26 months equal 202 lives

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5078540.stm

[jumpy]

split between those who espouse violence as part of what they say is legitimate and necessary jihad, and those who believe in a longer term struggle requiring patient proselytizing and military preparation
None of those two ends of the spectrum sound very nice to me, "violence as part legitimate and necessary jihad" & "a longer term struggle requiring patient proselytizing and military preparation"
translation: War now & talk now, then War later. Whatever happens in the meantime you're gonna have war. :down:

crap :cry:

[The Avon Lady]

split between those who espouse violence as part of what they say is legitimate and necessary jihad, and those who believe in a longer term struggle requiring patient proselytizing and military preparation
None of those two ends of the spectrum sound very nice to me, "violence as part legitimate and necessary jihad" & "a longer term struggle requiring patient proselytizing and military preparation"
translation: War now & talk now, then War later. Whatever happens in the meantime you're gonna have war. :down:

crap :cry:
Just dismiss it with the wave of a hand. Ask Scandium. He knows how.;)

[Skybird]

As long as he still has a hand :lol: But a waving stump may do the trick, too.

[scandium]

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right? :roll:

[August]

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right? :roll:

No you're just blinding yourself to reality. He isn't just some nut, he's a nut with followers. A lot of followers.

[TteFAboB]

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right?

Seems about right.

You put all Christians into the same category based on what some genocidal priests did to the natives around the area where you live (it's a big neighborhood eh?), why can't you do it to Muslims too?

You fail to separate church and religion, doctrine and theology, mystics and ritual practice, phisosophy and politics. Just like you can't do the separation in Christianity, you can't do it in Islam, and while you demonize all of Christianity, you sanctify all of Islam.

If I asked you to give me the name of just one Christian Priest, or Bishop, who demanded natives from the American continent to be treated equally, to be considered equal under the law, and respected as the rightfull owners of the land, would you be able to do it?

No? It's irrelevant? History is on your side? Selective history?

[scandium]

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right? :roll:
No you're just blinding yourself to reality. He isn't just some nut, he's a nut with followers. A lot of followers.

Alright, a nut with followers. A lot of followers.

[scandium]

You put all Christians into the same category based on what some genocidal priests did to the natives around the area where you live (it's a big neighborhood eh?), why can't you do it to Muslims too?

What category am I putting all Christians into? Nowhere have I ever said they are all genocidal, only that following Jesus rather than Muhammad has never been an exemption from committing the "war, aggression, repression, and land grabbing" that Skybird associated with Islam. My own Europeab Christian ancestors are a good enough example of this, so I used them.

You fail to separate church and religion, doctrine and theology, mystics and ritual practice, phisosophy and politics. Just like you can't do the separation in Christianity, you can't do it in Islam, and while you demonize all of Christianity, you sanctify all of Islam.
I neither demonize Christianity nor sanctify Islam. You are right that I don't make many distinctions because historically they have been intertwined.

If I asked you to give me the name of just one Christian Priest, or Bishop, who demanded natives from the American continent to be treated equally, to be considered equal under the law, and respected as the rightfull owners of the land, would you be able to do it?

No? It's irrelevant? History is on your side? Selective history?
Selective how? Because I focused on North America and Europe, where Christianity has always reigned supreme?

[TteFAboB]

In another thread you put the responsability of HIV deaths in the hands of Christian "religionists". One Christian who doesn't distribute condoms in Africa is enough in that case, however, one terrorist is not enough to do the same with Islam in this case.

You did not answered my question, I'll take that as a negative answer, you do not know of any Christian of any church who fought for indians to be treated equally as Europeans, perhaps you don't know all of history.

Very well then, it's all equal, it's all relative, one crazy Imam cannot stain the image of 1.2 billion Muslims, but whatever some cross-totting Christian supreme ruler of Europe, who happens to be your ancestor, did back then suits all Christians just fine.

[CCIP]

Did you even read Scandium's post there, I wonder? :hmm:

Sorry, I'm with him on this one. No need to demonize anyone here; we're all people. Let's face it, there is a nasty case of "mass psychosis" going on with Islam nowadays. But it's just a violent case and there are other non-violent cases around there.

And yes, I'll put any groups who say "this is the truth because it says so on a piece of paper allegedly written by so-and-so so many centuries ago" into either latent, potential, non-violent or violent "mass psychosis" cases indeed.

