turmoil and conflict, no.

So the problem you're describing isn't one that is worldwide. It's a very serious problem for the Middle East, large parts of Africa, and South Asia.

Radical cells continue to grow, but the issue is all the support behind it. Millions suffer from political Islam itself, because it's a religion of economic poverty. Religious adherence and economic power tend to be counterlinked. One goes up and the other goes down.

Stable governance and economic growth coupled with fair and representative government is the solution for a lot of these places, and it's the lack of same that drives religious fundamentalism and religious violence. I imagine we might disagree on root causes thereof.

Now, what you might mean, it's not a major problem for the modern world, but it is...but it's a terrible problem for the third world and the radicals recruit from such....

Well that's not exactly what I meant, but very true regardless.

"Overblown".

In the light of the numbers, such comments speak for themselves, no further comment needed.

Jolly good. The less hatred you post the better.

The next time you think no comment is needed, try doing just that. Not commenting.

Armistead

01-11-15, 12:22 PM

Yeah, I am informed. You're the one who thinks that one of two EU countries to ban the hijab is doing "everything possible" to appease Muslims. So be careful.

I'm saying that "worldwide jihad" isn't an appropriate way to phrase the issue. I'm not saying it isn't a problem, I'm saying it's not a worldwide problem.

Look at North & South America, Australia, China/Japan, Russia, SE Asia, Southern Africa, Europe. Incidents yes. Constant turmoil and conflict, no.

So the problem you're describing isn't one that is worldwide. It's a very serious problem for the Middle East, large parts of Africa, and South Asia.

Religious adherence and economic power tend to be counterlinked. One goes up and the other goes down.

Stable governance and economic growth coupled with fair and representative government is the solution for a lot of these places, and it's the lack of same that drives religious fundamentalism and religious violence. I imagine we might disagree on root causes thereof.

Well that's not exactly what I meant, but very true regardless.

Jolly good. The less hatred you post the better.

The next time you think no comment is needed, try doing just that. Not commenting.

I find that laughable, a few nations don't have issues. France just got a small taste of minor terrorism. a big dose could be soon coming. The fact that radical groups thrive in basically radical political systems will continue to spill into the modern world. Overblown, 9/11 basically changed America forever and a few men shut down our entire airspace....

So keep your head in the sand as radical Islam spreads throughout Asia, Africa and the ME....that's not much of the world.......choke.....Ignore constant genocide yearly, not happening to you. Ignore the experts that say in the next few decades they will gain weapons of mass destruction. Let's wait until the big event to get our heads out of the sand....

A rotten apple can spoil the entire bunch. The world can continue to appease, but major events, wars, big acts of terror that will change nations are coming. This all the experts agree on. We can act as the world or we can react after it happens...

Catfish

01-11-15, 12:23 PM

@Skybird, and others:

Neal,
[...]Take the teachings of the Christ, and show me where he called for the violant submission of others, where he asked his followers for assassinating critics of his, where he taught the blind obedience to a cult or to himself, where he taught that the church should be founded and its representatives should be obeyed, show me where he taught that martyrdom in the killing of infidels is a virtue, and where he mocked his followers if they were not willing to sacrifice themselves, show me were he ordered for wears of attack and genocide of opposing tribes and different cults.[...]

I guess you have never read the bible ? It is full of atrocities, everywhere.
And i have to laugh when people fight over the opinion, which religion is the more peaceful.

Only one of hundreds:
"And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king’s word was abominable to Joab. And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly . . .
So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (I Chronicles 21:9-14)"

And if you say the Old testament should not be read, but only the new – why ? Because Martin Luther made a toned-down version of the original, most "christians" still believe in?

New testament, Matthew: Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html#17)

Oh yes, "The LORD is a man of war.Exodus 15:3 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/15.html#3)"

The list of atrocities in the bibel is longer than in the Quran.
The only reason that christians claim their god and Jesus is soo peaceful is obviously, that they never actually read the book.

Main difference is that neither the bible nor the Quran should be taken literally, anymore. And they aren't by most, and scientifiv theology.
The word is self-criticism.
Not that any western superpower has any more of it, than anyone in the middle east.

Most people who are angry need a reason for their destructive work, and some passages taken out of context, from the Quran or the bible (or damning any minority) always comes in handy as a justification for their dumbness. It does not have much to do with the real thing though.

Another difference is, that even priests cannot afford to send people to war anymore,
since this is an exclusive right of the governments and their media propaganda by now. :O:

Tchocky

01-11-15, 12:24 PM

Yup, that's exactly what I was getting at.

I'm hoping to open up a sand & gravel shop to make a few dollars off the head-burying.

That and a slaughterhouse where Skybird can bring all the marchers to be turned into food.

Or something.

Oberon

01-11-15, 12:27 PM

I see appease and appeasement being used a lot of late

http://www.ginnytonkin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Do-not-think-it-means.jpeg

Tchocky

01-11-15, 12:29 PM

It all depends on mindset, Oberon.

If you want to hammer down on Muslims, then "appeasement" is defined as "anything that happens in the years preceding an act of terrorism".

Easy peasy.

Skybird

01-11-15, 12:47 PM

@Skybird, and others:

I guess you have never read the bible ? It is full of atrocities, everywhere.
And i have to laugh when people fight over the opinion, which religion is the more peaceful.

Only one of hundreds:
"And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword. But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king’s word was abominable to Joab. And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly . . .
So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (I Chronicles 21:9-14)"

And if you say the Old testament should not be read, but only the new – why ? Because Martin Luther made a toned-down version of the original, most "christians" still believe in?

New testament, Matthew: Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html#17)

Oh yes, "The LORD is a man of war.Exodus 15:3 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/15.html#3)"

The list of atrocities in the bibel is longer than in the Quran.
The only reason that christians claim their god and Jesus is soo peaceful is obviously, that they never actually read the book.

Main difference is that neither the bible nor the Quran should be taken literally, anymore. And they aren't by most, and scientifiv theology.
The word is self-criticism.
Not that any western superpower has any more of it, than anyone in the middle east.

Most people who are angry need a reason for their destructive work, and some passages taken out of context, from the Quran or the bible (or damning any minority) always comes in handy as a justification for their dumbness. It does not have much to do with the real thing though.

Another difference is, that even priests cannot afford to send people to war anymore,
since this is an exclusive right of the governments and their media propaganda by now. :O:

Ah, you missed the part where I said:

"Take the teachings of the Christ, (...) I do not talk about archaic Judaism and pre-Christian times, I do not talk about church dogmata and churchian powerpolitics - I only refer to the person of Jesus nicknamed the Christ himself. That is the one and only Christ that served as a name-giver for the term: "Christianity" (we do not call it "Biblianism" or "Churchianism" for no reason, don'T we). "

But even if you had a point there and all that would havbe been ordered and demanded by Christ - is it still being done that way? When happened the last case of inquisition in Spain, and when the last stoning in Iran? Did you know that the Bible actually is split into two volumes, for some very mysterious reason, and that in the second volume the four gospels again are somewhat separated and stand apart from the rest of the glad tidings?

You could have a Christian religion without church, without Paul and without Moses, but with only Jesus and the four gosples written. But you could not have that same religion named Christianity without Jesus, but with Paul, Moses and the church. In the word "Christianity" there is embedded the word "Christ". I wonder why.

Take Muhammad out of the Koran, and what are you left with: Nothing. There is no ideology coming from and basing on nothing. No Muhammad - no Koran, no Hadith, no Sira, no Shariah, no Allah, no nothing. Thats why it is correctly called: Muhammedanism. And that is why you cannot take away Muhammad's will and teaching from Islam and then claim it nevertheless were his ideology you refer to when saying Muhammedanism, or Islam.

LINK: Vom Islam lernen heißt siegen lernen! Eine Polemik (http://www.welt.de/debatte/henryk-m-broder/article136253922/Vom-Islam-lernen-heisst-siegen-lernen.html).

(...)
Es gibt erstaunliche Parallelen zwischen den Bemühungen der Gesellschaft für Deutsch-Sowjetische Freundschaft, die Zustände in der Sowjetunion ins Märchenhafte zu verklären, und der mittlerweile weitverbreiteten Übung, den Islam einzig als eine "Religion des Friedens" verstehen zu wollen. Beides funktioniert mit dem gleichen Trick.

Die Miss- und Vetternwirtschaft in der SU hatte nichts mit dem Sozialismus zu tun. Es gab keine Armut, keine Arbeitslosigkeit, keine Korruption und keine Kriminalität, von den Dissidenten und anderen "negativen Elementen" mal abgesehen. Der Sozialismus war ein Paradies auf Erden, ein Garant für individuelles und kollektives Wohlergehen.

Blöd waren nur diejenigen, die sich an dem Projekt nicht beteiligen wollten. Fakt ist: Der Sozialismus war überall dort eine tolerante Weltanschauung, die mit anderen Weltanschauungen friedlich koexistierte, wo er nicht an der Macht war. Allerdings war es überall dort, wo er das Sagen hatte, mit der Friedlichkeit und der Toleranz schnell vorbei.

So ähnlich verhält es sich auch mit dem Islam. Al-Qaida, Boko Haram, der Islamische Staat und die Taliban haben mit dem Islam nichts zu tun. Das Regime der Ajatollahs hat mit dem Islam nichts zu tun. Die blutigen Kämpfe zwischen Schiiten und Sunniten haben mit dem Islam nichts zu tun. Wenn in Saudi-Arabien Gotteslästerer ausgepeitscht und Ehebrecherinnen gesteinigt werden, hat das mit dem Islam nichts zu tun.

Die Attentäter von "9/11" hatten mit dem Islam nichts zu tun. Auch das, was in London, Madrid, Mumbai, Bali, Boston, Sydney, Brüssel und Toulouse geschah, hatte mit dem Islam nichts zu tun. Denn Islam meint "Frieden", und Dschihad, so hören wir es immer wieder, bedeutet nicht "Heiliger Krieg", sondern "innere Anstrengung", wozu auch immer. In jeder Religion gibt es Fanatiker, aber in keiner anderen wird dermaßen hartnäckig darauf bestanden, dass sie nichts mit der Religion zu tun haben, auf die sie sich berufen.
(...)

LINK: Translate-Button (https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fdebatte%2Fhenryk-m-broder%2Farticle136253922%2FVom-Islam-lernen-heisst-siegen-lernen.html&edit-text=)

01-11-15, 12:49 PM

Armistead

01-11-15, 12:59 PM

It all depends on mindset, Oberon.

If you want to hammer down on Muslims, then "appeasement" is defined as "anything that happens in the years preceding an act of terrorism".

Easy peasy.

Acts of terror happen daily...genocide almost yearly.

Appeasement is when the media and govts say free speech should be toned down as not to offend, basically Muslims, because they kill you for it. Appeasement is when you allow the incubators to thrive and grow, knowing these people will bring terrorist events into the world.

Ignore the Jews that are leaving France because of fear, double the number from last year.....no biggy...

We saw what appeasement got America when we ignored OBL and Al Qaeda as we ignored their murderous acts of terror on our people, soldiers and civilians around the world....It was nothing major,....we didn't want to over blow it....then we paid the price, a price my uncle was killed in and never to be found again...but what's a uncle....

We have numerous groups that have declared war on the free world...Ignore it like you ignored Hitler....No, no major army will cross the border.....one is not needed....

Enjoy the large march of unity, it is a good thing, but it's not gonna change much if the underlying issues aren't addressed....

Oberon

01-11-15, 01:22 PM

Oberon

01-11-15, 01:24 PM

Appeasement is when the media and govts say free speech should be toned down as not to offend, basically Muslims, because they kill you for it. Appeasement is when you allow the incubators to thrive and grow, knowing these people will bring terrorist events into the world.

Which governments? When?

