So what do we do with Islam?

[Hitman]

OK, there have been lots of topics going on about the Islam, and the majoritary opinions seem to be that it is dangerous, aggressive and that it shall not be tolerated in our western democracies.

Now I want to hear what you all have in mind as a solution for this problem. Fire away! I'm ready to hear about deportation, building walls, genocide, forced conversion to christianism/zionism, friendly talk, kissing, or any other solution you think would do it.

The purpose of this topic is to picture well how the very best reasoning about the bad things in islam will come at most to an impossible solution, or at most to a solution against any civilized form of living. So basically, I want to demonstrate that all this aggresive talk about Islam would conduct us, if we were to put it in practice, to the very same dramas we are critizising in the Islam. :hmm:

Go! :)

[DAB]

OK, there have been lots of topics going on about the Islam, and the majoritary opinions seem to be that it is dangerous, aggressive and that it shall not be tolerated in our western democracies.

Now I want to hear what you all have in mind as a solution for this problem. Fire away! I'm ready to hear about deportation, building walls, genocide, forced conversion to christianism/zionism, friendly talk, kissing, or any other solution you think would do it.

The purpose of this topic is to picture well how the very best reasoning about the bad things in islam will come at most to an impossible solution, or at most to a solution against any civilized form of living. So basically, I want to demonstrate that all this aggresive talk about Islam would conduct us, if we were to put it in practice, to the very same dramas we are critizising in the Islam. :hmm:

Go! :)

Well if the rhetoric on this board is anything to go on... perhaps you should start making muslims wear crecents on their cloaths so we can all discriminate against them in public.

Then a few of you could commission a couple of reports - seeing if you can find a few genetic traits regarding those who believe in Islam. You could then use this to prove that you guys represent a superior civilisation.

At that point, a couple of riots might be in order. That will lead you all to designate a couple of ghetoos.

That should give a few of you a time to build the odd consentration camp.





Honestly the rhetoric on this board in the last few weeks has been pathetic... an excuse for Racialised Bigotary and prejucdice. And that is what this all is.

[TLAM Strike]

Tell them that if they co-exist with us in peace for four hundred years they can have the entire planet to them selves. Because by then we will be busy colonizing Alpha Centauri, Sirius and Epsilon Eridani. They can finally have that dream of Islamic domination of the world, while we spread to the stars. ;)

Of course they will be quite pissed when we don’t lift a finger to save them from being conquered by the Klingons, Cylons, or Chings, or being eaten by the Reavers… :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

conversion to christianism/zionism
Is Zionism a religion? :o

As for DAB, yeh, sure. Let the Jihadists slit your throat first. That way, you won't have to do anything.

It's all in our minds. Yea. Sure. :shifty:

[joea]

People, none of you answered Hitman's question, assume it IS a menace what do we do? For this thread we are not debating IF but WHAT TO DO. i am curious to hear the answers.

[Gizzmoe]

As for DAB, yeh, sure. Let the Jihadists slit your throat first. That way, you won't have to do anything.

It's all in our minds. Yea. Sure. :shifty:

Maybe I should no longer go out of the house! I´m surrounded by thousands of Muslims (2500 on 2.6 square kilometer), I wonder how many of them are Jihadist and are just waiting for an opportunity to slit my throat... :hmm:

:88)

[DAB]

Maybe I should no longer go out of the house! I´m surrounded by thousands of Muslims (2500 on 2.6 square kilometer), I wonder how many of them are Jihadist and are just waiting for an opportunity to slit my throat... :hmm:

:88)

You mean you don't know.

All Muslims are part of a secret world wide plot to keep the United States and parts of the West downtrodden.

The most important aspect of this plot is the Vietnam War. After America lost the war, a treaty was put in place that caused incredable hardship and difficulty in the United States. That treaty was written by Muslims and was the beginning of that plot.

:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

As for DAB, yeh, sure. Let the Jihadists slit your throat first. That way, you won't have to do anything.

It's all in our minds. Yea. Sure. :shifty:
Maybe I should no longer go out of the house! I´m surrounded by thousands of Muslims (2500 on 2.6 square kilometer), I wonder how many of them are Jihadist and are just waiting for an opportunity to slit my throat... :hmm:

:88)
Do you know how many?

I don't.

0?

1?

10?

100?

200?

I have no idea.

Do you?

But they're there and not knowing is a big part of the problem of not formulating an appropriate resolution.

And while you may be able to go out of the house where you are now, ask yourself if you could go out of your house had you been living in the Parisian suburbs.

Or ask yourself whether this problem will never affect you or affect you in 20/10/5/2 years.

Are there or are there not Islamic interests in placing Europe under Islam's influence? Is there or is there not such a religious concept/command/pholosophy within Islam?

Maybe the answer is no. Do you know for certain? Do your government representatives know? Should you care?

And remember - Allah knows best.

[The Avon Lady]

All Muslims are part of a secret world wide plot to keep the United States and parts of the West downtrodden.
Sura 9, verses 28-29:

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


:-j Laugh! Laugh! It's so funny, isn't it?! Yuk! Yuk! :-j

:nope:

[DAB]

All Muslims are part of a secret world wide plot to keep the United States and parts of the West downtrodden.
Sura 9, verses 28-29:

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


:-j Laugh! Laugh! It's so funny, isn't it?! Yuk! Yuk! :-j

:nope:

Ooh...Holy Book Games.

Can I quote Leviticus...

...please...please....oh please :lol:

[Gizzmoe]

Maybe the answer is no. Do you know for certain? Do your government representatives know? Should you care?

"Paranoia".

[The Avon Lady]

All Muslims are part of a secret world wide plot to keep the United States and parts of the West downtrodden.
Sura 9, verses 28-29:

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


:-j Laugh! Laugh! It's so funny, isn't it?! Yuk! Yuk! :-j

:nope:
Ooh...Holy Book Games.
Walk into your local mosque and say that.
Can I quote Leviticus...
No problem. Go right ahead. Waiting...................
...please...please....oh please :lol:
Ahahahahahahahaha. :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Maybe the answer is no. Do you know for certain? Do your government representatives know? Should you care?
"Paranoia".
Yes. Baseless.

Move along, citizens.

[Gizzmoe]

Yes. Baseless.

Move along, citizens.

Tell me what to do! Do you want me to distrust every Muslims? Shall I distrust every single Muslim just because they could do something to me and my family? Do you think I should no longer buy food from a Muslim, because they could poison it ("The infidel is dead!!!!")? Shall I turn around everytime I pass a "Muslim-looking" guy to check if he is about to stab me?

[Sldghammer]

Ask the dead in Jordan whether it's paranoia or not?

From MSN news about the Iraqi bombing.

"Samiya Mohammed, who lives nearby, said she rushed out when she heard the explosion.

There was bodies, mostly civilians, and blood everywhere inside the place. This is a criminal act that only targeted and hurt innocent people having their breakfast,” she said.

There were no Americans in the area, she said. “I do not understand why most of the time it is the Iraqis who are killed,” she added."

But it's ok in her mind if Americans get killed?

[The Avon Lady]

A little thought on what to do.
Fitzgerald: Clash of civilizations? Yes and no (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008486.php)

The phrase "clash of civilizations," made famous by Samuel Huntington, is misleading. In Huntington's formulation (he owed an unacknowledged good deal to Adda Bozeman, who taught at Sarah Lawrence in the days when Kurt Rausch taught painting to well-bred young women and Randall Jarrell was taking notes for "Pictures from an Institution"), there are the Sinic, the Orthodox, the Hindu, the Islamic, the Western, and so on. And these are all potentially clashing. But this is nonsense. There is only one clash that counts: that of Islam with all of non-Islam. If, in the future, China and America were to go to war, it would not be because the former is "Sinic" and the latter "Christian" or "Western" or somesuch, but because of perceived Great-Power rivalries -- for China and America are now part of the same civilization, the shared, modern, universal civilization, with disagreements at the edges, but nothing like the clash between Islam and all Infidels. In fact, a war between China and America would be about power, and thus no different from, for example, the rivalry, ending in war, between Germany and England in the pre-1914 period.

It is interesting to note, meanwhile, that Arab and Muslim analysts around the world tend to prefer the phrase "clash of civilizations" -- because it avoids the truthful description of the conflict as one motivated by a belief-system, the belief-system of Islam. And it also gives the impression that America or "the West" or Western Christian or Western post-Christian civilization are the enemy, while in reality the global Islamic jihad is as much directed at Hindus and Buddhists, and the Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, and the non-Muslim black Africans, as it is against the much more powerful, and therefore more dangerous, United States of America.

Bassam Tibi epitomizes the confusion caused by clash of civilizations talk, and the difficulties to which it gives rise. Tibi is a Syrian, married to a German, who is Muslim in name only. And he has many virtues. But imagination is not among them. When he posits only two possibilities -- Europe becoming thoroughly islamized, or Islam becoming Europeanized -- he shows that limited imagination. When he offers the possibility of Islam becoming Europeanized, he fails to discuss what that would mean. Would it mean simply Muslims wearing Western dress? Throwing out the hadith? Throwing out the hadith and the sira (going beyond the Ancient Mariner, would Tibi have them stoppeth two of three)? Throwing out all of the sira, and all of the hadith, and then in addition throwing out traditional conclusions of the interpreters of the Qur’an -- in a kind of reverse abrogation, in which all the softer verses are now kept and the harsher ones removed, instead of the other way around as mainstream Muslim Qur’an commentators now have it? Just how is this to be done? Who would do it? A committee? What committee? And how would it acquire sufficient authority to command belief from -- Believers?

No, there is another way, or many other ways. And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult. Meanwhile, authorities would engage in wholesale efforts to explain, both to the population of Europe and to the Muslims in its midst, the real nature of Islam. They would explain why it is encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis (the fatalism of Islam -- just look at the "wake-me-when-it's-over" attitude of the Iraqis as the American soldiers struggle to rebuild, or build, a country that is populated by people who in the main are innately and immutably hostile to Infidels, but want to be transformed by those Infidels into New York -- and in a New York minute), intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) and moral failure (the bland acceptance of the division of the world between Believer and Infidel, and the belief that it is right, it is just, to treat the Infidel, no matter what, as an inferior being and an enemy no matter how generous and open-hearted he may be, for after all he remains an Infidel, and not even to grasp the possibility that Infidel peoples and polities, too, no matter how small, deserve to survive, and to possess rights that do not depend on Muslims).

Then one might engage in efforts to convert the Muslims of Europe -- persistent efforts that would either work in some cases, or drive those who were worried or offended to leave Europe for "safer" regions in the dar al-Islam. Both results are desirable. And both would make it clear just what kind of a "clash of civilizations" is now in the offing.
DAB? You still have your head somewhere in Leviticus? If I don't respond tonight, not to worry. I should respond some time tomorrow. I'm not running anywhere.

[DAB]

Walk into your local mosque and say that.

You'd be suprissed I think how often I do walk into Mosques. I think you'd also be supprised how confident I am that if I did say that...people would get the joke.


No problem. Go right ahead. Waiting...................

From the King James Version....

I'd start with Leviticus 20 - with its classic and immortal line on Homosexuality.

Then there is the wonderful Leviticus 24:20 which suggests all sorts of wonderful things. One would imagine that the amputation of limbs, the gouging out of eyes and all sorts of other forms of Justice are allowed because of this. After all, God says its all right

Now I must admit I don't understand Leviticus 24:22... perhaps you could help me there.

Leviticus 25:44 - the enslaving of non-believers...well I never.

If I can ever find a copy of the Giddions Bible I was shown once, I'll be happy. I seem to recall a wonderful part of Leviticus there which suggests that rape is alright if you promise the father of your victim that you will marry them.

But lets get to the point shall we. You will suggest that these quotes are taken out of context and anyway, the bible is open to interpretation.

So why not give the Korran a break and give its readers the same degree of credit you (and I for that matter) claim for yourself


I apologise for the delay in this post...other then the Giddions bible I mentioned above, I've never read the bible in English and thus it took me a while to find the quotes

[joea]

I see deport millions of people, how to do that without provoking civil war or installing a facisoid government in Europe. :nope:

[DAB]

My turn perhaps to be pedantic and ask where Avon is.

...shall I make a few comments about how I can wait etc etc etc.

[Hitman]

18 replies and not a single proposition of what to do....not even a radical one :o

Will keep watching this topic and intervene when someone suggests at least something specific :roll:

[joea]

18 replies and not a single proposition of what to do....not even a radical one :o

Will keep watching this topic and intervene when someone suggests at least something specific :roll:

Did you not read the article Avon Lady posted?

In summary: stop immigration and deport the muslims here (oh find "creative" ways to do that) ... :huh:

Hence my comment about it's impossibility. Well I admit it would be possible to stop immigration...

[Iceman]

Dab..you crack me up.Your point is right though.Interpretation is the key here.Let me try to help you out though.Followers of Christ were/are instructed to follow one law.The law of LOVE.Love works no ill period.I have tried to explain the difference between the "Old" Testament and the "New" Testament before here and I hope you will understand that the "Old" Testament and it's specific laws were laid down in a time "Before" Christ....After Christ's crucifixtion on the cross...ALL humans have only ONE way into the kingdom of God and that is thru Jesus Christ.....Period.There are no more laws except one...LOVE.In that if you...LOVE....and really LOVE God ...well then you probably won't want to have slaves...or kill...or steal...or do anything ill twords another human being or Yourself....

I do not know one Christain alive today that is saying they are living according to the Old Testament.....All I am trying to say and get at is...hum...what do Christians really go by?...they go by what was laid down by Jesus Christ....In the New Testament..NOT the Old.


Now...the point I think myself and Avon and maybe others are trying to get at is....WHAT?....do Muslims of today actually interpret as the correct way to follow there belief....that's what I want to know....Cause I am Telling you NOW...that I do not and am not under the Old Testaments commands...I am under the New..so plz do not try to draw comparisions between Muslims and Christians because any Christian you ask is going to tell you the "New" Testament is what they follow.

I can't get a straight answer from one Muslim on this board and I suspect that reason is that they are instructed to follow ALL of the Koran to the letter....I have asked before I ask again to any Muslim here....WTF do you believe in and what part or parts of the Koran are subject to personal discretion or interprettion.


P.S. Hitman...tonight I will write as to what is to be done about it actually just had to address the comparision between religions...they are all as different as the rainbow from what I see.

[bradclark1]

Deleted.
I'm not going to go there.

[Kapitan]

cant ban it cant stop it cant out rule it

LIVE WITH IT

[caspofungin]

I can't get a straight answer from one Muslim on this board and I suspect that reason is that they are instructed to follow ALL of the Koran to the letter


ask a straight question, i'll do my best to give you a straight answer.

[TteFAboB]

Well, I live with 186 other million people, I've been researching but can't find one single accurate statistic about the number of Muslims in my country, I do not know if I can even quote this because I can't find the source or the methodology used, but the statistics I found point we have between 1 million up to 2 million Muslims walking around, however I do not know the accuracy of this, it fits some graphs and pies well, but how realistic is it?