Spirituality, mysticsm, and all else is fine and good. But when there are real negative ramifications to a dogma, then why point fingers at one and dismiss another?

There is one thing I will always reject, and that's countering/juxtaposing/separating-in-terms-of-prescribed-treatment Islam with Christianity, Judaism, or what have you. It's an irrational solution to a problem with irrational people. Sure doesn't sound promising to me :hmm:

[Ducimus]

It's hard NOT to lump all muslims into the same coal pile when they always seem to present a unitied front, in whatever they do. From their mass worshiping to their mass demonstrations over somethign as trivial as a carton. From their firebrand words, everyhthing comes accorss on the same note. Sure you'll have the odd muslim who will say, "No this is not islam", but their usually living in a western nation.

I know theres a mentality develping thats hard to a resist.. a mentality of "Them vs us". Im already past that. I feel its a case of "Them OR us". There will never be peace, there ill never be a stop to the terrorism, until one of the us is gone. That, im afraid, will be the cold hard reality to face. I hate feeling that way too, i really do. It's so hard not to.

[bradclark1]

I know theres a mentality develping thats hard to a resist.. a mentality of "Them vs us". Im already past that. I feel its a case of "Them OR us". There will never be peace, there ill never be a stop to the terrorism, until one of the us is gone. That, im afraid, will be the cold hard reality to face. I hate feeling that way too, i really do. It's so hard not to.

Don't feel alone with those thoughts.

[Iceman]

It's like when you put things in a centrifuge how things are forced to seperate. I feel the seperation process in action myself. Light and Dark must seperate.....But WE decide which is which or which we choose.

[The Avon Lady]

Uh huh. Because I don't put the world's 1.2 billion Muslims into the same category as this nut then that means I support the terrorists right? :roll:
Excerpt from essays by Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald:
Let us assume that the estimate, given by one , that 10-15% of Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists. One does not know how this figure is arrived at. Ali Sina and other defectors from Islam, whom I trust, consider it to have the percentages backwards, for they suggest that 85-90% of Muslims might become potential terrorists, or supporters of similar acts, or would be ready to harm non-Muslims in other ways, in the conduct of Jihad. Who knows, really -- and how could we ever be certain? But even the gleeful behavior of masses of Muslims all over the world, after 9/11, or the numbers of people naming their sons "Osama," or the kinds of things routinely said and applauded at meetings of Muslim nations, or the kinds of demands made on Infidel societies by Muslims now living in their midst, or the behavior of Muslim pressure groups to limit the power of Infidels to undertake reasonable security measures (including, precisely, profiling to target not a race, or an ethnic group, but the adherents or potential adherents of the ideology of Islam), and the enormous efforts to conduct Da'wa by every conceivable and sly means, including the rewriting of textbooks to transform the history of Infidel lands, and to target the most vulnerable members of society(prisoners, immigrants, schoolchildren) for the conduct of Da'wa -- all of this should give any Infidel who has studied the theory and practice of Islam, considerable pause.

But suppose that the lowest estimate -- 10% of all Muslims -- were in fact somehow true? No, let us make that figure 5% -- only 5% are potential terrorists. Then what? If one out of 20 Muslims allowed into the Western world holds to these ideas, where are we then? Or what if one of the other 19 picks them up from that one? We have no way of insuring that every single Muslim will forever and ever be immune to such appeals.

That being the case, it is a matter of obvious prudence for Western governments to study carefully the question of Muslims migration to the Western world. Even if the figure of “only” 10% is accurate, we would be mad to continue to allow in and give citizenship to such a pool of people without a moment’s hesitation or examination or consideration. Infidel governments should not allow their policies to be dictated by fear of offending, or by believing their own absurdities -- no one should continue to mouth the kind of absurdities about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance" that we have had to endure in the past.

Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out.

From Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009624.php)
It's a "war on terror," and those "terrorists" are a "handful of extremists." No, they're slightly more than a "handful of extremists." Now they're ten percent, and now potentially 50 percent, or if we are to believe the ex-Muslims, the keen apostates, more like 80% or more of those who take Qur'an and Hadith seriously support acts of terror. And then, of course, we are not entitled, are we, to even discuss Da'wa and the demographic conquest of Western Europe -- even if such matters are discussed openly, with great anticipation and pleasure, at Muslim websites. That would not be possible.