CCIP

01-11-15, 01:33 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-kosher-supermarket-hostage-crisis.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=0

More on them evil Muslims. Pretty sure we now have victims and good samaritans outnumbering the terrorists in this scenario, but don't let that convince you that they're, you know, not evil and stuff.

As for "appeasement", I find the use of that term in this context, along with other parallels to Nazism, particularly insidious. The only appeasement that I can see happening is if we fall to the whiners who want us to give up fundamental human and civil rights in order to appease their own insecurities and need for an enemy. The only accurate parallel to Nazism is where we're seeing a rather extreme right-wing perspective (and it's verifiably extreme if you look at any actual origins of its support) being pushed on the back of that dehumanized enemy. So yeah, I'm against appeasement - I'm against appeasing the chickenhawk agenda.

Betonov

01-11-15, 01:53 PM

The only appeasement that I can see happening is if we fall to the whiners who want us to give up fundamental human and civil rights in order to appease their own insecurities and need for an enemy.

Sums it up nicely :up:

Armistead

01-11-15, 01:54 PM

Which governments? When?

Since France is the issue. In 2013, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius distanced the French government from the weekly’s in-your-face criticism of Islamism and Islam and warned Charlie Hebdo not to push provocation too far. I'm not saying leaders don't defend the right, but unlike with any other religion, numerous comments to be nice, respectful....but to what religion.

"All along, French policymakers have been divided between a desire to make a deal with terror groups in the hope of securing immunity and the necessity of fighting them with all it takes.
In the 1970s, France purchased immunity for its civilian aircraft by providing regular unofficial “financial contributions” to Palestinian groups involved in the business of hijacking.
In the 1980s, Paris bought an end to Tehran-sponsored terror attacks, which had claimed dozens of lives in Paris and other cities, by releasing over a million dollars in frozen Iranian assets.
In the 1990s, Algerian terror groups were bribed into offering immunity to France by a decision to ignore their fundraising and recruiting activities on French territory."

"Thus, France was the first Western power to impose a ban on arms exports to Israel, and the first to allow Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization to open an “embassy” in its capital.
In 1996, a French refusal to put several organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas on a terrorist list prevented the adoption of a G-7 agreement on 45 measures to combat global terrorism."

full....http://nypost.com/2015/01/07/terror-in-paris-the-limits-of-appeasement/

France has done precious little to stem the growing tide of Jew-hatred and anti-Israelism that has gripped that country. The result, the Jews exodus, the Muslim build Islamic cultural communities...

"On Dec. 2, the French parliament voted overwhelmingly to demand that the French government immediately recognize the “State of Palestine.” Not after negotiations. Not with Israel’s agreement. Just do it right away, whether the Israelis like it or not. And the vote wasn’t even close—339 in favor, 151 against." Appease one, ignore the other....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2015/01/09/radical-islam-zbigniew-brzezinski-argues-appeasement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/charlie-hebdo-mohammed-cartoons_n_1896244.html

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=66

mapuc

01-11-15, 01:58 PM

Skybird

01-11-15, 01:58 PM

Nazi not Nazi blah blah lets leave it out....
If you take what Hitler said about communism then most western leaders during cold war had been nazzis , including the ones that wore hats and grew mustache.
Bottom line Sky....what do you want?
We all know there is a problem , Oberon too....he simply thinks everyone is out to nuke them all.
Now ... what do you want to be done about the issue?
Sometimes people give me the impression that I am just about to post my very first post in this forum ever. :dead:

You guys complain if I repeat myself unasked. And when I do not repeat myself, you ask me for it. And then complain that I do it, and that it always is so long.

:/\\!!

Haven't I already given many parts of that wanted answer in here? Haven't I...? And in other threads?

We must strop weaseling, and unconditionally demand and enforce compliance, and integration. Failing in any of these two, means being kicked out. We must insist on those staying here accepting critical self-reflection. We must stop voting for politicians that impose more and more Muslim migration onto us, and self-denying multiculturalism that comes at costs that always are our costs. We must not make "radical" (=real) Muslims feeling welcomed, and find motivations for them to stay- we must motivate them to leave, and where they violate our rules and values, like hate preachers, repeated criminal offenders, and members of known fanatical schools like in Germany the Salafists, we must throw them out, and never let them return . We must support those who want a critical self-anaylsis of Islam, and a critical examination of the violent, racist, intolerant and anti-feminist demands by Muhammad (of which there are quite some). We must drive out foreign Muslim institutions that foster recruiting and radicalisation of young Muslims, we must stop Muslim countries like turkey and Saudi arabia and Quatar financing their own institutions in our coutnries where they practice radicalization, recruiting, and motivating for supremacist ideology.

We must stop appeasing them, but confront them. We must end accepting special rights based on "religious reasons", and must stop accepting exceptions from the rules for religious reasons. We must enforce the abandoning of Shariah laws and courts, and the unconditional surrender of Muslim parallel justice that is now reality in almost every Western country and that erodes the validity of the laws of the state and the authority of the police and courts, fosters separatism and self-isolation, and establishes underground structures of power and influence directing Muslim communities on behalf of orthodox traditional rules and scripture.

And those who do not behave, and cost more than they pay in anyway, we must throw out. While not letting the likes of theirs in.

And then considering the implications of this:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2276826&postcount=254

And this:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2276800&postcount=243

And some others that I just do not care to all look up again. Finally consider the links that i provided, and realise that the consequences they point out, often are self-explanatory.

None of these things will be much liked, neither by many Muslims (although I knew quite some who fled to Europe and demand even stronger measures from us to counter Islamazation!!!), nor by Western appeasers or the crowd in Paris that now rallies again and yesterday held the jesuischarlie-posters, as if that would rewrite the holy book itself.

We must seek the conflict (hope that sounds provoking enough to even wake the sleepers in the last row...) that unavoidably will arise when Islam in the West will be forced to finally hold up a mirror and look into its own face. Then all the illusions Muslims have about their precious Muslim-being and the ideological fundament for that, will either explode, then we need to be strong enough to swallow that blow, or it will collapse - then they finally have the room to build something new in Islam's former place. For example a replacement for it that finally has arrived in the 21st instead of still living by the rules of the 7th. Something that can be seen as a parallel to what happened to the fundamentalist Christian sphere when it got hit by the enlightenment, and then some more.

And here is what we must not want:
We must not want to continue maintaining the illusion of no cultural conflict and everything being peaceful and okay at the cost of accepting stepping back step by step by step by step.

If it is not desirable to avoid a conflict, or cannot be avoided anyway, then it is wise to make sure that yiou dictate the codnitoions by which it runs: the when, the where, and the how. This is our homes, our place, and Islam wants all the world, in the end. If we do not even defend ourselves, our values and freedom, our historically grown identities - iuf we do not even defend these in our own homes - then there will be no other place where we would do it.

I want of that. I have seen a good part of the Islamic world. It was anything but pleasant. Trading our ways for theirs - is an extremely bad deal, I would say. Looses everything. Gains nothing.

Many of you think all this is too extreme. But I must tell you, the handful of Muslim critics in Germany that I have referred to in various posts on the board over the years, in parts hold even stricter, more determined views on what must be done in order to challenge "political Islam" or however you want to call it - and I talk about academically trained people, people who were raised as Muslims/Muslimas, who knew it from their own biography, from their own struggles, who hold academical grades in their professions dealing with it. If you think that I am too extreme - then I must tell you that you are too soft, and that you still have not understood what a biting angry beast you are dealing with when asking what to do about Islam. It is a beast, and not a friendly pet sitting on your lap, purring. Do not try to stroke it, it has never worked and it will never work.

Skybird

01-11-15, 02:04 PM

If this "expert" who's statement was to be read in a Swedish news paper, we are at war with muslim.

Not every muslim and not by us the people from the west but by these jihadist.

These jihadist see their religion(Islam) at war against us the infidels

In their twisted mind every muslim is at war against us.

Here's my own add to her statement
Our own twisted people, see us, every one of us at war against muslims

Markus
Their "twisted minds" speak the thoughts of Muhammad's orders. ;) Everything that they do has to do with Muhammad's kind little ideology. The question is not why they do what they do - they just follow Islam. The question is why many do not do like they do, not doing what Islam tells them to do. There is the active potential you should build on - not in thinking that "violent Muslims" are just insanes that have nothing to do with Islam. These "insanes" are all about Islam, an they are close to it. They are not more or less insane than any other religious fundamentalist. Islam has no fundamentalist sub-lineages that derail it - it is a fundamentalist religion/political system.

Oberon

01-11-15, 02:06 PM

Since France is the issue. In 2013, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius distanced the French government from the weekly’s in-your-face criticism of Islamism and Islam and warned Charlie Hebdo not to push provocation too far. I'm not saying leaders don't defend the right, but unlike with any other religion, numerous comments to be nice, respectful....but to what religion.

"All along, French policymakers have been divided between a desire to make a deal with terror groups in the hope of securing immunity and the necessity of fighting them with all it takes.
In the 1970s, France purchased immunity for its civilian aircraft by providing regular unofficial “financial contributions” to Palestinian groups involved in the business of hijacking.
In the 1980s, Paris bought an end to Tehran-sponsored terror attacks, which had claimed dozens of lives in Paris and other cities, by releasing over a million dollars in frozen Iranian assets.
In the 1990s, Algerian terror groups were bribed into offering immunity to France by a decision to ignore their fundraising and recruiting activities on French territory."

"Thus, France was the first Western power to impose a ban on arms exports to Israel, and the first to allow Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization to open an “embassy” in its capital.
In 1996, a French refusal to put several organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas on a terrorist list prevented the adoption of a G-7 agreement on 45 measures to combat global terrorism."

full....http://nypost.com/2015/01/07/terror-in-paris-the-limits-of-appeasement/

France has done precious little to stem the growing tide of Jew-hatred and anti-Israelism that has gripped that country. The result, the Jews exodus, the Muslim build Islamic cultural communities...

"On Dec. 2, the French parliament voted overwhelmingly to demand that the French government immediately recognize the “State of Palestine.” Not after negotiations. Not with Israel’s agreement. Just do it right away, whether the Israelis like it or not. And the vote wasn’t even close—339 in favor, 151 against." Appease one, ignore the other....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2015/01/09/radical-islam-zbigniew-brzezinski-argues-appeasement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/charlie-hebdo-mohammed-cartoons_n_1896244.html

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=66

But what appeasement has France given to Muslims inside France? I believe that was the question at hand, wasn't it? The radicals within France, as opposed to those without. Frances viewpoint on the Israel/Palestine issue is one thing, Frances viewpoint on Islam within France is another.

Oberon

01-11-15, 02:08 PM

We must strop weaseling, and unconditionally demand and enforce compliance, and integration. Failing in any of these two, means being kicked out.

To Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan)?

Armistead

01-11-15, 02:11 PM

But what appeasement has France given to Muslims inside France? I believe that was the question at hand, wasn't it? The radicals within France, as opposed to those without. Frances viewpoint on the Israel/Palestine issue is one thing, Frances viewpoint on Islam within France is another.

Ask the Jews who feel they must leave France in mass.

France appeases outside of France in every way, hoping in doing so, they don't have to appease within...it's the same. Now, that appeasement has come home to roost...The acts start from within, millions paid in ransoms, profit deals...I gave the list....It starts within....deal with it...Yes, it's bought you some peace as you sell out in fear.....we'll comply, just don't bother us....typical.

Not anymore....

Oberon

01-11-15, 02:15 PM

Ask the Jews who feel they must leave France in mass.

France appeases outside of France in every way, hoping in doing so, they don't have to appease within...it's the same. Now, that appeasement has come home to roost...The acts start from within, millions paid in ransoms, profit deals...I gave the list....It starts within....deal with it...Yes, it's bought you some peace as you sell out in fear.....we'll comply, just don't bother us....typical.

Not anymore....