Muslims were originally brought here inside slave ships, they were brought from Sudan and neighboring regions and since stepping foot they only caused trouble, insurrections, rebellions, revolts, murder, etc.. There was plenty of blood and no respect or tolerance for the "people of the book", they dealt with us as they deal today with the Black Africans in Sudan, Gabon and wherever else.

The solution back then was the brutal iron hammer of the state, you know, capture them alive, trial, and execute the ringleaders, do not let rebels go unpunished and stop bringing new Muslim slaves. Sounds pretty much like what Avon Lady sugested, Muslim = Problem, no Muslim = No problem. Thank Stalin for that one. And it sure worked back then.

Nowadays, I had a neighbor from Iraq once, he was escaping Saddam's brutal wrath, he didn't dressed in pajamas, his wife and children didn't wore that "scarf" on their heads and they quickly made new friends as they were friendly, open, and with MUCH effort learned Portuguese eventually studying at a local school. During the time they spent here I did not see ONE single Islamic manifestation, did they get along so fine because they were NOT very Muslim at all?

We get along with Catholics and Christian sects, we get along with Spiritism, we get along with many trends of Bhuddism and we have (black) African cults among a few other minorities, is this cohexistance possible because Muslims are part of the minority? I've NEVER seen a Muslim women dressed traditionaly anywhere in this country during all my life, be it even at the TV, a Magazine, anywhere, is it because the traditional fundamentalist Muslims are not present in this society?

Honestly, I'm glad for all of this, I'm glad Muslims are a minority and I'm glad the few Muslims we do have would be considered Infidels in Meca because they are not fundamentalists enough.

So, my answer is to get rid of the problem, get rid of the Muslims, as the Portuguese did, stop the inflow of Muslims, halt all Muslim immigration, then ban all Muslim women from having children, every Muslim women who walks into a Hospital to give birth should be aborted and the baby should be sent to Stem Cell research or whatever use can be made of it.

Next expand the European families, instead of having 1 or 2 kids, Europeans must have 10 or 13 kids and later gradually reduce this number as the native European population majority is assured in the future.

You can also prosecute some Muslim authorities for hypocrisy, the Muslim authority over here likes to blame all problems in the Middle East on Israel, Europe or the USA, when he rarely gets to speak somewhere, he criticizes the Western world for one thing or another, and always speaks the default speech that they are the true Muslims, terrorists are fake Muslims, fundamentalism is not bad, etc. etc. There is no room for people like this in here generating hate and enslaving an entire herd of people, only god knows what they're saying in those Mosques, these kind of people must be banished back to Meca.

We have many immigrants from the Middle East: Arabs, Turks, Syrians, Lebanese, Armenians, they dropped their traditions, conflicting culture and religion when they immigrated and this is why they integrated so well and in harmony, we live in the most multi-cultural society of all because there is no clash of civilizations, the immigrants dropped Islam to embark on our current century, and these will always be welcome, come all Arabs, but leave Islam at the door.

Radical enough?

[Iceman]

I can't get a straight answer from one Muslim on this board and I suspect that reason is that they are instructed to follow ALL of the Koran to the letter


ask a straight question, i'll do my best to give you a straight answer.

OK....Avon Lady quoted this one a few days back and was not answered with any thing substantial only physco babbling comparisions with the Bible.

Surah 5, verse 38:

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power

Where EXACTLY is this to be followed or not to be...and is that maybe the problem with Islam that it does not make itself clear enough or does it leave itself an "Out" so as not to take responsability for it's actions...?

My meaning in that people continually try to draw a direct connection in that Christians did these things in the old days of the Bible so hence it must be accepted behavior now...I tell you it is Not accepted behavior and I state "Why"..."IE"...under a new law... a New Testament is why we do not follow the "Old Ways".

Where ...if any... is the text in the Koran that says anything different than the above verse and how to deal with a thief?

We'll start there..don't give me opinions give me quotes from the book.


From Konovalov
The reference to male or female in the Holy Qu'ran for the Surah and Ayah that you quoted tie in with the Sharia and this is applicable if that person is a healthy adault, i.e. NOT a minor or a mentally disturbed person. This rule applies to hadd or hudud, tazir, and qisas crimes which are basically the groupings for the seriousness of the crime.

And further with regards to Ayah 38 of Surah 5 where this part of the Qu'ran touches on jurisprudence. The Canon Law jurists are not unanimous as to the value of the property stolen, but the vast majority hold that petty thefts are exempt from punishment such as the cutting off of a hand.

Perhaps you don't get it AL. May be you should stick to the Torah and Halacha.

To me...what Konov is saying is that if a person is a quote "Normal" adult male or female and they steal....they lose a limb?...did I read this right?...

To me you saying the "the vast majority hold that petty thefts are exempt from punishment such as the cutting off of a hand" only says to me that those who don't follow this are in Error and to considered an infidel themself....help me out here.

Where are the vast majority allowed to decide this?

[The Avon Lady]

Walk into your local mosque and say that.
You'd be suprissed I think how often I do walk into Mosques. I think you'd also be supprised how confident I am that if I did say that...people would get the joke.
Yes, I would.
No problem. Go right ahead. Waiting...................
From the King James Version....

I'd start with Leviticus 20 - with its classic and immortal line on Homosexuality.
What about it? The Torah views homosexuality as a capital crime. No one versed in Halachah (Jewish legal code), disagrees. There's no room for interpretation.

Having said that, ask yourself:

1. Why has there not been a single case case of carried out capital punishment by a Jewish court of law for over some 2200 years now? The answer is because with the degradation of morality within the Jewish nation in those time, came a response from the judges themselves and the rabbis of the times that such cases should no longer be tried because massive executions is NOT the goal of the Torah and its laws. BTW, even murderers, which I think we can all agree upon that their crime is abhorent (though we may disgaree on the punishment they deserve), cannot be executed upon a guilty verdict, from that time until this day.

Compare this history and the facts that bear it to Islam's sanctioning of capital punishment non-stop sinc its inception some 1400 years ago.

2. Even if Jewish capital cases still existed, they can only be held in the land of Israel. The only exception would be if another country would permit such court cases within their sovereign territory. Never did happen and I don't expect it will. And again, capital punishment cannot be meted out today anywhere.

Islam requires all capital cases to be tried anywhere and at any which time. Any country under Islamic rule (Sha'aria), will carry out such executions on those found guilty.

3. There is no Jewish concept of imposing Jewish law on non-Jews anywhere outside of the land of Israel.

I quoted for you Quran 9:29 above but you laughed at me. Control of other countries, the imposition there of Islamic law and the subjugation of its inhabitants that do not convert are a basic tennet of Islam and have been in practice from the start of Islam until present day.

4. There is no concept of actively proselytizing non-Jews to seek their conversion.

Islam, like much of the Christian world, is big on proselytization and employs numerous methods of persuasion and force to achieve that goal.
Then there is the wonderful Leviticus 24:20 which suggests all sorts of wonderful things. One would imagine that the amputation of limbs, the gouging out of eyes and all sorts of other forms of Justice are allowed because of this. After all, God says its all right
Never has there been a Jewish court, rabbi or legal authority that took "an eye for an eye, etc." literally.

Judaism's law code is based on a foundation of the written law, the Torah, and the oral law, both handed down to Moses at Sinai. The oral law here has never been disputed.

There might be an exception. The Kaarites and possibly the Sadducees may have taken these verses literally. However, I don't believe there's any documentation that they carried such literal punishments out.

Even if they did, be aware that mainstream Judaism does not even view Kaarites, Saduccees and similar sects of old, as part of the Jewish nation. They are easily seperable as them versus us.

You'll find a few Kaarites still lingering around the world today. Holler if you feel threatened.

Now I must admit I don't understand Leviticus 24:22... perhaps you could help me there.
Not sure what you're referring to. Here are verses 21 and 22:

21. And one who injures an animal shall pay for it. And one who strikes a person shall be put to death.
22. One law shall be exacted for you, convert and resident alike, for I am the Lord, your God.

The last half of verse 21 is referring to a murderer, not someone who slaps you silly in the face.

Verse 22 is referring to the application of the Jewish code of law, in these cases, to all Jewish residents of the land of Israel, whether born Jewish or converts.
Leviticus 25:44 - the enslaving of non-believers...well I never.
Neither have I. Again, ask yourself why the practice of "slavery" has not been seen in the Jewish nation and in Jewish law for some 3000 years now.

But again, look into Jewish law - not subject to interpretation amongst us adherent Jews - and you wind up with the following:

The Ultimate Glamour Slammer (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2040)
"If you buy a Jewish slave..." (Leviticus 21:2)

McKean Federal Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania, USA reminds visitors of a college campus. It's housed in a low-profile building, decorated inside in a gray and salmon Navajo motif. Inmates stroll on concrete walkways to classes in basic reading skills, masonry, carpentry, horticulture, barbering, cooking and catering.

In August 1962, Kerala, India opened its first prison without walls. Viewed as an experiment, the prison holds 280 of Kerala's 5,308 prisoners. The open prison is known for treating prisoners with respect and entrusting them with responsibilities for work on the rubber plantation, personal chores and cooperation within the prison community. To date, there has been only one repeat offender.

And a revolution is taking place inside San Francisco's Jail No. 7 and Jail No. 8, known as the "glamour slammer." The 700 cons inside, doing time for everything from drug possession to armed robbery, mostly stay in open dormitories and spend up to 12 hours each day in some of over 50 separate treatment, counseling, training and education programs. Prisoners can join counseling groups, such as Tools for Healing, Drama Therapy, or take yoga and meditation classes. The idea is to break the cycle of violence by transforming the typical jailhouse culture of humiliation and violence into one of dignity and healing.

In this week's Torah portion we learn of the eved ivri. Eved ivri is usually translated as "a Hebrew slave". However, an eved ivri is a far cry from the typical picture of a slave. For starters, his maximum period of indenture is six years. It is forbidden to give him demeaning labor such as putting shoes on his master. His master must share whatever food he has with his 'slave'. If the master eats white bread, he may not give his slave dark bread. If he drinks wine he may not give his slave water. If he sleeps on a soft bed he may not give his slave straw on which to sleep.

Not only that, but if the master only has one pillow, the slave gets the pillow. And should the slave become ill and costs his master hefty medical bills, he owes his master nothing when he leaves. Some slavery!

How does a Jew become a 'slave'? One way is if someone steals and cannot afford the restitution that the Torah mandates, then the Bet Din sells the thief to reimburse the victim of the theft. However, rather than locking up the thief and exposing him to all deleterious influences that a jail encourages, he is placed in the most positive of environments – a Jewish family home. Rather than subject his family to shame and starvation, the Torah requires the master to not only care for the slave but to support the thief's family as well.

In fact, the master must provide his slave with such excellent conditions that it may seem that rather than acquire a slave, the master has acquired for himself a master.

As enlightened as recent prison reforms may be, they hardly compare with the Torah's emphasis on rehabilitation, for three thousand years ago the Torah had already instituted the ultimate glamour slammer.


Real brutes, we Jews are, hey?
If I can ever find a copy of the Giddions Bible I was shown once, I'll be happy. I seem to recall a wonderful part of Leviticus there which suggests that rape is alright if you promise the father of your victim that you will marry them.
Only with the victim's consent. That is, if she wants to be married to this guy the rest of their lives, he's stuck with her. Not the other way around.

Other than that exception, forced marriages are against Jewish law. That applies equally to men and to women.

There were and still are problems with "arranged" marriages, in small ultra-religious circles. Amazingly, these marriages work out a great percentage of the time. But again, these marriages, when they don't work out, make victims out of both the husbands and the wives. An equal opportunity fiasco. I personally know of only 1 or 2 such cases, verses the 100s of couples who meet and marry under normal circumstances. And we all know that normal marriages don't always end up with the couple living happily ever after anyway.
But lets get to the point shall we. You will suggest that these quotes are taken out of context and anyway, the bible is open to interpretation.
Only to a limited extent. And even when there are different interpretations, they are on very detailed points. It is extremly rare to see 180 degree mirror opinions of any of the Torah's commandments. Please find such a case for me. My mind is drawing a blank.

Not so, Islam. What it says it what they do. It is the word of Allah and there are scriptual and historical precedents for Islamic religious scholars to back themselves up.
So why not give the Korran a break and give its readers the same degree of credit you (and I for that matter) claim for yourself
Well you decide, based on responses above, whether there really is a comparison or not and whether there is a threat of Torah weilding Jews forcefully (or otherwise) imposing Jewish laws and customs upon the rest of the world and blowing up their trains, planes, office buildings and hotels when they don't get their way.

I am super busy today. I will not be able to respond to any other posts or follow ups until tomorrow night or Sunday.

[sergbuto]

Strict immigration policy would certainly be of help. There are good examples, such as Finland.

Deportation for committing a crime.

Maybe, deportation for not getting a job for some extended period and respectively not paying taxes (I mean immigrants).

Restrictions on influence of religious organizations on children, such as not allowing creating kindergardens at the Mosque etc.

Conduct of foreign policy which will stimulate and support divisions inside the Islamic world and enhance disagreements between different Islamic countries

[Sixpack]

Straight to the end of thread:

Close borders for muslims now we still can. The muslims who are here can stay ofcourse but will remain a non-influential minority.

So basically it's very simple. It just takes balls to make the stand.

Democracy is about majority vs. minority (based on fair equal rights ofcourse).

As long as the number of muslims over here doesn't increase because of immigration, I'm fine, and so are they if they think about it. Polls show most Dutch people share my opinions. That's good to know.

However immigrated muslims can still outbreed us in the long run ofcourse. I dont think that will happen tho'. Money from the government has always been extremely generous. It was almost profitable for the poor people to have many offspring. That will come to an end too very soon. Even our most liberal party here (Green Left) says to support reforms now ! :rock:

Anyway, just dont build a mosq in/near my neighboorhood. I dont need the goatherd style-guys with beards and dresses anywhere near my house. And no, that's no prejudice. I've seen plenty of them near mosqs over here. Yuk.

[Hitman]

Ok, we have a double suggestion so far: Stop inmigration plus deportation :up:

The first one is easy to do, the second not that much. How do we deport muslims that are born here and have our nationality? Where do we deport them? Which country would admit f.e. a british radical muslim, deported from Britain because of being a radical muslim?

But anyway, the answer is good enough to proove one point I was willing to remark: Neither solution has talked about BANNING the Islam as a religion. I have heard many comments about the Islam being a bad ideology, so why don't we simply ban it? How come we talk about deportation, etc., and not about banning the ideas?

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


Where does it say that this fight has to be conducted with violence?

Isn't it possible to interpretate that the fight has to be dialectical? When you beat someone with arguments in a peaceful discussion, and he runs out of counterarguments, you are in fact turning him into submission. The sensation someone has when he looses on a discussion and runs out of arguments is the sensation of defeat and submission to the winner. Why does that this single part of the Quran have to mean physical violence?