Who's crazy? Who's schizophrenic? Is it Moussaoui? Is it Al-Sharbi? Or is it those Infidels who are still unwilling to look at the teachings of Islam -- the Infidels who are still too paralyzed with fear of what they might find out and who thus remain incapable of even beginning to study the texts of Islam, and to discover what caused the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation and then codified oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and indeed everyone under their control who was not a Muslim.

Who is crazy? Is it Al-Sharbi, or those who are discussing his case who will tell us that he's just "one more nut case, like Moussaoui"?

From Who's crazy? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011256.php)
I read the news today, oh boy:

40% of Young Dutch Muslims Reject Democracy (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21050_40%_of_Young_Dutch_Muslims_Reject_Dem ocracy&only)

Speaking of Abu Bakar Bashir and a minority of extremists:

Mass Murdering Cleric Gets Heros Welcome (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21051_Mass_Murdering_Cleric_Gets_Heros_Welc ome&only)

[Konovalov]

I'll simply respond to the original article linked to in this thread. As an Australian and a Muslim I am disgusted and angry at the release of JI's Abu Bakar Ba'asyir.

[scandium]

40% of Young Dutch Muslims Reject Democracy (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21050_40%_of_Young_Dutch_Muslims_Reject_Dem ocracy&only)


That headline is a little misleading. To quote from the article:

"The study found 40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy."

At least it is misleading unless all "young Dutch Muslims" are also Moroccan, and all Moroccans are Muslim.

[The Avon Lady]

40% of Young Dutch Muslims Reject Democracy (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21050_40%_of_Young_Dutch_Muslims_Reject_Dem ocracy&only)


That headline is a little misleading. To quote from the article:

"The study found 40 percent of the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands reject western values and democracy."

At least it is misleading unless all "young Dutch Muslims" are also Moroccan, and all Moroccans are Muslim.
Seems that way.

Netherland statistics (http://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/menu/themas/mens-maatschappij/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2004/2004-1543-wm.htm).

[Skybird]

What category am I putting all Christians into? Nowhere have I ever said they are all genocidal, only that following Jesus rather than Muhammad has never been an exemption from committing the "war, aggression, repression, and land grabbing"

Prove it. We still wait for proof to your absurd statements. As long as you don'T see that the motives of the churches for acting often violated clearly the teachings of Jesus, but where actings in it's own political interest, you do not have any argument here. And it seems I am not the only one being completely unable to see how one could call that church policy to be in the following of Jesus. It often was in violation of Jesus. Where as Islam showing a violant, war-mongering kind of behavior, it is not in violation of Muhammad, but in precise recognition of his demands. And that is the decisive difference you for whatever a reason try so hard to kill, but it is pretty obvious for most people here. How could you dare to compare a Ghandi with a Saddam Hussein, a Siddharta or a Jesus with Muhammad, simply stripping them off any differences because you say (yesterday) all ideas could be abused, and not ideas do kill, but people? Was Hitler a victim or an executor of his ideas? I bet the latter. But according to your absurd logic, fascism is of same value than pacifism, tyranny is of same value than democracy, Jesus' altruism is of same value as Muhammad's murderous selfishnes, becasue all ideas can be abused, and thus it is not worth to see the qualitative differences between them. But ideas are the reasons why people may want or may not want to kill. Ideas do make people act, or not act. Even you are driven by your ideas, and since your idea in this debate is queeer, your arguments are also queer. But according to you that doesn't matter. Ideas planted in people'S heads can even be a reason why people enjoy killing. Those thugs on those Iraq videos killing hostages even enjoyed it and thought to commit an act that earns them some heavenly praise. How could you dare to reject the differences here? How could you dare to say that Jesus' teachings are of the same value as the ideology that these thugs are follwing? How could you dare to deny any value in any cultural achievement, philosophy, idea - for the simple reason that it could be abused, if one is trying that? How could you spit on the efforts of generations during centuries that tried to improve life and living since the medieval, who often failed, that is right, nevertheless there can be no doubt that we live a far better life today than our ancestors a thousand years back? How can you reject all that with a single snip of your finger?