So, what does Europe do then? What laws do we enforce? Do we round up all the Muslims, or just the radicals? What's a radical Muslim? Why stop at radical Muslims, why not all radicals?

mapuc

01-11-15, 02:18 PM

Their "twisted minds" speak the thoughts of Muhammad's orders. ;) Everything that they do has to do with Muhammad's kind little ideology. The question is not why they do what they do - they just follow Islam. The question is why many do not do like they do, not doing what Islam tells them to do. There is the active potential you should build on - not in thinking that "violent Muslims" are just insanes that have nothing to do with Islam. These "insanes" are all about Islam, an they are close to it. They are not more or less insane than any other religious fundamentalist. Islam has no fundamentalist sub-lineages that derail it - it is a fundamentalist religion/political system.

Then you should know these "twisted Muslim" pick a word here and there, a letter here and there from their Quran, the same way our own radical believers do

Markus

Oberon

01-11-15, 02:22 PM

Then you should know these "twisted Muslim" pick a word here and there, a letter here and there from their Quran, the same way our own radical believers do

Markus

I wouldn't bother if I were you Markus. I really wouldn't.

Tchocky

01-11-15, 02:27 PM

What it boils down to is - anyone with a tangential religious association to hateful violent fascists has to self-criticise and completely alter their way of life, or face deportation to God knows where. We cannot tolerate anyone with even a linguistic association with those who would do us harm

Skybird doesn't have to change anything about his own hateful fascism because he doesn't threaten violence towards anyone. Neither do all but a tiny minority of Muslims but that's not the point. Oh, and he does threaten violence towards people. But it's OK because he hates other people too.

It's complicated.

And yet staggeringly simple.

Armistead

01-11-15, 02:33 PM

So, what does Europe do then? What laws do we enforce? Do we round up all the Muslims, or just the radicals? What's a radical Muslim? Why stop at radical Muslims, why not all radicals?

It can start by stop appeasing all the outside radicals, paying millions, business deals.....Even when you protect yourselves, you hurt countless people elsewhere... It's like if I bought drugs from my local dealer...I'm not hurting him, but I'm supporting a system elsewhere that is murdering 1000's...

We have a complex problem, there's no easy answer. It was great to see what happened in France today...Maybe now you will realize you can't appease for peace.

France continues to allow 100's if not 1000's join the fight in ISIS...Maybe deal with that...These are going to continue to come back home to you.

Islam must reform itself if we are to have any hope of of a moderate future, but we must treat moderates as we would any other religion...they should get no favor or appeasement. Here in America, our cultural religion, Christianity, is abused and insulted every way possible, you hear no one in the media saying....be gentler about it, the same with politicians, but it's common to hear them remarking about not offending Islam...

France and the world must join in the fight to take the fight to the radicals where ever they are, ME, Africa, etc.....We must stop supporting dictators and govts. like Saudi Arabia that support radicals behind the curtains.

There is much to do and no right answer, but we know the wrong ones...we can't bow or give a inch of freedom in law or word to any religion...

u crank

01-11-15, 02:33 PM

What's a radical Muslim?

According to all I have read in this thread and others all Muslims are radicals. If they are not radicals then by definition they are not Muslim. If they claim to be Muslims but are not radicals then they are either misinformed or they don't really know what they are.

Must be hard being a Muslim.

mapuc

01-11-15, 02:38 PM

Tchocky

01-11-15, 02:52 PM

I'll call him whatever his posts show him to be.

Those politicians you speak of are just as wrong as he is.

That said, I prefer their mistakes to his.

Peace

Armistead

01-11-15, 02:53 PM

According to all I have read in this thread and others all Muslims are radicals. If they are not radicals then by definition they are not Muslim. If they claim to be Muslims but are not radicals then they are either misinformed or they don't really know what they are.

Must be hard being a Muslim.

Well, the purest forms of Islams are those branches through the ME. Unlike other religions, it continues to be a religion of brutality and war. The people that live through the ME for the most part still live like they did 1000 years ago. Islam hasn't reformed of come out of the dark ages.

Moderates basically live in democratic modern nations, somewhat reformed. Yea, still bigots and racist....but we call them moderates....much like our Christian moderates...

I guess the world still needs religion I guess, but be nice when we evolve from the big 3 into beliefs more spiritual and peaceful than those that claim divine authority. It really doesn't matter what you believe if your books teach your God will destroy and cast all those that don't agree with him and you into eternal torture. It seems religious people know no ends to hurting people, I guess if their God can torture people for all eternity simply for being born failed humans.....why not them.

Armistead

01-11-15, 02:54 PM

I'll call him whatever his posts show him to be.

Those politicians you speak of are just as wrong as he is.

That said, I prefer their mistakes to his.

Peace

but didn't you say they don't really exist........

Tchocky

01-11-15, 02:56 PM

but didn't you say they don't really exist........

Who or what don't exist?

Posts? Politicians? Mistakes?

Work on the writing.

Armistead

01-11-15, 03:02 PM

Who or what don't exist?

Posts? Politicians? Mistakes?

Work on the writing.

better you work on your short term memory....maybe more vitamins ...:D

edit...maybe I should work on mine....got you confused with Oberon.....my apology...

Oberon

01-11-15, 03:03 PM

Do no call Skybird that.

in my countries Denmark and Sweden, there are politician and other authorities who think that every Muslim is "not dangerous at all" and that it is us who's to blame when these poor Muslim has to "make a terror-attack"

Markus

It is what it is. Go back in this thread Markus, and read what I've written. Skybird has, on more than one point in this thread, agreed with sentiments made by Adolf Hitler. The only difference is the religion involved.

It can start by stop appeasing all the outside radicals, paying millions, business deals.....Even when you protect yourselves, you hurt countless people elsewhere... It's like if I bought drugs from my local dealer...I'm not hurting him, but I'm supporting a system elsewhere that is murdering 1000's...

I don't think we do in the post-9/11 world. Sure, there's still funds for Palestine, but that's a seperate issue which would derail this thread further if we were to go into it.

We have a complex problem, there's no easy answer.

This we can both agree on. And the whole far-right style approach of deporting Muslims who don't follow orders is not an answer.

It was great to see what happened in France today...Maybe now you will realize you can't appease for peace.

Hopefully so will the US.

France continues to allow 100's if not 1000's join the fight in ISIS...Maybe deal with that...These are going to continue to come back home to you.

Yes, and when the US finds a way to stop all those Mexicans crossing the border that it can't even track, then let Europe know so it can do the same to its borders.

Islam must reform itself if we are to have any hope of of a moderate future, but we must treat moderates as we would any other religion...they should get no favor or appeasement.

But equally they should get no aggression, otherwise if they feel that no-one wants them, that there's no place for them where they're living, that the people around them are rejecting them, then they will stop being moderates and start being radicals. And when you get people like Skybird saying that they can't be Muslims without being violent thugs then, well, what's the point in even trying?

Here in America, our cultural religion, Christianity, is abused and insulted every way possible, you hear no one in the media saying....be gentler about it, the same with politicians, but it's common to hear them remarking about not offending Islam...

Politicians will say anything if they think it'll get them an extra vote. You know that as well as I do. Yet, the law stays the law. Hate speech is not the same as Freedom of speech, you can't condemn the radical Imam calling for death to the west in one breath and complain that the government won't let you call for the removal of Muslims in another. Not targeting you in particular here, but just stating a fact.
Besides, when Monty Python released their film 'Life of Brian', they didn't receive love and adulation. They received death threats, and 39 UK councils refused to show it.

France and the world must join in the fight to take the fight to the radicals where ever they are, ME, Africa, etc.....We must stop supporting dictators and govts. like Saudi Arabia that support radicals behind the curtains.

Not arguing there. If it wasn't for our dependency on the oil that the likes of Saudi Arabia produce by the barrel load I imagine we would be a lot more aggressive towards them. So really, our first and foremost objective should be to wean our nations off oil, through new technology. Of course, thanks to our big businesses who profit along with the Saudis from this oil trade, such things are unlikely to happen, but that's capitalism for you.

There is much to do and no right answer, but we know the wrong ones...we can't bow or give a inch of freedom in law or word to any religion...

Fully agree, everyone should be equal in the face of the law or word, no matter what religion, sex, race, age or sexual preference.

Few people agree with me on that though...sadly... :/\\!!

Oberon

01-11-15, 03:04 PM

better you work on your short term memory....maybe more vitamins ...:D

edit...maybe I should work on mine....got you confused with Oberon.....my apology...

No, no it's my fault...Jedi mind tricks and that...

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/377/882/2882377.gif

Armistead

01-11-15, 03:21 PM

No, no it's my fault...Jedi mind tricks and that...

well, least I apologized for my offence and left my post up for my own embarrassment......

takes a man secure with his manhood to do that..

u crank

01-11-15, 03:23 PM

Well, the purest forms of Islams are those branches through the ME. Unlike other religions, it continues to be a religion of brutality and war. The people that live through the ME for the most part still live like they did 1000 years ago. Islam hasn't reformed of come out of the dark ages.

Most of what goes on in the ME and Africa, parts of it, is nothing more than a turf war between rival groups of thugs and gangsters. The rule of the gun. The religious part is secondary and yes it has been going on for 1000 of years. Much of it takes place in countries that are not democracies and that are socially unstable. Some of that instability has been caused by Western intervention.

Moderates basically live in democratic modern nations, somewhat reformed. Yea, still bigots and racist....but we call them moderates....much like our Christian moderates...Really? Are you saying that all non radical Muslims are bigots? Are you saying that all moderate Christians are bigots? I must have read that wrong.

I guess the world still needs religion I guess, but be nice when we evolve from the big 3 into beliefs more spiritual and peaceful than those that claim divine authority. It really doesn't matter what you believe if your books teach your God will destroy and cast all those that don't agree with him and you into eternal torture.I know that you know that not every person who has a religious belief thinks that way.

It seems religious people know no ends to hurting people, I guess if their God can torture people for all eternity simply for being born failed humans.....why not them.Are people without religious beliefs capable of the same things?

Penguin

01-11-15, 03:24 PM

What it boils down to is - anyone with a tangential religious association to hateful violent fascists has to self-criticise and completely alter their way of life, or face deportation to God knows where.

I think Abbas will be on a plane by tomorrow, just as the representatives of Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. :smug:

The list of politicians who attended today's demonstration in Paris (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/List-of-leaders-attending-Paris-rally/articleshow/45843350.cms)makes my blood boil. Way to take a dump on the murdered journalists. Nearly everybody of them is responsible for attacks on the freedom of the press in their home countries in various degrees. In other news: hypocrites being hypocrites.

Tchocky

01-11-15, 03:29 PM

mapuc

01-11-15, 03:29 PM

I'll call him whatever his posts show him to be.

Those politicians you speak of are just as wrong as he is.

That said, I prefer their mistakes to his.

Peace

I'm Sorry I shouldn't point finger at you and tell you what you can do and not do.

I just have problems calling people things if they not by their own words say that they are this or this.

A former Danish minister want to have some kind of censorship when it comes to Muslim. Every Danish person, should as usual have free speech..but not when it comes to Muslim and their Koran and Muhammad

A Swedish Minister wants to decreased the rightwings rights.

Markus

Armistead

01-11-15, 03:37 PM

Not being talked about much in light of the few dead in France....Why OVER BLOW it.....just a entire town far away..

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/boko-haram-violence/

mapuc

01-11-15, 03:39 PM

Not being talked about much in light of the few dead in France....Why OVER BLOW it.....just a entire town far away..

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/boko-haram-violence/

Have read about it and it clearly show us that these radical Muslim is not some kind for kindergarden and our politician should take them very serious

Markus

Armistead

01-11-15, 03:48 PM

Are people without religious beliefs capable of the same things?

Sure, if not religion, something else or systemic belief is needed to control the masses. I accept we haven't evolved to the point we can survive without the majority of people being controlled by something indoctrinated into their minds.. Religion was our first attempt at science and fact is a good majority of the world still prefers it emotionally over science. Physically they like science...

however, the worse ones, certainly the ones that never go away are those with divine authority....