Take this examples from the Bible:

Religious violence:

Numbers, 31: 1-3: God orders Moses to attack the Madians and kill them

Mateo, 10,32: "Don't you think I came to bring peace. I came but to bring the sword (Jesus said)"

Exodus 15:3 defines God as a God of war

Deuteronomium, 17: 2-7 Llapidation for all those who reverence another God

Capital punishments (Some examples of a HUGE list):

Exodus 21:17 death to those who blame their fathers
Exodus 22:18 death to the witches and magicians, same who talks bad against Jehova
Levitic 21:9 the daughter of the priest shall be burned for having sex
Levitic 24: 13-16 Llapidation to those who commit blasphemy
...

Discrimination of the women:

Levitic 27-34, the women have less value then men
Duteronomium 22: 13-29 llapidation of women who is found out not to be virging when she marries

This is related with the banning of Islam I mentioned before: We do NOT have a single argument to ban Islam as a religion, we just have arguments to ban and act against certain radical interpretations of the Islam. Same as against certain radical interpretations of the Bible, or against racism, f.e. Do we ban christianism also, just because their holy book says things like these? Or do we ban radical interpretations of this book?

We can't accept that the difficulties to identify some radicals must conduct to a general deportation of muslims, no matter which interpretation they do out of Quran.

[Gizzmoe]

Anyway, just dont build a mosq in/near my neighboorhood. I dont need the goatherd style-guys with beards and dresses anywhere near my house. And no, that's no prejudice. I've seen plenty of them near mosqs over here. Yuk.

It isn´t? What would you call it then?

[Abraham]

Hi Hitman,
I'm preparing an on topic answer for later today. This announcement is to put your mind at ease...
:rotfl:

[joea]

So, my answer is to get rid of the problem, get rid of the Muslims, as the Portuguese did, stop the inflow of Muslims, halt all Muslim immigration, then ban all Muslim women from having children, every Muslim women who walks into a Hospital to give birth should be aborted and the baby should be sent to Stem Cell research or whatever use can be made of it.


My fascists everywhere on this site. :nope:

[The Avon Lady]

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

This has nothing to do with race, creed or color. This has to do with whether an established belief system is essentially contrary to anything and anyone else who does not abide by it.

You say it isn't. I say it is. That does not make me a fascist.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

[Gizzmoe]

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

Just to clarify this, are you talking about every single Muslim on this planet or just radical Muslims/Jihadists that do something that is against the law in the country they live in? "Get rid of Muslims" is a broad statement, and as such it´s inacceptable.

[The Avon Lady]

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?
Just to clarify this, are you talking about every single Muslim on this planet or just radical Muslims/Jihadists that do something that is against the law in the country they live in? "Get rid of Muslims" is a broad statement, and as such it´s inacceptable.
Refer to the article I posted yesterday (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=416292#416292), one page back.

[sergbuto]

We can't accept that the difficulties to identify some radicals must conduct to a general deportation of muslims, no matter which interpretation they do out of Quran.

Western society has done similar things before. Maybe not mass deportation but mass isolation of so-called "communistic" countries by mounting an "iron curtain" and treating every citizen of those countries as a "commi". Surprisingly, it seemed to be a success. And one can't even really argue that communism ideas are bad (I do not mean totalitaristic attempts/experiments of their implementation).

[Konovalov]

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?
Just to clarify this, are you talking about every single Muslim on this planet or just radical Muslims/Jihadists that do something that is against the law in the country they live in? "Get rid of Muslims" is a broad statement, and as such it´s inacceptable.
Refer to the article I posted yesterday (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=416292#416292), one page back.

In the article it suggests:

No, there is another way, or many other ways. And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult.

Avon L, Could you please enlighten us to what you would do in your own words?

[Damo1977]

Avon Lady 2200 years of no capital punishment. Fair enough, so explain a missile up your arse/ass and being exploding in a thousand pieces, without a judge or excutioner :|\

[joea]

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

This has nothing to do with race, creed or color. This has to do with whether an established belief system is essentially contrary to anything and anyone else who does not abide by it.

You say it isn't. I say it is. That does not make me a fascist.

Sorry to rain on your parade.


Did I call you a fascist? That would be errr a bit offbase. I was reacting to the FAtob or however he's called and to the suggestion in the article. Deportation was used by facism (not Nazism though they thought about Madagascar once...) and communism ....

If blacks wanted to force KKK women to have abortions, what is that? Makes no sense does it. He said arabs are welcome but they must not be too muslim...HOW DO YOU MEASURE THAT?

I am worried about the deportation thing, immigration heck France stopped it already. I don't see how you can deport millions of people (and what critrea to choose a real muslim or not) without an authoritarian government which would threaten the liberties of the rest of us.

Otherwise I am sure the people concerned would not sit passively but we could provoke a civil war. You say it is not a matter of race and creed Avon Lady? In the hysteria such a move would entail what would happen to Arab christians or for example in the UK or Canada Indian Hindus??? They "look" like muslims to the lumpenproletariat....

Please answer everyone:

HOW TO DEPORT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN A DEMOCRACY.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon Lady 2200 years of no capital punishment. Fair enough, so explain a missile up your arse/ass and being exploding in a thousand pieces, without a judge or excutioner :|\
It's called war.

I've heard rumors that if a foreign entity has been attacking one's country and killing its citizens in several non-Geneva-Conventional ways, and plans on continuing to do so, that you are allowed to defend yourself by even killing such perpetrators before they've had a chance to smoke another cigarette.

That must be news to you, I suppose.

Furthermore, the vast majority of Israel's political and military echelons today do not for even a minute consult with Jewish law in any which way when making decisions to deploy such attacks. This is no different than the behavior one would expect from any other country, no matter of their religious or philosophical orientation.

Or did you think otherwise?

[Sixpack]

Anyway, just dont build a mosq in/near my neighboorhood. I dont need the goatherd style-guys with beards and dresses anywhere near my house. And no, that's no prejudice. I've seen plenty of them near mosqs over here. Yuk.

It isn´t? What would you call it then?

A matter of personal taste.

[The Avon Lady]

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

This has nothing to do with race, creed or color. This has to do with whether an established belief system is essentially contrary to anything and anyone else who does not abide by it.

You say it isn't. I say it is. That does not make me a fascist.

Sorry to rain on your parade.
Did I call you a fascist? That would be errr a bit offbase. I was reacting to the FAtob or however he's called and to the suggestion in the article.
Oops. My mistake. Sorry.
Deportation was used by facism (not Nazism though they thought about Madagascar once...) and communism ....
Was Winston Churchill a fascist?

[i]""Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble... A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions…"

The results were the expulsion of Germans after WWII (http://www.answers.com/topic/expulsion-of-germans-after-world-war-ii), a controversial topic on its own but nevertheless a non-fascist historical precedent.

And remember, all that would never had been necessary in the first place had the world taken the Reich's words at face value 7 or 8 years earlier. How many 10's of millions of inncoent lives were lost because of the policy of appeasement? Even back then, Churchill and others had the foresight to warn of the pending catastrophe.

If blacks wanted to force KKK women to have abortions, what is that? Makes no sense does it. He said arabs are welcome but they must not be too muslim...HOW DO YOU MEASURE THAT?
Maybe you can't. No one invented a Nazi-meter in WWII to measure the Naziness of Germans and their cohorts. We'd all be naming our children Otto and Eva had we been stupid enough to get boggled down on things back then at such a microscopic level.
I am worried about the deportation thing,
I am worried about the Sha'aria thing.

I am worried about the Caliphate thing.

I am worried about the Jihad thing.

But I am also worried about the deportation thing.

It's ugly, cruel and shattering. It's inhumane normally. These are not normal times. They will be less so as the years go by. And with each passing year, it will become more difficult to consider.
immigration heck France stopped it already. I don't see how you can deport millions of people (and what critrea to choose a real muslim or not) without an authoritarian government which would threaten the liberties of the rest of us.
Indeed, in times of national crisis or in a state of war, liberties are threatened and unintended injustices are carried out. It's always been like that. Sad but true.
Otherwise I am sure the people concerned would not sit passively but we could provoke a civil war. You say it is not a matter of race and creed Avon Lady? In the hysteria such a move would entail what would happen to Arab christians or for example in the UK or Canada Indian Hindus??? They "look" like muslims to the lumpenproletariat....
You said that - not I.

I do not know what a Muslim looks like. Describe one to me.

Heck! Do you think I can spot every Jew I pass by?

Some form of actual identification of faith is essential.
Please answer everyone:

HOW TO DEPORT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN A DEMOCRACY.
Planes, trains, boats and buses.

[sergbuto]

I am worried about the deportation thing, immigration heck France stopped it already. I don't see how you can deport millions of people (and what critrea to choose a real muslim or not) without an authoritarian government which would threaten the liberties of the rest of us.

During WW2, US Government put all the US citizens of the Japanese origin in camps. Up to day, US are still recognized by the whole world as a democratic country.

It feels like war nowdays as well. Isn't it? So what is the choice?

[The Avon Lady]

Anyway, just dont build a mosq in/near my neighboorhood. I dont need the goatherd style-guys with beards and dresses anywhere near my house. And no, that's no prejudice. I've seen plenty of them near mosqs over here. Yuk.
It isn´t? What would you call it then?
A matter of personal taste.
No. This is prejudice.

Goatherd style guys? I don't like many fashion statements but I would never dare consider basing the limitation of someone else's rights on that.

Beards? So, all men (and some women :dead: ) must all be clean shaven now, regardless of their beliefs? Wow!

Men with beards and dresses? Yeh, Scotsmen are like that. It's the bagpipes I would protest against. :rotfl:

[Sixpack]

You're wrong, Avon Lady. I am surprised. But then again, the ME is a confusing place. I don't want my country to become like that.

You only care for Israel.

PS What I also dont want in my neighboorhood:

-Gay parades
-Neo nazi's
-Jewish orthodox
-Serial killers
-Beggers
-etc. use your imagination

I like to think I have something to say about the direct environment I live in. Taste. My neighboors feel the same and that means more to me than opinions here from distant places.

[joea]

Sixpack, just schedule all those folks to parade AT THE SAME TIME. Problem solved. :-j

Seriously, someone mentioend the Japanese Americans, lots fewer numbers that we are talking about here. Still, I do know Greece and Turkey "exchanged populations" (mutual deportation) after WWI... was a bit harder for the Greeks...and my family traces back to Cappadocia, sad difference is we were there first. :cry: Oh well, glad to be born in Canada.

[Sixpack]

Sixpack, just schedule all those folks to parade AT THE SAME TIME. Problem solved. :-j


I'd be cool with that ! :up:

[The Avon Lady]

You're wrong, Avon Lady. I am surprised. But then again, the ME is a confusing place. I don't want my country to become like that.
I did not realize that having people different than you in your community makes your country "different".

You are obviously referring to something bigger and more dramatic, like the extinction of one's culture and legal and social systems. This is not apparent in your words, which, taken for what you wrote, I find alarming.
You only care for Israel.
This is an insulting lie. :shifty:
PS What I also dont want in my neighboorhood:

-Gay parades
-Neo nazi's
-Jewish orthodox
-Serial killers
-Beggers
-etc. use your imagination

I like to think I have something to say about the direct environment I live in. Taste. My neighboors feel the same and that means more to me than opinions here from distant places.
Boy the way Glen Miller played.
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made.
Those were the days!

And you know where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare states.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old Lasalle ran great
Those were the days!

:nope:

Stifle yourself, Sixpack!

[Sixpack]

Getting emotional, Lady ? Weird stuff.

But maybe it's not:

Irrational fear of deja vu:
http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/Legalized_Jew_Hatred.asp

Does your husband wear an Jewish-orthodox beard (and hairdue even) ?
http://www.terragalleria.com/images/middle-east/isra10205.jpeg

Anyway, no worries. I simply dont believe in free for all.

[The Avon Lady]

Getting emotional, Lady ? Weird stuff.
No.

Nostalgic for good TV. Yes.

But maybe it's not:

Irrational fear of deja vu:
http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/Legalized_Jew_Hatred.asp
You've lost me. What is the relevance of this link to what I've said?
Does your husband wear an orthodox ME-style beard (and hairdue even) ?
Clean shaven. But we have plenty of neighbors and some relatives who fit the description. So what?!
Anyway, no worries. I simply dont believe in free for all.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Sixpack]

But maybe it's not:

Irrational fear of deja vu:
http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/Legalized_Jew_Hatred.asp
You've lost me. What is the relevance of this link to what I've said?


Heh, despite your major issues with islam and Palestines, perhaps the Jewish trauma of WW2 is even greater still. As a consequence you may even fear that muslims in Europe could end up facing similar intolerant radical stuff. Seemingly far-fetched but nonetheless a possible explanation of your former replies.

It would be the same tragic old mistake which prevented earlier measures. The mistake to confuse current affairs in Europe with Neo Nazi(~hood?). I certainly dont want a Fuehrer, but I want the European majority to be heard and politically followed.

[Sixpack]

Meanwhile, have a look at the latest islamic victory in my hometown (luckily other (east)side of town separated by a river; the other mosq is only 2 km away from that mosq :roll: )

Oh, it's gonna be so great. Cant wait ! Allah Akhbar ! :roll:
http://reeskamp.typepad.com/selimiye/images/do04.JPG

PS Changing profile again to 'Friggin' Holland.

[Hitman]

Well the discussion has been improving a lot :D

Will make some replies now, this is the second time because the first one got lost due to striking a bad key :damn: , so I will be more direct (Tired of typing already :P ):

If a black community wanted to get rid of a Klu Klux Klan office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?

If a Jewish community wanted to get rid of a Nazi party office in their neighborhood, is that fascism?


That depends on two things:

1-Wether the ku-klux-klan and nazis are meeting on the office just to discuss their ideas and blame the jews & blacks, or wether they are commiting violent acts against those groups

2-Wether the action to take by blacks and jews is to go to the Police and Court or to take the justice in their own hands and act as irrationally and illegally as the nazis or ku-kulx-klans

I do have anything against people being nazi or racist, as long as they don't pretend the rest to be like them through violence, and as long as they don't use violence against anyone. Same goes for any measure taken to eliminate radical groups, wether they are islamic, nazis or whatever. As long as this is done by the police and courts, using a legal and democratic procedure, I have no problem.

Just to clarify this, are you talking about every single Muslim on this planet or just radical Muslims/Jihadists that do something that is against the law in the country they live in? "Get rid of Muslims" is a broad statement, and as such it´s inacceptable.

I agree completely. This is an unacceptable generalization, even if the ideas are wrong, what matters is what the individuals or groups that have them do towards the rest of the society.

Western society has done similar things before. Maybe not mass deportation but mass isolation of so-called "communistic" countries by mounting an "iron curtain" and treating every citizen of those countries as a "commi". Surprisingly, it seemed to be a success. And one can't even really argue that communism ideas are bad (I do not mean totalitaristic attempts/experiments of their implementation).

The "Iron Curtain" was created by Stalin, not by the western countries. Same with the Berlin wall. In our western countries we had (Including the USA, BTW) legal communist parties most of the time, and there was no problem with that. They simply acted in the frame of our Constitutions and respected others that did not think the same. That granted a peaceful cohexistence.