Time and again you are offending mindlessly hundreds of thousands of >true< Christians, what do i say: millions and millions, who turned away from the church in disgust for exactly this reason: the violation of Jesus teachings, and the fact that the empty facade the church is today for most people cannot offer them anything of what these people look for in a religion. Nevertheless the overwheliming majority of these still have no problem to see themselves as Christians, and to refer to Jesus as a valuable example to base your acting upon. I myself have left the church long time ago, but despite practicing Buddhist Zen, I have no problem to see the value in the teachings of Jesus and christian mystics like Meister Eckehard or Thomas a Kempis and so many others (all of which are not better than any given bad ideology, because Scandium says they can be abused and thus are not better than these bad ideologies), and I even have taught people in both and urged them not to look into the far away culture of the East, but stick to what this their own tradition has to offer. But in your attempt to level out all qualitative differences so that noone can politically incorrectly claim that one thing may be better than another thing (the big lie of the political left: everything is equal, each man is as valuable as another), you said yesterday that all this doesn'T matter.

You said it is not ideas that kill, but man. You said there is no difference between chru8ch and Jesus, and between Jesus' focussing on peace - and muhammad's wars. Well, the ideas that I follow do made people try to avoid war and violance. where they seek war and violance, they are not Christian or buddhist at all. Islam, as an idea, has made peopoe commit more war, violance, conquest and subjugation than any other in world history as we do know it. but according to Scandium, all this does not matter.

I do not know if I should shout at or laugh about you, sorry. It is ridiculous, all this hyper-intellectual reasoning of yours. But such ignorrance surely is the reason why politics and communties are desintegrating, and thus it raises my anger. The opinion you represent I call the EU-desease, and it does nothing constructive, it only destroys, it adds no conture or form, but deletes them; it kills identity and replaces it with the dictation of "solidarity". Growth without limits and rules is no structural order. It is cancer. Cancer kills.

[Skybird]

I know theres a mentality develping thats hard to a resist.. a mentality of "Them vs us". Im already past that. I feel its a case of "Them OR us". There will never be peace, there ill never be a stop to the terrorism, until one of the us is gone. That, im afraid, will be the cold hard reality to face. I hate feeling that way too, i really do. It's so hard not to.

Don't feel alone with those thoughts.
I do not like this perspective a bit, and cannot bring it together with some of the buddhist and Christian ideas that I value, but when thinking Islam to it's logical end, he is right. Islam has come to the same conclusion - more than one thousand years ago.

[The Avon Lady]

The opinion you represent I call the EU-desease
It is rampant worldwide.

[scandium]

Was Hitler a victim or an executor of his ideas?I bet the latter. But according to your absurd logic, fascism is of same value than pacifism, tyranny is of same value than democracy, Jesus' altruism is of same value as Muhammad's murderous selfishnes, becasue all ideas can be abused, and thus it is not worth to see the qualitative differences between them.
Ideas in themselves are powerless. In fact they are much preferable to the alternative, which is ignorance.

But ideas are the reasons why people may want or may not want to kill. Ideas do make people act, or not act.
No ideas only inform the choices people make, and they are at least as likely to make the "wrong" choice out of ignorance as they are out of having too many ideas. And in any case, it is ultimately the action and not the idea that has consequences. Where you put the blame on Islam for the world's ills I'd be much more likely to put the blame on ignorance. Ignorance by virtue of people who are born and kept into a state of ignorance by the theocrats who enforce this ignorance through tyranny.

By the way, you should read 1984 Skybird. As you are equating action with the same kind of "thought crime" that Orwell warned of in the fictional Big Brother world the book is set in.


How could you dare to deny any value in any cultural achievement, philosophy, idea - for the simple reason that it could be abused, if one is trying that? How could you spit on the efforts of generations during centuries that tried to improve life and living since the medieval, who often failed, that is right, nevertheless there can be no doubt that we live a far better life today than our ancestors a thousand years back?
Am I the one spitting on it? The enlightentment, and all of those things you speak of there, were driven by novel ideas (at the time) that lifted society out of the primitive conditions that oppression and enforced ignorance had forced them into because people had known no other way, no alternatives.

Nevertheless the overwheliming majority of these still have no problem to see themselves as Christians, and to refer to Jesus as a valuable example to base your acting upon.
That is their right in enlightened societies such as ours that permit freedom of religion. Freedom to choose Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or Wicca, or whatever else they would choose so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. If there is anyone in these threads who supports that, I would say it is me as I'm not the one who would begin to take this right away starting with Islam; for though it may begin there, it surely would not stop there.