Penguin

01-11-15, 04:11 PM

It's not hypocrisy to recognise the difference between less-then-total press freedom and people being murdered for drawing a cartoon.

I don't think this is a great area to splash around with moral relativism.

Of course there were some people attending who have no business doing so. This is a minority and anyone who considers murder for cartoons to be illegitimate has a right to attend and to speak.

I explicitely picked Abbas and those leaders as they are a prime examples of being in bed with hateful violent fascists.

And it's not moral relativism to complain about suppressing press freedom - it's where a line should be drawn. Silencing a journalist with laws is the first step into an area which ends in silencing them with a bullet.
Just as supporting attacks on people for their beliefs ends in putting people into cattle cars.

Among the thousands of people who attended today's rally is probably a fair share of folks who were peed off by some drawings but voice their opinion against murdering bastards - they have every right to be there. However people who attend the demonstration and support laws to suppress the freedom to voice an opinion should gtfo or stayed home.

Skybird

01-11-15, 04:14 PM

To Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan)?
If they came from Madagascar, then yes. In principle to the place they originally came from. if that is hell to live in - maybe they should have thought about that before they abused our hospitality.

Your quoted plan has nothing to do with that. As often you ignore the context i refer to, and the nazis referred to. its 2 different contexts, you know. You did that with your witty Hitler quoting too. Thats why your trick did not work.

I do not accept that foreigners come to us and are allowed in, then abuse our hospitality, and we should not have any right to kick them out. I refuse to be a weak victim only.

What it is about, is reciprocity.

mapuc

01-11-15, 04:23 PM

Here's something I don't get

There are strong Muslim forces that are working hard for a Caliphate in Denmark and in Sweden.

If they are so interested in this, why don't they take "a trip" to a country where this is already at hand.

Markus

Armistead

01-11-15, 04:29 PM

Among the thousands of people who attended today's rally is probably a fair share of folks who were peed off by some drawings but voice their opinion against murdering bastards - they have every right to be there. However people who attend the demonstration and support laws to suppress the freedom to voice an opinion should gtfo or stayed home.

Can I say AMEN....

u crank

01-11-15, 04:37 PM

however, the worse ones, certainly the ones that never go away are those with divine authority....

I can say amen to that.:O:

mapuc

01-11-15, 05:08 PM

This is from a Danish news paper who have qouted a Professor of Theology

Islam is belligerent

and he continues

The will to violent expansion is inscribed in the Koran and is not conceived by Islamists, claiming papal university professor

Where to draw the line between Islam and Islamism ?

The media says that these two are different as night and day; Islam is a religion of peace, and the Islamists have stolen the name.

Others believe that Islamism represents the traditional, pure Islam, faithful to the Koran.

This position is supported now, remarkably by a theologian from one of the pope appointed universities, Martin Rhonheimer.

He is a professor at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome and writes an essay on the distinction in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

You do not hear many official Muslim voices condemning Islamic State says Rhonheimer.

If it is happens it is, only to condemn bestiality in their behavior which harms Islam's reputation, not to practice principled criticism. This is explicable, the Islamic State is no heresy, but even "a recurring pattern in the history of warlike expansion. The model is Muhammad himself. Legitimisation basis is the Koran and Islamic law, the Sharia, "says the Catholic professor. Thereafter it's:

"Muslim theology holds no argument resources to condemn Islamic Stats behavior as un-Islamic. For there are no general ban on killing in Islam. However, there is a general license to kill, "he says and refers to Sura 9:5

Martin Rhonheimer undergoes then the suras of the Koran, which prescribes what should happen with the subjugated Christians and Jews, and points out that the Islamic State strictly adhere to the requirements

Islam will like to affect the state and society in detail, emphasizes Rhonheimer.

"Islam is in fact more than a religion. It is a set of cultic, political and social rules and will be religious and political-social order in one. And it was from the beginning of the belligerent, " it said

"Historically, Muslim unity of politics and religion admittedly often only intention and rarely reality," admits Rhonheimer.

Opposition from stronger power centers often stopped the expansion, and it gives the Qur'an Muslims the right to conclude a truce: "This led to often long and peaceful periods of coexistence. Furthermore, Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries are obliged to follow the local legal system. ".

He admits that in our Western society "are countless integrated Muslims who do not want to know of jihad; and even in countries with majority Muslim leaving only a small part to excite it. "

They have enough to do to fight for their daily bread. But in their poverty they may be prone to radicalization - "and just when they study their religion sources closer, and at the sight of the strengthening of the political radical Islam, they come on the idea that the Armistice time could be over, and violence again is a duty

Moderate Islam has its advocates, often professors at Western universities.

"But they are confronted with their religion's central problem: Are they back to its origin, they encounter the warlike, expansionist Islam from Medina, the legitimacy of killing for Allah honor and a violent Mohammed," writes Rhonheimer

Otherwise with Christianity. Also in its history, violence played a formative role legitimized as "just war" against heretics.

Also Christians have tortured and fire taxed, but you go to the source, states: "The one who grabs the sword shall perish by the sword" and "Give Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's

"On the foundation of Christianity belongs to the idea of separation of religion and politics - of spiritual and temporal power - the condemnation of physical violence and the commandment to love one's enemy. Christianity has not derived a court and social organization of its sacred writings, but assimilated with Roman law and pagan-ancient culture, "writes Rhonheimer.

Christianity is the cradle of the distinction between spiritual and secular, and throughout history have the dualism often encouraged the church to reform itself. The Bible calls for calm when secular magtbrynde rose the church to the head.
is. "

In the Judeo-Christian tradition should violence be justified, claiming Rhonheimer, for only God is the master of life and death. Therefore, the meeting with unbelievers alone trigger missionary zeal and no blood-shedding - whether you mind you follow the book. In the spirit all men are equal, standing under the same natural law, including non-believers, and the fruit of which is human rights

The Bible is thus the source that Christian churches "have always been able to fall back on to clean themselves and throw historical ballast overboard by remembering their founding idea." Conversely, Islam distance himself from his indstiftelsesidé and give up his political-religious dual being of to reform. Does all the theologian from it is Pontifical University
(I have used google translate)( I know it's a long article I felt I had to copy and translate all of it)

Is he right? ?

Oberon

01-11-15, 05:12 PM

well, least I apologized for my offence and left my post up for my own embarrassment......

takes a man secure with his manhood to do that..

Eh, we all screw up, to err is to be human as they say...although to really break something you need a computer. :yep:

Skybird

01-11-15, 06:33 PM

Nice. :nope:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905278/Preacher-radicalised-Charlie-Hebdo-killers-nursing-intern-duty-E-unit-victims-hospital.html

Daily Mail - so take it with a grain of salt as long as not confirmed by other sources.

However, Daily Mail has it from a French paper, Le Parisien. I have no clue where to sort that one.

http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/charlie-hebdo-l-etonnante-reconversion-de-l-emir-des-freres-kouachi-11-01-2015-4436911.php

Cybermat47

01-11-15, 07:16 PM

Skybird

01-11-15, 08:58 PM

If that's true, let's hope he gets fired soon.

Or gets fired on. :03: To be preferred.

Unemployed he only costs the community that then must pay for his wellfare, and he still can recruit and radicalise young men so that they will kill community members that pay for his wellfare.

Onkel Neal

01-11-15, 09:14 PM

Neal,

okay, forget priests and dogmas, forget historic examples and the course of history, forget sectarian diversity, ignore the debate whether the church really holds up the teachings of the so-called Christ, forget all and everything, ignore it all for a moment.

What lies at the very bottom, at the most profound basis, is this, Neal, and it really cannot be put in any more essential format, I think:

Take the teachings of the Christ, and show me where he called for the violant submission of others, where he asked his followers for assassinating critics of his, where he taught the blind obedience to a cult or to himself, where he taught that the church shoud be founded and its representatives should be obeyed, show me where he taught that martyrdom in the killing of infidels is a virtue, and where he mocked his followers if they were not willing to sacrifice themselves, show me were he ordered for wears of attack and genocide of opposing tribes and different cults.

I do not talk about archaic Judaism and pre-Christian times, I do not talk about church dogmata and churchian powerpolitics - I only refer to the person of Jesus nicknamed the Christ himself. That is the one and only Christ that served as a name-giver for the term: "Christianity" (we do not call it "Biblianism" or "Churchianism" for no reason, don'T we).

You will not find such references in Christ's teachings.

Now take the teachings of another great visionary, who maybe (some say even probably) served as a mentor and teacher, as an example for Jesus: this Indian prince named Siddharta, nicknamed "Buddha the enlightened". Scan the Buddhist canon and find passages where this Indian guru - he himself - called for any of the points I listed above.

You will not find them in the Buddhist canon either - instead you will find what I call until today the most complete intellectual model of the human mind I have ever seen described in psychological literature.

On the other hand, for every single point I listed above - and more could be listed, easily! - I can look up for you the according reference in the Quran: that is the one and only Quran that is so to speak the glad tidings in islamic interpretation, the words all coming from Muhammad himself, having been collected from his mouth when Allah spoke through him. I can show you all the above mentioned points being legitimised by Muhammad.

What does this tell you about comparing Jesus and Siddharta onj the one hand, and Muhammad on the other hand? QAnd what are your conclusions regarding the teachings those three elft behind, and the kind of effect they wanted to motivate people for?

Could it be illustrated any more obvious, any easier? :hmmm: I honestly do not know how.

Anything else - is just consequences from these elemental differences between the three. And like churchian dogma all too often showed and still shows to be a perverting of Christ's teachings for opportunistic political reasons of the clerus, "moderate" views in islam are a perverting of Muhammad's teachings. The perveting thing in the Christian religion works for the bad of it, for it leads to intolerance, suppression and violence and fear . The perverting thing in the Muhammedan religion works for the better of it, for it leads to leaving behind intolerance, suppression, violence, racism and hate.

The socalled moderate Muslim is not humanist and liberal due to the Quranic teaching - but despite the the Quranic teaching. That shows the force of goodness and the influence it nevertheless can have in humans. And that is th ebhgitter truth that Muslims worldwide must learn to face. It is a bitter pill, but there is no shortcut to it, and no escape. They must look that bitter truth in its face and understand what this means in conclusions about the cult they insist to be called members of.

A big, bitter, painful pill that is - I would not like needing to swallow it. But as the saying goes: bitter medicine is medicine that helps.

Thanks for calling my attention to your post. I've read it. Yes, Jesus his own self was fairly peaceful, but: as you mentioned, his followers have not always been so meek. 300 years ago drawing a satirical picture would have gotten you burned at the stake in a second. So, I still stand by my point, that Islam as practiced by millions of Muslims is no more of a problem than Judaism and Christianity.

The socalled moderate Muslim is not humanist and liberal due to the Quranic teaching - but despite the the Quranic teaching.

Exactly, the same as other religions. It's commonly understood that people interpret holy scripture in a lot of ways, and I see Muslims on the same road to worshiping in peace that the other religions are on.

Schroeder

01-12-15, 06:22 AM

Exactly, the same as other religions. It's commonly understood that people interpret holy scripture in a lot of ways, and I see Muslims on the same road to worshiping in peace that the other religions are on.
If this is so then why is it almost always Islamic idiots doing the killing? When was the last Christian terror strike carried out? Buddhist? Jewish? Is our media blind to that or doesn't it happen? On the other hand I'm confronted with Islamic atrocities pretty much on a daily basis. That's why I don't buy that anymore. The lightning hits the same tree too often.

Skybird

01-12-15, 07:04 AM

Thanks for calling my attention to your post. I've read it. Yes, Jesus his own self was fairly peaceful, but: as you mentioned, his followers have not always been so meek. 300 years ago drawing a satirical picture would have gotten you burned at the stake in a second. So, I still stand by my point, that Islam as practiced by millions of Muslims is no more of a problem than Judaism and Christianity.