2200 years of no capital punishment

Certainly not because the Torah does not include capital punishments, but because (As the Avon Lady rightly said) the courts and rabbins did a reasonable interpretation of it, far from radicalisms. Good proof that it is the interpretation and not the supposed doctrine of the holy texts what counts. So what is the problem with Islam then? Ain't it possible to do a reasonable interpretation of it? It certainly is, same as of the Torah and Christian Bible. The main difference is that Islam is being used for political purposes by certain groups/countries.

Was Winston Churchill a fascist?


Very close. He even said that the biggest problem in Britain is not having had his own Adolf Hitler (Of course that was said long before WW2) And britain has its own fascist party before WW2. But above fascist in some aspects, he was a brit, and thus he would do anything to save his country from any danger.

During WW2, US Government put all the US citizens of the Japanese origin in camps. Up to day, US are still recognized by the whole world as a democratic country.


Democracy is a form of government, determined by the way the leading class is elected in a state. It has nothing to do with that country respecting or not the human rights declared by the ONU, something the US has not always done. Guantanamo is a good example of what shouldn't be done. If 99% of people in a country vote for hanging suspected criminals before a previous impartial trial, that might be democratic, but it will be against human rights. There is a difference.


Now to some of the solutions proposed:

1-Stop inmigration: What inmigration? Inmigration of radical islamists or any islamist? Are they all the same? How do we distinguish?

2-Deportation of radical non-citizens: Good. But what do we do with the converted muslims that are citizens? How do we deport them?

You are starting to face the REAL problem: Do we ban the Islam as an ideology/religion? Or do we ban simply radical interpretations of it, by punishing acts against the law or provocation to disobey and violence?

[Sixpack]

1-Stop inmigration: What inmigration? Inmigration of radical islamists or any islamist? Are they all the same? How do we distinguish?
?

We have enough of them here already i.m.o. So, a.f.a.i.c. anyone from an islamic state/background unless assumed to be of a non-islamic religion (for example: a Christian prosecuted in Iran).


2-Deportation of radical non-citizens: Good.

I think that part is done then.


But what do we do with the converted muslims that are citizens? How do we deport them?

We can't deport that categorie nor is there a need to do that

We are troubled by the dilemma you mentioned because we one day separated our churches (that defined our Euro-culture) from state. Remember: WE DID that but THEY did NOT (like we did)! (I refer to my other thread: How do I become a muslim?).

Like Skybird said: We have an eroded culture. That's why we struggle so much with this issue. Had we had a strong identity ourselves and true self belief in our principles things would not have come this far.

It's amazing how that undereducated minority of radical muslims confuses the hell out of everybody.

[Sixpack]

Or do we ban simply radical interpretations of it, by punishing acts against the law or provocation to disobey and violence?

No that practically proves too difficult under our legal system, so we have to be pro-active for a change and not leave it to the courts to decide.

[sergbuto]

The "Iron Curtain" was created by Stalin, not by the western countries. Same with the Berlin wall. In our western countries we had (Including the USA, BTW) legal communist parties most of the time, and there was no problem with that. They simply acted in the frame of our Constitutions and respected others that did not think the same. That granted a peaceful cohexistence.

The whole thing stated in 1917 as well-known boycott of bolshevick's Russia by western countries when bolshevicks refused to continue the war against Germany. Stalin was not in the power then but later greatly contributed to "iron curtain" as well. But even nowdays embassies of the western countries treat ordinary Russian people as animals when they want to apply for a simple turist visas to travel and see the world. Russian embassies are no better but it is known that Russia is not a democratic country.

And "a peaceful cohexistance" claims always remind me about the senator Mackarthy (or whatever spelling of his name is) times.

Anyhow, what I was trying to say is that western democracies have experience in isolating and blocking the danger of this sort (now it is about Islam), no matter whether one likes it or not to hear about the methods used.

[Hitman]

Hmmmmm I don't think I can agree completely with that Sergei :hmm: (Though you have a good point there)

It is true that western culture was at least scared with the communism as it started during the industrial revolution (19th century), but that was mainly sorted by legallization of sindicates and communist parties. Yes, communist states like the USSR after 1917 were not always treated well diplomatically speaking, but that does not mean lying an iron curtain. Note that during the whole WW2 relations between UK, US and USSR were -understandably- fluent and it was the USSR who carried the whole weight of fighting germany in the continent (After June 1940 Dunkerke evacuation, the brits only fought directly against the german land troops in Africa until june 1943 when landings in Italy by the allies started!).

In all, we had legal communist parties, characterized by being required to respect the constitutional laws. That happened even here at Spain after 1975...the communist party was legallized long before the Iron Curtain fell. :yep:

So -noting tha the discussion starts to slow down- I want now to expose my opinion about how to deal with Islam. It is quite simple: We have a constitutional set of laws, we do recognize the rights of all humans according to the ONU declaration 1948, so we just demand from Islam -or any other religion- to respect that. Whenever there is a conflict between both ideas, Islam and constitution, Islam must give up. If they don't, they who break the law are to be treated as anybody who breaks the law, whatever consequences are established for that. I can agree with deportation of radical imans (Non-citizens) and with punishments to any citizen iman who inducts people to break the laws of the state. And I have the same opinion for any catholic preacher who inducts people to break laws (We have recently had here in Spain a terrible problem with the gay marriages...public servants were required by the Catholic church to object and not proceed to marry gay couples. This is unacceptable in my opinion).
Above all, including religions, is the right to a peaceful and free coexistance, and the minimum necessary for that is the limit to any religious idea. :up:

[caspofungin]

@Iceman

you forgot to quote the rest of the verse. as usual, quotes are out of context, misinformed. so let me continue it for you

"...But whoso repents, after his evildoing, and makes amends, God will turn towards him; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Knowest thou not that to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He chastises whom He will, and forives whom he will; and God is powerful over everything."


So although in certain situations, a thief may very well have his hand cut off, if he/she is repentant and makes an effort to recompense the victim, there can be no punishment.

is that the sort of straight answer you were looking for?

you should find things out for yourself, don't depend on what i or others say -- we all have our individual biases (will anyone else join me in admitting it?) you're entitiled to your own opinion, i only ask that you not base that opinion on hearsay or misinformation.

[caspofungin]

@TteFAboB
1. where are you posting from?
2. Nowadays, I had a neighbor from Iraq once, he was escaping Saddam's brutal wrath, he didn't dressed in pajamas, his wife and children didn't wore that "scarf" on their heads and they quickly made new friends as they were friendly, open, and with MUCH effort learned Portuguese eventually studying at a local school. During the time they spent here I did not see ONE single Islamic manifestation, did they get along so fine because they were NOT very Muslim at all?

What about being friendly, open, or making an effort to fit in is or isn't islamic? not very muslim? i don't pretend to know them -- but how do you know they didn't pray, or fast, or believe in God? what does "dressing in pyjamas" have to do with islam? Don't confuse culture and religion.

3. they dealt with us as they deal today with the Black Africans in Sudan

I'm from Sudan originally. I'll bet you anything you like if I put 2 people from Darfur in front of you, you couldn't tell me which one was the "Black African" and which one was the "Arab." What's going on in Sudan has more to do with culture and resources than religion -- the simple black and white Muslim vs Christian picture is a confabulation of Western media. There's Southerners in the government army, and theres Muslims in the rebel SPLA. So don't talk about stuff you know nothing about.

4. So, my answer is to get rid of the problem, get rid of the Muslims, as the Portuguese did, stop the inflow of Muslims, halt all Muslim immigration, then ban all Muslim women from having children, every Muslim women who walks into a Hospital to give birth should be aborted and the baby should be sent to Stem Cell research or whatever use can be made of it.

I'll say it first -- that's pretty racist. How much does an annual membership in the Nazi party cost, anyway?

If you said that about Jews, you'd be an anti-Semite. If you said that about blacks, you'd also be in trouble. But I guess its OK to say it about Muslims, because in a time of conflict, it's alright to ignore civil liberties and common humanities. Check the 1st post -- thats the ironic point he was trying to make, unless i miss my guess.

5. There is no room for people like this in here generating hate and enslaving an entire herd of people

LOL. so where are you going to move to?

[TteFAboB]

where are you posting from?

Brazil.

does "dressing in pyjamas" have to do with islam? Don't confuse culture and religion.

The Jew man on the top of this thread, is his clothing religious or cultural? You know the deal, I'm not talking about random clothing, I'm talking about relogious outfits designed to impose your sectarism over everybody else. By no means is this sort of behavior restricted to Muslims or religions.

I'm from Sudan originally. I'll bet you anything you like if I put 2 people from Darfur in front of you, you couldn't tell me which one was the "Black African" and which one was the "Arab."

I bet your are right, just as I couldn't tell any woman from another if they were both wearing "Burqas", but the same goes for you, if I put two Nissei (Japanese 2nd gen. immigrants) next to each other I bet you can't tell which one is the Xintoist and which one is a follower of Seicho-No-Ie, anyway that's nice, you could have distant family ties over here, if you could dig far enough into your faimly tree, who knows.

What's going on in Sudan has more to do with culture and resources than religion -- the simple black and white Muslim vs Christian picture is a confabulation of Western media. There's Southerners in the government army, and theres Muslims in the rebel SPLA. So don't talk about stuff you know nothing about.

Don't stress about Sudan, I just took the opportunity to use it because that's one of the places where the first Muslim immigrants came from, they slayed non-Muslims back then, they slay non-Muslims today, and the other way around, I'm not really talking about the big picture, just a genocide here and there, but thanks for your non-western media overview.

I'll say it first -- that's pretty racist. How much does an annual membership in the Nazi party cost, anyway?

It's cheaper than a trip to Meca, also, you earn Nazi bumper stickers to glue to your car, I have my own Nazi-mobile now.

If you said that about Jews, you'd be an anti-Semite. If you said that about blacks, you'd also be in trouble. But I guess its OK to say it about Muslims, because in a time of conflict, it's alright to ignore civil liberties and common humanities.

But we have some few anti-social orthodox Jews, they'd get the same treatment tomorrow if they started threatening our society, in the 20th century we deported a soviet (communist) Jewish agent into the hands of Adolf Hitler's SS, in the lack of the SS I'd say deport them to the Hamas. We also have a few African cults that involve the sacrifice of children, virgins or adults, we reached the conclusion these religious practices are outdated and criminal hence we arrest and sentence any African religious man commiting sacrifice of living beings in their religious rituals, so apparently you are wrong, I am a Nazi, an anti-semite AND a racist! But above all, I am pragmatic, just like Muhammed was, "there is no greater victory than turning your enemy against his kind", a wise man once said that.

No Muslim has the civil liberty or common humanity to give birth to 9 kids in Europe if that threatens the native European majority in the decades to come, you know how South America was conquered? By annihilating the native population by brute force and by drastically reducing their fertility levels, they were all reduced to insignificant numbers and the Europeans started procreating like Rabbits, the result, in 5 centuries natives are no more, in a few years one more native tribe will enter extinction as they only have 5 men and an old lady left, their untranslated language with the rest of their culture will disapear into the dust of history, if the future of the native Europeans is the same, then you can go back to Saudi Arabia and guarantee the next government is not a tyranical teocracy like Iran, then build a constitution, import western rights and go enjoy your western civil liberties over there.

LOL. so where are you going to move to?

I'm not moving, Veni Vidi Vici, we came, we destroyed the natives, now we have to stay, first come first serve, as long as you want to live in peace you are welcomed down here, but if you want to Jihad then it's a battle you already lost as you are utterly, thank god, outnumbered.

Now how about quoting me on the whole for a change, let's remember my plan of action on the whole:

Next expand the European families, instead of having 1 or 2 kids, Europeans must have 10 or 13 kids and later gradually reduce this number as the native European population majority is assured in the future.

So you see, the plan is to remember Europeans growing a family is fantastic and the way to continue to exist, instead of slowly fading away like native SA tribes, so if you put that before the Chinese-like child control proposal we can assume child control is an emergency measure to be taken in case the native European population continues to diminish and the Muslim numbers continue to grow uncontrolled.

If guaranteeing your survival, that of your family and of your culture is being a Nazi or a racist then I hereby declare all South American native tribes were Nazi's in their very nature as they fought to the bitter end against extermination by foreigners, if they had NEVER converted to Christianity, if they NEVER accepted European immigrants, then South America today would be divided between the Mayans, Incas and a bunch of smaller tribes and I, today, would be sitting in Milan organizing Nazi organizations to protect the native Italian culture.

Either way, I'm sending you and joea's invitations to my Nazi party for splitting my plan in two, censorship and deception are good Nazi qualities and you are both promising members, welcome aboard.

[Iceman]

@Iceman

you forgot to quote the rest of the verse. as usual, quotes are out of context, misinformed. so let me continue it for you

"...But whoso repents, after his evildoing, and makes amends, God will turn towards him; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Knowest thou not that to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He chastises whom He will, and forives whom he will; and God is powerful over everything."


So although in certain situations, a thief may very well have his hand cut off, if he/she is repentant and makes an effort to recompense the victim, there can be no punishment.

is that the sort of straight answer you were looking for?

you should find things out for yourself, don't depend on what i or others say -- we all have our individual biases (will anyone else join me in admitting it?) you're entitiled to your own opinion, i only ask that you not base that opinion on hearsay or misinformation.

As usual you give no specifics..AGAIN...you answer only with..look for myself..NP...And your lack of defensible quotes from your book only tell me you have none.

NP...Hitman....here is what WILL be done.

Matthew 25
[31] When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.



Revelation 20
[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
[13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Only Christ can rightly and justly judge....and look...See..he has made a place for all...you choose.I will let Christ decide what to do with the Muslims and the Christians and the Jews..I will treat people like I want to be treated in the mean time.

Thks for your informative insight into Islam Caspofungin I thank ya. :up:

A tree is known by it's fruits.....what fruit is Islam producing? or is it just a few bad apples?

Carry on.

[Abraham]

You're wrong, Avon Lady. I am surprised. But then again, the ME is a confusing place. I don't want my country to become like that.
I did not realize that having people different than you in your community makes your country "different".

You are obviously referring to something bigger and more dramatic, like the extinction of one's culture and legal and social systems. This is not apparent in your words, which, taken for what you wrote, I find alarming.
You only care for Israel.
This is an insulting lie. :shifty:
PS What I also dont want in my neighboorhood:

-Gay parades
-Neo nazi's
-Jewish orthodox
-Serial killers
-Beggers
-etc. use your imagination

I like to think I have something to say about the direct environment I live in. Taste. My neighboors feel the same and that means more to me than opinions here from distant places.
Boy the way Glen Miller played.
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made.
Those were the days!

And you know where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare states.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old Lasalle ran great
Those were the days!

:nope:

Stifle yourself, Sixpack!
This must be one of my favorite postings by The Avon Lady, that though kevlar helmeted steel eyed Sabra! Her new avatar certainly didn't mellow her down...
Sharp, straight, whitty, matronizing Sixpack like a real Über Mom and... no links!
I love her!

[Hitman]

But then again, the ME is a confusing place. I don't want my country to become like that.