I do not know if I should shout at or laugh about you, sorry. It is ridiculous, all this hyper-intellectual reasoning of yours. But such ignorrance surely is the reason why politics and communties are desintegrating, and thus it raises my anger. The opinion you represent I call the EU-desease, and it does nothing constructive, it only destroys, it adds no conture or form, but deletes them; it kills identity and replaces it with the dicate of "solidarity". Growth without limits and rules is no structural order. It is cancer. Cancer kills.
I'm not so familiar with the EU, as I don't live in Europe. What is the EU disease that I represent?

[Skybird]

I give it up. Hopeless. Against such solid determination to grant others the right to overthrow us and label that "freedom for all", both reason and argument, even historical example, must necessarily fail. Islam is harmless, Europe does not need an idealistic identity of it's own - that is the EU desease.

Read the comments from Muslims at the end of this news from today:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011826.php#comments

Probably these Muslims commenting there are not representative for Islam, and as usual they just misinterpret their Koran and misunderstood Sharia...? Maybe we should teach Muslims in Koran and Hadith and Sharia. Oh, wait, we already tried that. I wonder what has come of that.

[scandium]

I give it up. Hopeless. Against such solid determination to grant others the right to overthrow us and label that "freedom for all", both reason and argument, even historical example, must necessarily fail. Islam is harmless, Europe does not need an idealistic identity of it's own - that is the EU desease.

Read the comments from Muslims at the end of this news from today:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011826.php#comments

Probably these Muslims commenting there are not representative for Islam, and as usual they just misinterpret their Koran and misunderstood Sharia...? Maybe we should teach Muslims in Koran and Hadith and Sharia. Oh, wait, we already tried that. I wonder what has come of that.

Here in Canada, the multi-culturalism that you regard as the "EU disease" has existed here forever and is not considered a "disease". Rather, it is part of our own distinct identity as Canadians. I guess that is part of why I'm more optimistic about other cultures and don't feel threatened by them the way you seem to be by Islam ;)

[The Avon Lady]

Here in Canada, the multi-culturalism that you regard as the "EU disease" has existed here forever and is not considered a "disease".
When you tolerate the intolerable, it becomes a disease.

Canada faces 'jihad generation' (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011694.php).

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.;)

[The Avon Lady]

Here in Canada, the multi-culturalism that you regard as the "EU disease" has existed here forever and is not considered a "disease".
Let's see how healthy you Canadians are.

Hot off the press: Sistani to Muslims in Canada: obey Canadian laws..."insofar as religious values are not ridiculed" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011839.php).

[Skybird]

Islam does not tolerate multi-culti. Islam only tolerates islami-culti. Other culti is a target of subjugation in case of a theistic target, killing in case of an atheistic target. Islam and multi-culti are excluding each other. Plain and simple, proven by the example set by over thousand years of history and the explicit demands and teachings by Muhammad. Practice corresponds with theology, without significant exception. Like the EU, Canada is sitting on a time-bomb. Maybe it will blow up a little bit later than the EU, but it will. Thanks to people who do not want to understand the difference between Islam and true mutli-culti, and do not want to realize the aggressive nature of this sly "guest" they are hosting. Relations of this kind are one-sided and parasitic and usually end with the death of the host.

[XabbaRus]

Well I think it is time that all these isalmiwahtever threads had their own forum to go into, whatever the title they descend into the same opinions as written by the usual suspects getting involved.

[TteFAboB]

Here in Canada, the multi-culturalism that you regard as the "EU disease" has existed here forever and is not considered a "disease". Rather, it is part of our own distinct identity as Canadians. I guess that is part of why I'm more optimistic about other cultures and don't feel threatened by them the way you seem to be by Islam ;)

The subject at hand condemns the Christian Church for terrorizing native Canadians, however, he has no problem with a multi-culturalism that allows Muslims to form their own ghettoes where they can terrorize their women, treat them like objects, arrange marriages and kill for honor. He does not feel threatened by such culture, rather, it's part of his distinct identity as a Canadian. ;)

I suggest everybody take a look at French journalist and writer Caroline Fourest, she recently published a book called "La Tentation Obscurantiste". She writes at the Charlie Hedbo, a magazine that printed the Mohammed Cartoons in refusal of automatic-censorship. She's also in the Pro-Choix and also wrote the book "Frère Tariq" which introduced me to her (a book that proves Tariq Ramadan is a "Moderate" who speaks what Europeans want to hear but supports Islamists and even has connections with terrorist groups).

It's about the European Socialists who refuse to be anti-totalitarian, to recognize the totalitarian nature of Islam, and oppose it.