Exactly, the same as other religions. It's commonly understood that people interpret holy scripture in a lot of ways, and I see Muslims on the same road to worshiping in peace that the other religions are on.

Almost there, but not yet. :O:

I would argue that "followers of Jesus" 300 years ago burning satirists at the stake are not following Jesus, for Jesus would not have legitimized such action, and he certainly has preached very different things than doing that. Obviously they are NOT followers of Jesus, instead they abuse him as a figurehead that may be on the bow of the ship but still has no control over its course, while the crew holds control of the helm and the map an course-plotting instead. Muhammad on the other hand preached the way of the sword and flame, the submission, the conquest, the breaking of resistance. Your followers of Jesus burning satirists at the stake - if they would have done it not in the wrong name of Jesus, but in the name of Muhammad's Islam - all of a sudden you would have followers being truly in loyalty to a teaching as it was given - Muhammad's.

Loyalty to Jesus's teachings leads to peacefulness and even passivity in the face of violence.

Loyalty to Muhammad's teachings leads to very different things. You have to be disloyal to him in order to achieve the same effects like in the sentence just above.

You'd implied that its all the same with religious followers. But it is not the same, but quite the other way around, almost like a negative relates to a positive. The one relgious figure was a preacher of peace, the other was a preacher of conquest and submission. Their preachings could not be more different.

In Ridley Scott's movie "Kingdom of Heaven" there is this scene where Balian sees Muslims kneeling everywhere for the morning prayer, and the princess being with him tells him this, and I think I quote it correctly word by word: "They want to be all one. Jesus said: 'Chose!' Muhammad said: 'Submit!' "

Think about it. This is one of the most concentrated summaries of the main difference between real Christianity and real Islam that I have have read or heard somewhere.

On your last assessment I must disagree. In the West there might be the impression that Islam is on a reformation way as you lined out, but I must mind you that Westerners traditionally overestimate the influence and attractive example of the Western way of life for other people who prefer to stay in their own culture. Muslims in the West might even fall under your description, but they are a tiny minority still, compared to the global Ummah. In the Muslim core sphere however, I see a reverse trend, a trend for increasing religious orthodoxy, and I saw that already in the 90s, when I look back - back then, I just was not able to sort my local impressions in their right places of the overall image, I was not yet able to make the right interpretations and draw the correct conclusions. Also, the reversing of the Arab Spring should tell you something.

I must say that I see religious orthodoxy growing in general, not just in the Islamic world. Maybe no wonder: times become unsafe even more, the future is more difficult to forsee than ever, the perspectives for the future communicate plenty of troubles for most people. There is a German saying, translated it mean as much as this: "suffering makes people pray". When running out of options or feeling threatened, many people try to clutch at just any straws.

Skybird

01-12-15, 07:06 AM

The lightning hits the same tree too often.
The lightning strikes from the same one cloud too often, is closer to it. :O:

And:

The members of no other religion are so easily offended, like Muslims are. Even "secular" Muslims who do not follow Islam's rules for sure - are extremely easily offended nevertheless if you question "their Islam". That is a collective profile neurosis. I do not know any other species of mimosas as senstive as Muslims.

Also, in no other religion the "fanatics" claiming to act in its name are so easily and naturally and frequently being labelled as not being representative for the religion. If their deeds would be done in the name of Jesus or Judaism, nobody would hesitate to call them by their real name, and the media and public would word-masscre them: Christian or Jewish terrorists. But is there something like a Muslim terrorist...? Apparently not, if it goes according to Muslims and major parts of the Western public opinion. Islam is unable to do any evil, the Turkish sultan Erdoghan lets us know on just any opportunity, and the vast, the overwhelming majority of Muslim people on the globe insist on the same. The Quran is PERFECT, because it is the word of their god, and questioning it would mean to question the perfection of god. And that just cannot be, no matter what it costs. That is the most extreme example of cognitive dissonance I could imagine. Hell, they even try to criminalize and put under penalty (by absuing laws against racism ) the mentioning of Islam and terror together in Western media and free speech. In Muslim countries it could get you killed on charges of blasphemy, of course. And when you criticise Islam on the grounds of solid arguments, you run the risk of nevertheless being legally persecuted in the EU on the grounds of anti-hatespeech laws (which already has happened several dozen times since they came in effect some years ago). Most of these cases brought to court failed their originator's cause so far. Yet.Plus: there is massive lobbying in politics to rewrite history books and to carefully reformulate books used in schools and at universities not too touch upon precious mimosa sentiments, and to hide the role that war and violence and genocide and cultural mass destruction played in the history of the Muslim global conquest (which is the most successful and lasting military campaign ever known in human history, if anybody has forgotten that).

Skybird

01-12-15, 08:09 AM

I read that anglosaxon media are practicing massive self-censoring, up to prime media like The Telegraph, ABC, and CNN.

http://buzzmachine.com/2015/01/08/free-speech-privilege-journalistic-responsibility/

I became aware of this by these German articles:

LINK: The country of free speech censors itself (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/anschlag-in-paris-mohammed-karikaturen-verpixelt-13359826.html)

Doch gleichzeitig fiel auf, dass kein angelsächsisches Medium die Karikaturen zeigte - was für sich genommen noch nicht verwerflich ist. Pressefreiheit und Meinungsfreiheit bedeutet eben auch, darauf verzichten zu können, diese Karikaturen zu drucken. Der Titanic-Chefredakteur Tim Wolff etwa spricht sich dafür aus, mehr Satire gegen Terroristen, aber nicht mehr Mohammed-Karikaturen zu veröffentlichen.

Doch viele angelsächsische Medien zeigten die Karikaturen, jedoch mit einer Einschränken: Sie verpixelten die Bilder in ihrer Berichterstattung. So hält bei „New York Daily News“ der Hebdo-Herausgeber Charb plötzlich keine Mohammed-Karikatur mehr hoch, sondern ein verschwommenes Etwas:Wow. Shame on the @NYDailyNews (https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews). This is just sickening. http://t.co/da3MGqZlX0 pic.twitter.com/wGv0rI46xZ (http://t.co/wGv0rI46xZ)
— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) 7. Januar 2015 (https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/552868458342674433)Auch die britische „The Telegraph“, zensierte die Karikatur und beschnitt ein anderes Foto so, dass es nicht mehr auch nur potentiell gefährlich für religiöse Gefühle werden könnte.How the terrorists win: @Telegraph (https://twitter.com/Telegraph) is now blurring the cover Mohammed cartoon of #CharlieHebdo (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CharlieHebdo?src=hash) in its reporting pic.twitter.com/DffGzIrQZI (http://t.co/DffGzIrQZI)
— Yair Rosenberg (@Yair_Rosenberg) 7. Januar 2015 (https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/552814280471367680).@telegraph (https://twitter.com/Telegraph): You mistakenly cropped this picture a little tight. pic.twitter.com/RKjV2MNxw4 (http://t.co/RKjV2MNxw4)
— Michael C Moynihan (@mcmoynihan) 7. Januar 2015 (https://twitter.com/mcmoynihan/status/552824696744706048)Auch CNN verpixelte in seiner Liveberichterstattung die Karikaturen (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/03/lt.02.html), in einer internen Rundmail des Senders, die von (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/internal-cnn-memo-we-are-not-at-this-time-showing-200711.html)„ (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/internal-cnn-memo-we-are-not-at-this-time-showing-200711.html)Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/internal-cnn-memo-we-are-not-at-this-time-showing-200711.html)“ (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/internal-cnn-memo-we-are-not-at-this-time-showing-200711.html) veröffentlicht wurde (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/internal-cnn-memo-we-are-not-at-this-time-showing-200711.html), hieß es: „Vermeiden Sie Nahaufnahmen, die die Karikatur zeigen.“ Als Grund schrieb CNNs „Senior Editorial Director“ Richard Griffiths dazu, dass sie die Bilder nicht zeigen würden, weil es von vielen Muslimen als ehrabschneidend verstanden werden könnte.
Genauso verzichteten die „ABC News“ darauf, die Karikaturen abzubilden und die Nachrichtenagentur AP wählte den Weg des „Telegraph“ und schnitt in ihren Fotos die Karikaturen ab.
LINK: For satire like this, there is no room in American media (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/karikaturen-aus-charlie-hebdo-in-amerikas-medien-13361681.html)

That gives all their reports about the events in France and all their anchormen's sad faces and writers' concerned writing a hypocritical shine, I'd say. Exactly the same kind of bull that I have found very clear words for earlier in this thread.

To all media bosses practicing like this: you are traitors to your own profession, and you should quit your jobs and earnings, and hide in shame.

Charlie Hebdo will release a new edition this week, tomorrow (I think I read somewhere). And they already said: with Islam cartoons included.

Dowly

01-12-15, 08:34 AM

FOX News strikes again!

"That's my question about these guys because if we know they were
speaking unaccented French and they had, you know, ski masks on, do we
even know what color they were," Bream said. "What the tone of their skin
was. I mean what if they didn't look like typical bad guys?"03:14 in the video:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/shannon-bream-fox-charlie-hebdo-skin-color

To quote the original poster on another forum:
Ski masks, AK-47s and the fact they are killing people are a pretty good first indications.http://i.imgur.com/URfiifM.jpg

Skybird

01-12-15, 09:24 AM

An anti-Pegida demonstration in Leipzig originally had its plans for Muhammad-cartoons displayed, banned by town authorities. Just after massive pressure and protests they chnaged their course and allowed Muhammad cartoons now being displayed.

What the hell were those official cowards thinking originally?

:down:

Rockstar

01-12-15, 10:08 AM

Here was the chance to truely standby Charlie Hebdo and lady liberty with more than just lip service. Instead they chose to submit. Note how one figure is hidden behind other books. But look further down the page, well, you'll see what I mean. How brave. Those murdered journalists are rolling over in the graves.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15551998

Meanwhile those who did chose to take a stand got firebombed. To early to tell what the reason was though.

http://news.yahoo.com/arson-attack-german-paper-ran-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-065348454.html

Skybird

01-12-15, 11:53 AM

The story from Hamburg I had linked to earlier, Rockstar. The article at Yahoo has one thing wrong: it states the police said it were too early to conldue on any link to Paris. But as I said earlier, the Staatsschutz (office for the protection of the state) had taken over the investigations very early and very strongly assumes that such a link does exist - and said so. Else it would not haven gotten involved.

And while the Yahoo article also mentions marches and protests by Muslim groups in Germany: on Friday, a text was read in all mosques, condemning the violence in Paris. The press loved it. However, not all mosques shared that sentiment of feeling the need to take a clear position. In several cities with big Muslim communities, there also were mosques were the action was boycotted, and Friday prayers refused to even mention the whole thing in Paris, completely ignoring it, as if it had nothing to do with Islam. That happened in some mosques in Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt and Cologne - and these are just the names I got aware off.

Celebration of the Paris attacks has been reported from places all around the Muslim world, and not just some forsaken mountain regions, but metropoles and busy places as well.

If one lives by the illusion that all Muslims are united in their condemnation of terror in Paris, I strongly recommend to not open Arab social media websites. It seems there is a reat wave of sympathy and support for the terror strikes swapping around the digital globe.

Also, there is a big group that does not celebrate, but also refuses to accept any responsibility by Islam for the violence motivated by its ideology. I assume this is even the relative majority: acting as if the Paris events must not concern Islam, since it has nothing to do with it.

The media claim that the Muslim world in unity has condemned the Paris events, is unmaintainable. It simply is wrong. To describe the reaction as "split", is much more realistic, I think. But of course reports on how such demonstrations against Paris terror also takes place, get - politically correct - the by far greatest coverage.

HunterICX

01-12-15, 02:54 PM

The lightning hits the same tree too often.