I must recognize that the God of the jews probably does not love them very much when he gave them such a place as their land :huh: ...almost a desert, subject to continuous conflicts, and right in the middle of the most radical muslim communities :huh: I'd better have a God who promised me Hawaii or the Scheychelles :know:

[Abraham]

I must recognize that the God of the jews probably does not love them very much when he gave them such a place as their land ...almost a desert, subject to continuous conflicts, and right in the middle of the most radical muslim communities...
@ Hitman:
God did love His people: when the country was promised by Him it was overflowing with milk and honey, more or less like it is today again...
The Avon Lady will no doubt point out after the Sabbath that there were no (radical) Muslims around at that time. Life was so much better...
:D
By the way: also what we call now 'the Arab world' was not always a total desert. Ancient cultures in that region were highly develloped and the land was often fertile.
Think about the Garden of Eden and the old Mesopothamia... the craddle of human civilisation... the birthplace of human's greatest invention ever, the letter (otherwise I could not have written my next posting).
:D

[Abraham]

Here is my reaction, probably too long, but then, I used to debate a lot with Skybird...

First of all, I want to thank Hitman for bringing up this subject, the serious question: "what to do with Islam?" Excellent idea.

I want to analyse the European position and the perceived thread from both perspectives. A little bit of thinking about the background never hurts when faced with a problem.

I. What do we see?

Western (European) society with human values like they have never been reached before in European culture, human rights, extreme freedom, but also individualism, materialism and a growing lack of cultural and religious awareness...
We seem to suffer from Relativism: our values seem as valid as - or even less than - the values of others, our culture seems equal to - or even less equal than - the culture of others, and our religion seems as credible as - or even less credible than - the religion of other...
In my opinion you can only say these things if you don’t know your own values, morals and religion anymore, which is the basis for our current problems in Europe.

I want to name some of the great thinkers of the past, which helped to develop Western thinking about political theory and brought us the values and the freedom we are enjoying now – often while taking those values for granted:
Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, Macchiavelli, Erasmus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jean Bodin, John Althusius, Hugo Grotius, Spinosa, Thomas Hobbes, John Milton, John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Edmund Burke, Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Nietsche.
These names may seem irrelevant to many, but these men have led a spiritual and cultural struggle that is unique in world history. Their ideas often led to revolutions and wars to break down the moral and political power of the established order. Many hundreds of thousands of Europeans fought and died for those ideas consequently. Their thinking shaped our perspective…

II. What can we conclude from this list?

First of all, there are no Muslims present. This is remarkable because in the late Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance the Islamic culture was at its zenith and well connected with European culture. Obviously Muslims had nothing to add in the field of political theory…
Secondly, the first thinkers up to Erasmus were (at least nominally) of the Roman Catholic religion, the ruling cultural and political establishment. Then came the Reformers and after the Reformation there was little influence of the Roman Catholic church on the development of political thinking in Europe anymore. This has been one of the crucial turning points in our culture.
Thirdly and remarkably, few Jews did contribute to European political thinking and those who did were operating outside Judaism (Spinosa, Marx). Obviously also Judaism had no additional value for the development of our political thinking.
Finally, after the Enlightment and the separation of State and Church non of the major political thinkers can be considered as representing a religious denomination.

It is obvious: critical, progressive and political thinking had to liberate itself from uncritical and rigid dogma’s in order to evolve.
Obviously political theory had to break the chains of the Establishment over and over again to let those values evolve and to ‘tune’ them.

Islam is a 7th century religion uncritical rigid dogmatic religion with world ruling aspirations, but without a clear concept of state and a separation between state and religion, and therefore we cannot expect it to contribute to political progress. This is clearly demonstrated in almost all Islamitic countries: democracy is a farce, theocracy (Caliphate) the ideal, and dictatorship the rule…
Islam is also used to be the dominant religious and cultural force and is quite awkward in contacts with other religions and cultures when it is not dominant. Under those circumstances it has a natural tendency to resort to violence…

III. Both parties face serious problems.

European nations are faced with hundreds of thousands, sometimes even millions, of Muslims, of which the first generation either immigrated to former colonial powers or was invited to provide cheap labour. That last category was drawn from the lowest social class of a number of North African countries.
In the end, most of them preferred continue living in their host countries. Many of them adapt slowly into Western society. However, fundamental Islam works as a reactionary force, constantly fuelled by dialectic speeches from radical “import imams”. The result is that women have to give up their rights to dress the way they want, to learn the language of the host country (in the smaller European countries), to have sexual relations or marry the one they want, to earn money if they want, to integrate, in short, to be emancipated. Enormous social pressure is exercised upon the very few that openly break with the Islamic culture and adopt Western ideas, or try to do so.
Young men radicalise and turn their backs towards our (and their!) society...

Most of us see all this as a huge problem for our societies, and it certainly is, in my opinion. However, the problems Islam is facing are much bigger and much more fundamental.
For the first time in history a substantial number of Muslims is confronted with a superior political and social system, with freedoms that have been mastered from religions before and with an open society. The smart ones will realise this, count their blessings and pick up the opportunities to make personal progress. That is only possible when they adapt, integrate and give up (fundamental) Islam. The start of this natural trend can already been seen in some Western countries, where youth are not interested to go to mosques anymore and consider Islam a personal thing. Fundamental Islam perceives this - rightly - as a threat and is fighting back by sending radical imams, by sending huge amounts of money and by missionary activities among its most vulnerable group, Muslim young man.

IV. What to do?
It is inconceivable to me that radical, perhaps even fundamental Islam with its political aspirations, can exist in Europe without seriously undermining our own culture and its freedoms we value so much.
Two things seem therefore obvious to me: to strengthen ourselves and to weaken the influence of radical Islam.

Strengthening ourselves we can through realising what lucky bastards we are to live in such freedom, compared not only with other countries, but also seen in its historic dimension: there was never in history so much freedom and liberty for all.
Dare to say that we are proud of our superior culture and its superior values. It sounds very political incorrect, but we have to realise that political correctness leads to relativism which brought us into this mess in the first place.
Strengthening ourselves we also do by fighting off any attack on our freedoms.
Attacks from the side of Islam, even if that attack is disguised as a “demand of respect for a different culture” or a “manifestation of a different religion”.
We should realise that 'respect' is something even a religion - just like any human being - has to earn first and foremost...
But also attacks from the side of the eternal enemy of liberty, the Establishment, nowadays the almighty Nation state, that is eager to curtail or take away our human freedoms under false pretexts, just as the Roman Catholic church did during the Middle Ages and Islam is still doing today in the countries it controls.
Because only our freedom and our tolerance can help allochtone immigrants to integrate in Europe and make a succesful contribution to our society.
We should help integrate especially those Muslims who show a desire to do so.
Freedom, tolerance and human rights will be too tempting to resist for young generations of Muslims and will therefore be the focus point of attack by radical Islam.
We should not bulge an inch when freedom is attacked…

Weakening fundamental Islam by showing that our freedom of religion fully respects ‘foreign’ religions as well, as long as they are what they are, religions, and not theocratical political systems. As long as they direct themselves to the soul of the believer and do not strive to change our culture. As long as they remain within the limits of the law and accept our constitutional principles. As long as they accept the separation between State and Curch.
Weakening fundamental Islam we also do by stopping all attempts of fundamental Islam to obstruct integration of Muslims.
In practice that could mean a lot of administrative measures.
Forbidding radical imams to preach in mosque in Western Europe. Forbidding any attempt by fundamental Muslims to introduce restrictions to the freedom and liberty of all, especially Muslim women, even if it is done under the pretext of freedom of religion.
Forbidding the - often by imams stimulated - constant influx of traditional Muslim brides from North Africa, who teach the third and forth generation backwards values and hamper their integration.
Forbidding sexual mutulation of women under the pretext of religious rites.
This list should be extended whenever the individual freedom is harrased by the freedom of religion...
All this creates a constant conflict between two important freedoms, which should be solved by the only forum available: the Judiciary, the Courts of Law. Those are the essential rules in our culture and whomever can't abide to them better finds himself a more suitable society...

V. What should Muslims do with Islam?

The biggest task of all is not for us, but for Islam itself: if it wants to survive in Western Europe - and be a positive and relevant force in the world – it will have to take a hard and critical look at itself. It will have to take the hi-speed train through history to the 21th century and not get out before it has passed those stations of no return: its own Renaissance & Enlightment.
Only then it can live in peace with and within an other culture.

:zzz:

[Skybird]

V. What should Muslims do with Islam?


:up: That's what it comes down to.

Unfortunately, Islam is not the most flexible thing there is to make itself object to changes and analytical examination. What they should do, and what the could and will do are two different things, for that reason. That's why I insist on much stricter control of Muslim communities in the West.

It will have to take the hi-speed train through history to the 21th century

Not only that one...

[Skybird]

Strange isn't it, that christians and muslims have been fighting each other since the crusades with the "our version of God is better than your version of God"

Since the crusdaes? That is not really correct that way. Since the 8th century Islam had violantly pushed in three directions: North and northwest towards the hated orthodoxy in Byzanz, eastward towards india, and westward along the Christian (!) northafrican coast, and then into Spain and France. Often the people in Northafrica, who for the most were dominated by orthodox Christian rules from Byzanz (not the westroman tradition of Christianity), were not by force converted to Islam, but only became object to tax-collections by the Islamic rulers. Later, more by fiscal and economcial meaning, not so much by violance, they were convinced with more and more riprisals to convert to Islam "voluntarily", primary means to acchieve that were to avoid growing discrimination concerning taxes and the possession of land. Since these Christian's love for Byzanz was not too high, there willingness to militarily resit the muslim conquerors was limited, but present on a low scale (the absence of their military resistance explains why Islam made it so quickly to Gibraltar). The conquering of northafrica as well as the drive towards Byzanz were the two first attacks of Islam against Christianity. It then continued with the attack on the Western Goths in Spain. After Islam had been stopped in central France and pushed back to Spain, after the Islamic civil war, and several military conflicts between rivalling factions under the Califates established by the Ummayades and the Abbasides, two centers of Islamic power emerged over time, the one shifting from Mekka to Damascus and later to Baghdad 8and later got crushed by the momngoles there, 1256), the other beeing raised by a deafeted Ummayade Calif in Grenda. After the defeat of Byzanz longer time later, the Middle east was dominated by Muslim power, with Christianity defeated there. The european crusades were a defensive counterattack to win back ground that was lost to an aggressor, because as a consequence of Rome, Jerusalem and many territories in and around today's Israel and Lebanon, leading towards Syria and Byzanz, were christian soil at that time. The crusades were an attempt to gain back what was lost before (ignoring European inner-politics), like the (more successfu)l reconquest of Spain, and the liberation of Sicily (which also had fallen to Islam temporarily). After Islam took over Byzanz, in follwing times more and more Turkmen tribes from Northern Iran and northern Afghanistan moved westward, partially fleeing from Mongol tribes (that obliterated Bagdhad in the middle of ther 13th century). These Turkmen tribes saw more and more service in elite guards of Islamic rulers, and their warriors were wanted and competent figthers, later their ethnicity concentrated the influence they gained by this on the territory of today's Turkey, by that they became the later Ottoman empire, which again pushed Westward, along the Balkans, into Hungary, Austria and made it as fas as to the siege of Vienna.

Not until the modern present, and before: the age of colonialism and imperialism, Christian factions themselves aggressively reached out towards muslim territory. In the centuries until the age of imperialism, they had been in a defensive and often highly pressed posture against Islamic conquest. This is not been forgotten in parts of Europe. The high level of suddenly outbursting hate and hostility, the level of violance and barbarism that was to be seen between the groups during the Balkan wars in the nineties, cannot be explained by milosevic'S appearrance alone, it has roots leading back into history . the whole area had been Ottoman empire for centuries, and although in this part of the world the Ottomand had been >relatively< peaceful, but economicall ruthless exploiters, throughout all those centuries tensions and limited conflicts between Muslims and Christianties popped up time and again and led to occasional bloddsheds all over the Balkans. Kosovo and Bosnia are nothing new. they are centuries old centres of intercultural unrest.

[Hitman]

It is inconceivable to me that radical, perhaps even fundamental Islam with its political aspirations, can exist in Europe without seriously undermining our own culture and its freedoms we value so much.
Two things seem therefore obvious to me: to strengthen ourselves and to weaken the influence of radical Islam.

I agree completely with that, and this is the logic thing to do in our constitutional conutries: We tolerate Islam but not radical manifestations of it. Same as we tolerate conservative right-winged parties but not nazi skin-head groups who commit violent acts.

I don't see a difference between radical islamic groups and nazi skin-heads, they all are the same for me: People who want through fanatism to force others -and the whole society- to follow their rules. We had here in Spain some time ago, after Franco's death a group called "Warriors of King Christ" who performed violent acts in the name of God against communits, democrats and similars. They used to go into cinemas and stop the exhibition of films that supposedly were against their moral rules, and attacked people who demanded democracy. I can't see any difference between them and radical muslims except the method used (Self blowing with bombs), but both wanted their religion and moral to be the rule for all.

Islam interpretations, like christianism and any other interpretation of a religion, shall exist in our states only as long as they do separate accurately religion and politics. If people act like bad muslims and do not respect the rules of Quran, then they will not go to muslim paradise when they die, period. That is a personal decission everyone shall take, and muslims have no right to supercede the state laws with the Sharia. Same as christians have no right to supercede the state's law with rules extracted from the bible. That is the only way to guarantee a peaceful cohexistance frame for all. Other manifestations of radical interpretations who induct to violent acts or disobbeying the law, shall simply be punished like any other ordinary crime.

But of course that will never be an argument to banning Islam as a whole, it would be our own freedom's end if we did so...what would come next?

[Abraham]

@ Skybird:
Great posting.:up:
Knowledge is power!
(I decided that I had written enough for the day...)

@ Hitman:
I agree completely with you. You stand in the tradition of separation of State and Church (=religion).
... that will never be an argument to banning Islam as a whole, it would be our own freedom's end... That certainly would be a disaster for your Western values...

The decisive question remains: Can Islam operate accepting the Rule of Law of Western (host) nations and survive?

[Rockstar]

Since France, Germany, Russia were against the war in Iraq I thought it was their desire to protect their interests abroad. But since the outbreak of hostilities in France I wonder if what what is happening there now is what the leaders of the 3 above mentioned countries were really afraid of.

[Skybird]

Islam interpretations, like christianism and any other interpretation of a religion, shall exist in our states only as long as they do separate accurately religion and politics.

Please understand that Islam, basing on Muhammad and the Medina tradition, DOES NOT KNOW such a difference. It holds Politics and religion in one and the same hand. in this it is unique, and totally different than any other world religion. It is not me saying that, you can read that in any competent analysis on islamic sociology and history. Have you never noticed how damn many Arabs for that reason vote FOR the religiously motvated law of sharia as basis for the legal system in their countries, in egypt, Algeria, arabia, iran, Iraq, Afghanistan? The turkish court may have been decided different recently, but they are one of the last and retreating bastions of retreating laicism in Turkey. Espeically the young ones not living in the metropoples, and the orthodox old, are FOR Sharia in Turkey.