The point is, those who pretend not to choose between Democracy and Islamic totalitarianism, already chose not to defend Democracy.

To her, Europeans commit the same mistake commited in the days of Stalinism, while some are only "usefull idiots" (her words), others outright flirt with the sharia for it's resemblance with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In their refusal to recognize the nature of Islam, any "progressive" and "enlightened" groups within Islam are mixed with the majoritarian (Bolshevik) field and obscured.

And then the anti-totalitarian leftists are labeled as islamophobes, racists, bushists, sharonists, traitors, etc., when in fact they are only denouncing the totalitarianism of Islam in the name of universalism.

She says: "Not saying Who is Who is taking the risk of putting everybody in the same bag". To her the USA is a Democracy even with Bush's Christian fundamentalists while Muslim fundamentalists openly dream with a global theocratic dictatorship.

To her the world cannot be reduced to a struggle between Bush and Osama and the 9/11 attacks were not an attack against the USA alone, but against each and every Democracy in the world. When the real danger of Islamic fundamentalism is denied, part of the Left hides behind a false neutrality that never criticizes Islam, but attacks those who dare doing so. She distinguishes a Left that recognizes Islam as a totalitarian threat and another which believes it to be a progressive libertation movement.

The "usefull idiots" of Islam usually also fall blind for cultural relativism too, which leads to the acceptance of any behavior or action originated from a Muslim. Sexism, homophobia and totalitarianism are taken as folklorical and considered harmless, so these "real Muslims" are prefered to the laic cultural Muslims who are not sufficiently folklorical. She includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali as one of the laic cultural Muslims who refuse to be sacrificed in the altar of multiculturalism.

To end with a phrase of hers: "Is it possible to fight for another world in the company of fundamentalists who also dream with another world of their own?"

[Wildcat]

You're full of crap scandium, yet again.

You do not represent even a fraction of Canadians or their viewpoints. In fact you are probably in the smallest minority of all Canadians who so solidly support fanatical, or even terroristic muslims.

Most Canadians do not like radical muslims and would readily send them packing to where they came from. You are the exception, don't go spouting that Canadian multiculturalism includes supporting terrorists (Which a hell of a lot of muslims are).

[scandium]

You're full of crap scandium, yet again.

You do not represent even a fraction of Canadians or their viewpoints. In fact you are probably in the smallest minority of all Canadians who so solidly support fanatical, or even terroristic muslims.

Most Canadians do not like radical muslims and would readily send them packing to where they came from. You are the exception, don't go spouting that Canadian multiculturalism includes supporting terrorists (Which a hell of a lot of muslims are).

Nice strawman. Never have I supported terrorists, Muslim or otherwise. Let alone said that Canadians do. :roll:

[CCIP]

I would agree that there is a problem with Canada's immigration system - well, no, actually there is a problem with unsystematic immigration. I can tell you safely if everyone went through the 'point system' on going here, no evil extremist Muslim immigrants that you're so afraid of would slip through.

I essentially agree with scandium that demonizing absolutely all Muslims is wrong. I will agree that there are some very disturbing things in the scripture, laws and from the religious leaders.

But you know what? I work and study with Muslims almost on a daily basis - not the extremist kind, but exclusively what I would describe as somewhere between 'moderate muslims' to 'almost-non-practicing muslims'. And I assure you, that I would rather work with THOSE particular kinds of Muslims than quite a few christians, jews, atheists, and even obsessed cultist buddhists that I've (rather directly) known. I think they have every right to be in my society, as long as they act as I've observed them act, whereas conversely, there's many perfectly native nutjobs that I think don't deserve that right.

I'll concede to banning Islam, but the next day I'll ask for banning of all other religions, and I'd better damn get it. :-?

Call me a spoiled socialist. Maybe I am. But I'm looking past all proposed solutions and somehow I'm not getting a rosy picture of Europe/the West without Islam. Why should I?

I think after a while in agreement with the alarm-ringers, I'll firmly go back to my old camp, which is my old camp of 'Islam should be the least of your worries right now'. At least that's what my observations of suggestions on how to deal with it are; there is just no reasonable approach in this whatsoever. The "them or us" thing will never work for me, firstly because I don't see a "us" anywhere around here. I see a "them", but I'm not going against "them" to get my nose bloodied while "us" are busy doing a lot of stupid and self-destructive things.