Same can be said about Germans....from a history prespective (and not just WW2)
to put it short & blundly:
Prejudice, quickly come to the conclusion to what they claim to be the problem and put them all in the same pot and shipped off for ethnic cleansing.

Well there you go, I can do it too generalising a whole nation for their actions by a select group in the past whether it where Nazis or Crusaders. If you agree to act with barbarism to fight barbarism well then we're back to the age where monkeys hit eachother with sticks and haven't evolved at all.

Also these are my last words uttered in this part of the forum and my Ignore list just grew a bit bigger, nothing but toxic fumes from some of them.

Have fun, real shame the only part of the forum that has the most activity turned in such a..........

mapuc

01-12-15, 03:08 PM

Here's another great article from a Danish news paper, the author is a person on whom I have very deep respect Naser Khader, who also is one of my FB friends.

He is a Muslim born in Syria, came to Denmark when he was a little boy

Became af famous politician, today he work for Hudson institute in Washington Due to his critics on his religion, he is protected 24/7.

He and some more have posted a letter in New York Times, but I can't find it.

So I'm going to use Google translate to translate the danish version of the article.

(start article)
"Naser Khader: Fight Islam Nazism"

"Islam is in deep crisis. Many opinion in Europe and the United States say the Islamic state and the terrorists who were behind the attacks on the Paris, London, Madrid and New York has no bottom in Islam. But it's not true. Their attitudes are grounded in Islam. It is also Islam - not all of Islam, but a part of Islam.

It says Naser Khader, former Danish politician and current senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington

Naser Khader is today co-signed a big ad in the New York Times with the headline: 'What can Muslims do to claim their' beautiful religion 'back?'

"We are a group of reform-minded and liberal Western Muslims who will fight Nazism Islam (Islamism) .We must actively fight for and demand global human rights, gender equality and peaceful coexistence," says Naser Khader

"We must clearly state that the struggle for one or more 'Islamic states' have no place in modern times. Islamism is a failure, "states inter alia in the ad, which is indented by Gates Tone Institute, and is signed by prominent Muslim scholars and opinion makers from the US, Canada, Australia and England - and thus Danish Naser Khader

"It is no use to explain away that Islamists and jihadists believe they can find support for their violent behavior in the Koran," he says

Some mention that Christianity has been through the Reformation, and thus better adapted to modern times. Is that what remains to be done in Islam?

"Yes, Islam needs not a reformation, but a revolution - modernization, bringing it in line with the present, with democracy and human rights. Religion must be private and not dictate societal design and development. It is not men of religion and the religion's teachings being tonight, but the will of the people and representatives. "

Does this mean that you also opposes the form of government in countries like Iran and Egypt?

"Yes, they should have the basic laws that do not rely on either Islam or any other religion," says Naser Khader

"When people see ISIS 'beheadings, Boko Haram abduction of girls executions of innocent people in Iran, the slaughter of Christians in Egypt and Africa and other crimes against humanity committed by people who claim to represent Islam, it is natural that many are wondering even what Islam's true nature is. Is it possible that Islam itself is not peaceful, although many Muslims are peaceful?

"If Islam as a religion stands for justice and peaceful coexistence, then every struggle for an Islamic state can not be sanctioned by a just and merciful God. Neither Islamism or jihadism recognizes equality between people across race and religion and should be rejected, "
(End of article)

I know it was long, but I couldn't write a short version, I have never could do that.

Markus

Schroeder

01-12-15, 04:27 PM

Same can be said about Germans....from a history prespective (and not just WW2)
to put it short & blundly:
Prejudice, quickly come to the conclusion to what they claim to be the problem and put them all in the same pot and shipped off for ethnic cleansing.

Well there you go, I can do it too generalising a whole nation for their actions by a select group in the past whether it where Nazis or Crusaders. If you agree to act with barbarism to fight barbarism well then we're back to the age where monkeys hit eachother with sticks and haven't evolved at all.

I think you didn't read my posts. I never said that we are supposed to to act with barbarism to counter barbarism. I actually expressively said that I don't have an answer to the problem. Your example with Germany is spot on btw. You just mistook people for ideology. Was the Nazi ideology evil? Hell yes! Was every German evil? Nope. Is Islam an aggressive and hostile ideology? Yes! Is every person from an Islamic country evil? No!
You see it's the ideology I don't like because I think it's generally hostile towards us and our way of life.

Rockstar

01-12-15, 05:12 PM

Same can be said about Germans....from a history prespective (and not just WW2)
to put it short & blundly:
Prejudice, quickly come to the conclusion to what they claim to be the problem and put them all in the same pot and shipped off for ethnic cleansing.

Well there you go, I can do it too generalising a whole nation for their actions by a select group in the past whether it where Nazis or Crusaders. If you agree to act with barbarism to fight barbarism well then we're back to the age where monkeys hit eachother with sticks and haven't evolved at all.

Also these are my last words uttered in this part of the forum and my Ignore list just grew a bit bigger, nothing but toxic fumes from some of them.

Have fun, real shame the only part of the forum that has the most activity turned in such a.

Ummm not that I am promoting this as a means to an end but take a look at history, it does sometimes take barbarism to stop barbarism. The difference between the aggressor and the defender is the defender stops when the threat is gone. Well, thats the way it should work. Unless you of course you were a loyalist after the American revolutionary war, then you were tarred and feathered, chased out of the country and your lands taken.:huh:

Another example of barbarism against barbarism is the fact that France has just deployed 10,000 armed and trained military troops to protect sensitive sites in their own country. Do you think they are there to blow kisses when terrorists shoot people?

u crank

01-12-15, 06:04 PM

:huh:
Another example of barbarism against barbarism is the fact that France has just deployed 10,000 armed and trained military troops to protect sensitive sites in their own country. Do you think they are there to blow kisses when terrorists shoot people?

That's not barbarism by any definition. Over cautious and a political and media ploy maybe. But not barbarism.

Rockstar

01-12-15, 06:17 PM

That's not barbarism by any definition. Over cautious and a political and media ploy maybe. But not barbarism.

Ok, so deployment is not an act of barbarism, but if troops do come across radicals, which I'll admit I find highly unlikely, they will most ceratinly do to the radicals what the radiclals did to the journalists.

Whatever the reason why the deployment happened, being political, overly cautious or just a knee jerk reaction. It seems to me it all stems from one source. I find amazing while we all bicker about the nature of a certain religion we have because of that religion come to a point where the media fears it and 10,000 armed French troops were deployed in France to defend the French against it.

Not much for me to do other than grab a bag of pop corn and enjoy the show.

u crank

01-12-15, 06:36 PM

Ok, so deployment is not an act of barbarism, call it human nature, but if troops do come across radicals, which I'll admit I find highly unlikely, they will most ceratinly do to radicals what they did to the journalists.

I'm okay with that.:03:

I find amazing while we all bicker about the nature of a certain religion we have because of that religion come to a point where the media fears it and 10,000 armed troops were deployed in France defend the French against it.I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are not defending France from a religion. A terrorist attack yes, but not a religion.

Not much for me to do other than grab a bag of pop corn and enjoy the show.I'm having a double vodka and seven myself.:D

Rockstar

01-12-15, 06:59 PM

I'm okay with that.:03:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are not defending France from a religion. A terrorist attack yes, but not a religion.

I'm having a double vodka and seven myself.:D

Ok good point they are defending against terrorists. Terrorists who take offense and kill people who mock Islam, or draw cartoons of their Prophet Muhammed, and kill Jews because they are told their faith demands it, and anyone else for that matter they percieved to have done similar things.

But for now ...

http://www.uniqueframesanddecor.com/shop/images/products/rpc213.jpg

Oberon

01-12-15, 07:02 PM

Does seem rather strange to see soldiers patrolling underneath the Effiel Tower, like something from a dystopian film. I guess we are living through one after all.

I don't recall this kind of reaction in the UK post-7/7 though, I must admit, but then again we were already at a pretty high state of alert anyway, and security measures are something that most people here have grown up with, we've just swapped one set of terrorists for another. :hmmm:
Hard to think it'll be ten years this year. :hmmm:

Otto Harkaman

01-12-15, 07:08 PM

^ could they be fearing another group of riots like happened several years ago when police shot and killed a young muslim? or whatever happened I can't remember
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots

Aktungbby

01-12-15, 07:09 PM

Does seem rather strange to see soldiers patrolling underneath the Effiel Tower, like something from a dystopian film. I guess we are living through one after all.

Hard to think it'll be ten years this year. :hmmm:

I really think the ol' Eiffel is up to it all though:03: http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/W-Berlin-Express-B-1024x819.jpg (http://www.warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/W-Berlin-Express-B.jpg)

Oberon

01-12-15, 07:14 PM

I really think the ol' Eiffel is up to it all though:03:

:haha: Reminds me of a time an old Hawker Hunter pilot who was nearing the end of his flying career decided to go out with a big finish:

http://www.aviationartgallery.co.uk/Images/Large-Images/Michael-Rondot/Tower-bridge-hunter.jpg

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

Skybird

01-12-15, 07:32 PM

Charlie Hebdo's next edition comes with a picture of Muhammad on its front page, with the main title: "All is forgiven".

:yeah:

Aktungbby

01-12-15, 07:43 PM

I cross this bridge and the eastern Bay Bridge every two days or so; North bound on Golden Gate is a free direction home to save a shekel or two and on both bridges have twice looked just up to my immediate 270 during 'Fleet Week' to gaze directly into the wide open afterburner of a Blue Angel jet-and whiffed the kerosene...almost as cool as seeing the USS Iowa under the bridge:yeah: I've no doubt during practice these hot- dog pipejocks go under...Ira Bong certainly did! I'll content myself doing so in a Catalina(sailboat) as my Cessna days are long gone....helicopter tours go under it all the time!Just about my view only more in the center and REEEEALLY close!!http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/353e0be49c31505408664e0733c1a588/200953300/DSC02392.jpg

mapuc

01-12-15, 08:09 PM

One thing I find very encouraging is that more and more of the Danish Muslim is taking back their religion from these radical types.

Here is what they have signed

Is Danish Muslims willing to defend the religion they have in common with people who commit atrocities on innocent? As long as we do not wrests Islam from the clutches of the terrorists, we will continue to have in common with them, whether we like it or not

Markus

Aktungbby

01-12-15, 08:29 PM

Charlie Hebdo's next edition comes with a picture of Muhammad on its front page, with the main title: "All is forgiven".

:yeah:

ALL is not forgiven:nope: :nope: :nope: and people are voting with their feet in protest marches....http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Je_suis_Charlie.svg/521px-Je_suis_Charlie.svg.png

Skybird

01-12-15, 08:46 PM

Think you have lost your sense for sarcasm there, eh? In France, satiric cartoons and according sarcastic humour is seen almost as an art form. Compared to their totally respectless attacks against all and everything that pisses them, what you see in the British and American press is tame, lame and toothless.

I almost spit my dinner on the screen in laughter when I read their new stunt.

Who would have fought - pardon: thought - that a radical left-leaning satiric magazine would once earn my sympathy! :D

Skybird

01-13-15, 02:41 AM

Charlie Hebdo toujours:

http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-797999-galleryV9-juyw.jpg

:yeah:

Cybermat47

01-13-15, 03:24 AM

Charlie Hebdo toujours:

:yeah:

The best way to fight crazies who want to spread terror is to take the piss out of them :woot:

Oberon

01-13-15, 04:37 AM

Compared to some of their other covers (do a google) that's pretty tame and respectful, at first glance at least. You wouldn't think that was Muhammad unless specifically told.