[The Avon Lady]

Strange isn't it, that christians and muslims have been fighting each other since the crusades with the "our version of God is better than your version of God" argument, while hindus and buddhists never fought any war caused by "our ways of achieving Nirvana is better than your ways of achieving Nirvana".
What? No one else knows a minimum amount of history to respond to this ignoramus? Let me start.

What came first? The Islamic invasion of Europe or the Crusades, which tossed Muslims back out of Europe?

Hindus? How many Hindus were slaughtered when Muslims invaded India, beginning in the 8th century?

Bah! Get an education.
Avon Lady 2200 years of no capital punishment. Fair enough, so explain a missile up your arse/ass and being exploding in a thousand pieces, without a judge or excutioner :|\
It's called war.

In the cases of Sabra, Shatila and Jenin, it's called massacres.[/quote]
Quick, fool, who slaughtered the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla?

Why did Israel invade Jenin? How many Palestinians died? How many Israelis?

Go ahead. Lie some more.
Expect future history books to mention them on the same pages as Lidice, Song My and Srebrenica.
No suprises here. Truth is irrelevant to the ilks you associate with.

[The Avon Lady]

Please understand that Islam, basing on Muhammad and the Medina tradition, DOES NOT KNOW such a difference. It holds Politics and religion in one and the same hand. in this it is unique, and totally different than any other world religion.
This is not true. In the concept of everything worldy being relevant to man's relationship to G-d, Islam mimics Judaism.

[Abraham]

@ The Avon Lady:
Just keep on reading the new postings, especially mine, and you will be happy.
:rotfl:

[Skybird]

Please understand that Islam, basing on Muhammad and the Medina tradition, DOES NOT KNOW such a difference. It holds Politics and religion in one and the same hand. in this it is unique, and totally different than any other world religion.
This is not true. In the concept of everything worldy being relevant to man's relationship to G-d, Islam mimics Judaism.

Okay, then there are two religions holding politics and religion in one hand. I do not claim to know much on Judaism. Would you say Israel is a laicist nation? Just curious.

[Hitman]

Please understand that Islam, basing on Muhammad and the Medina tradition, DOES NOT KNOW such a difference. It holds Politics and religion in one and the same hand. in this it is unique, and totally different than any other world religion. It is not me saying that, you can read that in any competent analysis on islamic sociology and history. Have you never noticed how damn many Arabs for that reason vote FOR the religiously motvated law of sharia as basis for the legal system in their countries, in egypt, Algeria, arabia, iran, Iraq, Afghanistan? The turkish court may have been decided different recently, but they are one of the last and retreating bastions of retreating laicism in Turkey. Espeically the young ones not living in the metropoples, and the orthodox old, are FOR Sharia in Turkey.


Yes I know what you mean, but that is not much different from the fascist party here at Spain concurring to the elections with the program of eliminating the democracy :88) Totalitaristic attitudes that want to wipe out democracy can concur to an election, that is one of the principles of our current civilization. Do we have to change that?

However, what counts in our democracies is how the rights of the minorities are respected, so from that point of view even a majoritary (51%) mulism party in the parliament shouldn't be able to change fundamental rights and freedoms. That's why I talk about strengthening our guarantees.

Anyway, for such a situation to happen, we should have in our countries a HUGE concentration of radical muslims. Is that the future? Who knows...

As you see the problem slowly starts shifting not towards the ideas themselves, but towards the people who sustain them being a majority :up:

Here is an example: Would we be equally alarmed if the fascists like LePen in France would have 51% of the parliament?

Probably.

Would we start thinking about deportation of the fascists in that case?

I don't think so.

[The Avon Lady]

Please understand that Islam, basing on Muhammad and the Medina tradition, DOES NOT KNOW such a difference. It holds Politics and religion in one and the same hand. in this it is unique, and totally different than any other world religion.
This is not true. In the concept of everything worldy being relevant to man's relationship to G-d, Islam mimics Judaism.
Okay, then there are two religions holding politics and religion in one hand. I do not claim to know much on Judaism. Would you say Israel is a laicist nation? Just curious.
I'm confused by your use of the term "laicist". From the dictionary:

la-i-cism (lay'uh siz uhm) n.
1. the nonclerical, or secular, control of
political and social institutions in a
society.
[1930-35]

The current State of Israel is mostly secular, with certain essential religious based laws to accomodate and compromise between its religious and non-religious citizens.

[xrvjorn]

[quote="The Avon Lady"]
Quick, fool, who slaughtered the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla?
[quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra-Shatila_massacre

[quote="The Avon Lady"]
Why did Israel invade Jenin? How many Palestinians died? How many Israelis?
[quote]

Since the area was cleared of journalists and the UN was denied entry until long afterwards, no one knows how many died. The mere fact that the UN and press was kept away, implies that there is was a lot to hide.

[caspofungin]

@iceman

As usual you give no specifics..AGAIN...you answer only with..look for myself..NP...And your lack of defensible quotes from your book only tell me you have none.

what? you asked for a specific quote, and i gave you one. is it my fault it doesn't make sense to you? and i'm not sure what you mean by defensible quotes. "What we have here is a lack of communication."

And I ask you to look for yourself, not because i have no answers, not because i've no defense, but becasue whatever i say is going to be biased by my personal interpretation. All i'm saying is that if you want a truly objective answer, you have to look to the source yourself with an open mind. If I want to learn about israel, i don't ask a palestinian and vice versa. I look up my own sources, and wiegh them according to how objective i think they are or aren't.

and i'm not sure how quoting from the bible is an example of a specific quote that has all the answers.

don't take this the wrong way, i honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make. i agree that politics and religion don't make a good mix.

[caspofungin]

@TteFAboB

you could have distant family ties over here, if you could dig far enough into your faimly tree, who knows.

unlikely, but possible. doesn't really matter to me. is it important to you to think that maybe one of your ancestors owned one of mine? and besides, we've our own slaves now -- if you believe everything you read.

just a genocide here and there, but thanks for your non-western media overview.

no, genius, i'm talking about the western media. plus, i'm sure the portuguese colonists would be able to teach anyone about repression and genocide.

It's cheaper than a trip to Meca, also, you earn Nazi bumper stickers to glue to your car, I have my own Nazi-mobile now.

sweet, if i'm ever in brazil, i'll know which car to key.

No Muslim has the civil liberty or common humanity to give birth to 9 kids in Europe

actually, they do. it's called freedom. and the day you, with your Brazilian ghettoes and class divisions and alleged non-racism and police death squads shooting street kids, has something to tell europe about humanity -- well, no offense, but that day isn't near.


Either way, I'm sending you and joea's invitations to my Nazi party for splitting my plan in two, censorship and deception are good Nazi qualities and you are both promising members, welcome aboard.

no you're just beaing mean, comparing us to you. look up "censorship" and "deception" -- then quote me a post where i've advocated either. you're perfectly entitled to your opinion -- just as i'm entitled to think that your opinion is close-minded, xenophobic, bigoted, and not very nice.

i believe -- strongly -- in liberty, equality, and common humanity, regardless of a person's age or race or gender or religion. it looks like you don't. now go play some soccer or shoot some street kids. and tell your president to stop watching pirated movies, he can afford to buy them legally.

edit-- sorry, that's unfair to all the brazilians i don't know. i shouldn't generalize or jumpt to conclusion, i know. apologies to them. but TteFAboB -- i still think you're an idiot. who's self-righteous.

[The Avon Lady]

Quick, fool, who slaughtered the Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra-Shatila_massacre
Thank you. As the article states:

The Sabra and Shatila massacre (or Sabra and Chatila massacre) was carried out in September 1982 by Lebanese Maronite Christian militias in then-Israeli-occupied Beirut, Lebanon, when Palestinian refugees were killed in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The Maronite forces stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who would later become a longtime Lebanese parliament member and in the 1990s also a cabinet minister.

The camps were externally surrounded by Israeli soldiers throughout the incident, and the militias had been sent in by Israel to find Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) members. However, Israel's culpability in the killings is hotly disputed, and Israel has denied direct responsibility, while finding certain Israelis, among them Ariel Sharon, indirectly personally responsible.

The massacre was done by Christian Phalangists. Not a single Israeli solder participated nor knew of it in advance. When it started, it was reported to IDF command.

Thank you for backing me up.

Next.............................

Why did Israel invade Jenin? How many Palestinians died? How many Israelis?
Since the area was cleared of journalists and the UN was denied entry until long afterwards, no one knows how many died. The mere fact that the UN and press was kept away, implies that there is was a lot to hide.
Or that it was a war zone or that the UN and leftist jouralists have been know to interfere in Israeli operations.

So now we've gone from facts to implications and faulty ones at that.

Well, what do you know! The UN itself disagrees with you. From the Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/10 (Report on Jenin) (http://www.un.org/peace/jenin/):

The number of Palestinian fatalities, on the basis of bodies recovered to date, in Jenin and the refugee camp in this military operation can be estimated at around 55. Of those, a number were civilians, four were women and two children. There were 23 Israeli fatalities in the fighting operations in Jenin.

You're a very lousy puff artist for the Palestinian terror cause.

[caspofungin]

i love the way an honest question on these forums degenerates into a slagging fest. sure, and i've done my part in inflamming some people. human nature, i guess, as evident on this forum as it is in real life.

[TteFAboB]

unlikely, but possible. doesn't really matter to me. is it important to you to think that maybe one of your ancestors owned one of mine? and besides, we've our own slaves now -- if you believe everything you read.

Unlikely, but also possible, none of my ancestors ever owned a slave, or at least not that I know of, however, if I could go deeper back in time, the chances would increase, say, early Roman Empire, if I ever travel back in time and figure it out I'll let you know, anyway, I would like if one of my ancestors had owned one of yours, the fact we are both talking today would prove how much we changed and how far from those dark centuries we have come, dropping old-fashioned outdated beliefs, such as owning slaves, to the past. Well, at least one of us left the 8th Century.

no, genius, i'm talking about the western media. plus, i'm sure the portuguese colonists would be able to teach anyone about repression and genocide.

No doubt, they managed to wipe out a ton of people, converted to Christianity those that were left and fooled their enemies to gain land, it's every Immam's dream!

actually, they do. it's called freedom. and the day you, with your Brazilian ghettoes and class divisions and alleged non-racism and police death squads shooting street kids, has something to tell europe about humanity -- well, no offense, but that day isn't near.

You forgot about entire regions left without decent education, some places don't even have electricity, and many others have no sewer, hey, that's not TOO far from Saudi Arabia! Well, except for the desert, didn't the Royal family spends billions on their credit cards and also imports dozens of luxury and sports cars? We'll get there, as soon as we have that much money to waste around, and as soon as we get a Royal family. I nominate myself for King, but I need a Queen, how many cows do I have to buy to trade for a woman in Sudan?

no you're just beaing mean, comparing us to you. look up "censorship" and "deception" -- then quote me a post where i've advocated either. you're perfectly entitled to your opinion -- just as i'm entitled to think that your opinion is close-minded, xenophobic, bigoted, and not very nice.

censorship

n 1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances

deception

n 1: a misleading falsehood 2: the act of deceiving [syn: deceit, dissembling, dissimulation] 3: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers.

You did excluded part of my plan to be able to call me a Nazi, but I'm glad you asked, because I think you are a very angry literal fundamentalist and not very nice either.

i believe -- strongly -- in liberty, equality, and common humanity, regardless of a person's age or race or gender or religion. it looks like you don't. now go play some soccer or shoot some street kids. and tell your president to stop watching pirated movies, he can afford to buy them legally.

Wait, wait a minute, who's liberty are we talking about here, yours or mine? Or which definition of liberty are we talking about, yours or mine? I see you don't tolerate my beliefs, I know that you believe I am an inferior Infidel, but as a "person of the book" I demand to be tolerated!

edit-- sorry, that's unfair to all the brazilians i don't know. i shouldn't generalize or jumpt to conclusion, i know. apologies to them. but TteFAboB -- i still think you're an idiot. who's self-righteous.

Thanks, you already called me a Nazi, a genius, mean, close-minded, xenophobic, bigoted, not very nice, street kid shooter and an idiot. It seems self-righteousness is the least of my problems.

[caspofungin]

if i'm getting bent out of shape, its because i strongly disagree with mass deportations and forced abortions, which is what you were talking about in your first post.

leaving aside the name-calling and getting personal, do you really think thats a rational or reasonable way of getting things done? if you do, then i'll exercise my right to disagree with you. and maybe i could be a little more mature or less personal, but you punched my buttons.

i'll be honest and agree with you -- about some things. the way saudi arabia is run is corrupt and a disgrace. sudan has gone froma western leaning democracy in the late 50's and early 60's into a backward, run-down backwater in a backward, run-down continent -- no sudanese will disagree with that. does that have to do with the nature of islam or the greed and self-service that's part of human nature? we could argue all day about that, and we have in the past. and i see you're getting upset about my unjust generalizations and invalid asumptions -- so you can imagine how i feel reading your posts and others on this forum.

I know that you believe I am an inferior Infidel

i've never had a problem with any one based on their religion, and i've never thought anyone inferior or superior to me based on their beliefs. honest truth. and i don't believe in censorship. show me the posts where i've insinuated that.

I think you are a very angry literal fundamentalist

and what post --exactly-- do i make it clear that i'm a fundamentalist? please quote it. and i do believe in personal liberties. if i believed that the way the taliban acted was the proper practice of islam (which i don't) then i wouldn't be posting on this board, i'd be off in afghanistan.

you did get one thing right -- i am "very angry." maybe i did go too far. maybe you're a really nice guy in person. but look at your first post, and tell me that's not going to incite a response -- a passionate response.

Your entitled to think that if i ever have a kid, you can rip it out of my wife and use it for experiments (not putting words in your mouth, you're the one that postd that). Do you agree i'm entitled to get upset about comments like that?

go right ahead, set me straight. quote the post where i've implied i'm superior, or that my religion is superior. quote the post where i've put down another religion. quote the post where i've advocated censorship-- the post where i've asked someone to not post, or retract their statement. you're the one talking about infringing the civil liberties of a population because of their religios beliefs. you're the one talking about enacting some of the same policies the nazis used against the "untermensch."

so please don't get all sarcastic and be all "look at the crazy muslim, you can't even talk to him" -- i found your post deeply offensive, and responded in kind. tell me i'm wrong, tell me i misinterpreted your post and got the wrong end of the stick, and i'll apologize, shamelessly and in public. but if what you posted is what you truly believe, then don't expect hugs and kisses.

[TteFAboB]

if i'm getting bent out of shape, its because i strongly disagree with mass deportations and forced abortions, which is what you were talking about in your first post.

Well, that's YOUR interpretation of it, I speak of halting immigration and preventing a population from overcoming another, the part about mass deportation is up to you, I have nothing against deporting certain Immams, but there aren't enough Immams anywhere to reach a "massive" level of deportation of them.

And here is why interpretation is everything, and this is my main point, your reaction depends on how you read it, you have found one way to get it, I can present you with more, but I will not bore you to death, suffice to say due to the apocaliptical nature of this thread I chose the most politically uncorrect way to transmit my message, as requested by the author of the topic:

Now I want to hear what you all have in mind as a solution for this problem. Fire away! I'm ready to hear about deportation, building walls, genocide, forced conversion to christianism/zionism, friendly talk, kissing, or any other solution you think would do it.

leaving aside the name-calling and getting personal, do you really think thats a rational or reasonable way of getting things done? if you do, then i'll exercise my right to disagree with you. and maybe i could be a little more mature or less personal, but you punched my buttons.

Certainly, stopping large masses of Muslim from immigrating, keeping their population under control and expanding the native European population seems like the way to go as far as the majority game goes.

Now, if you ask about "foced abortions", in practical terms that could even achieve some results, including many colateral ones, if you ask me if it's a rational or reasonable way I'll tell you under an emergency situation it is, but I don't speak this out of prejudice or Nazism, stopping a population from spreading their families is an effective proven method of reducing that population's number over time, look at East Timor, the Portuguese-speaking population has been nearly extinct using similar methods, in some regions the Chinese commit such athrocities to attempt to keep the population size under control. So, if necessary "forced abortions" would certainly work, but if you ask me such a thing would never be necessary.

i'll be honest and agree with you -- about some things. the way saudi arabia is run is corrupt and a disgrace. sudan has gone froma western leaning democracy in the late 50's and early 60's into a backward, run-down backwater in a backward, run-down continent -- no sudanese will disagree with that. does that have to do with the nature of islam or the greed and self-service that's part of human nature? we could argue all day about that, and we have in the past. and i see you're getting upset about my unjust generalizations and invalid asumptions -- so you can imagine how i feel reading your posts and others on this forum.

Agreed.

i've never had a problem with any one based on their religion, and i've never thought anyone inferior or superior to me based on their beliefs. honest truth. and i don't believe in censorship. show me the posts where i've insinuated that.

Relatively speaking, me neither, my views on Islam refers to the religion as a whole and to its representatives, not each individual Muslim.

When I say censorship I mean when you quote only one part of my post, it gives the impression all the responsability lies on Muslim babies and all the Europeans have to do is abort them to get rid of their problems. Since we were trading Nazi greeting cards I thought censorship was a word worth of Nazism.

and what post --exactly-- do i make it clear that i'm a fundamentalist? please quote it. and i do believe in personal liberties. if i believed that the way the taliban acted was the proper practice of islam (which i don't) then i wouldn't be posting on this board, i'd be off in afghanistan.

I don't even know you, so you are as much a fundamentalist as I am a Nazi, I could say you are a fundamentalist because you interpret (or don't) every word I write in your favor, but saying that would be equally opportunistic on my side.

you did get one thing right -- i am "very angry." maybe i did go too far. maybe you're a really nice guy in person. but look at your first post, and tell me that's not going to incite a response -- a passionate response.

Yes, but that was my goal, I came here for entertainment and was offered the possibility to post anything politically uncorrect, so I did it, I could post kind happy words but then it would just be another random useless post. Having this chat with you is something I will remember for a little longer.

Your entitled to think that if i ever have a kid, you can rip it out of my wife and use it for experiments (not putting words in your mouth, you're the one that postd that). Do you agree i'm entitled to get upset about comments like that?

Yes.

go right ahead, set me straight. quote the post where i've implied i'm superior, or that my religion is superior. quote the post where i've put down another religion. quote the post where i've advocated censorship-- the post where i've asked someone to not post, or retract their statement. you're the one talking about infringing the civil liberties of a population because of their religios beliefs. you're the one talking about enacting some of the same policies the nazis used against the "untermensch."

Now it's my turn to ask if you agree or not, do you agree there are religions and religions and religions?

Not only the Nazis but many others, including religions, like at the Inquisition, what if I believed the ultimate goal of Islam is to conquer Europe one way or another? Do you agree we are allowed to think even of the worst athrocities to brain-storm the future?

so please don't get all sarcastic and be all "look at the crazy muslim, you can't even talk to him" -- i found your post deeply offensive, and responded in kind. tell me i'm wrong, tell me i misinterpreted your post and got the wrong end of the stick, and i'll apologize, shamelessly and in public. but if what you posted is what you truly believe, then don't expect hugs and kisses.

Your interpretation is perfectly valid and you are allowed to respond as you see fit.

[caspofungin]

Now it's my turn to ask if you agree or not, do you agree there are religions and religions and religions?

absolutely. i've never once, on this forum or any other, stated that my religion or myself was superior to anyone else's. on the contrary, i've heard plenty of people claiming that my religion is inferior to theirs, and then had that followed up with hypocritical vitriol. check the forum -- the aggression certainly isn't coming from me. but then i'm sure that someone will interpret my statements as "he's trying to fool us" or some such nonsense.

what's right for me may not necessarily be right for someone else. we may each think the other is wrong, but the nature of religion is faith, and as such, can never be proven right or wrong.

unfortunately, human nature is such that differences are seized upon and used to excuse, at worst, inhuman behaviour. that's something i oppose, whether it be from a muslim or a christian or an animist or whoever.

i also feel people, as individuals, are responsible for their actions. the corollary is that individuals aren't responsible for the actions of others. so although abu musab alzarqawi and i may pray towards the same place or fast on the same days, and we're both viewed as muslims, we're not the same. his actions, and the actions of fundamentalists -- muslim or otherwise -- that kill innocent men, women, and children as a form of political redress or for a baser gain than that espoused in any religion, don't define me or a billion other muslims. does that make me a "bad muslim" or an apostate? i suppose i'll find out when i'm dead.

so you may think islam is a threat. i disagree. each of us is entitled to our opinion. the actions that those opinions lead to, however, can be the start of a slippery slope, for either side.

but as long as we're talking, however heatedly, and not throwing rocks or shooting or keying each others cars -- well, its a start. and we're doing better than most politicians, in europe, brazil, or the middle east.

[Abraham]

:o
Pffff.
(one of my shortest postings ever...)

[caspofungin]

:hmm: ?

anyway, i'm at work, should try and squeeze in an hour or 2 of shuteye. see you all tomorrow for another thrilling round of "the world's problems compressed onto a single forum, with all the attendant anger, ranting, flaring up that ensues."

seriously, coke v pepsi? man united v city? american football v rugby? pc v mac? sh3 v aotd?

[Abraham]

:o Pffff.
(one of my shortest postings ever...)
:hmm: ?

anyway, i'm at work, should try and squeeze in an hour or 2 of shuteye. see you all tomorrow for another thrilling round of "the world's problems compressed onto a single forum, with all the attendant anger, ranting, flaring up that ensues."

seriously, coke v pepsi? man united v city? american football v rugby? pc v mac? sh3 v aotd?
@ caspofungin:
We were all enjoying an interesting topic courtesy Hitman, the discussions were getting more and more profound, and then all of the sudden i'm confronted with a very persona slugging match between you and TteFAboB in which you both got far too personal and too far carried away...
A pity, in my humble opinion. Why didn't one of you sent a p.m. to the other when things ran out of hand? I think both of you can make valuable contributions to this forum...
Just explaining my :o and answering your :hmm:
:lol:

[Hitman]

with certain essential religious based laws to accomodate and compromise between its religious and non-religious citizens.


This is exactly the problem!

This happens not only in Israel but also in many conutries of Europe, and is in my humble opinion an error. When you create a law, it must rule for all citizens, be them religious or not religious, so if that rule has a religious reason, you are basically imposing a certain religion to everyone.

My proposal for stopping the wrong or excessive interpretations of Islam (Or any other religion) is, first of all, set a basic and unchangeable set of laws in the state, i.e. ensure our constitutional rights will not be changed, not even by a simple majority in the parliament.

Laws must respect certain differences, but shall not force someone to act following religions. Let me put an example with the muslim Ramadan: Law should in my opinion allow muslims the right to change their working schedule adn shifts in companies or state offices, or to change their summer holidays for the ramadan month, but should never impose all the country's industries and offices to observe ramadan. That is the difference!

:up:

[The Avon Lady]

with certain essential religious based laws to accomodate and compromise between its religious and non-religious citizens.


This is exactly the problem!

This happens not only in Israel but also in many conutries of Europe, and is in my humble opinion an error. When you create a law, it must rule for all citizens, be them religious or not religious, so if that rule has a religious reason, you are basically imposing a certain religion to everyone.

My proposal for stopping the wrong or excessive interpretations of Islam (Or any other religion) is, first of all, set a basic and unchangeable set of laws in the state, i.e. ensure our constitutional rights will not be changed, not even by a simple majority in the parliament.

Laws must respect certain differences, but shall not force someone to act following religions. Let me put an example with the muslim Ramadan: Law should in my opinion allow muslims the right to change their working schedule adn shifts in companies or state offices, or to change their summer holidays for the ramadan month, but should never impose all the country's industries and offices to observe ramadan. That is the difference!

:up:
Being an observant Jew living in the land of Israel, I have to disagree with you.

Whether Islamic countries are governed by Islamic Sha'aria law is their business - not mine.

Whether European countries want to be Christian, Christian-secular or totally secular is their business - not mine.

Whether Israel wants to be a Jewish state or not is my business - not yours.

Whether any of the above country formats can accomodate someone from the outside is up to them.

Normally what should govern this is what, if any, upheaval or dangers will be introduced to a nation or society by such accomodation.

Generally speaking, until the last 20-30 years, everyone managed to get along with everyone else.

Your example of a Ramadan law is elementary and is generally in practice in N. America, for example.

That's not the problem. The problem is when an external society intends to overwelm its host society at some time in the future, whether passively or actively, as part of their ideology.

As one of my ancestorial heroes was taunted:

"Phillistines are upon you, Samson."

He didn't take it seriously. And the rest is history.

[Hitman]

Whether Islamic countries are governed by Islamic Sha'aria law is their business - not mine.

Whether European countries want to be Christian, Christian-secular or totally secular is their business - not mine.

Whether Israel wants to be a Jewish state or not is my business - not yours.


That depends on wether we are discussing in general, human-kind terms or in reductionism terms (Only a state and its problems). Are we discussing here opinions on solutions for a worldwide peaceful cohexistence, or are we discussing how to preserve the land of Israel for the chosen ones, the jews, and how to keep any threat to strangers slipping into its frontiers out?

My intention is to discuss how we could accomodate different religions and ideas into a good and peaceful frame, not how to ensure that the land of Israel is enjoyed by jews and only by jews.

The problem is when an external society intends to overwelm its host society at some time in the future, whether passively or actively, as part of their ideology.

"External society" ?

How can you call that to inmigrant muslims? They are people coming from as far as Pakistan, Niger, Morocco....they are not an "external society", they are external individuals, and some of them (Or many) have a common religion (Not always a common interpretation of that religion). Wether we in our western societies integrate them and allow them to dientify themselves with a part of our customs, or wether we produce through margination that the only identification possible for them is a religion, that is another matter.

Note that I also am against massive inmigration, be it muslim or not. It is obvious that massive inmigrations exagerates the problems and difficulties of integrating people and increases the potential dangers of religion -radical religion- being the only possible way for them to build a strong group that can't be discriminated and ignored easily (What else would people from such different nationalities have in common??)

I would like to point out here that in Spain the excessive inmigration of latin americans has conducted, -due to the increasing difficulties of integration- to them building many catholic radical communities. The radical catholicism they practice (If not as dangerous as muslim radicalism) has proven to be the way to get a common place from people comming from different countries/societies like Colombia, Equador, Bolivia, Peru.... :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

Whether Islamic countries are governed by Islamic Sha'aria law is their business - not mine.

Whether European countries want to be Christian, Christian-secular or totally secular is their business - not mine.

Whether Israel wants to be a Jewish state or not is my business - not yours.

That depends on wether we are discussing in general, human-kind terms or in reductionism terms (Only a state and its problems). Are we discussing here opinions on solutions for a worldwide peaceful cohexistence, or are we discussing how to preserve the land of Israel for the chosen ones, the jews, and how to keep any threat to strangers slipping into its frontiers out?
I specifically listed 3 areas: Europe, Islamic states and Israel. Why you singled my country out might be interesting. But wait and see. You shall soon be in the same boat, my friend.

But in all cases, the purpose is to keep threats out.

I do not believe you will succeed in your visions of a world utopia. Your dreams are commendable but not applicable. I believe that not all cultures and societies can blend to accomodate each other, nor is it justifiable to force them to.
My intention is to discuss how we could accomodate different religions and ideas into a good and peaceful frame, not how to ensure that the land of Israel is enjoyed by jews and only by jews.
Once again, you harp on Israel and the Jews. Ask yourself why. I am just as interested in Europe's predicament - at least that's what I term it right now.
The problem is when an external society intends to overwelm its host society at some time in the future, whether passively or actively, as part of their ideology.
"External society" ?

How can you call that to inmigrant muslims? They are people coming from as far as Pakistan, Niger, Morocco....they are not an "external society", they are external individuals, and some of them (Or many) have a common religion (Not always a common interpretation of that religion). Wether we in our western societies integrate them and allow them to dientify themselves with a part of our customs, or wether we produce through margination that the only identification possible for them is a religion, that is another matter.
I don't care if they came as individuals. I care - and so should you - if these individuals all of a sudden unite in opinion and concept in seeking major changes in an existing culture's essential ways of life.

If you do not believe this is in the process of happening, then we disgaree about the facts on the ground.
Note that I also am against massive inmigration, be it muslim or not. It is obvious that massive inmigrations exagerates the problems and difficulties of integrating people and increases the potential dangers of religion -radical religion- being the only possible way for them to build a strong group that can't be discriminated and ignored easily (What else would people from such different nationalities have in common??)
I agree. Massive immigration is a recipe for disaster and religion need not play a role in such failures.
I would like to point out here that in Spain the excessive inmigration of latin americans has conducted, -due to the increasing difficulties of integration- to them building many catholic radical communities. The radical catholicism they practice (If not as dangerous as muslim radicalism) has proven to be the way to get a common place from people comming from different countries/societies like Colombia, Equador, Bolivia, Peru.... :roll:
This is interesting and I'm unfamiliar with it. Maybe this particular issue of "radical Catholicism" (would that be a correct term?) in Spain should be discussed on a separate thread.

[Hitman]

I specifically listed 3 areas: Europe, Islamic states and Israel. Why you singled my country out might be interesting.

Hold on for a minute...you listed three BUT just to say that you do not care about two of them, and only about the third!!! It is YOU who expressed that your ideas and opinions are about Israel as it is YOUR business :huh:

Once again, you harp on Israel and the Jews. Ask yourself why.

I remarked just the opposite of what you are insinuating: That my intention is NOT to discuss the specific matter of the jews and Israel, but to discuss how to acomodate different religions in ANY state, on a peaceful frame. And anyway, considering that my mother's family can be traced back to some spanish-jew ancestors (Same as many other spaniards), I would say that it is a bit ilogical to even think that I should have something against jews. Quite the opposite, I always have been -despite being an exception here- more in favour of the jews than in favour of the Palestinians in a big part of the questions involved in the conflict, but that however does not mean that I have to hate or disrespect sistematically any manifestation of islam, or be against an attempt of peaceful cohexistance. :-? Unless I'm wrong informed, I would say that there are also groups of people in Israel who think more or less the same. And unless I'm wrong, there was once a man called Isaac Rabin who was murdered....by an extremist jew for thinking like that. Again apologies if I'm bad informed about that :doh:

I don't care if they came as individuals. I care - and so should you - if these individuals all of a sudden unite in opinion and concept in seeking major changes in an existing culture's essential ways of life.