Armistead

01-13-15, 01:35 PM

forgive all you want, they don't. a bigger statement would've been to put mohammad is a jar filled with piss.....or getting banged by a pig...."got pork"

Rockstar

01-13-15, 02:22 PM

Keep in mind a vast multitude of Muslims hold that Jesus fella in very high esteem and had nothing to do with the jar of wee painting.

yubba

01-13-15, 02:43 PM

Oberon

01-13-15, 03:08 PM

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4b71bbd4769e2efb3c297936c58474f97af9096afccbb0cc3c 764d9d182a2ef0.jpg

Rockstar

01-13-15, 03:33 PM

LOL, did anyone ever think maybe they were not invited. :O:

Its probably time to merge this one with the mega thread

Schroeder

01-13-15, 03:50 PM

@Yubba
You are disgusting for hijacking this for your petty political agenda.

Aktungbby

01-13-15, 03:51 PM

I would like to apologize to the French,, for the shortcomings of the current potus and his administration,, please don't think this is a reflection of the american people,, we know, if it wasn't for the help of your ancestors 230 some odd years back we wouldn't be the country that we are now. Yes we are at odds with our own government since they don't have the American peoples interest at heart.

Your not thinking it through completely! Mr. Obama is #1 tarjeta del mundo since he pulled the plug on their #1, the late Mr. Bin Laden...With all the marchers and chaos ongoing in France at the moment, sufficient to enable a hot female suspect's escape to Syria or Turkey, the French Security DOES NOT NEED POTUS on its ground arriving in a conspicuous AirForce #1, nor any member of his immediate political family ie the cabinet such as the VP or Secretary of State. We lost one ambassador in Libya; it's dangerous work, and I understand our French ambassador was nearby-that's HIS job and he's doing it. We've lost 4 presidents to political nuts and with Islam's present nut-case plethora ideologically and technical proficiency; with a tradition going back to even King Richard I and the Assassins, no need to risk a fifth POTUS. And, If I can think like that, it means someone else already has.:doh: :|\\ merci mon ami

Cybermat47

01-13-15, 03:52 PM

@Yubba
You are disgusting for hijacking this for you petty political agenda.

Agreed. The current US administration has problems, but it's hardly relevant to these attacks.

Rockstar

01-13-15, 06:13 PM

Ok then, let me add something more useful.

To the French,

I have done a great deal of travelling through the United States. During which I have had the privilege of touring the battlefields of Yorktown Virginia. To this day the French fleurs-de-lis flys from every embankment your soldiers helped defend. For without the help and sacrifice of your great nation we would have never known Liberty, Sovereignity, and Independance.

A monument at the battlefield pays tribute to the alliance which was formed in 1778 between the Nation of France and the United States of America. That alliance will stand forever in my heart and I would be honored to assist the generous people of France in any way I can.

and yes, I mean what I wrote.

Onkel Neal

01-13-15, 08:33 PM

@Yubba
You are disgusting for hijacking this for your petty political agenda.

Maybe you aren't aware of it but this is a hot topic here right now.

yubba

01-13-15, 09:56 PM

Agreed. The current US administration has problems, but it's hardly relevant to these attacks.
It has alittle more than problems,, it can't bring it's self to identify what and who is responsible for these attacks,, I think Mark Levin put it best today,, if the potus either went himself or sent someone to repesent us,, he would have to finally admit that, ISIS is Islamic,, the Ft Hood shooting was more than work place violence and Bengazi was something more than a protest over a video,, I'll say what they're afraid to say,, Radical Islamic Extremist and I personally would like to know why they can't say it before they send more troops into harms way,, you have to identfy who the enemy is before you go to war.

Buddahaid

01-13-15, 11:30 PM

http://www.dj-rooms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/djrooms_anim03.gif

August

01-14-15, 12:08 AM

@Yubba
You are disgusting for hijacking this for your petty political agenda.

Maybe you aren't aware of it but this is a hot topic here right now.

Neals right. Folks on both sides of the political spectrum here are pretty mad that the best the USA could muster at such a significant event was an ambassador. It don't matter what party the administration is from they really dropped the ball.

That might not be making the foreign press though.

Silent Steel

01-14-15, 01:46 AM

http://www.dj-rooms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/djrooms_anim03.gif

:yep: :03:

em2nought

01-14-15, 02:38 AM

Sincere apologies to the Marquis :salute: http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2015/01/12/lafayette-we-are-not-here/

Skybird

01-14-15, 07:41 AM

I have linked the absence of Obama to security concerns. The deeper dimension of what it would have meant in recognising that several other terror attacks were indeed Muslim terror that absolutely had something to do with Islam, has escaped me.

The implication from that, describing the official view of earlier terrorism, is even more worrying.

It has alittle more than problems,, it can't bring it's self to identify what and who is responsible for these attacks,, I think Mark Levin put it best today,, if the potus either went himself or sent someone to repesent us,, he would have to finally admit that, ISIS is Islamic,, the Ft Hood shooting was more than work place violence and Bengazi was something more than a protest over a video,, I'll say what they're afraid to say,, Radical Islamic Extremist and I personally would like to know why they can't say it before they send more troops into harms way,, you have to identfy who the enemy is before you go to war.

Yubba may take fire or not, but to me what he says here is simply plain reason.

Onkel Neal

01-14-15, 11:22 AM

Hey guys, back from peeling potatoes in the brig. I apologise for the nasty language that Sailor Steve had to remove, nobody needs to read that. It was unnecessary and crude.

____________________________________________

Anyhoo.

Over a million people marching in Paris, over 700,000 marching all across France yesterday.

It's heartening to see this kind of expression instead of lazy xenophobia or racism, which is something we all know can easily follow events like this in modern Europe.

The above gallery are some cartoons from Arab newspapers in reaction to the tragedy.

Maybe I'm simplistic, but to my mind people standing up for the rights of cartoonists not to be murdered is something to be welcomed.

Hey, welcome back.:salute: The french fries were good while they lasted.:ping:

Yes, I was really moved by the rally. The French certainly know how to do that type of thing on a magnificent scale. I am not saying this just to bash the President,l but I was shocked and very disappointed that he was not in that line. To hell with security concerns, if the German leader, UK, leader, Israeli leader, etc were there, the US president should have been too. :nope: That rally was an epic symbol, and the US was AWOL.

One thing I have felt from the beginning but have not mentioned; I do not care for the whole Charlie Magazine bashing and mocking religion for the sake of it (and profit). Sure, I will grant that they have the right to do so, but it's bad taste (don't forget, I am not religious at all). And how is it not considered hate speech? Or at the least, incitement to violence. Don't get me wrong, I am not on the side of killing people who draw Mohammed or Jesus, not at all. I definitely want to see the French root out the fledgling terrorists in their country and imprison or deport them. But yeah, twist the tiger's tail...

Dowly

01-14-15, 11:42 AM

Tango589

01-14-15, 11:57 AM

I agree that whilst freedom of speech is a fundamental right, you should be a bit wary of putting a stick in a bees' nest, especially one that looks to be full of Killer Bees.

01-14-15, 12:00 PM

Egypt's Grand Mufti warned the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Tuesday against publishing a new caricature of the Prophet Mohammad, saying it was a racist act that would incite hatred and upset Muslims around the world. Charlie Hebdo is due to publish a front page on Wednesday showing a caricature of the Prophet in its first edition since Islamist gunmen attacked the weekly's offices in Paris last Wednesday, killing 12 people.
"This edition will cause a new wave of hatred in French and Western society in general and what the magazine is doing does not serve coexistence or a dialogue between civilisations," the office of Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, one of the region's most influential Muslim clerics, said in a statement.
"This is an unwarranted provocation against the feelings of ... Muslims around the world."
Liberation newspaper, now temporarily housing Charlie Hebdo operations, revealed (http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.636763) the front page of the Jan. 14 edition via Twitter late on Monday - an image of the Prophet Mohammed holding a sign saying "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie") below the headline "Tout est pardonne" ("All is forgiven").
A total of 17 people were killed in three days of violence that began when the gunmen opened fire at Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its past publication of satirical images of the Prophet. With demand surging for this week's edition, Charlie Hebdo planned to print up to 3 million copies, dwarfing its usual run of 60,000.
The Grand Mufti described the attack on Charlie Hebdo as "terrorist" and Egypt's Al-Azhar, a thousand-year-old seat of religious learning respected by Muslims around the world, has referred to the attack as a criminal act. But they have also been critical of caricatures of the Prophet, which provoked protests when they were first published in 2005.
The Grand Mufti's office called on the French government to reject what he called the "racist act" by Charlie Hebdo, accusing the newspaper of seeking to provoke "religious strife... and deepen hatred."
The front page of the Jan. 14 edition shows Mohammad, a tear on his cheek, holding a sign saying "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie"), below the headline "Tout est pardonne" ("All is forgiven").
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan accused the West on Monday of hypocrisy for its stance over the attack on Charlie Hebdo and the hostage-taking at a kosher supermarket in which four Jews were killed, while failing to condemn anti-Muslim acts in Europe. "The West's hypocrisy is obvious. As Muslims, we've never taken part in terrorist massacres. Behind these lie racism, hate speech and Islamophobia," he said. If those two guys go along with those lines it means it is populist mainstream issue.
Don't lynch Muslims yet understand that the problem is a bit bigger than you imagine.

Oberon

01-14-15, 12:21 PM

Completely agree.

Also agree, free speech and hate speech should not be confused, nor one allowed to abuse the other.

mapuc

01-14-15, 12:34 PM

That might not be making the foreign press though.

Oh it has, In Denmark and Sweden it has been in the news a few times and in the press.

Markus

01-14-15, 12:40 PM

One thing I have felt from the beginning but have not mentioned; I do not care for the whole Charlie Magazine bashing and mocking religion for the sake of it (and profit). Sure, I will grant that they have the right to do so, but it's bad taste (don't forget, I am not religious at all). And how is it not considered hate speech? Or at the least, incitement to violence. Don't get me wrong, I am not on the side of killing people who draw Mohammed or Jesus, not at all. I definitely want to see the French root out the fledgling terrorists in their country and imprison or deport them. But yeah, twist the tiger's tail...

Great point of view yet if one wants to live in the western culture should get used to it or stay in ME or N.Africa.
When you look at all political cartoons and a like , it is chaos..now should religion be any different.
Now ... was anything racist , xenophobic in those cartoons , I think it is a little bit too much of understanding also " twist tiger's tail " sound wrong too me.
looks like the terrorist succeeded in making their point.

Skybird

01-14-15, 12:44 PM

I agree that whilst freedom of speech is a fundamental right, you should be a bit wary of putting a stick in a bees' nest, especially one that looks to be full of Killer Bees.

Means exactly what?

Since Salman Rushdie, and often reiterated since then, from 9/11 over Ylland Posten to Ford Hood, from Madrid over Bali to London, there have been demands by careful Westerners to be careful with that one does not use freedom to offend others who might react angry towards freedom then.

But I tell you what. Either you have freedom, or you have not. There is no "being wary of"-part in it. There is no middle-ground. Its no grey scale, but an issue of black or white. You must chose, and you can have only one, not both.

At best you can advise style, class, manners. Satire can be any of these. Or it can be more rude as well. But that has to be accepted. Do you think I have sympathy for the political ideas behind Charlie Hebdo? Me...? They are extremely left-leaning, by all what I understood! And I skin lefties for a hobby!

I once was told by one of these special subsim members (that since long time is gone) that apparently I would love the idea to send everybody into the gas chambers who disagrees with me. But you see, something like that you will get for sure if you limit freedom of speech by mislead warnings of that one should be careful regarding for what to say one uses this self-censored freedom.

For example the Shariah. It claims to make people free, yes. But free by its own restricting limitations only. You are free within the limits set by Shariah, Islam. In other words: you are free within your cage.

Only when I am free to do something anyway, I can consider in all voluntariness and freedom not to do it. Else I only get blackmailed, and/or subjugated by circumstances.