If you don't care then why did you call them "society"? A society is something very different from its individual members, it's much more than them.

If you do not believe this is in the process of happening, then we disgaree about the facts on the ground.


I sure believe that this is in the process of happening, among certain minorities, extremist and socially marginated from our western societies. However that does not mean in my opinion:

1- That all muslims, radicals or not, will all of a sudden stand up in arms against their western host countries when the Iman calls them, and start a civil war. It's a situation more likely to

2- That it is impossible to have the Islamic communities settled in our countries accept the laws of the state and abandon any attempt to change them with violence, or even change peacefully a certain minimum. However, that does also require that we do respect a good amount of their practices, as long as they do it themselves and do not force others to do so. F.e. wearing burkka, not eating pig or drinking alcohol.

I am for a certain control of what is said in Mosques, and for the constitution of a national Islamic council, who is able to direct the doctrine and form the Imans chosen to preach in the Mosques.

You seem to forget that the very same characteristic that makes Islam dangerous -the unquestionable obedience to the religion and the Imans- is also the very best tool to have control over any muslim.

If you manage to set a council of Imans who is in control of doctrine and election of new Imans, and convince that council to respect the laws of the state, you will have peace in your country. Isn't that worth the attempt, instead of talking about masss deportation?

Ask yourself this question: When has been Israel most peaceful in the last years? Might it be when Al-Fatah did agree to a halt in the violence?

It sure is. And while that does not mean that you have to give them all they want in order to keep peace (Not at all, by God!), it certainly remarks WHERE or and HOW is to be acted in order to get a result, when dealing with Islam.

The catholic church works well in that aspect, because there is the Vatican, and it is a state, able to have relations and sign treaties with other states, as well as having his opinions be respected and followed by the catholic preachers of any country. Do the same with the Islam in each western state, and there you will have the key to a controlled situation. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

I specifically listed 3 areas: Europe, Islamic states and Israel. Why you singled my country out might be interesting.
Hold on for a minute...you listed three BUT just to say that you do not care about two of them, and only about the third!!! It is YOU who expressed that your ideas and opinions are about Israel as it is YOUR business :huh:
I didn't say I didn't care. I said it's not my decision. Read carefully.
Once again, you harp on Israel and the Jews. Ask yourself why.
I remarked just the opposite of what you are insinuating: That my intention is NOT to discuss the specific matter of the jews and Israel, but to discuss how to acomodate different religions in ANY state, on a peaceful frame. And anyway, considering that my mother's family can be traced back to some spanish-jew ancestors (Same as many other spaniards), I would say that it is a bit ilogical to even think that I should have something against jews. Quite the opposite, I always have been -despite being an exception here- more in favour of the jews than in favour of the Palestinians in a big part of the questions involved in the conflict, but that however does not mean that I have to hate or disrespect sistematically any manifestation of islam, or be against an attempt of peaceful cohexistance. :-?
Obviously, something was misinterpreted here. Either my English was poor or it was misunderstood by you. Never mind.
Unless I'm wrong informed, I would say that there are also groups of people in Israel who think more or less the same.
More or less the same as what?
And unless I'm wrong, there was once a man called Isaac Rabin who was murdered....by an extremist jew for thinking like that. Again apologies if I'm bad informed about that :doh:
Yigal Amir most likely murdered him because Yitzhak Rabin brought the greatest catastrophe upon Israel since the state's creation. The Oslo Accords are directly responsible for the major increase in terrorism, whose rate already started going up through the charts after the accords were signed and way before Rabin was murdered.

No love lost.
I don't care if they came as individuals. I care - and so should you - if these individuals all of a sudden unite in opinion and concept in seeking major changes in an existing culture's essential ways of life.
If you don't care then why did you call them "society"? A society is something very different from its individual members, it's much more than them.
I see a society of Islamic groups forming in Europe. What do you see?
If you do not believe this is in the process of happening, then we disgaree about the facts on the ground.

I sure believe that this is in the process of happening, among certain minorities, extremist and socially marginated from our western societies. However that does not mean in my opinion:

1- That all muslims, radicals or not, will all of a sudden stand up in arms against their western host countries when the Iman calls them, and start a civil war. It's a situation more likely to
Well, good luck to you all.
2- That it is impossible to have the Islamic communities settled in our countries accept the laws of the state and abandon any attempt to change them with violence, or even change peacefully a certain minimum. However, that does also require that we do respect a good amount of their practices, as long as they do it themselves and do not force others to do so. F.e. wearing burkka, not eating pig or drinking alcohol.

I am for a certain control of what is said in Mosques, and for the constitution of a national Islamic council, who is able to direct the doctrine and form the Imans chosen to preach in the Mosques.

You seem to forget that the very same characteristic that makes Islam dangerous -the unquestionable obedience to the religion and the Imans- is also the very best tool to have control over any muslim.

If you manage to set a council of Imans who is in control of doctrine and election of new Imans, and convince that council to respect the laws of the state, you will have peace in your country. Isn't that worth the attempt, instead of talking about masss deportation?
Ask yourself this question: When has been Israel most peaceful in the last years? Might it be when Al-Fatah did agree to a halt in the violence?It sure is.
[/quote]
The hell it is!

Are you Europeans blind? Or does the press lie to you through their teeth? It's both, actually.

Since Arafat de fact declaration of war in Israel, in September 2000, 1074 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians and 7520 have been injured.

I'm in a rush now. The terrorist statistics from Oslo's signing until September 2000 also were record breakers compared to any time in the past.

Oslo has been hell. Thank you for nothing.
And while that does not mean that you have to give them all they want in order to keep peace (Not at all, by God!), it certainly remarks WHERE or and HOW is to be acted in order to get a result, when dealing with Islam.
Israel currently is the example of what not to do. We, too, started off with rocks, molotovs and riots. Guess what's next, Europe?

Don't be as dumb as most of the Israeli governments have been over the last decade or the same fate will await you but on a much grander scale.
The catholic church works well in that aspect, because there is the Vatican, and it is a state, able to have relations and sign treaties with other states, as well as having his opinions be respected and followed by the catholic preachers of any country. Do the same with the Islam in each western state, and there you will have the key to a controlled situation. :up:
Islam will not accept your control the moment it sees an opportunity to usurp it. The Ayatolah Khumeini was not the Pope. What will it take to make that sink in?!

Later............................................. ......................................

[Wim Libaers]

I do not know one Christain alive today that is saying they are living according to the Old Testament.....All I am trying to say and get at is...hum...what do Christians really go by?...they go by what was laid down by Jesus Christ....In the New Testament..NOT the Old.


Well, a few perhaps. Fortunately, even mainstream Christian hardliners don't trust them.
http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml





I. What do we see?

Western (European) society with human values like they have never been reached before in European culture, human rights, extreme freedom, but also individualism, materialism and a growing lack of cultural and religious awareness...
We seem to suffer from Relativism: our values seem as valid as - or even less than - the values of others, our culture seems equal to - or even less equal than - the culture of others, and our religion seems as credible as - or even less credible than - the religion of other...
In my opinion you can only say these things if you don’t know your own values, morals and religion anymore, which is the basis for our current problems in Europe.


I can agree with relativism. I do think that there is no absolute standard of what is right and wrong, or at least that we have not found a reliable way of finding out what that standard would be if there is one.

However, this is only a problem for those with no idea about their own identity, as you describe them, for they would accept anything, even that which is an acute threat to our civilization (I also consider neutrality towards such threats as acceptance). They are the fools who will gladly tolerate those who'd kill them.

In my case, though, I think accepting moral relativism while also considering European civilization superior, makes me less tolerant of those other civlizations who intrude on our territory. This is because, if you believe in an absolute standard of right and wrong, you might expect that you could just prove the errors in the other civilization, their intellectual elite would clearly see their mistakes and convert, taking most of that culture with them. Alternatively, if their civilization is provably superior, you convert to theirs. Either way, it's a win-win situation because, in the end, everyone belongs to the best civilization.

However, with moral relativism, your options are reduced to surrendering to a culture you disagree with, or defeating that culture, after some period of conflict.




Now, the thread topic. The first thing that would have to be done, and which is absolutely essential, is regime change. The political establishment in European countries has organized the self-destructive path to the Islamization of Europe, by its extremely lax policies towards immigration. Additionally, it has organized massive promotion of multiculturalism. As they realise people will - correctly IMHO - consider that as a threat to our European way of life, this pro-multicultural propaganda has been combined with anti-European propaganda to make people believe that what is threatened is not worth protecting.

So, basically, what I mean is that "the basis for our current problems in Europe" as Abraham describes them, are not an inherent feature of European society, but a state that has been intentionally engineered by the political establishment. This might be considered a way for that establishment to consolidate its power. A divided population with weak convictions is easy to manipulate, and easier to fit into a globalized system. The only values that are still propagated are diversity (i.e. people are supposed to support that which causes division in society) and democracy (i.e. follow the elected government, when almost all of them follow the same policies, and when one party doesn't it is slandered as antidemocratic).

Now, one might argue that these policies are reasonable because a strong sense of superiority can lead to deplorable incidents such as the persecution of the Jews. So we should reform our society so that this can not happen again.

I do not agree with that. Sure, the persecution of the Jews was bad. But this is only because the Nazi's misrepresented them as a deadly threat to Europe. If the Nazi assessment of the Jews as guaranteed to be fatal to Europe had been correct, it would be hard to disagree much with their actions against them. One can hardly claim that, if the threat were real, they should just have accepted it, because that would have been suicide for them. One might still disagree with their methods, say that the violence and killing was excessive, but it would have been OK to defend themselves.

However, the desire to not repeat such mistakes, where a group is persecuted based on false premises, leads some to refuse to see anything as a threat, and a refusal to accept any defense against a threat, because that would be nazist. Indeed, "nazi" is a common slur used against those who would oppose muslim colonization of Europe.




The first step to a solution would then be abolishing restrictions on freedom of speech and laws that prohibit discrimination. In fact, discrimination is a very fundamental freedom. People should have a right to decide who thay want to associate with, and who they do not want to associate with. It would be good to let the radicals experience that people do not agree with them, and do not want to deal with them. One might object that this might radicalize them, but if you look at the results of decades of appeasement, that doesn't look good either.

Coupled with this, and reinforcing the above, no more anti-European propaganda. No Nazi propaganda either, but do make the dominant theme in the media that European culture is OK (but not necessarily perfect), and point out the threats to it.

Stop immigration, encourage those already here to leave. The measures above ought to create a quite unfriendly atmosphere for the more fanatical ones, which might lead to some leaving voluntarily instead of having to deport them forcibly. Of course, deportation would be used against those who start rioting or something like that.



Finally, note the limits of democracy. Democracy is a system where people who have differences of opinion on how they should arrange government decide by majority vote, instead of by the traditional way of brute force. Obviously, this is only possible if all people think more or less similarly, by which I mean that they do not think the differences are significant enough to make them worth fighting about. It should be obvious that this puts clear limits on the applicability of democracy. Hypothetically, if the situation we face is a Europe that would have a government like the Taliban, there is no need to continue acting within the limitations of normal democracy.

Basically, it's the principle of self-defence. If the other guys want a genocide against you, any countermeasure is justifiable. Starting with the less painful, of course, but if there is no other way, even a counter-genocide. Of course, better make sure the threat really is that serious, you don't want to do it for the wrong reasons.




Hey, it had to be leading to dramas, see first post in thread :-j

[XabbaRus]

It's the f**king PC junkies I tell ya. "Ban this, you might offend this minority". Ban that, you might offend that minority",

You know, In the UK at least things were going fine till the PC brigade started sticking their noses in. OK yea we had the Bradford riots but that was an isolated incident. I'd have to say it is only recently that a small group of young muslims have been getting radicalised in Britain, from the number I have met, most mulsims in the UK have integrated but as always wit the great British press esp Ths Sun etc they pick up on the minority who don't. OK sure the likes of Abu Hamza and Omar Bakhri should have been kicked out a long time ago, and I don't deny some of them come here and use our democracy to preach hate, but I am sure caspofungian and Konovalov would agree with me that they should be kicked out.

It is stupid measures like th PC brigade and knee jerk reactions of the politcos bringin in unenforcable laws that have brought about an increase in the divide. I am talking about the UK here but I don't see it being too different in other european countries.

I still think the UK way has worked better than the French, hell London isn't on fire but its a mess.

However it seems the debates here are degenrating in to flame wars and more extreme views are being written which I have never seen in the past. Kind of making it unenjoyable to come to this part of the forum.

I would ask Neal to create a new part of the forum called Politics so General Topics can remain general to naval stuff, silly things and funny stuff.

I've been coming here a long time and some of the stuff I have read heere, some I agree with a lot makes me sick reading it.

[Sixpack]

You're wrong, Avon Lady. I am surprised. But then again, the ME is a confusing place. I don't want my country to become like that.
I did not realize that having people different than you in your community makes your country "different".

You are obviously referring to something bigger and more dramatic, like the extinction of one's culture and legal and social systems. This is not apparent in your words, which, taken for what you wrote, I find alarming.
You only care for Israel.
This is an insulting lie. :shifty:
PS What I also dont want in my neighboorhood:

-Gay parades
-Neo nazi's
-Jewish orthodox
-Serial killers
-Beggers
-etc. use your imagination

I like to think I have something to say about the direct environment I live in. Taste. My neighboors feel the same and that means more to me than opinions here from distant places.
Boy the way Glen Miller played.
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made.
Those were the days!

And you know where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need no welfare states.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old Lasalle ran great
Those were the days!

:nope:

Stifle yourself, Sixpack!
This must be one of my favorite postings by The Avon Lady, that though kevlar helmeted steel eyed Sabra! Her new avatar certainly didn't mellow her down...
Sharp, straight, whitty, matronizing Sixpack like a real Über Mom and... no links!
I love her!

Yea, it amused me too.

Oh my god. And after THIS you still wondering, why many muslims hate Americans and Israeli? :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

Oh my god. And after THIS you still wondering, why many muslims hate Americans and Israeli? :lol:
Try not to confuse cause and effect.

Try not to confuse cause and effect.
And what do you think is cause?

[kelawi]

It looks like this thread is going to become the next religous smackdown thread... this subject keeps coming up...

:zzz:

[kelawi]

It looks like this thread is going to become the next religious smackdown thread... this subject keeps coming up...

:zzz:

[tycho102]

Well, if it wasn't such a problem, then we wouldn't be talking about it. Or maybe if we didn't have so many pacifists in this country, we wouldn't have to talk about it 'cause we'd already have done something about it. :rotfl:

That goes for Sony's rootkit (http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html), just as much as it goes for "moderate" Muslims who open their cake-hole and get it shut in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful. (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009042.php#comments) (I guess the jihadists are really watching that site these days, since the actual article has already been taken down, or just flat out blocked American IP's; CAIR is getting on the ball with this stuff)