Same with tolerance. The weak cannot tolerate the strong, for he is not in the position to decide what the strong does to him. The weak endures what he must, the strong does as he pleases. And if the strong decides to not use his strength against the weak to make him do what he wants him to do - only then it may be a sign of tolerance. But never the other way around. For victims, tolerance is no option. It is unavailable to them. Needless to say: because this is so, every tolerance must have limits, else it is self-denial. And self-denial is what certain ideological and political circles in the West indeed love to hide behind the term "tolerance".

Same for solidarity. Only where I am free to decide on whether to be solidaric with somebody or not to be soldaric, I am solidaric indeed if I decide to be that. Where I am forced and pushed by pressure or expectation to comply with a demand for being solidaric, in fact I am only obedient.

It'S all about voluntariness, and power. Only where my decision bases on voluntariness, I can be solidaric. Or tolerant. Or free in speech and thought. It is not the other's business to decide any of this for me, or to blackmail me.

I may find that I am too weak to be free. Tell me - are we that far in the west already, are we that weak already that we should sanction, that we should ration freedom over threats by the other? What does that tell us about ourselves - and the other then? Is really us the strong one - or isn't it already the others being stronger?

01-14-15, 01:06 PM

I may find that I am too weak to be free. Tell me - are we that far in the west already, are we that weak already that we should sanction, that we should ration freedom over threats by the other? What does that tell us about ourselves - and the other then? Is really us the strong one - or isn't it already the others being stronger? Maybe the Stockholm syndrome thread should be revived after all...
...not that I agree with many of your ideas ... too totalitarian for me.

You seem too much into this ... who is Muslim and who is not with the claim the true Muslims are ISIS.
To me all Muslims are Muslims including the ISIS , you cant define for others who they are , when it comes to people and religion it works this way.
The definitions are for the scared politicians , who are not sure whom to fear more ...the Muslims or the voters to go nuts and they act like big responsible kindergarten teachers.
Yet with your approach you are actually blocking any possibility of reformed Islam to be embraced.

Skybird

01-14-15, 04:25 PM

...not that I agree with many of your ideas ... too totalitarian for me.
Totalitarian? Well, please find another label to descredit me with, becasue the term "totalitarian" is not free from having a specific meaning, which according to Merriam-Webster is this:

the adjective "totalitarian":

1
a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian), dictatorial (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorial); especially : despotic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despotic)
b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)

2
a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarianism)
b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency
c : exercising autocratic powers

and the noun "totalitarianism":

1
: centralized control by an autocratic authority

2
: the political concept that the citizen should be totally (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totally) subject to an absolute state authority

And now consider this: that I attack the existence of states, superregional power structures and politial parties, lobbies and monopoles of power; that I refuse to accept the totalitarian (!! ;) ) claims in any relgious or political ideologies including Islam, propagate capitalism and free enterprise, free speech/media/thinking, libertarianism, humanism, individual responsibility, "zero-state" concepts, and if you want: secular Buddhism and spirtual atheism :) , and I call people to resist to giving up their freedoms in the face of being challenged and being demanded to abandon these freedoms.

But I should be totalitarian here...?

You mistake my determination and intransigence with autocratic control, but if you call me totalitarian, then that is as if you would claim Eisenhower and Churchill and Roosevelt as totalitarian dictators like Hitler and Stalin because they decided and willed those policies needed to bring down totalitarianism and fascism and fought even a war needed to defeat totalitarianism and fascism at least in Germany and Europe.

I think you still refuse to recognise what you are up against when facing Islam, and while trivialising its nature you therefore are not willing to show the determination needed to indeed confront it and stop its further advancing.

You seem too much into this ... who is Muslim and who is not with the claim the true Muslims are ISIS.
To me all Muslims are Muslims including the ISIS , you cant define for others who they are , when it comes to people and religion it works this way.Oh, that allmighty you are not, as if you can rule that terms and labels of languages should be freed of all their meanings and just any word can be used arbitrarily for just anything. Muslim is not what a person in front of you claims it to be because that person has its interests. "Muslim" is defined by the ideology of Islam, and its written ideological fundament. And that is the decisive criterion, nothing else - not your believing in hear-say, individual assurances or your personal kind beliefs that hope for the best in man. KungTse demanded already in his time and place the sorting of terms and words, complaining that people use one and the same word for too many meanings that were opportunistically chosen and did not reflect their original rela meaning.

Spock would call it linguistic precision. :)

Yet with your approach you are actually blocking any possibility of reformed Islam to be embraced.No, actually you are blocking it. And I said it before and I say it again: Islam will not need to see any need to finally, for the first time ever, start a critical, objective self-reflection, if people like you always let it get away with its lies and decptions, self-decpetions and claims for beign given specially designed fvree rides, so that it gets what it ants without needing to chnage. I confront Islamic ideology in general and the Muslim standing up face to face to me instead, not accepting this weaseling and policy of self-vicitmization and intimdiating the other at the same time, and trying to talk the othe rinto a bad coinscience and making him beleive he would owe a totalitarian, supremacist, inhumane, racist ideology anything.

Islam has been far more successful in preventing reformist thinking and reforms in its realm, than the catholic church ever has been, and until today it is more unscrupulous and uncompromised in running policies of enforced unity and monoculturalism in order to make sure that its orthodoy originality does not change. And this unmoved appearance is what makes it so attractive - amongst other factors - for many young ones, btw, for they see it as the antidot to the almost unlimited opportunism and absence of idealistic orientation and values in the modern world.

Your problem is that you see this my determination as "totalitarian". But actually my thoughts are the most bitter enemy of any form of totalitarianism. Religious liberals and orthodox, people being politically left or right, they all deal with each other and cooperate at times to secure their own influence and power over people, but freedom-loving free spirits and libertarians are hated and demonized more than anyone else. Because they know all too well that freedom cannot be rationed and corrupted, cannot be bribed and cannot be bought, and this is what makes such free minds to the worst and most bitter enemies of lefts and rights, religious liberals and religious orthodox alike. This is why libertarians get demonized both by the political left and the political right, and why in all religions heretics and apostates are looked down on, but atheists are being seen as the biggest and most diabolical enemy in all universe.

And if then somebody comes and sees me as one of these incarnations of all lesser and higher evils in the world, or even just calls me "totalitarian" - then I cannot avoid but to feel flattered.

01-14-15, 05:31 PM

You see ...every thing about religion is self deception and flexible logic , whichever way he go.
- a reason why I say , whom ever claim to be true Muslim , on personal level he is one , doesn't matter whether he is ISIS or progressive.
At the same time I also don't claim that Islam should not be criticized... I im portably the last person to do so lol....as we all see... every nut , lost soul or keen follower can be easily brainwashed into the nasty flavor of religion
The line is long and possibly getting longer.

What I find ridiculous is you with your supposedly Spock logic trying to prove that radical Islam must be the true Islam using quotes and so on...
It can be if it wins...besides the fact that it is bad strategy , unless.... you try to prove to us the readers here that radical Islam is true Islam so we agree with your ideology...still bad strategy , yet I do agree with some of your views.

Don't mind too much the totalitarian thing ... a bit extreme and odd at times then....

I don't like star trek very much ...love si fi though ...yet I remember that Spock was sort of guy for whom logic did not always work for the best and the poor soul??? struggled to understand human mind while the crew sort of made fun of him .

Skybird

01-14-15, 06:41 PM

That Spock once said in a movie "Logic is the beginning of all wisdom, but not its end", has not caused him to mistake Up with Down, or Left with Right, and Even with Uneven.

To many tell me about Islam and Quran, declare the heaven as green and the grass as blue, and try to tell me that this X actually is a U (German proverb). That is no fault in logic. That is not even a fault in reason. It simply is idiotic, or lacking willingness to look at the sky and the meadow and lacking skill in the ability to correctly read. None of these things are a question of interpretation, or are to be seen relative.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. And that X is no U. That's all I'm saying.

Jeff-Groves

01-14-15, 07:20 PM

Do any of you know that Spock is fictional?
:o

Any argument based on him is also fictional then.
Maybe we should argue the point from the Borg and just assimulate everything?

Onkel Neal

01-14-15, 07:34 PM

Great point of view yet if one wants to live in the western culture should get used to it or stay in ME or N.Africa.
When you look at all political cartoons and a like , it is chaos..now should religion be any different.
Now ... was anything racist , xenophobic in those cartoons , I think it is a little bit too much of understanding also " twist tiger's tail " sound wrong too me.
looks like the terrorist succeeded in making their point.

I'm just pointing out as reality. Try going into an Italian diner full of wiseguys in Brooklyn and shouting "hey, it smells in here, smells like (insert Italian slurs here)."

Jeff-Groves

01-14-15, 07:45 PM

Spock would say you shouldn't go in there to start with.
:haha:

Oberon

01-14-15, 08:06 PM

Honestly, if Spock came into this thread...his reaction would be:

http://www.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/09/spock-pain.gif

Jeff-Groves

01-14-15, 08:14 PM

If one is going to use fictional stuff? Then this point is just as valid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rw5MosKRm4

Buddahaid

01-14-15, 08:34 PM

Forget Spock! What would Frank Herbert say? Eh? Is this how the world views Islam?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B6jgkcANRE#t=42

Rockstar

01-14-15, 10:40 PM

Honestly, if Spock came into this thread...his reaction would be:

http://www.thefrisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/09/spock-pain.gif

http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/jky242/0c499a8145ac942213f2f2652971749f.jpg

(what would evil spock say?)

Aktungbby

01-14-15, 11:40 PM

LOL, did anyone ever think maybe they were not invited. :O:

Your not thinking it through completely! Mr. Obama is #1 tarjeta del mundo since he pulled the plug on their #1, the late Mr. Bin Laden...With all the marchers and chaos ongoing in France at the moment, sufficient to enable a hot female suspect's escape to Syria or Turkey, the French Security DOES NOT NEED POTUS on its ground arriving in a conspicuous AirForce #1, nor any member of his immediate political family ie the cabinet such as the VP or Secretary of State. We lost one ambassador in Libya; it's dangerous work, and I understand our French ambassador was nearby-that's HIS job and he's doing it. We've lost 4 presidents to political nuts and with Islam's present nut-case plethora ideologically and technical proficiency; with a tradition going back to even King Richard I and the Assassins, no need to risk a fifth POTUS. And, If I can think like that, it means someone else already has.:doh: :|\\ merci mon ami

Neals right. Folks on both sides of the political spectrum here are pretty mad that the best the USA could muster at such a significant event was an ambassador.

I have linked the absence of Obama to security concerns. The deeper dimension of what it would have meant in recognising that several other terror attacks were indeed Muslim terror that absolutely had something to do with Islam, has escaped me.

The implication from that, describing the official view of earlier terrorism, is even more worrying.

I think my consideration (above) is the still correct one; Moreover Besides Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, of Benghazi, Five other U.S. ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty:
Adolph Dubs, in Afghanistan, 1979
Francis E. Meloy Jr., in Lebanon, 1976
Rodger P. Davies, in Cyprus, 1974
Cleo A. Noel Jr., in Sudan, 1973
John Gordon Mein, in Guatemala; 1968 Of the six ambassadors five were killed in moslem oriented or influenced countries. Now that Al Qaeda has claimed a credit for the attack out of Yemen under Bin Laden's successor, and gave $20,000 for the operation, POTUS stays put. ...inasmuch as the overstrained French clearly do not have the security situation under control at present and do not need the considerable headache of Obamas's security added to their other concerns. I'm quite sure the drones in Yemen are scoping out white pickups-of-opportunity and proven killer POTUS has his finger on a button where it and he belong...:salute: Even the captain of the USS Vincennes wife was attacked by a pipe bomb in San Diego after her husband's vessel downed an Iranian airliner in 1989 and she had to leave her teaching job and home for security reasons. Clearly this is now all-out war and the enemy is out there and able to strike at will whenever and wherever it chooses. Our response should be like Churchill's in WWII "hunt to destruction"; no quarter-let Allah sort em' all out.